When agenda overcomes science

I'm not too worried about whether or not global warming climate change is "true" or "false". I think the worst thing that could come from paying attention to environmental impact and striving for maximum efficiency is a cleaner and more efficient world to live in.

But then there are those who step beyond the pale of rationality. For example, Diane Francis, who suggests that the only way to save the earth is to impose a global one-child policy (following China's example) and to enforce it as ruthlessly as China has.

Or the Optimum Population Trust, which wants to sell contraception in developing nations as a carbon offset.

World population is estimated to reach 7 billion by the end of 2011, having increased by 1 billion in just 12 years - all but 4% percent of this increase will be in the less developed countries (LDCs). [... snip...] In short, one less birth into poverty is not only one less person to suffer poverty and the expected severe impacts of climate change, but also one less to produce more greenhouse gases in (hopefully) escaping poverty. (from OPT's FAQ page)

Or the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) which, in this year's "State of World Population" report, links population growth to climate change in ways that even they themselves admit are less than direct or immediate.

Although population data are generally regarded as among the success stories of social science, their integration with the developing science of climate change and its human dimensions remains poor. This applies ... to the influence of population growth on greenhouse-gas emissions and climate change adaptation....

In other words, the disastrous "influence of population growth on ... climate change" is an assumption for which they have no solid evidence. But they're certain enough to push population control measures on the non-pink and non-rich peoples of the world.

The real solution to our environmental problems - to say nothing of our economic and political problems - is to recognize that we Americans, along with much of the "developed" world, have been taking much more than is just or fair in an insatiable quest for greater comfort and convenience.

We need to curb our "standard of living". Landfills will not grow so fast if we are not basing our egos and economics and desires on the newest or latest or most disposable items. CO2 will not build up so quickly if we don't insist on the cheapest gas and food and electricity on the planet so that we can use it as much as we like without realizing the full cost.

To claim that reducing the population is the solution to our woes is simply to place the blame and burden on those not yet conceived. As a good friend of mine says, "Just enough of me, way too many of you."
Rabbert blathers on....

Profits not satanic?

Um, strictly speaking, true.

But there is such a thing as usury:

an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; specifically : interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money

And one who makes his wealth by usury ought not defend himself in this manner.

I mean, if justifying your lies and theft in a church isn't also a violation of the Second Commandment, I don't know what is!

Now, seriously, lest I be mistaken for a commie pinko, I have no problem with a profit motive in business. There's nothing wrong, in and of itself, with making money.

But what is wrong is profit as the primary motive, or the only motive.

The role of a business, it seems to me, is to provide some good or service to society. The role of a bank in particular is to provide ordinary people with easy storage and transport of their wealth. This is a good and noble and necessary service. And there is nothing wrong with making profit from such a service.

So long as the service comes first.

What these banks have done is pursue profit at the expense of the service they were committed to provide for their customers. And that is wrong. It is immoral, and if it isn't criminal (which I think it is) it should be.

This is one reason I'm more a fan of non-profit credit unions than of banks. Credit unions generally do keep the service of society at the forefront. And if they don't there are more immediate consequences.

Would that many other sectors of society were run on such a basis!


Rabbert blathers on....

On gambling

My dad loves the casino. He loves the slot machines, which I simply do not understand. For myself, I prefer something more active, something that involves skill and tactics. So, many gambling games just are not interesting to me. Among card games, Pinochle is my favorite.

I do, however, enjoy the occasional game of poker. I like the bluffing aspect. I like the choices involved in building a hand. My favorite poker game, which you'll never find in a casino, is called Chicago: it's basic seven-card stud, but the high spade in the hold splits the pot. It encourages more players to stay in, and throws a wrench in the works of reading other players' bets. Good clean fun -- as long as it's penny-nickel poker among friends.

Some of my friends oppose gambling on principle. And I'll admit that it's an easily addictive activity. I've been in games where I caught myself thinking, If only I put a little more money on the table, I could make back what I lost. But I've also been in control enough to recognize that impulse as a danger sign, a temptation. And I've been able to walk away. Most of the time.

My dad's philosophy, and it's a good one as far as it goes, is to consider gambling an entertainment activity on which you spend some money. First, determine how much you're going to spend on entertainment at the game. That becomes the only money available. You consider the money you bet to belong to the house already; it's spent money. If you win anything at all, that's gravy. If you break even, that's as good as a win.

If someone doesn't bring in more money than they can afford, and doesn't bet more than they bring in, then this system works to make an enjoyable time at betting games. If not, then gambling becomes a real problem and, at that point according to Catholic tradition, a sin.

The truth is, this kind of rule applies to any kind of entertainment activity. Sometimes it's money you're spending, sometimes it's time, sometimes it's physical energy -- usually it's some combination of the three, as for those who love to ski. If you don't overspend to begin with, and you don't let the entertainment overrun its limits, it makes for a good time. If the entertainment gets in the way of the rest of life, then it's a problem, and probably a sin.

For myself, I find the temptation strongest when there's some part of reality that I want to escape from. I use anything from TV to eating to hanging out with friends as ways to escape from difficult tasks or situations. That's a bad habit. That's a vice.

The only way to overcome it is to face reality. Do my duty. Get the job done. And, when it's time to play, play deliberately in a truly enjoyable way.

In other words, let work be work. And when I play poker, play with friends rather than to try to make money; play for the joy of the game, and joy will come whether the money stays or goes.

Rabbert blathers on....

If your hand causes you to sin...

Fr. Daniel, pastor of my parish, made a profound remark in this morning's homily. In the gospel reading from Mark, Jesus admonishes his followers, "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out." Too often I've read commentators or heard preachers attempt to soften the extremity of this advice. After all, we wouldn't want anyone actually maiming or blinding themselves; God couldn't possibly want that! Jesus must have been speaking hyperbolically.

Well, perhaps. But Fr. Daniel pointed out a literal interpretation that brings sharp clarity to our Lord's admonition. "How hard would you fight to keep your hand? Then fight that hard against sin! How firmly would you hold onto your eye? Then cling that firmly to Christ!"

For myself, I too often find myself slipping into sin -- not because I am compelled or coerced, but because it just seems easier or more pleasant. To stay in bed when I need to be awake, to play a game when I have bills to pay, and so on. But if I recognize that it is myself -- my hand, my eye, my very life -- that is at stake, then the path of vice is revealed as in fact harder and more painful, with its destination in death.

And that can be rather motivating.
Rabbert blathers on....

Hot town

I'm camping out here in Jersey City, New Jersey, just across the Hudson from Manhattan, helping some friends prepare for their wedding. And I am growing in my already abundant appreciation of the clear, not-so-humid atmosphere of my home in the Pacific Northwest.

So as I was walking to my friends' apartment this morning, I saw a truck driver honk and call out to a young woman who was wearing too-tight jeans and a low-cut tank top. She didn't react at all. I was stunned, not because I'm a prude (which perhaps I am), but because I'd never actually seen a man behave that way toward a woman. So I guess I'm just sheltered. Neither the truck driver nor the pedestrian woman nor anyone else around seemed to find this behavior either unusual or unacceptable.

And it got me thinking: how do we, as a society, actually show respect toward other people -- particularly members of the opposite sex? Are there ways to encourage people to treat each other respectfully? Are there ways to demonstrate the value and dignity of the people we meet, whether briefly or over the course of our lives?

Then I remembered a newscast I saw this morning, a town hall meeting with some politician, and how frequently I heard the words "my" and "me", and how rarely the words "ours" and "we" came up. And it occurred to me that our cultural tendency seems to assume that each individual is isolated from every other, and only has relationships of choice. But what if we recognized every other person as a member of our common family? What if each of us saw every other person as connected to him-/herself, a member of one's own body?

True, I'm an idealist, and I don't know if such a worldview could ever become common. But isn't this an ideal worth striving for?

Rabbert blathers on....

The logic of gifts

Way back in 1980, before I was even fully aware of my surroundings, Pope John Paul II published an encyclical titled Dives in misericordia, or Rich in Mercy. Some time in the mid- to late-nineties, I finally read it, and discovered something that confused me greatly: JP2 said that justice was incomplete, insufficient, and inhumane without mercy.

This was confusing to me because I thought, as many of my friends did, that mercy was something that overrode and (in a way) contradicted justice.

It's now many years later, and I've just finished reading Pope Benedict XVI's new encyclical, Caritas in veritate, or Love in Truth. Pope Benedict says something very similar, that justice and charity are intimately connected, and that justice is false without charitable love. In fact, he implies that charity is actually the foundation for justice.

He explains this by focusing on one central aspect of charity, of love: giving a gift. It seems that justice, which is a relationship in which someone owes something to someone else, is always a result of a gift, a free act which establishes or alters a relationship.

That's kind of abstract. Let me give a few examples.

Let's look at babys. It's hard to deny that parents owe their children the sustenance and support needed to grow to adulthood. Children have a right to such things as food, clothing, shelter, education, and so on. Parents who do not adequately provide such things for their children are called "child abusers" and are subject to legal coercion. And yet, what has the baby done to "deserve" these rights, to essentially put his/her parents in debt to him/her? Nothing -- except to receive the gift of life which those parents freely gave to him/her.

Okay, so some might object that parents are not perfectly free in bringing a child into the world, for a variety of reasons. I will not argue that point just now. But what about a couple who marry each other? Surely there is no constraint or obligation on either toward the other. No one can make me marry anyone in particular, nor force me to marry at all. However, once the spouses do marry, they discover that they are obliged to one another. Infidelity, to take the most obvious example, is (among other things) unjust to the spouse. It's a matter of justice: a wife has a right to demand faithfulness from her husband; and vice versa. Even though the law continues to distance itself from spousal obligations, we still recognize that an unfaithful husband does wrong to his wife.

Well, maybe some kinds of justice are based on a gift, but are all forms of justice? Well, let's take the example of a worker who is offered a job. Here is an exchange of gifts with different kinds of freedom on each side. Sure, the employer needs workers to do business, and the worker needs income to support him-/herself; but neither is under any constraint or obligation to arrange for this particular person to be given this particular job under these particular arrangements. There is a sense in which a worker's agreement to do the work and the employer's agreement to compensate the worker is an exchange of gifts, because each is free in offering something to the other. But based on this exchange of gifts, real issues of justice arise: a worker who does not fulfill his/her obligations, or an employer who does not properly compensate his/her workers, wrongs them.

What about criminal justice? Is there a gift involved at the foundation of rights to property or safety? Isn't the city, or the state, or the nation, obliged to provide protection for these things? This may be a bit more subtle, but here is where B16 provides an insightful perspective: gifts not only require the freedom of the giver, they also require, perhaps even more so, the incapacity of the receiver to make, or take, or require the gift. So, my capacity for health or safety or ownership of things is not something I can acquire for myself. It is not something I can earn or "deserve". I cannot give myself life; all I can do is take care of the life I have, and protect it. I cannot give myself intelligence or freedom or the other faculties needed to own property or interact socially; all I can do is use the abilities -- often explicitly called "gifts" -- I have to live in society. We do not make property or health or safety; we only use and take care of what we receive as given to us.

As St. Paul asks, "What do you have that you did not receive?" The answer, literally, is: nothing.

It is only after we have received what we have not made and have not earned that we can speak of justice, of what is due or owed, of rights and responsibilities. Of all the many profound insights of this encyclical, the logic of gifts is what has struck me most deeply.
Rabbert blathers on....

Thinking about universal health care

My dad, who gets most of his information from radio and TV, is adamantly opposed to President Obama's proposal of a government-run health insurance program. I, on the other hand, get most of my information from the far-more-reliable internets, and so-- wait a sec.

Maybe we both ought to think for ourselves for a moment.

Let's start with a few principles. First, it's hard to deny that a basic level of health care is a fundamental human right. No one seriously believes that, if you get the flu, you should or could be denied the bed rest and clear liquids and chicken noodle soup required to get over it.

But I have some friends, one of whose kids is hydrocephalic. I have another friend who is undergoing treatment for breast cancer. In order to survive, to say nothing of living "normal" lives, they require costly and time-consuming treatments -- more costly than they are able to afford on their own.

Is such treatment a human right? Were all the generations of humanity with the misfortune to live before the mid-twentieth century deprived of their rights? What about citizens of poor or "undeveloped" nations today, who don't have access to the cutting-edge research-driven medicine of the United States of America?

This is where the notion of "rights", so foundational to our political discourse these days, might get in the way of thinking clearly. Society as a whole has the responsibility of distributive justice, meaning that we have to allocate (or distribute) the goods and resources we hold in common to our members in a just fashion. So asking, "to what level of health care do we have a right?" or "what constitutes the basic health care (to which I am entitled)?" leads the conversation in the wrong direction. I think the question should rather be, "are we using our medical resources in a just manner? do all the members of our society have access to the goods available to us as a whole?"

From a Catholic point of view, the question is asked out of charity as well as out of justice: in other words, while "strict justice" might ask what the minimum level of health care is that we must provide, charity asks how much health care are we able to provide to those who need it?

So, that said, universal health care is certainly a human right, but it will look different from one society to another depending on the resources available.

Which leads to the second principle: that society as a whole has the responsibility for providing this health care.

Now, theoretically, there are lots of ways that this can happen. We could support doctors and other medical professionals directly through patronage or sponsorships. The Church could provide health care and hospitals, as she has in decades past. We could have various private medical providers compete to offer the best care. Or, we could offer insurance policies, in which a company pools resources from individuals to pay for health care. The government may wield a strong hand, or almost no hand, in any of these systems, so long as they proceed to work justly.

I can fully understand those people, like the ones my dad has been listening to, who see dangers in too much government involvement in health care. Especially the U.S. government. Can we really trust them to be efficient? to be fair? to provide consistent treatment? Will the government legislate what "health" is? force doctors to perform abortions or euthanasia? force pharmacists to distribute contraceptive drugs? force citizens to undergo sterilization or other unnecessary medical procedures? take away a patient's choice and control of his/her own treatment?

However, morality is always the art of the practical: what do we do here and now? So, with these principles in hand, let's take a look around and see what the practical possibilities are.

It seems to me that there are only two institutions that have the scope and breadth to offer (much less guarantee) health care to the whole of society: the government and the Catholic Church. (As for a third option, starting a new private endeavor, I say: Good luck with that.)

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Church took advantage of its vast, inexpensive, and well-trained workforce of religious sisters to establish hospitals and clinics all around the nation to serve the poor and those who could not otherwise afford health care. However, those sisters are no longer so numerous, nor do Catholics contribute financially to the Church as they did, nor is the training needed to provide quality health care so readily available as it once was.

Which leaves the government to pick up the slack.

After all, left to themselves, our largely for-profit medical providers will simply do whatever they can to turn the greatest profit and reduce their own expenses and obligations. This will not lead to a just distribution of health care resources.

So, I see two practical options: either to accept government-run health care, as imperfect as it is; or to devote our time and energy and money to building and supporting a Church-run health care system on a scale we haven't seen since the 1950's. If you don't like Obama's proposal, then are you giving to the Church? Are you writing the bishops and heads of sisters' congregations? Are you volunteering your time and talents? Are you supporting young men and women to give their lives to the work of caring for the sick and injured?

To do neither is to allow our society to remain unjust with regard to health care.

[crossposted at The Good, The True, The Just]
Rabbert blathers on....

Profit, justice, and charity

There's plenty of blamestorming about the causes of our current economic troubles. Some look to George W. Bush, some to Clinton, some as far back as Nixon. But I have another proposal to make: let's blame the Supreme Court.

No, not our current Court. Let's blame the 1919 Court, who decided Dodge v. Ford Motor Company. According to this Wikipedia article, (I know, Wikipedia! -- but it covers the main points so non-lawyers can understand, and it links to the actual ruling), the argument was over whether a company should use its profits to enrich shareholders or to engage in charitable activities. That's not really accurate, as the quotes show: the real argument was over whether a company's first responsibility was to the shareholders or to the products (or services) it was providing -- and selling for a profit. The Court ruled that the shareholders have a right to a significant share of the profits.

As the article notes, this ruling has been used to justify a policy of maximizing profits for shareholders, of making profit the primary motive of businesses and the purpose of being in business in the first place. That is, the purpose of business is seen to be creating wealth and "growing" the economy.

The article also notes that the ruling does not necessitate this interpretation; but this is the interpretation that has ruled business practices and business law for nearly a century -- almost to the extent that we cannot imagine another purpose for business.

I'd like to propose one: what if business' first priority was to provide goods and services to society, to promote the common good, to make society a better place. I'm not saying that profit would disappear, nor should it; but it would come second to improving the a company's ability to provide needed or appropriate goods for the community. In other words, what if Henry Ford had won the case that the Dodge brothers brought against him?

Perhaps then, banks would not pursue such risky courses of investment in search of higher profits. Perhaps then, companies would not use cutbacks and layoffs as the first defense against a slumping market. Perhaps then, the computers and cars and toasters we buy would not be built to break down three days after the warranty expires. Perhaps...?

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that these are possibilities worth exploring. What do you think?

(Crossposted at The Good, The True, The Just)
Rabbert blathers on....

Torture and its discontents

Last night, while driving home, I heard a radio program called "Interrogating Torture" (sorry, no audio) looking at "harsh interrogation techniques" in Israel and Great Britain in light of the memos recently released by Obama's administration.

Somewhat to my surprise, I discovered that both Israel and Great Britain abandoned such techniques years ago, while being reluctant to name them "torture", for a variety of reasons. The primary reason, in both nations, was that abusive interrogations of prisoners and suspects, over time, added fuel to the fires of hatred among their enemies. (All the pro-torture interviewee could say in response was that torture is only one reason among many that radical Islam and other terrorists hate us.) Even facing the same threats of terrorism they have faced before along with new threats from al-Qaeda, neither is interested in returning to a policy of "extreme" measures in their treatment of prisoners.

A professor at Georgetown (whose name I forget) added that there are some depths no civilized society should stoop to. He gave the analogy of slavery: how would we respond if, in order to combat global terrorism and protect our population, we began to enslave people again. It would only be a small number of slaves, of course. We might pay them $0.02 per day, so that technically it would not be slavery. And by gum it would work! Productivity would increase and we'd show those enemies of freedom what for!

I thought his analogy apt. At this point in history, thank God, I hope we would rather suffer military defeat or terrorist attack than resort to enslaving human beings. But, I had also hoped that we would rather suffer than resort to torturing prisoners.

I can only return to the ancient maxim: it is always better to suffer evil than to commit evil.

Rabbert blathers on....

More sex talk

I've noticed a number of espresso stands in my neighborhood springing up advertising "sexy barristas!" and staffed by scantily clad women. I'm talking pasties scanty. Predictably, the cars line up on weekday mornings, leaving the Starbucks across the street empty. But if I were to object to this business model, do you think I'd be welcomed as a model of virtue? I fear I'd be pooh-poohed as a prudish Victorian throwback.

And I thought we men were supposed to treat women as persons rather than as sex objects. Silly me.

I'm currently reading The Four Cardinal Virtues, by Josef Pieper (a German, but one who writes remarkably clearly nonetheless!) He noted, in 1954, that in the current "state of affairs,"

in contradiction to the true grading and order of things, the realm of sex ... has moved to the center of attention in the general moral consciousness. In addition to this, and despite all contrary statements of principle, a smoldering subterranean Manichaeism casts suspicion on everything pertaining to physical reproduction as being somehow impure, defiling, and beneath the true dignity of man.

He goes on to note that the pleasure and instinctive urge for sexual intercourse is -- and has always been considered in the Catholic tradition -- good and noble, partly because pleasure is a good in itself but largely because it is intimately connected to one of the greatest goods that human beings can accomplish: the introduction of children into the world.

On the other hand, I can't help but notice the common thread that runs through all the sexual "liberties" that people clamor for today: a disregard for or outright enmity toward children. Sex outside of marriage risks bringing children into a difficult or dangerous situation at the most vulnerable time of their lives. Contraception, masturbation, pornography, etc. all attempt to separate the pleasure of sexual intercourse from what Pieper calls "the intrinsic purpose of sexual power": procreation.

I know that some will object that sex is about much more than having babies, and that not every act of sexual intercourse necessarily results in the birth of a child. Granted. But this is no reason to excise children from the realm of sex altogether. I could just as truly say that not every act of sexual intercourse is physically pleasurable, or emotionally satisfying. Is it fair then to say that pleasure and emotions have no place in the sexual realm?

I think it's only because various voices in western culture have been trying to separate the inseparable for the past couple centuries that sex "has moved to the center of attention in the general moral consciousness." Denial leads to untruth leads to lies to cover the untruth leads to grasping for any kind of cover to keep from facing what one is denying. As Frank Herbert noted in a different context, a culture that talks too much about how it values peace must have a long experience of war. Our culture, which promotes sexual "expression" as one of the highest goods, is in reality attempting to cover up our decades of self-abuse.
Rabbert blathers on....

Let's talk about sex

I'll admit it: I'm just plain confused about sex.

I mean, people want the Church and the Government to stay out of their bedrooms, but they also want public recognition and protection for their sexual behaviors, such as lower ages of consent, free access to condoms and other contraception, and so on. The phrase "comprehensive sex education" seems to mean "focusing on contraception rather than the full workings human reproduction." I think the best example is the desire to get married, and also insisting on the right of no-fault divorce. (To those who see the same-sex marriage movement as a huge threat to marriage, I say: we haven't had that spirit here since 1969.) Honestly, I'm not quite sure what the point of marriage is when fornication is widely accepted or even encouraged, and divorce is an easy option at any time.

I'm also confused because friends of mine seem to want to keep their sex lives private, but at the same time want to define themselves according to their sexual behavior. This is most obvious in the "gay rights" movement, in which "coming out" is a sort of defining moment in a person's life: it's a public declaration of what someone does in his or her private life, which no one has a right to know or question, but which everyone must publicly acknowledge and support. It just seems kind of schizophrenic to me.

This has come home to me personally in recent days. I'm a Roman Catholic, and do my best to keep the moral teaching of the Church, i.e., sexual intercourse and behaviors belong within the marital relationship without exception. I'm not perfect, but I also make no excuses for my failures and I do my best to change my habits and behavior. Since college days, I've had lots of friends -- sometimes my closest friends -- who in one way or another have believed or acted differently from the Catholic teachings. Sometimes we'd talk about it, sometimes not. It didn't seem a big deal to me, not really my business.

But in the past year or so, I've had to face a number of people on exactly this issue. Some are people in active sexual relationships outside of marriage who nonetheless receive -- and even distribute -- communion in church. Some are people who are entering into marriage (or domestic partnerships) with unreliable people or for unwise reasons. I've heard of (though not witnessed myself) priests who advise couples to "try each other out" before marriage, or to explore same-sex attractions by engaging in same-sex intercourse.

More often than people in such situations come to me directly, mutual friends approach me to talk about them. It's hard to draw the line between commiserating or sharing advice and gossip in such situations. That's why I'm being so vague about persons and situations. But they ask me what to do, and they say things like, "We can't just talk to them about it." I reply, "Why not?" And they say, "But it's private." In other words, the "private" and "public" aspects of sex and marriage are interfering with each other, and are as confusing for other people as they are for me.

I don't have any final answers, of course. I don't advocate creating an equal sign between Roman Catholic teaching and U.S. law. At the same time, I believe that there is a natural law that describes the proper role of human sexual expression, and that should be reflected in the civil laws of every nation. I think it's no coincidence that every human culture has some kind of marital customs and regulations.

But I would begin by bringing the whole sex discussion out of the shadows. Let's talk about sex without euphemisms. Let's really look at what is public and what is private about sexual relationships, and why. It amazes me, for example, that in a class on fertility awareness methods, engaged couples should be so squeamish about diagrams of the genital organs, or of words like "cervix". I thought our culture was supposed to have been sexually "liberated"! And yet, one friend told me that she learned more about her own reproductive system from the introduction to a book on Natural Family Planning than she had from all the health and biology classes she'd taken in high school and college. That's a sign that we're not really talking about sex in a way that's accessible to all and freeing for the human person. If we want sexual liberation, I suggest we start with a self-critique of our own contradictions. I suggest that with sex, as with every other area of our lives, we begin with a clear understanding of reality.

Rabbert blathers on....

Newman: Morality 101

My only business is to ascertain what I am, in order to put it to use. ... My first elementary duty is that of resignation to the laws of my nature, whatever they are; my first disobedience is to be impatient at what I am, and to indulge an ambitious aspiration after what I cannot be, to cherish a distrust of my powers, and to desire to change laws which are identical with myself. (John Henry Newman, Grammar of Assent, II.9.1)

I've spent a great deal of my life trying to become a Jedi Knight. When most of my peers were struggling with the existence of Santa Claus (in whom I never believed), I was instead wondering why I wasn't able to "influence" minds and levitate distant objects. My eventual realization that the Jedi are entirely fictional crushed also my capacity for faith in religion and in any kind of truth whatsoever. To this day, I still catch myself asking, "Why should I believe this?" whenever I face anyone's assertion of some truth or fact.

The problem lies, not in the stars -- however much I would like to blame Lucas for my malady -- but in myself believing that I was a star. My shrink calls this "grandiosity", which is I guess a more politically correct term for "megalomania". I'm constantly striving to be something that I'm not, and when I fail to live up to my fictional and outrageous expectations I consider my attempts and my entire life to be a failure. In fact, my only real failure is to accept reality as it is: to accept myself as God made me to be.

Since I can't accept myself, or (as Newman puts it) since I am impatient with what I am and distrust my powers, aspiring after other powers, I'm often off base when it comes to figuring out the world around me. This makes interacting with other people, well, interesting, to put it politely. I frequently misunderstand fairly simple statements. I usually interpret somebody talking about their own life as if they were talking about mine. Someone says, "I wish I were more organized," and I reply, "Hey, I'll clean up my mess when I'm good and ready, so get off my back!"

The solution is, obviously, to face reality. But would you trust somebody who thought the Jedi were real to figure out what's real and what's not? Would you trust someone who believed in Santa? Okay, so we're in the same boat, then. I guess that's why I don't judge too harshly people who believe that the Republicans really will bring an end to bloated and/or immoral government, or that the Democrats really will eliminate poverty or social injustice. They're appealing fantasies. I'd love to believe them, too -- except that I've learned my lesson. There are no Jedi, there is no Chosen One to bring balance to the Force. There's only us: a bunch of people who are, more or less, out of touch with reality.

This is the lesson I take from Newman, and from my own experience: if I act based on a false idea of what's real, then I'm going to end up doing stupid or even horribly harmful things. So my first duty, the basis of all my moral decisions, has to be to check out what's really real. That's more effort than I usually want to expend, and I often don't have time to sort out every last aspect of the situation I have to deal with. But I do the best I can, and I try to learn from my mistakes. I try to take a step closer to reality.
Rabbert blathers on....