Merry Christmas

With the approach of the Christmas Season, its time for my second annual Christmas post. Most readers would expect the Nativity story from Matthew, Mark or Luke, or the poetic opening of John's Gospel, but I'm a trend bucker. This time lets review my favorite Bible reading, Matthew, Chapter 20, verses 1 through 16. For me, this defines what it means to be a Christian.

1 "The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard.
2 After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard.
3 Going out about nine o'clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
4 and he said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.'
5 So they went off. (And) he went out again around noon, and around three o'clock, and did likewise.
6 Going out about five o'clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?'
7 They answered, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard.'
8 When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.'
9 When those who had started about five o'clock came, each received the usual daily wage.
10 So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage.
11 And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner,
12 saying, 'These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day's burden and the heat.'
13 He said to one of them in reply, 'My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?
14 Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you?
15 (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?'
16 Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last."

Its a very simple parable, a farmer goes into the market place to hire workers, and continues to do so throughout the day. At the end of the day, he pays everyone the same amount regardless of how long they worked that day. Naturally, the ones who put in more time expect to be paid more than those who worked only a couple of hours, but the farmer refuses saying it's his money, he can do what he wants with it, and he is only paying what the workers agreed to be paid, so stuff it.

For me the farmer symbolizes God, the workers are us hairless monkeys, the work is living a Christian life, and the payment is eternal salvation. All day long, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, God offers us an invitation to join his followers. The invitation is always there. As Christians we don't need to ask God to accept us, but rather we must accept God. The invitation is to all of us, no one is excluded.

If we chose to accept God's invitation, there is no free ride. Believe me, it is work living as a Christian. It's not always fun to attend Mass week after week. It's not easy to be forgiving, especially to your enemies. Yet we are called on to not only forgive them, but to love them. It takes years to study all the lessons the Bible has for us. And one must put expend great effort and time. We are expected to volunteer our time and our wealth to help others. And to do so with good cheer.

And why does the farmer agree to pay all workers the same regardless of the length of the work day? Because salvation is God's gift to us. We do not deserve it, no matter how hard or how long we work. It is not by the fruit of our labors that we earn salvation, not at all. Salvation is bestowed because God chooses to do so. And God gives it to whoever God chooses, whenever God chooses. Before God we are all equal. We are expected to live a worthy life of work and effort, but those of us who choose the accept God's invitation earlier in our lives should not expect to be above anyone else in salvation. We don't deserve it, it is a gift from God. All the good deeds we do are not vane attempts to add more pluses than minus' so when we stand before St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, we get our ticket stamped. No, that's completely backwards. Because we accept God' invitation, the outcome is that we do good work, not the other way around.

And lastly, the farmer admonishes the workers who demand more than they agreed to. Pure and simple libertarianism and property rights. God provides salvation at God's discretion, and no one can demand more. We've been invited, we've accepted, and we've complied with God as best we can. No one deserves salvation. A kindly old priest told us a story once during the homily years ago about St. Teresa of Avila, some times referred to as St. Teresa of the Roses. I'm sure most every one has seen an image of her at some point. A young nun in full habit, carrying a crucifix and a bouquet of roses. As the priest told it, she was laying on her deathbed, surrounded by her fellow nuns who were comforting her in her final moments. They told her not to worry, she'd lived a good and pious life, surely God would see she deserved heaven. St. Teresa replied she was a human and a sinner, and she deserved nothing from God. She didn't want what she deserved, she wanted mercy from God.

Merry Christmas!

Neopaleoliberal©

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet."
--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

I remember reading Romeo and Juliet in ninth grade English class. Not one of his best works, and not a particularly interesting read either. The only reason I remember it is because I have a mind like a steel trap. Whereas with most people, ideas come and go, in my head they rattle around for a while and then start setting up subdivisions. But I digress.

The cause of this little mental meandering is the term "neocon". I've been called a neocon, usually by mentally deficient liberals who think it shows how hip and suave they are. Secretly I've always thought they don't have the slightest idea what a neocon is, they just see it in Molly Ivins columns and in blogs and toss it around to show how well read they are. As I've shadow-boxed with them over the years, I've also come to believe no one really knows the definition of neocon, and I believe that is because I don't think there really is a definition. I think it's one of the words that just kind of appeared on its own, coined by someone, released into the wilds of the internet, where it has multiplied to the point that every one uses it and just assumes they know the definition.

I've asked people on both sides of the political divide and haven't heard anything that even required much thinking to come up with. I've heard "Jews" as one definition, but that's far too simplistic. I've received plenty of examples, but nothing that even begins to show the solid thinking necessary for a definition. Then I read a book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. that shows considerable forethought and effort.

Woods' definition is roughly this: The rise of the modern conservative movement in America - which probably began with the presidential aspirations of Barry Goldwater in the 1960's. Their platform was small, limited government, lower spending, lower taxes, strong national self defense, and keeping the government the hell out of people's lives. [Editor's note: Hmm, why does that remind me of something...]

The movement's greatest accomplishment has to be eight years of Ronald Reagan, and its zenith is the 1994 take over of the House of Representatives following forty plus years of liberal-democratic control. But as anyone with even a passing interest in watching politics (beats the hell out of looking at yellow-bellied sapsuckers) can tell, we may have gotten some taxes lowered, and Reagan did slow down the growth of that great leviathan called government, but overall we do not have a smaller, more limited government, and lower spending has become an oxymoron like Congressional Ethics.

So what happened? According to Woods, once the Republicans began seizing the reigns of government, they found they liked being the head honchos. Many of them abandoned their cherished principles in favor of big fat lobbyist checks, and the ability to do pretty much whatever they want. They believed larger government is acceptable, as long as they control it. They favored increased spending, as long as they could keep the taxes low enough to not piss off their party supporters. And in general, became big government liberals in conservative clothes. It is these people Woods refers to as "neocons."

Now, "neo" is Greek for "new", so neocon would be a new type of conservative, which, ironically, is pretty much the opposite of what a conservative is.

Stick with me, we're almost there.

Obviously - at least to me - I am not, nor have I ever been a neocon of any sort. I'm convinced of that. So what am I? I've been asking myself that question for some time, not because I'm into labels, but because the world is filled with labels, and I try to find my way through them. There are many liberal goals that I find worthy and I fully support. Who doesn't want world peace, good public education, clean air and water, etc.? Where I part ways with liberals is how to achieve these goals. The liberal viewpoint is simple; raise taxes, redistribute wealth, and take away as much freedom for people to be stupid as they can to prevent simple, uneducated, unwashed masses from hurting themselves and others. In other words, business as usual since FDR's New Deal. I can plainly see that none of that really works, and in reality usually makes things worse.

So am I a "neoliberal"? I offered that proposition to my blog editor. (Yes, I have an editor, do you?) He replied that he believes I'm more of a paleoliberal, in that my beliefs fall more closely in line with old time liberalism, back when the root word was recognized as 'liberty." But that doesn't quite fit the bill either, since I do want to accomplish new things, but I want to use the lessons from the past to determine what works and what doesn't.

So, with out further ado, I offer up to you Ladies and Gentlemen, a new political movement, for which I rightly can claim the honor of naming. I present to you "neopaleoliberalism!"

Dem Quixotic

There's been talking heads on the right who have used the analogy of religion to describe the values (or lack thereof) of the left. Ann Coulter even wrote a book about it. I can take only slight, smug satisfaction knowing that my editor and I had debated the theory years before she wrote her book. Only slight because while I can claim credit, she still gets the checks.

But I've never been completely satisfied with the analogy, there's just something about it that doesn't seem quite right. Last night while I was walking through my dining room, I was struck with a bolt of inspiration. It's not religion that makes the best analogy. Religion is recognizing and accepting the existence of a higher being and/or plane of existence. For the analogy to work, this would be required of the top tier of liberals to accept something larger and more important than themselves. And I believe that's why it doesn't fit. It doesn't really describe the actions and emotions of the rank and file liberal democrats. The rank and file don't look up to the top tier liberal groups and politicians for salvation; they look up to them in awe, but hardly with the hope of eternal salvation. So no, it's not religion. It's Chivalry.

About 15 years ago my sister and I attended the Sterling Forest Renaissance Festival in upstate New York. It's quite a day trip vacation. For those who are interested in history period events, I highly recommend it. One of the first booths you encounter upon entering is the print shop. There are all kinds of drawings, etchings, prints - you name it you can probably find it there. I bought myself a nice little drawing of a dragon reclining on a burned out castle. Enough said. Later in the day my sister somehow managed to ditch me long enough to sneak back over to the printer and she bought me a print of a Code of Chivalry based upon a 13th century France document. I got it for Christmas that year, and it's hung proudly on my wall ever since.

The Code of Chivalry (France, circa 13th Century)

Thou shalt believe all the Church teaches and shalt observe all its directions.

Thou shalt defend the Church.

Thou shalt respect all Weaknesses and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.

Thou shalt love the Country in which thou wast born.

Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy.

Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties in accordance with the law of God.

Thou shalt be generous and give largess to every one.

Thou shalt be the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.



With some slight modifications, I believe we have a pretty accurate code of honor among liberals:

The Code of Liberalism (San Francisco, New York, circa 20th Century)

Thou shalt believe all the Democratic Party teaches and shalt observe all its directions.

Thou shalt defend the Democratic Party.

Thou shalt respect all Recognized Victim Classes and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.

Thou shalt love the Democratic Party in which thou wast born.

Thou shalt make war against the conservative without cessation and without mercy.

Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy liberal duties in accordance with the law of the Democratic Party.

Thou shalt be generous with other's money and give largess to every recognized victim class.

Thou shalt be the champion of the Left and the Good against Injustice and Evil.


As with the dragon etching, enough said.