Dynamic Yet Consistent

It is almost midnight.  I tried going to bed 3 hours ago, but I keep mulling things over in my head.  After an hour of staring at the ceiling I decided to get up and try to distract myself on the internet.  Hopefully my mindless surfing can serve to enlighten you.

As I was browsing a list of natural oddities in the world, I came across The Tree of Ténéré.

When it was still alive, this tree was the only vegetation in the Sahara within a 250 mile radius (That’s Bowling Green to St. Louis or Atlanta in all directions!).  As the Sahara dried out further, all other vegetation died… except for this tree.  A well dug in the area revealed the roots went down over 120 feet into the water table.  At the time, it was the only tree worthy of mention on major maps, and was a primary navigational tool for caravans.  An official in the area described it as such:

One must see the Tree to believe its existence. What is its secret? How can it still be living in spite of the multitudes of camels which trample at its sides? How at each azalai does not a lost camel eat its leaves and thorns? Why don’t the numerous Touareg leading the salt caravans cut its branches to make fires to brew their tea? The only answer is that the tree is taboo and considered as such by the caravaniers. There is a kind of superstition, a tribal order which is always respected. Each year the azalai gather round the Tree before facing the crossing of the Ténéré. The Acacia has become a living lighthouse; it is the first or the last landmark for the azalai leaving Agadez for Bilma, or returning.

Despite its noble existence, the tree came to an end in a very ignoble way.  In 1973 a drunk driver lost control of his truck and hit the only object in hundreds of miles.  After surviving (perhaps) hundreds of years of some of the harshest elements imaginable, this tree meets its end because some idiot has too much to drink and gets behind the wheel.  Unbelievable.  Surely there is a moral to this story.

Many of you know Beth and I are planning a move to Swaziland Africa in the next couple years (I wrote a 3 part series on how we made our decision, important information about Swaziland, and what we expect to do there).  Rather than going to “fix” things, we want to be a part of a community that is responding to needs.  We want to participate in something much bigger than us.  While we haven’t made any decisions yet, we have found a place that gets us very excited: The city of Bulembu.

Bulembu is situated in the mountains of northwest Swaziland right on the South African border.  In its prime there were 15,000 residents of this city, most of them employed by the local asbestos mine.  When the mine closed the city fell apart.  The population dropped to less than 1,000 and the infrastructure collapsed.  The entire city was bought by a development corporation who then sold it to a non-profit called Bulembu Ministries.  This organization is primarily made up of native Swazi leaders.  It is now the vision of the city to redefine and rebuild itself.

The vision includes a town where 10,000 residents are safe and have access to quality work and essential social services.  A town with the infrastructure and programs to provide ongoing care for 2,000 orphaned and vulnerable children with access to education, health services and family structures so they can develop into young adults and emerging leaders with hope for the future. ~Bulembu.org

The rebuilding process in built around a plan for a fully sustainable city.  Rather than rely on outside aid, the people of Bulembu have a vision for place where the community enterprise completely supports community care.  Industries have been brought in (tourism, forestry, bakeries, etc.) to provide work for the local people.  Then, all of the profits go towards sustaining the orphanages, schools, churches, hospitals, etc.

Nearly every aspect of the city is built around shared opportunity and individual potential.  The orphanages are designed in a village structure so that children live in “families” rather than being shuffled around in large institutional settings.

The commitment is to provide holistic care for each child in a home, rather than in a large institutional orphanage. Each child lives in a refurbished home with a caregiver and 5 other children.  In this way, each child becomes a part of a caring family that will prepare them for a bright future filled with hope and to emerge as the leaders of tomorrow.  These new famlies will be the thread that restores the social fabric of a nation on the verge of collapse due to the AIDS pandemic.

In a similar way, the schools are based on individualized instruction so each student can be taught the skills they need while developing their natural ability.

What really gets Beth and I excited is that this initiative was started and is sustained by local people with an amazing vision for what their city could be.  It is also a place where a diverse group of people are partnering together for a common good.  It is a place where we could be part of something much bigger than us with a long range vision for positive change.  We don’t know where specifically we will end up in a couple years, but learning about this city has energized us and reminded us why we want to move 8,000 miles away.

Here is a youtube video from the city as well as a few more pictures and links:

Links

• Bulembu Ministries
• Resurrecting Bulembu (News Article from IPS)
• Voices for Bulembu
• Bulembu (Wikipedia)
• Swazi Mission (The Skinner family, whom I have been in contact with)

Many of my last few posts have been pretty heavy, so I figure it was time to return to the lighter side of things.  A few weeks ago Beth and I completed a series of Top 10 lists.  In one of my those posts I revealed one of my favorite foods was candy.  I decided to go more in depth and explore my favorite candies.  Here is my top 10 list.

1. Sour Watermelon Slices – A little slice of heaven.  My grandparents used to buy these a local version of these before the Sour Patch brand came out.  I can (and have) gone through a 2 pound box of these in24 hours.
2. Nerds Jelly Beans – A relative new comer to the list as these have only been around a few years.  Nerds Coating over a jelly bean core… how can you go wrong?  My only complaint is that after about 100 or so of these they don’t seem to be as good.
3. Air Heads – I can think of no other candy that manages to pack as much sugary sweetness into a wrapper.  I try not to buy the 6 packs because they don’t last.  I love letting them get soft in my pocket before opening them up.  Cherry and Watermelon are my favorites.
4. Shock Tarts – I think they are called “Shockers” now, but whatever the name, they are excellent.  Another candy you can’t eat too much of, but I can easily go through a pack without blinking.  I have often ate so many that my mouth became raw.
5. Nerds – A true classic.  I think some of my earliest candy memories involve Nerds.  I remember trying to hide a pack in my pocket and getting frustrated because they were too loud.
6. SweetTart Jelly Beans – My favorite seasonal candy.  We usually buy 5-6 bags, but they only last about a month after Easter.
7. Sour Patch Kids – These still remind me of the Movie Theatre where my brother and I would get these every time I would go.
8. Dots – These are a love or hate candy (but not so much as JuJuBees, which I also love).  These have to be the most filling candy of all time.  I will eat a box and feel like I ate a meal.
9. Giant Chewy Sweet Tarts – If we go only on eating enjoyment, it does not get much better than these.  However, I am always a bit disappointed by the packaging.  I feel ripped off when I only get a few of those large discs of sugary goodness.  In all honesty it probably for the best because I could eat 20 so without thinking.
10. Sour Jolly Rancher Gummies – These are the newest addition to the list after I discovered them a few weeks ago.  These chewy bites taste just like Jolly Ranchers and are coated with sour sugar.  I went back a few days later and bought the remaining stock.

After going through this list a clear pattern is emerging.  I like sour chewy/gummy things and have a clear affinity for Wonka candy (By the way, Beth’s teaching partner Lara has the same addiction).  I am not big on hard candy (I crunch it immediately) and I don’t really like chocolate — but don’t get me wrong, if its sweet, I will eat it.  If you ever need me to help you out on a project, just know I work cheap.  I would gladly put in 8 hours of hard labor for a bag of the above mentioned candies.

So what about you… what gets your sweet tooth crying for more?

This health care debate is getting out of control.  We seem to have reached the point where no one is listening anyone and both sides consistently descend into the type of demonization where everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a Nazi.  Therefore, it is not my goal to convince anyone to change their view on the issue, but rather to present a different way of looking at it.

At the end of the day, there is one question under-girding this whole debate and no one seems to be approaching it directly.  Rather than arguing over the merits of a single payer system vs. co-opts, or arguing over how much government intervention is acceptable, we must first as this: Is healthcare a right? How you answer that question is going to determine how you approach every other question.

For the last century we have generally assumed that education is a right of every American.  Before the mid 1800’s the school systems were nearly all private and it was not until the Reconstructionist movement following the Civil War that nearly the entire country offered “universal education.”  We have reached the point where no one questions the appropriateness of using tax dollars to ensure every American the chance to graduate high school.  Of course reform is needed, there are inefficiencies that need to be addressed, and problems the system faces; but no one is arguing we should cut off access to education just because people can’t afford it.  Again, this is because we assume education is a right every citizen is entitled to.

So what about health care?  If we think it makes sense to extend education to everyone, why not basic medical care as well.  After all, our Declaration of Independance understood the presence of certain inalienable rights including “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  In my book, basic health care falls under the right to life.  And why wouldn’t it?  Do we really think the ability to be healthy should be a privileged only extended to the rich, those with good jobs, and those who are already healthy?  This is the debate we need to engage first before we get into the logistics.

Let’s jump back to the discussion of universal education because I think there are many parallels we can learn from.  First, both are expensive.  In America, according to the Education Department, we spend roughly 7% of the GDP on education — most of that comes in the form of tax dollars.  By comparison, health care consumes 14-17% of the GDP depending on which source you use.  Apples and oranges right?  Well not really.  If you look at countries with socialized medicine, their spending levels are dramatically lower.  Spain spends 7.6%, the UK spends 7.7% and Canada 9.6%.  [ASIDE: Did you know the average health insurance company spends 12% on administration, while Medicare/Medicaid only spend 2%]

Beyond just looking at cost, I think many of the charges leveled against universal health care can be dispelled by looking at our universal education system.  One of the most persistent questions concerning a “public option” has been how can fair competition exist a for-profit private company and a government entity.  The same question of competition could be asked of the education sector: How can any private education institution compete with public schools who offer free tuition?  If you ask me, private schools do just fine.  There are plenty of people willing to pay more for exclusive environments.  Just look at private colleges.  Even though they generally cost 2-3 times what a public university does, enrollment is still strong.  Why is that?  Because even when there is a free (or cheap) public option, people still want exclusivity and choice.  In a recent town forum discussion, a University of Colorado student asked Obama how private companies could be expected to compete with a government run plan.  That is a good question for sure, but the irony lies behind it.  This student is receiving a government subsidizes university education, and asking his question to a person with a degree from Harvard – the oldest private university in the nation, and coincidentally, the first corporation in our nation.  The costs are not even close.  UC tuition is 4-6K per semester while Harvard is 17K.  That is not fair competition is it?  Yet which school would you rather have a degree from?  When you offer a good product, there is always competition.

What about the rationing of care?  You would think that since the government is picking up the tab for everyone’s primary education, they would need to ration educational expenses — you know, get rid of the people that cost the most.  In practice, the opposite is true.  Special education students are given more resources and extra services despite the fact it is of increased cost.  Additionally, even though a public education option exists, parents have the option of seeking additional interventions on their own.  No one is kicking little Johnny to the street because he costs an additional $1,000 per year because he need speech therapy.

Our education system is not perfect.  There are blatant ineffeciencies and places where reform is clearly needed.  There are areas where we are not providing the services we should, and times where the government is overstepping its bounds.  But at the end of the day, people are not looking to throw out the whole system.  Why?  Because we think education is a right, and when we believe this we are willing to work with the system even if it is not perfect.

Considering health care a right is not some crazy liberal thought — it is widely held by the richest countries in the world.  The following countries have universal  health care: Afghanistan, Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iraq, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.  We are not breaking new ground, we are simply exploring an understanding of human rights that is already commonly held in developed world.

When we argue against universal health care, we are arguing against the worth of another human being.  I am convinced in 100 years it will be as inconceivable to deny health care to people as it is today to deny education.

Sonia Sotomayor

I am bit behind the news cycles with this post, but I did not want to miss the chance to comment on the role communities play in determining truth.

On August 6th, the US Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor as the 111th  Supreme Court Justice in the United States.  By all accounts her confirmation was relatively smooth sailing despite the partisan bickering found mostly on the fringes of the discussion.   With her 68-31 confirmation vote she became just the third woman and the first hispanic to sit on our nation’s highest court.  This selection process revealed a lot about our nation, but it also provided a lens through which we can view and understand the nature of “truth.”

While the confirmation hearings were generally calm, many lambasted her as being an “activist judge” and several organizations openly opposed her selection.  The most most notable was the NRA, who submitted an official letter calling her views on the 2nd amendment into question.

If you read the letter and followed the arguments against her, you will find the people who stood against her did so largely because the disagreed with the way she understood the law.  The reason they were so adamant in their opposition is because they realized at the end of the day, it does not matter what any individual thinks a law means, but rather, what the majority of the supreme court thinks it means.  The NRA and other conservative groups want like minded thinkers to be on the court because they realize the what the second amendment (and all laws) truly means is not static, but rather is interpreted.  Literally, the law means whatever the court says it means.  You can disagree, but you will be wrong.

It is interesting when you think about how the leanings of the courts affect this.  At certain times in our nation’s  history, the truth of the law was more conservative.  At other times, it was more liberal.  But what was constant is that legal truth was determined by the supreme court and the community of people who formed it.

Morality functions in the same way.  The only difference is the communities who determine it are much larger.  Think of misogynistic practices and slavery.  At one time these practices were considered acceptable and moral — but obviously this is not longer the case.  Did the morality of the acts change?  No.  Rather, the communities who determine morality changed (over time).

I have learned from many conversations that many people are not comfortable with this discussion — especially Christians who believe in the absolute truth of scripture.  The problem is that the meaning and “truth” of scripture have changed more often than our Constitution.  If you don’t believe me just read a survey of how various commentators have understood The Good Samaritan in the Gospel of Luke.

Truth is not individually relative.  That is to say, we all can’t go around making up what things mean.  But at the same time, it is dynamic.  Truth is determined by the communities who are willing to earnestly seek it.  It is my hope that each of us will take the question of truth seriously, just as we expect Sotomayor to seriously question what the truth of the law is in every case she is presented.

As August rolls on, more and more rows in our summer garden come to their end.  Just yesterday the last of our sweet corn was harvested and the stalks cut down.  While the okra is still going strong, the tomatoes are reaching the end of their production, the zucchini is winding down (never really produced too well — too wet), the basil needs to be cut, and the only peppers left are the jalapenos.  The asparagus is growing up and hopefully will be ready to harvest next spring.  So far we have been able to track our gardening season along with Mikayla’s life — we planted most of the crops 2 days before she was born.  It seems like just yesterday the crops were first coming in and Mikayla was  beginning to sleep through the night.  We have come a long way.

Now that our third year of gardening is wrapping up, it is a good chance to look back on this year (and the others) and make note of the lessons learned.  Here is what I have learned from our mistakes, and accidental successes:

• Each year we have started in a new location.  Every other year we have struggled with weeds, but this year we beat them early on.  We tilled in early April, then covered it with black plastic for two weeks to kill the grass.  When we pulled the plastic we tilled again and never had a major week problem.
• It takes at least 4 dry days before you can till a garden.  Be on the look out starting in mid-march because there are only a few good opportunities.
• When it comes to planting, while the average last freeze is April 20th around here, there is nothing wrong with planting into mid-May.
• Get your transplants at the school greenhouses or the farmer’s market — they are exponentially cheaper.
• Plant less squash and zucchini than you think you need, but more broccoli.
• Don’t forget how freakin’ tall okra gets.
• If you want a steady stream of corn, plant it in stages separated by about 2 weeks.  You can plant as late as June if you are willing to water.
• If working with stage-planted corn, or small batches, you really need to pollinate by hand.  Cut a tassel or two off every other day or so and rub it on the silks.
• It is better to harvest corn too early than too late
• After the corn reaches 2′ you can stop weeding, but make sure you weed the first few weeks or it will affect the production.
• Planting two tomato plants per cage doesn’t produce any more.
• Bucket tomatoes (hung upside down) do in fact produce, but not nearly as much (25% or less) of a regular planting.
• Don’t underestimate the weight of a tomato plant — use a cage and a tobacco stick or rebar to support it.
• Broccoli gets bitter after the first cutting or two.
• Okra can grow off the main stalk, so be sure to look carefully.
• It is easier to weed every other day or so than to let things go for a week or more and try to catch up.
• Asparagus takes a year to produce
• You have to plant garlic the autumn before, so plan ahead — we have missed our opportunity each year.
• It is a great experience to do community gardens, but it is less stressful to be able to walk out into your backyard to harvest or weed.

So what about you, what have you learned in your time gardening?

I stepped outside this evening to get something out of my car and was blown away by the dancing beauty of an electrical storm lighting up the night sky.  From my vantage point the cloud-to-cloud lightening was non-stop.  I have no idea how long it had been going on or how long it lasted, but I spent a good 15 minutes mesmerized by the sight.  I did not have a tripod for my still camera, nor our good video camera so I had to settle for the video setting on my point and shoot.  You can certainly get a feel for it, but in real life each strike lit up the entire sky.

One of the top stories in the news this week has been the increased tension surrounding universal health care. (See for instance Health debate turns hostile at meetings.)  The plan being discussed in congress certainly has its problems, but unfortunately we have reached the point where meaningful discussion has transitioned into hyperbolic arguing with emphasis on scare tactics, skewed statistics and atypical anecdotal stories — and that is from both sides.

Sarah Palin

A prime example of this can be found in a statement by Sarah Palin which she posted on her facebook page.  Here is an exerpt:

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

Discussion of health care does involve life and death decisions.  It also involves money.  In our current system money, not human rights and human dignity is the primary consideration.  It takes money to have health care.  The insurance companies are out to make money.  They make more money by charging people more and paying less.

Lets look at some of the charges against a universal plan, and see how they apply to the current system

• Health care will be rationed – People are worried about the government telling them what procedures they can get and where they can get it.  Guess what… that already happens.  Insurance companies dictate which doctors you can go to and which procedures are covered.  Plus, those without health insurance can’t get the procedures at all, so we are rationing for rich.  We may disagree whether health care is a right or a privileged, but I am not comfortable with the deciding factor on who lives and dies being wealthy.  Palin argues the elderly, sick and disabled will be the ones most affected.  The irony is that these groups are the ones who already have the hardest time getting coverage.  Even with a minor pre-existing condition, getting coverage  is very difficult if it is not employer provided.  Again, we see rationing already exists, but the only people who get it are the skilled.
• There will be a bureaucrat standing between you and your doctor – Guess what… there already is.  If you look at the chart designed by the GOP in order to scare people into thinking things are more complicated than they are, you will realize most of the boxes and lines already exist.  We already have government involvement in health care.  Universal health care would not add another layer, it would simply change who you are dealing with.  As it is, the insurance companies stand between you and your doctor and they are motivated to not provide you with service because doing so would cost additional money.



• America has the best health care in the world and that will be lost – This one is all about definitions.  What is undisputed is that America has the most expensive health care.  We pay on average more than double the average of every other developed nation in the world.  However, even after spending that much we still are 17th in the world in terms of life expectancy.  According to the World Health Organization, we are far from having the best system:

The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.

I think there is plenty of room for discussion around this topic, but we first must be honest with the system we have.  America is not plotting new ground here, instead we are following every other developed nation in the world who has chosen to go this path.

…sometimes literally.

By the way… Mikayla’s temperature was normal.

The following is a brief interview with an academic mentor of mine about the God of the Bible and the call for the church today.  Brueggemann says a few things that will be unsettling to some, but I think his points are thought provoking and important.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl0hK3ZTVyc

Walter Brueggemann on the Bible

Here are some of the key quotes in the interview:

• I believe the God of the Bible is implicated in the inherent violence of the Bible.
• I believe the God of the Bible is a recovering agent of violence… it (violence) is always latently there.
• Violence is intrinsic to our inheritance… the question is whether or not we can resist this inheritance.
• The big revelatory moments are characteristically departures from what has been taken for granted.
• There is no final reading to the text — we are always going to be led somewhere else.

Without doubt most Christians are uncomfortable with calling God a recovering practitioner of violence, but without some serious theological gymnastics, it is hard to dispute — The God of the Old Testament used violence to bring about his will.  Let us not get caught up in this non-traditional description of God, but instead grasp the more important points Brueggemann is trying to make:

• The narrative of redemptive history is pointing us in the direction of love where violence is no more.
• Each generation is called to further the restoration of the world.
• We must often fight with the status quo in order to bring about a better world.
• While the next step is not always certain, the direction of the movement is.  We must move away from violence and oppression and towards a world where all things are set right.
• We must be open to God’s will in these matters and be bold in our willingness to act.