Aging usually isn't on people's top ten list of things they want to do, or experience. But as they say, "It's better than the alternative."
Aging comes to us all, great and small. Ancient and wise King Solomon spent a lifetime thinking about what mattered in life. One of his conclusions? "Gray hair is a crown of splendor," (Proverbs 16:31). In other words, he thought advancing age came with some benefits. So do I.
Here's at least one:
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2012
This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
I wrote an article that was just posted this week. It's called Why America Should Revisit Civic Education. I sincerely believe we're going to pay a severe price if we do not resurrect civic education.
Learning about one’s country and what makes it a distinctive nation, learning about this nation’s ideals and achievements past should be a key part of an American youth’s upbringing. And it used to be, but not so much anymore. Yet learning to act like a citizen does not just happen.
Survey after survey demonstrate that each generation of American citizens understand less of what it means to be a citizen, as opposed to simply a subject. We no longer grasp the essentials of republican government, we can’t list president’s names, let alone explain who did what and why it was important. Worse, as a culture we no longer have a clear sense of what it means to be an American, which creates problems for us at home—for example, the immigration issue—and abroad—for example, knowing who and who not to befriend.
Civic education that once played a prominent role in elementary and secondary education needs a transfusion of support and passion. We need to help our youth rediscover the beauty of America’s founding ideals. We need to help them reinvigorate the hope that it is possible to design a government in which free and thinking people can decide what is best and pursue it.
Without this effort, at risk is a nation of, by, and for the people. Without meaningful civic education, at risk long-term is life, liberty, freedom of worship, and the pursuit of happiness.
To me these ideals are too rare and too precious to risk them further. We must teach America’s wonderful heritage. This is not civil religion. It’s civic education for the good of all.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2012
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
It won't be cyborgs or some other-worldly yet-unknown entity that'll overcome us someday. It'll be our "Stuff." It's all the, well, stuff, that we keep, save, forget about, and allow to have birthdays in our over-"stuffed" closets, attics, basements, garages, and temporary storage units out by the interstate.
Comedian George Carlin has gone to his reward, but he's well-remembered for an ingenious riff on "Stuff." Thing is, though, he never looked at stuff other than as things we own that soon own us.
But for some of us who are really "stuffed," holding onto things far past their usefulness is a matter of our worldview. It gets back to what we think about life, things, security, and wellbeing. "Stuff," after all, is a philosophic matter.
Here are a few more thoughts about "Stuff" and what to do with it.
Stuff-overload is something I've called being "suffocated." It's an avoidable malady.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2012
This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
In Memphis April 4, 1968, James Earl Ray assassinated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, unelected but indisputable leader of what today we call the Civil Rights Movement. In Hellhound On His Trail: The Electrifying Account of the Largest Manhunt in American History (Anchor Books, 2010, 2011), Hampton Sides tells the pre and post-assassination story of the strange, smart but disturbed James Earl Ray aka Eric S. Galt aka Harvey Lowmeyer aka John Willard aka Ramon George Sneyd.
Sides writes a quite readable book, a kind of combination biography and historical novel. He digs deep on Ray: the man’s odd flophouse life, prison terms, and seeming creativity in finding ways to escape prison. Sides also uncovers Ray’s racism, a longtime part of his life but interestingly not often blatantly expressed—until he took one minute standing in a dirty bathroom tub to end the life of one the more gifted American orators of the 20th Century.
Conspiracy theories rage on to this day. Just google it and you’ll see. But Sides lays out the overwhelming amount of evidence that points to Ray and concludes without reservation that Ray acted alone.
I was in high school in April 1968. It was a challenging year for America, to say the least. A few months before MLK, Jr succumbed to a bullet, the Tet Offensive was launched in Viet Nam. In March, LBJ said he would not run for a second term as President. A few months after MLK, Jr died, Robert F. Kennedy, RFK, joined him when Sirhan Sirhan took his life in a California hotel June 6, 1968. In August, the Democratic National Convention in Chicago was marred by violent protest. The Counter Culture Movement had not yet reached its zenith. All of this is seared in my memory.
MLK, Jr, was a flawed leader, as Sides doesn’t hesitate to note, but MLK, Jr’s essential message from his most well-known speech continues to resonate: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
If it’s true that racism is not what it once was in the United States, it is also true that it yet exists. So books like this remind us we've yet got work to do.
This book is not “fun” to read because its topic is serious and sad, but I recommend it highly.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2012
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
We know that good people do good things and bad people do bad things. That’s common sense based on experience born out everyday.
So it seems logical to say that leaders with good character will be successful, will choose and achieve (good) goals, and in the end leave positive legacies. It seems equally a no-brainer to conclude that leaders with bad character will be unsuccessful, will choose bad goals, likely will not achieve them, and in the end leave negative legacies.
But reality is not so simple. Truth be told, sometimes leaders evidencing good, even exemplary, character do not choose wisely, do not achieve, are not successful, and leave tarnished legacies. Meanwhile, strange as it may seem, leaders who are “bad people” back and accomplish good goals and eventually leave their leadership role lauded for success.
FDR apparently conducted at least one affair until the day he died; yet he is regarded as one of America’s great presidents. JFK apparently “carried on” in the White House in more ways than one, including with Marilyn Monroe; yet he is remembered for his vision and for his strength in staring down Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
LBJ was a womanizer, and he was arrogant and crude. But LBJ helped enact both the Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts of the mid-1960s, changing race relations for the better at long last and forever. Nixon campaigned as the “Law and Order” candidate, than orchestrated a break-in and cover-up precipitating a constitutional crisis. Finally, the law and order man resigned in disgrace.
Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush are clearly men of deep and abiding Christian faith. They are men of good character. But both, though accomplishing some things, walked away from what many consider failed presidencies.
So people of lesser character sometimes accomplish good to great things and people of higher character sometimes accomplish very little or even falter or fail. Hmmm. Why?
Character is still a predictor. It’s just not alone in its influence. Too many other variables are at work to isolate on character (which the Right and which religious voters tend to do) and use it as our one and only assessment of a leader’s potential.
Another reason character is not in itself a predictor is that leaders are not “all good” or “all bad.” All human beings are made in the image of God; yet all possess a sin nature. We are capable of nobility and ignobility. We are an enigmatic mix of good and evil and, under pressure, in the wrong moment, who knows what will come out?
In addition, to state the obvious, God is sovereign. He works in mysterious ways. The heart of the king is in his hand and God turns it wither he will. Sometimes what we call lack of success or utter failure fits within the plan of God. Sometimes he allows leaders with bad character to flourish, and sometimes God allows leaders of good will to endure hardship. Why? Only God knows.
So it’s possible that a would-be president with multiple divorces and affairs on his record just might turn out to be a good leader. It’s equally possible that a would-be president with an exemplary reputation just might turn out to be a poor president. It’s hard to tell based on our finite assessments of their perceived character—and that’s another consideration: “perceived” character is not always “actual” character. Things are not always what they seem.
Don’t get me wrong. Character matters. But using it as a predictor of leadership success is just not as easy as we might wish.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2012
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.
It's that time of year again. You know, when presidential candidates dash about the country declaring why they and they alone should be elected the next POTUS. (If you've missed this I'm guessing you just got back from Mars.)
One of the resume items candidates most like to cite is their fidelity to God, religious faith, maybe Christianity specifically, or just faith in general. No one, at least no one yet, seems to want to run as an atheist. And there's good reason for this, atheists may vote, but there are not enough of them to fill a good-sized polling booth.
But religious folk? Now that's a different story, at least it still is in America. Something like 98% of us say we believe in God, even those of us who turn around and live like the Devil. And us religious folks vote. So is it any wonder reasoning-if-not-always-reasonable candidates want to align with "people of faith?"
But what does it mean when political candidates claim they "have faith"? And how should we evaluate this claim or respond? That's the subject of this video.>
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2012
*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.