Christmas 2008

Sitting in the presence of one of my granddaughters, I cannot help but consider the changes within me during the last several years. Consider the times from childhood until sometime during my seminary education (surely, at least four years into the eight years), I went into Christmas season with images consistent with my childhood. Then, I found out that the biblical stories associated with Christmas were essentially myths, i.e., literary devices designed to convey some religious truth, not history. That was quite a change but I could accommodate this transition without sacrificing my integrity.

However, during the last several years I have come to a realization that religion, per se, is problematic. Whatever good is accomplished is outweighed by the disastrous history of bigotry, violence, and, a general disregard for truth. The inability to come to terms with facts contrary with reality is a grave concern to me. For an organization that is based on the history of God’s intervention in time, it is impossible for me to understand how the Church will act as though God stopped his intervention. The Church acts as though God does not intervene any longer.

So, here I am somewhat sad that the emotions that used to be attached to Christmas are no longer present. In its place, I have the image of my family that demonstrates love. I am now the object of love and, in turn, I can hold babies who love unconditionally. I never was involved in the material aspects associated with the modern celebrations of Christmas. In its place, I have loving adults and children and animals. It is more than one could deserve. I surely recognize the beauty of Christmas each day of the year.

"The Limits of Power" by Andrew Bacevich

Andrew Bacevich has become a hero to me! I take some pride that he lives in Walpole and teaches at Boston University, but he is distinguished by his realism and common sense that flows from the writings of Reinhold Niebuhr. “The Limits of Power” is an extraordinarily succinct articulation of the pitfalls of our current (and recent past) military interventions with the recognition that the American public has got what it wanted because they avoided doing what was necessary.

Bacevich portrays the steady and relentless pursuit of executive governmental power as the price the American public was willing to pay so that they could continue living out the dream of selfish consumerism. The privileges of “freedom” were commensurate with our being capable of sustaining a life-style without moderation or, surely, sacrifice. We allowed the government and military to expand its scope in the name of extending freedom to others without seeing the real purposes of extended hegemony designed to ensure “our way of life”.

When focusing on the military itself, he starts from the premise that no war ever works out as planned. Surely, this was evident in our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. What was supposed to be a quick overthrow of Hussein as a pathway to seeing democracy flourish, we saw extended years and deaths precipitated not by commensurate force but by the small but effective IEDs. We used no knowledge of the politics and history of the countries we invaded to think clearly about what would happen next.

Bacevich never sees the ideal since it does not and will not exist. He knows that any government will be limited by necessity. While recognizing the truth embedded in the Just War Theory, war must remain a defensive strategy of last resort. For our government to do better, the American public needs to reconsider its role. We have to become citizens who are willing to live within a world that is threatened by its own misuse of fossil fuels and other scarce resources. We have to ameliorate our desires to avoid interventions designed to secure our perceived needs.

What to do in Afghanistan?

Our new leader has more than enough problems to confront that it is hard to zero in on any one of them. However, Afghanistan is crucial because he has assigned a priority to the nation.

In general, I understand why he would focus on the problems in the area. The entire area of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India represents a potential collective black hole where all energy will be sucked in. On the other hand, it could well emerge into conflagration which would not be a pretty picture for anyone. So, it is a problem that has to be dealt with.

Admittedly, it would have been so much easier to have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11 with a police-type intervention, viz., some people committed an atrocity and justice required their capture and trial. However, our current leader saw much more! He saw a war on terrorism that would ultimately take us into the orbit of converting the Islamic world into democratic nations embodying much of our culture. Now, we have another problem! We have made matters even more complicated because of the corrupt government we supported and the energized Taliban who have been strengthened by the anger felt by many Afghans.

In addition, we have currently a conflict that is destroying our military. While I feel strongly that our military should be judged by our standards and values, I can understand how frustration and resentment can result in actions contrary to those standards. What a situation to place military in! Stick them in a zone where they are confronted not by another nation's military where more or less conventional warfare exists, but rather insurgents whose aims and goals are facilitated by the very people our military is trying to help!

I am convinced that our stated goals for a stable Afghanistan that is ruled by laws and embodying at least some semblance of democratic values are doomed. The Afghans are simply living in "world" too distant from such aspirations. I can see a goal of capturing the leaders of AlQueda. I can see the destruction of training areas for the AlQueda. But, I am less convinced that we can rid the nation of the Taliban or convince people to grow conventional crops rather than poppy unless a very strong leader, e.g., a dictator, emerges, hopefully with benign qualities.

Return to Normalcy!

For the past two weeks, my wife (really hate using a possessive pronoun referencing the person I love, but there does not seem to be another way to express the relationship succinctly) has been extending her medical skills to Haitians who live and work in the Bateys in the Dominican Republic and also in Haiti, itself. For her, she shared that the trip was successful, i.e., they saw many people who came to their clinics, and their services were appreciated.

For me, it was a time to be alone (albeit, with dogs), but by the end of the two weeks, I missed her presence. While we no longer have to deal with major issues associated either with our work lives or our children who have emerged into their existence as parents who will have to their share of worrying, we do share a lot, especially humor. My humor is not in the form of jokes but a commentary over events. I either hit a funny bone at the right moment or it is missed. I cannot create the humor when talking about some past event.

I treasure our friendship. It has never gotten old. I know that few would accept me as I am as genuinely as she does. I appreciate that it is easier for me to welcome her into my existence than vice-versa. She is virtually a saint. My flaws are quite visible and it does take energy and ego to accept them as a price of experiencing the plus sides of my personhood.

From a practical perspective, I know that taking care of a baby by mself is not something that I could do routinely. I attribute my weakness to age, but regardless of the reason, it is much more possible when there are two of us present and I represent the "helper" while her grandmother is the principal care keeper!

We are back to normalcy! and it feels good, very good!

"The Chain of Blame" by Paul Muolo & Matthew Padilla

“The Chain of Blame” is a thrilling account of multiple aspects of the financial crisis associated with mortgages. Admittedly, I am still a neophyte trying to understand the various “financial instruments” that have been used during the last three decades. It is hard to believe that securitizing mortgages into bonds was “invented” in the 1970’s by Lew Ranieri. Over time, investments became more sophisticated through Collateralized Debt Obligations and Credit Default Swaps. Needless to say, reading such a book does not make one an expert.

However, I have some observations:

(1) I could never have survived the mortgage business model that surfaced when the brokers were no longer generally attached to banks and when mortgages were securitized. The incredible pressure to sustain the model, i.e., getting mortgages as fast as possible on whatever terms could be underwritten in order to secure funding associated with the securitization of the mortgages, made many, many very, very rich, but the price was extraordinary. It takes a different type of person than I am to do this type of work.

(2) It is amazing how one change tends to lead to another, and then another. After mortgages were securitized, then the next step materialized, the Collateralized Debt Obligations, and then, the Credit Default Swaps. And as these instruments developed, rules were changed to facilitate more and more mortgages (including refinancing).

(3) It seemed that the right hand did not want to “know” what the left hand was doing. Mortgage originators had their work reviewed by organizations checking on compliance with the rules. However, the major lenders (investment banks) were not checking on whether the work of underwriting was correct.

(4) As usual, when the mortgage industry started to fail due principally to the subprime mortgages, blame was readily assigned but seldom accepted.