When Getting By Isn't Good Enough

Just when we begin to think that a fat bank account, powerful friends, and smart lawyers are all it takes to tip the scales of Justice, the recent arrest of cinema darling Roman Polanski (pictured) reminds us that even in this life, while you may get-by, you don't always get-away.

Polanski, 76, who directed such critically acclaimed movies as "Chinatown" (1974), and "The Pianist" (2002), was arrested in Switzerland over the weekend at the request of law enforcement authorities in Los Angeles, California, who had a 31-year old warrant for Polanski's arrest. Polanski, convicted in 1977 of having sex with a 13-year old girl, fled California for Europe prior to his sentencing for the crime; and had successfully avoided countries that might extradite him to the United States -- until last weekend.

There is no excuse for any of Polanski's actions. Not his flight from justice. Not his crime against a 13-year old child.

Most difficult of all to swallow is the rising chorus of voices calling for his immediate absolution because (1) his crimes were committed such a long time ago; and (2) he's had such a remarkable career in the 30-plus years since his conviction, which ought to count for something -- like a "get out of jail free" card.

Trying to argue for accountability, fairness, justice, and the rule of law with the folks who are pulling for Polanski's immediate release is, I think, a futile endeavor. The sad part is this: There are a lot of people in our society who think as they do.

However, the encouraging part in this long, painful story is that there are times when even the rich and powerful are called to answer for their crimes, no matter how long they've managed to get-by.

An Antidote for Narcissism

Recent news of a former professional acquaintance who -- much to the consternation of his colleagues -- was apparently scheming to stay-on in his current job beyond his normal tenure, reminded me of another all too human proclivity: Narcissism.

Narcissus, according to both Greek and Roman mythology, was a handsome but vain young man who spurned all who loved him, and upon seeing his reflection for the first time, fell in love with himself; the tragedy, of course, being that he could see but never touch the object of his affection.

Today, we usually regard persons as narcissistic if they are vain or seem to love themselves more than all others.

I must confess to having given in to narcissistic tendencies, as we see all too often with the leader who schemes for another term in office -- the constitution be damned; the aging athlete who fears life's prospects apart from adoring fans; or the senior military officer who cannot imagine life without the military, even as the military has decided that it will do just fine without him.

In the Book of Ecclesiastes, its writer says that there is a time and a purpose for everything under heaven. Some transitions -- such as job promotions, weddings, the birth of children, and new prospects in exciting places -- are greeted eagerly. Other transitions -- such as the inconveniences of aging, forced career changes, or even the departure of adult children to situations and locations that are strange and distant -- are greeted less eagerly. Yet, both kinds of transitions are a part of the "deal." The more narcissistic we are, the more we want to avoid the unpleasant bits, and keep the sweetest parts of the deal to ourselves.

In my former colleague's case, I suspect that he had developed special relationships and knowledge in his current assignment that would be of special value to his current and future bosses. The military is a particularly risky place to advance this line of reasoning in the pursuit of job longevity, since it is an article of faith in the better military forces of the world that all persons are replaceable. Or, as the late French General Charles de Gaulle said: "The cemeteries of the world are filled with indispensable men."

The Scriptures can help us avoid narcissism which, if the truth be told, irritates everyone except the person who is captivated by his or her own virtues, value, or abilities.

The Bible tells the follower of Jesus that he or she ought to look out for the interests of others as one looks out for one's own interests. (Philippians 2: 4) Many times, when we've stayed "in the chair" beyond our time, it robs someone coming along behind us of the opportunity to learn as we've learned because we're occupying the spot! Looking out for the interests of others means doing for others as we would have others to do for us -- and that includes stepping aside. (Matthew 7: 12)

In a less direct way -- through the lives of others -- the Bible also reminds us that what we sometimes regard as negative experiences are frequently the "training" we need for other "jobs" and "assignments" in one's life and career.

Consider the life of Moses, who had risen high in the ranks of Egyptian leadership before fleeing a murder accusation to the backside of the desert to tend sheep for 40 years which, at the time, must have seemed to Moses like the end of the end to a very promising career. As is often the case when our careful planning seems to go awry, God was just getting started. A wilderness apprenticeship was precisely the training Moses would need to lead God's little flock -- the Children of Israel -- in the wilderness following the Exodus.

The epilogue to the Exodus story is that Moses did not live to enter the Promised Land because the work the Lord had given Moses was finished. The Lord God chose the protege of Moses, Joshua, to lead the Children of Israel across the Jordan River into the Promised Land.

What if you and I aspired to be like Moses: A person who accepted both the sweet and the bitter of life with equal grace; who refused to sulk when reversed; and who easily yielded the stage to Joshua, a person whose interests he had guarded as carefully as his own?

If we dared to try, it would transform us for better; and it would gladden the heart of God.

Art Credit: Narcissus by Caravaggio

The Perceptions of the Professor, the Policeman, and the President

One of my least favorite popular phrases is, "Perception is reality." Nothing is farther from truth, as is definitively shown through the recent tempest surrounding the arrest of noted Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (pictured).

As you may remember, Gates -- who is black -- was arrested by a white police officer in front of his Cambridge, Massachusetts residence for disorderly conduct. Gates, it seems, was upset with the police officer for alleged "racial profiling" in his investigation of a 911 call from one of Gates' neighbors that two men were forcing the front door of Gates' house. Gates perceived that he was being investigated because of his race. He is a black man in a predominantly white neighborhood.

The officer, a police sergeant with an exemplary service record, says that he was just doing his job in ensuring that Gates was the rightful occupant of the house as the indignant professor vociferously questioned the sergeant's motives. The sergeant says that he told Gates that he was risking arrest because of his conduct, and when the professor persisted, he was arrested.

The President, who during his election campaign noted that he had sometimes found it difficult to hail a cab in some cities because of cab drivers' perception that they are at a greater risk of being robbed by a black passenger than one who is not black, weighed in by saying that the Cambridge police had "acted stupidly" in arresting Gates, and fanned the embers back into flames.

So, today, the President will host the professor and the policeman at a picnic table at the White House and, over beers, try to redeem the situation. Which brings me back to my least favorite popular phrase.

Yes, our perceptions do frame our own peculiar realities, but that is not Reality, as in the truth.
The professor, understandably perhaps, based on his research and experience, thought that what was happening was a textbook case of discrimination based on race. It was not. Gates' neighbor saw two strange men entering a house by force and did what any good neighbor should do: Call the police.

The policeman perceived Gates as an angry, abusive citizen, perhaps not unlike many other citizens he's encountered in his law enforcement career, and he had his own textbook response for the professor's behavior: Arrest. In retrospect, perhaps the sergeant would have rather talked-down the professor in Cambridge and saved the trip to Washington, D. C. for another time.

The President perceived that the policeman had not used his best judgment by arresting Gates. Not having been there, perhaps the President's perception was the worst of the three. But that did not stop him from offering an opinion framed by his own experiences and, perhaps his personal acquaintance with Professor Gates. He apologized for his public remarks, and hopes to do a little fence-mending of his own today at the picnic table.

Is perception reality? Clearly not. Perception is perception. Reality is reality. We all use what we have and what we know to make sense of our world and the situations in which we find ourselves. But we should resist the temptation to measure others with our limited -- and often inaccurate -- yardstick.

The antidote to erroneous judgments based on limited vision (remember: to "perceive" means to "see") is humility and an even-handed approach to all situations and all people -- particularly those whom we suspect are not our champions. If we acted in such a manner, we would be amazed at how pitifully limited our perceptions are, and how magnificently broad is Reality.

NIMBY at Work in Proposed National Health Insurance Plan

The phrase, "Not in my back yard" (a. k. a. NIMBY), is commonly used to identify an attitude of individual benefit at the expense of someone else.

One need not wait long to see this attitude displayed. For example, while many folks are eager to close detention camps, such as the one in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, few are willing to have Guantanamo detainees imprisoned in their home state. NIMBY.

The financing of universal health care coverage for Americans is the latest example of NIMBY. According to recent news reports, a couple earning more than $350,000 a year would suffer a surcharge amounting to between 1 percent and 5.4 percent of their income to raise funds for the health care plan. It is estimated that this plan would affect approximately 1.2 percent of all households, and would raise one-half of what would be needed to fund the scheme, with the other half coming from savings in Medicare and other health care programs.

I don't think much of this idea, and it is not because my wife and I earn more than $350,000 a year. We don't. I resist this idea because it requires only 1.2 percent of the population to contribute to a benefit received by the remaining 98.8 percent of the nation.

One definition of fairness is whether -- all things being equal -- you would continue to like a particular idea if the roles were reversed. In this case, government proposes to take more from one, small, segment of the population for no apparent reason other than it has the political and legislative muscle to do so without a fight from its victim. On the street, that is called "strong-arm robbery," and it is as illegal as it is morally wrong.

I do not mind paying taxes, whether of the general variety, such as income taxes, which support a variety of programs for our corporate benefit; or the specific variety, such as gasoline taxes, which go toward road maintenance and are more or less tied to how much one uses the streets and highways. "Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. . ."

What I see in the proposed plan is an attempt to pass a greater share of the cost of of a general benefit -- in this case, universal health care -- on to a sliver of the citizenry presumed to be more able to carry the load. For the higher tariff, I don't think that those who pay more will receive a greater benefit or more generous amenities, such as a priority line for medical appointments or expedited prescription drug refills. Nope. They will receive the same level of service that 98.8 percent of their fellow-citizens receive, except they will pay more for it.

In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus talked about fairness in a maxim we today call "the Golden Rule": "Do unto others as you would have others do to you." (Matthew 7: 12a)

Selecting a burden for others that we ourselves would not willingly bear may, by act of the Congress, be legal, but it can never be right.

A Father's Day Letter to My Mother

Dear Mom,

Thank you for marrying Daddy.

It's not that you need me to thank you for more than 50 years of marriage (see photo from Golden Wedding anniversary reception in 1994) and six children (all of whom are living productive, independent, lives), but for all of the times I wanted to say it -- and didn't; and for all of the times I should have said it -- and wouldn't: Thank you for marrying Daddy.

It has been 10 years this past January that Daddy died with you at his bedside holding his hand. Since then, I have been acutely conscious of the greatness of the man you called by his first and middle initials: "L. C."

Based on what we see and hear these days, it seems that the average man is clueless as to what it means to be a real man. A few years ago, I was given a book -- written by a Colorado Springs "mountain man" -- that had become a bible in many gatherings of Christian men. No doubt, the writer was being handsomely remunerated for helping hundreds of middle-age "boys" to man-up. I just couldn't take seriously the writer -- or his writings. You see, I had been there, when I really was a boy.

A boy's perspective is a peculiar one. Everything seems too large to grasp, while at the same time strangely achievable. I first began to see the world from the front seat of Daddy's car.

He took me with him on errands, and on home visits to shut-in members of the church he served as pastor. He was my primary source for answers to my questions about the what and why of things I had heard or seen in those car rides.

I was his frequently reluctant partner in home building projects, my first being the erection of a swing set in the back yard of the parsonage in Hutchinson, Kansas. He also was like Moses (more the lawgiver than the wilderness guide in this example), who promised death (or, more accurately, the wish that one were dead) for lying, stealing, insubordination, and poor school grades.

Mark Twain once said that when he was a teenager, his father was the most ignorant man on earth. But when Twain became a young man in his early twenties, he was amazed at how wise his father had become in only a few years.

Like Twain, I am exceedingly grateful that Daddy lived long enough for me to realize how wise he had been all along; and for the opportunity to draw on that wisdom as I made my way in the world. I know that not all boys grow up in homes with their fathers. Death, divorce; or as is commonly the case today, unwed motherhood paired with absentee fatherhood, have created a situation that psychologists, pundits, and pastors work tirelessly to remedy.

As a man, I can see many things that I could not appreciate while a boy. First, Daddy loved you very much. I never heard him say an unkind word about you, and heaven help anyone who did. Second, Daddy was serious about his faith in Jesus. This is not to say that he lived perfectly, but he was unwilling to ignore or to change the standard, even when by the standard he had fallen short. Third, he was serious about "raising" his two sons into men.

In the Bible, it says that "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." (Proverbs 27: 17) Yes, Daddy was often as hard as granite, and as unyielding as iron, but it was not without its benefit. Because of him, I know the value of honesty; the cost of freedom; the necessity of family; the benefit of a prepared mind; and the all-sufficiency of God.

And as the icing on the cake, because of him I know how to safely handle firearms, catch a fish, defend myself with my hands, cry when moved, and shave with a straight-edge razor.

As cool as all of this may be, it started with you. Thanks for saying yes to "L. C." Thanks for marrying my Daddy!

Love,
CHUCKY

A Test of Principle: Slot Machines at the Mall

The 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant's gift to Western Civilization was a way to test the strength of one's moral beliefs.

One of Kant's "Categorial Imperatives" is to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” In other words, do to others only as you would have it done to you.

Through a twist of circumstance, some folks in the northern part of my county (Maryland's Anne Arundel County) are enduring the Philosopher's test vis-a-vis the possibility of slot machines being placed in a nearby shopping mall. (Click here to read the newspaper article.)

In a referendum last November, Maryland voters approved the placement of slot machines. It is reasonable to assume that many of those who voted "yes" might have voted "no" had they known the gambling devices would be installed at a shopping mall instead of a track for horse racing. The assumption, which proponents of gambling generally deny, is that slot machine parlors are the thin edge of the wedge for more coarse forms of entertainment, such as prostitution and strip clubs; and a clientele that is more transitory and sketchy than the current patrons at the popular mall.

Through a series of happenings that turned the slot machine plan on its head, the favored horse racing venues -- having financial problems of their own -- failed to post the money required to get a shot at the slots, which opened the door to the long-shot: The shopping mall, which is now in line to receive the lion's share of the machines the law permitted, because few other venues qualify.

There are, of course, the voters -- I mean, the neighbors -- who reportedly feel as if they are the victim of a "bait-and-switch," which they are. Had they thought a slot machine operation could show-up in their neighborhood, they likely would have voted against the proposition in last fall's referendum. Who knew?

That is the point. Maxims, rules, laws, commandments -- if we follow or obey them -- save us from having to live under our own bad decisions.

Long before I became acquainted with Immanuel Kant, I was taught a similar maxim: The Golden Rule, which says, "Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you."

It works, even today. You just never know when the casino you thought was a great idea, when you thought it was headed to the next county, will be breaking ground at the neighborhood shopping mall.

Professor Michael Phelps?

He may not be coming to a classroom near you any time soon, but Olympic champion Michael Phelps' continuing string of embarrassing, public -- and illegal -- behaviors brings to mind a quote attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt: "Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make all of them yourself."

No one should derive joy from the troubles of the 23-year old swimmer. He has been blessed with extraordinary athletic abilities, and he has put in the time and energy required to capitalize on those abilities. The result: A record eight gold medals in the 2008 Olympic Games and, as of this writing, seven world records in swimming.

Nor should we excuse his offenses -- which include underage drinking, and driving under the influence (2004); and his admission to having used marijuana after a British tabloid recently published a photograph of Phelps with his mouth on a bong (a water pipe).

What we can do is to learn from the mistake -- yes, mistake (singular) -- of Professor Phelps.

Phelps' critical error is in thinking that he is a common guy. He is not.

Most people are not widely known outside of their immediate circle of friends. He is. Most people -- let alone 23-year old people -- do not earn $5 million a year. He does. By any measure, Michael Phelps has been given much, but has failed to understand an axiom grasped by others, both prominent and obscure: "To whom much is given, much is required."

You may not be a Bill Gates, but you can use your financial power -- as he has -- to relieve the suffering of others. You may not be a Paul Newman, but you can use your influence -- as the late actor did through his food company, "Newman's Own" -- to champion support for worthy causes.

All of us have squandered blessings that we've received because we've wanted to appear to be the common guy. (Don't get me wrong, it feels good to be special. And the advertisers and marketers play to this desire in us.) But, being the one gifted one is often inconvenient. Sometimes, it makes other people uncomfortable. Sometimes, it means that others want us to "perform." As a result, we are tempted to ignore the fact that it is these blessings that distinguish us from others; and provide us opportunities for good and for God.

Professor Phelps provides a good reminder. Let's hope that the next time we hear from the young professor, he isn't "Exhibit A."

A Ray of Hope from the Oval Office

Buried in yesterday's stories about the withdrawal of Thomas Daschle as President Barack Obama's nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the withdrawal of Nancy Killefer from consideration for the newly-created Chief Performance Officer position, was something you don't normally see when things go sideways: Someone admitting that they had made the mistake.

Usually, when things go wrong in government, the military, or in business circles, about the closest we get to someone -- anyone -- owning-up is the statement: "Mistakes were made." It is more an acknowledgement of the obvious than the acceptance of responsibility.

But yesterday, for all the world to hear, President Obama admitted that he had made a mistake in nominating two persons with serious federal income tax issues for high government positions. (Click here for the full article.)

"Did I screw up in this situation? Absolutely. I'm willing to take my lumps," the President told NBC's Brian Williams, in a television interview that aired on Tuesday.

The candidate of hope has given America reason to hope that its leaders will not only be as accountable to the law as the rest of us, but that when things go awry -- as they will from time to time -- the person responsible will own-up.

Beyond the "Year of the Black Man"

This has been a very good year for the American black man.

One year ago, Tony Dungy coached the Indianapolis Colts football team to victory in the Super Bowl, becoming the first American of African descent to achieve such a distinction.

Of course, we all know of Barack Obama's numerous achievements on his way to becoming the first African-American elected President of the United States.

Last weekend, Michael Steele became the first American of African descent to be elected to the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee.

A glance at the past reveals a history that has not been as bright for us as tomorrow appears. Today, black men are as under-represented in the college classroom as we are over-represented in prison and jail populations. Overcoming decades of excuses, neglect, poverty, and social dysfunction will likely take unrelenting progress totaling decades more; but it seems we're nearing a tipping point. That is good news, indeed!

However, our goal needs to be reset to a point beyond the "year of the black man." Imagine a society where a black man is not only the President of the United States, but where a white man is the chairman or the president of the NAACP. Imagine a society where men are as interested in the rights of women as women. Imagine a society where the banner of equality is championed by the enfranchised, not primarily by the disenfranchised, as is commonly the case.

Ahead and beyond is a time and place where we will no longer wait for the "first," and we will no longer see the need to maintain a tally.

The past 12 months have been good for the American black man, but this year is over, and there is more work to be done in the future for the poor, the weak, the marginalized, and the disenfranchised. Having just received a boost-up is a great time to offer a hand-down.

Too "Big" to Fail; Too "Good" to Overlook?

If you remember the discussions late last year about whether it was necessary to "bail-out" failing private companies with public money, you also probably remember hearing some public officials and pundits saying that it was in the public interest to save these private corporations because those corporations were "too big to fail." The idea is that if some, select, large, banks, automobile manufacturers, and stock brokerage houses -- pillars of the national economy -- are allowed to suffer the full consequences of their poor financial decisions, the national economy, as we know it, would cease to exist.

Yesterday, we were confronted with the personal equivalent of the the corporate "bail-out": Too good to overlook. We see this dynamic at work in the case of Health and Human Service Secretary designate Thomas A. Daschle who, it was reported, failed to pay more than $128k in taxes over three years for "unreported consulting fees, questionable charitable contributions, and a car and driver provided by a private equity firm. . ." (Click here for the full article in The Washington Post.)

He "is the best person to help reform health care in this country, " said a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid. In other words, he's too good to overlook.

Mr. Daschle is not the first of President Barack Obama's nominees for cabinet-level positions to own up, belatedly, to having unpaid federal income tax obligations. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner was in Mr. Daschle's place only a few weeks ago, when it was revealed that he owed more than $43k in unpaid federal tax and interest on the amout owed. (Click here for the full article in The New York Times.) Concerns about the incongruity of the nation's senior tax collector (since the Internal Revenue Service is under the Treasury Department) being less than circumspect about his own taxes were soon resolved, in some degree because, as the White House Press Secretary said: Geithner is the “right person to help lead our economic recovery during these challenging times.” In other words, he's too good to overlook.

The idea of something being too big to fail; or of someone being too good to overlook ought to make all of us uneasy, because such views imply that the rules that generally apply to others, do not specifically apply to me. It would seem that such attitudes have largely contributed to -- and perpetuated -- our foundering financial, economic, political, and moral states.

I think that there is an antidote to the "2big/2good" view: Humility and equity.

Humility requires that we repudiate the intoxicating thought that some rules don't apply to us because we're too wise, successful, or strong. Humility requires that we readily admit that we haven't always been square in our public and personal dealings, and resolve -- daily -- to live according to the highest standard.

Equity (fairness) requires that we continually ask: "If it's good enough for me, why is it not good enough for others?" Equity requires that if we do not like the answer to the previous question, that we commit our energy to balancing the scales.