Author Archives: tom

Merry Christmas All

Posted on by
Reply

Last August I wrote that each week I’m writing a homily based on the current readings in the Catholic lectionary. It’s been both rewarding and difficult. I’ve gotten a tremendous amount of positive feedback but I do confess that writing a homily while working a 40 hour week has, at times, been time consuming.

Today is Christmas and I’m posting the homily I wrote. You can find the readings here.

Brief synopsis of the readings: There are four masses for Christmas: Vigil, Midnight, Dawn, and During the Day. I’ve chosen to preach on the readings for the Mass at Midnight, for no other reason that they are my favorite. The first reading from Isaiah uses imagery of light out of darkness. He also speaks of a child being born who will be Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace. The Gospel is from Luke and it is one of the most evocative images. If you’ve ever watched The Charlie Brown Christmas, this is the account Linus gives when on stage.

And now it’s finally arrived: we’ve made it through Black Friday, doorbusters, endless traffic jams at the malls, competition for the hot new gift, and, and, and, the Season of Advent. The Messiah whose coming we have been awaiting is now here. But how can we tell? This newborn baby looks like the rest of us, born in a barn, and with uncertain parentage. Is this Jesus really the Messiah? Wonder Counselor? God Hero? Father Forever? Prince of Peace? I have to tell you, this is a little disappointment. Is this really how God meant to bring his Son into the world? Me, I’d make a bigger entrance.

Well, that’s probably another good reason that I’m not God. It’s been kind of a theme for me, but when we talk about Salvation through Jesus Christ it’s much more than we can imagine. The Jews of Jesus’ time were, frankly, looking for a military leader who would defeat the Romans occupiers.

But God had bigger plans for us. He sent us a Messiah who is much more than a military leader, he sent us Jesus who was both God and Human, both Divine and Corporeal. He sent us a Messiah who could not only bring us the Truth of Salvation, he could also experience and celebrate our own experience.

We can look on this helpless baby, this bundle who cannot walk or talk, as something small and inconsequential. Or we can look at this baby through God’s eyes: as someone who will become the One who conquered death. OK, let’s face it: we all love babies. We love them not for what they can do, but for who they are. We love babies because we love the fact that we can care for those who are helpless and we know they will grow with the potential to do great things. We know that this bundle of joy may one day be an Albert Einstein or a Martin Luther King or a Nelson Mandela. And even if this bundle doesn’t do that, he or she will become a person we will continue to love. He or she will grow up and be a husband or wife, a mother or father, a coworker or entrepreneur. A good friend and neighbor, a confident and good listener. A great bowling partner or copilot. The man or woman who teaches history or soccer, the person who throws the incredible curve or finds a way to finally explain trigonometry.

When I look at Jesus as an infant, I like to think that we get a glimpse of how we all look to God. Only God knows our potential, and let’s face it: we don’t know our own potential, let alone that of others. We are not given that gift.

But we are given the gift to do what this infant in the manger does: we can see hints of the gifts of others. Just as Jesus was able to look at lepers and strangers and the outcast and say “You are just as wonderful as anyone and you belong with us” we can do the same.

When Pope Francis chose to celebrate his 77th birthday with the homeless, I think he understood exactly what Jesus had in mind when He decided to redeem the world. We may look on them as homeless, as those who are there because of their own bad choices, but Pope Francis chose to look on them as exactly the people Jesus did.

When I look on Jesus as an infant, I’m struck by how he needed those around him. Not only Joseph and Mary, who gave him the nutrition and love every human needs, but even the farm animals who gave up their feeding trough so he would have a place to sleep. I look at the shepherds who were consoled by the angel. These were not great men: they were looked down upon because the violated the Sabbath by watching over their flocks by night. They didn’t provide anything physical to Jesus but in their prayers they recognized that much like their lambs, this baby would grow into something they needed. Their humility game them the eyes to see the Truth.

And now, over two thousand years later, we still need to be in that manger scene. We often fool ourselves into thinking that we are self sufficient and that what we have is a result of what we’ve done. We may have done great things, but this night we celebrate that they pale in comparison to what was done long ago and far away. We need to understand again that the thin, reedy voice of an infant blows into our world the very breath of Heaven.

You can read all of the homilies I’ve written for 2013 here. If you wish, I can also email my weekly homily to you. Just drop me an email.

In the meantime let us continue to pray for each other and for peace on earty.

The Justice Chronicles Volume 14, The Money Chronicles Volume 10: Happy Birthday Federal Reserve

Posted on by
Reply

Hallmark missed this, but yesterday was the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Federal Reserve, sometimes abbreviated as the Fed. The Federal Reserve is a confederation of 12 banks located around the country, and they are “the banks of last resort.” In other words, during times when the economy is in recession or doing poorly, banks can borrow money from the Federal Reserve to stay solvent.

This didn’t come out of nowhere. There’s an excellent article at NPR’s Planet Money blog. The article begins with the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906. Insurance companies in England were paying huge claims and so much money was leaving English banks that they clamped down the money flow to American banks. This led to some American banks failing, or not being able to pay their bills. Since there was no FDIC or bank insurance, any money deposited in those banks was lost.

If this wasn’t bad enough, people who had their money in safe banks began to panic and tried to withdraw all their money. This led to bank runs, and eventually to the Panic of 1907. The federal government had no power to do anything, and the panic was ended only when J.P. Morgan gathered other wealthy bankers and put up the money to keep the American economy going.

Senator Nelson Aldrich (R-RI) saw this and realized that panics were become too frequent and we could not depend on the wealthiest people to bail out the entire country. He introduced legislation that year to create the Federal Reserve. It took a while to pass both houses of Congress, but it did and on December 23, 1913 President Wilson signed it into law.

In addition to being the bank of last resort for troubled banks, the Fed also set the interest rate at which they will lend, and this sets the standard for the interest rate banks lend to other banks. During times of inflation the Fed will increase the interest rate to “tighten up” the money supply. During times of recession (as happened in 2008) they will lower interest rates to encourage borrowing.

There are those who oppose the Fed and they do this for two reason. First, they say that the board of governors (who govern the Fed) have too much power. Since they essentially set interest rates for much of the money flow in the country they control too much of what happens in the economy. They also believe that since banks know they will be bailed out, they can be irresponsible. If the banks keep all their profits and don’t have to worry about their losses, they have no reason to be careful.

I understand both of these arguments but in the final analysis I think we’re better off giving the government the flexibility to guide the economy.

The Money Chronicles Volume 9: Whatever Time Warner Calls It, It's Not Customer Service

Posted on by
Reply

Like many households, we get our TV content through cable, namely Time Warner Cable. We’ve been a customer of Time Warner for about 20 years. About 14 years ago we upgraded to a larger channel package, and about 10 years ago we added high speed internet. During that time the price has gone up, but we’ve made no changes in our plan in 10 years.

Last week got a letter that said our “special promotional rate” is ending and our rates will go up about 28%. But…the good news is that because we’ve been such good customers, our increase will be only 21%.

As they say on ESPN, “C’mon man!” Do they really think this is anything more than a 21% increase in our cable bill? Do they really think I’ve been enjoying a temporary promotional rate for 10 years?

We have several options other than Time Warner Cable, but I like the high speed internet and want to keep our email addresses. So the other night I did a live chat. I’m posting it here:

Nyla> Thank you for contacting Time Warner Cable. At the end of our chat you will be given the option of taking a brief sturvey. My name is Nyla and I would be happy to help you. Hi Tom! Let me access your account detaills for the same. Please allow me a moment.

Tom> Thank you Nyla. I currently get both my cable TV and my internet through Time Warner Cable. Right now I pay $96.00 per month for both. If I cancel my TV but keep the high speed internet, how much would that be?

Nyla> I understand your concern. Please allow me a moment. I see that you are having the bundled service at the discounted rates and you are planning to switch to Internet only plan in the near future. I am afraid as I do not see any new offer that can be set up on your account at his moment. However, I found a good deal of $99.99/mo for 12 months promotion. It includes all the three services as of now. I am afraid, I do not have the code to add that promotion and therefore, I am unable to confirm whether your account is eligible for this promotion. If you want I can provide you the phone number to check the eligibility and check other details available for you. Also, please note that currently your account is on extended promotion.

Tom> Yeah, that doesn’t really answer my question. How much would it be for me to get only the high speed internet access and nothing else?

Nyla> The normal rates for this bundled services are $105.99 and you are getting that at a discount of $26.00 effectively making it $79.99. As your services are bundled I cannot get the actual rates.

Tom> Why not?

Nyla> However, you are having the Standard Internet on your account. The normal rates for that alone currently are $54.99. As two services are bundled and therefore they are at discounted rates. I cannot unbundle them to see the individual charges for each.

Tom> Does that mean that if I cancel my TV cable and keep internet access, my monthly bill from you is $54.99?

Nyla> I can help you with the number to see what you might be eligible for. No.

Tom> OK, then what does it mean?

Nyla> I cannot unbundle the services to get just the Internet prices for you. There are different types of bundles available for different areas, different customers according to different plans. Due to restricted system access, I am unable to do that.

Tom> Can you connect me with someone who can?

Nyla> I request you to call the Customer Service at 1-888-892-2253. Sure. Sorry for the typo.

Tom> I’m talking with you from La Jolla, California. Just out of curiosity, where are you?

Nyla> Tom you have to call the above provided number. We are located in Western India.

Tom> OK Nyla, thank you for your time.

Nyla> Again, my name is Nyla. Thank you for chatting with Time Warner Cable. We value you as a customer and are here to assist you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you would like to take a brief survey, please click on “Close” and the survey will load.

Does it appear to anyone else that Nyla isn’t really customer service, but a salesperson?

Direct TV, expect a call from me.

Pope Francis: He's My Person of the Year Too!

Posted on by
Reply

We got word today that Pope Francis has been named Time Magazine’s Person of the Year.

For many of us liberal Catholics, it’s a recognition of the joy we’ve been experiencing since his election on March 13th. I’ve said this before, but we knew things were changing in the Vatican when, after his election, he waved off his limo, got on the bus with the rest of the cardinals and paid his hotel bill.

He hasn’t changed any doctrines and unfortunately affirmed Church teaching on male only priesthood and gay marriage. Those changes will probably have to be made by Francis’ successor.

His dramatic change has come in the public face of the Vatican. After the last two papacies (John Paul II and Benedict XVI) this shift has been dramatic; John Paul and Benedict often acted as if the Church were under siege and must remain pure, even if that led to a Church that was smaller and more out of touch.

Francis has continued the papacy of Blessed John XXIII where the windows have been thrown open and fresh air has blown in. Francis refused to move into the luxurious papal apartment and lives in modest surroundings.

He has repeatedly said we need to shift our focus away from issues of homosexuality, abortion, and birth control and toward how we care for the poor. His pragmatism is refreshing: let us work on things we can change and leave alone those things we can’t, and let us not alienate those who disagree. As one who dissents from church teaching on homosexuality and birth control, I find this refreshing and respectful.

In July he was flying back from Brazil to Rome and was asked about homosexuality. This was his response: “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” He told a group of diplomats that in looking for who to promote to bishop they should look for priests who are “gentle, patient and merciful, animated by inner poverty, the freedom of the Lord and also by outward simplicity and austerity of life.”

My only concern is that he is 76 years old. He needs to start appointing Cardinals who will elect his successor. I pray he keep doing what he’s doing.

The Justice Chronicles Volume 13: Nelson Mandela (1918-2013)

Posted on by
Reply

His death was supposed to be a footnote. It was supposed to be a local story, buried in the inside pages of the paper: Imprisoned Terrorist Nelson Mandela dies in Prison.

It didn’t happen that way. In the days since his death he has made worldwide headlines. Frankly, it was time. He was 95 years old and had been in critical condition since developing a lung infection nearly 6 months ago. He was home but his home was transformed into an intensive care unit.

Mr. Mandela’s life story is largely public and known. After becoming a lawyer in apartheid South Africa he joined the African National Congress. He first embraced the idea of nonviolence in battling apartheid, but later abandoned that and co founded a militant wing called Spear of the Nation. Because of his actions he needed to go underground, but was found and arrested in 1962. Tried and convicted of trying to overthrow the government, he expected to be sentenced to death but instead was sentenced to life in prison.

For the next 27 years he languished in prison. By the 1970s and 1980s he became the public face of the injustice of apartheid, even though there were no pictures taken of him since 1963. His release from prison in 1990 seemed a miracle.

But for me, his release wasn’t the miracle. It’s what happened to him while in prison and how he sculpted post apartheid South Africa. While nobody knew in 1990 how he would spend the rest of his life, many feared he would take the opportunity to exact revenge on those who harmed him. They feared he would respond to injustice with injustice of his own.

He didn’t. After his election as President of South Africa in 1994 he founded the Truth and Reconciliation Committee. He knew that truth must come before reconciliation, and that reconciliation is the only path to true peace. As I think about this, I can’t help but remember Archbishop Tutu’s belief about forgiveness:

Forgiving is not forgetting; its actually remembering–remembering and not using your right to hit back. Its a second chance for a new beginning. And the remembering part is particularly important. Especially if you don’t want to repeat what happened.

His time in prison changed him from someone who advocated violent resistance to someone who saw that revenge only continues the cycle of violence. He loved his nation and that love healed him of his anger toward his captors.

We are all better for it. Much like Gandhi and Martin Luther King before him, he taught us the ferocious power of love and forgiveness. I’m grateful that Mr. Mandela is the only one of the three to not die violently.

For those of us who live on, our mandate is clear: we are called not only to stop tolerating injustice, we are called to forgive those who benefited from it. Once those who create or benefit from injustice are defeated, we must not exact revenge on them. Their sin must be called out, but they must be forgiven. Only then will there be peace.

The Money Chronicles, Volume 8: Reflections on Black Friday

Posted on by
Reply

Today is the day after Thanksgiving, commonly known as “Black Friday.” It’s an important day for many retailers and it’s called Black Friday because it’s the first day of the year many businesses go from being “in the red” (debt) to being “in the black” (profit). It’s no understatement to recognize how much energy they put into making sure as many of us spend as much money as we can.

They use a number of strategies, some obvious, some not so obvious. We’re all familiar with two of them: discounts and expanded hours. If you were willing to get in line early enough you can save money.

But it’s the less than obvious strategies that interest me and they are right under our noses. Some of the media is picking up on this, but at least a few major retailers inflate the price and then discount it to give the appearance of savings. If a flat screen TV set was $300 but today is discounted to $200, was it really ever $300? I think most consumers are so wowed by the idea of saving $100 that they don’t look to see the actual retail price.

In seeing the ads, do you ever notice the phrase “While Supplies Last?” It’s the reason people are willing to stand in line for hours. A limited supply creates several advantages for retailers and I’m amazed at how many of us fall for it. It creates a frenzy that shouts out the voice that asks “Do I really need this?” Instead we wait in line, race down the isle, and grab it before someone else does. We’re already seeing news stories about fistfights in stores as otherwise smart and well meaning people turn into crazed lunatics. And for the people who didn’t get in line early enough and missed out? The retailers know that we aren’t willing to come home empty handed and they have lots of other (and more expensive) merchandise for us to purchase.

A few years ago one on Nancy’s colleagues told me that all conflicts come down to three categories: resources, feelings, and values. These conflicts are born out of scarce (and intentionally created) resources. By telling us that there are only a few products available, they tell us that we have to throw caution and good sense to the wind, and get it now.

So let’s not do that. Let’s do exactly what they don’t want us to do: take a breath, pause, and ask: Is this really worth all the frenzy? Will this make as much sense next June as it does now? Is it possible to be happy by wanting less than having more?

I think it is.

If You're Going to Washington, BYOC (Bring Your Own Courage)

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier this month the government finally reopened, once again within hours of defaulting on the debt limit. I wrote about this a few weeks ago and spoke about the lack of courage from the House Speaker. The deadlock was broken only when a vote was finally called. The House of Representatives voted 285 to 144 (87 Republicans voted to reopen). In the Senate the vote was 81 to 18. Of course this is only valid until January, but I’m sure I’ll be writing more about this later.

The lack of courage I wrote about was brought into clearer focus for me a few weeks ago. I’m currently reading [Woodrow] Wilson by A. Scott Berg. Most of us know him as our 28th President but before that he was president of Princeton University and governor of New Jersey.

In November of 1912 he was elected President. On March 1, 1913 he wrote this to his successor as governor: “The rarest thing in public life is courage, and the man who has courage is marked for distinction; the man who has not is marked for extinction, and deserves submission.”

These past few weeks we’ve found a just how rare courage can be. Congressional republicans find themselves being pulled toward confrontation and away from compromise/progress/responsibility not because they fear being defeated by a democrat in the next election but because they fear being defeated by a more conservative republican in the primary.

In other words, they are putting their own job security above the good of the country. To be fair, they have a point. You can see the latest from Sarah Palin who supports replacing moderate republicans. You may remember Sarah: she ran for Vice President in 2008 and was the candidate who didn’t know that North Korea and South Korea were different nations, and couldn’t name any newspapers in Alaska.

On the other hand, really? Are there no senators or representatives who have enough of a moral compass to put the good of the nation above their own careers?

I write this against the backdrop of someone who died earlier this month: Tom Foley.

Tom died on October 18th. He represented the 5th Congressional district of Washington State from 1965 to 1995 and was Speaker of the House from 1989 to 1995. He was defeated in 1994 by George Nethercutt who ran on a platform of term limits. George argued that Tom’s 30 years in the House jaded him to the point that he was no longer representing his district but had “gone native” in Washington DC; he promised that, if elected, he would only serve 3 terms (6 years). In 2000 he announced that he “changed his mind” and ran again. He ended his House career in 2004 when he ran for Senate and lost.

We would have done better if Tom had won. He could have been the voice of reason

The Obama/Cruz Citizen Throwdown: Chapter 2

Posted on by
Reply

In a recent post I spoke about citizen ship issues with President Obama and Senator Cruz (R-TX).

This doesn’t happen often, but I got a response from someone I don’t know who came across this page. I’m not sure who s/he is, but his/her screen name is “Fuzz T. Was.” I’m not able to enter a dialogue, but Fuzz T. Was makes some interesting points that I hope to accurately summarize.

A person is granted citizenship by two routes: by nature and by naturalization. A naturalized citizen is granted citizenship at some point after his birth and the rules for naturalization are governed by the nation. A natural born citizen is someone for whom citizenship is automatically granted and is beyond dispute.

In the United States a person is a natural born citizen by two routes: “Jus Soli” and “Jus Sanguis.” These are Latin terms and translate to “Law of the Soil” and “Law of the Blood.” A person who is born in the United States (states, territories, and holdings) is granted citizenship by law of the soil. Since President Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a citizen by law of the soil. A person was born outside the United States can still be a citizen if one of his/her parents was born in the United States. This person is not a citizen by law of the soil, but by the law of the blood (ie, your direct blood relative). Senator Cruz is a citizen by law of the blood because even though he was born in Canada, his mother was born in the United States. Both men’s citizenship is beyond dispute.

There is a good short article at FindLaw. If I’m reading this right, you can pass citizenship to your child through law of the blood only if you are a citizen by law of the soil or a naturalized citizen. This prevents someone who isn’t a citizen from tracing back to some ancestor who was born in the U.S. even if it was several generations back. If this is true and if someone like Ted Cruz marries a non US citizen, their children wouldn’t be citizens if they are not born in the U.S.

Fuzz T. Was, thank you for giving me the chance to think more about this.

Government Shutdown Day 11: Can We Get Some Adults In the Conversation?

Posted on by
1

Since my post last week, the only thing that appears to have happened is that the concrete encasing progress has gotten harder. There is no shortage of moving parts in this drama, but allow me to focus on one issue: why Speaker Boehner won’t allow a vote on reopening the government. Earlier in the week President Obama suggested that there were enough votes in the House of Representatives to end the budget standoff. Two days ago, on October 9th, CNN agreed with this. They reported that all 200 Democrats and 19 Republicans would vote to reopen the government without conditions. That’s a simple majority and would allow the Senate to pass it and President Obama to sign it.

But the speaker won’t call a vote. Why not? OK, I can’t read the heart of another person and I’m hesitant to assign motives without knowing the reason, but let me suggest this: Speaker Boehner won’t call a vote because he knows it will reopen the government and cost him his role as Speaker of the House. There is good reason to believe that if the government reopens because of this vote, there will be enough Republicans angry with him that they will replace him as speaker.

Really? This is all about one man afraid to lose his position? And not even his job? No matter what happens he will remain the representative of Ohio’s 8th Congressional District. If he loses his position as speaker he will lose a sweet office and lots of prestige, but nothing else.

I write this against the backdrop of tragic news: On October 6th, San Diego (and all of us) lost Captain Jennifer Moreno, a soldier who was killed in Afghanistan.

Jennifer embodied the best of what it means to be an American. She chose both nursing and the United States Army because she wanted to serve. When she joined the army she (and everyone she loved) knew this day may happen despite their fervent prayers.

What nobody expected was that the $100,000 death benefit promised to her family would be delayed because of the government shutdown. Normally the family receives this benefit within 36 hours to allow them enough money to travel to Dover, Delaware to claim, transport, and bury their loved one. Fortunately Fisher House, a charity that supports military families, will cover the expenses.

Meanwhile, the government continues to be shut down because a guy from Ohio is afraid to lose his title.

President Obama and Senator Cruz: Bet You Didn't See This Coming

Posted on by
2

I’m writing this at 5:30PM (Pacific Time) on October 8, 2013. I just googled “Barack Obama Ted Cruz” and got 112,000,000 hits. This doesn’t surprise me, but yesterday I found a common link that is still making me laughing.

I podcast Fresh Air on National Public Radio. I’m addicted because I find the interviews smart, interesting, and informative. Yesterday I listened to the podcast from October 1st where Chris Matthews was interviewed; he was plugging his book Tip and the Gipper: When Politics Worked.

Chris worked for Tip O’Neill in the early 1980s and it’s not hard to assume his political leanings. But in his interview he made a point that I’m still thinking about.

A scary percentage of the population thinks that President Obama shouldn’t be President because he was born in Kenya. They are often called birthers and claim that since he wasn’t born in America he can’t be President.

And yet they put their blinders on and support Ted Cruz. Ted was born on December 22, 1970 in Alberta, Canada. His mother was born in the United States and his father was born in Cuba.

Is he eligible to be President? Good question. Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution says this: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Persons be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

In other words, nobody who has been a naturalized citizen (e.g. Henry Kissinger or Arnold Schwarzenegger) can be President, no matter how popular they may be.

But who is a “natural born citizen?” Ted Cruz can argue (and I agree with him) that he is an American citizen by virtue of being born to a mother who was born in the United States. This allows citizenship to children of military parents who serve us overseas, or parents in the diplomatic corps. This prevents Americans who serve us in other countries to have to dash home while in labor only to allow their children the privileges the rest of us take for granted.

So here’s the rub: While nobody with a brain accepts the charges of The Donald or the rest of the birthers, we don’t have to. If Ted Cruz can be President because his mother was born here, President Obama is a legitimate President because his mother was born in Kansas. Even if you don’t believe that President Obama was born in Hawaii.