to the stars

“I’m wearing out. But what is man put on the earth for if not to wear out?”

-Thomas Mann, Buddenbrooks

I am exhausted and I am blessed. I work a full time job, I have a two year old, and a pregnant wife. Between working our jobs, taking care of our daughter, doing the normal household tasks of shopping, cooking, cleaning, and lately preparing a space in our home for an infant, my wife and I are lucky to have an hour or two of down-time together. I am exhausted and I am blessed. But we are more than just busy, we are stressed. Two year olds don’t seem to sleep through the night that well, figuring out how we’re supposed to balance care for two kids instead of one, figuring out what kind of child-care we need/can afford, trying to figure out our new work/life balance before it’s forced on us in the coming year, figuring out how we’re supposed to afford all of it. I am exhausted and I am blessed. Despite this, I know that others face greater challenges than we do. We are blessed to have the support of family. Not everyone has that. We are blessed to be a couple payments away from owning our vehicles. Not everyone gets that chance. We are blessed to be homeowners locked into an affordable house-payment. Not everyone is in that position. My wife and I are blessed to both have salaried, full-time jobs. Not everyone can find a livable wage with one job. We are blessed to have our child and blessed to welcome another. In our experience, not everyone can get pregnant without medical intervention. Not everyone can afford such interventions. And, on the other end, not everyone bringing a child into the world asked to be pregnant or is prepared to be a parent. I know that I am blessed, I am lucky, and in having these things, I am privileged. But it is still exhausting.

And that’s how it was until the election results came in. I am still blessed, I am still exhausted. Those things don’t change based on who sits in an oval office. But now I am also worried. In this too I realize that others face greater challenges than I do. I have concerns that what the new administration has promised will negatively impact me, personally, as a citizen of this country. Note that I am a white, Christian, property owner who pays my bills and credit cards on time. I’m a good little member of this capitalist system. I am also a Licensed Professional Counselor for a local nonprofit that works with at-risk youth. I have student loans and, as an employee of a qualified nonprofit, I am enrolled in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. I also qualify for reduced payments under an Income-Driven Repayment Plan because, despite what I mentioned above how I’m blessed to have a salaried full-time job, therapists that work for nonprofits don’t get paid that much. Based on what the incoming administration has said and made clear in their agenda, I have no confidence that they will honor PSLF or the IDR plans. People have mixed opinions about student loan forgiveness but to take it away would be a major blow to myself and millions of others and would be pretty hypocritical from a president that has filed for bankruptcy 6 times. For myself, when I was considering my future in high school and college I was always drawn to teaching and helping professions. Knowing that PSLF existed and it could help pay the cost of my schooling in exchange for public service was a big factor in my decision to pursue teaching (which then shifted to counseling).

I also have no confidence that they will prioritize funding mental health services as they look to drastically slash the federal budget. They reportedly have grand plans to get rid of the department of education. I don’t want to imagine how that along with stripping protections for minority and LGBTQ+ youth will impact my clients over the next few years. And there will clearly be zero movement on effectively addressing gun violence in schools and elsewhere.

On a not as personal level, but still negatively impactful, how about that tariff plan? Trump’s economic plan was resoundingly denounced by economists saying that it will worsen inflation, increase the cost of goods to the American consumer, and balloon the national deficit. What ever happened to republicans being fiscally conservative? Balancing the budget and all? But, to be fair, the economic experts have been wrong before; In early 2023, many economists predicted a recession to hit within the year. Instead, recession was avoided and the economy has continued to grow nearly 2 years later. Gee, I wonder what that administration could’ve done with another 4-8 years..

And that leads me to my real point and concern through all of this. In my previous post, I referenced the Noam Chomsky collection, “How the World Works.” In it Chomsky posits that the US political system, and the media likewise, is set up to exclusively serve “big business” while only appeasing those that do not belong to this “elite” class. There is only one ruling political party, “the business party” and while they are separated republican and democrat, they both report to the same boss. There may be differences in the two parties and their platforms, but ultimately keeping the “business oligarchy” in power is the top, unspoken priority of both. The election is over but the oligarchy pulling the strings is not done. They are still actively trying to divide and weaken us and they’re winning. We look at the people that voted for the other person and we see them as an enemy. They aren’t, but that’s what the oligarchy wants you to think. Some of the people that support Trump are undeniably terrible, they’re usually the loudest ones and sometimes they’re paid for it. But most of them are just people that are hoping Trump has the answer to making their lives safer and less hard or to “protect their interests.” I disagree with them but I think most of them are well-meaning. Some people are unwilling to excuse these well-meaning voters. They feel that, if at all, they were only excused for 2016 because they “didn’t realize who he was.” Now it’s 2024 and they should have known better.

I just think they’ve been conned. They haven’t realized it yet, and they certainly won’t admit it. Without exaggeration, most (if not all) of the words that come out of Trump’s mouth is a lie, or at the very least misleading. He “jokes” or says half-truths so much that people have a hard time pinning down what he truly stands for or believes in and his supporters will interpret for themselves the version that they most want to believe about him. Cutting through the crap, he stands for himself and whoever is willing to line his pockets. And as for beliefs? He quite possibly believes in nothing. He doesn’t seem to have any principles, he doesn’t even pay his debts. Then again, one belief I’m sure he held was that if he didn’t win the Presidency he was probably going to prison.

But voters were looking for relief because despite the fact that the US has the strongest economy in the world, it doesn’t feel like it. I think voters got impatient with the post-Covid recovery and I wish they could’ve stopped and considered the bigger picture and the “long game” rather than thinking “a change at Head Coach” would turn things around. There’s nothing to turn around. We were already headed in the right direction.

Still other voters feel they have a moral obligation to vote for republicans as the “pro-life” party. There are a few problems with that. Pre-Dobbs data has indicated that women seeking abortions decreased year-by-year under democrat presidents while that number was higher and/or increased under republicans. Post-Dobbs, abortions have steadily risen. Both of these facts would seem counter-intuitive to anti-abortion advocates. Why would the fall of Roe v. Wade increase abortions? There is not a simple answer to that, but we can definitely say that the Dobbs decision was not the pro-life victory they thought it would be. And Trump has proudly taken credit for it. Why would abortions be fewer and decrease under democrats? Here’s an opinion column to provide some perspective. Basically, investing in supports, solutions, and prevention strategies decreases the need for abortions in the first place.

A few more notes related to abortion. 10-20% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. It’s incredibly common. The safest way to treat this condition is abortive care but because of abortion restrictions in some states these women cannot access the care they need for their lost pregnancies. Story after story is coming out of women turned away at the hospital and who end up dying. In Texas, pregnancy deaths increased 56% after their strict abortion ban went into effect. Abortion, as a necessary medical procedure, needs to exist. Clarification on who qualifies and understanding how far along into pregnancy it’s allowed is all that should be up for debate. And voters agree. Every state that has been allowed to vote to enshrine abortion rights into law since the Dobbs decision has passed besides Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Florida required the motion to pass with 60% of the vote and they got 57%. It was 57% against 43% and it failed.

Further, one in 20 women in the United States have experienced a pregnancy from rape, sexual coercion, or both during their lifetimes. And it is estimated that only 21% of sexual assaults are reported. Most states have exceptions for pregnancies through rape and incest, but women often realize they are pregnant after the cut-off has passed and they are forced to carry to term. In other cases, victims may realize they are pregnant and qualify for abortion, but they can’t afford the care so they are forced to carry to term. The very idea of an unwanted pregnancy is heartbreaking, but that is the situation these women are being forced into. There are nearly 400,000 kids in foster care in the US. This is what happens when people are unprepared to be parents, often at no fault of their own.

“A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.”

-Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance

So here we are. A man with a list of what should have been disqualifying traits has been reelected to the highest office. We are to believe that a majority of Americans have chosen the known sexual fiend, insurrectionist, twice-impeached conman, and blasphemous Bible salesman with 34 felonies to once again be President of the United States.

It doesn’t make sense. I’ve been cycling through the 5 stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. I’m not just upset that a bad man gets to be president again. I’m mad that he will be walking back into the office with the seemingly unchecked power of the 3 branches of government to impose a harmful and unpopular agenda.

But here we are. To harken back to my previous blog post, whether Trump or Harris were to win, the struggle would continue. Neither side of the political divide is our friend. The difference is that one side has put forth efforts to make the struggle less hard for average people and the other has efforts in place to force average people to, at-best, fend for themselves and, at-worst, hinder their access to life, liberties, and the pursuit of happiness.

Before I finish, I need to reiterate that division is what the oligarchy wants. They foment division between and within parties, between and within families, communities, relationships. They want us stressed and worried and exhausted. They want us barely hanging on and only scraping by, never feeling like we can get ahead, never feeling like we’ll ever be out from under our debts, feeling stuck and hopeless and desperate. Whatever distracts us from coming together as a people and noticing what’s wrong and doing something about the injustice that affects all of us. Usually things that are wrong in the world are bad for business. So they distract us, sedate us, and frustrate us. We’re seeing it now with democrats pointing fingers over the election defeat. We’re seeing it with republican in-fighting as Trump reveals his cabinet picks. We’re seeing it with Trump’s “enemy within” rhetoric. We’re seeing it with marriages and relationships being split up and families going “no-contact” because of political differences. I can’t tell you what to do or how to feel and I am not advocating for anyone to remain in a toxic relationship. Just make sure the person you’re cutting off is not just a stand-in for what/who you’re really frustrated with. The oligarchy is aiming to destabilize so that when everything crumbles they can buy it all on clearance and sell it back to us in a bundle with Disney+ and Amazon Prime. Or worse. Probably worse.

It might be too late, but I hope not.

Ad Astra Per Aspera

“But are there not many fascists in your country?"

"There are many who do not know they are fascists but will find it out when the time comes.”

"But you cannot destroy them until they rebel?"

"No," Robert Jordan said. "We cannot destroy them. But we can educate the people so that they will fear fascism and recognize it as it appears and combat it.”

-Ernest Hemingway, For Whom the Bell Tolls

1 Samuel 8:4-22

Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.

Where there is hatred, let me sow love;

where there is injury, pardon;

where there is doubt, faith;

where there is despair, hope;

where there is darkness, light;

and where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek

to be consoled as to console;

to be understood as to understand;

to be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive;

it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;

and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

Amen.

Election 2024

Disclaimer: While I reference church and Christianity in this post about politics, I reject Christian Nationalism.

6 years ago there was a guest speaker at my church and he shared an illustration to explain the role of a prophet to society. It has stuck with me ever since. He described a person out at night standing beneath a lit street lamp. The prophet throws a rock at the street lamp, the glass breaks, the light goes out, and the person is left in darkness. But then, after a few minutes, the person’s eyes adjust and they are able to see in the dark. And they can see further than they could under the little island of light that the street lamp provided. Before, under the street lamp, there was fear of the darkness beyond. Now, in darkness, the eyes have adjusted to a more accurate picture of reality. 

I was reminded of this illustration and the represented moment of clarity in my recent reading of the Noam Chomsky collection, “How the World Works.” Chomsky posits that the US political system, and the media likewise, is set up to exclusively serve “big business” while only appeasing those that do not belong to this “elite” class. Further, there is truly only one ruling political party, “the business party” and while they are separated republican and democrat, they both report to the same boss. 

That’s not to say there aren’t very real differences in the 2 parties and their platforms, but ultimately keeping the “business oligarchy” in power is the top, unspoken priority of both:

Modern “democratic theory” takes the view that the role of the public—the “bewildered herd,”—is to be spectators, not participants. They’re supposed to show up every couple of years to ratify decisions made elsewhere, or to select among representatives of the dominant sectors in what’s called an “election.” That’s helpful, because it has a legitimizing effect.

If you put any credence to the previous quote, it can be quite deflating and doesn’t particularly motivate a person to vote. However, Chomsky also offers this answer during an interview:

As John Dewey put it about seventy years ago, “Politics is the shadow cast on society by big business.” As long as you have highly concentrated, unaccountable private power, politics is just going to be a shadow. But you might as well make use of the shadow as much as possible, and use it to try to undermine what’s casting the shadow. 

Didn’t Dewey warn against mere “attenuation of the shadow”? 

He said that mere “attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance,” which is correct, but it can create the basis for undermining the substance. Eventually you want to dismantle the cage, but expanding the floor of the cage is a step towards that. It creates different attitudes, different understandings, different forms of participation, different ways for life to be lived, and also yields insight into the limits of existing institutions. That’s typically learned by struggle. All these things are to the good. They only attenuate, that’s true, and by themselves they won’t overcome, but they’re the basis for overcoming. If you can rebuild, reconstitute and strengthen a culture in which social bonds are considered significant, you’ve made a step towards undermining the control that private and state power exercise over society.

As Chomsky says, progress is typically learned by struggle.  He then recognizes  “signs of progress” in the US that were  realized through struggle. Note that this particular selection was written in 1998:

It’s a much more civilized society than it was thirty years ago. Plenty of crazy stuff goes on, but in general, there’s an overall improvement in the level of tolerance and understanding in this country, a much broader recognition of the rights of other people, of diversity, of the need to recognize oppressive acts that you yourself have been involved in.

And from a broader perspective:

I’m not saying things are great now, but they are much better, in virtually every area. In the 1700s, the way people treated each other was an unbelievable horror. A century ago, workers’ rights in the US were violently repressed.

He then lists several noteworthy occasions of events and movements that saw great struggle but which led to progress. He ended this list with a relatable example:

Right now we’re trying to defend a minimal healthcare system; thirty years ago there wasn’t a minimal healthcare system to defend. That’s progress.

As I read these things, I felt very mixed. All of these signs of progress are obviously good things but it can feel very small compared to what one may hope for in a just and fair society. But that’s reality, and realistically there is a lot more struggle ahead, especially when it comes to the work of dismantling an unjust power structure. 

All those changes took place because of constant, dedicated struggle, which is hard and can look very depressing for long periods. Of course you can always find ways in which these new attitudes have been distorted and turned into techniques of oppression, careerism, self-aggrandizement and so on. But the overall change is toward greater humanity. Unfortunately, this trend hasn’t touched the central areas of power. In fact, it can be tolerated, even supported, by major institutions, as long as it doesn’t get to the heart of the matter—their power and domination over the society, which has actually increased. If these new attitudes really started affecting the distribution of power, you’d have some serious struggles.

Disney is a good example of the kind of accommodation you’re describing. It exploits Third World labor in Haiti and elsewhere, but domestically it has very liberal policies on gay rights and healthcare.

It’s perfectly consistent for the kind of corporate oligarchy we have to say that we shouldn’t discriminate among people. They’re all equal—equally lacking in the right to control their own fate, all capable of being passive, apathetic, obedient consumers and workers. The people on top will have greater rights, of course, but they’ll be equally greater rights—regardless of whether they’re black, white, green, gay, heterosexual, men, women, whatever.

To turn our attention to how the media plays a part in all this:

Whether they’re called “liberal” or “conservative,” the major media are large corporations, owned by and interlinked with even larger conglomerates. Like other corporations, they sell a product to a market. The market is advertisers—that is, other businesses. The product is audiences. For the elite media that set the basic agenda to which others adapt, the product is, furthermore, relatively privileged audiences. So we have major corporations selling fairly wealthy and privileged audiences to other businesses. Not surprisingly, the picture of the world presented reflects the narrow and biased interests and values of the sellers, the buyers and the product. Other factors reinforce the same distortion. The cultural managers (editors, leading columnists, etc.) share class interests and associations with state and business managers and other privileged sectors. There is, in fact, a regular flow of high-level people among corporations, government and media. Access to state authorities is important to maintain a competitive position; “leaks,” for example, are often fabrications and deceit produced by the authorities with the cooperation of the media, who pretend they don’t know. In return, state authorities demand cooperation and submissiveness. Other power centers also have devices to punish departures from orthodoxy, ranging from the stock market to an effective vilification and defamation apparatus. The outcome is not, of course, entirely uniform. To serve the interests of the powerful, the media must present a tolerably realistic picture of the world. And professional integrity and honesty sometimes interfere with the overriding mission.

Just like the politicians on both sides of the aisle, the media is compromised and they protect the oligarchy. As Chomsky goes on to explain:

Toward the end of Manufacturing Consent, you conclude that “the societal purpose of the media is to…defend the economic, social and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state.” Anything you’d want to add to that?

It’s such a truism that it’s almost unnecessary to put it into words. It would be amazing if it weren’t true. (There is a persistent) idea that the media are liberal. (But the real point is this)—what really matters is the desires of the people who own and control the media. I may slightly disagree about whether they’re liberal. In my view, national media like the Washington Post and the New York Times probably meet the current definition of the word liberal. Sometimes they even run things I approve of. For instance, to my amazement, the New York Times actually had an editorial in favor of greater workers’ rights in Indonesia… The Times also has columnists that I don’t think you would have seen there forty years ago, and they often write very good stuff. But in general, the mainstream media all make certain basic assumptions, like the necessity of maintaining a welfare state for the rich. Within that framework, there’s some room for differences of opinion, and it’s entirely possible that the major media are toward the liberal end of that range. In fact, in a well-designed propaganda system, that’s exactly where they should be. The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate. So you’re allowed to discuss whether the Mideast “peace process” should be implemented immediately or should be delayed, or whether Israel is sacrificing too much or just the right amount. But you’re not allowed to discuss the fact—and it certainly is a fact —that this so-called “peace process” wiped out a 25-year, internationally-supported diplomatic effort recognizing the national rights of both contending parties, and rammed home the US position that denies these rights to the Palestinians. Let’s clarify what it really means to say the media are liberal. Suppose 80% of all journalists vote Democratic. Does that mean they’re liberal in any meaningful sense of the word, or just that they’re at the left end of an extremely narrow, centerright spectrum? Take it a step further. Suppose it turns out that 80% of all journalists are flaming radicals. Would that show that the media themselves are radical? Only if you assume that the media are open to the free expression of ideas (by their reporters, in this case). But that’s exactly the thesis under debate. The empirical evidence that this thesis is false is overwhelming, and there has been no serious attempt to address it. Instead, it’s just assumed that the media are open. It’s possible to get away with that kind of thinking if power is sufficiently concentrated and educated sections of the population are sufficiently obedient.

The media is an extremely powerful tool to control the narratives of what is and is not allowed to be discussed in the public arena within the framework of oligarchy-approved talking points. But here Chomsky indicates that even in a compromised media, there are opportunities to use it for good. Note that this was written in the early years of widespread home internet use, before smartphones and social media platforms:

In Elaine Briére’s documentary film on East Timor, Bitter Paradise, you say, “The press isn’t in the business of letting people know how power works. It would be crazy to expect that....They’re part of the power system—why should they expose it?” Given that, is there any point in sending op-ed pieces to newspapers, writing letters to the editor, making phone calls?

They’re all very good things to do. Our system is much more flexible and fluid than a real tyranny, and even a real tyranny isn’t immune to public pressures. Every one of these openings should be exploited, in all sorts of ways. When you get away from the really top, agenda-setting media, there are plenty of opportunities. It isn’t just a matter of writing op-eds and making telephone calls, but insisting, by all kinds of public pressures, that there be openings to your point of view. There are understandable institutional reasons why the media are so deeply indoctrinated and hard to penetrate, but it’s not graven in stone. In fact, the same factors that make it so rigid also make it rich in ways to overcome that rigidity. But you have to do something—you can’t just sit around waiting for a savior. Another approach is creating alternative media, which may well have the effect of opening up the major media. That’s often been done. 

But you don’t see getting the occasional op-ed piece published as a substitute for a truly independent, democratic media.

It’s not a substitute—it’s a step towards it. These things interact.

You’re often introduced as someone who speaks truth to power, but I believe you take issue with that Quaker slogan.

The Quakers you’re referring to are very honest and decent, and some of the most courageous people I’ve ever known. We’ve been through a lot together, gone to jail together, and we’re friends. But—as I’ve told them plenty of times—I don’t like that slogan. Speaking truth to power makes no sense. There’s no point in speaking the truth to Henry Kissinger—he knows it already. Instead, speak truth to the powerless—or, better, with the powerless. Then they’ll act to dismantle illegitimate power.

So why am I writing this? As I mentioned at the top, reading this collection by Chomsky reminded me of the street lamp illustration. To have the political and media landscape laid out and articulated in this clear and convincing way by a respected intellectual was mind-blowing to me. I had previously held suspicions toward this end, but it all felt so very conspiratorial. To see the way the world works and how the general public is manipulated by sports and entertainment to keep us occupied and largely sedated, everything being politicized and partisan, the use of bureaucratic systems to keep us frustrated and hopeless to engage and work for change, the use of outrage to drive division and prevent us from coming together to solve injustice that impacts everyone in this American Empire and the World at large. 

“Give them bread and circuses and they will never revolt.”

-Juvenal, Roman Poet, in reference to the common citizens of Rome

With all that said, I’m still voting and I’m voting with my principles. I’m simply aware that the victory of my preferred candidate will not solve all of the nation’s troubles. The struggle will go on. A political sign that I’ve gotten a kick out of this election season is “Harris-Walz, obviously.” 

And that’s honestly how I see it. The future presented under a Harris presidency is the future I want to move toward for myself and my family. Alternatively, I see the prospect of another Trump presidency as a clear and present danger that has the potential to set the country back in immeasurably harmful ways. His campaign has made it clear that they plan to undo much of the progress that has been struggled for over the decades and centuries of this country. I have no interest in seeing him with 4 more years of presidential power. There is a lot more that I could say about the man, but I’m choosing not to because it wouldn’t solve anything. I would either be “speaking to the choir” or the message would fall on the deaf ears of his devoted base. But even if he does win—just like a Harris victory— the struggle will go on.

Ad Astra per Aspera

PS- To those of you who are Christian and interested in thoughtful discourse about how to live in the midst of these power structures, I highly recommend the recent sermon series from my church entitled, “Kingdom, Power, and the Powers”

Made New

I've grown past the point of asking;
"Oh my God, how can this be,
That a sinner in the present,
You let live eternally?
A sorry man,
As me?"

I lift t'thee my woes of sorrow
For having been blind of you.
In place of falsity and death
You lay life, unblemished; true.
A narrow road
of few.

You took our tragic tree of death,
As the sword will beat to plow,
In it you craft the the tree of life.
Injustice; yet mercy. How?
Our devices
made bow.

"Powers of Good" by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

from Gestapo prison..

With every power for good to stay and guide me,
comforted and inspired beyond all fear,
I'll live these days with you in thought beside me,
and pass, with you, into the coming year.
The old year still torments our hearts, unhastening;
the long days of our sorrow still endure;
Father, grant to the souls thou hast been chastening
that thou hast promised, the healing and the cure.
Should it be ours to drain the cup of grieving
even to the dregs of pain, at thy command,
we will not falter, thankfully receiving
all that is given by thy loving hand.
But should it be thy will once more to release us,
to life's enjoyment and it's good sunshine,
that which we've learned from sorrow shall increase us,
and all our life be dedicate as thine.
Today, let candles shed their radiant greeting;
lo, on our darkness are they not thy light
leading us, haply, to our longed-for meeting?
Thou canst illumine even our darkest night.
When now the silence deepens for our hearkening,
grant we may hear the children's voices raise
from all the unseen world around us darkening
their universal paean, in thy praise.
While all the powers of good aid and attend us,
boldly we'll face the future, come what may.
At even and at morn God will befriend us,
and oh, most surely on each newborn day!

..........................................................................................................

"Wer Bin Ich?" ("Who Am I?") by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

from Tegel prison..

Who am I? They often tell me
I stepped from my cell's confinement
Calmly, cheerfully, firmly,
Like a squire from his country-house.
Who am I? They often tell me
I used to speak to my warders
Freely and friendly and clearly,
A though it were mine to command.
Who am I? They also tell me
I bore the days of misfortune
Equally, smilingly, proudly,
Like one accustomed to win.

Am I then really all that which other men tell of?
Or am I only what I myself know of myself?
Restless and longing and sick, like a bird in a cage,
Struggling for breath, as though hands were
compressing my throat,
Yearning for colors, for flowers, for the voices of birds,
Thirsting for words of kindness, for neighborliness,
Tossing in expectation of great events,
Powerlessly trembling for friends at an infinite distance,
Weary and empty at praying, at thinking, at making,
Faint, and ready to say farewell to it all?

Who am I? This or the other?
Am I one person today and tomorrow another?
Am I both at once? A hypocrite before others,
And before myself a contemptibly woebegone weakling?
Or is something within me still like a beaten army,
Fleeing in disorder from victory already achieved?
Who am I? They mock me, these lonely questions of mine.
Whoever I am, Thou knowest, O God, I am Thine!

.........................................................................................................

Today is Hitler's birthday.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was executed in a concentration camp two weeks before the Allies marched in; three weeks before Hitler's suicide.

Bonhoeffer fought against injustice,
following his convictions,
at the call of his Lord.
Our Lord.

.........................................................................................................