In my last post I bragged about the fact that our Deanery "opened itself" up to voting by all deanery Episcopalians who are communicants in good standing within their parish and also within the deanery. Our thinking is/was that at least at the next lowest rung of the hierarchy, and for small things, we adopted an all-inclusive voting policy. The least we could do, we thought, to reward those who were willing to participate at the deanery level, and to keep as many persons interested in the issues of the day, was to allow them to vote. The thinking was designed to begin a process of more laity involvement so that the issues that split us in the past, one of which was keeping everyone in the dark and feeding them "pre-manufactured fertilizer" , would be less likely to happen. Well, it did not take long to discover how really wrong that thinking is.
Our new bishop, upon review by the Chancellor of the diocese, has determined/opined/stated that there is no vote permitted at the deanery level save by the legally elected delegates from each parish; oh, and the canonically resident clergy in the deanery (how about that one!). To be fair, this is the existing canon. By that I mean this part of the canon has been in existence since prior to the split of our diocese. See Canon XVI on Archdeacons and Deaneries. However, this canon was re-written just last year in order to move us from four deaneries to three deaneries but no one thought to open up the voting to all persons and so it is not. In order to to what we had originally done we need to first change the canon by convention. The change we did do violates our current canon and so it is null and void. One side-note, by going from four deaneries to three deaneries the unintended consequence (I am hoping anyway) is that the deaneries are now stacked with more clergy. That is, instead of four deaneries with the same amount clergy and more lay voting members we are now at three deaneries with the same amount of clergy and fewer overall lay persons. Clergy now have more power by virtue of the consolidation, this means that lay persons have less.
I am hoping not everyone goes nuts on this part but, what do you all think? It appears the deaneries are still stacked in favor of the bishop -- since the bishop approves/licenses all clergy in the diocese. To be sure, deaneries usually vote on diocesan council members and officers in our deaneries and that is about it. Nonetheless, it seemed like a small issue to repay interest and attentiveness with voting privilege. Oh sure, we can, and perhaps will change this in the future but my point is the deck is stacked against the laity exercising too much power -- or so it seems. I am also assuming (dangerous as this is) that it is true in all or almost all existing diocese.
Change will be long, arduous and gut-wrenching.
A Place for Discussion
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
The Trouble with Tribbles Laity
The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin held a wonderful celebration yesterday and all went very, very well. We seated our newest provisional Bishop Chet Talton and had a chance to celebrate the ministry of Bishop Jerry Lamb.
There was one bit of work that did indeed throw some of us for a loop. Well, not a loop, but we were taken aback by the attitude of some of our fellow delegates. Alas, I get ahead of myself.
The bit of work we needed to do had to do with the reconstitution of our deaneries. We have historically had four deaneries in our diocese but as of now we have reduced to three. In that process we have restructured and are now electing a chair and a vice chair that is either lay of clergy (but not both). These two offices will serve on the diocesan council. The deaneries are supposed to revitalize our diocesan life and so are now required to meet (at least) 4 times a year. We are working on a lot of functions and activities but we came to a fork in the road and need to vote on an issue that I thought was a "no-brainer". The issue was voting rights at the deanery level. Again, historically on delegates have been allowed to vote on issues within the deanery and someone thought it was time for a change. The resolution on the floor was to permit all members in good standing that were present at the meeting of the deanery. WOW! You would have thought we had just taken someones pocketbook and would not give it back! There was a hue and cry about -- guess what? privilege, yep, privilege. Those who were delegates wanted to maintain their elite status and not permit anyone other than an officially elected delegate be allowed to vote.
Now, here are some issues I found persuasive. First, we want as many persons to be involved as possible and in order to get them to a deanery meeting what better way (in fact what other carrot is there) than the vote? AND< what is so all fired important and so all fired secret that ONLY delegates to convention should vote? I do not think anything that happens at our deanery levels warrants on exclusivity provision. The simple fact is that if the diocese of San Joaquin had continued to hold deanery meetings where everyone was invited and involved the likelihood of breaking away would have been diminished. Not eliminated but diminished.
Second, we, the Episcopal Church, needs more laity input and more laity control and this is a good start. Maybe some would say it is only a "bone thrown to appease" but we have to start somewhere.
Third, it was apparent that many of our laity had not learned the lessons currently being taught under the guise of exclusivity. Furthermore, we need to not trust our fate to a few when we can shine the light of day on these types of issues.
The resolution passed. Anyone who wishes to attend and takes the time to be involved can and will vote on whatever issues are presented at that time. But, the vote was 16 to 8. While the majority clearly ruled the minority voice clerly indicated there is still much work to do, even here in the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin.
There was one bit of work that did indeed throw some of us for a loop. Well, not a loop, but we were taken aback by the attitude of some of our fellow delegates. Alas, I get ahead of myself.
The bit of work we needed to do had to do with the reconstitution of our deaneries. We have historically had four deaneries in our diocese but as of now we have reduced to three. In that process we have restructured and are now electing a chair and a vice chair that is either lay of clergy (but not both). These two offices will serve on the diocesan council. The deaneries are supposed to revitalize our diocesan life and so are now required to meet (at least) 4 times a year. We are working on a lot of functions and activities but we came to a fork in the road and need to vote on an issue that I thought was a "no-brainer". The issue was voting rights at the deanery level. Again, historically on delegates have been allowed to vote on issues within the deanery and someone thought it was time for a change. The resolution on the floor was to permit all members in good standing that were present at the meeting of the deanery. WOW! You would have thought we had just taken someones pocketbook and would not give it back! There was a hue and cry about -- guess what? privilege, yep, privilege. Those who were delegates wanted to maintain their elite status and not permit anyone other than an officially elected delegate be allowed to vote.
Now, here are some issues I found persuasive. First, we want as many persons to be involved as possible and in order to get them to a deanery meeting what better way (in fact what other carrot is there) than the vote? AND< what is so all fired important and so all fired secret that ONLY delegates to convention should vote? I do not think anything that happens at our deanery levels warrants on exclusivity provision. The simple fact is that if the diocese of San Joaquin had continued to hold deanery meetings where everyone was invited and involved the likelihood of breaking away would have been diminished. Not eliminated but diminished.
Second, we, the Episcopal Church, needs more laity input and more laity control and this is a good start. Maybe some would say it is only a "bone thrown to appease" but we have to start somewhere.
Third, it was apparent that many of our laity had not learned the lessons currently being taught under the guise of exclusivity. Furthermore, we need to not trust our fate to a few when we can shine the light of day on these types of issues.
The resolution passed. Anyone who wishes to attend and takes the time to be involved can and will vote on whatever issues are presented at that time. But, the vote was 16 to 8. While the majority clearly ruled the minority voice clerly indicated there is still much work to do, even here in the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Thinking Alike?
I was reading Thinking Anglicans Nineteen Anglican bishops meet in Dar Es Salaam when I decided to look at the last time a bunch or primates meet in Dar Es Salaam (2007) and compare the results. Of course the results are radically different but what struck me is something that has probably already been discussed because it struck many others a long time ago. somewhere along the continuum that is fondly referred to as the Anglican Communion, someone decided we must all "think alike". The "dispute" that has arisen is one in which apparently no one province can think differently than the "group", the group being the Anglican Communion. In recent years the policy that has evolved is no one can think any differently than the Global South, also known as the Conelonialists. The primates from that neck of the woods have fallen back on the "appeal to authority" also known as "the faith once delivered" and "solo scriptura" to cut off any and all discussion. This group has turned into a gang of thugs either punishing or wanting to punish anyone who thinks or acts differently than they do. They develop Windsor reports, they develop covenants (also known as covenants not to compete) and they punish primates that do not toe the line by no taking communion with them, by meeting in separate rooms, by ignoring you to your face and other middle school antics designed to make them feel better.
The upshot of all of this is "group think". We must all think and act alike. There appears to be no room for thinking and exploring and just plain wondering let alone acting on clearly defined requirements from Jesus.
I write this for the following reason. When I was working in another world/lifetime I had a discussion with one of my bosses. It seemed we were not on the same page and we were not on the same page in public, usually not a good thing, but I felt pretty strongly about my position. After the public debate I was talking with this person and I apologized for the clearly different stance. He said to me, "If we both always thought alike then one of us would not be necessary." I took that to heart and it has become one of my guiding principles. It is how we grow and mature. While this person is not God (I have never made that mistake) I believe the nugget there is that God's greatest gift to us is the ability to think and reason. That is how we mature and grow in our faith. So I add to the conelonialists, "If we both always thought alike then one of us would not be necessary."
The upshot of all of this is "group think". We must all think and act alike. There appears to be no room for thinking and exploring and just plain wondering let alone acting on clearly defined requirements from Jesus.
I write this for the following reason. When I was working in another world/lifetime I had a discussion with one of my bosses. It seemed we were not on the same page and we were not on the same page in public, usually not a good thing, but I felt pretty strongly about my position. After the public debate I was talking with this person and I apologized for the clearly different stance. He said to me, "If we both always thought alike then one of us would not be necessary." I took that to heart and it has become one of my guiding principles. It is how we grow and mature. While this person is not God (I have never made that mistake) I believe the nugget there is that God's greatest gift to us is the ability to think and reason. That is how we mature and grow in our faith. So I add to the conelonialists, "If we both always thought alike then one of us would not be necessary."
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Who Are Your Heroes?
In recent years I have thought much about heroes. So, in this moment in time, as I share some of my heroes with you, I am curious who your heroes might be. Let us begin with a common definition:
A hero (heroine for females) (Greek: ἥρως, hḗrōs), in Greek mythology and folklore, was originally a demigod, their cult being one of the most distinctive features of ancient Greek religion.[1] Later, hero (male) and heroine (female) came to refer to characters who, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of weakness, display courage and the will for self sacrifice—that is, heroism—for some greater good of all humanity. This definition originally referred to martial courage or excellence but extended to more general moral excellence.
Stories of heroism may serve as moral examples.
As a combat veteran I would add that a hero/heroine is an ordinary person who steps into an extraordinary event and excels at something or for some reason whether on a one-time basis or perhaps in a continuing role.
I have many heroes; John Basilone, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Jesus, and a several folks none of you would know because by definition, they seek no glory -- that is antithetical.
I have added three in recent months. IT and BP and Leonardo Ricardo. These three folks display great courage each and every day and are wonderful moral examples. They struggle with issues that should have been settled many, many years ago and yet are not. And, while they quietly insist on a certain level of respect, for which they are resoundingly abused at times, continue the struggle not just for them, but for all LGBT persons. I ask you, how can you not have heroes like this?
This is the front line or at least the last vestige of the small-minded, bigoted person who wants to feel better about themselves by crushing other folks. Race, ethnicity, religion and to a large extent sex (though in some circles of Conelonialists this is still a fight to be waged) are all gone. No one can get away with even a smart-aleck remark without being justifiably chastised for the gross insensitivity. But it seems even in elementary school, it is still acceptable (and done with an alarming degree of frequency) to call someone gay or a lesbian or a homosexual as a derogatory term.
It is in the face of these assaults that IT and BP and Leonardo extend themselves every single day. That certainly fits my bill for hero. Recently IT and BP had a blessing of their marriage. What a pure joy that must be for them -- and yet they go back into the fray again to continue the struggle until everyone is free.
Who are your heroes?
A hero (heroine for females) (Greek: ἥρως, hḗrōs), in Greek mythology and folklore, was originally a demigod, their cult being one of the most distinctive features of ancient Greek religion.[1] Later, hero (male) and heroine (female) came to refer to characters who, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of weakness, display courage and the will for self sacrifice—that is, heroism—for some greater good of all humanity. This definition originally referred to martial courage or excellence but extended to more general moral excellence.
Stories of heroism may serve as moral examples.
As a combat veteran I would add that a hero/heroine is an ordinary person who steps into an extraordinary event and excels at something or for some reason whether on a one-time basis or perhaps in a continuing role.
I have many heroes; John Basilone, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Jesus, and a several folks none of you would know because by definition, they seek no glory -- that is antithetical.
I have added three in recent months. IT and BP and Leonardo Ricardo. These three folks display great courage each and every day and are wonderful moral examples. They struggle with issues that should have been settled many, many years ago and yet are not. And, while they quietly insist on a certain level of respect, for which they are resoundingly abused at times, continue the struggle not just for them, but for all LGBT persons. I ask you, how can you not have heroes like this?
This is the front line or at least the last vestige of the small-minded, bigoted person who wants to feel better about themselves by crushing other folks. Race, ethnicity, religion and to a large extent sex (though in some circles of Conelonialists this is still a fight to be waged) are all gone. No one can get away with even a smart-aleck remark without being justifiably chastised for the gross insensitivity. But it seems even in elementary school, it is still acceptable (and done with an alarming degree of frequency) to call someone gay or a lesbian or a homosexual as a derogatory term.
It is in the face of these assaults that IT and BP and Leonardo extend themselves every single day. That certainly fits my bill for hero. Recently IT and BP had a blessing of their marriage. What a pure joy that must be for them -- and yet they go back into the fray again to continue the struggle until everyone is free.
Who are your heroes?
Saturday, February 26, 2011
CANA's Doctrine of Reactionary Inclusion
The LEAD reported the following:
CANA’s Missionary Bishop Martyn Minns (who is currently in Singapore en route to Nigeria for the Church of Nigeria’s House of Bishops’ meeting, which is to be followed by a meeting of the Church of Nigeria’s Standing Committee) has asked me to pass along this information to you:
This whole thing gives new meaning to the old joke how many faux Anglicans does it take to screw up alight bulb province?
WOW! Will wonders never cease!
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports:Bishop Minns, suddenly realizing that CANA had just been dumped and his and all his buddies "ordination" out the window must have had an appopletic fit. And, in keeping with CANA's reactionary inclusiveness the church of Nigeria and Cana now have FAQs that reiterate "dual citizenship and how all that works. The LEAD now reports this:
Speaking during his recent visit to London , Okoh said: “CANA is now part of the Anglican Province of North America (ACNA)."
“We are not interested in territorial ambition; our main reason for going to America was to provide for those who were no longer finding it possible to worship in the Episcopal church.
“A new structure has been put up in the U.S. which is ACNA.
“CANA now belongs to ACNA even though they still relate to us;but essentially it now belongs to Anglican province of North America,” he said.
CANA’s Missionary Bishop Martyn Minns (who is currently in Singapore en route to Nigeria for the Church of Nigeria’s House of Bishops’ meeting, which is to be followed by a meeting of the Church of Nigeria’s Standing Committee) has asked me to pass along this information to you:
Earlier this morning Bishop Minns heard from both Archbishop Nicholas Okoh and Registrar Abraham Yisa who were surprised to see a recent statement in the media that suggests that CANA is no longer part of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion).So, what we have here is the new and improved version of the doctrine of reactionary inclusion. That definition is: a clergy person, currently under deposition or threat of deposition by the Episcopal Church in the United States of America that feels unloved and unrequited and enjoys a hatefulness for that province and wishes to thumb their nose at that province but needs a place from which to accomplish that task. And, of course one gets to remain in the Anglican Communion by way of the Church of Nigeria (or alternatively the Southern Cone). These persons are also known as Conelonialists. This reactionary inclusiveness is also known as dual citizenship.
Both Archbishop Okoh as well as Registrar Yisa told Bishop Minns that such reports are erroneous. They assured him that there has been no change in the status that exists between CANA and the Church of Nigeria, that Bishop Minns and CANA’s suffragan bishops continue to serve as members of the House of Bishops in the Church of Nigeria, and that the Church of Nigeria at the same time continues to promote the full recognition of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) as a province in the Anglican Communion
This whole thing gives new meaning to the old joke how many faux Anglicans does it take to screw up a
WOW! Will wonders never cease!
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
The Great Masquerade
I am certainly no canon lawyer, as I am sure you have all found out. If you have not I am sure someone like the old A. Curmudgeon will come along and set me (and everyone else he talks to) straight. That being said, I have some really interesting questions.
In our denomination, should a deposed priest preside/consecrate the bread and wine and distribute communion to a group of Episcopalians is the deposed priest guilty of a sin? I always thought he/she would be. In addition, if the congregation/parishioners (some or all) know that the priest is deposed, then they are also guilty of sin. (Those that are not genuinely aware I believe are not guilty of sin and in fact, through some metamorphosis actually receive a sacrament.)
Now, by extrapolation, let's look at say, the "Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin". All the clergy in the "diocese" have been deposed by a lawful bishop and House of Bishops. Those individuals who currently attend the rites and services in the Anglican Diocese have been well apprised of the depositions of their clergy. So, are they all in sin each and every Sunday or not? Is deposition a relative thing that really exists only in the mind of the deposer and if so what is the real purpose?
Let's take this one last step. If a bishop, knowingly brings a deposed priest to a parish and installs that deposed priest as the rector, is the bishop guilty of a grievous sin? And, if the depose priest destroys the parish (the people now, not the building) who is guilty of sin? And, if some of the parishioners knowingly participate in the charade including receiving fake sacraments from the deposed priest what then?
finally, are the clergy deposed by the Episcopal Church deposed throughout the Anglican Communion or just locally? And are the clergy free to do as they please without recrimination throughout the same Anglican Communion as long as they do not practice in the Episcopal Church. Now, one rule for response please. let us assume for the sake of this discussion, that ACNA, AMIA, CANA et al are NOT some Other form of denomination. THEY think they are Anglican, so are they only deposed as long as they think they are Anglican and as soon as they think they are Calvinist or Methodist or Unitarian are they no longer deposed?
Lionel? Mark? Tobias? Paul? What's up?
To enhance your thinking ability I have taken the liberty of added this:
In our denomination, should a deposed priest preside/consecrate the bread and wine and distribute communion to a group of Episcopalians is the deposed priest guilty of a sin? I always thought he/she would be. In addition, if the congregation/parishioners (some or all) know that the priest is deposed, then they are also guilty of sin. (Those that are not genuinely aware I believe are not guilty of sin and in fact, through some metamorphosis actually receive a sacrament.)
Now, by extrapolation, let's look at say, the "Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin". All the clergy in the "diocese" have been deposed by a lawful bishop and House of Bishops. Those individuals who currently attend the rites and services in the Anglican Diocese have been well apprised of the depositions of their clergy. So, are they all in sin each and every Sunday or not? Is deposition a relative thing that really exists only in the mind of the deposer and if so what is the real purpose?
Let's take this one last step. If a bishop, knowingly brings a deposed priest to a parish and installs that deposed priest as the rector, is the bishop guilty of a grievous sin? And, if the depose priest destroys the parish (the people now, not the building) who is guilty of sin? And, if some of the parishioners knowingly participate in the charade including receiving fake sacraments from the deposed priest what then?
finally, are the clergy deposed by the Episcopal Church deposed throughout the Anglican Communion or just locally? And are the clergy free to do as they please without recrimination throughout the same Anglican Communion as long as they do not practice in the Episcopal Church. Now, one rule for response please. let us assume for the sake of this discussion, that ACNA, AMIA, CANA et al are NOT some Other form of denomination. THEY think they are Anglican, so are they only deposed as long as they think they are Anglican and as soon as they think they are Calvinist or Methodist or Unitarian are they no longer deposed?
Lionel? Mark? Tobias? Paul? What's up?
To enhance your thinking ability I have taken the liberty of added this:
Monday, February 21, 2011
Who Is Going to Pay For "Our" Excesses? (Really)
Does John Boehner sound like a revamped and re-invigorated Newt Gingrich? Certainly hearkens back to the early to mid-1990's. And now, the rallying cry is do not saddle our children and grandchildren with programs and taxes that are needed today. Let's just cut huge chunks out of the budget so that no one has to pay for those later. What a huge crock of ***t.
Let's take a close look. Education is being cut at both the National and state levels. Class sizes up, ANY "non-essential" program is O-U-T! Lets strip these excesses down to the bare bones. Close schools, eliminate all forms of transportation including, in North Carolina, for racial equity. So someone thinks that our children and our grandchildren are not going to pay for this? Who do the Republicans think we are educating? Our old citizens? You bet our children are going to pay for this -- not just now but in the future with an inferior education. And, the right would be perfectly happy to dismantle public education. Why not only allow those who can afford education to get some. The rest of our children can go to work.
Let's talk about work. Wisconsin, among other states, is currently in the process of dismantling collective bargaining. They governor says he just wants to spread the pain, but the civil servants are willing to take pay cuts and health insurance premium increases but the governor wants to eliminate collective bargaining. And the Republican Right led by the Tea Party does not want to just have them share the burden, they want labor unions G-O-N-E! There is no greater advocate for middle class than the bargaining unit. And who will pay for this? How about our children and grandchildren when we lose minimum wage guarantees, eliminate child labor laws, eliminate over time pay, work week assurances and most important health care. Our children will work long hours in sweatshops for little or no pay in company towns that trap persons and families for life.
Let's talk about child welfare. Without WIC, MEDICAL/CARE, Head Start our children and grandchildren will pay not just in the future but right now! Nutrititous meals, basic medical care and early education head start are all gone! What about Free and Reduced Lunches? We go back to the days when children do not get to eat three meals a day?
The size of government is too big? Let's just lay-off half the workforce, they are just "pulling at the public trough", right? Who pays for that? How about all the children affected right now? How about all the jobs that will collapse and all the many benefits from regulations and oversight -- like banking and lending? Don't need those do we? How do you think we got into this mess to begin with and yet those clever little folks over on Wall Street have managed to turn the tables and make it all government's fault!
There was an interview in Madison the other day and the person being interviewed was complaining because of all the "benefits" that one public sector employee or another had gained and bemoaning the fact that they (the speaker) did not have those benefits so why should anyone? Well folks, you have fallen into the trap set by some very sophisticated wealthy families that have co-opted the Republican Right and Tea Party followers into a stupid argument. The correct question is how do you get the same benefit? Duh, how about by organizing?
So who really is going to pay for what and is this the real argument! I think not since our children and our grandchildren are going to pay the price no matter what we do. So, what is the answer? The answer is build a better union, build a better society and let's begin to really care for everyone. No, you are not going to get rich, okay? No you are not going to build a portfolio the size of a Rockefeller's or anyone else. But, you are going to build a just and fair society that builds the community and that lifts us ALL up not just the rich.
Let's take a close look. Education is being cut at both the National and state levels. Class sizes up, ANY "non-essential" program is O-U-T! Lets strip these excesses down to the bare bones. Close schools, eliminate all forms of transportation including, in North Carolina, for racial equity. So someone thinks that our children and our grandchildren are not going to pay for this? Who do the Republicans think we are educating? Our old citizens? You bet our children are going to pay for this -- not just now but in the future with an inferior education. And, the right would be perfectly happy to dismantle public education. Why not only allow those who can afford education to get some. The rest of our children can go to work.
Let's talk about work. Wisconsin, among other states, is currently in the process of dismantling collective bargaining. They governor says he just wants to spread the pain, but the civil servants are willing to take pay cuts and health insurance premium increases but the governor wants to eliminate collective bargaining. And the Republican Right led by the Tea Party does not want to just have them share the burden, they want labor unions G-O-N-E! There is no greater advocate for middle class than the bargaining unit. And who will pay for this? How about our children and grandchildren when we lose minimum wage guarantees, eliminate child labor laws, eliminate over time pay, work week assurances and most important health care. Our children will work long hours in sweatshops for little or no pay in company towns that trap persons and families for life.
Let's talk about child welfare. Without WIC, MEDICAL/CARE, Head Start our children and grandchildren will pay not just in the future but right now! Nutrititous meals, basic medical care and early education head start are all gone! What about Free and Reduced Lunches? We go back to the days when children do not get to eat three meals a day?
The size of government is too big? Let's just lay-off half the workforce, they are just "pulling at the public trough", right? Who pays for that? How about all the children affected right now? How about all the jobs that will collapse and all the many benefits from regulations and oversight -- like banking and lending? Don't need those do we? How do you think we got into this mess to begin with and yet those clever little folks over on Wall Street have managed to turn the tables and make it all government's fault!
There was an interview in Madison the other day and the person being interviewed was complaining because of all the "benefits" that one public sector employee or another had gained and bemoaning the fact that they (the speaker) did not have those benefits so why should anyone? Well folks, you have fallen into the trap set by some very sophisticated wealthy families that have co-opted the Republican Right and Tea Party followers into a stupid argument. The correct question is how do you get the same benefit? Duh, how about by organizing?
So who really is going to pay for what and is this the real argument! I think not since our children and our grandchildren are going to pay the price no matter what we do. So, what is the answer? The answer is build a better union, build a better society and let's begin to really care for everyone. No, you are not going to get rich, okay? No you are not going to build a portfolio the size of a Rockefeller's or anyone else. But, you are going to build a just and fair society that builds the community and that lifts us ALL up not just the rich.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)