Ike Was Right

5 08 2010

 

When I was twelve I became a Republican and interested in politics in general.  Dwight Eisenhower was president and as the grandfather of our country at that time, he inspired me to his vision of the United States.  Historically, he will probably not go down in history as one of our best presidents but for me, looking back, he inspired a sense of purpose for me as a young person and through his vision for us as a country.  In his last speech to Congress he outlined a vision for our country that in some ways has been abandoned and in some ways, over time, has come to reality.  Here are some excerpts from that speech:

  “Throughout America’s adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

“You and I — my fellow citizens — need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation’s great goals.

“To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America’s prayerful and continuing aspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.”

There are numerous lessons to be learned from this speech but the one I want to focus is the line about the “military industrial complex”.   Being an old soldier as he was, he saw the need for having a strong military.  He also observed in this speech that the R and D of the military were often used for peaceful purposes, thereby enhancing the lives of all of us.  But what he was concerned about was that the military would become so strong and unwieldy that it would be difficult to reign in.  We have seen this occur in so many ways.  Since WWII in every war that we have fought, except for Viet Nam, we have always left a large contingency of military in those countries.  In 2009 our military budget was $515.4B with other military related expenditures ballooning the military budget to about 1T.  Through the cold war it may have been important to have these kinds of expenditures and military strategy to fight a large land based war.  With the advent of terrorism, it has become apparent that we are fighting another kind of war that requires different strategies.  More emphasis is being placed on tactical warfare and technology.  Drones controlled in the U.S. are regularly attacking Taliban and Al Qaeda positions in Afghanistan.  We are even using drones for surveillance purposes on our Southern border.

With the continuing explosion of our national debt and the strain that it puts on all parts of our economy, much has been said about how the U.S. needs to cut spending.  But when it comes to making suggestions on where to cut, the military is the last to be mentioned.  The reality is that so many parts of our economy and our regional economies are dependent on military spending.  Some cut backs for closing bases and redundancies have occurred but we’ve also seen examples of the decimation of local economies such as Sealy, TX where a military truck contract held by a British company was moved to Wisconsin. Also, NASA with its $108billion Back to the Moon project, primarily based in Houston and Florida was scrapped.   In the case of the Sealy BAE contract it was more than likely a political payoff or retribution against Texas, but for Sealy it will create hardships for years.  So, government spending for the military dramatically impacts the overall private economy.  The same is true for NASA.  Thousands of jobs both governmental and private industry is at stake.  But we have to ask ourselves, is it scientifically or economically beneficial to maintain this program. 

But military spending is one area that our government might make some dramatic cutbacks.  Not only because of redundancies but also because of the different ways that we will possibly have to wage war in the future.  Suggestions of cutting back are met with deep concern.  It’s almost unpatriotic to suggest cutbacks.  And it’s not just here in the U.S.  What would happen to the South Korean economy if we made a substantial cut back in military spending there?  There is much concern about North Korea and its military interests in getting South Korea back, but many have suggested that North Korea, half the size of South Korea and with less than half as many fit persons to serve in the military, could not mount an all out war since it can’t even feed its own people, much less carry out a war.  And there are strong indications that China does not want to have to bolster the North Korean economy in case of war.

At the end of WWII there was tremendous built up demand for products and consumer technology that had not been available during the war.  Much of U. S. industry was tooled for military production.  And there was a great demand for higher education.  The nation quickly responded to these demands with the GI bill, the retooling of American industry and more consumer products.

 Even though this scenario is not completely analogous there are some similarities with our economy today.  One of the main issues after WWII was the transition from a military economy to a consumer and infrastructure economy.  With over $500.billion in direct expenditures and about $1Trillion in direct and indirect military costs it would seems important to take a hard look at these expenditures and see where we could cut now, where we could transition into peace time industries and where we need to emphasize our future military expenditure efforts.  Even border security could be enhanced by channeling existing troops, hardware, and technology to our borders.  But if our experience here in the Houston area is any indication of the hurdles to a change in direction in military spending, it will be a long, hard fight.





An Ethical Crisis of Confidence

27 07 2010

 

Almighty God, we confess that we are often swept up in the tide of our

generation. We have failed in our calling to be your holy people, a

people set apart for your divine purpose. We live more in apathy than

in passion born of hope. We are moved more by private ambition

than by social justice. We dream more of privilege and benefits than

service and sacrifice. Help us to make room in our hearts and lives for

you. Forgive us, revive us, and reshape us in your image. Amen 

Nouriel Roubini

  The other day I was watching my stock market guru Jim Cramer on CNBC.  It was a down day in the market and he was railing against the Bears for their pessimism on the stock market.  Currently the stock market is in a very narrow range and actually seems to be slowly drifting down in spite of increased earnings by corporate America.  He was lamenting the fact that the retail investor like me seemed to be leaving the market in droves or at least was not investing as they had done in the past.  He only alluded to the fact that there was a crisis of confidence in the government, international affairs, and lack of confidence in Wall Street itself.  On other programs that I’ve watched recently that talked about the new Fin Regs just passed, there was less than enthusiastic endorsement of the new regulations.  Most of this was aimed at the fact that there was little confidence that these new regulations would make any difference and in fact would give the money merchants new loop holes to exploit.  The growing sentiment among many investors is that the Foxes are in the hen house and are making the new regulations and that everything is about the same as before.  Many people on both the left and the right believe that this is just the first step in our economic troubles.  Nouriel Roubini, author of Crisis Economics and one of those who first predicted the effects of the housing bubble contends that the next world economic crisis will occur in the next two years.  He predicts that there will be a long, painful, protracted economic downturn, evidenced first by deflation and then by hyper inflation. 

 So, what happens to all of us that are poor or middle class that have been living on borrowed money.  Roubini suggests two scenarios.  The first is Keynesian theory and the other is from the Austrian economic school.  With Keynes, the solution to economic crisis is infusion of capital into the economy by government in the form of stimulus dollars and direct payments for unemployment etc.  With the Austrian school approach the answer is “creative destruction” which is allowing the economy to go through the painful destruction of corporations, persons, or institutions that are weak or that have over committed.  The theory is that even though painful, the purging of inefficient and corrupt entities will be shorter and make for a stronger successor.  Roubini uses the term “moral hazard” to explain the behavior of some companies and individuals that take undue risks knowing that someone will bail them out if they get into financial trouble.  He uses Citi Bank as an example of the result of “moral hazard” going back to the great depression when the government bailed them out.  Since then, Citi Bank has been bailed several times because of credit problems due to being leveraged too much.  And who has had to pay for this?  The American tax payer.  “Moral hazard” also comes home to roost with individuals.  Many Americans have leveraged themselves into bankruptcy because they either want it now and easy credit is at hand or we live in a state of perpetual entitlement where our priorities are fixated on the material rather than the spiritual.  And who will suffer the most?  The poor and the young.  Neither Keynes or the Austrians have the whole answer to our situation, but most of us know that change is necessary.  Individual responsibility and self reliance are important but being concerned and committed to the whole is also important. 

 I contend that a solution lies in three areas—the long process of unwinding our debt, the preservation of person’s dignity and worth, and turning to the One that truly gives us meaning.  And the longer we wait to make these painful decisions and changes the more painful it will be.  So where do we place our faith?  Jeremiah and other prophets believed that the answer to our predicament lay in our turning away from the lesser gods of our culture and placing our faith in the God of new life and creation. “Nearly 90 percent of Americans, according to the CIA World Factbook, identify themselves with a religion. But only 12 percent of American adults say faith is a top priority in their life, according to a new study released Monday by the Barna Group.”   It may be charged that suggesting that we turn towards God in these times (as well as in good times) is naïve and impractical.   We’re not ready to give up our little gods and until we do, we will suffer the pain of attachment. 

 “I will surely gather them from all the lands where I banish them in my furious anger to this place and let them live in safety.  They will be my people, and I will be their God.  I will give them singleness of heart and action, so that they will always fear me for their own good and the good of their children after them.  I will make an everlasting covenant with them; I will never stop doing good to them.”  Jeremiah 32: 37-39  

 Jeremiah states that God will gather all who have been banished and will be the God of all people.  I believe that even if there are those who do not accept the presence and influence of God, we are all still under God’s reign.  It is for those of us who believe in that reign to live into God’s purpose.  The outcome may not be what we want, but it will be God’s outcome.





Ethics and Supporting Small Business

13 07 2010

I almost feel unpatriotic writing this piece.  Having invested in the stock market since I was fourteen and being in business myself, I believe that business should be the cornerstone of our American economy as opposed to big government being the watchdog and driver of economic well being for the average American.  But recently I have become aware of a disparity that needs discussion—the role of big business and small business in bringing our economy back to health. 

 Currently big businesses such as Microsoft, Cisco and Exxon, just to name three, are sitting on huge reserves of cash.  Needless to say with the uncertainty in financial markets in the past few years and the probability that we will see the other shoe drop again in the future, it still calls into question what companies such as these should be doing with their cash.  First of all, big companies need a lot of cash and they employee a lot of people.  But many of these companies in past years have cut back the number of employees.   But we are told that in order to get the economy back on track we need to improve employment.  We’ve lost about 7million jobs in the past few years and are limping along at less than replacement employment.  We’re told that the private sector needs to add jobs.  But where will these jobs come from?  Most large businesses cut jobs in the past recession and are reluctant to add jobs.  One reason is that there is not the demand for their products to justify those increases; which brings us back to cash.  If the cash is not to be used for growing organically, where then will growth in those companies come?  Some suggest that it will come from acquisitions and mergers.  Ignoring questions concerning anti-trust issues (you remember anti-trust don’t you), one consequence in M&A is that often by absorbing competition the acquiring company is not only able to get rid of competition but it’s also able to have a more efficient operation by combining operations which often results in loss of jobs.   Many of these companies are also outsourcing jobs to other countries further creating job loss in the U.S.  In some case the word multi-national actually means non-American. 

 In the case of the “too big to fail” banks, many of them are doing extremely well considering they have been able to borrow money for 0% and lend it out at much higher rates of interest.  This has been great for U.S. taxpayers who are hopefully getting much of their advance of funds back for helping bail them out.  But what of those smaller banks that have gone under and have been sold to bigger banks.  Again we often see that as a part of cost cutting, branches are closed or consolidated and persons laid off.  So, the big get bigger and to what end?—more service to customers? More dividends to shareholders?  More taxes to local and federal governments?  So, what’s the answer?  The proposed new bank regulations seem to indicate that the game is rigged.  In spite of all the gnashing of teeth about change, the indication is that not much substantive change will occur.  And there are many pundits that believe that within a couple of years the banking system will be back in trouble.  And pundits can’t decide whether we’re in for massive inflation or painful deflation.  My sense is that big business and big banks will do what is in the best interest of big business and big banks and if it contributes to job creation, so be it, but I wouldn’t count too heavily on them getting us out of the recession.

 We keep hearing that the answer to getting out of the current recession is the creation of new small businesses and in small business hiring more workers.  I agree.  But there’s not much encouragement for this.  Everything from local restrictions and regulation of small business, future healthcare liability, lack of availability of financing, and even cracking down on immigration policy are seen by some as hampering job creation.  In a recent poll of small business by the Biz Roundtable, a very pessimistic future was painted by those interviewed.  There just doesn’t seem to be much excitement in hiring more people even if financing is available when there doesn’t seem to be much of a market for the goods and services produced by these companies.    

 Currently there are proposals being bantered about concerning creating tax credits for hiring new workers and tax credits or accelerated depreciation for purchasing new equipment.  When these have been done in the past they seem to have had a positive impact on the economy.  Another possibility would be to have a lower effective income tax rate for small businesses.  But at the end of the day, the most important consideration for small business is the ability to get into business and to stay in compliance with the myriad of laws and regulations, both local and federal, which impedes the small business to function and to be the engine of job creation that it’s been in the past.  Add to that, small business’ often not being able to compete with big business’s ability to sell for less and the consumer’s perception that they can get it cheaper at the big box store and that it will be in business a lot longer than the small local operator, the deck seems to stacked against small business.  You may wonder what all this has to do with ethics.  For we consumers, there are some fundamental issues that we control.  Who will we support? Are we willing to support local small businesses, even when prices may be more than at the big box?  Small business needs to do its part by being more customers focused and offer something that big businesses can’t always add and that’s relationships with the customer.    Many people, particularly in smaller communities around the country are answering this question by coming down on the side of home grown businesses. They question the consequences of having the Wal Mart come into their town that undercuts local merchants that result in Main St. becoming a ghost town? In a city like Houston more often than not, we don’t have the same relationship with small businesses that are available to small town dwellers.  It’s just easier to go to the national company rather than seeking out a local business.   . 

 I believe that we should encourage people to start small businesses and for our communities to enhance the potential of these job creating engines.  So, my suggestion to us all is to support our local small businesses and support regulations that will enhance those business persons efforts. 

 What small businesses do you support?





I Don’t Care Whether He’s a Christian; I Just Want a Good Dentist

6 07 2010

 Several years ago a good friend of ours moved to north Dallas.  She began to meet people in her community and as is the case in moving to a new place, she wanted referrals to service persons, such as doctors, dentist, plumbers, etc.  She was somewhat flabbergasted that when she would query her friends about such referrals and they would invariably answer, “Oh, Dr.  X is a Christian, you know.”  She said that it was not just one new friend that responded this way; it was almost all of them.  It was as if their primary criteria for selection were that the person was Christian.  Maybe I don’t run in the right circles to get this kind of response here in Houston or maybe Dallas is just that different.  But our friend’s response to us was, “I don’t care whether he’s a Christian or not, I just want a good dentist.” 

One of our Food For Thought attendees said she had the same reaction when she went into a doctor’s office and there was a cross in a prominent place in the waiting room.  I’ve also talked to numerous people who are turned off by businesses that have the Christian fish logo on their business advertising.  I have often been told that these businesses are some of the worst offenders with poor ethical standards that they’ve confronted.  Which brings us to another question?  How would one respond if the professional or business advertised that they were a Jewish lawyer, a Hindu cardiologist, a Muslim accountant or a Buddhist psychotherapist?  When we make choices of businesses or professionals that we’re going to support based on religious preference, it probably doesn’t have a lot to do with competence.  It’s probably more about trusting.  If we are Christian and white, we may feel more trusting towards someone who looks like us and has a similar religious background.  And religious preference doesn’t have a lot to do with competence.

My oldest son has had cardiac issues from birth.  He has had two aortic valves replaced with the first operation almost being fatal.  The second time he was to have the valve replaced, something miraculous occurred.  His cardiologist, an Indian who Mark had seen for a number of years and who had a great relationship with was ready to assist in the valve replacement.  But the night before the operation he had a dream that made him decide to do one more test.  Not a very scientific approach, but one that was fortuitous.  He decided to run one more test and found that Mark had a huge tumor on his heart.  Mark was finally diagnosed with Non Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.  Mark was then first treated for the lymphoma and then some months later had the valve replacement.  Both the doctor, a Hindu and Mark a Christian believed the dream was more than a dream. 

I’d rather have doctor or do business with someone that is not a moral cipher and only sees persons as objects to be cut on or used to enhance ones bottom line.  Even persons of faith can have a disconnect between what they profess in worship and their actions away from worship.  The ending scene in Godfather is a dramatic example of this disconnect where Michael Corlione is having his child Christened while at the same time he is having all of his enemies killed.  This is a theatrical extreme that for most of us is not that pronounced but the film makes the point that as humans we have the ability to blot out and rationalize what we’ve been taught as the difference in right and wrong and our selfish, bigoted and brutal self will.

My point is that faith makes a difference, both for the patient, client, or customer and the professional or business. Our faith should inform our ethics and actions and our understanding of our role in God’s universe.  We have to be aware of the result of our actions on what the East calls Karma.  But whether we advertise our faith, is another issue. 

One company that has had great success in advertising its faith is Christian Brothers Automotive, a franchise company servicing seven southern states with fifty four centers.  Founder Mark Carr started the business in 1982 with a vision that Christian values should inform the way he and his franchisees do business.  He limits selling franchises to born again Christians which in turn has the added benefit of developing trustworthy employees.  For me personally I’d like to think that the company or professional that I go to has a faith, even if not necessarily mine, and that sees me as a child of God and that I should be treated with respect and care. 

The current best example of a company that creates a covenant between operators and customer is Chik Fil A.  The company was begun in 1947 by Truett Cathy.  It now has 1430 stores and does over 2 billion a year in sales and is still a private company.  In order to receive a franchise a person only has to pay $5000. and be willing to work full time in the business.  The parent company participates 50-50 in the profits.  There are over 25,000 applications a year for about 100 stores.  The company is based on Christian principles of stewardship and is always closed on Sundays.   If you’ve ever been to a Chik Fil A before you know that there is different atmosphere about the place;  And the foods good too.

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3895162/chick-fil-as-philosophy-on-business?playlist_id=87185

And for me as the customer, I should also see those who serve me as being human with frailties and concerns that may be making them have a bad day.  And that if trust and covenant are broken that I deal with my anger and disappointment appropriately and try to rebuild the relationship, even though I may not use that company or person in the future.  I don’t know about you, but that’s really hard for me to do when I think someone has taken advantage of me.





Gotcha

1 07 2010

 

Last week we had our Food  For Thought luncheon meeting on ethics at Christ Church Cathedral.  Treebeard’s food is great and even though we didn’t have a big crowd, we had some great conversation on covenant and business ethics. (by the way you’re invited)  Bob Thurmond the program director of the Cathedral Justice Project was talking about how American business seems to have evolved to companies trying to make contracts so onerous that the best description for them is “gotchas”.  I can personally attest to the complexity of real estate contracts that twenty or thirty years ago were much simpler than today.  In spite of that complexity as a nation we’ve experienced the biggest housing meltdown in U.S. history.  It raises the question of why should contracts so complex if they’re not worth the paper they’re written on.  In addition to the housing bubble numerous large commercial properties have been foreclosed on, some of them with billion dollar values.  I realize that we live in a much more complex world and that we all have to deal with more regulation, whether it’s environmental, financial regulation, safety, or a myriad of other regulations that make everyone want to CYA. 

 I’m not so naïve that I believe that we’re going to turn the ship around in a hurry, if ever.  But Bob began talking about the difference in American and Japanese business.  This really picked my interest in as much as I have been involved in the martial arts for fifty years and have come to appreciate much about the Japanese culture, while at the same time being mystified by it.  For Americans, including myself, the Japanese ethic is quite enigmatic.  On the one hand it is very focused on the group and the needs of the group.   On the other hand it is very hierarchical with deference made to those who are older or who have a higher rank in the social order.  I particularly like the “older” concept.  Dr. W. Edward Deming helped revolutionize Japanese manufacturing with what he called “quality circles” or Kaizen.  These are small groups in a manufacturing plant who meet formally and give suggestions on ways to improve production, safety and other issues to improve the company.  It’s purpose is to generate and implement employee ideas.  Now, here is the interesting part.  The employees don’t get bonuses for their suggestions.  The suggestions may result in changes in the plant itself that make employees work environment better but the primary focus in on the organization.  Deming’s ideas have been replicated in the U.S. but with a lesser degree of success since in Japan there was not the monetary incentive to improve. 

 This is just one difference in Japanese business and culture.  This does not mean that Japanese business and culture do not have flaws.  Over the years there have been numerous scandals in both government and business.  But often the outcome is much different than in the U.S.   Whereas in the U.S. the CEO who’s caught in a indiscretion may try to blame others or claim ignorance.  But in Japan, the hierarchy runs in both directions.  I may be low in the totem pole, but the Sensei (big guy) is responsible for all the people below him and the consequences that are created under his watch. He is the one that is expected to “fall on his sword” if things go wrong and in the old days that was literally what was expected of him. 

 Compare some of what CEO Akei Toyoda and others said in testimony before congress:

 ”Especially, I would like to extend my condolences to the members of the Saylor family, for the accident in San Diego,” said Toyoda in his testimony. “I would like to send my prayers again, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again.

“Since last June, when I first took office, I have personally placed the highest priority on improving quality over quantity, and I have shared that direction with our stakeholders. As you well know, I am the grandson of the founder, and all the Toyota vehicles bear my name. For me, when the cars are damaged, it is as though I am as well.”

And here is a statement made by a key company executive James Press:

“Toyoda is dealing with two big problems. He only took control of the company last year. The vast majority of decisions that are connected with the recall were made by a previous regime. On Feb. 23, Automotive News published part of an e-mail from former Toyota Motor Sales President James Press, who also became the first American to serve on Toyota’s management board in Japan before he left in 2007.  Press called the management that preceded Toyoda “pirates.”

“The root cause of their problems is that the company was hijacked, some years ago, by anti-family, financially oriented pirates,” Press said, referring to the company’s move away from Toyoda family leadership over the past decade. “They didn’t have the character necessary to maintain a customer-first focus. Akio [Toyoda] does,” Press told Automotive News. Press left Toyota to be vice chairman of Chrysler, a post he left last November.”

Can you imagine an American or British CEO making statements such as this (will BP be the exception).

 Japanese business and culture are changing to conform to the ‘gotcha’ philosophy in individualism and lack of personal accountability. The Toyoda story is a case in point.  But maybe we can take some lessons from the Japanese.  Loyalty and honor are important to the working of a society.  In Japan the expectation is that every person will play their part in making things work.  And if you don’t play your role the whole system will fail.  It is not only a dishonor to you and your family but also to your ancestors who still have a place in your life and the life of the society. 

 The question that I grapple with is can we as Christians mediate those differences between the good things about our culture and the good things about the Japanese culture.  Being honorable and loyal to one another is important but if we fail, do we have to “fall on our sword”.  Or can we hold ourselves and others accountable and admit our shortcomings while at the same time practicing “grace”?  Can we acknowledge that the group is important but the individual still has a part in making the system work and allowing freedom to prevail?  What do you think?





Relational Banking and Other Anachronisms

21 06 2010

 

 

Every year around Christmas we are privileged to see the holiday classic, “It’s a Wonderful Life” starring Jimmy Stewart.  It’s such a classic that for several days you can almost find it playing on some channel 24/7.  So, why has this film become an icon.  As movie reviewer James Berarninelli says, “It’s a Wonderful Life has earned its legion of followers because it effectively touches upon one basic truth of life that we all would like to believe — that each of us, no matter how apparently insignificant, has the power to make a difference, and that the measure of our humanity has nothing to do with fame or money, but with how we live our life on a day-to-day basis. It’s a Wonderful Life asks and answers a question that all of us think of at one time or another: “What would this world be like if I had never been born?”

 But others have said that it has to do with a simpler time and small town American values that we long for to return.  I can certainly relate to both of these ideas and would like to focus on the latter.  I remember as a young business person going to my neighborhood bank and saying hello to all the bank VP;s and the bank president.  The tellers had been there forever and knew me by name.  The bank was an institution that wasn’t just about making money.  It was a part of the community.  That bank no longer exists, having been bought out, merged and folded into a conglomerate bank.  Today, the idea of the neighborhood bank and the idea of “relational banking” is a thing of the past.  To even put money in the bank through the drive through window is an ordeal, sometimes requiring that I go into the main branch office to check to see if my signature matches the one on the signature card.  Even then the person I visit with doesn’t know me and I don’t really care about how their day is going since they probably won’t be there next time I’m in. 

 Banking is not the only type of business that has changed and become dehumanized.  Whether it’s my local pharmacy, the giant Wal-Mart or the grocery store or gasoline store, there’s not much in the way of “relation building”.  We have TV commercials that tout the personal service aspect of some businesses but the reality is that there is very little to substantiate those claims.

 This has a profound influence on our ethics and values.  In “It’s a Wonderful Life” people rallied around George Bailey and his family as George and his father before him had done.  There was a sense of community that existed that said that people’s lives are important to the community at large and that we are called into that community to be supportive and loving.  Today there is a distrust of the other and we are either afraid of our neighbor or we live in isolation from neighbor and see those we serve or are served by as objects rather than as loved children of God, worthy of our concern and affirmation.

 If the world of George Bailey ever existed we can’t go back there and we have to realize that, that time may have never existed.  We can hope that we can build that kind of community in the future where we live supporting one another and reconciling to one another.  These realities make it important to build relationships that affirm our neighbor, while at the same time taking responsibility for our thoughts and actions.  And most importantly, we can see the face of God looking at us as we encounter the other.





How High’s the Water Mama

22 05 2010

Houston floods.   Duh!! 

When the Allen brothers started selling lots in Harrisburg (Houston) they didn’t tell anyone about the Mosquito’s and the flooding.  Land was plentiful and cheap.  As people began to inhabit Houston they realized drainage was important to crops and getting rid of Mosquitoes.  They were not aware of the impact of draining the land on downstream flooding, even though flooding had been a reality for eons.  As development progressed the more affluent whites bought the high ground while poor whites and blacks inhabited the low lands.  Houston bayous drop about one foot per mile with the land around it dropping more than that.  In the Heights around 10th Street the elevation is about 60’ whereas the elevation in the East End around Harrisburg is about 40’ with the bayou being about 25’.  This historical and systemic difference can’t be changed even though over the years there have been numerous attempts to fix Houston’s flooding problem.  According to the Harris County flood Control District there is an average of a major flood in Harris County every two years. 

 Another influence that has exacerbated the problem is that over the years developers have tended to develop close to the Bayous.  The reason for this is that areas closer to the bayous have more trees but the main reason seems to be that the drainage run to the bayous is cheaper because the bayou is closer.  Many of those subdivisions were built in the 100 year flood plains which until a few years ago were not well documented.  Also, because of the lack of technology, the impact of upstream drainage was not known.  Today there is a greater comprehensive knowledge of these interconnected influences.

 In recent weeks there has been a move by a group that is floating (no pun intended) a proposed drainage and street plan to be put on the ballot in November.  There is no doubt that Houston needs a comprehensive program for addressing our severely inadequate drainage and street repair needs.  There are a number of positive aspects to the plan but as is always the case, the devil is in the details. 

 Houston is currently going through a transition that many American cities are going through—the gentrification of inner city neighborhoods.  This results in the revitalization of those neighborhoods with a resulting increase in the tax base of those neighborhoods.  But the downside of this is that traditional neighborhoods that are often comprised on minority and older residents are displaced and pushed out into the suburbs where transportation costs and access to jobs is more problematic.  Even when affordable housing is made a part of the revitalization plan, this is only a short term fix in as much as those home owners will still be charged more for taxes and will eventually move out because of inflated prices.  The reason this issue is important in the discussion about flooding is that most of the new housing in these inner city communities of Houston will be higher density housing in the form of townhouses whereas in the original configuration of the neighborhood, the homes were single family dwellings with a footprint that would only take up about 20% of the lot area as opposed to about 90% with townhouse construction.  This shift in land use over time makes flooding even more threatening since rain water cannot be absorbed into the soil and must run off into the existing streets and drains.  The proposed program would help that problem but in a cynical way would result in increased gentrification resulting in the quicker demise of those traditional neighborhoods.  Many churches in the inner city are already commuter churches with members living out in the community and traveling in for Sunday services.  Many of these churches are small and in their inception were neighborhood churches.  Over time, will they lose viability and be closed?  Schools with long and cherished traditions are being closed because of population shifts and lower birth rates.  Even affluent River Oaks is going through change with many smaller homes (under 3000 sq, ft,) being bought, torn down and new 5-7000 sq. ft. homes built.  Old time residents lament this fact and even have been quoted as saying, “if this continues, we’ll look just like West University” another inner city area that has experienced a transition away from its former character.  Many cities around the world are proud of their old neighborhoods for their character, history and tourism.  When we Americans go abroad, one of the first questions we ask about a building or neighborhood is, “how old is it”.  Not with Houston.  In this mornings Chronicle there was an article about Frost Town, the first subdivision in Houston.  It no longer exists.  A marker is being placed today to commemorate its founding but other than the marker there is no other symbol of its existence.  Time and time again change for the sake of progress has taken away a part of our history and community. .  People in neighborhoods that flood and that have poor streets want change.  So, the ethical question is, do you try to maintain and preserve the character of the traditional community or do you encourage the rapid turnover to a gentrified community, thus displacing the current residents and small businesses due to increased taxes and fees that would make living in those communities prohibitive What is the price that we’re willing to pay for progress is a question that doesn’t just impact traditional neighborhoods in Houston, but also is a question we are addressing in a world where humanity continues to inhabit more and more of our planet. 

 





Whom Shall We Blame?

1 05 2010

 

 

Romans 3:  Peterson Version

“‘There’s nobody living right, not even one, nobody who knows the score, nobody alert for God.  They’ve all taken the wrong turn; they’ve all wandered down blind alleys.  No one’s living right; I can’t find a single one.  Their throats are gaping graves, their tongues slick as mud slides.  Every word they speak is tinged with poison.  They open their mouths and pollute the air.  They race for the honor of sinner of the year, litter the land with heartbreak and ruin, don’t know the first thing about living with others.  They never give God the time of day.’

This makes it clear, doesn’t it, that whatever is written in these Scriptures is not what God says about others but to us whom these Scriptures were addressed in the first place!  And it’s clear enough, isn’t it, that we’re sinners, every one of us, in the same sinking boat with everybody else?  Our involvement with God’s revelation doesn’t put us right with God.  What it does is force us to face our complicity in everyone else’s sin.”

 The current economic problems have resulted in both consternation and real economic hardships to most Americans.  As some of you might have done, I watched a good bit of the Senate hearings on the role that Goldman Sachs might have played in the debacle.  But after all the dust settled, it seemed to me that even though GS acted unethically, they were not guilty of anything criminal (at least for now).  GS was a major player in the financial world when the house of cards fell, but they were only one player in the tragic game that ensued.  The final judgment is not in, but my guess is that not much will come of those hearings other than to further cloudy the water and create more consternation among Americans.  I decided to try and give a time line and the factors leading up to the meltdown and in particular to the sub-prime issue.  The history of the evolution of this situation goes back to 1938 when   Fannie Mae and later when Freddie Mac the quasi governmental agencies that bought loans from approved mortgage sellers were created to help low and moderate income families purchase homes.  So, here goes:

In 1938, as a result of the depression, Congress passed a bill to help people achieve the American dream of home ownership using the pass through vehicle Fannie Mae.  Fannie Mae buys loans from approved mortgage sellers, for a fee, and that carries Fannie Mae’s guarantee of timely payment of interest and principal. Fannie Mae may also securitize mortgages from its own loan portfolio and sells the resultant mortgage-backed security to investors in the   secondary mortgage market with a guarantee that the stated principal and interest payments will be timely passed through to the investor. By purchasing the mortgages, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide banks and other financial institutions with fresh money to make new loans. This gives the United States housing and credit markets flexibility and liquidity.

  1. Starting in 1993 the Clinton administration pressured Fannie Mae to make more loans to minorities and neighborhoods that were underserved in the loan market due to banks engaging in what was termed “red lining”. 
  2. In 2002 Bush signed the Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit Act to further expand home ownership.  During this period credit requirements and eligibility requirements were relaxed resulting in lower standards in credit worthiness.
  3. As a result of periodic recessions and the perception that the economy could be helped most by expanding home ownership, housing began to dramatically expand resulting in overheating of the housing market.
  4. In 2003 Bush signed the American Dream Down Payment Act, further expanding available housing to low income and moderate income persons which continued the practice of stretching credit with short term financing, etc.
  5. In 2004 Bush and Congress at the behest of the SEC deregulated the sub prime mortgage business opening it up to other entities such as Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns whereby these companies as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bundled high risk mortgages with supposedly low risk mortgages into packages, that were sold in the secondary market. Typically, the high risk loans were at either nothing down and interest only and substandard debt to income ratios.   These companies were able to convince the rating agencies of the overall security of the loan bundles resulting in them being given triple “A” ratings by rating agencies like Moody’s.  They were then sold to institutions and the public.  The deregulation resulted in banks and lending institutions being allowed to leverage up to 30 times their capital, making those companies even more vulnerable.
  6. In order to further insure that the loan packages, insurance was bought from companies like AIG to give investors more security even though unlike most insurance companies there were less funds to back up the packages.  But it can be argued that the AIG was relying on the rating agencies, who were relying on the information they were given by package brokers like Goldman Sacks, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, who were relying on the underwriting and implied guarantees of Fannie Mae and Freddie who were relying on those who originated the loans who were relying on valuations of the homes by appraisers and the market place for these homes.  And buyers were relying on loan brokers who told them that they qualified for the loans.
  7. In addition to the home loan market, equity loans were being made that were being made on homes with questionable value.  The premise was that the homes would continue to increase in value and as long as there were people to buy the loans, there was little risk on the part of the loan originators.
  8. As a result, home builders had little trouble borrowing money to build the homes since it seemed that there was a continuous stream of ready buyers, regardless of their credit worthiness. Overbuilding resulted in oversupply and prices began to fall.
  9. As a result of overbuilding and poor credit risks a crack in the financial dam resulted which grew to staggering proportions that eventually required the federal government to intervene.
  10. Before the dam could be saved companies like Bear Sterns, Wacovia Bank, and Lehman Brothers to name just three took bankruptcy.  AIG and a number of large banks deemed “too big to fail” were bailed out due to the fear that if they failed it would bring down the whole world banking industry.

 So, who do we blame?  As the noted scripture states, everyone is guilty.  Even those of us who weren’t directly involved but succumbed to the sirens song of easy credit and instant gratification have a part in what has happened.  When we don’t stay informed, or make rash judgments about the issues, or opt out because we don’t think we make a difference we are complicit.  But most of all, when we don’t trust God and God’s covenant and place other priorities above God, we are most complicit.  The outcome may not be what we want it to be, but God’s purpose will prevail and we are all a part of that purpose in the way we live and act towards God and to one another.





Statement of Business Values

15 04 2010

1. We honor and uphold the authority of our leaders.

2. We focus on our mission, vision, and core values.

3. We speak positively and encourage others.

4. We devote time to recreation and reflection.

5. We revere those with wisdom.

6. We dignify the gift of life.

7. We support family values.

8. We utilize only what is rightfully ours.

9. We value honesty and tell the truth.

10. We respect the property and rights of others.

by, Rev. Jim Jackson





Ethics and Accountability

11 04 2010

 

Romans 3:9-20

“So where does that put us?  Do we Jews get a better break than the others?  Not really.  Basically, all of us, whether insiders or outsiders, start out in identical conditions, which is to say that we all start out as sinners.  Scripture leaves no doubt about it:

‘There’s nobody living right, not even one, nobody who knows the score, nobody alert for God.They’ve all taken the wrong turn; they’ve all wandered down blind alleys. No one’s living right; I can’t find a single one……Every word they speak is tinged with poison.  They open their mouths and pollute the air.  They race for the honor of sinner-of-the year, litter the land with heartbreak and ruin, don’t know the first thing about living with others.  They never give God the time of day.’

This makes it clear doesn’t it, that whatever is written in these Scriptures is not what God says about others but to us to whom these Scriptures were addressed in the first place?  Our involvement with God’s revelation doesn’t put us right with God.  What it does is force us to face our complicity in everyone else’s sin.”  Petersen’s, The Message.

 We humans have a blind spot.  Some would call it the unconscious, others would call it the Shadow and some would just call it denial and the Bible calls it sin.  Whatever you call it, it’s something that affects our moral and ethical behavior.  From the view of Christianity it’s why we have confession as a part of our worship or faith journey.  It’s how the person in a twelve step program can look deep inside to make a moral inventory as a part of recovery.  And it can be intensely painful to take that hard look at oneself. Even when we want to be aware of our shortcomings, prejudices and ethical lapses, we have difficulty seeing it or admitting it.  But within most of us, there is the capacity to see that part of self that is less than beautiful.  

John Wesley

 John Wesley used bands, classes and societies to create “a community of brotherhood of discipline, edification, correction and mutual aid, in conscious separation from the world, as the primary visible expression of the church.”  He did not just focus on “correction” but considered the whole person.  Most would say that implementing such a methodology would be impractical if not impossible in today’s complex, fragmented and secular society.   Being “corrected” by others smacks of guilt tripping and religion has too long had guilt as a way of keeping people subservient to the Church.

 Even today though, there are some Christians who are attempting to implement accountability among themselves.  To what degree they are successful is not known but most people would not see themselves in such a relationship.  I have heard stories of some men’s accountability groups that will meet at an IHOP once and week and go through a confessional procedure of accountability.  But one of the problems with this, particularly with men, is that we tend to be so competitive that we engage in one up-manship.  If a man states that he’s been struggling with lust, another one states that he’s actually carried out his lustful thoughts, while another might say that he’s carried out his lustful thoughts with three women. But who am I to judge.  If it works for them, it should tickle the hell out of me. 

 So, is there any answer to these challenges that more of us would embrace and be useful in holding ourselves and others accountable?   There may be some clues to help.  One of the greatest difficulties with self analysis is that we tend to be myopic.  We only see what we want to see and the more we surround ourselves with those who are either like we are or that will not address our shortcomings, the more difficult it is to change and be accountable.  I recently watched a TV program about Enron and was astonished at how pervasive the Skilling attitude of survival of the fittest and the religion of profits permeated the entire company.  It was as if no one believed that there was anything that they couldn’t get away with.  Trying to figure out ways to beat the system was the order of the day and anyone that denied that philosophy or questioned it did not last very long in the company. 

 Here are four possible ways to deal with this myopia.

             1.  Don’t just surround yourself with people who think or act like you, but with people who will give you honest feedback.  This should be a person with integrity as opposed to someone who will give into your weaknesses.  But they should not just be willing to give feedback but also to look at themselves with at least the same degree of objectivity that they give to you. Inbreeding within institutions becomes an anathema if allowed to go untested.  In those situations no one is willing to say “the emperor has no clothes.”  

             2.  Recognize that “we are complicit in everyone else’s sin.”   It’s not enough to just throw stones.  As an example, we may feel that our country is on the road to financial ruin. But if we give in to the religion of consumerism, easy credit and meism, we must recognize that in order to change the system we not only have to speak up but we have to make some fundamental changes in ourselves and our personal expectations. 

             3.  Look at our own prejudices and blindness.  Part of prejudice is taught from early childhood but part of it I believe is hard wired.  It’s hard to split out the influence of prejudice in our thinking, but if we’re honest with ourselves we have to admit its presence.  No one is free of prejudice.  What’s yours?

            4. Look beyond the obvious and see how interconnected sinfulness can be.  As we have shown in other articles, there is a cumulative effect to poor ethics.  One error in ethical behavior can permeate an entire system.  We tend to create a disconnect between our faith commitment and our actions.  I use the simple example of leaving the parking lot at church on Sunday morning.  We’ve just come from a sermon on compassion, brotherly love and kindness, only to charge out of the parking lot and not allow others to get out ahead of us.  (yes, I’m guilty). 

5. Know what the scripture says and put it into its proper context.  Jesus was always showing those in power that they were missing the intent of the law when they tried to impose the letter of the law.  A good example of this is the story of the woman caught in adultery.  The men gathered around the woman wanted to stone her as the law required but Jesus pointedly showed them that they were sinners too and that if any of them was without sin that they should be the first to stone her. 

 6. What about calling out elected officials on ethical issues?  Many persons may not agree with their faith community’s position on certain issues.  But do we point out this disconnect between their actions and their denominations position.  We currently see this on such issues as abortion, comprehensive immigration reform and fair distribution of wealth.  Or is that too legalistic and intrusive into the personal?  Does personal belief, despite denominational stance trump institutional positions?

It’s been said that in genteel company it is not proper to talk about religion or politics.  Maybe that’s the place that it should be discussed, but in a civil and respectful way.  What do you think?








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.