Are you 'vulture aware'?

On a hike in Portland’s Forest Park earlier this week, I ambled into the Audubon Wildlife Care Center on Cornell Road to discover volunteers preparing for “International Vulture Awareness Day.”

I have to confess I come up short when it comes to “vulture awareness.” A full day of it never crossed my mind.

I also snarkily thought the publication of Dick Cheney’s book might have some kind of tie-in with this Saturday's festivities.

There’s no question that vultures get a bad rap. Generally you don’t want to be referred to as a “vulture.”

But look at the up-side.

One web site expressed the benefits of vultures this way:

Vultures are scavenging birds that help recycle and prevent the spread of disease. Woodland Park Zoo is home to the turkey vulture, a species that ranges from southern Canada to South America. Turkey vulture numbers declined in the 1950s and 1960s, most likely due to the mistaken belief that they spread diseases. Shooting and poisoned baits often targeted these useful birds.

I mean, wouldn’t you like it said of you that you “help recycle and prevent the spread of disease”? From Southern Canada to South America, no less.

Can Cheney say as much?

Of course, like all do-gooders, there is the danger that you, fellow vulture, will be misunderstood. “Don’t shoot! I PREVENT disease; I don’t spread it! I may be ugly but, remember, I’m ‘useful’!”

So consider heightening your vulture awareness this Saturday at the Portland Audubon shelter, 5151 NW Cornell Road, from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.

You and the little vulture-unaware ones in your family can:

“Meet Ruby, Portland Audubon’s Turkey Vulture close up.” (I have and she’s one ugly vulture, but she has soulful eyes. At her feet are dead mice — also known as “vermin.")

“Compare your ‘wingspan’ to that of an Andean Condor.” (Hint, you are waaay “wing-span” deficient.)

“Discover why vultures are important” (This, as it turns out, is as important for vultures as for you.)

“Make a pledge to help vultures survive.” (Raise you right wing and repeat after me....)

Shoes that fit

A confession — or maybe it’s just to purge eight years of anger.

So many times I’ve wanted to hurl my own shoes — or outrage — at George W. Bush.

I have wanted to score a direct, symbolic hit, to shatter his privileged, preppy, Texas, self-righteous, Born-Again, cynical shell.

To protect us — both of us — I have prayed to the powers, "Don’t allow me in the same room with this man!" I fear what I would do. How would I contain my dark disdain for him?

How would I stifle my rage?

I doubt I would hurl mere shoes. I would choose heavy, deep-treaded, metal-toed, big-bore hiking boots. Clod-hoppers.

Danners from Oregon.

After Egyptian TV reporter Muntader al-Zaidi threw his shoes and unleashed his tirade, I wondered what would I yell as I hurled my own.

“Here’s for your lies!” I’d scream. “Take this for your hypocrisy, ignorance, incompetence, callousness, smugness, cronyism, cynicism, contempt and arrogance. Here's for the torture, the deaths, the destruction of the planet, the inhumanity.

Take this for Rumsfeld and Cheney. Take this for your collective evil!”

Don't get me wrong. I believe there is “that of God” in everyone. I really do. I believe in non-violence. I believe in these things, but when it comes to George W. Bush, I fear my beliefs would fail me; that I would fail my beliefs. I fear that my own darkness would prevail. That my boots would become unlaced.

No, the shoes thrown in Baghdad fit me all too well.

Like Muntader al-Zaidi, I wear size 10.

Texas Hold 'em and Crazy Scott

I know you are as shocked — SHOCKED! — as I am about Scott McClellan’s deranged delusions about the Bush White House.

Clearly the former press secretary has been brainwashed by left-wing bloggers, as the ever-insightful Karl Rove has suggested.

Or, as the New York Times reported, “(White House officials, past and present) seemed to take their cues from Dana Perino, the current press secretary. Ms. Perino used the words ‘sad’ and ‘puzzled’ to describe the White House response, as if Mr. McClellan had undergone some kind of emotional breakdown, while making the case that if Mr. McClellan had problems with Mr. Bush, he should have raised them while in the president’s employ.”

Well exactly.

We know that the White House for the last seven years has had its windows thrown wide open to a wide diversity of opinion. All Scott needed to do was speak up. We know that the president, to say nothing of his gracious and accommodating vice president, is absolutely infatuated and intrigued by new ideas. Paragons of compassion and openness.

Call the Bush years the "New Enlightenment," if you will.

Clearly Scott has gone off his rocker. In the old Soviet Union, the Kremlin readily saw the likes of Scott for what they were — nut cases.

If is unfortunate (also “sad” and “puzzling”) that the rest of this nation largely agrees with Scott. The presidency of George W. Bush and the vice presidency of Richard Cheney are now out of favor with 72 percent of the leftist, whacko American people.

We are a nation of nut cases. The prison industry will love it. Build more cells. The rest of us can join the millions already locked away.

This from the Washington Post: “With more than 2.3 million people behind bars, the United States leads the world in both the number and percentage of residents it incarcerates, leaving far-more-populous China a distant second, according to a study by the nonpartisan Pew Center on the States.”

When the rest of the nation (including crazy old Scott) is locked up, it seems only appropriate that the Bush administration should remain confined to its own separate, bubbly White House incarceration.

Let’s face it, the whole country has been in lock down for seven years. Talk about Texas Hold ‘em.

The November election will mark the greatest liberation in the nation’s history.

Coin of a Republican Realm

In case you haven't seen this, here it is.

Change we can live without.

Thanks for sharing, Arnie.

Grace and Disgrace

I’ve been pondering my writing last week about “disgrace” as it applies to the Bush Administration.

It all seemed so easy. Too easy.

To understand the import of disgrace, not just the Bush Administration’s, I’ve considered the meaning of its seeming opposite, “grace,” and asked others to do the same.

Near the end of the silence of our small Quaker meeting, attended by only four last Sunday, I decided to see what the others thought of “grace” — and “disgrace.”

We let the silence work on us before we spoke.

Two strands emerged.

Grace is a form of love or mercy that comes from outside. One of our group shared that he had had an addiction that seemed to have been swept aside in an act of grace. “I had nothing to do with it,” he said. “It was a gift.”

John Newton’s moving hymn “Amazing Grace” captures the spirit of grace as an outside force. The idea of being “lost, but now … found.”

Disgrace, we suggested, is something we bring upon ourselves. We are quite responsible for it. I thought of Bush and Cheney again, but also of the potential we all have to disgrace ourselves.

The other strand is that grace heals. Disgrace destroys.

Many live with a lack of grace but are not disgraced. They are born into, or cast into dire situations of powerlessness or poverty that shape what we might judge to be disgraceful actions. When we ask what we might have done in the same situation (hunger, extreme poverty, war), we are often led to the notion of “There but for the grace of God go I.”

Saying “grace” at meals reminds us of that idea. We are graced with this food; pray for (and assist) those who are not. Again, “There but for the grace of God….”

The other aspect of grace has to do with a wholeness and integrity. To handle something with grace— gracefully. Only those who have been graced can manifest it. We talk of “natural grace” for instance. A grace that comes from nature. There is no such thing as “manufactured grace.”

Those who seek material excess or a lust for power or act out of a sense of self-righteousness have segregated themselves from nature (and God, if you will). They lack grace; they have disgraced themselves.

And yet we must ask: How did they fall into disgrace? Was it through their own doing? You quickly come to the debate over free will and destiny. Are Bush and Cheney and their disastrous policies the inevitable results of their circumstances, or did they have the freedom not to act as they did? And what of the Osama bin Ladins or Robert Mugabes of the world? What of those who were born into prejudice or anger or fear?

Might we ourselves, placed in their shoes, be vulnerable to the same forces? Are we so free of prejudice ourselves? Are we free of complicity? Of playing along with disgrace? Have we been graced yet? Is someone looking at us and saying, “There but for the grace of God….”?

We are faced with a choice ourselves. I’ve concluded that before we can receive grace, we must be open to it. Can we forgive? Can we forgive ourselves? Can we reach out to those harmed and suffering?

Can we be the willing recipients of grace so that we can become its agents?



On-line definitions for “grace” and “disgrace.”

grace (grs) n.

1. Seemingly effortless beauty or charm of movement, form, or proportion.
2. A characteristic or quality pleasing for its charm or refinement.
3. A sense of fitness or propriety.
4.
a. A disposition to be generous or helpful; goodwill.
b. Mercy; clemency.
5. A favor rendered by one who need not do so; indulgence.
6. A temporary immunity or exemption; a reprieve.
7. Graces Greek & Roman Mythology Three sister goddesses, known in Greek mythology as Aglaia, Euphrosyne, and Thalia, who dispense charm and beauty.
8.
a. Divine love and protection bestowed freely on people.
b. The state of being protected or sanctified by the favor of God.
c. An excellence or power granted by God.
9. A short prayer of blessing or thanksgiving said before or after a meal.


dis·grace (ds-grs) n.

1. Loss of honor, respect, or reputation; shame.
2. The condition of being strongly and generally disapproved.
3. One that brings disfavor or discredit: Your handwriting is a disgrace.
tr.v. dis·graced, dis·grac·ing, dis·grac·es
1. To bring shame or dishonor on: disgraced the entire community.
2. To deprive of favor or good repute; treat with disfavor: The family was disgraced by the scandal.

Revisiting Strunk and White

Re-reading “The Elements of Style” is like visiting with an old friend after a long, long absence.

All the endearing qualities, all the old bonds, come rushing back.

And, with the passage of the years, there’s so much to talk about with authors William Strunk and E.B. White. So much to be reminded of. That includes their assurance that it’s all right to end a sentence with a preposition — especially if it saves you from writing, “So much of which to be reminded.”

The book reminded me of how much I’ve wanted to share with kindred spirits my revulsion for the ubiquitous “robust.” Whom better than Strunk and White?

If there was ever a “Bush-ite” word, it is “robust.” It almost comes branded with the black mark of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The word is all posture and no substance. “Mission Accomplished” was, and is, “robust.”

What kind of bust has Iraq been? A RO-BUST!

So it was that Strunk and White singled out “thrust,” which displays its own phoney muscle-flexing. To quote from page 61 of the third edition: “This showy noun, suggestive of power, hinting of sex, is the darling of executives, politicos and speech writers. Use it sparingly. Save it for specific applications.”

Exactly, and likewise with “robust.”

“The Elements of Style” is one gem after another.

One of my favorite passages explains how Lincoln got away with “Four score and seven years ago.”

I mean, REALLY! Talk about over-written.

And yet he did it, and White in the book’s concluding section, titled “An Approach to Style,” nails down why.

Noting that Lincoln was “flirting with disaster” when he wrote the phrase, White continues:

The president could have got into his sentence with plain “eighty-seven” — a saving of two words and less of a strain on the listeners’ powers of multiplication. But Lincoln’s ear must have told him to go ahead with four score and seven. By doing so, he achieved cadence while skirting the edge of fanciness. Suppose he had blundered over the line and written, “In the year of our Lord seventeen hundred and seventy-six.” His speech would have sustained a heavy blow. Or suppose he had settled on “eighty-seven.” In that case he would have got into his introductory sentence too quickly; the timing would have been bad.”

Lincoln’s choice of a beginning ensured that, contrary to what he said that day, we will long remember his short speech at the hallowed Gettysburg battleground.

Strunk and White’s well-chosen words have the same effect. We will long remember “The Elements of Style.”

What's it all about?

I didn’t want to let days pass without commenting on “Fanboy’s” thoughts about my post regarding Intel CEO Paul Otellini’s 2006 compensation of $6.18 million.

I had estimated the amount made him “worth” 123.6 teachers.

Fanboy first justified Otellini’s pay by noting that he leads Intel’s 95,000 employees and guides the corporation’s worldwide influence. “Intel's products form the backbone of virtually every industry that has anything to do with technology - industries that you and I depend on daily for information, communication, entertainment, transportation, financial transactions, etc.”

By that standard, what should we be paying the CEO of the United States: George W. Bush, or more realistically, Dick Cheney?

For the record, and comparison, Bush makes $400,000; Cheney makes $208,100. Both get substantial expense accounts, health coverage and room and board for themselves and their spouses.

They manage. Are they "worth it"? Let's not go there....

Fanboy then says, “The average teacher has far less influence, far less experience, and far less responsibility than Intel's CEO.”

Note the word “average,” whatever that means. I consider myself an “average” teacher (to the extent that any teacher can be considered
average”), but I’m told I’ve had a share of influence on my students. And as experienced as I am, each day holds a new experience, as I’m sure Mr. Otellini would agree.

As I teacher, I see my responsibilities as preparing my students for life. In a sense, if they fail, I fail. No small responsibility.

And what about success? I asked in my original post: How much responsibility do teachers have for Mr. Otellini’s? What part of his pay does he (or any of us) derive from the efforts of our teachers, or for that matter, the teachers of Intel’s employees?

Of course there are several “above average” teachers who have had a much greater influence than Mr. Otellini or Intel or any of us will ever have.

Christ, Thoreau, Gandhi, Sister Theresa, the Buddha and St. Francis are just a few of the legendary ones. All of them, by the way, chose poverty over wealth in order to discover and share vast truths that eclipse Otellini’s and Intel processors.

Fanboy’s quantitative, bottom-line approach ignores, as I confess I did, a larger question: What’s it all about?

Money? Fame? A fourth house — on the Riviera or in Aspen? A yacht? A third Ferrari stashed in a multi-car garage?

Or is it about a walk in the woods, freedom, a well of potable water, a child’s life, or the Sermon on the Mount?