Prologue:  This column originally appeared on Brad Rourke’s Blog.  Since that June publication the situation in which we find ourselves has changed very little. As the Gulliveresque economy slowly pulls off the cords binding it to the earth, we also begin to hear accounts of financial institutions returning to pre-Recession behaviors.

Thus, I retain the last paragraph of the essay intact. 

 

 

In the beginning

 

Remember films such as Robin Hood or others that depict tax collectors for the landed gentry repeatedly riding into small villages demanding more money? In such films, often the final manifestation of unabashed moral corruption on the part of the landed oligarchy was the torching of dozens of little homes as flocks of extras flee, wailing into the night.

A year ago, in mid-September 2008, many in the media observed the slow collapse of the financial networks in terms of “shoe-dropping.” “When will the other shoe drop?” At that point, being overly reactionary to the circumstances rising up around our ankles seemed to be ill-conceived. Now, with so many institutions in the midst of being propped up, set to receive another round of money, the tax payer still does not know, really, what happened to the first round. Other folks who have traditionally received government funds, like non-profits, can testify that government money usually comes with reporting so complicated that it requires a staff just to manage and track the data the receipt of funds requires.

In this story, the American taxpayer is asked to observe a kind of moral largesse, a selfless humility these past few months. The taxpayer says nothing as his or her hard-earned money is handed out like giant pink puffs of cotton candy to an industry with a 24/7 sweet tooth. Most Americans want to do what is best, to work together, and want to help this new administration, under the direction of President Barack Obama, succeed. The taxpayer has by and large managed this feat even while trying to dog-paddle in the thrashing seas of bad news about the stormy economy. Is this picture changing, though? The high-drama tea bagging by conservatives aside, will centrist and democratic taxpayers continue this stiff-upper lipped silence? Or, are Americans, beginning to find their voice about morality, ethics, and the world of finance?

 

Morality, High Finance, and the Role of the Taxpayer

 

Indeed, as columnist Paul Krugman penned in his April 23, 2009 New York Times column “Reclaiming America’s Soul”, ethics and the voice of the average American seem to be merging into a higher pitched harmony then ever before. Just as Krugman points out the call and the need to find the perpetrators and arbiters of torture in the Bush Administration, so this other shadowy, Bush-era abomination of corporate greed and usury must be displayed to the light. Americans now pay out taxes to support firms that became bloated on corporate greed -- that dangled sub-prime mortgages and low-apr credit card-carrots at the average American.  As taxpayers we have always been held to a standard of ethics and responsibility in our role as citizens.  Somehow, though, we transferred that allegiance of subordination to the world of finance – and we continue to allow financial firms to claim moral authority over our credit “choices.”

They claim moral authority simply in the act of stating that they are “too big to fail”…too big for whom?  And will someone please define fail?  If by fail one means a moral and ethical failure then fail they have – already. For example, firms receiving stimulus and TARP funds still by and large make no accounting for their prior ludicrous usury, but still nary a hint from the divas of finance about where the support funds are going or have gone. Meanwhile, a little guy like Bernie Madoff seems to have been offered up as an easy and symbolic fall-guy -- burned in effigy – with the smoke enabling the true criminals to remain calmly obscure and anonymous. Where accountability reigns supreme for us as taxpayers, the Morality-Free Zone Wall Street moves, speaks and acts in an emboldened but hidden language – behind a scrim most taxpayers still cannot read. These firms have failed every test of morality conceivable. Further, the Grand Canyon-size yawn of silence from CEOs echoes into the national discourse – not a twitter of contrition.

The really egregious paradox is that the rhetoric of morality itself – and claiming a national role as systemic high-minded arbiters of morality and personal responsibility has been the very means by which banks have kept Americans puffing on the credit hookahs. Americans could logically claim that buying more and more on credit to improve one’s “credit score” was a wise financial move in the financial world that has come to exist in the past 20 years.  In the late 80’s I was shocked to learn from my younger brother, who took a post-college job with a credit firm, that if a person did not have credit cards he or she would actually have “bad” credit.  The “Credit Rating” (the financial/secular measure of personhood) is dictated by these very banks, again. We blindly accept the credit rating armband distributed by an authoritarian financial sector that is in fact morally bankrupt. It has become a force that judges but could never survive judgment by the same criteria. We never question that moral game – and it is the worst most pernicious con game Americans  - even after the apparent Obama-Enlightenment, continue to observe in a kind of Pavlovian response developed over the past decade.

 

Homeless Hens or Visionary Citizens?

 

But, what if we did not buy that con game any longer? We need to let the scales drop from our eyes once again.  Shake the sand out of our brains and ask ourselves exactly what kind of authority over our lives we are giving to institutions that have no moral high-ground at all except that which we now give them as money wrapped in duty and pity….even as these firms continue to be secretive. Am I wrong here? Are we going to continue to be chickens that pay admission to the wolves for entry into the henhouse – only to be raided and obliterated in a few hours?

Financial institutions and other lenders refuse to hold themselves to any level of moral veracity or to align with a sensibility that supports their customers.  Just as bad-boy tax collectors for the landed gentry in “B” movies, Wall Street came to call for our tax dollar with one hand while dropping the atom bomb of homelessness on the very people it defrauded and conned. This con game perpetrated in perpetuity by the manor lords on the peasants really does have morality and moral authority at its heart.  Americans bought into the use of credit, financial institutions and banks began to see the mass profits that could be generated by continuing to create new and more usurious methods of pulling money out of the wallets of consumers.

Now, financial markets are not my bread and butter. But, I spent a nano-second in law school. And when folks who were supposed to be the good guys were telling the media that there was nothing they could do – CEO contracts “required” they receive bonuses – and those contracts would have to be honored even for firms with prop-up funds.  I have to confess, it made me a bit queasy. Call me a neophyte, but one of the first things you learn in the law is that a contract can always be broken.  What kind of fools do they think we really are?  Frankly, I think they rely on us being our own worst enemies.  And, why not?? Being our own worst, uninformed enemies is what enabled the entire first term of Bush’s presidency.  But, I rant, and I digress.  Perhaps we Americans – under our various hats as taxpayers, as consumers, and as citizens are beginning to envision again that we do have a lot of power.  And we by nature are people of ethics and morality as we speak up to the wrongs of torture and the amoral or immoral reign of Wall Street. Will we as Americans claim our financial future as our own by demanding the current administration and the financial institutions do more than just survive?  As Americans and as folks of all faiths we should be demanding a say in how our money will be handled in the future.  

 

c. 2009 Allison Addicott

 

 

“When a Tibetan is confronted with a conflict, his reaction should immediately be: ‘How can I resolve this in dialogue?’ ” – His Holiness the Dalai Lama

 

      Back in the fall of 2004 I had just begun a PhD program in religion and philosophy. The first academic forum of the year highlighted as keynote speaker scholar Edward Said. Said wrote and taught extensively about colonialism and human rights at Columbia University until he passed away that very weekend in 2004. The topic of our forum was Globalization and Religion.  Drawing a broad range of scholars to our New Jersey campus over a period of three days, the presentation that remains most prominent for me was that of a scholar from China.  Addressing the pros and cons, culturally and economically, of “globalization” from his own perspective he did not (or perhaps could not) address issues of religion.  It surprised me, though, that during the questions not one person posed the most obvious interrogative: What about the incredible tension between Tibet and the Chinese government?  Bringing forward issues of economic prowess, diplomacy, human rights, and of course, freedom of religion was the very purpose of the forum.  Tibet and China presented a pertinent case study for extrapolating the potential for globalization, oppression of democratic forces, and human rights.  How would life for people in all countries be affected by the changes “globalization,” as it was perceived in 2004, might impose? Positive conjecture and cautious optimism were countered with serious concern and often outright disapproval of this next wave of economic interrelationship.

 

       An important moment in this tense relationship will take place during the first week of August in Geneva, Switzerland.  Entitled “Finding Common Ground,” The International Fellowship of Reconciliation together with the Swiss Tibetan Friendship Association will sponsor a conference in Geneva between Chinese and Tibetan scholars, scientists, journalists and other members of Chinese and Tibetan civil society. The conference, closed to outside observers, will take place from 6 – 8 August and will be attended by more than 100 delegates from around the globe. The Fellowship of Reconciliation will be represented by its vice-president Françoise Petremand, the International Secretariat’s Executive Director Johannes R. Schot, and the conference convener Jonathan Sisson (previous President of IFOR).

 

In an exclusive interview with Joerg Eigendorf, a German journalist writing for Die Welt that took place in Dharamsala, India on July 5 of this year, Mr. Eigendorf reported that His Holiness has begun to call for non-violence, such as that espoused by Mahatma Gandhi, when he travels to other countries.  This marks a break with his earlier position of speaking primarily of Buddhist values.  HH the Dalai Lama also commented on the moral issues and greed informing the global financial crisis.  Still, according to his interview with Eigendorf, the Dalai Lama remains a supporter of globalization in general.

 

Although His Holiness the Dalai Lama has consistently sought to find a “peaceful resolution”  for the people of Tibet to live in Tibet yet maintain some level of autonomy and self-determination the terms of that autonomy are far from being realized.  According to the press release for the upcoming Geneva event, the Dalai Lama, in his 10 March 2009 statement said, “We need to look to the future and work for our mutual benefit. We Tibetans are looking for a legitimate and meaningful autonomy, an arrangement that would enable Tibetans to live within the framework of the People’s Republic of China.”

The conversation in Geneva will most likely serve as a continuation of this key topic of autonomy for the Tibetans.  In November of last year, a Tibetan coalition presented “the Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People” to  Chinese government officials. Central to the notion of autonomy within the current People’s Republic of China is that Tibet as a “nation” and “people” with a distinct culture will find representation under China’s governance coalesce under one primary link. Presently, Tibetans are somewhat “balkanized” or “gerrymandered” in such a way that they enjoy no ability to find a unified voice.  A passage from the memorandum here speaks clearly to the Tibetan goals, “Whereas, we are committed, therefore, to fully respect the territorial integrity of the PRC, we expect the Central Government to recognise and fully respect the integrity of the Tibetan nationality and its right to exercise genuine autonomy within the PRC. We believe that this is the basis for resolving the differences between us and promoting unity, stability and harmony among nationalities.”

Finally, in conversation with Mr. Eigendorf,  HH the Dalai Lama spoke directly to the issue of spiritual life and education for people who will continue to live within the context of globalization. “History, math, languages and economics – these are all subjects for the brain. But responsibility – moral responsibilities, responsibilities regarding society – these are things that come from the heart. This, combined with the power of the brain, is what governments and large companies need. I will give you an example: we Tibetans believe that our national issue with China can only be resolved non-violently. This is what we preach from Kindergarten onwards throughout the entire education of an individual. When a Tibetan is confronted with a conflict, his reaction should immediately be: “How can I resolve this in dialogue?” It is important to us that young people in our schools understand that violence is the wrong way, that violence cannot solve problems. This attitude has become a part of many Tibetan’s lives through education and training. The same needs to occur in regards to economy and justice.” 

To learn more about this upcoming event follow the “Finding Common Ground” link above.

Word for today: hagiography. And, what it is?  The study of hags?  Actually, it is the study of saints and the entire genre of literature such life stories generated.  I have been thinking about saints recently.  In the early years of this millennium it was not too hard to be granted status as a saint in Europe, parts of the Near East, even North Africa (Hippo was the home of St. Augustine).  One merely needed to show some kind of impressive level of faith, community involvement, or an act that led one’s local community to believe that one possessed a true gift – producing something others witnessed to be miraculous. Without much or any intervention from the church hierarchy, people were “canonized” on the local level. Even a dog was made a saint in his local village. Stories about such people became a literary form unto itself.  Later, the church wanted more control, bishops became involved in signing off on the matter, then eventually entire committees and the Pope developed a schematic by which to measure folks. The birth of the canonization process and its bureaucracy signaled the end of the community-recognized simple saint.

 

Contemporary hagiographers may need to look no further than social media for a post-modern take on a kind of community-confirmed saintliness.  And where might this be found?  In the months since the economy really took a downturn folks have been losing savings, their homes, and material possessions, yet social media conversations have generated a digital din amidst the ethers. What is going on? Gathered around the village campfire of Facebook and Twitter people are taking a moment to affirm intelligence, wit, humor, and examples of commitment to the common good.  While not miraculous, the little “thumbs up” icon on Facebook seems to me a good example of a small little saintly “high-five” folks have been exchanging lately. 

 

Pop culture in the US and around the globe is shifting, I would argue, toward a kind of dialogue one might not have recognized even 2 years ago – when many folks were far more interested in Starbucks, martinis, and buying designer shoes on credit than sharing little glorifications about puppy-rearing.  Frankly, I have heard more about barbecue, humor, happiness, travel, weddings, and reunions this summer than I can remember. Even this afternoon public policy guru Robert Reich offered up a radio piece on the tried and true American Road Trip – just his son, a big dog and dad (Reich) riding shotgun. In scratching the surface of the dark rich soil beneath the rocks on rarely trodden American paths one might hit forgotten bedrock. And why does this matter? Humans value affirmation – even as simple as the little “thumbs up” to remind another that his or her  joke deserves a laugh, that one’s favorite bloom is cool, or that a friend’s insight into an issue matters.  As though reviving from a long afternoon snooze, what before seemed like the stuff of high accomplishment seems to have been more of an unsteady blur - working the cell, the blackberry, the vacation and the weekend.  Folks suddenly have the time to look at each other, to hunt down the high school friend, to re-connect in a qualitatively different way. Further, this is not really cute or romantic, but almost driven by a need to find a stability we did not know we had lost.

 

While we continue to debate health care, foreign policy, police ethics, human rights, nominate a new Supreme Court judge, and a host of similar news-worthy ventures, the deeper levels of communication between folks seem to percolate.  Humans excel at communication crafted across boundaries - over or on walls, scribble on scraps of paper, leaving messages large or small that transcend the confines of time, of culture…sometime even geographic boundaries.  So, canonize a friend with a thumbs-up or some other metaphor of affirmation…and maybe this whole downturn will follow our hearts – not our pocketbooks.  

 

 

 

 

It has been awhile since the last post on this site.  But much has happened.  Primary to this thinker’s mind is the seemingly never-ending media blitz of bad news.  Perhaps it could almost be termed a “blitzkrieg” of woe. Of course, the news wants to focus upon constant updates.  And, those updates are not the sort of news that brings a smile to one’s face.

 

To the extent that all things financial are almost synonymous with the emotional state of the nation, the very same reporters who ask pedestrians their concerns are thus giving voice to the angst that then goes out the next morning and manifests the same worry in its buying habits.  Perhaps if the media would take a day off…and those on their “staycations” would stop worrying and start the “cation” part of their summer, this myopic and neurotic state of affairs might slow down.  Certainly, a mass of overwrought, under-relaxed Americans holding their breath through summer are not a boon to economic stability, let alone growth.

 

Yet another concern.  This month’s Vogue magazine offers an article about a genome-database creating firm, 23andMe.  This particular venture is headed, according to the Vogue piece, by two women. One of these women is the wife of the founder of Google.

Separately, these enterprises might not seem too overarchingly problematic – although others would argue otherwise. Yet, when tied up in marriage, it seems just a tad frightening to this writer’s mind that a firm whose mission is to create a never-before amassed database of information, and who will not deny that the marketing of search information is not off-the table…how does one begin to factor that the founder’s life partner is amassing a database of DNA info about hundreds if not thousands of people. 

Could our children be tracked from birth based upon info from parental genes and previously manifest buying habits?  The outlook is so perverse yet yawning that I cannot quite even construct an example.

 

Dear and gentle readers, be not frenzied.  Somehow, things will work.  Breathe and sit in hope, not dread.  Our best hope is our own ability to hope.  Humans excel at hope.  It has brought us through far worse than this. Tomorrow, learn your neighbors name; ask if he or she might need anything in the future.  Help your fellow human. That is what life is really about.

Precisely which candidate should be doing an expository and apologetic explanation of the scenario? That is, who should be talking on the day after the Pennsylvania primary? Hillary Clinton started this entire primary season as the hands-down overarching favorite to body-surf with ease all the way to the shores of the Oval Office.

Reality? Barack Obama has twice the states, more delegates…and now came within 10 points of literally splitting Mrs. Clinton’s HOME state right down the middle with her.

Mrs. Clinton has had political insider and pollster-par-excellence Mark Penn running the strategy of her campaign since the dawn of time.(We won’t even mention his other client - Blackwater - which would stand to gain many $$$ if US troops pull out of Iraq and more mercenary business goes to Blackwater.)

It seems quite possible that the Penn-Clinton plan very likely embraced a “win the large states” strategy…it would have worked if the other Demo candidates had split the states amongst themselves. NO ONE expected Obama.

Obama has nothing to explain. Clinton needs to explain why her campaign is practically broke, Mark Penn is out of the loop, and why she barely won in her own state.

Why can’t Hillary close the deal?

So much is at stake for the humans on this globe…we cannot afford a Republican canon-on-the-loose representing the U.S. on the global stage.

We need to unify…but, go on, Hillary, keep fighting…we know why you are doing it.
But, wouldn’t it be wiser for all the Democrats to focus upon the real problem —the possibility of a Republican Oval Office?

 

— Posted by Allison

 

 

“Now, Dimitri…”

 -- Peter Sellers as the U.S. President, attempting to calm the nerves of his Russian counterpart in the Cold War send-up film Dr. Strangelove.

 

News from the Republican Campaign:

 

On April 16th National Public Radio, during the “Marketplace” broadcast, unpacked Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain’s campaign proposal to lift the gas tax from Memorial through Labor Day.  The commentator brought up so many questions about that “proposal” that an analysis of how many ways it was ill-conceived could not even be completed during the show.  First off, and highly problematic (perhaps you will agree) is that the proposal “could not even survive a first semester Econ 101 analysis.”  When artificial taxes are lifted, consumption will rise.  Gas production is in high demand during the summer anyway…and production is at its highest capacity…if the tax is lifted, more people will want to buy…but supply will remain the same…hence, PRICES WILL RISE.  Worse still, his advisors seem to be working with a 1999 model that takes absolutely no account for the need to DECREASE global warming, decrease carbon production, etc.

Okay…moving right along:

 

Next?

Let’s take this recent Penn state brouhaha.  First, exactly why must every candidate somehow show him or herself as a kind of reptilian/human…morphing into the demographic of those to whom she speaks or to whom he or she appeals for a vote? 

Further, I wonder two more things:

Why do some voters prefer to hear what a candidate will do for the country and the world in the long run? 

And why do some voters only judge a candidate on what he or she is supposed to deliver to “them”…regardless of others? 

This is perhaps a moral question…but I believe it is a good question.

 

Begging your pardon, gentle reader, but am I incorrect that a viable presidential candidate must be a world and national leader?  Being able to seamlessly kick back with the good old boys seems like a misguided goal, at best. I would hope that with the utter tragedy of what that model has recently wrought upon the world in the form of George W Bush, it would seem that the American electorate would seek anyone but a person who possessed the qualities that most enamor blue collar sensibilities (whatever that really means.)

 

Why must a denigration cast upon another person about his or her background…be it educated or uneducated, traveled or non-traveled…be considered an accurate assessment of a person’s intelligence, honor, integrity, or ability to lead?  So, Hillary went to Yale…came from a working class background.  Obama, raised by a mom and pop pair mostly on Oahu or as a kid in a different county altogether…went on to attend Punahou, Columbia, and be the Editor of the Harvard Law Review…making him the nation’s most singularly sought-after law student upon his graduation year…either should be considered to possess the “right qualities.”

 

We are a nation that needs confident capable people whose work it will be to attend state dinners, to meet with world leaders, to think and strategize for all of us…keeping at bay global warming, an economy that is falling apart, solving a Middle East problem…I do not see that being able to negotiate a bar in Pennsylvania OR in San Francisco is something that can remotely qualify a candidate or human for those responsibilities.  We should, I assert, not place emphasis upon a candidates’ ability to match her constituency…only to be able to lead all of us into a better future.  Again, I have yet to experience hearing solutions to world problems emanating from local barrooms from the Bay Area to Philly. 

 

Deep-thinking and wise leadership is what we need.  Why does this become the equivalent of “elitist”…and how is being capable a bad thing?

 

In this country…since the American Revolution and the necessary rejection of the  intertwined King/Anglican church hierarchy that required being a royal subject and a member of the church, the American identity has been fundamentally forged upon the notion that one could practice (or not practice) religion with complete freedom from governmental oversight.   This explicitly anti-authoritarian and anti-intellectual mindset has continued to form how Americans view themselves.  It also explains the myriad of “Christian” denominations that then multiplied across the countryside…based upon one kind or another of a relatively free-wheeling “sola scriptura” approach to religion. (I can read it for myself…rely on it without interpretation by a priest…and rejecting clergy leadership of most forms).  

 

Since the late 19^th century this model became a bit untenable, and education became, once again, of value to most Americans and also to most churches as they chose clergy. The anti-authoritarian strand, though, still shows up and really fails us at the national level.  This country needs to grow up…needs a grown-up leading it into the bold, new complicated world.  Tossing back whisky and trash-talking other nations from the Indian Ocean to the Middle East to Shanghai to Dubai…must be a relic of the past. 

 

We need a leader who is comfortable on the stage of the World….and who does not see that skill set as elitist.

 

Why do Americans want to identify a valuable skill set as elitist and be dismissive of a person who has worked hard, studied hard…was not raised with a silver spoon, and earned his or her way into the best schools? Is that not what we all seek for our children? I have yet to meet any parent anywhere who is not affected by “No Child Left Behind.” The force behind that federal mandate seeks to bring schools and students up and out of low-wage paying jobs.  So, why do we then judge our presidential candidates by how much they can “relate” to a demographic that our country has identified as that which we vociferously reject as the future for our children?  

 

 

 

Do presidential candidates need to understand and care about all people?  Of course…but let us not criticize our candidates for simply not having every possible life experience.

 

 

Lastly:

It is a rather sorry state of affairs to have to discuss this, but I think it is Mrs. Clinton’s purity of meanness and the many iterations of such behavior that just offend my sense of hope for humanity.  How can one human really desire for the good of all peoples and simultaneously seem to want to shred the very fabric of the relatively unimportant-in the-scheme-of-things, yet vitally important-in-the-global moment Democratic Party?  Can she not see that her personal egotism, her willingness to actually engage such antics as calling Mr. Obama “un-American,” and the wedge this all creates literally put everyone on this globe at risk of four more years of an out-of-balance American system on the loose? 

  

As voters go to Pennsylvania polls, where about one-third of the voters are over-60, we sit at the very center of the political teeter-totter again.  For whom will that Liberty Bell toll at the end of the day?

 

And, now we go to Indiana...

     Dig in your heels, America.  Continue to be paralyzed by the politics of fear. Stay the course. Turn a blind eye to the chance to elect a human, Mr. Obama, with the intuitive ability to articulate and analyze fundmental  problems in our society that need to be fixed.  Stay the course.  It is a proven method --- the Bush presidency (garnering greater personal wealth for those in the executive branch by means of war) has proven to us that "staying the course," in fact, has further damaged our culture and our economy. How can we act, how can we face the future and make a difference?  

 

     Let us separate from the past and be brave.  Show the world how a distinct kind of vision and bravery still inform American culture at its core --  how it is a mantle the nation has a right to wear. If America is to be a force for global change, a force for global "morality," we must  model that bravery and vision of a better world.

 

     Many bloggers and posters fail to see what Mr. Obama pointed out in his speech in Philadelphia this week.  Issues of race do change along generational lines...we perceive the US as it appears through our distinct generational lenses.  Younger voters are far less likely to be so reactionary in their views as the polarisms expressed by Wright and by others like Hagee or Limbaugh.

 

     As Americans we love to be fickle.  And we have only a short term memory.  Hillary Clinton has more explaining to do about her past - business deals -- tax returns (WHERE ARE THOSE??) - than Obama could ever have.

 

     So, Barack Obama attends a church with a respected Black theologian as its pastor.  How is that really threatening to voters -- except Republicans who are white, right wing conservatives who enjoy listening to those like the completely offensive Rush Limbaugh on a daily basis -- not to mention the other hateful theologies spewed by those who have supported the Christian Right for decades?

 

     The comparison is necessary, here, because, quite frankly, white hate is a poison that sells advertising dollars. Bush, Cheney and others have NEVER HAD TO APOLOGIZE or explain their connection to "offensive" preaching.

 

     Frankly, speaking "Truth to power" is a fundamental theme of Christian preaching...and Christian action.  Speaking "Truth to Ceasar" is something Jesus called his followers to do.  Speaking truth to power is a way to find the hope and courage we need to love again.

 

    In many previous campaigns voting Americans have bemoaned the "lack of REAL choice." Here, in Campaign 2008 we have that choice. America, you can dig in your heels, turn a blind eye...STAY THE COURSE, vote to stay in Iraq, vote for a third Clinton White House.  The world and our grandchildren will see if we chose bravery over fear, and they will know what happened if we chose to remain in fear.