WASHINGTON, THE CITY

~ Jnana Hodson ~ 1 Comment

As I said at the time …

In the Northwest quadrant of the nation, they refer to it as “Dee Cee” just to keep from confusing it with its larger namesake. Not that that really helps, mind you. It’s more an expression of derision. After all, not even the wire services or television networks make that distinction. No, everywhere else it’s simply “Washington,” and let the Evergreen State go to hell.

But is that really fair? Of course not. The name of the place is District of Columbia, which is rather cumbersome. Georgetown has a nice ring to it, but unfortunately, it’s an old neighborhood that really should be its own city, for that matter; but the District tries to be a city-state in all the negative connotations of the concept.

Why, now, they’re even trying to become an independent state! The audacity!

Listen, now, if the residents of the nation’s capital want to be represented by congressmen, they can petition to do what’s fair. And that is to return to the State of Maryland what its people had so nobly ceded to the federal government way back when the Founding Fathers, in their great wisdom, decided to seat the nation’s capitol in a teeming swamp. Just look at a map and it’s obvious the portion in Maryland is neatly squared. Part of a diamond, actually. You can see how it would have squared on the Virginia side, if the bureaucrats hadn’t decided they didn’t need that land and gave it back, instead.

So the feds have already returned to Virginia what that commonwealth had thrown into the kitty. And look what they got as booty the Pentagon, Arlington National Cemetery, Dulles airport, and Wolf Trap.

Not only that, but let’s remember where loyalties have been placed. Remember how Virginia turned upon Washington, sent troops to destroy it so that was back in the Civil War.

Maryland, meanwhile, dutifully stood by the Union. Oh, I know, there were a few upstarts who sent their sons off to fight for the Confederacy, and, sure, the feds had to keep cannons trained on Baltimore City just in case. But by and large, Maryland stayed put. Isn’t it time for that debt to be paid?

So the nation gives the District of Columbia back to Maryland, which then picks up a larger congressional delegation. Maryland has been a much smaller state in numbers than it ought to be, considering its influence and geographical placement.

Oh, I know there are those who retort that we don’t want Washington, not with all of its poverty and related urban problems. Just think about what it will do to our welfare costs, for starters.

Well, wait a minute. What’s to keep us from taking the existing welfare kitty and just dividing it among more people? That seems generous enough to me, and besides, it won’t cost you and my a nickel more.

And as for the urban problems, why, people said the same thing about Baltimore before William Donald Schaefer and the Citizens (Sic) got their act together. No, this seems to be an ideal opportunity for the new governor to demonstrate what he really can do while nurturing even more political talent. Make him the Dean of American Urban Renaissance. And a hot governor, toj _  boot.

There are those who say the feds should keep an essential portion as the District of Columbia. Hey, I’m not against that. I mean, the folks in the White House ought to be able to figure out how to keep all those lawns mowed and the monuments polished  although after trying to locate books in the Library of Congress, which, as you all know, is hardly open these days, I begin to wonder.

My own preference would be to place all the greenery and white marble buildings in a National Park. You know, Foggy Bottom National Park. Or Capitol Hill National Park. Or the Federal Mall National Park. We all like National Parks a lot more than we do a District of Columbia, no?

But quibbling aside, the place needs a new name, if for no other reason than basic courtesy to the Evergreen State.

Now I’ve always been told that if you’re going to criticize, you ought to at least have a positive proposal up your sleeve. So here goes.

Columbia or even District of Columbia would be nice, except for that planned community of ponds and condos between Baltimore and the Potomac. So that possibility’s kaput.

William Donald Schaefer is a nice name. He was an exemplary mayor, before he went flaky as governor. What? You say it’s even longer than Washington, D.C.? Well, listen, not if you use the whole name for Washington, District of Columbia, it’s not. Besides, Americans have a penchant for shortening names, so next thing you know, it would be William, D.S., and that’s definitely shorter. And then William and finally Billy, and we all remember fondly what a relief he was to the White House.

But would a Republican administration allow that? Probably not.

So here it is: we rename the federal area national park or district George. That’s it. George. That Yuppie cluster of Georgetown can become Junior if it wants. We have more important matters at stake. George speaks with authority. It’s regal, too.

As for the Maryland part the real city we offer a complementary name. Something to honor the founding mothers, as well: Martha.

Now doesn’t Martha, Maryland, sound like a lovely place? I can’t think of anyplace that sounds more truly Americana.

I know it will create a few difficulties at the Washington Post, for starters. Which may be exactly why a Republican White House might buy into this proposal. Nobody’s going to be quoting the George and Martha, Washington, Maryland and Virginia Post any more. They might as the Federal Post, but we’ll see.

We’ll see.

SOJOURNING

~ Jnana Hodson ~ 4 Comments

One question facing many Quaker meetings is what to do about members who have moved away but want to retain membership. Their reasons may be sentimental or a family connection, the reality that they reside at a distance from the nearest Friends circle, or some discomfort they have regarding the meeting where they are. The fact remains that being Quaker requires face-to-face encounters with Friends.

Related to this is the concept of sojourning, with its sense in the Hebrew Bible of passing through a land on the way to another. Some of the references mention sojourning in Egypt; others speak of welcoming strangers who sojourn among you. Readers of Sojourners magazine see its application in our own time. In contemporary American society, sojourning is a widespread fact of life.

Quakers offer a form of affiliation known as a Sojourning Member, extended temporarily from the meeting where one is a member to a meeting where one is residing. I found myself using it formally in one of my relocations, where I didn’t sense full unity with (or from) the closest meetings and I held a job that was likely transitory in my career path. Informally, however, I found myself sojourning among Mennonites and, to a lesser degree, Brethren, who were theologically closer to my meeting of membership and my practice. Crucially, in a sojourning situation, one remains in communication with one’s “home” meeting. During this period, this meant attending its yearly meeting sessions and providing written responses to the sets of monthly queries.

Only after moving to New Hampshire and visiting among the nearest meetings did I feel clear to join with Dover, and even then there was a period before I felt free to transfer my certificate of membership. As it’s turned out, this is the land where I’ve settled – and my own turn to welcome sojourners amongst us.

MEMBERSHIP

~ Jnana Hodson ~ 3 Comments

In the first decades of the Quaker outbreak, any questions of membership soon pivoted on the reality of persecution. Friends wanted to make sure which people accused of being Quakers were actually part of the movement, unlike others who were hoping for an easy handout during their imprisonment. Membership meant providing aid and comfort to those who were suffering as a consequence of holding to the faith, rather than just anyone incarcerated for heinous actions.

Within a few decades however, the concept of “birthright” membership took hold, as the values of the faith were increasingly handed down within families that were living under Quaker discipline. Soon, there would be a hundred reasons to be read out of Meeting, but few guidelines for joining. In fairness, being disowned was not the same as being excommunicated from other denominations – and many of these individuals and families continued to attend Meeting, even if they were no longer part in running it.

Today we no longer live “under discipline,” and we have a fuzzy distinction between “members” and the active non-members we call “attenders.” Yes, there are formal steps into membership and the accompanying records, but it is a bit difficult to say just what one is joining. We have no creed to affirm, and no outward tests to pass. Sometimes it seems easier to say what we are not more than what we are. A Quaker lifestyle, perhaps with a little yoga and vegetarianism thrown in? Middle-class professional with a peace/justice political agenda? A fine philanthropy?

Still, the best metaphor I’ve come across is that of marriage. There, two people commit to an unknown future. It’s more than a common lifestyle and leads into many unanticipated turns. As they say, it’s a matter of “settling down,” with an array of mutual giving and support. To compare membership and marriage, however, simply points to deeper discussion – of both. But I think it puts us on the right track.

When I think of marriage, I see a lifetime commitment. Similarly, engaging with Friends is more than an annual renewable subscription. Maybe the basis of membership today comes when one no longer wants to stand at the rim, but wants to jump fully into the action.

SPEAKING OF TYRANNY

~ Jnana Hodson ~ 2 Comments

They warn of Big Government and of organized labor while they strive to strip the people’s powers in favor of Big Business. How conveniently they forget the wisdom of any balance of powers or the tyranny, especially, inherent in globalization as it’s emerging.

One World Government, they warn, while paving the way for One World Corporation. In effect, it’s all or none of us. Either way, it’s scary.

I learned to view political systems and society itself from the bottom-up. Jesus said something about it in Matthew chapters 5 through 7. Maybe it’s just a matter of viewing the bigger picture or remembering the promise of Jubilee (Leviticus 25). Ultimately, each of us equally responsible, and equally equipped, to work together. But there’s always a price to pay.

A LOGICAL CONCLUSION

~ Jnana Hodson ~ 1 Comment

As far back as three decades, when I was selling editorial-page columnists and cartoonists to newspapers, even openly liberal editors had become shy of picking up anything except conservative voices.

As a consequence, we’ve had no new voices to speak from the left, especially not in general syndication. Think about it.

Meanwhile, newspaper circulation has been plummeting.

Could it be those conservative voices are deadly dull? (At least, when they’re not shrill?)

Think about it.

A bird with only a right wing won’t fly far.

Yes, think about it.

MEMORY LANE OF DESIRES

~ Jnana Hodson ~ 1 Comment

As I said at the time …

Looking back through the yearbooks, I’m surprised to admit how few of the girls were as sexy or mysterious or genuinely attractive as they’ve remained in my memory. This is not what I would have thought earlier.

I can also wonder why I didn’t move on KK or why nothing connected with MM, despite the youth pastor’s encouragement. What were the astrological factors? Anything else I might have noticed later?

Of course, most of us guys, well, that was another matter. Some things never change.

REALITY CHECK

~ Jnana Hodson ~ 3 Comments

Not long after arriving in town, I was walking past the managing editor’s office, which was crowded with three heavyset men accusing the Union Leader of being liberal media.

This was the same paper the Boston Globe’s news columns always called “the archconservative Union Leader,” never mind that by this time the political expressions stayed in the editorials and opinion page.

Still, it made me realize how far to the right some of the criticism originates or how isolated from the mainstream it exists. Or even how far it deviates from commonly accepted definitions.