Monthly Archives: August 2013

From Tomorrow Can We Borrow?



A song about a 1963 kind of hope… I’ve left the text set up for recording.

1963 HOPE: From Tomorrow Can We Borrow?

 4/4 135

Intro:  ∞Am           ∞=riff, |=break

Am                 F                                          Am

1. A bullet from a gun, laid out a man named Jack.

F                                           Am

Blood smeared on a dress, soft tissue made a place.

E7                       F       |                                   ∞Am

Jack’s body grew cold, Our nation mourned his soul.

Am                  F                                  Am

2. Boots reversed, sorrow leading Black Jack,

F                          Am

Veiled lady dressed in black, a nation’s long night.

E7                                F       |                          ∞Am

Two children wonder where? Their father isn’t there.

C ✓                      G                         F                  Am

Cho.: So can we borrow from tomorrow? When this madness is past?

E7                                F           |                                  ∞   Am

We’ve had too much of sorrow. From tomorrow can we borrow?

Bridge: E7-F-C-E7-Am

Am                           F                                                    Am

3. Years have left us weary, family, friends, preparing graves.

F                                              Am

Viet Cong to Taliban, we’ve spent our nation’s face.

(Viet Nam/Afghanistan)

E7                                         F       |                                      ∞Am

Will there come a time for easing? Will there come a time for peace?

Cho: (Repeat as above and fade)

© 2012, Ed Anderson


People Power

“The power of the people is greater than the people in power.”


Religious Bullying

I have watched with interest as the debate in the U.S. has widened regarding the place of religion in the public and governmental sector. It is an entitlement debate.  Some believe, since it has always been that way it should always be that way. Therefore, those who would have it as they have always had it consider themselves in the right while demanding that those who oppose, for example, displays on government property, look to the precedent established, and get out of the way. Sounds like bullying to me!

The rights of individuals, religious or not, do not depend on a majority vote. Perhaps, if we took a vote, Christians would dominate. I get that. But that is not the way our U.S. Constitution was written. It was not written to appease the Christian public, but rather, it was written to protect everyone, religious or not, even the minority and all faiths. So, when someone wants to sponsor a symbol of some kind on government property it becomes an issue when a minority find it impinging on the idea of fair play. No one is suggesting religious types are to be prohibited from displaying their affections toward/about a religious symbol. The private marketplace is open to any and all to display their religious affections. Rent a storefront, lease a sign, sponsor a radio program, build a church, mosque or synagogue, but don’t expect the government to appear to sponsor religion. The appearance of sponsoring one religious entity over another is akin to entitlement often due to many years of impermissible “sweetheart” affiliations with government. If religious institutions have to muscle their way into the forefront of governmental affiliation during various holy days of the year then where did the Christian biblical edict go that encourages us “in honor preferring one another” or, “love thy neighbor as thyself”? Bullying is not an attractive suit for any Christian or religious person.

The “Bible Belt” Is Collapsing?

Some good reasons are given by a newly elected denominational leader in the link below suggesting the church stay out of politics.

If you believe the gospel, go ahead, preach and live the gospel,  but don’t use the government to push it on the public. Most do not care what you do with the gospel as long as you do not impose it on them.

A Diatribe on Thinking Or Connecting the Dots


I have recently come to the conclusion that I am a rationalist, a cognitive realist. I have come to see the world less clearly than I once did when I thought I knew what there was needed to know and I trusted that reality. Things have changed for me. And, I might add, for some of my acquaintances. Life and its issues are not so simple. Having discoursed with some of divergent opinions regarding politics and religion, one wrote that he was bored with the conversation as it had basically reached its end. I disagree as conversations around religion and politics seem to merely scratch the surface. When it comes to “push-back” I can’t expect much in return as some reputations are on the line.  I’m too old and past my prime to concern myself with that. Take this diatribe, and any of my other short diatribes, as coming from a citizen who has chosen to question a few of the “realities” of life. I am a seeker of truth and find that truth can burn into the soul’s imaginations and cause it to question life-long held suppositions.

I have pondered the following quote off and on for many years.  “I am convinced that a God the mind rejects will never be a God the heart can adore.”       -John Shelby Spong, Jesus for the Non-Religious

If I am to be true to my person I acknowledge that God made my mind. Yet, If God is perceived as unable to handle my puny questions about His universe and my realities I cannot serve that god. It/He/She must be the wrong one. There has to be another to whom I can turn. The god most of us have served is a god we have been told about, and most of us sadly accept that idea without question. We, primarily in the western world, have been told that the Bible is the way to truth and we do not question that premise while being told that it is because the Bible says it is so.

So, I am a seeker of God, not because the Bible tells me so but because I am on the lookout for reasons, both cognitive and spiritual, to experience Him. The real “Him” not the imagined Him, not the church Him, not even your Him. But Him who would accept and answer my questions without judging me as wrong for asking or ridiculing me in front of my peers, or assigning me to the Devil’s playground for having questions many don’t seem to have.

Is there a “Him” out there? Let’s talk!

“It was my luck…

“It was my luck to have a few good teachers in my youth, men and women who came into my dark head and lit a match.”

-Yann Martel, Life of Pi

Conservative or Liberal?


Take your pick. If you prefer to live in the past you will probably call yourself a conservative. If you live in the future you may call yourself a liberal. The past is static, the future is dynamic. The past is concretized history while the future is yet to be experienced. Conservatism can be an encumbrance. Liberalism can be liberating. Conservatism often represents the idea, “we never did it that way before.” Liberalism usually represents discovery and implementation. I find it exciting and rewarding to live with the future in mind and with those of like thinking who prefer to leave the shackles of the past behind. It is liberating and generally free of prejudice. Within the liberal camp prejudices are not welcome, though tolerated, as they are based on past observations. One resists change to remain comfortable with the familiar, a typical conservative reaction. Breaking out of one’s mindset is hard to do if seeking comfort and idealism based on past experience and concretized knowledge. If one is liberal then one is progressive. If one is conservative then one is a preservationist.

Definitions from


Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
A person of liberal views.
generous – bounteous – lavish – bountiful – free


Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.
A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in politics.

Selfish Indians?

Our heritage as a people who take what we can for our benefit is rife with example. Here’s one from an American hero:

“I don’t feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves.” -John Wayne

Capitalism and Jesus


“The final clash between our current economic morality and the ethic of Jesus is over the nature of man. The capitalist economy rests on the hypothesis that man is a creature who prefers material comforts to moral values, who would rather have an increase in goods than in the quality of existence. The only future it can offer man is one in which he will get more conveniences but less freedom, justice and fellowship… The ethic of Jesus rejects this estimate of human nature; insists moreover that the very making of it is the negation of personality, whose essence lies in the making of choices and whose development consists in preferring moral satisfactions to material… The central issue in the conflict between our economic morality and the ethic of Jesus is this difference of judgment concerning the capabilities of man.” -Harry F. Ward, Our Economic Morality

The disparity between that of the worker and our capitalistic structures continues to grow ever wider. What will it take to restore the middle class and its subjugation to that of those in positions of control over their destiny?