Born At The Right Time - Lyrics

In a previous post, I wrote some conclusions about the Paul Simon song, Born At The Right Time, without examining the lyrics in detail, which I will do in this post.

The song begins with this first verse:
Down among the reeds and rushes
A baby boy was found
His eyes as clear as centuries
His silky hair was brown
This first verse reminds us of the story of Moses, who was found among the reeds and rushes of the Nile by Pharaoh's daughter, after his mother set him adrift on the Nile to avoid the slaughter of the newborn Hebrew boy.  Exodus 1:22-2:10.

The song goes on with the chorus:
Never been lonely
Never been lied to
Never had to scuffle in fear
Nothing denied to
Born at the instant
The church bells chime
And the whole world whispering
Born at the right time
Clearly, we are no longer speaking specifically about Moses, who had been lonely, probably was lied to, did scuffle in fear.  So who is the song about?

The next verse goes:
Me and my buddies, we are travelling people
We like to go down to Restaurant Row
Spend those Eurodollars
All the way from Washington to Tokyo
Well, I see them in the airport lounges
Upon their mother’s breast
They follow me with open eyes
Their uninvited guest
Though this verse begins with Paul Simon and his buddies spending Eurodollars around the world, the purpose of bringing this up seems to be that Paul notices babies at these airports feeding from their mother's breasts, or rather he notices them watching him, "they follow me with open eyes, their uninvited guest."  Many of us have had a similar experience with babes, and it seems like this particularly struck Paul Simon.

For the most part, babies and very small children have a special innocence whereby the lyrics of the chords seem to make sense, "Never been lonely; Never been lied to; Never had to scuffle in fear; Nothing denied to."  Obviously this is not always true, but with poetic license, it seems true when we catch the eyes of babes and very small children.

The third verse goes:
There’s too many people on the bus from the airport
Too many holes in the crust of the earth
The planet groans
Every time it registers another birth
But down among the reeds and rushes
A baby girl was found
Her eyes as clear as centuries
Her silky hair was brown

This verse begins by focusing on overpopulation.  But it shifts the focus to a baby girl found among the reeds and rushes, which definitely tells us this song is not specifically about Moses, though it retains an allusion to the story about the baby Moses.  The problem of overpopulation is overcome by considering a baby girl.  The return to the words of the chorus focuses us on the innocence of babes and very young children, which represents an ideal for us, even though we know better being older, that the world can be a rough place.  We can either give in to a jaded view of the world, or we can attempt to live up to the ideal of innocence of little children.

The song also speaks to being "born at the right time."  However, I examined this phrase in my previous post, which I invite you to read.

Born At The Right Time

In 1990, Paul Simon wrote a song, Born At The Right Time, featured in his album, The Rhythm Of The Saints, which received a Grammy for Album of the Year, and peaked at #4 in the U.S. and #1 in the U.K.  (The song played twice in the album, once with his full band - and a second time as an acoustic demo.)  He then decided to name his following 1991 tour, the Born At The Right Time Tour.  Later, in 1997, Import released a best of Paul Simon album entitled, Born At The Right Time, with the title song featured as the last song on the album.  In 2003, PBS produced an American Masters series on Paul Simon entitled, Born At The Right Time.

I recently listened to the album, and this song struck me, so I felt I needed to learn and perform it before others.  I found the lyrics fascinating, and it took me a while for me to figure out my own understanding of it.  (You can look at the lyrics at a later post where I examine it.) I largely understood the song as speaking to the innocence of babes and young children, which we should strive to  emulate, since Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:3 - NIV.)

However, his line at the end of the chorus particularly struck me - born at the right time, especially since Scripture informs us But when the right time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, subject to the law. (Galatians 4:4 - NLT.)  In other word, Jesus Christ was born at the right time, as well as the right place.  For many reasons, Christ was born not too early, or too late, but just at the right time, as well as the right place.  (Paul Simon might not understand his song this way, but I do.  It is interesting that the title of the album is The Rhythm Of The Saints.)

Scripture also implies that we were born at the right time.  When St. Paul asserted, before the Greeks in Athens at the Agreopagus, that God marked out the boundaries and times of nations (Acts 17:26), his statement implies that God determines the times and places of our births.  In other words, we were born at the right place and time.  Though we had nothing to say, or do, about the time or place of our birth, and though we might be unaware of it, our birth fit into God's plan.

Since God chose the time and place of our birth, our lives have meaning and purpose. Our birth was not a meaningless accident.  It did not come about by random chance.  As we discover God's plan and purpose for our lives, we can work with that plan and purpose in order to please God, better our lives, and better the lives of those around us.  So Scripture informs us, And we know that in all things, God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purposes.  (Romans 8:28 - NIV.)

Jury Duty - Part 1

Much to my surprise, I served on a jury for 5 weeks.  I was surprised because I am an attorney, and attorneys hardly ever serve on a jury, at least in the past, though apparently the times are a changing (a Bob Dylan line).  [It's interesting that though lawyers serve the courts in many capacities, our legal system usually seeks non-lawyers to weigh the evidence at trial.]

The most difficult part of serving on a jury is that you cannot discuss the case with anyone until all the evidence is submitted, and then you cannot discuss it with anyone outside the jury deliberation room until the jury has reached a verdict.  In the meantime, you are hearing all this stuff, and cannot even discuss it with other jurors, at least until all the evidence has been submitted.  And even then you cannot discuss it with anyone outside the jury deliberation room, even with other jurors, since the idea is to only discuss it in the presence of all the other jurors.

Anyway, we finally reached a verdict, so I am now free to discuss the case, which many asked me about during my service, but which I had to say I could not discuss until the jury reached a final verdict.

Basically, this case involved a driver hitting a 15 year old teen crossing a marked crosswalk at between 35 and 40 miles an hour.  The driver claimed he did not see the pedestrian because it was dark, he was driving in a line of about 4 cars or so, and the teen was wearing dark clothing.  He claimed he only saw a blur at the last second.  There was no skid mark on the roadway.  The driver hit the pedestrian on the far driver side of the vehicle where his left headlight was at.  The teen's body crumpled, his head hit the windshield, and then he was apparently thrown 70 feet where his head again slammed into the pavement.

The boy received a concussion, and had no memory of the accident.  His girlfriend, who was then 14 years old, testified she looked before they entered the crosswalk, saw the headlights in the distance, and thought the driver had sufficient time to brake or slow down, and so they proceeded into the crosswalk.

Plaintiff brought in experts who testified that the accident occurred 23 minutes after sunset, during twilight, and that there was still sufficient light from the sky to see the pedestrians.  In addition, the headlights from the car would have provided enough light for the driver to have seen the pedestrians, especially since they walked almost all the way across the front of his vehicle.  The accident reconstruction expert attributed the accident to driver inattentiveness.  He also said it would have been impossible for Leo to have reached the extreme driver side of the vehicle if he had jumped out in the middle of a line of cars.

One witness said it was pitch black, but the jury did not believe her.  It was unclear whether the street light above the crosswalk was on or not.  However, the jury found that the driver had been negligent, since we believed there was sufficient light for the driver to see the pedestrians.  One or two jurors disagreed, but in a civil trial, 9 jurors are needed to reach a verdict, and at least 9 agreed on this.

A tougher decision was whether the teen himself was also negligent.  Though the Vehicle Code says drivers must yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk, it also says that requirement does not relieve pedestrians from their duty to exercise due care for their safety.  The jury took a whole day to deliberate on this question alone.

The police determined that the accident was due to Leo (the 15 year old teen) not meeting this requirement, not exercising due care for his safety, though they did not write him a ticket.  When they interviewed the 14 year old girl (Alexandra) at the hospital (she received a broken nose, a blow to her head from when it hit the pavement, and minor cuts and bruises), she said they had not looked before they entered the crosswalk.  When asked at trial why her later testimony differed, she explained she was in shock and pain in the hospital that night, and she couldn't recall the events that clearly.  It was only later when she visited the site that her full memory of what happened came back to her.  The jury believed this.

In the end, the jury found that Leo was not negligent.  On this point, I along with 2 other jurors disagreed and voted that he was also negligent.  However, the 9 votes carried the day on this point.  Because of this, we never got to the question of how much percentage of negligence to assign to the driver and how much to the pedestrian (comparative negligence).

Then we turned to the question of whether the driver's employer was liable for the driver's negligence.

 The driver, Almir, worked as a chef-instructor for the Culinary Institute of America (CIA).  Almir had finished work for the day at their St. Helena campus, and was driving to his home in Sebastopol.  Usually, an employer is not liable for their employee's negligence when they are commuting to and from work.  However, the law provides an exception to this rule when the employer uses the employee's vehicle for business uses.  The jury instruction on this had a lot of language about whether the employer required the employee to use his or her vehicle for business, or whether it derived a benefit from the use of the vehicle came to rely on it's use, and whether there was an agreement about this.  The language had a very broad scope to it, so that both the requirement, or the agreement, could be express or implied.  There was a lot of evidence that Almir frequently travelled for the CIA, often using his vehicle, that the CIA benefitted from his travels, reimbursed him for his milage expenses, and at times paid him for his travel time.  The jury did not want to find the CIA liable, but after carefully studying the language of the jury instructions, and reviewing the evidence, the jury came to the tough decision that the employer was liable.  Again, 1 or 2 jurors disagreed, but there were at least 9 jurors to reach this verdict, in which I agreed.

This was a 2 phase trial.  Phase 1 only dealt with liability issues.  All issues about damages was reserved for phase 2 of the trial.  In this part, I only discussed the issues we faced in phase 1.  In my next part, I will discuss the damages issues we faced in phase 2.

Scripture and Tradition

Sermon on the Mount - Carl Henrich Bloch - 1877

Though many often argue about the proper role of both Scripture and tradition, the historical Church teaches that Scripture and tradition work hand in hand together, and cannot be separated.  The Church usually describes this as the coinherence of Scripture and tradition - they exist in essential relationship with each other, as innate components of the other.  Yet, at the same time, the Church has always insisted that tradition must submit to the final authority of Holy Scripture.

This view might surprise many Christians who either reject or belittle tradition out of a mistaken notion that sola scriptura (Scripture alone) means Scripture stripped from any churchly context of tradition.  It also may surprise many Catholic Christians who view tradition as a parallel, or even an independent source of authoritative teaching, or even as revelation.

The writer of Hebrews clarifies God speaks to us (reveals Himself) in the Old Testament, and now through

The Evangelist Matthew
Inspired by an Angel
Rembrandt (1661)

his Son, Jesus Christ, in the New Testament period.  (Hebrews 1:1-2.)  What Jesus taught and did, the apostles initially passed down orally as tradition, which they urged believers to hold to. (1 Corinthians 11:2.)  Eventually, they wrote down those traditions which became the New Testament, which together with the Old Testament, became the written word of God, all under the work and supervision of the Holy Spirit.  (2 Peter 1:20-21.)  Jesus affirms God's word is truth.  (John 17:17.)

The apostolic tradition in the New Testament constantly urges us to obey what Jesus commanded, out of our love for Him, especially to love one another.  (1 John 2:3-6; 3:11 & 23.)  The Church thus considers the New Testament authoritative, as well as the Old Testament as interpreted by the New Testament.  Scripture serves as the standard by which the Church adheres to in following the head of the Church, Jesus Christ.  (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Colossians 1:18.)

Christ Pantocrator - Mosaic in Hagia Sophi
(roughly around 1261)
Pantocrator means Almighty
IC represents the first and last letter of Jesus in Greek
XC represents the first and last letter of Christ in Greek

Tradition, when understood correctly, is the proper reflection of Holy Scripture under the illumination of the Holy Spirit, as well as the faithful transmission of the gospel message it contains from generation to generation under the power of the Holy Spirit.  The early Church, through the work of the Church Fathers, diligently worked through many issues it faced, and gave us a great body of teachings, summarized in certain creeds, especially the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.  They helped to make explicit what was implicit in Scripture.  We would do well to heed and mine this great body of teaching for its treasures, as well as from all traditions of the Church grounded in Scripture and which helps us understand it better, as the Reformers did.

However, tradition can go wrong when it simply conveys what men, apart from Scripture, seek to impose on the Church.  In such cases, men, on their own, can render an inaccurate interpretation of Scripture, to further their purpose.  Jesus condemned traditions which contradicted the Scripture calling them "human traditions" or "the traditions of men."  (Mark 7:8)  This does not mean all tradition should be rejected, but that we should be careful to ground tradition in Scripture to help clarify Scripture, as Vatican II teaches (in Dei Verbum).

If we only study and follow our own tradition, the traditions of our own church, we will miss out on the vast richness the Holy Spirit provides believers in the various traditions of the various churches that are part of the one true Church with Christ as its head.  By studying and appreciating both Scripture and tradition, we will see and understand a richer view of the revelation of God - of what God is saying to us here and now.  Our understanding of what Scripture says should be informed by the wider fellowship of the community of faith, both in the past and in the present.  That is why the Church, the house of the living God, "is the pillar and bulwark of the truth."  (1 Timothy 3:15.)

The Way (film)

A good friend (Martin) recently recommended watching a film made in 2010, "The Way."  I watched it on DVD with my wife, Lori.  We both really enjoyed it.  I highly recommend it to others.

It's a film written, directed, and co-produced by Emilio Estevez

Emilio Estevez

(once considered the leader of the Brat Pack).  It stars his father, Martin Sheen (whose name is actually Ramon Estevez).

The film centers around El Camino de Santiago (The Way of St. James).  For those unfamiliar with this, it is a 500 mile (800 km) pilgrimage route that begins in the French Pyrenees and ends

El Camino de Santiago (highlighted in red)

in Santiago De Compista in Northwestern Spain.  By tradition, St. James made it this far in his apostolic missionary journeys, and his bones are interred at the Cathedral there.  During the Middle Ages, this route became one of the major pilgrimage routes.  Though by the mid-80s, the pilgrimage attracted few pilgrims, since then it has attracted a growing number, so that by 2010 (the year of the film), over 270,000 undertook the full pilgrimage.  (Many who now undertake this journey are not Catholics, or even Christians, but those in search of spirituality, or an experience to give their life meaning, or other personal reasons.)

The story centers around a lapsed Catholic, Thomas Avery (Martin Sheen), an ophthalmologist completely engaged in his practice, and little else.  His son, Daniel (Emelio Estevez), rejects his father's lifestyle, seeks to see the world, wants to engage in the lives of others and help them when possible.  Daniel decides to undertake El Camino de Santiago, but dies on his first day on the journey in the Pyrenees alone in a storm.

Much like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, Thomas is swept up to France, to deal with the death of his son.  Once he finds out all the details, he feels it his duty to accomplish the pilgrimage for his son by carrying his son's cremated ashes along the pilgrimage route.  Again, much like Dorothy, he encounters 3 companions, at intervals.  As with Dorothy, during the journey, he learns much about himself and others.

Though I wouldn't put this up in arena of an Academy Award picture, I still highly recommend this film, and think you will enjoy viewing it.

Commanding Heights (Video)

In my last post, I discussed a book, The Commanding Heights.  In 2002, PBS (WGBH) produced and aired a 6 hour documentary based on the book called, "Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy" (Available on DVD).

If you don't have the time for the book, the documentary is an excellent summary of the ideas and materials covered in the book.  Plus it covers some additional materials (since the book was completed in 1998, 4 years before the documentary).

In addition, PBS has a website devoted to the documentary, which contains a treasure trove of materials related to the documentary, a virtual small encyclopedia on economics in the 20th Century.

If you don't want to purchase the DVD, you can likely borrow it at your local library (though some have it in a VHS format).  You can also watch it online at the PBS website which has the entire documentary available for viewing online.  The website also has the entire transcript available.

The documentary is divided into 3 - 2 hour parts.

• Part 1: The Battle of Ideas
• Part 2: The Agony of Reform
• Part 3: The New Rules of the Game

I highly recommend viewing this documentary.  Much like the book, it gives a vast oversight to economics in the 20th Century on a global scale, and is fairly easy to follow and understand.

The Commanding Heights (Book)

I finished reading "The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy" by Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, originally published in 1998, and then republished in 2002.  The authors present an outstanding review of economics in the 20th Century around the world in terms of the struggle between free markets and government control, as reflected in the original subtitle, "The Battle Between Government and the Marketplace That Is Remaking the Modern World."

Daniel Yergin

The book focuses on this battle through the ideas of the two leading economists of the 20th Century, Frederick Von Hayek and John Maynard Keynes.  Hayek, shaped by the Austrian School of Economics, argued for free markets since, he said, the price system provided an efficient mechanism for communicating vital and pertinent information to all market participants.  He argued against central planning since the planners can never gather enough information to have enough knowledge to base decisions upon.  Keynes, fearing a communist takeover, argued that market forces, left alone, always leads to disaster, and needs to be reigned in by government control in order to survive.

Joseph Stanilaw

Free markets largely reigned at the start of the 20th Century.  However, the world retreated from them with the shock of both World War I and then the economic upheavals that followed, especially in Germany, but then spreading in worldwide depression.  Leaders began imposing more government controls to reign in the free markets.  Keynes became more prominent and while Hayek became more ostracized.

However, well into the later half of the 20th Century, this trend reversed as government control seemed to cause more harm than good.  Leaders began undoing many government controls and relied more upon the free markets to solve economic problems.  Hayek became more prominent and Keynesian economics became more suspect.

The authors do not write in generalities.  They delve into how these ideas played out in country after country
and region after region over vast time periods, in England, India, the United States, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, the Third World, Asia, Africa, South America, during each decade of the 20th Century.  The sweep and vastness of the study is stunning.  They also tell the stories of the many leaders involved in leading and directing their economies.

Little wonder, Daniel Yergin is a Pulitzer Prize winning author for a previous book he wrote about the history of the oil industry, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power, which I mentioned in the Introduction to this blog, and some observations from it on the Oil Crisis which I later posted.

I highly recommend reading The Commanding Heights.  I hope the authors come out with another book that updates it.  PBS made this book into a documentary series which I plan to later post about.

St. Valentine's Day

Why do we celebrate St. Valentine's Day with declarations of love?  Who was St. Valentine anyway?  (Does anyone care who he really was anymore?)

Apparently, we know very little factually about what may be among the most famous of the officially recognized saints.  Instead, we have several hagiographies (biographies of saints - sometimes considered unreliable) about him.

Almost all the hagiographies agree that he died because he refused to renounce his belief in the Christian faith - in other words, that he died as a martyr, around 273, on February 14th.

He is associated with lovers because according to at least one hagiographa, as a priest (or a bishop) he

married Christians (in secret), though that was illegal at that time (and he also otherwise helped Christians - also illegal at that time.)  This is somewhat unsure, since many others with the name of Valentinus are also considered saints, and their hagiographies differ.

Regardless, Pope Galius I - named Valentine a Saint in 496, though he impliedly admitted not much was actually known about him.  So in 1969, Valentine was removed from the official Roman Catholic liturgical calendar for veneration, though still venerated locally, as well as by the Anglicans and Lutherans (as well as by the Eastern Orthodox in June).

Many other legends about Saint Valentine abound.  While I doubt they will outdo the amount of chocolates, flowers, and other expressions of love - let us rejoice one day a year is dedicated to love between men and women (and even between boys and girls).