Willing to See, Ready to Believe

Kids will ask. When it comes to faith, they have the same questions we all do: Where did we come from? Where are we going? What is the point of this life? To be sure, they will include the kind of queries only children could come up with – Does God have feet? Could Jesus lift the car? – and teaching them about religion is our way of saying, “Here’s what we’ve come up with so far.”

This is a delicate proposition, and you want to find the tools that will serve them in later life. Trying to rush, trick or terrorize kids into a particular belief system is counterproductive. To quote Lady Macbeth, pace Hieronymus Bosch, “'Tis the eye of childhood that fears a painted devil.” Many of my contemporaries are still recovering from early religious instruction, which prioritized that doing one thing or another would land them in Hell. Besides turning people off, this tack misses the point. Fear might keep you from sin, but it makes you too timid to be much use.

Does Hell exist? Is it anything like Cleveland? Perhaps, but damnation is only one part of God’s story. For me, the handiest definition of Hell is existence without God. If you’re going to teach kids about our relation to God, why get hung up on that unpleasant bit?

A preferable approach is to let kids know they matter. “Let the little children come to me,” a good fellow said, adding that anyone who harmed a child was in for a world of trouble. You can never be too small for God to use, but you can certainly be too big. This message matters to kids and, imparted properly, will stay with them when they grow up.

So, how to do this? Religion, like life, is one big best guess. Some folks think they have the answers, including believers and non-believers alike. Whenever one writes a column like this, one hears from doctrinaire adherents, as well as angry atheists (who, it seems, not only don't believe in God, they also don't believe in spell-check). Ironclad certainty in the face of the infinite cosmos is absurd, even with the Scriptures or Richard Dawkins on your side.

But if you give kids the rudiments, explaining what you believe and why, they have the tools to make choices and adapt. As the adage goes, “A scholar is always made alone.” Eventually, a child will have to make his or her own decisions. They must attune to that compass we all possess, which points toward what is right, and not deny it exists. Shine your light, be an example, and if people want a piece of what you’ve got, more the better.

For my part, I am Presbyterian – which is very much like being Christian, only Scottish – and my faith is based on sacrifice for others and the suppression of self. In particular, I believe each of us is so important that God came to live among us, and to die, in order to reunite us with Him. Come to think of it, those are just about the only things I can tell you with any conviction about my religion.

Where, exactly, Jesus was born, what he looked like, etc., are unknowable, and even the Gospels are at odds on such things. Details aside, I choose to believe the larger truth. That is not so simple as it sounds. Lest we forget, it was Jesus' message that got him killed. Then, as now, people had very definite ideas about how God should be. When Jesus was not as they expected, unpleasantness ensued.

Whatever your religious faith (or lack thereof), how many of your most cherished assumptions could you stand to see overturned?

Jesus said, "Whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." That is an enchanting yet foreboding remark, but what does it mean? If I had to give my best guess at an interpretation, I’d say: Be open.

We are all someone's children, and we are not in charge. That, in itself, is an encouraging thought. I have seen too many of us wearing socks with sandals to suppose humankind has all the answers.

Fortunate children preserve their sense of wonder and openness into adulthood. The best thing to teach them is to be willing to see and ready to believe.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

The Power to Persuade

Willis McLeese has accomplished a lot in his first 96 years. From his WWII service in the Navy, to his legendary and lucrative careers in refrigeration and power, to the resort community he is building at Cobble Beach, Ontario, he has made the most of every moment.

Along the way, he developed a myriad of skills, from thermodynamics to time management (a must, for someone who runs several companies). But a key lesson McLeese learned through his many experiences is: The power to persuade is essential to success.

For all his philanthropic efforts, the cause to which McLeese has been most devoted is helping young people learn the craft of persuasive speaking. He has laboured at this for almost 40 years, particularly in support of the Canadian Student Debating Federation (CSDF). Most recently, he endowed the Willis S. McLeese Chair in Canadian Debating, based at Upper Canada College in Toronto and working with the CSDF, to bring young people across the country into this activity. The program is outlined at mcleesedebate.com.

McLeese’s belief is that if students are given the skills and confidence to speak publicly and advocate positions, it will serve them well later in life.

“Debating is a way to extend your influence,” he avers, adding, “Canada will always need great leaders.” He notes that being a leader doesn’t require your name on a ballot. Leaders come in all sorts, in every profession. What they share is the power to convince and inspire.

A small percentage of student debaters will grow up to be politicians or trial lawyers (at least, one hopes it’s a small percentage). But whatever careers kids pursue, someday they will have to answer questions like: What makes you different? Why should we do it your way? Why should I buy what you’re offering?

So much of life, and success, is about selling ideas. From Clarence Darrow to Don Cherry, if you can make a case, you can make a living. Teaching young people this craft is practical education at its best.

Personifying McLeese’s faith in this philosophy is Chantal Jauvin. While a high school student in the mid-1980s, she approached McLeese at a national debating event and told him what the activity meant to her. The two have been close friends since and Jauvin credits her debating experience for her intercontinental legal career. When I spoke to her from Thailand, she pointed out, “The most important skill that I learned was to listen to what others were saying.”

Indeed, debating isn’t just about saying what you think; it requires hearing what other people are telling you. McLeese echoes this, insisting debaters should argue every resolution from both sides: “They learn respect and tolerance for each other.”

In a rare deviation from the shrewd judgment that made him a success, McLeese has asked me to take up the Chair that bears his name. My early debating made it possible for me to opine in the public square (for better or for worse), and one hopes I can help offer today’s students the same opportunity. Our first step is a partnership with Rudyard Griffiths and his famed Munk Debates, commencing this spring. But whatever contribution I might provide, it could never compare with that of Willis McLeese, an extraordinary patron of the art of argument.

theo@mcleesedebate.com

Theo Caldwell is the McLeese Chair in Debating.

The Super Bowl and the Contest of Life

Sunday’s Super Bowl is not just a contest between two football teams. This year, there is an undercard, featuring a clash of beliefs about life and choice.

Tim Tebow, the Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback for the University of Florida, is set to appear in a pro-life commercial during the game, along with his mother, Pam. The ad tells the story of Pam’s difficult pregnancy, in which she contracted an infection and was advised to abort Tim. Pro-choice activists claim that the ad, paid for by the Christian group Focus on the Family, could lead to violence and have been pressuring CBS to keep it off the air. The broadcaster has said the commercial will be shown, but the imbroglio begs the question: Can the abortion fight ever be resolved?


In Canada and the United States, folks are fond of saying the issue of abortion is “settled,” pointing to rulings by each country’s Supreme Court, in 1988 and 1973, respectively. But the decades of turbulence over this matter have taught us that something so emotional and elemental is not “settled” by a few lawyers.

Other news from recent days proves the point. In Kansas, the trial of the man accused of killing late-term abortion provider George Tiller began on January 22, the 37th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling (Scott Roeder was convicted of Tiller’s murder one week later). At the same time, a new Marist poll shows a majority of Americans, and nearly 6 in 10 young adults, see abortion as morally wrong.

Meanwhile in this country, a recent Angus Reid poll finds, “Only one-in-five Canadians (20%) are aware of the current status-quo of abortion in Canada: a woman can have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy, with no restrictions whatsoever.” In addition, “Respondents are almost evenly divided on whether the health care system should fund abortions whenever they are requested.”

To be sure, whenever the topic of abortion is broached, people become angry almost at once. But before everyone gets their sticks up (to expand the sporting analogy), let’s suppose for a moment that there is, in fact, common ground on this issue. One finding of the Reid poll gives us a starting point:

"A large majority of Canadians (79%) would back an initiative in their own province that would make it mandatory for health care workers to offer information to pregnant women about alternatives to abortion."

It is often said that it is more effective to change hearts than to change legislation. In this case, while the finding speaks of a “mandatory” initiative, the underlying sentiment may, in fact, be most helpful. To wit, while abortion may never again be illegal, it is broadly undesirable.


Common parlance bears this out. Politicians who believe abortion should be available any time, for any reason, rarely speak in plain terms. They talk of “choice” and “reproductive freedom” and “women’s rights.” Indeed, it would take a hard person to say that abortion, as an act, is a good thing. If we can agree on that, it means most of our hearts are in the same place.

So, what if we agreed that, as long as public money subsidizes abortion, an equal or greater amount should go toward a mechanism to find homes for unwanted babies? If you really wanted to be controversial, you could add a bit about preventing unplanned pregnancies in the first place – that is, letting young people know that abstinence isn’t only about Bible-thumping and promise bracelets – but that might be too big a leap right away. For now, let’s just suppose that citizens made it a priority that every little person gets a chance at life and no young woman goes through the misery of abortion.


This is less a function of writing laws than of changing priorities. Nothing gets banned in this scenario, but possibilities are opened. If we shift our default response to an unwanted pregnancy from contemplating abortion to offering support, great things could happen.


Add incentives for religious and private-sector organizations to provide money and means for young mothers who want to raise their babies themselves, and we’re starting to get somewhere. Again, if we stipulate that abortion itself is a tragic act, wouldn’t a robust and ubiquitous network of alternatives be helpful? When you offer people good choices, bad laws become irrelevant.

The hardship of anyone contemplating an abortion is something that cannot be denied. Pam Tebow knew this fear all too well. And the perspective from which the decision is undertaken makes all the difference.

Ironically, one of the world’s foremost experts on death, the late Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, provides a quotation applicable to this fundamental question of life: “Mankind's greatest gift, also its greatest curse, is that we have free choice. We can make our choices built from love or from fear.”

Folks can always choose, but with love and support, it becomes easier to choose wisely. What a wonderful thing that would be for women and families. And, not for nothing, millions of little people would get a chance at life, with all the choices it has to offer.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

State of the Union: A Chance to be Wise

“Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others.” – Otto von Bismarck

Tonight, U.S. President Barack Obama has an opportunity to be wise. As he makes his first State of the Union address before a Congress that is controlled by his fellow Democrats, Obama can decide whether to learn the lesson of the last president from his party, or doom himself to defeat.

In the 1994 mid-term elections, President Bill Clinton saw his Democrats lose both houses of Congress in what became known as the “Republican Revolution.” Clinton had been elected two years earlier as a centrist, tax-cutting “New Democrat.” Once in office, however, Clinton announced the largest middle-class tax hike in history and embarked on a national health care plan that was expected to cost one trillion dollars (of course, this was back when a trillion dollars was considered a lot of money).

The parallels are potent. In 2008, Obama was elected to quell an economic crisis, including a record budget deficit, while ushering in an era of bipartisan comity. Since then, he has quadrupled the deficit, adding trillions to the national debt, and tried to enact purely partisan, widely unpopular health care reform. The voters have rendered their opinion on these policies, first by electing Republican governors in Virginia and New Jersey – states Obama carried in 2008 – and last week, the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts elected Republican Scott Brown to the United States Senate.

So where to from here? Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who led the Republican takeover in 1994, explains the binary choice Obama faces thusly: “He either has to double down, or he’s got to say, as Bill Clinton did, ‘the era of big government is over.’”

Massachusetts was the canary in the coal mine, and Obama should be grateful for it. Bill Clinton got no such warning.

If Obama does not shift his agenda, he can expect a 1994-style shellacking in November, en route to a single-term presidency that makes Jimmy Carter’s tenure seem like the Golden Age. Obama has stated he would rather be a spectacular one-term president than a mediocre one for eight years. One has to go back to James Polk to find a one-termer who is generally considered to have been successful, and the most common scenario is that presidents get retired after a single term when voters do not care for their work.

Tonight, will Obama show he has absorbed the lessons of Bill Clinton in 1994 and Massachusetts in 2010? The auguries are not good. Of the Republican senate victory, Obama says, “The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office.”

This is either false bravado or a sincere belief. One hopes it is the former, because if Obama truly believes this, it reveals delusion that is unsettling in someone who has access to the nuclear football. As Hamlet’s uncle opined, “Madness in great ones must not unwatched go.”

Let us assume and hope that the president is not insane. He must therefore believe he can benefit by claiming solidarity with voters who have just handed him the most explicit repudiation that the election calendar allows. Obama amplifies his rationale, saying, “People are angry and frustrated.”

We heard this in 1994 as well, when the late Peter Jennings summarized the GOP victory by saying the electorate, “had a temper tantrum.” This is a common spin: When voters pull the lever for a Democrat, they do so while adjusting their pince-nez with their free hands as they study the intricacies of current accounts and marginal rates. But when they vote for a Republican, they’re just “angry.”

Warming to his “angry” theme, we can expect that tonight, Obama will promise to “fight.” He’s fighting for Americans, against bankers, insurance companies, special interests and corporations. Unfortunately, if those Americans pay bank fees, require credit, purchase health insurance, or work for a company, they will be caught in the crossfire.

A better choice for Obama would be to rediscover that compromising coolness that helped get him elected, while adding a dash of regret – not heated, but hopeful; not combative but contrite. This is a lot to expect from a man who has a harder time than The Fonz saying he was “wrong,” but it is still the president’s strongest option.

If Obama were to say to Americans tonight, “I have heard you, and we will change course,” the nation, and his presidency, would benefit. One hopes he has that wisdom.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

The 2010 Economy: A Glass Three-Quarters Full

Just a couple weeks into 2010, the year looks like a glass that`s three-quarters full. That is, nine of the next twelve months augur economic and market strength in North America. But when the leaves start to turn, so may our fortunes, unless the right moves are made.

First, the good news. As Lawrence Kudlow and others have happily reported, the US Yield Curve, which measures interest rates by maturity from 91-day Treasury Bills to 30-year bonds, is not only positive – showing short-term rates lower than long-term – but steep. This upward slope indicates good economic times ahead. Manufacturing and production indices in both Canada and the US have risen above their magical 50 percent thresholds, suggesting economic expansion. For those who need quantitative assurance that better days are at hand, the numbers are there.

And on a personal level, the opportunity is palpable. People are tired of being pessimistic. There continues to be cash on the sidelines, held by individuals and institutions that have waited to invest until the turbulence of the previous year subsides. As Canadian and American equity markets inch upward, and bits of good news – nascent economic growth, improved retail numbers, solid corporate earnings, etc. – seep into the public consciousness, more and more money will be coaxed into the game.

But when the autumn comes, it will bring new challenges. For one thing, September and October have historically been tricky months for equity markets – the years 1929, 1987 and 2008 come to mind. Moreover, for American investors, there will be incentive to dump stocks before the end of the year to avoid higher capital gains taxes in 2011 (more on that in a moment).

One area in which even the most sanguine among us should not expect improvement by this fall is unemployment rates. This is invariably a lagging indicator, so an expanding economy with a lousy jobs market is not so inconsistent as it may seem. Even so, there are moves government can make to get folks back to work.

In the United States, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts on personal income and capital gains are set to expire at the end of 2010, meaning rates will rise. Small businesses create three-quarters of the jobs in the US, and many of these companies pay taxes at individual rates. There has been scant commentary on the impact of America’s imminent tax increases on the employment picture. But entrepreneurs and small business owners, who must keep an eye on such things as a matter of economic survival, are keenly aware that government will be hiking their overhead in the form of higher tax rates (and, quite possibly, new health care and energy fees) in a matter of months. This will hamper the jobs market unless and until American employers get a better idea of what costs will look like in 2011 and beyond. Freezing US tax rates at 2010 levels – or cutting them, better yet – would go a long way toward reducing unemployment.

Bear in mind that government doesn’t create jobs; private enterprise does. Using so-called “stimulus” money to keep states and cities from having to trim their payrolls, while hiring folks for one-off projects like cleaning up after parades and counting birds at the airport, is not a sustainable way to grow an economy. Heaping fees and heavier taxes on an already groaning private sector is no help. So the shorthand message to America’s lawmakers and president for 2010 is: Stop borrowing and spending, freeze or cut tax rates, and give the economy room to grow.

In Canada, the federal government and central bank have two key jobs apiece, in order to make the most of the next nine months. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty must continue to focus on reducing and eliminating the nation’s budget deficit. Every other pro-growth ambition – including meaningful tax cuts – depends on keeping government from making overspending a habit. Second, these fellows must use every political and moral means at their disposal to convince our American trading partners to get their own budget deficit under control. A spendthrift government in Washington leads to a weak US dollar, which means America buys fewer Canadian exports.

As to that, Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney must continue to keep interest rates low for as long as he can. Hiking rates begets a rising loonie and, for Canadian manufacturers and exporters, the dollar is already too high. Carney has indicated he will avoid raising rates before the end of the summer, unless inflation forces his hand. In the meantime, Carney should continue to talk down the loonie, reminding currency traders that the central bank will not allow our dollar to be speculated into the stratosphere. Canada is an exporter nation and, as such, needs a competitively priced currency for its products. If Carney can manage this, the country should thank him.

Barring some extraordinary incident, the first nine months of 2010 look good for the economy and markets. With the right moves, North America’s leaders can give that three-quarters-full glass a top-up.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Saint Nicholas and the Present

Beginning on his Feast Day of December 6 and continuing through the Christmas season, folks are put in mind of St. Nicholas, who comes in guises ranging from a red-suited elf to a retail pitchman. In reality, Nicholas was a Fourth Century Bishop of Myra, born in what is now southern Turkey, who personified the divine nature of generosity.

As the Patron Saint of, among others, archers, bakers, bankers, mariners, merchants and pawnbrokers, he has myriad responsibilities, to be certain. Of course, Nicholas is best known as the Patron Saint of Children.

At first, this may appear an impossibly eclectic group of things for one saint to represent. In particular, the idea that the same figure can oversee both businessmen and babies might seem a stretch. But there is something to Nicholas’ combined portfolio of commerce and kindness. Simply put, the more you give, the more you get.

Economist Arthur C. Brooks has done extensive research on this counterintuitive phenomenon, noting, “It’s like the hand of God or something on the economy.” Brooks concludes that being generous makes people happier and thereby more successful. He stresses that a person does not need to be rich before he or she can benefit from giving. That is, kindness of spirit does the trick, no matter your tax bracket. Such is the example of this Bishop from a backwater of Asia Minor.

Not much is known of Nicholas’ early life, but it is supposed that he grew up in great wealth and gave it away. One of the most commonly repeated tales of Nicholas’ generosity has to do with a poor father who could not afford dowries for his three daughters. As a result, the girls could not be married and would be sold into slavery. When Nicholas heard of this family’s trouble, he slipped three bags of gold through their windows and into socks that had been hung to dry. The relation of this tale to the modern practice of hanging Christmas stockings is obvious. The story’s more potent aspect is the virtue of showing kindness to people we don’t know, without expectation of recognition or reward.

Each year at Christmastime, we are reminded of the value of giving by greeting cards, The Grinch, and ghosts of past, present and future. This year, the lesson may be more relevant than ever.

World markets and economies have suffered as of late and this would seem an odd time to be generous. Who can think of giving when there may not be enough to cover one’s own expenses? But recent troubles should at least have relieved people of the illusion of control. That is, no amount of hoarding or responsible miserliness can protect against calamity – cash can lose its value as dollars are slugged by inflation, seemingly safe investments can be lost or stolen – and in any case, you can’t take it with you. So the choice for anyone – rich, poor, or at some point of transition between the two – is what type of person do you wish to be?

Unlike many saints, Nicholas was not martyred, although he was persecuted and imprisoned for his Christian faith. In this way, it is Nicholas’ life, rather than his death, that informs his legacy. To wit, while the catalogue of holy people is crammed with saints marching off to be killed in nasty ways, Nicholas demonstrated how to live. A wealthy man, he decided to make kindness his currency.

And so the decision is laid before each of us. Any given moment, we may choose to be kind. We can keep Christmas every day of the year, following St. Nicholas’ example and Charles Dickens’ advice, giving generously without regret for the past or fear of the future. As the adage goes, “Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift – that is why it is called the present.”

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Ten Questions with Theo Caldwell

“Finn the half-Great was just that. Greater than some and less than others, he made his way in the world as best he could....” Open Book talks to Theo Caldwell about his book, Finn the half-Great (Tundra Books), his next project and more.

Open Book: Toronto:
Tell us about your book, Finn the half-Great.

Theo Caldwell:
Our hero, Finn McCool, is half a giant and the most famous hero in Ireland. At fourteen feet tall (give or take), you’d think Finn is the biggest thing on the Emerald Isle. Not so, not by a long chalk. When he ventures from his childhood home, Finn discovers that ancient Britain is a land of giants, dragons, wizards and men, in which he is only one little fellow. Just like in real life – there’s always someone bigger and there’s always someone smaller. To wit, we’re all half-great.

OBT:
You work as an investment manager and a financial writer. What inspired you to write a young adult novel?

TC:
Investment managers are the folks most in need of inspiration these days.

OBT:
Which books made a great impression on you when you were a child?

TC:
The Hobbit, Wind in the Willows, Watership Down and Animal Farm.

OBT:
Did you have a specific readership in mind when you wrote your book?

TC:
Kids are smarter than big people recognize. I wasn’t a particularly precocious child myself, but neither was I as gaping and gobsmacked as my superiors supposed. More than anything, I want children to read and be challenged by Finn’s adventures. If grown-ups want to have a look too, they’re certainly welcome (not that I could stop them, anyway), but little people are very important.

OBT:
What’s the best advice you’ve ever received as a writer?

TC:
Be there when it happens.

OBT:
Describe your ideal writing environment.

TC:
Dogs are present and there is something else that I should be attending to. I read once that there is no amount of work a man cannot do, so long as it is not the work he is supposed to be doing at that moment. I thrive on distraction. F. Scott Fitzgerald described writing as holding your breath under water. For me, that means I can bang out a few words, then I need something to go busy myself with before I sit back down and write a few more.

OBT:
If you had to choose three books as a “Welcome to Canada” gift, what would those books be?

TC:
Xenophobe’s Guide to the Canadians, Atlas Shrugged and I Want To Go Home.

OBT:
What are you reading right now?

TC:
The Bible, cover to cover, including all the “Him-Ham begat Zim-Zam” stuff in the early books. I’m up to First Kings. We’re winning, so far.

OBT:
What advice do you have for writers who are trying to get published?

TC:
Finish your project first. Once you have a complete piece, the world is your oyster. Selling your work is a separate skill set, so keep it out of your head while you’re writing and create the best book you can. To do that, write a couple hundred good words every day. No need to overdo it if the muse isn’t with you. Better a couple hundred well-chosen words than pages of balderdash. At that moderate pace, in the space of a year, you’ll have a novel. When it comes to getting published, there is no substitute for enthusiasm. I’ve heard that anyone can be enthusiastic for 30 minutes, but a successful person stays enthusiastic for 30 years. Go through your network of friends and colleagues to find publishing contacts. Publishers have Byzantine rules for submissions, but jumping the queue has a rich and noble tradition and I recommend it highly.

OBT:
What is your next project?

TC:
The second book in Finn’s five-part journey, Finn the half-Great and the Death of Gogmagog.





theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.