Staying Grounded

Hosts: Jan, Rob, Dee, & Jim 

2025: a rough start. Stoicism (Marcus Aurelius, Seneca, Epictetus), and what we really can control. Post-election despondency. The New Orleans incident. Addiction to 24/7 news. Update on Pip. “Laundry Love.” Peter Singer’s moral imperative.

Thanks for listening. Share with your friends. Find this and more at cheynemusic.com/podcast.

Transcript

[Music]

JIM: Jan needs a serious dose of stoicism whenever the U of M football team is on the field. Two minutes to go, they’re ahead by 60, she’s worried.

JAN: I am.

JIM: And she’s thinking that running into the bedroom and not looking at the TVs can somehow bring her team fortune.

JAN: It works every time.

JIM: It works every time.

[Music]

JIM (voice-over): Well, 2025 has gotten off to an uninviting start. One man’s ideology drove him to bring violence to the streets of New Orleans, while another sought to exorcise his demons through violence in Las Vegas. Fires consume lives and properties in Southern California, and the nation stepped warily into the new year with flags at half staff toward an occluded political horizon. How does one stay grounded when the ground under one’s feet begins to shift? How do we answer Peter Singer’s moral imperative? And how is Pip our teacup Yorkie doing with his new and sudden medical crisis? Welcome to “Making Our Way.”

[Music]

JIM: You cannot control what people do. You can control your reaction to them, right? Growing up, I thought Stoic just meant you put up with a bunch of garbage, which is not what Stoicism is. The Stoic thought, which goes way back, people like Marcus Aurelius, the emperor. Anytime I get a little bit disoriented, I just open up Marcus Aurelius’ meditations and just read a fragment of it. And for some reason, it’s always with Richard Harris’ his voice.

JAN: Well, of course.

JIM: Because of "Gladiator."

JAN: Yeah, yeah.

JIM: You know, Seneca, the advisor to Nero. And by the way, Seneca - there are these apocryphal letters between Saint Paul and Seneca that weren’t by either of them, but someone decided to imagine the dialogue between them and the correspondence. Epictetus, who was a slave. It started with this guy Zeno. They work on the idea of, first of all, wisdom, get your mind onto the good things. Justice, how are you in your community? Temperance, how are you with yourself? And also courage, the courage to do right, stay right, stay with your principles, but insist on it and put it right out into the public arena, which is part of your responsibility to your community, which is why fatalism, when faced with an administration you don’t like, or any circumstances that you don’t like, is not the approach.

JAN: I’ve thought a lot since the election about, first I had to come out of the complete…

DEE: Depression?

JAN: Yes, and I have. I’ve come to the reality of where we’re at, but I did put together this plan of how am I going to approach this? Because I have to - the grounding part is huge, to being able to use my voice. So I put together a plan of where am I gonna spend my time making sure that I’m informed and studying and in the right frame of mind, and I’ve got a list of places, and then how am I gonna use my voice, and how am I gonna support the work of - that adds volume to my voice by being organizations that I know will work for justice. So, have the courage to speak by being grounded, but also the making of this podcast. “Making Our Way,” to me, expresses what I want do this year. And we have a voice that we can speak when we think things are in need of support, or a voice. And we get to do this. And so it’s shifted my focus away from social media toward this, which I think is more effective.

JIM: Each person is responsible for the way they react to things in the stoic view - in my - I’ll quit handing it off to somebody else - in my view. It’s the way that I react to things is my responsibility, someone else. No one made me do this. No one made me do the other thing. No one made someone load up fireworks in a Cybertruck and drive to Las Vegas. No one caused that. That person did that. Now you think about the pressure of society and how big that gets, and people can warp off into irrationality, but it’s still the   person’s reaction, everyone’s reaction to the surroundings, that they’re responsible for.

DEE: Quite frankly, I’m dealing with this by, one, not turning on the news. And I’ll get, Jim will say, “Did you hear?” And I’ll say, “No, I didn’t because I want to keep my sanity.” Or my mom will say, “Did you hear?” “No, mom, because I want to keep my sanity.”

JAN: I think you have to take care of yourself. I think that’s important. And I mean, for me, what I’ve done, we have changed one of our sources of information. We have turned it off. And I am more likely to go to print now than any other kind of source, and credible print, which there is. So not all print is credible. But anyway, I go to print journalism instead of it coming at me through the television, sorry.

JIM: When the AP thing pops up on my screen, it has a nice little thing that says, “News is free. Journalism is not.” I thought, well, this is really good because information is all there.” But journalism is, informs people, trying to shape that and saying, "This is the important stuff. This is the noise." I’ve always enjoyed Associated Press because when some breaking news thing happens, they’re not the first to say, “Look at us, we’ve got the news.” CNN does that a lot. Just, “Ooh, breaking news, breaking news.” Well, breaking news used to be, you’re watching a program and suddenly someone has to say something happened in Dallas, downtown Dallas. That’s breaking news. Breaking news is not, “Oh, we just got another word we can add to the paragraph we’ve been reading to you for the last 24 hours.” That’s not breaking news. So, the journalism of the Associated Press - they are very cautious on adding new information to their stories. And they will, sometimes, like when the incident happened in New Orleans - by the way, I gave you a Cafe du Monde mug…

JAN: I noticed that, thank you.

JIM: …in honor of our friends in New Orleans. When that came out, they will timestamp where they’ve added something to a story, because it’s an ongoing developing story. And so you know, “Okay, I’ve got the latest thing now, or this corrects this.” By the way, did you watch the press conference that they had?

JAN: I didn’t.

JIM: It was, I couldn’t believe what I was watching. Of course, Senator Kennedy was just gonna do his folksy thing and out-folksy everybody. That’s his play all the time. But then the governor, Landry, he was getting snarky with the questions that were coming his way. There were some ideas that perhaps he didn’t act alone. So a reporter, a journalist is asking, “What information do you have that would say he did not act alone?” And the proper response is, “Because this is an ongoing investigation, we can’t release that right now. But we’ll let you know.” Instead, the governor said, “What makes you think we’re gonna tell you?”

JAN: Oh.

JIM: Yeah.

DEE: Yeah.

JIM: And I’m thinking…

JAN: It’s the press, you fool.

JIM: Why do you go after them like that? You just answer the question in a professional way. Why - you don’t expect that from a governor of a state to have to, “I’m gonna pick a fight with you and I’m gonna be Mr. Big Governor over you.” Even though he was the shortest person in the room.

[Laughter]

JAN: That explains everything right there.

JIM: But I was impressed with the mayor. She did a very good job, and the FBI agent did a very good job.

JAN: And the future president did not. Because now he’s stoking conspiracy theories again. And “othering,” you know, it becomes about immigrants. Well, okay, this was an American-born person. So…

JIM: Well, we should, if there’s any coincidence between these two, these were both military people.

ROB: Yes. This is way off topic, but I think the military does some really bad things to young men. And it screws their heads up. I mean, look at them.

DEE: I agree.

ROB: They come home, they kill themselves, they commit crimes, they end up in jail. Not all of them. I mean, probably maybe not even the majority of them, but it’s significant. And there’s something wrong. We need to figure out. I mean, I guess teaching somebody to kill is not good.

JAN: There’s a downside to it for sure.

ROB: For sure.

JIM: It’s when the person is obliterated. First of all, the soldier’s obliterated by all of what they’re wearing, the weapons they have, and they’re not a person there anymore. And the enemy is not - I mean, this is all the way through the history of, you know, if you can make the other person not a person, then what you’re gonna do to them is--

JAN: In a way, Jim, that is the nature of our politics right now, beyond just the military. The way we are talking about human beings - I’ll bring up dogs and cats - but it’s just as an example of, if you can make them not human, then you can do things that are inhuman to them.

DEE: That’s what Nazi Germany did.

ROB: Well, that’s what we saw on election day at the Anne Frank House, that we saw the timeline and the scapegoating that went on, and it was the Jews that caught it that time. Now in our country, it’s anybody who’s foreign-born. And it’s just…

DEE: Not just foreign-born, but of a certain race, or different race.

ROB: Well, that too.

DEE: I’m foreign-born, but…

ROB: Yeah.

JAN: Well, but you’re Canadian.

DEE: I don’t get…

ROB: You’re the right color.

DEE: Right.

JAN: You’re Canadian.

DEE: Oh, I’m gonna be part of the 51st state, that’s right.

JAN: That’s right.

DEE: If you wanna see someone be pissed off, talk to my mom about how Canada’s gonna become the 50-- Oh my gosh.

ROB: That’s what Trump’s talking about it.

JAN: I enjoy stirring that pot.

JIM: [Under his breath] Note to editor: Take this part out.

[Laughter]

ROB: Anyway.

JAN: Sorry.

JIM: But I have a feeling that people have become addicted to the national dialogue simply because of 24/7 cable news needing material to talk about.

ROB: You get the breaking news banner at the beginning of every hour, and then you listen, and you say, “Well, that was four hours ago.”

DEE: Yeah, exactly.

ROB: That’s not breaking news anymore.

JIM: Sometimes it’s breaking news, and sometimes it’s the news breaking you. I don’t need to be shaped by this constant feed. I remember the way that the occasional news journalists that we would see, that Walter Cronkite, you know, Huntley and Brinkley, they would be very direct and neutral…

JAN: Yeah.

JIM: …in their delivery, and you got real substantial stuff, and then it was over, and then you would have a time to reflect on it. But this thing of, “I’ve gotta have this all the time and just sit there and let it feed you, feed you, feed you,” I think that changes you, and so just turn it off for a bit. I really don’t care moment to moment about these things because I care about the people who are around me. This is where I really have influence, and I’ll toss a - my vote into the ocean of votes that go this way, but when I’m meeting people day to day, that’s where I can have much more of an impact.

JAN: Exactly, actually, exactly what I would say, that for me to be able to focus in on where I can make a difference is basically a local issue, you know? So, no, I agree with that. I would commend, just my recommendation would be, what my friend Larry does, he does old school. He watches the news at 6.30 every night for a half an hour, and then he turns it off, and he’s using a major network, not a cable news, push in your face.

ROB: Right, right.

JAN: I think that’s a really great way to go, and also I would commend PBS NewsHour. It’s in-depth enough, and it does require you to pay attention not just to things flying by, but it’s a great source of information, and it’s credible. So, I’m back to also using print journalism. It kinda gets rid of some of the emotion.

[Music]

JIM: Pip, our teacup Yorkie, just over three pounds. We were right at the beginning of his medical journey. Do you wanna give people an update on how he’s doing now?

DEE: Pip is doing well. He’s actually sitting right beside me, napping. His eyes were not the same. Now his eyes are bright, and they’re the same size, and he’s barking. He’s much more active around the house, moving more stably. The medication he’s on seems to be helping. He will go down the steps, but he will not go up the steps.

JIM: If you hadn’t heard our last episode, it’s a meningo, like meningitis, meningoencephalitis, double inflammation of the brain, and the neurologist that he’s with is suspecting it’s a, um, autoimmune disorder. But he’s still with us. He survived that first week that is critical, and he seems to be, I would say, maybe 75, 80% back. The idea is that he looks drunk when he’s trying to walk, and he’ll fall down from time to time.

DEE: He avoids tile more so…

JIM: It’s very, it’s like he’s stepping out on ice skates for the first time when he gets on the slick floor. So we were thinking about a trip to Iceland, right? And when you’re doing that, you’re looking at the cost, how do you keep the cost down, and you go through it, and you think, okay, because we’re doing this pool renovation, let’s push this off into the future, right? Well, I take him to the vet, without a thought in one day I spent on him twice what it would have cost us to go to Iceland, just to find out what’s wrong with this little boy. And he’s brought into our family, and so that’s just it. We don’t have to ask any of those questions again, and if we’re able to do that, that’s what we do. And he seems to be doing okay. And then the ongoing care will be a certain monthly expense, and that’s what we understand. He seems to be happy. He loves his mom.

[Music]

JAN: One of the great things that happened when we have a new pastor that came was, he was looking at our outreach, and outreach in our church is things that we do outside of our four walls. We support a school that is a Title I school, and we do a lot for that school. But he wanted to bring this, I hate using the word program, but that’s what I’ll call it, because there’s a national organization called Laundry Love, and he wanted our congregation to form a relationship. And so that is something that Rob and I volunteer for. Laundry Love was a funny name, but what you do, our church established a relationship with a laundromat, and the laundromat agreed to have us come one night a month and pay for the laundry of people who come in the door, who ask for assistance with the cost of their laundry. We were in a relatively poor area, intentionally, and we had a staff that wanted to help us. So that’s what we do one night a month. We go and we have a certain budgeted amount, and people can come, they don’t have any litmus test at all, they come, they’ll stand in a long line an hour before we open, and all they have to give is their first name and how many people they’re doing laundry for. And we have certain parameters on the number of machines that we can afford to help them with, which we give them on a cart. And they go, they put their laundry in the machines, we come and pay for it, and then, you know, that’s our part.

The best part of this, two great parts of this, we actually develop relationships with people who are there because they know we’re going to be there, and we have conversations with them. And we learn that some of the assumptions - I had this happen just this last Monday - some of the assumptions you might make about people who are in need are definitely incorrect. We have very intelligent people who have hit upon a hard time. They lost everything in a hurricane. They got laid off of their job and they have children. They’ve just hit a rough patch in their lives. And we can help them pay for their laundry, which tends to be the last thing people - how do I wanna put this? Something like 70% of the people who have, who are in poverty, don’t do their laundry regularly because it’s an expense that they can forego. They need food, they need housing, but laundry is something that maybe they can let go. So they don’t present themselves well, which then again is a barrier for them getting out of their situation. So I leave Laundry Love once a month an emotional wreck, because I’ve had the best conversations with amazing people, some of whom have mental illness, some of whom are just in a bad spot, some very intelligent people trying to get out of a situation. And I’m gonna say, to a person, they thank us.

ROB: Yeah, they do. They fill out prayer requests. They are interested in our church, but our church is nowhere near this laundromat. It’s not like these people - some of them are living on the street. They don’t have transportation. We know that and there are regulars. We see them every month. And then there are others that hear through word of mouth. But what I like about it is we don’t, you know, grill them about their situation. They come, they sign in, and they do their laundry.

DEE: Well, that’s what I was getting back to. You do the right thing and you’ve done what you need to do and then it’s up - to not for somebody to take advantage of it, who doesn’t need to. It’s like the government was giving out, what, $750 checks to people affected by the hurricane. There are some people who really didn’t have damage done, who were able, ’cause they were in the right zip code. Like, that’s not doing the right thing. That money needs to go to people who really need it, but the money is there. And in that case, I would say, the right thing is being done. Then it’s up to the individual to say, “No, that’s not for me. That’s for someone who really needs it.” And then you have people who take advantage of it. You know what I mean? It’s like welfare. And people think, “Oh, people who don’t need it are taking advantage of the system.” It’s like, no, you do the right thing. And then that’s why I get upset when we provide services to the community, and it’s the government, which is us. It isn’t some big overlord entity. The government is the people, it’s community. And it kind of goes right back to that, you do the right thing, and then hope others will do the right thing.

JAN: It is that classic story of I’ve left here more impacted than the people who come. And I love that our church does this. I love that there are no strings attached, and I feel part of something that benefits people in a very direct way.

JIM: This could be a hard ethic, but I’m gonna go to Peter Singer on this one. And he wrote a paper in the early ’70s when Bangladesh was forming out of East Pakistan. And then there’s this great famine, Bengal. “Famine and affluence and morality,” something like that is the essay. And he’s writing saying that if you see a need and you have the resources to address that need, and you’re not compromising some other moral responsibility, then your obligation is to do that. He says if you’re heading off to Starbucks, when you really could make coffee at home, that by the way is just as good, or you’re doing any sort of thing that has that sort of luxury appeal above and beyond what you need, and you’re holding on to that money, when that money could be addressed someplace else, you’re engaging in an immoral act, which is a startling thing, but it’s hard to see where he’s going wrong in this argument. I mean, he’s just two steps short of someone calling him into a senatorial committee saying, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”

When we were growing up, I’m gonna get the facts wrong, but I’ll tell you what I remember, is there’s someone in a shopping place, like an aisle in a Sears or something was attacked. And they were attacked, and people were watching this attack, and the attack happened without anyone’s intervening.

JAN: Yeah.

JIM: And they wanted to find out why did no one intervene, and everyone interviewed said they were sure that someone had called the authorities. It’s the old Seinfeld final episode debacle that they did, of just being the good Samaritan laws. Being a bystander to something is culpability on your part, to the wrong that’s being committed. So when we hear a problem someplace else, do we have a moral obligation to reach out and take part? And are we doing something wrong when we are indulging ourselves in the wealth that we - by golly! - earned? It was a very challenging question he put to the ethical community.

There was a scripture, and it was Amos 3:8, and it says, “The lion has roared, who does not fear it? The Lord God has spoken, who can but prophesy?” The idea is that a situation arises that if you hear it, you have to respond. If you see it, you have to respond. Peter Singer, I think, was trying to expand our ability to hear, our ability to see, beyond the everyday, beyond what is proximate to us, that it really does go to all humanity, and going beyond our tribal collections, and realizing if there’s a problem there, not everyone will see the problem, and so would not be held accountable for it. But if you see it happening, that’s something that you have to do. It’s the starfish example, right? Person going along, tossing starfish back into the sea. “What are you doing?” “I’m saving a starfish.” “But look at how big the problem is. It won’t matter,” and he said, “It’ll matter to this one.” And then he would toss one back. So you do something, because not to do something is doing something, and doing something that he would say, and I would agree, is an immoral thing. It’s a shirking of responsibility. I think the idea is if you see the problem and you have the means to solve that problem, then that is what you’re obligated to do.

[Music]

JIM: Unless there is some other moral obligation that supersedes it, you know?

JIM (voice-over): For what it’s worth, these were the lighter moments from our discussion, for which next week offers a welcome reprieve. Jan and Rob will be joined by friends Lillian and Larry to recount their trip through the waterways of Central Europe on a Viking River cruise, visiting several ports of call from Amsterdam to Budapest.

Until next time.

[Music]