Sunlight Shining Through Cloud

Archive for the ‘U.S. Politics’ Category

My heart swells at the sight of our flag, but it sinks with news like this — a just-released Pew Poll reveals that almost half of us don’t know that the Supreme Court approved the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) six days ago.

How can that be? Network or cable news, online sites or blogs…the number one topic for months has been the ACA and the consequences of the Supreme Court ruling both before and after the fact.

This is why politico’s can lie to us and get away with it (death panels?). They know we’re barely paying attention. And if we vote at all, it will be with impressions derived from “issue ads” funded by anonymous deep-pocketed special interests.

All of the bunting is well and good. But after we celebrate our country’s birth, we must re-commit to its growth — a work-in-progress, and one that requires the engagement of all of its people.

Of course, I’m preaching to the choir.

I remember learning about The Boston Tea Party in grade-school American History class.  This was a protest against the reach of Britain into the lives and pockets of the colonists who then dumped three shiploads of tea into Boston Harbor rather than pay a tax on it.  This event was a precursor of the American Revolution, and of the tempestuous creation of government of, by and for the people.

The King referred to the colonists as “rebels” among other things.

Suns vainly will rise, showers vainly descend, if we are to drudge for what others shall spend.

The Liberty Song, John Dickinson of Delaware, 1768

I remember a time when a large number of Americans trusted their government; my parents among them. I also remember a time when a generation spoke ‘loud and proud’ against a government unworthy of trust.  That would be my generation, and I was among them.  Civil disobedience became the order of that day.  There were marches and protests and burnings and speeches all crying out for reform; for a government working for its people.

We were called “communists” among other things.

What we now know as the ‘Tea Party’ was born in 2006 of Libertarian ideology.  It died ingloriously on election day, 2008, and was immediately resurrected by the oil-billionaire Koch Brothers and others who’s intent seems only to be the stirring of hornets, fomenting of chaos, and weakening of government.  This artificial support lends itself to the term “astroturf.”

And the hornets are being called “neo-Klansmen” among other things.

There’s somthing happenin’ here; what it is ain’t exactly clear…

For What It’s Worth, Buffalo Springfield, 1967

I don’t know what to think about what’s been happening for the past few weeks. There are hundreds of protesters; sometimes thousands. They’re pitching tents in city parks and marching through New York’s Financial District.  They’re calling themselves the “99 percent” and “Occupy Wall Street”. Unions are adding to their number.  Environmental groups and others are considering their positions.

They’re demanding that government support education, infrastructure, and jobs; getting rid of corporate tax loopholes; strengthening democracy; fighting climate change. They want a lot.  But they lack a tidy, headline-making ‘hook.’

Other such efforts are being mounted in cities across the nation. How? Who’s in charge?

No one is in charge.  Their structure is not hierarchal. The “top” is flat: no leader; no spokesperson; no single theme.  They seem intent on maintaining the purity of individuality, even amongst the many; even if it means molasses-slow decision-making. They seem intent on building heft through the universality of their message(s). This is both “grassroots” and a true “movement,” having only spontaneous formation.

They are a growing bunch of disaffected people who want to make a statement. Or many statements. They see a government overtaken by special interests: all power accruing to the few; shrinking benefit to the many. They’re as angry with the president as they are with Congress.

This generation’s got no destination to hold.  Pick up the cry.

Volunteers, Jefferson Airplane, 1969

I worry that mal-intents will jump into the mix and turn thus-far-uncertain public sentiment against the movement. I worry that this nascent organization will collapse for lack of structure.  I worry that leadership will enter or emerge and give unwanted focus to those who are uncertain of the movement’s motives. I worry that civil disobedience — and the resulting damage and massive arrests — will be seen as merely rebellious. I worry that dressing like zombies will not be clearly understood as a message about corporate greed.

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao,
You ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.

Revolution, The Beatles, 1969

I wonder if the movement will grow; or, even, if it should grow. I wonder which types of individuals will join; which groups. I wonder if my standing back is cowardice; if my joining would add only to futility; if it’s the only right thing to do.

These people are being called “dangerous” “anti-Capitalist” “anarchists.”

—–

If history teaches us anything, it is that we infrequently learn from it.  The colonists seeded the birth of a great nation, but it was a delivery of great agony. The Constitutional convention was highly contentious and produced a document with many flaws. Blame the Constitution for the protests of the 99%.

My generation did do some good; did affect some change to the betterment of most.  But we then became the people who ran things, ultimately, as badly as any before.  Blame us for the protests of the 99%.

The Tea Party-hijacked Republican Party is — right now — gerrymandering election districts to favor their will over the collective will of the people; to sway politics and policy for generations to come. Blame them for the protests of the 99%.

Whatever the causes, whichever the influences, the integrity of our nation’s future depends, I think, on the success of the 99%.

Today’s post has to do with political maneuverings that should cause outrage.  I cannot recall a single day upon which as much strategic deviance was perpetrated on the American people.  We’ll begin in Washington and end in Wisconsin.  Strap in; the ride’s going to be rough.  The politicos are counting on you bailing out.

The budget talks are not going well.  The Democrats remain adamant on the removal of tax breaks for the rich and for corporations.  Regaining these funds from those who shouldn’t get them and don’t need them would bring $1.2Trillion back into the coffers, they say.  The Republicans remain rhetorically adamant.  This amounts to a tax increase, they say.

The U.S. budget deficit is not the $2T originally set as the goal for the bi-partisan Biden Commission.  It is, in fact, $4T spread over ten years.  If agreement had somehow been achieved on a $2T package of budget cuts/tax “increases”, the debt ceiling would have been allowed to go higher to avert economic calamity.  But we would have had to return to the table again in two years — right after the 2012 general elections — to fix the rest of the problem.  Republicans believe they would own both houses of Congress then, and the prospect of slashing programs Americans want and need is not appealing.

Seeing only a stalemate on the $2T negotiations, President Obama figured that he might just as well solve the whole $4T problem.  This Democratic president out-Republican’d the Republicans.  And what did the Republicans do?  They heaped criticism on the president for tackling a problem that could not possibly meet with approval in Congress.

Their worry, in fact, has nothing whatsoever to do with Congressional approval.  It has everything to do with the 2012 elections.  If Republicans are perceived as having capitulated on tax “increases”, or for having caused the country to default on its debt, they stand a good chance of losing many of the races in next year’s elections.

The stakes are huge.  One third of the Senate is up for election/re-election, and all of the House is up for election/re-election.  The Senate is now Democratic-controlled.  The House is now Republican-controlled.  Losing elections means that Republicans could be weakened in the Senate next year and, worse, lose their majority in the House.  They would lose the power they now enjoy.  And in Washington, “power” is the second most important word; “re-election” is first.

The only way to avoid such a political disaster is to pin the blame for the process and its result on the Democrats in the person of President Barack Obama.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) today presented a plan which, to his credit, hides nothing.  Contortion #1 is layed bare for all to see:

  • The president would request an increase in the debt ceiling.  The largest part of a three-stage strategy would take place next summer — during the heat of the 2012 election cycle.  (White House lawyers say the president already has the power to raise the debt ceiling without asking for anything.)
  • Members of both parties would deny the request.  The president would then veto their “measure of disapproval”, effectively approving his own request.
  • It is all but impossible to gather a two-thirds majority in Congress to override the presidential veto.

The net effect?  The president (and, by association, Democrats) get the blame for continued and growing budget problems; Republicans get elected/re-elected.

Even some conservative critics are calling this an abdication of Congressional responsibility.  The first job of Congress, after all, is management of the budget.  Nevertheless, under this plan, the president gets his debt ceiling (without any budget cuts), and Republicans score political points in a critical election year.

Is this how our government is supposed to work?

Which brings us to Contortion #2.

Wisconsinites of both parties are angry with Governor Scott Walker (R) for — among other things — ramming through legislation which removes collective bargaining rights from unionized state workers.  So unhappy is the electorate that the first of four recall elections was held today targeting nine state senators (including three Dems) who voted with the Governor.  So far, so good.  Voters are using the processes available to them.

However, Republicans inserted six fake Democrats (wolves in sheep’s clothing?) against Democratic incumbents.  The Republican’s out-of-the-closet placement of phony candidates caused a delay in the upcoming general election by a month thereby giving Republican incumbents more time to distance themselves from accountability for their anti-union votes.

Again, the question:  Is this how our government is supposed to work?

Once upon a time, our elected representatives would debate the issues on their merits, on ideology or both.  At day’s end, they would repair to the backrooms, hallways and offices, light up cigars, and compliment each other on the vim and vigor of each others’ arguments.  And they’d chat about the kids’ achievements in school, and they’d brag about the latest accomplishments of the home team.

There was a collegial atmosphere then; “respectful opposition” was the term applied to it.  And it was here, in the smoke-filled back rooms, that the true business of budgetary policy-making (Congress’ primary responsibility), and its legislative functions took place.  Here – for better or worse –  is where the real work got done.

This was not a perfect system, of course, but accomplishments were many.  At the end of a session, you could count the number of actions taken by your hard-working members on Capitol Hill — both branches.

This was the picture in Washington only fifty years ago.

It can be legitimately argued that this era in American politics was either good or bad.  What cannot be argued is that the body of work done then is mirror opposite of that which gets done now.  The question is not one of quantity over quality.  It is of quantity over nothing.

What happened?

In a think piece broadcast last Thursday on NPR’s “Marketplace,” President George W. Bush’s chief speechwriter, David Frum, posited one reason for the demise of respectful opposition: “Congress goes home for the weekends.”  While at first seeming far off the point, Frum argues that in days past, our representatives moved to Washington, D.C., families and all.  These guys were neighbors; their kids attended the same schools; they formed a community of people with a singular interest: the governance of a country.  You don’t take relationships like this and eviscerate them on the floor of the Capitol the next day.

Campaign rhetoric happened.  “Beltway insider” became a brand to be avoided.  It meant all the worst things about Washington; it meant the member was an integral part of what was wrong with our government.  So the pols moved back home as if to prove their ‘outsider’ status.  Fly home for weekends with the family and constituents; commute to D.C. for another week of doing the work of the people.  But, whereas the homefolk get two days of the week, power-brokers get five evenings of each week.  These, of course, include the lobbyists, special interests, and donors.

C-SPAN happened.  It was 1979 for the House; 1986 for the Senate.  C-SPAN brought the backroom work into the chambers for all to see.  Positions held by elected officials were now clearly visible to constituents.  Any compromises to be made were made in front of all.

Gerrymandering happened.  This darling topic of 9th grade civics classes is nothing new.  What is new is the vigor with which the partys in power are re-crafting electoral districts following each census.  The purpose of redistricting should be demographic balance.  Instead, it is now the assurance of that party’s dominance and re-election.  With that kind of security, why would a member bargain with the opposition party?

SCOTUS happened.  In 2010, The U.S. Supreme Court effectively removed the limits of corporate funding to groups advocating for or against a cause or candidate.  The court’s rationale was that restrictions impaired free speech.  The result is massive amounts of money being poured into smear campaigns (commercials, documentaries, etc.) by corporations through lobbyists and special interest groups.  Think “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” and “Hillary: The Movie.”  Such donation can now be done with anonymity.  We’ll never learn who’s spreading the lies.

The Tea Party happened.  Not unlike other such movements in American history, the  Tea Party’s life-cycle was birth, chaotic absence of clear purpose, and death (the 2008 general election).  Then resurrection.  How?  Why?  This “movement” exists today with guidance and funding from deep-pocketed companies whose only interest is their own profitability.  Their modus operandi is to stir the unhappy constituents with specious information and outright lies.  The hornets are many, and the money is huge.  So members of an entire party are being cowed by a force as willing to sink a Republican ship as a Democratic ship in order to achieve the donors’ covetous ends.  On the flip side, members who ally themselves to this purported “ultra-conservative agenda” find that they cannot lose.  And re-election, after all, is the first order of business in Washington.

Science happened.  Neuroscientists are beginning to understand that certain human brains are predisposed – wired, if you will – toward the political right; others toward the left.  A result, for example, is that a staunch Democrat will ignore charges against his candidate, and harden his support for that candidate even after the charges are proven true.  In times past, better reasoning was used.  Now, there is no reason to reason; the political opposition must be opposed…no matter the truth.  This makes swing voters the more coveted.  If the partisans can’t be redirected, the swing voters hold the power to determine elections.

If despair, cynicism and apathy grow among the electorate, who can blame them?  They’re probably correct in believing that their votes don’t count.  Indeed, with redistricting, a vote doesn’t count if the vote is for the “wrong” party.  Only the ruling party can win.

What, then, will it take to move our body politic off the dime (pun intended)?  Something tragic?  Gabby Giffords.  Something euphoric?  Osama bin Laden.  Something devastating?  “The Great Recession.”  Why should anything work when something as awful as 9/11 brought civility to our midst for less than a week?

If it seems that our governmental world is going to hell in a handbasket, it is.  But as long as Americans continue to draw breath, Americans have the power to effect change.  We have only to collectively resolve to improve our government, gather and speak with one voice, and push harder than the other guys.  It’s our country.

The cost for not doing this is paralysis and anarchy.  America is better than that.

I don’t have to think too hard to recall July 4th parades down East Ridgewood Avenue and the hotdogs and hamburgers and fireworks.

And I don’t have to think at all to remember listening to my Woodstock album; specifically, Jimi Hendrix’s version of the Star Spangled Banner replete with dive-bombers and explosions.  It was the Vietnam era and there was a lot of music protesting the War.  That didn’t matter to my father.  He heard the strains of this music, flew up the stairs, through my closed door, planted his feet in the middle of my room and said with force, “You will never play that in my house again!”

The need for soldiers then was great.  The number of volunteers were few.  President Kennedy had instituted a draft and, along with it, a number of restrictions: least preference to married men with children; greatest preference to single men, and many shades in between.  By 1969, when these restrictions had become impossible to work with, a lottery was instituted in which preference was given to almost no one.  Your birthdate was assigned a random number from 1 to 365.  The draft lottery number was affixed to your draft card.  The closer the number was to 1, the likelier you were to be drafted.

I was a lost youth at the age of 17.  I knew the potential within me but couldn’t figure out how to exploit it.  I had left home and was struggling to find a place in the world.  Buildings were burning down around me; the race riots.  Bras were being burned; women’s liberation.  Assassinations.  Counter-culture.  Crime.  This was a turbulent time in American history.  I watched it all close up as if a reporter without a notepad.  Someday, I thought, these experiences would become useful.

My draft card arrived.  Number 46.  I was going to Vietnam.

I was required to have a physical conducted at some humongous military building in Newark, New Jersey.  Two thoughts always come to mind about draft physicals.  Arlo Guthrie captured the indignities and ironies about this particular brand of processing in his 1967 epic spoken song, Alice’s Restaurant.  The other thought is about the abstract depiction of the draft physical in the 2007 movie, Across The Universe.  If you’ve never experienced a military physical, these two cultural references will give you a strong sense for what they were like.

My own experience paralleled both the song and the movie.  I was poked and prodded six ways from Sunday.  I was asked questions repeatedly as if I had never answered them before.  I was a small piece of meat in a very large market where the only thing that mattered was a ‘1-A’ stamped on your draft card.  They needed to throw your meat onto a C-130 and get you to Saigon pronto.

Everything about your body is explored in these physicals.  One such thing is your nose.  Mine was discovered to have a deviated septum.  So they gave me a bus ticket and orders to see a doctor in West Orange who specialized in such things.  I remember clearly the exaggerated features of his face; particularly his bulbous nose.  He was a Jewish man who was, quite frankly, tired of examining American boys who would be sent to war.  After prodding inside my nostrils, he almost sneered as he said, “You can’t go to Vietnam wid a nose like dat!”  And he marked my paper 4-F.  I was now unqualified to fight because the inside of my nose was a little crooked.

A lot happened between then and 1976.  I did some growing up.  The war ended, though not easily.  I got rhinoplasty to correct the deviation of my schnoz.  I got married and we became pregnant.  I needed medical benefits and some direction in my life.  So I volunteered for, and was accepted by, the U.S. Air Force.  Here, I knew, I could explore the gifts and talents inside me.

There are millions of men and women alive today who have served in the Armed Forces, each with his or her own bucket of stories.  Mine have to do with being a non-conformist in a world that required conformity.  I made a conscious decision to do things the Air Force way, and while there were hiccups in my execution, this turned out to be a decision well-made.  My six years of service were among the best years of my life.  I determined early on that I would get everything from this experience that I could, give 110% back to the Air Force, and then parlay my skills in the real world.  I’ve shared some of my stories in previous posts: here and here.

My gifts and training were in journalism and writing.  These were applied in radio broadcasting and in television production.  I had great success in an environment that rarely rewarded the individual; only the collective…that’s the military way.  I got to chronicle all manner of events in places most people never think of.  I got to work with good people all fixed with the same purpose.

One of my early tasks was coverage of military ceremonies, a dull prospect, I thought at first.  Standing behind a television camera shooting General so-and-so who was extolling the virtues of this military unit or that; or of the homecoming of soldiers and airmen who’d served overseas; of the president’s visits to our base; of the funerals of the fallen.

Each of these ceremonies had one thing in common: the raising of the colors and playing of our national anthem.  In years past, the flag was just a symbol to me, and the anthem was just a contorted piece of music.  Now I found it difficult to focus because my eyes fogged up almost every time I experienced this part of each ceremony.

The feeling remains strong these many years later.  I’m a civilian now, but I still feel the urge to stand at attention and salute when the Star Spangled Banner is played.  I feel the urge to tell someone, anyone, how deeply I appreciate our men and women who have served, and about the gift that America is for each of us.

I feel the urge to thank God for my country.

I’m picking sides on this one.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA)

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) picked up his marbles today and went home.  For all the world, it seemed like the ultimate childish play.  Perhaps so.  But the stakes are much higher, and there’s a stench of intra-party intrigue.  I’ll tell you the punchline right now: this maneuver was all about improving Cantor’s already-strong profile with the ultra-conservative right wing of the Republican Party, and weakening the power of Republican House Speaker John Boehner.  The political result could be a Grand Old Party lying in pieces on the Capitol floor.  Worse still, the interests of Americans will not be served at all.  Only Cantor’s.

Here’s what happened: Vice President Joe Biden — on direct orders from a ‘tax-and-spend’ Democratic President, Barack Obama — has been leading negotiations with top political leaders from both sides.  The purpose is to find ways to cut spending.

Democrats want to eliminate the tax breaks being given to special interests, heavy industry, and the wealthiest individuals who least need the favors.  Republicans are saying that this amounts to a tax increase; a tactic they will not brook on its face.  Both mantras sound lovely to the party faithful of both sides until you listen more closely.  These favors are draining the American tax base and have no benefit for the working- and middle-classes who make up better than 75% of America’s citizens.

Here again is a case where unfiltered numbers are hard to find.  In March, the Center for American Progress, a progressive (“radical-left”) non-profit, developed what I believe to be an unfiltered graph.  All the big numbers start with “billion” except for the last.If you jumped right away to the bottom (and who could blame you), that big circled number is $1.1Trillion.  That’s already HALF of what the Biden commission is trying to achieve.

Mr. Cantor’s reasons for ditching today’s talks?  1) “[T]he Democrats continue to insist that any deal must include tax increases.”  I think we’ve pretty well identified this argument as disingenuous at least, and as an outright lie at most.  2) President Obama isn’t involved enough.  Really?  You want the president to toss the enormity of his responsibilities to hold your hand?  His vice president isn’t involved enough for you?  Does the president’s lack of involvement mean that you (Cantor) can justify removing yourself from any involvement?

Which brings us to the spectre of political intrigue.  The narration of today’s events will now turn from the merely gut-churning to the downright gory.

One has to ask why Mr. Cantor would be so willing to stage such political theater.  There are two answers.  First, it increases his perceived value to the deep-pocketed Tea Party, and second, it steals power from the slightly-less-extreme Republican House Speaker, John Boehner.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)

How?  If Cantor won’t touch this less-than-Tea Party-standard deal, Boehner would be forced into a position of cutting it himself.  This means that Boehner would have to make the tough decisions, even the concessions, necessary to get the job done.  Having done so, his name would be sullied, not Cantor’s.  Boehner comes out weakened to the point of – perhaps – losing his leadership.  Cantor comes out strong.  He held high the extreme-right brand.

Above all else.

Representative Eric Cantor represents Eric Cantor here.  He takes an aggressive role in the destruction of his own Republican Party thereby weakening our form of government.  He plays a game where the only winner is Eric Cantor.

The loser is the American people.

There are things in life that you automatically know to be suspicious of: product claims in television commercials; the fine print in a contract; the earnest assertion of a child who’s hiding the candy behind his back…to name but a few.

Politics is a passion for me and I spend a fair amount of time studying the subject.  I’ve learned not to get my dander up over the vast majority of the machinations of our body(s) politic.  There’s hardly anything new under the sun, after all.  But one thing still manages to make the hair stand up on the back of my neck: the mis/use of facts.  Or, more to the point, lies.

Palin aboard the "One Nation Tour" bus Photo credit: FoxNews

We could talk about global warming or about the president’s place of birth.  But I am presently thinking about the economy.  My blood is boiling because Sarah Palin told Fox‘s Greta VanSusteren on Tuesday that President Obama has increased the national debt by more than “all other presidents combined.”  It’s an old canard kept alive by, well, liars.

Facts, even those involving hard numbers, are vulnerable to interpretation.  We are bombarded daily by facts.  There are so many of them.  The cacophony muddies them.  We become confused by them.  We don’t like being weakened by confusion, so we shut them out entirely.  Or, perhaps worse, we select only those facts that amplify our personal perceptions or strongly-held beliefs.

So when Ms. Palin cites the “facts” as she chooses to see them, and Ms. VanSusteren fails to perform her journalistic duty by challenging them, the faithful are being fed their chosen poison.  That’s fine…it’s a free country.

But lies are lies.

It took Google 0.09 seconds to show me the truth.  On inauguration day, President Obama inherited a $10.6Trillion dollar debt from the previous administration.  In the past two-and-a-half years, the debt has been increased by $3.7Trillion mostly resulting from Bush-era policies and some (e.g. the Afghan War; 2009 Recovery Act) adopted or initiated (respectively) by the current administration.

No matter how you choose to interpret those facts, a school child can see that Palin’s assertion is easily $7Trillion wrong.

It’s darned near impossible to find honest, unvarnished information because it’s buried so deeply beneath the noisy informational garbage with which we’re being pummeled.  So what is the truth about our national debt?  Using data from the Congressional Budget Office, the non-profit, non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities developed this graph:

This study’s analysts conclude that:

[S]imply letting the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule (or paying for any portions that policymakers decide to extend) would stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio for the next decade.   While we’d have to do much more to keep the debt stable over the longer run, that would be a huge accomplishment.

This blog post is not a criticism of Sarah Palin.  She’s far too easy a target.  There are clowns aplenty  — on both sides of the aisle — who play the same game.  No, this post is an exhortation: It is incumbent upon us, the citizens of a country we profess to love, to learn the truth and to vote accordingly.

I think I’m a good thinker, so I write. I think I’m a good writer, so I…obsess.  Obsession is unhealthy.  So why do I take pleasure in that which makes me ill?  An enigma wrapped in a conundrum.

I get a thought; I write it out.  Then I look it over several times.  I print it out and examine it.  I publish it, look at it in Facebook, get it sent to me by e-mail and I inspect it yet again.  Each instance of examination merits some additional edits and, perhaps, some additional material.

After a couple of days and several editing sessions, I’m satisfied that I’ve communicated my thoughts in the best possible way, and I leave it alone.  Sometimes, when I re-read it “for pleasure” a couple of weeks later, I find yet other ways to make the words better.  Then I leave it alone.  Again.

Such is the way of things for a writer who also serves as his own editor.

Are editors obsessives?  Are they perfectionists?  Are they word snobs who think they know how to write what you mean better than you can?

This all comes to mind because of a blog post I wrote almost two months ago.  When I wrote (and re-wrote and re-wrote) The Judgment of God: Glenn Beck Version, I thought I’d done some pretty good thinking and the commensurate wordsmithing.  As is the norm, I tweaked it for a few days before finally letting it be.  I’ve read the piece a few times since, and have been bothered a bit by some self-perceived weaknesses.

The platform upon which this blog is written, WordPress, has many useful tools; among them measurements of the number of readers, what the readership is reading, what the readership ate for breakfast, etc.  Another useful tool is a listing of the dates and times on which accumulated edits were updated for each blog post.  One update might contain a half-dozen edits.

How sick am I, really?  It’s two months since I wrote Judgment.  Today, I woke up and couldn’t wait to hit the keyboard again.  I was obsessed with getting the darn thing right.  After several hours of head-scratching, research and re-crafting, I was finally able to hit the Publish button knowing that I had completely, accurately and eloquently defended my thesis.  Then I checked the tool which tells how many updates had been executed for the treatise.  25.  I updated that post 25 times, times maybe 6 edits for each update.

But that was just today.

Over the past two months, the number of updates for Judgment altogether is 47.  47 updates times about 6 edits each equals 282.  All that for an essay containing 1,436 words.

Either I’m incredibly obsessive, or I’m a bad editor.  Or maybe I should just face the truth: I’m a horrible writer.

Nah…I’m just obsessive.  Whew!  What a relief.

Yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater is not okay.  Saying that the president is a socialist, yellow-bellied foreigner is okay.  In the first instance, the safety of the theater’s occupants is put in jeopardy.  In the second instance, mere bombast — while potentially slanderous — is protected free speech.  I would argue strenuously in favor of anyone who speaks ill of the president because curtailing your right to speak your mind — on this or any subject — would curtail my right to speak my own opinions; even if you’re right and I’m wrong.  It’s a two-way street.

This post is not about the exercise of the right to free speech; it’s about what is being spoken.

The tragic events in Japan seem to be getting worse by the day: earthquake, tsunami, death, injury, displacement, nuclear meltdown, Mount Fuji could blow.  What does tomorrow bring?  It’s almost too much for us to take in.  How much worse must it be for the people who are living it?

All manner of reporting has kept us abreast of events.  All manner of expert analyses have been rendered.  Now it’s apparently time for some opinionists to crawl out of their caves.

Glenn Beck inferred that God is punishing the Japanese.  Perhaps worse, he didn’t say what he said.  Confused?  Try this: on his radio show on Monday, Beck said,  “I’m not saying God is, you know, causing earthquakes.  I’m not not saying that either.  Whatever you call God, there’s a message being sent.  And that is, ‘Hey, you know that stuff we’re doing?  Not really working out real well.  Maybe we should stop doing some of it.’  I’m just saying.”

From a free speech point of view, I have no problem with Beck expressing an opinion.  From a bully-pulpit, “Fire!”-in-the-theater point of view, I have a right and (perhaps) an obligation to mitigate his vitriol.  His method of expression is a cowardly way of saying something without saying it, and it fits a profile of his own creation.

At least Beck’s political/religious forebears had the brass to say it outright.  Commenting just after 9/11, Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell said, “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.'”  Then Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson responded, “Well, I totally concur.”

I’m just one little ‘David’ taking on three political ‘Goliath’s’.  They have the right to speak with hubris.  I have the right to disagree.

The thesis put forth by Beck, Falwell, Robertson and others is that God is vindictive; hateful.  I say the opposite: God is love.  To prove this, I will explore the creation of the earth, the creation of God’s children, and His parenting practices through the ages.

Theology’s greatest mystery is when and how God, Himself, was created.  While that puzzle remains unsolvable, there is little argument (even among Christians) that the earth was created about 4.6 billion years ago.  You’ll recall from scripture that it was without form and void.  The creation story (Genesis) tells us that some animals were created on the fifth day and the remainder early on the sixth.

If a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day to God (2Peter3:8), what was the void and formless earth doing between its creation and the placement of animals upon it?  It was evolving into a form capable of sustaining the lives of animals.  In geological terms, land masses were slowly moving to where they are today.  This movement was manifest with great earthquakes and hurricanes and volcanoes and ice ages.  Mountains weren’t just plunked down upon the face of the planet; they were formed through the compression of land masses over a very long time.  Rivers weren’t placed into the landscape, they were etched into it over millennia.  Continental shelves and fault lines and the locations of the oceans are among the natural products of the process of earth’s growth.  And the big news is that earth continues to shift/contract/grow every single day.  Including last Friday.  Including today.

Earth’s natural law is the way in which the planet fulfills God’s plan for it and for the creations supported by it.  God won’t violate His own law to keep us from thinking that He hates us.  Thus, “catastrophic” events are not and cannot be inflictions from God.  They are, simply, the product of natural law.

So, why would a loving God put his children in an unsafe place?  We might question His parenting skills.

God created humans about 2.2 million years ago.  Scripture tells us that God created us to love Him.  Why would He do otherwise?  Of course, true love must be a decision made of our own free will, so God had to give us the freedom of choice.  If we couldn’t choose to love Him, we’d be robots in service to a master.  The part of us God’s most interested in is the spirit which was crafted to seek and find, fall in love with and eventually live alongside our Creator.  That’s His plan.  But it’s our choice.

We have not only choice, but a self-preservation instinct.  This serves to self-motivate continued good health, gives us defensive and offensive capability, and has kept us alive as individuals and as a species.  But our bodies can’t exist forever; they’re not supposed to.  The planet was intentionally not created with resources sufficient to sustain an accumulating population forever.  And God’s great plan isn’t satisfied by our continued physical existence.  There must be an end to physical life in order for the spirit to wind up where it will go.

Given these traits — choice and self-preservation — and the reality of a finite physical life, humans were problematic by nature from the very start.

Simplistically, there are two kinds of parenting: the “junior’s-going-to-grow-up-to-be-a-fine-young-man-someday” kind, and the tough-love kind.  The first kind lets the child find its own way without restriction.  Some say this is a lazy kind of parenting.  (Confession: I was one of these.)

The second way is motivated by love.  It sets boundaries as a means of protection, and sometimes finds it necessary to remind us when we’ve taken risks beyond the safety of the boundaries.

The latter is the relationship God had with His children at the beginning.  He’d hand down laws (boundaries) so we’d have necessary guidance.  We’d go another way and He’d have to reel us back in.  It is only the scale of God’s discipline that causes us today to think of Him as mean.  Meanness has never been His motivation.

Over time, things got bad enough that God decided to do something new and different.  He sent part of Himself to earth to wipe our slates clean and to be an example of how we should live.  Accomplishing that, God didn’t have any new laws to hand down; He didn’t have to mete out any disciplines.  It began a new era in His relationship with us.  This is the age we now live in.  Today, we have and need only this guidance:

“’Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind.’  This is the first and most important commandment.  The second most important commandment is like this one. And it is, ‘Love others as much as you love yourself.’  All the Law of Moses and the Books of the Prophets are based on these two commandments.”

 —  Jesus       Matthew 22:37-40  (CEV)

There is an end to this age: Rapture, Armageddon, Revelation, Eternity.  Only God knows when and how these things will happen, and He counsels us not to speculate (Acts 1:7).  But until then — and after then — God gets to be what He is: pure, absolute love.

This is how I know that God isn’t bringing punishment upon anyone who suffers in any kind of abnormality:

  • His natural laws are working just as they should.
  • The traits of choice and self-preservation, and the reality of a finite life continue as intended.
  • His judgment of those present on earth doesn’t come till the end.

Only God is perfect.  We humans are inherently imperfect.  We have, therefore, no right to condemn anyone (Matt.7:3-5).  If Glenn Beck, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and others studied their Bibles without the overlay of their personal agendas, they would know that only God knows when the end is coming.  They would know that God reserves for Himself alone the right to judge.  They would know how very dangerous it is for them to act as if they were God.

Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) held hearings back in the 1950’s during which he tried to save America from the clutches of Communism.  He alleged that Commies occupied positions of power in the government, military, industry, Hollywood and even the entire Democratic Party.  In the process, he ruined the lives and careers of people without so much as a lick of proof.  The term, “McCarthy-ism” stands today to mean ‘demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusation.’

History is in danger of being repeated.

Representative Peter King (R-NY) will hold hearings beginning Thursday on the radicalization of Muslims in America.  These hearings will either remove the Islamic façade from criminal acts, or stereotype all Muslims as terrorists.  How these hearings are conducted will be the subject of examination by Americans now the wiser for our experience with McCarthy.

Current-day Islamaphobia brings to mind words I heard spoken almost a decade ago:

Thank you all very much for your hospitality. We’ve just had a wide-ranging discussion on the matter at hand. Like the good folks standing with me, the American people were appalled and outraged at last Tuesday’s attacks, and so were Muslims all across the world.

Both Americans, our Muslim friends and citizens, tax-paying citizens, and Muslim nations were just appalled and could not believe what we saw on our TV screens. These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith, and it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that.

The English translation is not as eloquent as the original Arabic, but let me quote from the Quran itself: “In the long run, evil in the extreme will be the end of those who do evil, for that they rejected the signs of Allah and held them up to ridicule.”

The face of terrorist is not the true face of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace, they represent evil and war.

When we think of Islam, we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. Billions of people find comfort and solace and peace. And that’s made brothers and sisters out of every race, out of every race.

America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country.

The Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads, and they need to be treated with respect.

In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect. Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear covering must not be intimidated in America. That’s not the America I know; that’s not the America I value.

I’ve been told that some fear to leave; some don’t want to go shopping for their families; some don’t want to go about their ordinary daily routines because, by wearing cover, they’re afraid they’ll be intimidated. That should not and that will not stand in America.

Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don’t represent the best of America. They represent the worst of humankind. And they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior.

And it’s a great country; it’s a great country because (we) share the same values of respect and dignity and human worth. And it is my honor to be meeting with leaders who feel just the same way I do. They are outraged; they’re sad. They love America just as much as I do.

And I want to thank you all for giving me a chance to come by, and may God bless us all.  Thank you.

President George W. Bush

Address at The Islamic Center of Washington

September 17, 2001  –  Washington, D.C.


%d bloggers like this: