Last night's final debate between Pres. Obama and Gov. Romney was an odd affair, to say the least. As I wrote in a comment elsewhere, Romney has been everywhere telling the world what a failure the President has been. He's insisted, like much the rest of the American Right, that Pres. Obama goes around the world apologizing for the United States. Last night, he agreed with much of the President's approach to foreign policy (with some notable exception that I'll get to), which makes me wonder: Is he going to be an apologetic failure, too?
While some of the debate certainly concerned itself with important matters of foreign policy, I was struck by a few things. In response to Pres. Obama's answer to the first question, Romney said that "we can't kill our way" out of various foreign policy problems. I pictured John Bolton, Romney's top foreign policy adviser, with his mustache catching on fire. Considering Bolton's seemingly bottomless desire to go war any- and everywhere, having Romney sit on that stage and say that we can't kill our way out of problems must have been like kryptonite or something.
Also early in the debate, the matter of sequestration arose. President Obama was categorical: Sequestration will not happen. For those not paying attention, sequestration is the name given to legally binding automatic cuts in all federally funded departments, the result of Congress' failure to arrive at some kind of agreement on spending cuts and revenue increases after the debt ceiling increase vote in late summer last year. While reassured somewhat by the President's statement, color me unimpressed with the whole matter. To pretend this isn't a worry for those whose job it is actually to oversee how military appropriations are spent is to ignore reality in a very dangerous way. It may well be the case that any across-the-board spending cuts won't pass, or the President will veto them and they'll die an ignominious death; all the same, it seems a very dangerous game, to say the least, while we still have thousands of American troops in battle in Afghanistan.
I have to admit I was more than a little saddened by Romney approving Pres. Obama's UAV air war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere. It might have been nice to hear someone stick up for the Constitution and say, you know, it's Congress's job to decide when we're at war and how to go about fighting that war. Even if he didn't mean it, which I'm sure he wouldn't, such a bow in the general direction of Constitutional government would be nice.
Isn't it odd that at a debate that was supposed to be about foreign policy, most of the talk seemed to be about blowing stuff up, or buying more stuff to blow stuff up, or which weapon platform blows stuff up better? And some folks wonder why the rest of the world is nervous.
While Romney certainly came across very poorly last night, it might have been nice to have a more thorough discussion of things like sequestration, the DoD budget in realistic terms, our real relations with countries rather than the paranoid fantasies of an Iranian threat or a Chinese threat or a Russian threat or some other threat (a Belgian threat, maybe? Would certainly be original). There wasn't a single word about Africa, the creation of an African Command and what role our troops on the ground are playing on that continent. Shoot, the President didn't even tease Gov. Romney for failing to mention our troops in Afghanistan during his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.
All in all, it was an odd event. Saying President Obama "won" is a bit like saying that at least one of the clocks in Dali's famous painting has the correct time.
So the last Presidential debate is tonight. The topic is foreign policy. Since the Truman Administration, Republican politicians have tried to paint Democrats as weak-kneed defeatists who hate the American military and can't wait to turn the country over to whatever evil power exists outside our borders, whether it's the Soviet Union or Islam. One of the most militant anti-Communist American officials, Dean Acheson, was called a traitor by Joe McCarthy. For some reason, both the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, for all they dragged us ass-backwards in to war in Southeast Asia, were considered weak. Don't even get me started on Jimmy Carter.
Pres. Obama's record on foreign policy is, by and large, fair to partly cloudy. Waging a quiet war using special operations troops and UAVs in distant places, while simultaneously going on the offensive in Afghanistan in a more conventional ground war (without any actual strategy or way of determining victory), Obama has also made clear our continued, and wrong-headed, support for Israel in the Middle East, a kind of multigenerational myopia that actually hurts us in the Middle East. We have stood aloof, by and large, as Europe's "crisis" has dragged on for a couple years (here's a hint; if an event last longer than a few weeks, it isn't a crisis), while switching our larger strategic attention to "the Pacific Rim", which, really isn't much of a change. For a hundred years, Administrations of both parties have insisted the future of American foreign policy lies in Asia.
Of course, there's the death of Osama bin Laden. There was the raid, early in his term, on a group of Somali pirates holding Americans hostage. The two of these events demonstrated Obama's commitment to a couple things. First, he is quite willing to use American force to protect American lives and interests. Second, he is committed to doing so in a way that's quiet, yet deadly to whomever the American military machine is pointing.
This hasn't deterred the fantasists among some on the political right to continue the drumbeat, year after year, of claims that Obama is soft on terrorism (which is little different than the claim that previous Democratic Administrations were soft on communism). There are claims he goes around the world "apologizing for our values", yet I have never heard or seen any actual evidence of this. There's the ludicrous, and more than slightly unhinged, claim that "the Muslim Brotherhood" has "infiltrated" the State Department because a high-ranking official is . . . a Muslim woman.
Individually, each of the above is hysterically funny. Taken as a whole, it makes me wonder how people who insist these things are true do simple things like stand erect, or get food from their plate to their mouths.
Just to make clear how long people in positions of power and authority in the United States have been claiming we exist with the imminent threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, just waiting for the opportune moment to strike, I typed "iran" in the search box at the top of my blog. The results you can scroll through by clicking here. I first wrote about the "Iranian threat" in February, 2007. That's over five years ago. In all that time, the rhetoric has been the same: At any moment, Iran will have a nuclear weapon they can use against Israel or some other country, and we have to stop them.
At some point, you'd think people would realize that the wolf really isn't there.
Look, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm no fan of the Iranian regime. That doesn't mean we should base our relations with them on the bloody fantasies created by people who have been demonstrably wrong about pretty much everything. Just because we in the US don't support the form of government in Iran doesn't mean we have either the duty or the right to attack them, kill their people (which we've been doing, by the way, quite well over the past few years), attack their electronic infrastructure (that Stuxnet attack on Iranian computers wasn't carried out by the Mongolians), and threaten invasion and massive bombardment. Whether we like it or not, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, Iran isn't doing anything that France, Britain, Israel, India, Pakistan, Brazil, and Argentina haven't done: they are researching atomic energy and possibly the ways to build thermonuclear weapons. Of the countries listed previously, only Brazil and Argentina haven't gone all the way. I for one am far more frightened by the existence of nuclear weapons in Pakistan and India than I am by a nuclear-armed Iran. Even if it were to happen tomorrow, there would be no real danger to Israel posed by a nuclear armed Iran.
The real danger are the war-mongers who create the thing they think we Americans need in order to have coherence in our foreign policy - a threat. I neither know nor care whether all the people screeching about the horrors a nuclear-armed Iran believe the things they say. If they do believe them, they're a whole lot less smart than anyone gives them credit for. If they don't really believe them, which is far more likely, they are drumming up this threat . . . because they can? I really don't know the reason.
For all I'm no fan of the Obama Administration's foreign policy, I am such for the exact opposite reason of his most vocal critics in the Republican Party: bellicose, too willing to use deadly force, too blase about the restraints allegedly imposed by the Constitution and International Law, and continuing the never-ending dream of America somehow magically a force in eastern Asia. The ongoing nonsense about Iran is one of those things, in a slightly better world, that would just vanish like smoke. Too many people with too loud voices, however, seem to have invested far too much in creating a threat where none exists.
That Romney has signed on to this fantasy should worry people who are paying attention.
Of all the men that have run for president in the twentieth century, only George McGovern truly understood what a monument America could be to the human race. - Hunter S. Thompson
I believe that the failed 1972 campaign of South Dakota Senator George McGovern was as pivotal for the liberal, Democratic wing of the Democratic Party as the equally disastrous campaign of Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater was for the conservative wing of the Republican Party. More than the campaign, however, I believe the committee McGovern chaired, with its rules changes for the primary process and delegate selection and voting process were even more important than his campaign. I think it, like its mirror image eight years before in the Republican Party, laid the foundation for the direction the Democratic Party is moving, for the issues and policies they are highlighting, and, I think, for its success despite overwhelming odds in the previous election.
A decorated veteran of the Second World War - McGovern was a bomber pilot - McGovern would be reviled as someone who hate the military. An elected public servant, serving in the US House of Representatives and US Senate from 1956-1980, McGovern was called anti-American.
While there have been many autopsies, both popular and academic, that have been definitive in their conclusions that it was McGovern that sidelined the Democratic Party to decades in the political wilderness, I think McGovern's legacy has won out. While some prominent former Democrats, most notably former UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick, made clear it was McGovern's work overhauling the Party's nomination process that destroyed the New Deal Coalition, I think that work has paid dividends down the years. While there are many who still consider McGovern's candidacy the worst thing to happen to the Democratic Party, I think it transformed the base of the Democratic Party.
In a column written on October 16, Charlie Pierce included long sections from McGovern's acceptance speech before the 1972 Democratic National Convention. The closing section offers a vision of America that should resonate with those who have listened to Barack Obama over the past five years. In order to make that clear, first, again from Pierce, are some words about the stakes in this election.
But who's out there now, spouting off about all he'll make the government do for us if we just put him and his zombie-eyed, granny-starving running buddy in charge of it? Who's talking about Five Point Plans and North American Energy Independence and all the things he'll do for us? And who's out there talking about the hard work we've already done, and the hard work we will have to do, together, over the next four years? Who's talking about freedom and independence the way they really were defined in Philadelphia, first in 1776 and then a decade or so later? Who's talking about pledging to ourselves, in mutual support, our lives and fortunes and sacred honor? Who is expressing in real, if occasionally stumbling terms, a real faith in our ability to build a political commonwealth?
From secrecy and deception in high places; come home, America. From military spending so wasteful that it weakens our nation; come home, America. From the entrenchment of special privileges in tax favoritism; from the waste of idle lands to the joy of useful labor; from the prejudice based on race and sex; from the loneliness of the aging poor and the despair of the neglected sick — come home, America. Come home to the affirmation that we have a dream. Come home to the conviction that we can move our country forward. Come home to the belief that we can seek a newer world, and let us be joyful in that homecoming, for this "is your land, this land is my land — from California to New York island, from the redwood forest to the gulf stream waters — this land was made for you and me." So let us close on this note: May God grant each one of us the wisdom to cherish this good land and to meet the great challenge that beckons us home.
After the 1972 election, McGovern was treated with disdain by the party that had made him its candidate for President. As the ensuing year and a half revealed the depth of corruption in the Nixon White House, there was no one who came forward to apologize. As the Republican Party emulated Nixon in so many ways, from the Southern Strategy (Ronald Reagan began his Presidential campaign in Stone Mountain, GA, the birthplace of the Ku Klux Klan) to a pattern of corruption that repeatedly dogs Republican Administrations (at least they tend to keep it in their pants), no one who ignored McGovern in the wake of his loss has made a public statement admitting McGovern was right.
Thing is, though, McGovern was right. He was right that the Republican Party in 1972 was a seething cauldron of corruption. He was right that, at that time, we needed to come home, to work together to make our land, our nation, a great place again. All we get from the opposition are empty promises and even more empty public treasuries. We get division and rancor. I'm not saying McGovern was the best candidate ever to lose the Presidency. I am saying, however, that he was right and Nixon and his evil, twisted step-children that continue to wreak havoc and may yet have a chance to do so again was so very, very wrong. That so many serious people in positions of influence cannot bring themselves to acknowledge this reality is very sad.
Rest in peace, Senator McGovern. You have left a legacy that is worth remembering. If there were enough people with both the will and courage to do so, the tattered banner of your vision of America being its best self could still be lifted up.
If you haven't heard the story of Amanda Todd, the teenager from Port Coquitlam, British Columbia who committed suicide recently, a video she posted just prior to her death tells her side of the story:
There is nothing good about this story. A young girl makes a stupid mistake - she admits as much - and, suddenly, her life is turned upside down. The down side to our tiny connected world is millions of people with nothing better to do than make sure everyone who ever did anything wrong never forgets their mistakes. This doesn't just include Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich, poster children for extra-marital fellatio (bi-partisanship!). A girl, a girl God Damn it, has to pay for a stupid mistake.
When I made the point last summer of giving vocal support for SlutWalks, it was because some people think there's something noble about telling people they are not just making mistakes, but somehow morally vicious and beyond redemption because of choices they make. It's one thing to acknowledge that an underage girl flashing her chest to a stranger on the internet might not be the best thing in the world. It's quite another thing to have this same girl trapped because too many people think it's OK to make sure she never forgets she's a horrible, evil slut.
A guy takes advantage of a combination of emotional vulnerability and weakness, sleeps with her because he knows she's willing, then does what every young man who has sex does: He brags about it, which, of course, leads to the inevitable confrontation with the guy's girlfriend.
This is why I'm no fan of slut-shaming. This is what it looks like in extremis. Turning a lapse in judgment (and how many teenagers have that particular virtue, anyway?) in to a life-ending indicator of essential moral lassitude. That is what slut-shaming can do.
Folks who read here see the word "grace" tossed about a whole lot. I suppose it's my mistake that I haven't, not really, defined it or explained the concept. The thing is, it's a simple enough concept. More than forgiveness but embracing it as well as judgment; more than acceptance but embracing it as well as rejection; grace is the idea that even as we acknowledge that we are error-prone and sin-prone creatures, there is no error or crime or sin or act that can separate us from God. The Church should be the place where we live that out; we should be people who let the world know we can let go of shame and guilt because God's love for us is bigger than the Universe in which we live. The Church is the place where Amanda Todd could have discovered, contrary to a line on one of her cards, that things do, indeed stop.
Amanda Todd's death, for all the other things it says about human cruelty and frailty, about the way bullying and harassment, guilt- and slut-shaming now know no borders, about the need for better intervention processes for vulnerable youth; for all that, Amanda Todd's death tells us Christians that we have failed, again, to reach out and let someone know that grace exists. That grace is more powerful than the hatred and anger and self-righteousness of those who told her she should die. There were no Catholics or Methodists or anyone else who showed Amanda Todd that, because God's love for us reaches us when we are furthest away from God, we can reach in to the darkest corners of human life and, by shining a tiny light, chase away the demons who fear light more than anything.
A quick postscript: Anonymous, that cybergroup of anarchists, has posted the name of Amanda Todd's alleged harasser. The thing is, according to a story posted on the Canadian Broadcasting Network website, law enforcement believes the person responsible isn't even Canadian. The story also reports that a man has lost his job after posting online: "It's about time this bitch died." Despicable, indeed. All the same, the only way this whole thing stops, the only way we show the world that shaming people for being stupid and hateful is as wrong as shaming people for acting without thought or judgment is if someone reaches out to this stupid, thoughtless jerk and let him know it's OK. After all, we're all stupid thoughtless jerks at times, aren't we? This postscript wouldn't be complete without this teaching moment for some among us who prattle on about morality and right and wrong and how that has to do with what God wants from us. When I insist, "No!", to that crap, this is exactly what I mean. God's grace, as we are supposed to live it out as Christians, confounds any acceptable understanding of right and wrong, good and bad. We don't just mean grace is offered to those who are so lost they have given up looking for a way out; grace is offered to those who stole their maps. If we don't, it isn't grace.
If there's a theme to this election year, the title of this post says it all: The Republican Party has been waging an on-going, multi-pronged attack on the right of American citizens to vote. Republican legislatures have passed voter ID laws. The governor of Florida ordered a voter-roll purge that even Republican county officials have found too extreme and probably illegal. We read articles that insist that voting is not a right; that voting should be restricted to "stake-holders". One of the lower moments occurred over the summer when the state of Ohio, implementing a law passed by the Republican-dominated legislature, restricted the rights of active duty military personnel to vote early and the Obama Administration sued; the right and Gov. Romney turned this entire episode in to an instance of Pres. Obama trying to restrict military voting when the exact opposite was the case.
Just the past couple days have brought more evidence the right's attack on voting continues. Mitt Romney is caught on tape telling employers they should tell their employees how to vote. The egregiously horrible Rep. Joe Walsh has done the same thing. An employee of a company hired by the Republican Party in Virginia has been arrested for destroying voter registration forms. In Maricopa County, Arizona, home to notorious Sheriff Joe Arpaio, notices about the election specifically sent to Spanish speakers were mailed with the wrong date on them.
If you're noticing a theme here, it should be apparent. One of America's two major parties would prefer we have fewer people voting. People who support that party are all over the place insisting that these various shenanigans and rule changes are fine because voting is a privilege not a right. Like pretty much every other thing the right has done over the past generation, it is a relentless, tireless assault any- and everywhere that not least has the effect of wearing down opposition. Couching anti-democratic rhetoric in the tired logic of sensibleness is perhaps the most offensive; after all, how dare anyone claim someone who begins their argument saying, "What is the matter with . . ." is attacking something at the heart of practical American politics?
Unlike most of the other advanced polities with democratic practices, the United States does not require voting. Many countries have such high voter turnouts because people will be fined if they don't show up at the polls. Not here. As a right, like free speech or assembly, we in the United States let people exercise or not exercise this basic right and duty at their own discretion. Freedom, in other words, includes the freedom not to participate.
I was in a discussion group over the summer and someone insisted we should do much the same as countries where voting is a legal obligation. Sounds sensible, doesn't it? Perhaps even logical! All the same, it runs contrary to a basic tenet of the whole concept of political freedom, US style. Part of the burden of freedom is the weight we all carry from those who prefer not to participate. Part of being a free society includes the freedom to make choices others would not make, choices that effect other people's lives. The most we can do is insist that people vote. We can hector them, plead with them, offer them rides to the polls. We cannot, nor should we, compel by legal means, any single vote.
I, for one, have always thought more voting is better. Big voter turnouts mean more people are engaged, feel they have a stake, a voice, are a part of the process. I honestly don't care for whom anyone might cast their ballot on November 6. If a bunch of folks who were all wearing Romney pins couldn't find a ride to their polling place, I would be the first in line to offer them a ride. Because it's about participating.
Before I hit "Publish", I actually have a rule for this post, should anyone care to comment. Any comment that attempts to argue the idea that restricting access to the polls is somehow legal, or at least should be; any comment that attempts to argue that employers either do or should attempt to coerce a vote from their employees; any comment that denies the reality that voting is a right all citizens over the age of 18 (with the exceptions, of course, of those who have surrendered that right for reasons of felony conviction); any of these, or variations on them, will be deleted. Period. My Give-a-Shit button for nonsense is now permanently broken.
So it's binders full of women, "Please proceed, Governor," and Candy Crowley. And Josh at TPM has a favorite picture that, he insists, speaks volumes.
There was much joy in Liberalville on Wednesday morning because the President did the one thing he should have been doing for four years: He stood up for his record, calling out crap when crap was dumped in front of him.
To be honest, I think the cheers from the left side of the aisle are as overwrought as the hand-wringing (mine included) from the days after the first debate. There are certain fundamentals in this race that should keep it tight; there are also certain factors that could, given enough time and attention, create a big win for either candidate. One thing to be said for last night's debate, however; it's difficult to argue there are few differences between the candidates' positions on issues of fundamental interest to the American people.
While I still think there would be, in practical terms, few differences between a second Obama term and a Romney Presidency - unless one or the other party sweeps Congress, giving the President a working majority in the First Branch of our government - there is little doubt last night demonstrated a deep ideological rift. When asked about equal pay for women, Pres. Obama talked about the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act while Gov. Romney talked about binders full of women (in a story that turns out to be as false as pretty much every other major claim he makes). When asked about tax plans, Pres. Obama talked about fairness while Gov. Romney insisted that his $5 trillion tax cut isn't, but if it was it was paid for, and he just didn't feel like saying how. When asked about the differences between a potential Romney Administration and the Bush years, Romney wandered around looking under rocks while Pres. Obama made the point that, in some respects, a Romney Administration would be worse.
Romney was rude. Romney was curt with the President of the United States. Romney kept talking after Candy Crowley made it clear it was time for him to shut his mouth. Romney got huffy when it was pointed out that he had, yet again, not spoken the truth. Apparently, being called a liar when one lies gets one's children in a huff.
For all that, though, there are things that will continue to keep the race tight. The economy works against the President, as does his preference to shade the differences between himself and his political opponents in search of a working compromise. While Romney demonstrated he either doesn't know or doesn't care what positions he actually takes on some matters - the lines about contraception and Pell Grants are directly contradicted by his own campaign and previous statements, for crying out loud - and gets indignant when other people actually question the things he says, he does have a history and a record to which he can point (belied by his own hard-right tacking over the previous twelve months in search of the Republican nomination) that could sway those who might be willing to bet he won't govern as crazy as he's talked.
While the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi have been seized by Republicans to be used as some kind of game-changer, by lying about the President's reaction (and that was, truly, a brilliant moment as Pres. Obama allowed Gov. Romney to wind his own tongue around his neck and squeeze; that the right is all upset that Candy Crowley had the nerve to tell Romney he was wrong is perhaps the worst thing a journalist has done since Walter Cronkite told the American people that America was losing the war in Vietnam) they have effectively disarmed the issue, removing any substantive criticism that could be made because it's stapled to the crazy. On the other hand, Romney displayed a talent for coming very close to melting down under pressure; as manic as his first performance was, Tuesday night that mania was tinged with something else, a refusal to concede to rules and a quick anger when questioned too much that are not good traits in a President.
I wasn't too confident of the polls when they showed the President had a lead outside the margin of error. I continue to doubt polls that show Romney up ever-so-slightly. The only thing I do think is correct is the race is still up for grabs. For now. There is one debate left, and it may well be that, depending upon which version of each candidate shows up at that debate, the race could very well hinge on the outcome (as well as the TV commercials that flow from them). While not happy with Pres. Obama's performance in office, a Romney Presidency would be a disaster; if the debates have demonstrated anything, his unwillingness to brook any questions about his truthfulness or those things about which he prefers to remain silent, if nothing else, show a disdain for the practicalities of governance.
Without overcompensating and celebrating too much, I think the race is still on, in no small part to Barack Obama's discovery of a spine.
I was surprised to see a story about my hometown on CNN's "ireport" site. I was shocked and angry and more than a little embarrassed by the story. The accompanying photo? Well, let's just say you have to see it for yourself.
Someone thought it would be . . . what? Funny? Some kind of rallying cry? . . . to enhance school spirit by putting black face on a couple kids and have them act out Chris Brown beating the crap out of Rihanna.
I know. I know. What the hell does any of this have to do with a pep rally, right? There are so many questions about this story, its ugliness, its mindlessness, and the even more ugly and mindless people from my hometown defending the event in comments on the story (scrolling through them, I'm figuring none of the people who think this harmless fun know any more about what happened than the people who are decrying it; that they would consider acting out domestic violence and celebrating racist attitudes and actions appropriate in any setting, most especially a high school pep rally, makes me wonder if they actually finished attending classes at the school) that I'm not sure where to begin.
Where were the school administrators and teachers in all this? The photo showing the kids sitting there - far too white and comfortable as they watch a racist display re-enacting domestic violence - shows they, apparently, had no idea what they were seeing was "wrong". Not a single teacher stepped up and said, "You know, putting black face on white kids is wrong. Having them act out a man beating a woman is wrong. Celebrating this by using it to rally students before a football game is wrong."
The local newspaper has a story (subscription required; I don't have one) in which Superintendent Joseph Yelich responds with the kind of general platitude that makes me wonder if he went to the same schools as Mitt Romney: “I want to assure everyone that our Waverly School District is committed to creating a positive atmosphere through all of our activities.” Really, Mr. Yelich? Really? You can't even come out and say, "Clearly, the public response to the skit at the homecoming pep rally ignores the broader context in which it occurred."? The best response might have been, "Unaware of what the skit was going to be, the school administration is investigating and will respond with appropriate measures to all involved." Because merely mouthing nonsensical platitudes that are belied by an abundance of evidence doesn't exactly create confidence among those of us who have to live with the fact that we went to this school. Hell, my father taught in this district for 24 years. What do you think this does for his reputation? I'm guessing at some point, someone involved in this, whether a student or someone else, is going to be quoted in the paper saying something that begins, "We didn't think . . ." Which is precisely the problem. Schools are places where young people are taught to think. This pep rally "skit" clearly demonstrates multiple failures of thought all across the board. So glad I live in Illinois now.
I have become so disgusted by the Presidential election, the Congressional elections, and the stupid things we all seem to be talking about - whether it's where Pres. Obama was born or Mitt Romney's tax returns; Joe Biden's chuckles or Paul Ryan's biceps - I had an inkling to give it up for good. It isn't like anyone reads what I write anyway; how could I possibly cut through the crap, make a difference, make the point that the entire exercise is so far removed from actual things that effect actual people's lives that even its entertainment value has disappeared?
Maybe I can't. Probably I can't.
All I can do is talk about real stuff, and let folks check it out, and then compare it to the nonsense that passes for our electioneering.
This incredibly somber documentary follows a group of homeless children who live in the subways of Romania. Decades ago, the Romanian government was concerned about the population decline and the subsequent effects of this upon the work force. They decided to outlaw all methods of contraception, and countless unwanted children were abandoned and left in orphanages as a result.
I didn't know how to process everything that I saw in this film. Your sorrow for these children feels meaningless as their lives are deemed utterly worthless by society. People pass them by like they are invisible. Few give them money if they choose to beg. They spend their days hooked on inhaling glue in order to fight off the pains of hunger. I even watched one girl get beaten by a total stranger because she wouldn't stop crying in the subway from being so hungry.
Parts of the city of Chicago look like they've moved back in time, back when violence seemed not only without cause but without an end:
Here’s a badge of shame: Chicago’s murder total for the month has already surpassed August 2011’s total and with 10 days left.
Thirty-eight people have been killed through Aug. 19, compared to 35 for all of August 2011 and 22 homicides through Aug. 19, 2011. Last Saturday there were six homicides in Chicago, which tied Feb. 19 for the day with the most murders this year. The numbers come on the heels on a July that Police Supt. Garry McCarthy touted asthe least violent month in Chicago in a quarter century and credited to a new gang auditing strategy he implemented last year.
The Chicago Tribune noted that most of the homicides this month have occurred in neighborhoods where, coincidentally, McCarthy first implemented his gang audits.
You know how you're supposed to train a dog not to shit in the house by shoving its nose in a pile, swatting it and saying, "No!", then tossing it outside? I feel like doing that to people who carry on about the great global warming hoax. The pile we've created, and to which their denial is blind, is the small town of Shishmaref, Alaska.
"The land is going away," said Shelton Kokeok, 65, whose home is on the tip of a bluff that's been melting in part because of climate change. "I think it's going to vanish one of these days."
Coastal erosion has been an issue for decades here, but rising global temperatures have started to thaw the permafrost that once helped anchor this village in place. Sea ice that protects Shishmaref's coast from erosion melts earlier in the spring and forms later in the fall. As a result, the increasingly mushy and exposed soil along Shishmaref's shore is falling into the water in snowmobile-sized chunks.
The town even has a webpage designed to raise funds to relocate its residents.
These are a sample of the things real people face. These are a sample of the things we could address if anyone thought them of any importance. Instead, we continue to hear from birthers and morons like Todd Akin and some people think it matters whether or not the Romney's release their tax returns. We discuss, the tones measured and words oh-so-careful, whether the Affordable Care Act is or is not socialism.
People are in peril. Lives quite literally hang in the balance, each and every day. While not the only solution to the problem, politics is one way we decide how we will address these and uncountable other matters that confront all of us. We treat it like a bad game show. That the race is close demonstrates so many failures in the system as to leave me wondering if we even deserve moderately competent governance.
I'm tired. I'm exhausted from trying to make the point there's a real world with real problems that are sometimes desperate, sometimes horrific, all wearing a human face. I'm tired of the prevalent belief that the divisiveness of our politics is a result of all sides playing some game, rather than the result of a very clearly documented strategy from only one party. That one Presidential candidate this time around is very proud and public with his disdain for any commitment to any understanding of truth should mean something.
Alas, the race is tied, and the very real specter that a candidate singularly unsuited for any office of trust may well be our next President looms ahead of us.
And the silence about the lives that hang in the balance?
Each of the past two days, a friend of mine on Facebook sent me twoarticles relating to Afghanistan. I'll leave it to the reader to click the links and check them out. For now, I would like us all to think about our presence in Afghanistan.
We entered Afghanistan over ten years ago, in pursuit of the criminals who attacked us. In the process, we ended a brutal regime and created conditions in which the Afghan people could begin the process of remaking their country. Over the ensuing years of war and occupation, which has seen the American military commitment wax and wane, domestic attention vary from keen interest to a kind of benign amnesia - "Oh, that's right! We have troops there, don't we!" - the drastic increase in American combat troops since the beginning of the Obama Administration has accompanied a commitment to "victory" that wasn't defined. Consequently, any action could be used to justify our presence; any advancement that looked good could be hailed as a "victory".
How much has Afghanistan changed? The second article seems to indicate, "Not much", as the likely answer. The first article, describing just one of many murders of American military personnel trying to shape an Afghan military, also shows that, whatever faults Afghan society might have, they would much rather be left to sort out those problems on their own.
Which is not to say that I take the Afghan's side in these matters. It is only to say that entering Afghanistan a decade ago without any real plan for getting out, and having that particular end-game postponed for what are by and large domestic political reasons rather than strategic, military, and diplomatic reasons, has created the situation in which we are, alas, ensnared.
Responsibility for this situation does not lie with the United States military, who only carry out orders. From the first Bush Administration through the Obama Administration, there has been the simple refusal to deal with some historical realities related to Afghanistan, compounded by a false sense of responsibility for the fate of Afghanistan, compounded again by an overwillingness to militarize what should be civilian duties in regards our relationship with Afghanistan.
The training and support for a new Afghan Army should have been carried out differently. Our troops should not put their lives at risk to carry out a task that, really, isn't their responsibility. If a real, independent Afghan government had requested assistance, we should have been willing to give assistance that most definitely did not include putting our soldiers in the field with troops that are not at all trustworthy.
As for the social and cultural problems indicated by the murder of a young woman advocating for education, what can I say? It's horrible, of course; it also shows that a decade of engagement has not lessened the risk to some segments of the Afghan people from fanatics. Does anyone with a lick of sense think the American presence could change that? Who really believed the Taliban and like-minded groups could be "defeated", since there is no metric that could be created to measure such an outcome. If policy-makers believe we should stay until such conditions no longer exist in Afghanistan, we should make sure those policy-makers don't get anywhere near decision-making; that's a recipe for staying in Afghanistan forever, watching more of our troops die, all the while the police and military we're trying to train stand by and do nothing as radicals kill civilians who have the temerity to speak out.
I do not know what "the solution" in Afghanistan is, outside getting our troops out as soon as possible, letting whatever happens happen, and standing giving help when asked as long as that help doesn't put American citizens, including our military personnel, at risk. That there are segments of Afghan society who still want to see the Taliban rule their land is a condition that no amount of time or effort on our part is ever going to change. That the Taliban are brutal extremists is both true and irrelevant.
Like Jean-Paul Sartre's play, as long as continue with the status quo, including pretending there is progress being made in Afghanistan, there is no way out of the hell of our own creation.
For the life of me, I have no idea what the Romney campaign means when they say he will have a foreign policy like Truman and Reagan. He's going to restart the Korean War (OK, I stole that from comments at TPM)? He's going to give money to Greece to fight rebels there? He's going to reform NATO? Or, is he, maybe going to pull our troops out after a single terrorist attack that kills some of them? Is he going to invade a Caribbean island that hired a bunch of foreigners to build a couple roads and hospitals?
He's not going to bomb Qaddafi's grave, is he?
What, exactly, would a Trumaneseque, or Reaganesque, foreign policy look like? Will Iran suddenly become the greatest existential threat not only to the United States, but the entire planet? Will the budget for the Department of Defense, already one half all federal outlays, increase? Will the dream of a six-hundred ship navy suddenly re-emerge from the ashes of the Cold War to whisper in the ear of defense contractors everywhere?
What about what Obama has done, and continues to do? Do you think the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of dead Pakistanis, Afghans, Yemeni, and others thanks to the expanded UAV air wars in these countries think he's vascillating and weak? What about the pirates killed and captured off Somalia when they threatened the lives of Americans and a commando raid took them down?
How, precisely, does Gov. Romney think Americans have any influence in Egypt right now? While most Americans, including me, cheered with joy when Hosni Mubarak resigned, the policy of the American government was relentless, unyielding support for three decades for a regime that was corrupt, morally and financially bankrupt, and repressive. The Egyptian people understand this; they hold no animus against Americans, just our government and our attempts to dictate their country's actions through what amounts to extortion. Since the average Egyptian lives in poverty we in the US cannot even begin to understand; since a system of universal education provided a well-educated workforce, but a system of systemic corruption did not provide employment opportunities, the tinder-box of frustrated, well-educated young men and women is still sitting there; since the current government has limited ability to act against groups that are hostile to minority religious groups, including Copts and Jews, and since they've already verbally committed themselves to inclusion, what else, precisely can the government there do that Gov. Romney insists they "must" do to curry favor with a Romney Administration?
Since the Israelis have neither the interest nor energy to work on a final settlement with the Palestinians, the status quo serving them quite well for a very long time, how does Romney's stated commitment to a two-state solution mean anything different from Pres. Obama's commitment?
I guess I'm just wondering what Romney could possibly say that means something other than just dumping a bunch of words in a bowl, tossing them around, adding some dressing and a garnish, and hoping no one will notice.
So I've been wasting the past couple hours reading stuff on the internet in search of something about which to write. An article by Josh Barkey about what he calls "poopstain pulpit-monkeys" (my challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to use the clues in this sentence in Google to discover if I'm making up what I'm writing about; I have at least one reader who just doesn't seem to understand how Teh Googlebox works, so I want to see if he can answer this simple test) was interesting, but all I did was link to it on Facebook for folks on my friend's list to read.
Then there was the article from The Guardian about the Central Park Jogger case, which seems still to trouble the waters of New York City. I checked, and I've written everything I wanted to say about it; one of the perils of doing this blogging thing for so long is you tend to cover the same ground. Since I have no interest in repeating myself, I decided to just let it be. Again, if you're interested, you can put "central park jogger" in the search box at the top left and read what I said.
It's Saturday. The weekend. Get up off your couch and do stuff. Have some fun, for crying out loud.
If house music doesn't do it for you, maybe this will . . .
If you're feeling romantic, and want to dance slow and close to someone special, well . . .
So quit your belly-achin' and get out there and dance.
If you click here, you will find the following comment:
The Supreme Court may declare that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't make it so.
The Constitution is a fairly simple document. It is understandable to anyone who can read and engage in some research. It is not written in a cryptic code or some long-lost language.
My general approach to the world is simple enough: Theories work as long as they account for as many facts as possible. Whether it's molecular biology or political theory, it's all well and good to say some stuff that sounds really good, but if there are no actual facts to back up what your theory claims, then it's gotta go.
So, the first sentence is a nonsequitur.
The second is a composition of irrlevancies and straw-arguments.
The Constitution was written in English in 1787. We live in 2012. Words meant different things then. Even simple words. Shoot, the lower case of the letter "s" looked an awful lot like the lower case letter "f"; there's even an episode of the BBC series The Vicar of Dibley that uses that as the basis for a series of jokes. Less trivially, we have the Federalist Papers, many of which were written by the Constitution's principle author, James Madison, that go to great length explaining various parts of the Constitution.
All of that is well and good. We have a document, the Constitution, and some explanatory materials to help sell it to a public that wanted to know how it would work. That got it ratified.
Then, Congress got in to the act, and the various states, and folks started saying, "Hey! You can't do that! It's not in the Constitution!" Who decides that? Well, since 1803, when Chief Justice John Marshall said that certain acts by former Pres. John Adams violated the Constitution (even though he declared the suit itself, known by its title, Marbury v. Madison, had been brought without any standing by the plaintiffs, effectively tossing the whole deal away), no one stood up and said, "Hey! You can't do that! It's not in the Constitution!" Most folks, in fact, said, "Hm. Interesting. Adams violated the Constitution."
Since then, what the meaning of the Constitution is as applied to specific cases has been left to the Supreme Court of the United States to decide. When the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law . . .", does it really mean that, or can exceptions be made? Well, it turns out that exceptions can, indeed be made! Thus we have the Supreme Court upholding the convictions of people speaking out against various and sundry government officials at different times in our history, criminal political sedition, and the legalized outlawing of the CPUSA during the 1950's.
Similarly, for example, local prosecutors have managed to get indictments against Christian Science adherents who refuse medical treatment for their children who subsequently die. Sikhs, who are required to wear a turban to hold in their very long hair, are also required by law to remove their turbans and wear hard-hats if they work construction. Native Americans cannot use traditional elements in their worship like peyote because . . . OMG it's a hallucinogen!
Folks who say the things above, that the Constitution is a simple document to read and understand miss the point that it is, in the end, a living, breathing thing. It gives shape and substance, strength and legitimacy to any and every act the government takes. How that is applied is a matter, in the end, for the courts, particularly the Supreme Court. We may not like how the Supreme Court interprets the text of the Constitution; that doesn't mean, however, the Court is ever "wrong" because there is no meaning to the Constitution apart from how it is applied in the real world. Thus, prior to the mid-1950's, it was provide separate public accommodations based upon race. Obviously it wasn't "right" in a moral sense; it was, however, Constitutional as interpreted by the Courts in nearly sixty years of Constitutional jurisprudence.
People who complain about the application of this or that clause and say the Court got it right or wrong miss the point; if the Court says, say, the commerce clause doesn't apply to particular activities, then no matter how many liberals scream and shout and stamp their feet, it doesn't apply. No theory of the government can overcome the reality that the Constitution only means what we as a people and the courts declare it to mean as it is tested in and through our life as a polity.
That's why I can't take Libertarians seriously. They claim some theory about what the Constitution is, how it works, how it is applied or not applied takes precedence over the long history of actual Constitutional jurisprudence and casuistic application. The Constitution is a real thing; it has real words the meanings of which are not clear despite any claim to the contrary; if it were, indeed, clear we wouldn't need courts or anything else (this commonsense reality also seems to slip through the keen logic Libertarians pretend to apply) to figure out if something is or is not Constitutional.
All we have is reality. The history of our country, how we have applied the Constitution, how it has broken down over disagreements concerning the relative merits of state versus federal power, how different issues bring different parts of the Constitution to bear on various aspects of our national life, and how that application has changed over time.
We have all that. Then we have Libertarians whose Constitution exists . . . in no place of which I know.
The only part of the debate I encountered last night was a 90 second snippet while I was in the car picking up Moriah from rehearsals for the school musical. It was the point where Pres. Obama was talking about Gov. Romney's tax plan. Romney, in what seems to have been a performance fueled by Red Bull (in more ways than one) basically called the President a liar, then barged over the hapless Jim Lehrer in his insistence on getting in the last word.
If you don't believe in zombies, you weren't paying attention to Lehrer last night. From everything I read, this veteran reporter from the Taft White House was about as able to control the proceedings as a kitten herder.
The reviews all seem to be that Obama made a dog's breakfast of things last night, Romney barging over, under, around, and through both the President and the Moderator in an effort to say everything he could. Now, on the merits - as if that was all there ever is - Romney's performance was appalling. He managed to toss the Republican base, his sons, and even every speech he's given since the summer of 2011 under the bus in an effort to appear less crazy than the party that nominated him. If that's all we had as guides, then for all his haplessness, the President clearly came out on top.
The President's supporters, however, were looking for more. They wanted Obama to come out swinging, to hold up every crazy thing Romney has said in pursuit of the Republican nomination and ask the American people, "Really?" They wanted him to fight. To fight for the principles of the Democratic Party. To make his case that he really, truly understood that things still kind of suck and a Romney Administration would only increase the suck factor.
The problem with these wishes are simple enough. When has Barack Obama ever done such things? If the past four years have taught people anything, it's that Obama is willing to concede beforehand any principles that might make the Republicans complain to FOXNews. I would love to play poker with this guy.
It isn't only that Obama is and always has been a lousy debater. He seems averse to confrontation. He would much rather seek common ground, letting negotiations and debate and discussion swirl around niggling details in an effort to achieve whatever the goal of the moment might be. That he dragged out Simpson-Bowles last night, talked about "reforming" Social Security - as if that had anything to do with the operating deficit; as if, indeed, it has anything to do with anything other than making the ghost of David Broder smile - should tell an impartial observer all he or she needs to know about the President and his approach to dealing with the very real problems we face.
All this talk about tax cuts and spending cuts. Not a word, it seems, about jobs. Not a question about the fact that the only Republicans who oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline are the Nebraska Republicans who will face the consequences of this disaster-in-waiting. Did they mention the rapid increase in the melting of the Polar Ice Cap? Did the words "carbon tax", "cap and trade", or even "global warming" even come up? I can't tell from the discussions online.
Was there a question about gun violence? Not that I can tell.
Fracking? I haven't found a word about the practice that, not covered by the Environmental Protection Act, may yet set fire to wells across my home state while simultaneously dumping thousands of pounds of benzene, toluene, and God alone knows what other chemicals in the land and water.
In short, the debate kind of turned out the way I expected. Romney has been desperate enough to make sure he had everything crammed in his head, vomiting it out in a way guaranteed to make him look like someone who was calm and not-at-all crazy. The President, refusing to stand because that would require a spine, allowed it all to happen because he has never yet stood firm if there was space to the side where he could move.
At least the journalists can froth over the renewed horse race for the next couple weeks.
UPDATE: Charlie Pierce was reminded of the first Reagan/Mondale debate. Liberal radio gas-bag Thom Hartmann was reminded of the only Carter/Reagan debate (I heard the first fifteen or so minutes of his show on the way home from work this afternoon). Each used these past debates as touchstones, although I think Hartmann's was far more apt. As I wrote back in August, Pres. Carter is still waiting for the media to point out the many and sundry ways Reagan just spewed fantasy after fantasy. Some folks are consoling themselves that Gov. Romney's estrangement from the truth will, at some point, wear through the President's dismal performance. Others, like Craig Crawford (thanks, Lisa for the tip) offer the strategic defense narrative, sometimes referred to as the multi-dimensional chess argument. The problem with such arguments is they grant a certain benefit of the doubt that just isn't backed up by any evidence. For some reason, it's impossible for partisans to say their guy lost.
Obama bombed last night. He bombed big time.
Romney's been lying his way through the campaign, calling the President a liar, being a smarmy, entitled rich guy. His performance last night, as manic as it seemed, was nonetheless consistent with his actions since he began campaigning sometime in 2011. All the howling about Romney's nose growing each time he opened his mouth really doesn't mean that much. Forget Jim Lehrer, veteran of the McKinley White House Press Corps; he looked befuddled by his microphone; he was just not ready for Romney not to give a tinker's damn there was a moderator whose job is supposed to keep things moving along and regard certain rules and decorum as important. No, the job of saying to Gov. Romney, "You know, I wish I'd brought my hip-waders with me because the shit's getting really deep," that was up to Pres. Obama.
Romney managed to deny the tax plan he's been running on for over a year. Romney managed to toss his five kids under the bus as a bunch of liars. Romney managed to toss his running mate's signature "plan" away as so much dross. He did it all with the energy of a mosquito on crack, and attention to politesse of Leona Helmsley in IRS headquarters. None of these things matter because, to be honest, Pres. Obama sucked.
Will it matter next week? Will it matter when the next debate comes around?
Because the mainstream press now have their story, that Romney turned a corner, restarted his campaign, reinvented himself - pick the cliche - yes, it will indeed matter. The narrative for the campaign was needlessly altered last night. Not because Romney has so divorced himself from the truth that I doubt he even cares all that much. No, the fault for the change in circumstances lies solely with Pres. Obama and his stuttering, faltering performance last night.
This doesn't mean I want the President to lose. What I want, however, is for the President to do all sorts of things he has never done and, it seems, cannot do. Faced with an opponent who has demonstrated he is quite willing to do anything and everything to win, the President seemed unable even to muster an outraged glance at Romney last night.
None of this, however, deals with the initial substance of the post, viz, that the many and very serious matters we face "domestically" weren't even acknowledged as existing last night. Perhaps because Jim Lehrer thought "fracking" was a euphemism for what happened during the Clinton Administration, or got confused that the Keystone Pipeline didn't go through Pennsylvania. That's an even bigger source of frustration. Not that Romney floated above the solid ground of truth without a care in the world, nor even that the President looked and sounded befuddled and not-quite ready. It would be nice, I guess, if we could talk about actual stuff, instead of Romney's unicorn-producing tax plan or whether or not the President was a bigger liar than Jon Lovitz or Romney's five kids put together.
I'm sure you've heard the lines before. "Why are you taking your children to a funeral? They don't understand what's going on." For some reason, we believe it not just possible but necessary to prevent our children's exposure to the reality of death. For some reason, we believe that adults "get it" and children "don't". We believe there is some magic cocoon in which children dwell that death, in whatever form, just can't penetrate.
I've been thinking about this quite a bit over the past couple days. Monday afternoon, Miriam came home from school and told me that a friend of hers lost his father to a heart attack on Friday. An eleven year old boy now has to face the rest of his life without any chance to get to know the man fifty percent of whose genetic material makes him who he is. He won't have his Father around to teach him how to drive. He won't get in arguments about homework or how late he can stay out.
These are all horrible things. They tear at our hearts, make us want to "do something" that cannot be done - take the pain away. My parents both lost siblings when they were children, and I can say without fear or equivocation the pain never goes away. My parents are 91 and 88 and I know they live every day with the reality of loss almost a century old. All anyone can do is find ways to heal, to let the wound not go away yet not become the overriding reality of life. Far too many people do not, and therein is the real tragedy.
Thanks to a link at the website Feministe I read an article in Salon about a support group for families with cancer patients. The group hosts not just the adults with the disease, but children as well. The author of the piece, Mary Elizabeth Williams, presents a setting in which death and life become part of the routine, even when the deaths are gut-wrenching, such as the week three of her fellow group member died - bam!bam!bam! - leaving four children without a mother. Not long after, Ms. Williams daughter, Bea, matter-of-factly told a friend's mother about the three deaths. Ms. Williams writes:
[The] mother[] looked at Bea, and then me, and then back to Bea, in astonishment. “But you still … like … this club?” she asked her.
I understood the question, and the concern behind it. I had been struggling with it myself, especially because my own health has improved so much since we first began coming to the club. (I’m now on maintenance treatment, with another year to go.) Why are my kids still there? Why make them witness so much death, so much grief? Why put them, week after week, in a room with a bunch of kids whose parents are sick and, in some cases, dying?
But when that mother had asked Bea about it, my daughter just smiled brightly and said, “Oh, yeah. They have beanbag chairs and they give us popcorn.”
Ms. Williams continues:
Children don’t experience difficult events or grieve like we adults do. Fortunately, their club understands that. My daughters, who originally stipulated they would only join on the condition that, “We don’t have to sit around and talk about our feelings,” have check-in time each week if they do want to sit around and talk about their feelings, but the real healing takes a very different form. A few times a month, a local animal group brings in dogs for the kids to play with. On other weeks they do art and they throw parties and they hang out in their beanbag chairs and talk with each other about their favorite TV shows and somewhere in all of that, the most amazing thing of all happens. The sickness and death and uncertainty don’t go away. They’re there in the room all the time with these kids. But they’re there in a room with a group of loyal, loving friends. I had asked Bea, after the day of the two dead mothers, if she still wanted to go to the club. I had been prepared for her to reconsider, but she answered resolutely that she still wanted to go. She also mentioned the popcorn again. Then she looked at her hands and said quietly, “It got me through your cancer.”
When I posed the same question to my 12-year-old daughter, Lucy, she too gave the same answer. Yes, of course she wanted to keep going. “It makes me feel normal,” she said. “It makes me a better friend.” It really does. When a classmate she hadn’t even been close to lost a parent to cancer last year, she instinctively reached out to the child. She didn’t make the kid talk about her feelings. She just sat with her at lunch, asked her about her locker. She wasn’t afraid. She wasn’t awkward. Because she’d been there before.
And she sums up, talking about the precious gift she's given her children in the midst of the sadness and pain:
I didn’t put this family in the path of death. I put us in the paths of Lisa and Ted and Mamie and Julia. And we made a choice to get tangled up with them, to love them and to let them love us. To sit in beanbag chairs and eat popcorn and paint pictures together and drag ourselves to Queens for funerals and miss them when they’re gone. To take the risk of being hurt, because what the hell else are we here for? What else is there in life but to show up for each other, week in and week out, whether we’re 8 or 80? I came to that club because I knew my kids needed to get support. And they have received it, beyond all expectations. But I never dreamed how much they would also wind up giving. I never imagined how much sorrow they and their friends would face, or how beautifully they would face it together. (italics added)
We can learn a lot from the ways we expose our children to the realities of life. Death may not, after all, be the worst thing a family can experience. It is far more natural than, say, the terror of abuse or abandonment, realities millions of children experience without the kind of support networks Ms. Williams' children live with. The fact is millions of children live with this reality, the reality of death as an intimate experience. Whether from disease or hunger or war, our world is filled with children marked with the knowledge that all of us have a limited span on the Earth. How we come to terms with that knowledge, how we help those we love and for whom we're responsible come to terms with that knowledge, makes everyone better, stronger people. There are no short cuts, no hiding spaces, no covers that, when pulled over our heads, makes this particular monster disappear.
We can, however, make it far less of a monster by demonstrating the courage and, yes, wisdom to teach our children that death is real. We can help them be better friends to those who have experienced loss by teaching them to sit and listen. That popcorn and beanbag chairs don't disappear or cease to make life fun because we've experienced loss.
What gets us through, what gets our kids through, should be clear enough: one another. Holding one another up, sitting and being there for one another without an agenda or a lesson or hollow words of comfort. That there are kids who are learning this lesson in the midst of their sorrow and loss is a very good thing.
It might even be a bit of that transformation of the world about which I wrote.
‘Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.” But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your word be “Yes, Yes” or “No, No”; anything more than this comes from the evil one. - Matthew 5:33-37
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. - US Constitution, Article VI, par. 3
In this morning Washington Post, columnist Dana Milbank tries to have a little fun at the expense of atheists.
The nation’s atheists went to Capitol Hill on Monday to launch an effort that they hope will someday give them the lobbying clout of the Christian conservative movement.
They don’t have a prayer.
--snip--
“What does that do to our non-theist community?” asked Edwina Rogers, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America, which bills itself as the only full-time lobbying group for atheists, agnostics, humanists and the like. “What does that do to our minority religions like voodooism, etcetera?”
No doubt it makes them mad enough to cast a hex.
We often hear people in public life babble about the United States being "a Christian nation". Without ever being defined, I've always guessed that means people think the US is made up of people who self-identify as Christian. I suppose that's a fair assumption to make, without being able to draw any real conclusions from such a broad and relatively meaningless statement.
For a very long time, some few have tried to take this rather bland social reality and make out of it a legal principle that we the people of the United States are Christian. The decades-long arguments about religion and public life, for all the heat they generate, tend to add little light. As hot things do, they also tend keep people from getting too close to them, so the arguments continue to be stuck in the same terms they have been for decades.
Recent polling suggests the general decline in religious observation we see in Europe has reached America. Less than half of Americans are now members of a religious body. These statistics include Judaism, Jain, Islam, Baha'i, and other smaller religious groups. While we may tend to "see" Christians when we look upon our fellow Americans, as a practical matter, religious affiliation is less and less important a fact of American life.
As a matter of law, the United States is secular. There is no official religion sanctioned by the state. There is no official religious test for office according to the United States Constitution. These have been and continue to be blessings to religious bodies. With religious life free from state interference, observation and practice can grow and develop and change without it impacting our public life.
Except, of course, the past thirty-five years or so have seen the rise of a powerful political movement rooted in a particular interpretation of the Christian life. Over time, this group has sought ties with conservative Jewish groups, Roman Catholics, and others to work for a particular set of social and cultural changes they see as necessary for improving American life. The problem with these groups isn't their religious belief; the problem is their disregard for certain legal, Constitutional and social realities, not the least of which is the decline in religious observation in the United States.
The things these folks care about, and demand we recognize, resonate with a declining subset of the population. This is not an argument for them to shut up; rather, I am suggesting that even those who support them need to recognize they are reaching a dwindling audience.
Now, Dana Milbank isn't really very funny. I know nothing about his religious beliefs or practices, but I daresay poking juvenile fun at self-described atheists and non-theists may seem like he's making a point. In fact, the things about which the coalescing "atheist" lobby are concerned just happen to be things about which I object as well. Not just swearing oaths and the national motto. Public displays of religious belief at the Christmas holidays are really wrong. I hear folks say, "What's the harm in putting up a creche in the public square?" To which I can only respond, "I'm a member of the public, it's my square, too, and I don't like it."
None of these things seem hugely important, yet together they create an undercurrent of public strife and mistrust that wells up every once in a while in particular ways. I would much prefer we no longer celebrate the mass display of piety as something laudable, but rather remember we are to keep these things private. Go into a closet and pray. Stop trying to out-holy one another. And for crying out loud, don't worry if the checker at the supermarket says, "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas". Last time I checked, being polite and respectful of other people's beliefs was something laudable.
The atheists have several things going for them, not the least of them the Constitution of the United States, the Bible, and common sense. Rather than poke fun at them, it might well be time to start listening.
Making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. - The Mission Statement of The United Methodist Church, adopted 2008
I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us.For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God;for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hopethat the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labour pains until now;and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.For inhope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopesfor what is seen?But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. - Romans 8:19-25
What does it mean that we United Methodists seek "the transformation of the world"? I suppose we could sit around and pretend there isn't an answer already there in Scripture. Were we less inclined to shout at one another, we might just realize how simple it is. We might just realize how monumental is this task set before us.
See, here's the thing. Jesus spent his time doing ministry sitting and listening to people, healing their hurts, inviting them in to community with their fellows, not so much "teaching" as living out The Kingdom of God. He didn't waste his time trying to tell people what it was and wasn't, who was in and who was out. He just went around and showed people. If some dork got really stuck, Jesus would tell a story, usually prefaced with, "The Kingdom of God is like this . . ." and talk about seeds being planted, or seeds growing, or leaven, or lost coins. Stuff folks could wrap their minds around.
The transformation of the world isn't a political or social or cultural program, although Lord knows it embraces them. The transformation of the world isn't a moral or ethical program, although Lord knows it embraces them. At the end of the day, the transformation of the world is just this: Living as if loving God and loving our neighbors really were the most important things in the world. Jesus wasn't a conservative or a liberal; he wasn't a monarchist or republican; he wasn't a moralist or nihilist. He wasn't a drunkard or whore-monger or a blasphemer or a rebel or a reactionary or a business tycoon or community organizer. He was just the Son of God fully human.
When we celebrate with those who are joyful, the world is transformed. When we reach out and comfort those who mourn, the Kingdom of God breaks through the sin of our time and makes it holy. When we achieve peace with our fellow human beings, the world is no longer our mundane, sinful place. When we recognize the sacrifice of those who give all they have for others, we see the world changing before our eyes.
These moments are always fleeting. We long, like Peter and John on the Mount of Transformation, to set up a place where we all can rest, right here and now. Sad to say, we cannot - yet - stop and stay and live in these moments where the Light from the Throne breaks forth in our present darkness.
We can, however, keep working each moment of our lives so that this might happen.
Our hope rests in the promise that this Light will fill all creation with real joy and peace. For now, our job is to wade through the muck and mire of our chaotic world, dragging our fellows up and holding them, showing them they are loved, they are precious. That as unique creations of a good God they have infinite worth, demonstrated in the cross and empty tomb of Christ. It could be a little thing, such as a phone call to someone for whom loneliness is such a constant companion it has ceased to have any meaning. It could be something more, such as letting another person know they have not lived and loved and struggled in vain.
It could be a really big thing, like standing up against the powers of our Age between the times and declaring they have no power over us, because our hope doesn't rest in the false security of rotting bread or a home that can be destroyed. Even more than love for God and one another, I believe the Devil fears our laughter at his expense. What is more demeaning of the presumptively powerful than derision?
These are things I believe more than anything. I believe we have already won. I believe the world has already begun to change; our task is to make that transformation clear in and through our living with others. What task could be more important? What calling could match this?
.jpg)
