Some of my friends and family who are only slightly older than me well-remember the “Duck and Cover” drills that schools conducted in the 1950’s and early 60’s, at the height of the Cold War. What they mostly remember when they talk of those drills is the fear, the feeling of helplessness, the terror that some bogeyman (in that case named “The USSR” or “The Communists” was going to use to press a button or turn a key that would cause a terrible and evil weapon (Nuclear Bombs) to take everything away: their homes, their school, their friends, their lives. Nuclear Bombs. The ultimate weapon of terror.
And so, what were we kids being taught in these drills so long ago?
The Gospel is very clear and very explicit on this: It is we who must change to include others. They are not called to conform themselves to our standards.
There’s been quite a furor in the news recently (as noted in this link to a column on CNN) about two lawmakers in Mississippi who are invoking what they call “The Billy Graham Rule.” They are using it to shut women out of the political process in ways that are what I’d term antediluvian: resorting to tropes and portrayals of women that we know to have never been respectful, let alone accurate, and which have the effect of oppressing and excluding women from public life; keeping them under the control of men; and treating them more as property than as persons worthy of respect in their own right.
There’s been quite an outcry against Virginia Governor Ralph Northam (D), just as there was a couple of weeks ago against Florida’s Secretary of State to be, Michael Ertel (R). In both cases, both men – and both quite a few years ago – did some things that were at best ill-advised and insensitive at the time, and which are now seen (rightly) as very racist.
In looking closely at the careers of Governor Northam and Mr. Ertel, we see men who are very focused on a just and fair political system for everyone. We see men who have been taking principled stands against those who would undermine our political systems in the name of power and advantage.
The recent court decision in Texas that invalidates the entire ACA (a decision that will be subject, no doubt, to numerous appeals and a future SCOTUS decision) exposes the fatal flaw at the heart of the ACA. That is is that the ACA in effect requires that universal medical care be funded mainly by employers. But, is that fair or reasonable to do?
The ACA relies on the largely ad hoc mechanisms for provision of healthcare that have sprung up in the USA over the last few decades as a result of our lack of political will and ability to address the issue in a comprehensive fashion. And, when you think about it, what we have is not a workable or fair approach. Our sky high healthcare costs and byzantine insurance and medical system are the result of all this. — Which is why employer based healthcare insurance is an approach not used in most other countries; and why government funded universal healthcare is the norm – and very successful.
While the Texas decision breaks the partial and beneficial mechanisms that ACA provided. But, it was never a complete or totally viable solution; nor was it ever envisioned as such. Ultimately, we cannot rely on employer-based insurance to fix all of the problems in our healthcare system; and Congress knew that when the ACA was passed.
Regarding the just-announced GM Factory shutdowns. It’s economic reality: the market is changing, the company is pivoting to be a leader rather than a follower in responding to those changes.
Companies that do not adjust as the market changes will die – as Sears recently did.
The world is always changing, nothing is ever certain. Much of the “Wisdom Literature” in the Bible: Job, Lamentations, Proverbs, reflects and even dwells on this. The nature of a change can sometimes be influenced or tempered, but change itself cannot be stopped.
So, I’m not impressed with all of the furor condemning GM for it’s announcement. It’s all political posturing, and won’t last long – as GM well knows.
What I want to know is whether the change is being done in as compassionate and careful way as possible: is the company (and, even more importantly, State and Federal governments) doing enough to help those who will be losing their jobs? Will they be doing enough to help the affected communities and local businesses transition to life without GM?
The New York Times recently published an opinion piece (“A Bad Move That Exposes Kids to Chemicals“) that tells us why the Administration’s recent move to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) “Office of Children’s Health Protection” is very worrisome, and likely to have profoundly negative effects upon the health of our nation’s children.
If, as I expect, the ultimate reason for this possible torpedoing of yet another important and productive EPA program is because it is “hurting the profitability of American companies”, then one must consider what that long-held gospel of the GOP really means.
In thinking of the alleged crimes of SCOTUS Nominee Brett Kavanaugh, I find myself wrestling with a thorny issue: one that has been seen over and over again in the long list of sexual predators who have been revealed (or accused) in the recent past.
To begin with, let’s get one thing perfectly clear. Any sexual crime, no matter how seemingly minor it is (or was), nor how long ago, nor whom the aggressors (or victims) were, is precisely that: a crime. It must be treated as such. It is NOT something to be swept under the rug, nor hidden, nor ignored. Those who are the victims of such crimes – no matter how fragmentary and disjointed their memories seem to be – must be heard. They must be treated with respect, with compassion, with impartiality, and without prejudgment as to who they are, or how valid or invalid of a person (or victim) others may portray them to be.
Frankly, any victim of oppression must always be presumed to be telling the truth – until proven otherwise. Our first and foremost duty is to immediately see them, hear them, and protect them, They must be kept safe, and feel safe, from further aggression by either the original oppressor / abuser, or from the attacks of others.
And that leads me to my main point, which is a twofold concern.
By now I’m sure you’ve heard of the accusation being laid at the feet of Judge Kavanaugh during the Senate’s Confirmation hearings for his nomination to the Supreme Court. Namely, that at age 17, while “stumbling drunk,” he attempted to rape a then 15 year old young woman.
As we know, the Republicans are crying “Foul” because this accusation was revealed at almost the last minute before the Committee was to vote on whether to recommend that the Senate as a whole approve Kavanugh’s nomination.
Democrats have been saying all along that the process the GOP is using (what there is of it) egregiously flouts both the written and unwritten rules and guidelines that have always guided the process: shutting out all opposing or questioning voices from the process in a rush to get another conservative seated on the Court while Republicans still have control of the Senate.
As I (and many others) see it, it is more than a bit disingenuous for the GOP to call “foul” at the Democrat’s attempt to throw a wrench in the process when the GOP did exactly that with wild aplomb with regards to the nominations of hundreds of Judges for years – until they had control of both the Senate and the White House. A case in point being President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.
So, the GOP will get no sympathy from me on this. To put it another way, “What goes around comes around.”
That being said, the real heart of the matter is how one should respond to Professor Blasey Ford’s claim of Kavanaugh’s attempted rape of her.
Senator John McCain was born in the 1930’s – just as my parents were.
Those born in the 1930’s are sometimes overlooked – stuck in the shadow of the generations before them who fought the Kaiser in World War I; and Hitler in World War II.
Even so, they are a generation that knows just as much about hardship and sacrifice and duty as those that came before them. They were born in the depths of the Great Depression. They witnessed the events, the rationing, the huge dislocations, the fear, and the losses of WWII. They are the generation who were starting families in the 1950’s and early 1960’s, and then had to raise their children in a world struggling to understand and redefine itself.
Many of them fought in the Vietnam War, as Senator McCain did. Many protested it, as my parents did. Many of them died there, their names recorded on that black wall that so many of us have visited and mourned. Many still bear the scars of that war in one way or another, as John McCain carried with him his entire life.
And they served in so many other ways as well: They sacrificed much to address the evils of social injustice, seeking equal Civil Rights for all. They fought for clean air and water. They fought to protect wildlife and our land from the effects of rampant and irresponsible exploitation and development. They are the generation that had to face the Cold War and its’ threat of global annihilation. They worked hard to make our country strong, prosperous, and just. They are the generation that walked on the Moon.
They are a truly great generation, as great as any generation that preceded them, or any that has followed.
While I’m very much against “scaling back the safety net” that doesn’t mean that reshaping it is a bad idea.
The “safety net” in this country is a complex and confusing web of programs overseen by an often opaque and always byzantine bureaucracy that is frequently underpaid with high turnover. (This doesn’t mean that the bureaucrats are unfeeling or callous people: you can only do so much when your hands are tied by a forest of overlapping, inconsistent, incomplete, and often outdated regulations and programs.)
In homeless shelters (where I served as a chaplain) I’ve seen people carrying around HUGE binders of information about their case. They often contained hundreds of pages of letters, documentation, emails, flyers, and forms.
The people of Gaza have made it clear that all they want is jobs, food, adequate sanitation and healthcare, a safe place to raise their children. They want some hope for their future; something more than the hopeless and meaningless lives they now have.
For one, many Jews (not all Jews) are seeing and treating their Palestinian cousins as animals: celebrating their deaths, taking their land, murdering and imprisoning those who resist or protest, giving no credence whatsoever to any of the concerns and voices being raised in protest to how Palestinians are being treated by the Israeli State, blind to the injustices that they themselves are visiting upon their neighbors. They’ve become indistinguishable from the genocidal regimes and individuals that were responsible for the slaughter of tens of millions of Jews in WWII (and before).
In 1 Kings chapter 2, the Hebrew Bible speaks of the bloody purge commanded by King Solomon at the start of his reign. One of the young King’s targets was Joab.
Joab had been David’s most capable commander: ruthless, zealous, and without an ounce of compassion. He seemed to be intensely loyal to the Monarchy, but that did not necessarily mean he was blindly obedient to the King. For instance, a few years earlier he had killed David’s rebellious son, Absalom against David’s wishes; and he killed a rival (and his own cousin) Amasa, whom David had appointed to replace Joab. Finally, when David died, Joab made the mistake of supporting a rival claimant to the throne, David’s son Adonijah, instead of David’s [apparent] choice, Solomon. Not a nice guy, to say the least!
Once he became aware that a purge was taking place, Joab fled to the Tent of the Ark of the Tabernacle, claiming Sanctuary as others had done before him – including David himself. Upon hearing this, Solomon ordered his new General to kill him anyway; and so Benaiah went into the Temple and slaughtered Joab there.
The modern “Sanctuary” movement embodies this same concept: we can (and should) offer sanctuary to those fleeing injustice. On the other hand, we cannot (and should not) provide sure sanctuary to those fleeing justice.