In defense of Ben Carson

Actually I like Ben Carson.  He seems like a nice guy.  During the last debate I was not quite sure whether he had just awakened from a nap or was about to take one, but he comes across as a decent man who certainly says what he thinks.  I mean this guy is a distinguished neuro-surgeon—which would surely qualify him as a scientific person—yet he says with absolute conviction that he believes in creationism and that evolution is a myth.  You can’t be more say-what-you-think than that.

What got him into big trouble was when he said on Meet the Press he would not want to see a Muslim in the White House.  Kabam!  All the other candidates, Republican and Democrat, immediately wrapped themselves in the cloak of self-righteousness and attempted to drown him in a tsunami of political correctness.   The Republicans waxed indignant declaring that he did not represent the pristine principles of their highly moral party and the Democrats said:  Ha! See what real bigots and racists the Republicans are!

To make matters worse, Ben would not back off, and in a subsequent interview with Yahoo News he said: “I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country.  Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”

Well technically speaking he is absolutely right.  I will not subject you to a litany of just how weird Islamic Sharia is. You can Google that yourselves.   So, unless stoning your adulterous wife to death or killing your daughter for kissing a non-Muslim or giving me 80 lashes because I had a cocktail last night is something that appeals to you, I think you will find that there are some valid reasons to say that Sharia is not, in fact, “consistent with the Constitution of this country.”  But that same principle applies no matter what the religion happens to be.

Consider this:   If you take his second sentence and substitute “Evangelical Christians” for “Muslims” you can make a valid, rational comparison.  They, the Evangelicals, think that “their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official.” 

All the Republican candidates have fallen over themselves trying to impress the public how Christian they are (see my blog of April 27, 2015 Republicans Running for Christian Ayatollah) and Jeb Bush quite blatantly admitted his Catholicism influences his political decisions.  Republican Presidential candidates are still bringing up whether Obama is a Christian or not.  For secularists like myself, who are adamant about the separation of church and state, I am alarmed at the insidious way religion is creeping into our civil liberties.

The current instances of Evangelical disruptions to our civil society—county clerks refusing to issue gay marriage licenses, threats to shut down the government over funding Planned Parenthood—are essentially encroachments of religion on civil government and, while not nearly so peculiar as Sharia, the concept is the same.  A religious sect—Evangelical Christians-- is attempting to make “their religion” “a part of your public life.” 

For me the question of a Muslim in the White House is a moot point.  I don’t really care what religion the President is.   The President’s religion itself is irrelevant to me, but imposing any religion’s laws or beliefs on all citizens is, indeed, not consistent with the Constitution. So Ben, you’re right on that point.

American soldiers, sailors and marines did not fight to deprive women of their right to abortion

Here is what Representative Trent Franks, R-Ariz. said about the impending Republican threat to shut down the government over funding Planned Parenthood:  “Our response as a people and a nation to these horrors shown in these videos is vital to everything those lying out in Arlington Cemetery died to save.” I don’t give a damn what your position is on abortion.  Personally, I think abortion is none or your business, my business, nor the government’s business.  But what I really find despicable is Franks’s reference to our dead military personnel in Arlington.  This asshole was born in 1957 and never served a day in the military.  I’m old enough to remember WWII and all our subsequent wars.  My uncle Bill was on the beach at Iwo Jima and my uncle Cliff was in the battle of the bulge (Bastogne) and I can assure you my uncles and all America was not fighting to deprive women the right to an abortion.  This is the kind of disgusting pseudo-patriotic crap the Republicans are foisting on the American people to justify their repressive policies.

Give us this day our daily absurdity.

The bikini costume worn by princess Leia in Star Wars, Return of the Jedi will be auctioned off.  Starting bid is $80,000.  It is expected to reach $120,000.  Now if there are people rich enough to spend that kind of money on a bikini why do they bitch about paying income tax?  Just asking. 

Kim Davis and the Immaculate Perception

Where are the moderate, rational, intelligent Christians?  Why aren’t they opposing the elected Kentucky clerk who has claimed god’s authority for refusing to do her job?   Evidently, they endorse her bigoted interpretation of Christianity.  Evidently, they accept her as the ultimate interpreter of god’s will.  We now have the Gospel According to Kim.

She’s certainly not a virgin—married four times--but she seems to claim she has an immaculate perception of what god thinks and that he grants her the divine authority to discriminate against gays.

Consider the thousands of letters to the editors, blogs, op-ed columnists, talking heads, network and cable news  anchors and legal ”experts” commenting on her refusal to grant gay couples marriage licenses.  Almost without exception they deal with the legal, secular aspect of an elected county official refusing to follow the requirement of her office.  No one seems to question her contention that she is justified by god. 

What about the moral, theological questions?  What gives her the authority to determine what god wants and how, according to her immaculate perception, his wishes can override civil law.  This is where “real” Christians seem to be missing in action.  Since they limit their arguments against Davis to “legal” grounds, they safely avoid pointing out that she is using theological arguments to justify her bigotry and the “real” Christians haven’t got the balls to confront her on that.

Conceptually, it’s similar to Muslims arguing that theirs is a loving, peaceful religion then one of their brethren goes out and blows up a bunch of people.  The Muslims reply, of course, “That’s not real Islam.”  Well, the Christians sing “Jesus loves you,” every Sunday then someone like Davis comes along and qualifies that on Monday by adding “unless you are gay”.  Christians might reply, “But that’s not real Christianity.”   Really?  Then why don’t they have the courage to stand up against an obscure Southern county clerk who claims to have an inside track to the mind of god?  By omission the “real” Christians are silently endorsing Davis’s as some kind of theological authority.  The fact that presidential candidates Huckabee and Cruz endorse the new high priestess of Christianity is so stupid it is not worth discussing.

I did some research looking for any conservative who is pushing back against Davis and I found this written by conservative columnist Michael Gerson in the Washington Post: "Whatever their intentions, these people are doing great harm to the cause of religious liberty and to the reputation of their faith.”

In other words, this kind of “Christian” behavior is further alienating thinking, rational Americans and contributing to the growing number of “nones” in America—those who ascribe to no religious faith.  So, if you already had a rather low opinion of Christianity in America, Ms. Davis just gave you another reason to lower it even more.

God vs. Government in Kentucky

There are actually some good things coming out of the controversy over Kentucky court clerk Kim Davis’s refusal to grant gay marriage licenses.  It is showing just how detrimental religion is to our social order.  It is making a mockery of Christianity.  And, it is showing just how ridiculous some Republican presidential candidates can be.  The secular backlash against this religious and political foolishness will hopefully lead to eventually getting god out of our government.

Our social order is based on civil laws.  Whether you like them or not does not make them optional.  Ms. Davis, who is a rather low-ranking elected public official, decided she can refuse to comply with a civil law because her god says so.  She does not seem to realize many people do not acknowledge the existence of her god and, even some who do, do not recognize his authority to override civil law. 

Regarding the mockery of Christianity, Ms. Davis’s defiance of the law in the name of god is yet another example that American Christians are pathetically hypocritical.  No matter how many times anyone points out to them that Jesus said, “feed the sick, clothe the naked, help the poor, feed the hungry,” and above all “love one another,” American Christians seem to think those were nice things for Jesus to say , but they do not apply to people currently residing in America.  Aside from Republican policies diametrically opposed to Jesus’s teaching, the American neo-Christian doctrine states that god does not approve of homosexuals so that permits a judgmental, self-righteous clerk of courts to refuse granting gay marriage licenses in defiance of civil law.  Most rational, thinking people see that for what it is—using god to justify bigotry and hatred.

Now what about those Republican presidential candidates? Here are a few of the really absurd things Republican candidates have said:

Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: “Having Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubt of the criminalization of Christianity in our country.  We must defend religious liberty and never surrender to judicial tyranny.”  Did you get that?  “Criminalization of Christianity”?  “Judicial tyranny”?

Ted Cruz:  “Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office. That is the consequence of their position. Or, if Christians do serve in public office, they must disregard their religious faith — or be sent to jail.”  What was that?  “Persecuting Kim Davis”?  People believe Christians should not hold public office?

Bobby Jindal:  “We are seeing government today discriminate against whether it’s clerks, florists, musicians or others. I think that’s wrong. I think you should be able to keep your job and follow your conscience.”  Government discrimination?  What about religious (hate gays) discrimination?  Actually, the government is saying you can’t discriminate because of religious beliefs.

Scott Walker:  “I read that the Constitution is very clear that people have freedom of religion — you have the freedom to practice religious beliefs out there, it’s a fundamental right.”  It’s too bad Walker doesn’t understand the Constitution he claims to have read.  You have the constitutional right to practice your religion of course, but you do not have the right to impose it on anyone else and if you do so as a public official required to follow the law you are even more in violation of the religious freedom principle because you are imposing yours on others.

These politicians, of course, are desperately pandering to the religious righteous to get their votes, but there is something radically wrong with our society when we have candidates for our highest office and arguably the most powerful person in the world who believe god overrides our civil laws, who believe the world is 6,000 years old, who believe in creationism and not evolution, who deny climate change despite overwhelming scientific evidence and who think days of prayer accomplish something.  These politicians are disingenuous at best and liars at worst.   Religion is the most destructive force human beings have ever invented, and, as this most recent gay-marriage-county-clerk incident shows, our country would be better off is we could get god out of our government entirely.  If this current Kentucky clerk incident motivates more Americans to insist on a secular, rule-of-law based government, it will have been worth enduring the media-hyped stupidity.

Oh, if any of this irritates some of you readers, god made me do it.

 

Republican continue their "Let me entertain you!" primary campaign

One of the more entertaining elements of the Republican presidential nomination race is watching to see which demographic group the GOP candidates are going to piss off next.  Trump set the bar pretty high when he called illegal Mexicans “rapists” during his candidacy announcement.  Then this week Jeb Bush slammed those dreadful “anchor babies” whose illegal parents arrange to have them born in the U.S.A. so their kids can get immediate citizenship.  Everybody assumed, of course, he meant Latinos.  But then he clarified it by saying he was actually referring to Asians. So now we can add Asians to the list of people Republicans don’t like.  Of course, Trump wants to repeal that birthright citizen amendment completely so he handles Mexicans and Asians in one swoop.

Ted Cruz reinforced the Republican aversion to women’s rights by declaring he might consider shutting down the government again unless Congress denies funding to Planned Parenthood.  Oh, then we have that southern clerk of court defying Federal Law by denying marriage licenses to gays.  We already know where the Republican Candidates stand on that although a couple GOP presidential hopefuls actually admitted they could attend a gay marriage just to show how open minded they are.  I just hope we are not submitted to one more video of a baker sobbing over his religious rights being violated because he refused to make a cake for gays.

We also had a brilliant example of Republican Kinderdiplomacy from Scott Walker.  Big bad China manipulated its currency to bolster its sagging economy and Walker called for cancelling the Chinese President’s state visit next month.  Sort of like the little kid stamping his foot in the school yard and whining, “I don’t like what you did so you can’t come to my birthday party, so there!” 

Walker complained, “Americans are struggling to cope with the fall in today’s markets driven in part by China’s slowing economy and the fact that they actively manipulate their economy.  Rather than honoring Chinese President Xi Jinping with an official state visit next month, President Obama should focus on holding China accountable over its increasing attempts to undermine U.S. interests.”

If I remember correctly, the United States, has manipulated interest rates for the last several years and bailed out its financial industry which had recklessly engaged in speculative junk and nearly destroyed the world’s economic system.  Why is it when another country acts in its best interest that’s bad, but if we do it then it’s okay?  Another example of “Republican logic.”

I’m curious as to why Walker and the Republicans are not suggesting the Pope’s visit be cancelled.  After all, he believes we humans are hurting the environment, has said some nasty things about capitalism and even made some overtures to gays and divorced people.  Come on Republicans, show how tough you are and demand the Pope stays home!

The “Military Option”

By now everyone has taken sides on the Iranian “nuclear deal.”  Some democrats, like Charles Schumer the ranking congressional democrat—and as Republicans like to point out, the top Jewish Democrat--oppose it.   Twenty nine top nuclear and arms control scientists wrote a letter to Obama endorsing it.  Two Jewish New York Times columnists rendered a split decision—Roger Cohen: For--David Brooks:  Against.  But let’s just drop the obvious religious/political quibbling for the moment.

What I found interesting is the argument over the “military option.”

Some of the deal’s opponents hammered Obama because he “showed weakness” by taking the military option off the table. I don’t buy that. If you look at our history—going all the way back to the Revolution—with Americans, the military option is NEVER off the table.   It may not be visible sitting on the table but if you peek underneath it is still there.  And I think the Iranians know that.

I have no pretenses about being a skilled negotiator, however, opening negotiations with, “Agree to everything I want or I will bomb you off the face of the earth,” is not a productive technique.  That logic was applied in Iraq.  “Show us your WMDs or we invade you.” Bam!  We know how that turned out.

The United States will never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb.  That is a given. Opposition to the deal is mainly political posturing.   The Republicans and Netanyahu are using it, once again, to attack Obama, score political points with their base supporters and woo the Jewish voters in America.  Their scenario is that Iran will absolutely break all the terms of the agreement, secretly acquire nuclear weapons and the United States and the other five nations involved in the negotiations will just sit back and say, “Aw shucks, shit happens.”

Does anyone really think that America, Russia, China, France, England and Germany are so stupid that they will allow Iran to break all its promises and do nothing?   Do you really think they have not considered how to deal with Iranian skullduggery?  Do you really think the Iranians feel they can get away with breaking the agreement without consequences?

It’s probably just a coincidence but during the talks I happened to notice several items in those annoying “news” items that pop up on your screen talking about our super-destructive MOAB (Mother Of All Bombs).  I am not into conspiracy theories so I’m not suggesting these were planted to remind Iran that we have such devices since I assume Iran’s military intelligence is well aware of what weapons we possess. 

Considering our past history of using military force, if Iran blatantly reneges on the deal it would bring down the wrath of whoever happens to be president at the time (Republican or Democrat).  The Republicans are the rock stars of wanting to use the military force to solve all the world’s problems but when the chips are down I think a Democrat president would not hesitate to act.  Remember Harry Truman, a Democrat, dropped the bomb on Japan just 70 years ago this week. Hopefully we will never get to anything that horrible and drastic with Iran.

So you may not have seen it on the table, but it was there.  It’s our traditional American ace in the hole called the military option.

These are pertinent links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#1860.E2.80.931869

http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/militaryoperations.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

Bucket list postponed…

Yesterday’s visit to the oncologist resolved a dilemma I had been agonizing over for several weeks.  The question I faced was whether I should prepare my “bucket list” or should I renew my magazine subscriptions.  Time and Food Network Magazine will be pleased to learn I am renewing for another year.  I am not so optimistic as to take advantage of their special two-year rates but the spots on my lung and liver have remained benign and the esophageal cancer does not seem to have returned.

I must admit, I did compile certain items for my bucket list just in case.  The top two things I had resolved to do before permanently departing were to finish landscaping my back yard and clean the garage.

               You may find that strange, but when faced with the possibility of actually having to prepare a list of things I wanted to accomplish while still here, nothing particularly dramatic or spectacular came to mind.  I’ve already learned how to fly an airplane and as pilots used to say, “Why would anyone want to jump out of a perfectly good airplane?”  So skydiving was out of the question.

               I have traveled to the Orient (complements the U.S. Navy); I’ve lived in Paris, London and Milan as well as in several large American cities and really don’t like travelling any more (thank you airlines), so the Great Wall of China and African safaris are also out.  I’ve had a varied career as a newspaper correspondent, marketing executive and magazine owner/editor and photographer.  Would I change some things if I could?  Sure.  Was is all bad?  Of course not.  So when the oncologist said to me, “See you in six months,” that was good enough for me.

Certainly, age has a lot to do with my attitudes towards preparing for the hereafter.  I’m sure if I were younger I would view approaching mortality much differently and with a considerable degree of sadness.  A young person dealing with cancer still has a long list of things to be hoped for and accomplished but must face the possibility and disappointment that they may never happen.  Parents with children undergoing the horrors of chemotherapy must feel an unimaginable agony.

But at my stage of life--at slightly over three-quarters of a century--hopes and dreams give way to stark reality.  I have reached the point where I have no fear of the inevitable so I have adopted the philosophy expressed by one of my favorite comedians, Red Skelton, who said:  “When I wake up in the morning and I don’t hear organ music and smell roses, it’s going to be a good day.”  

What's in a name?

Like all political discourse in America today, the McCain-hero exchange is a circular discussion.  It goes round and round with everyone producing evidence to support his or her position and it all goes nowhere.  My recent post on the McCain/Trump episode was not so much about whether McCain was or was not a “hero,” but an observation that it is now a political requirement to label everyone who wears a uniform as a “hero.” This "hero" attribution is intended to assuage the collective American conscience and to give politicians a way to demonstrate how patriotic they are.  I am not the only one who looked at the issue from this point of view.  Here is a transcript excerpt from an NPR interview between Robert Seigel and David Greenberg, professor of history and journalism at Rutgers University:

SIEGEL: And we have the John McCain experience - being a POW for more than five years, being tortured by his North Vietnamese captors, a man who literally agonized for his country - an unusual description of the war hero?

GREENBERG: Well, certainly not the conventional one. But I think it's fair to say that we can go back in history and also find examples of people who were taken captive and for that reason are considered heroes. Nathan Hale was the first one that came to mind for me, who famously said he regretted he had but one life to give for his country. He was, of course, a spy for George Washington, going behind enemy lines and was apprehended and executed by the British in the Revolution. So that too has a longer lineage than we might suppose.

SIEGEL: And of course, many medals have been awarded posthumously to people who've died in combat - not been taken captive, but didn't survive the battle.

GREENBERG: Yes, that's exactly right. These are things we recognize as heroism. I think with the Vietnam War though, there is something of a change or a new understanding of heroism. And we have the celebration, if you will, of the POWs and MIAs, who it was assumed were abandoned by our leadership in the Vietnam War. Now, a lot of research has found these claims to be overstated, but it's had a power hold on our imagination because the Vietnam War was such a troubled war for us. And the MIA legends or myths came to embody, I think, a sense that it wasn't our soldiers who let us down. It was we who let them down.

In other words,  the classic definition of “hero,” was modified to include Viet Nam POWs and MIAs and is now applied to all active duty military personnel, which is a guilt reaction not only to the fact that American young people have no obligation whatsoever to serve and to the rotten way Viet Nam veterans were treated. 

At any rate, whether McCain was or was not a “hero” is now a moot point since anybody or anything can be one these days.  Remember the video that went viral of the cat who saved the little boy from a dog attack which was carried repeatedly on national tv news networks?  That cat was called a “hero.” 

To read the full transcript go to:   http://www.wbur.org/npr/424722437/donald-trumps-remarks-on-john-mccain-question-meaning-of-war-hero

Trump was right

Technically speaking, Donald Trump was right, John McCain is not a war “hero.”  Getting shot down and being a POW are not really acts of heroism.  But McCain has exploited that image for years to boost his prosperous political career and to lend credibility to his belief that every foreign policy problem can be solved with military action.  Whether you like Trump or McCain—and I dislike them both—when the Donald called McCain on this (“He got shot down!”) the tiff between them exposed another absurdity in today’s American politics.

The very word “hero” has become so overused and overworked that it has become meaningless:  Now everyone who has ever served in the armed services is a “hero;”  all first-responders—whether at the World Trade Center on 9/11—or in your local fire department are “heroes;” teachers who endured seeing their grade-school students slaughtered are “heroes;” anybody who has had cancer and is still alive is a “hero;” and just about anybody the evening news deems worthy, like someone saving a kitten up a tree or tutoring an underprivileged child is a “hero.”  One of my local tv stations even has a segment called “The Hero Next Door”—it’s kind of your hero du jour.

It is now an absolute requirement for politicians—Republican and Democrat—to proclaim all service personnel are “heroes.”  If they don’t, they are immediately vilified and branded “un-American” or “unpatriotic.” Most of the Republican candidates never served because the draft was abolished for everyone born after 1953 so they are even more emphatic in exalting the "heroes" since they didn't have to become one.

This has led to the practice of people going up to uniformed soldiers in airports and thanking them for their service.  There have been numerous articles and interviews where soldiers themselves have stated how much they despise that.  They know it is insincere and actually means, “I’m glad you’ll get your ass shot off and not my kid.” 

Just consider the fickleness of Americans.  During John McCain’s time in service, if he had walked through an airport in uniform people would have spit on him because that’s what patriotic Americans did to our service people in those days. 

Instead of fostering this artificial hero worship, perhaps our politicians would be better advised to figure out ways to keep our fine young men and women, and they are fine young men and women make no mistake about that, from getting into wars that kill and maim them in the first place.

And perhaps Donald Trump’s rabble rousing might cause the American public to begin insisting that presidential candidates start talking about how they propose to solve our very serious problems.

 (In the interest of full disclosure, I served as an officer in the United States Navy from 1959 to 1962.  I state unequivocally that I was not then, am not now, nor have I ever been a hero.)

 Political irony and the Supreme Court decision

Politics has its strange ironies.  The Supreme Court decision this week basically upheld the legality of the Affordable Health Care Act (aka Obamacare).  The President and the Democrats were elated and, here’s the irony, the Republicans were relieved.

As the Supreme Court decision drew nearer and nearer, lots of Republicans started getting nervous that SCOTUS (text code for Supreme Court of the United States) might strike it down and then they, the Republicans, would be forced to explain why the ACA is bad and what they propose to replace it.  They would have to explain why they wanted millions of newly insured in states that did not expand Medicaid to lose their health insurance.

Now the Republicans are off the hook for the time being.  They immediately started huffing and puffing about how bad the law is and, despite the Supreme Court ruling, how they are steadfastly determined to repeal it (never mind their 50 plus attempts so far). And therein lies the Republican problem.  During all their opposition to the ACA, they have never proposed specific reasons why it is bad nor any valid alternatives.  They have called it a “train wreck” a “disaster” and even “the worst thing since slavery,” but, they have never explained why.  Oh yes, they called it a “job killer” which is their meaningless generic objection to everything Obama proposes.

But the Republicans continue to count on Americans’ stupidity, believing they can continue to con the people.   Despite the Supreme Court decision, Republicans are still declaring “the law is broken,” it’s a “spectacular flop” and Mitch McConnell declared it is a “rolling disaster.”  Of course, all of those phrases without substantiation are totally meaningless.

But it makes the Republicans sound tough and unfortunately, most of their followers  just accept  this bombast without requiring explanations.

Now the bigger irony is that the American public is beginning to realize that affordable health care insurance for all Americans is really a good idea.  In fact, polls are showing that more and more Americans are viewing the ACA favorably.

Remember, the Republicans opposed Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and still do.  These programs happen to be very good and very popular among the American public.  With the Supreme Court decision, we will now have another social program that will benefit all Americans.

Hey America, it’s “thoughts and prayers” time!

Another mass murder.  So once again it’s “thoughts and prayers” time.  Innocent people were killed by a deranged individual and here we go again.

All the politicians and talking heads gravely intone their “thoughts and prayers” go to the families of all the victims.  That has become the obligatory expression to give the impression that they are doing something proactive for the dead peoples’ survivors.  Fat lot of good it does. 

Then the craziness begins.  Once again, we get the absurd argument that if we had more guns in the hands of “law abiding” citizens it would reduce gun violence.  A pastor supports the idea that people in the church—pastors included—should carry guns to protect their parishioners. We need “increased security” in places of worship.  Isn’t God supposed to handle that?

And then we get an asinine discussion over whether this is a “hate crime” or a “terrorist act.”  As if that makes any difference.  Of course, the bigots who hate blacks can use the “terrorist” argument to deflect their inherent prejudice.   

If you think the aftermath of this tragedy could get any more absurd, Fox News expressed the opinion that this is not a racist incident but an attack on Christianity!  This is yet another example of how the ridiculous religious right tries to spin everything as some kind of infringement on their religious freedom.

These “Christians” seem to think that shooting innocent people in a church is somehow more horrendous than shooting kids in an elementary school, or people in a movie theater or shopping mall.  I wonder what God would think of that.  Of course, when these things happen God doesn’t seem to be anywhere around except after the fact to accept all those “thoughts and prayers” for the victims’ families.

And then Jeb Bush, you know the presidential candidate, isn’t really sure this massacre was racially motivated.  This prompted one commentator to question whether Jeb! can read considering the overwhelming evidence that the killer hated blacks.

Naturally when people get killed in an incident like this, especially if they are black, it becomes a political issue.  Fox News and the right wingers immediately slammed Hillary Clinton saying she “blamed” the Charleston shooting on Donald Trump because of his remark about Mexicans in his surreal announcement that he is running for president.

What she actually said was: "Public discourse is sometimes hotter and more negative than it should be, which can, in my opinion, trigger someone who is less than stable.” She added, “I think we have to speak out against it. Like, for example, a recent entry into the Republican presidential campaign said some very inflammatory things about Mexicans. Everybody should stand up and say that’s not acceptable.”

If you read that again, she said basically that public discourse should avoid inflammatory language.  Although she was obviously referring to Trump, specifically about his opinion of Mexicans, she did not “blame” him for the Charleston shooting.

           So the news cycle will evolve and this too shall pass.  Nothing will be done. The NRA will continue to contend that we need more “good guys” with guns, and the politicians will cringe and obey.  African Americans will continue to ask why they are so hated by a sector of the American people.  Right wing politicians and Christians will continue to exploit hatred, bigotry and fear to accomplish their own ends.  And then something atrocious will happen again and, guess what? it will be another “thought and prayers” time.

The Middle East Mess

You’ve heard the cliché, “hindsight is always 20/20.” This has become a kind of mantra for all the pundits who now agree that invading Iraq in March 2003 was a really bad idea especially since Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz concocted the WMDs that never existed simply to justify their “shock and awe” extravaganza.

As President Obama prepares to send another 400 plus “trainers” to Iraq, the radio/tv talkers and op-ed writers are outdoing themselves with 20/20 hindsight on all the Bush administrations post invasion goof ups.  Number one in the “stupid stuff” category is the disbanding of the Iraqi army of some 400,000 well trained troops and highly efficient officers.  Now it turns out that after the Bush-installed Iraq overseers humiliated the top Iraqi military brass and kicked them out, those generals are now directing ISIS operations in Iraq and Syria and rather efficiently.  The American-trained new Iraqi forces seem to have no stomach for a fight and drop their weapons and run away whenever they get into heated battle with ISIS.

No matter how accurate hind sight may be, we have to deal with what is happening now so Obama’s solution is to send in more “trainers” to train more incompetent Iraqi soldiers. This brings us to another famous quotation.  In his 1905 work The Life of Reason, George Santayana wrote “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” 

Let’s flash back to the 1950s and 1960s.  (I served in the Navy from 1959 to 1963 and remember it well.)  That’s when America decided it was going to save the world from Communism and established Military Assistance Advisory Groups (MAAGs).  The most famous one was in South Vietnam.  You all know rest of the story.  We started with a few “advisors” (as they were called then) and ended up sending about 2.5 million military personnel to fight South Viet Nam’s war.  In case you have forgotten, despite all our vast military might and our American exceptionalism we lost that war.  In fact we were ignominiously routed because, as many historians pointed out afterwards, the war was fought with passion on the other side—not so much for political ideology, but because they wanted to force out the “invaders” that is, the Americans.

We are now seeing the same pattern.  We are sending in “trainers” to train Iraqi soldiers who have no passion to defend their country and who must fight an enemy who not only has the passion to achieve its goals but is also fired by religious zealotry.  In other words, we are getting involved in yet another military adventure that we simply cannot win.  (Several of our generals are saying the same thing with some qualifying it by adding unless we send in massive numbers of troops which is unacceptable to the American public.  Massive troop commitments didn’t work in Viet Nam why would it work in the Middle East?)

Things are even more complicated when you consider the convoluted animosities of Islam.  The dreaded ISIS is a Sunni organization.  The vast majority of Muslims in the world are Sunnis (87 to 90 percent).  So now we have to get Sunnis to fight against Sunnis which is problematical at best. (Saudi Arabia our so-called ally is Sunni so factions in that country have been bank rolling ISIS).  Shia have the majority in Iraq and Iran.  But the Iraqis aren’t very good fighters despite their American trainers and we can’t enlist Iran in the fight because they might get atomic weapons and our Republican hawks want to bomb them rather than negotiate because they love Netanyahu.

Another thing going against us is our cultural mind set.  We expect not only instant gratification but also instant goal achievement.  (Remember George W. and his “mission accomplished”?)  Other cultures do not think our way.   Here is what North Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Van Dong said in 1966.  “How long do you Americans want to fight?  One year? Two years? Three years? Five years? Ten years?  Twenty years?  We will be glad to accommodate you.”   This applies to Middle East mentality as well. Sunni and Shia Muslims have been at odds with each other for 1,500 years.  Do you think they are in any hurry now?

Since we Americans like price tags on things, the Pentagon just released figures that put our cost to fight ISIS at $9,000,000 per day and that we have spent $2.7 billion just since airstrikes began last August.  Your tax dollars at work.

Unfortunately, it is far easier to define the problem than to propose a solution.  Many Americans, myself included, believe we never should have gotten involved in the Middle East mess in the first place.  But we did and we can’t change that.  There are others who say we created the mess by invading Iraq and Colin Powell was right that “if you break it you own it” and we have a responsibility to fix it.  I don’t agree with that because we have been trying to “fix it” with very little help for 12 years so more years going virtually alone and more millions of American dollars isn’t going to work.

But let’s take another look at the Viet Nam analogy.  We ignominiously pulled out in 1975.  We lost that war, period.  Face it, America is not invincible.  Forty years later we are doing business with Viet Nam and tourism between the two countries is booming.  Our government was wrong insisting that losing Viet Nam meant the Commies were going to take over the world. 

We are once again in a war we cannot win.  Why can’t we just admit we made a huge mistake, get out and let the Middle East resolve its own problems?

Republicans for Christian Ayatollah of America

 

One might think that Republican presidential candidates are actually running for the office of Christian Ayatollah of America. 

In a recent New York Times article headlined “Republican Field Woos Iowa Evangelical Christians” the nine candidates who showed up in the worship hall of Point of Grace Church in a Des Moines suburb, went to great lengths to convince Iowan evangelicals just how really, really Christian they are.

               This could almost be consider quaintly amusing if it were not for the real threat that Republicans are attempting to inject their religious beliefs into our nation’s laws.  Our “founding fathers,” which Republicans are so fond of quoting, never intended the United States to become a theocracy.

The U.S. Constitution, which Republicans use to justify their bigotry against gays as “religious freedom” specifically states in Article VI, paragraph 3,   “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”  Yet the Republican candidates vaunt their Christianity as if it were, indeed, a “qualification” for the Presidency.  “If you don’t love Jesus, you can’t be President” could be their campaign slogan.

You may draw your own conclusions.  Here are some quotes from the NYT article with a few of my comments thrown in.       

“Many portrayed Christians as an increasingly persecuted community, seeking to appeal to the evangelical audience with vows to protect what they described as religious liberty for people of faith.”

My comment:  Christians “persecuted” in the United States?  I don’t know of any Christians who have been “persecuted” in America in my lifetime.  Did we crucify anybody recently?  “Religious liberty”?  Has anybody forbid Christians from worshiping as they please which is all the Constitution guarantees?

“Rick Perry, the former Texas governor, told of moving back into his childhood bedroom after a career in the Air Force, when he felt lost, until he had an epiphany that “I was going to spend the rest of my life doing God’s work.”

“I just really never realized how large the pulpit was going to be that he was going to make available to me 30 years later as the governor of Texas,” he said.

My comment:  Now you may remember that Perry, as Governor of Texas, asked his citizens for three days of prayer for rain to end a drought in his state.  It didn’t work.  God evidently wasn’t listening.  Sorry, I do not want a President who thinks praying to god will solve the country’s problems.

“Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chief executive, talked about how after losing a daughter to addiction, “it was my husband Frank’s and my personal relationship with Jesus Christ that saved us from a desperate sadness.”

“And Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor, said the most important moment in his life was not his wedding day or when he held his first child, but “the moment I found Jesus Christ.””

My comment:  Almost makes you want to weep, doesn’t it.

“Mr. Rubio, a Florida senator, defended traditional marriage. “I remind people that the institution of marriage as one man and one woman existed long before our laws existed,” he said. “Thousands of years of human history teach us a simple truth: The ideal way to raise children is when a mother and father married to each other, living in the same house, raise children together.”

My comment:  Now I just wonder who Rubio is referring to as the people who are not mother and father married to each other and not raising children together. 

“Mr. Jindal offered a message for “Hollywood and the media elite.”

“The United States of America did not create religious liberty; religious liberty created the United States of America,” a line that earned a standing ovation.”

My comment:  Well, that’s not exactly historically true but Republicans don’t put great value on facts.

“Mr. Cruz, the Texas senator, also used much of his speech to highlight the importance of religious liberty, and said that believers in traditional marriage must “fall to our knees and pray” between now and the start of oral arguments next week at the Supreme Court on a case that could legalize same-sex marriage across the country.”

My comment:  Republicans now want god to influence Supreme Court decisions.  I wonder if god had anything to do with Citizens United?  I hope god responds as he did to Texans prayers for rain.

Am I the only one who thinks that Presidential candidates should discuss issues and offer solutions to the very pressing problems we are dealing with in America and the world rather than tell us how much they love Jesus?

Here is a link to the full NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/us/politics/republican-field-woos-iowa-evangelical-christians.html?ref=politics

 

 

 

A Christmas Fish

a short Christmas story

By William Raser

 

            "Hey mom, what's a Christmas fish?"

            Miriam Collins stopped mixing the cookie dough, wiped her hands on her apron and turned to see her eight-year-old son looking up at her with that familiar quizzical expression.

            "A what?"

            "A Christmas fish," Jimmy repeated, "I heard Mr. Steinman talking about the tradition of giving people a Christmas fish."

            "Now what would Mr. Steinman know about Christmas?"  Miriam said to her son. Of course, she herself had no idea what a Christmas fish might be.  "Mr. Steinman is Jewish and doesn't celebrate Christmas," she said in a tone that indicated the matter was settled.

            "But I was in his store with my pal Artie," Jimmy insisted, "and I heard his grandpop talk about giving friends a Christmas fish."

            Although Millersville was a small midwestern town, it had a large enough Jewish community to warrant a Kosher butcher, a function Mr. Jacob Steinman had performed from the time he immigrated to America as a young man.

            "I really never heard of a Christmas fish, Jimmy, now run out and play," Miriam said shooing him out the door. "And keep your mittens on."

            Miriam Collins was now perplexed.  She hated it when she could not give Jimmy an answer for something, and she knew he would persist with her and everyone else until he had one.  And she really had no time to waste over Mr. Steinman's Christmas fish. The holiday was tomorrow and she still had her baking and other preparations to finish for the big family dinner.  Miriam crossed the kitchen and picked up the phone.  In matters of Christmas there was only one person to call.

            "Millersville Lutheran Church, Gladys speaking, how can I help you?"

            "It's Miriam, Gladys, can I speak to Pastor Gunderson?"

            "Miriam, are you baking your spice cookies again this year?  They were so..."

            "Could I please talk to the pastor?" Miriam interrupted, impatient and in no mood to talk about spice cookies.

            "Well, of course," Gladys sniffed in her most indignant tone.

            The phone clicked and the pastor came on the line.

            "Pastor Gunderson," Miriam began, "I know this will sound rather silly, but could you tell me what a Christmas fish is?"

"Well, uh, it..." Gunderson hesitated. "I really don't know of any reference to a Christmas fish.  The early Christians, of course, used a fish as their symbol, and there are quite a few references to fish, fishing and fishermen in the Bible, but I can't recall any mention of a specific fish  pertaining to Christmas.  Why do you ask, Miriam?"

            "Well, my son Jimmy overheard Mr. Steinman talking about giving people a Christmas fish and I didn't know how to tell him what it is. I thought you would know."

            Pastor Gunderson coughed slightly, rubbed his ample double chin, and felt slightly offended that his theological credentials were being questioned.

            "I'll certainly research the matter and will get back to you, Miriam."

            "Thank you Pastor Gunderson."

            It was close to lunch time, so the clergyman put on his coat and began to leave.  As he passed through his secretary's office, he paused.  "Gladys, I may be a little late coming from lunch. I'm going to stop at the Presbyterian and Catholic churches to confer with my colleagues about something."

            Gladys was in the habit of not always hanging up the phone when she transferred calls to the pastor which is why she inadvertently overheard many conversations.  Checking to be sure the pastor had left, Gladys dialed a number.

            "Hello Janice.  It's Gladys.  Well, here's something interesting for you.  You know that Jewish butcher.  Yes, Mr. Steinman.  Well, he's telling all the little children in town that there's such a thing as a Christmas fish.  Yes.  Can you imagine?  He's telling them they absolutely must give people a Christmas fish."

            That beautiful day-before-Christmas had spread itself gloriously over Millersville.  A cloudless, crystal blue sky shimmered off the pure white snow that had fallen the night before.  Ovens throughout the town gave forth the rich aromas of cookies and cakes and pies.  Last minute shoppers with rosy cheeks and mittens and mufflers, hurried in and out of the stores on Main St.  Another perfect Christmas was about to descend on Millersville.  Perfect except for one thing.  No one could figure out what a Christmas fish was.

            After Gladys's phone call the word about the mysterious Christmas fish had spread quickly through the town.

            During the afternoon, the Lutheran, Catholic and Presbyterian church offices were beseiged with calls and all the pastors instructed their secretaries to assure parishioners that their spiritual leaders were carefully researching the matter.

            Reverend Everett, the Presbyterian minister, had suggested they might just call Mr. Steinman, whom they all knew, and ask him.  But on second thought, the pastors decided it was not appropriate for three Christian clergymen to ask a Jewish butcher, Jacob Steinman, to explain something pertaining to their own holiest of days.

            By nightfall every family in town was pondering how Mr. Steinman, the Jewish butcher, could know all about the traditional Christmas fish and they did not.  It was almost as if a feeling of collective spiritual inadequacy had spread over the town.

            Christmas day came as scheduled to Millersville.  Bright, beautiful, clear and cold.  The pastors all preached of joy and peace and love but made no mention of Christmas fishes.  As they shook hands with their pastors at the door, parishioners decided to limit their conversations to exchanges of "Merry Christmas" and avoided bringing up the question that was foremost in everyone's mind

            A dancing yellow, red and blue fire spread its warmth over the family gathered in the Collins home.  Grandmom and Grandpop, Uncle Albert and Aunt Bertha were there.  Jimmy had received all the toys he had wanted, and he knew he would have his favorite pumpkin pie for dessert after the abundant meal his mother was preparing.  But he was still bothered.

            "Grandpop, why can't anybody tell me what a Christmas fish is?"

            "You know, Jimmy, the only person who can answer that question is Mr. Steinman.  We've got a little time before we eat.  I know Jacob very well, and he doesn't close on Christmas, so why don't we just go over and ask him?"

            Jimmy and his grandfather bundled into their heavy clothes and walked downtown.  As they turned the corner at the entrance to Mr. Steinman's butcher shop, they were startled as they colided with three men -- Pastor Gunderson, Father Thomas and Rev. Everett.

            "I guess we're all here for the same reason," Grandpop Collins said with a smile.  After an awkward pause, the pastors acknowledged they were, and they all entered the butcher shop.

            Mr. Steinman, a short, rather large, jovial man, clapped his hands and smiled broadly as his visitors entered the shop.

            "Jacob, we wanted to talk to you about Christmas fishes," said Grandpop Collins.

            "Ah yah," Jacob Steinman said, his round, reddish face bursting into an even wider grin. "I vas going to do da same ting vit you."

            Despite his 30 years in the United States, Jacob had never lost his thick accent.

            "To all of you, my Christian friends, may you haf joy and happiness for your holiday and da New Year.  Dis, for you, my friends, is my Christmas vish."

##