Here in Pittsburgh an anchorwoman from the of the local television stations recently lost her job after she made remarks on a Facebook page concerning a mass murder that took place within walking distance of the station, in an “at-risk” neighborhood. She made a number of assumptions about the shooters, saying that they were probably young, fatherless black men (when in fact no suspects have yet been arrested as I write). She also compared them to a busboy at one of the local nightclub districts, wondering, in effect, “Why can’t they be like him?”
However, a number of politically conservative Christians have defended her, saying that her statements weren’t really racist. I wonder how some of those same people would react if she had made “anti-Christian” remarks.
And there’s the hypocrisy — in that narrative it seems that the only real persecution that exists surrounds them and their worldview. It’s been that way since the early 1980s, when the “religious right” gained a little political and cultural power and in the process began to trash those who disagreed.
If persecution is indeed the norm I would expect the Christian to sympathize with those who suffer, who experience at the very least insensitive remarks of some sort. But that hasn’t happened to my knowledge; it seems that many believers have forsaken the “do unto others” command, and that failure to be considerate is one reason the church is every bit as divided as the world. After all, our witness to the world is severely compromised when we don’t practice what we preach.
Friday, March 18, 2016
Former Rep. Joe Scarborough made an admission I never thought I’d hear from a conservative Republican: “It never trickles down.”
The reference, of course, was to what became known as “Reaganomics,” which posited that, were taxes and regulations cut, the wealthy would be free to invest and grow the economy.
I for one thought from the jump that supply-side economics, its formal name, was a scam inspired by pure greed, and Scarborough seemed to be saying that as well — although well over 30 years later.
What I found amazing is that such a scheme found its way into the church, almost as though being Christian was tantamount to supporting a pro-business ideology. Nothing wrong with being in business and not even with making a profit, but — really — how much money and power does one need? Especially with the pursuit of it leaving families and communities devastated, with more working-class people these days turning to drugs and even committing suicide due to the lack of economic opportunity.
Because what really happened is that the rich pocketed that money, taking it out of the economy altogether and using it to get more or maintain their privileged status. And while the economy did grow after President George W. Bush cut taxes, virtually all that growth came at the very top. And you simply cannot maintain a healthy society with such inequality because it means a lack of opportunity down the road.
National Review is in denial, publishing a tome that said that supporters of Donald Trump, whose candidacy for president the magazine opposes, have simply lost their “values.” But you can’t feed a family on values.
Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks has been saying since 2008 that "the big [conservative] defeat is coming" — perhaps this year. I must confess that I didn't think it would happen like this, but the delusion of Reaganomics is finally being rejected.
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
It’s almost a truism that Donald Trump, currently the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president, would be a disaster in the White House as things stand now. Some Democrats are actually gleeful at the thought, believing that he would be easier to defeat in the general election.
Whatever the case, Trump’s bombastic rhetoric will cost him down the road. Because of the way things are, his promises to foster change, essentially based on asserting American power, are worthless because they depend on changing the culture of Washington, D.C., which many, many “reformers” claim they want to do.
As Democratic political figure James Carville said in the book “Love & War,” which he wrote with his Republican wife Mary Matalin, “There’s only one way things are done [there], and that’s ‘as usual.’ ”
Why is this the case? Well, look at it this way: If Trump does get his way he alienates not only the political “establishment” but much of the country and world, let alone ignore the Constitution. If he becomes more “moderate” and reasonable he’ll be seen as a sellout to the establishment.
Does he reasonably think he can build a wall along the border with Mexico and have the Mexicans pay for it? Or that he can unilaterally take out the so-called Islamic State? And with the amount of money we're already in the hole because of the war in Iraq, how will we pay for that?
"Well, Trump isn't part of the 'establishment.' " And that's a problem because he not only doesn't know what the problems are but also how to address them. He said he'd hire people who would; trouble is, they'd by definition be part of the "establishment." And that would defeat the purpose.
Besides, at that level you have to cut deals to get anything done. That's required when you have people with differing ideological agendas, and suggesting that people who represent "blue" areas adopt "red-state" thinking simply won't happen. I'm not sure Trump gets that.
Bottom line, if Trump does the bull in a china shop thing he loses the country. If he compromises, he loses his base. When it comes to governing, he's going to have to be realistic. As Carville said, "You will not change it."
Tuesday, March 8, 2016
Although I've dated some over the past few years, I haven't been in a committed relationship in 15.
And do you know what I miss the most about that? Going to the grocery store with my lady.
That may sound silly to some, but if you've been in a relationship for a long time, especially a marriage, you'll understand what I'm talking about.
I was inspired to write this by a post on Facebook that was complaining that people, especially men, of a Facebook friend’s generation don’t make commitments, especially when it comes to romance. They even seem to fear it.
But I think I understand that — what with their parents’ extremely high divorce rate and focus on the emotional life they don’t see that marriage is so much more than falling and remaining “in love.” Of course in our culture it’s how we choose partners, but after a while the “limerance” wears off and we often end up feeling stuck. What happens then?
That’s where the “special moments” that lead to memories come in, and I’ve been privileged to have a few of those even though I’ve never been married. When you can sit and just be with someone and not have to talk — mere presence sufficing — that’s when you really have something. A committed relationship should be simply steady, with a quiet assurance that the partner will be there. There’s a reason why people should be friends first and add the passion later.
And even in those cases where passion reigned supreme at first, eventually the real person will show up. Folks need to be ready for that.
Four years ago I found myself almost uncontrollably attracted to a woman at a local church's singles ministry. The very night that I intended to approach her I discovered — as a pleasant surprise — that she had already had her eye on me.
A few weeks later I took her out on a date, and halfway through it she had an emotional meltdown. Was I put off? Not at all — in fact, she allowed me to cuddle her, as she laid her head on my shoulder. It turned into one of those endearing moments where she trusted me enough to show her real self (although we haven’t been out together since).
What some people may have seen as an embarrassment turned into a privilege because I saw a real person no longer trying to make an impression. That’s a gift, and may we learn to understand where true intimacy begins.