In the Middle East? Kashmir? Venezuela? North Korea, maybe? How about Iraq or Afghanistan?
Nope.
Right here in the good old U.S. of A. (See this.)
This is not "fake news." There have been more than 250 separate shooting incidents in which four or more people have died of gunshot wounds (other than the shooter) in the first 250 days of 2019.
An abundance of accusations are flying around, of course. Left-leaning folks are wont to blame Mr. Trump for the incredible increase in violence that this represents. Frankly, it's hard not to draw some parallels between his rhetoric and the increasing frequency with which human beings have taken to firing often military-rifle-style semi-automated weapons at their fellow citizens.
Although it might be true, in one sense, that a gun itself can kill no one (a classic stance of NRA fans), the opposite is also true and far more to the point: A killer without access to a gun like those used in Las Vegas and more recently in El Paso cannot kill with such great efficiency, and more importantly, might not be nearly so tempted to try it, if it weren't for the lure of such firepower in the first place.
Resistance to a ban on "assault" weapons remains high. But there's precious little logic behind it. Certainly, it is difficult to make the case for the average citizen's need to possess such a weapon. One politician, who shall remain nameless, actually had the temerity to make his case based on the need to have a AK-47 handy in case looters attacked his home during a disaster of some kind. Well, there's that Make America Great Again confidence in our country exposed for what it really is — a thin cover for abject fear.
The American right-wing lives in terror that people, if given the slightest opportunity, such as the momentary interruption of the daily and routine workings of the law-and-order machinery they cling to and prize so highly, will see their neighbors turn on them, and they'll have to bar the door and trust their ammunition won't run out. Thus, those bumper stickers: "You'll get my gun when you pry it out of my cold, dead fingers." Despite the evidence of history, they cannot believe that neighbor might help neighbor. That disaster might spur love and sacrifice in a time of want and pain.
Such a jaundiced view of humanity is inconsistent, given that those well-armed folks insist that those same people they fear, who they believe will turn on them if they're not armed to the teeth, should also have unrestricted access to those same weapons of efficient bloodletting. It's a setup for disaster on a scale little short of the Civil War. And if you think that's an exaggeration, consider that there are more than 2,000 "militias" have been identified by the F.B.I. across the U.S. that have formed to deal with just such a reality. And that's just the ones the government knows about.
Folks who insist on their assault gun or death aren't patriots. They're mere survivalists. They have no confidence in America's future. Certainly, they don't expect Greatness. They're betting on merely outlasting their neighbors, not living with them into a better, safer tomorrow. And as long as that is the case, and we have a President who thinks that sort of "base" is the group that can help him lead us where we need to go? We can expect more of the same.
Monday, August 12, 2019
Thursday, March 21, 2019
A Proper Response to the Muslim Mosque Murders: Jacinda Ardern for President
A most stunning, remarkable thing has happened. Six days — yes, just six days — after a brazen attack by a member of a hate group against two Muslim mosques, the New Zealand government, one as protective of private gun ownership rights as America's, has not only expressed unreserved sorrow and contrition for the terrible actions of a lone, hate-mongering, white-nationalist but has also proposed a ban on military-style semi-automated rifles and instituted a buyback program.
Six days.
If I were a Muslim, that would mean far more to me than all the tepid, insincere "thoughts and prayers" offered by our President and others in the pro-gun club on this side of the equator.
According to the New York Times, the NZ ban includes "all military-style semiautomatic weapons, all high-capacity ammunition magazines and all parts that allow weapons to be modified into the kinds of guns used to kill 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch last week."
The move was supported not only by NZ's in-power coalition, led by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, a woman, but was fully supported even by NZ's largest center-right opposition party as well.
Police are in
Most interesting, the NY Times reported that NZ police are truly excited about Arden's initiative as well. Chris Cahill, the president of the Police Association, the union representing New Zealand’s police officers, praised Ms. Ardern’s plan, saying that his group had been calling for such measures for years. (Emphasis mine.) “This addresses the key concerns we have,” he said. “It’s hitting those military-style semi-automatics. It’s exactly what we wanted.”
I think if police officers in this country spoke their true thoughts, they'd say the same. But there's pressure on them, just as there is on so many, not to appear to be aligned with those who would "destroy" 2nd Amendment protections.
The contrast with what's happened in the U.S. couldn't be more vivid or more disheartening.
It boggles the mind to think that here, protecting a private citizen's right to possess 50-60 semi-automated AK-17s (the shooter's MO in the recent Las Vegas massacre) clearly outweighs protection of schoolchildren. We've witnessed the wholesale murder of children, postal employees, and hundreds of others since Columbine, and little to nothing has been done to curb peacetime, private possession of military guns that were created for the sole purpose of massive, fast infliction of injury and death to large groups of people.
MORE guns
Oh, but the gun lobby does have an answer: Hey, let's give teachers guns! That's right, let's have teachers shooting at the shooters in a school full of running kids. And then when the police arrive, they get to figure out which folks with guns are the teachers and which are the shooters. That'll work!! That's almost as good as having gun-toting moviegoers shooting at shooters in dark movie theaters. Or homeowners desperately trying to unlock their gun cabinets (because the guns are locked away, of course, to keep them out of the kids' hands) instead of simply calling 911 while the prowler is picking the lock. Or how about burying your kid because you didn't lock your gun up, so you could get the jump on the prowler. It happens regularly. (A cop across the street from us when I grew up had to live with his younger son shooting his older son in the face with a rifle dad had left out on a table. A cop. Who had trained his kids about gun safety.)
Founders forgotten
Sadly, we have forgotten entirely the actual wording of the Amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds good for NRA fans so far. But let's remember the prelude to that statement: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The writers of the Bill of Rights recognized, based on their own experience, that the maintenance of a militia — something that is the rough equivalent of today's National Guard units — would be important for the future of the U.S. And, indeed, we have that. The American people keep and bear arms today primarily in the National Guard. Private gun ownership, in fact, is a "grace" added to that by later court interpretations, but it was not the founder's intended purpose when they wrote the guarantee enshrined in the 2nd Amendment.
Why? Because "the People" in the Constitution, is always a group or collective term (Of the People, By the People, For the People). It was never meant to be read as a reference to individuals. The founders did not mean each person within the group gets a guarantee of a semi-automated, large-magazine rifle (let alone 50-60 of them). They would have been horrified by what's happening now.
Seeing the right rightly
The 2nd Amendment was limited, and was intended to be limited: It means the people as a group are not to be prevented by the national government from keeping and bearing arms for the purpose of maintaining local (state) militias. So the guarantee is to arm militias, not individuals. The NRA, of course, saw to it that that was broadened to include an absolute guarantee to individuals in landmark federal cases that went to the Supreme Court, which chipped away at more than a century-and-a-half of previous court rulings that supported the more conservative view I've outlined. And now we have a century of radical interpretation — not easily overcome in court — and we're stuck with the mess we have.
What we need to understand is that the view I've outlined is the conservative, true-to-the-founders, constitutionally faithful view. The NRA and its backers are the radicals. They've introduced the innovative reading of the text. They've raised the specter of fear, created the straw man of the "government" out to take everyone's guns away, and this has served to make guns the center of public attention. All of which has drawn the attention of the unbalanced, irrational and angry, who see the gun as a powerful way to settle a score or make a powerful statement, or just get their fifteen minutes of fame. And we've had increasingly brutal mass shootings as a result.
Seeing issues aright
NRA fans argue, "Guns don't kill people, people do." Oh, please. The point is that people who want to kill people can kill more people with a gun than without one, stupid. And far more people and far, far more spectacularly, with a room full of semi-automated rifles with bump stocks and large magazines. No one's suggesting you give up your 9mm Glock. But you've got to admit at some point thatno private citizen needs to be able to kill 50 people in four minutes. Nobody.
God bless NZ's Ms. Ardern her efforts. Too bad she's not a native U.S. citizen. She'd get my vote in 2020. Can only hope we get a clue from these good folks 10,000 miles to the south. Would love to see us replace our embarrassingly trite "thoughts and prayers" with decisive actions. Very, very unlikely, given the extraordinary lack of leadership among conservatives who really ought to know better than to continue to back the radical NRA and its obviously failed, dangerous and, dare I say it? — anti-American firearm policies.
Six days.
If I were a Muslim, that would mean far more to me than all the tepid, insincere "thoughts and prayers" offered by our President and others in the pro-gun club on this side of the equator.
According to the New York Times, the NZ ban includes "all military-style semiautomatic weapons, all high-capacity ammunition magazines and all parts that allow weapons to be modified into the kinds of guns used to kill 50 people at two mosques in Christchurch last week."
The move was supported not only by NZ's in-power coalition, led by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, a woman, but was fully supported even by NZ's largest center-right opposition party as well.
Police are in
Most interesting, the NY Times reported that NZ police are truly excited about Arden's initiative as well. Chris Cahill, the president of the Police Association, the union representing New Zealand’s police officers, praised Ms. Ardern’s plan, saying that his group had been calling for such measures for years. (Emphasis mine.) “This addresses the key concerns we have,” he said. “It’s hitting those military-style semi-automatics. It’s exactly what we wanted.”
I think if police officers in this country spoke their true thoughts, they'd say the same. But there's pressure on them, just as there is on so many, not to appear to be aligned with those who would "destroy" 2nd Amendment protections.
The contrast with what's happened in the U.S. couldn't be more vivid or more disheartening.
It boggles the mind to think that here, protecting a private citizen's right to possess 50-60 semi-automated AK-17s (the shooter's MO in the recent Las Vegas massacre) clearly outweighs protection of schoolchildren. We've witnessed the wholesale murder of children, postal employees, and hundreds of others since Columbine, and little to nothing has been done to curb peacetime, private possession of military guns that were created for the sole purpose of massive, fast infliction of injury and death to large groups of people.
MORE guns
Oh, but the gun lobby does have an answer: Hey, let's give teachers guns! That's right, let's have teachers shooting at the shooters in a school full of running kids. And then when the police arrive, they get to figure out which folks with guns are the teachers and which are the shooters. That'll work!! That's almost as good as having gun-toting moviegoers shooting at shooters in dark movie theaters. Or homeowners desperately trying to unlock their gun cabinets (because the guns are locked away, of course, to keep them out of the kids' hands) instead of simply calling 911 while the prowler is picking the lock. Or how about burying your kid because you didn't lock your gun up, so you could get the jump on the prowler. It happens regularly. (A cop across the street from us when I grew up had to live with his younger son shooting his older son in the face with a rifle dad had left out on a table. A cop. Who had trained his kids about gun safety.)
Founders forgotten
Sadly, we have forgotten entirely the actual wording of the Amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sounds good for NRA fans so far. But let's remember the prelude to that statement: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The writers of the Bill of Rights recognized, based on their own experience, that the maintenance of a militia — something that is the rough equivalent of today's National Guard units — would be important for the future of the U.S. And, indeed, we have that. The American people keep and bear arms today primarily in the National Guard. Private gun ownership, in fact, is a "grace" added to that by later court interpretations, but it was not the founder's intended purpose when they wrote the guarantee enshrined in the 2nd Amendment.
Why? Because "the People" in the Constitution, is always a group or collective term (Of the People, By the People, For the People). It was never meant to be read as a reference to individuals. The founders did not mean each person within the group gets a guarantee of a semi-automated, large-magazine rifle (let alone 50-60 of them). They would have been horrified by what's happening now.
Seeing the right rightly
The 2nd Amendment was limited, and was intended to be limited: It means the people as a group are not to be prevented by the national government from keeping and bearing arms for the purpose of maintaining local (state) militias. So the guarantee is to arm militias, not individuals. The NRA, of course, saw to it that that was broadened to include an absolute guarantee to individuals in landmark federal cases that went to the Supreme Court, which chipped away at more than a century-and-a-half of previous court rulings that supported the more conservative view I've outlined. And now we have a century of radical interpretation — not easily overcome in court — and we're stuck with the mess we have.
What we need to understand is that the view I've outlined is the conservative, true-to-the-founders, constitutionally faithful view. The NRA and its backers are the radicals. They've introduced the innovative reading of the text. They've raised the specter of fear, created the straw man of the "government" out to take everyone's guns away, and this has served to make guns the center of public attention. All of which has drawn the attention of the unbalanced, irrational and angry, who see the gun as a powerful way to settle a score or make a powerful statement, or just get their fifteen minutes of fame. And we've had increasingly brutal mass shootings as a result.
Seeing issues aright
NRA fans argue, "Guns don't kill people, people do." Oh, please. The point is that people who want to kill people can kill more people with a gun than without one, stupid. And far more people and far, far more spectacularly, with a room full of semi-automated rifles with bump stocks and large magazines. No one's suggesting you give up your 9mm Glock. But you've got to admit at some point thatno private citizen needs to be able to kill 50 people in four minutes. Nobody.
God bless NZ's Ms. Ardern her efforts. Too bad she's not a native U.S. citizen. She'd get my vote in 2020. Can only hope we get a clue from these good folks 10,000 miles to the south. Would love to see us replace our embarrassingly trite "thoughts and prayers" with decisive actions. Very, very unlikely, given the extraordinary lack of leadership among conservatives who really ought to know better than to continue to back the radical NRA and its obviously failed, dangerous and, dare I say it? — anti-American firearm policies.
Friday, March 15, 2019
A Bomb Cyclone Lesson in Human Relations
My girlfriend's neighbor, two doors to the west, put in a new triple-car-wide driveway in Spring of 2018. It's big. And I surmised that he was pretty proud of it when, one Saturday a couple of weeks after the new concrete had set, about mid-morning, I saw him power-washing the thing, inch by precious inch, until it looked as good as the day he had it put in.
I was driving by on the way to her house when I noticed him scouring the driveway surface and the gutter and street in front of his house, to boot. Man, he really likes that driveway. And it would have been a mere curiosity had it not been for the fact that there was quite bit of dirt, grass and other debris leftover from his morning of diligent yard work, which he was washing away with the powerwasher. He had been at it, apparently for a couple of hours.
The result? Well, the driveway was spotless. But the spray job had formed a mighty muddy rivulet, which was now flowing down the gutter to the east and puddling up in the poorly designed low spot in front of my girlfriend's driveway. I pulled up to her house and jumped out to see an ever-widening and deepening stream of brown, thick goo.
To make matters worse, I had in my trunk my lawnmower and other tools necessary to do the badly needed yard work on my girlfriend's place. I'd been dreaming of getting this early spring ritual accomplished this very day. High on the list of jobs set for this Saturday morning was to clean up the remains of winter ravages (sand, road salt, bits of trash, etc.) in the stretch of gutter into which
my neighbor's brown soup of grass clipping, sand, road salt and who-knows-what was growing from a pond to a lake.
I was furious. Didn't he see what was happening? Why didn't he sweep this stuff up and put it in his trash barrel like a normal human being? Thanks a lot, pal. Oh, yeah, send it all down to me. Sure, I'll take care of it for you. I've got nothing better to do, I thought. I imagined striding firmly down the street to confront him. I'd tell him what-for. Yes, I would. I rehearsed one one-sided conversation after another. I, of course, came out on top each time. But my powerwashing neighbor, I saw as reality set in, was a good bit taller than me and outweighed me by 50-60 pounds.
So what did I do? I went inside and complained to my girlfriend. Yep, whined and moaned and talked real big for a few minutes, and then remembered what I already knew: I wasn't going to go down there to my neighbor's house. I wasn't going to confront him. I was going to eat it.
Anger turned to frustration. Frustration to the most icy and unwilling resignation. And then I got out my mower and tools and grudgingly mowed my girlfriend's lawn. I shook my head at the lake, and went back to trim. Finally, the work did it's work: I felt a bit better. Decided I couldn't do anything about what, by late afternoon, was just a big mud puddle.
A couple of days later, it dried up, and I cleaned it up. I'd like to say I had a good attitude. But I didn't. But I finally decided I should let it go. And eventually, I did.
Fast forward to Winter 2019. The "Bomb Cyclone" wind/snowstorm has hit, and I'm facing the prospect of shoveling snow from my girlfriend's one-car-wide driveway and the walk from the front door to the street and the walk along the front of the house. Problem? Well, I've got this sore foot. And, hate to admit it — I'm old. Shoveling snow used to be fun. Emphasis on the "used to be." Further, it's rained for a full day, and the rain beneath the thick blanket of heavy, wet snow has resulted in a six- or seven-inch thick, slush-foundation snow pack that has you dog tired after ten minutes.
My first trip out, I wisely start by clearing the driveway when it's covered with only two inches of snow. I'm figuring to handle this in several stages. But I poop out before I can get to the walks. Oh, well ... need to rest. I'll try again later. I promise. But, I oversleep. I get distracted (Sound familiar!)
I finally get back to it, don the winter gear again and grab my shovel. I have missed my chance to do a second layer. Lazy. Yeah, I know. And so here it is: All seven inches. Heavy, wet, and hard, hard, hard to move. I start on the driveway again, wondering how in the world I'm going to get past it to the walkways.
Guess what happens? I get down the driveway about halfway and—the front walk is clean as it can be. In fact, the front walkway on my whole side of the street is clean, even on the houses that show no other shoveling. I take a look around and, sure enough, the same is true on the other side of the street. And is that my irritating driveway power-washing neighbor quietly putting away that snazzy, new-looking snowblower into his garage, two doors to the west?
The memory of that Fall day comes back. The anger. The frustration. I feel foolish. But more than that, I feel immensely grateful. First, for the fact that I did not stride down to his house that sunny afternoon in Fall 2018 and take him to task for spoiling my Saturday yard maintenance plans. Second, for saving my back and, third, for restoring my faith in human nature. The guy did every one of his neighbors' front walks. And, yeah, he might have been kinda proud of his new snowblower, but so what? He used that snowblower he was proud of to help his neighbors. Nobody asked him to. Nobody expected it. He just stepped up and did it. Including angry, frustrated, bad-attitude me.
What occurred to me last was most important. I wondered if he'd have cleaned my walkway if I'd have confronted him that day in Spring 2018? If I'd have given full vent to my frustration?
It occurred to me that it's possible, despite his apparent insensitivity that day (just one day out of many) that, on most other days, he's a kind, thoughtful individual. A man devoted to family, friends and considerate of strangers. That most days he's a guy who would go out of his way for a neighbor. That my first and only previous experience of him was an aberration, an anomaly. That I had unfairly characterized a man's whole life on the basis of one unfortunate experience. That it's possible, in fact, that he's a better man than I am. That he would, indeed, have cleaned my walk, even if I had confronted him.
And it occurred to me that I needed to stride on down to his house and thank him for plowing the snow off my girlfriend's front walk.
I was driving by on the way to her house when I noticed him scouring the driveway surface and the gutter and street in front of his house, to boot. Man, he really likes that driveway. And it would have been a mere curiosity had it not been for the fact that there was quite bit of dirt, grass and other debris leftover from his morning of diligent yard work, which he was washing away with the powerwasher. He had been at it, apparently for a couple of hours.
The result? Well, the driveway was spotless. But the spray job had formed a mighty muddy rivulet, which was now flowing down the gutter to the east and puddling up in the poorly designed low spot in front of my girlfriend's driveway. I pulled up to her house and jumped out to see an ever-widening and deepening stream of brown, thick goo.
To make matters worse, I had in my trunk my lawnmower and other tools necessary to do the badly needed yard work on my girlfriend's place. I'd been dreaming of getting this early spring ritual accomplished this very day. High on the list of jobs set for this Saturday morning was to clean up the remains of winter ravages (sand, road salt, bits of trash, etc.) in the stretch of gutter into which
my neighbor's brown soup of grass clipping, sand, road salt and who-knows-what was growing from a pond to a lake.
I was furious. Didn't he see what was happening? Why didn't he sweep this stuff up and put it in his trash barrel like a normal human being? Thanks a lot, pal. Oh, yeah, send it all down to me. Sure, I'll take care of it for you. I've got nothing better to do, I thought. I imagined striding firmly down the street to confront him. I'd tell him what-for. Yes, I would. I rehearsed one one-sided conversation after another. I, of course, came out on top each time. But my powerwashing neighbor, I saw as reality set in, was a good bit taller than me and outweighed me by 50-60 pounds.
So what did I do? I went inside and complained to my girlfriend. Yep, whined and moaned and talked real big for a few minutes, and then remembered what I already knew: I wasn't going to go down there to my neighbor's house. I wasn't going to confront him. I was going to eat it.
Anger turned to frustration. Frustration to the most icy and unwilling resignation. And then I got out my mower and tools and grudgingly mowed my girlfriend's lawn. I shook my head at the lake, and went back to trim. Finally, the work did it's work: I felt a bit better. Decided I couldn't do anything about what, by late afternoon, was just a big mud puddle.
A couple of days later, it dried up, and I cleaned it up. I'd like to say I had a good attitude. But I didn't. But I finally decided I should let it go. And eventually, I did.
Fast forward to Winter 2019. The "Bomb Cyclone" wind/snowstorm has hit, and I'm facing the prospect of shoveling snow from my girlfriend's one-car-wide driveway and the walk from the front door to the street and the walk along the front of the house. Problem? Well, I've got this sore foot. And, hate to admit it — I'm old. Shoveling snow used to be fun. Emphasis on the "used to be." Further, it's rained for a full day, and the rain beneath the thick blanket of heavy, wet snow has resulted in a six- or seven-inch thick, slush-foundation snow pack that has you dog tired after ten minutes.
My first trip out, I wisely start by clearing the driveway when it's covered with only two inches of snow. I'm figuring to handle this in several stages. But I poop out before I can get to the walks. Oh, well ... need to rest. I'll try again later. I promise. But, I oversleep. I get distracted (Sound familiar!)
I finally get back to it, don the winter gear again and grab my shovel. I have missed my chance to do a second layer. Lazy. Yeah, I know. And so here it is: All seven inches. Heavy, wet, and hard, hard, hard to move. I start on the driveway again, wondering how in the world I'm going to get past it to the walkways.
Guess what happens? I get down the driveway about halfway and—the front walk is clean as it can be. In fact, the front walkway on my whole side of the street is clean, even on the houses that show no other shoveling. I take a look around and, sure enough, the same is true on the other side of the street. And is that my irritating driveway power-washing neighbor quietly putting away that snazzy, new-looking snowblower into his garage, two doors to the west?
The memory of that Fall day comes back. The anger. The frustration. I feel foolish. But more than that, I feel immensely grateful. First, for the fact that I did not stride down to his house that sunny afternoon in Fall 2018 and take him to task for spoiling my Saturday yard maintenance plans. Second, for saving my back and, third, for restoring my faith in human nature. The guy did every one of his neighbors' front walks. And, yeah, he might have been kinda proud of his new snowblower, but so what? He used that snowblower he was proud of to help his neighbors. Nobody asked him to. Nobody expected it. He just stepped up and did it. Including angry, frustrated, bad-attitude me.
What occurred to me last was most important. I wondered if he'd have cleaned my walkway if I'd have confronted him that day in Spring 2018? If I'd have given full vent to my frustration?
It occurred to me that it's possible, despite his apparent insensitivity that day (just one day out of many) that, on most other days, he's a kind, thoughtful individual. A man devoted to family, friends and considerate of strangers. That most days he's a guy who would go out of his way for a neighbor. That my first and only previous experience of him was an aberration, an anomaly. That I had unfairly characterized a man's whole life on the basis of one unfortunate experience. That it's possible, in fact, that he's a better man than I am. That he would, indeed, have cleaned my walk, even if I had confronted him.
And it occurred to me that I needed to stride on down to his house and thank him for plowing the snow off my girlfriend's front walk.
Saturday, January 26, 2019
Trump Blinks
The key point of Donald Trump's book, The Art of the Deal, is essentially this: Make sure that the other guy has more to lose than you do. If you're going to win, you've got to have the upper hand. Events of the past two weeks indicate that he probably should have reread his book before putting his Presidency on the line by shutting down the government over The Wall.
In the stare down over the shutdown, Pelosi took Trump down.
Nancy Pelosi, who has played the political game many, many more years than Trump, was always going to win this one. Why? Simple. She had next to nothing to lose. Here's why:
First, Republicans and Trump's much talked about Base already hate her, so whatever she did about Trump's challenge, it couldn't possibly erode her position there. So simply saying "No" and repeating it hurt her not one bit there.
Second, as the leader of the House, which controls the money, Pelosi's "No," had real teeth. Trump's Wall cannot be built without House funding. And no funding happens (barring a national emergency) without House passage of a funding bill. And that wasn't happening without Democratic support. That was something that already was not going to happen.
Third, Trump's Base did not rise up and wave flags when the government lights went out. His Base was oddly silent. And those Federal workers he thanked for supporting him in his speech announcing the restart of the government? They were actually protesting, walking off the job, and complaining. The articles were all over the press. All the expected support for his move did not materialize. The Trump "anti-Washington asshole" persona finally had worn a bit too thin, just at the wrong time.
Then there were the absurd aspects: Trump had previously declared Obama's government shutdown an "impeachable offense." CNN and others had a field day with that. How about that fast food extravaganza for the Clemson football top dogs. Really? If you were going to pay for it with your own money, Trump, at least don't be insulting. The recent report by a reporter from inside one of the several tunnels under a section of southern border wall that does exist — used to transport drugs into the U.S. So much for the Wall stopping the flow of drugs (or anything else). And how about Trump trying to trade short-term protection (which is no protection at all) for Dreamers in exchange for his permanent Wall? A non-starter. Trump thought he had a real sucker punch there, but that was an easy "No" for the House Democrats.
Certainly, Trump doesn't see it as a failure. He never does. He sees himself as having taken the high road while still holding the line and retaining the ultimate winning card. He has, in fact, reserved the "right" to declare a national emergency to fund his Wall if, after three weeks, there isn't an agreement that works to his and his Republican friend's satisfaction. But most everyone else sees Nancy Pelosi as the victor here. That includes Breitbart News, Ann Coulter and a host of Trump's other dyed-in-the-wool adherents, who have castigated him for failing to hold the line and, instead, capitulating. Wondering if Trump will label Breitbart "fake news" now? That would be entertaining, to say the least.
In a couple of weeks, the deadline for an agreement will hit. Will Trump actually declare that national emergency to fund his Wall? Will the Democrats fight him? The latter seems almost certain. Why build a Wall when the evidence indicates so clearly that the real threats to the U.S. lie elsewhere? For example:
Of 4,000 suspected terrorists identified at ports-of-entry in the past few years, almost all were at airports and seaports. Only a few were on the southern border. In 2018, specifically, there were only six (that's right, six), according to U.S. Customs.
Sexual assault and other forms of abuse committed against migrants by those claiming to transport them is a real problem, and unacceptably high. Thirty percent for women, 10.7 percent for men. But the wall will do little to mitigate these problems. Easing transportation, entry and legitimization of migrants will.
Most important, the case for a "emergency" is very poor. A decade ago, the data in support of an emergency might have been better for Trump, but today's numbers are a fraction of those, and there are no ways to run the numbers today that can support a declaration of a national emergency. There is a much more compelling case to be made for expanding manpower and resources in the security teams at airports and seaports in particular, the southern border patrol (manpower, not slats) and asylum-seeker processing teams and facilities.
Trump's case for The Wall was a well-calculated appeal to the mostly irrational, inflated fears of his Base. It got him elected, for sure. But as a political strategy and, especially, as a building block in either improving the lot of those fleeing real oppression or Making America Great Again, its benefits are imaginary, at best, and wasteful, divisive and, in the long run, contrary to the image we ought to present to the world.
That image has already suffered much at his hands, and those familiar with what people outside the U.S. actually think know that it wasn't all that good to begin with. Building a Wall right now isn't our best play for that and a host of practical reasons that add up simply to It Won't Do What People Want It To. Ultimately, we've failed, once again, to learn from history. Walls didn't work for the Chinese or the Russians. Why do we think one will work for us?
In the stare down over the shutdown, Pelosi took Trump down.
Nancy Pelosi, who has played the political game many, many more years than Trump, was always going to win this one. Why? Simple. She had next to nothing to lose. Here's why:
First, Republicans and Trump's much talked about Base already hate her, so whatever she did about Trump's challenge, it couldn't possibly erode her position there. So simply saying "No" and repeating it hurt her not one bit there.
Second, as the leader of the House, which controls the money, Pelosi's "No," had real teeth. Trump's Wall cannot be built without House funding. And no funding happens (barring a national emergency) without House passage of a funding bill. And that wasn't happening without Democratic support. That was something that already was not going to happen.
Third, Trump's Base did not rise up and wave flags when the government lights went out. His Base was oddly silent. And those Federal workers he thanked for supporting him in his speech announcing the restart of the government? They were actually protesting, walking off the job, and complaining. The articles were all over the press. All the expected support for his move did not materialize. The Trump "anti-Washington asshole" persona finally had worn a bit too thin, just at the wrong time.
Then there were the absurd aspects: Trump had previously declared Obama's government shutdown an "impeachable offense." CNN and others had a field day with that. How about that fast food extravaganza for the Clemson football top dogs. Really? If you were going to pay for it with your own money, Trump, at least don't be insulting. The recent report by a reporter from inside one of the several tunnels under a section of southern border wall that does exist — used to transport drugs into the U.S. So much for the Wall stopping the flow of drugs (or anything else). And how about Trump trying to trade short-term protection (which is no protection at all) for Dreamers in exchange for his permanent Wall? A non-starter. Trump thought he had a real sucker punch there, but that was an easy "No" for the House Democrats.
Certainly, Trump doesn't see it as a failure. He never does. He sees himself as having taken the high road while still holding the line and retaining the ultimate winning card. He has, in fact, reserved the "right" to declare a national emergency to fund his Wall if, after three weeks, there isn't an agreement that works to his and his Republican friend's satisfaction. But most everyone else sees Nancy Pelosi as the victor here. That includes Breitbart News, Ann Coulter and a host of Trump's other dyed-in-the-wool adherents, who have castigated him for failing to hold the line and, instead, capitulating. Wondering if Trump will label Breitbart "fake news" now? That would be entertaining, to say the least.
In a couple of weeks, the deadline for an agreement will hit. Will Trump actually declare that national emergency to fund his Wall? Will the Democrats fight him? The latter seems almost certain. Why build a Wall when the evidence indicates so clearly that the real threats to the U.S. lie elsewhere? For example:
Of 4,000 suspected terrorists identified at ports-of-entry in the past few years, almost all were at airports and seaports. Only a few were on the southern border. In 2018, specifically, there were only six (that's right, six), according to U.S. Customs.
Sexual assault and other forms of abuse committed against migrants by those claiming to transport them is a real problem, and unacceptably high. Thirty percent for women, 10.7 percent for men. But the wall will do little to mitigate these problems. Easing transportation, entry and legitimization of migrants will.
Most important, the case for a "emergency" is very poor. A decade ago, the data in support of an emergency might have been better for Trump, but today's numbers are a fraction of those, and there are no ways to run the numbers today that can support a declaration of a national emergency. There is a much more compelling case to be made for expanding manpower and resources in the security teams at airports and seaports in particular, the southern border patrol (manpower, not slats) and asylum-seeker processing teams and facilities.
Trump's case for The Wall was a well-calculated appeal to the mostly irrational, inflated fears of his Base. It got him elected, for sure. But as a political strategy and, especially, as a building block in either improving the lot of those fleeing real oppression or Making America Great Again, its benefits are imaginary, at best, and wasteful, divisive and, in the long run, contrary to the image we ought to present to the world.
That image has already suffered much at his hands, and those familiar with what people outside the U.S. actually think know that it wasn't all that good to begin with. Building a Wall right now isn't our best play for that and a host of practical reasons that add up simply to It Won't Do What People Want It To. Ultimately, we've failed, once again, to learn from history. Walls didn't work for the Chinese or the Russians. Why do we think one will work for us?
Monday, January 07, 2019
Trump goes to the Wall for The Wall
I suppose it shouldn't surprise us at this point. Irrational behavior has been demonstrated to be his normal. Lying, for example, just seems to be part of his daily routine. He doesn't need to be under attack by the "fake media" or even to have been caught misrepresenting something. Even in the best of times, he simply can't get his facts straight. And under duress? Well, he just says whatever makes him look good in the moment, right?
Take the Syria thing, for example. One day, he's taking all the troops out, totally freaking out everyone in the Pentagon and all our friends and even some foes in the Middle East. The next day, his top (and last remaining) cabinet general decides he's had enough, says this is crazy (basically) and quits, and the next day or so, Trump's remaining beleaguered supporters (Bolton, etc.) are desperately "walking back" (oh, what a master term of obfuscation) Trump's decision, and then Trump's on TV doing what? Well, what can he do? Opts for the flat-out, bald-faced lie: Tells the press: No, nothing's been walked back. Nothing's changed. Decision's the same as the day I made it. What are you guys talking about?
Of course, in his mind, that's how it is.
That brings us to the Wall. Which is now metal Slats, by the way. Oh, and Mexico isn't actually paying for it, er ... at least, not directly, you see. Because their payment is sort of mixed in (somehow) with the new deal that replaced NAFTA. Of course, no one, not even Trump, can point exactly to where in the agreement it says that, but it's there, by golly. Of course it is. Somehow, someway, Mexico pays for the Wall.
So now, Congress is duty bound to give Trump billions of dollars to build The Wall on his say-so alone. And because they haven't done so (surprise, surprise, they just aren't quite buying the idea that Mexico's payment is hidden somewhere in the new NAFTA), he's shut the government down until he gets what he wants.
Never mind that Mexico's president has flatly denied that any Wall payment is in the NAFTA-replacement deal.
Never mind that Trump declared flat out, when his predecessor, President Barack Obama shut down the government for 16 days over the Affordable Care Act, that shutting the government down was an impeachable offense.
Ms. Sanders, Trump's poor Press Secretary, in a desperate effort to find something with which to support Trump's grandstand play, came up with a startling statistic: More than 4,000 suspected terrorists, she said, had been apprehended at the southern U.S. border in 2018. Wow. Now that would be pretty convincing, were it true.
Sorry, it's not. Turns out those with more subtle abilities at fact checking have determined this week that the figure 4,000 indicated the number of suspected terrorists apprehended at all U.S. border crossings (primarily its airports) over a number of years. The number apprehended on our southern border in 2018? Six. That's right, the U.S. Customs Service reports a grand total of SIX. Not very compelling. Sounds like that Wall money could best be spent elsewhere?
Trump's in a hurry for his Wall, too. Why? Could be because he's out of time. Democrats now own the House. His poll numbers have never been that high, but they're real low now. And the economy suffered its worst performance at the end of 2018 since a decade ago at the low point that signaled the Great Recession. Mueller, who has wisely, and almost singly, kept a low profile, will not long continue to be silent about what he's found in his lengthening investigation into Russian ties to the 2016 Trump campaign. And Trump's big promise, of course, was to protect those frightened white folks who voted for him that he could protect them from the brown hordes that were going to invade from the South. (And truth is, there's not so much to protect them from.) Not to mention, it was his most solemn oath. it's the mission on which it all lives or dies. So far, he's failed miserably on that one.
He's also running out of friends. He's lost his generals. He's driven away a couple of West Wings full of mostly brilliant advisors he was mostly unwilling to listen to and was only too willing to publicly betray and ridicule. If the GOP backrooms were miked right now, you wouldn't hear much love flowing. Just discussions of how to stop the bleeding. Trump's got to have this one, or when the Truth comes out, and The Liar has to pay The Piper, even his electoral base won't be there for him.
When it all comes out, the Democrats won't have to impeach him. He is likely to face something even his most satisfied fans at the top of his poll numbers couldn't rescue him from. When half his family is indicted, the man who did not write The Art of the Deal (it was written for him) will have to make the only deal he'll be able to make: Resign the Presidency to save his family, and maybe even himself, from criminal indictment.
But, hey, if he gets his Wall? Then it was all part of the plan, right? "I never intended to be President for the whole thing? I said I'd get your the Wall, and I did it! America's great again! I'm great! It's all great!!"
He'll tell you with a perfectly straight face that he intended all along to resign midway through his first term. He'll tell you that most Presidents need two terms to accomplish their goals, but he'd done it in two years. He'll insist that's the way it really is. And nobody will be able to tell him different.
Take the Syria thing, for example. One day, he's taking all the troops out, totally freaking out everyone in the Pentagon and all our friends and even some foes in the Middle East. The next day, his top (and last remaining) cabinet general decides he's had enough, says this is crazy (basically) and quits, and the next day or so, Trump's remaining beleaguered supporters (Bolton, etc.) are desperately "walking back" (oh, what a master term of obfuscation) Trump's decision, and then Trump's on TV doing what? Well, what can he do? Opts for the flat-out, bald-faced lie: Tells the press: No, nothing's been walked back. Nothing's changed. Decision's the same as the day I made it. What are you guys talking about?
Of course, in his mind, that's how it is.
That brings us to the Wall. Which is now metal Slats, by the way. Oh, and Mexico isn't actually paying for it, er ... at least, not directly, you see. Because their payment is sort of mixed in (somehow) with the new deal that replaced NAFTA. Of course, no one, not even Trump, can point exactly to where in the agreement it says that, but it's there, by golly. Of course it is. Somehow, someway, Mexico pays for the Wall.
So now, Congress is duty bound to give Trump billions of dollars to build The Wall on his say-so alone. And because they haven't done so (surprise, surprise, they just aren't quite buying the idea that Mexico's payment is hidden somewhere in the new NAFTA), he's shut the government down until he gets what he wants.
Never mind that Mexico's president has flatly denied that any Wall payment is in the NAFTA-replacement deal.
Never mind that Trump declared flat out, when his predecessor, President Barack Obama shut down the government for 16 days over the Affordable Care Act, that shutting the government down was an impeachable offense.
Ms. Sanders, Trump's poor Press Secretary, in a desperate effort to find something with which to support Trump's grandstand play, came up with a startling statistic: More than 4,000 suspected terrorists, she said, had been apprehended at the southern U.S. border in 2018. Wow. Now that would be pretty convincing, were it true.
Sorry, it's not. Turns out those with more subtle abilities at fact checking have determined this week that the figure 4,000 indicated the number of suspected terrorists apprehended at all U.S. border crossings (primarily its airports) over a number of years. The number apprehended on our southern border in 2018? Six. That's right, the U.S. Customs Service reports a grand total of SIX. Not very compelling. Sounds like that Wall money could best be spent elsewhere?
Trump's in a hurry for his Wall, too. Why? Could be because he's out of time. Democrats now own the House. His poll numbers have never been that high, but they're real low now. And the economy suffered its worst performance at the end of 2018 since a decade ago at the low point that signaled the Great Recession. Mueller, who has wisely, and almost singly, kept a low profile, will not long continue to be silent about what he's found in his lengthening investigation into Russian ties to the 2016 Trump campaign. And Trump's big promise, of course, was to protect those frightened white folks who voted for him that he could protect them from the brown hordes that were going to invade from the South. (And truth is, there's not so much to protect them from.) Not to mention, it was his most solemn oath. it's the mission on which it all lives or dies. So far, he's failed miserably on that one.
He's also running out of friends. He's lost his generals. He's driven away a couple of West Wings full of mostly brilliant advisors he was mostly unwilling to listen to and was only too willing to publicly betray and ridicule. If the GOP backrooms were miked right now, you wouldn't hear much love flowing. Just discussions of how to stop the bleeding. Trump's got to have this one, or when the Truth comes out, and The Liar has to pay The Piper, even his electoral base won't be there for him.
When it all comes out, the Democrats won't have to impeach him. He is likely to face something even his most satisfied fans at the top of his poll numbers couldn't rescue him from. When half his family is indicted, the man who did not write The Art of the Deal (it was written for him) will have to make the only deal he'll be able to make: Resign the Presidency to save his family, and maybe even himself, from criminal indictment.
But, hey, if he gets his Wall? Then it was all part of the plan, right? "I never intended to be President for the whole thing? I said I'd get your the Wall, and I did it! America's great again! I'm great! It's all great!!"
He'll tell you with a perfectly straight face that he intended all along to resign midway through his first term. He'll tell you that most Presidents need two terms to accomplish their goals, but he'd done it in two years. He'll insist that's the way it really is. And nobody will be able to tell him different.
Without Fibbing (A Challenge)
There's one of these going around, and I usually don't do them.
But I liked this one, so here it goes. Instructions are simple: "Can you fill this out without fibbing?" Well ... let's see.
1. What was the last thing you put in your mouth? A sip of double-dark hot chocolate from my favorite coffee shop!
2. Where was your profile picture taken? On a hiking trail.
3. Worst pain you experienced? The pain of a major infection after surgery for burst appendix, age 12 (almost died, they tell me).
4. Favorite place you’ve traveled? Santa Fe & Taos, New Mexico, for the art. Fabulous art district in Santa Fe.
5. How late did you stay up last night? Four-forty-five. Yikes.
6. If you could, would you move somewhere else? Not a different city, but a better spot in the same city, one that would more realistically accommodate future plans.
7. Favorite toy as a kid? Plastic car models. No question. Worked at building them for hours and hours. Gluing, painting, parts all over my room.
8. Favorite TV show as a kid? The Adventures of Zorro. Don Diego de la Vega. Loved the name. Became fascinated with all things Espanol. (it was kind of groundbreaking for the 1950s, if you think about it.) Really wanted to be that guy. Oh, yeah.
9. How do you feel right now? Hopeful.
10. When was the last time you cried? Tears came to my eyes as I talked about the first time I became aware of the stage musical for Phantom of the Opera coming to Denver. I was just talking to Lily about it a few minutes ago.
11. Who took your profile photo? My favorite photographer, Lily.
12. Who is the last person you took a picture with? My son, Tony, and my grandson, Tony Jr.
13. What would your perfect career be? Published, successful novelist, with readers awaiting anxiously the next installment in the series.
14. Do you think relationships are worth it? Expensive, but yes. If not relationships, then ... what?
15. If you could talk to ANYONE right now who would it be? The Apostle Peter. I relate to him.
16. Are you a good influence? Depends.
17. Does pineapple belong on pizza? Didn't think so until I tried it. Surprise, surprise. It works!
18. You have the remote, what are you watching? No TV. But Like to watch movies and, with Lily, have a few TV series we share online: A Million Little Things and The Good Doctor are two ongoing. Veronica Mars was a favorite, but discontinued. (We hear it's coming back. Yay!)
19. Who do you think will play along? Maybe you?
But I liked this one, so here it goes. Instructions are simple: "Can you fill this out without fibbing?" Well ... let's see.
1. What was the last thing you put in your mouth? A sip of double-dark hot chocolate from my favorite coffee shop!
2. Where was your profile picture taken? On a hiking trail.
3. Worst pain you experienced? The pain of a major infection after surgery for burst appendix, age 12 (almost died, they tell me).
4. Favorite place you’ve traveled? Santa Fe & Taos, New Mexico, for the art. Fabulous art district in Santa Fe.
5. How late did you stay up last night? Four-forty-five. Yikes.
6. If you could, would you move somewhere else? Not a different city, but a better spot in the same city, one that would more realistically accommodate future plans.
7. Favorite toy as a kid? Plastic car models. No question. Worked at building them for hours and hours. Gluing, painting, parts all over my room.
8. Favorite TV show as a kid? The Adventures of Zorro. Don Diego de la Vega. Loved the name. Became fascinated with all things Espanol. (it was kind of groundbreaking for the 1950s, if you think about it.) Really wanted to be that guy. Oh, yeah.
9. How do you feel right now? Hopeful.
10. When was the last time you cried? Tears came to my eyes as I talked about the first time I became aware of the stage musical for Phantom of the Opera coming to Denver. I was just talking to Lily about it a few minutes ago.
11. Who took your profile photo? My favorite photographer, Lily.
12. Who is the last person you took a picture with? My son, Tony, and my grandson, Tony Jr.
13. What would your perfect career be? Published, successful novelist, with readers awaiting anxiously the next installment in the series.
14. Do you think relationships are worth it? Expensive, but yes. If not relationships, then ... what?
15. If you could talk to ANYONE right now who would it be? The Apostle Peter. I relate to him.
16. Are you a good influence? Depends.
17. Does pineapple belong on pizza? Didn't think so until I tried it. Surprise, surprise. It works!
18. You have the remote, what are you watching? No TV. But Like to watch movies and, with Lily, have a few TV series we share online: A Million Little Things and The Good Doctor are two ongoing. Veronica Mars was a favorite, but discontinued. (We hear it's coming back. Yay!)
19. Who do you think will play along? Maybe you?
Monday, December 31, 2018
Why Celebrate His Birth?
This time of year, folks of a more conservative persuasion in the Evangelical end of the American christian church have problems with the celebration of Christmas.
To be clear, this is not the usual disgruntled complaints about how "our" holiday has been spoiled via rampant commercialization, nor the even more recent complaint that it has lost its significance because the politically correct crowd insists on greeting everyone with "Happy Holidays" to avoid offending Jews, Muslims and others who, for a variety of reasons, don't celebrate the birth of our Lord with the same enthusiasm that we do.
And it is not the variety of arguments against the holiday couched in religious terms: Christmas, they complain, is variously a "made up" holiday (not biblical), it's based on a pagan holiday (December 25 is not the actual date of our Lord's birth) and uses a pagan symbol (the evergreen tree). And then there's the whole Santa Claus business ... a subject that could consume a blog post all on its own! The following Web sites illustrate some of the common complaints lodged against Christmas and also outline some of the common arguments against rejecting Christmas for these reasons:
https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/christians-who-dont-celebrate-christmas-heres-why
https://www.equip.org/article/should-christians-celebrate-christmas/
http://www.eaec.org/bibleanswers/christmas/christians_and_christmas.htm
The reticence I speak of, however, is that of the deeply conservative evangelical who objects to the fact that Christmas today seems to takes precedence over, and in many ways, it's celebration overshadows, that of Easter. Easter, they contend, is the single most important day in human history. It should take precedence. Some think Easter alone should be celebrated. One argument is put subtly, but so well, here, by R.C. Sproul: https://www.ligonier.org/blog/it-sin-celebrate-christmas/.
Now, for a Christian, what Jesus did on the cross really is the pivotal moment in history. It makes the eradication or at least the significant de-emphasis of Christmas a rather tempting argument. But I've been around long enough to see many such arguments arise, gain strong followings, create movements that result in frequently vocal action groups, but then peak and fade, or worse, cause some sort of split in a denomination or local fellowship. I'd like to suggest that most such movements, including the dismissal of Christmas, are little more than tempting distractions from our mission — the irritating horse flies we keep trying to swat, causing us to miss sighting that massive catfish teasing at our hook. How often we forget that Jesus called us to be fishers of men (and women), not fly swatters.
I'd like to suggest we evangelical types stop worrying about what folks we can't control do about Christmas. In fact, I'd like to see us celebrate both Christmas and Easter, and make as big a deal about each as we're able, and to do so without the need to make one more important than the other.
Before anyone throws a stone, let me appeal to no less than the theological proposition that Jesus is both "fully God and fully man." This notion is absolutely central to Trinitarian belief and to call oneself an Evangelical Christian, I believe one still must cleave to the Trinity.
There is little doubt what Easter celebrates, and I won't long belabor the point. Suffice it to say that Jesus substitutionary death on the cross and subsequent resurrection as the "first fruit" of many to come merits celebration and fully justifies its position as the focal point of Jesus ministry and the focal point of our worship in the sharing of the Bread and Wine. And there's little argument about that.
That said, ask a Christian what we celebrate at Christmas, you can get a variety of answers, some amusing, others embarrassing. That's probably why were confused about the holiday. Only a few will mention the Incarnation. And some of the who can manage that much can't tell you the significance of that word. What, after all, does "Incarnation" actually mean that has an impact on me? That sounds like a bit of a selfish question, but it's an honest one. And it can be fairly asked of the Easter story. And easily answered. What does Easter mean for me? that's an easy one: Jesus suffered for my sin. Implication? I don't have to suffer. That is GOOD NEWS. Jesus also rose again from the dead, and word is, he has the power to raise the dead. Even me. that is even BETTER NEWS. See what I mean?
So can we do the same with the Incarnation? Well .... Uh .....
Okay, try this on. Why did Jesus have to come as a baby? And why to poor parents in Bethlehem? In what is now known as the 1st century? Why not put him on the earth as a full-grown man, on his shiny white horse. Born to the royal house? Or better yet, on a tank? Or at the head of an army? How about in 2018, with the power of the Internet at his disposal?
I think Jesus came as a baby because we come that way. He came with nothing because most of us do as well. I don't go for any children's story/song nonsense about "the little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes." I'm sorry. Jesus was an actual baby. He cried when he was hungry or hurt. Just like us. Jesus pooped his pants until he was potty trained. He was as helpless as a baby when he was a baby. He went to the synagogue school, learned to read, memorized scriptures. He grew up and experienced life and relationships and disappointments just like us. He experienced puberty and, yes, he was tempted sexually. If you deny that one, then you are a heretic. Further, Jesus called twelve disciples, under the direction of the Hoy Spirit, but he also made three special friends, not connected with his ministry, whom he visited when he happened to be near Bethany: Lazarus, Martha and Mary. They did not follow him around, or go out on missions like his disciples. They were his dear close friends who offered him their home. They were those special people whose company he preferred to that of others. To cry when You are hurt or disappointed, to poop your pants, to experience hunger, to form treasured friendships, even to be tempted sexually — these are normal human experiences. Not sins. Jesus was fully human yet did not sin. That is why he could go to the cross in your place. In mine.
And he came in his time, not in ours, because the Gospel is passed on person to person, face to face, in the context of close relationships. You can't do real relationships on the Internet. Although, Heaven knows, those online chat sites sure do try.
The point of Christmas is that He was just like you and me, but was so successfully. If he was not fully human, only without sin (what we celebrate at Christmas), then Easter is a sham.
Truth is, Easter was impossible without Christmas. You cannot have the one without the other. So celebrate both we should. In fact, we must. For history is replete with illustrations of how easily we have forgotten that without what he has been (perfectly human) and what he's done (suffered for our humanity) we would have nothing whatsoever to celebrate.
To be clear, this is not the usual disgruntled complaints about how "our" holiday has been spoiled via rampant commercialization, nor the even more recent complaint that it has lost its significance because the politically correct crowd insists on greeting everyone with "Happy Holidays" to avoid offending Jews, Muslims and others who, for a variety of reasons, don't celebrate the birth of our Lord with the same enthusiasm that we do.
And it is not the variety of arguments against the holiday couched in religious terms: Christmas, they complain, is variously a "made up" holiday (not biblical), it's based on a pagan holiday (December 25 is not the actual date of our Lord's birth) and uses a pagan symbol (the evergreen tree). And then there's the whole Santa Claus business ... a subject that could consume a blog post all on its own! The following Web sites illustrate some of the common complaints lodged against Christmas and also outline some of the common arguments against rejecting Christmas for these reasons:
https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/christians-who-dont-celebrate-christmas-heres-why
https://www.equip.org/article/should-christians-celebrate-christmas/
http://www.eaec.org/bibleanswers/christmas/christians_and_christmas.htm
The reticence I speak of, however, is that of the deeply conservative evangelical who objects to the fact that Christmas today seems to takes precedence over, and in many ways, it's celebration overshadows, that of Easter. Easter, they contend, is the single most important day in human history. It should take precedence. Some think Easter alone should be celebrated. One argument is put subtly, but so well, here, by R.C. Sproul: https://www.ligonier.org/blog/it-sin-celebrate-christmas/.
Now, for a Christian, what Jesus did on the cross really is the pivotal moment in history. It makes the eradication or at least the significant de-emphasis of Christmas a rather tempting argument. But I've been around long enough to see many such arguments arise, gain strong followings, create movements that result in frequently vocal action groups, but then peak and fade, or worse, cause some sort of split in a denomination or local fellowship. I'd like to suggest that most such movements, including the dismissal of Christmas, are little more than tempting distractions from our mission — the irritating horse flies we keep trying to swat, causing us to miss sighting that massive catfish teasing at our hook. How often we forget that Jesus called us to be fishers of men (and women), not fly swatters.
I'd like to suggest we evangelical types stop worrying about what folks we can't control do about Christmas. In fact, I'd like to see us celebrate both Christmas and Easter, and make as big a deal about each as we're able, and to do so without the need to make one more important than the other.
Before anyone throws a stone, let me appeal to no less than the theological proposition that Jesus is both "fully God and fully man." This notion is absolutely central to Trinitarian belief and to call oneself an Evangelical Christian, I believe one still must cleave to the Trinity.
There is little doubt what Easter celebrates, and I won't long belabor the point. Suffice it to say that Jesus substitutionary death on the cross and subsequent resurrection as the "first fruit" of many to come merits celebration and fully justifies its position as the focal point of Jesus ministry and the focal point of our worship in the sharing of the Bread and Wine. And there's little argument about that.
That said, ask a Christian what we celebrate at Christmas, you can get a variety of answers, some amusing, others embarrassing. That's probably why were confused about the holiday. Only a few will mention the Incarnation. And some of the who can manage that much can't tell you the significance of that word. What, after all, does "Incarnation" actually mean that has an impact on me? That sounds like a bit of a selfish question, but it's an honest one. And it can be fairly asked of the Easter story. And easily answered. What does Easter mean for me? that's an easy one: Jesus suffered for my sin. Implication? I don't have to suffer. That is GOOD NEWS. Jesus also rose again from the dead, and word is, he has the power to raise the dead. Even me. that is even BETTER NEWS. See what I mean?
So can we do the same with the Incarnation? Well .... Uh .....
Okay, try this on. Why did Jesus have to come as a baby? And why to poor parents in Bethlehem? In what is now known as the 1st century? Why not put him on the earth as a full-grown man, on his shiny white horse. Born to the royal house? Or better yet, on a tank? Or at the head of an army? How about in 2018, with the power of the Internet at his disposal?
I think Jesus came as a baby because we come that way. He came with nothing because most of us do as well. I don't go for any children's story/song nonsense about "the little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes." I'm sorry. Jesus was an actual baby. He cried when he was hungry or hurt. Just like us. Jesus pooped his pants until he was potty trained. He was as helpless as a baby when he was a baby. He went to the synagogue school, learned to read, memorized scriptures. He grew up and experienced life and relationships and disappointments just like us. He experienced puberty and, yes, he was tempted sexually. If you deny that one, then you are a heretic. Further, Jesus called twelve disciples, under the direction of the Hoy Spirit, but he also made three special friends, not connected with his ministry, whom he visited when he happened to be near Bethany: Lazarus, Martha and Mary. They did not follow him around, or go out on missions like his disciples. They were his dear close friends who offered him their home. They were those special people whose company he preferred to that of others. To cry when You are hurt or disappointed, to poop your pants, to experience hunger, to form treasured friendships, even to be tempted sexually — these are normal human experiences. Not sins. Jesus was fully human yet did not sin. That is why he could go to the cross in your place. In mine.
And he came in his time, not in ours, because the Gospel is passed on person to person, face to face, in the context of close relationships. You can't do real relationships on the Internet. Although, Heaven knows, those online chat sites sure do try.
The point of Christmas is that He was just like you and me, but was so successfully. If he was not fully human, only without sin (what we celebrate at Christmas), then Easter is a sham.
Truth is, Easter was impossible without Christmas. You cannot have the one without the other. So celebrate both we should. In fact, we must. For history is replete with illustrations of how easily we have forgotten that without what he has been (perfectly human) and what he's done (suffered for our humanity) we would have nothing whatsoever to celebrate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)