You can trust Republican leaders to do in the future what they’ve done in the past.
1. Prosecuting political opponents.
George W. Bush broke precedents of decency. One precedent he broke was that you don’t use criminal prosecutions to destroy your political opponents.
So U.S. Attorneys have been above politics. Typically, when a new party came to power, U.S. Attorneys would resign, and the new administration would replace them. But once in office, while that administration was in power, U.S. Attorneys typically held their position unless they misbehaved. Then Bush was elected.
Bush fired U.S. Attorneys who were not partisan enough in their prosecutions. For example, David Iglesias, a Republican, was fired because he pushed back against political pressure to prosecute a Democratic state senator before an election.
Question: Do you want political parties to use criminal prosecution as an arm of politics?
2. Shrinking democracy.
Historically, politics was relatively simple. If a party wanted to gain power, it crafted a platform that would appeal to a wide segment of the electorate.
Not so in recent times in the Republican party. A new strategy has emerged in Republican-controlled states. Instead to broadening their platform to widen their appeal, Republicans in Republican-controlled states are shrinking the electorate.
Voter-fraud is a minuscule problem. It rarely happens. But there has been an avalanche of legislation nominally to combat this non-issue. The purpose of these laws is visible in their effect. This legislation discourages minority voters and discourages young voters – constituencies that skew Democratic. The venerable, non-partisan League of Women Voters is conducting no voter-registration drive in Florida this year; the onerous new laws make it too easy to get penalized.
The Republican plan is working.
The American Revolution began, and patriots gave up their lives, for the idea of "No taxation without representation." But in the worldview of Republican leaders, taxation without representation is fine for minorities and young people.
And these are people who might fight and die for America in war, without the voice of their vote.
Question: Do you want politics that shrinks the voting pool instead of making a platform more attractive to more people?
3. Attack on truth.
It’s a peculiar "news" organization that alters photographs of persons to make them seem sub-human. But that’s what Fox News did to New York Times reporters.
It’s a peculiar "news" organization that replaces footage of a crowd at a conservative rally with footage of a crowd of a more popular rally, to make the rally seem more popular than it was. But that’s what Fox News did with an anti-health-care-reform rally led by Michele Bachmann.
It’s a peculiar "news" organization that labels its enemies "socialists" to stir up hatred against them. But that’s what Fox News does. A Fox News person even wondered if Warren Buffett was a socialist, after Buffett said that he and people like him pay too few taxes. Buffett buys and sells companies for a living.
But Fox News is only nominally about news. It’s really a slick delivery system for Republican propaganda. Once, the Republican Party issued talking points about what to say about the improving economy. A Fox on-air personality obediently read the talking points on-air.
Fox News is the network face of the Republican Party, and Republican leaders have it’s habit of casualness about truth. So, the Affordable Care Act will save lives by guaranteeing that people with pre-existing conditions can get insurance. But Republican leaders claimed that it was all about killing grandma.
For the sake of their ideology, Republican leaders won’t dilute their positions. So they can’t broaden their platform to appeal to more people. Instead, they lie.
Question: do you want politics to slip the tether of truth?
4. Attack on Christianity.
You can spend your life improving your Christian walk, but the frame of Christianity can be taken in in a few minutes. Elements of this frame are: love your neighbor, and love your enemies.
But the political frame built by leaders of the Republican Party differs from the Christian frame. Their alternative frame is, basically, "What’s mine is mine, and screw my neighbor."
So: Republican leaders tout the freedom not to pay for health care by buying insurance. To them, this is more important than saving lives of men, women, and children by making insurance available to people with pre-existing conditions. To be clear: the Affordable Care Act will save lives. But it encroaches on Republican notions of liberty, so Republican leaders uniformly side with letting people die.
And the Bible is overwhelmingly on the side of the poor. But Republican leaders are overwhelmingly on the side of the rich and on the side of big banks and big corporations. They routinely top off the cups of the rich with tax cuts that favor those with vast wealth. But they are glad to drain the glass of the working class and the poor – so they resisted extending the payroll tax for workers, until political pressure made them reluctantly yield. They tear the social safety-net. This is not Christianity. This is social-and-political Darwinism.
And since the time of George Washington, America has treated war prisoners humanely. There never was a time when some advantage might not have been gained by torture; but, until recently, there never was a time when we touted torture. But the Bush administration changed that.
Question: Do you want politics to channel Darwinism instead of Christianity and decency?
5. Conclusion.
Individual Republicans are often lovely persons. But they are dancing with indecency to music that mixes partisan prosecutions, partisan assault on voting rights, partisan lies as a tool of politics, and Darwinism.
The right-wing will probably continue to dance to this music. The left will not.
I hope that the center holds. I hope that the center rejects partisan prosecutions, attacks on democracy, lies, and Darwinism. I hope that the center rejects politicians who reject a fair criminal-justice system, broad-based democracy, truth, and Christianity and decency.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Hatred
Maybe no dictionary says this, but I tell the difference between anger and hatred this way: anger is an emotion that makes you upset when something isn’t as it should be; hatred is the desire to destroy another person, either physically or emotionally.
1. Personal experience of hatred.
In law school, a man hated me. He hated me before I had spoken to him. He hated me before I had spoken about him. When he looked at me, his face and his body language expressed hatred. He hated me so much that once, when I held a door open for him, he hated taking a favor from me.
I never learned why he hated me.
Today, I had a Facebook exchange with a man from Washington State. His views were extreme. He presumed to tell me what opinions I held, and he said that there is no difference between a liberal like me and a communist. I have lived under communism. I know the difference.
I was glad to debate him, but the debate turned hateful and insulting. At that point, I told him that I had had enough. I said:
And, for the record, "tyranny-pimping" is a good phrase; but this is the first time it has been applied to me, so far as I know. It's ironic that he closed with that phrase, after saying that he was not about insult, just facts. If that counts as a fact, it counts as a fact in the style of "This is no insult, asshole."
This man is only the latest case of hatred I have been subject to based upon my political beliefs (or in this case, based on my supposed political beliefs). But it’s not the first. I have had sharp exchanges with others on Facebook. I try to respond calmly. I want to create goodwill. I fail often. I’m human. I’m part of the problem.
As I read the news, this kind of exchange, this kind of attitude, seems common.
2. Hatred as a mystery.
This troubles me: we are a nation dominated by Christians. Eighty-three percent of us self-identify as Christians. How can this hatred pollute the national life-blood of a nation dominated by Christians?
How can people boo Ron Paul when he invokes the Golden Rule in foreign policy? How can people literally applaud the idea of a man dying because he chose not to buy health insurance? How can we condone torture of prisoners?
You can spend your entire life learning Christianity. But the basics are simple and can be grasped in minutes. And some of the basics are: Love your neighbor as yourself. Love your enemy. Judge not lest you be judged.
We know this. We just don’t live it.
3. Hatred in America: crude explanations.
There’s no simple answer as to why hatred swallows up love like the lean cows of Pharoah's dream swallowed up the fat cows.
Part of the reason is that we’re sinners. Our hatred is a variety of sin. "A dog returns to its own vomit", says the proverb.
Part of the reason is ego. There’s a little, or a lot, in us that wants to dominate – to be gods. The serpent appealed to Eve by telling her that, taking the fruit of the tree of knowledge, she would become like a god. We are Eve's children. And we hate what stops our ideas and our wishes and our ways from covering the world, as if we were divine.
Part of the reason is fear. When I fear that I’m losing control over an important outcome, I hate. Sometimes in an important case I can give a judge point of law after point of law. It can be so clear to me that I deserve to win and that I should win. But with a few judges, giving them points of law is like trying to shovel flies through a door: they never seem to cross the threshold. That’s when, afterwards, I have imaginary hateful dialogues with the judge.
Part of the reason is a culture that rewards hatred. I used to listen to John and Ken, two radio hosts. One day, I realized what was absorbing about them. It was their caustic, dramatic indignation about whatever they happened to be outraged about. It was like coffee. It exhilerated. And I used to watch Keith Olbermann. He also was a hater, and his hatred made him rich. I read a couple of books by conservative Ann Coulter. Her books were orgies of hatred. People admire all of these persons. And we become what we admire.
Because of my religious beliefs, I also believe that there is a supernatural influence in hatred. I once saw a judge, rightly respected by many lawyers, warp with fury, to the point that she apologized to me the next day as soon as I came into her courtroom. Rightly or wrongly, I had perceived a devil behind that fury, a devil who's presence I had felt the night before the judge pushed her pins into me. I won't say more about that.
4. Confronting hatred.
Because of my religious beliefs, I also believe that ultimately only God can save America from being smothered with hatred. And to the extent we aren’t smothered with it now, I credit God.
But we have to take some responsibility and do what we can to create good will among people with whom we disagree.
The first step is believing in our hearts that good will is important. In this sense, I value the hateful exchange I had today on Facebook. Because I don’t like being hated. And there is that saying, "Do unto others . . .." It provokes me to defy hatred.
The second step is cultivating a spirit of forbearance. Easy to say, hard to do. And how it’s done will depend upon each of us, in our own way. Except that I think that prayer is essential.
The third step is cultivating a spirit of mutual forbearance in others. We have most influence over those we are closest to. But even with those we are not close to, there is that proverb, "A soft tongue can break a bone." We should practice soft words.
5. Apology and conclusion.
Maybe his essay is a rambling failure, poorly organized, with nothing new to say. It’s a creaky cart. But it carries a message that’s so important that it can’t wait for a more perfect carriage.
Personally, I’m going to disagree with my friends. I’m going to express my opinions. Sometimes, I will express my opinions strongly. But I hope that when I do that, I do it with the best of wishes and the highest respect and as much love as my crinkly heart can yield to.
Hatred makes me anxious. It makes me worry that, if this spirit percolates throughout society, instead of sharing a harness going forward, we’ll be turning on each other like fighting dogs. Torn from our own strife, we’ll be helpless before nature and before our enemies.
Making love and forbearance a priority makes sense.
God willing.
1. Personal experience of hatred.
In law school, a man hated me. He hated me before I had spoken to him. He hated me before I had spoken about him. When he looked at me, his face and his body language expressed hatred. He hated me so much that once, when I held a door open for him, he hated taking a favor from me.
I never learned why he hated me.
Today, I had a Facebook exchange with a man from Washington State. His views were extreme. He presumed to tell me what opinions I held, and he said that there is no difference between a liberal like me and a communist. I have lived under communism. I know the difference.
I was glad to debate him, but the debate turned hateful and insulting. At that point, I told him that I had had enough. I said:
One of the beauties of being insulted by someone who doesn't know me is that I don't have to care about their opinion.
This is getting to be 90% insult and 10% substance. I'm not willing to follow you there.
Go with God.Of course he got the last word. He replied:
So, the Communist Manifesto (which I directly cited) is neither authoritative nor substantive in a discussion about Marx. How does that work, exactly?
If facts insult you, perhaps the problem isn't the insult, but your relationship to the facts.
And I will go with God, thank you. (Unless, by "God", you mean Barack Obama, or big government, or unionism, or whatever agent of raw coercive power you liberals are idolizing this week.) First order is to protect the God-given Natural Rights of the individual human being, which means working to destroy modern American liberalism and utterly marginalize its tyranny-pimping adherents, such as yourself.Of course, I had never said that "the Communist Manifesto . . . is neither authoritative nor substantive in a discussion about Marx." So I don’t know what he was responding to.
And, for the record, "tyranny-pimping" is a good phrase; but this is the first time it has been applied to me, so far as I know. It's ironic that he closed with that phrase, after saying that he was not about insult, just facts. If that counts as a fact, it counts as a fact in the style of "This is no insult, asshole."
This man is only the latest case of hatred I have been subject to based upon my political beliefs (or in this case, based on my supposed political beliefs). But it’s not the first. I have had sharp exchanges with others on Facebook. I try to respond calmly. I want to create goodwill. I fail often. I’m human. I’m part of the problem.
As I read the news, this kind of exchange, this kind of attitude, seems common.
2. Hatred as a mystery.
This troubles me: we are a nation dominated by Christians. Eighty-three percent of us self-identify as Christians. How can this hatred pollute the national life-blood of a nation dominated by Christians?
How can people boo Ron Paul when he invokes the Golden Rule in foreign policy? How can people literally applaud the idea of a man dying because he chose not to buy health insurance? How can we condone torture of prisoners?
You can spend your entire life learning Christianity. But the basics are simple and can be grasped in minutes. And some of the basics are: Love your neighbor as yourself. Love your enemy. Judge not lest you be judged.
We know this. We just don’t live it.
3. Hatred in America: crude explanations.
There’s no simple answer as to why hatred swallows up love like the lean cows of Pharoah's dream swallowed up the fat cows.
Part of the reason is that we’re sinners. Our hatred is a variety of sin. "A dog returns to its own vomit", says the proverb.
Part of the reason is ego. There’s a little, or a lot, in us that wants to dominate – to be gods. The serpent appealed to Eve by telling her that, taking the fruit of the tree of knowledge, she would become like a god. We are Eve's children. And we hate what stops our ideas and our wishes and our ways from covering the world, as if we were divine.
Part of the reason is fear. When I fear that I’m losing control over an important outcome, I hate. Sometimes in an important case I can give a judge point of law after point of law. It can be so clear to me that I deserve to win and that I should win. But with a few judges, giving them points of law is like trying to shovel flies through a door: they never seem to cross the threshold. That’s when, afterwards, I have imaginary hateful dialogues with the judge.
Part of the reason is a culture that rewards hatred. I used to listen to John and Ken, two radio hosts. One day, I realized what was absorbing about them. It was their caustic, dramatic indignation about whatever they happened to be outraged about. It was like coffee. It exhilerated. And I used to watch Keith Olbermann. He also was a hater, and his hatred made him rich. I read a couple of books by conservative Ann Coulter. Her books were orgies of hatred. People admire all of these persons. And we become what we admire.
Because of my religious beliefs, I also believe that there is a supernatural influence in hatred. I once saw a judge, rightly respected by many lawyers, warp with fury, to the point that she apologized to me the next day as soon as I came into her courtroom. Rightly or wrongly, I had perceived a devil behind that fury, a devil who's presence I had felt the night before the judge pushed her pins into me. I won't say more about that.
4. Confronting hatred.
Because of my religious beliefs, I also believe that ultimately only God can save America from being smothered with hatred. And to the extent we aren’t smothered with it now, I credit God.
But we have to take some responsibility and do what we can to create good will among people with whom we disagree.
The first step is believing in our hearts that good will is important. In this sense, I value the hateful exchange I had today on Facebook. Because I don’t like being hated. And there is that saying, "Do unto others . . .." It provokes me to defy hatred.
The second step is cultivating a spirit of forbearance. Easy to say, hard to do. And how it’s done will depend upon each of us, in our own way. Except that I think that prayer is essential.
The third step is cultivating a spirit of mutual forbearance in others. We have most influence over those we are closest to. But even with those we are not close to, there is that proverb, "A soft tongue can break a bone." We should practice soft words.
5. Apology and conclusion.
Maybe his essay is a rambling failure, poorly organized, with nothing new to say. It’s a creaky cart. But it carries a message that’s so important that it can’t wait for a more perfect carriage.
Personally, I’m going to disagree with my friends. I’m going to express my opinions. Sometimes, I will express my opinions strongly. But I hope that when I do that, I do it with the best of wishes and the highest respect and as much love as my crinkly heart can yield to.
Hatred makes me anxious. It makes me worry that, if this spirit percolates throughout society, instead of sharing a harness going forward, we’ll be turning on each other like fighting dogs. Torn from our own strife, we’ll be helpless before nature and before our enemies.
Making love and forbearance a priority makes sense.
God willing.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Demons and Wounded Warriors
In the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, I knew a woman who was a disciple of Chuck Kraft. Prof. Kraft taught spiritual warfare at Fuller Theological Seminary – exorcism, praying against "principalities and powers", and such. This woman had taken his classes and pursued skill in that arena.
1. A demonic vision.
I saw her after she returned from South Korea. There, she had climbed up into a prayer tower that had been occupied constantly for years, where persons prayed against the spiritual powers that controlled North Korea. While she prayed, she said, she had a vision. In that vision, she encountered what she believed was the demon king of North Korea. In her vision, she drove a spear into his eye.
When she described this vision to her hosts, they were joyful. They said that they had long hoped for such an prayer-battle to take place.
Later, I think it was months later, I visited her in the office where she worked as a secretary for a seminary professor. I left thinking that she had become mentally ill. She showed signs of early paranoid-schizophrenia. From the titters from other persons in the office, I gathered that her dementia had made her a laughing stock. I was worried about her, but my own plans took me away, and I don’t know what happened to her.
It was odd that she succumbed to paranoid-schizophrenia in her forties. Doctors will tell you that that disease almost always starts in much younger persons – persons in their teens or early twenties.
2. Professor Kraft.
I too took Professor Kraft’s "spiritual warfare" class.
In his class, exorcism and prayers against principalities and powers were taught as a technique that employed God. This was misguided, I think. Exorcism is really a sovereign act of God acting through persons chosen by him: "But if I [Jesus] cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." (Matthew 12:28.) Also Luke 9:1: "[Jesus gave his disciples] power to heal sicknesses and power to force demons out of people." This power doesn’t depend upon technique. Faith, yes (Matthew 17:2); technique, no.
This was not the only aspect of the class that, in hindsight, troubled me. Also, Professor Kraft described his encounters with demons. In those encounters, Professor Kraft conversed with demons. In one encounter in another state, the demon said that he had heard of Prof. Kraft. Prof. Kraft admitted that he was proud to be widely known and feared by demons.
Which might have been the purpose of the demons in feeding him supposed information – to provoke pride in him, and, through him, his students.
I wish Prof. Kraft had been more attentive to Luke 10:17: "Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven."
Or, more frighteningly, Matthew 7:22-23:
3. Kony.
Jason Russell directed and starred in the famous "Kony 2012" video. It highlighted the depravity of Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army, which terrorizes families in Uganda by seizing children and making them soldiers and whores. I suspect that there is a demonic influence in Kony’s movement.
That suspicion was deepened when Jason Russell succumbed to a so-far unexplained psychic break. Some explanation might come. But in the meantime, I wonder if principalities and powers exacted revenge against Mr. Russell for bringing attention and trouble to a demonic enterprise.
4. What it means.
Even in America, even in my life, I see witchcraft practiced. I see it rarely. I’m not saying that it’s rare, but only that I become aware of it only from time to time.
But the point is this: there is evil out there. There are principalities and powers. They have been fatally wounded. But like a wounded lion, even a fatally wounded lion, they are dangerous. And it pays to put yourself under the protection of God, with humility.
1. A demonic vision.
I saw her after she returned from South Korea. There, she had climbed up into a prayer tower that had been occupied constantly for years, where persons prayed against the spiritual powers that controlled North Korea. While she prayed, she said, she had a vision. In that vision, she encountered what she believed was the demon king of North Korea. In her vision, she drove a spear into his eye.
When she described this vision to her hosts, they were joyful. They said that they had long hoped for such an prayer-battle to take place.
Later, I think it was months later, I visited her in the office where she worked as a secretary for a seminary professor. I left thinking that she had become mentally ill. She showed signs of early paranoid-schizophrenia. From the titters from other persons in the office, I gathered that her dementia had made her a laughing stock. I was worried about her, but my own plans took me away, and I don’t know what happened to her.
It was odd that she succumbed to paranoid-schizophrenia in her forties. Doctors will tell you that that disease almost always starts in much younger persons – persons in their teens or early twenties.
2. Professor Kraft.
I too took Professor Kraft’s "spiritual warfare" class.
In his class, exorcism and prayers against principalities and powers were taught as a technique that employed God. This was misguided, I think. Exorcism is really a sovereign act of God acting through persons chosen by him: "But if I [Jesus] cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." (Matthew 12:28.) Also Luke 9:1: "[Jesus gave his disciples] power to heal sicknesses and power to force demons out of people." This power doesn’t depend upon technique. Faith, yes (Matthew 17:2); technique, no.
This was not the only aspect of the class that, in hindsight, troubled me. Also, Professor Kraft described his encounters with demons. In those encounters, Professor Kraft conversed with demons. In one encounter in another state, the demon said that he had heard of Prof. Kraft. Prof. Kraft admitted that he was proud to be widely known and feared by demons.
Which might have been the purpose of the demons in feeding him supposed information – to provoke pride in him, and, through him, his students.
I wish Prof. Kraft had been more attentive to Luke 10:17: "Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven."
Or, more frighteningly, Matthew 7:22-23:
Many will say to me [Jesus] in that day [of judgment], Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.Or Acts 19:15-16:
And the evil spirit . . .said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?
And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.It seems to me that my friend, the secretary, suffered such a beating – but a beating of her mind, not of her body. She reached into a world that was beyond her scope, and that world reached into her mind and broke it.
3. Kony.
Jason Russell directed and starred in the famous "Kony 2012" video. It highlighted the depravity of Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army, which terrorizes families in Uganda by seizing children and making them soldiers and whores. I suspect that there is a demonic influence in Kony’s movement.
That suspicion was deepened when Jason Russell succumbed to a so-far unexplained psychic break. Some explanation might come. But in the meantime, I wonder if principalities and powers exacted revenge against Mr. Russell for bringing attention and trouble to a demonic enterprise.
4. What it means.
Even in America, even in my life, I see witchcraft practiced. I see it rarely. I’m not saying that it’s rare, but only that I become aware of it only from time to time.
But the point is this: there is evil out there. There are principalities and powers. They have been fatally wounded. But like a wounded lion, even a fatally wounded lion, they are dangerous. And it pays to put yourself under the protection of God, with humility.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
not THE ROMNEY DIARIES
As long as truth is optional in this campaign, I thought I’d try my hand at some highly inventive reportage. Subject: Mitt Romney.
"'To answer your question, I never touch alcohol, but sometimes I smoke a little weed to help me sleep', [Mitt Romney] said. 'After half a joint, I'm floating on a cloud, which is helpful during a political campaign.'
"Asked by an audience member if he ever used marijuana for any reason other than a sleep-aid, the visibly enthusiastic candidate replied, 'Well, not to get too personal, but my wife and I sometimes toke a little sativa to get in the mood. And', he said, smiling broadly, 'it doesn't hurt the sex.'
"When an elderly woman worried that he was risking arrest, the candidate replied, 'The only part of a hotel room, usually, that isn't air-tight is the door. And that's what wet sheets and thumbtacks are for.'"
REMARKS that MITT ROMNEY never said, which were never REPORTED ON FOX NEWS
"Asked how he [Romney], with his privileged upbringing, could relate to ordinary Americans, the Republican front-runner replied, ‘Gosh, you might be surprised. There was more to my growing up than sterling-silver salad forks. There were some tough kids distributed among the rich kids in my high school. If they wanted your wallet, you gave it to them, or you got beat up. You gave up your wallet, simple as that. Unless you’d already given up your wallet to the last guy. Then you had two choices: take a beating or spread ass. I don’t remember taking too many beatings.’"
STATEMENT never MADE BY MITT ROMNEY and never REPORTED IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
"At the late-night question and answer session with hospitality workers, the weary candidate was asked what forms of entertainment he was enjoying while in Las Vegas, Before he could frame an answer, Governor Romney was interrupted by a man in a green t-shirt who shouted, ‘Hookers!’
"A red-faced Governor Romney, stammered, ‘That’s, that’s not the nomenclature I would use.’
"Someone in the newly-attentive crowd shouted out, ‘How much did you pay?’ Immediately, a bearded man in a denim vest with what appeared to be a biker patches shouted out, ‘Six-hundred bucks!’
"A surprised-looking candidate said, ‘Golly, I wouldn’t think you’d pay less than ten-thousand dollars. Any less than that, and wouldn’t you be afraid of catching a disease?’
"This led the front-running Republican to dilate with nostalgia. ‘It was different when I was young', he said. ‘I remember when I was overseas. You’d walk up to a prostitute, and in their crude English, they’d say, "Five dollar. Ten dollar no condom." But if you tried to save money, you’d still have to buy a condom. So you only ended up saving four dollars and fifty cents.’
"Governor Romney turned to his right and was able to see a campaign staffer make a circling gesture with his finger. The candidate turned back to the crowd and said, 'And that’s how you know I’ll be careful with your tax money.'"
BLOOMBERG NEWS nor anyone else ever broadcast this fabricated ACCOUNT OF MITT ROMNEY IN LAS VEGAS
"Speaking to a group of elderly men and women on the Las Vegas strip, candidate Romney remarked, ‘I like the male strippers in Las Vegas. Their male organs are just the right length. They’re long enough so you say, "Hey, look at that!" But if they were any longer, you’d say, "What’s the point, unless he has a thing for ocean mammals?"’"
COMMENTS MITT ROMNEY never MADE TO LAS VEGAS SENIORS or anyone else, and never REPORTED IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES.
"‘I don’t like to tip. I think it demeans the waiter or waitress’, Governor Romney said in an informal question-and-answer session with reporters. ‘But I might shake their hand and hand them a campaign button.’
"He said later, ‘No, it’s usually not a problem. In fact, sometimes it breeds respect. Usually, I don’t return to a place, because I’m off to the next city. But on one occasion I happened to return to a little café for breakfast, after I had had dinner there the night before. I asked the waitress, "What are these little brown lumps in my scrambled eggs?" She said, "That’s something special from the chef!"’"
MITT ROMNEY never said any of this, and it was not REPORTED IN THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE
I
"'To answer your question, I never touch alcohol, but sometimes I smoke a little weed to help me sleep', [Mitt Romney] said. 'After half a joint, I'm floating on a cloud, which is helpful during a political campaign.'
"Asked by an audience member if he ever used marijuana for any reason other than a sleep-aid, the visibly enthusiastic candidate replied, 'Well, not to get too personal, but my wife and I sometimes toke a little sativa to get in the mood. And', he said, smiling broadly, 'it doesn't hurt the sex.'
"When an elderly woman worried that he was risking arrest, the candidate replied, 'The only part of a hotel room, usually, that isn't air-tight is the door. And that's what wet sheets and thumbtacks are for.'"
REMARKS that MITT ROMNEY never said, which were never REPORTED ON FOX NEWS
II
"Asked how he [Romney], with his privileged upbringing, could relate to ordinary Americans, the Republican front-runner replied, ‘Gosh, you might be surprised. There was more to my growing up than sterling-silver salad forks. There were some tough kids distributed among the rich kids in my high school. If they wanted your wallet, you gave it to them, or you got beat up. You gave up your wallet, simple as that. Unless you’d already given up your wallet to the last guy. Then you had two choices: take a beating or spread ass. I don’t remember taking too many beatings.’"
STATEMENT never MADE BY MITT ROMNEY and never REPORTED IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
III
"At the late-night question and answer session with hospitality workers, the weary candidate was asked what forms of entertainment he was enjoying while in Las Vegas, Before he could frame an answer, Governor Romney was interrupted by a man in a green t-shirt who shouted, ‘Hookers!’
"A red-faced Governor Romney, stammered, ‘That’s, that’s not the nomenclature I would use.’
"Someone in the newly-attentive crowd shouted out, ‘How much did you pay?’ Immediately, a bearded man in a denim vest with what appeared to be a biker patches shouted out, ‘Six-hundred bucks!’
"A surprised-looking candidate said, ‘Golly, I wouldn’t think you’d pay less than ten-thousand dollars. Any less than that, and wouldn’t you be afraid of catching a disease?’
"This led the front-running Republican to dilate with nostalgia. ‘It was different when I was young', he said. ‘I remember when I was overseas. You’d walk up to a prostitute, and in their crude English, they’d say, "Five dollar. Ten dollar no condom." But if you tried to save money, you’d still have to buy a condom. So you only ended up saving four dollars and fifty cents.’
"Governor Romney turned to his right and was able to see a campaign staffer make a circling gesture with his finger. The candidate turned back to the crowd and said, 'And that’s how you know I’ll be careful with your tax money.'"
BLOOMBERG NEWS nor anyone else ever broadcast this fabricated ACCOUNT OF MITT ROMNEY IN LAS VEGAS
IV
"Speaking to a group of elderly men and women on the Las Vegas strip, candidate Romney remarked, ‘I like the male strippers in Las Vegas. Their male organs are just the right length. They’re long enough so you say, "Hey, look at that!" But if they were any longer, you’d say, "What’s the point, unless he has a thing for ocean mammals?"’"
COMMENTS MITT ROMNEY never MADE TO LAS VEGAS SENIORS or anyone else, and never REPORTED IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES.
V
"‘I don’t like to tip. I think it demeans the waiter or waitress’, Governor Romney said in an informal question-and-answer session with reporters. ‘But I might shake their hand and hand them a campaign button.’
"He said later, ‘No, it’s usually not a problem. In fact, sometimes it breeds respect. Usually, I don’t return to a place, because I’m off to the next city. But on one occasion I happened to return to a little café for breakfast, after I had had dinner there the night before. I asked the waitress, "What are these little brown lumps in my scrambled eggs?" She said, "That’s something special from the chef!"’"
MITT ROMNEY never said any of this, and it was not REPORTED IN THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Bill Maher is Not Rush Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a prostitute and a slut. Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a c*nt.
Some say those personal attacks are equally indecent. They aren’t.
1. Big person versus small person.
First, Sandra Fluke was not famous or powerful or rich before Limbaugh made her a household name. Sarah Palin had run for vice president. She was a frequent commentator on Fox. She starred in her own reality TV series, Sarah Palin’s Alaska. She wrote a book, and she has legions of twitter- followers. If she walks out of a ladies room with toilet paper trailing her heel, the media covers it. If she leaves a fat tip (or not) it’s on television.
That means that Sarah Palin has the power and the media-heft to defend herself. But a 30-year-old law student does not.
Many people sympathize with underdogs. Many people despise bullies. When a David strikes down a Goliath, people approve. When a Goliath strikes down a David, people regret.
Maher took on a Goliath. Goliath Limbaugh smote a David.
2. Known person versus unknown person.
Second, Sarah Palin is famous, and people have firm opinions about her. That opinion might be good or bad, but it was in place when people heard of Bill Maher’s remark. That gives little scope for Maher’s expression to influence people. Someone who thinks highly of Sarah Palin won’t change because of what Bill Maher says. If someone doesn’t like her, well, then they already didn’t like her, didn’t they?
But Sandra Fluke’s national reputation was a blank CD-rom. Nobody had heard of her. Then Rush Limbaugh changed that on the same day that he linked her name with prostitute and slut. And they don’t call Limbaugh’s followers ditto-heads for nothing. The degree to which Sandra Fluke was a slut became a part of the conservative national conversation.
And that will live on. That might be Sandra Fluke’s fifteen-minutes of fame. It might be the bigger part of her obituary – that she was called a slut and a prostitute by Rush Limbaugh. Who would want to be known and remembered for that? But that’s what Rush Limbaugh did to Sandra Fluke’s life and memory.
3. Attacker versus defender.
Third, Sarah Palin has herself been known to thrust a public shiv under a rivals’ fifth rib. Sarah Palin has no qualm about attacking her enemies. She has demonstrated this many times. She might attack Barack Obama, the "lame-stream media", or, say, Gabrielle Giffords (putting a mock-gunsight over a map of Ms. Gifford’s congressional district).
To be clear: there was nothing wrong with any of that. Some people might think that Palin is untethered to the truth; but her targets are public figures, like herself. Unlike Rush Limbaugh, she doesn’t target the small and the unknown.
But that habit of attacking enemies makes Palin a more appropriate target than a woman who goes before Congress to defend a woman’s reproductive freedom. You feel less sorry for someone because of a vicious attack on them, when they themselves attack others. ("Pal around with terrorists", anyone?) Sandra Fluke has no such reputation.
4. A rough equivalence.
A rough equivalence does exist between Mr. Maher’s outburst and a car sign that has appeared that maligns Barack Obama. It says "Don’t Re-Nig in 2012".
These are roughly equivalent because both assail a powerful, known, public figure. These are roughly equivalent because both use terms that are highly offensive.
But they have only a rough equivalence. That is true because, as I understand the term, c*nt is applied selectively. That is, c*nts are women, but not all women are c*nts. The term is applied with a kind of reverse-meritocracy.
But n*gger is a word that demeans an entire race indiscriminately. That is, an African-American might be a heart surgeon, and he might devote his vacations to staffing a medical clinic in a poverty-stricken country. But he’s still, to some, a n*gger.
So left-wing paladins of offense just can’t match the offensiveness of the Rush Limbaughs of the world or the right-wing slur machine.
5. Commonplace equivalence claims.
But it seems that every time a right-wing figure steps in dog-poop, fairly or not, the right wing labors to claim some left-wing equivalence. When Sarah Palin’s Facebook cross-hairs map stirred outrage after Gabrielle Gifford was shot, the right wing scoured the web and found Democratic maps with targets over vulnerable Republican congressional districts.
The attack on Bill Maher is along that line. Rather than distance themselves from outrage, as they should, the right wing tries to ward off condemnation by changing the subject to an attack on a liberal.
And that liberal happens to be a well-known public figure, and his words were highly offensive, so the attack is fair game.
6. Fallout.
But the Republican counter-attack is unlikely to stanch the flow of outrage against Rush Limbaugh. In fact, Limbaugh’s outbursts merges with Roman Catholic hatred of birth control, and it accords with a seeming-tsunami of recent proposed laws to control the choices that women make.
The likelihood is that Limbaugh and the movement he contributed to will harm the Republican brand with women. This harm to the Republican brand might have been avoided if Republicans had orchestrated condemnation of Limbaugh with the skill and vigor that they otherwise devote to political messaging. And any Republican candidate for president might have looked more independent and decent if he had lashed out at Limbaugh’s outburst instead of praising it with faint condemnation.
Some say those personal attacks are equally indecent. They aren’t.
1. Big person versus small person.
First, Sandra Fluke was not famous or powerful or rich before Limbaugh made her a household name. Sarah Palin had run for vice president. She was a frequent commentator on Fox. She starred in her own reality TV series, Sarah Palin’s Alaska. She wrote a book, and she has legions of twitter- followers. If she walks out of a ladies room with toilet paper trailing her heel, the media covers it. If she leaves a fat tip (or not) it’s on television.
That means that Sarah Palin has the power and the media-heft to defend herself. But a 30-year-old law student does not.
Many people sympathize with underdogs. Many people despise bullies. When a David strikes down a Goliath, people approve. When a Goliath strikes down a David, people regret.
Maher took on a Goliath. Goliath Limbaugh smote a David.
2. Known person versus unknown person.
Second, Sarah Palin is famous, and people have firm opinions about her. That opinion might be good or bad, but it was in place when people heard of Bill Maher’s remark. That gives little scope for Maher’s expression to influence people. Someone who thinks highly of Sarah Palin won’t change because of what Bill Maher says. If someone doesn’t like her, well, then they already didn’t like her, didn’t they?
But Sandra Fluke’s national reputation was a blank CD-rom. Nobody had heard of her. Then Rush Limbaugh changed that on the same day that he linked her name with prostitute and slut. And they don’t call Limbaugh’s followers ditto-heads for nothing. The degree to which Sandra Fluke was a slut became a part of the conservative national conversation.
And that will live on. That might be Sandra Fluke’s fifteen-minutes of fame. It might be the bigger part of her obituary – that she was called a slut and a prostitute by Rush Limbaugh. Who would want to be known and remembered for that? But that’s what Rush Limbaugh did to Sandra Fluke’s life and memory.
3. Attacker versus defender.
Third, Sarah Palin has herself been known to thrust a public shiv under a rivals’ fifth rib. Sarah Palin has no qualm about attacking her enemies. She has demonstrated this many times. She might attack Barack Obama, the "lame-stream media", or, say, Gabrielle Giffords (putting a mock-gunsight over a map of Ms. Gifford’s congressional district).
To be clear: there was nothing wrong with any of that. Some people might think that Palin is untethered to the truth; but her targets are public figures, like herself. Unlike Rush Limbaugh, she doesn’t target the small and the unknown.
But that habit of attacking enemies makes Palin a more appropriate target than a woman who goes before Congress to defend a woman’s reproductive freedom. You feel less sorry for someone because of a vicious attack on them, when they themselves attack others. ("Pal around with terrorists", anyone?) Sandra Fluke has no such reputation.
4. A rough equivalence.
A rough equivalence does exist between Mr. Maher’s outburst and a car sign that has appeared that maligns Barack Obama. It says "Don’t Re-Nig in 2012".
These are roughly equivalent because both assail a powerful, known, public figure. These are roughly equivalent because both use terms that are highly offensive.
But they have only a rough equivalence. That is true because, as I understand the term, c*nt is applied selectively. That is, c*nts are women, but not all women are c*nts. The term is applied with a kind of reverse-meritocracy.
But n*gger is a word that demeans an entire race indiscriminately. That is, an African-American might be a heart surgeon, and he might devote his vacations to staffing a medical clinic in a poverty-stricken country. But he’s still, to some, a n*gger.
So left-wing paladins of offense just can’t match the offensiveness of the Rush Limbaughs of the world or the right-wing slur machine.
5. Commonplace equivalence claims.
But it seems that every time a right-wing figure steps in dog-poop, fairly or not, the right wing labors to claim some left-wing equivalence. When Sarah Palin’s Facebook cross-hairs map stirred outrage after Gabrielle Gifford was shot, the right wing scoured the web and found Democratic maps with targets over vulnerable Republican congressional districts.
The attack on Bill Maher is along that line. Rather than distance themselves from outrage, as they should, the right wing tries to ward off condemnation by changing the subject to an attack on a liberal.
And that liberal happens to be a well-known public figure, and his words were highly offensive, so the attack is fair game.
6. Fallout.
But the Republican counter-attack is unlikely to stanch the flow of outrage against Rush Limbaugh. In fact, Limbaugh’s outbursts merges with Roman Catholic hatred of birth control, and it accords with a seeming-tsunami of recent proposed laws to control the choices that women make.
The likelihood is that Limbaugh and the movement he contributed to will harm the Republican brand with women. This harm to the Republican brand might have been avoided if Republicans had orchestrated condemnation of Limbaugh with the skill and vigor that they otherwise devote to political messaging. And any Republican candidate for president might have looked more independent and decent if he had lashed out at Limbaugh’s outburst instead of praising it with faint condemnation.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
100 Messages to My Friends
This is the 100th post to this blog.
I started the blog in August, 2010. It started with a defense of freedom of religion. The first post was about Muslims who wanted to build a community center in Manhattan, not far from where the destroyed World Trade Center once stood. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2010/08/what-islamic-community-center.html
Since it started, this blog has had 2,675 page views. I can tell the number of page views, what country the viewer is from, and which blog post has had recent visits. I can’t tell who has visited.
Some of the blog posts have been more popular than others. The most popular posts, with the number of viewers, follow here:
"Ten Things that Liberals Believe" (August 15, 2011; 58 visits) This post was about ten principles that I think inhabit liberal thought. I don’t know why it’s the most popular. It still gets traffic. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/08/ten-things-that-liberals-believe.html
"Eliminating Bigotry for a More Perfect Union: Part 1." (September 30, 2010; 56 visits.) This was the first of a three-part series. I examined bigotry toward different groups, and what to do about it. This post is popular with foreign visitors. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2010/09/eliminating-bigotry-for-more-perfect.html
"List". (May 22, 2011; 42 visits.) This is simply a list of 25 thoughts – proverbs, if you will – that I have come to believe. Again, I have no explanation for its relative popularity. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/05/list.html
"In Praise of Older Women." (July 16, 2011; 36 visits.) I explain how awesome older women are. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/07/in-praise-of-older-women.html
"Suicide and Storm" (February 27, 2011; 35 visits) This was my most personal post. It is about the last time I tried to take my own life, about a decade ago. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/02/suicide-and-storm.html
The least popular blog post was "Principles of Power and Reality Among Nations." (August 20, 2011) It has had one page-view. That’s probably all it deserved. It was leaden and ponderous, and I probably didn’t have business writing about this subject. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/08/principles-of-power-and-reality-among.html
I’ve been specifically criticized for one post: "When Christians are Assholes". A friend of mine hated it, and she said so. It was posted on August 7, 2011, and it has had 26 visits.
http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-christians-are-assholes.html
Some types of my blog posts are reliably well-visited. That’s usually the case when I try to lacerate a politician. For example, I made fun of Mitt Romney in a post called "Mitt Romney Up a Tree". (February 25, 2012) It quickly got 25 page views. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2012/02/mitt-romney-up-tree.html
My efforts at humor reliably only get modest traffic. Here are three that haven’t been popular, although I enjoyed writing them. "Rolling Over in their Graves" (September 4, 2011; six page views.) This was an account of an imagined meeting of the Founding Fathers, called to pass judgment on a 21st Century controversy. It was inspired by the constant invocation of what the Founding Fathers would have thought or done about this-or-that issue. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/09/rolling-over-in-their-graves.html
"The Night of the Santa" got seven visits, and it was posted on December 24, 2011. I look at the evidence and deduce that Santa Clause is a vampire. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/12/night-of-santa.html
"Listening in on Adam and Eve" (August 11, 2011) has had only four visits. It looks sardonically on Biblical literalism. Its unpopularity was predictable. My religious friends tend to read the Bible literally, even parts that I don’t; my non-religious friends don’t care. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/08/listening-in-on-adam-and-eve.html A more serious look at the Bible and literalism is "The Bible on Itself" (November 14, 2010). It has had ten visits. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2010/11/bible-on-itself.html
But my post called "Punctuation with Personality" has been relatively popular. (Twenty-one page views.) I posted it on April 25, 2011, and in it I attribute certain character-traits to different punctuation marks. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/04/punctuation-with-personality.html
Another exception to the generally light traffic to humorous posts is one called "Humor Now". It’s about the place of humor in public life, with examples. It was posted on March 27, 2011and it still gets occasional traffic. It has been visited 26 times. It seems to be popular with foreig visitors to the blog. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/03/humor-now.html
Another kind of blog post that doesn’t get much traffic are those in which I laud a politician that I otherwise don’t like. I do this as an exercise is public decency. I think there is something right about looking at the good qualities of someone you oppose. This is very true in these hyper-partisan times. It’s just that those posts aren’t usually popular. My post on Ron Paul got 11 visits, but my post on Rick Perry got only four. Ron Paul: http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul-ten-virtues.html Rick Perry: http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/09/rick-perry-ten-virtues.html
In these hyper-partisan times, I also have written about the need for civility. In "Tribes" (May 16, 2011; 12 visits) I wrote about this hyper-partisanship, and the need for mutual charity, and why charity is astute. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/05/tribes.html Another post on public civility is "Why and Act of Kindness is an Act of Patriotism. (June 22, 2011; 22 visits.) http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-act-of-kindness-is-act-of.html
My blog gets visitors from other countries. I can view the countries with the top-ten number of visitors. But there are many countries from which I have had just one or a handful of visits. These are the top ten countries that have visited the blog:
United States: 2,203
Russia: 111
Germany 58
Malaysia 51
Slovenia 36
Mexico 24
Canada 21
United Kingdom 16
Republic of Georgia 15
Denmark 10
Only once before did I blog about blogging. It was a post called "The Pleasure of It", which I posted on September 18, 2010. It has had 19 visits.
http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2010/09/pleasure-of-it.html
At a certain point, I started writing religious-themed posts. That’s because religion is one of my very deep interests. When I advertise the posts on Facebook, now-days I try to remember to flag them as religiously-themed, if they are. People who don’t like reading theology can avoid them; but many of my friends, like me, have a keen interest in conversation about God. A recent example is "Less Smart than We Think". It’s about the sovereignty of God and his power in human success and failure. I wrote it on March 3, 2012, and it has had eight visits. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2012/03/less-smart-than-we-think.html
Another one is "Rebellion and Restoration". It’s about obedience to God, and how the classical spiritual disciplines aid this. I posted it on February 22, 2012, and it has had seven visits. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2012/02/rebellion-and-restoration.html
A relatively more-popular religious post was "God, Satan, Bets, History and Us". It’s about the Book of Job. I ponder that the bet placed by God and Satan on Job is like bets that God places on us, our friends, our churches, and our nations. I posted it on November 26, 2011, and it has had 28 visits. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/03/humor-now.html
Some of my posts have been very personal. Often, I have been very reluctant to publish these posts. But it’s often the case that, after I do, I get messages from friends thanking me for sharing something so personal. Sometimes the post reminds them of something that happened to them personally, or to someone they cared about. Those posts have been hard to share; they probably have done the most good.
Probably the most personal post was "Suicide and Storm". http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/02/suicide-and-storm.html I also wrote "God, Madness, and Me" (October 22, 2010; 30 visits), about my madness and how it changed my religion. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2010/10/god-madness-and-me_22.html "Sleepless" was about my use of medical marijuana to treat my insomnia. (May 7, 2011; 36 visits.) I worried that my friends and others would label me a pot-head, but I got positive responses to the post. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/05/sleepless.html
Usually, my posts are my own work, but I owe a lot to the ideas of others. The exception is a blog I wrote with my friend John Engle. We both were moved to write about the need to fund treatment for the mentally ill. I incorporated his words into "Liberals and Conservatives Can Agree about Re-Funding Mental-Health Treatment." (January 20, 2011; eight visits.) http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/01/liberals-and-conservatives-can-agree.html
One advantage to writing a blog is that often an issue comes up with friends, like on Facebook, and I might remember that I’ve already written on that. Instead of writing out a whole argument, I refer my debate-partner to what I’ve already written. This most often happens when discussing the Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare"). This is my post on that: "What We Think When We Love Health-Care Reform, Or Hate It". (February 1, 2011; 30 visits.)
http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-we-think-when-we-love-health-care.html
Sometimes, I’m self-critical, but with a motive. "Dickish Me" (December 29, 2010; 22 visits). http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2010/12/dickish-me.html
There’s been a little poetry. For example, I wrote "What Gift Do I Have to Give My Wife" about my contributions to a hypothetical marriage. (April 12, 2011; 24 visits.) http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-gift-do-i-have-to-give-my-wife.html More doggerel than poetry: "Three Poems in Bad Taste for May 1, 2011". (May 2, 2011; nine visits.) These are pieces about the killing of Osama bin Laden. They form probably my least-favorite post, but not my least-popular. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/05/three-poems-in-bad-taste-for-may-1-2011.html
But, by and large, I’m happy with what I’ve written. I look forward to more blogging.
I started the blog in August, 2010. It started with a defense of freedom of religion. The first post was about Muslims who wanted to build a community center in Manhattan, not far from where the destroyed World Trade Center once stood. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2010/08/what-islamic-community-center.html
Since it started, this blog has had 2,675 page views. I can tell the number of page views, what country the viewer is from, and which blog post has had recent visits. I can’t tell who has visited.
Some of the blog posts have been more popular than others. The most popular posts, with the number of viewers, follow here:
"Ten Things that Liberals Believe" (August 15, 2011; 58 visits) This post was about ten principles that I think inhabit liberal thought. I don’t know why it’s the most popular. It still gets traffic. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/08/ten-things-that-liberals-believe.html
"Eliminating Bigotry for a More Perfect Union: Part 1." (September 30, 2010; 56 visits.) This was the first of a three-part series. I examined bigotry toward different groups, and what to do about it. This post is popular with foreign visitors. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2010/09/eliminating-bigotry-for-more-perfect.html
"List". (May 22, 2011; 42 visits.) This is simply a list of 25 thoughts – proverbs, if you will – that I have come to believe. Again, I have no explanation for its relative popularity. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/05/list.html
"In Praise of Older Women." (July 16, 2011; 36 visits.) I explain how awesome older women are. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/07/in-praise-of-older-women.html
"Suicide and Storm" (February 27, 2011; 35 visits) This was my most personal post. It is about the last time I tried to take my own life, about a decade ago. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/02/suicide-and-storm.html
The least popular blog post was "Principles of Power and Reality Among Nations." (August 20, 2011) It has had one page-view. That’s probably all it deserved. It was leaden and ponderous, and I probably didn’t have business writing about this subject. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/08/principles-of-power-and-reality-among.html
I’ve been specifically criticized for one post: "When Christians are Assholes". A friend of mine hated it, and she said so. It was posted on August 7, 2011, and it has had 26 visits.
http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-christians-are-assholes.html
Some types of my blog posts are reliably well-visited. That’s usually the case when I try to lacerate a politician. For example, I made fun of Mitt Romney in a post called "Mitt Romney Up a Tree". (February 25, 2012) It quickly got 25 page views. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2012/02/mitt-romney-up-tree.html
My efforts at humor reliably only get modest traffic. Here are three that haven’t been popular, although I enjoyed writing them. "Rolling Over in their Graves" (September 4, 2011; six page views.) This was an account of an imagined meeting of the Founding Fathers, called to pass judgment on a 21st Century controversy. It was inspired by the constant invocation of what the Founding Fathers would have thought or done about this-or-that issue. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/09/rolling-over-in-their-graves.html
"The Night of the Santa" got seven visits, and it was posted on December 24, 2011. I look at the evidence and deduce that Santa Clause is a vampire. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/12/night-of-santa.html
"Listening in on Adam and Eve" (August 11, 2011) has had only four visits. It looks sardonically on Biblical literalism. Its unpopularity was predictable. My religious friends tend to read the Bible literally, even parts that I don’t; my non-religious friends don’t care. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/08/listening-in-on-adam-and-eve.html A more serious look at the Bible and literalism is "The Bible on Itself" (November 14, 2010). It has had ten visits. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2010/11/bible-on-itself.html
But my post called "Punctuation with Personality" has been relatively popular. (Twenty-one page views.) I posted it on April 25, 2011, and in it I attribute certain character-traits to different punctuation marks. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/04/punctuation-with-personality.html
Another exception to the generally light traffic to humorous posts is one called "Humor Now". It’s about the place of humor in public life, with examples. It was posted on March 27, 2011and it still gets occasional traffic. It has been visited 26 times. It seems to be popular with foreig visitors to the blog. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/03/humor-now.html
Another kind of blog post that doesn’t get much traffic are those in which I laud a politician that I otherwise don’t like. I do this as an exercise is public decency. I think there is something right about looking at the good qualities of someone you oppose. This is very true in these hyper-partisan times. It’s just that those posts aren’t usually popular. My post on Ron Paul got 11 visits, but my post on Rick Perry got only four. Ron Paul: http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul-ten-virtues.html Rick Perry: http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/09/rick-perry-ten-virtues.html
In these hyper-partisan times, I also have written about the need for civility. In "Tribes" (May 16, 2011; 12 visits) I wrote about this hyper-partisanship, and the need for mutual charity, and why charity is astute. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/05/tribes.html Another post on public civility is "Why and Act of Kindness is an Act of Patriotism. (June 22, 2011; 22 visits.) http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-act-of-kindness-is-act-of.html
My blog gets visitors from other countries. I can view the countries with the top-ten number of visitors. But there are many countries from which I have had just one or a handful of visits. These are the top ten countries that have visited the blog:
United States: 2,203
Russia: 111
Germany 58
Malaysia 51
Slovenia 36
Mexico 24
Canada 21
United Kingdom 16
Republic of Georgia 15
Denmark 10
Only once before did I blog about blogging. It was a post called "The Pleasure of It", which I posted on September 18, 2010. It has had 19 visits.
http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2010/09/pleasure-of-it.html
At a certain point, I started writing religious-themed posts. That’s because religion is one of my very deep interests. When I advertise the posts on Facebook, now-days I try to remember to flag them as religiously-themed, if they are. People who don’t like reading theology can avoid them; but many of my friends, like me, have a keen interest in conversation about God. A recent example is "Less Smart than We Think". It’s about the sovereignty of God and his power in human success and failure. I wrote it on March 3, 2012, and it has had eight visits. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2012/03/less-smart-than-we-think.html
Another one is "Rebellion and Restoration". It’s about obedience to God, and how the classical spiritual disciplines aid this. I posted it on February 22, 2012, and it has had seven visits. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2012/02/rebellion-and-restoration.html
A relatively more-popular religious post was "God, Satan, Bets, History and Us". It’s about the Book of Job. I ponder that the bet placed by God and Satan on Job is like bets that God places on us, our friends, our churches, and our nations. I posted it on November 26, 2011, and it has had 28 visits. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/03/humor-now.html
Some of my posts have been very personal. Often, I have been very reluctant to publish these posts. But it’s often the case that, after I do, I get messages from friends thanking me for sharing something so personal. Sometimes the post reminds them of something that happened to them personally, or to someone they cared about. Those posts have been hard to share; they probably have done the most good.
Probably the most personal post was "Suicide and Storm". http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/02/suicide-and-storm.html I also wrote "God, Madness, and Me" (October 22, 2010; 30 visits), about my madness and how it changed my religion. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2010/10/god-madness-and-me_22.html "Sleepless" was about my use of medical marijuana to treat my insomnia. (May 7, 2011; 36 visits.) I worried that my friends and others would label me a pot-head, but I got positive responses to the post. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/05/sleepless.html
Usually, my posts are my own work, but I owe a lot to the ideas of others. The exception is a blog I wrote with my friend John Engle. We both were moved to write about the need to fund treatment for the mentally ill. I incorporated his words into "Liberals and Conservatives Can Agree about Re-Funding Mental-Health Treatment." (January 20, 2011; eight visits.) http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/01/liberals-and-conservatives-can-agree.html
One advantage to writing a blog is that often an issue comes up with friends, like on Facebook, and I might remember that I’ve already written on that. Instead of writing out a whole argument, I refer my debate-partner to what I’ve already written. This most often happens when discussing the Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare"). This is my post on that: "What We Think When We Love Health-Care Reform, Or Hate It". (February 1, 2011; 30 visits.)
http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-we-think-when-we-love-health-care.html
Sometimes, I’m self-critical, but with a motive. "Dickish Me" (December 29, 2010; 22 visits). http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2010/12/dickish-me.html
There’s been a little poetry. For example, I wrote "What Gift Do I Have to Give My Wife" about my contributions to a hypothetical marriage. (April 12, 2011; 24 visits.) http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-gift-do-i-have-to-give-my-wife.html More doggerel than poetry: "Three Poems in Bad Taste for May 1, 2011". (May 2, 2011; nine visits.) These are pieces about the killing of Osama bin Laden. They form probably my least-favorite post, but not my least-popular. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/05/three-poems-in-bad-taste-for-may-1-2011.html
But, by and large, I’m happy with what I’ve written. I look forward to more blogging.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Less Smart than we Think
We are often overconfident. Sometimes that wrecks lives.
1. The case of a serial rapist.
A man was raping elderly women in Long Beach. This man would find apartments of elderly women, strip off his clothes, enter the apartment (usually through an open window), and sodomize his elderly victims. The Long Beach Police were frantic to end the lengthening chain of violated elderly women.
They brought in tracking dogs. The tracking dogs followed a scent, allegedly, to an apartment building. The scent, allegedly, led to a particular floor. On that floor, there was an apartment with the lights on. The police knocked on the door, but nobody answered. The police concluded that the perpetrator was in that apartment, and that he did not answer the door to impede the investigation.
The police learned who lived in that apartment. It was a man named Jeffrey G. They put together a photo lineup with his picture in it. The lineup had five Hispanics and one White guy. The White guy was Jeffrey G. An expert, a former detective who was also the former chief of an urban police department, later said that that was the most suggestive photo lineup he had ever seen used. Most of the victims identified the photo of Jeffrey G. as the perpetrator from the suggestive photo lineup.
The police arrested Jeffrey G. for the serial rapes. He worked for the City of Long Beach, and, when the police came to arrest him, he thought that his fellow city-employees were pranking him. His mother hired my firm to to defend him.
We started to accumulate evidence of innocence. We found that on the night of one Long Beach rape, our client had been visiting his mother in Grand Terrace. He drove back to Long Beach in the morning. On his way back, he got a traffic ticket. Also, within twenty minutes of another rape, Jeffrey G. was 15 miles away in a grocery story, cashing a check. The check had a time-stamp.
The police were accumulating evidence, too. But we learned that the police were shading their recollections to tilt the evidence toward proving the guilt of Jeffrey G. In fact, the real perpetrator committed one of his signature rapes while Jeffrey G. was in custody. The police suppressed news of that. They did not tell us that the Long Beach serial rapist had struck again while Jeffrey G. was in jail for being the Long Beach serial rapist.
But Jeffrey G. caught a break. In one of the rapes, the perpetrator had ejaculated on his victim. The perpetrator tried to lick off the semen, but he missed a little. This semen was collected as evidence. In another case, after he sodomize his victim, the perpetrator exited through a window. As he exited the window, a little fecal matter, with a little semen on it, fell from the tip of his penis onto the window sill. This evidence also was collected. These two incidents, one at the beginning of the chain of rapes, and one toward the end, gave DNA to compare to the DNA of Jeffrey G. It did not match.
We were not surprised. But everybody in law enforcement was stunned, from the detectives to the prosecutors. They were so certain that Jeffrey G. was guilty that they concluded that somehow the wrong DNA had been tested. So they sent a detective by airplane to hand-carry the DNA samples to the Justice Department laboratory in Sacramento, to make sure that the right samples were analyzed. The results were the same: Jeffrey G. was innocent.
The case was soon dismissed. But the Long Beach police continued to be certain that a guilty man had somehow been freed.
Years later, the actual perpetrator was caught. He was not even the same race as Jeffrey G. He and Jeffrey G. did not look alike. Jeffrey G. also was much taller. But the perpetrator’s DNA matched.
This tale should make us humble and cautious. The Long Beach detectives did not think they were sending an innocent man to prison for the rest of his life. They were sure that Jeffrey G. was guilty. Their certainty grew from the moment nobody answered the door of Jeffrey G’s apartment. Jeffrey G. wasn’t home. He had left the lights on to fool potential burglars.
The Long Beach detectives drew a conclusion that they should not have drawn from so little evidence. Being certain, they then started sculpting the evidence to create the appearance that Jeffrey G. was guilty. For example, a detective told us about certain evidence that she had observed; when we pointed out that that evidence actually helped our client, she gave different testimony under oath.
This points out a human trait: we tend to form conclusions before the evidence supports them. We are sure about things that we should not be sure about. This can lead to terrible consequences. It almost sent an innocent man to prison for the rest of his life.
2. The case of the self-made man or woman.
Sometimes, we enjoy a measure of material success in life. Our business thrives. Our investments prosper. Like the Long Beach detectives, we infer from that what is not warranted. We might conclude that we have prospered because of our own virtue, talent, and effort.
And, in our pride, we might condemn those who have not prospered. We might consider them less worthy than ourselves.
In the eyes of the world, this is right. The idea of a self-made man or woman is prominent in our culture.
3. The Bible’s point of view: Hannah.
But it defies the Biblical point of view. The Biblical point of view is that we are all subject to God, time, and chance.
A woman named Hannah who lived in ancient Israel was childless. She was devastated because of that. She prayed to God to open her womb. A priest saw her praying in the temple. He thought she was drunk because her lips moved, but he heard no words. (Apparently, that was not customary in that era.) She mad a vow to God, if only he would give her a son.
And God did. That boy became the prophet Samuel.
That woman’s prayer of gratitude will live forever (1 Samuel 2:1-10 (KJV)):
4. The Bible’s point of view: David.
David, a man after God’s own heart, fought Goliath. When David approached Goliath, Goliath told David that he would kill David and give David’s flesh to the birds of the air. David answered. And he did not speak of his own prowess as a fighter. He spoke of the power of God. He said (1 Samuel 17:45-47 (KJV)):
The book of Job is the story of a good and prosperous man who had everything taken from him, and then he was restored by God to his former prosperity. In his suffering, his friends came and, for a time, sat in silence. But then, in the certainty of their knowledge of God, they spoke out. And they said that Job must have offended God to be brought so low. In fact, the point of the book of Job is that it was Job’s very righteousness that made him a target of a bet between Satan and God.
6. The Bible’s point of view: Ecclesiastes.
And one of the Bible’s more famous passages occurs at Ecclesiastes 9:11 (KJV):
So, for all this Biblical witness, why do we insist that there are self-made men and women? A believer cannot.
We cannot believe that we are completely in charge of our own prosperity or poverty; intellect or ignorance; faith or un-belief; salvation or damnation.
Certainly, we have to cooperate with God to bring about good things. There would be no point to the urging in Proverbs to do right and be diligent if we had no responsibility to choose to do right or to be diligent. We do. The point is only that there are forces unseen that have a great deal to do with the rise and fall of persons, companies, churches, nations, and peoples. To say otherwise is to defy the Bible.
So if we know something, let us be humble about our knowledge.
If we have something, let us be humble about what he have.
If we keep from evil, let us be humble about our righteousness.
1. The case of a serial rapist.
A man was raping elderly women in Long Beach. This man would find apartments of elderly women, strip off his clothes, enter the apartment (usually through an open window), and sodomize his elderly victims. The Long Beach Police were frantic to end the lengthening chain of violated elderly women.
They brought in tracking dogs. The tracking dogs followed a scent, allegedly, to an apartment building. The scent, allegedly, led to a particular floor. On that floor, there was an apartment with the lights on. The police knocked on the door, but nobody answered. The police concluded that the perpetrator was in that apartment, and that he did not answer the door to impede the investigation.
The police learned who lived in that apartment. It was a man named Jeffrey G. They put together a photo lineup with his picture in it. The lineup had five Hispanics and one White guy. The White guy was Jeffrey G. An expert, a former detective who was also the former chief of an urban police department, later said that that was the most suggestive photo lineup he had ever seen used. Most of the victims identified the photo of Jeffrey G. as the perpetrator from the suggestive photo lineup.
The police arrested Jeffrey G. for the serial rapes. He worked for the City of Long Beach, and, when the police came to arrest him, he thought that his fellow city-employees were pranking him. His mother hired my firm to to defend him.
We started to accumulate evidence of innocence. We found that on the night of one Long Beach rape, our client had been visiting his mother in Grand Terrace. He drove back to Long Beach in the morning. On his way back, he got a traffic ticket. Also, within twenty minutes of another rape, Jeffrey G. was 15 miles away in a grocery story, cashing a check. The check had a time-stamp.
The police were accumulating evidence, too. But we learned that the police were shading their recollections to tilt the evidence toward proving the guilt of Jeffrey G. In fact, the real perpetrator committed one of his signature rapes while Jeffrey G. was in custody. The police suppressed news of that. They did not tell us that the Long Beach serial rapist had struck again while Jeffrey G. was in jail for being the Long Beach serial rapist.
But Jeffrey G. caught a break. In one of the rapes, the perpetrator had ejaculated on his victim. The perpetrator tried to lick off the semen, but he missed a little. This semen was collected as evidence. In another case, after he sodomize his victim, the perpetrator exited through a window. As he exited the window, a little fecal matter, with a little semen on it, fell from the tip of his penis onto the window sill. This evidence also was collected. These two incidents, one at the beginning of the chain of rapes, and one toward the end, gave DNA to compare to the DNA of Jeffrey G. It did not match.
We were not surprised. But everybody in law enforcement was stunned, from the detectives to the prosecutors. They were so certain that Jeffrey G. was guilty that they concluded that somehow the wrong DNA had been tested. So they sent a detective by airplane to hand-carry the DNA samples to the Justice Department laboratory in Sacramento, to make sure that the right samples were analyzed. The results were the same: Jeffrey G. was innocent.
The case was soon dismissed. But the Long Beach police continued to be certain that a guilty man had somehow been freed.
Years later, the actual perpetrator was caught. He was not even the same race as Jeffrey G. He and Jeffrey G. did not look alike. Jeffrey G. also was much taller. But the perpetrator’s DNA matched.
This tale should make us humble and cautious. The Long Beach detectives did not think they were sending an innocent man to prison for the rest of his life. They were sure that Jeffrey G. was guilty. Their certainty grew from the moment nobody answered the door of Jeffrey G’s apartment. Jeffrey G. wasn’t home. He had left the lights on to fool potential burglars.
The Long Beach detectives drew a conclusion that they should not have drawn from so little evidence. Being certain, they then started sculpting the evidence to create the appearance that Jeffrey G. was guilty. For example, a detective told us about certain evidence that she had observed; when we pointed out that that evidence actually helped our client, she gave different testimony under oath.
This points out a human trait: we tend to form conclusions before the evidence supports them. We are sure about things that we should not be sure about. This can lead to terrible consequences. It almost sent an innocent man to prison for the rest of his life.
2. The case of the self-made man or woman.
Sometimes, we enjoy a measure of material success in life. Our business thrives. Our investments prosper. Like the Long Beach detectives, we infer from that what is not warranted. We might conclude that we have prospered because of our own virtue, talent, and effort.
And, in our pride, we might condemn those who have not prospered. We might consider them less worthy than ourselves.
In the eyes of the world, this is right. The idea of a self-made man or woman is prominent in our culture.
3. The Bible’s point of view: Hannah.
But it defies the Biblical point of view. The Biblical point of view is that we are all subject to God, time, and chance.
A woman named Hannah who lived in ancient Israel was childless. She was devastated because of that. She prayed to God to open her womb. A priest saw her praying in the temple. He thought she was drunk because her lips moved, but he heard no words. (Apparently, that was not customary in that era.) She mad a vow to God, if only he would give her a son.
And God did. That boy became the prophet Samuel.
That woman’s prayer of gratitude will live forever (1 Samuel 2:1-10 (KJV)):
1And Hannah prayed, and said, My heart rejoiceth in the LORD, mine horn is exalted in the LORD: my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies; because I rejoice in thy salvation. 2There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God. 3Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed. 4The bows of the mighty men are broken, and they that stumbled are girded with strength. 5They that were full have hired out themselves for bread; and they that were hungry ceased: so that the barren hath born seven; and she that hath many children is waxed feeble.
6The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. 7The LORD maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up. 8He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them. 9He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail. 10The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the LORD shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed.Hannah's prayer gives glory to God for raising up and for putting down
4. The Bible’s point of view: David.
David, a man after God’s own heart, fought Goliath. When David approached Goliath, Goliath told David that he would kill David and give David’s flesh to the birds of the air. David answered. And he did not speak of his own prowess as a fighter. He spoke of the power of God. He said (1 Samuel 17:45-47 (KJV)):
45Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied. 46This day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. 47And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the LORD's, and he will give you into our hands.5. The Bible’s point of view: Job.
The book of Job is the story of a good and prosperous man who had everything taken from him, and then he was restored by God to his former prosperity. In his suffering, his friends came and, for a time, sat in silence. But then, in the certainty of their knowledge of God, they spoke out. And they said that Job must have offended God to be brought so low. In fact, the point of the book of Job is that it was Job’s very righteousness that made him a target of a bet between Satan and God.
6. The Bible’s point of view: Ecclesiastes.
And one of the Bible’s more famous passages occurs at Ecclesiastes 9:11 (KJV):
I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.7. Defiance.
So, for all this Biblical witness, why do we insist that there are self-made men and women? A believer cannot.
We cannot believe that we are completely in charge of our own prosperity or poverty; intellect or ignorance; faith or un-belief; salvation or damnation.
Certainly, we have to cooperate with God to bring about good things. There would be no point to the urging in Proverbs to do right and be diligent if we had no responsibility to choose to do right or to be diligent. We do. The point is only that there are forces unseen that have a great deal to do with the rise and fall of persons, companies, churches, nations, and peoples. To say otherwise is to defy the Bible.
So if we know something, let us be humble about our knowledge.
If we have something, let us be humble about what he have.
If we keep from evil, let us be humble about our righteousness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)