On October 3, 1995, OJ Simpson was acquitted for of the murders of his ex-wife Nicole and her friend Ronald Goldman. The jury consisting of 10 women and two men, of which there were nine blacks, two whites, and one Hispanic, took less than four hours to reach a unanimous decision in the trial that had gripped America for an entire year.
The Simpson trial was held up as a litmus test for the racial chasm that afflicted the great American experiment. During the trial, the defense team compared the prosecution's central witness to Adolf Hitler, and referred to him as "a genocidal racist, a perjurer, America's worst nightmare and the personification of evil." Fears grew that race riots would erupt all over Los Angeles. Police officers were put on 12-hour shifts, and a line of over 100 police officers on horseback surrounded the L.A. county courthouse on the day of the verdict, in case of rioting by the predominantly African American crowd.
An NBC poll taken in 2004 reported that, although 77% of 1,186 people sampled thought Simpson was guilty, only 27% of blacks in the sample believed so, compared to 87% of whites. And, following Mr. Simpson's conviction in civil court for the wrongful death of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman, most whites believed justice had been served and 75% of blacks believed the verdict to be racially motivated, according to polling reported in USA Today.
On December 5, 2008 OJ Simpson was sentenced to what amounts to a life sentence for armed robbery, in an atmosphere that can best be described as anticlimactic.
On January 20, 2009, after having won almost 53% of all votes cast, a black man by the name of Barack Obama will assume the office of President of the United States.
Have we really torn down such a vast racial divide in just 14 years? I think not. I do not believe that such a vast racial divide exists in the America that we all live in. I know that I strain the limits of credibility by making such a statement from the lily white confines of the great state of Vermont, but please humor me for a moment.
In my lifetime I have seen Catholics and Protestants killing each other for past sins, real and imagined in Ireland. I have observed the middle east peace process evolving into an institution, a bureaucracy that tries to alter the tradition of slaughter between Jews and Arabs. Ethnic cleansing in southern Europe and the African continent have left millions dead and mutilated. Race riots on our shores have destroyed countless lives and property. In less violent examples, a Japanese technician will not answer a tech support call from Korea. A Taiwanese will not accept a call from a Chinese. And in the UK, in bold headline type, the London Times declared that the likes of Barack Obama would never be elected in Great Britain due to institutional racism.
Racism exists everywhere and, to some extent, exists in everyone. If we substitute the term "ignorance" for racism, we will get closer to the heart of the issue. Ignorance of something is accompanied by a fear of that which is not understood. Racism, then, is a manifestation of the fear of something, or someone that we do not understand, or about which we are ignorant. Said differently and substituting the terms in the above sentence, we get: "Ignorance exists everywhere". And to complete the thought, ignorance is the root cause of racism.
Ignorance is the universal evil, not racism. Ignorance fosters fear. Ignorance fosters violence. Ignorance clouds reason, and blocks the path to understanding. It precludes the ability to realize that no grandfather wants to see his grandchildren facing harm. It limits the ability to understand the universal joys of art, music and the laughter of children.
And, ignorance is curable.
So, have we received a miracle cure for ignorance in the last 14 years? To a degree, yes. The reasoned debate spawned by the original OJ trials, the unfortunate on-air antics of IMUS in the morning, and the oratory of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright have forced the debate into kitchens, dining rooms and meeting halls across this great nation. The ascension of black conservatives has forced American society to rethink racial stereotypes. Globalism has introduced us to people who have no common history with us ("Hello, this is Bangalore, how may I help you?"), and has introduced us to what we do have in common, be it a laptop, toaster or lost baggage.
The America that elected Barack Obama is a different America than that which cheered, or abhorred the original OJ verdicts. It is younger, it is wiser, it is stronger and it is less ignorant. And, most importantly, it is a nation focused on hope, focused not on past sins, but on the boundless possibilities of a bright future, an enlightened future, a future where we will not put our children and grandchildren in harm's way.
During this Christmas season, remember the laughter of children and grandchildren, laughter that is hopeful and free of the ignorance that we accumulate over the years. Remember that the Arab, the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Christian and the atheist all share a love of life and family. And remember that if we concentrate on this common ground, our ignorance of those different from us will recede with each interaction.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Not a time for partisanship
In his 1980 work “The Real War”, Richard Nixon discusses the Cold War and global power in terms of national will, diplomacy, natural resources (i.e. oil), military power, and economic power.
Today we find ourselves facing crises of national will, diplomacy, oil, and economic power. We are a nation observing its national will in the mirror of a national election fraught with bickering, name calling and a total lack of anything resembling a coherent, reasoned discussion of the great issues facing our great nation. We have seen our global diplomatic status erode through consistent, unilateral initiatives. Our refusal to deal with our increasing thirst for foreign oil has put us in a position where our national wealth is being siphoned off at a staggering pace. We still can take perverse comfort in our ability to bomb anyone into the stone-age with virtual impunity, though we seem to be having trouble keeping track of all of our nukes. And our economic power, the great stability and opportunity of the US capital markets stands in a shambles, victim to misguided legislation and lack of oversight.
The debate is raging regarding the great $700 billion bailout bill. The administration says that the plan is desperately needed to maintain the solvency of the US economy. Voices from the opposition bemoan the shifting of the burden onto the taxpayers. Both arguments have merit. In a global financial marketplace where billions of dollars are moved with the push of the button, time is of the essence, and the appearance of a protracted legislative fight will only reinforce the impression that the US has no credible plan. Conversely, the granting of a financial mulligan to a handful of Wall Street profiteers is as distasteful as a plate of cold haggis.
Into this mix, as predictable as the sunrise, has entered Senator Bernie Sanders. On the Senator’s web site (Sanders Op-Ed: The Middle Class Must Not Be Forced to Bail Out Wall Street Greed -- 09/21/2008) he states:
“…as a member of the House Banking Committee and now as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I have heard the Bush Administration tell us how “robust” our economy was and how strong the “fundamentals” were… Now, we are being told that if Congress does not act immediately and approve the $700 billion Wall Street bailout proposal …there will be an unprecedented economic meltdown in the United States and an unraveling of the global economy”.
Now, I don’t know about you, but this strikes me as odd. Isn’t Mr. Sanders, as a member of these committees, supposed to be the expert on banking issues? Shouldn’t he be telling the President, and anyone who might listen, what the state of our economy is? Why is he looking to the President for analysis of our economic situation?
The answer to that question is quite simple. Mr. Sanders views this crisis as a vehicle for political gain first, and an opportunity to serve his constituents and this nation, second.
Before we rush to lay the blame for the current mess on the Bush administration, let us remember that it was President Clinton who signed into law the legislation to dismantle Glass-Steagall, the post depression regulations that prevented the construction of integrated financial institutions. Without that legislation, sponsored by Phil Gramm ,we could not have gotten into this mess.
The blame for this mess crosses party lines, and is at your feet, Senator, as well as your colleagues, past and present, on both sides of the aisle.
We are faced with a Hobson's choice; fund the bailout with taxpayer dollars or let the financial institutions fail, and bring our collective net worth, and economy down with them. With the bailout, we buy time to let you “experts in congress” who represent us try to fix the problem. Without it, you are off the hook. You will keep drawing your government check while those whom you, supposedly, serve lose everything.
Time is of the essence. Partisanship is unacceptable. Tweak the bill, but don’t re-write it.
Way to go, Bernie. This is despicable.
Today we find ourselves facing crises of national will, diplomacy, oil, and economic power. We are a nation observing its national will in the mirror of a national election fraught with bickering, name calling and a total lack of anything resembling a coherent, reasoned discussion of the great issues facing our great nation. We have seen our global diplomatic status erode through consistent, unilateral initiatives. Our refusal to deal with our increasing thirst for foreign oil has put us in a position where our national wealth is being siphoned off at a staggering pace. We still can take perverse comfort in our ability to bomb anyone into the stone-age with virtual impunity, though we seem to be having trouble keeping track of all of our nukes. And our economic power, the great stability and opportunity of the US capital markets stands in a shambles, victim to misguided legislation and lack of oversight.
The debate is raging regarding the great $700 billion bailout bill. The administration says that the plan is desperately needed to maintain the solvency of the US economy. Voices from the opposition bemoan the shifting of the burden onto the taxpayers. Both arguments have merit. In a global financial marketplace where billions of dollars are moved with the push of the button, time is of the essence, and the appearance of a protracted legislative fight will only reinforce the impression that the US has no credible plan. Conversely, the granting of a financial mulligan to a handful of Wall Street profiteers is as distasteful as a plate of cold haggis.
Into this mix, as predictable as the sunrise, has entered Senator Bernie Sanders. On the Senator’s web site (Sanders Op-Ed: The Middle Class Must Not Be Forced to Bail Out Wall Street Greed -- 09/21/2008) he states:
“…as a member of the House Banking Committee and now as a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I have heard the Bush Administration tell us how “robust” our economy was and how strong the “fundamentals” were… Now, we are being told that if Congress does not act immediately and approve the $700 billion Wall Street bailout proposal …there will be an unprecedented economic meltdown in the United States and an unraveling of the global economy”.
Now, I don’t know about you, but this strikes me as odd. Isn’t Mr. Sanders, as a member of these committees, supposed to be the expert on banking issues? Shouldn’t he be telling the President, and anyone who might listen, what the state of our economy is? Why is he looking to the President for analysis of our economic situation?
The answer to that question is quite simple. Mr. Sanders views this crisis as a vehicle for political gain first, and an opportunity to serve his constituents and this nation, second.
Before we rush to lay the blame for the current mess on the Bush administration, let us remember that it was President Clinton who signed into law the legislation to dismantle Glass-Steagall, the post depression regulations that prevented the construction of integrated financial institutions. Without that legislation, sponsored by Phil Gramm ,we could not have gotten into this mess.
The blame for this mess crosses party lines, and is at your feet, Senator, as well as your colleagues, past and present, on both sides of the aisle.
We are faced with a Hobson's choice; fund the bailout with taxpayer dollars or let the financial institutions fail, and bring our collective net worth, and economy down with them. With the bailout, we buy time to let you “experts in congress” who represent us try to fix the problem. Without it, you are off the hook. You will keep drawing your government check while those whom you, supposedly, serve lose everything.
Time is of the essence. Partisanship is unacceptable. Tweak the bill, but don’t re-write it.
Way to go, Bernie. This is despicable.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Where is the ability to listen?
The firestorm surrounding the relationship between the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the candidacy of Barack Obama offers a tremendous opportunity to analyze the dynamic of the interaction between the political class, the fourth estate, the electorate and the role of religion in our society.
The electorate is being fed sound bite analysis of a Church and a man of deep faith by the mainstream, electronic media. The political class is assuming that the only dynamic at work is the quest for personal power by a black minister. The electorate is engaging the debate based upon the snippets being fed on cable news and is ignoring the more in-depth analyses that are available in print media and on the web. And the United Church of Christ is trying to use this opportunity to promote a more rational discussion, a sacred discussion, on race in America.
All of this is a result of our desire to have an ever more complex world boiled down for us into a single, simple sentence. Unfortunately, in the worlds of politics and religion, this is not possible.
As a pastor, Rev. Wright is driven by his interpretation of God's agenda for social justice. This agenda is presented in Christian scripture and the writings and teachings of the great monotheisms. This agenda transcends national boundaries and political ideology. This agenda demands the acknowledgement of historical reality and present day public policy. In speaking with Bill Moyers, Rev. White offered this: "When you start confusing God and government, your allegiances to government -a particular government and not to God, then you're in serious trouble because governments fail people. And governments change. And governments lie."
An agenda for social justice assumes that, in God's eyes, the eradication of the Jews by the Nazis is no different than the eradication of the Apache, Arapaho, Iroquois and Sioux by a young America in its quest for Manifest Destiny. It assumes that enslavement of dissidents in the Gulags is no different than banishment of Japanese-Americans to internment camps. It assumes that jump-starting a market-based economy with human slavery is no different than enforcing a state-run economy with the abridgement of freedoms. And it assumes that the heinous, terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were a reaction to American sins, real and imagined, and not a spurious, whimsical stunt by a bunch of nut-jobs. While these equations may seem abhorrent to many Americans, to others, they are frighteningly accurate.
Or, in deference to our sound-bite culture, America has a lot of dirty laundry. This acknowledgement of American mistakes, and the attempt to re-write history to be more inclusive of the more distasteful aspects of our past is necessary to elevate our standing in the debate. The first reaction of this writer to the September 11 attacks was: "My God, what have we done to foster this anger?" How many of you, reading this essay, had a similar reaction?
Before we jump to the conclusion that this smack's of a "Blame America First" mentality, ponder the possibility that Rev. Wright is expressing the frustration of a lost opportunity. Chicago's Trinity United Congregational Church is testimony of what is possible in America. From humble beginnings, Rev. Wright has built what President Regan would call a beacon of hope. This beacon feeds the hungry, comforts the afflicted, clothes and houses the needy and provides programs that encourage all to lift themselves out of drugs, poverty and hopelessness. This beacon finds its moral authority in Christian scripture, a paradigm that acknowledges human frailty, the eternal battle between good and evil and provides a "how to" guide for achieving social justice. Consider the possibility that Rev. Wright sees a moment in time when the debate can be elevated in America and real progress in unleashing human potential in the quest for social justice can be made.
Today’s “talking heads” media cannot conceive of a person who is motivated by things other than personal aggrandizement. The questions reverberate from the tube and flat screen: What's in it for him? Is he just intoxicated by the limelight? Why is he torpedoing Obama? Was he dissed by Obama?
These are all logical and relevant questions when discussing Katy Couric's ratings. They have nothing to do with Rev. Wright's agenda.
The electorate is being fed sound bite analysis of a Church and a man of deep faith by the mainstream, electronic media. The political class is assuming that the only dynamic at work is the quest for personal power by a black minister. The electorate is engaging the debate based upon the snippets being fed on cable news and is ignoring the more in-depth analyses that are available in print media and on the web. And the United Church of Christ is trying to use this opportunity to promote a more rational discussion, a sacred discussion, on race in America.
All of this is a result of our desire to have an ever more complex world boiled down for us into a single, simple sentence. Unfortunately, in the worlds of politics and religion, this is not possible.
As a pastor, Rev. Wright is driven by his interpretation of God's agenda for social justice. This agenda is presented in Christian scripture and the writings and teachings of the great monotheisms. This agenda transcends national boundaries and political ideology. This agenda demands the acknowledgement of historical reality and present day public policy. In speaking with Bill Moyers, Rev. White offered this: "When you start confusing God and government, your allegiances to government -a particular government and not to God, then you're in serious trouble because governments fail people. And governments change. And governments lie."
An agenda for social justice assumes that, in God's eyes, the eradication of the Jews by the Nazis is no different than the eradication of the Apache, Arapaho, Iroquois and Sioux by a young America in its quest for Manifest Destiny. It assumes that enslavement of dissidents in the Gulags is no different than banishment of Japanese-Americans to internment camps. It assumes that jump-starting a market-based economy with human slavery is no different than enforcing a state-run economy with the abridgement of freedoms. And it assumes that the heinous, terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were a reaction to American sins, real and imagined, and not a spurious, whimsical stunt by a bunch of nut-jobs. While these equations may seem abhorrent to many Americans, to others, they are frighteningly accurate.
Or, in deference to our sound-bite culture, America has a lot of dirty laundry. This acknowledgement of American mistakes, and the attempt to re-write history to be more inclusive of the more distasteful aspects of our past is necessary to elevate our standing in the debate. The first reaction of this writer to the September 11 attacks was: "My God, what have we done to foster this anger?" How many of you, reading this essay, had a similar reaction?
Before we jump to the conclusion that this smack's of a "Blame America First" mentality, ponder the possibility that Rev. Wright is expressing the frustration of a lost opportunity. Chicago's Trinity United Congregational Church is testimony of what is possible in America. From humble beginnings, Rev. Wright has built what President Regan would call a beacon of hope. This beacon feeds the hungry, comforts the afflicted, clothes and houses the needy and provides programs that encourage all to lift themselves out of drugs, poverty and hopelessness. This beacon finds its moral authority in Christian scripture, a paradigm that acknowledges human frailty, the eternal battle between good and evil and provides a "how to" guide for achieving social justice. Consider the possibility that Rev. Wright sees a moment in time when the debate can be elevated in America and real progress in unleashing human potential in the quest for social justice can be made.
Today’s “talking heads” media cannot conceive of a person who is motivated by things other than personal aggrandizement. The questions reverberate from the tube and flat screen: What's in it for him? Is he just intoxicated by the limelight? Why is he torpedoing Obama? Was he dissed by Obama?
These are all logical and relevant questions when discussing Katy Couric's ratings. They have nothing to do with Rev. Wright's agenda.
Rev. Wright is a man of God. He is not without flaws as he is made from flesh, but he is called to a life of service and faith. Though this writer has no particular "inside info" I believe that we can connect the dots and draw some fair conclusions.
- Dot 1. Through his leadership, the Trinity United Church of Christ has grown from 87 to more than 8,000 members.
- Dot 2. Rev. Wright has a legacy of service to his country and his God.
- Dot 3. Rev. Wright uses a confrontational style as a means to call people to action.
Let's connect dots one and two. Go to CBS.com, PBS.org or chicagotribune.com and watch or read a complete sermon or two. You will see a man of faith, a man of passion and a man who is leading his people from the wilderness. You will see a preacher who rattles the rafters with oratory. And you will see a leader who has built a dynamic and talented congregation in a time when most congregations are shrinking.
At the National Press Club conference on April 28th, in fielding a question about his patriotism, Reverend Wright retorted: "I served six years in the military, does that make me patriotic? How many did Cheney serve?"
Is he a patriot? Yes. Does he profess blind allegiance to the United States of America? No, his allegiance is to his God. He has been called to serve, first in the US military, then in the ministry, and has demonstrated time and again that he can mobilize and motivate people to do good things.
During one of the famous debates with Jimmy Carter, Ronald Regan challenged America to action when he asked a simple, powerful question: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" Similarly, Rev. Wright challenges his congregation, paraphrasing Psalm 137 as America lusted for revenge following the September 11 terrorist attacks: " Let's kill the baby-let's bash their heads against the stone." He goes on to say: "And that my beloved is a dangerous place to be. Yet, that is where the people of faith are in 551 BC and that is where far too many people of faith are in 2001 AD. We have moved from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents. We want revenge. We want paybacks and we don't care who gets hurt in the process." What was his challenge? If you want to seek revenge, kill the babies. Is this what God wants of you?
We are left with a man who thoroughly confuses the media. We are left with a man who is a patriot that rejects the "My country, right or wrong" dogma. We are left with a leader who has built a Church driven by service, Christian ideals and adherence to God's desire for a more perfect people. And we are left with a gifted orator who asks demanding questions, demanding excellence from the "Shining city on a hill" when mediocrity is the norm.
So, why do we not hear this type of commentary in the media? Perhaps it is because it is misguided. Perhaps it is because we don't want to hear it. More likely, though, because it takes work, it takes reflection, it takes listening. And, when the air is rushing in through your ears and exiting through your mouth, it is very difficult to listen.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Musings
- Why do we press harder on a remote control when we know the batteries are flat?
- Why do banks charge a fee on "insufficient funds" when they know there is not enough?
- Why does someone believe you when you say there are four billion stars, but check when you say the paint is wet?
- Why doesn't glue stick to the bottle?
- Why do they use sterilised needles for death by lethal injection?
- Why doesn't Tarzan have a beard?
- Why does Superman stop bullets with his chest, but ducks when you throw a gun at him?
- Why do Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?
- Whose idea was it to put an "S" in the word "lisp"?
- What is the speed of darkness?
- Are there specially reserved parking spaces for non-disabled people at The Special Olympics?
- If you send someone 'Styrofoam', how do you pack it?
- If the temperature is zero outside today and it's going to be twice as cold tomorrow, how cold will it be?
- If people evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
- If it's true that we are here to help others, what are the others doing here?
- Do married people live longer than single ones or does it only seem longer?
- If someone with a split personality threatens to commit suicide, is it a hostage situation?
- Can you cry under water?
- What level of importance must a person have, before they are considered assassinated instead of just murdered?
- If money doesn't grow on trees then why do banks have branches?
- Why does a round pizza come in a square box?
- How is it that we put man on the moon before we figured out it would be a good idea to put wheels on bigger suitcases?
- Why is it that people say they "slept like a baby" when babies wake up, like, every two hours?
- If a deaf person has to go to court, is it still called a hearing?
- Why do people pay to go up tall buildings and then put money in binoculars to look at things on the ground?
- Why do doctors, when they ask you to strip, leave the room or close the cubicle curtain while you change? ............ they're still going to see you naked anyway
It's that time again!
You've seen them, those little black furry things stuck to the road. The black, white and pink mélange is as sure a sign of the coming spring as the robins in the backyard. The pungent odor that can seep through watertight doors. Yes, the skunks are back!
Last night, Lou, our otherwise cute cat, came in the house after a close encounter of the odiferous kind. After abject panic I managed to throw him back outdoors to enjoy his predicament for the remainder of the evening. As I considered my plans for the next morning, I washed my hands in spaghetti sauce (we don't keep an emergency supply of tomato juice handy...maybe we should take this up with Homeland Security), throwing out the meatballs.
When I got up this morning, after lamenting the waste of perfectly good tomatoes and meatballs, I found this recipe for de-skunking pets.
Warning: Try this at home only when absolutely necessary.
Cleaning solution ingredients:
• 1 cup water
• 1/2 cup baking soda
• 1 tsp. dishwasher soap
• 1 qt. 3% hydrogen peroxide solution
• 1 case beer/wine (optional...you shouldn't need to double this ingredient if you double the recipe)
Pet Cleaning Process: Get one bucket for the solution, one for rinse water, and optionally, one more to wash the little beast in. Get a wash rag and several towels.
Change into grungy clothes. Get your significant other to help.
Mix the solution, plop kitty/poochie/pick-a-pet into the wash tub, and scrub him with the wash cloth, being careful not to get the solution into his eyes. Dunk pet into the rinse tub...ignoring the open wounds that have suddenly appeared on your hands and wrists. Rinse well and transfer to towels. Rub dry and lock in the boiler room where h/she can dry off in a warm place, without infecting every piece of upholstered furniture in the house.
Drink heavily, then shower.
Unwillingness to do the hard work
I recently received mail from Senator Sanders (Bernie Buzz, January 31) that alerted me to a congratulatory editorial in the Brattleboro Reformer entitled "Vt. delegation fights an uphill battle in D.C." by Joyce Marcel -- www.sanders.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=291556 .
I thought that the essay should not go unchallenged.
Here in the Mad River Valley we have a field full of flags, one for each of our brave children who has fallen in the cradle of civilization. As I drive past those flags I reflect on my dismay at our commencement of this conflict, our inability to manage it, and my fear for the future of the region and our nation.
The Vermont delegation must be congratulated for resisting the invasion of Iraq, but that's about it.
Warfare is the end point in the continuum of diplomatic activity, not a discrete, tragic happenstance that exists in and of itself. And as part of that continuum, its conclusion must be supported by less deadly diplomatic initiatives.
We are taught this by observation of the slaughter that ensued following our abandonment of South Vietnam and in the mutilation of millions in World War II, where the Third Reich filled the political and military vacuum resulting from the Treaty of Versailles.
That leads me to our congressional delegation and its "hard work" in trying to end the war.
Continued calls to bring our troops home are mere window dressing for the next election cycle, and are as effective as a sandcastle guarding against the tide. And Mssrs. Leahy, Sanders and Welch know it. Wiser men and women understand the folly of a unilateral, time-based abandonment of Iraq. They realize that a 21st century version of the Third Reich will fill the vacuum that will result from a hasty, apolitical withdrawal.
The fact is, no matter how much we hate it, we, America, are in this war. We started this war. And we must end this war. As the spoils of war go to the victor, so does the responsibility to restore the vanquished to political and economic viability.
And that is hard work.
I will congratulate our delegation when they lead a realistic effort to end this conflict in a manner that promotes stability in the region. Until then, my dismay at their willingness to tilt at windmills and unwillingness to do the hard work needed to end this national nightmare will grow.
As will all of our dismay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)