When I first saw the news clips of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor, denouncing America and White people, I was outraged. I asked how Senator Obama could sit in that church for 20 years and not condemn the sermons of this virulent racist and black separatist? Then I saw the speech of Senator Obama on March 18, 2008, and was deeply moved. As a supporter of Hillary Clinton, I reevaluated my feelings about Barack Obama. Words can change history, and the words of this brilliant, gifted, eloquent man might just change America.
Senator Obama could have cringed under the wrath of White opponents. Instead, he stood up like a man and rebuked the words of Reverend Wright while refusing to denounce his pastor. He placed those words in their historical context. He defined the relationship between Black and White in America and clarified the relationship he had with this outspoken minister. He told a story of his first visit to the church:
“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world.”
Reverend Wright’s words, in the news clips we have seen, were inflammatory and unacceptable, but they also reflect the anger of generations of African Americans who have lived through a hell of contempt and discrimination. As Senator Obama said, these words could be heard in African American churches across America. I believe that there is an anger that seethes just below the surface of Black America. Our power structure has kept and continues to keep poor Black people down through perpetuation of inadequate schools, discrimination in real estate, denial of loans, and exclusion from unions, police forces, fire departments, and every other kind of job. The truth is that African Americans are disrespected by Whites every day.
But in his speech, Senator Obama explained why, in spite of White prejudice, Reverend Wright was wrong:
“The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black, Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.”
Barack Obama understands that not only Whites, but African Americans have to change their way of thinking. He says:
“For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who's been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.”
Senator Obama knows that he cannot solve all of the festering problems of race in America. But perhaps if he is elected president, he can inspire young Black men and women with hope where once there was despair. Perhaps with the dignity, wisdom, and the power of his speech, Barack Obama can lead America and the world to greater tolerance, peace, and understanding.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Saturday, March 15, 2008
The Second Amendment, Guns, and Death
After my father died, friends advised my seventy-year-old mother to get a gun for protection. My brothers and I insisted that she not do so. I told her that if she got a gun, the only thing she would accomplish would be to enable an intruder to take the gun away from her and shoot her with it. I am sure that this would apply to millions of Americans who think that having a gun would provide them with some kind of security. It would do no such thing. Surveys have shown that having a gun in the house significantly heightens the danger to the occupants
Now comes a Commentary in the Greene County Dailies by Sandy Froman, former president of the NRA, and Ken Blackwell, unsuccessful candidate for Ohio governor and a member of the NRA Public Affairs Committee. They argue that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects Americans’ right to own guns and that people should be able to have handguns in their homes for safety and defense.
The Second Amendment says: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In the case of United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court held that the government could regulate the possession of firearms because the Second Amendment means only that the states are permitted to have a “well regulated” militia. It doesn’t mean that private citizens are entitled to own guns. Many lower courts have followed the decision in United States v. Miller.
When the Second Amendment was enacted, every state had a militia and most adult males belonged to the militia. In those days, every man supplied his own gun and ammunition. Today, the states have National Guard units, but those units keep all weapons under lock and key. Nobody shows up with his own firearm. The use of guns today has nothing to do with militias.
In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller now before the Supreme Court, the question presented is broader than whether the states can regulate guns. The question is whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of all handguns. The Council of the District of Columbia found that so much of the rampant crime in the district was carried out with handguns, it was necessary to ban all handguns--period.
Although handguns account for most of the murders in America, surveys show that most of the shootings are not the work of armed robbers, muggers, drug dealers, or professional hit men. The culprits are your average citizens. Millions of guns are sold every year to people who have no history of crime. According to government statistics, most of the killings are the result of people turning their guns on themselves (approximately 58% of all gun deaths are suicides). Of the remaining homicides, approximately 51% were committed on family, friends, neighbors, boyfriends, girlfriends, or close acquaintances. Less than 14% of all shootings are carried out by strangers. Only a tiny fraction of the shootings are done by people in self-defense.
Having a handgun around the house is especially dangerous for spouses. Instead of going to a friendly divorce attorney, many angry people turn to their handy firearm in order to clarify their relationships with their mates. Guns are also dangerous to children. Children in states with the highest rates of gun possession in the home were sixteen times more likely to die from accidental gunshot wounds, nearly seven times as likely to commit suicide, and more than three times as likely to be murdered with a firearm as children in homes with no guns. The top quarter of states with the highest gun ownership had firearm homicide rates 114 percent higher than states within the lowest.
There is now a move on to allow guns to every student on every college campus. The theory is that when a psychotic killer starts shooting-up the student body, there will be plenty of students to confront him with massive firepower. Such a dimwitted idea fails, of course, to take account of the fact that there are still many mentally deranged students on college campuses who do not yet own guns. If, however, they were given easy access to firearms they would probably feel that they have more freedom to take-out their rages and frustrations on other students.
Handguns are necessary for those involved in law enforcement, and I have no problem with hunters owning rifles. But with those exceptions, this would be a better place if there were no more handguns in America.
Now comes a Commentary in the Greene County Dailies by Sandy Froman, former president of the NRA, and Ken Blackwell, unsuccessful candidate for Ohio governor and a member of the NRA Public Affairs Committee. They argue that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects Americans’ right to own guns and that people should be able to have handguns in their homes for safety and defense.
The Second Amendment says: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In the case of United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court held that the government could regulate the possession of firearms because the Second Amendment means only that the states are permitted to have a “well regulated” militia. It doesn’t mean that private citizens are entitled to own guns. Many lower courts have followed the decision in United States v. Miller.
When the Second Amendment was enacted, every state had a militia and most adult males belonged to the militia. In those days, every man supplied his own gun and ammunition. Today, the states have National Guard units, but those units keep all weapons under lock and key. Nobody shows up with his own firearm. The use of guns today has nothing to do with militias.
In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller now before the Supreme Court, the question presented is broader than whether the states can regulate guns. The question is whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of all handguns. The Council of the District of Columbia found that so much of the rampant crime in the district was carried out with handguns, it was necessary to ban all handguns--period.
Although handguns account for most of the murders in America, surveys show that most of the shootings are not the work of armed robbers, muggers, drug dealers, or professional hit men. The culprits are your average citizens. Millions of guns are sold every year to people who have no history of crime. According to government statistics, most of the killings are the result of people turning their guns on themselves (approximately 58% of all gun deaths are suicides). Of the remaining homicides, approximately 51% were committed on family, friends, neighbors, boyfriends, girlfriends, or close acquaintances. Less than 14% of all shootings are carried out by strangers. Only a tiny fraction of the shootings are done by people in self-defense.
Having a handgun around the house is especially dangerous for spouses. Instead of going to a friendly divorce attorney, many angry people turn to their handy firearm in order to clarify their relationships with their mates. Guns are also dangerous to children. Children in states with the highest rates of gun possession in the home were sixteen times more likely to die from accidental gunshot wounds, nearly seven times as likely to commit suicide, and more than three times as likely to be murdered with a firearm as children in homes with no guns. The top quarter of states with the highest gun ownership had firearm homicide rates 114 percent higher than states within the lowest.
There is now a move on to allow guns to every student on every college campus. The theory is that when a psychotic killer starts shooting-up the student body, there will be plenty of students to confront him with massive firepower. Such a dimwitted idea fails, of course, to take account of the fact that there are still many mentally deranged students on college campuses who do not yet own guns. If, however, they were given easy access to firearms they would probably feel that they have more freedom to take-out their rages and frustrations on other students.
Handguns are necessary for those involved in law enforcement, and I have no problem with hunters owning rifles. But with those exceptions, this would be a better place if there were no more handguns in America.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Easter and Jesus
Easter is coming early this year. It will be upon us on March 23rd, just after the first day of Spring. The holiday was named “Easter” after Eostre, the Saxon goddess whose feast was celebrated at the Spring equinox.
Ancient people would not be surprised at our celebration of the resurrection of a living god at this time of year. The death and resurrection of gods was a well known scenario in ancient myth. The death and resurrection of the Roman god Attis was celebrated on March 25th. Attis was the son of Cyble, known as “The Great Mother,” whose worship was introduced into Rome from Phrygia (in today’s Turkey) around 204 BC.
The Greek god Dionysus was killed by his enemies and died. He descended into Hades and arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of Zeus. His festival was celebrated in the Spring around the time that we now celebrate Easter. Other gods and goddesses who died and arose again from the dead are Adonis, Mithras, Persephone, Semele, Heracles (or Herakles), Osirus, Tammuz, Ishtar, and Melqart.
Christians today believe that Jesus is the omnipotent and everlasting god who created the universe. The Catholic Church and others believe that as the “Son of God,” Jesus is a manifestation of God himself through the Holy Trinity. The idea of a holy trinity did not originate with the Christians. Hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus, the Egyptian goddess Isis was worshipped along with her consort Sarapis and their child Harpocrates (Horus), as members of a Holy Trinity.
Some of the biblical scholars whose work is widely respected have questioned many of the biblical accounts of Jesus’ life. For example, they say that the Gospels falsely portray Jesus as one who was a frequent and harsh critic of the Pharisees and who broke with their rigid, stale, and even false piety. Many scholars agree that such stories could not be true. They say that the slanderous descriptions of the Pharisees in the New Testament are not authentic. They were written at a much later time when the Pharisees were in rebellion against Rome.
At the time of Jesus, the Pharisees were respected by the Jews. They were not a bunch of fanatical fundamentalists, but a group of pious Jews who taught many of the same things as Jesus. While it is possible that Jesus differed at times with the Pharisees and their observance of ritual purity, the Pharisees frequently differed with one another. Debates between Jesus and Pharisees would have been nothing unusual. Jesus himself may even have been a Pharisee. Some scholars have pointed-out that Jesus’ teachings appear to be taken directly from the great Pharisee and sage, Hillel. He may have been a member of the so-called “School of Hillel.” Hillel was from the liberal wing of the Pharisee sect. He interpreted the law as allowing exceptions to the rules in order to adjust to modern times and economic circumstances.
Jesus’ message, that the Kingdom of God is at Hand, was not new. It expressed the common hope of the Jews of his time. His exorcisms were a traditional function of the Pharisees. His use of parables was typical of the Pharisees’ method of teaching. His Sermon on the Mount was strictly in accord with Mosaic Law. His teachings expressed traditional Jewish beliefs. The Lord’s Prayer is derived from the Kaddish prayer of the ancient synagogue. He affirmed the widely influential exhortation in Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Scholars argue that Jesus never intended his teachings to apply to non-Jews. He did not preach to the Gentiles or tell his disciples to go out and convert the Gentiles. He did just the opposite. In Matthew 10:5-15, Jesus says to his disciples: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Scholars point-out that Jesus did not refute the Mosaic Law or create a new law. He taught strict adherence to the Jewish Law. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus says: “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.”
Scholars also say that Jesus did not intend to found a new church naming himself as the Son of God. He was the leader of a group within Judaism. The few passages in the Bible that support the idea that Jesus wanted to start a new church are not based on anything Jesus said but on ideas that were developed after his death. Jesus wanted to renew Judaism, which already had a Temple, priests, worship, and sacrifices. Jesus believed that the Kingdom of God was at hand and that the end of time was coming. He certainly did not wish to form a church that would last for centuries. Most of these scholars believe that the founding of a new church was basically the work of St. Paul.
Ancient people would not be surprised at our celebration of the resurrection of a living god at this time of year. The death and resurrection of gods was a well known scenario in ancient myth. The death and resurrection of the Roman god Attis was celebrated on March 25th. Attis was the son of Cyble, known as “The Great Mother,” whose worship was introduced into Rome from Phrygia (in today’s Turkey) around 204 BC.
The Greek god Dionysus was killed by his enemies and died. He descended into Hades and arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of Zeus. His festival was celebrated in the Spring around the time that we now celebrate Easter. Other gods and goddesses who died and arose again from the dead are Adonis, Mithras, Persephone, Semele, Heracles (or Herakles), Osirus, Tammuz, Ishtar, and Melqart.
Christians today believe that Jesus is the omnipotent and everlasting god who created the universe. The Catholic Church and others believe that as the “Son of God,” Jesus is a manifestation of God himself through the Holy Trinity. The idea of a holy trinity did not originate with the Christians. Hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus, the Egyptian goddess Isis was worshipped along with her consort Sarapis and their child Harpocrates (Horus), as members of a Holy Trinity.
Some of the biblical scholars whose work is widely respected have questioned many of the biblical accounts of Jesus’ life. For example, they say that the Gospels falsely portray Jesus as one who was a frequent and harsh critic of the Pharisees and who broke with their rigid, stale, and even false piety. Many scholars agree that such stories could not be true. They say that the slanderous descriptions of the Pharisees in the New Testament are not authentic. They were written at a much later time when the Pharisees were in rebellion against Rome.
At the time of Jesus, the Pharisees were respected by the Jews. They were not a bunch of fanatical fundamentalists, but a group of pious Jews who taught many of the same things as Jesus. While it is possible that Jesus differed at times with the Pharisees and their observance of ritual purity, the Pharisees frequently differed with one another. Debates between Jesus and Pharisees would have been nothing unusual. Jesus himself may even have been a Pharisee. Some scholars have pointed-out that Jesus’ teachings appear to be taken directly from the great Pharisee and sage, Hillel. He may have been a member of the so-called “School of Hillel.” Hillel was from the liberal wing of the Pharisee sect. He interpreted the law as allowing exceptions to the rules in order to adjust to modern times and economic circumstances.
Jesus’ message, that the Kingdom of God is at Hand, was not new. It expressed the common hope of the Jews of his time. His exorcisms were a traditional function of the Pharisees. His use of parables was typical of the Pharisees’ method of teaching. His Sermon on the Mount was strictly in accord with Mosaic Law. His teachings expressed traditional Jewish beliefs. The Lord’s Prayer is derived from the Kaddish prayer of the ancient synagogue. He affirmed the widely influential exhortation in Leviticus 19:18, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Scholars argue that Jesus never intended his teachings to apply to non-Jews. He did not preach to the Gentiles or tell his disciples to go out and convert the Gentiles. He did just the opposite. In Matthew 10:5-15, Jesus says to his disciples: “Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
Scholars point-out that Jesus did not refute the Mosaic Law or create a new law. He taught strict adherence to the Jewish Law. In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus says: “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.”
Scholars also say that Jesus did not intend to found a new church naming himself as the Son of God. He was the leader of a group within Judaism. The few passages in the Bible that support the idea that Jesus wanted to start a new church are not based on anything Jesus said but on ideas that were developed after his death. Jesus wanted to renew Judaism, which already had a Temple, priests, worship, and sacrifices. Jesus believed that the Kingdom of God was at hand and that the end of time was coming. He certainly did not wish to form a church that would last for centuries. Most of these scholars believe that the founding of a new church was basically the work of St. Paul.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Ralph Nader
In The Last Hurrah by Edwin O’Connor, the political party of Mayor Frank Skeffington has a ringer who runs against the mayor in every election and helps the mayor get elected by drawing votes away from the mayor’s chief opponents. It is an old technique and has influenced the outcome of many elections. I have always thought that Ralph Nader was actually a ringer for the Republican Party. How else could one explain his attempt to defeat Democratic candidates for the presidency and thereby destroy everything he has ever claimed to stand for?
Look what he did in 2000. Nader ran on the ticket of the “Green” party, a party that claims to fight for the environment. But the Democratic candidate that year was the most active and ardent environmentalist of our time, Al Gore. The race came down to Florida. In the end, five hundred votes separated Al Gore from George W. Bush. Nader drew 97,421 votes in Florida. Exit polls showed that if Nader had not run, 25 % or 24,355 of his voters would have voted for Bush and 38 % or 37,019 would have voted for Gore. The rest would not have voted at all. Gore would have received 12,664 more votes than Bush and would have won the presidency. By running against Gore, Nader defeated our best hope for environmental action during the years 2000-2008. We are now faced with catastrophic global warming thanks to Ralph Nader.
What does this say about the Green Party? In Europe, this is a legitimate party determined to protect the environment. In America, it is a group that thinks the best way to help the environment is to nominate a jackass who will only siphon votes from the party that will do the most for the environment.
In 2000 I thought that Ralph Nader was an egomaniac. I still think so, but I also realize that he is much more than just an egomaniac. He is an obsessive-compulsive-paranoid narcissist. His primary compulsion is to exalt himself. His greatest fear is that he will sink into obscurity. He is the kind of mentally unbalanced fanatic who would be very dangerous if by some miracle he ever got elected president.
Nader projects himself as the quintessential liberal. He claims to support the working man but has a history of paying salaries to his employees well below the minimum wage. He has fought against unionization of his employees. He says he supports civil rights and feminism. But this year he wants to prevent the election of the first serious African American or the first serious female candidate ever nominated for president by a major party. Thanks Ralph!
Even if one were to take Nader at his word and not presume he is lying for his Republican backers, he is a dangerous man. He obviously hates America. He hates all corporations without distinction. He hates our political establishment and he hates the voters of America. He talks about giving power to the people, but he does not accept the verdict of the people who gave him a tiny fraction of the vote in the past two presidential elections.
I think I understand the Nader type. He exemplifies a long line of obsessed leaders from Savonarola to Hitler. He is too compulsive to live an ordinary life. He never got married because his “cause” was too important allow him to be distracted by something as petty as a family. He lives austerely in a small Washington D.C. apartment with very few amenities. He eats at a modest restaurant where customers get a free meal after dining there five times. He is habitually obsessive about cleanliness. He doesn't own a car and keeps nearly a dozen manual typewriters stashed away so he'll never be forced to use a computer. He is worth over $4 million, but he is miserly in the extreme. His wardrobe looks like it was last updated in the 1960s.
In 2000, Nader received 2,883,105 votes, or 2.74 % of the vote. In 2004 he ran as an independent and received 463,653 votes, or 0.38 % of the vote. Judging by the results of his last run for the presidency, it is unlikely that Nader will ever be able to substantially affect the outcome of another election. Democratic voters now realize that he is a spoiler and not a serious candidate. He has single-handedly made the Green Party look like a bunch of morons. Now, in his 2008 race for the White House, the best that can be said about Ralph Nader is that he is a sick joke.
Look what he did in 2000. Nader ran on the ticket of the “Green” party, a party that claims to fight for the environment. But the Democratic candidate that year was the most active and ardent environmentalist of our time, Al Gore. The race came down to Florida. In the end, five hundred votes separated Al Gore from George W. Bush. Nader drew 97,421 votes in Florida. Exit polls showed that if Nader had not run, 25 % or 24,355 of his voters would have voted for Bush and 38 % or 37,019 would have voted for Gore. The rest would not have voted at all. Gore would have received 12,664 more votes than Bush and would have won the presidency. By running against Gore, Nader defeated our best hope for environmental action during the years 2000-2008. We are now faced with catastrophic global warming thanks to Ralph Nader.
What does this say about the Green Party? In Europe, this is a legitimate party determined to protect the environment. In America, it is a group that thinks the best way to help the environment is to nominate a jackass who will only siphon votes from the party that will do the most for the environment.
In 2000 I thought that Ralph Nader was an egomaniac. I still think so, but I also realize that he is much more than just an egomaniac. He is an obsessive-compulsive-paranoid narcissist. His primary compulsion is to exalt himself. His greatest fear is that he will sink into obscurity. He is the kind of mentally unbalanced fanatic who would be very dangerous if by some miracle he ever got elected president.
Nader projects himself as the quintessential liberal. He claims to support the working man but has a history of paying salaries to his employees well below the minimum wage. He has fought against unionization of his employees. He says he supports civil rights and feminism. But this year he wants to prevent the election of the first serious African American or the first serious female candidate ever nominated for president by a major party. Thanks Ralph!
Even if one were to take Nader at his word and not presume he is lying for his Republican backers, he is a dangerous man. He obviously hates America. He hates all corporations without distinction. He hates our political establishment and he hates the voters of America. He talks about giving power to the people, but he does not accept the verdict of the people who gave him a tiny fraction of the vote in the past two presidential elections.
I think I understand the Nader type. He exemplifies a long line of obsessed leaders from Savonarola to Hitler. He is too compulsive to live an ordinary life. He never got married because his “cause” was too important allow him to be distracted by something as petty as a family. He lives austerely in a small Washington D.C. apartment with very few amenities. He eats at a modest restaurant where customers get a free meal after dining there five times. He is habitually obsessive about cleanliness. He doesn't own a car and keeps nearly a dozen manual typewriters stashed away so he'll never be forced to use a computer. He is worth over $4 million, but he is miserly in the extreme. His wardrobe looks like it was last updated in the 1960s.
In 2000, Nader received 2,883,105 votes, or 2.74 % of the vote. In 2004 he ran as an independent and received 463,653 votes, or 0.38 % of the vote. Judging by the results of his last run for the presidency, it is unlikely that Nader will ever be able to substantially affect the outcome of another election. Democratic voters now realize that he is a spoiler and not a serious candidate. He has single-handedly made the Green Party look like a bunch of morons. Now, in his 2008 race for the White House, the best that can be said about Ralph Nader is that he is a sick joke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
