When American POWs came home from the Korean War, we learned about the torture and brainwashing inflicted upon them by the Communists. American prisoners of war were isolated in cold cells, stripped of their clothing, deprived of sleep, forced to endure constant loud noises and harsh lights, and subject to severe, interminable interrogation. Some broke under the strain and collaborated with the enemy. The media contrasted the Communists’ barbaric behavior with the humane treatment given by American guards to enemy prisoners. It made us proud to be Americans. That was long before the administration of George W. Bush and his sinister “Eminence Grise,” Dick Chaney.
When the story of Abu Ghraib prison broke, Americans were shocked to discover that American solders in Iraq were inflicting the same kind of torture on prisoners as had been inflicted on American prisoners in Korea. While many of the tortures at Abu Ghraib were painful, the tortures were designed primarily to break-down the will of the Iraqi prisoners by subjecting them to profound humiliation.
At Abu Ghraib, detainees were urinated upon and assaulted with snarling dogs. They were required to strip, masturbate, climb on top of one another, and commit homosexual acts in front of female American guards. Other tortures included beating and sodomizing detainees with a metal baton, pouring phosphoric acid on detainees, and tying ropes to detainees’ penises and dragging them across the floor.
Who was responsible for these atrocities? Was this just the rogue behavior of a group of uncontrolled guards, or were these practices approved in higher circles? Several of the guards were court-martialed. But what of the higher-ups? It now appears that these tortures were the result of an atmosphere promulgated by the CIA and emanating from the Bush Administration. How did this come about?
Beginning in 2001, in dozens of top-secret meetings, high-level White House officials, including Vice President Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, Alberto Gonzalez, and others met in the Situation Room of the White House and approved specific harsh methods of interrogation of prisoners by the CIA. In an interview with ABC News’ Martha Raddatz, President Bush admitted that he was fully aware of these meetings and of what went on. One participant in the meetings, then Attorney General John Ashcroft, was apparently deeply disturbed by the meetings and is quoted as saying: “History will not judge this kindly.”
In March 2003, just months before the Abu Ghraib atrocities, John Yoo, deputy legal counsel at the Justice Department, submitted a detailed written memo advising his superiors, and ultimately the President, that the President had broad legal power during wartime to authorize harsh interrogation methods and that any laws restricting that authority were unconstitutional.
As a result of the Yoo memo, the Cheney group and the President felt that they had legal authority to authorize “enhanced” interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, shackling prisoners in uncomfortable positions, painful slapping, and other pleasantries. The abuse at Abu Ghraib came months after the Yoo memo was submitted.
Photos of the Abu Ghraib barbarity spread around the world and caused fury among the insurgents and terrorists. There followed pictures of Americans being beheaded in retaliation.
Waterboarding is a nasty torture in which the detainee is laid on a board with a cloth over his mouth and made to feel like he is drowning while having water poured over the cloth. Two retired generals, Charles C. Krulak, former Marine Corps Commandant, and Joseph P. Hoar, former Commander of American forces in the Middle East, have described waterboarding and other interrogation methods as “euphemisms for torture.” They have written that these techniques amount to “conduct we used to call war crimes,” and have warned that such methods place American soldiers in jeopardy.
It is meaningless to get into a discussion of whether torture by the CIA or the military is legal or effective. That is not the question. The question is whether we are or are not a civilized nation. I realize that all of us were deeply angered by the 9/11 attacks, and most of us wanted to strike-back at the terrorists. But there has to come a time when we dust-off our common humanity and look at ourselves. What do we stand for as a people? Are we no better than our enemies? Are we still a beacon of freedom, decency, and morality, or have we lost our bright shining righteousness and integrity?
Monday, April 21, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Obama and Working-Class Voters
Politics has never been a business of straight talk. Political campaigns, even by the best people, are usually permeated with lies and smoke. We are too stupid to care about this. It is only when somebody tells the truth that we get upset. Barack Obama spoke the truth, and it is causing him problems. Obama was explaining his trouble winning-over small-town, working-class voters in areas where jobs are disappearing. He said: “It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
Hillary Clinton and her staff jumped on this statement. Voters have always pegged Hillary as an elitist, a Wellesley and Yale graduate who put on the airs of a rich, intellectual feminist. Now her African American opponent seemed to be acting more elitist than she. She appeared at a bar in Indiana and tossed-down a couple of shots of liquor like a good-old-boy. She told about how her grandfather took her out behind the barn and taught her to fire a gun. Obama made fun of Hillary’s sudden incarnation as Joe Six-Pack and Annie Oakley, saying: "Around election time, the candidates can't do enough for you. They'll promise you anything, give you a long list of proposals and even come around, with TV crews in tow, to throw back a shot and a beer."
I am disappointed at Hillary Clinton’s swooping-in like a vulture to take advantage of Obama’s statement. I am sorry that Obama felt that he had to apologize for his statement. Perhaps America would be a better place if somebody could do what Senator Obama did; tell the truth.
Small-town blue-collar workers in areas that are losing jobs have always been frustrated. When jobs are gone, they are bitter. We do not like to think about class in America, even though we are fully aware of it. We like to think that in America everybody is equal and everybody has a chance to become wealthy and powerful. The truth is, however, that most people with aspirations to better themselves will not do much better than their parents. In a land of great wealth, this causes frustration. As Senator Obama said, they are likely to cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.
Middle-class people tend to be satisfied with slight advantages over their friends and neighbors. They buy shiny new cars, televisions, or new kitchens. They write Christmas letters bragging about vacation trips. It is pathetic. But these minuscule augmentations in status seem to satisfy their need for feelings of superiority. Working-class people, however, are more likely to live lives of quiet desperation.
Because they feel that many look down on them, working-class people look for others to look down on. Perhaps Senator Obama could feel this when he visited the factory and mining towns of Pennsylvania. No matter how poor, ignorant, or idle those people may have been, they probably projected the feeling that because Obama is Black, they are better than him.
As Senator Obama says, they cling to guns, alcohol, and religion. As I have previously written, guns help boost a man’s feelings of power and self-worth. One does not find many handguns owned by wealthy people. Hedge-fund managers on Wall Street may be in grave danger of homicide from their investors, but I doubt that many of them are armed with handguns.
Another way working stiffs enhance their feelings of self-confidence is with liquor. Alcohol blunts the harsh realities of closing factories and disappearing jobs. The fastest road to this nirvana is with shots and beer. One does not go into a bar in working-class Pennsylvania and order a banana daiquiri. I knew a guy who did so once and the bartender said: “You’ll drink a shot and beer like everybody else and like it.”
Another means of overcoming the frustrations of the most marginal or underprivileged social groups is religion. People in lower economic, cultural, social, and intellectual classes need to believe that they are as good as, if not better than, others. They need to believe that they are among the elect few who practice the correct religion, and that however lucky other people may seem, those others are condemned to religious error on earth and to hell upon death. Their religion tends to be fundamentalist, evangelical, or Pentecostal. These people need to believe that somehow in the afterlife, God will level the playing field, and that they are not condemned for all eternity to being poor, backward, or ignorant.
Unfortunately for Barack Obama, he will not get many votes from those people in a general election against John McCain; but then, despite her acrobatic efforts to déclassé herself, neither will Hillary.
Hillary Clinton and her staff jumped on this statement. Voters have always pegged Hillary as an elitist, a Wellesley and Yale graduate who put on the airs of a rich, intellectual feminist. Now her African American opponent seemed to be acting more elitist than she. She appeared at a bar in Indiana and tossed-down a couple of shots of liquor like a good-old-boy. She told about how her grandfather took her out behind the barn and taught her to fire a gun. Obama made fun of Hillary’s sudden incarnation as Joe Six-Pack and Annie Oakley, saying: "Around election time, the candidates can't do enough for you. They'll promise you anything, give you a long list of proposals and even come around, with TV crews in tow, to throw back a shot and a beer."
I am disappointed at Hillary Clinton’s swooping-in like a vulture to take advantage of Obama’s statement. I am sorry that Obama felt that he had to apologize for his statement. Perhaps America would be a better place if somebody could do what Senator Obama did; tell the truth.
Small-town blue-collar workers in areas that are losing jobs have always been frustrated. When jobs are gone, they are bitter. We do not like to think about class in America, even though we are fully aware of it. We like to think that in America everybody is equal and everybody has a chance to become wealthy and powerful. The truth is, however, that most people with aspirations to better themselves will not do much better than their parents. In a land of great wealth, this causes frustration. As Senator Obama said, they are likely to cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.
Middle-class people tend to be satisfied with slight advantages over their friends and neighbors. They buy shiny new cars, televisions, or new kitchens. They write Christmas letters bragging about vacation trips. It is pathetic. But these minuscule augmentations in status seem to satisfy their need for feelings of superiority. Working-class people, however, are more likely to live lives of quiet desperation.
Because they feel that many look down on them, working-class people look for others to look down on. Perhaps Senator Obama could feel this when he visited the factory and mining towns of Pennsylvania. No matter how poor, ignorant, or idle those people may have been, they probably projected the feeling that because Obama is Black, they are better than him.
As Senator Obama says, they cling to guns, alcohol, and religion. As I have previously written, guns help boost a man’s feelings of power and self-worth. One does not find many handguns owned by wealthy people. Hedge-fund managers on Wall Street may be in grave danger of homicide from their investors, but I doubt that many of them are armed with handguns.
Another way working stiffs enhance their feelings of self-confidence is with liquor. Alcohol blunts the harsh realities of closing factories and disappearing jobs. The fastest road to this nirvana is with shots and beer. One does not go into a bar in working-class Pennsylvania and order a banana daiquiri. I knew a guy who did so once and the bartender said: “You’ll drink a shot and beer like everybody else and like it.”
Another means of overcoming the frustrations of the most marginal or underprivileged social groups is religion. People in lower economic, cultural, social, and intellectual classes need to believe that they are as good as, if not better than, others. They need to believe that they are among the elect few who practice the correct religion, and that however lucky other people may seem, those others are condemned to religious error on earth and to hell upon death. Their religion tends to be fundamentalist, evangelical, or Pentecostal. These people need to believe that somehow in the afterlife, God will level the playing field, and that they are not condemned for all eternity to being poor, backward, or ignorant.
Unfortunately for Barack Obama, he will not get many votes from those people in a general election against John McCain; but then, despite her acrobatic efforts to déclassé herself, neither will Hillary.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Duty, Honor, Courage, and Withdrawl
On April 8, 2008, President Bush awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously to Navy Seal Michael A. Monsoor, who sacrificed his life and saved the lives of his buddies by falling on a live grenade in Iraq. There are no words sufficient to commend such courage. Now that there are so many calls for us to pull-out of Iraq, the question arises: was Michael Monsoor’s death in vain? If we withdraw suddenly from Iraq, will the deaths of all the American soldiers who have died there have no meaning?
You cannot tie the meaning of soldiers’ deaths to the wisdom or righteousness of the wars in which they perished. We make a mistake when we ask such a question. We like to think that soldiers who die in war must have died for some noble cause in order for their deaths to have meaning. But no soldier who dies fighting for America in a war ever dies in vain.
I wish we could give a Medal of Honor to every soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have all shown their commitment to duty, honor, and courage, fighting a deadly war against a nasty, invisible enemy, in hot, hostile lands far from America.
Soldiers’ lives are not lost in vain, but wars are fought in vain. Soldiers bring honor to themselves when they die for their country even when the war they fight in is the mistaken enormity of wicked politicians. We have had several such wars. Vietnam was such a war. Iraq is such a war. If we were to say that soldiers who died in wrongful, mistaken, or misguided wars have died in vain, then many thousands of Americans throughout history would have died in vain. The heroism and dedication of soldiers is what gives their lives and deaths meaning, not the rectitude of the wars they fought.
We do not dishonor the lives of soldiers lost in Iraq if we withdraw our forces. We save the lives of other soldiers who might die in this vain and useless war. There is no way we can justify this waste of human life and treasure by continuing to fight on.
In his testimony before Congress on April 8, 2008, the US Commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, could not speculate as to when American participation in the conflict would end. While he was able to describe some progress, he acknowledged: “We haven’t turned any corners. We haven’t seen any lights at the end of the tunnel.”
General Petraeus testified that he intended by the end of July to withdraw the troops that were sent to Iraq in the current “Surge” That would leave the remaining 140,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely. That testimony, by itself, was a tacit acknowledgement that the “Surge” was unsuccessful. If the “Surge” had been a success, he would have been able to withdraw far more than the number of troops sent-in to solve the problem. While the “Surge” may have diminished some of the violence, all we need to do is read the daily papers to see that fighting there continues to rage.
In his testimony before Congress on April 2, 2008, Lt General William E. Odom, a retired U.S. Army 3-star general, former Director of the NSA under President Reagan, and Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, stated: “The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims….Violence has been temporarily reduced, but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented.”
General Odom discussed the fact that some Sunni tribal leaders have started cooperating with us against Al Qaeda: “The decline in violence reflects a dispersion of power to dozens of local strong men who …insist on being paid for their loyalty.” He offered an estimate that the cost in one small area of keeping the Sunni tribal leaders happy is $250,000 per day. The tribal leaders fight with one another, and their treatment of women is often no more liberal than was that of Al Qaeda.
President Bush has said that we will not leave Iraq until there is political stability and democracy there. Such a goal is obviously out of reach. The Administration originally set certain benchmarks as the basis for continued American presence in Iraq. It has now abandoned the benchmarks as a standard of progress.
General Odom testified: “The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order.”
Michael Monsoor did not die in vain. He covered himself with glory. But the politicians who persist in conducting this hideous war have steeped themselves in ignominy.
You cannot tie the meaning of soldiers’ deaths to the wisdom or righteousness of the wars in which they perished. We make a mistake when we ask such a question. We like to think that soldiers who die in war must have died for some noble cause in order for their deaths to have meaning. But no soldier who dies fighting for America in a war ever dies in vain.
I wish we could give a Medal of Honor to every soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have all shown their commitment to duty, honor, and courage, fighting a deadly war against a nasty, invisible enemy, in hot, hostile lands far from America.
Soldiers’ lives are not lost in vain, but wars are fought in vain. Soldiers bring honor to themselves when they die for their country even when the war they fight in is the mistaken enormity of wicked politicians. We have had several such wars. Vietnam was such a war. Iraq is such a war. If we were to say that soldiers who died in wrongful, mistaken, or misguided wars have died in vain, then many thousands of Americans throughout history would have died in vain. The heroism and dedication of soldiers is what gives their lives and deaths meaning, not the rectitude of the wars they fought.
We do not dishonor the lives of soldiers lost in Iraq if we withdraw our forces. We save the lives of other soldiers who might die in this vain and useless war. There is no way we can justify this waste of human life and treasure by continuing to fight on.
In his testimony before Congress on April 8, 2008, the US Commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, could not speculate as to when American participation in the conflict would end. While he was able to describe some progress, he acknowledged: “We haven’t turned any corners. We haven’t seen any lights at the end of the tunnel.”
General Petraeus testified that he intended by the end of July to withdraw the troops that were sent to Iraq in the current “Surge” That would leave the remaining 140,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely. That testimony, by itself, was a tacit acknowledgement that the “Surge” was unsuccessful. If the “Surge” had been a success, he would have been able to withdraw far more than the number of troops sent-in to solve the problem. While the “Surge” may have diminished some of the violence, all we need to do is read the daily papers to see that fighting there continues to rage.
In his testimony before Congress on April 2, 2008, Lt General William E. Odom, a retired U.S. Army 3-star general, former Director of the NSA under President Reagan, and Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, stated: “The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims….Violence has been temporarily reduced, but today there is credible evidence that the political situation is far more fragmented.”
General Odom discussed the fact that some Sunni tribal leaders have started cooperating with us against Al Qaeda: “The decline in violence reflects a dispersion of power to dozens of local strong men who …insist on being paid for their loyalty.” He offered an estimate that the cost in one small area of keeping the Sunni tribal leaders happy is $250,000 per day. The tribal leaders fight with one another, and their treatment of women is often no more liberal than was that of Al Qaeda.
President Bush has said that we will not leave Iraq until there is political stability and democracy there. Such a goal is obviously out of reach. The Administration originally set certain benchmarks as the basis for continued American presence in Iraq. It has now abandoned the benchmarks as a standard of progress.
General Odom testified: “The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly but in good order.”
Michael Monsoor did not die in vain. He covered himself with glory. But the politicians who persist in conducting this hideous war have steeped themselves in ignominy.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Dangerous Pharmaceutical Companies
Perhaps we should be grateful to the pharmaceutical industry for developing and marketing the medications that prolong our lives, alleviate our symptoms, and ease our pain. We could not persist as a modern society without them. And yet, one gets the impression that a cruel and cut-throat culture has seized control of the drug companies. There are a number of indications that there is an ethical black hole at the center of the pharmaceutical industry. Among the indications are tremendously overpriced drugs, constant price increases, enormous profits, and a ruthless, wealthy, powerful lobby. That lobby was able to impose its will on the Republicans in Congress in 2003 and force them to enact a Medicare Part D Drug Program that enriches the pharmaceutical industry while it short-changes senior citizens, the government, and the taxpayers.
For the past few years, television watchers have been bombarded with advertisements for Vytorin and Zetia, drugs used to lower cholesterol. The ads for Vytorin are very clever. They show some tasty food with a picture of Aunt Matilda and say that cholesterol comes from two sources, the food you eat and the genes you inherit from your relatives. Zetia advertises that it is an excellent alternative to statins. Thanks to the media blitz, Vytorin and Zetia have been among the most widely prescribed medicines in the United States, with sales of $5 billion in 2007.
Nevertheless, tests have now shown that the two drugs do not reduce plaque in the arteries as advertised. Although “Outcome Trials,” which are expensive, multi-year clinical trials with 10,000 or more patients, have shown that statins like Zocor and Lipitor reduce LDL cholesterol and lower the risk of heart attacks, there have been no such trials for Vytorin and Zetia.
The companies that manufacture Vytorin and Zetia did conduct a so-called “Enhance” trial of the two drugs, but failed to reveal the results until two years after it was completed. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa has released information showing that the lead outside investigator on the trial accused Merck and Schering-Plough, the manufacturers of the drugs, of deliberately delaying the release of the trial results “to hide something.” When they were finally released, the trial’s results showed that Vytorin and Zetia did not reduce plaque in arteries. The results led a panel of cardiologists to recommend that the drugs be used only as a last resort.
Long after they had ample information about the ineffectiveness of Vytorin and Zetia, the manufacturers continued to blanket the airwaves with commercials extolling the benefits of these two virtually useless concoctions. What does that say about the consciences of the executives who run Merck and Schering-Plough? We are not talking about headache remedies here. We are talking about people’s lives. Millions of people took these remedies in lieu of life-saving statins. Who knows how many people died because they did not get the proper prescriptions?
Merck and Schering-Plough are not the only offenders of this kind. There are many useless or dangerous drugs foisted on the public by unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies. But Merck deserves special mention as a prime offender. It not only promoted and sold ineffective medications, it also continued to market a downright dangerous drug, Vioxx, long after its ill effects were apparent.
Vioxx is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug that was FDA approved to treat rheumatoid and osteoarthritis, migraines, and other acute and chronic pain conditions. The danger of Vioxx had been a concern since it was first approved for use in the United States in 1999. Early tests showed that Vioxx users had higher numbers of cardiovascular side effects than users of another drug, naproxen.
In 2000, a study to test the effects of Vioxx on colon polyps had to be cut short after eighteen months because patients who had taken Vioxx were two times more likely to suffer heart attacks or strokes than patients taking a placebo or Vioxx alternative. The New England Journal of Medicine said in an editorial that Merck & Co., the maker of Vioxx, withheld data and information that would affect conclusions drawn in the study. Merck conducted further tests, but despite further evidence of the danger of Vioxx, did not pull the drug off the market until 2004. I wonder how many people died because of Merck’s callous indifference.
I don’t know how many Americans have been killed by terrorists in Iraq, but it may be that the number is smaller than the number of those killed by taking ineffective or unsafe medications in America.
For the past few years, television watchers have been bombarded with advertisements for Vytorin and Zetia, drugs used to lower cholesterol. The ads for Vytorin are very clever. They show some tasty food with a picture of Aunt Matilda and say that cholesterol comes from two sources, the food you eat and the genes you inherit from your relatives. Zetia advertises that it is an excellent alternative to statins. Thanks to the media blitz, Vytorin and Zetia have been among the most widely prescribed medicines in the United States, with sales of $5 billion in 2007.
Nevertheless, tests have now shown that the two drugs do not reduce plaque in the arteries as advertised. Although “Outcome Trials,” which are expensive, multi-year clinical trials with 10,000 or more patients, have shown that statins like Zocor and Lipitor reduce LDL cholesterol and lower the risk of heart attacks, there have been no such trials for Vytorin and Zetia.
The companies that manufacture Vytorin and Zetia did conduct a so-called “Enhance” trial of the two drugs, but failed to reveal the results until two years after it was completed. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa has released information showing that the lead outside investigator on the trial accused Merck and Schering-Plough, the manufacturers of the drugs, of deliberately delaying the release of the trial results “to hide something.” When they were finally released, the trial’s results showed that Vytorin and Zetia did not reduce plaque in arteries. The results led a panel of cardiologists to recommend that the drugs be used only as a last resort.
Long after they had ample information about the ineffectiveness of Vytorin and Zetia, the manufacturers continued to blanket the airwaves with commercials extolling the benefits of these two virtually useless concoctions. What does that say about the consciences of the executives who run Merck and Schering-Plough? We are not talking about headache remedies here. We are talking about people’s lives. Millions of people took these remedies in lieu of life-saving statins. Who knows how many people died because they did not get the proper prescriptions?
Merck and Schering-Plough are not the only offenders of this kind. There are many useless or dangerous drugs foisted on the public by unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies. But Merck deserves special mention as a prime offender. It not only promoted and sold ineffective medications, it also continued to market a downright dangerous drug, Vioxx, long after its ill effects were apparent.
Vioxx is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug that was FDA approved to treat rheumatoid and osteoarthritis, migraines, and other acute and chronic pain conditions. The danger of Vioxx had been a concern since it was first approved for use in the United States in 1999. Early tests showed that Vioxx users had higher numbers of cardiovascular side effects than users of another drug, naproxen.
In 2000, a study to test the effects of Vioxx on colon polyps had to be cut short after eighteen months because patients who had taken Vioxx were two times more likely to suffer heart attacks or strokes than patients taking a placebo or Vioxx alternative. The New England Journal of Medicine said in an editorial that Merck & Co., the maker of Vioxx, withheld data and information that would affect conclusions drawn in the study. Merck conducted further tests, but despite further evidence of the danger of Vioxx, did not pull the drug off the market until 2004. I wonder how many people died because of Merck’s callous indifference.
I don’t know how many Americans have been killed by terrorists in Iraq, but it may be that the number is smaller than the number of those killed by taking ineffective or unsafe medications in America.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Obama and Reverend Wright
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
