Based on my survey of yard signs in Wellman today, "For Sale" leads Ron Paul by a small margin. There were seven, maybe eight, Ron Paul yard signs. No other candidate had signs on display. The Rick Perry one I got Thursday will remain in the trunk of my car until Wednesday when I add it to my classroom collection.
Does this mean anything? Well, there are a fair number of houses for sale in town, for one. Beyond that it is a matter of speculation but since all the media types can speculate, I suppose I can as well.
For one, the lack of signs on display reflects a lack of interest, or at least passion for a particular candidate. In a primary this may not matter but in a caucus, it can make a big difference. Based on past experience, quite a few people who go to the caucus haven't made up their minds as to which candidate they will support. They may lean towards one or another, but they can easily be steered to another candidate by a neighbor, friend, or even an acquaintance who acts like he knows what he is talking about. This means a neighbor, especially a respected one, can if he or she chooses, persuade folks to vote for their candidate. Sticking a sign in your yard requires minimal commitment but it does require that you be willing to explain to folks who ask, why you are supporting that candidate.
The lack of signs also reflects to a certain degree the lack of organization displayed by most of the Republican candidates. Paul is supposed to have one of the best organizations this year and it shows. It may not seem like much, but once the signs are made, someone has to get them delivered to town and to the people who are willing to display them. It also requires getting people to show up at your campaign appearances where more signs can be distributed. If you are well organized someone will follow up with a phone call to make sure the sign is actually being displayed. I know a fair number of people who like to collect all the political stuff, meaning they are happy to take a sign, but there ain't no way they are going to put it in their yard.
With the caucus scheduled for Jan. 3, my guess, unscientific though it may be, is that Ron Paul will win the Wellman precinct. Wellman isn't all that big but the votes make a difference. Four years ago, on the Democratic side the top three finishers were Obama, Edwards and Clinton. Edwards came in second statewide, two delegates ahead of Clinton. That was the margin by which Edwards beat Clinton in Wellman.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Rick Perry
Rick Perry visited Washington this morning so I drove to Kalona, picked up my niece visiting from Pennsylvania, and headed down to the Corner Coffee shop. We got there 30-40 minutes before his scheduled arrival and made our way in to the shop. I am fairly certain they had originally scheduled him to be in the new library but we met in the coffee shop. The library bans concealed weapons and maybe he didn't want to go without his for a few minutes, plus the crowd seemed bigger crammed into a much smaller space.
A bunch of old guys had staked out the prime seats and a young kid was wearing his army uniform so you knew he was going to get some attention. Just a few minutes before 10, Perry entered the room. Leading the processional were a couple of local ministers and some of Perry's security team. It was hard to tell the difference since they were all wearing sport coats, had short hair, and the earnest, yet serious look, preachers and security guys often have.
The minister of the Marion Ave Baptist church, Rev. Joe Brown, introduced Perry as a man of God, a true conservative, and a man who would restore traditional American values. Shouts of "Amen" rang across the room and for a minute I thought I was going to hear a sermon.
Perry started off his remarks by taking some shots at Romney, though he didn't mention his name. Then he wailed on Rick Santorum for a few minutes, decrying his use of earmarks when he was in the Senate. When I got home I saw Santorum has moved to third in some polls, likely at the expense of Perry, Bachmann, and maybe Newt Gingrich. He skipped over Ron Paul and then took some shots at Obama and Congress. He repeated his proposal for a part-time Congress, criticized "Washington insiders" and wasteful spending. He threw in a story about his father and small town values, thanked the soldiers for their service, and then said the soldiers coming home from Iraq should have a parade to honor their service. "I want to give them a parade." My guess is most of them just want to go home.
Perry took questions for about 10-12 minutes. They were fairly typical, easy questions which allowed him to rail on Congress, Obamacare, the EPA, government regulations, promise to always support Israel, build military spending, criticize ethanol subsidies, and take some shots at public education. "The ultimate show of love and faith is for a parent to home school their child." During his answers he threw in references to Isaiah, scriptures, and faith several times. I raised my hand, he said "one more question," and he picked someone from the other side of the room.
My impressions: Why does the guy need 3-5 security guys in small town Iowa? One stood directly in front of me, blocking my view and the little kids in front of me. It seemed a bit much, making me wonder, what is he afraid of and why is he so scared?
He didn't offer one single specific proposal to deal with the problems the country is facing. He did say he want's to make Congress part-time, and that he wants a balanced budget amendment but didn't say how he would cut the deficit. He said he wants to get rid of "Obamacare" but didn't say how he would deal with the 46 million uninsured people and the rest of us facing rising healthcare costs. He offered simplistic, soundbite solutions to massive problems. The sad thing was, people there seemed to swallow all of it hook, line and sinker.
Perry seemed personable and friendly, though my niece and I could never quite make it by his security team or phalanx of pastors. I think the US would be much better off if he stayed in Texas and gave up his run for the Presidency. Right now I would guess he will finish 4th or 5th in the caucus, after Romney, Paul and Santorum. He may beat Newt for 4th, and he should finish ahead of Bachmann who is tanking rather badly.
On the way out, one of the staffers handed me a yard sign and asked if I wanted to be a precinct captain. I said no and he asked if I would be a precinct partner. I said no, but asked if I could have the sign for my classroom. He let go, so I took it. I did think that they are rather late at looking for precinct captains. When I agreed to do it for Edwards four years ago, I was going to training sessions already in October. Then the Obama staffer was after me to join with them into November, promising me I could help, as they already had captains for Wellman. Again, I find it amazing that some of these guys are so unorganized when it comes to running a campaign in Iowa.
A bunch of old guys had staked out the prime seats and a young kid was wearing his army uniform so you knew he was going to get some attention. Just a few minutes before 10, Perry entered the room. Leading the processional were a couple of local ministers and some of Perry's security team. It was hard to tell the difference since they were all wearing sport coats, had short hair, and the earnest, yet serious look, preachers and security guys often have.
The minister of the Marion Ave Baptist church, Rev. Joe Brown, introduced Perry as a man of God, a true conservative, and a man who would restore traditional American values. Shouts of "Amen" rang across the room and for a minute I thought I was going to hear a sermon.
Perry started off his remarks by taking some shots at Romney, though he didn't mention his name. Then he wailed on Rick Santorum for a few minutes, decrying his use of earmarks when he was in the Senate. When I got home I saw Santorum has moved to third in some polls, likely at the expense of Perry, Bachmann, and maybe Newt Gingrich. He skipped over Ron Paul and then took some shots at Obama and Congress. He repeated his proposal for a part-time Congress, criticized "Washington insiders" and wasteful spending. He threw in a story about his father and small town values, thanked the soldiers for their service, and then said the soldiers coming home from Iraq should have a parade to honor their service. "I want to give them a parade." My guess is most of them just want to go home.
Perry took questions for about 10-12 minutes. They were fairly typical, easy questions which allowed him to rail on Congress, Obamacare, the EPA, government regulations, promise to always support Israel, build military spending, criticize ethanol subsidies, and take some shots at public education. "The ultimate show of love and faith is for a parent to home school their child." During his answers he threw in references to Isaiah, scriptures, and faith several times. I raised my hand, he said "one more question," and he picked someone from the other side of the room.
My impressions: Why does the guy need 3-5 security guys in small town Iowa? One stood directly in front of me, blocking my view and the little kids in front of me. It seemed a bit much, making me wonder, what is he afraid of and why is he so scared?
He didn't offer one single specific proposal to deal with the problems the country is facing. He did say he want's to make Congress part-time, and that he wants a balanced budget amendment but didn't say how he would cut the deficit. He said he wants to get rid of "Obamacare" but didn't say how he would deal with the 46 million uninsured people and the rest of us facing rising healthcare costs. He offered simplistic, soundbite solutions to massive problems. The sad thing was, people there seemed to swallow all of it hook, line and sinker.
Perry seemed personable and friendly, though my niece and I could never quite make it by his security team or phalanx of pastors. I think the US would be much better off if he stayed in Texas and gave up his run for the Presidency. Right now I would guess he will finish 4th or 5th in the caucus, after Romney, Paul and Santorum. He may beat Newt for 4th, and he should finish ahead of Bachmann who is tanking rather badly.
On the way out, one of the staffers handed me a yard sign and asked if I wanted to be a precinct captain. I said no and he asked if I would be a precinct partner. I said no, but asked if I could have the sign for my classroom. He let go, so I took it. I did think that they are rather late at looking for precinct captains. When I agreed to do it for Edwards four years ago, I was going to training sessions already in October. Then the Obama staffer was after me to join with them into November, promising me I could help, as they already had captains for Wellman. Again, I find it amazing that some of these guys are so unorganized when it comes to running a campaign in Iowa.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Home Town, Tracy Kidder
I was asked to read Home Town and after the first couple of pages I realized I had read it before. It was good enough I decided to finish reading it the second time.
Kidder takes us to Northampton, MA, the kind of town that exerts a hold on long term residents as well as those who move there for some reason. There are probably quite a few such towns or cities which seem to pull people in and make it difficult for people to leave. Right now, I'm sitting in the my house, in a town where I never thought I would live after graduating from high school. After fifteen years on the east coast we moved back and now 21 years later here I am. And trust me, this little town has a fifth of the charm or culture of Northampton.
Kidder tells the story through several characters. Tommy, the hometown boy who grows up to be a cop and then decides to try and join the FBI. Judge Ryan, another hometown boy who becomes a DA, then a quirky judge. A successful businessman who struggles with mental illness, a non traditional college student, and an immigrant who makes a living dabbling in drugs and petty crimes. As he tells the story of Northampton through these people, Kidder weaves in the some of cities illustrious history. This includes references to Jonathon Edwards, Sojourner Truth, and Henry James. He also recounts the lynchings of two young Irish immigrants in 1805. Here he shows that the good old days weren't always so good. Bigotry, hatred, and prejudice have a long and cherished tradition in American history, and Kidder doesn't shy away from telling the story.
I enjoyed reading about Northampton and the cast of characters Kidder presents. They are the kinds of folks who populate many small cities and towns. Some will stay to carry on the traditions. Many will leave for the big city. Some of these will never look back, others will hope to return, but if and when they do, they will find their hometown has changed. If the town is to survive, new folks will arrive and they will bring new ideas and ways of doing things. A healthy city will incorporate the best of the new, creating a new place a new generation will refer to as their "hometown."
Kidder takes us to Northampton, MA, the kind of town that exerts a hold on long term residents as well as those who move there for some reason. There are probably quite a few such towns or cities which seem to pull people in and make it difficult for people to leave. Right now, I'm sitting in the my house, in a town where I never thought I would live after graduating from high school. After fifteen years on the east coast we moved back and now 21 years later here I am. And trust me, this little town has a fifth of the charm or culture of Northampton.
Kidder tells the story through several characters. Tommy, the hometown boy who grows up to be a cop and then decides to try and join the FBI. Judge Ryan, another hometown boy who becomes a DA, then a quirky judge. A successful businessman who struggles with mental illness, a non traditional college student, and an immigrant who makes a living dabbling in drugs and petty crimes. As he tells the story of Northampton through these people, Kidder weaves in the some of cities illustrious history. This includes references to Jonathon Edwards, Sojourner Truth, and Henry James. He also recounts the lynchings of two young Irish immigrants in 1805. Here he shows that the good old days weren't always so good. Bigotry, hatred, and prejudice have a long and cherished tradition in American history, and Kidder doesn't shy away from telling the story.
I enjoyed reading about Northampton and the cast of characters Kidder presents. They are the kinds of folks who populate many small cities and towns. Some will stay to carry on the traditions. Many will leave for the big city. Some of these will never look back, others will hope to return, but if and when they do, they will find their hometown has changed. If the town is to survive, new folks will arrive and they will bring new ideas and ways of doing things. A healthy city will incorporate the best of the new, creating a new place a new generation will refer to as their "hometown."
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Running for President: The Republican Reality Race
Some folks from out of state have asked "What is wrong with you people in Iowa?" How can you support (Bachmann/Cain/Gingerich/Romney) in other words, take your pick of which ever character you want. So I need to explain, that while Iowa is fairly evenly balanced between registered Republicans and Democrats, the pollsters are only asking registered Republicans who say they plan to attend the caucus. They aren't asking independents, Democrats or even Republicans who don't think they will make it to the caucus what they think.
While the caucuses are touted as examples of participatory democracy, the way they are held make them rather undemocratic. For example, the caucus usually starts at 7:00 pm. If you have to work you can't be there. If your kid has a basketball game or a wrestling match, you might choose to go to that instead. It isn't like a primary where the polls are open from 7 am to 8 pm and you can stop in before or after work and in a small town, be in and out in 15-20 minutes. On the other hand the caucus is going to take at least an hour and more likely 2 to 3 hours.
This means the most devoted (rabid? fanatic?) folks go to the caucus. It will be the true believers who bother to go out on what can be a cold, snowy miserable night, when it might be more tempting to stay home and this year, watch the Sugar Bowl. In the case of Iowa these true believers are among the most conservative of Republicans. While I can't hope to explain why they are thinking the way they do, there does seem to be a rabid fear of President Obama and his policies. This seems to have more to do with what he represents than with most of his policies.
What does he represent? President Obama represents multiculturalism (I discovered this is a bad word in some circles)globalization, the immigrants moving to Iowa from Mexico, Central America, Sudan, Serbia, and other places, and in general, change. These changes seem to be coming faster and faster, which causes much of the fear.
When hearing from some of these folks I hear them say they want to see "traditional values restored," and they want to choose someone who can beat President Obama. The latest poll in the Des Moines Register asked if they thought this was a year "a core conservative can win, or will it take someone more moderate." The majority of folks said they think a core conservative could win. So it seems while Romney and Huntsman more or less ignore the state, the rest clamor to be the most conservative and talk the toughest. Another way of saying this is that there aren't many moderate Republicans left in Iowa and the few that exist won't be playing a big role in the caucus.
In the past couple of months we saw an infatuation with Perry, a lusting after Bachmann, an interest in Cain, and now Newt Gingrich. Success in the Iowa caucus depends a lot on organization and in getting your supporters to the gathering. From what I understand Cain and Gingrich don't have that strong of organization in spite of their poll numbers. Ron Paul probably has the most devoted followers and a decent organization so he may do better than people expect. The other dark horse is Santorum who has people organizing in every county, plus he is spending a lot of time in the state. Romney is still a Mormon which, like it or not, disqualifies him for many of those Republican caucus goers. And Newt, well, he is going to have a hard time explaining his marriages and his lobbying. Plus, I like to think the true believers are principled enough that they won't be able to overlook Gringrich's foibles.
While the caucuses are touted as examples of participatory democracy, the way they are held make them rather undemocratic. For example, the caucus usually starts at 7:00 pm. If you have to work you can't be there. If your kid has a basketball game or a wrestling match, you might choose to go to that instead. It isn't like a primary where the polls are open from 7 am to 8 pm and you can stop in before or after work and in a small town, be in and out in 15-20 minutes. On the other hand the caucus is going to take at least an hour and more likely 2 to 3 hours.
This means the most devoted (rabid? fanatic?) folks go to the caucus. It will be the true believers who bother to go out on what can be a cold, snowy miserable night, when it might be more tempting to stay home and this year, watch the Sugar Bowl. In the case of Iowa these true believers are among the most conservative of Republicans. While I can't hope to explain why they are thinking the way they do, there does seem to be a rabid fear of President Obama and his policies. This seems to have more to do with what he represents than with most of his policies.
What does he represent? President Obama represents multiculturalism (I discovered this is a bad word in some circles)globalization, the immigrants moving to Iowa from Mexico, Central America, Sudan, Serbia, and other places, and in general, change. These changes seem to be coming faster and faster, which causes much of the fear.
When hearing from some of these folks I hear them say they want to see "traditional values restored," and they want to choose someone who can beat President Obama. The latest poll in the Des Moines Register asked if they thought this was a year "a core conservative can win, or will it take someone more moderate." The majority of folks said they think a core conservative could win. So it seems while Romney and Huntsman more or less ignore the state, the rest clamor to be the most conservative and talk the toughest. Another way of saying this is that there aren't many moderate Republicans left in Iowa and the few that exist won't be playing a big role in the caucus.
In the past couple of months we saw an infatuation with Perry, a lusting after Bachmann, an interest in Cain, and now Newt Gingrich. Success in the Iowa caucus depends a lot on organization and in getting your supporters to the gathering. From what I understand Cain and Gingrich don't have that strong of organization in spite of their poll numbers. Ron Paul probably has the most devoted followers and a decent organization so he may do better than people expect. The other dark horse is Santorum who has people organizing in every county, plus he is spending a lot of time in the state. Romney is still a Mormon which, like it or not, disqualifies him for many of those Republican caucus goers. And Newt, well, he is going to have a hard time explaining his marriages and his lobbying. Plus, I like to think the true believers are principled enough that they won't be able to overlook Gringrich's foibles.
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Mark Twain and Tom Sawyer
I was asked to write something to go in the program for the school play, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
This is what I wrote
“My mother had a great deal of trouble with me, but I think she enjoyed it.” Mark Twain
Samuel Clemens, better known as Mark Twain (1835-1910), lived during the formative years of the United States. During his lifetime the country expanded, industrialized, fought a war with Mexico, suffered through a Civil War, ended slavery, and forced Native Americans onto reservations. After war with Spain, Twain saw his country on the verge of becoming a world power. Twain’s interest in technology, history, politics, religion and culture, coupled with his powers of observation, sense of humor and numerous writings, make him one of the first major popular culture figures in the country. Twain carried on an extensive speaking schedule often because he needed the money. In doing so he paved the way for today’s stand-up comedians and social satirists such as Jon Stewart and Stephan Colbert.
In The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Twain presents what many might idealize as a typical small town in the American Midwest. St. Petersburg, Missouri provides the setting for the antics of Tom, Huck, Joe and the other children. It is easy to remember Tom’s strategy to get the fence painted or his sneaking in to watch his own funeral. You might even remember the murder in the cemetery or Tom and Huck’s fear of Injun Joe, but with the word “adventure” in the title, there has to be some action and drama to provide a bit of suspense.
This is where the book takes on a deeper meaning. When the politicians traversing our state tell us they will return the country to traditional American values it is easy to think of the innocence of Tom’s infatuation with Becky, the love of Aunt Polly, and the protective father, Judge Thatcher. It is more difficult to remember the darker side of American history. In Tom Sawyer we see the social exclusion and animosity expressed towards Native Americans in the person of Injun Joe, slavery, the alcoholism of several characters and the benign neglect of a child such as Huck Finn. Twain’s observation, “We have the best government that money can buy,” or that “There is no distinctly American criminal class - except Congress,” speak for themselves. Not all that much has changed. The past is not as neat and tidy as we usually want to remember.
After writing Tom Sawyer, Twain went on to write the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Prince and the Pauper, Innocents Abroad, plus many essays and articles. Twain was not reluctant to share his views on the social issues of his time, nor was he afraid of changing his mind, as he did with his views of Native Americans and the issue of imperialism. After supporting American expansion, Twain became an active anti-Imperialist, arguing the colonization of the Philippines violated American values. Accused by his critics of being un-American, Twain provided his definition of a patriot as, “Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about.” It is a definition worth remembering.
Some of Twain’s more controversial writings, primarily those relating to religion were not published until after his death. The best-known of these is “The War Prayer,” where Twain presents a stinging critique of the American church’s willingness to bless violence and militarism, in the name of the Lord. Twain’s comment “It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand,” sum up the contradictions of Christianity in America. “Turn the other cheek, or give your coat to the man who has none,” are rather plain statements, easy to understand but hard to practice. Instead we distract ourselves as we prefer to argue and fuss about issues which require no change in behavior or attitude.
In Tom Sawyer, Twain celebrates youth, optimism, and orneriness, characteristics which might also be used to describe the United States. Twain also presents the darker side of human nature, and with it, the darker side of United States history, contradictions we live and deal with today.
Marcus Miller
This is what I wrote
“My mother had a great deal of trouble with me, but I think she enjoyed it.” Mark Twain
Samuel Clemens, better known as Mark Twain (1835-1910), lived during the formative years of the United States. During his lifetime the country expanded, industrialized, fought a war with Mexico, suffered through a Civil War, ended slavery, and forced Native Americans onto reservations. After war with Spain, Twain saw his country on the verge of becoming a world power. Twain’s interest in technology, history, politics, religion and culture, coupled with his powers of observation, sense of humor and numerous writings, make him one of the first major popular culture figures in the country. Twain carried on an extensive speaking schedule often because he needed the money. In doing so he paved the way for today’s stand-up comedians and social satirists such as Jon Stewart and Stephan Colbert.
In The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Twain presents what many might idealize as a typical small town in the American Midwest. St. Petersburg, Missouri provides the setting for the antics of Tom, Huck, Joe and the other children. It is easy to remember Tom’s strategy to get the fence painted or his sneaking in to watch his own funeral. You might even remember the murder in the cemetery or Tom and Huck’s fear of Injun Joe, but with the word “adventure” in the title, there has to be some action and drama to provide a bit of suspense.
This is where the book takes on a deeper meaning. When the politicians traversing our state tell us they will return the country to traditional American values it is easy to think of the innocence of Tom’s infatuation with Becky, the love of Aunt Polly, and the protective father, Judge Thatcher. It is more difficult to remember the darker side of American history. In Tom Sawyer we see the social exclusion and animosity expressed towards Native Americans in the person of Injun Joe, slavery, the alcoholism of several characters and the benign neglect of a child such as Huck Finn. Twain’s observation, “We have the best government that money can buy,” or that “There is no distinctly American criminal class - except Congress,” speak for themselves. Not all that much has changed. The past is not as neat and tidy as we usually want to remember.
After writing Tom Sawyer, Twain went on to write the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Prince and the Pauper, Innocents Abroad, plus many essays and articles. Twain was not reluctant to share his views on the social issues of his time, nor was he afraid of changing his mind, as he did with his views of Native Americans and the issue of imperialism. After supporting American expansion, Twain became an active anti-Imperialist, arguing the colonization of the Philippines violated American values. Accused by his critics of being un-American, Twain provided his definition of a patriot as, “Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about.” It is a definition worth remembering.
Some of Twain’s more controversial writings, primarily those relating to religion were not published until after his death. The best-known of these is “The War Prayer,” where Twain presents a stinging critique of the American church’s willingness to bless violence and militarism, in the name of the Lord. Twain’s comment “It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand,” sum up the contradictions of Christianity in America. “Turn the other cheek, or give your coat to the man who has none,” are rather plain statements, easy to understand but hard to practice. Instead we distract ourselves as we prefer to argue and fuss about issues which require no change in behavior or attitude.
In Tom Sawyer, Twain celebrates youth, optimism, and orneriness, characteristics which might also be used to describe the United States. Twain also presents the darker side of human nature, and with it, the darker side of United States history, contradictions we live and deal with today.
Marcus Miller
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Reflections on 9-11 ten years later
Reflections on 9-11
Last Thursday I was asked if I would share something in chapel, Friday about 9-11 since the plans for the day fell through. That night I pulled out what I had written ten years ago when I was asked to share and added some thoughts. This is what I shared, more or less.
Ten years ago, on a Tuesday morning the teachers gathered in my room for an in-service dealing with child abuse. When I was getting a cup of coffee, another teacher asked if I had heard about a plane crashing into one of the World Trade Towers. I hadn’t but when we got to my room, we turned on the television. Instead of watching the video for our in-service we spent most of the morning watching the building burn, the second jet crash into the other tower, and then both buildings collapse.
No one knew what was happening or why. There were reports that other jets had been hijacked and were headed towards Washington DC, Chicago or other cities. All planes were told to land immediately, planes arriving from overseas landed instead in Canada, Mexico, or they risked being shot down by the US military.
The next question was, what do we do with the students when they arrive? It was decided to meet in the chapel, now the library and to tell students what had happened, read some scripture and have a prayer. Some came already knowing, while others knew nothing. For some the primary concern was, would the soccer game go on as scheduled. The game was canceled to the dismay of some of my players who were looking forward to the long bus ride to Ft Madison.
I’m not sure what happened in other classrooms, but in mine, we spent much of the time watching the television coverage. I did not have a computer in my room so watching things over the internet was not an option. Students wanted to know why someone would attack the U.S., and some quickly realized that our country and their lives would be changing. Someone got the bright idea that I should talk about what happened in chapel so I spent the weekend reading news articles and thinking about what to say.
In my talk, I tried to answer four questions a lot of students were asking. They were:
Question #1 Why do so many people and countries hate us (the United States) and want to harm us?
Question #2 Where do we find safety and security?
Question #3 How should Christians, especially those of us who claim nonresistance, respond to the attack?
Question/ Thought #4 What is our place as Christians in American society?
Looking back at what I wrote I think my answers made sense, but I think it is still important for us to think about these questions. What I wrote ten years ago is in italics since I couldn't figure out how to do it in a different font. Or you can read the previous post if you are so inclined.
Question 1 –Why would people want to attack the US?
We are the biggest most powerful country in the world. Our country has done some great and wonderful things, but at times our country has acted arrogantly and selfishly. In the last ten years I have had the privilege of traveling to China, Israel/Palestine, and Poland. In every country I was told the same thing, “We love Americans, but we don’t care so much for your government.” Can I distinguish between individuals and the actions of their governments?
Question 2. Where will we find our safety and security?
I wrote, Will it be in adding millions to the budgets of the FBI, CIA and the military? Will it be as the article titled“ Shaken Americans take comfort in guns.” Where a gun dealer is quoted, “People in Peoria don’t have to go out and buy a handgun to protect themselves from a stolen 747, but people are afraid and they go out and look for something that will make them feel better. Or will we choose to remember the Psalm, “God is our shelter and strength, always ready to help in times of trouble. So will we not be afraid even if the earth is shaken and mountains fall into the ocean depths. Even if the seas roar and rage and the hills are shaken be the violence.” Psalm 46 Can we say with David? “Some trust in their war chariots and others in their horses, but we trust in the power of the Lord our God” Psalm 20:7 Today will we put our trust in guns, missile defense systems, new security measures, or can we rest secure in the arms of God?
According to some estimates, since 2011 our country has spent at least 7.6 trillion on “security” costs. Because of secrecy and the nature of some of the anti-terrorist work, according to a recent Frontline report we may never know how much has been spent.
Since 2000 “...the Pentagon’s annual “Base” budget (not including war costs or the nuclear weapons activities of the Department of Energy) from FY 2000 to FY 2011 has risen 235.6 Billion.”
http://costofwar.com/en/publications/2011/ten-years-after-911/top-ten-security-spending-numbers-you-need-know/
These numbers provide evidence of the choice made by our government. To use the words of David in Psalm 20, we put our trust in war chariots and horses, rather than in the power of the Lord our God.
Some of you were likely annoyed by my last comment, which brings us to the third question I asked.
Question #3 How should Christians, especially those of us who claim nonresistance, respond to the attack?
In response to 911 many Christians pledged their support to President Bush. A prayer service was held at the National Cathedral where prayers were offered for the victims, for our leaders and for God’s guidance. It wasn’t long before President Bush talked of a crusade to rid the world of bin Laden and his evil followers
Calvin Thomas, a professed born-again Christian in an article titled, “If this terrorism act is war, then lets start acting like it,” wrote: “Evil exists. It must be opposed. It is self-defense to kill people intent on killing you. If this is war…lets start acting like it and tell America’s enemies that if they are so intent on seeing their God, we’ll help them get there. As for us, we intend to die of natural causes.”…“Those humanistic, ‘can’t we all get along, profiling potential terrorists is racism, we’re all God’s children, kumbaya, all we are saying is give peace a chance’ moral equivalency equivocators will soon be back. …. They should be ignored. …. We know the enemy. We know where they live. Let’s go get them before they get any more of us, and let the moralizers sort it all out later.”
We have had to sort it out, whether or not we were “moralizers”
2,977 people died during the attacks against the United States on 9-11. Since going to war there have been 6,026 U.S. fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Civilian casualties are more difficult to come by. Remember Rumsfeld’s line, “We don’t do body counts.” Conservative estimates suggest a minimum of 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died while others suggest it is over 900,000. In Afghanistan nearly 20,000 civilians have been killed.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ see also http://www.unknownnews.org/casualties.html
Our country has had to debate whether “enhanced interrogation techniques” are torture. We cringe at the name “Abu Ghraib” and the images it brings to mind. It is easy to find stories about the struggles faced by returning veterans and the demons they face as they deal with their combat experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I remember the words of Jesus, “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Or the words of Paul in Romans 12, and I wonder, am I one of Cal Thomas’s “We’re all God’s children, kumbayah, moral equivocators? Am I being naïve if I reject Thomas’s call to violence and revenge?
Now ten years later I wonder if we are naive if we assume we can engage in war, violence and torture without consequences.
Question/ Thought #4 What is our place as Christians in American society?
In the aftermath of 9-11, 93% of Americans supported taking military action and 77% supported military action even if it meant innocent civilians would be killed. 71 % said they would be willing to give up some personal liberties and privacy. Flags were sold by the millions, newspapers and magazines printed paper versions so everyone could put them in the window of their house or display them in their car.
“As patriotism is mixed with prayer,” as our nation gets ready for war, is their room for the 7% of us who oppose using a military response?
As a “people of peace” in a country preparing for war, how are we to act? Especially if it becomes a war without borders fought in a variety of ways. Will we choose to place flags supplied by our local newspapers in the windows of our cars and homes? Will we keep our voices low and our opinions silent to avoid detection and perhaps persecution?
Am I willing to be treated as an alien in my own land?
We are faced with a choice, Will we choose to join our country as it draws its sword, beginning its “crusade to wipe out the people who would strike at our freedoms….” Or will we choose instead to believe and follow Jesus the Prince of Peace.
Methodist Bishop Will Willimon recently said in the evangelical magazine Christianity Today: “American Christians may look back upon our response to 9/11 as our greatest Christological defeat … when our people felt vulnerable, they reached for the flag instead of the cross.”
http://blog.sojo.net/2011/09/08/10-years-after-911-the-good-and-the-bad/
The last ten years have not always been easy ones. Some families decided not to have their children return to IMS, fans of visiting teams were sometimes vocal about the absence of a flag and the national anthem, the state athletic associations punished our sports teams. During this time some relationships were broken, yet others were developed and maintained.
In the end, if we are to be faithful we have a choice to make. Ten years ago I asked,
Will we choose to join our country as it draws its sword, beginning its “crusade
to wipe out the people who would strike at our freedoms….” Or will we choose instead to believe and follow Jesus the Prince of Peace?
Today, ten years later I am going to tell you my answer to that question. If we are to be the people of God, we need to choose to believe and follow Jesus, the Prince of Peace. In the words of the Methodist bishop, we need to reach for the cross instead of the flag. We need to follow Jesus in spite of the costs if we are to be a people of faith.
Last Thursday I was asked if I would share something in chapel, Friday about 9-11 since the plans for the day fell through. That night I pulled out what I had written ten years ago when I was asked to share and added some thoughts. This is what I shared, more or less.
Ten years ago, on a Tuesday morning the teachers gathered in my room for an in-service dealing with child abuse. When I was getting a cup of coffee, another teacher asked if I had heard about a plane crashing into one of the World Trade Towers. I hadn’t but when we got to my room, we turned on the television. Instead of watching the video for our in-service we spent most of the morning watching the building burn, the second jet crash into the other tower, and then both buildings collapse.
No one knew what was happening or why. There were reports that other jets had been hijacked and were headed towards Washington DC, Chicago or other cities. All planes were told to land immediately, planes arriving from overseas landed instead in Canada, Mexico, or they risked being shot down by the US military.
The next question was, what do we do with the students when they arrive? It was decided to meet in the chapel, now the library and to tell students what had happened, read some scripture and have a prayer. Some came already knowing, while others knew nothing. For some the primary concern was, would the soccer game go on as scheduled. The game was canceled to the dismay of some of my players who were looking forward to the long bus ride to Ft Madison.
I’m not sure what happened in other classrooms, but in mine, we spent much of the time watching the television coverage. I did not have a computer in my room so watching things over the internet was not an option. Students wanted to know why someone would attack the U.S., and some quickly realized that our country and their lives would be changing. Someone got the bright idea that I should talk about what happened in chapel so I spent the weekend reading news articles and thinking about what to say.
In my talk, I tried to answer four questions a lot of students were asking. They were:
Question #1 Why do so many people and countries hate us (the United States) and want to harm us?
Question #2 Where do we find safety and security?
Question #3 How should Christians, especially those of us who claim nonresistance, respond to the attack?
Question/ Thought #4 What is our place as Christians in American society?
Looking back at what I wrote I think my answers made sense, but I think it is still important for us to think about these questions. What I wrote ten years ago is in italics since I couldn't figure out how to do it in a different font. Or you can read the previous post if you are so inclined.
Question 1 –Why would people want to attack the US?
We are the biggest most powerful country in the world. Our country has done some great and wonderful things, but at times our country has acted arrogantly and selfishly. In the last ten years I have had the privilege of traveling to China, Israel/Palestine, and Poland. In every country I was told the same thing, “We love Americans, but we don’t care so much for your government.” Can I distinguish between individuals and the actions of their governments?
Question 2. Where will we find our safety and security?
I wrote, Will it be in adding millions to the budgets of the FBI, CIA and the military? Will it be as the article titled“ Shaken Americans take comfort in guns.” Where a gun dealer is quoted, “People in Peoria don’t have to go out and buy a handgun to protect themselves from a stolen 747, but people are afraid and they go out and look for something that will make them feel better. Or will we choose to remember the Psalm, “God is our shelter and strength, always ready to help in times of trouble. So will we not be afraid even if the earth is shaken and mountains fall into the ocean depths. Even if the seas roar and rage and the hills are shaken be the violence.” Psalm 46 Can we say with David? “Some trust in their war chariots and others in their horses, but we trust in the power of the Lord our God” Psalm 20:7 Today will we put our trust in guns, missile defense systems, new security measures, or can we rest secure in the arms of God?
According to some estimates, since 2011 our country has spent at least 7.6 trillion on “security” costs. Because of secrecy and the nature of some of the anti-terrorist work, according to a recent Frontline report we may never know how much has been spent.
Since 2000 “...the Pentagon’s annual “Base” budget (not including war costs or the nuclear weapons activities of the Department of Energy) from FY 2000 to FY 2011 has risen 235.6 Billion.”
http://costofwar.com/en/publications/2011/ten-years-after-911/top-ten-security-spending-numbers-you-need-know/
These numbers provide evidence of the choice made by our government. To use the words of David in Psalm 20, we put our trust in war chariots and horses, rather than in the power of the Lord our God.
Some of you were likely annoyed by my last comment, which brings us to the third question I asked.
Question #3 How should Christians, especially those of us who claim nonresistance, respond to the attack?
In response to 911 many Christians pledged their support to President Bush. A prayer service was held at the National Cathedral where prayers were offered for the victims, for our leaders and for God’s guidance. It wasn’t long before President Bush talked of a crusade to rid the world of bin Laden and his evil followers
Calvin Thomas, a professed born-again Christian in an article titled, “If this terrorism act is war, then lets start acting like it,” wrote: “Evil exists. It must be opposed. It is self-defense to kill people intent on killing you. If this is war…lets start acting like it and tell America’s enemies that if they are so intent on seeing their God, we’ll help them get there. As for us, we intend to die of natural causes.”…“Those humanistic, ‘can’t we all get along, profiling potential terrorists is racism, we’re all God’s children, kumbaya, all we are saying is give peace a chance’ moral equivalency equivocators will soon be back. …. They should be ignored. …. We know the enemy. We know where they live. Let’s go get them before they get any more of us, and let the moralizers sort it all out later.”
We have had to sort it out, whether or not we were “moralizers”
2,977 people died during the attacks against the United States on 9-11. Since going to war there have been 6,026 U.S. fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Civilian casualties are more difficult to come by. Remember Rumsfeld’s line, “We don’t do body counts.” Conservative estimates suggest a minimum of 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died while others suggest it is over 900,000. In Afghanistan nearly 20,000 civilians have been killed.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ see also http://www.unknownnews.org/casualties.html
Our country has had to debate whether “enhanced interrogation techniques” are torture. We cringe at the name “Abu Ghraib” and the images it brings to mind. It is easy to find stories about the struggles faced by returning veterans and the demons they face as they deal with their combat experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I remember the words of Jesus, “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Or the words of Paul in Romans 12, and I wonder, am I one of Cal Thomas’s “We’re all God’s children, kumbayah, moral equivocators? Am I being naïve if I reject Thomas’s call to violence and revenge?
Now ten years later I wonder if we are naive if we assume we can engage in war, violence and torture without consequences.
Question/ Thought #4 What is our place as Christians in American society?
In the aftermath of 9-11, 93% of Americans supported taking military action and 77% supported military action even if it meant innocent civilians would be killed. 71 % said they would be willing to give up some personal liberties and privacy. Flags were sold by the millions, newspapers and magazines printed paper versions so everyone could put them in the window of their house or display them in their car.
“As patriotism is mixed with prayer,” as our nation gets ready for war, is their room for the 7% of us who oppose using a military response?
As a “people of peace” in a country preparing for war, how are we to act? Especially if it becomes a war without borders fought in a variety of ways. Will we choose to place flags supplied by our local newspapers in the windows of our cars and homes? Will we keep our voices low and our opinions silent to avoid detection and perhaps persecution?
Am I willing to be treated as an alien in my own land?
We are faced with a choice, Will we choose to join our country as it draws its sword, beginning its “crusade to wipe out the people who would strike at our freedoms….” Or will we choose instead to believe and follow Jesus the Prince of Peace.
Methodist Bishop Will Willimon recently said in the evangelical magazine Christianity Today: “American Christians may look back upon our response to 9/11 as our greatest Christological defeat … when our people felt vulnerable, they reached for the flag instead of the cross.”
http://blog.sojo.net/2011/09/08/10-years-after-911-the-good-and-the-bad/
The last ten years have not always been easy ones. Some families decided not to have their children return to IMS, fans of visiting teams were sometimes vocal about the absence of a flag and the national anthem, the state athletic associations punished our sports teams. During this time some relationships were broken, yet others were developed and maintained.
In the end, if we are to be faithful we have a choice to make. Ten years ago I asked,
Will we choose to join our country as it draws its sword, beginning its “crusade
to wipe out the people who would strike at our freedoms….” Or will we choose instead to believe and follow Jesus the Prince of Peace?
Today, ten years later I am going to tell you my answer to that question. If we are to be the people of God, we need to choose to believe and follow Jesus, the Prince of Peace. In the words of the Methodist bishop, we need to reach for the cross instead of the flag. We need to follow Jesus in spite of the costs if we are to be a people of faith.
Friday, September 09, 2011
9/11 reflection from 2001
I was asked to share some reflections about 9/11 today in chapel. I pulled out what I shared ten years ago. Since it was before blogs, or at least before I was aware of blogs, I thought I would put it on here. I had a hard time finding a digital copy of it since I had apparently saved it on one of those 31/2 in floppy discs. I'll put up my ten year update later.
Chapel talk Sept 17, 2001
Tuesday, September 11, 2001 it is said has changed America and Americans forever. President Bush described the terrorist attacks as “acts of war” and later talked about the first war of the new century.Our newspapers have shown headlines saying, “We’re at War,” “War Looms” and “The New Battlefield.”
I was asked to talk about how we might respond to the events of last week. I’m not sure why I agreed to do this. As a historian it seems as if I need more time,
say a year at least, to formulate a satisfactory answer but all I had was the weekend. I would have liked time to reread Niehbuhrs’ thoughts on Christian realism, to look at Bonhoeffer’s struggle to remain a faithful Christian in Nazi Germany, and to look at John Howard Yoder’s writings or those of Menno Simons on Christian citizenship. So what follows are some random thoughts and questions I have been asked this past week. I hope you find them to be helpful in your thinking.
Question #1 Why do so many people and countries hate us and want to harm us?
There are numerous reasons why some groups and some countries do not like us and so these answers are on the simplistic side. First remember, we are the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth. Just being in that position makes us a target. Using a sports analogy, who doesn’t want to knock off the number one ranked team? When teams like the Yankee’s and Braves play who do you cheer for? It is difficult for me to be excited because I know one of them is going to win.
Second, some of our policies, while perhaps good for us, are not so good for other countries. Why do we have troops stationed in Saudia Arabia? Is it to protect the Saudi’s, or is it to keep them in line and to assure low oil prices? It doesn’t really matter what our reasons are- as long as many middle easterners perceive it as the latter. When we criticize Arab countries for cracking down on political dissent, but are seen as giving a blank check, along with weapons, to Israel while it aims missile’s at Palestinian residents and uses assassination as a way of silencing dissent, our country appears to be hypocritical and it makes many people angry.
There is not time to look more closely at this but I would encourage you to read James 4:1-2.
Question #2 Where do we find safety and security?
When I was little I often said this prayer as I went to bed. “Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep. If I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take.” When I said the words, “If I should die…” I did not see myself dying peacefully in my sleep. Instead I saw myself being blown to bits as the mushroom cloud of an atomic blast rose above my obliterated house.
In the 60’s and 70’s, many of us went to bed knowing thousands of nuclear missiles’ were aimed at our country, while our country aimed even more at our enemies. Our country sought security in a policy referred to as MAD or Mutual Assured Destruction. Our countries security rested in the idea that if the Soviets launched an attack, we could launch a counter attack and destroy them several times over. For many it was a fearful time.
Over the course of history countries have sought security in their weapons and strategies. The Roman legions conquered much of their known world, the Spanish king placed his faith in his Invincible Armada, a vast fleet of the largest, most powerful
ships of the 16th century, Napoleon created the largest army in Europe and conquered the continent.
New weapons, new strategies and technology have all been sought after as countries tried to expand their borders, their influence and preserve their way of
life, but all of these and many others have come and gone.
Where will we find our safety and security? Will it be in adding millions to the budgets of the FBI, CIA and the military? Will it be as the article titled
“Shaken Americans take comfort in guns.” Where a gun dealer is quoted, “People in Peoria don’t have to go out and buy a handgun to protect themselves from a stolen 747, but people are afraid and they go out and look for something that will make them feel better.” Or will we choose to remember the Psalm, “God is our shelter and strength, always ready to help in times of trouble. So will we not be afraid even if the earth is shaken and mountains fall into the ocean depths.
Even if the seas roar and rage and the hills are shaken be the violence.” Psalm 46
Can we say with David? “Some trust in their war chariots and others in their horses, but we trust in the power of the Lord our God” Psalm 20:7
Today will we put our trust in guns, missile defense systems, new security measures, or can we rest secure in the arms of God?
Question/Thought #3
In class this past week a student asked how I thought our country should respond to the terrorists attacks, I answered that as a nonresistant Christian I would answer one way, but that as a realist I would answer another. Something about that troubled me as the week went on. Does Jesus call me to be a realist, or does he call me to be his follower even if it doesn’t make sense to the world?
As the week went on I read articles by men who have described themselves as Christians and I wondered some more. Calvin Thomas, a professed born-again Christian
in an article titled, “If this terrorism act is war, then lets start acting like it,” wrote: “Evil exists. It must be opposed. It is self-defense to kill people intent on killing you. If this is war…lets start acting like it and tell America’s enemies that if they are so intent on seeing their God, we’ll help them get there. As for us, we
intend to die of natural causes.” “Those humanistic, ‘can’t we all get along,
profiling potential terrorists is racism, we’re all God’s children, kumbaya, all we are saying is give peace a chance’ moral equivalency equivocators will soon be back. …. They should be ignored. …. We know the enemy. We know where they live. Lets go get them before they get any more of us, and let the moralizers sort it all out later.”
But then I remember the words of Jesus, “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Or the words of Paul in Romans 12, and I wonder, am I one of
Cal Thomas’s “We’re all God’s children, kumbayah, moral equivocators? Am I being naïve if I reject Thomas’s call to violence and revenge?
Question/ Thought #4 what is our place in American
society?
Saturday’s Press Citizen reported the results of anABC poll showing that 93% of Americans supported taking military action, and 77% supported military action even if it meant innocent civilians would be killed. 91% approve of the way Bush has responded so far and 71% said they would be willing to give up some personal liberties and privacy. A Philadelphia Inquirer reporter wrote, “The attack on America has triggered a rare moment of consensus in governing circles. Democrats and
Republicans, without bothering to check the opinion polls, are invoking war … as the ominous end game of US policy-violence without mercy, in the service of national retribution.”
In a related example one flag company reported receiving 2 million requests for flags as Americans in the words of a CNN anchor said, … “It seems as if when
Americans don’t know where to turn, they turn to the flag.”
“As patriotism is mixed with prayer,” as our nation gets ready for war, is their room for the 7% of us who oppose using a military response?
During times of war the United States has shown a strong tendency to restrict personal freedom and to squelch dissent. During World War I some Mennonites
spent time in prison rather than to wear a military uniform. During World War II Japanese-Americans were interned in prison camps, and many of German descent gave up the German language in order to avoid harassment from their neighbors.
As a “people of peace” in a country preparing for war, how are we to act? Especially if it becomes a war without borders fought in a variety of ways. Will we choose to place flags supplied by our local newspapers in the windows of our cars and homes?
Will we keep our voices low and our opinions silent to avoid detection and perhaps persecution? Am I willing to be treated as an alien in my own land?
We are faced with a choice, Will we choose to join our country as it draws it sword, beginning its “crusade to wipe out the people who would strike at our freedoms….” Or will we choose instead to believe and follow Jesus the Prince of Peace?
M.Miller 9/17/2011
Chapel talk Sept 17, 2001
Tuesday, September 11, 2001 it is said has changed America and Americans forever. President Bush described the terrorist attacks as “acts of war” and later talked about the first war of the new century.Our newspapers have shown headlines saying, “We’re at War,” “War Looms” and “The New Battlefield.”
I was asked to talk about how we might respond to the events of last week. I’m not sure why I agreed to do this. As a historian it seems as if I need more time,
say a year at least, to formulate a satisfactory answer but all I had was the weekend. I would have liked time to reread Niehbuhrs’ thoughts on Christian realism, to look at Bonhoeffer’s struggle to remain a faithful Christian in Nazi Germany, and to look at John Howard Yoder’s writings or those of Menno Simons on Christian citizenship. So what follows are some random thoughts and questions I have been asked this past week. I hope you find them to be helpful in your thinking.
Question #1 Why do so many people and countries hate us and want to harm us?
There are numerous reasons why some groups and some countries do not like us and so these answers are on the simplistic side. First remember, we are the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth. Just being in that position makes us a target. Using a sports analogy, who doesn’t want to knock off the number one ranked team? When teams like the Yankee’s and Braves play who do you cheer for? It is difficult for me to be excited because I know one of them is going to win.
Second, some of our policies, while perhaps good for us, are not so good for other countries. Why do we have troops stationed in Saudia Arabia? Is it to protect the Saudi’s, or is it to keep them in line and to assure low oil prices? It doesn’t really matter what our reasons are- as long as many middle easterners perceive it as the latter. When we criticize Arab countries for cracking down on political dissent, but are seen as giving a blank check, along with weapons, to Israel while it aims missile’s at Palestinian residents and uses assassination as a way of silencing dissent, our country appears to be hypocritical and it makes many people angry.
There is not time to look more closely at this but I would encourage you to read James 4:1-2.
Question #2 Where do we find safety and security?
When I was little I often said this prayer as I went to bed. “Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep. If I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take.” When I said the words, “If I should die…” I did not see myself dying peacefully in my sleep. Instead I saw myself being blown to bits as the mushroom cloud of an atomic blast rose above my obliterated house.
In the 60’s and 70’s, many of us went to bed knowing thousands of nuclear missiles’ were aimed at our country, while our country aimed even more at our enemies. Our country sought security in a policy referred to as MAD or Mutual Assured Destruction. Our countries security rested in the idea that if the Soviets launched an attack, we could launch a counter attack and destroy them several times over. For many it was a fearful time.
Over the course of history countries have sought security in their weapons and strategies. The Roman legions conquered much of their known world, the Spanish king placed his faith in his Invincible Armada, a vast fleet of the largest, most powerful
ships of the 16th century, Napoleon created the largest army in Europe and conquered the continent.
New weapons, new strategies and technology have all been sought after as countries tried to expand their borders, their influence and preserve their way of
life, but all of these and many others have come and gone.
Where will we find our safety and security? Will it be in adding millions to the budgets of the FBI, CIA and the military? Will it be as the article titled
“Shaken Americans take comfort in guns.” Where a gun dealer is quoted, “People in Peoria don’t have to go out and buy a handgun to protect themselves from a stolen 747, but people are afraid and they go out and look for something that will make them feel better.” Or will we choose to remember the Psalm, “God is our shelter and strength, always ready to help in times of trouble. So will we not be afraid even if the earth is shaken and mountains fall into the ocean depths.
Even if the seas roar and rage and the hills are shaken be the violence.” Psalm 46
Can we say with David? “Some trust in their war chariots and others in their horses, but we trust in the power of the Lord our God” Psalm 20:7
Today will we put our trust in guns, missile defense systems, new security measures, or can we rest secure in the arms of God?
Question/Thought #3
In class this past week a student asked how I thought our country should respond to the terrorists attacks, I answered that as a nonresistant Christian I would answer one way, but that as a realist I would answer another. Something about that troubled me as the week went on. Does Jesus call me to be a realist, or does he call me to be his follower even if it doesn’t make sense to the world?
As the week went on I read articles by men who have described themselves as Christians and I wondered some more. Calvin Thomas, a professed born-again Christian
in an article titled, “If this terrorism act is war, then lets start acting like it,” wrote: “Evil exists. It must be opposed. It is self-defense to kill people intent on killing you. If this is war…lets start acting like it and tell America’s enemies that if they are so intent on seeing their God, we’ll help them get there. As for us, we
intend to die of natural causes.” “Those humanistic, ‘can’t we all get along,
profiling potential terrorists is racism, we’re all God’s children, kumbaya, all we are saying is give peace a chance’ moral equivalency equivocators will soon be back. …. They should be ignored. …. We know the enemy. We know where they live. Lets go get them before they get any more of us, and let the moralizers sort it all out later.”
But then I remember the words of Jesus, “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Or the words of Paul in Romans 12, and I wonder, am I one of
Cal Thomas’s “We’re all God’s children, kumbayah, moral equivocators? Am I being naïve if I reject Thomas’s call to violence and revenge?
Question/ Thought #4 what is our place in American
society?
Saturday’s Press Citizen reported the results of anABC poll showing that 93% of Americans supported taking military action, and 77% supported military action even if it meant innocent civilians would be killed. 91% approve of the way Bush has responded so far and 71% said they would be willing to give up some personal liberties and privacy. A Philadelphia Inquirer reporter wrote, “The attack on America has triggered a rare moment of consensus in governing circles. Democrats and
Republicans, without bothering to check the opinion polls, are invoking war … as the ominous end game of US policy-violence without mercy, in the service of national retribution.”
In a related example one flag company reported receiving 2 million requests for flags as Americans in the words of a CNN anchor said, … “It seems as if when
Americans don’t know where to turn, they turn to the flag.”
“As patriotism is mixed with prayer,” as our nation gets ready for war, is their room for the 7% of us who oppose using a military response?
During times of war the United States has shown a strong tendency to restrict personal freedom and to squelch dissent. During World War I some Mennonites
spent time in prison rather than to wear a military uniform. During World War II Japanese-Americans were interned in prison camps, and many of German descent gave up the German language in order to avoid harassment from their neighbors.
As a “people of peace” in a country preparing for war, how are we to act? Especially if it becomes a war without borders fought in a variety of ways. Will we choose to place flags supplied by our local newspapers in the windows of our cars and homes?
Will we keep our voices low and our opinions silent to avoid detection and perhaps persecution? Am I willing to be treated as an alien in my own land?
We are faced with a choice, Will we choose to join our country as it draws it sword, beginning its “crusade to wipe out the people who would strike at our freedoms….” Or will we choose instead to believe and follow Jesus the Prince of Peace?
M.Miller 9/17/2011
Monday, August 22, 2011
"Government Schools"
I hate to pick on Tim Pawlenty since he has dropped out of the presidential race but something he said when he was in the area has been rumbling around in my head. When someone asked him about education he refused to use the term, "public education" or "public school" and instead insisted on using the term "government school." He said "if parents want to send their child to a private school they should be given that choice, if they want to home-school, why God-bless them for that, and if they need to, we should provide the best government school possible." Former Senator Santorum has used similar terms to describe public schools.
I teach at a private, faith based school, which is struggling with enrollment issues. I suggested we borrow from Pawlenty and Santorum and start referring to the local public schools as government schools and do it with the most sinister sounding sneer we can muster. My suggestion didn't meet with a positive response and I said it in jest. But when did public schools begin to be described as "government schools," or even as "indoctrination centers?" It doesn't take long on the internet to find references to both. Some might be considered to be fringe opinions but others such as Milton Friedman, wrote for the Cato Institute in 1995 that public schools should be abolished. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-023.html)The blame is generally placed on teachers and the teachers unions. Sometimes government corruption and waste is mentioned. Rarely is poverty, the lack of resources, and poor parenting mentioned. The solution most suggested is to give family vouchers and letting them choose where to go. Never mind that the amount of the voucher would generally only cover 1/3 to 1/2 of the tuition most private schools charge. In other words, I don't think it would work.
One surprising line I ran across was from Milton Friedman, the supply-side economist who won a Nobel Prize back in the 90's. It goes as follows, "If the widening of the wage differential is allowed to proceed unchecked, it threatens to create within our own country a social problem of major proportions. We shall not be willing to see a group of our population move into Third World conditions at the same time that another group of our population becomes increasingly well off. Such stratification is a recipe for social disaster." Friedman wrote this in 1995. It now seems as some folks think it would be best if the difference in wealth was encouraged, or at least they don't see it as a problem. And in that context, it seems some, including Presidential candidates, think it is time to get rid of public schools, effectively consigning many citizens to a permanent underclass.
I teach at a private, faith based school, which is struggling with enrollment issues. I suggested we borrow from Pawlenty and Santorum and start referring to the local public schools as government schools and do it with the most sinister sounding sneer we can muster. My suggestion didn't meet with a positive response and I said it in jest. But when did public schools begin to be described as "government schools," or even as "indoctrination centers?" It doesn't take long on the internet to find references to both. Some might be considered to be fringe opinions but others such as Milton Friedman, wrote for the Cato Institute in 1995 that public schools should be abolished. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-023.html)The blame is generally placed on teachers and the teachers unions. Sometimes government corruption and waste is mentioned. Rarely is poverty, the lack of resources, and poor parenting mentioned. The solution most suggested is to give family vouchers and letting them choose where to go. Never mind that the amount of the voucher would generally only cover 1/3 to 1/2 of the tuition most private schools charge. In other words, I don't think it would work.
One surprising line I ran across was from Milton Friedman, the supply-side economist who won a Nobel Prize back in the 90's. It goes as follows, "If the widening of the wage differential is allowed to proceed unchecked, it threatens to create within our own country a social problem of major proportions. We shall not be willing to see a group of our population move into Third World conditions at the same time that another group of our population becomes increasingly well off. Such stratification is a recipe for social disaster." Friedman wrote this in 1995. It now seems as some folks think it would be best if the difference in wealth was encouraged, or at least they don't see it as a problem. And in that context, it seems some, including Presidential candidates, think it is time to get rid of public schools, effectively consigning many citizens to a permanent underclass.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Iowa straw poll and political organizing
“The former Minnesota governor has a platoon of smart political operatives in his corner and is thought to have the best ground game in the state. But despite planting an early flag in Iowa and improving his performance on the stump in recent weeks, the Midwesterner remains stuck in single-digits in state polls.” CNN article
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/13/iowa.straw.poll/index.html
“In case I hadn’t sent this information to you, here is the specific information for our straw poll bus. I apologize for the time I’m sending this, but I sat down with my computer a few hours ago, and almost immediately fell asleep!!” excerpt from an email sent by the Pawlenty organizer at 1:30 am Saturday morning.
The Republican’s held their straw poll today in Ames to raise money. I was tempted to go, especially after the Pawlenty people called and offered me a free bus ride and a ticket (worth $30) to get into the event. But we start school Monday and I had some other things planned for the day, plus it would have ticked off the wife.
The line from the CNN article about the Pawlenty organization having “the best ground game in the state” made me chuckle. When I went to see him in Washington, there were less than 25 people present to hear him. Even Dennis Kucinich had more people than that show up to his events four years ago. At the event they asked if I wanted to go to the straw poll, to which I said “I hadn’t made up my mind yet.” This morning I got an email from one of his workers who make up “the best ground game in the state.” Frankly it was too late, but the offer of a Pawlenty t-shirt made me think twice.
Santorum was no better, with only 18 people present. That included the camera women and a newspaper reporter. I talked to his volunteer after the event who said he had driven over from Des Moines. I asked if they had anyone local and he wasn’t sure. He said one of the volunteers was originally from Keota but he was working out of Des Moines. Someone from Bachmann’s campaign called to ask if I would support her in the straw poll. I asked if she was going to be in Washington County any time soon because I would like to see her first He said, “I think she is going to be in Cedar Falls tomorrow. That should be close. Unfortunately it would be at least a two hour drive from Washington County so I told him she would have to do better.
All of these guys have made fun of President Obama and his experience as a community organizer. He certainly hasn’t been a perfect President, but at least he knew how to run a campaign. The people he had working for him locally in the last election were impressive and they made sure they knew the state well. They targeted high school government teachers and developed some creative class room activities to help students understand the caucus system. They kept it “non-partisan” but it certainly didn’t hurt that they were cute, handsome, articulate, very engaging, and they just happened to have campaign giveaways to hand out, if anybody wanted them. If Pawlenty has the best ground game in the state, I hate to imagine how bad some of the other campaigns are organized.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/13/iowa.straw.poll/index.html
“In case I hadn’t sent this information to you, here is the specific information for our straw poll bus. I apologize for the time I’m sending this, but I sat down with my computer a few hours ago, and almost immediately fell asleep!!” excerpt from an email sent by the Pawlenty organizer at 1:30 am Saturday morning.
The Republican’s held their straw poll today in Ames to raise money. I was tempted to go, especially after the Pawlenty people called and offered me a free bus ride and a ticket (worth $30) to get into the event. But we start school Monday and I had some other things planned for the day, plus it would have ticked off the wife.
The line from the CNN article about the Pawlenty organization having “the best ground game in the state” made me chuckle. When I went to see him in Washington, there were less than 25 people present to hear him. Even Dennis Kucinich had more people than that show up to his events four years ago. At the event they asked if I wanted to go to the straw poll, to which I said “I hadn’t made up my mind yet.” This morning I got an email from one of his workers who make up “the best ground game in the state.” Frankly it was too late, but the offer of a Pawlenty t-shirt made me think twice.
Santorum was no better, with only 18 people present. That included the camera women and a newspaper reporter. I talked to his volunteer after the event who said he had driven over from Des Moines. I asked if they had anyone local and he wasn’t sure. He said one of the volunteers was originally from Keota but he was working out of Des Moines. Someone from Bachmann’s campaign called to ask if I would support her in the straw poll. I asked if she was going to be in Washington County any time soon because I would like to see her first He said, “I think she is going to be in Cedar Falls tomorrow. That should be close. Unfortunately it would be at least a two hour drive from Washington County so I told him she would have to do better.
All of these guys have made fun of President Obama and his experience as a community organizer. He certainly hasn’t been a perfect President, but at least he knew how to run a campaign. The people he had working for him locally in the last election were impressive and they made sure they knew the state well. They targeted high school government teachers and developed some creative class room activities to help students understand the caucus system. They kept it “non-partisan” but it certainly didn’t hurt that they were cute, handsome, articulate, very engaging, and they just happened to have campaign giveaways to hand out, if anybody wanted them. If Pawlenty has the best ground game in the state, I hate to imagine how bad some of the other campaigns are organized.
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Rick Santorum
Rick Santorum is running for President. If you don’t know this, it isn’t because he hasn’t campaigned hard enough, raised enough money, or put enough commercials on television. “It is because the liberal media doesn’t want you to know about him because I (he) has the best chance of beating Obama.” “The liberal media is ignoring him because they don’t want him to succeed.” Never mind that at an 8:00 am town hall in Washington, Iowa, whose newspaper could hardly be described as liberal, (it is hard to even describe it as a newspaper) there were only 18 people present to greet the former Senator Santorum.
Santorum entered the room at the Washington Library at 8:10. He went around the room shaking the hands of all eighteen people, asking our names, and offering the occasional “God bless you for being here.” He introduced himself and talked for the next 30 – 35 minutes before opening up for questions.
In his remarks he talked about why he decided to run for President. We got the sob story right away as he told us about his grandpa, a World War I vet who immigrated to the United States from northern Italy in 1927. He didn’t quite make it clear that his grandfather fought in the Italian army so I doubt some of the 18 folks in the audience figured out that he was not a U.S. veteran. The grandfather “came for freedom and scratched out a living, scratching out the ore in the mines of Pennsylvania.” As Santorum put it, his, “grandfather came for freedom, not government mandates.”
A lesson in American history ensued as he explained to us that at its core, “America is a moral enterprise.” He did some expository preaching on the Declaration of Independence explaining that “the pursuit of happiness” is not “licentiousness,” something he pinned on the far left and far right of both parties. In this section he sounded more and more like a preacher delivering a sermon with great conviction.
Next on the list was healthcare and the dangers of “Obamacare.” He told us that in 1776 life expectancy was 46 and that at the time of Jesus the life expectancy was 46. Instead of telling us he wants to lower life expectancy, he said that in the U.S. life expectancy doubled as “we released individual freedoms coupled with moral teachings.” In his view the healthcare bill takes away freedom and morality, leading to his conclusion that “if we don’t defeat Obama we will be the generation that gave freedom away.”
The first question was “Can Obamacare be gotten rid of?” As he answered it became clear he wasn’t going to take a lot of questions because he took 10 minutes to answer each one and he was scheduled to leave at 9:00. Santorum gave a lesson on the three branches of government and the need to control the legislative bodies, but he told us his “first promise is to get rid of Obamacare.” He then went on to talk about the need for a balanced budget amendment, plus the story of how he almost got us one but that John McCain and George W. pulled the carpet out from underneath him.
As he rambled on about cutting I raised my hand and asked if it would be necessary to cut defense spending in order to balance the budget. He asked what the main purpose of government is and quoted the preamble for me and said he would prefer not to cut defense spending. That it was really the only function the federal government should be worried about, that State’s should take care of everything else.
The next question was about his support for Israel. He told us he was the strongest supporter of Israel one could be, then moved to a criticism of current US policy in the Middle East. Here he argued that Obama has been supportive of the critics of the US (Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood) while throwing our friends, (Mubarek) under the bus.
The last question was from a middle-aged women concerned about the distortions of the liberal media. After he finished, he shook everybody’s hand again. When he got to me, he thanked me for my concern and asked what I do. I told him I was a history teacher which he seemed to like. I said that in the midst of his talking about freedom and individualism I wondered about the concept of the “public good.” He referred me to a book he had written but talked until his aid pulled him away.
He seems like a nice guy, but frankly when you read more about some of his positions he is on the scary side, at least if you have a libertarian bent. Outside of Iowa and some real conservative states, he doesn’t have a chance of winning and it doesn’t have to do with the liberal media.
Santorum entered the room at the Washington Library at 8:10. He went around the room shaking the hands of all eighteen people, asking our names, and offering the occasional “God bless you for being here.” He introduced himself and talked for the next 30 – 35 minutes before opening up for questions.
In his remarks he talked about why he decided to run for President. We got the sob story right away as he told us about his grandpa, a World War I vet who immigrated to the United States from northern Italy in 1927. He didn’t quite make it clear that his grandfather fought in the Italian army so I doubt some of the 18 folks in the audience figured out that he was not a U.S. veteran. The grandfather “came for freedom and scratched out a living, scratching out the ore in the mines of Pennsylvania.” As Santorum put it, his, “grandfather came for freedom, not government mandates.”
A lesson in American history ensued as he explained to us that at its core, “America is a moral enterprise.” He did some expository preaching on the Declaration of Independence explaining that “the pursuit of happiness” is not “licentiousness,” something he pinned on the far left and far right of both parties. In this section he sounded more and more like a preacher delivering a sermon with great conviction.
Next on the list was healthcare and the dangers of “Obamacare.” He told us that in 1776 life expectancy was 46 and that at the time of Jesus the life expectancy was 46. Instead of telling us he wants to lower life expectancy, he said that in the U.S. life expectancy doubled as “we released individual freedoms coupled with moral teachings.” In his view the healthcare bill takes away freedom and morality, leading to his conclusion that “if we don’t defeat Obama we will be the generation that gave freedom away.”
The first question was “Can Obamacare be gotten rid of?” As he answered it became clear he wasn’t going to take a lot of questions because he took 10 minutes to answer each one and he was scheduled to leave at 9:00. Santorum gave a lesson on the three branches of government and the need to control the legislative bodies, but he told us his “first promise is to get rid of Obamacare.” He then went on to talk about the need for a balanced budget amendment, plus the story of how he almost got us one but that John McCain and George W. pulled the carpet out from underneath him.
As he rambled on about cutting I raised my hand and asked if it would be necessary to cut defense spending in order to balance the budget. He asked what the main purpose of government is and quoted the preamble for me and said he would prefer not to cut defense spending. That it was really the only function the federal government should be worried about, that State’s should take care of everything else.
The next question was about his support for Israel. He told us he was the strongest supporter of Israel one could be, then moved to a criticism of current US policy in the Middle East. Here he argued that Obama has been supportive of the critics of the US (Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood) while throwing our friends, (Mubarek) under the bus.
The last question was from a middle-aged women concerned about the distortions of the liberal media. After he finished, he shook everybody’s hand again. When he got to me, he thanked me for my concern and asked what I do. I told him I was a history teacher which he seemed to like. I said that in the midst of his talking about freedom and individualism I wondered about the concept of the “public good.” He referred me to a book he had written but talked until his aid pulled him away.
He seems like a nice guy, but frankly when you read more about some of his positions he is on the scary side, at least if you have a libertarian bent. Outside of Iowa and some real conservative states, he doesn’t have a chance of winning and it doesn’t have to do with the liberal media.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Tim Pawlenty
Tim Pawlenty
Tim Pawlenty is the first Republican presidential candidate to come to Washington County this summer. When I walked into the Washington Library there were twenty or so elderly people seated around the tables. It was clear they weren’t expecting a big crowd as one of the volunteers ran to get some more chairs. I’m 53 but other than the volunteers and Pawlenty, I was one of the youngest people in the room.
Pawlenty arrived a few minutes after 8:00 am and without any introduction he started in with a short speech. It didn’t take him long to start criticizing President Obama who he described as the most inept President since Jimmy Carter. He particularly criticized the health care bill, the stimulus bill and the mounting deficits.
Though he didn’t mention her by name he took some swipes at Michelle Bachman. He described how all the Republican candidates will talk about being pro-life, for traditional marriage, border security, strong defense and for limited government. What makes him different is that “he as done something about it.” He then went on to list some of his accomplishments as governor of Minnesota. Items he mentioned included limiting the power of public employee unions, cutting taxes, and balancing the budgets.
Then came the sob story. Child of working class parents, his mother died when he was 16, his father lost his job as a truck driver and his brothers and sisters sacrificed so that he could be the first in his family to go to college.
After some generic remarks about the importance of freedom he asked for questions. The first questioner, a guy with a long white beard and wearing overalls asked if the current situation in Minnesota’s government reflected poorly on his years as governor. Pawlenty blamed the recent shutdown on the new governor and his misguided policies. Question number two came from an old guy wearing a Marine t-shirt that didn’t quite cover his belly. He asked about “dealing with all this terrorisms.” We learned that Pawlenty was the first governor to send troops to the border when President Bush asked for them; that we need to maintain security and our defense budget. He took some jabs at Obama’s Middle Eastern policy and said, “we need to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel.”
I asked him if he saw the growing disparity in wealth as a problem and if so, how would he fix it. He seemed to like this question. He talked about improving and growing the economy, getting government off the backs of business people, not inciting class warfare. From this he mentioned educational disparity and threw in the stat that 1/3 of high school students are dropping out. The key difference is the parents who should be given a choice of sending their children to the “government school” or to private school’s or they should be allowed to home-school, if they don’t want to use the “government school.” I assume “government school” meant public school.
Questions followed about the use of Executive Orders, an invitation to Crawfordsville (birthplace of the Republican Party), Social Security (President Obama should lead, he might use “means testing” so the wealthiest recipients might not get cost of living raises, and he argued for privatization; unemployment (put people back to work and reform welfare) and energy (drill in ANWAR, more off-shore drilling, use new methods of finding natural gas, and an emphasis on renewable’s “when they make sense.”
A lady asked him to autograph her book, and so I asked if I could ask one more question. He said yes. In answering the question about Social Security he also talked about defense spending and reiterated his strong support for Israel, including a comment that we need to defend them and he used his “shoulder to shoulder” line again. So I asked, if you were President and led the country to war against Iran to help Israel, would you raise taxes to pay for the war? He said it is a hypothetical question, but that he does not like to raise taxes. I said, “So my children would pay for it?” He went back to the hypothetical line so I said, “it seems we are involved in two of those hypothetical wars right now. He then said it was time to end and started his autographing process. I don’t think I was being overly sensitive but when I stood in line to shake his hand, before he got to me, he turned and went to the other side of the room. When I went over there, he went back to table, at which point I decided the guy is either a bit of a weasel, or he is scared of me. Neither are qualities I want in a President.
Tim Pawlenty is the first Republican presidential candidate to come to Washington County this summer. When I walked into the Washington Library there were twenty or so elderly people seated around the tables. It was clear they weren’t expecting a big crowd as one of the volunteers ran to get some more chairs. I’m 53 but other than the volunteers and Pawlenty, I was one of the youngest people in the room.
Pawlenty arrived a few minutes after 8:00 am and without any introduction he started in with a short speech. It didn’t take him long to start criticizing President Obama who he described as the most inept President since Jimmy Carter. He particularly criticized the health care bill, the stimulus bill and the mounting deficits.
Though he didn’t mention her by name he took some swipes at Michelle Bachman. He described how all the Republican candidates will talk about being pro-life, for traditional marriage, border security, strong defense and for limited government. What makes him different is that “he as done something about it.” He then went on to list some of his accomplishments as governor of Minnesota. Items he mentioned included limiting the power of public employee unions, cutting taxes, and balancing the budgets.
Then came the sob story. Child of working class parents, his mother died when he was 16, his father lost his job as a truck driver and his brothers and sisters sacrificed so that he could be the first in his family to go to college.
After some generic remarks about the importance of freedom he asked for questions. The first questioner, a guy with a long white beard and wearing overalls asked if the current situation in Minnesota’s government reflected poorly on his years as governor. Pawlenty blamed the recent shutdown on the new governor and his misguided policies. Question number two came from an old guy wearing a Marine t-shirt that didn’t quite cover his belly. He asked about “dealing with all this terrorisms.” We learned that Pawlenty was the first governor to send troops to the border when President Bush asked for them; that we need to maintain security and our defense budget. He took some jabs at Obama’s Middle Eastern policy and said, “we need to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel.”
I asked him if he saw the growing disparity in wealth as a problem and if so, how would he fix it. He seemed to like this question. He talked about improving and growing the economy, getting government off the backs of business people, not inciting class warfare. From this he mentioned educational disparity and threw in the stat that 1/3 of high school students are dropping out. The key difference is the parents who should be given a choice of sending their children to the “government school” or to private school’s or they should be allowed to home-school, if they don’t want to use the “government school.” I assume “government school” meant public school.
Questions followed about the use of Executive Orders, an invitation to Crawfordsville (birthplace of the Republican Party), Social Security (President Obama should lead, he might use “means testing” so the wealthiest recipients might not get cost of living raises, and he argued for privatization; unemployment (put people back to work and reform welfare) and energy (drill in ANWAR, more off-shore drilling, use new methods of finding natural gas, and an emphasis on renewable’s “when they make sense.”
A lady asked him to autograph her book, and so I asked if I could ask one more question. He said yes. In answering the question about Social Security he also talked about defense spending and reiterated his strong support for Israel, including a comment that we need to defend them and he used his “shoulder to shoulder” line again. So I asked, if you were President and led the country to war against Iran to help Israel, would you raise taxes to pay for the war? He said it is a hypothetical question, but that he does not like to raise taxes. I said, “So my children would pay for it?” He went back to the hypothetical line so I said, “it seems we are involved in two of those hypothetical wars right now. He then said it was time to end and started his autographing process. I don’t think I was being overly sensitive but when I stood in line to shake his hand, before he got to me, he turned and went to the other side of the room. When I went over there, he went back to table, at which point I decided the guy is either a bit of a weasel, or he is scared of me. Neither are qualities I want in a President.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Flag Day
Today, June 14 is apparently Flag Day. According to the "Today in History" the Continental Congress adopted the stars and stripes as the national flag in 1777, and the words "under God," were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. The Pledge was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. Bellamy was a Baptist minister but the real surprise for many people is that he also described himself as a socialist. Wonder what the tea party folks would think?
The other flag related event which happened today was that the Supreme Court issued its ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette in 1943. My guess is they timed it for the day since it had to do with the flag and the pledge of allegiance. In the case the Supreme Court ruled that States and schools could not require students to say the Pledge of Allegiance. The case revolved around some folks who were Jehovah Witnesses who did not want their children to say the Pledge or to salute the flag as they said it was idolatrous. Needless to say this irritated lots of people and the case made its way to the Supreme Court. The Justices pointed out that one could not force or demand allegiance, especially in a democracy.
Last week Goshen College, a Mennonite college in Indiana, decided that after playing the Star Spangled Banner before athletic events for a year that they would discontinue doing so this fall. Prior to last year they hadn't played the anthem before sporting events. A lot of folks I know were surprised the college changed its position and as might be expected the decision has caused a lot of wailing and moaning in some circles. Accusations are made that the college is unpatriotic, that the decision disrespects all the soldiers who fought and died, and on and on.
What I would argue is that the decision to not play the anthem, especially in the face of such harsh criticism, is in itself an act of great patriotism. What does the freedom of speech and expression mean if people never say anything controversial? Somewhat related, the Supreme Courts ruling in Barnette pointed out that our guaranteed freedom of expression also gives the right to not have to express things, in this case, the anthem, or for some, the Pledge of Allegiance.
The school where I work does not have a flag and does not play the anthem before athletic events. After being penalized for some years by the state athletic associations, it was suggested that they were violating the constitution. After further discussion, their disciplinary actions were rescinded. If you go back to the beginnings of the school, one reason it was started was so that Mennonite youths would not have to be subjected to the strong patriotism in the years following World War II.
The school now attracts a fair number of "other than Mennonite" students. Somewhere along the way they occasionally realize their isn't a flag, anthem, or pledge. Some will ask, a few have sort of protested, but most come to an understanding of the schools position, especially if we have done a decent job of exposing them to some of the traditional Mennonite ideas about how we relate to the State. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, especially for the folks at Goshen who are facing lots of criticism both locally and nationally.
The other flag related event which happened today was that the Supreme Court issued its ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette in 1943. My guess is they timed it for the day since it had to do with the flag and the pledge of allegiance. In the case the Supreme Court ruled that States and schools could not require students to say the Pledge of Allegiance. The case revolved around some folks who were Jehovah Witnesses who did not want their children to say the Pledge or to salute the flag as they said it was idolatrous. Needless to say this irritated lots of people and the case made its way to the Supreme Court. The Justices pointed out that one could not force or demand allegiance, especially in a democracy.
Last week Goshen College, a Mennonite college in Indiana, decided that after playing the Star Spangled Banner before athletic events for a year that they would discontinue doing so this fall. Prior to last year they hadn't played the anthem before sporting events. A lot of folks I know were surprised the college changed its position and as might be expected the decision has caused a lot of wailing and moaning in some circles. Accusations are made that the college is unpatriotic, that the decision disrespects all the soldiers who fought and died, and on and on.
What I would argue is that the decision to not play the anthem, especially in the face of such harsh criticism, is in itself an act of great patriotism. What does the freedom of speech and expression mean if people never say anything controversial? Somewhat related, the Supreme Courts ruling in Barnette pointed out that our guaranteed freedom of expression also gives the right to not have to express things, in this case, the anthem, or for some, the Pledge of Allegiance.
The school where I work does not have a flag and does not play the anthem before athletic events. After being penalized for some years by the state athletic associations, it was suggested that they were violating the constitution. After further discussion, their disciplinary actions were rescinded. If you go back to the beginnings of the school, one reason it was started was so that Mennonite youths would not have to be subjected to the strong patriotism in the years following World War II.
The school now attracts a fair number of "other than Mennonite" students. Somewhere along the way they occasionally realize their isn't a flag, anthem, or pledge. Some will ask, a few have sort of protested, but most come to an understanding of the schools position, especially if we have done a decent job of exposing them to some of the traditional Mennonite ideas about how we relate to the State. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, especially for the folks at Goshen who are facing lots of criticism both locally and nationally.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Republican debate June 2011
I sat through the Republican debate tonight. It helped that I had taken a Vicodin because I had a tooth pulled earlier in the day. Otherwise I doubt I could have made myself sit through the two hour event.
By now I had hoped that I would have had the chance to see a couple of the candidates when they come to Iowa but so far my rules haven't been met. I don't want to drive any farther than Iowa City/Coralville or Washington, though in special circumstances I might consider a drive to Cedar Rapids or Muscatine. I won't go to any fundraisers and I won't take off work. A few have made their way to Iowa City but it was still while I was in school and coaching so it didn't work. As far as I know none of them have made their way to Washington.
According to the guys on TV, Michelle Bachman was the winner with Romney doing well and Gingrich keeping his campaign alive. I don't see any of the three doing particularly well in Iowa. Like it or not the Iowa Republican party is controlled by religious conservatives and all three have some problems. Gingrich has some moral issues to deal with plus his Iowa adviser's all resigned last week. Romney is Mormon, a problem for many of the religious fundamentalists, plus he comes across as a bit too slick for many Iowan's. Bachman's problem is that she is female and Iowa has yet to elect a woman as a governor or to the US House or Senate. Maybe some of the religious and social conservatives will surprise me but I think many would prefer to vote for a male.
The other four on the stage, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, and Rick Santorum were there. Pawlenty and Santorum should do well among the Iowa Republicans, Paul could do well especially if he can figure out a way to get young folks to attend the caucus. Cain is there, sort of the Al Sharpton, or the African-American Republican candidate from a couple of years ago. Apparently the vicodin is kicking in and I can't remember his name.
That leaves Pawlenty and Santorum as the two likely to win the caucus in Iowa, at least at this point. Both will try to out conservative the other and tout their desire to cut taxes and government. If tonight is any indication they will bash Obama on the economy but when pressed for specifics they will switch to issues like abortion, gay marriage, and "keeping our country strong." If that sounds cynical,its because I am.
By now I had hoped that I would have had the chance to see a couple of the candidates when they come to Iowa but so far my rules haven't been met. I don't want to drive any farther than Iowa City/Coralville or Washington, though in special circumstances I might consider a drive to Cedar Rapids or Muscatine. I won't go to any fundraisers and I won't take off work. A few have made their way to Iowa City but it was still while I was in school and coaching so it didn't work. As far as I know none of them have made their way to Washington.
According to the guys on TV, Michelle Bachman was the winner with Romney doing well and Gingrich keeping his campaign alive. I don't see any of the three doing particularly well in Iowa. Like it or not the Iowa Republican party is controlled by religious conservatives and all three have some problems. Gingrich has some moral issues to deal with plus his Iowa adviser's all resigned last week. Romney is Mormon, a problem for many of the religious fundamentalists, plus he comes across as a bit too slick for many Iowan's. Bachman's problem is that she is female and Iowa has yet to elect a woman as a governor or to the US House or Senate. Maybe some of the religious and social conservatives will surprise me but I think many would prefer to vote for a male.
The other four on the stage, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, and Rick Santorum were there. Pawlenty and Santorum should do well among the Iowa Republicans, Paul could do well especially if he can figure out a way to get young folks to attend the caucus. Cain is there, sort of the Al Sharpton, or the African-American Republican candidate from a couple of years ago. Apparently the vicodin is kicking in and I can't remember his name.
That leaves Pawlenty and Santorum as the two likely to win the caucus in Iowa, at least at this point. Both will try to out conservative the other and tout their desire to cut taxes and government. If tonight is any indication they will bash Obama on the economy but when pressed for specifics they will switch to issues like abortion, gay marriage, and "keeping our country strong." If that sounds cynical,its because I am.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
"Caught in the Middle: America's Heartland in the Age of Globalization"
If you live in the Midwest or care about the future of the Midwest you should read Caught in the Middle: America's Heartland in the Age of Globalization by Richard C. Longworth. Though Longworth's analysis and predictions are rather depressing I found the book to be interesting and at times rather amusing. It seems obvious Longworth cares deeply about the Midwest and hopes for a positive future but at the same time he recognizes most Midwesterner's are content to either ignore the problems, or to blame their problems on others.
Longworth's description of the Midwestern mentality - complacency in the face of change, seems accurate though in the part of Iowa where I live,it is often accompanied by a certain fatalism. At times this is expressed in religious language in phrases such as, "it must be God's will." If it is indeed God's will there is obviously little we can do but long nostalgically for the good old days and bemoan the fact that our children are growing up and leaving for the coasts.
Longworth doesn't talk much about religion though he did have a line which also rings true. "In a world of the Next New Thing, devotion to biblical inerrancy and traditional values doesn't cut it. The global world is diverse, open, multinational, with no loyalty to place or places. The rural world is still white-on-white, local, fixed on itself as the homeland of all virtue."
I have contended that recent arguments in our area about the six-day creation and a 4,000 year old earth, reflect a subliminal fear, or acknowledgment that life is changing in ways we don't understand. At these points it becomes easy to latch onto something which seems foundational to our beliefs. If someone refuses to believe the way I do, then I can write them off, or if they represent the forces of globalization I can demonize them, especially if they refute my belief in a six day creation, or if I refuse to acknowledge the relevance of the issue.
Longworth offers several ideas for changing the Midwest, some of which will be controversial. Opening the doors to all immigrants is probably not going to play well in most Midwestern states or towns.
The idea of cities working together, the development of clusters centered around biotech, biofuels and other new industries may have promise, though Longworth doesn't have much hope. Longworth also critiques the politicians who have added to the mess he see's in the Midwest. He is especially hard on those who demonize immigrants, foster fear, and cut education and research budgets.
Globalization is here and it isn't going to reverse itself anytime soon even if gas goes to $5 a gallon or more. It will only hasten the decline of the small towns which still dot Iowa as people will no longer be willing to pay for the hour long commute to work or to buy groceries.
Is it entirely hopeless? I like to think there is hope. Midwesterners are resilient, know how to work hard, and many are still willing to sacrifice, if not for the good of their state or country, then for the good of their family. Solutions will emerge and people will adapt, much as many have done for the last hundred plus years. It may be ugly, it will certainly be messy, but the Midwest will survive in some form.
Longworth's description of the Midwestern mentality - complacency in the face of change, seems accurate though in the part of Iowa where I live,it is often accompanied by a certain fatalism. At times this is expressed in religious language in phrases such as, "it must be God's will." If it is indeed God's will there is obviously little we can do but long nostalgically for the good old days and bemoan the fact that our children are growing up and leaving for the coasts.
Longworth doesn't talk much about religion though he did have a line which also rings true. "In a world of the Next New Thing, devotion to biblical inerrancy and traditional values doesn't cut it. The global world is diverse, open, multinational, with no loyalty to place or places. The rural world is still white-on-white, local, fixed on itself as the homeland of all virtue."
I have contended that recent arguments in our area about the six-day creation and a 4,000 year old earth, reflect a subliminal fear, or acknowledgment that life is changing in ways we don't understand. At these points it becomes easy to latch onto something which seems foundational to our beliefs. If someone refuses to believe the way I do, then I can write them off, or if they represent the forces of globalization I can demonize them, especially if they refute my belief in a six day creation, or if I refuse to acknowledge the relevance of the issue.
Longworth offers several ideas for changing the Midwest, some of which will be controversial. Opening the doors to all immigrants is probably not going to play well in most Midwestern states or towns.
The idea of cities working together, the development of clusters centered around biotech, biofuels and other new industries may have promise, though Longworth doesn't have much hope. Longworth also critiques the politicians who have added to the mess he see's in the Midwest. He is especially hard on those who demonize immigrants, foster fear, and cut education and research budgets.
Globalization is here and it isn't going to reverse itself anytime soon even if gas goes to $5 a gallon or more. It will only hasten the decline of the small towns which still dot Iowa as people will no longer be willing to pay for the hour long commute to work or to buy groceries.
Is it entirely hopeless? I like to think there is hope. Midwesterners are resilient, know how to work hard, and many are still willing to sacrifice, if not for the good of their state or country, then for the good of their family. Solutions will emerge and people will adapt, much as many have done for the last hundred plus years. It may be ugly, it will certainly be messy, but the Midwest will survive in some form.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
American Arrogance
"Obama and his staff have made a complete mess of the situation in Egypt."
"Obama will go down in history as the president who lost Egypt." http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/obama-will-go-down-in-history-as-the-president-who-lost-egypt-1.340057
O'REILLY FACTOR: Obama Has Screwed Up Egypt, And Is Not Likable Enough To Save His Presidency." http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-oreilly-egypt-obama-interview-smoking-video-2011-2
These are a few headlines I found declaring President Obama "screwed up," "lost," or "made a complete mess" of Egypt. This type of attitude expresses the height of American arrogance when it comes to an understanding of foreign policy and the role of the U.S. in the world. Yes, the U.S. is a superpower, yes we have interests all over the world, particularly in the Middle East, but since when is Egypt ours to lose? Have they been a U.S. colony since Sadat signed the Camp David Accords? Maybe since the one quote is from Haaretz, one of the main Israeli papers, the answer would be "yes."
Listening to the US media as they report what happened in Egypt and across the Middle East has irritated me. Arguments over whether it was President Bush's speech and efforts to promote democracy, or whether it was President Obama's Cairo speech which prompted the protests seem highly irrelevant. For that matter discussions about the role of facebook, twitter, and other social media somehow overlook that the Egyptian people may finally just be pissed enough to protest.
Last summer I spent a month in Poland. A number of Poles would ask, "when did World War II start?" They were pleased when I answered, "1939" because they said most Americans answer with "1941." From there the quiz would turn to the end of the Cold War. I finally asked one questioner, "You want me to say, communism collapsed when President Reagen said, 'Tear down this wall.'" His response was, "Isn't that what all Americans think?" He went on to express his frustration at reading histories of the collapse of the Cold War, which somehow ignored or overlooked the work of Solidarity, the Catholic Church and the many average Poles, who along with the East Germans, Czechs and others, got irritated enough to stand up at the risk of their lives, and to say, we don't want to live like this anymore. As the Polish guy said, "You Americans think you are responsible for everything." Unfortunately many of us do.
Personally, Obama did the best he could dealing with some uncharted waters. If anything, it was a victory that Egyptians were not burning U.S. flags, even though the tear gas canisters fired at them said, "Made in U.S.A." or the F-15's flying overhead, and the tanks patrolling the streets were gifts of the U.S., sure to make us beloved among the Egyptian populace.
Finally,if you are going to promote democracy and free elections you better damn well be ready to live with the consequences. Traveling in the West Bank, Palestinians were quick to tell me they understood American democracy. "You pushed for elections, so we held elections. Then when Hamas won, you said,"we won't recognize a government led by Hamas." With smiles on their faces they would ask, "So, do you believe in democracy or don't you, because to us, your government is a hypocrite."
As protests spread across the Middle East and north Africa perhaps a little humility from the U.S. would be the best response. Daring to acknowledge that perhaps we don't know what is best for the Egyptians, the Libyans, or the Tunisians would be a first good step. The Egyptians, Tunisians, Lybian's, Iranians and other folks may just be able to figure it out for themselves.
"Obama will go down in history as the president who lost Egypt." http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/obama-will-go-down-in-history-as-the-president-who-lost-egypt-1.340057
O'REILLY FACTOR: Obama Has Screwed Up Egypt, And Is Not Likable Enough To Save His Presidency." http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-oreilly-egypt-obama-interview-smoking-video-2011-2
These are a few headlines I found declaring President Obama "screwed up," "lost," or "made a complete mess" of Egypt. This type of attitude expresses the height of American arrogance when it comes to an understanding of foreign policy and the role of the U.S. in the world. Yes, the U.S. is a superpower, yes we have interests all over the world, particularly in the Middle East, but since when is Egypt ours to lose? Have they been a U.S. colony since Sadat signed the Camp David Accords? Maybe since the one quote is from Haaretz, one of the main Israeli papers, the answer would be "yes."
Listening to the US media as they report what happened in Egypt and across the Middle East has irritated me. Arguments over whether it was President Bush's speech and efforts to promote democracy, or whether it was President Obama's Cairo speech which prompted the protests seem highly irrelevant. For that matter discussions about the role of facebook, twitter, and other social media somehow overlook that the Egyptian people may finally just be pissed enough to protest.
Last summer I spent a month in Poland. A number of Poles would ask, "when did World War II start?" They were pleased when I answered, "1939" because they said most Americans answer with "1941." From there the quiz would turn to the end of the Cold War. I finally asked one questioner, "You want me to say, communism collapsed when President Reagen said, 'Tear down this wall.'" His response was, "Isn't that what all Americans think?" He went on to express his frustration at reading histories of the collapse of the Cold War, which somehow ignored or overlooked the work of Solidarity, the Catholic Church and the many average Poles, who along with the East Germans, Czechs and others, got irritated enough to stand up at the risk of their lives, and to say, we don't want to live like this anymore. As the Polish guy said, "You Americans think you are responsible for everything." Unfortunately many of us do.
Personally, Obama did the best he could dealing with some uncharted waters. If anything, it was a victory that Egyptians were not burning U.S. flags, even though the tear gas canisters fired at them said, "Made in U.S.A." or the F-15's flying overhead, and the tanks patrolling the streets were gifts of the U.S., sure to make us beloved among the Egyptian populace.
Finally,if you are going to promote democracy and free elections you better damn well be ready to live with the consequences. Traveling in the West Bank, Palestinians were quick to tell me they understood American democracy. "You pushed for elections, so we held elections. Then when Hamas won, you said,"we won't recognize a government led by Hamas." With smiles on their faces they would ask, "So, do you believe in democracy or don't you, because to us, your government is a hypocrite."
As protests spread across the Middle East and north Africa perhaps a little humility from the U.S. would be the best response. Daring to acknowledge that perhaps we don't know what is best for the Egyptians, the Libyans, or the Tunisians would be a first good step. The Egyptians, Tunisians, Lybian's, Iranians and other folks may just be able to figure it out for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)