The Election 2024 Chronicles, Volume 2: Voter Limitations Are Alive And Well

Posted on by
Reply

The ability to vote and choose our leaders has laid the foundation for our democracy since 1776. But not everybody has been allowed to cast a vote. We have seen, however, legal and illegal roadblocks throughout our history. Our Constitution has been amended three times to expand voter eligibility:

The 14th Amendment (1868) was passed shortly after the Civil War. Among other things it granted citizenship to former slaves and since only citizens can vote it granted voter eligibility to former male slaves.

The 19th Amendment (1920) allowed women to vote.

The 26th Amendment (1971) lowered the minimum age for voting to 18.

With the 2024 election just 18 months away we already have a candidate who wants to restrict voting. Republican Vivek Ramaswamy has proposed a change. Under his plan the voting age would be raised to 25 with exceptions for emergency responders, anyone who served at least six months in the military, or anyone who passes the naturalization exam.

This is purely a political move, a way to attract attention. Since it will need a Constitutional amendment it’s unlikely to go anywhere but it got him some publicity.

But it does point to a troubling trend. If it were to pass it would be the first time we shrank eligibility and made voting more exclusive. It’s also no coincidence that Republicans don’t poll well among young people but they do poll well among members of the military.

I predict that this will not be the last Republican attempt to disenfranchise voters they don’t like. Instead of appealing to them it’s easier to get rid of them.

Stay tuned.

The Election 2024 Chronicles, Volume 1: And So We Begin

Posted on by
Reply

Yes,it’s that time again. We are a little less than 18 months from the next Presidential election. We’re only six months out from the last Congressional election and 30 months since the last Presidential election and already we’re gearing for November 2024. Hard to believe that in 1960 John Kennedy announced his candidacy on January 2, 1960 and eight years later his brother Robert announced his bid for the 1968 election on March 16, 1968.

Since 2016 I’ve made a few changes. I no longer list the candidates on the left side; elections come and go and I like the continuity of keeping the look of the page the same. Also I used to list everyone I could find who was running, including independents. I started doing it to give at least some publicity to people who didn’t have the resources to run a national campaign. Unfortunately I found most of them were people in need of either stronger medication or more supervision.

The list of candidates is fluid; new people announce while others see the handwriting on the wall and drop out. As major candidates announce I’ll link to their web pages.

Democratic Candidates:

Republican Candidates:

This is the beginning of a long road. We assume several others will run but they have not announced. I’ll update when they do.

Preview Of The Election 2024 Chronicles

Posted on by
Reply

Sometimes it seems like election seasons are getting longer and longer and the respite between them gets shorter and shorter. Our next Presidential election is set for November 5, 2024. For no clear reason I’ll start the “Election 2024 Chronicles” category on (or near) May 5th, 18 months before.

It’s already getting interesting. President Biden has already announced his intent to run for reelection; that’s a concern because he’s already 80 years old. Many of us have concerns about this, but frankly don’t see an alternative. If he does win in 2024 I hope he’ll spend at least part of his term looking forward to a younger successor.

I had hoped he would seek the nomination without rivals but it appears that isn’t happening. Robert Kennedy, Jr. has announced his intent to run and he’s problematic at best. He’s an attorney and spent much of his career in environmental law. That’s good but in the last several years he’s advocated against vaccines and has promoted the lie that vaccines in children make them more susceptible to autism. There’s no way he can win but he may cause some damage.

On the Republican side we already know that former President Donald Trump is running. He’s lied about so many things it’s hard to keep track but he still argues that he was cheated out of the 2020 election. He is currently under indictment in New York for bribing someone to keep quiet about their affair. There are likely other indictments to come.

Right now he is still the frontrunner despite all this. But there are several others who have also indicted they will seek the nomination, and others who we assume will make that announcement soon. They have a problem because they don’t wish to go head to head with Trump but they also want to give a reason voters should support them. My suspicion is that they are aware of Trump’s age (he’s only 3 1/2 years younger than President Biden) and hope that a health crisis will pull him out of the race.

Keep posted. I’ll have more soon.

The War In Iraq, Twenty Years Later

Posted on by
Reply

The date March 20, 2003 doesn’t sound important and most of us don’t remember where we were, but it is an important date. On that day President George Bush announced that American troops began an invasion of Iraq. It’s a good time to ask why we invaded, what happened, and where we are now.

No understanding of the invasion can be understood outside the attacks of September 11, 2001. On that morning we watched in horror as passenger planes crashed into the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania (that was likely headed toward the White House). It didn’t take long before we learned that the mastermind behind these attacks was Osama bin Laden; he was in Afghanistan being protected by their government.

But not long after these events President Bush and his administration began to push the idea that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to the attacks. There wasn’t any evidence of this and the Bush administration stopped pushing it but never completely disavowed it. Instead they pushed the idea that Saddam Hussein had both the ability to and intention of attacking us. He possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, we knew where they were, and we could confiscate them. Further, they claimed that the conquest of Iraq would be a cakewalk. Ordinary Iraqis would see us as liberators. Six weeks later, on May 1st, President Bush announced Mission Accomplished on the USS Abraham Lincoln.

In the years since then we’ve learned that none of this was true. It wasn’t a cakewalk, we weren’t seen as liberators and we didn’t accomplish the mission in six weeks. So what happened?

Today I heard an excellent podcast on this. The podcast is called On The Media and the link to this episode is here. It’s true that members of the administration “cherry picked” information that made their case and they gave too much credibility to sources who made unsubstantiated claims.

But the podcast shows that those behind this campaign felt that the only path to peace for the United States lay in “liberating” nations like Iraq and that the Iraqis suffered so much under Saddam that they would welcome us. President Bush also talked about the “axis of evil,” countries that included Iran and North Korea.

War is horrible and should be used only as a last resort. Saddam Hussein was never a threat and all we did was lose thousands of lives and leave a country that is broken to this day.

We need to remember this next time there is a call to war.

Christian Nationalism Is Neither

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been hearing a phrase in the last few years called “Christian Nationalism” and the more I hear the more I’m concerned. Don’t get me wrong: I’m proud to be both American and Christian but along with our Founders I believe that both institutions function best when they are separate.

Christian Nationalists believe that the United States was founded on specific Christian values, that we have drifted away from these values, and the only hope for our future is to reclaim and recapture them. Problem is, they tend to be pretty selective in which Christian values they embrace. So, in no particular order, here are my objections to this movement:

  • Several of our Founders practiced a Christianity we would barely recognize. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and our 3rd President. He was a Deist in the sense that he believed in God but he didn’t believe parts of the Bible that spoke of Jesus’ miracles or Jesus’ resurrection. He took a razor and edited out those parts of the Gospels he believed and pasted them together in a book called The Jefferson Bible. It ends with the crucifixion of Jesus but stops there.
  • The Founders did hold strong beliefs that a person need not be a believer. The 1st Amendment of the Constitution not only allows Americans to believe what they wanted, that included having no beliefs at all. I used to work with someone who grew up in Germany. When she started working she was told that part of her salary would be paid to either the Lutheran or Catholic Church and she was asked to choose one. She didn’t want her government to give anything to support religion but was told that wasn’t an option. As an American I recoiled at this. Because of our 1st Amendment nobody is required to support any faith. Christian Nationalists would make it more and more difficult not to hold Christian beliefs.
  • They are selective in which Christian beliefs they support. They are strong in their opposition to marriage equality or other LGBT rights but they say little or nothing about Christian values about welcoming the stranger or feeding the hungry. They clearly use the Bible to back up their beliefs that exclude others.
  • They don’t know as much as they claim to know. There was movement to place the 10 Commandments in public places, arguing that this should be the basis of American values. But ask one of them to recite the 10 Commandments. In 2006 Stephen Colbert hosted a show on Comedy Central and he would interview politicians. You can read about this here and it’s good for a laugh. Stephen was interviewing Georgia Congressman Lynn Westmoreland who proposed that the 10 Commandments be displayed in Congress. Mr. Westmoreland argued that this was something we all needed to know. But when asked to recite them, he could only name 3 of them.

At the end of the day my problem with Christian Nationalism is this: it’s not about Christianity or Nationalism. It’s about fascism. A small group of entitled people who want to ensure that their feelings aren’t hurt, who don’t want their prejudices challenged, and want to make sure “those people” know their place. I don’t believe Jesus would have any place for Christian Nationalism.

Fox News And Press Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

It’s old news that President Trump lost his bid for reelection in 2020, claiming massive voter fraud. It’s also old news that Fox News claimed, particularly in the first few weeks after the election, that Mr. Trump’s claims were valid. They pushed a story that Dominion Voting Systems changed votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden, thereby illegally swinging the election to Biden. Dominion provides electronic voting machines to more than 28 states.

Dominion then sued Fox News for $1.6 billion claiming that Fox knew none of the allegations were true but pushed them anyway. Today we found out that Fox News anchors sent emails to each other where they admitted that the allegations weren’t true and Trump operatives (like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell) were unreliable.

All along Fox has claimed that they are protected by New York Times v. Sullivan, a Supreme Court Case from 1964. In that case the court found that New York Times couldn’t be sued for honest reporting mistakes. Freedom of the press protects them unless it can be shown that the news organization either knowingly reported what they knew wasn’t true or they were incredibly reckless. Reckless, in this context, means that the organization went with the story while intentionally not investigating because they knew there was an excellent chance the story was wrong.

Today’s story shows that Fox News new their sources were fabricating their charges and that they went with the story fearing that they would lose viewers and make Donald Trump angry. The Constitution does not protect them.

Fifty Years After Vietnam

Posted on by
Reply

Fifty years ago this week the United States ended its involvement in the war in Vietnam. For the uninitiated, before World War II the nations of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam were colonies of France and called “French Indochina.” After the war Vietnam declared itself independent but France attempted to regain control. But in 1954 at the battle of Diem Bien Phu fell to Vietnamese troops under the command of Ho Chi Minh (1890-1969). Ho and his Communist allies controlled North Vietnam but not South Vietnam even though they wanted to. In the late 1950s and early 1960s the United States supported South Vietnam in the hopes to prevent the spread of Communism. By the mid 1960s we were sending combat troops into Vietnam even though there was never a declaration of war. By the late 1960s our government realized that we could not defeat North Vietnam and began negotiating a peace treaty.

On January 27, 1973 we signed a cease fire and pulled out. At the time President Nixon proclaimed victory and made it sound like this would cease hostilities between North and South Vietnam. It didn’t. When our troops pulled out so did our cameras and it came as a surprise to many but the war continued and North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam when their capital, Saigon, fell.

And while the Nixon administration tried hard to claim we didn’t lose the war it was clear that we did. Through a series of lies, missteps and miscalculations our government convinced large parts of our country that our cause was just and the result was honorable. In that time somewhere around 2.5 million troops served in Vietnam and 60,000 died. Countless came back with wounds, both visible and invisible. We learned about napalm, Agent Orange and PTSD.

Did they all suffer and die in vain? I hope not. I hope it brings us to the realization that we should never go to war without a clear understanding of what victory will look like. We had a vague idea that we would “stop the Communist advance” but never recognized that some residents of South Vietnam supported the North. We didn’t recognize that we couldn’t always tell who the enemy was or what a random person would do. We dropped troops in the middle of the jungle and told them to hold our position. We didn’t mark success by territory taken but by the daily death count (remember that from the TV news? Each week we were told how many North Vietnamese were killed, how many South Vietnamese and how many Americans).

Since then we’ve sent troops into different places, oftentimes with the same result. Let us honor our Vietnam vets but promising we will do better by today’s veterans

Thoughts on Pope Benedict XVI (1927-2022)

Posted on by
Reply

As 2022 wound to a close we received word that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI died after a long illness. Many of us remember him as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger when he headed the Congregation For The Doctrine Of the Faith under Pope John Paul II. The two of them made things difficult for us liberal Catholics who hoped that after Vatican II the Church would continue to update her teachings. We had a list: birth control, homosexuality, priestly celibacy and female clergy.

They went in a different direction, feeling that the Church went too far after Vatican II. They also believed that the Church was becoming too secularized and was moving away from its core values. When Pope John XXIII called for Vatican II he used the image of opening the windows and letting in fresh air; many of us felt John Paul and Ratzinger spent their time slamming the windows shut.

In 2005 John Paul died and Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope XVI. As we all suspected it was more of the same. He was 78 at the time and it felt like the only saving grace would be his age. Because of declining health he resigned in 2013 and became the first living ex Pope since Gregory XII in 1415.

As much as John Paul and Benedict frustrated me, I have to confess my opinion has softened over the years. I’m aware that while they often saw the Church as a fortress in need of being defended, their background provides some answers. Both grew up at times and places where the Church truly was under attack, when our future was far less than certain.

John Paul was born in Poland in 1920 and when he was 19 his nation was invaded by Nazi Germany. Wanting to be a priest he studied in secret and was ordained in 1946. But when the war ended, persecution of the Church did not. Poland fell behind the Iron Curtain and was dominated by a Soviet Union that barely tolerated the existence of the Church and openly hoped she would die from lack of support. Of course that didn’t happen. The Church was hardly new to government persecution going back to the Roman Empire but the Soviet Union didn’t fall until 1989.

Meanwhile Benedict, seven years younger, felt the more immediate brunt of Nazi Germany. He was drafted into the Hitler Youth as a teenager and later into the German army. After the war he resumed his studies and was ordained in 1951. At the time Germany was partitioned and he had the good fortune of living in West Germany. East Germany, like Poland, was dominated by the Soviet Union.

Both attended Vatican II in the early 1960s and supported its views. But in the years after the conclave they both felt that many Catholics went too far. They felt that Church teaching was being watered down and that we were in danger of losing our moral center. Simply put, they found themselves back in the fortress and feeling under attack.

This was good for conservatives, many who were never sold on the reforms of Vatican II. They agreed that the Church needed to preserve its purity even if that led to fewer Catholics. Now, with Pope Francis, they feel betrayed and angry.

I guess all this means that the Church is not in danger. We’re going to do fine.

In the meantime let’s all pray for Benedict XVI.

Thoughts On The Birth Of Jesus: Did It Really Happen The Way We Think?

Posted on by
Reply

Growing up Catholic has given me the gift of imagining how the birth of Jesus looked. Mostly we have a mash up of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and until I began to study Scripture in college I didn’t give much thought to it. But in the years since it’s become clear that the birth narrative can’t have happened as it is read. Here are some thoughts:

The Census: Luke 2:1 places Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem instead of Nazareth where Mary and Joseph lived. This was necessary as the Old Testament prophet Micah stated (Chapter 5) that the Messiah will come from Bethlehem. According to Luke, Mary and Joseph needed to travel to Bethlehem because the Roman ruler (Caesar Augustus) demanded that everyone return to their ancestral home and since Joseph descended from King David he needed to be there. Matthew (Chapter 2) places Jesus’ birth during the reign of King Herod who died between the year 5 BCE and 1 CE (formally 5 BC and 1 AD) but Luke places this when Quirinius governed Syria who didn’t begin his reign until 6 CE. Now we can put that down to a simple mistake, but there’s more. Say what you will about the Romans, they kept good records. And there’s no record of a census “of the whole world” as Luke states. Furthermore, a census lists where you live, not your ancestors; that means there would have been no need for them to go to Bethlehem. As an aside I was born in Washington D.C. My father was born in Gardner, Massachusetts and his father was born in Notre Dame, New Brunswick (Canada). If you go back far enough my 8th Great Grandfather was born in France. Where do I go for a census?

Virgin Birth: Most Christians believe that Jesus was born of Mary but not of Joseph as she was a virgin (Matthew 1:18). Matthew wrote that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20); this was important because it fulfilled the prophecy from Isaiah 7:14 that they could recognize the Messiah when “the virgin shall be with child, and hear a son, and shall name him Emmanuel.” But there is a translation problem. Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew but by the time of Jesus most people read its translation to Greek. The word Isaiah used in Hebrew is “almah” which was translated into the Greek word “parthenos.” But almah doesn’t necessarily mean virgin as much as “young woman.” So why is this important? Throughout history there has been a persistent rumor that Jesus was conceived by Mary and a Roman soldier. It’s not hard to see how the followers of Jesus could look back to Isaiah and see the word parthenos and couple Matthew with Isaiah.

Does this mean Jesus wasn’t the Messiah? No. As I was once told a story can be true even if it didn’t happen the way we think. I’m not a fundamentalist (who believes the Bible is without error in fact as well as faith) because of passages like this. My belief in Jesus does not depend on the accuracy of facts.

If Jesus had a human father that doesn’t negate my belief that he was the Messiah. But I have to admit that the concept of the virgin birth has led to a long held and persistent belief that virginity is good and sex is bad. And that’s bad. There’s nothing I see in Scripture that tells me that sex is bad, or evil, or sinful. And while we rightly revere Mary because of her willingness to give birth to Jesus in some pretty awful circumstances, her marital status should not matter.

So let’s celebrate Christmas this year for what’s good. Jesus brought us redemption, eternal life, and the ability to love in hard circumstances. Let’s not care so much about Bethlehem or virginity.

The Trump Chronicles, Volume 158: There Is A Way This Could Happen

Posted on by
Reply

Over two years since he lost his reelection bid former President Trump continues to beat the drum that the election was stolen from him. Earlier this month he wrote on social media that the “fraud” allows for “the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” This is obviously not true but it got me thinking.

When the Constitution was ratified in 1789 it allowed for future amendments in Article V. There are two ways it can be done: A proposed amendment that is passed by a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress and then ratified by the state legislators in 3/4 of the states becomes an amendment. This how it’s always been done.

But the authors of the Constitution also recognized that there may be a point where Congress refuses to act and they allowed for another method: Two thirds of the state legislatures can call for a Constitutional convention to consider amendments. This has never been done, but it is allowed.

So here’s the Constitutional question: if there is another Constitutional convention, can they only propose new amendments or can they scrap existing parts of the Constitution? There is a precedent for repealing amendments: the 18th amendment instituted prohibition (of alcohol) and the 20th amendment repealed it. But no part of the Constitution itself has ever been repealed.

Some Constitutional scholars believe that the convention can only deal with the amendments but others disagree. Those who disagree point out that the original Constitutional convention was meant only to amend the previous Articles of Confederation. But once the framers began to meet they understood that the Articles of Confederation needed to be scrapped and they needed to start over. If you’ve never heard of the Articles of Confederation (and most Americans haven’t) you can read about it here. They hold that this can happen again.

Now imagine the parts of the Constitution that you hold most dear: freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, etc. Is that what you really want? I imagine not. I also don’t think that’s what Mr. Trump wants, but he seems to think he can control every process. Fortunately he can’t.

Seriously, Mr. Trump: call me. Teaching you how our nation works won’t be easy but I’m willing to give it a try.