Category Archives: Praying

Is There Anyone Not Running For President?

Posted on by
Reply

In my last post I talked about listing the people running for President in 2012. Running for President is fairly easy: you just need to have been born in the United States (which includes our territories) and be 35 years old. There are, currently, two major parties: the Democrats and the Republicans. It’s a virtually certainty that the winner of the 2012 election will be from one of those two parties. Furthermore, I expect I join most Democrats in believing that President Obama will be the Democratic nominee. The Republican nominee is a wide open field.

Nevertheless, I’ve chosen to add other candidates to my list. Some are challengers to major party candidates; others are members of minor parties; finally, others are people who belong to no party and run as independents. I don’t expect any of them to move into the White House on January 20, 2013, but I’m including them to show that there is no reason they can’t.

Frankly, the job of looking at their web pages has been a painful job. I find most of them delusional and think our Founding Fathers would be holding their noses too. Most of them are running on a platform of “the past years/decades/centuries have shown that our forefathers would be horrified at seeing what the government is doing. I’ve arrived just in time to save us. Vote for me.” On the whole they believe that government is too intrusive and that we would do better if nobody told us what to do.

I’m American enough to not like to be told what to do but I also believe that most of us like what the government does when we need something. I like the idea that my local government will send someone to my house of I (or someone else in my family) have a heart attack or if my house catches on fire. I like having a public library system even if I don’t use it very often. I like the idea of having a good school system even if I don’t have children who attend (because, let’s face it, the students in those schools are the people I’m counting on to contribute to social security when we’re retired).

I’m not impressed by all the people who claim to “recapture” the values of the founders of our country and have no intention of voting for them, but I’m American enough to give them a voice. I’m encouraged by the belief that our next President is chosen not by those who chose to run, but by those who choose to vote.

Choose to vote.

Sesquicentennial of our Darkest Hour

Posted on by
1

Today marks the 150th Anniversary (Sesquicentennial) of the Civil War (or War Between the States, or War of Northern Aggression). No event in our history as a nation says more about who we are than this: the time between April 12, 1861 (the attack of Ft. Sumter) and April 9, 1965 (the surrender at Appomattox) we were a country at war with ourselves. By the time it ended 625,000 of us would be dead (more than died in World War I and II combined).

There are probably more books written about these four years than any other time in our history. Here are suggestions from books I’ve read:

Growing up in Northern Virginia (and as an adult living in the city of Manassas) I was struck by how the war continued to live in people who were born 100 years later. I was aware that the war itself was called by different names (Civil War, War Between the States, etc.) and I learned that even the battles had different names: Bull Run vs. Manassas, Chancellorsville vs. Wilderness, and others.

I also learned that the reasons for the war were not in agreement. In the north it was viewed as a war about whether or not slavery would exist, and in the south it was about whether states (who voluntarily joined the union) could leave the union. The more I read the more I’m convinced that slavery is the reality that cannot be ignored.

The roots of the Civil War can (and must be) traced back to the writing of our Constitution. The framers who drafted the Constitution in 1787 faced a dilemma when it came to slaves: how can we say all men are created equal when clearly some are the property of others. Several of framers were slave owners themselves, and while they may have found the institution of slavery distasteful, they participated in it. They also believed that the new nation would not survive if they tried to outlaw slavery. Essentially they punted, and hoped the issue would be resolved in future generations. It is interesting to note one compromise in the 1st Article of the Constitution: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years [ie, not slaves, but indentured servants], and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.” In other words, if you owned 5 slaves they were counted as 3 persons in the census.

By the time of the Civil War, some 80 years later, slavery had become an institution in the South and most Northerners either had no opinion or found it distasteful but not serious enough to end. It was also a time of Westward expansion into new territories like Missouri and Kansas. Many people in the North, including Abraham Lincoln, wanted to stop slavery where it is and not allow it to move west. Southern slave owners were outraged and believed this discriminated against them. They felt so alienated that they came to the decision that since they voluntarily joined the United States in 1789 they could just as voluntarily pull out and form their own nation. Those in the North disagreed and believed that joining together in 1789 was an irreconcilable covenant that can’t be broken. The war officially started on April 12, 1861 when Southern forces (or members of the newly formed Confederate States of America) began shelling the garrison at Ft. Sumner, South Carolina.

It’s my belief that the South never really believed the North would fight all that hard, and it is generally believed that the South expected a victory in a few weeks or months. It didn’t happen that way. President Lincoln was adamant that the Union be preserved and came only later to the belief that the post war Union would prohibit slavery. By the time the war ended the South was in shambles and the next 12 years would be called “Reconstruction.” In some ways this was as bad a time for the South as the war itself. After President Lincoln’s assassination on April 14, 1865 he was replaced by Andrew Johnson a Southerner who remained in the Senate from Tennessee even after his state seceded. He was a weak man and Radical Republicans made life very difficult in the South. Out of this came a South that wanted to see pre-Civil War days as much better than they were. They saw it as a time when ladies and gentlemen were safe while they cared for slaves who were content with their lives. They denied that the war was about slavery or its westward expansion and that freeing slaves made them into dangerous men roaming the countryside looking for opportunities to harm or kill white people. The 1915 movie Birth of a Nation makes this point and claims the Ku Klux Klan formed as a way of protecting white people from former slaves.

Even today the Confederate Battle Flag draws controversy as some see it as a symbol of slavery while others see it as Southern heritage and tradition.

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire: 100 Years Later

Posted on by
Reply

Exactly 100 years ago today there was a fire on 29 Washington Place in New York City. The fire was important for a few reasons: the top three floors of the building housed a factory where immigrant women worked 52 hours per week sewing women’s blouses (called shirtwaists); the women had little or no protection for their safety; when a lit cigarette started a fire they were trapped since the doors were locked to prevent theft or the workers from going to the bathroom. There were also no fire alarms; for many of the workers, their first indication of trouble was the fire itself.

By the time the fire was extinguished 146 people were dead; they were either incinerated by the fire or died by jumping to their deaths to escape the flames.

In the aftermath the factory closed. This did not lead owners and managers of factories to institute reforms. It did, however, give unions (particularly the International Ladies Garment Workers Union) and the state legislators the moral authority to institute reforms to protect workers. Among people who belong to unions, this is an important anniversary.

Unfortunately 100 years after the deaths of these 129 women and 17 men, the union cause is again under attack. Union membership continues to decline and unions continue to be seen as impediments to progress. They are not, however, impediments to safety. This anniversary should remind us that union membership has given all of us many of the things we take for granted: the five day work week, the 8 hour day, and basic safeguards against danger.

Let us all pray for the 146 Americans who died 100 years ago today, and thank them for the awareness they gave us. And think about them whenever you see a fire escape.

The Justice Chronicles Volume 6: The Supreme Court rules on Snyder v. Phelps. Unfortunate But Necessary

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve reported on this case before, and on March 2nd the Supreme Court ruled on the case. By a vote of 8-1 the Court upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest at funerals. They have protested at several funerals of young men and women killed in uniform who died in service to our country, including the funeral of Matthew Snyder. The members of the church (who are mainly members of the family of pastor, Fred Phelps) carry signs that say: “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11” or “God Hates Fags.”

The Court ruled that while this speech is clearly offensive and painful, it’s protected by the First Amendment. At the end of the day, I’m afraid I have to say that I agree.

As a Christian I hate the fact that Fred Phelps claims to worship the same God as me. And while I pray for his conversion from a life of hate to a life of love, as an American citizen I believe he has a right to his hate. He has a right to offend me, and large segments of the population.

The final good news here is that all of us also have the right to offend him. Since this case has made national news, several organizations have promised to show up at these same funerals to shout down Phelps, et. al. They also have First Amendment protection.

What If I'm a Christian and There's No Parable For This?

Posted on by
Reply

If you survey Christians and ask how we decide between right and wrong, many of us will point to our faith. I’m happy about that, but what do we do when people of the same faith come to different views of the same issue and both claim to be right?

It’s happening in many places with many issues, but a story in the Los Angeles Times on Friday struck my interest. The story is about immigration, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), Stephen Sandstrom and Tony Yapias.

Both live in Utah, both are Mormon, both look to their faith to decide moral issues, and they disagree on immigration. Mr. Sandstrom was born in Orem, Utah (and is a citizen by birth). He believes that being a Christian means following the rules and obeying the laws. Someone who enters this country outside of the law violates this and should be deported. As a state legislator he introduced a bill, patterned after a similar bill in Arizona, which requires the police to determine the immigration status of people they stop and suspect may be undocumented. He is quoted in the LA Times story: “This country is the greatest nation on Earth because God had a hand in its formation. A lot of that is because . . . we obey the rule of law. Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration jeopardizes the rule of law.”

Tony Yapias was born in Peru and when he was a child his father came to the U.S. to forge a better life for his family. Tony and the rest of his family were able to join his father when Tony was 14 but the strain of the separation was too much for his parents’ marriage. As an adult Tony joined the LDS church in part because of their emphasis on family.

Which one is right? The issue of immigration has divided many groups, but most Christian groups support immigrants and oppose laws like the one Mr. Sandstrom advances. But most Christian groups aren’t like the Mormons. They are hesitant to view any law as wrong. In the LA Times article it talks about how they are Pro-Life, but discourage anything that protests legal abortions. They counsel their people who live in Communist countries to obey the laws, even the ones they disagree with.

This is one reason I’m not a Mormon. I don’t see God’s hand in many of our laws. I don’t think God is present in Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson and I think there is a strong case to be made that our government continues to need the voices of our prophets. I believe the prophets answered Dred Scott with the 14th Amendment and Plessy v. Ferguson with Brown v. Board of Education. If you’ve read a previous post you know where I stand on homophobia.

I believe it’s more important to be faithful than obedient, and I believe it’s more important to follow my conscience than my intellect. I am many things: I am a married man, I am an American, I am an inhabitant of Earth, and I am a Child of God. The fact that I’m bound by God matters more to me than my connection to the United States (whose 14th Amendment tells me we who were born here are all citizens). If someone born 40 miles south of where I live wants to make a better life for his children, I get it. My grandparents moved south (from Canada to Massachusetts) to make a better life and I benefit from that. If they cleaned hotel rooms and carried luggage so I can be who I am, I am grateful.

And I refuse to deny that to the next generation from now. The next man, woman, or child I meet may well have a hard time speaking to me in English. That’s OK because my grandparents had a hard time with English too. If that person is cleaning my house, mowing my lawn, or waiting for work outside a hardware store, I admire hm (her) for making a better life for his/her children. And I pray that his/her descendants are grateful.

And with respect to Mr. Stanstrom, I think he’s wrong.

It Just Doesn't Pay to be Homophobic Anymore

Posted on by
Reply

You can probably guess my bias from the title of this blog, but I’ve been following 2 current issues with great interest: Proposition 8 and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (the current policy on gays serving in the US military).” It appears to me that equal rights for the gay population is only a matter of time.

Proposition 8 was a ballot measure here in California to amend the state constitution to prohibit same sex marriage. There is some background to this: in March of 2000 California voted to prohibit same sex marriage by state law with Propsition 22. This law was overturned on May 15, 2008 by the California Supreme Court who ruled 4-3 that Prop 22 is unconstitutional.

People who oppose gay marriage then decided that the best way to combat this was to pass another proposition that amends the state constitution. After all, the constitution can’t be unconstitutional. Backed by big bucks from the Church of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) and the Knights of Columbus, Proposition 8 passed with 52.3% of the vote. Supporters thought they were done.

They weren’t. On May 26, 2009 the California Supreme Court determined that Proposition 8 was constitutional, but opponents of Prop 8 then went to federal court on January 11, 2009, arguing that Prop 8 is unconstitutional of the Federal Constitution. The plaintiffs, Kristen Kelly and Sandra Steir, filed because they were denied a marriage license. The defendant was Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger by virtue of being governor. In a funny twist, neither Governor Schwartzenegger nor Attorney General Jerry Brown chose to actively defend Prop 8. Instead, the defense of Prop 8 fell to a group called Protect Marriage.

The case came before Judge John Walker. This appeared to be good news for the defendants as he ruled in a previous case that “Gay Olympics” was a copyright violation against the U.S. Olympic Committee and they had to change their name to the Gay Games. He had also been appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush. On August 4, 2010 Judge Walker surprised most of us by finding for the plaintiffs, deciding that Proposition 8 is a violation of the 14th Amendment. It’s now on appeal but it’s funny to see that all the people who liked John Walker before his decision have now decided that he’s gay (since he’s never been married) and the decision has no merit. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Meanwhile, in the military, they are still trying to decide what to do with men and women who are willing to fight and die for our freedom who happen to be gay. When President Clinton was running in 1992 there was pressure from the gay community to remove the ban on gays serving in the military. During the campaign he essentially promised to repeal the ban. Alas, once in office he faced more opposition than he expected and he bowed to that pressure. In 1993 Congress passed a bill called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and President Clinton signed it. Simply put, it legislated that nobody is allowed to ask if a service member is gay, and a gay servicemember is required to keep his/her orientation a secret. If (s)he says or does anything to indicate his/her gay orientation, (s)he can be immediately discharged from the service. Since passage 14,000 servicemembers have been discharged for being gay. In the gay community, DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) has been seen as open season on the gay population.

With the election of Barack Obama in 2008, the debate began again. As I write this the bill to repeal DADT is moving through Congress. The House has already voted to repeal it, and it’s stuck in the Senate. It’s interesting to see what’s being said. My most interesting person is Senator John McCain. At first blush you’d think he’d be the “go to” guy on this issue given his background. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and was a pilot during Vietnam. He was shot down and spent 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam. If ever there was a case where a group needed unit cohesion, it would be here. He has opposed DADT and it was easy to do this when the the leaders of the military opposed it. In fact, in 1986 he said this: “The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, ‘Senator, we ought to change the policy,’ then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it.”

He probably never expected this to happen, but it has. On December 2, 2010 the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen said this:

My personal views on this issue remain unchanged. I am convinced that repeal of the law governing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is the right thing to do. Back in February, when I testified to this sentiment, I also said that I believed the men and women of the Armed Forces could accommodate such a change. But I did not know it for a fact. Now, I do.
And so what was my personal opinion is now my professional opinion. Repeal of the law will not prove an unacceptable risk to military readiness. Unit cohesion will not suffer if our units are well-led. And families will not encourage their loved ones to leave the service in droves.

He made this statement against the backdrop of a study released by the Pentagon on November 30, 2010. The survey reviewed the beliefs of 115,000 active duty members of the military and 44,200 military spouses. About 70% of them indicated they had no problem with the idea of allowing gays to serve. Those in uniform lead those out of uniform: only 58% of all Americans favor this. Interestingly, the majority of both groups favor repealing DADT. And the 115,000? Well, 69% report that they have already worked with a gay servicemember and 92% of them said it had a positive impact or no impact on their working relationship.

So here we are: the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all support the repeal of DADT. And Senator McCain? He has abandoned his previous statement and now says: “This was a political promise made by an inexperienced president or candidate for presidency.” At no point does he admit he abandoned his earlier promise. Then again, he’s the guy who ran with Sarah Palin.

Of the people who still oppose DADT, they all pretty much respect Barry Goldwater who said this in 1993:

After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn’t exactly nothing – but it’s pretty damned close

Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They’ll still be serving long after we’re all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone.

But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country’s economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services.

It’s no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there’s no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crazy, but then found that wasn’t true. Then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn’t so. In fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan’s man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense under President Bush, called it “a bit of an old chestnut”

When the facts lead to one conclusion, I say it’s time to act – not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable.

Some in congress think I’m wrong. They say we absolutely must continue to discriminate, or all hell will break loose. Who knows? (they say) perhaps our soldiers may even take up arms against each other.

Well, that’s just stupid.

Years ago I was a lieutenant in charge of an all-black unit. Military leaders at the time believed that blacks lacked leadership potential, period. That seems ridiculous now – as it should. Now each and every man and woman who serves this nation takes orders from a black man, our own Gen. Colin Powell.

Nobody thought that blacks or women could ever be integrated into the military. Many thought that an all-volunteer force could never protect our national interest. Well, it has and despite those who feared the worst – I among them – we are still the best and will continue to be.

The point is that decisions are always a lot easier to make in hindsight, but we seldom have that luxury. That’s why the future of our country depends on leadership, and that’s what we need now.

I served in the armed forces. I have flown more than 150 of the best fighter planes and bombers this country manufactured. I founded the Arizona National Guard. I chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I think it’s high time to pull the curtains on this charade of policy.

What should undermine our readiness would be a compromise policy, like “don’t ask, don’t tell.” That compromise doesn’t deal with the issue, it tries to hide it.

We have wasted enough precious time, money and talent trying to persecute and pretend. It’s time to stop burying our heads in the sand and denying reality for the sake of politics. It’s time to deal with this straight on and be done with it. It’s time to get on with more important business.

The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people’s private lives. Government governs best when it governs least, and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone’s version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays.

When you get down to it no American able to serve should be allowed – much less given an excuse – to not serve his or her country. We need all our talent.

If I were in the Senate today I would rise on the Senate floor in support of our commander in chief. He may be a Democrat, but he happens to be right on this question.

Thank you Senator Goldwater (or, as your license plate said, AuH20).

Oh, and by the say, my favorite quotation from the report is this:

As one special operations force warfighter told us, ‘We have a gay guy (in the unit). He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay,’

Nowhere have I found a quotation that said: “I served with a homosexual and it hurt us as a unit.” Let me know if you have.

Is the Pope Becoming Pastoral?

Posted on by
Reply

Last week we read some surprising news coming out of the Vatican: there might be some movement on the condom front (sorry, I couldn’t resist). Pope Benedict XVI, in the course of speaking with a German journalist, seemed to indicate that there are times when the use of a condom is permissible.

Peter Seewald interviewed the Pope in anticipation of publishing a book: Light of the World: The Pope, the World and Signs of the Times. They had collaborated on two previous books: The Ratzinger Report and Salt of the Earth. In the course of the interviews the Pope indicated that there may be times when it is permissible for someone to use a condom. He illustrated this by talking about a male prostitute who is HIV positive. He wishes to change his life but isn’t ready yet, and he doesn’t wish to spread the virus any further. The Pope feels that in this case it would be permissible for him to use a condom as a way of not spreading the virus while he continues to reform his life.

This has caused a great deal of confusion in the Catholic world given the historic (and histrionic) view toward condoms and other forms of birth control. Before we learned about AIDS and the role of HIV, condoms were almost exclusively used as birth control for heterosexual couples. Since the Catholic Church condemns all forms of birth control, condom use was always prohibited. In the 1980s gay men began to use condoms as a way to prevent the spread of AIDS, and it widened to include any couple who wished to practice “safe sex.” Unfortunately many groups (the Vatican included) responded to this by incorrectly claiming that condoms aren’t effective in stopping the virus. As recently as March, 2009 the Pope claimed that condoms could “aggravate” the spread of AIDS.

So what gives? The Catholic blogosphere is on fire with the question: “Has the Catholic Church changed its teaching?” The Vatican has gone to great lengths to claim it hasn’t, and in the final analysis, they’re right.

But it’s more complicated than that.

The Catholic Church still prohibits artificial birth control among married couples and any sexual activity among unmarried couples. Since the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize gay marriage, this includes all gay couples. The change has been not one of doctrine or teaching, but pastoral application.

In the past the Church has appeared (at least to me) to draw a bright line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Simply put, if you are committing a sin you need to stop. If you are practicing birth control or cheating your employees, there is no middle ground: stop and stop now. The Pope’s remarks appear to acknowledge that in the struggle to change our behavior, we sometimes need to take intermediate steps. I applaud this step and encourage the Pope to continue doing what he’s doing.

I mentioned earlier that this has created some activity in the Catholic blogosphere. Several writers are getting it right, but many are getting it wrong. My favorite is a string on the Catholic Answers forum.

My final word on this (and I get the final word because it’s my blog) is my hope that this increased interest in pastoral applications will lead the Pope and the Vatican to examine again some of their doctrines. The birth control stuff doesn’t bother me because most Catholic couples already cheerfully ignore this anyway. But I do hope that this leads to a sense of conversion (an intermediate step, if you will) to look again at Church stands that discriminate against women, homosexuals, and other members of our Church. We’ll see.

Decision 2010: It's going to be a long night

Posted on by
Reply

6:00PM Pacific Time, 9:00PM Eastern Time, 0200 GMT: It’s time for my semi-annual night to follow the national elections. We’re halfway through the 1st Barack Obama administration. Historically a new President looses seats in the election two years into his first term. The smart money today is that the Democratic Party will lose control of the House and may lose control of the Senate.

Before I begin, let me say (by way of my soapbox) that I write this as a grateful American. If you look at our world, we are blessed to live in a country that allows us to vote for our leaders. It’s pretty amazing that I can criticize and even make fun of those in government and nobody can arrest or prosecute me.

And now, onto the races. Here in California we had two huge races that are probably all but decided. The race for governor to replace Arnold Schwarzenegger has been headlines for months, but it appears from recent polling that Jerry Brown will beat Meg Whitman by a considerable number. It appears that many California voters are not thrilled for another Brown administration (he was governor from 1975-1983) but don’t like the fact that Meg has spent over $150,000,000 of her own money in an attempt to buy the election.

The headlines in this election center around the Tea Party. The party stands for “Taxed Enough Already” and believes that the Republican Party has abandoned its platform of lower taxes and smaller government. So far tonight it’s been mixed. In Kentucky it appears that Rand Paul won the Senate seat. He’s famous for questioning the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which ended segregation. Paul believes that if you own a business you should be able to hire or do business with anyone you choose, and the government cannot force you into a decision.

On the other hand, the Tea Party candidate in Delaware, Christine O’Donnell, lost big. Also, in New York Carl Palodino has lost. He’s famous for promising to take a baseball bat to (state capital) Albany. I guess New Yorkers prefer bats in the hands of the Yankees and Mets.

7:30PM Pacific Time, 10:30PM Eastern Time, 0330 GMT: CNN is projecting that the Republicans will take back the House of Representatives. If that’s true, it will be a repeat of 1994 when the Democrats lost the House led by Newt Gingrich. It appears that the American people once again like divided government.

The House basically runs on majority rule: There are 435 members and anytime you get 217 votes, the bill passes. But that’s the easiest part of this. The Senate is made up of 100 members, and they also run on majority rule, but not as easily. If there is a bill being debated, any Senator can filibuster (that is, get up to speak and not yield that position). If that happens the Senator cannot be removed from the microphone without a vote of “cloture.” Cloture means that 60 Senators vote to end the debate, or in other words, 41 Senators can block any legislation. Famously, South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond filibustered on August 29, 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes to oppose the 1957 Civil Rights Act.

If a bill gets a majority vote in the House, has the support of at least 60 Senators, it then goes to the President who can sign or veto the bill. If the President vetoes the bill, then a 2/3 majority of both chambers (291 House members and 67 Senators) must vote to override the veto.

Clearly the framers of the Constitution wished to make change difficult. It’s been 223 years since the Constitution was ratified and this electorate appears to agree with them. More to come: the polls close here in California in a few minutes.

8:00PM Pacific Time, 11:00PM Eastern Time, 0400 GMT: The polls have just closed here in California, and based on exit polls it appears that Jerry Brown has defeated Meg Whitman and Barbara Boxer has defeated Carly Fiorina. I’m always mistrustful of exit polls, and I refuse to participate in them, but I hope they’re right. I’ve never been a fan of wealthy people running for office based on their checkbooks and the belief that anyone can govern. The reality is that there really is a skill set for public servants and the fact that you can (or can’t, in the case of Carly) run a company doesn’t make you competent for office.

9:00PM Pacific Time, 12:00AM Eastern Time, 0500 GMT: As of a few minutes ago, CNN projected that Barbara Boxer will be re-elected to the Senate and that means that the Democrats will retain a majority. As I’ve stated, a party needs more than a 60-40 majority to control the Senate, and in that sense it doesn’t make all that much difference, but as a Californian I’m happy to see Barbara continue to represent us.

The surprise for me is Nevada. Harry Reid has been fighting for his life, and as I write this, he’s ahead 52% to 44% with 59% of the districts reporting. That’s a bigger lead than I expected. Nobody is predicting this race yet, and the night is long ahead, but I’m pleased to see Harry so far ahead.

It’s now 9:12PM and CNN has projected Jerry Brown the new governor. As I said, I’m not crazy about Jerry, but I’m relieved that it’s not Meg. I’m not impressed with her EBay experience, and I’m really not impressed that she’s running on the same platform as Arnold Schwarzenegger (“I have no idea how to do this job, so vote for me.”).

It’s now 9:40 and CNN is projecting Harry Reid as the winner in the Nevada Senate race. I know he’s a polarizing figure, but I’m glad he won.

10:00PM Pacific Time, 1:00AM Eastern Time, 0600 GMT: The night is winding down and it looks like it’s going to be a good night for the Republican Party. John Boehner will probably be House Speaker in January, though Harry Reid will remain the Senate Majority Leader. This means the Democrats have the Presidency and the Senate and the Republicans have the House. I only hope that this helps the groups work together.

Here in California, the story is often as much about ballot propositions as anything else. I think it’s a flaw in the state Constitution, but it’s fairly easy to put a proposition on the ballot. It appears that Prop 19 will go down (it allows us to grow and smoke marijuana) and I’m happy about that. I don’t expect to know much more about the other propositions until morning.

Good night for now.

And Then There Were Three

Posted on by
Reply

On September 8th I got the word I knew was coming, but didn’t want to hear: Uncle Ed passed away quietly at 8:17 a.m. He was 88 years old and had been battling cancer for several years. I’m grateful that he was well cared for by Gardner VNA Hospice and his family.

Uncle Ed is my father’s oldest brother and is one of Tom Brokaw’s The Greatest Generation. He was 7 years old when the stock market crashed and when he was 16 he dropped out of school to join the Civilian Conservation Corps where he went to Wyoming. I’m not sure of the details, but most boys/men who joined the CCC did so because their families couldn’t afford to feed them. He also spent some time with the Works Progress Administration. His next chapter was determined by the outbreak of World War II. He served in North Africa and Italy. By the way, he was right handed and had a bad right eye. The army didn’t want him because he couldn’t sight a rifle. He taught himself to shoot left handed so he could sight the rifle through his good eye and qualified to join the army. As one who grew up in the shadow of Vietnam, this always amazed me.

Coming home after the war he didn’t have a high school diploma but went immediately to work. He did that until he was 65 when he retired. Like most men of his generation he married, had 2 children, and bought a house. He cared for his parents, joined the VFW, the Gardner Deer Club and Holy Rosary Church.

He was also very good to me. I didn’t travel back for his funeral because of what he did for his country, but what he did for me. When I lived in Boston I used Gardner as a weekend escape. There wasn’t a time that I was in Gardner when he and Aunt Eva didn’t make a place for me at dinner, including Thanksgiving 1980 (the first one where I wasn’t with my family).

With Uncle Ed’s death, the original 7 children are down to 3. The first of them was Uncle Tonto (his name was Andrew but nobody called him that). He died accidentally in 1964 when he was 36.

This picture was taken in 1982. On the bottom are Uncle Norman and my grandmother. The top row (from left to right) are Uncle Joe, Aunt Jeanne, Aunt Freda, my father, and Uncle Ed.

The remaining three are here: Uncle Norman, Aunt Jeanne, and my father.

Note to the remaining three: stay healthy; I don’t want to do this again for a while.

How Do Christians Not Recognize Each Other?

Posted on by
Reply

Years ago I directed a religious education (aka CCD, Sunday School) program at All Saints Catholic Church. Each summer we ran a Vacation Bible School and the song I remember most from that time was They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Love. That seems a long time ago.

Beginning in the 1980s groups like the Moral Majority and the 700 Club formed as a way of gathering Christians and affecting national politics. Unfortunately it backfired and did little more than politicize religion. Amazingly in 1980, when Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter, the Moral Majority announced that a “real” Christian would now occupy the White House, ignoring the fact that Jimmy Carter was a deeply spiritual man while Ronald Reagan thought little about religion.

This segment of the population who have clearly announced they own Christianity, Jesus Christ, the Bible, and decide who is saved, have found new life in the election of Barack Obama. They have been incredibly successful in convincing a segment of the American population that he isn’t really a Christian, but is secretly a Muslim. In a previous post I connected this with the “Nat Turner” strategy that “those people” (ie, African Americans) don’t love America and are looking for opportunities to harm us.

Glenn Beck is the latest opportunist. He has a show on Fox News and this past weekend he held a rally in Washington D.C. Surprisingly he admitted that President Obama is a Christian, but then announced he doesn’t recognize President Obama’s Christianity. There’s some symmetry to that as I don’t recognize Glenn Beck’s Christianity.

Mr. Beck insists that President Obama’s Christianity is rooted in liberation theology and that is not what God intended (cue surprised look from Moses). Apparently Mr. Beck finds God on Pharaoh’s side. Because, as we all know, if the slaves are freed, it will increase unemployment and kill jobs.

As for me and my house, I agree with President Obama that Jesus stood for certain things: Am I my brother’s keeper? (Genesis 4:9), whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me (Matthew 25:40), and the last shall be first (Matthew 20:16).

I’ll be interested in Glenn’s list.