Here at the blog, I will always be Streak. But on twitter, I will be available at a name that early blog readers will remember--@streaksfriend
January 31, 2012
My Twitter feed
I decided to give the twitter name of Streak over to my new friend Aleem Mawani and their company, streak.com. Twitter actually doesn't allow the sale of nicknames or aliases, and more importantly, I realized two things: 1) that twitter feed isn't actually my Streak, and 2) I can't sell him.
Here at the blog, I will always be Streak. But on twitter, I will be available at a name that early blog readers will remember--@streaksfriend
Here at the blog, I will always be Streak. But on twitter, I will be available at a name that early blog readers will remember--@streaksfriend
January 28, 2012
Moral authority
I have argued for sometime that the modern conservative evangelical church has a very flawed approach to moral questions. As I have noted to my conservative friends, if 60% of my students fail, the issue is systemic, not individual. Doesn't mean that some of those students also failed individually, but the numbers dictate that I reevaluate both how I communicate the information and how I design the exam.
Likewise, if only 10% of evangelicals supported evil like torture or racism, I would chalk that up to the individual. But 60%? Something stinks.
In that vein, Greg has a great post on moral authority, and, in this case, Mark Driscoll's latest book on true marriage. I have no interest reading that particular book, but like how Greg connects Driscoll's parsing to this issue of moral authority. And I especially like how he explains how people who say they look to God exclusively as their moral authority are probably not being completely honest.
Likewise, if only 10% of evangelicals supported evil like torture or racism, I would chalk that up to the individual. But 60%? Something stinks.
In that vein, Greg has a great post on moral authority, and, in this case, Mark Driscoll's latest book on true marriage. I have no interest reading that particular book, but like how Greg connects Driscoll's parsing to this issue of moral authority. And I especially like how he explains how people who say they look to God exclusively as their moral authority are probably not being completely honest.
When people say God is their moral authority, I'm absolutely certain they don't understand what they're saying. First, God is not immediately available to talk to them, and as for those (like one student) who said a relationship with Jesus was key to understanding the Bible, I simply ask why you have so many denominations and traditions if that relationship steers you the right direction. It's simply a way of avoiding the dilemma. God is not your authority because God is not telling you what to do. A book is. The authority people believe is resident in God is mediated through a text, and that text must be interpreted; God, over against Elijah's assertions, is not readily available to answer questions. That leaves a community, or in most cases, an individual to ascertain which portions of the Bible function as moral authority. All this to say, if an individual is making the assessment about particular texts, then the locus of moral authority is the individual's conscience and desires, not God and not the text.Evangelical churches (from what I hear, and probably not just evangelical churches, btw) have decided to not engage on many of today's moral issues. In the case of some of my friends, they see those moral issues as too political, or as too liberal. Can't really talk about environmental issues because it is simply too easy to become too liberal. And as Tony found out, talking about torture critically could also result in being tagged a liberal.
As Greg notes, moral authority is a difficult thing. It takes, I think, a community of people engaging on these issues. Otherwise, it is left up to individual desire and bias. That Pew poll on torture revealed exactly that, by the way. Those evangelicals who supported torture said that they based it largely on sources other than the Bible or their faith. When they were asked, as a part of the poll, in a mini act of accountability, to view torture through their faith, support went down.
If you leave race issues up to South Carolina's evangelicals--on their own--they will respond to Newt Gingrich's dog whistle campaign with great approval. They are not being asked to really confront that kind of hatred. If you leave torture questions to the average conservative evangelical, you will find that their conservative part outweighs their Christian part.
January 18, 2012
First World Jesus
I have been thinking a lot about economics lately. It is very hard for me to see our current economic situation and not think about it in moral terms. Yet, when I talk to many evangelicals, I don't get the sense that they see it that way.
I had a great conversation with a good friend of mine. My friend is not one of those Republicans either. He does a lot to help people in our community. I respect him a lot and so was very surprised when he told me that the story of the young ruler in the Gospels isn't really about wealth, but about anything that might get in the way of God. I can see that last part, but it is very hard for me to read any of the NT and not see a world where vast inequality simply doesn't fit. Where the first shall be last, and where Jesus calls on people with to give their wealth or proceeds to those without. Yet, I have heard from several evangelicals that God is not that concerned with poverty, per se, but only with the hearts of those involved.
Not only is that what Marx suggested about capitalism and religion, but it is, perhaps, a necessity for American Christians of all stripes. Capitalism as amoral economic system doesn't care if profits come from kids, or from crack cocaine. Capitalism doesn't care if the worker loses their arm. It certainly doesn't care if people lose their homes or livelihoods.
Not only that, but capitalism uses all of our weaknesses to an advantage. Greed fuels economic growth, because, like sharks, capitalists never have enough. Capitalism preys on our desires and commands us to covet. It is the complete opposite of the idea of having enough.
Capitalism also requires a steady pool of underpaid workers. When wages grew too high here in the states, we started exporting those jobs to places where minimum wage doesn't even exist. Same for environmental or safety controls. We all know that, and we all participate in that.
But if Jesus, like most American Christians, sees all of that as some separate economic system where Christianity doesn't apply, and where their only big concern should be to bring those poor workers Bibles rather than good paying jobs or clean water--we have constructed a First World Jesus. Here, the main concerns for Christians is quiet prayer and bible reading. It is to memorize parts of the Bible--simply, as far as I can tell to memorize parts of the Bible. It is to parse words for their Greek or Aramaic root. It is where you peruse mega Bible stores where you can purchase just about anything with a Bible verse engraved.
It is a world where that child laborer doesn't exist--nor that environmental and resource exploitation, or dangerous work environment. Transpose that to the states (where many of those issues also exist, unfortunately) and massive inequality exists, but is not a moral issue. It just is. Economics are largely peripheral and theoretical. The growing number of poor is an economic, not moral issue, and the only question is whether those poor people are right with God. In that context, tax cuts for the rich are an abstraction, just as are cuts to the poor.
And we won't even talk about where those jeans or shoes or iPads are manufactured.
I had a great conversation with a good friend of mine. My friend is not one of those Republicans either. He does a lot to help people in our community. I respect him a lot and so was very surprised when he told me that the story of the young ruler in the Gospels isn't really about wealth, but about anything that might get in the way of God. I can see that last part, but it is very hard for me to read any of the NT and not see a world where vast inequality simply doesn't fit. Where the first shall be last, and where Jesus calls on people with to give their wealth or proceeds to those without. Yet, I have heard from several evangelicals that God is not that concerned with poverty, per se, but only with the hearts of those involved.
Not only is that what Marx suggested about capitalism and religion, but it is, perhaps, a necessity for American Christians of all stripes. Capitalism as amoral economic system doesn't care if profits come from kids, or from crack cocaine. Capitalism doesn't care if the worker loses their arm. It certainly doesn't care if people lose their homes or livelihoods.
Not only that, but capitalism uses all of our weaknesses to an advantage. Greed fuels economic growth, because, like sharks, capitalists never have enough. Capitalism preys on our desires and commands us to covet. It is the complete opposite of the idea of having enough.
Capitalism also requires a steady pool of underpaid workers. When wages grew too high here in the states, we started exporting those jobs to places where minimum wage doesn't even exist. Same for environmental or safety controls. We all know that, and we all participate in that.
But if Jesus, like most American Christians, sees all of that as some separate economic system where Christianity doesn't apply, and where their only big concern should be to bring those poor workers Bibles rather than good paying jobs or clean water--we have constructed a First World Jesus. Here, the main concerns for Christians is quiet prayer and bible reading. It is to memorize parts of the Bible--simply, as far as I can tell to memorize parts of the Bible. It is to parse words for their Greek or Aramaic root. It is where you peruse mega Bible stores where you can purchase just about anything with a Bible verse engraved.
It is a world where that child laborer doesn't exist--nor that environmental and resource exploitation, or dangerous work environment. Transpose that to the states (where many of those issues also exist, unfortunately) and massive inequality exists, but is not a moral issue. It just is. Economics are largely peripheral and theoretical. The growing number of poor is an economic, not moral issue, and the only question is whether those poor people are right with God. In that context, tax cuts for the rich are an abstraction, just as are cuts to the poor.
And we won't even talk about where those jeans or shoes or iPads are manufactured.
January 7, 2012
My twitter name "Streak"
I never really anticipated this, but I have been contacted by someone who is part of a company that uses that name. They would like to have the handle "Streak" for their twitter feed.
I don't know what to do here. As everyone knows here, that name is pretty near and dear to us. I would welcome your thoughts.
January 3, 2012
Santorum reiterates two GOP talking points
So Rick Santorum was caught talking about black people and Medicaid. Here is his non explanation, really. But watch his answer. Very little ambiguity about the fact that he said that he didn't want black people getting welfare. As if, as I suspect most conservatives think, black people are the majority of welfare users.
It also reiterates my basic assumption that when people bitch about government spending, they imagine it going to poor black people.
But there is this other part--and one that I have heard over and over--that Democrats push these welfare programs to keep poor people dependent on government, and so continuing to give their votes to Democrats.
My understanding (and this might be just a false assumption, mind you) is that the poor don't vote in big numbers, and when they do, they are hardly a Democratic stronghold.
If this is some liberal plot to keep poor people voting for Democrats in order to keep them in power? It is a really bad and ineffective plot.
It also reiterates my basic assumption that when people bitch about government spending, they imagine it going to poor black people.
But there is this other part--and one that I have heard over and over--that Democrats push these welfare programs to keep poor people dependent on government, and so continuing to give their votes to Democrats.
My understanding (and this might be just a false assumption, mind you) is that the poor don't vote in big numbers, and when they do, they are hardly a Democratic stronghold.
If this is some liberal plot to keep poor people voting for Democrats in order to keep them in power? It is a really bad and ineffective plot.
January 2, 2012
The appeal of libertarianism?
It really confuses me, and I suspect there are a few here who see more benefit from libertarian thought than I do. I tend to agree with this Kos diary. I can see no way that a truly small government works. At least with any kind of complex economy and with an assumption that a middle class is a positive thing.
December 30, 2011
Government spending in our lives
Ok, new project for this new year. As many of you know, my operating theory right now is that most anti-government sentiment comes from people who really don't know what government does and conceptualize that government spending as handouts to poor people--or alternatively, as boondoggle programs to build a gazebo in some rep's backyard.
So, I would like to quantify, if one can quantify in more general terms, the role government plays in our life. I don't mean this as pure partisan exercise, btw. I certainly understand that some of those roles are subject to legitimate debate. Maybe government should not be spending money in these areas. We can talk about that. But for right now, I am looking for examples of government spending in community and individual lives.
A few parameters for you to consider. I am not terribly interested in those singular moments of porkbarrel spending. The "bridge to nowhere" doesn't interest me nearly as much as the more annual matching funds that communities receive to upgrade their sewers, roads, or police radios. And while I am certainly interested in the safety net spending, I don't want to focus only on that. By all means, send me links to programs like the one Smitty posted a year or so back about a non-profit in Michigan that provides assistance to the disabled poor and receives federal money as a supplement. But I am also interested in programs that assist small businesses, or community development, or agricultural areas. I am interested in how federal science grants have rippled through our entire economy.
Or not. If you have examples of purely private money doing all of those things, I am open too.
So, please send me any examples you can think of. You can post them in the comments, or email them to my blog address.
So, I would like to quantify, if one can quantify in more general terms, the role government plays in our life. I don't mean this as pure partisan exercise, btw. I certainly understand that some of those roles are subject to legitimate debate. Maybe government should not be spending money in these areas. We can talk about that. But for right now, I am looking for examples of government spending in community and individual lives.
A few parameters for you to consider. I am not terribly interested in those singular moments of porkbarrel spending. The "bridge to nowhere" doesn't interest me nearly as much as the more annual matching funds that communities receive to upgrade their sewers, roads, or police radios. And while I am certainly interested in the safety net spending, I don't want to focus only on that. By all means, send me links to programs like the one Smitty posted a year or so back about a non-profit in Michigan that provides assistance to the disabled poor and receives federal money as a supplement. But I am also interested in programs that assist small businesses, or community development, or agricultural areas. I am interested in how federal science grants have rippled through our entire economy.
Or not. If you have examples of purely private money doing all of those things, I am open too.
So, please send me any examples you can think of. You can post them in the comments, or email them to my blog address.
December 28, 2011
Republicans on the mandate
As I have written before, the mandate makes more sense than any of the opposition to that part of the healthcare bill. We are all in the healthcare game, whether we purchase insurance or not. I don't get why that is such a radical idea.
And it isn't, of course. As even NPR noted this morning, both Romney and Gingrich used to support it. It was only after the appallingly cynical right wing effort to demonize the mandate that it became a political minefield. That is easy to do when you blatantly lie to the American people. As Romney is doing on a regular basis, as this example suggests:
And it isn't, of course. As even NPR noted this morning, both Romney and Gingrich used to support it. It was only after the appallingly cynical right wing effort to demonize the mandate that it became a political minefield. That is easy to do when you blatantly lie to the American people. As Romney is doing on a regular basis, as this example suggests:
Or, as Romney put it in an interview on MSNBC just last week, "personal responsibility is more conservative, in my view, than something being given out for free by government."It is one thing when my idiot ex-girlfriend believes that healthcare reform means handing it out for free. She knows very little and obviously doesn't try to correct that. But when someone like Romney uses those words, he is a lying toad. Openly and blatantly lying.
Because they are more conservative than Christian
Becomes that much more clear after this horrible story about LifeWay breaking their commitment to fight breast cancer after they find that the Susan G Komen fund is connnected to Planned Parenthood.
I understand opposition to abortion. I really do. As I have told many conservative evangelicals, it is the one stance from the conservative church that really does make sense. But that opposition has taken an awful twist from principled stance to political rigidity. And, with so many of their stances, is based purely in theory and has little to no reflection of reality. All fine and good to oppose abortion, but when that opposition stops you from embracing legitimate concerns like the life of the mother or incest and rape, then you have lost touch. Nor when you support the right wing's extreme attacks on women's health. Redefine "rape?" Are you kidding me?
Most of the conservative evangelicals I speak to have this view of most policy. It should work, so that is enough. That applies to everything from capital punishment to abstinence only to tax cuts in the face of mounting debt.
I also think that it is increasingly clear that most conservatives don't realize how far to the right their reps have gone. That uninformed electorate is perfect for the Rove/Fox News set, as they can push for the most extreme legislation and trust that their base will assume that anything Republicans do is more moral than the Democrats.
I have had a few conservatives admit as much. Not that it will change anything, and not sure why they still think I should respect their moral sense. If it isn't openly supporting evil practices like torture, it is chosen ignorance about those practices. Which is worse?
I understand opposition to abortion. I really do. As I have told many conservative evangelicals, it is the one stance from the conservative church that really does make sense. But that opposition has taken an awful twist from principled stance to political rigidity. And, with so many of their stances, is based purely in theory and has little to no reflection of reality. All fine and good to oppose abortion, but when that opposition stops you from embracing legitimate concerns like the life of the mother or incest and rape, then you have lost touch. Nor when you support the right wing's extreme attacks on women's health. Redefine "rape?" Are you kidding me?
Most of the conservative evangelicals I speak to have this view of most policy. It should work, so that is enough. That applies to everything from capital punishment to abstinence only to tax cuts in the face of mounting debt.
I also think that it is increasingly clear that most conservatives don't realize how far to the right their reps have gone. That uninformed electorate is perfect for the Rove/Fox News set, as they can push for the most extreme legislation and trust that their base will assume that anything Republicans do is more moral than the Democrats.
I have had a few conservatives admit as much. Not that it will change anything, and not sure why they still think I should respect their moral sense. If it isn't openly supporting evil practices like torture, it is chosen ignorance about those practices. Which is worse?
December 26, 2011
Ron Paul's newsletters
Fred at slacktivist says it better than me, so go read it. But it is hard to accept that Paul made over a million dollars off these newsletters, bragged about them back in the 90s, but now says that he never read them and disavows their content. Reading the excerpts of these newsletters, you see what many have termed "old school racism." If Paul really don't believe this stuff, that almost makes it worse. That someone would profit off of hateful drivel like advising people to buy unlicensed guns and be prepared to wipe and dispose of them after they shoot an "urban youth?"
Indefensible. Racist. Hateful.
Though, as one of my twitter feeds noted, those who wrote the newsletters might actually get the nomination with the appeal of racism and bigotry in the Republican party.
I sure wish that was funny.
Indefensible. Racist. Hateful.
Though, as one of my twitter feeds noted, those who wrote the newsletters might actually get the nomination with the appeal of racism and bigotry in the Republican party.
I sure wish that was funny.
The poor 1%
Merry Christmas, everyone. Back to blogging about politics, I guess, but really I am most interested in the economics of conservatism--or what have become the economics of conservatism. One Huffpo columnist suggested that conservatives really want to make all of America into the Pottersville of "Its a Wonderful Life." Perhaps.
My interaction with conservatives over the last few years suggests that most Republican voters don't want that kind of community, but don't seem to see a connection between good community and an active government. Same could be said about the middle class. Those things just "happen" in conservative minds because of the "free market." Yet, I see no evidence that the "free market" would create anything of the sort. That kind of approach is good at creating very rich people and very poor people, but not terribly good at building a middle class. Also not good at doing things that are not profitable. You know, like giving us clean water and air, or building libraries and hospitals.
As I have said before, I think most of this has to do with conservative voters conceptualizing government programs as handouts to poor and lazy people. If, in fact, most of our federal dollars went that direction, I would understand the anger. But it doesn't. Food stamps, for example, constitute about 1% of combined state and federal budgets.
I just had an exchange with a stranger on a friend's facebook wall that basically reiterates the point. This person claims to pay over 400k in taxes, but has no sympathy for middle class people who are in over their heads in home ownership, or their kids who frequent malls and buy nice cars.
Government money that has helped me, if I acknowledge it at all, is justified because I work for it. Those who get handouts don't. Simple as that.
The Huffpo piece is on point with this. Republicans have successfully appealed to the "I've got mine," crowd who don't really care if others have the same opportunities. That short-sighted approach, however, will be our economic undoing.
My interaction with conservatives over the last few years suggests that most Republican voters don't want that kind of community, but don't seem to see a connection between good community and an active government. Same could be said about the middle class. Those things just "happen" in conservative minds because of the "free market." Yet, I see no evidence that the "free market" would create anything of the sort. That kind of approach is good at creating very rich people and very poor people, but not terribly good at building a middle class. Also not good at doing things that are not profitable. You know, like giving us clean water and air, or building libraries and hospitals.
As I have said before, I think most of this has to do with conservative voters conceptualizing government programs as handouts to poor and lazy people. If, in fact, most of our federal dollars went that direction, I would understand the anger. But it doesn't. Food stamps, for example, constitute about 1% of combined state and federal budgets.
I just had an exchange with a stranger on a friend's facebook wall that basically reiterates the point. This person claims to pay over 400k in taxes, but has no sympathy for middle class people who are in over their heads in home ownership, or their kids who frequent malls and buy nice cars.
Government money that has helped me, if I acknowledge it at all, is justified because I work for it. Those who get handouts don't. Simple as that.
The Huffpo piece is on point with this. Republicans have successfully appealed to the "I've got mine," crowd who don't really care if others have the same opportunities. That short-sighted approach, however, will be our economic undoing.
December 24, 2011
Streak and Grace
As we close down the year and look back, it has been a bit of a rough one. SOF has worked far more than usual, and that has been hard on her. And me, but mostly her. Losing Streak was really hard. And it still is. SOF did a really nice post on Streak the other day.
But we now have Grace.
We didn't want her at first. It just felt too soon after losing Streak. It felt disloyal, and disrespectful. But the woman who wanted us to have a dog didn't take "no" for an answer. She had two dogs--one for my parents and one for us. Finally, we decided that this needed to happen.
Her name came from an odd source. One of my old high school friends (she and I had, I think, one very unsuccessful date at one point) looked at our puppy pictures on Facebook and said, "she looks like a 'Grace.'" SOF and my mother and I just looked at each other and nodded. It fit.
I don't think I had thought about it much beyond that. The name seemed cute. But it has taken on more meaning as we have had her in our lives. As SOF said, it sure felt like Streak wanted this to happen. He was always connecting us to others, and I know he would have hated us being sad. We needed grace in every meaning of the word, and we didn't even know it.
We still miss Streak. But we learned that we could love Grace at the same time. She could make us smile at the same time we grieved our friend.
Today is Christmas Eve, and I am grateful for so many, many things: my loving and supportive wife; my family members around the country, and my amazing and loyal friends.
But this Christmas, my big present under the tree is Grace.
Her name came from an odd source. One of my old high school friends (she and I had, I think, one very unsuccessful date at one point) looked at our puppy pictures on Facebook and said, "she looks like a 'Grace.'" SOF and my mother and I just looked at each other and nodded. It fit.
I don't think I had thought about it much beyond that. The name seemed cute. But it has taken on more meaning as we have had her in our lives. As SOF said, it sure felt like Streak wanted this to happen. He was always connecting us to others, and I know he would have hated us being sad. We needed grace in every meaning of the word, and we didn't even know it.
Today is Christmas Eve, and I am grateful for so many, many things: my loving and supportive wife; my family members around the country, and my amazing and loyal friends.
But this Christmas, my big present under the tree is Grace.
December 2, 2011
Austerity to address depression economics?
I know I am no economist, but I am really wondering how Greek and English austerity is really going to help them recover? How does laying off government workers help an economy that is already shrinking? How does reducing the spending money of the people at the bottom help with that either?
I ask, partially because I am watching the European crisis and wondering what will happen next, but also because austerity seems to be the GOP's model for recovery.
December 1, 2011
GOP's anti-government rhetoric has consequences
The right wing's vitriol against the government is not new, and probably goes back to the Whiskey rebellion, but the way that the GOP and Fox News/talk radio have decided to profit from this hatred is new. And destructive. And we see that repeatedly, but the GOP still traffics in bashing government and demeaning government workers. Hard for them to be surprised at every turn when people take that rhetoric to its logical conclusion and decide to kill someone.
Mugshots Of The Senior Citizen Militia Members Charged In Attack Plot | TPMMuckraker
Mugshots Of The Senior Citizen Militia Members Charged In Attack Plot | TPMMuckraker
November 30, 2011
If conservative Christians rally around Gingrich
They owe me, and every other Clinton supporter, a public apology. They need to confess openly that their "family values" hand-wringing was pure bullshit. They might further note that their "conservative" values outweigh their "Christian" values as they only care about "family values" about liberals.
Seriously. I can't quite remember all of the bs I heard from my conservative Christian friends, but it was a lot of "what will the children think" and "if he lies to his wife, how can we trust him?"
Of course, those same people didn't blink a goddamned eye when their "family values-evangelical" President drowned people. Nope. (Gingrich openly endorses waterboarding, btw).
If you think that Bill Clinton was morally incapable of being President for cheating on Hilary, then you can't possibly think that the serial-adulterer Gingrich should be able to visit the White House, much less run it. Not only did he cheat on his wives (that is plural) but he asked one of them to just look the other way while he cheated--and did that after returning from a public speech where he discussed the great moral decline in our nation.
If you think Bill was "Slick Willy," and you hated him, then you have no business even thinking of voting for this moral blight that is Newt Gingrich. Personally, I don't really care. I don't like him, and I certainly don't respect his mistreatment of women, but I am more disturbed by his racist and callous flogging of things like the Sharia law bullshit in order to get elected.
And less you think I am jumping to conclusions, as Fred notes in this angry post, Richard Land is already advising Gingrich on how to fool evangelicals into voting for him.
Seriously. I can't quite remember all of the bs I heard from my conservative Christian friends, but it was a lot of "what will the children think" and "if he lies to his wife, how can we trust him?"
Of course, those same people didn't blink a goddamned eye when their "family values-evangelical" President drowned people. Nope. (Gingrich openly endorses waterboarding, btw).
If you think that Bill Clinton was morally incapable of being President for cheating on Hilary, then you can't possibly think that the serial-adulterer Gingrich should be able to visit the White House, much less run it. Not only did he cheat on his wives (that is plural) but he asked one of them to just look the other way while he cheated--and did that after returning from a public speech where he discussed the great moral decline in our nation.
If you think Bill was "Slick Willy," and you hated him, then you have no business even thinking of voting for this moral blight that is Newt Gingrich. Personally, I don't really care. I don't like him, and I certainly don't respect his mistreatment of women, but I am more disturbed by his racist and callous flogging of things like the Sharia law bullshit in order to get elected.
And less you think I am jumping to conclusions, as Fred notes in this angry post, Richard Land is already advising Gingrich on how to fool evangelicals into voting for him.
November 29, 2011
More on OWS and the response
Thinking about our conversation on police brutality and the OWS movement. As I noted in my comments to Steve, my concern with police brutality predates this latest bunch of clashes. The common (or it seems) use of tasers, pepper spray, and tear gas by police, combined with what Naomi Wolf has noted as gradual eroding of first amendment rights by limiting protests and permit options. And, as I noted in my comments, it seems that the harshest tactics are reserved for those leaning left, not those leaning right.
This afternoon, I heard an excellent discussion on Talk of the Nation that included an interview with the former Seattle police chief who ordered the use of tear gas in 1999--what they termed the "Battle in Seattle." When I heard the guest, I expected a defense of strong tactics, but was pleasantly surprised to hear Norm Stamper call that decision the worst of his 3 decade career. He sees a real tendency toward paramilitary tactics across the country.
Stamper made several good points, but one that I thought was really on point was that he sees police treating protesters like enemies. As he noted, police are working class individuals who will never make big money from serving the public. But while they have more in common with the 99%, they become a tool for the 1% and lose the realization that those protesting are fellow Americans. Unfortunately, I hear that same rhetoric from the right on this--almost as a continuation of Sarah Palin's "real America" theme.
One other OWS themed post came from our friend Greg in a very thoughtful essay comparing the OWS movement (in how certain groups have responded) to the Civil Rights movement. Then, as in now, evangelicals have largely sided with the status quo and labeled those in the movement as anarchists or insurgents opposing American values. But as he notes, and as Martin Marty also argued, this is, at least in part, a movement challenging opulence and vast wealth--things hardly compatible with the Gospel.
This afternoon, I heard an excellent discussion on Talk of the Nation that included an interview with the former Seattle police chief who ordered the use of tear gas in 1999--what they termed the "Battle in Seattle." When I heard the guest, I expected a defense of strong tactics, but was pleasantly surprised to hear Norm Stamper call that decision the worst of his 3 decade career. He sees a real tendency toward paramilitary tactics across the country.
Stamper made several good points, but one that I thought was really on point was that he sees police treating protesters like enemies. As he noted, police are working class individuals who will never make big money from serving the public. But while they have more in common with the 99%, they become a tool for the 1% and lose the realization that those protesting are fellow Americans. Unfortunately, I hear that same rhetoric from the right on this--almost as a continuation of Sarah Palin's "real America" theme.
One other OWS themed post came from our friend Greg in a very thoughtful essay comparing the OWS movement (in how certain groups have responded) to the Civil Rights movement. Then, as in now, evangelicals have largely sided with the status quo and labeled those in the movement as anarchists or insurgents opposing American values. But as he notes, and as Martin Marty also argued, this is, at least in part, a movement challenging opulence and vast wealth--things hardly compatible with the Gospel.
It is indefensible for people who worship a messiah who innocently suffered violence to support police efforts to batter and pepper spray peaceful protestors into compliance with a status quo that supports no one but people with more money than they will ever need, more than their grandchildren will ever need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)