Home » Politics (Page 10)
Category Archives: Politics
The Belly of the Beast
I am astonished by the announcement of John Boehner’s resignation from Congress.
My recommendation to the Republican Establishment is to put a Tea-Party candidate into his position as Speaker, and then give them a taste of their own medicine. The consequences of that object lesson would be far less disastrous than allowing them to continue to inflame political passions. I would hope that within 30 days, it would drive them completely out of the Republican Party.
Freedom from Immigration
During the motorcade through Washington, Pope Francis elevated the human reality of our immigration crisis by calling to him a beautiful Hispanic child. The circumstances of the little girl’s arrival upon the guarded road are suspicious – even the mildly cynical would surmise that she was put there by an adult. The appeal for relief from fear for her parents was also remarkably mature. Of course, that may reflect the constant working of her thoughts against the pressure of her fear. Children are sometimes forced into maturity.
The Pope’s response to her was spontaneous, specific and human, having her lifted up so that he could embrace her. That it was this child that caught his attention may reflect a deep internal resonance of her experience with his own experience as the child of Italian immigrants to Argentina.
Unfortunately, that personal identification is a weakness in his appeal for immigration reform in America. It seems to generate in him a confusion over two very different motivations for immigration: the search for opportunity, and the flight from desperation.
The two narratives – of opportunity and flight – are mingled in the American story. Many of the settlers were fleeing religious or political persecution, but chose America (rather than another European country) because it was a place of opportunity. That opportunity was secured by the huge imbalance in cultural and immunological sophistication of the settlers relative to the Native Americans. These two factors supported population densities that guaranteed that the European tide would eventually sweep aside the native way of life.
But as of 1950 or so, that process had been concluded. The West was settled, parceled and titled to its new owners. The appeal of America shifted: no longer the land of unfettered opporunity, we became the “land of the free.” The “Statue of Liberty” was installed with a plaque that called for the world to send “your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.” But the logistics of arranging a trip across the ocean created a filter that biased the arrivals more towards the clever, industrious and opportunistic. This is cemented in current American immigration policy, where heavy preference is given to those that come with exceptional skills. With its mantra of freedom, America now draws to it the most productive citizens from states that do not respect political rights.
What is faced by the refugee – one among the many waves fleeing fear – is an entirely different reality. It is a world of abusive employment practices, first brought to national attention by Caesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers, but reborn in the housekeeping business and meat packing plants. It is a culture dominated by aggressive men who establish diasporas enforced by intimidation and violence. Does this represent a shift in American immigration experience? No, for European immigrants, arriving in the densely populated East Coast, often did the same. What is different is that there is now no geographical outlet for those pressures.
So the Pope’s plea for unfettered resettlement of refugees is a little tone deaf. Where are the immigrants to go?
To those that cherish liberty, there is also a moral quandry. What about the tyranny, venality and incompetence that creates a refugee crisis? Would the advanced democratic societies, in guaranteeing the safety of refugees, become unwitting codependents and victims to oppression? In taking in the most productive and resourceful citizens of the affected nations, are we not simultaneously sapping them of the capacity to resist and recover from the side-effects of oppression?
The Catholic Church, as observed by the Canadian philosopher John Hall in Powers and Liberties, has some experience with this problem. As the curator of Europe’s shared culture heritage (including Latin, the libraries and universities, and religious expression), the Church facilitated the flourishing of the Renaissance by issuing letters of introduction for those fleeing feudal oppression. This meant that seizure of wealth actually facilitated the dissemination of ideas and technologies that drove the generation of wealth. However, it was only with the industrial age that the benefits of that dissemination reached down to the lower class, generating the era of relative wealth in the developed nations.
So do we ignore the Pope’s plea?
As a Christian, I cannot. I cannot ignore the misery of those fleeing societal collapse. But I would argue that we should be far more focused in ensuring that the wealth that is transfered from our societies to refugees is organized to ensure that pressure is brought to bear on the originators of their misery.
The uncoordinated dispersal of refugees should be prevented. Rather, I would recommend that they be admitted as a diaspora, seeking to maintain their cultural identification. Refugees should be integrated in the economy, contributing their energy and drive. But they should be encouraged to maintain a political involvement in the affairs of their home country, including participating in cultural exchanges (perhaps within the borders of a third country) that transfer knowledge and experience to those that remain behind. And I recommend that a portion of their earnings be allocated, under State Department oversight, to efforts to bring justice to their country. Their ultimate goal should be full citizenship through return to a reformed state.
The Pope should reflect that Jesus did not flee tyranny, but submitted to its ultimate injustice, and in doing so inspired others to shake off the chains of their fear. Obviously, those that can emulate him are few in number. But the founder of the Catholic Church would exhort it to not cater to cowardice, but rather to encourage others to “pick up their cross.” Of course, there is much that the Western democracies can do to facilitate that process, and in supporting the flowering of justice when chains are eventually cast off.
So I would exhort us not to seek to be free of immigration, nor allow unrestricted freedom of immigration, but rather to focus our policies to ensure that freedom is generated through immigration.
Islam and Democracy
When others criticize religion, I tend to find that the charges they level are often addressed directly in scripture itself.
1100 years before the American constitution was written, the Muslims of the Arabian peninsula, under the guidance of the prophet Mohammed, adopted a process for selecting the leader of the Ummah, or holy community. It was that he should be chosen, not by inheritance or coercive might, but by popular acclaim.
That process was upended by political leaders centered in Baghdad, who had claimed Muslim identity in order to pull the community in Mecca into their struggle for control of the caliphate. When the leaders in Mecca attempted to expose their hypocrisy, they were murdered ruthlessly.
There was a period that allowed me to attend Friday teachings at the Conejo Valley Islamic Center, and the Imam there, addressing the prejudice facing Muslims in the world today, simply observed that if Muslims followed the tenets of Islam, such prejudice would be immaterial. His exhortation was for a return to the teachings of Mohammed.
So to Ben Carson and others, I would suggest that if they returned to the history books, they would recognize in the early years of Islam a democratic struggle that was mirrored in the formation of our nation. And maybe find cause to say that they would be pleased to be led by a man that manifested Islamic tenets both in his private and public life.
Understanding, Hope
The ferocity of the wildfires raging in Northern California was given a human face last Monday morning when one of the staff at AMC shared that two members of her family had lost their homes and everything they owned when their town was devoured by the flames. As I write today, the fires have destroyed 1400 homes.
To some, it is human crisis that makes global climate change palpable to them. For me, once a wanderer of the trails above the Conejo Valley, the cries of nature have weighed on my heart for far longer. The day that I first encountered the great Muslim love poem, Yusef and Zuleika, these words caused me to weep as I looked out over the hills:
To my wounded heart this soft balm to lay,
For not beyond this can I wish or pray.
The streams of thy love will new life bestow,
On the dry, thirsty field where its sweet waters flow.
After services at St. Kolbe’s today, I was moved to stand on the floor where the gaze of Christ fell. I was struck suddenly that the last thing that he beheld was the earth under the cross. The earth that held in place the instrument of his destruction, but also that had carried him on his wandering, that had brought forth food for him to eat, and provided all the tools of weather and life that had responded to his authority as he tried to teach his people to heal the world.
We could have avoided this destruction. Not just the destruction of families, cities and nations, but the loss of species and the poisoning of water and earth that will delay their recovery. Both to the reasoning mind and the intuitive heart, these consequences have long been apprehensible. Now, faced with the undeniable evidence of doom, we still hesitate to act, for we think first of what is close to us. Our families, our homes, and our land: they all suffer, and so we take from elsewhere to preserve them. We take from those with no voice: the poor, the uneducated, and the natural world.
But what else are we to do?
I write here because I understand things that others do not, and so I perceive solutions that are beyond their grasp. It may seem small-minded to decry the folly of Elon Musk and his peers, desperately trying to disperse the human species so that it can survive all the threats of the natural world: black holes, solar instability, and human greed. But I do so with sympathy for them, for they cannot see how much power is available to us if only we understand it.
On the New Physics page I offer a model of physics that holds these truths: space is not empty. It is filled with a medium in which light propagates, the medium that physicists once called the “aluminiferous ether”, and now call “dark energy.” That medium is wrought through with threads that appear most obviously to us as electric charge when bound to the medium, but that may also float in the medium. The floating threads interact, merge and evolve to form what we know as “souls.” The souls merge with matter to “live” as plants, animals and people. In that form, they are capable of warping the fabric of space. In most cases, that warping occurs through the use of their physical manifestation – in humans, we commonly use our legs, hands, and mouths.
Through our actions, we join other things in the service of our will. That can be a temporary affair, such as when we throw a light switch or press the accelerator pedal. We are often seduced by the temporary thrill of such expressions, a thrill made accessible through the efforts of engineers to remove souls from the world around us, ensuring that it responds only to our will.
But any great lover knows the permanence of the bonds that arise when we ask permission before enjoying a gift, and attempt to reciprocate in kind. In those exchanges, we make persistent spiritual arrangements – persistent precisely because the participating souls do not seek to escape them.
So this is how we save the world: we surrender our self-concerns. We open our hearts in compassion to the suffering of the world. We marshal the displaced souls of the natural world and join them together to warp the fabric of space to create a lens that bends light away from the earth. And we reward them every day with the expression of our gratitude for their service.
Are we enough to do this, by ourselves? Perhaps, and perhaps not. But we should consider this: there is a billion times as much energy leaving the sun than comes to us on Earth. The source of that energy is not unintelligent. It is, in fact, the “Ancient of Days” described in Daniel’s Dream of the Four Beasts. It would help us if it could, but we are so terribly small, and one mistake would destroy us all. It needs us to guide it.
I had a friend challenge me once that with faith we should be able to move mountains. My response was: “Yes, if every living thing on the mountain and the land around it agreed that the mountain should move, the mountain would move.” But if any voice claimed privilege over that power, the result would be chaos. It is for this reason that I decry the ugliness of the Republican debates. If we are going to save all of the world, the power of such voices will still be among us. The destructive effects of their expression cannot be risked. They must learn self-control.
I was late getting to church this morning. As I organized my thoughts to write this post, I sat down to the reading from Acts. I wept as these words were read [James 4:2-3]:
You lust and do not have, so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.
Oh, humanity! Why must the world suffer so?
Bulding Bridges
Jeb Bush on Barack Obama:
Barack Obama is a talented man — and by the way he’s an American, he’s a Christian — his problem isn’t the fact that he was born here or what his faith is. His problem is that he’s a progressive liberal who tears down anybody that disagrees with him.
Well, Jeb, you’ve got another eighteen debates to overcome two precedents that establish that the Republican Party can’t put forward any candidate that can build bridges even within the Republican Party.
Much less put together the two-party coalition that passed the Health Care Affordability Act, much as the flip-flippers would like to disown it.
Taking Up the Debate
Rachel Maddow has been using “The Kid’s Table” debate to describe last night’s event with the less popular candidates.
Given that the second debate was the verbal equivalent of a food fight, I’d argue that she’s got it the wrong way around.
The Real Deal: Towering Ambition on Mars
Having seen the Trump stump rhetoric on the Iran nuclear deal evolve as predicted in earlier de-porting (as “re”-porting is to offer again the truth, “de”-porting must be to claw it back), this blogger was emboldened to follow the communications links that tie the Trump real-estate empire to the Iranian mullahs. New revelations expose the growth of the Trump ego from global to interplanetary dimensions.
With suspicions (and hackles) raised by Trump’s refusal to promise to place his holdings in blind trust, records of real estate transactions in the Washington, D.C. area were examined to expose the true cause of the Chinese stock-market crash: profit-taking by Chinese investors buying up huge swaths of the Washington landscape. It appears that Trump has arranged for multi-billion dollar Chinese support for his PAC with promises to lift the height limitation on Capitol Hill development, which by federal law is constrained by the cap of the Washington Monument.
In fact, PR documents in development attempt to paint the Monument itself as a hidden Iranian ICBM, similar to those revealed to have been concealed in the minarets of Iranian mosques. The Monument is slated for demolition during Trump’s first hundred days in office, to be followed immediately by construction of a huge Trump Tower complex on the Capitol Mall.
As if that was not sufficient outrage, it appears that the pull-back of the Obama-Islama resort complex announcement in Kenya is related to plans for Mars hinted at in a bizarre exchange between Elon Musk and Stephen Colbert on the late show. Mr. Musk suggested that Mars might be made habitable by liberating water and carbon dioxide trapped in polar crust using nuclear explosions.
It appears that Mr. Trump has promised to have NASA let a contract to SpaceX, the private rocket company owned by Mr. Musk, to design and construct a system to relocate the Iranian uranium enrichment complex to Mars. Rather than launching nuclear missiles from earth to Mars, the bombs will be manufactured on Mars itself using the transplanted Iranian machinery.
As a quid-pro-quo, the Republican majority in both houses of Congress will be expected to grant to Trump right of first refusal on all development deals as habitable terrain evolves on Mars. Support for the legislation is expected to be sealed with authorization of a “climate change exchange” that will allow fossil fuel companies holding land on both planets to average hot days on Earth against cold days on Mars.
In related news, the Bush nominating campaign is targeting a narrow climate-conscious fringe of the Republican party with a study of the correlation between local temperatures and Trump campaign rhetoric.
This blogger awaits further developments with basted breath.
The Second Coming of Donald
Common interpretation of Revelation 11:15 is that the reign of Christ begins when Gabriel sounds his horn. Now I offer an alternative interpretation of the verse in The Soul Comes First as heralding the beginning of the age of Humanity who will bring redemption to the Earth through the intelligent exercise of divine love.
But you, know, scripture is inscrutable, and I’m beginning to realize that maybe we’ve all misunderstood.
Gabriel is known as the angel that transmits God’s truth. FOX news broadcasts “God’s truth.” A trumpet is a kind of horn. In the first Republican debate on FOX news, we saw nine Trump-ettes on the stage with Donald.
Hallelujah! Praise the Lord! Jesus will be outed by the FOXing of Donald!
Of course, NBC will carry the coverage. Looks like FOX out-foxed itself.
Military Truth-in-Action
I’m just realizing that the military, confronted with the option of either going to war with Iran or supporting the implementation of the multi-national nuclear technology agreement with Iran, is strongly motivated to shift its loyalties from the Republicans to the Democrats in this election cycle.
What do the Republicans not understand about getting the nuclear issue off the table so that we can start grinding Iran down for it’s activities fomenting terrorism against our allies in the Middle East? Is that really so difficult to understand?
One step at a time. All that your blustering is going to do is upset the apple cart.