Talking with God

Over the past week or two, I have had a continuous conversation with God. This has been a fascinating experience…I have thought before about the reality of God and how often we fail to realize it, but it has been a while since I have had time where I intentionally submit myself to God and his unfathomable power. We’ve talked mostly about my future, and what God has in store, but about other things too. Sometimes I get nostalgic about periods of history that I never could have experienced, and in mentioning to God how cool it would be to see Grand Rapids 100 years ago, He said, “You wouldn’t recognize a thing…” to which I replied, “I know, but it would be cool!” God, in His infinite wisdom, has placed me here for a reason – in this city, in the year 2012, in this job, in my life. And no matter how hard I try to change it, God won’t let my plans deviate from His.

I was selected as a finalist for a dream job – a history position with potential for coaching soccer, teaching an AP class, and living in a new town right in the middle of Milwaukee and Grand Rapids – which the administrator recently informed me was being offered to the other candidate. This, frankly, sucked. I haven’t been so bummed about something since Michigan lost to Ohio State at the Horseshoe in 2006. But this rejection is pretty significant. Since looking for a better teaching job, God has given me several opportunities that have fallen through. Timeline….Spring of 2010: Top three finalist at a premier Christian school in St. Louis, rejected. Fall of 2010: Opening at the high school where I student taught and still have friends on staff, not qualified because my degree in History and Political Science is not a Social Studies degree. Spring of 2011: Another opening at the St. Louis school, not even given an interview. Spring of 2011: Top ten finalist at a local Christian school in Hudsonville, rejected. Now, spring of 2012: Top two finalist for an outstanding position in Chicago, rejected. Sometimes it feels like God is using me to thoroughly enjoy a satisfying game of Whack-a-Mole. It’s like he’s glued a dollar to the cement, or ran a current through the cookie jar (too sadistic?). But as easy as it is to be frustrated with how my own plans aren’t working out and wallow in self-pity, it has been made painfully clear that my plans are not what is best for me, or more importantly, my wife and me.

So this is what I’ve learned: God is saying one of two things. Either, “Keep working – you’re almost there. I’m letting you get your hopes up to keep your confidence up and have an awesome position for you,” OR “Keep working, just not in history! You think you want to be a history teacher, but I don’t want you to.” The hard part is figuring out what the message is. Or maybe, the hard part is learning to trust. Where do you draw the line between following God away from what you think your dream is, and giving up on it? How do you know what signs to follow and what signs are misleading? No one can answer these questions, but everyone does at some point. It’s just a matter of being patient and knowing how to let go of all of the wisdom I might think I have in favor of a nebulous plan laid out by a Being that I cannot see, but who knows me best and what is best for me.

So, even though what I saw as an open door ended up being a brick wall that I ran into at full speed, it was put there for a reason. God and I will laugh at this later, but right now it’s time to get up, walk away from the wall, and figure out what door God has actually opened.

How the TEA Party Reminds us that we need Government

I just heard on the radio – just now – a ‘speech’ that was given by a candidate running for a seat in the US House of Representatives. This speech was to announce the candidate’s intent to run for the seat, but in it he revealed some very important points not just in his platform, but in his political philosophy as well.

Holding up a light bulb, currently in the works for being outdated and outlawed in favor of new, more energy-efficient bulbs, Hoogendyk (the challenging candidate) asked his core of supporters if we need the government to tell us what kind of light bulb to use, or if we need the government to tell us how much water we can use when we flush our toilets. The crowd, although small, seemed to agree as Hoogendyk made the claim that “we need to return the government back to the people.”

I understand this libertarian ideology. Anyone who has listened to any of Ron Paul’s speeches understand at least how libertarianism can be applied to current political situations, but the problem with libertarianism in the United States is that it perpetuates an individualized, no-strings-attached style of everyday living even though we live in a community that is necessarily linked from person to person, city to city, state to state, coast to coast – you get it.

So what if the government didn’t regulate how much energy anyone used, or how much water someone used? What if there were no regulations on fuel mileage for automobiles or air and water quality standards? What if everyone lived life in their own best interest without any regard for the sustainability of the resources that they consume, much less without any regard for the best interest of those around them? Forgive my pessimism, but I don’t think we would get very far! I am sure that we, as Americans, can rely on the goodwill of others to a certain extent, but if self-centered consumption and an ethos of relativistic law creation and enforcement becomes the status quo our nation will be incapable of surviving as a powerful international state. We would be incapable as surviving as a state at all! As Abraham Lincoln famously observed, “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” and that was in reference to two largely homogenous geographical and ideological masses. If the citizens of the United States adhere only to their own self-interest in regard to energy and resource consumption, self-defense, controlled substance regulation (Ron Paul once told a crowd that we shouldn’t rely on the government to tell us that heroine is bad for us…), and statutory/criminal/civil law, our national house certainly cannot stand.

Philosophical libertarianism is a beautiful thing that is based on the ability of man to govern himself and benefit from the fruits of political freedom and autonomy. Unfortunately, as James Madison once said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary…” and men are not angels. (To be fair, the very next sentence in Madison’s essay says, “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary…” which is a great argument for the libertarian.) So as good as libertarianism sounds especially in the face of big, left-leaning legislation that has been passed in the past 4 years, beginning with the bank bailouts under Bush, and continued by the stimulus package, more bailouts (GM), and health care legislation under Obama, we need to keep in mind that not all government is bad government, and although bigger may not seem better, it’s better than none at all.

The New Anti-Establishment

I just listened to a story on the radio about a Republican caucus in Iowa where all of the big names were giving speeches – Michele Bachmann talking about a preferred position for Right to Life-ers, Newt Gingrich talking about de-funding Planned Parenthood and using the money for adoptive services (like the rest of Gingrich, at least half of that is good!), Ron Paul blasting federal judges for their lifetime appointments, and Rick Santorum complaining about something. I thought that this had proved my point from an earlier post – that the pendulum has swung to the Left, and we are now witnessing an equal and opposite political reaction.

That being said, I really do not have much more to say. The pendulum swung to the Left after the Bush administration and ushered in the Obama era, but after the Bush-initiated bank bailouts, the stimulus bill of early 2009, and health care reform a year later, the Right side has been voicing their opinions. This we see in the Tea Party, the 2010 elections, the gridlock in Congress, and zany religious-righters in the likes of Michele Bachmann.

What struck me during the radio broadcast was just how hard the Right is swinging! These candidates were complaining about typical Conservative talking points – Right to Life, etc – but the talking points have turned into complaints, and the complaints have been framed in an Us vs. Them / antagonist vs. protagonist / good vs. evil type of scenario. The Right has effectively positioned the Left as the ruling party making the laws, and everything wrong with country (real or perceived) can be blamed on those that made it that way – in this case, the Left.

What it looks like from here is that no longer do we have political platforms with equally feasible political goals or reconcilable political philosophies. We live in a domestic political world where “compromise” is career-ending strategy and “calling for a truce” is ridiculed as if one party could get its way without it. Whereas the pendulum may have swung Left or Right in the past, it is being pushed much further – and much faster – in the present.

Obama Gets Osama

The biggest tactile accomplishment in the War on Terror thus far has been the assassination of Al Qaeda founder and front-man Osama bin Laden. It seems like his name has largely disappeared from the news (until Sunday), but we all still kind of painted his picture with horns and a pitchfork in our minds, and the celebration of his death at baseball games, at the White House, and on the site of Ground Zero has reaffirmed the associations Americans have with this man.

I think that the best description of this benchmark is "a symbolic victory." Bin Laden, as far as I know, has been largely a figurehead for the group and although once maintained a position of unspeakable power, he had retired to a state of image and motions, not one of power and action like he once held. The fact that the United States has removed bin Laden from any position is meaningful, since he still held an important figure in al Qaeda, but will do very little to disenfranchise any fighters in the group. To me, this killing is akin to an enemy of Great Britain assassinating the Queen. No one would expect the government to crumble, since the Queen's role is largely symbolic, and other than a period of mourning and outrage, not much would change. The Queen is a figurehead, has a minimal role in running the country (although the monarchy once ran the entire empire - noticing the parallels here?), and there are several others in line for the throne. The similarities are stunning. I do not think that Americans should hope for much change in the way al Qaeda functions, and if anyone has their fingers crossed for a disbandment of the terrorist organization now that bin Laden is out of the picture...well, don't hold your breath.

Another side of this killing is the highly-suspicious in which bin Laden was found. First of all, the people who lived there were strangers to the rest of the population of Abbotabad, where they were located. They never left, except, according to some citizens there, to go to there store where they got what they came for and made no contact otherwise. Even though they are model shoppers, if that is really the case, people had to have been suspicious. Never going outside and not talking to anyone when they are out are suspicious enough, and to add to that isolation, there was no kind of internet or television connections, and waste removal was forfeited in favor of burning all of their garbage. Super-weird. Oh, and I guess it is relevant to say that the distance between the bin Laden's compound and Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, is just barely farther than Hope is from Calvin.

This country claims to be an ally, definitely a recipient of a TON of aid money from our American federal government (over $4 billion per year), and now has been found housing bin Laden, despite their claims that they did not know he was there and was not protecting him. I find this incredibly difficult to believe, considering the location of the compound in relation to the capital, and the fact that Abbotabad is home to the Pakistani's version of West Point Military Academy. Bin Laden was literally right under the Pakistani military's nose for over five years, and they did not find him, despite the obvious signs of suspicious activity mentioned about. Some ally.

This is really a lose-lose for Pakistan. I compare them to a guy I worked with at Wisconsin Memorial Park who was about as accident-prone as they get. He kept getting in accidents with machinery, and was taken to be drug tested after each accident. This implies that either 1) Drugs had to have influenced his behavior, because no normal person would suffer the same injury sober, or 2) He was acting in such a stupid way that no normal person should suffer the same injury, except on drugs. Pakistan is stuck in this same pickle. Either they admit to have been hiding bin Laden while claiming to assist the US in the manhunt and fight against bin Laden's organization and their associates, or they are ignorant enough to have him hiding in broad daylight in the middle of a military establishment. No way to win. Either the Pakistani government is on drugs, or they acted in a manner that can only be explained by substance abuse.

This, of course, is said with all due respect to Pakistani authorities...who can perhaps pull the knife out of the White House's back if they get the time.

Toska

As I studied history in college, I would notice a strange phenomenon when studying periods of American history that I was particularly interested in: I would feel a dark nostalgia, a wish that I was a part of that era and a strange feeling that I really missed out on something in which I conceivably could have participated. I still get this feeling when I study the 1920s or the 1950s and read about the dynamic, tumultuous social scenes that shaped the American of the time. I have always interpreted this as a sure sign that I was the king of nerds in the history department, but as I grow older and find this feeling toward past periods of my own life, I think that maybe this feeling is a sign of something else – nostalgia for certain, but feelings like passion and interest as well.

As an example, the spring of 2010 was just a highlight of my existence. Although I was living 800 miles away from Nora, whom I had since decided was the one I was supposed to marry, other parts of life gave my life meaning and definition. I was living on my own in a city that was at the same time strange and my home, with people who were strangers yet my closest friends, at a time where I was young and learning but much wiser and more experienced in life than I ever had been before. I was learning how make it on my own, how to question and rethink long held beliefs, how to maintain old relationships and formulate new ones, and how to live as a young, independent man. There were, of course, definite challenges that appear in any period in one’s life, but it is not the negative I remember; only the positive moments that in a way still shape how I live today.

I learned a new Russian word the other day while reading an article in National Geographic magazine. The word, toskavat, means “to long for” and is derived from the noun toska, which is, according to the magazine, a dark nostalgia bordering on depression. When I think of time periods in my life that I am particularly drawn to, I experience this toska. It sometimes makes a physical impact; it is like the progression of time’s version of homesickness that makes me long for another place, another place in time.

I do not know why I get this feeling, or if others are plagued with this toska for the past. Logically, it makes no sense, considering my partiality toward this time period is inherently skewed with the faults of human memory, my opinion of this time period as favorable is arbitrary at best, and there is no way that I can possibly revisit this period in my life. I long for these times nonetheless and am affected by these feelings consistently, to the point that I take the time to write down my reflections.

I think one part of the gravity of these nostalgic waves is a guilt that I ended this time period prematurely. I voluntarily left the school where I taught, the apartment where I lived, and the bonds that I had formed with new friends, places, and routines. I could have stayed and could have continued the life that I loved so much, but chose to move back to Michigan and the routines that I had the very same feelings for while living in Frederick. Because I had gone through parts of my life that ended all too soon (or so it seemed), I knew that looking back at my time in Frederick, I would consider how strange it is that I once got up, drove to school, and taught five days out of the week. How strange that I maintained relationships with the people I played ultimate with twice per week, and how strange that I would happily make the hour drive down to Crystal City to spend time with my close friends there. I knew that I would feel the way I do now about my life then. And then, I had that same toska for the times of college, living with my roommates and going to classes. At the same time, I was so looking forward to moving back to Michigan, back to Nora, back to family, back to my old routines…

And this is where my train of thought ends. I must conclude that we (presumably – I know that I am, and can only assume that others are too) live our lives suspended in a web of a longing for the past and anticipation of the future. The present does not even really exist – we never really experience the present, as our thoughts are in the past and our plans are in the future – and we are thus never able to really enjoy it. We are left with the aftertaste of our experiences and a hunger for our arrangements, and no chance to really enjoy the digestion of where we are in the moment. It must be a delicate balance; to live in the past is not much of a life at all, but neither is a life built on intentions. I think that my toska for the past is an important part of appreciating my current situations and shaping my plans for the future, but to dwell on the past strips the present and future of all too much significance; almost making an unfair comparison to an idealized nostalgia that can never be matched in real time.

So it is difficult. It is a challenge. It is just hard to not wish one lived in the past as he remembers it, but it is so important to find that proportion of past and future that creates the present, and to make the limbo of time in which we hang balanced and tolerable. I may struggle more than others, but think it is important all the same to emphasize that the present is what we make of it, and any excess of past or future can make the present a meaningless unreality.

Putting the "Tea" in P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S

If there is one thing that has influenced politics and the political news media in the past few years, it has been the Tea Party. This group of passionate right-wingers formed in response to increased government spending with the Stimulus Package in early 2008, and has been snowballing down the road to Washington ever since. We saw tangible results of their leaderless forces in the 2010 elections when dozens of Tea Party freshmen found their way into the Capitol building, and State governments found new leaders from the Tea Party's ranks. Now, as premature reports of the 2012 Presidential Elections float into media reports, Tea Party favorites such as Donald Trump and Sarah Palin are making their own political headlines.

These Tea Partiers are a noble bunch; they have their principles and they have their methods of making their principles known. They know how to work hard, have seen success, and have their scopes set on the White House come November, 2012. Not a day passes when the TP doesn't make headlines, and the members have effectively reserved a spot on the national scene in which to make their opinions known. But to me, the Tea Party's success is largely a function of media sensationalism, exaggerated political response and retaliation, and an American partiality toward entertaining, emotional, perpetual, bellicose political dispute.

If there is one thing that bothers me about the Tea Party, it is the emotional drive that empowers their speakers and speeches. I have a difficult time listening to a speech that calls for billions of dollars in budget cuts simply because the United States Government has spent too much for too long. Is what they say true? Has the US been spending too much? Of course they have! But has the government been spending indiscriminately? I don't think so. Surely there is a lot of wasteful spending (we all know the rumors about the $800 toilet seat), but cuts that have been proposed by the Tea Party hardly address these grocery store expenses that account for much of the wasteful spending they seek to eliminate. Paul Ryan, my own Wisconsin homeboy, proposed a landmark budget a couple of weeks ago, and although this proposal does not touch social security with a ten foot pole, it slashes MediCare to a voucher system, continues the system of tax breaks to the wealthy (perpetuating the assumption that trickle-down economics as the dominant fiscal policy will spur job growth and provide the market forces that will reboot the economy and help end the recession), and other drastic measures. I sincerely believe that Ryan's - is courageous the right word to use? - budget would not be able to make an appearance in any other political climate; that is, without the prolific support given to it by the Tea Partiers back on Capitol Hill and around the country.

This emotional impetus behind the Tea Party is visible behind almost every campaign speech and monologue that true Tea Party members give. They speak with great conviction, which is an admirable trait, and an ambition that could not be stopped with a team of wild horses. And this noble characteristic is what is wrong with the Tea Party. They have blind conviction and savage ambition. They have ideals and ideas to get them there, but they lack the kind of political sense that Congressional leaders - John Boehner included - so skillfully utilize when sculpting a platform. Boehner in particular is caught between a rock and a hard place, since he must represent the Republican party in general, and the dozens of Tea Partiers that are now included in the Republican's ranks. Boehner, plagued with a knack for political know-how, now has to compromise between the radical Right on the one hand, and the conventional Right on the other. The far right was elected to cut spending...or at least not spend as much as we were originally planning to spend...and the conventional right knows how to cut spending and still keep the government from shutting down. Boehner, stuck in the middle, has received praise from both sides of the aisle (except the far right) for how he has handled his new role as Speaker of the House and dealt with the dichotomous demands of the President and his House constituency.

Since the radical Right has entrenched themselves so deeply in their own fiscal (and increasingly social) ideology, it seems that the two sides of the House have to both give up a little in order to gain a little, but that is nowhere in the Tea Party's plan. They have no idea what the essence of compromise is. They think they are right, and they are not willing to budge. One Tea Partier, as heard on the news the other day, said something - and I paraphrase here - like, "This is more about being stubborn than it is about compromise..." Come on! Do you honestly think that's how things work in Washington? One would drown in his own political naivety if he thought that control of one half of one third of government means you can stand your ground with no compromise. And what about the Constitution that the TP flaunts with such hubris and sanguinity? The whole thing was based on compromise! The very Founding Fathers that the Tea Party claims to base their belief system on had very strong opinions and very noble ideals, but they had to compromise with others that disagreed in order to make the whole thing work. The angry go-getters in the House really show their political immaturity and lack of experience when they refuse to make simple compromises that would, in the long run, allow them to further their agendas.

In the sense that the Tea Party have strong convictions and lack the ability to compromise their ideas with political realities, they are almost precious. To hear the soundbites of middle-aged women from the breadbasket, old men from Florida, and leading TP figures talk about their ideas with such drive is just kind of cute! I understand that this description sounds pejorative; yet I just can't help but draw the parallel between Nikki Haley addressing a crowd with the line, "It's a great day for a Tea Party!" and a little boy telling his best friend that his dad is way stronger than his friend's. Plus, the connotations that are drawn between tea parties and little girls sitting down with their stuffed animals and little siblings only reinforce my own mental analogies.

So, Tea Party, here is my message - Good for you guys. You all are doing great. The thing is, your ideas are just that: ideas. Find a way to reconcile them with the predefined political structure, find a way to make them work within the preexisting political traditions, and you are golden. It's great that you have your ideas and your plans, but if things don't go your way, you can't just take your ball and go home - find a way to make them work!

For Ever Reading...

Arthur Schopenhauer once wrote in a short essay, "For ever reading, never to be read!" This simple phrase has stuck withe me for at least the couple of months since I read the essay, but I think it has a lot to say. So much, in fact, that I decided not to read while I was waiting for my dinner to cook, but to write instead.

What that statement really is, is a challenge. It is a challenge to pursue activity and creativity, and to really see what one is made of. In my opinion, we live in a world of self-servitude, meaning we like to have things handed to us. We watch television because it hands us entertainment, we have the internet on our phones because it hands us information. Book reading, is different, though. To read a book, one must be able to sit down somewhere and take the time to actively read the words on the page. What is more, is that the reader must use his or her mind to actually make sense of what the words mean. I doubt that I would meet much opposition when I say that reading is an activity of the mind, and a worthy activity to consume our time, but Schopenhauer challenges us to take one step further.

The apostle Paul once said of spiritual gifts that they first ought to edify the entire congregation. Schopenhauer takes that point and applies to to education/knowledge/learning. Let's think about it: what good does it do to sit in a library and read all day (certainly more than sitting in front of a television, but keeping Schopenhauer's next step in mind...)? Not much. It does plenty of good for the reader, but on the other hand, does it? The reader, presumably, gathers a wealth of information and new, refreshing insights from his/her day of reading. Good. But is not application of that new knowledge what makes it count? Is not potential energy a mere concept, whereas kinetic energy actually does something? Is a faith without works not dead?

Reading definitely takes ambition and patience, but writing takes even more. To write something intelligent takes more than a creative mind. It takes an understanding of the way things work and an understanding of how to apply it. I just finished the book White Teeth by Zadie Smith. It was brilliant. She draws eloquent analogies, has a distinctive understanding of how several different cultures operate, and weaves different perspectives on numerous topics into her fiction. At the same time, she draws the reader in to enjoy a beautiful process of character development. It was a great read. I should rephrase that: It was a great write. Smith took an idea that she could have kept to herself and shared it with the world (it is on the New York Times bestseller list). She had ideas that were influenced by one thing or another. She read books that helped her develop her own writing style. She had a vision that would be a lot easier to develop in her head that take the time and money to write on paper. Still, she wrote it, and now more than just Zadie Smith is benefiting from her ideas.

The same is obviously true of nonfiction, my genre of choice. I am currently reading a book called Hamlet's Blackberry by William Powers, which explores the hyper-connectivity of the modern world. Powers made observations, formulated ideas and hypotheses, and did his fair share of researching to polish his idea in his own mind. What takes real ambition is authors' willingness to write. Let me repeat my own hypothesis - what good does it do to obtain all of this information and store it away? Nothing! Share it! Teach it! (Believe me, I would if I could find a teaching position!) Write it! Debate it! Let it grow! There is no worse sentence for the fruits of education than to let it rot away untouched.

Another point - if one does not share his or her thoughts through writing or some other medium, the thoughts will atrophy and disappear. Just as obtaining and absorbing and hording knowledge is a non-edifying way to use said information, not exercising it is just as bad. This is one of my greatest regrets. I value the intellectual conversations I might have these days because it gives me a chance to exercise what I have learned and use it in different situations. I wish I would have chosen do this in college. I wish that while the knowledge was still fresh in my mind, I would have had the good sense to put myself in challenging situations where I could use what I know to gain more knowledge. Sharing knowledge will always yield enormous returns. If one should choose to invest a certain amount of knowledge or learning in another class or individual who is willing to talk about it, no doubt that knowledge will return with a new spin or perspective. Just as Schopenhauer begs of intellectuals to share what they have learned, I would say that a dynamic conversation would also do the trick.

I think what Schopenhauer means when he laments, "For ever reading..." is this: Please make sure that the reader is not the only one benefiting from what has been read.

God!

Regina Spektor came out with a new album a while ago. I think it is called Far or something. There are a few songs from the album that come up on my "The Weepies" station on Pandora, and I especially enjoy one called Laughing With. The lyrics explore different situations in which we do NOT find ourselves laughing at God, e.g. in a hospital, when we realize the last thing we will see is a pair of hateful eyes, or when the doctor calls after some routine tests. However, Spektor maintains that God can be funny, and in the end, concludes that we are actually laughing with God.

This got me thinking through a perspective that I have been considering for a while. This is, that God is real. We think about this, we know this, but like pictures of victims in the Holocaust, it is so real that we just do not think of it as actually existing. Take the Holocaust - we have all seen the photo of the little Jewish boy with the Star on his jacket, hands in the air, with the muzzles of Nazi rifles pointed at him and his family. Tragic, we think, a real mess. But how often do we consider the absolute reality of what we kind of know exists? Where is that kid now? Is he buried somewhere under some war-scarred plot of land in Europe? Is he some other kids' Grandpa who never talks about his childhood? What was going through his young mind when he saw the soldiers yelling at him and pointing their guns at him, and the rest of the crowd throwing their hands up in the air?

My point is, sometimes things are so drenched with reality that they hardly seem real at all. And that is the way it goes with God.

There are so many ways in which God as a concept is disguised as a word. To me, at least, that is what it seems like sometimes. We pray to "God." We say, "Thank God!" We mutter, "Oh my God..." And we do not really know what we are talking about. Even as professing Christians who claim to sincerely believe that Jesus is 100% man AND 100% God (homoousios, meaning "same substance" as in, Jesus and the Father are homoousios, also the only meaningful Greek word I know) we really have no intention of applying our Sunday School cookie cutter God to the rest of our lives.

(Before I go any further, I would like to clarify that I am generalizing. I am by no means accusing anyone of not having a faith or of being guilty of what I am describing here. If I were not the worst of us all, I would not be writing, so be slow to call me a hypocrite, please. I am well aware of that.)

Let's take a faith-based approach to the concept - not just the word - of God. Can you imagine the ramifications of God creating AN ENTIRE UNIVERSE? How dare we, as mortal, sinful, disgusting humans, at the same time we are polluting this Creation to a point of no return, claim to love this God and expect him to love us back? We can not! Yet He does...which is just another unfathomable mystery of the workings of God. How can we balance our evil and ignorance against God's endless grace and love? It seems unlikely that God would care for one second about what happens to us...Yet He does! And on top of that, He sacrificed Himself so that we could continue to screw up, spitting in His face as we do it, and be able to repent and ask for forgiveness to live in an eternity with GOD. What is this concept of God? We really just pay lip service to the word God (and the Word of God) and do not really take the time to actually comprehend just how incomprehensible GOD really is.

Philosophically, God is the ultimate end-all and be-all of what philosophers have thought about for centuries. Let's start early: Plato famously wrote about the cave where people saw shadows and thought that was all that the world was made of. God is no shadow. I think that we see shadows and see the light of God behind them, i.e. a sunrise, that feeling when they play your favorite song in church, etc. I think that when we talk about God we are really talking about God's shadow. But that is not the case - God is reality. If there is one thing that is real, it is God. Next guy - Rene DesCartes famously said that the only way we know we exist is that we can question our own existence. God exists. We know he is real because we know we are real. We all know that we were created in God's image, so even if we are only existing outside of the physical realm, and DesCartes was right in thinking that our life is a great dream, we know that God has a conscious being and one heck of a creative imagination. There is, of course, the great debate over sin and evil and how an all loving, all knowing, all powerful, always present God can allow it to happen. We don't know why for sure, but we know that there is an all loving, omniscient, all powerful, and omnipresent god - and we know him as God.

A friend of mine in Frederick came up to me after an ultimate game once and said, "Hey Paul, we should get together and talk about God sometime." The problem with that is that the first thing that came to mind was, "How nebulous!" And it is true. God's vastness takes us by surprise, and we comfort ourselves with the knowledge that we know God as a word, as a term, as an expression, and as a familiar face (the irony in saying that...) in Bible stories. That is why it is so difficult for us to imagine God as being real, despite us knowing His existence. The very concept of God existing seems so foreign to us, even though we tell ourselves that we are in constant contact with Him every day.

It would be a mistake to draw similarities between God and "big brother" or 1984. The purpose that God has for always being there and being so real is not for spying on us. But God is ALWAYS there, whether or not we can see Him or feel Him. This may just betray the place where I am in my spiritual walk, but I would like to believe that we are all guilty of this in one form or another. God is REAL. God KNOWS us by name. God LISTENS to whatever asinine request we present before Him. And as if getting over the reality of God was not difficult enough, we are blessed to struggle with the paradox that even though we are who we are, we are still loved by GOD. Not God the word, everyone knows that he loves us, but we are loved by GOD the CONCEPT.

Now that is something to think about...

User Error: Freedom of Speech

Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the controversial issue of protests at military funerals. To set the scene: The father of a serviceman KIA is has sued the pastor of a fundamentalist Christian church in Kansas for intentional infliction of emotional distress (that you may remember from Hustler v. Falwell and the movie "The People vs. Larry Flynt") for protesting his son's funeral by holding up signs reading awful and offensive messages, such as, "God hates fags." The pastor and his cronies feel that God is punishing the States for their sins, including and predominantly homosexuality.

The thing is, the pastor and his "church" did everything by the book, legally speaking. They followed all the rules pertaining to rallies or protests, they stayed within their physical boundaries, stayed the appropriate distance away from the funeral procession, and left when they were supposed to. Legally speaking, the "church" did nothing wrong.

There are some facets of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as the famous example of yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, as that poses an immediate threat, or a clear and present danger of being trampled to death. Similarly, threats and "fighting words" are not protected. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is also not covered under this amendment. Falwell lost the case because, although his emotions were clearly intentionally inflicted with distress, he was a public figure, and public figures should stand immune to that type of speak. The father of the soldier, however, is a private figure, and is not considered to be immune to intentional infliction of emotional distress. Thus if follows (to me) that it makes sense to find the pastor guilty of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. BUT there is another side.

The pastor and his church were not targeting the father of the soldier as an individual. Rather, they were just using his son's funeral as a screen on which to project their bigoted and unrepresentative agenda. I personally see that as a pretty convincing argument, because intentional infliction of emotional distress does tacitly require the offensive material to be targeting the prosecution. This targeted a nation in general, not just the father. So this boils the case down to a tiny minority expressing offensive and unpopular views within the confines of the law at a funeral. It still sounds pretty sick, but to me, it is an example of the speech that the First Amendment was written to protect.

Let me clarify, I am 100% against the pastor and his church's actions. I think that they are wrong and disgusting, and do not condone the participants or their message in any way.

Still - let's flip this around. Let's say that the event that the slim minority was protesting was a big hate rally against homosexuals, just because they're different. And let's imagine that this is the popular view. Would any of use try to silence a small portion of the populous that comes out to protest against this make-believe event? Probably not, because they have the right to express their opinions. No one would be especially happy about it, but that is the kind of speech that is protected by the Constitution. Speech that doesn't infringe on anyone's immediate rights, speech that does not present a clear and present danger, and speech that is expressed within the appropriate legal confines.

So here is my point - as much as I hate to sound like the ACLU and their outspoken legal sector, I do believe that however sick the message the pastor is sending and however inappropriate the times and places he chooses to send that message, he has the right to do it. The problem here is not with the freedom of speech he is exercising. The problem is with the speaker. This speaks more to the fallen nature of humanity and the inability to discipline one's own right to free speech more than a First Amendment gone crazy. This is not a bug in the amendment, this is complete user error.

Regarding the proposed Qur'an burning

I was reminded of a news story on the radio today that on September 11th, a (apparently) self-proclaimed 'church' is going to have a Qur'an burning. I don't know if they are doing this to mourn the victims of the attacks (seems like a strange way of doing so), to protest radical Islam (and all of the Islamic world, for that matter), to disrespect a sworn nemesis (in a rather child-like manner) or to prove a point - but the point they are proving is my own - that an aggressive wave of xenophobic ignorance is sweeping our nation. Although it may not be to the extent of the rogue church in Florida, it's still there (see previous posts...)

It seems that if there was going to be another angel in Revelation, representing different churches, it may as well be this one. First of all, I will flat out deny that this church is authentically Christian. No way. Not if it is going against the most basic tenet of the Christian faith, that of "Love your neighbor as yourself." Second, if this church could have a warning straight from the mouth of God, I wonder what it would sound like...perhaps, "What in My Name are you doing? Don't you know how hypocritical and ignorant you look, not to mention endangering the precious lives of troops in Afghanistan?"

Regardless, as a Christian, I am shocked and infuriated by this church's ignorant, ungodly, and frankly (and hopefully) unrepresentative-of-the-rest-of-the-church behavior. Under no circumstances should any Christian church desecrate the holy book of another religion, en masse (as is the case) or individually, to prove a point of resentment.

I heard more about this church on the radio this morning. The pastor's name is Terry Jones, and his church is called something about a Dove and World Outreach. It does NOT get any more ironic than that, considering a dove represents peace and what they are doing is the opposite of peace, and there is no way this book burning is going to reach anyone in the world (positively, that is). Anyway, there are about 50 members of the congregation, and as Steve Inskeep on NPR put it this morning, it seems to be the congregation against the rest of the world.

It's not just me that is outraged at this planned event. First of all, Muslims probably are. I haven't heard anything for sure, but if people get pissed about a cartoon of the prophet Muhammed, they would be livid to know about a Qur'an burning. Secondly, world leaders, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (scary!) are trying to persuade "Reverend" Jones not to do this. Thirdly, top commander of troops in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, is warning that this event may incite a violent backlash against the American troops overseas. (There is a very interesting line drawn here between free speech and national security then, because it does pose a "clear and present danger" and is therefore not protected under the First Amendment.) It really is this congregation against the rest of the world. Especially me.

Finally, the "reverend" is quoted in saying that he felt called to do this. Called by who?! This is a blatant case of a) pure insanity or b) palpable interference from the devil. This should be a warning to other Christians - look out! There will be false prophets, and not everything you hear in any church is Scripture-based, Christ-like in nature, or just plain cogent. Here is where an old Calvin aphorism seems appropriate - discern. Discern the message of this guy Jones, and discern what message it is sending. Is it really something Christ would smile on? No. Make disciples of all nations, that is something we are all called to do. Love our neighbors as ourselves, another encouragement from Christ. And even as we remember the horrible and resentful events of September 11th this weekend, we should also remember to pray for those who persecute us. And for that matter, we should pray that we stop persecuting whoever we already are.

France's Immigration Law

This will be the second time I've come to criticize the French on a social issue, but it fits well within the trend of issues that have been grabbing my attention in the news lately. To sum up the order in one sentence: President Nicolas Sarkozy has ordered all of the Roma population in France to leave, and if they don't, they will be deported.

To be fair, France did not pull this order out of the blue. There have been incidents that have incited public discourse against the Roma (Gypsie) population, including violence against police and others. But France sees only one solution to this problem, and that is to deport them? Apparently, and tragically so.

According to official figures cited on the BBC website, there were over 11,000 deportations last year, and almost 1000 last month alone. Unreal! What if that happened in the United States? Just like across France today, there would be furious protests everywhere. The thing is though - just like the aggressive xenophobic policies that have been proposed in the United States, it appears to have overwhelming public support. Apparently, over half of the French population is in concurrence with this law. Remember, this is the same population that outlawed a basic Islamic practice in wearing the hijab. But at least that has some contextual background in the laicety tradition - the deportation of an entire race of people is straight up xenophobic intolerance.

According to the official definition, the deportation of an entire race of people can sometimes constituted genocide, but I won't go there.

I guess all I can hope for is that the protests are representative of public sentiment, and the French people learn how to get along and finally realize that sometimes they can take their revolutionary ideal of equality a little too far...or not far enough.

Mosque-zilla

A new monster is hitting New York City, only this one doesn't climb the Empire State Building. This monster is a part of the American sentiment that wants to deny religious freedom to those that are different from "us".

Everybody knows about September 11th and how it has effectively shaped modern history into "Pre 9/11" and "Post 9/11" eras. The political and military ripple it started has consumed headlines for the better part of a decade. And most important, the emotional and cultural effects that remain because of it are the most obvious we've seen in a while. Take for example: The color printouts of the American flag in newspapers across the nation, and the subsequent hanging of such flags in windows everywhere, the "Rally 'Round the Flag" phenomenon that we saw in the months directly following September, and presidential approval ratings through the roof. We mourned with those who lost loved ones, and we gathered together in the name of a beloved country with a deep wound. For as horrible as the attacks were, they brought the country as close as it's ever been since WWII (in my opinion).

There was an equal reaction, however, when it came to national security. Take for example the USA PATRIOT Act (which is an ingenious acronym, by the way). This re-drew the line between personal liberties and infringements on said liberties for the sake of national security. And one would be foolish to deny that there was a backlash against those of Middle Eastern descent. I specifically recall, even as a freshman in high school, radio hosts discussing the problems of judging people based on their skin tone or dress because of the race of the attackers. I'd like to think we could get over that, like we are still doing with Civil Rights-era prejudices, but any estimate is an underestimate when it comes to predicting when all races can live peacefully together.

Now, almost ten years after the attack (which, granted, is not that long), there is a proposed Islamic center a few blocks away from the site of the attacks on the Trade Centers. Note - this is not a radical Islamic Center, this is not an Al Quaeda training camp, this is not even a real mosque with minarets and Friday sermons, but a generic Islamic cultural center. Consider it a different version of an old-fashioned YMCA (a YMMA, so to speak). There is absolutely no reason to link every member of one of the world's largest religions with the vicious attacks on the World Trade Centers, yet for some reason, we Americans are.

So much for freedom of religion. It seems to be a trend that American civil liberties are being viewed through the lens of the will of the majority. James Madison warns against this in the Federalist papers when he talks of the tyrannical majority and the dangers they pose to a functioning democracy. Now we see it - a majority of Americans who wallow in ignorance and xenophobia try to argue that 1) couples that are different than themselves don't deserve the same marriage rights, 2) immigrants who are here illegally should be hunted like animals and denied basic rights, and now 3) religions that spawn radical, violent groups should not be allowed to build a symbolic bridge or an extended hand towards the American people at the site of a great atrocity. In some cases, one has to take a step back and say, "Who cares if that is what the majority wants!" Because sometimes, the majority wants the wrong thing and it takes a Platonic philosopher-king to point that out.

Of course, there is another angle: Have we forgotten the violent escapades of Christians and Jews? The Crusades, the Inquisition, the KKK, even the current violence between Israelis and Palestinians - but it doesn't seem to matter as much that violence is an inevitable consequence of the human condition, not just the Islamic faith. Of course, the recent 9/11 violence strikes way too close to home and is way too fresh in our memories, but we should hesitate before we lay an umbrella-conviction on a huge group of heterogeneous people. We should remember that we are guilty of many of the same things, and forgiveness does not require forgetting.

Just because a small fraction of a large group hurt us does NOT mean that we should retaliate against the whole group by denying them basic religious freedoms. Let them build, let them socialize, let them worship. It won't take any more lives, and although it certainly won't bring any lives back, both sides' willingness to extend an olive branch and live in (at the very least) tolerance is a step in the right direction.

Trouble in the AZ

There are two major problems with the freshly-blocked immigration law in Arizona: 1) Its bigoted and unconstitutional nature, and 2) Its biggest proponent, Governor Jan Brewer.

First Brewer. In my eyes, she is a southwestern version of George Wallace. Perhaps she hasn't gone so far as to openly advocate a segregationist platform, but she has shown that she has a prejudice against human beings of Hispanic ethnicity, conveniently masked as a legitimate response to a major problem in illegal immigration. Ok, maybe that's taking it too far. But seriously, she has gone to great lengths just to defend this bill. And how convenient for her...right about the time she needs to get re-elected, she decides to put her Lucretia Mott on an enormously significant piece of legislation that will sate the public demand for something to be done about illegal immigrants. She has some major political motivation behind this bill (which actually went into effect last week), and may ride the coattails of the whole affair straight back to the governor's mansion. But doesn't that define a good governor? Sticking up for what your constituents want? For what is best for the state? Sometimes. When it means protecting your state from harmful pork spending, or excessive taxes. And illegal immigration could certainly be considered a threat to the state, in some areas! But a governor who takes such a strong stance on such a demeaning bill is acting as a mouthpiece for the perceived "public will" on a sensitive social issue...which is never a good idea. Let's look at history for a few examples. Does anyone suppose that if a referendum went out in 1890 suggesting Native Americans shouldn't be stripped of their ancestral grounds and forced into reservations that it would have passed? Probably not! What about 1954 in the case of Brown et al v. Topeka Board of Education? Do we think that the post-war society would have voted for integration? Absolutely not! We still see these issues today - Same-sex marriages (which, constitutionally, are just as legitimate as heterosexual marriages), or intervention in humanitarian crises abroad (Rwanda, Balkans, currently Darfur). As Voltaire once said, "The masses are asses," and the "public will" may not always be the best source look for ideas for major legislation.

The real problem though lies with the bill itself. Let's walk through it - A man of Hispanic heritage gets pulled over on a freeway in Arizona. An Arizona police officer, presumably a normal, un-prejudiced American, pulls him over for speeding. So far, so good. BUT - if the bill would have passed, that officer would have been obligated to inquire into the legal immigration status of the speeder. If the driver could not produce documents proving his legal immigration status on the spot and the officer had "reasonable suspicion" that the driver was in the United States illegally, the officer would be obligated to take the speeder into custody and hold him in detention indefinitely, until his immigration status was determined to be legal. If it was concluded that the man was there illegally, the proposed law gave the Arizona police the power to turn him over to Immigration for deportation.

I'm not against justice as a principle. I'm not against making those that have broken the law pay for their offense. However, I am against punitive legislation that promotes a diverse display of unconstitutional maladies. To begin with, the law expressly prohibits racial profiling, but almost forces officers to do just that! Let's be honest - what kind of "reasonable suspicion" might an officer have other than the guy has dark skin, is listening to a certain genre of music, or speaks a certain language/with a certain accent? By my definition one or any combination of those certainly constitutes racial profiling. But that part aside, the law would have given Arizona police forces the power to hold suspected illegal immigrants - that is, those that are presumably innocent because they haven't been found guilty, persons not officially arrested, much less charged with anything - indefinitely until their legal status is determined. This effectively strips that person of any remnant of due process of law that is given to them by the Constitution, or if you argue that illegal immigrants aren't entitled to constitutional rights, the due process of law that is a basic human right according to the Declaration of Human Rights as ratified by the United Nations.

There are a TON of arguments that would point to the fact that this law is such a contradiction to the Constitution that it never should have been passed. Most of the arguments I've heard in favor of the bill are that the Feds aren't doing their job and the states are sick of it. Still, the Feds don't do a lot of things well (remember the budget, energy, Afghanistan, etc crises?) and the states aren't taking action on those issues. This, to me, points to an underlying current of xenophobia that borders on racism in our country today. It's not a new problem, by any means, but just the most recent face. And that's something that we need to get over if we're going to be able to function as a State.

Watered-Down Human Rights

The United Nations General Assembly is going to vote soon on whether or not to make clean drinking water a human right. If passed, 'clean drinking water' would join the ranks of previous legislation declaring "life, liberty, and security of person", the ability to appear as a person before the law, torture, and the freedom from arbitrary arrest (among others) as passed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It seems pretty obvious to me that water should be a basic human right. People need it to survive! The nature of human rights is always the topic of a debate, and before you know it you're debating cultural relativism and who deserves what, but I think we could all agree that if humans need three things to stay alive, their life, their liberty, and enough water to perpetuate their lives is necessary. Education, shelter, even freedom from being imprisoned before knowing why - those are things that no human should have to live without. Water - that is something that no human can live without.

Oddly enough, the United States, Canada, and Australia are opposed to this motion. Of course, cost is involved. Imagine the cost of the purification systems and the infrastructures that would be necessary to bring everyone clean water! How expensive would that be?

But wait - cost comes before having clean water? I think that in any nation composed of living, breathing, drinking, rational human beings, everyone would be willing to contribute a few extra bucks to make sure some grade school-aged kids have water that isn't contaminated with human waste. Cost shouldn't be an issue - if there is one good reason to raise taxes, it isn't to bail out enormous banks, it's not even to buy million dollar helicopters, but it is to make sure everyone has clean water to drink.

There was a story on the radio last night about a family in Southeast Asia who needs to buy all of their drinking water because the other supply they draw from is in fact contaminated with human defecation. "No," the mother said, "We only bathe ourselves and wash our clothes with that water. It's not safe to drink." Pardon me and my bleeding heart, but no company should control a family's right to have access to clean drinking water. Even if the legislation does go through the UN, that family will still have to wash their bodies and clothes in contaminated water! Why add insult to injury by making them spend what little income comes in on clean drinking water?

This, to me, is the equivalent of having some people pay personal bodyguards to ensure their prolongment of life everyday, or some huge company that sells clean air - there might be safety someplace else, or there might be clean air across the ocean, but for now, you're going to have to pay to preserve your life or breathe this air that hasn't been polluted beyond safe use. It just doesn't seem right!

So let's hope that clean water does end up on the list of human rights. Let's hope that countries, our own United States included, will reconsider not wanting to spend a few million dollars installing drinking fountains and faucets in places that need them. Let's hope that the United Nations can muster the votes to pass the motion, and the resources to enforce it, to make sure than everyone is officially entitled to something as basic as staying healthy and alive.

Natural Disasters and Man-Made Governments (And Vice Versa!)

Amidst the roars of the TEA Party and demands for smaller government, it seems that when a natural or man-made disaster hits, states go running for the Feds. If the government is really too big, perhaps the states should handle own problems rather than blaming the government for taking too long (Bobby Jindal). If the government is really too big, states should take some autonomy for themselves and prove their point - that the states can do things on their own.

I understand the argument for states' rights. I've studied it for years and subscribe to a bit of it myself. But states should stay away from biting the hand that feeds them. They are a part of a successful, functioning union of over 50 entities, they are able to create their own laws and collect their own taxes, they even have their own elections. The only rule they have to follow is in Article VI, Clause 2 - and that says don't mess around with contradicting the Federal government. Simple enough, it seems. But, this points to a discussion of the natural functions of sovereign governments - what are they there for? To govern, obviously, but maybe more. The TEA Party likes to complain about it, it seems that the other side likes to make it bigger, but is there a middle ground? I don't think either side has it quite right.

There have been lots of theories thrown around about why governments exist. James Madison is quoting in saying, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary," and Thomas Paine with, "That government is best which governs least." This points to a small government that leaves a lot of control and power with the people (or states) and is one which the TEA Party would probably advocate first. However, there are others such as Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli that advocate a Leviathan or Prince that rules with an iron fist. This would suggest a strong, almost tyrannical government (if it subscribes to the Machiavellian theory that it is better to be feared than loved) that neither side would promote. Even still, history suggests some kind of mix is necessary - The Articles of Confederation bombed because there was not enough power, yet the American and French revolutions (among several others) were fought on Enlightenment ideals opposing excessive government power.

The Federalist system that the United States implemented with the Constitution creates a perfect theoretical mix of liberty and states' rights with order and federal power. The states have their autonomy and can do pretty much whatever they want except make their own money and treaties (and there are ways around the "no treaties" thing), but the Federal government and the laws it makes/enforces are still the "Supreme law of the Land." It's the perfect compromise. But nothing is perfect, much less remains perfect. So now some are complaining that the Feds are usurping power from the states (we've heard that for 200 years), and it's looking more like a Unitary style of government, as opposed to Federal. That is obviously not the case. Still, some states are passing laws that are clear violations of the 14th amendment by implicitly promoting racial profiling, others are passing laws that exempt their citizens from a national healthcare system - if you ask me, that's one step short of firing on Lincoln's supply ships headed to Fort Sumter. No one can agree on the proper proportions of Federal/State power. And now that the Federal government is exercising more power themselves (see previous post), the States, as represented by the TEA Party, are reacting swift and strong.

I have no complaints about protesting. I have no complaints about protesting an increasingly larger and more obtrusive government. But I do have complaints about inconsistencies. The oil spill this summer, Katrina in 2005 - these are two examples of how states will not survive without people, money, and management from the Federal government. And those who protest the government's interference in states' affairs as a blanket issue should think twice about how much they really want the states to be in control.

The Politicization of Politics

I don't know if it is just because I am too young to have paid much attention to the goings on of Congress before, or if this is a new trend, but it seems to me that, at least in my memory, Congress is suffering from a deep rift along party lines. It seems to me that politics in Washington are becoming more and more politicized. Of course, the reason we have two parties is to express two different points of view and represent a much broader scope of opinions than would one party. Also, our two party system exists to avoid the fifty-odd or however many parties functionally exist in Italy. But still, a two party system seems like it is set up to face off and now it seems like it has - and badly. We should have listened to George Washington when he told us, "You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these [political divisions]; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection." I'd say!

I'm not going to claim that there have never been parties so split against each other or that the two parties have never disagreed with each other more. That would not be true. But right now the Democrats and Republicans seem to be stuck in a childlike and frankly obnoxious habit of erecting barriers around their own beliefs and refusing to budge from their ideological buttresses. I have my own ideas on how we got here, too.

One would be foolish to not label President Obama as charismatic. Or a mesmerizing orator. Or just kind of a cool, basketball-playing, late night talkshow-appearing, not quite (yet?) saxaphone-playing, rockstar President. All politics put aside, I think we can give him that. However, it would also be foolish to say that Mr. Obama's personality did not play a major role in the 2008 election. I'm not saying that the ridiculously high percentage of voter turnout was composed of swooning Obama-philes, but it definitely played a role. In addition was the dump of an economy, quagmire of a military conflict, and the general unpopularity of the preceding two-termed administration. Obama did - and still does - remind the American public of how poorly things were when he took office, painting the circumstances in a similarly frightening fashion as your typical Salvador Dali painting. Needless to say, that is pretty radical. And so were then-Senator Obama's remedies.

The election of 1932 pitted Republican incumbent Herbert Hoover against Democrat Franklin Roosevelt, but it was really much more than just an election. It was a competition between two different philosophies of the nature of a federal government. Of course, FDR won that election (and the next one, and the next one, and still the next one) and instituted his New Deal, which was a 180 degree turnaround from the Dual style of Federalism that had governed Federal/State relations since 1787. Here, the government spent what it didn't have to jumpstart the economy. I'm not saying the McCain/Obama faceoff was as dramatic as the Hoover/Roosevelt, but the concept is similar. Of course, Obama was elected and within the first 2-3 months Congress wrote and Obama signed a lengthy stimulus bill into law. This was a continuation of Bush Jr's bailout plan - on steroids. Billions of dollars going towards federal projects and efforts to improve the economy, as well as keeping businesses' heads above water. And similar to what happened in 1934 during the New Deal, people didn't like it. This very liberal action prompted a very conservative reaction which now includes the TEA Party movement. I think the main reason Obama was able to push his bill through Congress so quickly was because a) He told people it would work and they were convinced, and b) The economy was truly in a pretty bad state. But still - the American populace was very trusting of our new President and the plans he had campaigned on in 2008. Now that a politician was actually carrying through on his promises, people supported him and Obama enjoyed a comfortable honeymoon period. We see more of this, of Obama reacting to poor circumstances by passing legislation - The Healthcare bill this past winter, and the sweeping Financial Overhaul bill this week. Not to mention the period in which General Motors became Government Motors and the other corporations kept afloat by enormous bailouts. And this was all possible with the popular mandate Obama received giving him the green light to go ahead with these very liberal economic measures. This would not have been possible without a reason to pass these bills (the poor economy) and the popular mandate to do so (largely influenced by Obama's charismatic persona).

Now that Congress and the President have been able to pass these left wing pieces of legislation, however, the right wing has acted out - big time. Like I mentioned, the whole TEA Party movement is largely a function of the stimulus package and other such spending programs, and the party lines have been distinctively drawn. Also - since when does it take a near super-majority to pass a bill in the Senate? I'm afraid my future government students won't believe me when I say it takes a simple majority of a quorum to pass a bill, because all of the recent votes have required 60 (Democratic) voters. The filibuster is a tribute to the Senate's devotion to the tradition of free speech, and is a powerful threat against a bill. However, when it is abused as it has been by the Republican Senators, it tends to devalue the tool and put up an annoying barrier in front of government efficiency and getting bills through the whole process. Also, the cloture vote, which takes a proposal by 16 Senators and a vote of 60, was also a rare occurrence, another tribute to the devotion to free speech. But now, since Republican Senators have adopted the filibuster as a favorite in their right-wing backlash to left-wing policies, Democrats are forced to counter with abusing the cloture. Now all votes in the Senate have been defined by party, and who has enough votes to filibuster or block it.

To add to the equation, the economy is still a dump. We still have our military in what many people see as a losing battle. And Obama is still trying to push through huge pieces of legislation (financial overhaul) and still has super-ambitious ideas, e.g. end childhood hunger by 2012. Only now, he has lost a lot of that popular mandate he had earlier in his term. His approval ratings are low, the economy is still horrible, and we're seeing more of the same spending legislation that we saw last year. Some are getting fed up with this, but others are still stringent supporters. Since the two sides are so polarized, they have to fight to make their case, which results in stiff and loyal opposition to whatever the other side has to say or proposes in Congress. It's my theory that a lot of the programs (stimulus package, healthcare, etc) got pushed through because Obama was able to use his becoming personality to convince voters and his party that it was the right thing to do. Now things still aren't going so great, so people are not as gung-ho about the President as they once were, the Democrats in Congress are just as gung-ho about their legislation, and the opposition has countered with a ferocious negative response.

So much for a twenty-minute time limit. I've spent breaks and lunches for three days trying to straighten out my thoughts and still haven't done that great of a job. But let me try to summarize in one concept:
For every political action, there will be an equal and opposite political reaction. Now we have conservatives and liberals gnashing teeth at each other because neither side is willing to listen to the other (the Republicans really thought it was a good idea to protest extending unemployment benefits? I understand the point they made about "Where is this money coming from?!" - but do not make a political statement at the cost of the unemployed in a huge recession), much less provide bi-partisan support for a bill. Some may say that the Democrats started it all with leftist economic measures. Some may say Republicans started it with a fast retreat to the far right. Either way, I'm looking forward to the day when we can meet somewhere in the middle, and bills aren't decided by a stagnant numbers of seats.

बुरका बुरका बुरका

Today the lower house of the French government approved a ban on all face-covering items of clothing in public. Not only has this forced the shamed French national soccer team to take the brown bags off of their heads, but was poignantly passed to prevent an incredibly small number of Muslim women from wearing their burkas. To clear up some definitions, a "burka" is a Muslim garment worn by women that covers their entire body, from their hair and face down to their ankles. "Incredibly small number" refers to the total of around 2000 French Muslim women who actually wear the burka. What the law essentially says is that if you are caught wearing this burka in public, you will be escorted home by the police and fined 150 Euros. If you are a man caught forcing a woman to wear the burka (as the case may be in more fundamentalist households), the financial penalty is slightly more severe. So although the wording of this law is generic, it is very clear that it targets Muslim women and men. In defense of the law, I have heard arguments made that this act is a gesture of the French government towards the empowerment of women and destruction of forced submission to male domination as mandated in some Islamic interpretations. Another reason is for the public safety - these garments are rather loose and since the wearer's identity is unknown due to the covering of the face, a male could theoretically adorn a burka loaded with explosives. In addition to that, the argument has been made that those who wear burkas are more likely to subscribe to a fundamental belief in Islam, which would also lead to a literal interpretation of the Qur'an, and more violent means of communication. As logical as that may unfold, it is still a bit of a stretch given the history of men wearing burkas to mask explosives. Which to my knowledge, does not exist.

We would never-ever-in-a-million-years see this passed in the United States, of course, because of our beloved First Amendment right to the freedom of religion. Considering the fact that the burka is a part of these French citizen's bona fide religion, the American government does not have the power to prevent them from practicing it. And what a blessing that is! That means that public school teachers can wear cross necklaces, DMV employees can wear yarmulkes, and the President can end his oath with, "So help me God," and we do not have to worry about the government telling us that we cannot. But this isn't the United States - it's France.

France has an interesting history with religion. Prior to the French Revolution in 1789, the French royalty enjoyed a perverted marriage with the Catholic Church. They were more or less synonymous, with the King taking orders from Rome and Church officials enjoying privileged benefits only the royalty could offer. Of course, since the distribution of wealth was so slanted against the Third Estate, there was a common disdain towards the Bourbon family, and the corrupt Catholic Church. When the French revolutionaries executed the King and Queen and dismissed the unpopular monarchy, they also tried to cleanse their country of the crooked Church. This legacy still appears in France today, as we see the concept of laïcité, or freedom FROM religion. The French revolutionaries pushed so hard for absolute equality (they seemed to ignore the inevitable occurrence of a hierarchy inherent to democracy) and absolute consent among the people. Any dissent was punished with the guillotine, and is known as the Reign of Terror. This included religion. Not only was any political dissent discouraged, because it was breaking away from the perfect form of anti-monarchy government, but so was expression of religious sentiment.

As a result of this history and efforts to recognize absolute equality among the French, we see common religious symbols being outlawed in France, so as to not even show religion, much less promote it. Since the American revolution was about channeling debate, not punishing it, we have a different kind of freedom, and are able to show our religion, so much as the Federal or State governments don't prohibit or promote it.

पोलिटिक्स इन थे वर्ल्ड कप

While watching and discussing the World Cup recently, I have found it fascinating how intertwined politics and sports can be. People praise soccer, FIFA, and the World Cup for uniting the world with a common love in sport, and bringing athletes and fans of every race, ethnicity, and nationality together - even more, in South Africa, a nation still recovering from the wounds of Apartheid and years of racial injustice. It is really an idealistic picture of a happy world community.

Still - is it not fascinating how much politics play a role in the World Cup and international soccer? On one level, team politics are huge. E.g. - France. One manager (apparently not popular in France, and as we have seen, not popular with the team) may or may not be blamed for France's embarrassing retreat from the tournament, and the entire team - especially the influential team captain - is arguably the laughingstock of European sports.

One level higher, FIFA politics have also made headlines during the 2010 World Cup. It is no secret that the officiating was less than perfect during the tournament; there were plenty of calls being made or missed that could have changed the face of the knockout round. But on top of that, FIFA has stubbornly refused to even entertain the idea of instant replay technology. Regardless of how one feels about the use of cameras in soccer (or baseball, or basketball, or even football), given the state of officiating in the world's most prestigious tournament, the idea is at least worth some time for discussion.

Even higher, national politics have played a role in the tournament! As a self-proclaimed political scientist, I find this fascinating. There are two examples that stick out to illustrate my point. First, the Nigerian president banned the country's team from international play for TWO YEARS as punishment for performing so poorly on the world stage. To dissect that a little, we have what boils down to a national recreational team being punished by the head of government in front of the world. Crazy! Since when does a soccer team represent anything official about a country? Could a weak soccer team represent a weak government? I understand that the team represents the country in front of the world, but let's put this in the bigger picture: every four years a selected number of teams compete in an international spotlight. It's a huge deal for roughly one month (one twelfth of a year, and one forty-eighth of the span between World Cups), then it's not really a huge deal anymore. Is a two year ban really necessary? Is it really that big of a deal? And even more shocking about the Nigerian situation is that FIFA, for all intents and purposes, vetoed President Goodluck Jonathan's decree to ban his team. So first the political leader puts the kibosh on international soccer, then the soccer organization puts the kibosh on the political leader...Who is in control?
The second example is France. French President Nicolas Sarkozy spent his time as head of state to scold the star forward Nicolas Anelka for not apologizing for critical remarks towards his coach. And the French Sports Minister (whose very position I find remarkable) was sent down to South Africa before one of France's final matches to shame the players into a victory, telling them that their behavior has embarrassed the French people and state, and something along the lines of - their kids won't think of them as heroes anymore. That seems a little drastic to me, no matter how truthful the statement may or may not have been. Needless to say, even forcibly tucking the team's tail between its legs didn't get a berth into the tournament. Like the Boston police may soon find out, shaming people into things doesn't often work.

All negative connotations with "politics" aside, there was one facet of this phenomenon that I thought was particularly interesting. That is the paradox between a global unifying factor in soccer, the clear divisions between fans and country lines, and the overall camaraderie among soccer fans. We've all heard how great the World Cup is because it brings the world together, but it also breaks the world apart, redefining country lines in an athletic sphere. What I mean by this is that national pride skyrockets during the World Cup. It is almost a rendition of the "Rally Around the Flag" phenomenon that occurs around national disasters, but through a more positive light. I've heard stories of people waving American flags after our victories, ESPN was broadcasting scenes of enormous crowds of people crammed into tiny spaces to watch the game with their compatriots on a big screen, and even stories of grand celebrations in the Basque-lands of Spain after their championship victory on Sunday! Since when are the Basques so proud to be Spanish?

Still, despite this heightened sense of national pride, there is certainly an amiable undercurrent of "world citizenship" at the World Cup - a fascinating way to interpret the politics of the World Cup and to give homage to the significance of the sport around the world.