barbwoolard

Global Communication Means Always Having to Say You’re Sorry

Post author By Barb Woolard
Post date August 22, 2016
No Comments on Global Communication Means Always Having to Say You’re Sorry

In this age of global real-time communication, the public apology has become almost as routine as the daily weather report. No longer is it possible to catch a comment or an act when it’s still in the smaller stages of impact and do damage control before stuff really hits the fan. That great big fan is now running 24/7, so there’s no stopping anything once it’s been said or done.

We’ve all heard the apologies, from the politician confessing marital infidelity and typically accompanied by his stand-by-your-man wife who’d probably rather stab him at that moment than show her face to the world in front of TV cameras, to the Olympic athlete who “over-exaggerated” a story about a night of drunken reveling in Rio. And the questions are always the same: How sincere is this apology? Is it a real admission of guilt or just a “Damn, I got caught”? Accepting an apology is often even more difficult than making one, and the greater the number of hearers the greater the possibility for disagreeing on the sincerity or lack thereof.

What are the criteria for a sincere apology? Everyone has gotten the old non-apology a few times: “If I’ve offended you in any way, I’m sorry.” The speaker makes no admission of wrongdoing and therefore cannot be genuinely sorry. What this line really means is “You’re mad at me. I don’t think I did anything wrong, but I need to make you stop being mad, so I’m going to say some words to try to smooth things over.” The red flag here is the word “if”; I can’t possibly feel “sorrow” for something I don’t even know I did. According to Dr. Robert Gordon in his TED Talk The Power of the Apology, “Most people apologize to get something rather than to give something.” I couldn’t agree more.

Jeffrey Bernstein summarizes Dr. Gordon’s talk in a Psychology Today post entitled “The Three Parts of a Meaningful, Heartfelt Apology,” dated December 3, 2014. These are the three parts:

1) Acknowledgement – Being able to see how your actions impact others is key to making a sincere apology. The acknowledgement part of the apology needs to start with “I.” For example, “I am sorry for being late tonight.”

2) Remorse and Empathy – Remorse is truly feeling bad for what you’ve done. Empathy is about being able to put yourself in the other person’s shoes and know how she or he feels.

3) Restitution – This means taking action to provide an act or service to make up for the transgression.

Start with acknowledgement. One has to be sorry for something. When a child is instructed to apologize to a sibling or playmate, the child often mumbles “Sorry” while facing the opposite direction and walking away from the offended party. Anyone can see the insincerity in this situation, but is the adult who says “IF I’ve offended you, I’m sorry” any more sincere than the child? Any apology must begin with an honest mea culpa. If I’m not willing to make a humble acknowledgment of what I’ve done, there’s no way I can be feeling any sorrow for my action.

Remorse is deep regret, and empathy is putting oneself in the other’s place. It means admitting how I would feel if the situation were reversed. It means feeling the heartache I’ve imposed on another person. When I can do those things, I’m ready to say “I’m sorry” and mean it.

And finally, restitution means being willing to do something to make the offended person feel better, whether it’s sending flowers after an argument or simply making sure the offensive behavior is not repeated.

I believe it’s also important to distinguish between “I’m sorry” and “I regret.” Expressing regret does not usually qualify as an apology, because it doesn’t acknowledge wrongdoing. It is possible to honestly deeply regret a situation without feeling any personal responsibility for it. For example,

“I regret having to break my promise to take you to the beach because we’re under hurricane watch.”
“I regret that you didn’t tell me you were married before I decided to date you.”
“I regret having to decline the invitation to your dinner party.”

None of these examples involve guilt on the part of the speaker, but the speaker may genuinely feel bad about the situation.

With these guidelines in mind, let’s look at how two public apologies from the last week measure up: Donald Trump’s statement of regret about things he has said in campaign speeches and Ryan Lochte’s public statement regarding his escapades in Rio.

In Trump’s latest effort to turn around his failing “campaign,” he offered this admission in a speech on August 18:

Sometimes, in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don’t choose the right words or you say the wrong thing. I have done that. And believe it or not, I regret it. And I do regret it, particularly where it may have caused personal pain. Too much is at stake for us to be consumed with these issues.

Is this a real apology? I would say “No.” And I would add “Hell, no!”

What’s missing here? Pretty much everything. First of all, it clearly sounds like what Dr. Gordon described as apologizing “to get something rather than to give something.” His campaign is failing and his poll numbers are sliding, so he clearly needs to get more support. Then why not try a new approach, something he had never done before? Why not admit that he has said some wrong things? Doing so might sway some voters in his direction. He was not giving anything, because he didn’t even state to whom he was “apologizing.”

Where is his acknowledgment of wrongdoing? He does say he has sometimes chosen the wrong words and said the wrong things, but he doesn’t acknowledge any statement in particular; and we all know the list he could have chosen from would fill a book. This is very much like the toddler’s apology: “Sor-ry!” Trump also begins the “apology” with an excuse: he was “in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues.” He’s already implied even before his confession that he was only being human, that these things happen. And of course they do happen, but an apology must start with taking responsibility for one’s own behavior, regardless of the circumstances.

Body language counts, too. When I saw the video of these remarks, I noticed that he pauses after “I have done that,” with a facial expression that suggests this may come as a surprise to anyone who’s not been living under a rock for the last year. He seems to be expecting affirmation that he really is a good little boy and that what he said was not that bad.

Why does he preface his expression of regret with “And believe it or not”? Why would anyone have believed up to this point that he had any regrets, since he had never said he regretted anything, never retracted a statement no matter how outrageous, and never apologized for anything? He is even on record as saying he’s never asked God to forgive him for anything, even though he claims to be a Christian.

He “regrets” unspecified wrong words about unspecified people, then adds, “particularly where it may have caused personal pain.” May have caused? He knows the pain he’s caused, or at least he’s been told. Unspecified words about unspecified people which have done unspecified damage do not suggest remorse or empathy. This is a classic non-apology: If I’ve offended anyone, I’m sorry. How about looking into the camera and saying “Mr. and Mrs. Khan, I am so sorry for the pain my words have caused you. Your son was a hero. Please forgive me”; or “Senator McCain, Thank you for your service and sacrifice. Please forgive me for my cruel words.” He could have directly addressed any of the other dozens of people he has callously attacked.

As for restitution, so far there’s been none. At last reporting, he has made no phone calls or any attempt to reach out and make amends to any of the people he has offended. And although he attributes his “wrong words” to “the heat of debate,” that excuse doesn’t hold up because he has never made his insulting remarks only one time. When confronted with any specific attack, his standard response has been to double down and reinforce the original words when he is no longer in the heat of a moment. And since he has made no effort at restitution after his speech, I think listeners are justified in doubting his sincerity.

Now how does Mr. Lochte’s public statement hold up to scrutiny? Here’s what he said:

I want to apologize for my behavior last weekend — for not being more careful and candid in how I described the events of that early morning and for my role in taking the focus away from the many athletes fulfilling their dreams of participating in the Olympics. I waited to share these thoughts until it was confirmed that the legal situation was addressed and it was clear that my teammates would be arriving home safely.

It’s traumatic to be out late with your friends in a foreign country — with a language barrier — and have a stranger point a gun at you and demand money to let you leave, but regardless of the behavior of anyone else that night, I should have been much more responsible in how I handled myself and for that am sorry to my teammates, my fans, my fellow competitors, my sponsors, and the hosts of this great event. I am very proud to represent my country in Olympic competition and this was a situation that could and should have been avoided. I accept responsibility for my role in this happening and have learned some valuable lessons.

I think this one measures up to the criteria a little better than Trump’s does. He does acknowledge a specific wrong: “not being more careful and candid in how I described the events.” I’d feel better if he’d said “I’m sorry for lying about the events,” since I’m not a big fan of euphemism; but this is at least a somewhat specific acknowledgment. He also expresses some remorse and empathy by naming specific people who were hurt by his actions and how they were hurt. He seems to have some understanding of how it would feel to be in their place. It remains to be seen whether he will make any form of restitution, and that decision will probably be dictated at least in part by the authorities. If, however, he has in fact “learned some valuable lessons,” we should be able to expect better behavior from him in the future.

On the other hand, he implies that he’s sticking to his original story when he offers the excuse about the stranger pointing a gun at him and demanding money from him. Like Trump’s excuse that he spoke “in the heat of debate,” this excuse weakens the apology by implying that his actions were the result of circumstances beyond his control.

Although Lochte acknowledges his wrong words, he says nothing of his wrong actions. He never mentions the acts of vandalism or public drunkenness, without which he’d have had no reason to lie about his evening and there would have been no story. His apology is better, I think, but still incomplete.

Saying “I’m sorry” is hard, especially when it has to be said in front of the whole world. We all want to excuse our behavior, even when it’s wrong. “Humble pie” tastes terrible. It’s also sometimes hard to accept an apology: the hurt is too deep, I’m not quite finished being mad at you yet, you’ve given me no reason to believe you’re going to change, or I’ve heard this song before.

Public apologies will continue as long as there are politicians and TV/radio personalities. We’ve heard them before, and we’ll hear them again; but sometimes the apology comes too late, and sometimes it’s just desperate words and not an apology at all. Sometimes “sorry” isn’t enough to make up for the damage done. We’re the court of public opinion, and we’ll decide which ones we believe and which ones we don’t. Meanwhile, maybe we can all hum along with Elton John:

It’s sad, so sad, it’s a sad, sad situation
And it’s getting more and more absurd
It’s so sad so sad, why can’t we talk it over?
Oh, it seems to me
That sorry seems to be the hardest word.

Tags Apologies, Lochte, Trump

Kids and Grands

Kids Get Cancer, Too!

Photo credit to Anna Risinger

On November 28, 2013, the term Black Friday took on a whole new meaning for my family. With Thanksgiving over and Christmas just weeks away, my daughter’s household woke up with happy thoughts of decorating the house, baking cookies, and generally beginning to feel the spirit of the season. As the day was only getting underway, my son-in-law Shane noticed a bump just above my granddaughter Kayla’s left clavicle. Probably nothing, they thought, but it couldn’t hurt to have the pediatrician take a peek just to confirm that it was “nothing” and they could get back to ornaments and cookies. By the end of that day, however, my daughter Lisa was having her first conversation with a pediatric oncologist at Seattle Children’s Hospital.

Just before Christmas, the diagnosis was complete: Kayla had high risk, stage 4 neuroblastoma. She would spend the next thirteen months on a treatment schedule which consisted of three phases and included chemotherapy, surgery to remove the mass, radiation, bone marrow transplant, and immunotherapy. All of this would take place at Seattle Children’s under the supervision of Dr. Julie Park, a leading neuroblastoma specialist.

Kayla had just had her second birthday in September and was a happy toddler with an eight-month-old baby brother. The last thing on anyone’s mind at that time was spending the next thirteen months in cancer treatment. But on that very black Friday, my family became a “cancer family,” and our sense of “normal” got a major reboot. Lisa’s family life was no longer structured around play dates and trips to the park; the new normal was structured around hospital stays, phases of the treatment schedule, testing and scan days, and the daily possibility of medical emergencies. For the grandparents, the new normal was a tag-team plan to help care for the household and especially the baby. For Roan, little brother, the new normal was days at a time without seeing his mommy because she had to be at the hospital with his sister. And for all of us, the new normal meant looking into the ugly, terrifying face of death, not knowing how this awful ordeal would end.

For those of you who don’t know our story, our precious Kayla is still very much alive and looking forward to celebrating her fifth birthday [updated: 8th birthday] this month. She has suffered losses as a result of her life-saving treatment, some of which we won’t know until she’s older; but we’re grateful every day that our world is still lighted by her smile, made musical by her laugh, and energized by her creativity and zest for life.

I’m writing this article because September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month; and I think there are lots of people who, like me, thought cancer a rare occurrence among children. Middle-aged and older people get cancer, but kids not so much. Right? No, that’s wrong. In reality, cancer is the number-one cause of death by disease in children past infancy in the United States (National Cancer Institute). Many people assume any childhood cancer is leukemia; but although leukemia is the most common type, other common types are brain and other central nervous system tumors, lymphoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, neuroblastoma, Wilms tumor, bone cancer, gonadal (testicular and ovarian) cancers, and germ cell tumors (National Cancer Institute). In addition to these, there’s a list of more rare types of childhood cancer. A young friend who was diagnosed at the same time Kayla was had osteosarcoma in the humerus of his right arm. All together, there are 16 major types and over 100 subtypes (Cure Childhood Cancer).

Here are a few more facts I think everyone should know about the occurrence of childhood cancer:

The incidence of childhood cancer is on the increase, averaging 0.6% increase per year since mid 1970’s resulting in an overall increase of 24% over the last 40 years (Coalition against Childhood Cancer, CAC2).
One in 285 children were diagnosed with cancer in 2014 (CAC2).
16,000 U. S. children are diagnosed every year. Specifically, 43 children per day or 15,780 children per year were expected to be diagnosed with cancer in 2014 (10,450 ages 0 to 14, and 5,330 ages 15 to 19) (CAC2).
More than 40,000 children undergo treatment every year (CAC2).
The average age at diagnosis is 6, compared to the average age of 66 for adult cancer diagnosis (CAC2).

Statistics vary because researchers use different definitions of “child.” The above statistics apply to people from birth through 19 years of age.

And these are a few of the sobering facts about the prognoses for children who are diagnosed:

More children die of cancer every year than adults died on 9/11 (Kids v Cancer).
Cancer kills more children than AIDs, asthma, diabetes, cystic fibrosis and congenital anomalies combined (Kids v Cancer).
The average age of death for a child with cancer is 8, causing a child to lose 69 years of expected life (Kids v Cancer).
The average 5-year survival rate for childhood cancers when considered as a whole is 83% (meaning an overall 17% die) (The Truth 365).
Survival rates can range from almost 0% for cancers such as DIPG, a type of brain cancer, to as high as 90% for the most common type of childhood cancer known as Acute Lymphoma Leukemia (ALL) (The Truth 365).
The average survival rate not including children with ALL is 80% (The Truth 365).
In 2010 there were 379,112 childhood cancer survivors in the United States (The Truth 365).
Approximately 1 in 530 young adults between the ages of  20 years and 39 years is a survivor of childhood cancers (The Truth 365).
More than 95% of childhood cancer survivors will have a significant health-related issue by the time they are 45 years of age; these health-related issues are side effects of either the cancer or more commonly, the result of its treatment. One third will suffer severe and chronic side effects; one third will suffer moderate to severe health problems; and one third will suffer slight to moderate side effects (The Truth 365).
About 35% of children diagnosed with cancer will die within 30 years of diagnosis (The Truth 365).
On average, about 17% of children die within 5 years of diagnosis. Among those children that survive to five years from diagnosis, 18% will die within 30 years of diagnosis (The Truth 365).
Those that survive the five years have an eight times greater mortality rate due to the increased risk of liver and heart disease and increased risk for recurrence of the original cancer or of a secondary cancer (The Truth 365).
The death of a child is one of the most traumatic events a family might face (Kids v Cancer).
The average cost of a stay in a hospital for a child with cancer is $40,000 per stay (The Truth 365).
On average, pediatric hospitalizations for cancer cost almost five times as much as hospitalizations for other pediatric conditions (The Truth 365).
Families who have lost children are often financially and emotionally depleted (Kids v Cancer).

There’s much more information available, but this gives you a good primer on the subject.* (List of links below the article)

Finally, here are a few other disturbing statistics:

For 2014, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) budget was $4.9 billion. It was anticipated that childhood cancer would receive 4% of that sum or $195 million (The Truth 365).
Prostate cancer (patient average age at diagnosis, 66 years), receives more research funding from NCI than all childhood cancers (patient average age at diagnosis, 6 years) (The Truth 365).
There are 71 potential life years lost on average when a child dies of cancer compared to 17 potential life years lost for adults (The Truth 365).

Only 4% of the research funding available is designated specifically for childhood cancer! That needs to change. Now. I’m all in favor of saving the hoo-ha’s and the tata’s, but our children also deserve at least a fair chance at those extra 71 years!

It’s difficult to find anything positive about being a cancer family, but our family was fortunate in many ways. My daughter and son-in-law live 20 minutes from one of the leading children’s hospitals in the country, so they were able to be in their own home during treatment except the 135 in-patient days (this is the total of individual days spread out over 13 months). Many families have to travel to be near their treatment center and be out of their homes for months at a time. My son-in-law has excellent health insurance through the company he works for, but we all know that many families face financial hardship on top of the physical and emotional toll because they have no insurance or inadequate insurance. Kayla has grandparents who either are retired or have flexible work arrangements so that we were able to be in Seattle as long as we were needed. Lisa and Shane had made the decision to be a one-income family (his) when Kayla was born, so they had already made the necessary budget adjustments and didn’t have to deal with those concerns at the same time they were facing Lisa’s needing to live at the hospital with Kayla for 135 days.

Childhood cancer is a nasty, ugly thing, and it affects the whole family and community. My family and I will be forever indebted to Team Kayla who saw us through the darkest days in ways too numerous to list here. Thank you again!!!

If this information is new to you, learn more, and then use your influence to continue building awareness and to increase research funding. Check out the Make-a-Wish Foundation and all of the other organizations that support families devastated by this horrible disease. Visit your local children’s hospital if you have one. Check out Mikayla Vickers’s Facebook page “Packages of Hope.” Make September the beginning but not the end of your childhood cancer awareness.

Knowledge is power! And now you know.

*Find more information here:

https://www.thetruth365.org/cancer-facts/

http://www.cancer.gov/types/childhood-cancers/child-adolescent-cancers-fact-sheet

http://www.kidsvcancer.org/facts/

http://www.curechildhoodcancer.org/about-cure/childhood-cancer-facts/

Tags Childhood cancer, Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, Childhood cancer facts, Neuroblastoma, September

Politics Religion

“Christian Democrat” Is Not an Oxymoron!

Post author By Barb Woolard
Post date August 17, 2016
No Comments on “Christian Democrat” Is Not an Oxymoron!

03xTr1471405864

Walk into the average evangelical church, and to some extent even mainstream churches, and ask for a show of hands: How many of you are registered Democrats? I can tell you the response would be sparse. So how has it happened that the Republican Party has become the default political affiliation for those who belong to the Christian faith? And how is it that many self-identified Christians look askance at other Christians who are registered Democrats or who cop to being [gasp!] liberal or left-leaning?

According to Frank Schaeffer, in his book Crazy for God, “Evangelicals weren’t politicized (at least not in the current meaning of the word) until after Roe v. Wade and after [religious leaders] stirred them up over the issue of abortion.” Schaeffer goes on to chronicle how the single issue of abortion became the litmus test for the Republican Party’s choice of candidates and right-wing voters’ willingness to support a candidate.

Schaeffer also says:

Bush Jr. was the “Christians’” president. So it was bitterly ironic that Bush Jr. was personally responsible for, amongst other self-inflicted horrors, the persecution, displacement, and destruction of the one million, three hundred thousand-person beleaguered Christian minority in Iraq. They had fared much better under the secular regime of Saddam Hussein . . .

It bears repeating: Bush Jr., the Bible-believing, born-again president, delivered up his Iraqi fellow Christians to be destroyed. They fled, died, or went into hiding because a “faith-based” evangelical American president stupidly unleashed a civil war.

Mr. Schaeffer has much more to say on the subject; for those who are interested, it’s in chapter 57.

I’d like to select just one more quotation:

It seems to me that by demanding ideological purity on abortion (and other single issues as well), both parties have worked to eliminate the sorts of serious smart pragmatic people who make competent leaders. What we are left with are those willing to toe the party theological line . . .

But what if absolute consistency on any issue from the left or the right, religious or secular, is an indication of mediocre intelligence and a lack of intellectual honesty? What if the world is a complex place? What if leadership requires flexibility?

Obviously, these are Frank Schaeffer’s opinions and interpretations, and readers are free to agree or disagree with what he says. I’d like to focus on this statement, with which I strongly agree: “It seems to me that by demanding ideological purity on abortion (and other single issues as well), both parties have worked to eliminate the sorts of serious smart pragmatic people who make competent leaders.” George W. Bush left the White House almost eight years ago, and abortion is still legal. So what did the Right gain by electing a “pro-life” president who did not succeed in reversing Roe v. Wade (as they wished) but who did lead our country into two wars which have cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and irreparable damage to our national morale? I’d say they made a really bad deal.

I know many people who question how any Christian can possibly belong to a party that condones abortion, and I would ask those same people how they possibly can belong to a party that condones the racism and disrespect that Republicans have shown President Obama for the last eight years. Although I am not in complete agreement with the Democratic Party’s views on abortion, I believe the Republican Party belies its passion for life by disrespecting life and human dignity in many other actions and policies. Making abortion an extreme religious issue polarized views to the extent that, in my opinion, all intelligent discussion on the subject was cut off.

That being said, let’s look at some of the major differences between the current Republican and Democratic Parties. The two parties differ on many issues, but the most incendiary for most people are social issues and social programs. As already stated, abortion has been a moral battleground for decades, with marriage rights, LGBT rights, and gun ownership becoming equally intense and polarizing in more recent years. And very recently, we’ve added bathroom wars and gender identity to the list. Democrats as a group support government social programs such as welfare, unemployment, food stamps, and health care for people in need and approve of their tax dollars being used to support those programs. Republicans as a group are less willing to allocate tax dollars for social programs and prefer allowing private organizations to attend to the needs of the less fortunate. Of course, there are other differences, but these seem to be the real battlegrounds between the two parties. And these are also the reasons many Christians believe the only party they can in good conscience belong to is the one that opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, stricter regulation on gun ownership (I’ll never understand that one!), changes to traditional gender definitions, and giving “hand-outs” to those “too lazy to work like the rest of us.”

Regardless of where one stands on any one of those issues, choosing either party based on just one thing out of the list and declaring that party the only choice for people of faith can lead only to inconsistency and hypocrisy. How does one reconcile being anti-abortion and pro-guns? Life is life, right? How do those who so rigidly oppose welfare programs convince themselves they are following Jesus’ teachings to love and care for the poor, to give the cup of cold water in his name? The list could go on and on, but suffice it to say that anyone who values consistency can’t choose a party or cast a vote based on any single issue.

Someone recently shared with me an article titled “Wake Up, Christians. There Is No Place for You in the Democrat Party,” by a blogger named Matt Walsh. Mr. Walsh addresses his article to someone named Lana who has emailed him that she is proudly both a Christian and a Democrat. His response, long on sarcasm and ridicule, short on reason and logic, begins:

Please don’t misunderstand me. A Christian can certainly be a Democrat, just like a Christian can be a Buddhist, or a Christian can be a Scientologist, or a Christian can worship a goat or a join a suicide cult. Christians can do anything and believe anything while still retaining the title of Christian — that is, so long as we define “Christian” as “Someone who says they are one.” It’s no surprise that Democrats would define the term in such a way, seeing as how these days they even define “man” and “woman” that way. In the liberal world, in order to be something all one must do is declare that they are that thing. This is a view shared by my 3-year-old and by Michael Scott from “The Office,” who famously declared bankruptcy by standing outside and shouting, “I declare bankruptcy!”

Walsh goes on to offer this definition:

A Christian, by definition, believes that Christ is the Son of God; that He was sent to Earth to suffer and die for our sins, opening up the gates of Heaven for all who follow Him (John 3:16). If we accept and believe this great Truth, we are Christian. And we remain Christian even if we stumble, sin, and fall short of perfection, as I have done and continue to do more often than I care to admit.

Moving on, Walsh makes this statement:

I’m saying that being a “loyal Democrat,” as you describe yourself, requires that you fundamentally reject the authority of Christ. Not in the sense of sinning and falling short, but in the sense of actually disbelieving and condemning some of His most important teachings and some of the most essential lessons of Scripture.

Huh? That contradicts my experience because some of the finest Christians I know are Democrats, just as some are Republicans. I don’t associate people’s faith with their political party.

And there’s more:

The question is this: Can you believe that Christ is Lord and that the Holy Bible is the inspired Word of God and also believe that Christ was, in some cases, a liar or a fool, and that the inspired Word of God needs to be trimmed and updated? And if you disbelieve these massive chunks of the Bible, how can you believe in Christ, considering the Bible tells us about Christ? And if you don’t believe everything Christ said, how can you believe that He is Lord, considering we only know that He is Lord because He told us? You can believe and fall short at the same time, but can you believe in Christianity and resolutely reject its precepts at the same time?

Am I the only person wondering right now what these massive chunks of Scripture are which he is implying (I think) that the entire Democratic Party denies or disbelieves?

Walsh then launches into a long rant about abortion and at the end tacks on a few thoughts about same-sex relationships and transgender people. Finally, he begins his conclusion with the line “So, can you be a Christian and agree with the Democrats on all of these points? The answer is clearly no.” So there. You are no longer a Christian because some guy named Matt Walsh says you’re not.

I mention Mr. Walsh’s article because it so clearly articulates the thinking of many other evangelicals with whom I’ve spoken in person. I have many questions for this writer; one of them is this: Does anyone—Republican, Democrat, or one of the third parties—agree on ALL points with the party platform? Or do most of us choose the party that most closely fits our personal values in both word and spirit, even though we have points of disagreement?

I respect people who choose to label themselves independents or who opt to belong to a party other than the two major parties. I have chosen to be a registered Democrat (and a Christian) because in the state of Florida, independents are not allowed to vote in primary elections; and although some of the third parties seem to have a great deal to offer and will hopefully some day grow to exercise more clout, right now, they don’t have the clout necessary to fight undesirable majority-party candidates.

Contrary to Matt Walsh’s definition, I believe a Christian is one who is committed to following the teachings and example of Jesus; and those teachings and that example do not include membership in any particular political party. Jesus famously responded to someone trying to trap him into making a statement about the relationship of faith to politics: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” I don’t know about anyone else, but I think Jesus just made the very first statement regarding separation of church and state, and I believe those who are committed to living by his example may choose either political party or no political party without compromising their faith.

I strongly believe in the sanctity of life, but I believe that includes all life. If we loved and cared for those in need as Jesus taught, we might have fewer crisis pregnancies. We would have more efficient systems for adopting children who sometimes wait years to be placed in forever homes. We would take better care of our veterans. We would do our best to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. We wouldn’t threaten programs like Social Security and Medicare which are the life support of the oldest among us. We would try to help those who have come to us in desperation, seeking a better life for themselves and their families instead of threatening them with wholesale deportation. We would love transgender persons, whether or not we understand them. We would allow people to find love and happiness with their partners of choice, even if we don’t understand or approve. And yes, we’d have some intelligent discussions about abortion instead of waving signs on one side and parroting catchy slogans on the other side; we’d listen to each other and work to do what’s best for the most helpless among us.

I’ve concluded that it’s not my job to attempt to legislate how other people live their lives so long as those people are living peaceably and not harming others. No one needs my approval, and no one will be changed by my disapproval. Those who sincerely attempt to follow the example set by Jesus will not attempt to police the 7.4 billion other human beings currently living on our planet and impose their values on them. Jesus didn’t. Jesus didn’t vet people before he fed or healed them. The only people with whom he got testy were the Pharisees, who were the local hypocrites. He taught people how they should live but didn’t reject those who deviated from his teachings. He showed love and forgiveness to all he met. Can those who claim to be his followers say the same?

The most vocal Christians today, the Matt Walshes and others, teach a view of Christianity greatly at odds with the teachings of the one who founded their faith. There is little love or acceptance in their actions and a great deal of judgment and rigidity, and they have found a home in the modern Republican Party. I, however, cannot belong to a party that values gun ownership over public safety or that protects the lives of the unborn but disrespects the lives of immigrants and people of other faiths or ethnicities or lifestyles. I can’t belong to a party whose lawmakers have spent the last almost eight years doing nothing but obstruct, instead of the job they were sent to Washington to do, just to spite a black president and make sure they diminish his legacy. I can’t belong to a party that would shut down the government and jeopardize the citizens they were elected to serve in order to defeat the president’s signature piece of legislation. I can’t belong to a party whose lawmakers refuse to perform their constitutional duty of interviewing and voting on the sitting president’s Supreme Court appointee. Racism, disrespect, and failure to perform duties—none of those qualities are Christ-like; yet Christians accept the people who practice such ungodly behavior because those same people toe the party line of being opposed to abortion, same-sex marriage, and transgender rights. Wow!

And last of all, I absolutely cannot support the party which has perpetrated the greatest fraud I have witnessed in my lifetime: foisting upon voters a reality TV clown as a candidate for the high office of the presidency of the United States. This “candidate” exemplifies none of the Christian values with which I am familiar, yet he has the overwhelming support of the religious right. The Republican Party has placed voters in the unthinkable position of having only one viable candidate. And since that candidate is one who is widely disliked and distrusted, many will vote for the clown and rue the fact that they were not given an acceptable choice.

The fact is there is plenty in the ideology of both political parties that is out of harmony with the Christian faith; but if we’re giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s, I don’t believe we should expect politics and religion always to agree. So yes, I’m a Christian and I’m a Democrat, and I think I’m in good company. “Christian Democrat” is not an oxymoron; it describes some of the finest and most godly people I know.

Tags abortion, Christian, Democrat, Frank Schaeffer, LGBT, marriage rights, Republican

Politics

Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones

Post author By Barb Woolard
Post date August 14, 2016
4 Comments on Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones

. . . but words can never hurt me.

A familiar line? My parents and teachers taught me and my classmates and friends this retort to invalidate the power of bullies who said cruel things to us or called us mean names. And although it did make us feel a little better at the time, on reflection, this statement is simply not true. Bruises, abrasions, broken bones—these things heal in time; but the damage done by words lives on in the soul and can last a lifetime.

I had a graduate school professor who talked about “parental tapes”: those recordings in our brains of the things our parents said which continue to influence how we see ourselves and how we respond to the world well into our adult years. People who have been told that they’re lazy or too fat or less smart than someone else or that they’ll never amount to much will often fulfill those words in their adult lives. Words inform self-image, which leads to actions, which result in failure and unhappiness. On the contrary, children who have heard positive words about themselves will often live up to the image created by their good “parental tapes.”

I graduated from high school decades ago, but certain words spoken by unkind classmates still trigger involuntary responses in my mind. Even before high school, I recall watching my grandmother can jelly. Each time she prepared to pour hot jelly into a jar, she placed a spoon in the jar. When I asked why she did that, she replied, “To keep the jar from breaking, stupid.” My grandmother didn’t think I was stupid; this was a careless word spoken at a busy moment. She was a very kind and loving woman who was still raising and caring for grandchildren until she died. I remember many kind things she did and said, but that one careless word has also stuck throughout the decades.

The power of words to injure and to incite rage and violence in our age of mass communication, when every word spoken by a public figure is heard live or is on the Internet within minutes of being uttered, is extraordinary and causes thoughtful people to pause and reflect. I’ve heard it said recently, “You’re responsible for what you say, and you’re also responsible for what people hear.” How can that be? some may ask. I can’t help what someone else hears. Well, of course no one can anticipate how every listener will respond, but everyone can—and must—consider carefully the impact which spoken words might possibly have on those who hear them. Freedom of speech is not freedom to insult, bully, or harass. It is not freedom to incite violence or panic. It’s often been said, “You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater unless there really is a fire”–pointing to the limits on our freedom to say whatever we like, when the words we say may cause harm to others. Laws governing libel and slander also enforce the requirement to speak responsibly and civilly.

To our great shame as a nation, we have a reality TV show going on right now in the guise of a presidential campaign. We have a candidate who is a loose cannon, saying whatever pops into his head at any given moment. The Republican candidate’s loose tongue is disturbing and dangerous on many levels. Insulting and bigoted remarks toward women, immigrants, the media—these all reveal deficiencies in his character and knowledge and are reason enough to discount his seriousness as a candidate for the highest office in our government. But even more frightening are his accusations against his Democratic opponent and our sitting president. Regardless of personal opinions about them, calling our national leaders the founder and co-founder of the world’s largest terrorist organization is unconscionable, especially by someone who thinks he’s fit to serve as our president and to unify us as a nation.

Statements such as calling members of the media “the lowest form of life,” suggesting that an opponent’s father was involved in JFK’s assassination, sparring with a Gold Star family, stating with “100%” certainty that his opponent can’t possibly win the state of Pennsylvania except by cheating, referring to his opponent as “Crooked Hillary,” remaining silent while his adrenaline-fueled supporters chant “Lock her up,” and suggesting that his opponent might be conveniently assassinated are unprecedented in presidential politics. They would be more at home in a high school locker room or a fifth-grade contest for class president. The fact that a chronologically mature adult would publicly make such statements defies belief.

The candidate continues to evade responsibility for his incendiary words by playing cunning games. His statements are made in ways that allow him to easily deny that he said what everyone clearly heard. He called President Obama and Hillary Clinton the founder and co-founder of ISIS. When an interviewer tried to give him a graceful way to make sense of his false claim, he dug in and said he absolutely meant the accusation in the most literal sense: they founded ISIS. But as media attention continued, he reversed his course, said he was only being sarcastic, and called the media stupid and “the lowest form of life” because they don’t get his humor.

Same game, different statement. When he suggested that Ted Cruz’s father was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald’s assassination of President Kennedy, he brushed it off as simply pointing out an article which other people had seen; “they” said these things, he didn’t. Same game, yet another statement. He suggested that the “second amendment people” might do something to prevent Hillary Clinton’s liberal SCOTUS appointments. But when confronted, he claimed he meant the “second amendment people” would surely vote against her and help him win the election.

Is it possible that he’s just so stupid he doesn’t know what he’s doing? It’s possible, but does anyone want someone that stupid to be leader of the free world? Or is it possible that he actually does know what he’s doing and phrases his messages in ways that allow him to deny responsibility? That’s also possible, and I for one believe he is well aware of the games he plays and is a master of manipulation who is consciously conning millions of people. He’s perpetrated scams before, but this one is by far the largest and has the most far-reaching consequences.

This is where the statement “You’re responsible for what you say, and you’re responsible for what people hear” becomes important. It doesn’t really matter whether Trump was suggesting that gun owners become assassins or simply use the power of their vote; it doesn’t matter whether he really meant to say that Obama and Clinton co-founded ISIS or he was being sarcastic. The statements are indefensible, regardless of their meaning, because what he said allows different people to hear very different messages. No one can control others’ hearing 100%, but it is the speaker’s responsibility to anticipate the obvious legitimate interpretations of his words and make every effort to be sure the intended meaning is the one that is heard. A speaker who doesn’t do that is either stupid or manipulative—neither of which belongs on a resume for the presidency.

Entire news cycles are devoted to parsing this candidate’s words to determine what they mean: time which could much more profitably be spent comparing candidates’ stances on real issues or reporting other important events. Instead, viewers are treated to nightly round-table discussions of the latest verbal vomit from the RNC candidate, keeping full media attention on him and away from his opponent or anyone else who may have happened to make news that day. And to the news media, I would also say, “It doesn’t matter what he meant!!!” His words disqualify him. Period. The most important thing we do every four years as a nation is elect our leader. This is a privilege denied the citizens of many other nations, a privilege we should treat with respect and reverence. Seeing this process reduced to reality TV should make every responsible citizen heart-sick and disgusted.

The defense “I was joking” or “I was being sarcastic” is not an excuse, either. This is not stand-up comedy or reality TV; this is a presidential campaign. Voters want to hear serious proposals or serious concerns about the opposing candidate–not outrageous “jokes” which serve only to demean the process and to plant seeds in the minds of unstable listeners who may take the “jokes” seriously and act on them. One doesn’t tell jokes at a funeral, especially ones that make negative statements about the deceased. Sometimes humor is inappropriate. The presidency of the United States is not a joking matter.

In a Daily Kos article, a writer who calls himself CleverNickName says he believes Trump was only joking about someone shooting Mrs. Clinton and adds:

But that doesn’t matter, because the threat that he made today isn’t limited to Secretary Clinton. When someone in the position he is in — a celebrity entertainer who is the Republican nominee for president — suggests that not only would it be acceptable for the Second Amendment Crowd to go take care of her, but laughs about it, he is normalizing violent behavior, on a national stage.

He continues:

But what about the angry alt-right guy who wants to go use his Second Amendment Remedy to take care of another [person] who bothers him? . . . What about that guy, who is waiting to hear someone say what the voices in his head are saying? How much did the danger to us and people like us go up today, because Donald Trump normalized and amplified his thinking?

Beyond the surreal feeling of disbelief renewed with each daily dose of outlandish verbiage lie very real dangers. On Wednesday, November 9, if the Democratic candidate wins (Please, God!), the millions of people who have supported and voted for the speaker of these irresponsible words will not be going back to business as usual and happily looking forward to January and the inauguration of the second President Clinton. The adrenaline- and testosterone-fueled rally goers who chant, swing fists, assault protesters, stage angry mob scenes outside rally venues yelling “F*&% everyone” will be angry. By telling these angry mobs that the election may be rigged and that the opponent can win only by cheating, not only is Trump covering his ass in advance to explain his loss but he’s also insuring vengeance against the system and the opponent who beat him. If millions of supporters who already felt angry, cheated, and ignored now believe their messiah was robbed of his rightful victory, there could be riots unlike anything we’ve seen before. And since most of these people are also gun toters, the possibilities are frightening beyond imagination.

Donald Trump is playing verbal dodge ball: he says things, and when his words are thrown back at him, he ducks and dodges so that nothing sticks to him. But the damage is done as soon as the words are spoken, and the Republican Party can’t figure out what to do. The Party of Lincoln has become a national disgrace: what bitter irony! The party that saved the union and made us all equal is now set to begin a new civil war, in some ways more devastating than the war of 1861-1865. The hand-wringing, the tentative endorsements, the apologies for their candidate’s latest childish antic, the bail-outs by those who can’t stomach remaining party to the disgrace—none of this is going to stop the destruction of their party and the damage to our country.

Words matter. They may not break bones, but they can do irreparable damage.

In the words of Dr. Maya Angelou,

Words are things, I’m convinced. They get in your wallpaper. They get in your rugs, in your upholstery, in your clothes, and finally, into you. We must be careful about the words we use. Someday we will be able to measure the power of words.

In the same interview with Oprah Winfrey, Ms. Angelou continues:

On June 4, 2003 I wrote, “When I was thinking about how to explain why one’s choice of words are so important, I came across an article titled ‘Seeking Peace Through Our Words’ written by Lauren Grabelle, a rabbinic intern at Congregation Beth-El Zedeck in Indianapolis.”

This was during the first war in Iraq when the elder George Bush was in office. Grabelle wrote, “Jews are instructed not simply to desire peace, but to ‘seek peace and pursue it’ (Psalm 34:15). The question for us, then, is how do we seek peace when we are in the midst of conflict? How do we pursue peace in a time of war? The same psalm that instructs us to ‘seek peace and pursue it’ tells us to ‘guard your tongues from speaking evil and your lips from deceitful speech.’ Peace begins with the very words we utter. When we speak words of hate, we create hate. When we speak words of peace, we create peace.”

Dr. Angelou continues to quote Ms. Grabelle:

“We can pursue peace by engaging in dialogue. We have to consider the words of those whose views are different than [sic] our own. Hearing perspectives other than our own allows us to continue to see those around us as btselem elohim, created in the Divine image.

In the current situation, we may not feel like we have much control over what is going on in the world. Yet we do have control over what we say in response to the world around us. We could use our words and our voices to say hateful things about those with whom we fight and disagree or we could use words to seek common ground. We could make statements of resignation. Or we can use our words to uplift ourselves and to remind us of our common humanity.”*

Peace and love to you all!

*Here’s the link to the article about Dr. Angelou: http://jewishpostopinion.com/?page_id=1608

And this is the link to the Daily Kos article:

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/9/1558491/-Trump-s-assassination-call-isn-t-just-a-threat-to-Secretary-Clinton?

Tags 2016 campaign, Clinton, Maya Angelou, power of words, Trump, violence

From the Kitchen

The Divine Mango: Dining with the Gods and My New Favorite Cookbook

Post author By Barb Woolard
Post date August 6, 2016
2 Comments on The Divine Mango: Dining with the Gods and My New Favorite Cookbook

The divine mango has to be at least one of the foods of the gods! Sweet, juicy, dense, and creamy, its fruit is tantalizing and addictive–whether you’re looking for something to add to your oatmeal or want to make a fancy sauce for dinner. Although my backyard mango tree is still young and small, it yielded an abundant crop this year which has not only kept me in delectable snacks for a whole month but which has also filled a shelf in my pantry with mango goodies to be enjoyed and shared until next year’s crop appears.

And that brings me to the second part of the title: my new favorite cookbook! I did some canning many years ago when my two sons were toddlers and I took a few years to stay home with them. But after resuming a full-time teaching schedule, my canning equipment was moved to my mom’s attic. But now retirement–and a good mango crop–has rekindled my interest; so my good friend and chef extraordinaire, Bevi, recommended the excellent book Mrs. Wheelbarrow’s Practical Pantry, by Cathy Barrow.

The book is beautifully laid out, with lots of lavish color photographs; it contains easy-to-follow instructions for quality and safety in canning; and the recipes–the most important part–are to die for. In addition to the canning and preserving recipes, she’s inserted “bonus recipes” throughout the book, such as “Mrs. Wheelbarrow’s Perfect Piecrust,” on page 133. I haven’t tried that one yet, but you can bet I will! Here’s another bonus recipe I can’t wait to try: “Beet Salad with Orange and Candied Pecans” on page 257. Yummmm

The recipes I used to preserve my mango crop are “Strawberry Mango Jam” (page 63), “Mango Chutney” (page 104), and “Carmen Miranda Tropical Fruit Preserves” (page 110). All of these can be processed by the water bath method, which makes them even easier.

The strawberry-mango jam is a simple but delicious combo of mangoes, strawberries, sugar, and a little lemon juice. So far, these have been the favorite among friends and neighbors.

Mango chutney is a more savory condiment, excellent on chicken and fish as well as a long list of other recommendations (page 105). Mangoes, onion, garlic, crystallized ginger, golden raisins, dried sour cherries, mustard seeds, kosher salt, cider vinegar, brown sugar, and hot chiles add layers of flavor which I can only imagine will improve with age (in the jars).

The Carmen Miranda Tropical Fruit Preserves are an enticing combination of mangoes, papaya, lemon juice, lime juice and zest, sugar, crystallized ginger, dark rum, coriander seeds, and black pepper. She had me at rum! This is one of those “spreads” that you’ll be tempted to grab a spoon and eat straight from the jar. I made the first batch by the recipe. When I was shopping for ingredients for the second batch, the store I was in didn’t have papayas. I knew another store would almost surely have them but really wasn’t in the mood to make more stops, AND oh, look, peaches! There in front of me was a display of beautiful ripe peaches, and I thought of those rather bland papayas and these juicy, bright peaches; and before I knew it, I was loading up a couple of bags. This recipe just went from really good to amazingly awesome! I will substitute peaches for papaya every time!

The book is available on Amazon, its current price is $23.33, and it has my enthusiastic seal of approval!

In the News

Who Wants to Be Politically Correct?

Post author By Barb Woolard
Post date August 4, 2016
No Comments on Who Wants to Be Politically Correct?

If you haven’t heard or read the term “politically correct” lately, you have not turned on your TV, read the news online or in print, and certainly not followed this year’s election. And you just may be the most sane among us. As for the rest of us, I think it safe to speak for the majority, we’re up to our eyebrows with all the talk about political correctness, or as it’s commonly called, PC. If a political candidate can build an entire campaign on it, and if that campaign resonates with millions of voters, this PC stuff must be pretty darned powerful. But does anyone really know what the heck it is?

I did a little research and learned that “the term ‘politically correct’ was first coined in the late 1920s by the Soviets and their ideological allies around the world to describe why the views of certain of the party faithful needed correction to the party line” (Washington Post editorial, 11/15/2015).

I also learned that historians have written revisionist histories to impose current cultural standards on past events and cultures. That doesn’t sound like an honest or ethical thing to do.

Various online dictionaries offer these definitions:

the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.

agreeing with the idea that people should be careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular group of people.

marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation.

So far, I’ve learned that political correctness started as a way to be sure Soviet party members toed the party line, has been applied by some historians to make history more palatable to modern audiences, and has been adopted by others as a way of showing respect to people of all demographics. The term can also be used pejoratively. Our understanding of the term suffers not from a lack of definition but from a plethora of loosely related and sometimes contadictory definitions. And that is precisely where Jesse Walker begins in the excellent and informative article “What the Hell Does ‘Politically Correct’ Mean?: A Short History” (01/30/2015). http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/30/what-the-hell-does-politically-correct-m

In his opening paragraph, Walker addresses the multitude of meanings which have been assigned to the term:

Amanda Taub’s Vox piece denying the existence of political correctness does get one thing right: The phrase political correctness “has no actual fixed or specific meaning.” What it does have, though Taub doesn’t explore this, is a history of meanings: a series of ways different people have deployed the term, often for radically different purposes.

Walker goes on to echo what we learned from the Washington Post editorial writer: the term first gained prominence in 1920s Soviet culture. He adds:

By then [mid-1980s] the term was fairly well-established on American campuses. When future Clinton speechwriter Jeff Shesol debuted his comic strip Thatch in Brown’s student newspaper in 1988, he included a faux superhero called Politically Correct Person, a character forever correcting people’s language and consumer choices.

Walker’s history continues:

The end of the 1990-91 academic year . . . happened to be the [time] the phrase had its national coming-out party. The December 24, 1990, Newsweek featured the words “THOUGHT POLICE” on its cover; inside, a Jerry Adler article argued that “where the PC reigns, one defies it at one’s peril.” A month later, John Taylor’s cover story “Are You Politically Correct?” appeared in New York magazine. The Wall Street Journal ran a series of pieces attacking political correctness. And around the same time that issue of P.C. Casualties appeared, President George Herbert Walker Bush warned the graduating class at Michigan that “the notion of political correctness” was replacing “old prejudices with new ones.”

Whew! Busy year!

Walker says, “’Politically correct’ had now entered the mainstream lexicon—and, maybe more important, the conservative lexicon. But what did people mean when they said it?” And we’re back to our starting question. Various understandings and use of the term include “anything left of center”; “what conservatives call political correctness is really ‘just politeness’”; it has been viewed by some as a myth; and definitions are subject to “the jargon of the week.”

With that as background, Clint Eastwood has provided an up-to-the-minute definition in an interview with Esquire Magazine, which is currently being reported in the Huffington Post: “If Trump Offends You, Just F**king Get Over It.” As you recall, this is the same man who talks to chairs. To the Esquire interviewer he said this:

You know, he’s [Trump’s] a racist now because he’s talked about this judge. And yeah, it’s a dumb thing to say. I mean, to predicate your opinion on the fact that the guy was born to Mexican parents or something. He’s said a lot of dumb things. So have all of them. Both sides. But everybody—the press and everybody’s going, ‘Oh, well, that’s racist,’ and they’re making a big hoodoo out of it. Just fucking get over it. It’s a sad time in history.

He continues:

(S)ecretly everybody’s getting tired of political correctness, kissing up. That’s the kiss-ass generation we’re in right now. We’re really in a pussy generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist.

Eastwood says he will vote for Trump, even though it’s a “tough one,” but has not yet endorsed him. However, Trump is not the point here. The point here is the power of political correctness overload to incite the kind of rebellion and political turmoil which has turned 2016 into a year to which history will certainly not be kind. And I think Mr. Eastwood’s comments get to the heart of that power; those who are the most angry and vocal about political correctness are those who see it as Eastwood does: “kissing up,” “kiss-ass,” wimpy, “walking on eggshells,” and having every action interpreted as racist or some kind of phobic. He says, “When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist.”

And that’s the first point on which I agree with Mr. Eastwood. He and I grew up around the same time, and he is correct in saying those things were not considered racist; but I would argue that they damn well should have been considered racist. I recall people freely telling ethnic jokes; in fact, they were the most popular jokes during my childhood and young adulthood. There were “hillbilly” jokes, jokes about people of color, and in various geographic areas jokes about minority populations specific to that region. I spent the late 1960s in the Detroit area where there was a large Polish population, so there was a whole series of “Polock” jokes. Jeff Foxworthy, in the 1990s, introduced us to redneck jokes. And of course, jokes about women have transcended all decades and cultures.

An interesting observation about all of this ethnic “humor” is that most of the jokes were interchangeable, depending on which group the joker wanted to denigrate. Just substitute the name of your group into the opening line, and you had a ready-made joke for your next party. Whether the subject was “hillbillies,” rednecks, dark-skinned people, or Polish people, they were always portrayed as ignorant, uneducated, unsophisticated, backward, and socially inept. Throw women jokes into the mix, and it’s easy to pinpoint the yardstick by which everyone else was being measured (and falling short): the white male, of course.

Is THIS the America Clint Eastwood and the angry rally goers want to go back to? Is this what they think will make America great again? Are they just tired of having to be respectful and polite to people who are in some way or ways different from them? Do they just want us all to go back to being casually and openly racist, sexist, and in other ways prejudiced? Is it such a grievous burden to bear that we must use language which reflects love and respect for all of our fellow human beings? What a sad, sad commentary on our failure as a culture!

Do Mr. Eastwood and the rally goers want to go back to the America where the N word was spoken freely, where there were separate entrances, water fountains, and restrooms for whites and blacks? Would they like our dark-skinned friends to be banned from libraries and restaurants? Do they want to return their fellow humans to the back of the bus? Is that politically incorrect enough for them? Again, has it been such a grievous burden to bear to allow all citizens the same rights and privileges and to be spoken of with equal respect?

I have to go back to Eastwood’s statement, “But everybody—the press and everybody’s going, ‘Oh, well, that’s racist,’ and they’re making a big hoodoo out of it. Just fucking get over it.” I’m going to argue that racism IS “a big hoodoo.” It’s a VERY “big hoodoo.” And we don’t need to f**king get over it; we should have made a whole lot more progress than we’ve made toward eliminating it. It seems the last two and a half decades of having to watch their cultural language, including eight years of having a black man in the White House, has made some of our fellow citizens into little pressure cookers just waiting for someone to give them permission to blow their lids; and they have found that permission, and they’re exploding. This short video is absolutely terrifying. Note the dominance of white males.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000004533191/unfiltered-voices-from-donald-trumps-crowds.html?smid=fb-share

I agree with the earlier statement that what these people call political correctness is really just politeness, so maybe it’s time to give it a different name, to remove the stigma left by the decades of baggage. Maybe we could call it love, courtesy, respect, human dignity, kindness, or godliness. Maybe then we could stop thinking of it as a burden and start seeing it as a privilege to share this beautiful planet with so many different kinds of people and to have our own lives enriched by what each one adds to our collective experience.

Tags Clint Eastwood, political correctness, Trump rallies

Politics Religion

Evangelicals for Trump. Seriously???

Post author By Barb Woolard
Post date August 3, 2016
8 Comments on Evangelicals for Trump. Seriously???

Evangelicals find themselves facing a yuuuge moral dilemma this November. They can’t stomach the thought of voting for a Democrat, especially that woman. Yet their default candidate sends shivers up their spines every time he opens his mouth. Some are exploring third-party or write-in candidates, but others recognize the pitfalls of voting outside the two major parties, since so far no third-party candidate has ever won an election and there’s no way to be certain which major-party candidate will be more affected by third-party votes. What’s a god-fearing, self-respecting evangelical to do? For a number of them, the answer seems to be “rationalize.” Vote for someone who in every way violates your confession of faith, but construct arguments to make the wrong you’re about to do feel right.

Let’s face it: every honest person will have to admit to doing something in their life that has violated their own personal moral code. I admit I have. Sometimes the deed is the result of too much temptation and too little will power. Sometimes it’s a gross error in judgment. And sometimes we feel that we’re forced to choose the lesser of two evils, in which case we’re likely to be left feeling guilty no matter what we do because the lesser of two evils is still evil. Whatever the reason for our lapse, the resulting spiritual turmoil is painful.

So how does one make peace with one’s own conscience after having done something which has grossly offended the conscience? I would argue that the only honest way to proceed is to simply own the deed: admit it, accept your human weakness, seek forgiveness from anyone who has been hurt by your action, confess and seek forgiveness from God if that is part of your belief system, and then most important of all, forgive yourself. Then go on and live your life, believing you are still a good person, not damaged goods, who is still entitled to respect and is able to make sound moral judgments in the future.

I would also argue that the most dishonest and damaging way to make peace with a troubled conscience is to construct an argument that changes wrong to right. That approach leads one deeper into self-delusion and further from any connection to or understanding of truth. People who lie to themselves no longer see the dividing line between truth and falsehood. In Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet,” Polonius gives a long list of advice to his son Laertes, ending with the most important: “This above all: to thine own self be true,/And it must follow, as the night the day,/Thou canst not then be false to any man.” If Polonius is right, one who is honest with oneself can’t be dishonest with anyone else, isn’t it fair to say the opposite is also correct: One who is dishonest with oneself can’t possibly be honest with anyone else.

Evangelicals* (See note at end) have been doing battle with their consciences for over a year now, and that battle intensifies with every day we move closer to November 8. Some, as I mentioned before, are looking at third-party and write-in candidates; others are going to sit out this election (cowards); others are just going to swallow hard and vote for Trump because he’s the only Republican on the ballot. Then there are the most disturbing of all: the ones who are going down that dark, twisted trail of attempting to construct an argument that will morally justify their choice and quiet their consciences.

I mentioned one of those in a previous post: Wayne Grudem, whose article “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice” is being read, parsed, and widely refuted. Wayne Grudem is an influential evangelical theologian, professor of Christian ethics, author, and study Bible editor. Professor Grudem rationalizes:

He [Trump] is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas (such as bombing the families of terrorists) that he later must abandon. He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.

I’m still choking on “lacks nuance” and “I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws.” But moving on, in another passage he says,

But are you saying that character doesn’t matter?” someone might ask. I believe that character does matter, but I think Trump’s character is far better than what is portrayed by much current political mud-slinging, and far better than his opponent’s character.

In addition, if someone makes doubts about character the only factor to consider, that is a fallacy in ethical reasoning that I call “reductionism” – the mistake of reducing every argument to only one factor, when the situation requires that multiple factors be considered. In this election, an even larger factor is the future of the nation that would flow from a Clinton or a Trump presidency.

I agree with Professor Grudem that single-issue voting is narrow and disqualifies otherwise good candidates for a single disagreement. However, character is an overriding factor which encompasses who a person is, to what extent the person can be trusted, and the moral compass by which the person lives. That’s NOT the same as voting only on a candidate’s stance on immigration, guns, or abortion. There is NO way Professor Grudem can honestly reconcile his own description of Trump with his own belief system.

Here’s an Evangelical Statement of Faith, taken from the National Association of Evangelicals, http://nae.net/statement-of-faith/. Of course, individual groups will add to or alter the list in accordance with their personal interpretations, but I think this list is a pretty basic general summary.

We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.

We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.

We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

I have no way of knowing what Donald Trump believes concerning the first three items on the list; of course I could comment, but I’ll resist. I’m most drawn to the fourth and fifth. Can anyone honestly argue that someone who attacks and vilifies women, immigrants, people with disabilities, people who were captured in war, Gold Star families, an opponent’s wife, an opponent’s father; who boots a mother with a crying baby from a rally; who has described his own daughter as “hot” and said he’d date her if she were not his daughter; who is being sued for child rape; who condones and incites violence; who proposes banning entire people groups from our country—that this person exudes the spirit of one who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit or who is indwelt by the Holy Spirit or who is living a godly life? That’s too big a stretch for my imagination!

And how about the last item on the list: “the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.” Has Professor Grudem’s “flawed candidate” done a single thing to promote unity since he launched his campaign? Or has everything he has done promoted division and discord? Of course, Mr. Grudem would argue that Hillary Clinton is even more flawed in regard to Evangelical standards, but the title of his article is not “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is Better than Voting for Hillary Clinton.” It’s “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice,” and I think that statement cannot be argued without compromising one’s evangelical beliefs.

http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564

Then as I was still reeling from Professor Grudem’s article, I came across another article this morning, this one written by an unnamed author, “To the ‘Never Trumper’—A Biblical Case for Trump.” The author introduces herself thus:

I fit the classic profile of a “Never Trumper.” I am a highly educated, staunchly theologically and politically conservative pastor’s wife, who plans to one day homeschool her children. I even want to be a “Never Trumper.” I really do. It sounds so principled, so brave, to be a political nonconformist who refuses to buckle under the weight of societal temptation, or fall under the spell of the big mouthed billionaire with his lofty promises for a better future. I CANNOT, however, allow myself [to] ignore the principles laid out in the Word of God for situations such as the political debacle Americans have unfortunately found themselves in.

Her tone throughout the article is confrontational, her logic is confusing at best, and the accusations she freely hurls at Mrs. Clinton are unsupported. As the title suggests, her target audience is voters in the “Never Trump” movement, which means she’s speaking to Republicans who don’t like Donald Trump. Unlike Wayne Grudem (whose article she references at the end of her own), this writer does not deny any of the negative charges against Trump; in fact, the above quotation suggests that she agrees with those charges, as does this one:

I would first ask you to remember that we are NOT electing Trump to a sacred or ecclesiastical office. We are electing him to a political office. If this was a question of placing Trump in charge of my church or Christian organization, you would have to hogtie and hold me down in order to get me to vote for him. I am not arguing for Trump’s morality here.

I am simply stating that in this specific office, as President, he has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that he will protect and champion the rights of the American evangelical if he were to be elected, even if he does not personally embrace those values. . . . He has even organized a “faith advisory committee” comprised of some of the most respected Christian leaders in America.

Note that she has omitted how Mr. Trump will “protect and champion the rights of the American evangelical.” Could it be because he has never told us how he intends to carry out any of his “plans”?

Going on to address the “lesser of two evils” that we’ve heard so much about, she says:

The difference is that one “evil” has promised to do his best to protect your right to worship freely, and one has promised to do everything within her power to suppress them. You may argue that Trump will turn tail and act against Christians once elected. You are absolutely right. He could. We can be CERTAIN, however, that Hillary will do her best to destroy what little sense of decency we have left.

Am I the only one who missed the parts of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign speeches where she says she plans to suppress our right to worship freely and to destroy our sense of decency? And I’m curious what “them” is in line 3, that says Mrs. Clinton has promised to “suppress them.”

There’s more:

Never Trumper…get over yourself. This isn’t about your personal likes or dislikes. This is about the future of your children. If you aren’t willing to overcome your personal chagrin that an outsider could come in and do your job for you, then you have no one to blame but yourself when Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected.

Following that statement is a list of things which Never Trumpers will have lost the right to complain about if Mrs. Clinton is elected: the right to act as a martyr when she comes after your right to speak freely about issues such as homosexuality and the exclusivity of the Gospel; third-trimester abortions; future liberal supreme court rulings; your pastor being imprisoned for hate speech crimes; losing your right to bear arms and having to fret about the safety of your family.

I admit I am disturbed by third-trimester abortions, but I guess I fell asleep during the time Mrs. Clinton was talking about destroying our sense of decency, imprisoning our pastors, and taking away everyone’s guns.

And finally, here’s the wrap-up:

I am not arguing that Trump is a great man.

I am not even arguing that Trump is a good man.

I am arguing that in the words of Christ Himself, God can use an individual that is “not one of us” to further His purposes and protect His people.

I am arguing that in this time, and in this particular circumstance as the only nominee for Republican Party, Trump is the RIGHT man to serve as President of the United States.

So it seems this author is admitting that Donald Trump is all of the awful things we know he is but believes Jesus can use him anyhow to protect and defend us. I’d like to know a little more about how anyone can know that Jesus is behind a political candidate, but I guess I’ll have to wait for her sequel.

Her “argument” is, of course, sprinkled liberally with cherry-picked Bible verses because no self-respecting evangelical would dare debate those. If you want to “prove” something, just pick a verse–any verse.

https://lastchanceamerica.wordpress.com/2016/07/27/to-the-never-trumper-a-biblical-case-for-trump/

So far, the only “moral” arguments that have been advanced in favor of electing Donald Trump as president are based solely on the facts that he’s not Hillary Clinton and he’s not a Democrat. I saw a comment on social media this week calling the Democratic Party the “Party of Satan.” And most evangelicals I know, even if they don’t use such strong language, seem to agree with that statement at least in sentiment. It goes without saying that the standard bearer of the Party of Satan must then be Satan herself, which also seems to be a widely shared sentiment among evangelicals. That neither of those judgments can be substantively supported has not deterred any of those who continue to piously proclaim them.

Okay, I get it. You will never vote for a Democrat, especially not that Democrat. If the Republican Party nominates a hamster, you will swallow hard and vote for the hamster because it’s a Republican. Whatever! But can we at least be honest? Do whatever you have to do to be at peace with your conscience. Vote for the person who in no way represents your moral code if you feel you must. But puh-leeze spare the rest of us the ridiculous mental gymnastics of trying to convince yourself that what you’re doing is in harmony with your stated beliefs. It’s not.

*Note: I belong to the Christian faith, but I am not an evangelical. I am a mainstream Protestant.

Tags 2016 election, Clinton, evangelicalism, Grudem, Trump

In the News

Can We All Please Just Listen!

Post author By Barb Woolard
Post date July 31, 2016
2 Comments on Can We All Please Just Listen!

One of the weirder evenings of my life was September 26, 2008, when I joined some friends to watch the first presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain. That doesn’t sound very weird. Getting together with friends for snacks, camaraderie, and watching an important political event sounds downright normal. The weirdness in this case arose from two facts of which I was not entirely aware before arriving at my host’s home. The first, which I’d had an inkling of but didn’t know for sure, is that I would be the only Democrat in a roomful of “enthusiastic” Republicans. The second took me completely by surprise: I was the only person in the house who went there for the purpose of listening to both candidates and drawing conclusions based on what I heard; you know, making an effort to be open minded. Silly me! I thought that’s why we were there.

I was about to find out I was in a minority of one. As soon as Barack Obama’s lips began to part, before any sound had emerged from his mouth, these people were shouting at the TV: “Idiot!!! That’s the stupidest, most ridiculous thing that’s ever been said in the history of the world!” (Or something that meant the same thing) The room was filled with scorn and derision in high decibels. When John McCain began to speak, they shouted their agreement, approval, and undying support. What their responses had in common is that they were based, in both cases, not on the words the man had just spoken but on their predetermined assessment of who the man was, and in this case on which one was the Republican and which one was the Democrat. The one person who formed a barrier between me and the TV screen was the loudest and most vocal of all, so my efforts to hear what the candidates were saying were mostly futile. My lame attempts at interjecting reason into a couple of their comments were not well received, so I just watched and looked forward to viewing the second debate in the lovely quietness of my own home.

Many times during the evening, I wanted to scream, “Can we all please just LIS-TEN?!” I didn’t. But that evening comes to mind often these days since it so perfectly exemplifies what passes for public conversation in our time. With very few exceptions, people today respond to the speaker, not to what the speaker says. The essential information is the speaker’s political party, where they fall on the conservative-liberal spectrum, their opinions and beliefs on key issues, possibly their religious affiliation, and their basic demographics. For the average listener, this information—or any portion of it—is enough to judge anything the speaker could possibly say, so there’s no need to actually hear it. This makes conversation pretty simple: I will pause while you say your words, and then I will give you the response which I already decided on as soon as I met you.

Think about it. It’s well known that millions of people in our country hate our current president. And for most people, this is not the usual disagreement over policy or disappointment that the candidate they voted for didn’t win or disapproval of the president’s general conduct. Those are some of the normal reasons for disliking a president, even strongly disliking; but the vitriol that has been spewed daily about President Obama is unprecedented. And those who do the spewing are undeterred by anything good that the president could possibly say. He has given moving tributes to fallen police officers, he has inspired us through many national tragedies, he has sung “Amazing Grace” at a televised funeral and given clear statement of his Christian faith, and the guy is a great comedian on happy occasions.

Yet nothing he says even pierces the thick shell of hatred surrounding his critics because they don’t hear a word of it. In every one of the examples I’ve listed, his haters have responded by calling him names (including the N word), declaring him a Muslim, labeling him a dismal failure (against all factual evidence), calling him the worst president ever, saying he was born in Kenya and is therefore unqualified to be president, and other things so vile I’ve chosen to dismiss them from my mind. How many people have really listened to what he has said, and how many don’t care what he says because they’ve already judged him?

One of the most baffling connections I’ve seen this campaign season, and that’s saying a lot, is the evangelical support of Donald Trump. An article that’s making the rounds this week is called “Why Voting for Donald Trump Is a Morally Good Choice.” The author is Wayne Grudem, an evangelical theologian, with a long list of credentials, including studies at Harvard University, Westminster Theological Seminary, and University of Cambridge; serving as a seminary professor of Christian ethics for 39 years; authoring a number of books, including a highly respected systematic theology; and acting as general editor of a study Bible. Impressive. But now he says this: “I do not think that voting for Donald Trump is a morally evil choice because there is nothing morally wrong with voting for a flawed candidate if you think he will do more good for the nation than his opponent. In fact, it is the morally right thing to do.” Hmmmm.

He continues:

He is egotistical, bombastic, and brash. He often lacks nuance in his statements. Sometimes he blurts out mistaken ideas (such as bombing the families of terrorists) that he later must abandon. He insults people. He can be vindictive when people attack him. He has been slow to disown and rebuke the wrongful words and actions of some angry fringe supporters. He has been married three times and claims to have been unfaithful in his marriages. These are certainly flaws, but I don’t think they are disqualifying flaws in this election.

Flaws? Not disqualifying flaws? So Professor Grudem, what on earth would you say IS a “disqualifying flaw”?

But wait, there’s more:

On the other hand, I think some of the accusations hurled against him are unjustified. His many years of business conduct show that he is not racist or anti-(legal) immigrant or anti-Semitic or misogynistic – I think these are unjust magnifications by a hostile press exaggerating some careless statements he has made.

Careless statements? Magnified? When he called women “fat pigs,” “dogs,” “slobs,” and “disgusting animals,” those were just careless statements? And they’d have been no big deal if those mean old reporters hadn’t gone and made a big fuss over them? A president, or someone running for the office, doesn’t have the luxury of making careless statements.

And to sum it all up, Grudem says:

Under President Obama, a liberal federal government has seized more and more control over our lives. But this can change. This year we have an unusual opportunity to defeat Hillary Clinton and the pro-abortion, pro-gender-confusion, anti-religious liberty, tax-and-spend, big government liberalism that she champions. I believe that defeating that kind of liberalism would be a morally right action. Therefore I feel the force of the words of James: “Whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin” (James 4:17).

You can read more of Professor Grudem’s “analysis” here: http://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2016/07/28/why-voting-for-donald-trump-is-a-morally-good-choice-n2199564

My point in this essay is that Barack Obama can sing “Amazing Grace” and get called a N*&&^^%, and Donald Trump can threaten to bomb the families of terrorists and insult numerous individuals and entire people groups and he just “lacks nuance” and is “flawed” but not fatally flawed. And those are the words of a leading evangelical whose life’s teaching has opposed everything Donald Trump stands for. Obviously Trump gets the pass here because he’s a Republican (the default party for evangelicals) and he’s not Hillary Clinton, not because his words are moral or make any sense. So Trump can go on saying whatever grinds his axes and proves his ignorance and still score the evangelical vote in November.

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell cringe and go into damage control mode every time Trump opens his mouth yet refuse to withdraw their endorsements because he’s the Republican candidate and they’re Republicans, and that association counts more than what he says.

Even in personal conversations, the same truth applies. We paint whole categories with one brush stroke, and then we can’t hear what individuals say. Liberals are out to destroy the second amendment and confiscate everyone’s guns, they’re always playing the race card, they enable people to be lazy by handing out food stamps and welfare, they’re socialistic, they want to open our borders and jeopardize our national security, and they’re always wanting to enact policies God disapproves of. Conservatives are backward, racist, making war on women, God-flaunting, gun-toting, climate change-denying Neanderthals. And we too often respond to each other based solely on these stereotypes rather than on the actual words coming out of an individual’s mouth. I posted a joke awhile back on social media, and one of my conservative friends took it seriously. When I responded that it was meant to be humorous, my friend responded, “Lib humor.” Oh, so it might have been funny if a conservative said it, but today it’s not.

We can’t have rational, productive conversations about gun violence, abortion, public restrooms, LGBT concerns, or multiple other social issues because we’ve decided before the first word is spoken whether we agree or disagree with other speakers based on the category to which they belong. And even when we may agree with someone in another category, we find it difficult to cross lines because of group loyalty. Paul Ryan is a prime example in his love-hate relationship with the Republican presidential nominee. Voting against their own party’s nominee is hard for many people. People speak all the time about “both sides” of an issue. “All sides” would be more accurate because we all have individual opinions which don’t exactly match our category label, but the only way we’ll ever know that is to start listening to each other instead of assuming everyone in a particular category thinks exactly alike.

A counselor I once knew had a great exercise she used in couples counseling. The couple would take turns speaking and listening. The speaker would have to tell the listener something that person did which was offensive. Before the listener could respond to the charge, however, she or he had to first repeat what the speaker had said and continue repeating it whatever number of times it took for the speaker to say, “Yes, that’s exactly what I said.” The point was that you can’t respond to something if you didn’t hear it correctly; and hearing correctly requires active, attentive listening. If only we’d all start making that a habit in our daily conversations, we might find out a lot of people have important, interesting, intelligent things to say; and we might get somewhere in solving our country’s problems. It’s worth a try!

Tags conservative, Grudem, liberal, listening, McCain, Obama, Trump

Politics

Why I Will Vote for Hillary Clinton, Part Two

Post author By Barb Woolard
Post date July 29, 2016
7 Comments on Why I Will Vote for Hillary Clinton, Part Two

If there had been any lingering doubt in my mind after looking at the two candidates’ credentials, experience, and character, their respective conventions and acceptance speeches alone would have been enough to clinch my decision.

The GOP convened in Cleveland amid much turmoil because of the deep divisions in the party, and the convention did little or nothing to heal the rifts. Trump kept on being Trump, with some small exceptions for his acceptance speech. Even that was long on bluster and short on specifics and plans. As President Obama so aptly put it, “The Donald is not really a plans guy. He’s not really a facts guy either.” The Donald has had over a year since he made his announcement that he was running for president to learn some facts and to make some plans, so the only logical conclusion we can come to is that he has no desire to know any more than he knows or to be any more specific than he has been about plans. I would also conclude that he is intellectually incapable of doing either of those two things.

The president went on to say, “[Trump] calls himself a business guy, which is true, but I have to say, I know plenty of businessmen and women who’ve achieved success without leaving a trail of lawsuits, and unpaid workers, and people feeling like they got cheated . . . Does anyone really believe that a guy who’s spent his 70 years on this Earth showing no regard for working people is suddenly going to be your champion?” Good question, Mr. President!

Vice President Joe Biden said, “No major party nominee in the history of this nation has ever known less or been less prepared to deal with our national security.” California Governor Jerry Brown added, “Even the Know Nothings, anti-immigrant party of the 1850s, did not stray this far into sheer ignorance and dark fantasy as have the Republicans and their leader Donald Trump.” And Michael Bloomberg aptly observed, “Trump says he wants to run the nation like he’s running his business? God help us. I am a New Yorker, and I know a con when I see one. . . . Truth be told, the richest thing about Donald Trump is his hypocrisy.” From Tim Kaine, we have this assessment: “To me, it seems like our nation is too great to put in the hands of a slick-talking, empty promising, self-promoting, one-man wrecking crew.” And Joe Biden summed it all up as only Joe can: “That [Trump’s speech] is a bunch of malarkey!”

What was Mr. Trump’s response to these scathing accusations? How did he respond to Khizr Khan, father of a slain Muslim U. S. soldier, when he held out his well-worn pocket edition of our country’s constitution and asked Donald Trump, “Have you even read the Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words liberty and equal protection of law.” How did the Donald respond? Did he defend his knowledge of the constitution, saying he has read and cherishes it? Did he admit his knowledge is limited but he will devote his every waking moment to learning this sacred document? Did he apologize for any of his insults to women, veterans, Muslims, Mexicans, or any of the other numerous groups he has disrespected? Did he vow to help American workers and actually outline plans for doing so? Did he express sympathy for the Khan family’s loss and promise to honor their son’s life and memory? Did he promise to change his tactics to prove his critics wrong? Did he promise to release his tax returns??

NO. The answer to each of the above questions is NO. Here is how he responded to his chastening at the DNC: “You know what I wanted to. I wanted to hit a couple of those speakers so hard. I would have hit them. No, no. I was going to hit them, I was all set and then I got a call from a highly respected governor. I was gonna hit one guy in particular, a very little guy,” he said. “I was gonna hit this guy so hard his head would spin and he wouldn’t know what the hell happened.”

I guess this must be that pivot we’ve heard so much about. You know, the pivot he would make when he entered the general election season to more presidential behavior. It should be abundantly obvious by now to any thinking person that Trump is not going to pivot. He can’t. If I were asked to pivot and start acting like a genetic scientist, I couldn’t do that because I know very little about the science of genetics. It’s just not in me to act like that. And it’s not in Donald Trump to act like a president, because he knows nothing about what presidential behavior is. When did we parents begin teaching our children to find ways other than physical violence to resolve conflicts? When they were toddlers! The first time one of them hit a sibling in anger or retaliation, we started the conversation. Donald Trump is an emotional toddler. What we’ve seen so far is all he has. That’s it. Ain’t nothin’ else ever going to emerge because it’s not there.

Hillary Clinton also entered her party’s convention with deep and potentially disruptive divisions. Bernie Sanders had not completely yielded to her victory, and he had some strong Bernie or Bust supporters who did not want to let go. The first day started out pretty rocky, but by the end of the evening tempers had settled and there was the beginning of party unity. And by the end of the roll call on Tuesday, most of the dissension had been quelled and the convention was ready to go forward pretty smoothly. I credit both Bernie Sanders and the Clinton campaign for the quick restoration of party unity. Sanders acted as the adult and made the motion to elect Clinton as their candidate by acclamation, and the Clinton campaign and convention organizers gave Bernie Sanders his due respect and credit for the work he did during the campaign. Mutual respect, something completely missing at the RNC, saved the day. Oh, I didn’t see Bernie smiling or putting his hands together during Hillary’s acceptance speech. It was a crushing loss for him; he’s allowed to grieve his loss. But what’s important is he did the responsible adult thing, and his party is more unified because of his actions.

What the DNC did for Hillary Clinton is introduce America to a different person than the caricature which has so dominated public opinion for decades. As one commentator put it, “She is the most famous person in the world that no one knows.” On Wednesday evening, following Bill Clinton’s speech, the talking heads—many of them seasoned political pundits who’ve been covering presidential elections for decades—were genuinely surprised, wide-eyed and open-mouthed, over the things they had learned that evening about someone they thought they already knew. As Van Jones put it, Bill Clinton had “put together the dots” to make a surprising picture of a “workaholic do-gooder chick.” That sounds a lot like her personal motto, learned from her Methodist faith, which we heard more than once: “Do all the good you can, for all the people you can, in all the ways you can, as long as ever you can.”

Then how did it happen that a “workaholic do-gooder chick” who lived by the motto ““Do all the good you can, for all the people you can, in all the ways you can, as long as ever you can” ended up with the nickname “Crooked Hillary” and a reputation for being a liar and a criminal? According to President Obama, it was because “That’s what happens when we try.” He said you have to get into the arena to make a difference, and those who are in the arena, the people who are trying, will make mistakes; and “Hillary Clinton is that woman in the arena.” The president went on to say, “Democracy isn’t a spectator sport.” Hillary has never settled for being only a spectator. From her college days until today, she has been an advocate for children’s and women’s needs, she has served her country as governor’s wife, president’s wife, senator, Secretary of State, and numerous other jobs where she was less in the national spotlight. She has stood by hurting people and been their voice wherever she has served.

According to Politico Magazine, “On the whole, Clinton’s misstatements are those of a typical politician. She has changed her position on a number of issues, and some of these reversals—like her newfound opposition to the Pacific trade deal she championed as secretary of state—rise to the level of flip-flops or, perhaps, insincere electioneering designed to obscure what she really thinks. In defending her use of a private email server, Clinton has clearly stretched the truth, though whether she grasps the fallaciousness of her statements or believes herself to be giving straight answers is impossible to know.” This doesn’t exactly award her Sunday School teacher status, but it also does not justify William Safire’s 1996 accusation that she is a “congenital liar.” On the other hand, Politico Magazine says of Trump: “Three Politico reporters fact-checked Trump’s statements for a week, [and] found he had uttered ‘roughly one misstatement every five minutes.’ Collectively, his falsehoods won PolitiFact’s 2015 ‘Lie of the Year’ award. Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks has judged Trump ‘perhaps the most dishonest person to run for high office in our lifetimes.’”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/2016-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-us-history-presidents-liars-dishonest-fabulists-214024#ixzz4FoiFjIAI

Mrs. Clinton’s biggest enemy is just pure sexism, in the same way President Obama’s is racism. Yeah, I said it! Hillary Clinton has been put through “scandal” investigations for things which men in high position have done without a fraction of the consequences. Emails have been in the news before: George W. Bush, David Petraeus. Even her husband has not suffered the same long-lasting attacks she has over the Whitewater scandal. And for evidence of the different standards to which men and women are held, we need look no further than Mrs. Clinton’s opponent, Mr. Trump. Legal actions are pending against him for fraud and rape of a minor. He spews insults at every demographic; childishly and maliciously lashes out at everyone who disagrees with him; mocks people with disabilities and veterans who were captured; responds to normal political speeches by wanting to punch those who spoke about him; appears to be colluding with a foreign leader to tamper with our election. And where’s the outrage? Where are the investigations? Does anyone believe that if half these charges could be made against Hillary Clinton she would still have won her party’s nomination? Does anyone really believe there would not be a far greater outcry?

Society has strictly defined parameters for what is acceptable behavior. Whenever anyone steps beyond their designated boundaries, they are viewed as presumptuous, arrogant, uppity, ungodly, and generally suspect. They are also intimidating. And what do we humans do when we are intimidated? Why, we attack, of course. We attack the person who has violated our norms, who has raised doubt in our minds about the validity of those norms, who has shaken our world view, and who has made us feel less secure in our own worth and understanding. How dare those persons cross our lines? Who do they think they are? How dare they think they’re so smart or so powerful? A black man wants to be president? Who the hell does he think he is? We’ll show him; he might be president, but we won’t give him the respect due the office, and we’ll jeopardize our country just to be sure he doesn’t succeed. A woman wants to be president? Who the hell does she think she is? We’re just going to pick out every little mistake she’s ever made in her lifetime of service to her country and magnify it as if she were Satan personified. We’ll show her!

Shirley Chisholm, in 1968, became the first African-American congresswoman. In 1972, she became the first woman to run for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. She had this to say about her experience: “When I ran for the Congress, when I ran for president, I met more discrimination as a woman than for being black.” Well, that sounds like sexism to me.

In her acceptance speech, Mrs. Clinton humbly acknowledged voters’ distrust and dislike of her. She said in essence, “I’ve heard you. I know how you feel about me. Let’s have a conversation about that.” Instead of talking about punching people, she pledged to take people’s feelings seriously, to be more open, and to work on gaining voters’ trust. That won’t erase all that has caused people to have those feelings, nor should it; but a head-on, straightforward conversation is a lot more honest and trustworthy in my book than doubling down when confronted and threatening to punch someone hard enough to make his head spin. The things I’ve heard this week have made me willing to give her another chance, to view her through a different lens.

Trump’s acceptance speech was all about what HE will do, single-handedly: “I alone can fix it”; all of our problems will magically disappear as soon as I walk into the Oval Office. (This attitude, by the way, further demonstrates his ignorance of how government works.) His speech was the “I” speech. Clinton’s acceptance speech was the “we” speech: what we can all do together to address our country’s needs and problems. She said, “We’ll fix it together.” Hillary Clinton’s speech beautifully described what a democracy is and made me proud to be part of the greatest democracy on earth. Donald Trump’s speech was the ranting of a demagogue: this country is dark, scary, and doomed; and you need me to fix it and make it great again.

News flash, Donald! This country has always been great. It’s never stopped being great. We don’t need you and your childishness, your ego, your anger, your insults, your pettiness, your divisiveness, your misogyny, your xenophobia, your lies, or your threats. What we need is a president, not a demagogue.

So you can just take your big orange self back to Trump Tower, because we’re with her.

Tags 2016 election, DNC, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, RNC

Politics

Why I Will Vote for Hillary Clinton, Part I

Post author By Barb Woolard
Post date July 28, 2016
2 Comments on Why I Will Vote for Hillary Clinton, Part I

In this long, contentious year of campaigning for the presidency, there is only one thing just about everyone agrees on: we don’t like either of our choices. Oh, there are exceptions to that generalization: many Donald Trump supporters are so blindly loyal they would probably validate his boast that he could stand in the middle of 5^th Avenue and shoot someone without losing support. I don’t even know what to say to those people, and obviously nothing will get through to them anyway, so I’m just going to focus on folks who think. We thinking folks see two flawed candidates, and some think that makes for a tough choice. For me, the choice is as clear as a blue, sunny Florida sky. Hillary Clinton must be our next president.

I say that not because I think Mrs. Clinton is an ideal candidate or because I’m blind to her flaws. I say it because she is the only person who can save our country for a Trump presidency, and a Trump presidency is unthinkable. Both candidates have high unfavorability ratings, both are intensely disliked by many, and both have questionable items in their past records. That may sound like a wash, but it’s not. The thing I think we must do right now is stop thinking of Donald Trump as just another presidential candidate and stop thinking of this election as the usual weighing of one knowledgeable candidate against another or Democratic platform vs Republican platform. That is NOT what this election is about. This election is a choice between a president and a demagogue, a team builder and a narcissistic strong man. This is the most frightening presidential election of my lifetime or in the history of our country.

I will vote for Hillary Clinton because—in spite of her negatives—she has the relevant knowledge and education for the office, she has the relevant experience for the office, and she has the temperament for the office. Donald Trump has none of those qualifications, and he has shown no interest whatsoever in learning or even admitting what he doesn’t know.

I spent my career teaching English. I loved the classroom so much I never wanted to move into administration, so I’ve never been the “boss” in charge of hiring. I did, however, serve on my share of search committees at the college where I spent my last 26 years; so I know a little bit about the process, and I’m sure some of you do as well. When a position opened at the college, it first of all had to be published so that people could know of the opening and apply for it. After applications were closed, the division dean would collect all of the applications and resumes, make copies, and distribute them to those who had been selected to act as the search committee. The committee members then had to review the stack of applications, make our individual selections, meet to put our choices together, narrow down the composite list to a short list of candidates who would be given phone interviews, then decide on two or three to be brought to campus for in-person interviews, and then make our final recommendation to the dean.

In reviewing the resumes, the first thing we looked for was the proper academic credentials. At the community/state college, a candidate had to hold a minimum of a master’s degree and a Ph.D. was a plus. Having a bachelor’s degree, or no degree, obviously would be a disqualifier. It was also essential that the degree be in the field in which the candidate was applying to teach (duh!). If we were hiring a philosophy professor, a candidate with a Ph.D. in math or psychology would not be considered. Then we looked at experience. Every young person knows the dilemma of having the education and training for a job but no experience because they’re applying for their first job or perhaps making a career change. All of us are grateful to those employers who gave us our first break and allowed us to gain experience, and it helps that sometimes relevant experience can be considered. Perhaps in our case a candidate had never taught before but had served as a TA in college or worked in a different position where the same skill set was required. And then we considered temperament, how compatibly the candidate would fit into our faculty, and whether he or she seemed to be a person of character and ethics.

I imagine the process at your work place is similar.

The United States has a job opening. As of January 20, 2017, the presidency will be vacant. WE are all the bosses responsible for hiring President Obama’s replacement. We’ve looked at the resumes—about 21 of them all together—conducted the interviews, in the form of televised debates and campaign speeches. And now we have our short list: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Next step.

Let’s look at these two candidates’ credentials. Hillary Clinton has a degree in law and is thoroughly familiar with the U. S. Constitution. Donald Trump has a bachelor’s degree in business. He has demonstrated his utter lack of knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, government, and history and his utter lack of motivation to learn about them. Credentials: Hillary.

Except for presidents seeking a second term, no one comes to the presidency with first-hand experience, so we have to look at relevant experience. Hillary Clinton was active during her husband’s presidency, served as a United States Senator, and served as Secretary of State. She is one of the most experienced candidates ever to apply for this job. Donald Trump has built buildings, run companies, organized beauty pageants, and worked as a reality TV star. Some argue that his business acumen is a transferable skill set, but I think making deals—the skill on which he most prides himself—is not really applicable to being a leader and diplomat. Moreover, four bankruptcies do not speak well of his business smarts or ethics. And if you don’t believe me, ask Michael Bloomberg. Therefore, I’m also going to award experience to Hillary.

So far, we have a clear winner; but we still have to look at the questions of character, temperament, ethics, and history. And this is where things get muddy; here’s where our front runner loses ground. Many voters question her character, don’t care for her temperament or personality, don’t believe she’s ethical, and have a long list of concerns about her past. Fair enough.

Hillary Clinton’s negative reputation began even before her husband became president. She was not the traditional First Lady. She didn’t, as she said, want to stay home, bake cookies, and have teas. She was a smart professional woman, and she chose to do First Lady her way. According to the National First Ladies’ Library http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=43, her image problems began during the primaries. Among other things, according to this site, Bill Clinton announced from the get go that his wife would be an equal partner in his presidency, that they would be a “two for one deal.” The biography goes on to say, “Hillary Clinton was the only First Lady to keep an office in the West Wing among those of the president’s senior staff. [Because of] her familiarity with the intricate political issues and decisions faced by the President, she openly discussed his work with him, yet stated that ultimately she was but one of several individuals he consulted before making a decision. . . . When issues that she was working on were under discussion at the morning senior staff meetings, the First Lady often attended. Aides kept her informed of all pending legislation and oftentimes sought her reaction to issues as a way of gauging the President’s potential response.” This is starkly different from the usual role of First Lady and earned Mrs. Clinton many early critics and enemies.

Then there was a long investigation on Whitewater, involving both of the Clintons. Later, she scored her own ethics investigations with Benghazi and her infamous emails. The FBI declined to bring charges against her for the emails, although not without some pretty harsh words: “extreme carelessness.” Even so, emails have often been an issue for other people in government, yet without anything close to the level of media attention. Benghazi was a tragedy, but seven investigations—led mostly by congressional Republicans—failed to turn up enough evidence to convict Mrs. Clinton of wrongdoing. All of this attention would make one think the Benghazi incident was the first time a U. S. ambassador had been killed. Politifact, however, has a detailed analysis of embassy attacks and deaths under other presidents and other secretaries of state: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/.

So far, our candidate who nailed credentials and experience may appear to be faring not so well on the character issues. These are the facts, and no one can argue with them, and no one should attempt to whitewash them. But we still have to compare these facts with facts about her opponent’s character. Donald Trump has regularly been labeled liar, misogynist, xenophobe, and inciter of violence, among other things. He has ridiculed people with disabilities; he has ridiculed prisoners of war; he has made irresponsible public statements about his opponents, an opponent’s wife, an opponent’s father, all women, all Mexicans, all Muslims. It’s well documented that he refuses to pay many of the people who do work for him or at least pays them less than he originally agreed to pay. His steadfast refusal to release his tax returns makes it quite clear that there’s something or some things he doesn’t want us to know. He has barred members of the press from his events and has whined about his treatment by them. He has five children by three different mothers, whom he admits were raised mostly by the mothers. He has described his older daughter as “hot,” has repeatedly said he’d date her if she were not his daughter, and patted her ass on national TV. Eeewwwwwww! He has made irresponsible charges that his opponent (HRC) was responsible for Vince Foster’s death as well as some others and has led his supporters in the chant “Lock her up!” He has lawsuits pending against him for fraud and rape of a minor. He says wages are too high and would even allow states to lower the minimum wage. He is delusional enough to think he can build a wall on a 1989-mile border and make the other country pay for it. He appears to be in collusion with a foreign government not friendly to our democracy. I’m sure I’m forgetting a few things, but these are enough for me.

To summarize, Clinton takes credentials and experience. Clinton and Trump both have some negatives on character, but I think his negatives are worse than hers. Hers have at least been investigated; and even though the court of public opinion is keeping the cases open, they’ve been closed in courts of law. She has actual plans and proposals, and she explains how she will accomplish them; he has a few vague ideas (mostly the stupid wall) and in a whole year has given no indication how he intends to accomplish anything he’s mentioned. So I’m going to say his negatives are far worse than hers. Final score: Clinton 3, Trump 0.

I’m with her.

Tags 2016 campaign, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, qualifications