Respect Rights

The freedoms of speech, expression and assembly are very basic in the United States.

They give most if us the liberty to come and go, presumably without fear.  They also prevent police or anyone else from challenging us without cause.

Demonstrations are a way of challenging aspects if the system we may not like.  In many parts of the country, demonstrations ate rare.  In the District of Columbia, they happen everyday.

I have always made my living watching the world, and in the more than 40 years I have done that, I have learned many things.  One of the most memorable is that the causes that send people out into the streets are endless.

I do not have to agree with your cause, and how you express your views, but I respect your right to do it.  Sit-ins, blockades, marches and other forms of protests each have their legitimacy.  That includes things like flag burning, passionate, same sex kisses on the streets, banner-sized photos of aborted fetuses and  wearing hoodies on the floor of the House of Representatives.  

Congress has its rules, and all members know how violations of those rules are handled.  Dress code infractions can lead to removal. Every member of Congress learns that during their orientation. But sometimes actions are taken for the record or as a matter of principle.

Demonstrations are about symbolism.  Arrests go on the record as a commitment to a cause.  Being escorted from the chamber of the House turns up in the congressional record. There are a whole list of symbolic misdemeanor charges and nominal sanctions that can apply to those who cross the line from support to civil disobedience or violations of rules.

Bobby Rush made his point.  His penalty is inconsequential.   Some may condemn his method, but it is likely it was a hit with his constituents. 


In the rest of the country, it is easy to see demonstrations and the necessary security they require as being wastes of the taxpayers' money. In Washington, D.C., it is part of the fabric of America.


This time it is about the tragic loss of a child, last time it was about the cause of the day.

Lest You Be Judged

One thing I learned in thousands of Sundays sitting in lots of pews in lots of places. Most Christians believe that sin is sin. Many Christians believe in original sin. That's the one traced back to Adam and Eve and paradise lost.

There are also mortal sins and venial sins.  Somewhere in the mix are all the lies, thefts, murders, and slights against God, woman and man that most of us could ever imagine.

Still, I have always believed in a forgiving God. A God, who knows exactly what types of imperfect beings he created, and like the best of parents loves us anyway, flaws and all.

As much as I have learned through the years about the separation of church and state and how it is central the democracy in the United States, I am struck by the growing overlap between prayer and politics.

People are being judged, not for the way they live their secular lives, but essentially, how some, who call themselves people of faith believe they should act or live, according to them.

It wasn't long ago, maybe the 1980s, when some folks used to be accused of wrapping themselves in the flag. Back then, it was common to suggest that some people were stronger on defense than others, and even worse, to say some we would roll over for our enemies.

Today, the ranks of the military are filled with the sons and daughters of basic blue collar Americans. Wealthy people do not go there. While the last administration got us involved in Iraq (not to fight terrorism, it turns out) and Afghanistan, the current administration has been tough on Al Qaida and has found ways to make us safer.

Questioning the patriotism of the opposition was bad, but that's become difficult. Still, questioning the faith of many is even worse. It is tiresome to have people speaking out against what they think you may believe, when many do not live what they profess they believe.

Rush Limbaugh is the the pope of the Republican Party. He has awakened a lot of rage in the moderate middle, a very large group of Democrats, independents, and moderate Republicans. This childless man labeled someone's daughter a harlot and a loose woman. Her alleged sin? Offering to share her personal story with Congress as it looked into a woman's health issue.

Many of those of us with daughters were offended by the nastiness of the labeling. Many of us with daughters would go completely off if such attacks were aimed at members of our own families.

I am reminded of Matthew 7, verses 1 and 2. I think it puts it all very clearly:

 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

So, as this political season continues, and people are tempted to use the ideals they strive for to judge, candidates and voters, think of Ms. Fluke, and remember the words of John 8, verse 7: "Let the person among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

Like I said in the beginning, "sin is sin."

The Real Problem

Rush has said hateful and ignorant things for many years. That his latest rants are earning headlines surely makes him smile.

But it really isn't Rush that is the problem here. He often says things members of his audience think and ardently believe, but lack the nerve or the guts to utter in public.

They declare it entertainment, smile and deny their bigotry, sexism, racism, and intolerance. It is his audience that are the enablers. Their acceptance of his positions perhaps validates the attitudes they do not share in mixed company.

No boycott of sponsors will have much impact because those who would gladly boycott do not listen to his nonsense or buy many of the products advertised on his show or even on the stations that give him airtime.

There are people who smile about each snide attack, laugh at all the sophomoric parodies, and nod their heads as anyone in disagreement is ideologically labeled. They have no need for fact checkers, because the facts cannot get in the way of their narrow beliefs.

The enablers though, have wives, daughters and girlfriends. Presumably they enjoy their relationships with the women in their lives. Many of those women have likely used birth control. Some, likely find the nasty attacks on women and their social independence distasteful and mean spirited.

It is these women who could have influence on Limbaugh's overwhelmingly male audience.  Will they sit quietly as this man makes statements that make most gangster rappers sound tame?   Even on the right, there must be limits.

Then, of course, there are the declared social conservatives. Will they speak out in defense of womanhood, or continue to ignore the nastiness aimed at their sisters, daughters, and divorced or widowed mothers?

Women have ways of making their displeasure known. Politicians could feel the heat at the polls, but Rush's mean and smiling minions may find it kind of chilly at home.  

Why Hate the Government?

Society needs its institutions. There are families,churches,  tribes, towns, cities, states, countries and more. None of those institutions are perfect. People who believe in them work to make them better.

Dissatisfaction with an institution does does not mean it cannot be improved, but few improvements come overnight. You push, prod, inch and drag what is good about it toward something better.  That's one of the reasons the United States has continued to evolve over more than 200 years.

People have looked at where the nation was in their times and worked to make it better. Some of the things that government has done include:

1) Identifying and promoting better farming practices so that the land, crops and livestock we depend upon to feed our families will be able to do the same for future generations. That solved the erosion problems that devastated farm families in the 1920s and 1930s. It also led to the banning of D-D-T and other chemicals that nearly killed off dozens of species in the interests of increasing yields.

2) Beating diseases like smallpox, yellow fever and polio. While private pharmaceutical companies will do some research, coming up with ways to manage, prevent or cure the most crippling diseases has always taken a combination of public institutional research, private sector investment and a good dose of government cash to produce results.

3) Providing basic minimum standards of education critical to the nation's defense, economic competitiveness, and basic cultural identification of what it means to be an American.  While local and state control may be important, sharing concepts on a national scale does play a tremendous role in making sure that people have some basic similarities when they need to function as a unit representing America.

4) Tying the country together so that people from coast to coast, and even in flyover country have access to the same goods, the same technology, and the same services. If you go to certain parts of the eastern United States, you will still find remnants of private  pikes, canals and railways that served portions of a state or region, but withered  because they did not connect to merchants to markets they needed to serve.

5)  Building codes and other safety safety and health standards. If the free market was always the best option, we would still be using leaded gasoline in our vehicles and asbestos in our floor coverings and break linings and lead paint in our homes. The government, through Congress, exercising the will of the people, has brought us many standards that have helped to create a standard of living unrivaled in much of the world.

6) If people were always fair and honest, we would not need to be concerned about human rights. But people have a weakness for acting in their own individual self interests. When people at the local or state level pass ordinances, adopt policies or enact laws that result in institutional unfairness,  government has an obligation to intervene. This is the United States of America so "if you don't like it, move" is just not an option.

So, when people go on the stump and start talking about how government has abandoned or is ignoring the people, they are pandering. In most cases, they do not suggest ways of making government better. Instead they harken to a past time when government was not doing its best by all of its people.

Talk of restoring the nation to its freedoms does not mean the same thing to all people. If you are disabled, elderly, female, an ethnic or racial minority or live outside of the social norm, it could mean a return to exclusions, restrictions or persecutions.

All of these things are part of America's past, yet even now, there are movements to eliminate or minimize their significance in the text books used in the nation's public schools. There are no perfect institutions, like families, countries do not always treat all of their children the same. And like people, acknowledging flaws and working to get better makes any institution stronger.

Don't hate the government or the courts for encouraging change. In the end, only change will make the nation stronger.

Standards and Principles

Let's See. Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Tawana Brawley.  These are all names that have  come up for years in discussions about the politics of Barrack Obama, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.  Politics can be a very unforgiving process.
People weigh your past voting records and statements. They examine your relationships ans associations. And they consider the actions of your family, your business associates and your high-profile supporters.

When you have to campaign in 50 states and five territories, everything you say, do or ever have done could have a shelf life.   People will remember insensitive positions you've taken against women or minorities. They will also remember your appearances made before or on behalf of organizations and institutions and your associations with individuals.

So, if Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and Tawana Brawley can be forever linked to some politicians, then surely other politicians should face similar scruitiny. If public denouncements and repudiation are so critical to vindication, then perhaps such demands should be universally applied.

Would that not be holding everyone to the same standards?  Wouldn't that make clarifying where candidates stand on issues such as bigotry a matter of principle?