Fear of Government

I have been engaged in some really interesting exchanges with a person I respect and count as a friend.  He is very conservative.  I am not.  He reflects what I have heard from many others, including family members.  They fear “the government”.  They fear losing control.  They fear losing their rights.  They fear losing their freedom.  They fear the government will take over everything.  They fear the government is breeding dependent citizens.  They are sincere.  But I believe they are seriously misguided.

Who and what is this “government” they fear?  It is not the local school board, the local city council, the local county government, maybe not even the state government.  It is the federal government they fear.  And if we break that down, it is not so much the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the EPA, the armed services, ICE, the DEA, or any of the federal law enforcement branches.  It does not include the Justice Department, the Office of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, the Treasury, Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the Department of Veteran Affairs, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Energy, the Department of State, the Department of Labor, the Department of Transportation, etc.  In other words, they do not fear the departments and agencies in the Executive Branch.  They do not fear the Legislative branch, though they express frustration about that branch.  They do not fear the Judicial branch because they have little dealings with that branch even though it is important in safeguarding the rights of Americans.  So what do they fear?

They fear the nebulous, ubiquitous, undefined “government.”  As best as I can tell after pushing and prodding, what they are really afraid of is taxation, and having those taxes support people they see as misfit co-dependents, and they fear somebody somewhere is going to show up at their door and take away their property, or worse, their guns.  When asked about the “swamp” they refer globally to all those government officials that are running their lives as they see it.  But pressed on that they have few if any specifics. 

They are just afraid.  Afraid of losing something.  Afraid of paying taxes so that others can get what they have or worse, get something they do not have.  Afraid of recognizing people of color, women, people with different religious beliefs, people with different sexual orientations, people who are not white conservative males.  It appears they have a mental model of the US that harkens back to a day when minorities were suppressed, women knew their place, and “deviants” were beat up if they did not stay in the closet.  They are willing to do the most un-American things to return to those days because they see those days as “great.”

They are wrong.  They fear a boogeyman.  In fact, their fears are the reverse of what they should be.  I believe they should fear any step by the government to allow discrimination against any identifiable group of humans.  If the government can discriminate against gay folks, transgender folks, Black, Hispanic, female, disabled then we are all at risk.  Human rights, civil rights, must be protected for all or they will not be available to any.  The current direction of the nation and the courts is in fact scary.  We are moving back in time.  Back to an era that complies with the mental model of the fearful.  We cannot allow that to happen.

In what I see as a strange twist of logic, those who have fear of government syndrome are promoting a government that merits fearing.  We simply cannot allow ourselves to say that some people just have to live under the bridge, go hungry, go without health care, go without education because they do not fit our mental model of who Americans are or should be.  Those in need are Americans.  The only moral thing to do is to provide them the necessities and protect their rights.  The really scary thing to me is the people who would hurt others and promote themselves because they have a false fear of the government.  Those people merit fear.

Guns and Schools

Listening to Donald Trump pontificate on school shootings and the cure for such is like asking Richard Dawkins to preside at Billy Graham’s funeral.  Trump knows nothing about public schools and public school teachers and it is pretty apparent he knows very little about guns.  Arming classroom teachers is absolutely the worst idea since hydrogen blimps or the Ford Pinto.  This is typical Trump, however.  For every highly complex problem there is a simple solution, and it is wrong.  Count on Trump to shoot from the hip in a thoughtless rant about how to fix school shootings and come up with an idea that will increase school shootings.  That is, putting guns in schools.

We have to begin to unpack the idiocy in this suggestion by thinking about classroom teachers.  I spent 40 years in public education and I know teachers of all sorts, all ilks, all subjects, from experienced pros to rookies.  And though each teacher is a unique human being, they all share several characteristics.  For instance, they all would rather help kids than hurt kids.  Period.  They show it in different ways, but I deeply believe this is true.  Put a gun in a teacher’s hand and ask them to shoot a current or former student very, very few teachers could or would pull the trigger.  Teachers are taught to disarm situations in ways other than violence.  We listen.  We prompt.  We counsel.  We extoll.  We direct.  But we have never, ever been taught to use violence to resolve a conflict, even if it is a bloody conflict.

The other dimension of classroom teachers that is not often discussed is the drama level that can occur on any campus.  Yes, the teachers are the adults.  But in the microcosm that is a public school, little ripples in the tranquility pond turn into tsunamis.  I have seen teachers totally lose it when the Xerox machine breaks down.  Or when someone failed to make a new pot of coffee in the lounge, or they are called to a meeting during their conference period, or they are shamed in public by a terrible principal, or the previous teacher did not return the computer cart.  I absolutely would not want any of those otherwise great human beings to be armed when they go ballistic. 

The logistics of such a suggestion are even more impossible.  Set aside the actual cost of providing a firearm, ammunition and training of teachers.  That alone is a deal breaker.  But assume that the Koch Brothers buy everyone a gun.  OK, so I am a teacher.  I am experienced with firearms.  I even have a concealed weapon permit and a carry permit.  I spend time at the range shooting targets with my Glock 17 handgun.  I am good.  While in class I do not wear my gun on my belt because it would be too tempting for students to focus on that and not the lesson, and for safety sake I do not want a loaded weapon so easily available.  I keep it locked in my desk or armoire.  Suddenly I hear gunshots in the hallway.  I hear the intercom issue the code for active shooter.  I order my kids to duck and cover near the hallway wall and I go to unlock my handgun.  I get the gun and step out in the hallway.  Just as every other teacher has stepped out in the hallway.  I am looking at the backs of my colleagues who are all facing the shooter.  Really?  Am I going to shoot?  Or, I am alone in the hallway with a handgun and 75 feet away is someone with an AR15.  What chance do I have of hitting that shooter before he shoots me with his semi-automatic rifle?  Very little.  In other words, given the physical structure of schools and the need for day-to-day security, quick response is unlikely, and any response is likely to be unsuccessful and may kill others.  Plus, while I am going for my gun I was not able to lock my classroom door to keep the shooter outside, so after I am shot all the kids in my class are fair game.

And finally is the simple common sense argument that having guns does not decrease the number of deaths from someone else’s gun.  In fact, the more guns that are present in America the more shootings we have, not vice-versa.  President Reagan was protected by six armed, highly trained Secret Service officers when he was shot on a sidewalk.  Bobby Kennedy was surrounded by Secret Service when he was shot.  And at Fort Hood populated by highly trained military personnel a mass shooting occurred in 2009.  No schools have the weapons available like a military base.  Almost every school where there has been a shooting had an armed officer of the law and it did not diminish the bloodshed.  More guns more people armed with guns is not the answer unless every hallway in America’s public school is staffed with armed officer of the law who have no function other than to keep guard.

So, if giving teachers weapons is stupid and I will always argue that it is, what might work?  How about metal detectors at the doors.  Nope.  Won’t work.  Picture a typical classroom wing with doors at each end and classrooms on each side of the hallway between the doors.  It would take two metal detectors for that building.  But it would take much more than that.  It would also take an x-ray machine and someone to monitor it for purses and backpacks.  It would take armed officers at each detector so if the alarm goes off someone will be there to respond.  And each of those officers will need to have a wand as well.  Kids entering the building will back-up as the line forms to get through the scanner, just like at the airport.  Bell schedules will have to be radically amended so that the time allowed between classes is expanded to include the sweep.  And what happens after the first period when as many kids are trying to exit the building equals the number trying to enter the building.  That will be total chaos.  Most any student could find a way to enter going upstream and avoid the detectors.  Or worse, any armed shooter will not be slowed by a metal detector because he will take out those officers first.  And shall we do this at elementary schools as well?  Sandy Hook may wish they had such a system, but it would not have helped.  Any shooter dedicated to killing people will not be slowed by a metal detector or an officer at the door.

How about active shooter training?  Nope, doesn’t help much.  Each school has an active shooter protocol based on the structure of the campus and the grade level of the kids.  Training in this protocols is probably OK, and though I have sat through several, the main message I got was run away if you can, hunker down, lock the door and pretend the room is empty if you can’t.  As a last resort attack the shooter, but we all know how that will work out.  There, you have now had active shooter training.

I’m sorry, but the issue is not the school or the preparedness of the school or weaponizing faculty.  The issue is the readily available source of firearms.  As long as there are so many guns, and acquitting a gun is so easy there will be school shootings, mall shootings, movie shootings, concert shootings, etc.  Obtaining a gun ought to be at least as difficult as obtaining a drivers license with pre-ownership training required, test proficiency required, frequent renewals, and liability insurance requires. 

Make owning a gun a much more restrictive process and eliminate semi-automatic military style weapons, make fully automatic weapons and silencers illegal, and update our list of folks who cannot buy a gun to include mentally disturbed folks.  Perhaps if we do so we will see the sharp drop in such killings as has most of the civilized world.  We cannot continue to sacrifice children for the profit margin of gun manufacturers.  We cannot continue to argue that the right to bear arms is more critical than the right to life.

Believing Falsehoods

I am a Star Trek fan, and one of my favorite episodes was the 8^th episode in the 3^rd season, “For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky.”  As a planet is on the verge of dying the humanoids there build an asteroid to launch their species into space.  From inside the asteroid it appears that the survivors are standing on the surface of a planet looking at the sky, so after generations in space the humanoids do not know they are inside a fabricated asteroid controlled by a computer hurtling through the cosmos.  But one elder member of the group, just before his death, confesses to Captain Kirk that he knows the truth. “For the world is hollow and I have touched the sky.”  Only he knew the real truth.  Only he knew the others suffered from a perception they believed to be true.

This notion of perception is repeated throughout all kinds of literature.  The Emperor’s New Clothes is a classic fairy tale about a king who believes he is wearing gorgeous garments when in fact he is naked and only a young child is willing to challenge the universal perception.  Plato’s Republic recounts an anecdote where men are chained to a wall in a cave and can only see their shadows on the opposite wall.  They come to believe the shadows are real.  One man escapes, makes it to the surface and understands that what they have been seeing is just shadows, not reality.  He returns to the cave but fails to convince his peers of the truth.

Joel Barker, futurist, describes in his video, “The Business of Paradigms” how the Swiss, who manufactured most of the watches in the world, rejected the design of the first digital watch because it did not exhibit the attributes they believed were critical for a timepiece.  It had no gears, no springs, no face, no hands.  The Swiss loss their preeminence in the market as the Japanese bought the rights to the watch the Swiss rejected and began to mass produce digital watches.

We are in the middle of such a time in America.  There are groups of Americans who base their decision-making, their support, their view of the world on falsehoods, naked kings, shadows and erroneous paradigms.  As long as those among us remain committed to viewing the world through false lenses we are in serious trouble.  It is as though I awakened one morning to discover that about 35% of American citizens believe Santa Claus is real and Zeus is the Supreme Being.

Worse, to try to convince my peers of the error in their perspective generates hate, vitriolic speech and name calling.  I have lost friends trying to show that their perception is a shadow, not reality.  They so desperately cling to their view that they will continue to stand on the deck of the Titanic convinced the ship cannot sink.  How do we reach these folks?  What logic, what facts will prevail against a belief so totally rooted in falsehoods? 

Perhaps identifying the source of the falsehoods would help. 

Our current President is a compulsive liar beyond anything ever seen.  There are over 2,000 documented lies that he has perpetrated on the American people.  He is not to be believed.  The simple fact that he is waging war on the Justice Department, the FBI, and anyone who may be sharing truth with the collusion and obstruction of justice investigation is the reveal of ill intent, and surely not of democracy.

Fox News has an entertainment charter, not a news charter.  They can say anything they want and not be held accountable because it is “info-tainment.”  They consistently repeat and support the President’s lies.  They are not to be believed.

Russia continues to unleash “bots” or automated social media responses supporting the President and his policies.  Their mission is to destabilize our democracy.  Those posts and tweets are not to be believed.

Sadly, to accept that these sources are false requires a simple fact-check, something the true supporters are not willing to do, so they continue to believe shadows are real and the sky is real.

But it is getting more serious.  Today a reporter was banned from a press conference because he refused to edit an article to be more favorable to the Trump administration.  That is unheard of in a democracy.  If what is reported is false, then there are all kinds of legal ramifications and consequences.  But to censor a reporter because he is not “loyal” is not a democratic practice.

The same with a host of previous appointed officials now unemployed.  If one is an official in the Justice Department one pledges allegiance and loyalty to the Constitution and the law of the land, not to an elected President.  Loyalty to an elected person as the only criteria for maintaining your job is a 3^rd World practice, not a democratic practice.

If our nation is no longer based on the Constitution, on law, on the checks and balances of the three branches of government, and on the protection of civil liberties including a free press and free speech, then we no longer qualify as a democracy.  So I literally beg those of you who continue to support this man to do two things.  One, get your news from somewhere other than Fox, Brietbart and the like.  And fact-check everything the President or his spokespeople say.  If that does not convince you that you have grown to believe shadows are real then I see little hope for our democracy to survive.  I believe in my heart of hearts that the truth will win out over the lies and that justice will prevail over conspiracy.  But the more of us who believe and constantly check reality better off we will be.

If it helps, I did not feel this way when either Bush was President, or Ford or Reagan or Nixon.  Just Trump.

Please abandon the falsehoods for truth.

Forgiving Evangelicals

I confess to feeling a lot of anger and a lot of frustration with the American Christian right-wing, whether we call them evangelicals or fundamentalists or some other less flattering term.  This group of folks has me totally stymied and dumbfounded.  Claiming to be the most Christian of the Christians they act in ways that defy both logic and belief.

For now, let’s set aside their stringent commitment to falsehoods, beliefs that are totally contradicted by fact, knowledge and reason.  Among those set-asides are the beliefs that the earth is around 6,000 years old, humans and dinosaurs walked the planet together, the earth is flat, it was created in 6 days, there really was a Noah and an Ark and a flood, and evolution is not a fact.  There are more, but just looking at the belief structure that is in such denial of reality might be enough to get most of them certified and committed.  But, for now, let’s set that aside.

Let’s not set aside the primary tenets of Christianity as defined in the New Testament.  Whether you are a Christian, a Muslim, an atheist or a Hindu the core teachings are pretty obvious even to the most superficial reader:  Love your neighbor as you love yourself.  Have no hatred for your brother.  If anyone has worldly goods and sees his neighbor in need he does not have God’s love in him.  Honor everyone.  It is more difficult for the rich to enter heaven.  Love your enemies.  Everyone is a child of God. 

So, for 8 years this group attacked the President.  They claimed he was not born in America.  He was.  They claimed he was a Muslim.  He is not.  They claimed he would come and take their guns away.  He did not.  What he did was save our economy from destruction due to the conservative policies of the previous years, he enacted health insurance for the poor and needy, he improved our international relations with other nations, he took great steps in ending the conflicts in the middle east, and he worked on protecting the climate.  There was no hint of scandal or corruption, and yet the Christian right continued their assault.

Now, we have a President who is a known adulterer, a known sex offender, a bigot, a misogynist, a racist, a person who unleashes verbal assault on anyone who dares question him, a person who consistently lies and misrepresents reality, and a person who prides himself on his wealth.  And yet, the Christian right not only ignores those attributes, they defend him fervently.  There are even some who believe that God chose this man to become our President when it is growing more and more clear the Russians chose this man to become our President.  What am I missing? 

If we lay the basic tenets of Christianity down and attempt to align Trump’s programs we have a total mismatch.  Accusing immigrants of being criminals is anti-Christian.  Building a wall to keep people out is anti-Christian.  Dismantling a health care system for the poor and for children is anti-Christian.  Placing oneself above all others is anti-Christian.  Using women as sex objects is anti-Christian.  Blaming the victims of poverty as villains is anti-Christian.  Having great wealth and not sharing it with the neediest is anti-Christian.  And on and on.  This man is clearly the most anti-Christian President we have ever had and yet he enjoys the support of the Christian right-wing more than any other President.

I can reach only several possible conclusions.  Those who call themselves Christian are liars and charlatans.  Or, those who call themselves Christian really rely less on the tenets of their beliefs than they do their own fear and prejudice and greed.  Or, Christians are just stupid sheep.  I can find no way to salute their stand.

Unless, their position is that we should forgive our neighbors.  But, if that was the basis of their support, why did they attack the previous President so much?  No, it cannot be that.

Those of us who struggle with our beliefs, who wonder if there really is a God and if Jesus really existed and was His son, are rocked to our core watching those who claim to be Christian.  I do not understand why so-called Christians are not rising up and offering both forgiveness of Trump and a demand for his impeachment.

Unlike those so-called Christians, I am at least attempting to forgive the evangelicals for the harm they are doing to our country.  I am not there yet.  But I am trying.

Unfriended

Dear Friend from High School,

I mourn the loss of your friendship.  I mourn that we have reached such a polarized time in our nation that we divorce ourselves from people who think differently.  I do not see myself as an evil man.  I see myself as a man seeking truth, facts, reality and when what I once believed conflicts with the truth I am willing to abandon my beliefs.  Santa Claus is not real.  Women should be able to make reproductive decisions for themselves and not follow the rules made by old white men.  The earth is round, it is billions of years old, we orbit the sun, evolution is a fact, all humans merit love and respect regardless of gender, race, sexual identity, ethnicity, country of origin, and religious belief.  We shall be judged on how we treat the neediest among us, not the richest.  We shall be judged by what we inflict on the only planet we have.  We should build bridges, not walls. 

I know those positions are a minority perspective in Texas, but they are not a minority perspective nationally or internationally.  And I believe tolerance is much more powerful than judgement, listening is more powerful than preaching.  So yes, my friend.  I am a liberal.  I may be the only liberal you know.  And though you took offense when I asked what religious beliefs could support a verified racist, adulterer, sexual predator, liar, and misogynist I was simply seeking to understand how a person of faith could support such a man.  Sad that you saw that as an insult.  Sad that you chose not to give me insight.  Sadder still that rather than seek to understand my perspective you have chosen to run from me. 

I mourn the loss of your friendship.

Non Sequiturs

Biologists and creationists.  

Archaeologists and creationists.  

Geologists and creationists.  

Astronomers and astrologers.  

Astrophysicists and flat-earthers.  

Physicists and ghost hunters.  

Marine biologists and whalers.  

Climatologists and lumberjacks.  

Generals and pacifists.  

Suicide bombers and diplomats.  

Psychiatrists and exorcists.  

The Pope and atheists.  

Fox News and truth.  

Trump supporters and civil liberties.  

Racists and Christians.

Generic Bigotry

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and our President has declared he is not a racist.  He also has used the term “shithole” for countries filled with poor non-Anglos.  Right.  He is a racist and a bigot and like many folks I know does not know and does not believe he is one.

It is simple, really.  If one claims to know and like members of an identifiable minority then one has accomplished nothing more than anyone else.  Everyone knows and likes people they know and like.  Duh.  If you know a gay person and think of him or her as a friend, good for you.  Same is true for a Black person, or a Hispanic person, or if you respect the talents and abilities of a female person, or if you are a Christian and know and like an atheist, or if you know and like an Arab or a Muslim, then good for you.  You have accomplished nothing of any significance at all other than admitting that you know and like the people you know and like.  You should not do those people the disservice of attempting to ride their friendship and their label into a claimed state of open-minded tolerance and support.  Your bigotry is not based on those you know and like.  If you say, “I have Black friends,” or gay friends or Arab friends you are not off the hook.  Your bigotry is based on a state of prejudicial opinion for an entire group of folks you do not know.  Generic bigotry is real and dangerous bigotry. 

Generic bigotry allows the bigot to make assumptions about identifiable groups and apply those assumptions to isolated individuals from that group.  If you see a group of protestors and in that group are African Americans and you use those individuals to confirm your negative thoughts about Black people, then you are a bigot.  If you picture welfare recipients as lazy Blacks when you see a Black woman using food stamps then you are a bigot.  If you see a Muslim woman with her face and head covered and use that image to confirm what you think of Muslims you are a bigot.  If you racially profile anyone you are a bigot. 

If you think of poor countries where most of the people are not Anglo as shithole countries you are a bigot and racist of the worst degree.  It will not occur to you that poor people are people too, that non-White people are people too, that non-heterosexual people are people too, that non-Christian people are people too, and that there is likely some other bigot somewhere who counts all those individuals as friends and exempt from their own generic bigotry. 

In fact, if you discover you are a generic bigot you cannot claim the title of a good person, much less a religious person.  Tolerance, love, understanding and support for the downtrodden, the sick, the hungry, the forlorn is the hallmark of goodness.  To disparage any group as a group is a source of evil, in my opinion, and should trigger significant soul-searching rather than defensive search for verification of the bigotry.  Bigotry of any sort is anti-human and diminishes the humanity of the bigot.  Bigotry is likely grounded in fear, perhaps anger, perhaps selfishness.  But bigotry is surely not grounded in fact, reality, empathy, love, tolerance or any other worthy human characteristic.

The flip side of generic bigotry, of course, is to assume that only a certain group of people are superior to other people.  All other people.  White supremacists simply announce they are bigots regarding everyone who does not meet their very narrow racial criteria.  They are equally evil.

Yes, I see Trump as a bigot, a racist and a White supremacist.  I see him as an evil person.  And in doing so admit I am a generic bigot against those who think as he thinks.  This post is one of my humble efforts to reach out and help members of the racist groups.  Rather than stereotype those groups and write them off I prefer to open their eyes. 

I believe using generic bigotry to help and support the identifiable group is an act of goodness, not evil.  Banning them, belittling them, and building walls against them are all evil acts grounded in bigotry, not economics.