Mary Harris Jones (a.k.a. “Mother Jones”)

After reading Mother Jones magazine for the first time, I became interest in its namesake and did a little research. I learned that “Mother Jones” (the woman) had a fascinating perspective, which in many ways is actually quite apropos to the focus of this blog.

Mary Harris Jones lived a long life from 1837 until 1930.

Mary Harris was originally from Cork County, Ireland. Her family were Catholics. They were tenant farmers in Ireland. She immigrated to North America with her family as a teenager.

Miss Harris received a Catholic education in Toronto, Canada. She later worked as a teacher in a convent. Eventually, she moved south to the United States and married George E. Jones of Memphis, Tennessee. He was active in an iron molders’ union.
Early in her adult life, Mrs. Jones tragically lost her husband and all her children in a yellow fever outbreak. She had had four children. They were all under the age of five when they died. What an unimaginable loss for someone to bear.

However, Mrs. Jones apparently did not wallow in her grief. Instead, she turned her sorrow into productive outlets by pouring her considerable energies into labor organizing. “Mother Jones,” as she became known, was active in helping to form unions and was affiliated with the Socialist Party of America. She is particularly remembered for her leadership in fighting against the exploitation of child labor.

Mother Jones was apparently an effective labor leader in part because she was such a gifted orator. She was famous for using humor and spirited rhetoric to inspire audiences. Some of her more famous quotes include:

“I'm not a humanitarian, I'm a hell-raiser.”

“If they want to hang me, let them. And on the scaffold I will shout ‘Freedom for the working class!’”

“Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living.”

“Some day the workers will take possession of your city hall, and when we do, no child will be sacrificed on the altar of profit!”

“Injustice boils in men's hearts as does steel in its cauldron, ready to pour forth, white hot, in the fullness of time”

“Often while sewing for the lords and barons who lived in magnificent houses on the Lake Shore Drive, I would look out of the plate glass windows and see the poor, shivering wretches, jobless and hungry, walking alongside the frozen lake front. The contrast of their condition with that of the tropical comfort of the people for whom I sewed was painful to me.”

Interesting quotes.

Mother Jones is remembered as a passionate fighter for workers’ rights. Many modern people think of her as a godless communist. However, in reality, she had pretty traditional beliefs. Indeed, in many respects one might say she was a “conservative.” For example, Mother Jones was outspoken against female suffrage. She was famous for having said:

“working men deserved a wage that would allow women to stay home to care for their kids.”

I also read that Mother Jones blamed neglectful mothering as the root cause of juvenile delinquency.

As I understand her biography, if she was a radical leftist, it was simply due to class-based, economic concerns. She was not consistently left-wing on all issues. Other famous Mother Jones quotes include:

“I have never had a vote, and I have raised hell all over this country. You don't need a vote to raise hell! You need convictions and a voice!”

“I preferred sewing to bossing little children.”

“That is, the wife must care for what the husband cares for if he is to remain resolute.”

In light of all this, Mary Harris Jones seems like a rather curious inspiration for the modern magazine bearing her nickname.

Deuteronomy 8:17

If you start thinking to yourselves, "I did all this. And all by myself. I'm rich. It's all mine!"—well, think again. Remember that God, your God, gave you the strength to produce all this wealth so as to confirm the covenant that he promised to your ancestors—as it is today.

Mother Jones Magazine

In the 1970s, an underground magazine took the name “Mother Jones.” Over the years, the magazine became more prominent and was no longer underground. For a period in the 1980s, Michael Moore (now known for his films) was affiliated with the magazine.

The magazine touts itself as a beacon of investigative journalism, a type of journalism I think we need more of these days. There is some investigative work in the magazine, but some of it is not very thorough. Much of it is heavily tinged with ideology, which makes the articles less than ideal in my opinion.

Nonetheless, I appreciate Mother Jones magazine. I may not always agree with its ideology or perspective. But despite what the right says, there aren’t really a lot of left wing voices in the media. With the rise of Fox News Channel and talk radio, I think that countervailing voices are important.

Unlike talk radio and FNC, which make lots of money, Mother Jones magazine is produced by a non-profit, the Foundation for American Progress. The magazine accepts donations to support its existence.

http://motherjones.com/

Deuteronomy 24:19

When you harvest your grain and forget a sheaf back in the field, don't go back and get it; leave it for the foreigner, the orphan, and the widow so that God, your God, will bless you in all your work. When you shake the olives off your trees, don't go back over the branches and strip them bare—what's left is for the foreigner, the orphan, and the widow. And when you cut the grapes in your vineyard, don't take every last grape—leave a few for the foreigner, the orphan, and the widow. Don't ever forget that you were a slave in Egypt. I command you: Do what I'm telling you.

“Political Lying” Article by Rick Perlstein

In the May/June 2011 copy of Mother Jones, which my mother shared with me, there was an article addressing some of the same themes I’ve been describing in recent blog posts. The article is called “Inside the GOP's Fact-Free Nation: From Nixon's plumbers to James O'Keefe's video smears: How political lying became normal.” You can read it at the link below.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/history-political-lying

The article isn’t necessarily a piece of objective investigative journalism, but I thought the author had some good food for thought.

Proverbs 14:1

Every wise woman builds her house, but the foolish one tears it down with her own hands.

Texas Democrats

I have always heard of Mother Jones magazine, but never actually read it until recently. In my next post, I am going to recommend an article from that magazine. It is an article that seems pertinent to the recent thread of posts to this blog. But in the meantime, it is sort of interesting how I even came to read an issue for the first time.

I tease my mom that if you look up “flaming liberal” in the dictionary, one might find her picture. This is funny to me for a number of reasons, one of which is the fact that she lives in Texas. My home state doesn’t exactly have a reputation for being the home of flaming liberals.

Indeed, when I was practicing law in Texas, I was a semi-closeted Democrat. With regard to non-GOP political affiliations, within my social circle, things were generally on a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” basis. Everyone assumed everyone else was a Republican, and you didn’t volunteer your political tilt if you were not.
In our family, there is an infamous anecdote that exemplifies this experience. At a neighborhood cocktail party in early 2001, my husband mentioned in passing that I had voted for Al Gore. I still question how that fact was at all relevant to anything that had come up in the conversation. And I have always been unsure why he only mentioned the person for whom I had voted. Indeed, my husband had also voted for Mr. Gore. Nonetheless, for whatever reason, my husband innocently and naively spilled the beans—inadvertently outting me at the neighborhood cocktail party.

When he did so, I was several yards away chatting with some other neighbors. It was like one of those old E.F. Hutton commercials from the 70s. Everyone in the room stopped and looked at me with dropped jaws. One gentleman was sincerely flabbergasted and asked in a loud, puzzled tone, “Claudine, why would you have done such a thing?” He just couldn’t fathom. And from then on, the neighbors seemed to think I was a nice but misguided woman.

Interestingly, during the same time and up to the present, while in the same state, my mom surrounded herself with senior citizen women with a decidedly progressive bent. That just astounds me. When we lived in Texas, we only knew a couple other Democrats. Indeed, there were so few in our community that on one primary day, I showed up at the Democratic polling place and the election workers were so delighted to just have someone come to vote. It was almost closing time and they had only had a handful of Democrat primary voters all day. It had apparently been a boring day.

After I voted, they asked if I wanted to sign up for the local Democratic Party distribution list. They were going to have a potluck so folks could meet one another. My gosh, there were so few of us that we apparently would all fit in one family’s living room!

Anyhow, my mom must have a sixth sense for finding Democrats because she has quite a few friends who are openly progressive. They are sweet ladies who do volunteer work with the homeless, participate in walks to raise money to fight hunger, sew quilts to donate to soldiers’ families, and went to hear Bill Clinton when he came to town for a lecture.

On a recent visit to our home in Arizona, my mom brought me a stack of magazines she had finished reading. She included a copy of Mother Jones with the address label of a friend of hers. The friend is apparently a subscriber. I had heard of the magazine, but did not know much about it and had never seen it on sale anywhere. I just had this vague sense that it was an ultra-left wing periodical that was probably only read by people who wear clothing made from hemp, are into composting, and bake their own granola. As a result, it surprised me that I first received a copy of the magazine via a straight-laced senior citizen who lives in suburban Texas. That should teach me to not think in such stereotypes!

2 Chronicles 1:10

Give me wisdom and knowledge so I can lead this people, because no one can govern this great people of yours without your help.”

Is There Bias in the Mainstream Media?

Many political and social conservatives decry an alleged liberal bias in the so-called “mainstream media.” Concerns of such bias have led to a backlash that has led to the success of conservative talk radio and Fox News Channel.

To a point, I understand and agree there is a bias in the mainstream media. As someone who runs in a variety of different social circles—from conservative Christians to liberal idealists to pro-business capitalists—I actually think about this point quite a lot and have for a long time.

Many of my friends and acquaintances believe adamantly that there is a left-tilt in the mainstream media and it ticks them off. I also have plenty of friends who completely relate to the cultural perspectives shared by many mainline journalists, so it would never occur to them that there is anything wrong with the mainstream media’s worldview. As a consumer of such media who is fairly sensitive to each of these perspectives, I personally have for years had my antennae up listening and reading for evidence of such liberal bias.

In my observation, most journalists in the mainstream media seem to come from fairly homogenous backgrounds culturally. They seem to be college educated. Many are from the East Coast (but rarely from the South). Religion does not seem to be of much importance to them. And they seem to think they’re pretty clever.

I pick all this up from a plethora of fairly subtle things. NPR stations encourage listeners to contribute to support the “intelligent talk radio” on NPR. Such statements seem to be code for: “Yes, we are technically a type of ‘talk radio’ but we’re not blathering idiots like Rush, Glenn and their ilk.” I get the sense the point they’re trying to express is that Terry Gross and Diane Reem are qualitatively superior to the right wing windbags.

In mainstream media reporting, I’ve also noticed that acceptance of the Theory of Evolution is a given; no sane person would admit to Creationist sympathies. The unspoken assumption seems to be: “We are well-educated and smart; well-educated, smart people are always Darwinists.”

When religion is covered in various stories by the mainstream media, I often get the impression the people reporting are really thinking “WTF? Can you believe such crazy people exist?” Sometimes it is the tone of the reporting. But a lot of my impression is based simply on the type of stories that are chosen. We always seem to hear the stories of the religious bigots who are burning someone else’s scripture, or folks who are believing in something that defies scientific or other logical proof. It gives one the impression that if you run into these journalists at a cocktail party, it might be wise to not come out of the closet as a Christian.

I think that homogeneity in the culture of American journalism and perceived cultural bias is likely why Dan Rather (a native Texan) played up his regional accent and even added flaky colloquial phrases later in his career. I don’t know that for sure. That is just my gut reaction. But frankly why else would he start using those odd colloquialisms?

Indeed, some of those little witticisms were so darned wacky, I was truly embarrassed as a fellow Texan. (Classics: “Bush has run through Dixie like a big wheel through a cotton field.” “If [Gore] doesn’t carry Florida, Slim will have left town.”)

Clearly, Dan had not spent a lot of time in the Lone Star State in recent years. I don’t know anyone these days who talks like that. It was like a 40 year old stereotype of how Texans express themselves. But when he was still on the air, my assumption was that Dan spoke like that to appeal to the “common folk” and appear less of a New York liberal. I don’t know who he thought he was fooling, but I guess he thought it was worth a shot. For those who are unfamiliar, the link below has an article from 2000 about Dan’s “down-home witticisms.”

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/feature/2000/11/08/rather

So, yes, Virginia, I do believe the mainstream media has certain biases. I think all of us do. If I’ve learned nothing else as a lawyer over the past decade plus, I’ve learned that human objectivity is a myth. We are all shaped by our life experiences and the attitudes we’ve been exposed to. We should try to be objective if we are lawyers or journalists. But we should also be aware that subjectivity is always going to seep into anything we do. We should be aware of that tendency so we can fight against it as best we can. If we’re not even aware, then we won’t be successful in that struggle.

Frankly, I think it also helps to listen to different perspectives. I always encourage my students to listen open-mindedly to different opinions and points of view. We learn and grow that way. But hearing other perspectives also helps us to realize the biases that we carry around.

I imagine the newsroom of most mainstream media outlets to be composed of people from roughly similar backgrounds and values. They seem to have group think a lot of time. They don’t seem to realize many people in this country have different life experiences and belief systems that (gasp!) may be valid or at least deserving of equal respect. (See the November 19, 2009 post to this blog for some discussion of the media’s reaction to Jimmy Carter’s expression of his Christian faith in the 1976 election.) I think such work environments could benefit from less group think and more diversity of opinion. I’m not saying CBS and CNN should just hire a bunch more registered Republicans. That is too simplistic. Instead, I think that a real diversity of life experience and perspective would add a lot.

Now I want to make clear that even though I do believe there is a sort of cultural bias in the mainstream media, in my long-time, critical observation, I don’t necessarily perceive political bias in the stories that are typically reported. Even though I think that the mainstream media is likely dominated by secular, college-educated Northeasterners, I don’t typically notice that the mainstream media is more supportive of Democratic politicians and policies than Republican politicians and policies.

Indeed, the backlash against alleged media bias really ticks me off. For a long time, I have perceived the media to be rather meek and tepid to ask the hard questions. (See the May 18, 2011 post to this blog for a discussion of the media’s interaction with Lee Atwater.)

This kind of spinelessness has gone on for a long time, but the culmination, in my opinion, was the way the media essentially became George W. Bush’s cheerleaders after 9/11 and refused to ask tough questions in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.

Our country is about to observe the tenth anniversary of the horrific tragedy of 9/11. Many of us have not gotten over the shock and anguish of that awful day. Honestly, it is just impossible to get our minds around it fully even so long after the fact. The events of that day were just unimaginably agonizing.

You cannot make sense of such evil and such resultant human suffering. People who did nothing wrong and were just going about their business died unexpectedly in unthinkable ways. But you and I are still here. We cannot bring back the victims of the 9/11 attacks, but I think we have a duty to honor their memory. In my opinion, one way we do that is by keeping our democracy strong. Part of that involves challenging those in authority, asking inconvenient questions and holding our leaders accountable. If we fail to do that, we become no better than a totalitarian state.

Mark 3:27

No one gets into the house of a strong person and steals anything without first tying up the strong person. Only then can the house be burglarized.

“The Objectivity Bias”

I’ve mentioned before in this blog my admiration for the radio program On the Media, and I wanted to mention a report they did this past summer. It was called “The Objectivity Bias” and was aired on July 29, 2011. It is available at the link below.

http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/jul/29/reporting-extreme-positions/


The report involved modern American journalists’ strong fears of being perceived by the public as biased and partisan. The report examined how that fear impacts journalists’ ability to do their job. Specifically, the fear is that the public will think the media is biased toward the Democrats and are overly critical of the Republicans. It was a very thought-provoking report.

James 3:17 (King James Version)

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

High Salaries for Celebrity Journalists

Apropos of my recent blog posts, I came across an article about the amazingly high salaries of the celebrity journalists who bring us the “news” in the major media outlets. The article is available at the link below.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/matt-lauer-makes-17-million-topping-annual-tv-150858412.html

On the very same day, I saw an article about desperate mothers in Kenya physically fighting other desperate mothers to get food for their starving children. As a mom myself, I couldn’t begin to imagine the horror of watching my own children starve before my eyes. That article is available at the link below.

http://news.yahoo.com/mothers-exchange-blows-kenya-drought-deepens-155527381.html?nc

I was talking recently with a colleague who mentioned that he could imagine I would be a real “Mama Grizzly” if anyone ever threatened my kids. When I read this article about the moms in Kenya, I thought about that “Mama Grizzly” comment. To the best of my recollection and with the possible exception of some minor naughtiness as a young child, I’ve never physically assaulted anyone. I cannot conceive of harming another human being like that. But if my children’s survival were at stake, I can imagine that might begin to be an option. It is horrifying to consider, but the love for one’s children is strong. It would kill me to see my children’s lives in danger and I would probably do just about anything to protect them. It would fly in the face of every value I embrace and I would hate myself. But the anguish of watching your child waste away is unthinkable.

The irony of the two stories appearing at the same time struck me. I don’t begrudge anyone good fortune and a windfall. There will always be people who earn outrageous salaries while others live in deprivation. These rich “journalists” are not alone in receiving such compensation.

But the services provided by these celebrity “journalists” is relatively cushy. They are in temperature regulated studios in places like Manhattan and Northwest D.C. They wear expensive suits and are well-coifed. They bathe regularly and have people who fuss over getting their make-up just right.

By comparison, the investigative journalists who bust their butts and often risk their lives to bring us the news from places of instability and violence are often unsung heroes. Tom Odula is the person who wrote the article above about mothers dealing with horrific drought in Kenya. Frankly, I’ve never heard of him before. I googled him and was not able to learn much. I could be wrong, but I’m assuming that he is making considerably less than Matt Lauer this year. However, to me, Mr. Odula is performing a much more important public service than Mr. Lauer’s hosting of the Today show.

I suppose the same sort of inequality exists in other professions. I began my professional life as a grade school teacher in an underfunded church school in a neglected part of town. The salary I earned that first year probably would have put me below the federal poverty level. The teachers at the best public schools on the other side of town made several times more than I did. Teachers at prestigious private schools in other more affluent communities also would have made many times more than I was making that first year.

When I was in practice as a lawyer, I was very fortunate and made more money than I could have ever imagined. Partners at big firms made a lot more, but I couldn’t complain. I made much more than the lawyers in my community who defended indigent clients to avoid deportation or incarceration. I also had a much nicer office in which to work.

Similarly, the plastic surgeons who play on the insecurities of various people perform tummy tucks and breast augmentations, for which they earn lucrative income. By contrast, the doctors who live in rural communities serving underserved populations often with substandard facilities live a much less opulent lifestyle.

I think it is interesting to note the way that market forces sometimes overcompensate services of lesser social value and undercompensate services of greater social value.

Galatians 5:13

You were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only don’t let this freedom be an opportunity to indulge your selfish impulses, but serve each other through love.

The Decline of CNN and Hard News

In our country, our news is delivered largely by for-profit media businesses. Their reporting is driven by the need to attract customers, i.e., readers, viewers, listeners. I’ve been worried for a while whether that model is compatible with the need for a well-informed citizenry. We as an electorate need to know what is going on in the world, in our country and in our communities so that we can form prudent opinions about policy and cast our ballots accordingly. But in the current age, we just aren’t getting enough information.

People blame the media, but in a for-profit model, the news outlets give us what we are most inclined to consume. If we prefer reading rumors about Jennifer Anniston’s love life or watching a report on a chain-smoking baby, that is the sort of thing the media will try to give us more frequently. By comparison, if we don’t tune in to learn more about the current humanitarian crisis along the Kenya-Somalia border or the structural issues causing unsustainable increases in our health care costs, then news outlets won’t give us as much of that. They give us what we’ll consume. And besides, it is more expensive to send reporters to remote regions in Africa or to investigate complicated economic issues than it is to pay some paparazzi to stalk celebrities.

I’m not saying that government funded media is the solution. Certainly, that approach has its own set of issues. But the profit-driven media approach we have is problematic and flawed.

I was particularly reminded of that point recently when I listened to an NPR report on the plight of CNN. The report is available at the following link:

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/01/137538689/new-cnn-news-chief-takes-stock

Our family canceled cable years ago and we don’t watch much TV except when we travel. I hadn’t realized that CNN’s ratings have become a casualty of the clash of the Fox News and MSNBC echo chambers. Per the report, CNN has tried to stay neutral and focus on actual reporting. Their forte is apparently delivering news. But apparently people aren’t tuning in for that. They would rather opt for the loud, bombastic talking heads of Fox News and MSNBC.

This really depresses me. As consumers of news and as citizens of the world’s oldest modern democracy, we can’t allow this situation to continue. We are so incredibly fortunate to live in our country. With great blessings come great responsibility.

Luke 12:48

“For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.”

“On the Media” and “Internet Facts”

Recently, “On the Media” examined a sensational, horrifying news story that traveled quickly around the world, but turned out to not be true. The “On the Media” piece explored the increasingly blurry line between television news reporting and social media. In internet-based “news,” fact-checking standards are often much looser or even non-existent. But the public is not always savvy about that. In that context, something that is completely false can become widely recognized as a “fact,” thus the coining of the term “internet fact.”

In listening to the “On the Media” report, it seemed to me that as news consumers we are often too believing. And it seems that is even more the case when the “news” source is one like social media. We need to be less trusting and we need to think critically about the media we consume—regardless of its source. But we need to be particularly skeptical when the source is an informal one where the authority in question may or may not have thoroughly investigated the claims it is making.

The transcript of the “On the Media” report is available below.
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2011/06/10/01

Proverbs 14:18

Foolish dreamers live in a world of illusion; wise realists plant their feet on the ground.

The Role of Journalism in Shaping Public Perception and Public Opinion

The news is important. It is how we learn what is going on in the world. That knowledge helps shape our political views. If we hear that the employment rate has hit a certain percentage, we may believe that certain policy choices should be taken by our elected representatives. If we find out that the government is spending a certain amount on a particular program, that information may lead us to the conclusion that either more or less should be spent on it. In turn that conclusion may influence our decision about whether taxes should be raised, lowered or kept constant.

Most of us are busy earning a living and taking care of our families. We are not in the halls of Congress when bills get passed, we’re not in the streets of Damascus as Syrians protest against their government, and we’re not in the death chamber when Texas executes another inmate. Journalism is the primary vehicle for bringing the news to us.

The World English Dictionary gives us four definitions for the term “journalism”:
1. the profession or practice of reporting about, photographing, or editing news stories for one of the mass media
2. newspapers and magazines collectively; the press
3. the material published in a newspaper, magazine, etc: this is badly written journalism
4. news reports presented factually without analysis

The fourth one I find particularly insightful. Our ideal of journalism is that a person presents facts to us objectively. We are then left to make our own decisions based on the facts presented. Per our idea, the journalist is an objective third party who tells us impassionately what is going on--without inflicting her own opinions on us.

When I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, I remember learning in school about the concept of “yellow journalism.” We learned that yellow journalism was problematic in our country in the late 1800s. Press titans like Hearst and Pulitzer tried to sway public opinion by their manipulation of the way news was presented. The sense we had in reading our history books was that this issue of yellow journalism was a problem our country had dealt with in the past. When our parents went home and watched Roger Mudd or John Chancellor, they were getting the straight forward truth of what was going on in the world. At that time, it was a very different situation for our Cold War enemies. TASS was the media mouthpiece of the Soviet Union and did not exactly present an unbiased perspective of the day’s events. But growing up, I took it for granted that our press in the United States was independent and gave us that straight scoop.

Sometime in my late teens I began to hear people complain about bias in the media. In particular, there were complaints that the media had a liberal bent. I didn’t particularly see it, but then again I’ve always been left of center.

In my adulthood, the complaints of liberal bias became more and more pronounced. People turned away from traditional media outlets. Plenty of people I knew were enthusiastic about new media like A.M. Talk Radio and eventually Fox News Channel.

I have tuned in to such outlets on many occasions over the years because I have felt that it was important to know what sizeable segments of the population were listening to in order to help shape their opinions. I always try to be open-minded, but was frequently demoralized when listening to such programs. They typically provided little in the way of news. Few facts were provided. And when facts were provided, there was often little or no attempt to be objective. There seemed to be a lot of whining about certain facts.

I suppose the people who produced such programming felt that the traditional media was biased and that justified their own biases. The difference seemed to be the amount and transparency of bias. If the traditional media was subtly biased, these new conservative media were explicitly biased and often did not hold any pretense of being objective. But such media degrade to gripe fests and the indulgence of like minded people giving each other verbal high-fives. Listeners are exposed to opinion, but little to no new facts.

The left then responded with their own explicitly biased media. We had Air America, which didn’t last long. MSNBC has emerged. Oddly, Comedy Central has become a news media outlet for some with their Daily Show and Colbert Report programs. More recently Current TV has come into existence. It has received more attention as Keith Olbermann has signed on to host his show on that channel.

Such explicitly liberal news programs are more palatable to me than their conservative counterparts, but just barely so. I am repulsed by the jump-on-the-bandwagon, bash-your-opponent mentality. The other side is always wrong and vilified. Let’s get angry and yell about our opponents for hours on end. Alternately, let us point out how stupid, arrogant or corrupt the other side is, then we’ll ridicule them mercilessly.

Whether conservative or liberal, such programming is a waste of time in my opinion. We only have so many hours in the day. If we opt to tune in to such programming, we likely are not making time to read articles or listen to programs with a more objective approach and with a greater focus on providing information. This sorry state of American journalism is dumbing down our political debates. We make up our minds without a lot of factual information. We often just parrot whatever our favorite pundit has publicly opined. Truly, that is a tragic, worrisome state of affairs. It makes me pessimistic about the future of our republic.

Mark 4:24 (Amplified Bible)

And He said to them, Be careful what you are hearing. The measure [of thought and study] you give [to the truth you hear] will be the measure [of virtue and knowledge] that comes back to you--and more [besides] will be given to you who hear.

The Changing Dynamics of the El Paso-Juárez Metropolis

Our family lives in the metro Phoenix area. Our home is located several hours from the U.S.-Mexico border. When we drive to visit our relatives in Texas, we drive along the border at various times. In El Paso, especially, we come very close to the border, and we can see people on the Mexico side in their Juárez neighborhoods.

In the past 5-10 years, El Paso has changed so much. The tourist brochures used to give information about crossing the border to go to Juárez for shopping, dining, bar hopping and cultural diversions. That is no longer the case. The tourist brochures now discreetly advise visitors to visit the State Department website to study current warnings before crossing the border.

Over the years, I have had friends and family in El Paso, and we used to love going to Juárez for lunch or to go shopping. It was a lot of fun and we felt safe. But that is no longer the case. The last time my husband and I crossed the border to visit Juárez was around 2002.

In recent years, the middle class merchants and professionals, as well as the affluent in Juárez, have been abandoning the city and moving to El Paso. The residential real estate market in El Paso has been catering to Juareños, and there is a flurry of new businesses on the U.S. side of the border as merchants from Juárez establish new businesses in their new hometown. This exodus has been devastating to the Mexico side of the border metropolis. But I don’t see how anyone could blame the people fleeing Juárez. The scale of the violence is astounding.

In 2007, Juárez had 307 homicides. In 2008, there were 1,600. In 2009 there were 2,600.

Beyond Juárez, nearly 24,000 people have been killed in all of Mexico since late 2006 when Felipe Calderón became president and began to wage war on the Mexican drug cartels. Nearly 24,000 human beings. That is about twice as many people in my husband’s hometown.

The links below include some insightful journalism on the situation in the El Paso- Juárez urban area:

http://www.elpasotimes.com/juarez/ci_16518734

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125427225

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/14/131765609/amid-unrest-juarez-symphony-orchestra-plays-on

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/28/132370340/mexican-teens-in-different-worlds-share-tragic-fate

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/30/133348396/Juarez-Erupts-Not-In-Violence-But-In-Protest

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1966988

Job 3:25 Everything I fear and dread comes true. Psalm 91:5 You need not fear any dangers at night or sudden attacks during the day.

Trying to Disagree without Being Disagreeable

My local community newspaper provides a lot of great community news, for which I am grateful. However, it also publishes readers’ letters that are often quite vitriolic. I appreciate free speech, but the tenor of the letters leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many people. It has prompted some to stop reading this community newspaper altogether.

I understand that reaction. The letters to the editor are often ugly in tone, factually inaccurate and/or sanctimonious. They remind me a lot of what I hear when I tune in to conservative talk radio and the hosts take calls from their riled-up listeners. I appreciate friends of mine who simply don’t want to be exposed to such negativity.

But I also get frustrated that readers of this community newspaper rarely dispute any of the bitter and false things expressed in such letters to the editor. I have noticed that such unchallenged ugliness seems to actually encourage others to contribute to the downward spiral. It also seems to discourage more positive voices from even being raised. For this reason, I’ve written my own letters to the editor in a couple of instances in recent months. I have had enthusiastic feedback from friends in our community who are tired of all the letters spewing anger and non sequiturs.

Recently, I was motivated to write in response to two readers’ letters. Incredibly, one blamed President Obama for an unemployed neighbor becoming a “lazy” drug addict. The other reader bitterly threw blame in all directions for the state of Arizona’s health care system. Though he had blame to throw at undocumented workers and medical professionals, the reader specifically exempted our own governor, Jan Brewer, from all culpability. These readers’ letters are available at the link below:

http://www.westvalleyview.com/main.asp?SectionID=6&SubsectionID=143&ArticleID=38830

My letter in response was printed. It is available at the following link:

http://www.westvalleyview.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=38858&SectionID=6&SubSectionID=143&S=1

I think we ought to stand up and be heard when people speak out in an unproductive, hate-filled manner. It is so unworthy of a dynamic and optimistic country like ours. But we have to challenge such mean-spirited voices in a way that is not personally belittling and that ultimately encourages more productive discourse. It is a fine line to condemn the message and not the messenger in such instances. It is also a line that we in the United States are not always skilled at discerning. Indeed, we have not had a lot of role models to follow in recent years.

Matthew 5:14 (The Message)

"Here's another way to put it: You're here to be light, bringing out the God-colors in the world. God is not a secret to be kept. We're going public with this, as public as a city on a hill. If I make you light-bearers, you don't think I'm going to hide you under a bucket, do you? I'm putting you on a light stand. Now that I've put you there on a hilltop, on a light stand—shine! Keep open house; be generous with your lives. By opening up to others, you'll prompt people to open up with God, this generous Father in heaven.”

An Open Letter to Mr. Joseph Farah (Founder and CEO of WorldNetDaily)

Dear Mr. Farah,

You have honored me greatly by leaving a comment on my humble little blog. I am amazed that a man of such prominence with so many responsibilities would even take notice of my recent post and take time to provide feedback. Thank you very much.

Your comment expressed concern that it was inappropriate to mention in my prior post that WorldNetDaily had been founded with an “unabashedly conservative” viewpoint. That same blog post also indicated that WorldNetDaily’s purpose was "exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power." Both phrases were in quotes in my post because I understood these to be your words. If these quotes do not reflect your actual words and I have therefore inadvertently misquoted you, please accept my sincere apologies.

Since receiving your comment, I have modified the blog post in question to cite the sources where I found those quotes. The quote, to which you object, was found in two places: (1) on the Wikipedia page providing your biography and (2) in an article in the Los Angeles Times. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Farah#cite_ref-1990_WP_5-0. See Faye Fiore, “Raking Up Muck and Rolling in the Dough,” Los Angeles Times (Jan. 27, 2010). After reading your blog comment, I re-read those sources, and realized that quote was apparently referring only to the Sacramento Union. I apologize profusely for initially interpreting the quote more broadly, i.e., as describing all publications on which you worked subsequent to leaving the Los Angeles Herald Examiner.

Please know it is never my intention to promulgate untruths or to sow confusion. If I have unintentionally done so, I offer you my deepest apologies and I would like to extend to you the opportunity to set the record straight in greater detail on my blog. If at any time you would like to submit a guest blogger essay (of any length) about the quote in question, or to express a different opinion than I expressed about WorldNetDaily or the lack of civility in modern American political discourse, please contact me. I would be greatly honored to publish your thoughts as a guest blogger essay.

Respectfully and sincerely yours,
Your sister in Christ,
Claudine Pease-Wingenter

P.S. I am writing this note as an open-letter to you because you did not leave an e-mail address when you left your comment on my blog.

How Did We Get to this Pervasive Lack of Civility in Public Life?

In the United States, we have always been passionate about politics. And dirty politics entered the scene very early in the history of our republic. So it would be factually incorrect and potentially disingenuous to mourn the loss of perfect civility in our American public life. Nonetheless, many long-time residents of Washington and others have noted a noticeable decline in civility in the past few decades. In Congress, there is now less reaching across the aisle to work in a bipartisan manner. Obstructionism trumps as political opponents look for any edge to prevent the other side from accomplishing anything on their agenda. Anyone who disagrees is vilified mercilessly.

In my observation and in my opinion, this sad trend really began at the grass roots level with conservatives. First, talk radio exploded in the 1990s as an opportunity for disgruntled conservatives to come together to gripe, blame others, and verbally high five each other. The hosts and listeners have often expressed tremendous amounts of anger and frustration, as well as a fair amount of sanctimoniousness. On such talk radio shows conspiracy theories have often received a lot more attention than they have in traditional news outlets (e.g., Bill and Hillary Clinton murdered their friend, Vince Foster, but made it look like a suicide).

During this time, we saw the rise of Rush Limbaugh. Despite his multiple divorces and drug scandal, his “dittoheads” still speak adoringly of him. Mr. Limbaugh has been the predominant icon of talk radio. But others have also achieved a lot of success in that arena including Laura Ingraham, Laura Schlessinger (a.k.a. “Dr. Laura”), Dennis Miller, Neal Boortz, and Michael Medved, among many others.

In the late 1990s, we also saw the advent of the Fox News Channel on cable television. It provided another venue for conservative talk programs. But when compared to talk radio, there was generally less interaction from the audience and more hours of broadcasting. Instead of just an hour or two in the afternoon, the Fox News Channel broadcasts 24/7. Like talk radio, Fox News programs often feature a lot of griping and blaming of others. Many of the programs are marked by a high level of anger and outrage. In its success, Fox News Channel has created celebrity pundits including Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity.

Some Fox News celebrities have also been successful in talk radio. Some came to Fox News Channel from talk radio. Others started in television and later branched out to the talk radio format.

Many talk radio personalities and Fox News celebrities have also written books. Some have also toured the country giving “shows” with pricey tickets where the audience is treated to in-person versions of their angry rants with some comedy thrown in for good measure.

During this same period when talk radio and Fox News Channel became staples for many, conservative journalists in on-line news media have also gained a following. They often lack the audience interaction that is the hallmark of talk radio. And they don’t necessarily have the angry tone common to both talk radio and Fox News Channel. But conservative on-line news media have gained notoriety in some quarters for providing attention to conspiracy theories that target liberal persons and institutions.

In the 1990s, we saw the emergence of the Drudge Report, an internet news website that provides links to a variety of other reporting sources. The site provides plenty of access to traditional news stories, but the Drudge Report has also gained prominence in publicizing scandals (or gossip of potential scandals) involving high-profile Democrats. For example, the Drudge Report had the dubious honor of being the first to break the story of Bill Clinton’s sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The site also played a significant role in gaining attention for the accusations of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and in circulating a photo of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama in Somali tribal attire. The Drudge Report has also run controversial stories of questionable merit including allegations that Bill Clinton’s aid Sidney Blumenthal beat his wife, gossip that Bill Clinton fathered a child out-of-wedlock, and rumors of an intern scandal when John Kerry was running for president.

In the late 1990s, WorldNetDaily was founded with the stated purpose of "exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power" with an “unabashedly conservative” viewpoint. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Farah#cite_ref-1990_WP_5-0. See Faye Fiore, “Raking Up Muck and Rolling in the Dough,” Los Angeles Times (Jan. 27, 2010).
See http://www.wnd.com/About%20WND.

. WorldNetDaily has attracted high profile conservatives including Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Katherine Harris (among many others) to contribute commentaries and columns to the website. However, WorldNetDaily has also become known for its attention to conspiracy theories. It is cited as a significant contributor to the rise of the “birther” movement; as of January 2011, the site continues to run stories about the theory that President Obama is not a “natural born” citizen. WorldNetDaily has also made incredible allegations that the Girl Scouts have a secret “sex agenda”, and have a relationship with Planned Parenthood. The articles of WorldNetDaily often have semi-hysterical headlines that express a fair degree of paranoia (e.g., “Is this the end of America?,” “How to prevent mass murder,” “Cop, unprovoked, shoots Christian on train”). The articles featured on WorldNetDaily also seem to focus disproportionately on the legal status of abortion, efforts to impose prayer in secular settings and attacks on Christianity.

I force myself to listen to a lot of viewpoints, with which I disagree. To that end, I’ve spent a lot of time in my life listening to programs hosted by Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and others with similar view points. I’ve also read books by folks like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O’Reilly. There are only so many hours in the day, so I admit I myself don’t read the Drudge Report very often, but my husband reads it regularly and often fills me in on the latest stories. I force myself to find out what these different media sources are publicizing not because I’m a glutton for punishment, but because I believe in being open-minded, in listening to people and trying to find common ground.

Ultimately, in all honesty, I think most of these celebrity talking heads are in it primarily for the money and may not really care about the issues on which they rant. For example, Glenn Beck has described himself as an “entertainer” and even a “rodeo clown.” Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has derided Mr. Beck as a “cynic.”: “Only in America can you make that much money crying. Glenn Beck is not aligned with any party. He is aligned with cynicism and there has always been a market for cynics. But we became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers." See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/sen-graham-calls-beck-a-c_n_306434.html?view=print (Amen, Senator Graham!)

Not everyone shares this opinion. I personally know many lovely folks who listen to talk radio personalities and Fox News celebrities earnestly following their angry rants in agreement. If my neighbors are listening to these folks with enthusiasm, as a good citizen, I should know what is being said. I admit it does sometimes make me queasy. But at times I have found points, with which I agree.

Though I believe conservatives got us started in this trends towards vilification and away from civil discourse, liberals no longer have clean hands in the matter. Instead of having the vision for an alternate approach, most have reflexively jumped on the bandwagon to try to do the same thing as the Limbaughs, the Becks and the O’Reillys but with a left wing tilt.

Air America, a radio network specializing in liberal talk radio programming, went on the air in 2004. It never caught on and ceased operations in 2010. I was always curious about it, but never knew where to find it and frankly never had enough time to look. Presumably folks like me were the target audience of Air America. Maybe liberals and progressives are too busy to listen to talk radio in the day time. Younger generations do tend to be more liberal and/or progressive, and when we are young, we are in a particularly busy season of our lives. In our 20s and 30s, many of us are getting an education, getting established professionally and/or raising children. That makes for busy days and not a lot of time to listen to people rant on the radio.

One alum of Air America, Al Franken, did enjoy a great deal of success after his time on the radio network. A comedian, who wrote and appeared on Saturday Night Live in the 70s, 80s and 90s, he began hosting a program for Air America in 2004. Prior to joining the network, he wrote books combining liberal politics with humor. Who could resist classics like Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations? He famously took on Fox News Channel and others with Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Many of us discovered Mr. Franken’s books after he gained attention because of his work on Air America. He then translated that publicity into a (barely) successful campaign for Senate.

Though Air America was not successful, its cable news counterpart has done better. MSNBC was actually founded in 1996. In its early days, the news network featured celebrity conservatives like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. But towards the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the network was taking more of a progressive tilt and doing better in the ratings. It began to feature left-tilting talking heads like Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews.

Again, I assume I’m probably in the target audience of such MSNBC shows, but I rarely watch the network. First of all, I am not a fan of television and our family does not even have cable. As a result, I only have access to MSNBC when I travel. Second, the network’s programming is just not appealing to me. Sure, it is generally less nauseating to listen to Rachel Maddow than Glenn Beck. But to me, MSNBC is only slightly better than Fox News Channel. I’m glad they call out hypocrisies and injustices. But the talking heads on MSNBC are smug, self-righteous know-it-alls. They have a snarky tone that really puts me off. In that respect, the talking heads on MSNBC have a lot in common with the talking heads on Fox News. They just embrace different political views.

I don’t want progressives to emulate the angry talk radio format or the in-your-face propaganda of Fox News Channel. I’d like progressives to take a different approach entirely. Instead of playing that same game, we ought to change the rules and find a better way. The snarkiness, the failure to listen, the default vilification—none of that is helpful to our society.

Matthew 17:5

While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, " This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"

The Prince and the Paupers: A Tax Fable

A friend of mine, Professor Brad Borden of Brooklyn Law School, recently published an article in the Huffington Post. That would be pretty exciting news in the base case, but it is particularly noteworthy because Professor Borden is a fellow tax nerd. We tax nerds seldom get our work included in non-tax or non-academic publications. So this is quite a coup!

I wanted to highlight the article here because I thought it was very well done. The article is written as a fable told to his young daughter. Even people without any interest in tax law can follow and appreciate Professor Borden's points. And he expresses them in a very engaging manner. Who knew tax policy could be so compelling!

I also thought the subject matter of the article would be of particular interest to readers of this blog. It hits upon structural injustices in the context of both our political system and our tax laws.

The link below contains the text of the article. Enjoy!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bradley-t-borden/the-prince-and-the-pauper_1_b_796745.html

Deuteronomy 16:19 (New American Standard Bible)

You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous.

The Nobel Peace Prize is Awarded to Liu Xiaobo

This week the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced it was awarding the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, a man who has worked for decades in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to promote human rights through nonviolent means. The Committee’s announcement is available at the link below:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2010/press.html

Members of our family were born in the PRC, so the honor bestowed on Mr. Liu is particularly noteworthy to us. The world has been awed by the PRC’s dramatic economic growth in recent years. We sometimes hear the downside to the growth is that Chinese workers are exploited in factories where they work long hours under poor conditions and are paid very little. We think of the mistreatment occurring at the hands of the private sector; the PRC government generally takes a laissez-faire approach to capitalism. There seems to be little regulation to protect human beings or the environment.

In recent years, as the country has embraced capitalism, we sometimes forget the PRC is still technically a communist country. At this point in time, however, the benefits of communism have evaporated, while all the horrors of communism remain. The state no longer guarantees a job, housing, or health care to its people. But it still limits basic freedoms we take for granted in the West like determining the size of one’s family, the freedom to speak one’s mind, the ability to criticize the government without fear of reprisal, and the ability to freely practice one’s chosen religion.

Our family has some American friends who currently live in the PRC. They moved there to work in a local start-up business. They are Christians, who have worked in their church back home in the United States, and would like to support local Christians in the PRC. However, the Chinese government does not welcome missionaries, and our friends are fearful of attracting the wrong kind of attention because it could lead to their expulsion. They realize that their e-mail can be monitored, so they have urged friends in the U.S. to be careful in the wording of religious messages in their e-mails. In keeping with their request, last Easter I sent them greetings but tried to avoid buzz words that might be a red flag to authorities. I am not adept at inventing code, but wrote to express my hope that our friends would find joy over the “son’s victory.” They understood my funky phrasing and were excited to get such greetings in an officially atheistic nation. The link below contains an article about missionaries in the PRC at the time of the Beijing Olympics.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/2007-05-17-499802743_x.htm


After the announcement that Mr. Liu had won the Nobel Peace Prize, the PRC implemented a news blackout and people in the country do not even know who won this year’s Peace Prize. I heard on the news yesterday that Mr. Liu himself had not yet been told. The article below describes the news blackout.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/china.internet/index.html?hpt=Mid


It is amazing that the government is able to manipulate information so effectively in this day and age in a country with over a billion people. When I’ve traveled in the PRC and had an opportunity to speak with people who have lived their entire lives there, they are often not familiar with the Great Chinese Famine of 1958-1961, the Tiananmen Massacre, or the huge numbers of children in orphanages (mostly abandoned girls due to the One Child Policy). Because I don’t speak any Chinese dialect, I have only been able to speak with people who are fluent in English. Thus, I tend to only talk to some of the best educated folks in society. It is interesting because the folks I’ve spoken with are not sure what to believe when told by Westerners about these events that the government has not permitted the press to report. It is understandably difficult for them to try to decide who is more trustworthy--a friendly Westerner whom they do not know well, or their own government. They often have hesitation in believing what their government says, but it is hard to take in that the level of misinformation might be as wide in scope as it is.

The PRC is a country with a staggeringly large population. Much of its vast land is uninhabitable, so the people often live in crowded cities. Poverty is still a tremendous problem despite all the economic growth. In such a context, it can be easy to overlook individuals’ stories.

The link below includes a touching, personal description of Mr. Liu. It includes a profoundly beautiful letter that he wrote to his wife when he was being sent to prison last year. The depth and strength of his love is inspiring beyond words. Mr. Liu is clearly a patriot and a humanitarian who has been working for years at great personal risk to improve human rights in his country. But he is also a man with a soul who loves his wife very much. That love is helping him to bear the horror of a long imprisonment.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130451559

Mr. Liu’s words of love for his wife, as well as his hopes for freedom of expression in his country, remind me of my own blessings. I am deeply grateful for my husband and to live in a country where I can speak my mind without fear of imprisonment. May each of us not take for granted the blessings we enjoy.

Psalm 79:11

May the groans of the prisoners come before you; by the strength of your arm preserve those condemned to die.


Matthew 14:3-4, 9-10

Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, for John had been saying to him: "It is not lawful for you to have her."
The king … had John beheaded in the prison

Letters to the Editor on the “Ground Zero Mosque” Controversy

I’ve mentioned several times in this blog my affection for community newspapers. In the West Valley View, local residents often write letters to the editor to debate current events (and blow off steam). In some ways I love the fact that my neighbors are so passionate about issues in our community. On the other hand, many of the letters are so filled with intolerance and bitterness. At times, I cannot bear to read them or can only bring myself to read a few. I have friends in my community who read the West Valley View, but deliberately skip the letters to the editor. Others have shared with me that they no longer even open that newspaper because of the ugliness of the letters to the editor.

In late August, I read two published letters to the editor in the West Valley View, which got my attention. One was a beautiful letter from a Christian pastor, who was speaking out against “anti-Muslim hysteria.” Instead he was encouraging grace and tolerance for our Muslim brothers and sisters. I was encouraged that for once the secular public was hearing the perspective of a Christian who was speaking love for--and not condemnation of--Muslims.

But next to the pastor’s letter was a letter more typical of the type published in the letters to the editor in this community newspaper. A woman wrote to denounce others who had dared to speak out against “anti-Muslim hysteria.” She claimed such attitudes were indicative of “political correctness” and demonstrated ignorance about the real issues at stake in the “ground zero mosque” controversy. Her point was essentially that if we allowed a mosque to be built near ground zero, the terrorists will view that as a victory for their side. For a number of reasons, I found the last line of her letter particularly heart-breaking: “This mosque, if allowed to be built, would not show the world American tolerance but American naivety and stupidity.”

Both of these letters were published in the August 31st edition of the West Valley View, and are available at the link below:
http://westvalleyview.com/main.asp?SectionID=8&SubSectionID=3&ArticleID=37894&TM=40062.8

I had never before written a letter to the editor, but those two letters from my neighbors spurred me (for differing reasons) to compose a response. I wrote in support of the pastor’s words, and to rebuke the misguided words of the other letter. My letter was published in the September 10th edition of the newspaper, and is available at the link below:
http://westvalleyview.com/main.asp?SectionID=8&SubSectionID=3&ArticleID=37975#item1

Like many Christians, I get tired of secular representations of my faith that are inaccurate. I believe it was Pastor Rick Warren who has noted that in recent years the Christian voices that are most often heard in the secular media are simply those that are the loudest. Like it or not, the secular media is an important vehicle for non-Christians to learn about Christianity. In this day and age, the media is very influential in shaping people’s attitudes and beliefs on a number of topics. However, when the secular media only pays attention to the loudest voices in the large and diverse Christian community, the impression that is often left is inaccurate. For example, a common misimpression is that Christianity is a religion of intolerance against sexual minorities and adherents of other religions, among others in our society. But I think any fair reading of our sacred scripture indicates that Christ modeled and advocated the opposite approach. He repeatedly reached out to the shunned and the isolated. His message of unconditional love was not just for one group, but for all human kind. In essence, I wrote my letter to the editor to echo the perspective of Pastor Souers and to show the community that popular impressions of Christianity don't necessarily hit the mark. In writing my letter, I tried my best to provide a more accurate Christian witness.

Proverbs 31:9

Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.


Ecclesiastes 4:12

Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.


John 13:34 (New International Version)

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.


1 Peter 3:8 (New International Version)

Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble.

“No Socialism” v. “No Selfishness”

As a follow up to the prior post, another interesting part of the aforementioned Methodist pastor’s sermon on “Peace with Justice Sunday” involved his reality check to the congregation that justice doesn’t come easy. He noted it generally requires sacrifice.

In that context, the pastor described that locally in San Antonio there had recently been a big political debate involving a potential increase in taxes. In response to the controversy, he mentioned that some folks in town had put up signs in their lawns that stated “no new taxes” or “no socialism.” The pastor observed that others in town had responded to such signs by placing their own signs in their lawns: “no selfishness.” Indeed, during our trip, we did notice several of those “no selfishness” signs around town.

I really did not know much about this phenomenon other than the brief mention in the pastor’s sermon. Recently, my mother (an avid newspaper reader) sent me an article about this war of signs the pastor had referenced. I thought it was an interesting article. It is available at the following link:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/community/north_central/signs_of_a_struggle_in_alamo_heights_surrounding_area_98865364.html?showFullArticle=y

Psalm 12:5

“For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, Now I will arise,” says the LORD; “I will set him in the safety for which he yearns.”

Independence Day

Independence Day falls on a Sunday this year, so that gives us all an excuse to celebrate the holiday all weekend long. Indeed, my church is having a community party tonight. So, it is probably forgivable that I publish this post a day early.

Happy Independence Day! If you are in the United States or are an American abroad, I hope you have a wonderful time celebrating with friends and family. And I hope you do something to celebrate beyond getting a good deal on a mattress, big screen TV or craft supplies. As is probably obvious from past posts on this blog, I think holidays are useful for us to reflect on whatever milestones or causes that inspired them. There are many blessings to living in this great country. We are reminded of that fact with much frequency recently as the debates over immigration take center stage. For a variety of reasons, people continue to sacrifice and risk their lives to get a chance to live in the United States. By accident of birth, many of us are fortunate enough to have lived in this country all (or nearly all) our lives. We in particular should never overlook that blessing and we should always be grateful.

This July 4th weekend I am personally grateful for many blessings bestowed upon me by virtue of being an American. In some ways, I am particularly grateful for freedom of speech. As a budding scholar, who has had her articles published in legal journals and who is able to publish her ideas instantaneously on this blog at any time, I owe much to the First Amendment.

I love the marketplace of ideas. I have a healthy skepticism about the ability of markets generally to produce positive results when completely unregulated. However, I believe in Truth and certainly do not fear differences of opinion. As an imperfect, weak human being, I certainly don't claim to always know the Truth. And I am sure that our Creator looks down at me in loving patience wondering when the heck I'll figure more of it out. But I have confidence that the Truth will make itself known over time and Truth will always prevail.

In that vein, I even love the anonymous and often bitter comments left on this blog--particular those left by fans of Janet Parshall. (God bless them!) As Americans, we all have the right to speak our minds without fear of government interference and to let other people decide for themselves the wisdom of our ideas. How wonderful is that?!

Some colleagues of mine were recently scheduled to speak at a scholarly conference in a country with a repressive government that engages in widespread censorship and has an appalling human rights record. At the last minute, however, the conference was cancelled by that repressive government. If the position you hold is wrong and untenable, your best option might be to prevent others from ever advocating a different position. In that context, the market place of ideas is not your friend.

I came across a great editorial about Independence Day this morning. It is in a local community newspaper that I enjoy. It is available at the link below. Enjoy and have a safe holiday weekend!

http://www.westvalleyview.com/main.asp?SectionID=6&SubSectionID=2&ArticleID=37474

John 8:32 (King James Version)

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Don Miller’s Response to Pat Robertson

In my last post, I spotlighted Relevant magazine. As a follow-up, I wanted to flag an article I found on the magazine’s website:

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/current-events/op-ed-blog/19845-don-miller-responds-to-pat-robertson

Author Donald Miller wrote an essay a few months ago for Relevant to respond to Pat Robertson’s harsh words following the devastating January earthquake in Haiti. I thought the article was well-written, and I don’t really have anything else to add. I just encourage others to read it. Further, I think the reader comments at the bottom of the page are at least as interesting as Mr. Miller's essay.

Luke 1:78 (Contemporary English Version)

God's love and kindness
will shine upon us
like the sun that rises
in the sky.