What I Always Believed About Saddam
Jan/29/2008 11:59 PM | Thoughts from Purple
Land |
Permalink
In the context of early 2008 --with the "Surge"
apparently reducing violence in Iraq, with the US
Economy in the tank, and with everybody fixated on
the presidential primaries as a way to take our minds
off the past seven years --it may well be that nobody
wants to hear any additional analysis of the war, its
causes, or its justifications.
I understand that. But call me crazy, I still believe in that seemingly trite expression: "those who fail to understand the past are doomed to repeat it." And until we can come to terms with this war in brutal honesty, we risk making the same mistakes somewhere down the line.
One of the "lessons" I fear we are accepting about Sadaam Hussein is this: That he was simply a crazy evil dictator, hell-bent on destroying his country and bringing down the wrath of America.
The conventional wisdom is that absolutely NO ONE --within the government, or without; no pundit or social scientist-- could have predicted that Saddam really didn't have any WMD. No one, they claim, actually believed him when, before the war, his representatives said he had destroyed it all.
If he had destroyed it, then why not let the inspectors in? He must be lying...
That was the conventional wisdom then. And our own poorly edited "intelligence" supported this view. As George Tenet so inelegantly put it, "we were all wrong."
Republicans and Democrats throughout the government were also quick to say: "Everyone say the same intelligence..."
Who could have known? We were just all wrong...right?
Not exactly.
See, I believed Saddam might be telling the truth. I also believed he might be lying. I also believed he might be changing his story intentionally, blowing smoke to throw the whole world off his scent.
Here's something I wrote to that effect back in 2005. It was in answer to the question: Why didn't Saddam just admit he didn't have the WMD and open his country fully to the UN Inspectors?
Here's what I said back then:
"Because he was an "evil dictator." And evil dicators rule by fear and intimidation. Were he to have admitted that he'd actually destroyed much of his weapons of mass destruction, he would not have not only been immediately vulnerable to offensive attacks from neighboring countries, but he would have also risked civil war from within. The Kurds and Shiites would have quite possibly been emboldened to rise up against him.
It is not surprising that he would play the game of chicken with his own people and with the West. What is MOST unfortunate is that our government chose to not see that he could NEVER admit to having destroyed his weapons capacity."
See, I believed this from the very start. Nothing else made logical sense.
Now, IF Saddam were are democratic leader --an elected leader, a leader of a representative democracy-- there's NO WAY he would have played this deadly game of "chicken" with his nation.
But he wasn't. I always believed he was what he was: an EVIL DICTATOR.
Our problem? When the Bush Government set ultimatums for him, we actually believed we were dealing with some kind of rational person.
We failed to remember that, unlike leaders in our country, Saddam ruled by fear and made decisions from a fear-based matrix.
And this weekend, I saw a most extraordinary interview on 60 Minutes that finally proved this theory to me. It was an interview with FBI Agent George Piro, who was assigned by our government to gain Saddam's "confidence" after his arrest. Piro's job was to "befriend" Hussein, in an attempt to get inside his head, and get answers to the most pressing questions our government still had.
The interview provides a fascinating insight into the inner workings of an FBI Agent, and the delicate dance of building "confidence" between a prisoner and interrogator. You can watch the whole thing here. I strongly encourage it.
Piro, an American of Lebanese descent who is fluent in Arabic, was picked for this job from the very first day of Hussein's imprisonment. Our government wanted to try to get inside his mind and see if he'd reveal some of the most pressing questions about the war:
Did he really not have any WMD?
If not, why not just come clean to the UN Inspectors?
Why play this game of "chicken" with the US?
After months of gaining Saddam's confidence, he finally opened up to Piro and told him everything. Among the things Saddam admitted was that he never believed that the US would actually invade Iraq. He assumed that the US was just "saber rattling," as much as he was.
Here is the relevant passage from the 60 Minutes transcript, with the essential lines in bold type for emphasis:
"And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?" Pelley asks.
"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.
"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.
"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.
Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.
"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.
"Absolutely," Piro says.
Think about it for half a second. Really think about it. Saddam WAS an evil dictator. He DID rule by fear. And when you rule by fear, uncertainty is a key part of your arsenal. The element of surprise is a key defensive strategy. For both external and internal security reasons, Saddam needed to portray an aire of invincibility and strength. Show weakness, admit the weapons were gone, and he risked losing power forever.
Did we really believe a brutal dictator would be enlightened enough to choose the security of his own nation above his own skin?
Apparently, we did. At least many in our own government did. We actually negotiated with him and his representatives as if we believed their bluster.
Or, perhaps even more troubling, their bluster reinforced the message of fear that our own leaders wanted and needed to wage the war.
So, a couple of observations....
Rule Number One for Future War Planning:
Take the words and actions of an evil dictator with a grain of salt. Don't assume you can believe, or disbelieve, everything he says. Just believe he's acting like an evil dictator would normally act.
Dictators desire self-preservation at all costs, and if you try to take away a crucial defense, don't be shocked when they don't react logically.
Rule Number Two for Future War Planning:
When the intelligence is mixed, when the opponent IS an evil dictator, think twice...three...even four times...before rushing to the military option. Make no mistake, despite the conventional wisdom, this war was rushed when there WERE other options.
The facts are, as we now know them, sanctions WERE working. Saddam WAS blustering. But that was a part of his front too. (Oh yeah...the story confirms that Saddam hated Al Quaida...)
If there are other logical/plausible rationales for why the other side is acting the way they are, war should not be the immediate option. And to launch despite all this violates a key tenet of "just war theory."
-------------------------
Other nuggets from the interview...
We learn why Saddam originally invaded Kuwait in 1990. Turns out, it was because of an insult against Iraqi women. No kidding.
Also from the transcript of the 60 Minutes interview...
Pelley says:
"Back then, Saddam accused Kuwait of wrecking Iraq’s economy by stealing oil and demanding repayment of loans. But Piro learned, for the first time, that the brutal invasion was triggered by personal insult.
"What really triggered it for him, according to Saddam, was he had sent his foreign minister to Kuwait to meet with the Emir Al Sabah, the former leader of Kuwait, to try to resolve some of these issues. And the Emir told the foreign minister of Iraq that he would not stop doing what he was doing until he turned every Iraqi woman into a $10 prostitute. And that really sealed it for him, to invade Kuwait. He wanted to punish, he told me, Emir Al Sabah, for saying that," Piro explains."
See, we even got that war wrong too. That war wasn't about the oil for Saddam; although there was an economic component to it. That war was about one guy insulting the women of the other guy's country. It was about, to use a term cross-cuturally, a kind of deadly-serious "Machismo."
--------------------------------------------
Whether anyone else is interested in this or not, as the five-year anniversary of the war approaches, I feel these kinds of revelations ARE still important. Because there are other evil dictators out there. Whoever is president, both now and in the future, will have deal with them in some way or another.
I just hope and pray that if we identify them as an evil dictator, we will truly believe that they THINK like one too; and not like we might think, with our Western, logical, and self-preserving, minds.
Otherwise, we may get into yet another war, and come out scratching our heads yet again.
---------------
One more, "Oh by the way..."
Piro denied that any "coercive techniques," such as waterboarding, were used against Hussein.
Why not?
Says Piro: "I think Saddam clearly had demonstrated over his legacy that he would not respond to threats, to any type of fear-based approach."
I understand that. But call me crazy, I still believe in that seemingly trite expression: "those who fail to understand the past are doomed to repeat it." And until we can come to terms with this war in brutal honesty, we risk making the same mistakes somewhere down the line.
One of the "lessons" I fear we are accepting about Sadaam Hussein is this: That he was simply a crazy evil dictator, hell-bent on destroying his country and bringing down the wrath of America.
The conventional wisdom is that absolutely NO ONE --within the government, or without; no pundit or social scientist-- could have predicted that Saddam really didn't have any WMD. No one, they claim, actually believed him when, before the war, his representatives said he had destroyed it all.
If he had destroyed it, then why not let the inspectors in? He must be lying...
That was the conventional wisdom then. And our own poorly edited "intelligence" supported this view. As George Tenet so inelegantly put it, "we were all wrong."
Republicans and Democrats throughout the government were also quick to say: "Everyone say the same intelligence..."
Who could have known? We were just all wrong...right?
Not exactly.
See, I believed Saddam might be telling the truth. I also believed he might be lying. I also believed he might be changing his story intentionally, blowing smoke to throw the whole world off his scent.
Here's something I wrote to that effect back in 2005. It was in answer to the question: Why didn't Saddam just admit he didn't have the WMD and open his country fully to the UN Inspectors?
Here's what I said back then:
"Because he was an "evil dictator." And evil dicators rule by fear and intimidation. Were he to have admitted that he'd actually destroyed much of his weapons of mass destruction, he would not have not only been immediately vulnerable to offensive attacks from neighboring countries, but he would have also risked civil war from within. The Kurds and Shiites would have quite possibly been emboldened to rise up against him.
It is not surprising that he would play the game of chicken with his own people and with the West. What is MOST unfortunate is that our government chose to not see that he could NEVER admit to having destroyed his weapons capacity."
See, I believed this from the very start. Nothing else made logical sense.
Now, IF Saddam were are democratic leader --an elected leader, a leader of a representative democracy-- there's NO WAY he would have played this deadly game of "chicken" with his nation.
But he wasn't. I always believed he was what he was: an EVIL DICTATOR.
Our problem? When the Bush Government set ultimatums for him, we actually believed we were dealing with some kind of rational person.
We failed to remember that, unlike leaders in our country, Saddam ruled by fear and made decisions from a fear-based matrix.
And this weekend, I saw a most extraordinary interview on 60 Minutes that finally proved this theory to me. It was an interview with FBI Agent George Piro, who was assigned by our government to gain Saddam's "confidence" after his arrest. Piro's job was to "befriend" Hussein, in an attempt to get inside his head, and get answers to the most pressing questions our government still had.
The interview provides a fascinating insight into the inner workings of an FBI Agent, and the delicate dance of building "confidence" between a prisoner and interrogator. You can watch the whole thing here. I strongly encourage it.
Piro, an American of Lebanese descent who is fluent in Arabic, was picked for this job from the very first day of Hussein's imprisonment. Our government wanted to try to get inside his mind and see if he'd reveal some of the most pressing questions about the war:
Did he really not have any WMD?
If not, why not just come clean to the UN Inspectors?
Why play this game of "chicken" with the US?
After months of gaining Saddam's confidence, he finally opened up to Piro and told him everything. Among the things Saddam admitted was that he never believed that the US would actually invade Iraq. He assumed that the US was just "saber rattling," as much as he was.
Here is the relevant passage from the 60 Minutes transcript, with the essential lines in bold type for emphasis:
"And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?" Pelley asks.
"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.
"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.
"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.
Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.
"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.
"Absolutely," Piro says.
Think about it for half a second. Really think about it. Saddam WAS an evil dictator. He DID rule by fear. And when you rule by fear, uncertainty is a key part of your arsenal. The element of surprise is a key defensive strategy. For both external and internal security reasons, Saddam needed to portray an aire of invincibility and strength. Show weakness, admit the weapons were gone, and he risked losing power forever.
Did we really believe a brutal dictator would be enlightened enough to choose the security of his own nation above his own skin?
Apparently, we did. At least many in our own government did. We actually negotiated with him and his representatives as if we believed their bluster.
Or, perhaps even more troubling, their bluster reinforced the message of fear that our own leaders wanted and needed to wage the war.
So, a couple of observations....
Rule Number One for Future War Planning:
Take the words and actions of an evil dictator with a grain of salt. Don't assume you can believe, or disbelieve, everything he says. Just believe he's acting like an evil dictator would normally act.
Dictators desire self-preservation at all costs, and if you try to take away a crucial defense, don't be shocked when they don't react logically.
Rule Number Two for Future War Planning:
When the intelligence is mixed, when the opponent IS an evil dictator, think twice...three...even four times...before rushing to the military option. Make no mistake, despite the conventional wisdom, this war was rushed when there WERE other options.
The facts are, as we now know them, sanctions WERE working. Saddam WAS blustering. But that was a part of his front too. (Oh yeah...the story confirms that Saddam hated Al Quaida...)
If there are other logical/plausible rationales for why the other side is acting the way they are, war should not be the immediate option. And to launch despite all this violates a key tenet of "just war theory."
-------------------------
Other nuggets from the interview...
We learn why Saddam originally invaded Kuwait in 1990. Turns out, it was because of an insult against Iraqi women. No kidding.
Also from the transcript of the 60 Minutes interview...
Pelley says:
"Back then, Saddam accused Kuwait of wrecking Iraq’s economy by stealing oil and demanding repayment of loans. But Piro learned, for the first time, that the brutal invasion was triggered by personal insult.
"What really triggered it for him, according to Saddam, was he had sent his foreign minister to Kuwait to meet with the Emir Al Sabah, the former leader of Kuwait, to try to resolve some of these issues. And the Emir told the foreign minister of Iraq that he would not stop doing what he was doing until he turned every Iraqi woman into a $10 prostitute. And that really sealed it for him, to invade Kuwait. He wanted to punish, he told me, Emir Al Sabah, for saying that," Piro explains."
See, we even got that war wrong too. That war wasn't about the oil for Saddam; although there was an economic component to it. That war was about one guy insulting the women of the other guy's country. It was about, to use a term cross-cuturally, a kind of deadly-serious "Machismo."
--------------------------------------------
Whether anyone else is interested in this or not, as the five-year anniversary of the war approaches, I feel these kinds of revelations ARE still important. Because there are other evil dictators out there. Whoever is president, both now and in the future, will have deal with them in some way or another.
I just hope and pray that if we identify them as an evil dictator, we will truly believe that they THINK like one too; and not like we might think, with our Western, logical, and self-preserving, minds.
Otherwise, we may get into yet another war, and come out scratching our heads yet again.
---------------
One more, "Oh by the way..."
Piro denied that any "coercive techniques," such as waterboarding, were used against Hussein.
Why not?
Says Piro: "I think Saddam clearly had demonstrated over his legacy that he would not respond to threats, to any type of fear-based approach."
Missing the Mark on MLK Day
Jan/25/2008 10:23 AM | Permalink
If you put together a list of the five people in
Dallas who do the most to help the poor, Larry James
would surely be on that list. Larry's been a friend
for over fifteen years now, and I have been and
admirer of his for all of that time. He began
ministry as a suburban pastor, but years ago made the
bold move back to the heart of the city to help those
most in need.
Larry is President and CEO of Central Dallas Ministries, and is one of those rare human beings who doesn't just talk about the poor, he lives his life with the poor...serving them...worshipping with them...challenging those of us who are more affluent to get off our rears and do something to change the world. He is something of an "Amos" to Dallas' suburban churches. (He also has a fantastic blog that everyone should read...)
Today's DMN has a commentary by Larry, about the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. The essay is titled:
Missing the mark on MLK Day
Focusing on volunteering diminishes significance of his life
(Read it here)
Basically, Larry says what I have been thinking all week, but didn't really know how to express: that the idea to "volunteering" on MLK Day really misses the mark for what the holiday should be.
Larry references a column by Steve Blow earlier this week, in which Steve bemoans the relative lack of placements for someone to volunteer. Steve's basic point, written like the investigative journalist he is not, is that IF we are going to emphasize volunteerism on that holiday, then we should have far more places for folks to volunteer. And he insinuates that the fact that there aren't more sites to volunteer reveals some sort of moral failing on the part of Dallas, local-non profits, and the citizenry at large.
Within it's own inner logic, it's an interesting point. The problem is with the "inner logic" of the whole idea in the first place. And, all week, I've had the itch to respond to Steve's column on my blog. Larry's column today pushed me to follow through...mainly because he makes the case so well and everyone should pay attention to his words.
Larry starts off by naming the issue:
"Several years ago, lots of people got the idea that the best way to celebrate the Martin Luther King Jr. national holiday was to organize a special day of community service. You've likely heard it: "Not a day off, but a day on!" The idea is that the best way to honor Dr. King's memory and legacy would be discovered in organized volunteer efforts to extend compassion and aid to the less fortunate among us.
Here at Central Dallas Ministries, we manage a rather large AmeriCorps program, so we received word from the Corporation for National Service directing programs like ours all across the nation to orchestrate volunteer projects. Certainly nothing wrong with that.
I picked up on the same sentiment early this week at the Web site of the White House Office for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Here's part of the post: "President Bush marked the Martin Luther King Jr. King holiday by volunteering and calling on Americans to honor King's legacy by showing compassion on the holiday and throughout the year.
"The President and First Lady Laura Bush joined dozens of volunteers at the Martin Luther King Jr. library as they repaired and shelved books and taught lessons about King's life to children. More than a half-million Americans are serving in 5,000 King Day of Service projects across the country."
Here in Dallas, we enjoyed the commentary of popular Dallas Morning News columnist Steve Blow, who bemoaned the lack of organized community volunteer opportunities on this special day of national service ("Ready to go, nowhere to serve," Jan. 20).
I'm all for seeing folks volunteer. I believe in the value of community service. Nothing beats genuine compassion and concern for others, especially for those who are down and out, ill, mistreated, marginalized and neglected. Don't get me wrong.
But, in my opinion, the continuing and growing effort to link the memory of Dr. King to a day of volunteering diminishes the real significance of his life, to say nothing of how badly it misses the mark in understanding his personal mission."
I know Steve Blow, and I'm sure Larry knows him too. And I know him to be a very good guy. In fact, I kinda hate that it's his essay that's inspired this response from me.
But, like Larry, I think Steve misses the point. And I think he misses the point in two crucial ways. Larry describes one way really well, and I'll get to that in a moment. But there is another reason to critique the idea of volunteerism on the King holiday, and I'd like to unpack it here...
When I served in the area of "Mission and Outreach" for HPUMC, every year around Thanksgiving and Christmas my phone would start ringing off the hook. Folks would come pouring out of the woodwork, yearning to find some "soup kitchen" to serve lunch at on Thanksgiving Day, or some place to give out toys on Christmas morning.
These were always well-meaning folks who clearly had a fantasy in their mind of the "perfect" holiday. That fantasy involved doing some act of service along with their gathered family and friends. I suppose they imagined that they'd go serve some styrofoam plates of stuffing and turkey somewhere else, before returning home to stuff their own faces at home.
The problem, of course, is that TONS of other people all had the same idea; all at the same time. That first year I worked in mission/outreach, I called dozens of the agencies we worked with mostly closely (Central Dallas was probably one of them!), And over and over, I got the same message back:
During the holidays, these agencies were inundated by offers of help. People opened their checkbooks. People dropped off clothes (that's a whole other story...) and food. People signed up to volunteer. And ultimately, the desire for folks to help outstripped the possible placements to serve.
Fast forward to...say...mid-July....
And in the heat of the summer, at the height of the vacation season, those same agencies --overwhelmed with donations of old shoes and dusty canned goods at Christmas-- struggle each day to keep their doors open. Food donations dry up. Volunteers are scarcely seen (Everybody's on vacation with their families!)
The point is this: your volunteerism IS need, just not on Christmas Day, or Thanksgiving Day, and probably not on MLK Day either.
The staffs of our best non-profits agencies work their butts off during the holidays. They put in long hours --and often work every weekend of the season-- trying to match human need with the tidal wave of resources, human and otherwise, that come through theirs door at that time.
So, what? Two weeks later --while they are still trying to recuperate from the holiday-- they're supposed to gear up for another onslaught of volunteers and resources?!
Pretty bad timing, if you asked me.
See, Steve Blow makes it sound like everybody was just taking the day off and taking their eye off the ball. This is what annoyed me most about his essay.
My hunch? By the time MLK Day rolls around, the staffs of our best non-profits are just barely beginning to catch their breath from Christmas and Thanksgiving. It's not that they are uncaring about the MLK holiday. It's that their reserve of caring --their internal spirits, and their external supplies of goods and services-- need some time to rest and renew.
My second hunch? The folks who first thought up this idea of "A Day On" never really bothered to ask any social service agencies what they thought about it. These places are not going to turn help down, don't get me wrong.
But offer to sponsor "A Day On" in mid-July?
My guess is they'd well up with tears of joy.
If anything, we should be giving these folks the King Holiday OFF, offering them our profound thanks for their service during the just-concluded busiest time of the year.
So if your soul feels called to volunteer, fine. But don't do it on Thanksgiving Day. Don't do it on MLK Day. Do it on July 22nd. Do it on June 29th. Do it on some other mid-summer day when the rest of the world is on "summer break," and your contribution will be desperately appreciated.
Call the North Texas Food Bank in June, and make a contribution to get them through the summer months. Call Central Dallas Ministries, or NDSM, and put in your name to do a day of service in late August. My guess is, they'll need your help a lot more then, and your contribution will have more lasting meaning to everyone. Including you.
BUT!!! If honoring the vision of Dr. King is what you want to do, then forget about all of this.
"Huh?!" you say...
And this where Larry's essay really gets at the crux and heart of the matter. The bottom line:
Dr. Martin Luther King was not about challenging people to develop their sense of "charity" for a day, he was about challenging people to change our systems so that our charity would no longer be necessary.
Larry says it better than I ever could. And I hope you'll read these next paragraphs slowly, several times, and take these words to heart:
"Dr. King didn't call folks to volunteer to help the poor. He wanted to know why so many people were poor in a nation of such opulence and wealth. So far as I know, Dr. King never organized a food pantry or invited the rich to serve in soup kitchens. He asked hard questions about the meaning of hunger and homelessness to our collective, national soul.
He didn't call for mentors and volunteer projects in our public schools. No, Dr. King asked penetrating questions about the quality of education for all of our children. Dr. King didn't just invite people to visit the hospitals where soldiers were returning home with severe injuries and lifelong disabilities caused by a terrible conflict in Southeast Asia. He asked why the war needed to continue at all.
He didn't wonder why more health care professionals weren't volunteering in indigent clinics. He challenged the nation to adopt just universal health care policies to ensure that every American received adequate and routine treatment.
The kinds of volunteer opportunities that Dr. King invited people to take part in often landed them in jail, not on the front page of the society section. He asked people to march, register to vote, sit in, resist and confront systemic injustice and unfair laws. He asked people to lay down their very lives for the sorts of changes that made the American system better for everyone.
His program didn't seek to simply meet needs. His vision called for the elimination of need. To redefine Dr. King's life and legacy in those terms limits his importance and drains his message of its power. And, frankly, such an emphasis lets us all off the hook when it comes to the fundamental and sweeping public policy changes still needing our attention and the full expression of our courage as a people."
Thank you, Larry, for putting words to the feelings I could not have expressed better. You are dead-on the mark.
If the King holiday becomes a day of just passing out canned goods or painting the walls of a "clinic for the indigent," then we have turned the lion-hearted vision of Dr. King into Garfield the Cat.
To really honor Dr. King, we need to ask why we need the clinic and the food pantry in the first place.
To really live out his vision, we need to work for a world where one day we don't need either.
What a "day on" that day will be!!!
Larry is President and CEO of Central Dallas Ministries, and is one of those rare human beings who doesn't just talk about the poor, he lives his life with the poor...serving them...worshipping with them...challenging those of us who are more affluent to get off our rears and do something to change the world. He is something of an "Amos" to Dallas' suburban churches. (He also has a fantastic blog that everyone should read...)
Today's DMN has a commentary by Larry, about the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. The essay is titled:
Missing the mark on MLK Day
Focusing on volunteering diminishes significance of his life
(Read it here)
Basically, Larry says what I have been thinking all week, but didn't really know how to express: that the idea to "volunteering" on MLK Day really misses the mark for what the holiday should be.
Larry references a column by Steve Blow earlier this week, in which Steve bemoans the relative lack of placements for someone to volunteer. Steve's basic point, written like the investigative journalist he is not, is that IF we are going to emphasize volunteerism on that holiday, then we should have far more places for folks to volunteer. And he insinuates that the fact that there aren't more sites to volunteer reveals some sort of moral failing on the part of Dallas, local-non profits, and the citizenry at large.
Within it's own inner logic, it's an interesting point. The problem is with the "inner logic" of the whole idea in the first place. And, all week, I've had the itch to respond to Steve's column on my blog. Larry's column today pushed me to follow through...mainly because he makes the case so well and everyone should pay attention to his words.
Larry starts off by naming the issue:
"Several years ago, lots of people got the idea that the best way to celebrate the Martin Luther King Jr. national holiday was to organize a special day of community service. You've likely heard it: "Not a day off, but a day on!" The idea is that the best way to honor Dr. King's memory and legacy would be discovered in organized volunteer efforts to extend compassion and aid to the less fortunate among us.
Here at Central Dallas Ministries, we manage a rather large AmeriCorps program, so we received word from the Corporation for National Service directing programs like ours all across the nation to orchestrate volunteer projects. Certainly nothing wrong with that.
I picked up on the same sentiment early this week at the Web site of the White House Office for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Here's part of the post: "President Bush marked the Martin Luther King Jr. King holiday by volunteering and calling on Americans to honor King's legacy by showing compassion on the holiday and throughout the year.
"The President and First Lady Laura Bush joined dozens of volunteers at the Martin Luther King Jr. library as they repaired and shelved books and taught lessons about King's life to children. More than a half-million Americans are serving in 5,000 King Day of Service projects across the country."
Here in Dallas, we enjoyed the commentary of popular Dallas Morning News columnist Steve Blow, who bemoaned the lack of organized community volunteer opportunities on this special day of national service ("Ready to go, nowhere to serve," Jan. 20).
I'm all for seeing folks volunteer. I believe in the value of community service. Nothing beats genuine compassion and concern for others, especially for those who are down and out, ill, mistreated, marginalized and neglected. Don't get me wrong.
But, in my opinion, the continuing and growing effort to link the memory of Dr. King to a day of volunteering diminishes the real significance of his life, to say nothing of how badly it misses the mark in understanding his personal mission."
I know Steve Blow, and I'm sure Larry knows him too. And I know him to be a very good guy. In fact, I kinda hate that it's his essay that's inspired this response from me.
But, like Larry, I think Steve misses the point. And I think he misses the point in two crucial ways. Larry describes one way really well, and I'll get to that in a moment. But there is another reason to critique the idea of volunteerism on the King holiday, and I'd like to unpack it here...
When I served in the area of "Mission and Outreach" for HPUMC, every year around Thanksgiving and Christmas my phone would start ringing off the hook. Folks would come pouring out of the woodwork, yearning to find some "soup kitchen" to serve lunch at on Thanksgiving Day, or some place to give out toys on Christmas morning.
These were always well-meaning folks who clearly had a fantasy in their mind of the "perfect" holiday. That fantasy involved doing some act of service along with their gathered family and friends. I suppose they imagined that they'd go serve some styrofoam plates of stuffing and turkey somewhere else, before returning home to stuff their own faces at home.
The problem, of course, is that TONS of other people all had the same idea; all at the same time. That first year I worked in mission/outreach, I called dozens of the agencies we worked with mostly closely (Central Dallas was probably one of them!), And over and over, I got the same message back:
During the holidays, these agencies were inundated by offers of help. People opened their checkbooks. People dropped off clothes (that's a whole other story...) and food. People signed up to volunteer. And ultimately, the desire for folks to help outstripped the possible placements to serve.
Fast forward to...say...mid-July....
And in the heat of the summer, at the height of the vacation season, those same agencies --overwhelmed with donations of old shoes and dusty canned goods at Christmas-- struggle each day to keep their doors open. Food donations dry up. Volunteers are scarcely seen (Everybody's on vacation with their families!)
The point is this: your volunteerism IS need, just not on Christmas Day, or Thanksgiving Day, and probably not on MLK Day either.
The staffs of our best non-profits agencies work their butts off during the holidays. They put in long hours --and often work every weekend of the season-- trying to match human need with the tidal wave of resources, human and otherwise, that come through theirs door at that time.
So, what? Two weeks later --while they are still trying to recuperate from the holiday-- they're supposed to gear up for another onslaught of volunteers and resources?!
Pretty bad timing, if you asked me.
See, Steve Blow makes it sound like everybody was just taking the day off and taking their eye off the ball. This is what annoyed me most about his essay.
My hunch? By the time MLK Day rolls around, the staffs of our best non-profits are just barely beginning to catch their breath from Christmas and Thanksgiving. It's not that they are uncaring about the MLK holiday. It's that their reserve of caring --their internal spirits, and their external supplies of goods and services-- need some time to rest and renew.
My second hunch? The folks who first thought up this idea of "A Day On" never really bothered to ask any social service agencies what they thought about it. These places are not going to turn help down, don't get me wrong.
But offer to sponsor "A Day On" in mid-July?
My guess is they'd well up with tears of joy.
If anything, we should be giving these folks the King Holiday OFF, offering them our profound thanks for their service during the just-concluded busiest time of the year.
So if your soul feels called to volunteer, fine. But don't do it on Thanksgiving Day. Don't do it on MLK Day. Do it on July 22nd. Do it on June 29th. Do it on some other mid-summer day when the rest of the world is on "summer break," and your contribution will be desperately appreciated.
Call the North Texas Food Bank in June, and make a contribution to get them through the summer months. Call Central Dallas Ministries, or NDSM, and put in your name to do a day of service in late August. My guess is, they'll need your help a lot more then, and your contribution will have more lasting meaning to everyone. Including you.
BUT!!! If honoring the vision of Dr. King is what you want to do, then forget about all of this.
"Huh?!" you say...
And this where Larry's essay really gets at the crux and heart of the matter. The bottom line:
Dr. Martin Luther King was not about challenging people to develop their sense of "charity" for a day, he was about challenging people to change our systems so that our charity would no longer be necessary.
Larry says it better than I ever could. And I hope you'll read these next paragraphs slowly, several times, and take these words to heart:
"Dr. King didn't call folks to volunteer to help the poor. He wanted to know why so many people were poor in a nation of such opulence and wealth. So far as I know, Dr. King never organized a food pantry or invited the rich to serve in soup kitchens. He asked hard questions about the meaning of hunger and homelessness to our collective, national soul.
He didn't call for mentors and volunteer projects in our public schools. No, Dr. King asked penetrating questions about the quality of education for all of our children. Dr. King didn't just invite people to visit the hospitals where soldiers were returning home with severe injuries and lifelong disabilities caused by a terrible conflict in Southeast Asia. He asked why the war needed to continue at all.
He didn't wonder why more health care professionals weren't volunteering in indigent clinics. He challenged the nation to adopt just universal health care policies to ensure that every American received adequate and routine treatment.
The kinds of volunteer opportunities that Dr. King invited people to take part in often landed them in jail, not on the front page of the society section. He asked people to march, register to vote, sit in, resist and confront systemic injustice and unfair laws. He asked people to lay down their very lives for the sorts of changes that made the American system better for everyone.
His program didn't seek to simply meet needs. His vision called for the elimination of need. To redefine Dr. King's life and legacy in those terms limits his importance and drains his message of its power. And, frankly, such an emphasis lets us all off the hook when it comes to the fundamental and sweeping public policy changes still needing our attention and the full expression of our courage as a people."
Thank you, Larry, for putting words to the feelings I could not have expressed better. You are dead-on the mark.
If the King holiday becomes a day of just passing out canned goods or painting the walls of a "clinic for the indigent," then we have turned the lion-hearted vision of Dr. King into Garfield the Cat.
To really honor Dr. King, we need to ask why we need the clinic and the food pantry in the first place.
To really live out his vision, we need to work for a world where one day we don't need either.
What a "day on" that day will be!!!
Why You Never Need to Leave Texas
Jan/23/2008 03:46 PM | Things to Like about
Texas |
Permalink
Haven't done a "Things to Like About Texas" entry in
quite a while. My friends/family in Atlanta added
that fair burg to this list. And I added several more
to the international category. They've got an
asterisks by them.
(Did I mention that I always loved geography?)
If you think of you own, email or comment, and I'll post them too.
Why you never need to leave Texas
Need to be cheered up?
Happy, Texas 79042
Pep , Texas 79353
Smiley , Texas 78159
Paradise , Texas 76073
Rainbow , Texas 76077
Sweet Home , Texas 77987
Comfort , Texas 78013
Friendship, Texas 76530
Love the Sun?
Sun City , Texas 78628
Sunrise , Texas 76661
Sunset, Texas 76270
Sundown, Texas 79372
Sunray , Texas 79086
Sunny Side , Texas 77423
Want something to eat?
Bacon , Texas 76301
Noodle , Texas 79536
Oatmeal , Texas 78605
Turkey , Texas 79261
Trout , Texas 75789
Sugar Land , Texas 77479
Salty, Texas 76567
Rice , Texas 75155
And top it off with:
Sweetwater , Texas 79556
Why travel to other cities? Texas has them all!
Atlanta, Texas 75551
Detroit , Texas 75436
Colorado City , Texas 79512
Denver City , Texas 79323
Klondike , Texas 75448
Nevada , Texas 75173
Memphis , Texas 79245
Miami , Texas 79059
Boston , Texas 75570
Santa Fe , Texas 77517
Tennessee Colony , Texas 75861
Reno , Texas 75462
Feel like traveling outside the country? Don't bother buying a plane ticket!
Athens , Texas 75751
Canadian, Texas 79014
Carthage, Texas 75633 *
China , Texas 77613
Egypt , Texas 77436
Germany, Texas 75835 *
Ireland , Texas 76538
Italy, Texas 76651 *
Sudan, Texas 79371*
Turkey , Texas 79261
London , Texas 76854
New London , Texas 75682
Odessa, Texas 79760 *
Paris , Texas 75460 *
Rhome, Texas 76078 *
No need to travel to Washington D.C.
Whitehouse , Texas 75791
We even have a city named after our planet!
Earth , Texas 79031
And a city named after our State!
Texas City , Texas 77590
Exhausted?
Energy , Texas 76452
Cold?
Blanket , Texas 76432
Winters, Texas
Like to read about History?
Santa Anna , Texas
Goliad , Texas
Alamo , Texas
Gun Barrel City , Texas
Robert Lee, Texas
Need Office Supplies?
Staples, Texas 78670
Men are from Mars, women are from...
Venus , Texas 76084
You guessed it..it's on the state line..
Texline , Texas 79087
For the kids...
Kermit , Texas 79745
Elmo , Texas 75118
Nemo , Texas 76070
Tarzan , Texas 79783
Winnie , Texas 77665
Sylvester , Texas 79560
Other city names in Texas , to make you smile.....
Frognot , Texas 75424
Bigfoot , Texas 78005
Hogeye , Texas 75423
Cactus , Texas 79013
Notrees , Texas 79759
Best, Texas 76932
Veribest , Texas 76886
Kickapoo , Texas 75763
Dime Box , Texas 77853
Old Dime Box , Texas 77853
Telephone , Texas 75488
Telegraph , Texas 76883
Whiteface , Texas 79379
Twitty, Texas 79079
The Anti-Al Gore City
Kilgore , Texas 75662
And our favorites...
Cut n Shoot, Texas
Gun Barrell City , Texas
Hoop And Holler, Texas
Ding Dong, Texas and, of course,
Muleshoe , Texas
Here is what Jeff Foxworthy has to say about folks from Texas ...
If someone in a Lowe's store offers you assistance and they don't work there, you may live in Texas ;
If you've worn shorts and a parka at the same time, you may live in Texas ;
If you've had a lengthy telephone conversation with someone who dialed a wrong number, you may live in Texas ;
If 'Vacation' means going anywhere south of Dallas for the weekend, you may live in Texas;
If you measure distance in hours, you may live in Texas;
If you know several people who have hit a deer more than once, you may live in Texas ;
If you install security lights on your house and garage, but leave both unlocked, you may live in Texas ;
If you carry jumper cables in your car and your wife knows how to use them, you may live in Texas ;
If the speed limit on the highway is 55 mph -- you're going 80 and everybody's passing you, you may live in Texas ;
If you find 60 degrees 'a little chilly,' you may live in Texas ;
If you actually understand these jokes, and share them with all your Texas friends, you definitely live in Texas .
Here are some little known, very interesting facts about Texas.
1. Beaumont to El Paso : 742 miles
2. Beaumont to Chicago : 770 miles
3. El Paso is closer to California than to Dallas
4. World's first rodeo was in Pecos , July 4, 1883.
5. The Flagship Hotel in Galveston is the only hotel in North America built over water.
6. The Heisman Trophy ws named after John William Heisman who was the first full-time coach at Rice University in Houston .
7. Brazoria County has more species of birds than any other area in North America .
8. Aransas Wildlife Refuge is the winter home of North America 's only remaining flock of whooping cranes.
9. Jalapeno jelly originated in Lake Jackson in 1978.
10. The worst natural disaster in U.S . history was in 1900, caused by a hurricane, in which over 8,000 lives were lost on Galveston Island
11. The first word spoken from the moon, July 20, 1969, was ' Houston .'
12. King Ranch in South Texas is larger than Rhode Island .
13. Tropical Storm Claudette brought a U.S. rainfall record of 43' in 24 hours in and around Alvin in July of 1979.
14. Texas is the only state to enter the U.S. by TREATY, (known as the Constitution of 1845 by the Republic of Texas to enter the Union ) instead of by annexation. This allows the Texas Flag to fly at the same height as the U.S. Flag, and may divide into 5 states.
(Note! For a fact check of #14, click here. Thanks to Larry Hendrick for passing it along...)
15. A Live Oak tree near Fulton is estimated to be 1500 years old.
16. Caddo Lake is the only natural lake in the state.
17. Dr Pepper was invented in Waco in 1885. There is no period in Dr Pepper.
18. Texas has had six capital cities: Washington-on-the Brazos, Harrisburg , Galveston , Velasco, West Columbia and Austin ..
19. The Capitol Dome in Austin is the only dome in the U.S. which is taller than the Capitol Building in Washington DC (by 7 feet).
20. The name ' Texas ' comes from the Hasini Indian word 'tejas' meaning friends. Tejas is not Spanish for Texas
21. The State Mascot is the Armadillo (an interesting bit of trivia about the armadillo is they always have four babies. They have one egg, which splits into four, and they either have four males or four females.).
22. The first domed stadium in the U.S. was the Astrodome in Houston
(Did I mention that I always loved geography?)
If you think of you own, email or comment, and I'll post them too.
Why you never need to leave Texas
Need to be cheered up?
Happy, Texas 79042
Pep , Texas 79353
Smiley , Texas 78159
Paradise , Texas 76073
Rainbow , Texas 76077
Sweet Home , Texas 77987
Comfort , Texas 78013
Friendship, Texas 76530
Love the Sun?
Sun City , Texas 78628
Sunrise , Texas 76661
Sunset, Texas 76270
Sundown, Texas 79372
Sunray , Texas 79086
Sunny Side , Texas 77423
Want something to eat?
Bacon , Texas 76301
Noodle , Texas 79536
Oatmeal , Texas 78605
Turkey , Texas 79261
Trout , Texas 75789
Sugar Land , Texas 77479
Salty, Texas 76567
Rice , Texas 75155
And top it off with:
Sweetwater , Texas 79556
Why travel to other cities? Texas has them all!
Atlanta, Texas 75551
Detroit , Texas 75436
Colorado City , Texas 79512
Denver City , Texas 79323
Klondike , Texas 75448
Nevada , Texas 75173
Memphis , Texas 79245
Miami , Texas 79059
Boston , Texas 75570
Santa Fe , Texas 77517
Tennessee Colony , Texas 75861
Reno , Texas 75462
Feel like traveling outside the country? Don't bother buying a plane ticket!
Athens , Texas 75751
Canadian, Texas 79014
Carthage, Texas 75633 *
China , Texas 77613
Egypt , Texas 77436
Germany, Texas 75835 *
Ireland , Texas 76538
Italy, Texas 76651 *
Sudan, Texas 79371*
Turkey , Texas 79261
London , Texas 76854
New London , Texas 75682
Odessa, Texas 79760 *
Paris , Texas 75460 *
Rhome, Texas 76078 *
No need to travel to Washington D.C.
Whitehouse , Texas 75791
We even have a city named after our planet!
Earth , Texas 79031
And a city named after our State!
Texas City , Texas 77590
Exhausted?
Energy , Texas 76452
Cold?
Blanket , Texas 76432
Winters, Texas
Like to read about History?
Santa Anna , Texas
Goliad , Texas
Alamo , Texas
Gun Barrel City , Texas
Robert Lee, Texas
Need Office Supplies?
Staples, Texas 78670
Men are from Mars, women are from...
Venus , Texas 76084
You guessed it..it's on the state line..
Texline , Texas 79087
For the kids...
Kermit , Texas 79745
Elmo , Texas 75118
Nemo , Texas 76070
Tarzan , Texas 79783
Winnie , Texas 77665
Sylvester , Texas 79560
Other city names in Texas , to make you smile.....
Frognot , Texas 75424
Bigfoot , Texas 78005
Hogeye , Texas 75423
Cactus , Texas 79013
Notrees , Texas 79759
Best, Texas 76932
Veribest , Texas 76886
Kickapoo , Texas 75763
Dime Box , Texas 77853
Old Dime Box , Texas 77853
Telephone , Texas 75488
Telegraph , Texas 76883
Whiteface , Texas 79379
Twitty, Texas 79079
The Anti-Al Gore City
Kilgore , Texas 75662
And our favorites...
Cut n Shoot, Texas
Gun Barrell City , Texas
Hoop And Holler, Texas
Ding Dong, Texas and, of course,
Muleshoe , Texas
Here is what Jeff Foxworthy has to say about folks from Texas ...
If someone in a Lowe's store offers you assistance and they don't work there, you may live in Texas ;
If you've worn shorts and a parka at the same time, you may live in Texas ;
If you've had a lengthy telephone conversation with someone who dialed a wrong number, you may live in Texas ;
If 'Vacation' means going anywhere south of Dallas for the weekend, you may live in Texas;
If you measure distance in hours, you may live in Texas;
If you know several people who have hit a deer more than once, you may live in Texas ;
If you install security lights on your house and garage, but leave both unlocked, you may live in Texas ;
If you carry jumper cables in your car and your wife knows how to use them, you may live in Texas ;
If the speed limit on the highway is 55 mph -- you're going 80 and everybody's passing you, you may live in Texas ;
If you find 60 degrees 'a little chilly,' you may live in Texas ;
If you actually understand these jokes, and share them with all your Texas friends, you definitely live in Texas .
Here are some little known, very interesting facts about Texas.
1. Beaumont to El Paso : 742 miles
2. Beaumont to Chicago : 770 miles
3. El Paso is closer to California than to Dallas
4. World's first rodeo was in Pecos , July 4, 1883.
5. The Flagship Hotel in Galveston is the only hotel in North America built over water.
6. The Heisman Trophy ws named after John William Heisman who was the first full-time coach at Rice University in Houston .
7. Brazoria County has more species of birds than any other area in North America .
8. Aransas Wildlife Refuge is the winter home of North America 's only remaining flock of whooping cranes.
9. Jalapeno jelly originated in Lake Jackson in 1978.
10. The worst natural disaster in U.S . history was in 1900, caused by a hurricane, in which over 8,000 lives were lost on Galveston Island
11. The first word spoken from the moon, July 20, 1969, was ' Houston .'
12. King Ranch in South Texas is larger than Rhode Island .
13. Tropical Storm Claudette brought a U.S. rainfall record of 43' in 24 hours in and around Alvin in July of 1979.
14. Texas is the only state to enter the U.S. by TREATY, (known as the Constitution of 1845 by the Republic of Texas to enter the Union ) instead of by annexation. This allows the Texas Flag to fly at the same height as the U.S. Flag, and may divide into 5 states.
(Note! For a fact check of #14, click here. Thanks to Larry Hendrick for passing it along...)
15. A Live Oak tree near Fulton is estimated to be 1500 years old.
16. Caddo Lake is the only natural lake in the state.
17. Dr Pepper was invented in Waco in 1885. There is no period in Dr Pepper.
18. Texas has had six capital cities: Washington-on-the Brazos, Harrisburg , Galveston , Velasco, West Columbia and Austin ..
19. The Capitol Dome in Austin is the only dome in the U.S. which is taller than the Capitol Building in Washington DC (by 7 feet).
20. The name ' Texas ' comes from the Hasini Indian word 'tejas' meaning friends. Tejas is not Spanish for Texas
21. The State Mascot is the Armadillo (an interesting bit of trivia about the armadillo is they always have four babies. They have one egg, which splits into four, and they either have four males or four females.).
22. The first domed stadium in the U.S. was the Astrodome in Houston
More on Military Deaths
Jan/22/2008 04:47 PM | Thoughts from Purple
Land |
Permalink
A little more on
this blog
from Sunday...
Kim emailed yesterday to ask a good question:
"What are the leading causes of death for each of these years/eras? Is there any data on this?"
Don't know why I didn't stop to ask that question myself. On Sunday, I was in such a hurry to get the blog posted, so shocked by the blatantly incorrect data, that I didn't delve into this slightly deeper question. But it's a good one.
And, turns out, the same report provides the answers...for those willing to look it up.
Just one page over from the page I cited Sunday (meaning: page 11), you will find a more detailed table called:
"US Active Duty Military Deaths, 1980 Through 2006"
This table provides a chart listing out the deaths each year by different standardized categories.
The categories are:
Accident
Hostile Action
Homicide
Illness
Pending
Self-Inflicted
Terrorist Attack
Undetermined
Turns out, the greatest cause of death of active military personnel in every single year since 1980 was "Accident." The second-greatest cause in most years was "Illness." Sadly, "Self-Inflicted" and "Homicide" are the third and fourth most populous categories.
The statistic that jumped out for me during Clinton's time was "Terrorist Attack." And the total number who died during Clinton's two terms was: 75
This compares to just 55 for the first six years of Bush's term.
By the way, the biggest number of terrorism deaths since 1980 happened in 1983, during Reagan's tenure, and the number of deaths was: 263.
(Was this Beirut? I'm thinking it must have been...)
One of the more interesting stats, then, is a direct, "apples-to-apples" comparison of "Hostile Action" deaths in both the Bush and Clinton years.
Of course, we've been in a war for this past half decade now. It makes sense to assume Bush's total would be higher, despite the insinuation of the email that started all of this.
Sure enough, that's the case.
Total Active Military Deaths due to "Hostile Action:
Six years of George W. Bush (2001-2006): 2,596.
Eight years of Bill Clinton (1993-2000): One.
Kim emailed yesterday to ask a good question:
"What are the leading causes of death for each of these years/eras? Is there any data on this?"
Don't know why I didn't stop to ask that question myself. On Sunday, I was in such a hurry to get the blog posted, so shocked by the blatantly incorrect data, that I didn't delve into this slightly deeper question. But it's a good one.
And, turns out, the same report provides the answers...for those willing to look it up.
Just one page over from the page I cited Sunday (meaning: page 11), you will find a more detailed table called:
"US Active Duty Military Deaths, 1980 Through 2006"
This table provides a chart listing out the deaths each year by different standardized categories.
The categories are:
Accident
Hostile Action
Homicide
Illness
Pending
Self-Inflicted
Terrorist Attack
Undetermined
Turns out, the greatest cause of death of active military personnel in every single year since 1980 was "Accident." The second-greatest cause in most years was "Illness." Sadly, "Self-Inflicted" and "Homicide" are the third and fourth most populous categories.
The statistic that jumped out for me during Clinton's time was "Terrorist Attack." And the total number who died during Clinton's two terms was: 75
This compares to just 55 for the first six years of Bush's term.
By the way, the biggest number of terrorism deaths since 1980 happened in 1983, during Reagan's tenure, and the number of deaths was: 263.
(Was this Beirut? I'm thinking it must have been...)
One of the more interesting stats, then, is a direct, "apples-to-apples" comparison of "Hostile Action" deaths in both the Bush and Clinton years.
Of course, we've been in a war for this past half decade now. It makes sense to assume Bush's total would be higher, despite the insinuation of the email that started all of this.
Sure enough, that's the case.
Total Active Military Deaths due to "Hostile Action:
Six years of George W. Bush (2001-2006): 2,596.
Eight years of Bill Clinton (1993-2000): One.
Military Losses for 20 Years....I play at being
Snopes.com
Jan/20/2008 07:43 PM | Thoughts from Purple
Land |
Permalink
I've written about chain/spam emails before. I've
written about Snopes.com before.
These days I assume everyone knows about both, and that anybody who really wants to be well informed will check stuff out on their own.
But every now and then, an email comes my way that is so wrong, and so un-refuted, that I feel compelled to respond. That happened today, and this blog my reaction. Consider this entry your own personal Snopes.com for the day.
The "issue" is an email I got this morning titled:
"Military Losses for 20 Years"
It was forwarded to me by a cousin of mine who I respect a great deal. No beef with him, in other words. Just a beef with whoever started this insidious chain message.
So that you can truly be informed, I have included the entire email at the end of this blog entry, so you can see the original context for yourself.
The gist of the email is an astounding claim that more military personnel died during the Clinton years than during the George W. Bush presidency.
It cites a government report as the source of information for this claim.
The claim in the email is that during Clinton's presidency, a whopping 13,417 service men and women died. During Bush's tenure, the email claims only 9,016 members of the Armed Forces have died. The clear insinuation is that while everyone thinks the current war has been terrible, things were much worse when Clinton was in the White House.
The email goes on to make the claim that huge numbers of military personnel died during the "reign" of President Jimmy Carter. (BTW, since they aren't royalty, I wasn't aware that our presidents had "reigns.")
The email claims the data it cites is substantiated by a congressional study. And, it even gives a url to the study itself. (Something that gives an air of legitimacy to these kinds of emails...)
Here is the link to the report the email cites.
This email then goes on to editorialize about all of these so-called shocking discoveries:
"These figures indicate that many of our Media & Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth. Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?"
The "muckraking" email ends with two ominous questions, thrown out to the innocent and fearful patrons of cyberspace:
"Now ask yourself these two questions:
'Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these?'
and
'Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much as they do?'"
Well, first...I don't know that it ever includes "marching," but I do know whatever "agenda" journalist have starts with editors who are sticklers for...gosh darn it...accurate statistics.
Secondly...they don't print these kinds of claims because these claims are just flat out lies and mistruths.
And, finally....I don't personally believe that the mainstream media "hates" the web, because the web itself gives guys like me the chance to refute this kind of garbage.
The facts are: almost every "fact" in this email is a lie not supported by the documentation the email cites!!!!
I will now unpack this....
First, let's assume the report the email cites is a genuine government report, and is genuinely accurate. I have no idea whether it is or not. But for the sake of argument --for the sake of "fact checking" it's own inner consistency-- assume the backing documents are true.
When you open the .pdf file at the above link, and then go to page ten, you'll find a helpful chart titled:
"Table 4: US Active Military Deaths, 1980 to 2006"
Using a calculator, and amazingly dexterous fingers, I managed to do my own counting. And here are the TRUE numbers:
For the years 1993-2000 (the eight full years of Bill Clinton's presidency)
There were a total of: 7,500 military deaths for those in active duty
(remember: the email claims: 13, 417)
Yes, it's a strangely round number. But it appears to be correct. As Casey Stengel once said, "You could look it up..."
For the years of George W. Bush's presidency 2001-2006
There were a total of: 8,792 military deaths for those in active duty.
(the email claims: 9,016)
Note! The Bush statistic only includes data through 2006, and a footnote admits that the 2006 data is "preliminary." This number does not include any combat deaths for 2007.
As mentioned above, the email goes on to claim that there were 2,392 deaths in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was president. The email makes this sound shocking, since Carter won a "Nobel Peace Prize." And, actually, this one number appears to be correct.
However! Even though this is correct, it fails to account for the truth that the largest single year for military deaths since 1980 was during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The year was 1983, and the total deaths were: 2,465. (Go ahead. "Casey Stengel" it)
Also! Note this unusual factoid: the spam email incorrectly claims this exact same number of deaths (2.465) during 1995 (a Clinton year...surprise, surprise...). This does not appear to be correct. The actual number for 1995 was: 1,040.
----------------------------------------------------
So, why did I write this "correction"?
Well, because we're entering the high-season for politics and dirty tricks. Love or hate her, there is again a "Clinton" the ballot this year. Many people (including many Republicans) are still very concerned about the war.
What makes this kind of email especially insidious is that it provides you a link to check the facts yourself.
It just assumes you won't.
To that end, it's really propaganda. It's a smear campaign, and it's the worst kind of dirty trick.
And even if you later read MY email --where I also exhort you to "check the facts"-- the dissonance between two competing fact claims will cause lot of folks to just shrug their shoulders, complain of "tired brain," and walk away...often with their initial preconceptions still intact.
The facts are these: Many more service men and women have died during six years of GW. Bush's presidency than during eight years of Bill Clinton's.
But for people are naturally inclined to disbelieve these "true" facts, propagandistic email like this allow them to keep their incorrect preconceptions in full force. They then pass those lies on to unwitting friends and family. And the lies take on a life and "truth" all their own, regardless of the "facts".
It's a sinister, and sickly effective, form of "disinformation."
There is a lot at stake here. American men and women are giving their live each day. That is nothing to gloss over or make light of. I am not attempting to do that here, nor am I attempting to make their deaths into a political football. The death of any military person, in any historical age, is tragic. But if we are to honor their memory, the best way to do that is through being truthful about the history of our modern republic.
Once upon a time, Hillary Clinton claimed that a "vast right wing conspiracy" was out to get both her and President Clinton. I've always been skeptical about just how "vast" it really was.
At the same time, these kinds of emails remind us that there are people who do play fast and loose with the facts, and assume most folks are just too stupid to check things out themselves.
The morale of the story for this political season:
Trust, but verify.
The truth is out there.
Just maybe not in an email some guy forwards to you.
Below is the original text of an email sent to Eric on January 20, 2008:
"Subject: Military losses for 20 yrs
Interesting numbers. you can check this by clicking on to the suggested website. Snopes has nothing on this. These figures don't bring back anyone, but the person sending these does make a point about the perception of our military losses and activity. Comments after this were a part of the email sent to me.
Military losses for 20 years
These are some rather eye-opening facts: Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through now, we have lost over 3000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
>>1980 .......... 2,392
>>1981 ......... 2,380
>>1984 .......... 1,999
>>1988 .......... 1,819
>>1989 .......... 1,636
>>1990 ......... 1,508
>>1991 .......... 1,787
>>1992 .......... 1,293----------------------------------------------------
>>1993 .......... 1,213
>>1994 .......... 1,075
>>1995 ...........2,465
>>1996 ......... 2,318 Clinton years @13,417 deaths
>>1997 .......... 817
>>1998 ......... 2,252
>>1999 .......... 1,984 -------------------------------------------------
>>2000 .......... 1,983
>>2001 .......... 890
>>2002 .......... 1,007 7 BUSH years @ 9,016 deaths
>>2003 .......... 1,410
>>2004 .......... 1,887
>>2005 ......... 919
>>2006.......... 920 ------------------------------------------------------------
If you are confused when you look at these figures...so was I.
Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton 's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war? And, I was even more confused; when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities!
These figures indicate that many of our Media & Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth. Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?
Our Mainstream Print and TV media, and many Politicians like to slant; that these brave men and women, who are losing their lives in Iraq, are mostly minorities! Wrong AGAIN--- just one more media lie! The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:
European descent (White) ....... 69.12%
Hispanic ................................ 12.5%
Black..................................... 12.3%
Asian ...................................... 3.7%
Native American ..................... . 1.0%
Other ...................................... 2.6%
Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:
European descent (white) ..... 74.31%
Hispanic ............................. 10.74%
Black ................................... 9.67%
Asian ................................. . 1.81%
Native American .................... 1.09%
Other .................................... . 33%
You do the Math! These figures don't lie... but, Media-liars figure...and they sway public opinion! (These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf )
Now ask yourself these two questions:
'Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these?'
and
'Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much as they do?'"
These days I assume everyone knows about both, and that anybody who really wants to be well informed will check stuff out on their own.
But every now and then, an email comes my way that is so wrong, and so un-refuted, that I feel compelled to respond. That happened today, and this blog my reaction. Consider this entry your own personal Snopes.com for the day.
The "issue" is an email I got this morning titled:
"Military Losses for 20 Years"
It was forwarded to me by a cousin of mine who I respect a great deal. No beef with him, in other words. Just a beef with whoever started this insidious chain message.
So that you can truly be informed, I have included the entire email at the end of this blog entry, so you can see the original context for yourself.
The gist of the email is an astounding claim that more military personnel died during the Clinton years than during the George W. Bush presidency.
It cites a government report as the source of information for this claim.
The claim in the email is that during Clinton's presidency, a whopping 13,417 service men and women died. During Bush's tenure, the email claims only 9,016 members of the Armed Forces have died. The clear insinuation is that while everyone thinks the current war has been terrible, things were much worse when Clinton was in the White House.
The email goes on to make the claim that huge numbers of military personnel died during the "reign" of President Jimmy Carter. (BTW, since they aren't royalty, I wasn't aware that our presidents had "reigns.")
The email claims the data it cites is substantiated by a congressional study. And, it even gives a url to the study itself. (Something that gives an air of legitimacy to these kinds of emails...)
Here is the link to the report the email cites.
This email then goes on to editorialize about all of these so-called shocking discoveries:
"These figures indicate that many of our Media & Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth. Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?"
The "muckraking" email ends with two ominous questions, thrown out to the innocent and fearful patrons of cyberspace:
"Now ask yourself these two questions:
'Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these?'
and
'Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much as they do?'"
Well, first...I don't know that it ever includes "marching," but I do know whatever "agenda" journalist have starts with editors who are sticklers for...gosh darn it...accurate statistics.
Secondly...they don't print these kinds of claims because these claims are just flat out lies and mistruths.
And, finally....I don't personally believe that the mainstream media "hates" the web, because the web itself gives guys like me the chance to refute this kind of garbage.
The facts are: almost every "fact" in this email is a lie not supported by the documentation the email cites!!!!
I will now unpack this....
First, let's assume the report the email cites is a genuine government report, and is genuinely accurate. I have no idea whether it is or not. But for the sake of argument --for the sake of "fact checking" it's own inner consistency-- assume the backing documents are true.
When you open the .pdf file at the above link, and then go to page ten, you'll find a helpful chart titled:
"Table 4: US Active Military Deaths, 1980 to 2006"
Using a calculator, and amazingly dexterous fingers, I managed to do my own counting. And here are the TRUE numbers:
For the years 1993-2000 (the eight full years of Bill Clinton's presidency)
There were a total of: 7,500 military deaths for those in active duty
(remember: the email claims: 13, 417)
Yes, it's a strangely round number. But it appears to be correct. As Casey Stengel once said, "You could look it up..."
For the years of George W. Bush's presidency 2001-2006
There were a total of: 8,792 military deaths for those in active duty.
(the email claims: 9,016)
Note! The Bush statistic only includes data through 2006, and a footnote admits that the 2006 data is "preliminary." This number does not include any combat deaths for 2007.
As mentioned above, the email goes on to claim that there were 2,392 deaths in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was president. The email makes this sound shocking, since Carter won a "Nobel Peace Prize." And, actually, this one number appears to be correct.
However! Even though this is correct, it fails to account for the truth that the largest single year for military deaths since 1980 was during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The year was 1983, and the total deaths were: 2,465. (Go ahead. "Casey Stengel" it)
Also! Note this unusual factoid: the spam email incorrectly claims this exact same number of deaths (2.465) during 1995 (a Clinton year...surprise, surprise...). This does not appear to be correct. The actual number for 1995 was: 1,040.
----------------------------------------------------
So, why did I write this "correction"?
Well, because we're entering the high-season for politics and dirty tricks. Love or hate her, there is again a "Clinton" the ballot this year. Many people (including many Republicans) are still very concerned about the war.
What makes this kind of email especially insidious is that it provides you a link to check the facts yourself.
It just assumes you won't.
To that end, it's really propaganda. It's a smear campaign, and it's the worst kind of dirty trick.
And even if you later read MY email --where I also exhort you to "check the facts"-- the dissonance between two competing fact claims will cause lot of folks to just shrug their shoulders, complain of "tired brain," and walk away...often with their initial preconceptions still intact.
The facts are these: Many more service men and women have died during six years of GW. Bush's presidency than during eight years of Bill Clinton's.
But for people are naturally inclined to disbelieve these "true" facts, propagandistic email like this allow them to keep their incorrect preconceptions in full force. They then pass those lies on to unwitting friends and family. And the lies take on a life and "truth" all their own, regardless of the "facts".
It's a sinister, and sickly effective, form of "disinformation."
There is a lot at stake here. American men and women are giving their live each day. That is nothing to gloss over or make light of. I am not attempting to do that here, nor am I attempting to make their deaths into a political football. The death of any military person, in any historical age, is tragic. But if we are to honor their memory, the best way to do that is through being truthful about the history of our modern republic.
Once upon a time, Hillary Clinton claimed that a "vast right wing conspiracy" was out to get both her and President Clinton. I've always been skeptical about just how "vast" it really was.
At the same time, these kinds of emails remind us that there are people who do play fast and loose with the facts, and assume most folks are just too stupid to check things out themselves.
The morale of the story for this political season:
Trust, but verify.
The truth is out there.
Just maybe not in an email some guy forwards to you.
Below is the original text of an email sent to Eric on January 20, 2008:
"Subject: Military losses for 20 yrs
Interesting numbers. you can check this by clicking on to the suggested website. Snopes has nothing on this. These figures don't bring back anyone, but the person sending these does make a point about the perception of our military losses and activity. Comments after this were a part of the email sent to me.
Military losses for 20 years
These are some rather eye-opening facts: Since the start of the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the sacrifice has been enormous. In the time period from the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 through now, we have lost over 3000 military personnel to enemy action and accidents. As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics: The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
>>1980 .......... 2,392
>>1981 ......... 2,380
>>1984 .......... 1,999
>>1988 .......... 1,819
>>1989 .......... 1,636
>>1990 ......... 1,508
>>1991 .......... 1,787
>>1992 .......... 1,293----------------------------------------------------
>>1993 .......... 1,213
>>1994 .......... 1,075
>>1995 ...........2,465
>>1996 ......... 2,318 Clinton years @13,417 deaths
>>1997 .......... 817
>>1998 ......... 2,252
>>1999 .......... 1,984 -------------------------------------------------
>>2000 .......... 1,983
>>2001 .......... 890
>>2002 .......... 1,007 7 BUSH years @ 9,016 deaths
>>2003 .......... 1,410
>>2004 .......... 1,887
>>2005 ......... 919
>>2006.......... 920 ------------------------------------------------------------
If you are confused when you look at these figures...so was I.
Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton 's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war? And, I was even more confused; when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities!
These figures indicate that many of our Media & Politicians will pick and choose. They present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. Why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth. Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?
Our Mainstream Print and TV media, and many Politicians like to slant; that these brave men and women, who are losing their lives in Iraq, are mostly minorities! Wrong AGAIN--- just one more media lie! The latest census, of Americans, shows the following distribution of American citizens, by Race:
European descent (White) ....... 69.12%
Hispanic ................................ 12.5%
Black..................................... 12.3%
Asian ...................................... 3.7%
Native American ..................... . 1.0%
Other ...................................... 2.6%
Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:
European descent (white) ..... 74.31%
Hispanic ............................. 10.74%
Black ................................... 9.67%
Asian ................................. . 1.81%
Native American .................... 1.09%
Other .................................... . 33%
You do the Math! These figures don't lie... but, Media-liars figure...and they sway public opinion! (These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf )
Now ask yourself these two questions:
'Why does the mainstream Print and TV Media never print statistics like these?'
and
'Why do the mainstream media hate the web as much as they do?'"
What Happened to the Dallas Cowboys?!!!
Jan/14/2008 08:39 AM | Permalink
The bitter P1 is back again. Heck, everybody's bitter
today. And since I already started last night, why
not pile on?
Like I said two days ago, I am sure somebody's going to make the obvious comparison to the Mavericks of last season...chewing through the NBA regular season like they were playing high school teams...then choking against a low seed in the playoffs.
In their case, everybody piles on Dirk and makes the claim he's not a tough-enough leader. And I am sure that people will do that with Romo too...the Jessica Simpson thing...the fumble last year.
But in my mind, although Romo did not play spectacularly, he did play "OK." And had he gotten just a little help, we WOULD be calling his play "spectacular."
To me, last nights loss comes down to really poor play by two groups: the offensive line and the wide receivers.
The Offensive Line: "This ain't the group from the 90s."
Near the end of the game, Romo was overtly frustrated with the offensive line. And just now on The Ticket, I heard them, ahem, musing that perhaps we overrated this unit all season.
Let me just say this, and while it sounds like backseat driving, it's a thought I've had in my head all year: I have never believed the offensive line was as good as everybody said they were.
I believe that Romo makes them look good in his ability to scramble and make things happen. He even did that a couple of times yesterday. But when he need them to cover him on several clutch plays late in the game, they just weren't there. Yes, he should throw the ball away. (That's his fault) But, jeez, in a playoff situation like that? They've got to play better. They looked flat all game.
Yes, they managed to open up some pretty good holes for Marion the Barbarian. But, even that is suspect to me. See, I think you can argue that his punishing style of running --dragging defenders along with him-- is as much as part of his success as the actual holes the line opens up.
Personally? I think the strengths of Romo (scrambling...thinking on his feet...moving out of the pocket...quick release) and Barber (punishing running...stiff arms...) help gloss over weaknesses in the offensive line that we would have seen weeks ago otherwise.
The Wide Receivers: Patrick Crayton...just go ahead and change your phone number now...
What was the deal with that guy?!! With Terry Glenn back in the line up, you'd think he'd be working twice as hard to keep his spot; play flawless ball. And I know you can never blame a loss just on ONE guy. But, if you could, my scapegoat would be Patrick Crayton.
Here's how I count it: he had two poor plays that might well have gone for touchdowns, and another key drop that would have kept a drive alive.
Least damaging of the three --but still horrible-- was a clear drop that would have kept a drive alive.
Second worst was the play where Crayton was streaking across the open field. Romo had wiggled his way out of the pocket and found him, and Crayton just dropped the ball...just dropped it. There looked to be one guy between Crayton and the goal line, and that guy was not going to get him...guarantee it.
Absolutely worst was on the next-to-last play of the game, where Romo put the ball PERFECTLY into the corner of the end zone. In live action, it looked like an overthrow. On a second look, it's clear that Crayton stops running full stride at about the ten. By the time he realizes he's made a mistake, it's too late and the ball's over his head.
With less than thirty seconds left, what was he thinking?!!!
Oh yeah...almost forgot...he almost fumbled a punt too.
And, while TO had a fine day, he also had a crucial drop...a long pass down the side line that went straight through his hands. Who knows where that would have led.
--------------------------------------
When you start the recipe with poor play from those two groups, add in one part "too many penalties," and another dash of "poor special teams play," it's going to give you a dish that leaves a bad taste in your mouth for months to come.
If Crayton and TO make those three catches...
...at least one, maybe two, go for touchdowns
...Romo's QB rating is probably well over 100*
...and we're not left scratching our heads about how we had so many yards and so few points.
Last year at this time, Tony Romo let his team down.
This year it was the other way around.
*(this assumes that if we had those scores, he wouldn't have thrown the duck that got intercepted on the last play...)
Like I said two days ago, I am sure somebody's going to make the obvious comparison to the Mavericks of last season...chewing through the NBA regular season like they were playing high school teams...then choking against a low seed in the playoffs.
In their case, everybody piles on Dirk and makes the claim he's not a tough-enough leader. And I am sure that people will do that with Romo too...the Jessica Simpson thing...the fumble last year.
But in my mind, although Romo did not play spectacularly, he did play "OK." And had he gotten just a little help, we WOULD be calling his play "spectacular."
To me, last nights loss comes down to really poor play by two groups: the offensive line and the wide receivers.
The Offensive Line: "This ain't the group from the 90s."
Near the end of the game, Romo was overtly frustrated with the offensive line. And just now on The Ticket, I heard them, ahem, musing that perhaps we overrated this unit all season.
Let me just say this, and while it sounds like backseat driving, it's a thought I've had in my head all year: I have never believed the offensive line was as good as everybody said they were.
I believe that Romo makes them look good in his ability to scramble and make things happen. He even did that a couple of times yesterday. But when he need them to cover him on several clutch plays late in the game, they just weren't there. Yes, he should throw the ball away. (That's his fault) But, jeez, in a playoff situation like that? They've got to play better. They looked flat all game.
Yes, they managed to open up some pretty good holes for Marion the Barbarian. But, even that is suspect to me. See, I think you can argue that his punishing style of running --dragging defenders along with him-- is as much as part of his success as the actual holes the line opens up.
Personally? I think the strengths of Romo (scrambling...thinking on his feet...moving out of the pocket...quick release) and Barber (punishing running...stiff arms...) help gloss over weaknesses in the offensive line that we would have seen weeks ago otherwise.
The Wide Receivers: Patrick Crayton...just go ahead and change your phone number now...
What was the deal with that guy?!! With Terry Glenn back in the line up, you'd think he'd be working twice as hard to keep his spot; play flawless ball. And I know you can never blame a loss just on ONE guy. But, if you could, my scapegoat would be Patrick Crayton.
Here's how I count it: he had two poor plays that might well have gone for touchdowns, and another key drop that would have kept a drive alive.
Least damaging of the three --but still horrible-- was a clear drop that would have kept a drive alive.
Second worst was the play where Crayton was streaking across the open field. Romo had wiggled his way out of the pocket and found him, and Crayton just dropped the ball...just dropped it. There looked to be one guy between Crayton and the goal line, and that guy was not going to get him...guarantee it.
Absolutely worst was on the next-to-last play of the game, where Romo put the ball PERFECTLY into the corner of the end zone. In live action, it looked like an overthrow. On a second look, it's clear that Crayton stops running full stride at about the ten. By the time he realizes he's made a mistake, it's too late and the ball's over his head.
With less than thirty seconds left, what was he thinking?!!!
Oh yeah...almost forgot...he almost fumbled a punt too.
And, while TO had a fine day, he also had a crucial drop...a long pass down the side line that went straight through his hands. Who knows where that would have led.
--------------------------------------
When you start the recipe with poor play from those two groups, add in one part "too many penalties," and another dash of "poor special teams play," it's going to give you a dish that leaves a bad taste in your mouth for months to come.
If Crayton and TO make those three catches...
...at least one, maybe two, go for touchdowns
...Romo's QB rating is probably well over 100*
...and we're not left scratching our heads about how we had so many yards and so few points.
Last year at this time, Tony Romo let his team down.
This year it was the other way around.
*(this assumes that if we had those scores, he wouldn't have thrown the duck that got intercepted on the last play...)
Um...one caveat...
Jan/13/2008 08:35 PM | HSOs from a Bitter P1
| Permalink
When I talked about the game yesterday, I should have
noted that there was one additional caveat to my
prediction...
That if Tony Romo throws the ball to his wide recievers, THEY HAVE TO CATCH IT!!!!
( Yes, I know I'm shouting...)
That if Tony Romo throws the ball to his wide recievers, THEY HAVE TO CATCH IT!!!!
( Yes, I know I'm shouting...)
Connections in 08...Whoa, Mexico...The Most Pathetic
Story Ever....more on Dan....and more prayer needed.
Jan/12/2008 10:20 PM | Synapse Clippings
| Permalink
Within the week, we should be announcing a whole slew
of Connections Band shows for the first half of 2008.
Rusty and I have been meeting, our clergy core group
has been meeting, we've been polling the whole band,
and talking with potential venues. I
can
tell you that the plans include the Chicago/Eagles
show several times, along with the JT/Carole King
show. The wildcard has been trying to fit in a
Fogelberg Tribute show...but it looks like we've got
that worked too...just may be later into the Spring
than those of you reading might hope.
Soon, we should also have a new band website, and lots more info Keep a close eye out...
Speaking of band websites, did you catch the little changes I've made here? Over the Christmas break, I went a little insane with the scanner. And I've really found out how to mess around with Photoshop Elements.
That combination leads to new pics on almost every page of ericfolkerth.com. (If you can't see them, refresh your browser...)
Hope you like it.
Wow, has it been a rough week for Tony Romo. The first playoff game is tomorrow, but all anyone can talk about this week is his trip to Mexico with Jessica Simpson.
Personally? I think it was a stupidly timed trip. And I wonder if he just doesn't "get" how much the leering press follows her around. It was probably poor judgment.
But I do have a question: If Jason Witten drops a key pass tomorrow, are we going to blame it on his being along for the trip too? (Doubtful...)
Well, the playoffs make me think of the blog I wrote about a year ago. Might be a good time to revisit it again.
As for the game?
There's a part of me that thinks that if they can't win this one, then we're gonna start calling Romo the Dirk of the Dallas Cowboys. Actually, after the season they've had, I'm sure that comparison will be drawn.
But, to me, Romo's really not the real key. TO is.
If Owens is really as iffy as he looks this week...look out.
If he's fine --if the Cowboys are just hiding him to hold their cards close (wouldn't be the first time...)-- I'll go with Dallas; and might even argue they'll win big.
So, it all hinges on TO, and not only his own play, but how his presence changes the whole strategy of an opposing defense...opening up all sorts of options for his teammates.
If the Giants don't have to worry about him?
It could get ugly.
I think this is probably one of the most pathetic stories I've ever heard.
The mother later apologized and Club Libby Lu withdrew the prize. But what a pathetic thing!
And what about that poor kid? She's on TV for the big announcement...she gets a couple of days to believe that she's going to the greatest show of all-time. (Work with me here...I'm putting myself in her shoes...)
Then, the tickets are gone, and she's got to live with the fact that her Mom is to blame. (Or....do you think her Mom's even told her the truth? Maybe not. But when she finally finds out at age twenty? Ouch...)
I know some are criticizing the company for not "fact-checking" the essays. But who would believe that someone would lie about a fictitious war hero to win concert tickets for their kid?
Pitiful.
Nice message from Jean Fogelberg, Dan's wife, on the main website a few weeks back:
Dear friends, I'm so grateful to all of you who wrote to Dan through The Living Legacy website with your stories of how his music touched your lives; with your uplifting words of encouragement; with your declarations of admiration and friendship.
Dan was a strong and private man, but even the mountain must tremble, and during the toughest times he gained solace and comfort from reading your letters and learning that his music had been a source of light in your lives.
Greatest of all though, was the feeling you gave him that his time here had served a purpose.
I hope you will find some peace in knowing that the joy and comfort you found in his music winged it's way back to him through your words, prayers, and good wishes.
Thank you,
Jean Fogelberg
"There is no darkness in this place that we're bound
Love is the only thing that matters" ~ DF
Speaking of Dan, the true story of one of his most famous songs, "Same Old Lange Syne," has recently come to light. The woman in song has come forward to tell her tale. Her name is Jill Greulich, and a Peoria reporter tracked her down and got her to open up.
Some question the timing of this, implying that she's trying to take advantage of Dan's death by coming forth now. But from what I can tell, the basic facts were always common knowledge in Dan's hometown. And, the guy who broke the story is a local reporter who's written several items on Dan in the past months.
It's nicely written. Read it here.
To me? It makes the song even more poignant than it was before.
Man are the P1s having a cow about the departure of Greg Williams from the Ticket. As Unfair Park reports, he has technically "resigned," although I don't think anybody's really buying it. Here's their blog about it.
My sense is that none of us will ever know what really happened behind the scenes. Nor should we. Drug addiction is a terrible thing, and it is public knowledge that this latest episode was a relapse of some sort.
Drug addiction puts tremendous pressure on co-workers, friends, family. Sometimes, "tough love"is thing to do is to help the person understand just how far they've fallen. Maybe Greg needed that. Or, maybe he did get sober, and there was just too much water under the bridge to go back to the way things were. We'll never really know.
Or, let me put it this way: I hope we never know. It's really none of my business. Or your's.
Whatever this situation, I hope and pray he's on the road to recovery. And I hope and pray all those still on the air can continue forward best they can.
When you're talking about drug addiction, I have a lot of sympathy for everyone, can't blame anyone for their feelings, and just hope everybody finds the way to get the personal healing they need.
One final update on this. Connor's Army did finally reach their goal of $10,000 raised for cancer research in 2007. Congratulations to my friend, Gene.
I am very proud of him.
But speaking of cancer...
It's such an up-and-down fight sometimes...steps backwards and steps forwards....
Kathleen Baskin-Ball has announced that she is back in chemo because her cancer has returned. Her husband Bill, also a very good friend, is posting updates at her MySpace page.
I am terribly sad to hear this, and am in prayer for her constantly. I hope you will be too.
Soon, we should also have a new band website, and lots more info Keep a close eye out...
Speaking of band websites, did you catch the little changes I've made here? Over the Christmas break, I went a little insane with the scanner. And I've really found out how to mess around with Photoshop Elements.
That combination leads to new pics on almost every page of ericfolkerth.com. (If you can't see them, refresh your browser...)
Hope you like it.
Wow, has it been a rough week for Tony Romo. The first playoff game is tomorrow, but all anyone can talk about this week is his trip to Mexico with Jessica Simpson.
Personally? I think it was a stupidly timed trip. And I wonder if he just doesn't "get" how much the leering press follows her around. It was probably poor judgment.
But I do have a question: If Jason Witten drops a key pass tomorrow, are we going to blame it on his being along for the trip too? (Doubtful...)
Well, the playoffs make me think of the blog I wrote about a year ago. Might be a good time to revisit it again.
As for the game?
There's a part of me that thinks that if they can't win this one, then we're gonna start calling Romo the Dirk of the Dallas Cowboys. Actually, after the season they've had, I'm sure that comparison will be drawn.
But, to me, Romo's really not the real key. TO is.
If Owens is really as iffy as he looks this week...look out.
If he's fine --if the Cowboys are just hiding him to hold their cards close (wouldn't be the first time...)-- I'll go with Dallas; and might even argue they'll win big.
So, it all hinges on TO, and not only his own play, but how his presence changes the whole strategy of an opposing defense...opening up all sorts of options for his teammates.
If the Giants don't have to worry about him?
It could get ugly.
I think this is probably one of the most pathetic stories I've ever heard.
The mother later apologized and Club Libby Lu withdrew the prize. But what a pathetic thing!
And what about that poor kid? She's on TV for the big announcement...she gets a couple of days to believe that she's going to the greatest show of all-time. (Work with me here...I'm putting myself in her shoes...)
Then, the tickets are gone, and she's got to live with the fact that her Mom is to blame. (Or....do you think her Mom's even told her the truth? Maybe not. But when she finally finds out at age twenty? Ouch...)
I know some are criticizing the company for not "fact-checking" the essays. But who would believe that someone would lie about a fictitious war hero to win concert tickets for their kid?
Pitiful.
Nice message from Jean Fogelberg, Dan's wife, on the main website a few weeks back:
Dear friends, I'm so grateful to all of you who wrote to Dan through The Living Legacy website with your stories of how his music touched your lives; with your uplifting words of encouragement; with your declarations of admiration and friendship.
Dan was a strong and private man, but even the mountain must tremble, and during the toughest times he gained solace and comfort from reading your letters and learning that his music had been a source of light in your lives.
Greatest of all though, was the feeling you gave him that his time here had served a purpose.
I hope you will find some peace in knowing that the joy and comfort you found in his music winged it's way back to him through your words, prayers, and good wishes.
Thank you,
Jean Fogelberg
"There is no darkness in this place that we're bound
Love is the only thing that matters" ~ DF
Speaking of Dan, the true story of one of his most famous songs, "Same Old Lange Syne," has recently come to light. The woman in song has come forward to tell her tale. Her name is Jill Greulich, and a Peoria reporter tracked her down and got her to open up.
Some question the timing of this, implying that she's trying to take advantage of Dan's death by coming forth now. But from what I can tell, the basic facts were always common knowledge in Dan's hometown. And, the guy who broke the story is a local reporter who's written several items on Dan in the past months.
It's nicely written. Read it here.
To me? It makes the song even more poignant than it was before.
Man are the P1s having a cow about the departure of Greg Williams from the Ticket. As Unfair Park reports, he has technically "resigned," although I don't think anybody's really buying it. Here's their blog about it.
My sense is that none of us will ever know what really happened behind the scenes. Nor should we. Drug addiction is a terrible thing, and it is public knowledge that this latest episode was a relapse of some sort.
Drug addiction puts tremendous pressure on co-workers, friends, family. Sometimes, "tough love"is thing to do is to help the person understand just how far they've fallen. Maybe Greg needed that. Or, maybe he did get sober, and there was just too much water under the bridge to go back to the way things were. We'll never really know.
Or, let me put it this way: I hope we never know. It's really none of my business. Or your's.
Whatever this situation, I hope and pray he's on the road to recovery. And I hope and pray all those still on the air can continue forward best they can.
When you're talking about drug addiction, I have a lot of sympathy for everyone, can't blame anyone for their feelings, and just hope everybody finds the way to get the personal healing they need.
One final update on this. Connor's Army did finally reach their goal of $10,000 raised for cancer research in 2007. Congratulations to my friend, Gene.
I am very proud of him.
But speaking of cancer...
It's such an up-and-down fight sometimes...steps backwards and steps forwards....
Kathleen Baskin-Ball has announced that she is back in chemo because her cancer has returned. Her husband Bill, also a very good friend, is posting updates at her MySpace page.
I am terribly sad to hear this, and am in prayer for her constantly. I hope you will be too.
The Holy Family: A Meditation
Jan/05/2008 05:16 PM | Angels and Pins
| Permalink
A quick trip to Starbucks this morning reminded me
that --for all most of the world knows-- the
Christmas season is over. They've taken down most of
their holiday displays. "Christmas Blend" is in the
sale rack.
Know what's funny, though? Technically, we're still in the Christmas season. Yes, despite what you've been told, the Christmas season does not begin the day after Thanksgiving and end December 26th. That's the Corporate Christmas. If you're a fan of big corporations and conspicuous consumption, this is the season for you. (I've actually seen decorations in stores on my birthday: September 21st, the Fall Equinox!!!)
The actual Christmas season --at least the way it was originally celebrated-- ran through January 6th; a day known as "Epiphany." That's the day dedicated to celebrating the coming of the Wise Men. The days between Christmas Day and Epiphany are precisely twelve in number.
Yep. That's where the song comes from. (Didn't you always wonder?)
During these last days of the Christmas season, I usually break out WH Auden's "For The Time Being." Re-reading it is one of my favorite holiday traditions. In my view, it's one of the most beautiful Christmas writings ever created. Written in another dark time of war, it's been read ever since by many, as a Christmas/Winter tradition. I strongly recommend it to everyone. Here's a great review by an ethics professor from Loyola. It's inspired many since it was first written over 50-years-ago; including the title of a CD title you may have heard of.
Every year, something new strikes me in this intelligent, thoughtful, and moving work. And this year, I have been drawn to the character of Joseph.
As you may remember, Joseph begins the story engaged to Mary. They are both nothing more than kids. The marriage is probably arranged. But then, the rumors start...rumors that she's already pregnant, and that he isn't the father. As the Bible tells it, an angel comes to Joseph in a dream to tell him to take Mary as his bride. The Bible never tells us Joseph's state of mind. In fact, it doesn't give him one single line of dialogue.
But WH Auden gives him plenty. At first, Joseph appears as an eager fiancee, ready to meet his intended. But the rumors whispered by the "Chorus" are already ringing in his ears:
"Joseph
My shoes were shined, my pants were cleaned and pressed,
And I was hurrying to meet
My own true Love ...
Chorus
Joseph, you have heard
What Mary says occurred;
Yes, it may be so.
Is it likely? No."
So, Joseph is left with this doubts. And while impressed with "Gabriel's" visit, he asks for a little "proof" he can hang his hat on:
"Joseph:
All I ask is one
Important and elegant proof
That what my Love had done
Was really at your will
And that your will is Love.
Gabriel:
No, you must believe;
Be silent, and sit still."
Turns out, the way the Bible tells it, events unfold exactly as the angel says they will. So, Joseph takes Mary as his wife, and they become a family together. They become what the culture has know for two thousand years as the Holy Family.
Joseph has three more dreams, for a grand total of four. And in addition to thinking about Joseph, I've been thinking about these four dreams, and what they teach us about the Holy Family.
Here are the thoughts in my head today:
Who is the Holy Family in our world?
Where do WE see the Holy Family in our day?
What would they look like?
How can we welcome them into our world?
Let's look at each dream, and what it tell us...
Dream One: The Holy Family was a Family of Choice
"But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."
Joseph is encouraged to take Mary as his wife and form a family of love, even if there is no family of biology. That's the first clue about the Holy Family in our world today. Perhaps in our world today, the Holy Family is one where people come together out of choice --out of love-- and out of commitment to each other, whether or not they are related to each other by blood.
Our church is about 35-40 percent gay and lesbian. (We've actually never done a "count." It's a guess...) So, we know something about "families of choice." Those of us who are gay and lesbian form families of choice and infuse their homes with love. Those of who are traditional "blended families" do the same. Still more care for elderly relatives and in-laws; sometimes even people not related to us by blood. Families of choice come in all varieties these days.
In a sense, the original Holy Family was also a "family of choice." As the Bible tells it, Mary was chosen to give birth to Jesus and she accepted that role. Joseph made the choice to be a father to Jesus, despite knowing he wasn't part of creating the child. The story is clear that he treated Jesus as a son. The three of them together formed a beautiful bond as a family of choice.
So, perhaps one of the things we can do to welcome the Holy Family into our world is to celebrate and support all who form circles of love and families of choice, whether or not they are related by blood.
Dream Two: The Holy Family was a Migrant Family
"Now after they had left, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod."
The second dream warns Joseph to get out of Dodge as quick as he can. King Herod is about to search for Jesus by moving house-to-house and killing every male child under age two. It's a horrible story of empire-gone-wrong, of the hubris and fear of leaders who feel trapped in a corner, worried that their power is waning.
The only good option for the Holy Family seems to be to flee to Egypt. They apparently stay there in Egypt until King Herod has died. Quite literally, then, the Holy Family was an immigrant family.
The issue of immigration continues to be an incredible "hot button" issue in our world today. Last week, the Dallas Morning News named "the Illegal Immigrant" as their "Texan of the Year."
I don't know what all the political considerations were in Jesus' time. I don't know if the Holy Family was part of a greater migration. If there was social instability in Israel -- if Herod really did try to kill all the boys under two -- then it's likely the Holy Family was not alone in its desire to flee.
But it does seem clear that they were welcomed into Egypt as temporary guests. Who knows if they were welcomed with gusto or grudgingly? With compassion or suspicion? Who knows what opportunities were there for them? The Bible doesn't say. It just says they spent some time as immigrants in the land of Egypt.
If you look around the globe today, you find that migration is taking place on an almost unprecedented scale. My friend Laura Trent is a preacher in Vienna, Austria. She emailed recently about the phenomenon of migrants from former communist bloc countries coming into Western Europe in search of a better life. Migrants from the Middle East and Africa are also flooding there too. Migrants have been pouring across the borders of Iraq into Iran and Syria. Migrants from one part of Asia are pouring into other parts of Asia. And, as you know, migrants from Mexico and Central America are coming across our border in record numbers.
I don't have all the answers. But I can tell you that this Bible text challenges me. It challenges me to remember that the Holy Family was a migrant family. And it challenges me to ask this: what if God is calling all of us, all over our planet, to see migrant families as "holy" too?
Dreams Three and Four: The Holy Family was a Refugee Family
"When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, 20“Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child’s life are dead.”
"But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee."
Joseph's third dream tells him it's safe to travel back to Israel. Once they have returned, the fourth dream tells Joseph that it's best not to return to Judea, but to go to Galilee instead . It would be safer there. After all, Herod has been succeeded by a king who is just as cruel and violent.
The third says, "Yes, come back to Israel," but the fourth says, "But be careful not to come to Judah."
Even when they returned to their country, they would not be allowed to return to their homeland. And perhaps the message of these dreams is to help us recall that many families in our world still live under social repression and fear. Many of the world's migrant families are not formed because of simple economics -- though some certainly are -- but some are the result of social unrest, religious prejudice, civil wars, famines, genocides.
Whether it's civil war in Iraq and Kenya, or genocide in Darfur, many millions of families are currently, right now, living as refugees and unable to return to their homelands.
So it challenges me to ask: what if we could see refugee families as "holy" too?
Closing Thoughts
The Christmas message is the message of God incarnate in our world. It's about God coming to earth in human form. It's a message that God does not leave this world alone, and that this world is not godless and soul-less, as it sometimes may feel. In fact, the good news of great joy is that the Messiah is born IN to the world. God loved the world enough to live IN the world ... to "dwell among us."
At the same time, we live with the tension that our world's in a hell of a mess. Wars. Famines. Social injustice. Evil in the name of religion itself. The juxtaposition of the Christmas message of hope and the broken, hell-ish, modern world, is a deep chasm to bridge. But if we are to believe the Christmas message at all, then surely it must mean God come to earth, even in the midst of the worst of the world's conditions.
So, maybe it's truer than we could imagine to suggest that "Holy Families" of today are:
-- Families of choice
-- Migrant families
-- Refugee families
And just maybe our calling is to do what we can to welcome these families into our world --and not see them a nuisance on TV we wish would just go away-- but the heart of God's presence among us.
The Bible challenges us to see the original family in this story as "holy." But Mary and Joseph were probably not more than teenagers. They probably didn't have what we would consider a "high school" education. They had few financial resources. And yet, our Christmas story tells of a child born into a humble stable, to humble parents.
The message not to be missed is that God comes into every part of this world. God is a God for all people. God is a God who loves all the world.
One of my favorite modern Christmas hymns is called "Star Child." The chorus is a very simple restatement of the Christmas Hope that we might one day see all the world's children as holy and blessed...that we might world for a world where every kind of family is seen as "holy."
The chorus says:
"This year, this year, let the day arrive when Christmas comes for everyone...
Everyone alive."
Let it be so.
Know what's funny, though? Technically, we're still in the Christmas season. Yes, despite what you've been told, the Christmas season does not begin the day after Thanksgiving and end December 26th. That's the Corporate Christmas. If you're a fan of big corporations and conspicuous consumption, this is the season for you. (I've actually seen decorations in stores on my birthday: September 21st, the Fall Equinox!!!)
The actual Christmas season --at least the way it was originally celebrated-- ran through January 6th; a day known as "Epiphany." That's the day dedicated to celebrating the coming of the Wise Men. The days between Christmas Day and Epiphany are precisely twelve in number.
Yep. That's where the song comes from. (Didn't you always wonder?)
During these last days of the Christmas season, I usually break out WH Auden's "For The Time Being." Re-reading it is one of my favorite holiday traditions. In my view, it's one of the most beautiful Christmas writings ever created. Written in another dark time of war, it's been read ever since by many, as a Christmas/Winter tradition. I strongly recommend it to everyone. Here's a great review by an ethics professor from Loyola. It's inspired many since it was first written over 50-years-ago; including the title of a CD title you may have heard of.
Every year, something new strikes me in this intelligent, thoughtful, and moving work. And this year, I have been drawn to the character of Joseph.
As you may remember, Joseph begins the story engaged to Mary. They are both nothing more than kids. The marriage is probably arranged. But then, the rumors start...rumors that she's already pregnant, and that he isn't the father. As the Bible tells it, an angel comes to Joseph in a dream to tell him to take Mary as his bride. The Bible never tells us Joseph's state of mind. In fact, it doesn't give him one single line of dialogue.
But WH Auden gives him plenty. At first, Joseph appears as an eager fiancee, ready to meet his intended. But the rumors whispered by the "Chorus" are already ringing in his ears:
"Joseph
My shoes were shined, my pants were cleaned and pressed,
And I was hurrying to meet
My own true Love ...
Chorus
Joseph, you have heard
What Mary says occurred;
Yes, it may be so.
Is it likely? No."
So, Joseph is left with this doubts. And while impressed with "Gabriel's" visit, he asks for a little "proof" he can hang his hat on:
"Joseph:
All I ask is one
Important and elegant proof
That what my Love had done
Was really at your will
And that your will is Love.
Gabriel:
No, you must believe;
Be silent, and sit still."
Turns out, the way the Bible tells it, events unfold exactly as the angel says they will. So, Joseph takes Mary as his wife, and they become a family together. They become what the culture has know for two thousand years as the Holy Family.
Joseph has three more dreams, for a grand total of four. And in addition to thinking about Joseph, I've been thinking about these four dreams, and what they teach us about the Holy Family.
Here are the thoughts in my head today:
Who is the Holy Family in our world?
Where do WE see the Holy Family in our day?
What would they look like?
How can we welcome them into our world?
Let's look at each dream, and what it tell us...
Dream One: The Holy Family was a Family of Choice
"But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."
Joseph is encouraged to take Mary as his wife and form a family of love, even if there is no family of biology. That's the first clue about the Holy Family in our world today. Perhaps in our world today, the Holy Family is one where people come together out of choice --out of love-- and out of commitment to each other, whether or not they are related to each other by blood.
Our church is about 35-40 percent gay and lesbian. (We've actually never done a "count." It's a guess...) So, we know something about "families of choice." Those of us who are gay and lesbian form families of choice and infuse their homes with love. Those of who are traditional "blended families" do the same. Still more care for elderly relatives and in-laws; sometimes even people not related to us by blood. Families of choice come in all varieties these days.
In a sense, the original Holy Family was also a "family of choice." As the Bible tells it, Mary was chosen to give birth to Jesus and she accepted that role. Joseph made the choice to be a father to Jesus, despite knowing he wasn't part of creating the child. The story is clear that he treated Jesus as a son. The three of them together formed a beautiful bond as a family of choice.
So, perhaps one of the things we can do to welcome the Holy Family into our world is to celebrate and support all who form circles of love and families of choice, whether or not they are related by blood.
Dream Two: The Holy Family was a Migrant Family
"Now after they had left, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod."
The second dream warns Joseph to get out of Dodge as quick as he can. King Herod is about to search for Jesus by moving house-to-house and killing every male child under age two. It's a horrible story of empire-gone-wrong, of the hubris and fear of leaders who feel trapped in a corner, worried that their power is waning.
The only good option for the Holy Family seems to be to flee to Egypt. They apparently stay there in Egypt until King Herod has died. Quite literally, then, the Holy Family was an immigrant family.
The issue of immigration continues to be an incredible "hot button" issue in our world today. Last week, the Dallas Morning News named "the Illegal Immigrant" as their "Texan of the Year."
I don't know what all the political considerations were in Jesus' time. I don't know if the Holy Family was part of a greater migration. If there was social instability in Israel -- if Herod really did try to kill all the boys under two -- then it's likely the Holy Family was not alone in its desire to flee.
But it does seem clear that they were welcomed into Egypt as temporary guests. Who knows if they were welcomed with gusto or grudgingly? With compassion or suspicion? Who knows what opportunities were there for them? The Bible doesn't say. It just says they spent some time as immigrants in the land of Egypt.
If you look around the globe today, you find that migration is taking place on an almost unprecedented scale. My friend Laura Trent is a preacher in Vienna, Austria. She emailed recently about the phenomenon of migrants from former communist bloc countries coming into Western Europe in search of a better life. Migrants from the Middle East and Africa are also flooding there too. Migrants have been pouring across the borders of Iraq into Iran and Syria. Migrants from one part of Asia are pouring into other parts of Asia. And, as you know, migrants from Mexico and Central America are coming across our border in record numbers.
I don't have all the answers. But I can tell you that this Bible text challenges me. It challenges me to remember that the Holy Family was a migrant family. And it challenges me to ask this: what if God is calling all of us, all over our planet, to see migrant families as "holy" too?
Dreams Three and Four: The Holy Family was a Refugee Family
"When Herod died, an angel of the Lord suddenly appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, 20“Get up, take the child and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child’s life are dead.”
"But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee."
Joseph's third dream tells him it's safe to travel back to Israel. Once they have returned, the fourth dream tells Joseph that it's best not to return to Judea, but to go to Galilee instead . It would be safer there. After all, Herod has been succeeded by a king who is just as cruel and violent.
The third says, "Yes, come back to Israel," but the fourth says, "But be careful not to come to Judah."
Even when they returned to their country, they would not be allowed to return to their homeland. And perhaps the message of these dreams is to help us recall that many families in our world still live under social repression and fear. Many of the world's migrant families are not formed because of simple economics -- though some certainly are -- but some are the result of social unrest, religious prejudice, civil wars, famines, genocides.
Whether it's civil war in Iraq and Kenya, or genocide in Darfur, many millions of families are currently, right now, living as refugees and unable to return to their homelands.
So it challenges me to ask: what if we could see refugee families as "holy" too?
Closing Thoughts
The Christmas message is the message of God incarnate in our world. It's about God coming to earth in human form. It's a message that God does not leave this world alone, and that this world is not godless and soul-less, as it sometimes may feel. In fact, the good news of great joy is that the Messiah is born IN to the world. God loved the world enough to live IN the world ... to "dwell among us."
At the same time, we live with the tension that our world's in a hell of a mess. Wars. Famines. Social injustice. Evil in the name of religion itself. The juxtaposition of the Christmas message of hope and the broken, hell-ish, modern world, is a deep chasm to bridge. But if we are to believe the Christmas message at all, then surely it must mean God come to earth, even in the midst of the worst of the world's conditions.
So, maybe it's truer than we could imagine to suggest that "Holy Families" of today are:
-- Families of choice
-- Migrant families
-- Refugee families
And just maybe our calling is to do what we can to welcome these families into our world --and not see them a nuisance on TV we wish would just go away-- but the heart of God's presence among us.
The Bible challenges us to see the original family in this story as "holy." But Mary and Joseph were probably not more than teenagers. They probably didn't have what we would consider a "high school" education. They had few financial resources. And yet, our Christmas story tells of a child born into a humble stable, to humble parents.
The message not to be missed is that God comes into every part of this world. God is a God for all people. God is a God who loves all the world.
One of my favorite modern Christmas hymns is called "Star Child." The chorus is a very simple restatement of the Christmas Hope that we might one day see all the world's children as holy and blessed...that we might world for a world where every kind of family is seen as "holy."
The chorus says:
"This year, this year, let the day arrive when Christmas comes for everyone...
Everyone alive."
Let it be so.