A Catholic website for the modern reader
December 2015
The Uncle Syndrome
11/12/15 18:51 Filed in: U.S. Elections
Every family has one. The funny, sometimes crazy, uncle. You know the one I mean. He shows up at Thanksgiving sporting a Doc Brown haircut, as if he were an original stand in for Christopher Lloyd in Back to the Future. He is the uncle dazed by reality—the “my mind is made up don’t confuse me with the facts” guy. Sometimes he has a little too much egg nog, the spiked kind. Or else he drinks a few too many beers. But whatever the cause of his inebriation he’s the uncle who is politically incorrect. In his heart he may not be a racist. But at the holidays, it’s anybody’s guess what will come out of his mouth.
In spite of all that, this is the uncle everybody loves. He’s the one who can be very funny even when he’s being insulting. He’s the one who makes everybody feel a part of the family—his daggers are tossed with equal opportunity. Without him family gatherings and holidays would not be the same.
America has an uncle, too. Uncle Sam. He is not so much a person as a symbol, a personification of the country that goes back as far as the War of 1812. His initials, like those of the nation, are U.S. He transcends person and party and the country wouldn’t be the same without him. And whoever ascends to the presidency is a stand in for lovable Uncle Sam.
This analogy comes to mind because it is the only way I can comprehend some of the current presidential candidates. It certainly seems as if some of them want to be our uncle. Bernie Sanders is the Doc Brown uncle. He has the hair and the passionate, almost wild, look in his eyes. Of course, in the movies Doc Brown’s genius proved his passion right.
Ted Cruz is the dazed uncle. He is not to be distracted by any sense of reality or fact. His conclusions are pre-conceived. And his mind so closed that he alone could not understand the irony of reading Green Eggs and Ham while filibustering the Senate because of affordable health care. “Just try it,” Sam-I-Am might say. Instead, he chose to attempt to bring the country to a halt.
But the uncle who has had too much egg nog is Donald Trump. Actually he needs no egg nog or beer or any other libation. His drunk is sourced from attention and as such he never descends from the high. Not content to be politically incorrect, he is racist and offensive at every turn. This is a delusional kind of drunk, though. The funny family uncle is lovable. Trump? The funny family uncle is, well, funny. Trump? The funny family uncle does not intentionally insult. Trump? The funny family uncle is an asset to the family. Trump? Well, you get the point.
Here’s something to consider during this campaign. America is many wonderful things and there are many ways of belonging. Most of us, whether born here or immigrants, feel it in our bones. This is a place we love and want to be. America is the place where we fit in. It is the place where we can work to make it and the world better.
But despite the strong and compassionate patriotism evoked by the Uncle Sam symbolism, America is not a family. And we are not electing an uncle, funny or otherwise. And if we were, Donald Trump does not fit the bill. Perhaps the kindest thing we as a nation can do for him is to ignore him, to strip him of attention. It will not make him a sensitive, thoughtful and caring person. Those kinds of miracles are beyond us. But it’s the only way he’ll sober up and shut up. Then the rest of us can get on with the business of electing someone dignified enough to be president.
In spite of all that, this is the uncle everybody loves. He’s the one who can be very funny even when he’s being insulting. He’s the one who makes everybody feel a part of the family—his daggers are tossed with equal opportunity. Without him family gatherings and holidays would not be the same.
America has an uncle, too. Uncle Sam. He is not so much a person as a symbol, a personification of the country that goes back as far as the War of 1812. His initials, like those of the nation, are U.S. He transcends person and party and the country wouldn’t be the same without him. And whoever ascends to the presidency is a stand in for lovable Uncle Sam.
This analogy comes to mind because it is the only way I can comprehend some of the current presidential candidates. It certainly seems as if some of them want to be our uncle. Bernie Sanders is the Doc Brown uncle. He has the hair and the passionate, almost wild, look in his eyes. Of course, in the movies Doc Brown’s genius proved his passion right.
Ted Cruz is the dazed uncle. He is not to be distracted by any sense of reality or fact. His conclusions are pre-conceived. And his mind so closed that he alone could not understand the irony of reading Green Eggs and Ham while filibustering the Senate because of affordable health care. “Just try it,” Sam-I-Am might say. Instead, he chose to attempt to bring the country to a halt.
But the uncle who has had too much egg nog is Donald Trump. Actually he needs no egg nog or beer or any other libation. His drunk is sourced from attention and as such he never descends from the high. Not content to be politically incorrect, he is racist and offensive at every turn. This is a delusional kind of drunk, though. The funny family uncle is lovable. Trump? The funny family uncle is, well, funny. Trump? The funny family uncle does not intentionally insult. Trump? The funny family uncle is an asset to the family. Trump? Well, you get the point.
Here’s something to consider during this campaign. America is many wonderful things and there are many ways of belonging. Most of us, whether born here or immigrants, feel it in our bones. This is a place we love and want to be. America is the place where we fit in. It is the place where we can work to make it and the world better.
But despite the strong and compassionate patriotism evoked by the Uncle Sam symbolism, America is not a family. And we are not electing an uncle, funny or otherwise. And if we were, Donald Trump does not fit the bill. Perhaps the kindest thing we as a nation can do for him is to ignore him, to strip him of attention. It will not make him a sensitive, thoughtful and caring person. Those kinds of miracles are beyond us. But it’s the only way he’ll sober up and shut up. Then the rest of us can get on with the business of electing someone dignified enough to be president.
The New Final Solution
No one individual has contributed more to the English language than William Shakespeare. Words, expressions and turns of phrase abound in the lexicon, all owing to him. So all-encompassing was his facility with vocabulary that he has enriched the speech of even the modestly educated. And yet for all his brilliant writing skills, his sense of drama and passion, his grasp of good and evil, and his insights into the human heart, there is one area in which he glaringly failed. William Shakespeare had no idea how to end the human violence he so easily penned in his writings. He came close once.
In “Henry VI” we read, “The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.’’ In context it is a declaration of the need for law and order, for the words are spoken not by a protagonist, but by Dick the Butcher, a follower of the rebel Jack Cade. Dick the Butcher knew that if things were to change someone, some “lot” of someones, had to die. In that regard not much has changed over the last 500 years. If we want things to change, some “lot” of someones has to die. We just have to make sure we target the right collective.
With the new surge in terrorism, many groups want to kill each other. But there is no order in mere desire. I say, “Kill them all.” But we need a carefully crafted process. And we can gleam one from the last 100 years.
In 1948 India was emerging as a country freed from the oppression of the British empire. Mahatma Gandhi, the father of this new nation, was killed by Nathuram Godse, a Hindu extremist. He was only one man and clearly a fanatic. That, however, does not alter the fact that we cannot trust any Hindus. Many of them have been complicit in killing Muslims and Christians for decades. So, first, let’s kill all the Hindus. One terrorist group gone.
In 1995 Timothy McVeigh detonated a truck bomb in front of the Murray Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and injuring more than 600 hundred others. Again, just one discontented man—a Christian intrigued by white supremacy and anti-government fervor. But where to begin with that? Christians have been killing for centuries, sometimes each other, and sometimes in the name of God. No trust there. So next, let’s kill all the Christians. Another terrorist group gone.
Later that same year, as Israel and Palestine were beginning to see light at the end of a long tunnel of violence, peace seemed within reach. That is, until Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, a Jewish religious extremist. Again he was only one person. But as far back as the Old Testament, Jews have been killing often with the illusion that they were acting under their God’s orders. No wonder then, that Rabin’s death paved the way for Benjamin Netanyahu to completely collapse the tunnel of hope and fully extinguish the light of peace, making it easy for Israel to embrace its own style of terrorism. Next move? Let’s kill all the Jews. A third terrorist group gone.
Choices abound for the next group. Let’s pick 2015. A husband and wife team, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, opened fire on a community center in San Bernardino. Two Muslims entranced by the absurdities of Islamic State extremists. This direct attack on the life and values of Western society proved that Muslims cannot be trusted either. That’s no surprise. History shows that beginning with Muhammed (peace be upon him), Islam has waged religious war for more than thirteen hundred years. The next move is clear. Let’s kill all the Muslims.
Some might object, declaring that each of the examples cited above is just one or two people. That’s not the point. Each perpetrator reflects the reality of a larger group. Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz know this. That’s why so many are following their lead in condemning all Muslims, insisting that we keep all Syrian refugees out and register all Muslims already here. But if we’re honest, Muslims are not the only problem. Hindu on Hindu violence, Christian on Christian violence, Jew on Jew violence, Muslim on everybody violence.
Yes, I say, “Let’s kill them all—Hindus, Christians, Jews and Muslims.” Then when all the killing is done, when the religious thirst for death and revenge is quenched, when people need no longer fear religious fanatics, and we are left only with Atheists, I say
AMEN. Peace be upon all.
In “Henry VI” we read, “The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.’’ In context it is a declaration of the need for law and order, for the words are spoken not by a protagonist, but by Dick the Butcher, a follower of the rebel Jack Cade. Dick the Butcher knew that if things were to change someone, some “lot” of someones, had to die. In that regard not much has changed over the last 500 years. If we want things to change, some “lot” of someones has to die. We just have to make sure we target the right collective.
With the new surge in terrorism, many groups want to kill each other. But there is no order in mere desire. I say, “Kill them all.” But we need a carefully crafted process. And we can gleam one from the last 100 years.
In 1948 India was emerging as a country freed from the oppression of the British empire. Mahatma Gandhi, the father of this new nation, was killed by Nathuram Godse, a Hindu extremist. He was only one man and clearly a fanatic. That, however, does not alter the fact that we cannot trust any Hindus. Many of them have been complicit in killing Muslims and Christians for decades. So, first, let’s kill all the Hindus. One terrorist group gone.
In 1995 Timothy McVeigh detonated a truck bomb in front of the Murray Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and injuring more than 600 hundred others. Again, just one discontented man—a Christian intrigued by white supremacy and anti-government fervor. But where to begin with that? Christians have been killing for centuries, sometimes each other, and sometimes in the name of God. No trust there. So next, let’s kill all the Christians. Another terrorist group gone.
Later that same year, as Israel and Palestine were beginning to see light at the end of a long tunnel of violence, peace seemed within reach. That is, until Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, a Jewish religious extremist. Again he was only one person. But as far back as the Old Testament, Jews have been killing often with the illusion that they were acting under their God’s orders. No wonder then, that Rabin’s death paved the way for Benjamin Netanyahu to completely collapse the tunnel of hope and fully extinguish the light of peace, making it easy for Israel to embrace its own style of terrorism. Next move? Let’s kill all the Jews. A third terrorist group gone.
Choices abound for the next group. Let’s pick 2015. A husband and wife team, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, opened fire on a community center in San Bernardino. Two Muslims entranced by the absurdities of Islamic State extremists. This direct attack on the life and values of Western society proved that Muslims cannot be trusted either. That’s no surprise. History shows that beginning with Muhammed (peace be upon him), Islam has waged religious war for more than thirteen hundred years. The next move is clear. Let’s kill all the Muslims.
Some might object, declaring that each of the examples cited above is just one or two people. That’s not the point. Each perpetrator reflects the reality of a larger group. Donald Trump, Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz know this. That’s why so many are following their lead in condemning all Muslims, insisting that we keep all Syrian refugees out and register all Muslims already here. But if we’re honest, Muslims are not the only problem. Hindu on Hindu violence, Christian on Christian violence, Jew on Jew violence, Muslim on everybody violence.
Yes, I say, “Let’s kill them all—Hindus, Christians, Jews and Muslims.” Then when all the killing is done, when the religious thirst for death and revenge is quenched, when people need no longer fear religious fanatics, and we are left only with Atheists, I say
AMEN. Peace be upon all.
Is It Too Soon?
03/12/15 18:39 Filed in: Gun Violence | Terrorism
On Wednesday, December 2, 2015, America suffered yet another mass shooting. This one took place in San Bernardino at the Inland Regional Center. Caring for more than 31,000 persons with disabilities, it is the largest such center in the State of California. At this writing, 14 people are dead and 21 injured.
Once again the people of the United States reacted with shock, anger, bewilderment and disbelief. Although it is questionable that disbelief should be among those reactions. After all, this has become almost commonplace with more mass shootings occurring in the United States than in any other country. The reasons are many and cannot be blamed merely on the possession of guns. The fact that this occurred in California, the state with perhaps the most stringent gun legislation, indicates the complexity of the problem.
And yet, as President Obama has stressed frequently, we cannot continue to abide this kind of senseless violence. Finding a solution means stitching together many pieces of the puzzle, but clearly one of them must be sensible gun legislation. California’s neighboring states do not have the same laws, making it easy to bring guns across the border. Further complicating the issue is that the guns used in this shooting were legally purchased in Southern California. We need some kind of national legislation.
In the wake of yet another of these rampages, several legislators have called for just such legislation aimed at preventing future attacks. But on Thursday morning, state assemblyman Marc Steinorth on a radio interview stated that he was offended that anyone would be talking about gun laws when they should be responding to needs of the victims and their families.
My response to the assemblyman is that offense cuts both ways. I am offended, righteously so, that Steinorth would seek to manipulate this tragedy by attempting to divert and control the public discourse from a conversation long ignored by many politicians. His comment suggested, or at least implied, that caring for victims precludes talking about what created these victims in the first place. The illogic escapes me. Perhaps he is uncomfortable confronting his own complicity in the easy access people have to guns in this nation. Doubtful. Like too many politicians, he is in the pocket of the National Rifle Association and seduced by an illusion of second amendment rights.
Steinorth, like every other politician, knows that the further removed we become from tragedies like the one in San Bernardino, the less willing we are to discuss the causes. The result is, we don’t. And so the gun lobby cements its irrational hold on state and federal legislatures.
I have looked back over the statements made by NRA representatives each time one of these shootings takes place. These men are masters at deflection and deceit. One might expect that if the NRA were committed to legitimately lofty ideals, they would defend the possession of rifles for hunting and possibly even target practice. Every thoughtful person knows that there is no legitimate reason for the possession of assault weapons, other than to kill as many people as possible or to fire the testosterone of insecure and usually aging men. As for handguns, their only purpose is to kill—period.
Perhaps the real tragedy is that the number of people killed in mass shootings make up a very small percent of the total killed by guns every year in the United States. Mass shootings merely focus our attention for too brief a time.
The United States has always been a country in the pursuit of peace, but it has never been a country at peace. The proliferation of weapons, in particular handguns and assault rifles, fully guarantees it never will be.
If now is not the time to talk about gun legislation, when is? Some politicians would have us believe the answer is never. Instead, they suggest that the problem always resides in the individual. At this point, the motives for Wednesday’s killings are yet to be determined. Were Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik terrorists? Was this a workplace dispute? Or perhaps a little of both? Was the Inland Center the original target or mere an expedient one? We will know more in the days and weeks ahead. Still, there is one thing that this shooting has in common with all the others: no one can deny that dozens of people would be alive today were it not for the guns.
It is not by accident that the Declaration of Independence lists “life” as the first of the unalienable rights endowed on all people by their creator. If we want to be a peaceful society, if we want to secure that right to life for everyone, it is not too soon to engage the nation in a long overdue discussion about what kind of laws will make these tragedies less likely to be repeated. “Steinorth, are you listening?”
Once again the people of the United States reacted with shock, anger, bewilderment and disbelief. Although it is questionable that disbelief should be among those reactions. After all, this has become almost commonplace with more mass shootings occurring in the United States than in any other country. The reasons are many and cannot be blamed merely on the possession of guns. The fact that this occurred in California, the state with perhaps the most stringent gun legislation, indicates the complexity of the problem.
And yet, as President Obama has stressed frequently, we cannot continue to abide this kind of senseless violence. Finding a solution means stitching together many pieces of the puzzle, but clearly one of them must be sensible gun legislation. California’s neighboring states do not have the same laws, making it easy to bring guns across the border. Further complicating the issue is that the guns used in this shooting were legally purchased in Southern California. We need some kind of national legislation.
In the wake of yet another of these rampages, several legislators have called for just such legislation aimed at preventing future attacks. But on Thursday morning, state assemblyman Marc Steinorth on a radio interview stated that he was offended that anyone would be talking about gun laws when they should be responding to needs of the victims and their families.
My response to the assemblyman is that offense cuts both ways. I am offended, righteously so, that Steinorth would seek to manipulate this tragedy by attempting to divert and control the public discourse from a conversation long ignored by many politicians. His comment suggested, or at least implied, that caring for victims precludes talking about what created these victims in the first place. The illogic escapes me. Perhaps he is uncomfortable confronting his own complicity in the easy access people have to guns in this nation. Doubtful. Like too many politicians, he is in the pocket of the National Rifle Association and seduced by an illusion of second amendment rights.
Steinorth, like every other politician, knows that the further removed we become from tragedies like the one in San Bernardino, the less willing we are to discuss the causes. The result is, we don’t. And so the gun lobby cements its irrational hold on state and federal legislatures.
I have looked back over the statements made by NRA representatives each time one of these shootings takes place. These men are masters at deflection and deceit. One might expect that if the NRA were committed to legitimately lofty ideals, they would defend the possession of rifles for hunting and possibly even target practice. Every thoughtful person knows that there is no legitimate reason for the possession of assault weapons, other than to kill as many people as possible or to fire the testosterone of insecure and usually aging men. As for handguns, their only purpose is to kill—period.
Perhaps the real tragedy is that the number of people killed in mass shootings make up a very small percent of the total killed by guns every year in the United States. Mass shootings merely focus our attention for too brief a time.
The United States has always been a country in the pursuit of peace, but it has never been a country at peace. The proliferation of weapons, in particular handguns and assault rifles, fully guarantees it never will be.
If now is not the time to talk about gun legislation, when is? Some politicians would have us believe the answer is never. Instead, they suggest that the problem always resides in the individual. At this point, the motives for Wednesday’s killings are yet to be determined. Were Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik terrorists? Was this a workplace dispute? Or perhaps a little of both? Was the Inland Center the original target or mere an expedient one? We will know more in the days and weeks ahead. Still, there is one thing that this shooting has in common with all the others: no one can deny that dozens of people would be alive today were it not for the guns.
It is not by accident that the Declaration of Independence lists “life” as the first of the unalienable rights endowed on all people by their creator. If we want to be a peaceful society, if we want to secure that right to life for everyone, it is not too soon to engage the nation in a long overdue discussion about what kind of laws will make these tragedies less likely to be repeated. “Steinorth, are you listening?”