Search
Calendar

Search Amazon Here

News Links
Local

Comment is Free

These are our editorials and columns.

Saturday
Apr152017

10 Ways to Ruin Easter for Your Family and Friends

 


Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/10-ways-to-ruin-easter-180611/#5v8H34iY8wLGjbHG.99

 

1. Refuse to let your kids participate in the "pagan" practice of collecting dyed Easter eggs. Instead lecture them on the dangers of syncretism.

2. While you're driving to church flip off the driver who cuts you off and then watch in horror as he pulls into the same church parking lot as you.

3. Gather the family together for a meal but feast on criticism over __________ (politics, family members, the church service, etc) instead of gratefulness for the resurrection.

4. Leave your chocolate Easter bunny in the sun.

5. Forget to share the Gospel with someone who hasn't yet experienced the power of the resurrected Christ.

6. Choke on a peep.

7. Let your kids participate in an Easter egg hunt but ONLY use hard boiled eggs. Then collect all the eggs from their baskets and make deviled-egg hors d'oeuvres.

8. Make Easter about you, your family and traditions instead of Jesus, his death and resurrection.

9. Make eating "bunny stew" part of your Easter tradition.

10. Forget to pause and praise God for sending his Son to die for our sins and rise victoriously from the dead.

Special to Christian Post

Greg Stier is the Founder and President of Dare 2 Share Ministries International. He has impacted the lives of tens of thousands of Christian teenagers through Dare 2 Share events, motivating and mobilizing them to reach their generation for Christ. He is the author of eleven books and numerous resources, including Dare 2 Share: A Field Guide for Sharing Your Faith. For more information on Dare 2 Share and their upcoming conference tour and training resources, please visit www.dare2share.org.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/10-ways-to-ruin-easter-180611/#5v8H34iY8wLGjbHG.99

Tuesday
Apr042017

MLK Jr. Riverside Speech Still Resonates Today

Note: MLK Jr., was assasignated April 4, 1969. This column by Peniel Joseph, remembers a speech that connected the civil rights struggle with global efforts for peach and human rights. 

Fifty years ago this week, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. gave the most important speech of his life at the Riverside Church in New York, denouncing the Vietnam War and connecting the American civil rights struggle with a larger, global movement for peace and human rights. Forty-nine years ago this week, King was shot dead in Memphis, Tennessee.

King's assertion that the United States was the "world's greatest purveyor of violence" threw down a political gauntlet that would frame the revolutionary path he would follow during the last year of his life. "The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve," King told a packed audience in Riverside's pews.

At first blush it may seem counterintuitive to elevate this speech above the watershed "I Have a Dream" speech delivered four years earlier, or the "Mountaintop" speech he would give on the eve of his death. But if King's address at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom made him into an American icon, his Riverside Church speech announced him as a genuine prophet for social justice, one who willingly sacrificed his hard-won status to defy an empire.
The 50th anniversary of this speech is a profound occasion to counter the selective memory with which America has retrospectively embraced King. As a nation, we -- especially our elected officials and political leaders -- only remember the parts of King that align with what we choose to emphasize: his robust embrace of America's democratic traditions going back to the founders. King's elegant lauding of "those great wells of democracy" in his Letter from Birmingham Jail remains a touchstone in our own time. 
Yet King grew increasingly bold and courageous as he confronted systemic challenges to his dream of multiracial democracy, what he called a "beloved community." The proliferation of urban violence, rural poverty, institutional racism and war forced him to reconsider the extent that mere political reforms would lead to economic and racial justice for all. 
In the year between the Riverside speech and his assassination, King became America's most well-known anti-war activist, assuming the mantle from Black Power firebrand Stokely Carmichael and in the process lending a Nobel Peace Prize winner's moral power to a peace movement struggling amid a political landscape where most still supported the war. 
King's speech blamed the nation's Cold War-fueled ambitions for the faltering war against poverty, the policy jewel in Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. While resources to fund the war drained the nation's financial and moral capital, suffering and discord at home inspired riots that King characterized in another speech as "the language of the unheard." 
For the first time in the Riverside speech, King connected a domestic civil rights movement with US foreign policy. He based his criticism of the war on a profound love for America, contrasting the "hopes" and "new beginnings" promised by a national anti-poverty crusade with the escalating death, violence and destruction in Southeast Asia. 
Many blasted this decision as unwise and irresponsible. His criticism of the Johnson White House ended a once-close professional relationship that found him on the receiving end of presidential pens signing the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Once praised by mainstream political and civic leaders for his philosophy of nonviolence, King found himself vilified for calling for an end to the bombing of Vietnamese villages and the napalming of innocent children. 
The Riverside speech's unpopularity -- fueled by its candid assessment of the shortcomings of American democracy -- is precisely what makes it King's most powerful and important speech. 
King loved America enough to always be honest. 
A political leader who dined with royalty and met with presidents at the White House found himself increasingly drawn to the plight of poor people around the world.
His belief that black sharecroppers in the Deep South deserved the same consideration as intellectual and economic elites led to hischampioning a Poor Peoples Campaign that planned to descend on the nation's capital in May 1968 until Congress passed legislation that addressed growing inequality in America. After King's assassination that April, his widow and others tried to continue this work. 
By the time King approached the pulpit at Riverside Church that early spring day in 1967 the gap between America's democratic ideals and its stubbornly unequal reality had, according to King, grown into an unconscionable chasm. There comes a time when "silence is betrayal," said Kingin words meant to admonish himself as much as the rest of the nation. 
A half-century later, King's words continue to haunt our contemporary democratic imagination. At Riverside Church, King spoke of the need to "speak for those who have been designated as our enemies," words that resonate in our own time as much as they did in his. Ultimately, King's call for a "radical revolution of values" anticipated the scourge of economic inequality, racial injustice, religious intolerance and anti-immigrant sentiment that confronts American democracy in 2017. 
Yet the radical King never abandoned his faith in America's capacity for social and political transformation. Near the end of his speech he spoke of the "long and bitter — but beautiful — struggle for a new world" he proudly engaged in. It is a struggle that King willingly sacrificed his own life for one year later and one that continues to this day.
Peniel Joseph is the Barbara Jordan Chair in Political Values and Ethics and the founding director of the Center for the Study of Race and Democracy at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, where he is also a professor of history. He is the author of several books, most recently "Stokely: A Life." The views expressed here are his.
Wednesday
Mar222017

Today is World Water Day: 7 Actions to M

Mar 22, 2017 | Special to Christian Post

Today may be World Water Day, but given that water is the source of all life and all health, just maybe it's time we make every day a world water day.

Here are 7 easy steps you can take:

Step 1: Remember WASH. WASH is WAter/Sanitation/Hygiene. Make sure the global health and development organizations you support prioritize WASH.

Step 2: No More Rusty pumps! Many churches enthusiastically commit to installing "the village water pump" but 50% of these one-off projects fail. We've got to provide far wider support to what works, not to what makes us feel good.

Step 3: Know your water footprint. The U.S. leads the world in per person water use. In just four days, we use more water here than the world uses oil in a year. Agriculture is the biggest water user in the U.S. and think about how much food we waste. We over-water our lawns and flush almost six billion gallons of clean drinking water down our toilets every day. There are plenty of ways to save money by being smarter about our water use.

Step 4: Have fun! Community-building activities that engage youth and congregations make a difference at home and church. Consider enriching your community experience by reaching out to a neighboring church, synagogue or mosque and share opportunities to make a difference, together.

Step 5: Water is a woman's burden. Supporting sustainable WASH projects is an opportunity to stand in support of all women. Like water, women are the source of life and health around the world.

Step 6: Connect with Clergy. Connect with international counterparts because faith leaders in developing countries can influence everything from policies that prioritize WASH, to changes in hygiene behavior that make the difference between life and death.

Step 7: Support U.S. foreign assistance: No matter how much good work we do in the faith sector, no funding or leadership is more influential than U.S. government foreign assistance. Our government spends just one one-hundredth of a percent of the federal budget on WASH. The faith voice is important on Capitol Hill, so let's use it to remind our representatives in Congress that WASH is vital to success. And to life.

Susan Barnett, a former award-winning network news journalist, is a strategic media, communications and advocacy consultant for nonprofits, specializing in faith and justice. She is founder of Faiths for Safe Water and Cause Communications.
Friday
Mar172017

Bradford Pears: the Good, Bad and Ugly

By Bob Polomski, Ph.D./Clemson University

Once upon a time the Bradford pear (Pyrus calleryana ‘Bradford’) was the darling of the nursery industry. Since its debut on the cover of American Nurseryman magazine on April 15, 1963, Bradford pear’s popularity soared as a street-tough tree that offered beauty and durability.

In early spring Bradford pear trees erupted into bloom, these giant ovate snowballs of bright white flowers that were best admired from a distance because of their rotting fish aroma. The flowers, favored by honeybees, bumblebees and other pollinators oblivious to the stench, gave rise to leathery, dark glossy green leaves that “present[ed] a pleasing picture, particularly as they stir in the breeze and their wavy edges catch and reflect the sun’s rays,”  according to the authors of the 1963 American Nurseryman article “Bradford ornamental pear—a promising shade tree.” In the fall the longlasting leaves exploded into shades of orange, red, and purple. The beauty of Bradford pear was matched by its unparalleled toughness: tolerance to drought, pollution, and pests, notably to fire blight, a devastating bacterial disease that injures and kills edible pears.

Bradford pear appeared to be the perfect ornamental street tree, but like kryptonite and Superman, Bradford pear’s Achille’s heel was its production of closely spaced upright branches. As these poorly attached branches grew and expanded in girth, the crown to split apart, often during snow-, ice-, and windstorms. It often happened to unpruned or poorly pruned trees when they reached 15 to 20 years of age.

In the past I counseled anyone who purchased a Bradford pear to buy a pruning saw as well. As described in the 1963 American Nurseryman article, the limbs of young trees must be selectively removed to produce branches with wider angles and stronger unions to develop a strong canopy.

To overcome this structural flaw, cultivars were developed that offered improved branching habits, such as ‘Aristocrat’ and ‘Chanticleer’, a 2005 Urban Tree of the Year by the Society of Municipal Arborists. Other cultivars were developed with narrower forms, such as 'Capital', a U. S. National Arboretum release, that embodied the aesthetic and urban-tolerant traits of Bradford but offered applications in tight, confined locations.

This profusion of callery pear cultivars eventually led to another problem that had ecological consequences. In the past, Bradford pear rarely produced viable fruit because it’s self-infertile and cannot pollinate itself.  With the widespread planting of cultivars that were differed slightly genetically, the barrier to fertility and subequent fruit production was overcome. In some cases the callery pear understock of a Bradford pear would sprout, flower, and provide pollen. The fruits were consumed and dispersed by starlings, robins, and other animals to open, disturbed habitats where the progeny formed dense thickets.

Callery pears mature early—flowering at 3 years of age--and is one of the first trees to bloom in early spring. It’s also one of the last trees to lose its leaves. Callery pears are resistant to insects and diseases and their thorny stems and branches discourage deer-browsing. Interestingly, the "Survivor Tree” at the 9/11 Memorial is a callery pear that survived the September 11, 2001 terror attacks at the World Trade Center. In the context of the Memorial, it serves as a symbol of survival, recovery, and resilience.

Some states in the mid-Atlantic, southeast and midwest regions have declared callery pear an invasive, self-sustaining species that dominates and disrupts native flora. In South Carolina callery pear is on the “watch list.”

In the past I encouraged Bradford pear owners in our state to selectively prune the branches. Now that I witnessed large tracts of land throughout our state covered like a white fog in early spring, I encourage them to prune their trees at soil level.

The glorification and eventual demonization of  Bradford pear is the result of our unwillingness to foster biodiversity in our urban environments. While we make our communities more livable for people, we don’t do the same for trees. We disregard decades of arboricultural research and practices and continue to shoe-horn trees into unsustainable 4 square ft. tree pits that are better suited for traffic lights, signs, and streetlights than trees. It’s the survival of the fittest, and only a handful of tree species can exist in these inhospitable conditions. Bradford pear is one of them.

This monocultural approach that relies on a single or limited number of species or cultivars had already led to catastrophic losses in our urban forests as witnessed by the demise of American elms to Dutch elm disease and ashes to emerald ash borer. However, we continue to rely on a handful of nearly indestructible species and cultivars that thrive in wretched conditions. Crapemyrtle, Chinese elm, sawtooth oak, and Chinese pistache have supplanted Bradford pear as street-smart urban warriors.

Because cities are responsible for 70% of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions but comprise only 2% of the world’s land mass (Time; Dec. 26, 2016/Jan. 2, 2017), we rely on trees to assume a greater role as ecological engineers in our urban communities. It’s important that communities create growing conditions that support a diverse population of native and noninvasive adapted tree species that provide environmental services and not ecological messes.

Bob Polomski, Ph.D. is a Clemson Extension Specialist--Horticulture/Adjunct Asst. Prof. • Dept. of Plant & Environmental Sciences

Monday
Mar062017

Opinion: Racial Understanding Takes Step Forward in Anderson, Thanks to One Man's Efforts

By Greg Wilson

“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not.”

 - Dr. Seuss

The power of one man’s vision offered the citizens of Anderson County the opportunity to shine some light on the issue of race relations right here at home. On a chilly Saturday morning, a crowd of a little over 150 gathered at the civic center to participate in guided exercises, encourage discussion and understanding, and to find common ground on issues related to race and culture.

“If we are going to begin to love our neighbors, we have to love our neighbors even when they don’t love us,” said Bakari Sellers, the keynote speaker for the event. “Only then, can we mend the fences that have been broken so long.”

Justus CoxThe get together put on display an honest approach to discussing issues, and allowing anyone who was on every side of the issues to have their say. Passionate, but civil discussion ruled the day.

I grew up in Anderson at a time when there were plenty of “Whites Only” signs downtown. I attended segregated schools until late elementary school, and vivd remember those signs as well as the “Colored Only” signs scattered around the county. 

I was discussing this with friends recently, some of whom also shared similar memories of growing up here. However many of them have reached the conclusion that since the signs are gone, schools are integrated and voting rights laws have opened up the polls to all Americans, racism is no longer a serious issue. Their reaction is shaped by their experience, those of white people on the outside looking in. 

Anderson County now has about 195,000 residents. Just under 33,000 of those citizens are African-American. Another 6,000 are Hispanic. We’re still a very white county, something easy for white folks to forget. 

A quick look at history shows that changing the world it is not only about changing the laws. During the segregation era, Southern states had the Jim Crow Laws which enforced racial segregation, but in many places in the Northern states without such laws on the books racial segregation was culturally enforced in restaurants, businesses and schools. Laws don’t change hearts. (Even God’s 10 Commandments did little to change the hearts of his people). 

While such behavior is no longer allowed by law, it is impossible to miss the discrimination that we still have a long way to go in regards to judging people by the content of the character. Forget the sensational headlines, it’s happening somewhere every day, in ways less blatant, but equally insidious.

If you don’t believe it, ask someone of color who has experienced suspicious or accusatory looks in a place of business, or who has been stopped by law enforcement with dubious reason.  

S.C. Senator Tim Scott not so long ago said that in his first year in Washington, he was stopped seven times by law enforcement. Most of those encounters, Scott said, were due to “nothing more than driving a new car in the wrong neighborhood or some other reason just as trivial.” 

As a white person, I have little frame of reference for such experiences on a day-to-day basis, but I have seen the ugliness in full vitriol as late as the civil rights marches in the 1980s. Men and women holding their children in one hand, while holding signs sporting racial epithets lined the march route in Cumming, Ga. Some threw rocks and bottles at us as they screamed out hateful things.

I also know, from decades of interviewing men and women of color, we still have a long way to go, including right here at home. 

As neighbors in Anderson County, we took a step in the right direction Saturday with the racial relations conference. 

And we were able to take that step forward because of the vision of one young elementary school who, as Dr. Seuss wrote, cares a lot and believes things can be better.

Justus Cox is a graduate of Anderson University and a former intern at Anderson County. Cox was not discouraged when a similar event last November was poorly attended. He used that event as a strategic planning session to make Saturday’s conference a reality. He also plans to continue his effort and maintain momentum. 

It is hard to overstate how important such a commitment is to our community. To watch a young man in his early 20s, one who is busy establishing a career devote his time and effort to making our community a better place is, sadly, uncommon. To witness one who does not easily grow discouraged, who believes things can be better and is willing to work however hard necessary to see it through is even more rare. 

Perhaps is is born from his experience. Raised by a single mother, often homeless, Cox found a path through his faith and the support of his church. In college he became a part of Anderson University’s student-led “Connect” program, which seeks to take a sensitive approach and honor the differences and similarities of all races.  

He sees continuing such dialog as important to the community, promising Saturday is only the beginning of what is to come. 

“He is the man who made this happen,” Sellers said. “Justus cannot be given enough credit for putting together this event. When he asked me to be a part of it, I considered it an honor.” 

Sellers also said Anderson’s racial relations conference is part of the recipe for a better future.

‘We’re going to dedicate ourselves not about what this country was or is, but what it can be. That is how we will make America great.”

Sunday
Mar052017

"Minimalism" Anothe Fad Only the Rich Can Afford

I hate it as the incredibly tedious piece of personal performance art it has come to be in our society, but I also hate it as an aesthetic: your white-on-white-on-white life and meticulously crafted wardrobe of only the most wispy products Everlane and Aritzia have to offer are, frankly, a saltine cracker’s idea of what a Cool Girl would wear.

In terms of its visual merits, or as a capital-S style, the hyper-curated minimalism really only conveys one thing: “I wanted to take the very safest route to chic, cut away every possible misstep or risk. I saw the French Girl Chic articles and I was like … that’s pretty damn homogenous, but smoking tests poorly in focus groups and those occasional striped shirts are too bold. Time to reduce my look even further until literally every item I purchase tells people ‘I could get something more interesting, but I have enough money to choose not to’.”

Because let’s be clear about what the minimalist aesthetic, at least as a personal style choice, actually is: it’s a way of aping the connotations of simplicity and even, to a degree, asceticism, without actually having to give up those sweet, sweet class signifiers.

Being minimalist in this way – “Stop wasting money on all that IKEA nonsense! With this $4,000 dining table hand-whittled by a failed novelist in Scandinavia, you will never need another piece of furniture!” – really just means having enough upfront disposable money to “invest” in your wardrobe and surroundings. Reducing a wardrobe down to a few painfully elegant cashmere-cotton blend tops is only really possible if you can put down at least $1,000 in one go for the creation of your “capsule wardrobe”.

The visual cues and undercurrents of moral superiority it apes, the “no-makeup makeup” because you’ve bought $250 worth of nigh-invisible Glossier products, the vaguely Japanese home decor because we assume literally anything that isn’t crowded with color and pattern is somehow automatically Japanese – it’s all about spending an incredible amount of time and attention to look as if you hadn’t thought about it at all.

And these are all fine things! You are allowed to enjoy having precisely 10 sweaters in slightly different shades of taupe, or meticulously keeping your all-white dining set on white open shelves, despite the fact that it clearly implies at least once-weekly dusting of your entire kitchen, but what is #problematic about it is pretending that this is somehow a noble or morally positive way to spend your money.

It is just another form of conspicuous consumption, a way of saying to the world: “Look at me! Look at all of the things I have refused to buy, and the incredibly-expensive, sparse items I have deemed worthy instead!”

And we are entitled to buy whatever we like, but to pretend that the intentional and costly upfront implications of a minimalist-chic life are anything but privileged posturing is ridiculous. But I believe that we feel these things because the minimalism-as-luxury-good phenomenon is extremely caught up with the minimalism-as-faux-spiritualism phenomenon, which is its own can of farm-to-table, artisanal worms.

Long story short, the past 10 years or so has sold us one of the most oddly logical, yet no less cloying, answers to our hyper-consumerist late capitalism: minimalism as a secular kind of religion, an add-on to the cultures of yoga and green juices and general living well by putting together a tapas platter of cultural and spiritual practices without ever fully committing to one.

The premise of minimalism in this way is very vague, and ever-shifting to accommodate the tastes and stomach for consistency of the individual practitioner, but the overall theory is the same: by paring your life down as actively as possible, you are almost guaranteed to appreciate what remains more, and are likely to pick up some serious wisdom in the process, which usually makes for excellent self-serious Medium content down the road.

There are a million variations – fitting all your belongings into a single box, small-house or van living, radical de-cluttering, extreme purges of technology or social activity, etc – but they all hold the same vague, usually unspoken level of superiority.

They all imply that they are in some way a moral upgrade from the life of “mindless consumerism”, and as a bonus, allow you to take on some of the desirable aesthetics and morality of poverty without ever having to be poor. You’re not homeless, you’re on the road, doing some chic van-living and following the good weather! You’re not unable to afford basic home goods, you’re choosing to pare everything down to a single cardboard box! If life were a video game – and there are some scientists who seem to believe it may be – minimalist spirituality is a great way to get all the gold coins of poverty without ever having to be one of those icky poor people.

The implication of this kind of minimalism is obvious, and yet it somehow never seems to get addressed: the only people who can “practice” minimalism in any meaningful way are people upon whom it isn’t forced by financial or logistical circumstances.

You cannot choose to “declutter” if you are already living in a sparse home you cannot afford to furnish. You cannot “reduce” the food you consume if you are already only able to put one good meal on the table per day. And when nearly halfof Americans would be unable to pay their bills if they missed a single check, this “forced minimalism” is much, much more common than we would like to imagine. We cannot pretend that performative reduction in consumption, or choosing to only consume in certain ways, is not one of the most gratuitous displays of privilege out there, and to frame it as in any way a moral choice is more than a little offensive.

But the truth is that, as with so many other social phenomena that insufferable white dudes have co-opted, this spiritual minimalism has essentially become yet another competition for who can be the best at whatever you’ve chosen, even if that “whatever” is literally “having less shit”.

Even ignoring the class angles, this idea that any “decluttering” in your life is automatically a positive thing is simply an aesthetic choice being reframed as a moral one because, let’s be honest, it’s really easy to look at a lot of what (mostly) women own as being totally frivolous. Makeup, more-elaborate wardrobes, cozy home decor, art, supplies for hobbies, nice home goods – it’s not a coincidence that most of the stuff we’re being told to flush away from our lives happens to be stuff that women mostly accumulate.

And, yes, there is a very strong capitalist-critical argument to be made about buying in more intentional and ethical ways, but color me shocked that very few of these minimalist troubadours ever really take things to an economic or class-based argument. It’s about reducing for personal enlightenment and pompous blog posts, it’s not about arguing for a more equitable society in which people consume proportionate to their needs. (If you need a perfect example of this, note the fetishization of the curated “simplicity” of the ultra-rich: their clean loft spaces, their designer capsule wardrobes, their elaborately reduced diets. These people are still conspicuously consuming in mind-boggling ways, they’re just filtering it through the convenient prism of simplicity, and that allows their million-dollar wardrobes to somehow be aspirational for someone advocating for “minimalism”.)

The point is, the points being made by the minimalism crew are neither truly spiritual nor truly socioeconomic. They’re another style, as superficial as anything else that might come down the runway at Fashion Week, just with an added layer of condescension. At the end of the day, we shouldn’t kid ourselves: this kind of “minimalism” is just another boring product that wealthy people can buy.

This piece was originally published on The Financial Diet

Tuesday
Jan242017

"Alternative Facts" are Lies

, The Guardian

I just bought my first official souvenir of the Trump era. No, it wasn’t a pink pussycat hat. It’s a black T-shirt with white typography that says “Alternative Facts are Lies”.

The shirt commemorates a piece of Orwellian newspeak that flew from the lips of Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday. She made the absurd claim that the new White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, hadn’t lied to reporters about the size of the inaugural crowd, he had merely presented them with “alternative facts”. The salient part of her exchange with host Chuck Todd is worth setting out in full:

Chuck Todd: ... answer the question of why the president asked the White House press secretary to come out in front of the podium for the first time and utter a falsehood. Why did he do that? It undermines the credibility of the entire White House press office ...

Kellyanne Conway: No it doesn’t.

Chuck Todd: ... on day one.

Kellyanne Conway: Don’t be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. What ... You’re saying it’s a falsehood. And they’re giving Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that. But the point remains ...

Chuck Todd: Wait a minute ... alternative facts? Alternative facts? Four of the five facts he uttered, the one thing he got right was Zeke Miller. Four of the five facts he uttered were just not true. Look, alternative facts are not facts. They’re falsehoods.

By the time Meet the Press aired, I had actually grown tired of the argument over the size of the crowd at Trump’s swearing-in. It’s the kind of trivial issue that catches fire on social media and in the press, something Trump knows better than anyone. In this case, anyone on the internet could see a comparison of the Obama and Trump in photographs and catch the new president in his lie. Nonetheless, obsessive attention to crowd size dominated several news cycles.

The New York Times was right to call out the White House on obvious falsehoods, but its big headline was part of the reactive news coverage that Trump gamed throughout his campaign. Through a provocative tweet or gross insult, he could ignite a firestorm on social media and in the press. The timing is always interesting because when these storms blew, it was often to obscure a deeper and more serious menace. All the attention paid to the number of people at the inauguration obscured the import of both the executive order on healthcare he signed on Friday and the huge women’s protests on Saturday.

The farrago Trump has created on healthcare is consequential and shameful. Conway happily presented some “alternative facts” about it in the same television appearance, claiming:

He signed executive orders to stop Obamacare and all of its problems. Many people have lost their ... millions of people have lost their insurance, their doctors, their plans. So that stops right now.

He’s going to replace it with something much more free-market and patient-centric in nature.

It’s hard to imagine offering anything more patient-centric than providing more good health insurance. The Affordable Care Act has driven the number of Americans without insurance to an all-time low. Conway’s claim that “millions of people have lost their insurance” comes directly from specious Koch-funded ads during the campaign. It’s a provable fact that far more people gained coverage than had their policies cancelled. And in the latter cases, some individual market plans were discontinued, but policyholders weren’t denied coverage. They were often offered cheaper alternatives, because many qualified for federal subsidies or could buy new policies with better coverage on state and federal marketplaces.

Repealing Obamacare could deny more than 18 million people health coverage, and Republican proposals to replace it are a muddle of insufficiency. Some proposed bills may cover more people but the coverage is skeletal and won’t begin to pay for many procedures. The new secretary of health and human services, Republican Representative Tom Price, has offered a plan in Congress that makes good health care less affordable and less accessible for most people. The health care savings accounts that many Republicans embrace won’t help people who can’t save enough to cover anything approaching catastrophic treatment.

Trump and Conway are playing Three-card Monte with their alternative facts on health; “condemn the policy you don’t like, propose something far worse as a replacement and claim that it is much better”, as the New York Times described their hypocrisy.

The new president doesn’t seem to understand the actual facts. Spicer, who so viciously attacked the press on Saturday, had to hurriedly walk back the comments of his boss when Trump, during an interview with the Washington Post before the inauguration, promised “insurance for everybody”. Spicer’s amendment to his comments dragged Trump back to Republican orthodoxy: access to insurance would be increased and costs cut through marketplace competition, not huge new government spending for universal coverage.

When you’ve spent your career being scrupulous about facts, it’s hard to adjust to life in Trump’s post-truth America. Certainly, the press has made its share of mistakes and had serious flirtations with what Steven Colbert labeled “truthiness” during the Bush years, when news organizations, including the Times, published stories based on false intelligence. There were far too many fake news stories in 2016 from sketchy sites. But I agree with Susan Glasser, the editor of Politico, who recently wrote an important essay for the Brookings Institution called “Covering Politics in a ‘Post-Truth’ America”. She concluded that serious political reporting (not poll prognostications) has never been better. But there is too much of it, and so little of it, even the fine investigations of Trump’s business dealings or past treatment of women, seems to matter to people.

The world, however, does pay attention to the words of the leaders of the last remaining superpower. The “American carnage” that President Trump described doesn’t comport with the American reality. We do not live in a country that is economically shattered and crime-infested. Crime rates are historically low and there has been record job growth over the last eight years. His cry of “America First” evokes Charles Lindbergh’s isolationist and antisemitic poison, not the inclusive and empathetic beliefs shared by most Americans. Globalism and technology have hollowed out some industries and parts of the country, but an interconnected world has benefited more people than it has hurt.

Most people believe there is truth and there are lies. “Alternative facts” are lies.

Thursday
Jan192017

LA TImes: Betsy DeVos Not Qualified to Lead in Education

Betsy DeVos’ love of private school vouchers didn’t disqualify her for the role of U.S. Education secretary, even though vouchers are a bad idea. Nor did her lack of experience in public schools. 

What did render her unacceptable was her abysmal performance at her confirmation hearing Tuesday, during which she displayed an astonishing ignorance about basic education issues, an extraordinary lack of thoughtfulness about ongoing debates in the field and an unwillingness to respond to important questions.

She was so unprepared that she sounded like a schoolchild who hadn’t done her homework. She frankly embarrassed herself and should be rejected by the Senate. Better yet, President-elect Donald Trump should withdraw her name and find someone who at least meets the basic qualifications for the post.

The hearing probably will be remembered for the grizzly-bear moment, when DeVos suggested that a public school in Wyoming might need to have guns on campus to protect against trespassing grizzlies. But her important bloopers were on more substantive ground.

A forgotten mortgage stimulus program that was passed by Obama to help the middle class Americans reduce their monthly payments by as much as $4,264 each year.

DeVos suggested that a public school in Wyoming might need to have guns on campus to protect against trespassing grizzlies.

DeVos said, reasonably enough, that all kinds of schools — traditional public, charter, private — could expect her support if they did a good job of educating students. But then she contradicted herself by refusing to say that she would hold charter and private schools just as accountable as conventional public schools. Doing a good job matters only for some schools, apparently. 

And how would schools be measured — based on whether they meet a certain standard of proficiency, or how much they improve over time? DeVos floundered trying to address this issue raised by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), clearly unfamiliar with one of the central questions in school reform. As Franken said in a deserved rebuke, “This is a subject that has been debated in the education community for years.”

DeVos apparently didn’t even realize that there’s a federal law protecting the educational rights of students with disabilities, saying it should be up to states to make decisions about disabled students. Told that this was a matter of federal law, she stumbled yet again, saying, well, then, the law should be followed, and suggesting that she might have been confused earlier. In addition, she was wildly off in her figures on student debt.

Add to this her failure to answer questions about her home state of Michigan’s underperforming charter schools, whose growth she advocated; about existing laws to protect adults from predatory for-profit colleges; or whether she would honor the Obama administration’s rules regarding sexual abuse on campus.

DeVos is entitled and expected to disagree with Obama administration policies; what disqualifies her is her lack of understanding of existing law and policy, and her inability to address them thoughtfully.

Monday
Jan162017

Remembering The Entire Message of MLK Jr. Crucial Today


Newburyport, Mass. — Every year on the third Monday of January, Americans of all races, backgrounds and ideologies celebrate the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He is rightly lionized and sanctified by whites as well as blacks, by Republicans as well as Democrats.

It is easy to forget that, until fairly recently, many white Americans loathed Dr. King. They perceived him as a rabble rouser and an agitator; some rejoiced in his assassination in April 1968. How they got from loathing to loving is less a story about growing tolerance and diminishing racism, and more about the ways that Dr. King’s legacy has been scrubbed and blunted.

The Dr. King we remember today is particularly at odds with his radical turn in his last years. In 1967 he denounced the Vietnam War and warned that America was courting “spiritual death.” In early 1968 he planned the Poor People’s Campaign, in which millions of impoverished Americans — black, white and Latino — would gather in Washington for an enormous demonstration. He called for $30 billion annually in antipoverty spending, and asked Congress to guarantee an income for each American. To many Americans, this sounded like socialist lunacy.

Dr. King spent his final days in Memphis, marching with striking sanitation workers. On March 28, 1968, some marchers behind him turned violent. His critics believed their argument had been proved — that Dr. King’s claims to nonviolence were so much pretense. When he was killed a week later, Senator Strom Thurmond, Republican of South Carolina, told an audience that Dr. King was “an outside agitator, bent on stirring people up.” Ronald Reagan, then governor of California, described Dr. King’s killing as a “great tragedy that began when we began compromising with law and order, and people started choosing which laws they’d break.”

But Dr. King’s legacy — the meaning of “Martin Luther King” in the popular mind — began to change as soon as the man himself left us. As groups like the Black Panthers and the Weathermen called for armed resistance, Dr. King’s peaceful methods looked more appealing. Many white Americans focused on one line of King’s “I Have a Dream” speech — that he longed for the day when his children would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” — and molded him into a gentle champion of colorblindness.

Continue reading the main story

RECENT COMMENTS

Scot

 8 minutes ago

In my mind there was one Martin Luther King: the one who died for ideals that have merged in our minds with the original ideals of our...

IntrepidOne

 11 minutes ago

Like most leaders of seismic change, Dr. King certainly had his detractors. While that is an accepted fact, we should especially right now...

PeterS

 11 minutes ago

King, Gandhi and others died to bring an age of common humanity. Their legacy is now threaten everywhere by the rise of tribalism and racism...

  • SEE ALL COMMENTS
  •  
  • WRITE A COMMENT

The King holiday was both cause and effect of this selective appropriation. Congressman John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan, first proposed a holiday bill in 1968, and he offered the legislation virtually every year thereafter. In 1983, it finally neared passage. Though Reagan, by then president, opposed the holiday, congressional Republicans realized that endorsing the bill could help to burnish their party’s civil rights bona fides. The House passed the legislation by a wide margin.

But the debate in the Senate did Republicans no favors. Jesse Helms, Republican of North Carolina, filibustered the bill, saying that Dr. King “appears to have welcomed collaboration with Communists” and distributed a 300-page packet detailing Dr. King’s supposed treachery. Mr. Helms eventually ended his filibuster, and on Oct. 19 the Senate passed the holiday bill.

Dr. King’s opponents weren’t done. The Conservative Caucus collected 43,000 signatures on a petition urging Reagan to veto the holiday. But Reagan signed the bill anyway — in large part because, Senator Helms aside, many conservatives had “discovered,” and embraced, a useful version of Dr. King.

That embrace tightened during the battle over affirmative action. On Jan. 15, 1986, days before the first Martin Luther King Day, Attorney General Edwin Meese proposed to eliminate minority hiring goals for federal contractors. Using words that would be repeated, in one form or another, throughout the affirmative-action debate, Mr. Meese claimed that his proposal was “very consistent with what Dr. King had in mind.”

In 1996, Louisiana’s governor signed an executive order to halt affirmative action programs. “King sort of believed like I do,” said Mike Foster, a Republican. “I can’t find anywhere in his writings that he wanted reverse discrimination.” (Mr. Foster’s search apparently did not include Dr. King’s book “Where Do We Go From Here?” in which he explained: “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him.”)

This reappropriation continues today. In an attack on Colin Kaepernick, the quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers, for kneeling in protest during the national anthem, the Clemson football coach Dabo Swinney said that people like Mr. Kaepernick should “move to another country.” Mr. Swinney recommended that protesters heed Dr. King’s shining example: “I think the answer to our problems is exactly what they were for Martin Luther King when he changed the world. Love, peace, education, tolerance of others, Jesus” — as if Dr. King never criticized his country or paralyzed American cities with campaigns of civil disobedience.

In this season of political polarization, it is tempting to hope that we can unite in celebration of Dr. King. But celebrators ought to know whom they are honoring. Dr. King died for striking garbage workers and beseeched his government to protect the vulnerable. He had a message for those who would target immigrants or wall off America from the world. In a 1967 speech, he declared: “Our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than national.” Instead of policing their borders, nations should “develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole.”

The alternative was unacceptable. “History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate.” To honor Dr. King is to follow a different path.

Thursday
Dec292016

S.C. Lawmakers Pushing 3 Stingray Bills?

By TechDirt

It's really, really difficult to give the South Carolina legislature any credit whatsoever. In the past few years, it has offered up bills that:

required journalists to register with the government before enjoy their First Amendment rights (to make a point about the Second Amendment)

criminalized profanity in public forums (including the internet)

criminalized the recording of criminal acts

- required computer sellers to install default porn blockers in devices (that could be removed for $20)

The track record of this state's legislature is less than stellar. Hell, it's less than passable. 1/5 would not re-elect.

But there are still a few legislators with good ideas trying to do good things within the confines of a state where adultery is still considered a criminal actThe Tenth Amendment Center briefly highlights three new bills targeting law enforcement Stingray device use, all with their own merits.

The first, brought by state rep J. Todd Rutherford, is the most extreme of the three.

The legislation would prohibit any state or local law enforcement agency in South Carolina from purchasing cell site simulators, commonly known as “stingrays.”

At this point, use of these devices by South Carolina law enforcement is unconfirmed. If, indeed, no agencies are in possession of IMSI catchers, this bill would maintain the status quo. If agencies are already in possession of the devices, the bill would require these agencies to discontinue use and... ask Harris Corp. for a refund, I guess. This wouldn't prevent state agencies from asking for federal assistance and borrowing their devices, but it's still the most restrictive Stingray-related legislation proposed yet.

As such, it will probably never become law. The other proposals have a much better chance of reaching the governor's desk. Rutherford's backup proposal would prevent agencies purchasing cell tower spoofers from entering into nondisclosure agreements with manufacturers.

The third bill being introduced should be pushed in concert with Rutherford's second bill. Rep. Cezar McKnight's proposal would prevent state law enforcement agencies from signing nondisclosure agreements with the FBI, which has been standard procedure since the modified military tech began making its way to police departments around the nation. This would help ensure any evidence obtained with these devices will be properly presented in court, rather than obscured behind parallel construction. Or it could, theoretically. The bill ties this to warrant usage, so nondisclosure agreements would be allowed if the agreement doesn't stipulate the devices should be deployed without securing a warrant first. This ties it to the DOJ's current Stingray guidelines, which is better than continuing to obscure device deployment behind pen register orders.

The FBI's nondisclosure agreements have never specifically instructed law enforcement to avoid seeking warrants. However, the implication of the demanded secrecy pretty much made it impossible to seek a warrant, since doing so would disclose use of the device. Parallel construction was encouraged if warrants were sought and evidence introduced in court, but the FBI never strictly forbade the use of warrants in its nondisclosure agreements. So, the bill should be reworded to forbid entering into nondisclosure agreements with federal agencies and drop the clause tying it to warrant requests.

All in all, it's an encouraging set of proposals, but it's hard to see law enforcement agencies letting any of these make it to the governor's desk without a fight.