On trust and guns

I don't stop for people stranded on the road.  I mean, I have at times when I've prayed immediately before and it feels right in my gut.  But that's rare.  Usually I don't even pray about my decision, I just keep on driving.  It's not because I'm an unkind person.  And it's not because I can't relate to their situation. I was once stranded on the side of a busy road close to a steep (though not very long, thankfully) cliff.  My lights didn't work because the problem with the car was that the threads in my battery had been shredded so when I hit a bump, the entire battery stopped. I barely had enough time to get the car off the road and onto the precarious shoulder where I sat, waiting first for a friend to come and sit behind me with her flashers on and then for the tow truck, who first had to pull another car from the river that sat below me.

So I sympathize with people who are stranded.  But I still don't pull over for them.  I will, however, call the police or the Highway Patrol to tell them a car is stranded and they should go help.

I also don't accept candy or rides from strangers.  Admittedly, when I was 6 years old, it was my brother who stopped me from going too close to a car of strangers who offered candy in exchange for directions.  (Because when you're legitimately lost, the people you're most likely to ask for directions are an eight year old and three six year olds...)  After that, I very diligently stayed away from strangers in cars with candy.  When offered it, I was to call my parents and the police. (It's admittedly been a long time since that's happened).

As a child, I was not to let anyone - not even teachers, ministers, or doctors - touch my no-no places without my mother knowing. If they had ever told me not to tell, that's when I was supposed to scream the loudest. This is admittedly not the rule anymore in my 30s, but if I'm at a bar and put my drink down and walk away - even for just a few seconds - I never pick it up again. Hell, I've been known to be a complete pain to sweet-talking guys because if you seem too smooth, I'm also going to distrust you.  And I always lock my doors.

Why?  Because as an American, we're taught not to trust strangers. Too many people were killed when they were nicely helping strangers stranded on the road; too many children kidnapped with the promise of candy; and too many girls raped with roofies. Our news brings us regular stories of too-trusting individuals who are betrayed. Hollywood turns these stories into made-for-TV grist (or Pretty in Pink if we're talking about too-smooth guys).

We are a society that recognizes that you both earn trust and you give trust responsibly. Our children know "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice; shame on me." (Or as President G.W. Bush said, "Fool me once, shame on... shame on you? If you fool me, you can't fool me again.")

So why is it that I'm supposed to blindly trust every American out there with a a semi-automatic weapon? Why is it that I'm supposed to just trust you to not kill my friends' children or my nephews and niece with weapons that have fewer licensing regulations than any of the 6 cars my immediate family owns?

That's ultimately what my gun-friendly friends on facebook keep telling me:  we don't need fewer guns, we need more of them; we should arm our teachers and our principals so these people we already don't pay enough for the jobs they do have can also be the people who we now trust to responsibly keep a semi-automatic weapon within 5 feet of our curious and industrious children and teenagers.

I'm supposed to just trust every guy who doesn't have a felony conviction, or a drug conviction in the last year, with a semi-automatic weapon. I have to hope they bought their weapon from a federally licensed dealer who did the mandatory background check and 3 day waiting period.

That's the reality of our gun regulations. I keep hearing about how tough US gun laws are and how they don't keep guns off the streets - just out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Of the (at least) 62 gun-related mass murders since 1982 - mass murders being defined as 4 or more people killed in one incident - 49 of those used guns that were legally purchased.  3/4 of the 142 guns these killers had were legally obtained.

And if it feels like these shootings are occurring more frequently, that's because they does. Of those 62 mass shootings, 7 have happened this year alone. One a month from April through December except for June, October and November, 11 since 2010, and 25 since 2006.  This is by far the deadliest year with 7 shootings and 156 injured or killed.  1999 had five shootings, with 91 injured or killed, and then 2009, 2007 and 1993 had four shootings each (73, 86, and 57 injured or killed, respectively).

Yet somehow, I'm supposed to believe that all of this indicates we should have more people carrying weapons in more places. If more guns and looser regulations about where you can carry them are supposed to ensure greater safety, this should've been our safest year yet.  In the past decade, the number of states with concealed carry laws went from 29 to 49.  Only Illinois is not a concealed carry state, and their law was just struck down as unconstitutional by a federal appellate court.

Even in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, my home state's asshole Governor wants to make it easier for people to take weapons into areas where our state employees work, They have to trust every person who comes in with such a weapon to be a good guy. His justification?  It's not an issue of access to guns; it's a complicated issue of culture and mental health. His proof?  Apparently it's his gut instinct because he offers nothing else.

Assuming the Governor's gut instinct about the problem is correct, then let's fix those things first and then we can talk about loosening regulations. Don't regulate our society based on your gut instincts while doing nothing to fix any of the issues your gut tells you are the problems.

The fact that 2012 - with all its lax gun laws - wasn't safer shouldn't surprise those who research in this area. Those who more than their gut instinct to determine facts and truthiness say that access to guns is the problem.

Peer reviewed studies that control for poverty levels indicate more gun ownership results in a higher level of homicides or suicides.  This is true across federal states and across countries.  And no, Israel and Switzerland are not exceptions to the rule.

Yet, gun enthusiasts keep telling me I should trust them with these weapons. I should trust them and their gut belief that they would've been able to effectively use their weapon to stop the bad guys.  I'm supposed to trust them and their understanding of the situation rather than the statistical data that tell us a serious, long-term solution to this issue exists.  It involves controlling what types of guns can be sold, to whom, and under what conditions.

I was told not to use the words "gun control" because they evoke emotional responses.  I was told we already have gun control - with "tons" of regulations on gun ownership.  So let me explain our "gun regulations" that we have tons of.  Since I'm not an expert, I'm relying on these guys who are (again, academic research, not just some guy on the internet who says he's an expert because he likes shooting things).

According to them, many people who have been convicted of crimes that are still allowed to possess firearms under current laws. "Data from two studies of individuals who have committed the most serious crimes indicate that prior to committing these crimes, the perpetrators were not prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law."

The prohibition on drug abusers owning weapons is limited only to persons with "a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years, if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or … [is] found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year." So you just need to wait a year after every drug conviction and you can get a gun. And then hope you don't get arrested again for a year because it apparently doesn't matter how many times you actually get convicted for drug abuse, as long as you're not arrested in the past year you're totally fine to own a gun. 

Oh, and that prohibition on drug abusers having access to semi-automatic assault rifles? It only affects people addicted to illegal drugs. Alcoholics - no matter how abusive or dangerous - are not prohibited from owning firearms. So if you like shooting shit up, alcohol should be your drug of choice. Go ahead - have 20 drunk driving convictions. That's totally fine!  Go ahead, get in a few barroom brawls. It's with a legal drug!  We're happy to give you a gun.

That 3-day waiting period all my gun-enthusiast friends hate?  You don't need if it you buy your gun from a guy on the street.  Private sales aren't required to have a 3-day waiting period.  They aren't required to register the sale.  And there's no need for that pesky little background check thing that would tell the seller that you're actually a convicted felon from another state who has killed 8 people.  If someone privately sells a weapon to someone with a felony record who then goes out and commits more felonies, the first person is immune from suit.  40% of firearms sales occur from private sales.  So 40% of our purchasers never undergo a background check.

If you are a licensed dealer and you have shady practices?  The ATF can't access data relating to gun trace evidence and use that in their licensing procedures.  So go ahead - screw that 3 day waiting period! You'll probably still get your next licensing.

That's the state of our gun control.  That's what I'm supposed to trust to weed out the bad guys who would harm our children.  That's the policy that protects my nephews and nieces from the next Adam Lanza walking into their school.

As for those for whom 'gun control' elicits an emotional response that makes you automatically defensive, let me say this clearly: if you are more emotionally attached to your gun than you are to those 26 people in Connecticut, then you really shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon.  Any weapon including scissors or really sharp nail files.  Those 26 people were real, living beings with dreams that were snatch and families that will mourn.  Your gun is a piece of scrap metal that was nicely crafted.  It has no emotions, no dreams, and it really doesn't given a damn about you.  If you can't see that difference, you really don't deserve sharp objects.

That brings me to my final point.  Under current regulations and the stated idea of the 2nd Amendment that so many people have, I'm supposed to trust people not because they have proven themselves, but because they happened to be born on American soil.  I'm supposed to trust people with unencumbered access to semi-automatic weapons because they were lucky their grandparents or great-grandparents immigrated to the US. 

The map in our living room tells me that in the past 3 months, people from over 16 countries have come to my home.  Some of those stickers represent friends I would trust with a semi-automatic assault weapon; some I wouldn't.  Most I would trust a lot more with a semi-automatic assault weapon more than I trust most of the Americans I know with such a weapon.  Why? Because as human rights activists, they have shown a great deal of respect for human dignity and for the sanctity of life.  Many Americans don't.  That's not because they're Americans; it's because they're humans.

We don't trust people simply because they have the same passport as we do.  If we did, I'd get into cars with strangers who have candy upon proof of a birth certificate.  I'd leave my drink unattended in any bar in Euclid, Ohio (because I've never met a foreigner there who wasn't traveling with me). I'd leave my doors unlocked and stop for every stranded car on I-71.  And my parents would've been perfectly happy leaving me unattended with doctors and teachers who wanted to touch my no-no areas.

We don't do that because simply being American doesn't mean you're trustworthy with the things most precious to us: our bodies, our children, and our lives.  That shouldn't change simply because you like shooting things.

http://on.wsj.com/Zd3fqb

Trains and firecrackers

Last night, a young guy gets on the train with his earphones in and starts rapping loudly. No one could have conversations and people couldn't do work and it was all very frustrating and annoying. I understood people's frustration and annoyance but what I didn't understand was their response to that. Others on the train were grumbling and then two guys start talking about knocking him onto the platform and "showing him what's what." At which point I stood up, walked over to the guy, touched him on the shoulder, motioned for him to take his earphones out and said quietly, "I don't know if you know this, but everyone can hear you." He apologized and stopped.

It wasn't hard, and yet several people said things as I sat back down suggesting I'd been brave. I wasn't. I was showing him respect and expecting it in return. I almost whispered because the purpose wasn't to embarrass him but to call to his attention that he was being disruptive and annoying for other customers with an expectation he would understand that means he should stop and that the train was perhaps not the most appropriate place for loudly rapping songs with the f- and n- words. I don't think he was intending to be rude. I think his music was on so loudly (I could hear it even though I was the furthest seat away from him in my direction) that he didn't even realize that when he was rapping to himself  it was actually loud enough for the entire carriage to hear him.

This is about the fourth or fifth time something like this has happened to me on a train and I don't understand it. People are being rude - usually unintentionally so - and instead of just pointing it out or taking control of the situation in a respectful manner, everyone grumbles to themselves until they've worked themselves up into a frenzy and then feel the need to yell or punch someone.

One time, it was a group of children returning home in their school uniforms. About 20 of them entered a half-full carriage, stood in the aisles, and made a bunch of noise, sometimes bumping into other people, sometimes shouting down the carriage to talk to someone else. I kept listening to grown-up adults - sometimes in their mid-40s or -50s grumbling about the state of the world and these kids and all their noise, and why don't they just sit down, and blah blah blah.  Finally, almost as annoyed with the "adults" on the train as I was with the kids, I stood up and said, "Okay, I think it's time now for everyone to sit down.  Go find seats, take a friend or two with you, but you cannot continue to stand right here and act like this. It is a train, not a playground."  All the students but 5 sat down. Four stood around their group's ringleader while he grumbled about how "she can't make me do nothing."  That's fine.  Again, I wasn't trying to make a show of it or tell him I could, in fact, make him do nothing or something or whatever that double negative is supposed to be indicating to me.  I was only pointing out that their behavior was inappropriate based on social standards, expectations, and its impact on those around them. I didn't need them all to sit, but I needed enough of them to sit that the rest of us could hear ourselves think. Two of the students sat down across from me and we had a perfectly pleasant chat about their favorite classes and what they want to be when they grow up. 

Another time, three boys were in the back of a carriage jumping around and three times fell into the woman closest to them. They never apologized and she didn't ask them to stop but clearly got more annoyed and upset and kept grumbling but never to them.  So I told them to stop.  I said they owed her an apology and that they should sit down.  They looked mortified and did both things I suggested.

I raised the question this morning with some of my colleagues and students and every single person expressed shock at my reaction to the guy on the train last night. A couple joked and said "And you're still alive?" and some said it was a cultural difference that would lead me to do this.  But I just don't understand why it's so difficult for people in the UK to speak up when something socially inappropriate is happening, particularly on trains. Instead, they wait until some stroppy footballer decides to beat a kid up, or they'll call the police, or somehow completely overreact to a situation that just needs a little "hey, do you understand you're being rude?" Particularly with children and young adults - they're still figuring themselves out. Most want a little boundary to show that society believes in them to be respectful and appropriate members.

Most people aren't trying to be arses, they're just (somewhat naturally) self-absorbed and don't realize the impact they have on others; and if no one ever tells them, they never will. When I was a child - which is *not* that long ago - if I was doing something socially inappropriate, any one in my neighbourhood would've felt entitled to tell me so and then report me to my parents. It was, admittedly, really freaking annoying. But it made me more aware of the social impact of my actions. And if I was in public outside of my neighbourhood, people still would've felt entitled to tell me to stop walking in the middle of the street, to stop jumping and running into people, and to stop rapping in a closed space when it is distracting and rude to the others in that closed space.

People keep talking about how parents take no responsibility anymore, but that same thing is true for the larger community. The community needs to re-establish itself as a part of the governance structure for youths. We need to take greater responsibility for reminding them when their behaviour is rude or inappropriate, and as long as we do so in a respectful manner - rather than one that is rude and inappropriate in itself - then I think we're more likely to get the type of response that I got today.

I realize that in my hometown, this standard of "correcting" younger people is no longer really viable. Some of that, I think, is probably linked to a racist fear that the young black people in my community are somehow more dangerous and more disrespectful than their white counterparts a generation ago were. The community dynamics have changed over the past 20 years, but that doesn't mean the community responsibility has. And nothing about my interaction with the younger people there has ever suggested that they are really that different from what we were: most will respond appropriately; some will be aggressive.

My parents generally cringe when I tell this story - partly because I think they're shocked I'm still alive - but when I was about 22 to 24, there was a group of about 20 young black men hanging out outside a house across the street when I came home one day.  The family in that house had moved in after I left for college, so I didn't really know the kids and only knew the parents in passing. As I was getting  out of my car, something caught my eye in the mirror so I turned around to watch one of these "kids" light a firecracker off in the direction of a moving car, one of our neighbors from down the street who had just pulled out. I couldn't believe the recklessness, particularly in an area of our street that has so many younger children. So I immediately marched over and asked the guy how old he was. He was confused and said, "What?" I said, "Hold old are you?" When he said he was 18, I said, "So, you're old enough to know better than to do something so reckless and stupid as to light a firecracker off at a moving vehicle.  You could have gotten someone killed. You could've gotten your entire group of friends killed.  It was a moving vehicle. You don't direct firecrackers at people and you don't direct them at moving vehicles or other people's property. You direct them at the sky. That's what grown-ups do and you are a grown-up. Don't do that again." He grumbled about how I couldn't tell him what to do and I said I most certainly could - as I was - but more importantly, I would make sure his mother knew what he was doing.  The entire group started to walk off when one of them raised his hand in the air and shouted "Black power!" At which point I said, "Wait a minute!" and called them back over to lecture them on what black power means and how I supported black power and worked for it and black power was not the absence of morality or common sense but the throwing off of oppression and what they did was not an example of throwing off oppression, it was an example of juvenile delinquency, stupidity and disrespect. I said I never wanted to hear that any of them were using the phrase "Black power!" as an excuse for such behavior again in the future. Then I turned around and walked away.

Now, I realize that situation could have gone a hundred other ways, but it didn't. Now, if I were doing it again, I might not have been as aggressive to the group of young men, but perhaps I still would - it was over the top dangerous so it needed a serious and clear response.  And if I had suddenly felt my safety in danger, I would've left earlier in the conversation.  But, I didn't need to because they were 18 year old kids who knew what they did was wrong. They were trying to impress people with their bad-assness, and when it was clear it wasn't impressive, they realized it was kind of stupid. No, they weren't going to apologize because they were in a group of 20 or so young men, but they also didn't act as if they had a right to do what they did.

Kids will push to see what they can get away with. Heck - adults will, too.  Because for the most part, we're all slightly inherently selfish creatures.  But I don't understand people who are so afraid of offending other people that they won't take a moment to say "That's actually not okay," and instead will simply fume until someone gets up and assaults the person.

Thanks for Giving

In the week leading up to Thanksgiving, Gaza's been on my mind.  A good friend was there - stayed there when most of the international staff evacuated because they felt the bombings made the risk-good balance tip towards 'risk'. The risk-good balance is, admittedly, a luxury of human rights activists: we get to determine when the risk to our life, health and bodily integrity outweighs the good we're likely to be able to accomplish. If it tips too far to 'risk', we can leave, unlike those we are leaving behind and unlike our military counterparts.  But while others determined the balance tipped too far into 'risk,' my friend stayed, giving interviews and sending our press releases about the conditions in an effort to raise international awareness.

And I prayed.  Because that's all I had to offer.

My sister likely sat off his coast. I don't really know - I don't get to know where she is, ever, when she's at sea.  I get to know an 'arena' or 'field' of service, or some other super Navy terminology that I don't know like "XIFOSD" which likely stands for something like Extra Intense Fighting Of Said Defenses" (yeah... you can tell how much I understand about the acronyms in her job).  I know the fleet she's assigned to - thanks to some newspaper article written around the time they deployed - but the Sixth Fleet is the entirety of the Mediterranean and consists - according to the Navy itself - of 40 ships, 175 aircraft and 21,000 people.  So maybe she was off Gaza; maybe she was pulled into Italy; maybe she was by Gibraltar. I don't get to know, so of course, I always assume the worse. And I assumed she and the entire 40 ships of the fleet and all their weaponry was all sitting off the coast of Gaza.

During Skype calls with my friend, I would hear this "clink clink."  It would have been nothing to me - a drippy faucet, something falling to the floor - except my friend asked, "Did you hear that?" He explained it was pretty close. It sounded different than I expected. It wasn't a loud boom, but a soft "clink clink" and it would happen again and again as we talked.  He could hear the drones but Skype's audio wasn't strong enough for me to hear.

As I thought about them sitting out there - miles from each other - I couldn't help but think of how thankful I am for each of them and for the service they offer. Once again, I know this leaves me sitting on a particular side of human rights activists. Many do not trust the military - of any country - and their skepticism has legitimate underpinnings: years of military coups in a variety of countries, disturbing videos showing the commission of war crimes, and the distribution of photos depicting torture give cause to those who distrust the military.  It is easy to paint those who serve with broad strokes: heroes or villains. White hats or black ones. Little room to recognize that the majority - of any military - may fit one mold while a minority break it.  The same, of course, is true for human rights activists - we just hate to admit that out loud sometimes because the cause!, the cause! is so noble, never realizing that when we do that we are only replicating the actions of those we so often denounce.

So, yes there are good and bad of both the military and human rights activists.  And yet, this week, all I kept thinking was how lucky I was to know dedicated, intelligent and willing servants for both fields.  Human rights activists, though, don't get internet memes or Christmas ornaments reminding people of the dedicated and awesome work they do. Probably because most people hate us as we have this insane habit of always siding with the underdog, but still...

So, I'm sharing the picture below - one of the many that popped up on my newsfeed thanking the US military for their service on this day of Thanks - to give thanks to those who work in the service of freedom overseas, regardless of how that work is described or what the title that comes before their name looks like.



And I'm going to take the unusual step and share two poems I wrote this week, one for my sister and one for my friend. I have no doubt that they are not good poetry, but it's a small offering of thanks to them both.

For a Navy Officer

To sit next to you on the couch,

watching movies that make us cry,

while we eat a tub of ice cream that we'll regret tomorrow --

that is what I dream of when I fall asleep.

The guns you fire and the records I type,

keep us from each other,

and each night is a fearful one praying for your safety;

I know sometimes it's just the same for you.

But my darling sister,

you are who I wish I was

and who I wish to sit next to on a Thursday evening,

eating leftover casseroles while we laugh at our parents

and remember the names of boys who used to sit with us.

This is what I'll dream of when I fall asleep.

For our activist

The sound of the bombs hitting comes through the audio on my computer.

Unlike the great booms Hollywood tells me to expect

it sounds like water dripping into an empty pan in my sink.

I imagine you sitting inside,

curtains closed so your room is not mistaken as a target.

You hear the drones fly overhead and have to hope they keep on flying.

I listen to the day's accomplishments, but you never mention the most important one:

"I survived to fight again."

Your weapons are the computer you use and the pens you chew with each new thought

hoping to rally the world to your view, to document the wrongs you know.

I'm glad you don't carry anything stronger with you, but I wish it wasn't a matter

of your pen against their drones.

What We're "Entitled" To

Bill O'Reilly made an international spectacle of himself (again) when he proclaimed last week's election was about the end of "traditional America" because the "white establishment is now the minority" and "voters . . . feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff." You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break for President Obama's way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?

You can watch the clip here:

He then came back to address this and claim he was just stating facts and providing an analysis.  In what may be an example of the greatest lack of self-awareness to ever air from US media, he lamented the fact that media had become ideological when claiming that his analysis was just stating of facts.

So, there are a few things Bill needs to understand. First, "women" aren't a racial group.  So "women" were part of the "white establishment" before, unless you're admitting that by "white establishment" you're really only talking about are rich, white men - and women should be damned. 

But setting that aside, in one fell swoop, O'Reilly said something very poignant and accurate and something very, very inaccurate. First, the accurate part: people, particularly but not exclusively black, Hispanic and female Americans, feel the economic system is stacked against them. There's not much to dispute there.  The "Occupy Wall Street" movement isn't, as Fox repeatedly tried to claim, some fringe group of hippies who hate showering and wish the US would just throw away capitalism.  The movement captured people's attention because so many people feel they do not actually have an opportunity for economic growth.  They feel they have limited power and opportunity to actually make a difference in their economic status because the economic system is stacked against them.

Some of that is racially based, and we need to be honest about that.  During this recession, the gap between black and white households nearly doubled, with whites making 22 times more wealth than blacks.  There was an average household networth of $110,729 for whites in 2010, while blacks averaged only $4,995 and Hispanics only $7,424. So unless you really believe that blacks are less intelligent, less educated and less motivated, then there is little to say other than there is a systematic problem with the way our society recognizes intelligence and rewards work.  In 2010, the median annual earnings of black men was 74.5% of their white counterparts. That's worse than white women - who made only 80.5% of their white male counterparts, but better than black women (69.6%), Hispanic men (65.9%), or Hispanic women (59.8%).

The US has one of the lowest rates of social mobility in the industrialized world.  Cyclical poverty is likely because in general, and in particular in the US, poverty means reduced access to quality education or health care. The idea that someone can "pick themselves up by their bootstap" is an increasingly rare experience in the US and while we celebrate the outliers, they are, in fact, outliers for a reason. We know their names and their successes because by definition they are not the rule.  And this very notion is an affront to the concept of equality that capitalism is supposed to foster.  Part of the myth of the "truly free market" - the extreme, unencumbered concept of the market that the extreme right wishes to promote whereby all regulation is bad and the market decides everything from whether we have environmental regulations to what workers are paid - is that it allows people to take control of their own destiny, rewarding hard work and persistence while punishing laziness. But, if extreme inequality leads to limited social mobility and that in turn leads to greater inequality, then you are not rewarding people based on their intelligence, their hard work, or their skills. You are rewarding them based on what their ancestors did.  You are promoting not a democracy but an oligarchy of privilege. Some want to claim this is "true" freedom and what the GOP is promoting is simply a true market economy, but for a market economy not to simply become a means for new human rights oppression, there must be some level of equal opportunity.  Yet, equal opportunity clearly does not exist in the current US system.

That inequality - both in terms of what is held and in terms of opportunity - actually harms national economic growth.  Lower rates of economic inequality are shown to be associated with greater, long-term economic stability.  So by creating this "free" economic system without regulation and without social opportunity, we are harming our economic interests not just on an individual basis but on a collective level for our society.

And people feel this. They aren't dumb, despite what O'Reilly, et al., would like you to believe. When you talk to people in the lower class and lower-middle class, they understand the economics of their situation and the cyclical nature of their position in society. They recognize the limited opportunities they have.  So, voters - meaning, non-privileged voters - do, in fact feel that the economic system is stacked against them because it is.  Study after study supports this, so the only way to actually dismiss this very real, very accurate feeling is to buy into a theory of math's "liberal bias."

But where O'Reilly goes wrong - horribly, horribly wrong - is his assertion that what people were demanding in Obama's reelection was "stuff."  It is not stuff, but opportunity that people are demanding. It is an equal playing field that can foster a market economy that allows for people to pull themselves up by the bootstrap. It is a system that supports economic growth not just for the wealthy but for the entire economy.  They are demanding the education and social infrastructure that encourages poor children to realize that there are options and opportunities available to them and that helps realize that promise. Because kids now get the promise but not the reality and that's our failing as a society. 

Demanding that isn't demanding stuff.  It's demanding dignity on an equal basis, not based on your parents' social status.  That's an American ideal and that's what the GOP should be joining the Obama administration to help realize.

Election Night: Yays & Boos

I love election night. When I was young, I'd excitedly pass out literature for whatever issue or candidate my parents were supporting - and that I therefore thought I supported - and at night, I'd wait patiently to see if all my hard work paid off.  Sometimes it did, sometimes it didn't, but every election night I felt a little euphoria as I saw democracy come alive.

It's hard being overseas on election night.  Results couldn't even begin to be called for me until after 12:30am in the UK.  So last night I stayed up, waited until I called Ohio for Obama - and yes, I mean I because none of the networks were willing to do it then - and then I promptly went to sleep without knowing for sure who the next POTUS would be, but feeling comfortable it would be Obama.  As a result, I missed out on my opportunity to vocalize all my "yay" "boo" and "WTF" moments to my parents or siblings.  So here they are instead:

Yay #1 is obviously the fact that Obama won! I'm psyched about that, but it's not the thing I'm most psyched about (it is the thing I'm most relieved about because at some point I'd like to move home and be able to buy health care but because I have lady parts and I've now broken a leg, I no longer have my once super-squeaky clean bill of health and I'll have been "uninsured" in the US for several years).

Official portrait

And a 67% Yay because 67% of registered Ohioans voted!  That's before provisional ballots and overseas ballots are counted.  My ballot has not been counted, so I am not part of that 67% - yet!  Ohio allows absentee voters ten extra days past the election to get their ballots in so long as it's postmarked by the day of hte election.  I mailed mine via the US Embassy in London on 19 October.  It still hasn't tracked as "received" yet, so I'm still hoping it does arrive by 16 November so it can join the big pile of counted ballots.  I'm a little annoyed that it hasn't arrived yet and kind of wish I had just mailed it with the USPS but my postage was actually covered so long as it was mailed at the Embassy so I took the "cheap" way of mailing.  We'll see what happens.

I remember back when I was growing up and sometimes we were excited for 45-55% turnout.  67% in a downward economy when people are generally feeling gloomy - that's impressive. And important because democracy only functions when people participate.  My friends in Azerbaijan would love that opportunity: to participate; to count; to vote.  They cannot.  Well, technically they can but it doesn't really matter. Not when the system is so corrupt that someone sits in the open filling out ballots.  In 2009, my friends in Iran mourned the deaths of their fellow citizens, some were arrested or went into hiding, because they demanded their votes count. Instead, Ahmadinejad somehow won more votes in some areas than were counted. And a few weeks ago, I teared up as I read the status reports from friends in Georgia (the country, not the state) excitedly report the first democratic transition their country has had in a century.

Are US elections perfect? Absolutely not. There are moments we should be embarrassed by that get my patented Boo: voting machines that don't select the right candidate, ridiculously long lines that discourage voting, people being told the wrong information about where to vote, people who were told wrong information about when to vote, too many provisional ballots, apparent attempts at voter intimidation, and an asshat Secretary of State for Ohio who tried pretty much everything to discourage voting (great for the Vote Protector-in-Chief). The long list of voting irregularities need to be cleaned up, so if True the Vote and others are serious about protecting our elections, they should start by focusing on the problems that do exist, rather than the ones that don't.

But still... our votes are counted, at least most of the time. And once again, we will have a peaceful transition (or in this case, non-transition) of power. Just as we have every four years since 1780 except for 1860 and 1864, when South Carolina threw a hissy fit and seceded from the Union a little over a month after Lincoln won and then we were embroiled in the civil war that started.

Our votes count and the exciting thing is that younger people seem to finally be fully understanding that.  An estimated 19% of voter turn-out belonged to the 18-25 year olds; 16% to the 65+ crowd.  That's a massive difference from when I was first getting the right to vote. It is exciting. It is democratic. And it feels good.

And the women! Yay women! Not only did women rock the vote but they also rocked the vote-getting.  The US will now have more women serving in the Senate than ever before.  Of course, the Boo of it all is that we still only have 19 female Senators, so less than 1/5 of our more powerful and "stable" part of Congress. But the women we did elect: amazing!  Claire McCaskill would get massive yays! for no other reason than blowing off Legitimate Rapes Akin, but I also really like her as a person.  Wisconsin elected Tammy Baldwin, its first female Senator and the first openly gay Senate candidate (Barney Frank was openly gay but only admitted it after being elected). And Massachusetts finally caught up to its liberal rep when it chose consumer rights extraordinaire Elizabeth Warren as its first female Senator!  It's not just the Senate, though. Illinois elected super bad-ass, double-amputee Tammy Duckworth, the first female combat veteran to serve in the Senate. She's not the only disabled member of Congress, but according to the font of all knowledge she's the only disabled female representative.  And New Hampshire is now touting women in all its highest offices: Governor, both Congressional representatives and both Senators!

Now, I do have to ask WTF was up with the BBC last night?  It was like they couldn't find a Republican to save their life.  They had some random guy with a British accent on talking about American patriotism and predicting Romney would win two consecutive terms with more than 300 electoral votes even after Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were called and when it looked like Ohio was going to Obama too.  It was weird and embarrassing and annoying to have to listen to someone who clearly can't call an election half as well as me get paid to do nothing but grandstand for the GOP.  And yet there wasn't a single Democratic operative while I was watching (which was for a long time!).  Every time that man talked I felt like someone was driving nails into my brain because that's the only explanation for the insanity I was hearing - and the only way I would end up losing the brain cells I felt myself losing every time they asked him a question.

I have two final boos and three final yays:

(1) Boo to the people of Paulding County, Ohio, for not realizing just how awesome my uncle Mike is.  He once told me he didn't understand half of what I said and disagreed with me on the other half, but was so proud of me for doing what I do.  And I have to say that I'm so proud of him for standing for office. He is a fantastic human being and I'm proud to call him family. Paulding County could have been proud to have him as a county councilman.  I love Paulding County, so I won't be booing them for very long. They are family for me out there, and so much of who I am is owed to my growing up in my great-grandma Kate's shadows. But, still, today I was sad to see they missed excellence when it was in front of them.

Ohio - from a federal government atlas via wikipedia

(2) Sadly, Ohio also did not vote for its statewide issue 2, which would have reformed how our US Congressional districts are drawn.  The amendment was long, the language complicated, and the idea not particularly the best, but we need to do something about the way our districts are drafted and accepted. Ohio voted for President Obama and Senator Sherrod Brown, but only 3 of our 14 Congressional seats will be Democrats.  That's not because we actually flip-flop that much. It's because our seats aren't drawn in a competitive way so it favors whichever party holds three key positions in the state at the turn of a decade.  This time it was the Republicans.  That's a pathetic way to draw Congressional districts and it's a shame on the Ohio legislature for allowing politics to get so out of hand that they view "similarities in needs" based on party affiliation and not the general makeup of the populations. Again, I don't think this was perfect but it would be nice to try something other than what we have, so I hope we get another option in 2 years. They get my strongest, most vehement boo today.

And three final yays: (1) My hometown school system may be squeaking out a levy win.  Ohio schools have been (state) unconstitutionally funded since something like 1994.  It's an asinine system that makes the schools go back and ask for property taxes pretty much every 2 or 3 years because the taxes they do get don't actually increase with cost of living or average wages or anything.  They just stay the same.  So they get outdated really quickly and they have to constantly ask voters for money just so they can pay their bills.  And instead of fixing the system, everyone just twiddles their thumbs and goes, "Yup... very difficult thing there, isn't it?  Complicated.  Very, very complicated."  So our public schools are regularly harmed while the state continually strips them of income to fund "charter schools," meaning private businesses, who largely have a worst track record than the public schools.  Why?  Because no one has the political will to do something that might mean they aren't elected to their next sought-after office (and since Ohio also has term limits on state offices, they're all always searching for their next office).

(2) That said, my friend Jim Butler was re-elected to the Ohio House of Representatives (the state legislature) and I'm happy even if he is a Republic.  I disagree with him on most things, but I love the kid to death.  And by kid, I obviously mean someone who is older than me (I think; I just checked his official bio and while it doesn't list a DOB, he completed the Navy and a Master's degree before I met him when I was just a wee little 24-year-old).  So yay Jim!  I can't wait for you to implement my school funding plans (that's a joke because he never really does what I tell him to...)

Sen. Brown's official potrait

(3) Final yay: Sherrod Brown. I heart him.  Now imagine that heart in the shape of the State of Ohio and you almost get to know how much I love him. I think he is an amazing and tireless public servant and exactly the person I'd like my parents to go to if I ever get kidnapped while doing aid work abroad (a serious consideration that anyone in aid or development work needs to make before they go in the field).

One more mini-yay: next time I go home there won't be any political ads on TV!  My family can have their lives and TV time back! And that's something every swing state is thankful for today.

[Edit: I didn't even realize Bill O'Neill, a friend of my brother's, won a seat on the Ohio Supreme Court!  Best part about this? O'Neill took absolutely no money in this election.  I doubt anyone else will attempt to replicate this, but I'm pleased he won!]

Does God "intend" rape?

I was - and remain - outraged at the suggestion by  US Senate candidate Richard Mourdock, who in a debate said this:

"The only exception I have to have an abortion is in the case of the life of the mother. I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

I expressed my outrage on facebook, linking to an article and providing this highly witty comment (I'll admit that I do say lots of things on facebook - where I've met almost every single one of my 1300+ friends in real life, that I wouldn't actually say if I was posting it on this blog as a first-instance): "Seriously? If you think rape is a gift from God, (a) you don't understand the Bible, and (b) you don't understand how to be a politician. So, either way, you should've just stayed home and STFU." 

A Christian friend challenged me and said that what Mourdock said was Biblically accurate. I disagreed, pointing out that evil is the antithesis of God and therefore God cannot intend for it to happen.  First, the friend said, that Mourdock wasn't saying the rape was intended, but just the conception. This is nonsense to me.  You cannot intend the conception of a child through rape without intending the rape itself.  For God's intention to be for conception through rape to occur, then God must intend the rape.  My friend again said Mourdock's position was biblical - that God is sovereign and therefore intends all that happens in the world, including things we perceive as evil.

The challenges came with a reference to Genesis 50:20, in which Joseph - yes, the one of the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat - was addressing his brothers, who had thrown him into a pit to die. Joseph was rescued from the pit and through a series of circular twists and turns ended up in a position of great power in Egypt. After his father's death, Joseph's brothers wrote to him begging forgiveness.  According to Genesis 50, starting at verse 19, They went to him and "threw themselves down before him. 'We are your slaves,' they said. But Joseph said to them, 'Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. So then, don't be afraid. I will provide for you and your children. And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them."

When I've previously studied this passage, I have always thought of it as a foreshadowing of the type of forgiveness lavished on mankind for our own sinfulness.  It resembles the crucifixion of Christ and the forgiveness that is redeemed through that. 

My friend must make similar connections because he also pointed to the crucifixion of Christ as evidence that God sometimes "intends" what we would call evil to happen.  My friend said, in part, "Genesis 50:20 says God INTENDED. It doesn't say that God fixed the problem that Joseph's brothers caused. God also INTENDED for Jesus to be murdered. It was foreordained before the foundation of the world. Man is not sovereign, God is."  He then challenged me - and others I had tagged into the conversation who are trained ministers or who work in ministries - to explain how we could say God doesn't intend for rape to happen with this one, very clear verse. 

Now, I will set aside the idea that Jesus was "murdered" - because I think that's such a rare and unique thing that any comparison to what happens to us human beings is out of line.  But also no where in the Bible is the word "intended" used in context of Jesus's crucifixion.  How do I know this?  Because after this friend's challenge, I went through every instance of the Bible - using the New International Version as my text - to determine what it meant in Genesis 50:20 that God "intended" what happened to Joseph.  My friend wanted a Biblically based discussion and I wanted to know the actual answer - was I wrong? Did God intend rapes?  What does it mean when we say God "intends" something?  I started writing this initially as a facebook comment, but realized that that was insane and it is way too long to even try to be included on facebook.  So even though I don't intend for this blog to be all about my religious beliefs, I am going to use this space now for a little biblically exegesis on the question of "Does God intend rape?"

When I read the very verse that was pointed to - Genesis 50:20 - I did so only after praying for a while and thinking about what my assumptions were. Because even though I'm relatively certain the inverse is not true, when this friend raises an issue of Biblical interpretation, I do tend to sit and pray about it to determine what I feel the Holy Spirit is telling me.  And on this, when I opened Bible Gateway and read the verse, I felt an immediate sense that the two "intendeds" were not the same, and that within the God "intended" was a Romans 8:28 understanding, not that God required it or ordered it, but rather than he used it and utilized it.  I then went and read the entire passage in context and felt this even more clearly.  Then I took the NIV Study Bible from my shelf to see what it says and it says this as the note to this verse: "God intended it for good. Their act, out of personal animosity toward a brother, had been used by God to save life -- the life of the Israelites, the Egyptians and all the nations that came to Egypt to buy food in the face of a famine that threatened the known world. At the same time, God showed by these events that his purpose for the nations is life and that this purpose would be effected through the descendants of Abraham."  Within the note, I see that the learned scholars who put together the study Bible also found a difference in the "intended" of mankind and the "intended" of God. 

But I was having difficult pinning down exactly what that difference was that I felt - at least with just one verse.  I was still unsatisfied and went back to Bible Gateway and did a search for "intended."  Many of the results appeared irrelevant (i.e., Numbers 35:23; Deuteronomy 19:19; 1 Samuel 14:4), and I initially dismissed them.  But I did come back to them as I was writing this very long comment.  And when I thought about what they say about "intended."  What does the word mean?  It is clear it is the thing that is desired but not necessarily the thing that is to come.  Intended does not mean ordered; it means a desired outcome.  Numbers 35:23 is in the context of handling problems and crimes within the community. It starts at 22 and continues through 25: "But if without enmity someone suddenly pushes another or throws something at them unintentionally or, without seeing them, drops on them a stone heavy enough to kill them, and they die, then since that other person was not an enemy and no harm was intended, the assembly must judge between the accused and the avenger of blood according to these regulations. The assembly must protect the one accused of murder from the avenger of blood and send the accused back to the city of refuge to which they fled. The accused must stay there until the death of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil." So clearly in this context, "intended" means something desired or planned with a desire of its realization. Because something occurred that was not intended to occur, it is not as abominable as the very same result with a different planning or desire.

Deuteronomy 19:19 comes in the context of the settlement of disputes within the community.  The Word says "If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime . . . [t]he judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother." Clearly, in this context, "intended" is not "ordained" or "ordered."  It could be said that "intended" here means to have a desire and to take actions to realize that desire, or to "plan" based on contingent factors, perhaps while taking actual steps to realize that plan.  We know this first because it was by a human and second because the very thing desired is not the thing the witness receives. 

And in 1 Samuel 14:4, it says "On each side of the pass that Jonathan intended to cross to reach the Philistine outpost was a cliff; one was called Bozez and the other Seneh."  But then it goes on to discuss the conversation between Jonathan and his armor-bearer. In it, Jonathan says "we will cross over toward them and let them see us. If they say to us, 'wait there until we come to you,' we will stay where we are and not go up to them. But if they say, 'come up to us,' we will climb up, because that will be our sign that the Lord has given them into our hands.'"  So even though Jonathan intended - or desired and took actions to ensure - to cross over the cliff, He did not fully do it until He had received a signal from God.  Had he not received that, Jonathan would have stayed on the other side of the cliff.  His intention was not an order.  This has a similar understanding in 1 Samuel 20:33 "Then Jonathan knew that his father intended to kill David." 

When just the previews came up, I thought there might be an outlier. 2 Chronicles 32:2-3: "When Hezekiah saw that Sennacherib had come and that he intended to wage war against Jerusalem, he consulted with his officials and military staff about blocking off the water from the springs outside the city, and they helped him."  When you read it in context, though, it is clear that Sennacherib had not yet gotten to Jerusalem and was not yet waging war.  He was fighting in other places and so Hezekiah and the men of Jerusalem took actions to make it harder for Sennacherib to wage war. Before Sennacherib was able to really wage the war he intended against Jerusalem - he had laid seige but had not waged war - Hezekiah and Isaiah son of Amoz prayed to heaven. "And the Lord sent an angel, who annihilated all the fighting men and the commanders and officers in the camp of the Assyrian king."  So, again intended was not ordered or required or forced into happening, but was akin to desiring while taking steps to realize those desires.

And Acts 12:4, "Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover." The "him" was Peter, but of course the Angel of the Lord came and broke the chains the night before Herod intended for the trial. And 2 Corinthians 1:17 "Was I fickle when I intended to do this? Or do I make my plans in a worldly manner so that in the same breath I say both 'yes, yes' and 'no, no'?" Again, intended means planned or an expressed desire. Similarly, Acts 20:7 and John 6:15 and John 12:7 discuss intentions as plans that humans make.

The reason I originally thought these verses did not apply was that they referred to men and not God.  And again, when I read Genesis 50:20, I felt an immediate difference in the purpose of the words when used to describe Joseph's brothers and when used to describe God. So I started off initially looking just for verses that related to times when God "intended" things.

Hosea 2:9: "'Therefore I will take away my grain when it ripens, and my new wine when it is ready. I will take back my wool and my linen, intended to cover her naked body."  Hosea is a bit confusing, and it was more confusing when I went to the introductory note and found that one of the debates over Hosea comes in Chapters 1-3 as to whether the story of Gomer is literal or allegorical. So I was a little concerned that this particular verse again wasn't about God's intentions. But Hosea 1:10-2:1 is an introduction to the section titled 'Israel Punished and Restored' and it says this: "Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called sons of the living God.' The people of Judah and the people of Israel will be reunited and they will appoint one leader and will come up out of the land, for great was the ay of Jazeel. Say to your brothers, 'My people,' and of your sisters, 'My loved one.'  And then it goes on to talking about the rebuke of Israel.  So, Hosea 2:9 comes in that context of rebuking of Israel's ways.  And after discussing Israel as an adulterer, Hosea 2:7-8 says "She will chase after her lovers but not catch them; she will look for them but not find them. Then she will say, 'I will go back to my husband as at first, for then I was better off than now.' She has not acknowledged that I was the one who gave her the grain, the new wine and the oil, who lavished on her the silver and gold-- which they used for Baal."  Now clearly the reference to Baal means that this is about Israel's turning away from God and then attempting to turn back not out of love for God but out of dissatisfaction with the other things she had found. Perhaps a bit of boredom but also a bit of 'eh, this isn't really working out for me, so I might as well try it again with that other guy.'  And that's where Hosea 2:9 comes in, with the relevant "I will take back my wool and my linen, intended to cover her nakedness."  So God had intended for Israel to be protected and covered, and yet in response to her wickedness, he was not going to give her that protection. He had planned and desired for her protection, but in response to the daily goings on, he was withdrawing that protection and was not following through on his own intentions.

Jeremiah 18:5-10: "Then the word of the Lord came to me. He said, 'Can I not do with you, Israel, as this potter does?' declares the Lord. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, Israel. If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if a another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." So in this chapter, it is clear that the word "intended" is not used as a synonym for "ordered" or "required" or "forced."  The good God provides is contingent upon the choices of man.  And the destruction God could order is contingent upon the choices of man.  According to these verses, God allows for his relationship with mankind - with Israel specifically in this chapter - to develop with some give-and-take, some back-and-forth between them.  God does not force a particular avenue on man and may intend or desire or plan the realization of one thing but ultimately responds to human actions with another.

And Romans 2:1-6: You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forebearance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God 'will repay each person according to what they have done.'"  Again, the word "intended" here is clearly not a synonym for ordered or forced.  Rather it is referring to the way in which God uses things for His good purposes. There is an interplay between God's desires and the free will of mankind. 

Romans 7:7-12: "What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "you shall not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but the commandment cam, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful." So, again, intended is used here as the thing from God that is supposed to bring about good but that we can allow to bring about evil.  It is the good that was desired by and planned by God but not the evil that resulted.

2 Corinthians 7:8-9:  Paul was writing to the church at Corinth, discussing previous communications they had had (at least the letter in 1 Corinthians) and their response to his rebuke for their wayward actions. "Even if I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it. Though I did regret it -- I see that my letter hurt you, but only for a little while -- yet now I am happy, not because you were made sorry, but because your sorrow led you to repentance. For you became sorrowful as God intended and so were not harmed in any way by us."  Again, God intended for something and used things around to realize it, but he did not force them to repent.  

That's every instance in which the word "intended" is used in the Bible. 17 uses of the word in 16 verses, starting with Genesis 50:20 and ending with 2 Corinthians 7:9. Ten verses referring to human intentions and 7 referring to times in which God "intended" something (as noted above, Genesis 50:20 includes the word "intended" as something from both man and God). I also looked up the word "intend" and "intention" to see if there was anything that would add to what is outlined above - either changing my beliefs or altering them. I found nothing. And after prayerfully considering what they mean, these are my conclusions:

When man intends something, it is a planning and desire to bring it about, that may or may not be successful.  Man's intentions can be for good or for evil.  They may or may not come into being, and they won't know what occurs until after it is done.  When God intends something, though, it is only for good.  It is also not an ordering or a forcing, but the word "intended" throughout the Bible is used as an expression for His wish for goodness.  His actions, however, work in conjunction in a give-and-take with mankind.  He responds to our responses to Him and His callings.

Taking it back to Joseph, God did not require or force Joseph's brothers to throw him in a pit to die.  It's not even clear that God wanted that.  It is clear, however, that God's intention for good was to use any evil done against Joseph to realize a greater plan.

Now, I have to address an additional two points.  First, I realize that this very discussion elicits a distinction between Calvinist and Arminian beliefs within Christian doctrine.  For those unfamiliar with Christian splits, consider the difference between Calvins and Arminians to be similar to the difference between Shiia and Sunnis: the basic tenants and scriptures are the same, but their interpretation over the years has led to some doctrinal splits on what exactly is meant by God's word. Calvinists believe in predestination; Arminians do not. My friend is a Calvinist and I am an Arminian.  But I am an Arminian because when I go through the Bible, I see all sorts of verses like those outlined above that point me regularly to the position that God is good and gives us free will. Our relationship with Him is one that involves His calling us to goodness, but not forcing us on a path, and responding regularly to what do.  It's a relationship of give-and-take, not one of forcefulness and pain.

So does God intend rape?  I again answer, unequivocally, no. 

Rape is, by its nature, a forceful imposition and a denial of choice or consent. It is the stripping away of love and security. It is the opposite of God. And God does not intend the opposite of himself. God intends evil things to be used for good - this is the promise of Romans 8:28 ("And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.") - but that is substantially and unalterably different from God intending the evil thing itself. Evil exists in this world.  God gives us free will and a knowledge of sin, but that does not mean that God intends for sinfulness and evil to exist or to occur. 

I believe that God can use even the most evil of evils - rape, murder, oppression, genocide - for good, but I don't think that means He ever wanted, desired or intended for those things to happen. I have known women who set up counseling centers and grief or crisis hotlines as a response to their sexual assault. I've known war veterans who come back and reinvest in their community in reaction to losing a friend overseas. And I've known a few hundred human rights activists who have responded to evil in their lives with compassion and a dedication to fighting for the underdogs of our world. These are the good that comes out of evil. 

But, that does not mean that every consequence of evil is intended and good, and no where in the Bible have I found any support that the consequences of evil are always good.  So sometimes, I think, a child conceived will be a good that comes out of it, but not every child conceived is something God intends to come about - either before or during or after the rape. And we should not assume to know the thoughts of God for each individual case; there does not seem to be a blanket rule on this issue - at least no where that I've found in the Bible.

Now, I have a final question to be posed to those who would simultaneously agree with Mourdock's assertion that God intends rape - and the conception that sometimes occurs thereafter - but who still fight against abortion.  This is a serious question, not just a rhetorical one to win the argument: how do you reconcile a belief that God intends the evil of rape while still fighting against abortion as some special evil that needs to be eliminated?  If you believe God is sovereign over all - and therefore anything that is done is something God intends to do be done - would that not also include abortion?  Would God's sovereignty not also include sovereignty over when abortion occurs and why and in what circumstances and by whom?  Why must you fight against abortion if it is part of God's intention and sovereignty?

Seriously, it was 'malarkey': on the need for intelligent diplomacy

I am not watching the US debates. They come on too late here in the UK and I already know whose values I really actually believe in, so I don't feel the need to watch.  But, Joe Biden's getting a lot of attention for saying Paul Ryan's answer to a question on foreign policy was "malarkey."

(Tellingly, the CNN video doesn't carry Biden's full answer because why would CNN actually feel the need to show an *exchange* from the debate when they can just show soundbites? It's not like the *exchange* is newsworthy, right? It's just the soundbite... that's what news is, isn't it?)

Ryan criticized President Obama's response to the Iranian Green Revolution in 2009.  He said that the Obama administration should've been out front criticizing Iran.  For me, this is personal.  I have friends who were part of that revolution and I know human rights defenders whose lives are threatened by the Iranian regime.  During 2009, I followed the unfolding news from Iran more closely than any other event since 9/11.  I was consumed with it, and with the hope that with each new news story I would learn the fate of friends who could not communicate with the outside world.

During that time, I wrote on facebook that I felt Obama was handling the Iranian issue in the right way. And three years later, I just want to be even more clear: there is no question.  Obama handled it exactly right.  Here's what I wrote in 2009, and with only a few modern updates and grammatical corrections it still stands:

Sometimes US foreign policy is based on our egos, rather than on what’s right and wrong, and it shouldn’t be. We need to stop making ego-based decisions and start making brain-based ones.

Too often, we in the US make every international event about us. Sometimes it's a good thing. If you’re Kosovar, you might appreciate US-led interference a decade ago. If you’re Kuwaiti, you are likely relieved we nosed around in 1991. If you’re Kurdish, you’re probably like the guy in the Kebab shop in town who thanked me for what my country had done for his people (you know, after ignoring the gassing by Hussein). And if you’re South Korean or Japanese, you might resent the presence of certain troops who rape young girls and ignore your laws and cultures, but you probably appreciate the fact that we’ve been willing to stand on the 38th parallel for over 50 years. These were times when our “it’s all about me”-ness benefited not just us but the rights of those we sought to protect.

And when the American people believe a situation is about them – that they need to make a difference or that they have a primary duty to provide relief – amazing acts of goodness and kindness can happen. The US people's response to the 2004 tsunami, the calls for involvement on Darfur, or responses to cyclones in Burma and earthquakes in Haiti, nuclear crises in Japan and floods in India are good examples of what calling on US egos can do.

But, sometimes it's important for us to remember that not *every* event is about us and not every democracy/freedom initiative would benefit from our involvement. Sometimes it’s good for us to have a little ego check and make sure that we’re not just getting involved in a situation because we want to remind everyone of how powerful we are, or we want to make sure everyone knows which side we’re on. For starters, the US doesn't always have the best track record of standing on the right side of things. Pinochet (Chile). Cambodia. Nicaragua, Guatemala, Rhodesia, South Africa and Iraq's Hussein are all prime examples of when the US has kind of (or majorly) screwed up. And when we do get it right, we don’t always have the best follow-through so the international community may doubt our commitment (Afghanistan circa 2008, anyone?).

When we're confronted with a new international situation, it would be good if our leadership stepped back and ask intelligently: what will our involvement accomplish, both for us and for them? We should be like doctors and "do no harm" in the international arena (or, at least, do as little harm as is needed, which is actually a fundamental principle of international humanitarian law). If it turns out that our involvement is just about making sure our voice is heard – regardless the consequences – or an attempt to stretch our egos by being the loudest and most frequent orator on the international stage, we should stop ourselves. If on the whole it stacks up that our involvement may benefit goodness, democracy and freedom, it might be worth putting our two-cents on the international table. It is the former situation we found ourselves in in 2009. It’s the ego-stroking that Paul Ryan wants the US to engage in, not the beneficial freedom-loving work that we should limit ourselves to.

Before I continue, I want to take a moment and address Iran and the Iranian people generally. No one in the world doubts now - or doubted then - how the US feels about the current Iranian leadership. If you do, you've been watching FOX News for too long and need to change the channel. Because outside of Glenn Beck no one really doubts this (oh, and that crazy lady on Morning Joe but I’m convinced that's just because she's stupid and makes things up on air... no one who is really smart really doubts this). Yes, there are some benefits to the US having Ahmadinejad in office - the man's batshit crazy so we look sane and measured when we tell him no nukes, and his resistance to Obama's willingness to talk only isolates him further and makes us look strong, confident and engaged. But, even with those benefits, the US - and the Obama administration - stood with the protesters and the international community does not doubt that. The Iranian people did not doubt that. Additionally, no one doubts the US position on the legitimacy of the election. There's no one in the *world* - sans ardent Ahmadinejad supporters in Iran and a few people who don't know anything about the election outside of Iran - who can look at this election and honestly say it's credible. Just because Barack isn't speaking out doesn't mean anyone thinks he's confused about this issue.

Now the Iranian people are a proud people. They have a right to be. If you’ve studied Persian art (it’s more than just rugs) or history, you know that Persia and Iran have a long and deep history of standing for human rights, of engaging with the Western state, of education, and of strength. They aren’t a nation to be bullied. And, for the most part, Iranians love their Islamic Republic. Our two countries have very different versions of what went down in ’79, so let me clarify what I’ve heard and read from the Iranian side so that we Americans can understand what we’re looking at: the ’79 Revolution proved to the Iranians that an unarmed but united people with truth and freedom on their side can defeat an armed oppressive regime. Their Shah, a brutal regime if ever there was one, was supported by the military and economic might of the US, which is how we earned out beloved nickname, the Great Statan. When they wanted him out, they were able to do it despite being over-matched in size and might. This was the Arab Spring before the Arab Spring ever came to be.  That's how the Iranians viewed '79.

Just like we have pride in our crazy state-federal divisions and our non-democratic electoral college (that makes us a Republic, just like a certain other country is a Republic), the Iranians feel pride in the structure they have. They believe the religious clerics are to act for justice and protect the people, while the democratic process allows people to vote for the President. Not everyone agrees with this regime or structure, but on the whole, mainstream Iranians have been satisfied with this. Attempts within Iran to undermine the structure and foundation of the Islamic Republic would be viewed as treason, just as would attempts to undermine the structure of the US government would be viewed here. They also have a general resistance to international interference, even to international aid. Iranians are sceptical and resistant to seeking non-Persian aid. It’s a lot like the US, as our government refused international aid and assistance following Hurricane Katrina.

With this background, let’s consider Barack’s options: (1) do what McCain attempted to bully him to do in 2009 - and what Ryan's telling us a Romney administration would do - and yell at the world about the corrupt election, call for new elections and greater freedom in the world, and insert ourselves into a tense situation for the benefit of our collective ego; or (2) decry the violence without intervening on the issue of the legitimacy of the elections at this time, letting Iran work its position out and then confronting the issue later after protesters are no longer on the street.

For the protesters, the first option would be disastrous. The Iranian regime is already making it sound like the protesters are puppets in the hands of western governments. For once, it's not *our* Western government - it's the British who were blamed for this one (for that fact alone, you have to know Barack is doing something right because if he *could* blame the US for the protests, he would. How often do you hear reports of Iranians shouting "Death to Britain?" If it happens, it's not nearly as frequent as the much more common chants "Death to America.")

But if Barack had taken the Romney / Ryan stance and called for nullifying the election, suddenly those accusations would shift from British interference to US interference. Iranian state television would continuously run clips of Barack calling for the nullification, pointing out that this is exactly what the opposition leaders have said. The proud Iranian people would pull back from any internal attempts to challenge the legitimacy of the election. The patriotism of the demonstrators would be called into question, and shouts of "Death to America" would thoroughly replace the current cries of "Death to the Dictator."

We can scream and shout all we want about how we just came in after the fact, but history would be on their side: the US has often intervened in the internal affairs of other states and it’s not far-fetched to imagine the US funding opposition campaigns. Identical calls from US leadership and the opposition forces would undermine the latter's credibility and suggest the Supreme Leader and Ahmadinejad were right. The protesters would be easily blamed and dismissed as people who want to undermine the Islamic Republic, giving in to the demands and will of the Great Satan. Those arrested and beaten would face far worse treatment than they are already being subjected to. The "Green Revolution" would die out quickly and the government would point to US involvement as justification for its actions this past week. A semblance of legitimacy would be restored to a thoroughly illegitimate government, if not internationally than domestically. This prediction is not mine alone, but one consistent with those expressed by Iranian opposition leaders and those “in the know.” The son of one of the leading mullahs in the opposition was on the Daily Show and said that the best course of action would be for the American people to write and demonstrate but for the American administration to stay out of it.

If Obama sticks to the current course – calling on the government to honour the human rights of the protesters while not addressing the issue of the election until after this whole series of events is concluded – who we are or what we’ve done in the past is a non-issue. We would allow the demonstrators to retain their rightful place in the dialogue. They are the ones who stand for Iran. They are the ones fighting for its reality and its protection against corruption and impunity. They are the ones relying on centuries of great Persian values of democracy and human rights and they represent the very embodiment of the spirit of the Revolution of '79. They have legitimacy in their efforts right now and should be allowed to handle the post-election process the way they see fit. And from what I’ve heard, the opposition may want the world to watch, but they don't want the world to *act.* Quite honestly, in addition to undermining the opposition, US interference through too harsh or loud a stand may actually alienate the opposition. They do not want to be perceived as a puppet administration, and they want the respect of legitimacy that comes from within their country - not from having an outside force declare their legitimacy.

So, if Barack followed the Romney / Ryan policy, we would have undermined the legitimacy of the “Green Revolution” and we would likely have alienated the very people we say we want to stand with. All for the sake of our egos. I'm not suggesting the US should sit by and say nothing.

But, “doing no harm”  in 2009 meant watching and keeping focus on the activities in Iran, decrying the violence and calling on Iran to abide by human rights, and waiting out the ongoing internal process. Once this was done, we could (and did) denounce the election as a fraud publicly and repeatedly. No one doubts we knew this and felt this from the start, but by waiting we weren't endangering the Green Revolution or the people of Iran. I know it's a hard feat for American egos - we like to be right and we like everyone to know we're right long before they have to admit it out loud - but on this occasion, our egos would be writing checks the bodies of Green Revolutionaries shouldn't have to cash.

Those sentiments remain today. If the Ryan position was around in 2009, we would be in a much worse position than we are now - as would the Iranian people.  Ryan's position reminds me of the young 20-something Western human rights activists who often go in and lecture local victims about what they should want and what they need to demand and how the Western human rights activist is going to save them. But in doing so, they drown out the voices of the people who actually know what's going on.  They start from a position of telling and never get around to listening, and in doing so they seriously harm the very people they proclaim they are going to save. Standing for democracy and human rights doesn't always require you to be the loudest protestor; sometimes it requires you to sit quietly but resolutely and ensure the voices of those who should be speaking are heard.  That's intelligent diplomacy.  And that's exactly what Ryan railed against last night because he is, in fact, full of malarkey.