Farewell, My Republic - A Threnody*

I’ve made no qualms about my love for most things Disney.  I grew up on their animated features and television programming.  Mom painted me a mural on my early childhood bedroom wall that had all the characters coming out of the castle.  I’m fascinated by the theme parks and what makes certain areas successful.  How they operate and grow through the years.  And I’ve grown to appreciate the life of Walt Disney.  His desire to continue to evolve and grow, tackling new and more challenging projects at each step, from animated shorts, to animated features, to live action features, to combining live action and animation, to theme parks, to television, and even to urban planning.

One part of my love is a great appreciation for theme park music, both ride attraction soundtracks and area music.  It’s something I can put on in the background while I work and continue to appreciate.  In particular, I greatly appreciate those Walt-era attractions, both the ones I’ve been able to personally experience and those that have not existed for years.

A particular favorite album collection is the 1964 World’s Fair attractions.  A four disc set, with each disc covering a different attraction and experience at the fair created by Walt and his team.  Ford’s Magic Skyway, GE’s Carousel of Progress, Pepsi’s it’s a small world, and Great Moments for Mr. Lincoln for the Illinois state pavilion.

That last album has been getting a lot of play recently, as the words of Lincoln continue to remain relevant today.  The show begins with a state song and summary of Lincoln’s life, before transitioning into the more familiar part of the show, an animatronic figure of Lincoln rising from a chair and delivering a five minute speech.  

The speech is actually a combination of five famous speeches made by Lincoln through his life, performed by actor Royal Dano.  The collection of speeches is designed to greatly reflect the challenges Lincoln faced in holding the country together in perhaps its most tumultuous time to that point.  To convey the weariness and stress of the President, Dano was required to provide take after take, with the last one ultimately being chosen; the weariness, soreness, and tiredness in his voice being just right.

My favorite section of the attraction comes from the Young Men’s Lyceum Address of January 27, 1838.  In this segment, Lincoln highlights the strength and fragility of the nation, ultimately revealing the only way our country can fall.  A statement that still proves true today.

How then shall we perform it?--At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?-- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.

In this segment of the speech, Lincoln is highlighting a truth we know today.  Against a foreign invader, a foreign enemy, we will coalesce and unite.  Pearl Harbor and 9/11 both remind us of this fact, pushing us together for the defense of the nation.  I remain convinced, no external threat could take America by force.  

They would first have to achieve Lincoln’s second truism.  To cause us to destroy ourselves from the inside.  Partisan fighting, tribalism, nativism, nationalism.  Isolationism.  America First, damn the consequences.  

When America falls, it’s at our own hands.

In the attraction, Lincoln skips to a later section of the speech, a plea for unification and dedication around the central unifying ideal at the foundation of the country: the rule of law.

Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap--let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.

Here, Lincoln isn’t speaking of specific letters of the law, not individual minutiae of specific legal provisions and regulations.  Rather, he is referring to the spirit of the law.  The idea of the rule of law and of the laws which underpin the foundation of our nation.  A reverence for the basic ideal of America.

For America has always been unique among countries.  Perhaps most striking in that there is really no true native child of the United States of America; there is no national identity of American.  What I mean by that, is that the nation, as a country again, has always been a collection of immigrants and their children united not by race, religion, ethnicity, or any of the traditional markers of a country, but instead united by a set of ideas.  The borders of our country outlining primarily the bounds of the people held together by those ideas.

Chief among those ideas is the rule of law - the idea that everyone is held accountable under the law.  We have no king that can claim privilege.  No notable exceptions.  We’re not perfect in execution, but as a principle, everyone from child to president is held accountable under the law.

To allow otherwise is to foster tyranny, and we were literally founded as a country to escape tyranny.

We wrote it in the Declaration of Independence and our foundational documents.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

We recognize these rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, belong to every person (not citizen), every human being on the planet because they are provided to them by God, foundational to their creation. They are not granted by a government and thus subject to being taken away by the whims of that government, but part of our birthright from the Divine.

Because of that, everyone is equal and accountable to the law. Again, sometimes we have forgotten and not acted accordingly. We’ve spent way to much of our history trying to define exactly who was included in “all men,” but the consensus and recognition now and continuing is that it means every human being.

Beyond those foundational human rights outlined in our Declaration, we highlighted other rights of people in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In the Constitution, we outlined a system of government with extensive checks and balances to make sure that no one branch or no individual could hold themselves above the law. The Legislature writes the laws and brings them into effect. The Executive can put a check on that by vetoing the bill, but that can be overturned by the Legislature if there is sufficient agreement. The Executive then enforces the law as written, but can determine implementation. The Judiciary can check both the law as written and evaluate its Constitutionality, as well as weighing the Executive’s implementation of the law. Did the Executive overstep its authority, etc? All parties keep each other in check and those checks are to be respected. If the court deems something unconstitutional, the Legislative can try to write another law addressing the issues, or the Executive can try alternative enforcement. The checks cannot just be ignored.

Likewise, we wrote into the Bill of Rights limitations on any government branch acting against people’s rights. It is imperative to remember, these rights apply to people within the borders of the United States or its jurisdictions, not just citizens. These are fundamental human rights, and the Bill of Rights outlines limitations on how the government can act in response to them.

Rights of free speech and association
The right to a free press
The right to be secure in your personal, house, papers, and effects from unreasonable search and seizure
The right to due process

These last two are especially important, as we recognized that it is not enough for us to achieve a “right” outcome in any legal proceeding. We demand that things be done in the right manner.

These are what make America - not color, not race, not ethnicity, not status or any other defining characteristic. Our recognition of these rights as human rights and our protection of them are what define us.

And when we begin to systematically dismantle them, we are no longer America.

When we refuse to allow protest on college campuses because of the topic being protested and prosecute private universities because of their curriculum and policies which disagree with the administration’s thoughts.
When we strip access of the Associated Press to the White House press pool and install a cherry-picked group of “media” personnel
When the administration threatens suit against news organizations that have provided unfavorable coverage
When we allow ICE to invade churches and schools to “pursue” non-citizens, placing children in handcuffs to remove them from the country
When we deport individuals not to their country of origin, but to a gulag in El Salvador
When we deport individuals without any pretext of a hearing or judicial process
When we detain individuals including citizens because of the color of their skin matching the undocumented profile
When we turn away tourists at the door because their plans didn’t match government expectations
When we go through individuals phones to determine their eligibility to re-enter the country based on their social media posts regarding the current administration

When we make toddlers represent themselves in deportation hearings

Especially when the administration ignores the rulings of the Judiciary which have determined executive actions to violate these fundamental rights and proceeds anyway.

The deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia should be chilling to every single person in America. When any person, citizen or not, under the jurisdiction of the United States is sent to a foreign gulag admittedly by mistake and the government spends weeks minimizing its error, ignoring lower court orders to return him (especially given his protected status from his 2019 immigration hearing), ignores the part of a unanimous Supreme Court decision that direct the administration facilitate his return, and then digs in its heels, determined to leave him there, the entire populace of the country should be outraged. We should demand the administration correct its mistake and do things properly.

For that’s the point - it doesn’t matter if ultimately under the current administration, Garcia would be in line to be deported anyway. We demand something better of our government. Our foundational documents demand something better of our government. We demand that the government do things in the correct order, in the correct manner.

It’s the same in any criminal prosecution. It doesn’t matter whether the accused truly did the crime or not, if law enforcement and the prosecution do not handle the case in the appropriate manner. If law enforcement obtain the evidence illegally, it’s inadmissible. If the prosecution tampers with the jury pool, their verdict is null.

This stems from a fundamental principle that we would rather a guilty man go free than an innocent man be imprisoned. We feared the abuse of the Executive power that much. We feared that without proper restraint on the Executive, without risking guilty men going free because of improper methods in prosecution, that there would be far too many innocent men imprisoned, because its easy for the Executive to do.

It is what happens under tyranny. The Executive is able to penalize and imprison anyone they wish.

It’s what Washington feared in his farewell address. It’s what Lincoln immediately addressed after noting the country would only perish at its own hands.

I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth, and an insult to our intelligence, to deny.

The dismantling of due process, the determination that a subset of the populace does not deserve due process, is beyond a Constitutional Crisis.  We’ve long crossed that threshold. 

It’s an attack on the fundamental character of the nation.

And we know the administration recognizes this.  They’ve admitted they are dismantling due process.  Trump has stated that if he were to actually follow the requirements of due process for all those they intent to deport, it would take 200 years.  

They don’t care and they are doing it anyway.

What remains is to see how long they continue to ignore court orders to do so.  As of now, it seems our checks and balances are failing.  The administration has decided to play chicken with the courts arrogant in its position.  So far, we’ve had no punitive action from the court - no contempt finding, no removal of licensure, etc.  It remains unseen whether they have the will to do so, or the power.  

This used to not be a political issue.  The idea that character mattered; that how things are done matter as much as the outcome used to be a Conservative rally point.

What changed?

In 1787, when Benjamin Franklin left the Constitutional Convention, a lady famously asked Franklin, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic, or a monarchy?”  Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

And keep it we have, for nearly 240 years.  It’s been tried and tested, but keep it we have.

I don’t know how much longer we can continue. It really feels like our government is no longer trying to keep the republic, but actively dismantling it.

We have witnessed in just 93 days, a constant undermining of the rule of law and of fundamental rights of people by the current administration.  And by many it has been met with thunderous applause.  The urge for authoritarianism has proved too seductive, too appealing, such that we are sliding back into authoritarianism and there appears to be no stop to this progression - only forward momentum.

For the rest of us, we mourn.

To quote Lincoln again, “the bottom is out of the barrel.”

Oh the country will remain, but can we keep the ideal any longer?

Our questions now are whether it is possible to win back, what is the cost to restore it, and are we willing to pay that steep of a cost.

Is there anyone left willing to fight?

*Threnody is a fun word and was almost not the choice for today.  It refers to a work of mourning composed or performed as a memorial to a dead person.  I almost chose requiem, but that refers to music and there is no music here.  Since threnody covers a greater variety of media, it seems more appropriate.

What is Ordo Amoris?

 

JD VANCE: There is a Christian concept that you love your family and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens, and then after that, prioritize the rest of the world

A lot of the far left has completely inverted that pic.twitter.com/XkoTiKgq3g

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) January 30, 2025

 

Just google “ordo amoris.” Aside from that, the idea that there isn’t a hierarchy of obligations violates basic common sense. Does Rory really think his moral duties to his own children are the same as his duties to a stranger who lives thousands of miles away? Does anyone? https://t.co/otvv5g1wFN

— JD Vance (@JDVance) January 30, 2025

 

Time for a bit of seminary.

Thanks to a bit of discourse JD Vance engaged in, we have our next big question. 

What is ordo amoris?  

The Vice President appeared on Fox News to discuss the administration’s immigration policies and picked up an emergent thread in conservative circles regarding the “sin” of empathy, arguing the political left carries empathy too far and attempted to shrink the bounds of empathy to a closer circle of people.  From the quote, highlighted in the tweet above, “There is a Christian concept that you love your family and then love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens, and then after that, prioritize the rest of the world.”

It’s a great quote and it’s a great sound bite.  

The problem is that it is a stretch and a misstatement of the Christian concept.

As many in the subsequent days, including Vance himself, have pointed out, Vance seemed to be trying to highlight the theological concept of ordo amoris, or “ordered love”.   

The concept comes from the work of St. Augustine in The City of God.  Augustine believed that true virtue and moral goodness stem from properly aligning our affections and desires with what is truly valuable and worthy. Thus, God’s love must be centralized in reordering our affections.  Our ultimate fulfillment then lies in the pursuit of virtue and moral goodness required the proper ordering of our desires, with God as the ultimate object of love and devotion.

“But if the Creator is truly loved — that is, if He Himself is loved, and not something else in place of Him — then He cannot be wrongly loved. We must, however, observe right order even in our love for the very love by which we love that which is worthy to be loved, so that there may be in us that virtue which enables us to live well. Hence, it seems to me that a brief and true definition of virtue is ‘rightly ordered love.’” (City of God, XV.22).

We can see the genesis of Augustine’s theories in Jesus’s encapsulation of the commandments.   “And he said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.  This is the great and first commandment.  And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  On these two commandments depend all the Law and Prophets.’”  Matthew 22:37-40.  In these two, Jesus is likewise tying the order of love together.  To love others, we must love God first, and to love God is to love our neighbor.  

C.S. Lewis described this relationship in his letters.  “To love you as I should, I must worship God as Creator. When I have learnt to love God better than my earthly dearest, I shall love my earthly dearest better than I do now. In so far as I learn to love my earthly dearest at the expense of God and instead of God, I shall be moving towards the state in which I shall not love my earthly dearest at all. When first things are put first, second things are not suppressed but increased.” Letters of C. S. Lewis.  To do otherwise, is to create idols in one’s relationships.  We’ve all seen these.  The parents that have made idols of their children and lift of their children as the greatest importance in their lives.  The spouses that lift up their mate as their idol, prioritizing their mate to the exclusion of all else.  It’s not to say these relationships aren’t important or that making them a priority is bad.  It’s when it comes out of order that a person’s life is unhealthy.  But that is a sermon for another time.

Vance doesn’t include God in his list of loves, so it’s hard to determine if his list would follow the concept of ordo amoris or not.

His comments instead seem to go to a related concept discussed by Thomas Aquinas.  Ordo caritatis, or the order of charity, a concept in which the application of our love, or of how our affection is expressed is directed to those more closely related to us.  This principle is outlined by St. Paul in his letter to Timothy.  “But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” 1 Timothy 5:8.   Aquinas ordered love as follows:

• God
• Ourselves, as a man ought to love himself more than his neighbor
• Our neighbors
• Our bodies, as a man ought to love his neighbor more than his body

“On this respect we love all men equally out of charity: because we wish them all one same generic good, namely everlasting happiness. Secondly love is said to be greater through its action being more intense: and in this way we ought not to love all equally.” STh q. 26, a. 6.  Our love therefore applies universally, but our charity is not distributed equally.  The degree of our charity is then applied according to our proximity.  In friendship, in kinship, in nationality, in physical space, etc.  “Moreover there is yet another reason for which, out of charity, we love more those who are more nearly connected with us, since we love them in more ways. For, towards those who are not connected with us we have no other friendship than charity, whereas for those who are connected with us, we have certain other friendships, according to the way in which they are connected.” STh q. 26, a. 6.

This is just common sense.  Of course we love those closest to us in different ways.  The bonds are stronger, we go to greater distances for them.  

It is not, however, a good philosophy for foreign policy, nor is it exactly applicable to our current immigration issue.  First, as foreign policy, we would have to assess at a broader scale the concept of our neighbor.  Who is the United States neighbors?  Is it just Canada and Mexico, literal proximate neighbors?  And of late, it doesn’t seem like we are acting too charitably to them.  Is it the countries we share kinship with, like the United Kingdom?  Or friendship or our allies?  What is the neighbor to a country?  Vance would like this to be just another part of America First, but it ignores a much deeper concept.

Secondly, with regard to immigration, we are largely dealing with an issue that is here already.  The issue is proximate.  It’s at our door.  So the question is more how we treat the stranger that is already among us than the foreigner that is very distant.  

Here, I think John Calvin gives perhaps the greatest critique.

"Now, since Christ has shown in the parable of the Samaritan that the term 'neighbor' includes even the most remote person (Luke 10:36), we are not expected to limit the precept of love to those in close relationships.

I do not deny that the more closely a man is linked to us, the more intimate obligation we have to assist him. It is the common habit of mankind that the more closely men are abound together by the ties of kinship, of acquaintanceship, or of neighborhood, the more responsibilities for one another they share. This does not offend God; for his providence, as it were leads us to it.

BUT I say: we ought to embrace the whole human race without exception in a single feeling of love; here there is no distinction between barbarian and Greek, worthy and unworthy, friend and enemy, since all should be contemplated in God, not in themselves.

When we turn aside from such contemplation, it is no wonder we become entangled in many errors. Therefore, if we rightly direct our love, we must first turn our eyes not to man, the sight of whom would more often engender hate than love, but to God, who bids us extend to all men the love we bear to him, that this may be an unchanging principle: whatever the character of the man, we must yet love him because we love God."     John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 8, Section 55.

As Calvin outlines, this is the whole point of the parable of the Good Samaritan.  Remember, the parable of the Good Samaritan comes in Luke immediately following Jesus outlining the two greatest commandments.  A young student of the law asked Jesus what he must do to attain eternal life and Jesus asked him the commandments.  The student repeated the two commandments Jesus stated above. Jesus then acknowledged his correct statement.  

The young student of the law had to ask one more question.  Luke adds, desiring to justify himself, the lawyer asked, “Who is my neighbor?”

The lawyer, the pharisees then and now wanted a neat box tied around who their responsibility to love covered.  Fellow Israelites would be certain.  Showing hospitality to foreigners and travelers was to be expected.  But surely Jesus could not expect them to love a Samaritan, or worse, a Roman.

Jesus responds with a familiar story that I've written about before.  He tells of a Levite and a priest that pass by the injured man and worry more about themselves. What will happen to me if I touch this man?  Will I be defiled?  What has he done to deserve such a fate?  It's important to note that both the Levite and the priest could not imagine themselves in the man's position.  They could not empathize enough to see his need for assistance, so they crossed on the other side of the road to avoid him.

The Samaritan on the other hand worried about what would happen to the man if he did nothing.  Perhaps, the Samaritan could imagine himself in a similar situation.  He knew the treachery of the road and saw how it could have easily been him in that fate.

From the story, we see that the only response to Jesus' question at the end, asking who was the neighbor to the man who fell to robbers, is "he who showed mercy on him."  We see that all we come in contact with are people who are our neighbors.  And we have the opportunity to be neighborly in response by being the ones who show mercy and love.

Who we are called to love in our order of love, who we are called to those in our order of charity is those that God has brought into our paths.  We focus on that proximate connection.  The one that God has ordained and brought around us.  Not just the nice ones.  Not just the ones we choose.  Not just the convenient ones. 

Our order of love extends to the messy ones, the broken ones, the bleeding ones, the inconvenient ones that are brought in our circles.  The ones that don’t look like us.  The ones that we disagree with.  The ones that we have no other connection beyond a creator.  And especially the ones where we have no other connection than a faith, as we love our family in Christ.

So here, it calls us to care for and love to the migrant among us.  The refugee.  

They are here.  They are our neighbors.

For, the order of our love is in God’s control, not ours.  So let’s stop trying to justify ourselves.  Let’s stop putting limits on what God has called us to.

And if you need more encouragement…

"You shall not wrong nor oppress the stranger, for you were strangers in the Land of Egypt"  Exodus 22:20

"The strangers who reside with you shall be to you as your citizens … for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."  Leviticus 19:34

"For the Eternal your God is God supreme and Lord supreme, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who shows no favor and takes no bribe, but upholds the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, providing food and clothing — you too must love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."  Deuteronomy 10:18-19

“Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.” Romans 12:13

“Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling.” 1 Peter 4:9

“Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.”  Hebrews 13:2

“Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined.”  Titus 1:8

“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in.”  Matthew 25:35

“Dear friend, you are faithful in what you are doing for the brothers and sisters, even though they are strangers to you. They have told the church about your love. Please send them on their way in a manner that honors God. It was for the sake of the Name that they went out, receiving no help from the pagans. We ought therefore to show hospitality to such people so that we may work together for the truth.”  3 John 1:5-8

Punching Down

I’ve been thinking a lot about why Trump’s recent actions and foreign policy bother me so, and I think I’ve identified it.  There’s a concept , a maxim in civilized culture, that you never punch down.  If violence, force, even comedy needs to be used, it should always be used laterally or upwardly.

“Punching down” is a concept that has come from the world of comedy.  It speaks of the idea to attack or criticize someone who is in a worse or less powerful position than you.  Simply, in comedy, you make fun of the rich and powerful, not the marginalized.

To put another way, you don’t attack those that are smaller, less powerful, less able than you.  You only go after those who are bigger than you, stronger than you, more powerful than you.  You go after those that are abusing their power.  You go after those who are punching down on others.

Punching down makes you a bully.  You are preying on a power imbalance to force your way.

And it’s quite clear today, that America is now the great bully of the world.

There are those that would have claimed we were before this administration and recent actions.  And there are times in our past when they would have been correct.

We are at one of those times now.

For Trump to initiate trade wars with Canada and Mexico, to seek territory from Denmark and Panama, to remove the protection and aid we provide to the rest of the world, turns us into the bully.  We are definitively punching down.  

We’re not going toe to toe with China and Russia, our economic and military rivals.  We’re not holding them accountable for their actions in the world.  We’re not acting on behalf of smaller countries like Ukraine, that are being pushed around by those same superpowers.  We’re not seeking to lift up or support those countries and societies that need our aid.

We’re looking to force our way on everyone else.

We’re the bully.  We who used to see our role as the great protector of freedom around the world, are now the world’s bully.

And there are honestly people who think we can keep up the trade wars and tank Canada’s economy to make them our territory.  That we can do the same to Denmark to make them give us Denmark.  And we can pressure Panama to make them give us back the canal.

We’re just taking the lunch money away from the world, right?  I mean, we do see that these are mob tactics, right?

As if there would be no consequences.

Why does this sit well with so many people?  Were there that many Republicans that were just waiting to bully the rest of the world back into submission?  Is that who you are?

Is it how we want to be perceived?

No seriously, I’m asking, does our public perception matter any more?  Does it matter if the rest of the world sees us as their protective older brother?

Or are we okay with being the school yard thug?

Writing in the Age of Trump

There are days when the writing just flows.  Where the ideas are coming left and right and can move to the fingers very easily.   Where emotion, frustration, inspiration, or celebration make it easy to share and to document.  

On the other hand, there are days where nothing comes.  No ideas. No even an inkling.  Just completely at a loss.  Writer’s block.  Hit the wall.  Done.

But writing in the age of Trump has a third problem. 

There’s no shortage of ideas.  In fact, it’s overwhelming.  There is so much to be frustrated by, saddened by, angered by, to the point where there are topics that could go on for days.  Our government, our country is being dismantled piece by piece and handed over to the world’s richest man to do with as he pleases.  We should all be enraged and moved to action.

And yet, it’s so overwhelming, it’s so all-encompassing, it’s hard to sit with.  It’s all coming so fast and from some many different directions, it’s impossible to keep up.  

There’s no time to react, there’s no time to grieve, you just have to move on to the next thing and pray it’s not as bad as what came before.

It creates a different type of writer’s block.  An overwhelming paralysis moving to apathy.  So much we care about is being utterly destroyed, that it’s getting hard to care about any single piece. 

And that’s where I’ve been.  These first two weeks have been overwhelming and dizzying.  It’s been hard to process it all and to determine what can be prioritized to discuss.   

Plus there is the overwhelming need to remove all expletives from my vocabulary before I start to write, because otherwise, this would be a very different blog.

And that’s the point of this whole blitz.  They are trying to break all resistance in addition to everything else.  They are trying to wear us down to the point where we don’t care anymore.  To where we don’t speak up, don’t fight back, just let it pass by.

We can’t let that happen.  

Take a break.  Take a breath.  Step away and relax.  

Listen to comedians to help diffuse the blow.

Implement time constraints on social media and the news.  

But don’t become numb to it. 

It all still matters.  None of this is normal. None of this is appropriate.  Much of this is illegal.

We have to remember it.  

We just have to be prepared to keep it up.  It’s going to be a long four years.

What is Birthright Citizenship?

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1

In the flurry of his first handful of days in office, Trump has handed down a wide assortment of executive orders.  All following the Project 2025 playbook.  All expected following the promises or threats he made in the campaign, touching on his favorite topics:  gender issues, government bureaucracy, isolationism, and immigration enforcement to name a few. 

Under immigration enforcement, Trump released probably his most controversial executive order.   Executive Order Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.  A lot of words to make his end goal sound a lot nicer and more legitimate than it deserves.  Put simply, this is his order to end birthright citizenship.

Which raises the question asked today - what is birthright citizenship?

Put simply, birthright citizenship is the idea that citizenship in a country results from the circumstances surrounding one’s birth.  Not from race, religion, ethnic heritage, or creed, but by nature of birth.  In America, birthright citizenship is obtained either by being born in a United States state or territory or by being born as the child of at least one United States citizen, regardless of location.  The first essentially saying anyone born in America is an American, and the second saying the children of Americans are American wherever they are born.

It’s the simplest form of citizenship, in complete contrast to naturalization or the legal immigration process.  Immigrants become citizens through a naturalization process involving applications and interviews and tests and oaths.  Birthright citizens are born here.

The concept is one entrenched in our constitutional amendments.   The Fourteenth Amendment, a cornerstone piece of our jurisprudence, lays its foundation simply and perfectly in the first section of the Amendment. 

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” [emphasis added]

The Amendment was written as a response to the infamous Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) case, in which African Americans were denied citizenship regardless of the location of their birth or their status as free men (given the times).  The Fourteenth Amendment in response, confirmed the citizenship of those people and their entitlement to representation in our government.

It’s settled law and a foundational piece of our civil rights.

It’s been confirmed, affirmed, and expanded upon in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

And now, Trump is determined to destroy it, all to remove the possibility of ‘anchor babies,’ or women coming to America, legally or illegally, just to have their child born in America and become a citizen by birth.

The United States of America as a country is unique in many ways, but perhaps most striking in that there is really no true native child of the United States of America.  What I mean by that, is that the nation, as a country again, has always been a collection of immigrants and their children united not by race, religion, ethnicity, or any of the traditional markers of a country, but instead united by a set of ideas.  The borders of our country outlining primarily the bounds of the people held together by those ideas.  

In that respect, it makes sense that our citizenship generally was provided by the “right of the soil”, jus soli.  The idea that, indeed, this land was made for you and me, and that those who were born here, regardless of family history and background, could be part of that united idea.

It’s baked into the concepts and precepts that we teach and proclaim regarding what it means to be an American.  To be part of this great melting pot.  “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”  The promise of coming here and that those born here are born in the “land of opportunity.”

In all, there are around 30 countries which maintain this idea of the right of the soil, most in the Americas, including Canada and Mexico.  In some ways a recognition that this “New World” would have new ideas about citizenship and what makes a country.

Trump’s policy would be to revert to a very old idea.  The “right of blood.”  Jus sanguinis.  To be a citizen is to be born of citizens.  To be “full blooded American.”  As is that had any basis in our history.  

I don’t mean to diminish the concept citizenship being passed by parentage.  This is a part of the current basis for our citizenship.  It’s how American’s traveling abroad for pleasure, work, or duty, that happen to birth a child outside the United States, can still bring that child home and have it be a citizen.  

But it’s the exception or the outlier, not the primary rule.

I get it, to many, this is quibbling over semantics.  Over a small change in the workings of the law, but it represents a fundamental shift in how we perceive ourselves and our country.  If citizenship is only passed by blood, or granted to those we deem worthy through naturalization (which is a grueling process), then we are saying America is no longer an idea, but a defined set of people and it’s closed.  The Golden Door is slammed shut.

We’re not different than any other nation.  We’re not better or unique.  America as that great experiment is done.

And that seems to really be the case if we’re okay with sending ICE agents into an elementary school during school hours, as they were today in Chicago.

It is important to note that a federal judge has recently blocked Trump’s executive order from taking effect, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”  U.S. District Judge Coughenour in Seattle expressed  incredulity at how any member of the Bar could argue this order was Constitutional.  Judge Coughenour will hear further argument on February 6.

Of extreme irony in the matter, is how the United States Justice Department defended this order, by arguing that the children of Native Americans aren’t US Citizens.  That’s right, they argued that the people who have the most right to be considered part of this country are not citizens.  They relied on an old Supreme Court case Elk v Wilkins from 1884, in which the court found because members of Native American tribes owe allegiance to their tribe first and foremost, that they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as provided for in the Amendment and were then not constitutionally entitled to citizenship.  In the first place it’s a stretch argument and one overturned by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.  In the second, it’s an incredible reach to apply it to today.

It just goes to show the extremes Trump will go to in order to make sure his agenda, or Project 2025, be achieved.  Damn the consequences.

Hopefully the rest of us can maintain the memory of what we were.

“‘Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!’ cries she

With silent lips. ‘Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!’”

What is Sanctuary?

On Tuesday, January 21, 2025, the Trump administration reversed a decade old guidance which previously restricted key immigration enforcement agencies from carrying out enforcement in sensitive locations like schools and churches.  “This action empowers the brave men and women in CBP and ICE to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens — including murderers and rapists — who have illegally come into our country. Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest.”

Time for a new question inserted and this question is mine.  

What is Sanctuary and how important is it?   

It’s one that came to my mind from the news above.  And one I feel needs to be continued to be reviewed again and again. 

What follows is a revision of a discussion that has been posted here before.  And one I imagine that will continue to be added to and revised throughout the tenure of this blog.

See, I love The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I've been listening to the cast album from the Paper Mill Playhouse production and it has quickly become one of my favorite musical compositions. The moment, of course, that always stands out to me is when Quasimodo finally breaks his chains and fights back against Frollo, yelling "Sanctuary" over and over, claiming Notre Dame as a place of refuge for all.

And that got me thinking...

When did the Church stop being a Sanctuary for all?

I know the specific laws of Sanctuary have long been overturned and those had their own unique problems, but there is something truly Christ-like about the image of anyone regardless of their background and sin being able to enter the church and claim sanctuary.

And it just doesn't seem like we live up to that any more. It seems we are more interested in the privileges and perks afforded our members, making sure they are well taken care of, than in providing refuge to the weary. A spa or country club as opposed to a fortress and refuge from the battle outside.

It's time to be honest. How do we act when a stranger comes in to the church? Does it depend on the stranger?

If a Muslim sought protection from a group of persecutors or if a homosexual person sought refuge from the same, would it be extended? Or would the church and its members be more likely to be the ones persecuting them?

Is the church out there speaking up for Black lives, or is it insisting the whole thing has just been stirred up by the media?  Claiming "All Lives Matter" in the face of specific hurts to specific populations?  Generally true, but not helpful?  

Perhaps most pressing today - will the church stand in the gap and declare itself holy ground and refuse to allow ICE to raid the building?

Do we believe in that separation of church and state?  Do we believe in protecting the family that needs protection?  Do we believe in hospitality to the stranger among us?  

Do we believe the words of Jesus, or do we not?

Are we just another arm of the government?

Does it even matter to anyone but me?

We have got to as the body of Christ take a very hard look at ourselves and what we’ve aligned ourselves with.  How we’ve allowed ourselves to be seen and where we are taking Christ’s name.    It’s the broader question in what is a Christian, but this part just needed to be asked today.  

Because this goes more to the distinction between church and Christianity.  Even begging the question what is church or what is a church?  Is there something special about a church, that distinguishes it from any other space.  Prior to this revocation, we recognized it as something set apart.  Something that should not be invaded.  People should be able to be safe in their place of worship and we should not interfere with that.  

Likewise, the church has an important function that makes it separate from the government.  The government’s focus should be on the health, safety, and prosperity of the physical state of their populace.  The church focuses on the health, safety, and prosperity of the populace’s soul.  

Often the two intertwine.  Meeting physical needs and caring for the least of these helps not only lift spirits but take care of the physical body.  To that end, we’ve often relied on the nations churches for their charity work in taking care of the physical needs of the greater population (sometimes improperly at the expense of government intervention).  

Similarly, the our government’s founding documents make preserving the right to free exercise of religion, a protection of the physical act that also leads to the care for the soul.

The differences between the two mean that there comes a point where two also hold each other accountable.  Government is supposed to intervene and protect its citizens from abuse by the church.  Government should absolutely be called to bring those pastors, priests, and lay leadership who have committed sexual abuse under the “protection” of church leadership, for example.  That is not something that could or should be left to the church.

Further, the church must be responsible to hold government of all stripes accountable for its actions and policies.  To demand justice where appropriate.  To seek peace where needed.  And to ask for mercy as is appropriate, as Bishop Budde just plead.

That call for mercy is appropriate here.  A call for mercy and for thoughtfulness in how to resolve this issue.  A call for justice beyond the letter of the law, appealing to its spirit.

And I know, I’m going to hear the constant replies of how the families and individuals at the heart of these raids are breaking the law and how we have to be apart of making sure the laws of our country are followed.  

Perhaps it’s just me, and I’m sorry, but all I keep hearing are repeated questions of “Who is my neighbor?” and repeated attempts to redefine what that parable actually meant.  I’ve seen that whole discourse online before.  

I know many are trying. I just pray that we can do better, because it seems as a whole we keep missing the point.

“God help the outcasts, or nobody will.”

Because, if we needed any other reason beyond empathy - at some point, we’ll be the outcast and there will be no one there for us.

I’m including below a graphic on reminders for how to proceed if ICE does try to raid your church.  It’s really a good reminder for how to interact with law enforcement in order to preserve your rights in any respect, especially if you suspect you will be going through prosecution.  The biggest piece of advice I can give is to have an attorney you are prepared to consult in the event of a raid.  

"Thus says the Lord: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place." Jeremiah 22:3

"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in." Matthew 25:35

What is an Oligarchy?

“That’s why, in my farewell address tonight, I want to warn the country of some things that give me great concern. And this is the dangerous concer- — and that’s the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of very few ultra-wealthy people, and the dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked.

Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.

We see the consequences all across America. And we’ve seen it before, more than a century ago. But the American people stood up to the robber barons back then and busted the trusts.

They didn’t punish the wealthy. They just made the wealthy pay the by — play by the rules everybody else had to. Workers won rights to earn their fair share. You know, they were dealt into the deal, and it helped put us on the path to building the largest middle class and the most prosperous century any nation the world has ever seen, and we’ve got to do that again.”

President Joe Biden, Farewell Address, January 15, 2025

President Biden delivered his farewell address on January 15, 2025.  While Biden himself would admit he is not the greatest orator, the speech is a good speech.  It’s well written and reflective and accomplishes what a farewell address is supposed to do.  He highlighted America’s strengths and reflected on the accomplishments of his administration.  Then he provided a warning for the future.  One in which he warned Americans of the concentration of power in the hands of select few.  

He warned Americans of an oligarchy taking root.

And so, for the rest of the day and into January 16, 2025, the top trending search no Google was “what is an oligarchy?”

I don’t know if this speaks more to interest or to a failure in our Civics education that we are googling the answer, but here we are.  Our first Big Question of 2025.   One whose importance was highlighted at Trump’s second inauguration.

And one I wish I still had my notes from a certain “-Isms” test to answer, but I’ll do my best in the interim.  For at least this question has a definitional answer.  We can talk about what constitutes an oligarchy and discuss examples of it.  Beyond that, we also have to discuss why it matters now.

First, definitions.

An oligarchy is government by the few.  A power structure in which the power rests with a small number of people.  We contrast this with a monarchy, in which power rests with one person, or a democracy, where power rests with a large number of people.  The oligarchy rests somewhere in between.  No set number, but just recognizing all the power rests with a defined subset of people.

The people in the group are usually distinguishable from the general populace in certain specific ways.  Nobility, education, fame, wealth, or some sort of degree of control.  Military control, religious control, economic control, political control.

Generally, today, we focus on economic control.  A group of the wealthy.  As it goes, money makes the world go round.  Money buys influence and political power.  Money can buy fame.  

This puts us in a subset of the oligarchy - the plutocracy.  Rule by the wealthy elite, where wealth rather than merit controls.

Our most recognized current example is Russia.  Since the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the general view is that Russia has been ruled by a class of individuals with significant economic power intertwined with the role of the President. A group of individual leaders in the energy, natural resources, and metals sectors, overseeing and working through President Putin.  A list of around 13 individuals controlling the direction of the Russian Federation.  These are the people our sanctions against Russia have targeted - not the country specifically, but these wealthy individuals that can effectuate change in the country.

In America, we can look at examples in our past of economic oligarchies.  We called these trusts or monopolies.  Collusion by a few companies to control a particular market.  Standard Oil, American Tobacco, US Steel.  Power in the hands of specific conglomerates, allowing for rampant abuse in the market.  Price fixing, income inequality, strong arm elimination of competition, worker abuse.  All so the small group in charge could remain in charge.

Commentators have been more recently rising alarms about an oligarchy in modern America, as we’ve seen continued increases in the power of the financial elites.  The Supreme Court in Citizens United removed campaign donation limits, seemingly okay with the wealthy being able to buy politicians.  Former President Jimmy Carter described America afterwards as “an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery.” 

A 2014 political science study found evidence that the United States’ political system does not primarily reflect the preferences of its average citizens.  Analysis of policy outcomes between 1981 and 2002 suggested that the wealthy and business groups held substantial and disproportionate influence over political decisions, to the detriment of the majority of Americans.

Which brings us to today.  

To the inauguration on Monday in which the seats normally reserved for state governors were filled by the tech industry elites.   Tech industry billionaires all currying favor with the incoming and returning president.  Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Shou Zi Chew, Sunar Pichai, and Sam Altman.  Tesla/SpaceX,Twitter, Facebook/Meta, Amazon, Apple, TikTok, Google, and OpenAI.  Combined they represent around over $1 trillion in wealth.  To put that in perspective, the combined wealth of the bottom fifty percent of Americans or around 170 million people is just less than $4 trillion.   Disparity and income inequality on a factor it’s hard to fathom. All there in seats of prominence at this most recent transfer of power.

The more concerning part is that all of these CEOs represent control over our modern media.  Social media platforms, devices, satellite internet, and servers.  That does not even start on e-commerce.  Put simply, these CEOs can control the information that we receive and how it flows between us.  They can decide what is acceptable information and what is misinformation.  What fits their agenda and what does not.

The power of these companies and their leaders is concerning in and of itself.  Their intertwining with President Trump is downright alarming.  This is why so many people have had concerns regarding Elon’s connectedness to the President.  There have already been questions about his election interference in this recent election via Twitter(X).  We will only see those grow.  

America is structured as a constitutional republic because we recognize that real power should belong to the people and should be acted on by their representatives to prevent mob mentality.  It should be purposefully diffused.  It’s why we have separation of powers, why we wrote in checks and balances, why we have historically busted trusts and fought against monopolies.  

This should be an apolitical issue.  Something all sides could agree upon.  

We should all refuse to allow any group of wealthy elites to exert influence over our government and country.  But I fear, this has just become another political hotbed.  The Republican Party and MAGA sect seem to love and respect Elon Musk and are excited for his influence in the government, thanks to the Department of Government Efficiency push.  Trump has scored major points by reinstating TikTok, and Zuckerberg is showing his alignment by removing fact checking.  

What remains to us is to resist.  

We should hold our representatives accountable to oppose the oligarchic intrusion.  We should push our representatives for strong antitrust measures.  To reinstate common sense campaign finance restrictions.  To demand our elected officials make appropriate divestitures and not profit off their time in office (looking at you TrumpCoin). 

You know, things we used to expect and demand.

In the interim, we just have to keep reminding ourselves this is not normal.  This is not how things are supposed to work.

That will remain a thread in all of these entries coming up.

It's The Guns

Once louder for those in the back, and for those who are intentionally refusing to listen...

IT'S THE GUNS!

When, when can we admit that the guns have at least some part to play in the continued rise in deaths from gun violence.  Are we that far gone?

This is tough to write, as the topic continues to make me want to swear or be uncharitable.  My anger over our inability to act continues to rise with each and every event.  Particularly following the ridiculously predictable response we get every single time.  Even down to being able to write the tweets our leadership will share.

Saturday afternoon, May 6, 2023, a gunman opened fire at an outlet mall in Allen, Texas, murdering eight people and injuring seven.  The victims range in age from 5 years old to 61 years old.  The attacker was killed by the police.

There have been 199 mass shootings in the country since the beginning of the year.  This is the second most deadly shooting this year.

And just like always, we see the same response.  Thoughts and prayers.  It's not the guns, it's mental health.  We can't do anything about the guns.  

Blah, blah, blah.

All such drivel.

First, I don't want to diminish thoughts and prayers.  They are powerful.  Prayer can move mountains, truly.  I can point to the times of my life where I have been prayed through.  Where I only survived because of the prayers of others.

But we belittle the very purpose and power of prayer when we make it the very least we can do and leave it there.  When we leave it as a simple bon mot response.  If we do nothing else, the faith behind those prayers is dead.  Our faith should be compelling us to some kind of change to make this stop.

And second, I'd believe the line about mental health being a genuine attempt to affect change if the people making that statement weren't also the people voting down every attempt to improve our mental health system in this country.  It's almost as if they know mental health alone is not the solution and they are just looking to deflect.

At some point, and who knows when, we have to be honest and admit that the guns are part of the problem.  

To admit that we, as a country, have a problem with guns.

Specifically, that we have an addiction.

We're addicted to guns.

It's the definition of an addiction, right.  I'm mean, when you propose that the solution involves more of the problem, that's an addiction.  We'll solve gun violence with more guns?  Just like I can solve my overeating with more cake?

We're addicted to guns and we're butchering the Second Amendment to foster that addiction.

Let’s start by clarifying what the Second Amendment actually says. It does not just state “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The full Second Amendment reads “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” This is important because the “well regulated Militia” and “necessary to the security of a free State” are so often ignored, when they are so closely tied to the right in the text itself.

That's because, prior to 2008, the Second Amendment was not recognized as a personal right to bear arms protected by the Constitution.  The Constitutional Second Amendment, prior to 2008, tied the right to keep and bear arms into the well-regulated militia, making the right a collective right of the people to organize into militias and protect themselves in that fashion.  The individual right existed for the benefit of the collective, not the other way around.  Further, there was not a right to organize private militias (i.e. groups of people creating a militia for their own purposes), militias were intended to be individual state militias (i.e. the Texas militia, the Louisiana militia, etc.) which could provide for a state’s defense and protect an individual state from a tyrannical federal government.  The Second Amendment was not recognized as a codification of a common-law right to self-defense.  We did not start treating it as such until the 2008 District of Columbia v Heller Supreme Court case, in which the court determined that the Second Amendment did recognize a personal right.  This means that up to 2008, when looking at whether the Second Amendment had been infringed, courts did not look at whether any one person’s right to protect themselves had been impaired.  They looked at the restriction on the weapon under the context of a state militia.  Conceivably, the Court in the future could overrule Heller and determine that the right to bear arms is inextricably tied to the well-regulated militia.  That's the way it worked for Roe v Wade.

Even if the right continues to be a personal right, like most other rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.  To have a functioning society, we have agreed that there are certain limitations that can be placed on nearly all of the rights we have enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  Your right to free speech cannot be used to yell “fire” in a public theater.  Your right to free press cannot be used to commit libel.  Your right to the free exercise of religion does not include human sacrifice.  Likewise, the government can put certain limitations on the right to keep and bear arms; it has always been in the government’s power to do so.  Most often these restrictions occur when one person’s right to keep and bear arms runs up against another person’s rights.  We see examples of this with gun-free school zones, prohibitions on fully automatic weapons, background check requirements.  Semi-automatic weapons seem to be the cause of a lot of current discussion and it’s important to note that they were themselves part of heavy restriction from 1994 to 2004, so there is definitely precedence for government action in this area.  It would not be that great of a stretch for the government to reinstate a more effective version of this ban (with fewer loopholes) in the future.  And there is large scale support for such a measure in this country currently.

We just have the willpower to actually make a change.

If we did, we might discover the impact guns have on us goes way beyond the mass shootings that really bring the issue to our attention. We need to explore the impact of mass homicide, on domestic homicide, and on suicide.  On accidental gun violence.  

Additionally, it's important to note this isn't a zero sum game.  We do not have to do only one thing.  It's far past time we put everything on the table.  We should be looking at mental health care.  We should be looking at bullying.  We should be looking at the family structure.  We should be looking at socio-economic status and mobility.  AND we should be looking at sensible gun control.  We're a big country and pretty good at multi-tasking.  We're more than capable of looking at it all.  

But we should be at the bare minimum doing something. 

'

It’s way past time to do so.

I'm just not hopeful we will.   I think I gave up hope after Sandy Hook.  Once that shooting and then Uvalde happened and we did nothing, once we saw it at an elementary school and did nothing, we've just accepted it as a cost of life in the United States.  We've accepted that the number one cause of death of American children and teens is just going to be firearms.

The really sad thing is, we know what would actually work.  We know what steps we should take with gun control.  We know what steps for gun control have popular support.

The first step, is admitting we have a problem.

Lone Star, But Still A State

I know I've joked about this, but joking is one thing.  This is something else.

Texas State Representative Bryan Slayton has filed HB3596, the "Texas Independence Referendum Act" or TEXIT, which, if passed, would enable Texans to vote in the next general election whether Texas should seek to become an independent republic and secede once again from the Union.  "The Texas Constitution is clear that all political power resides in the people," Slaton said. "After decades of continuous abuse of our rights and liberties by the federal government, it is time to let the people of Texas make their voices heard."

It's a popular idea, and a bill that has been suggested before.  It's just amazing that we have to keep shooting this down.

First, despite what you may have heard, there is no special provision that gives Texas this ability.  Some clause or provision that allows Texas because it once was an independent republic to return to that state.  It doesn't exist, and likely never did.  Further, there's no right to secede.  If we do, it's defection against the United States, just as it was before.

A vote would not even work.  The 1869 case Texas v. White determined that individual states could not secede from the United States, even if voted on by the people.  "The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States."  Again, if we vote, if we force a separation, it's defection.

Plus, recent events should show us that an independent Texas won't survive.  The ERCOT energy crisis in the state in 2021 should show us that.  That mess largely happened because the Texas grid remains isolated and not connected to the larger United States energy grid.  Add to that the small fact of Texas needing to replace the $41.4 Billion that the national government spends in Texas.  And many other entanglements that would have to be unwound.

This ridiculous self-determinism has fatal consequences.

So while it can be a funny joke, it's just that - a joke.

No TEXIT, no secession.

We Texans may think of ourselves as Texans first, and Americans second, but we're still Americans.

Always.  

The Cost of Being Right At Any Cost

I struggled with what to name this.

I started with something pithy like Just Say Gay Already, to reference the law that got us into this mess.  Or No More Words to reference the lack of books.

I then went to something angry and factual, like Life Under Fascism.   

I settled on a slight pun, but a sobering reality, for this image reflects the sad future coming to much of our country based on the trajectory of the laws that we are looking to pass.

“There must be something in books, things we can’t imagine, to make a woman stay in a burning house; there must be something there. You don’t stay for nothing.”

This photograph was taken on January 27 by Brian Covey, a substitute teacher at Mandarin Middle School in Duval County, Florida. He posted it as proof of a prior post that he had made where he told his followers that the district had removed every book from his children's classrooms.  This was a photo of all the fiction books removed from the library of the same school.

Covey has indicated the district was aware of the photograph when he posted it, and had never indicated it was a problem.  Covey, instead, had been recently praised in a staff meeting by the school principal for bringing order and stability to a previously unruly class of math students.

The was no issue with the photo until February 14, when reporters asked Governor DeSantis about it.  They specifically asked him about photos of "bookshelves empty" in schools.  DeSantis responded that this was a "false narrative" and not true.

The next day, Covey was fired in a 45-second phone call, for violation of the schools social media and cell phone policies and had been the subject of several complaints.

“A book is a loaded gun in the house next door. Burn it. Take the shot from the weapon.” 

Representatives for the school have since described the video as manipulative and shown other "full" shelves in the library.  They have confirmed that the books were the school's fiction titles, but that they had been removed pending review by a media specialist, as required by the state's "curriculum transparency" law.  Each book is required to be reviewed to determine if it violates the states broad child pornography law and the new STOP Woke Act and Parental Rights in Education Act, i.e. the Don't Say Gay act.

This review has made more than 1.5 million books inaccessible to students in Duval County Public Schools.

Let that number sink in.  1.5 million books.  In one county's school system.  The entire media collection for the DCPS is around 1.6 million.  This put nearly 94% of the school system's books under review.

To make matters worse, though it is supposed to have many more media specialists, the school system currently only has 54.  54 people assigned to review 1.5 million books. That's 27,777 books a person to review.  

And if they get it wrong, they can lose their jobs, or, at worst and most crazily, face third-degree felony charges.  

No wonder it's moving so slow.  Up to February 17, the specialists had only reviewed 6,000 books and returned them to the schools.  Counting for 0.275% of the total in their review.  

A pittance.

And this is on top of their other responsibilities to the school like supporting teachers.  No, their time is now focused on reviewing all these books.

A wide variety of books.  While the image showed the fiction section, even non-fiction titles are still being held under review.  Books like:

• Roberto Clemente The Pride of The Pittsburgh Pirates
• Henry Aaron's Dream
• Unstoppable: How Jim Thorpe and the Carlisle Indian School Football Team Defeated Army
• Thank You, Jackie Robinson
• The Hero Two Doors Down: Based on the True Story of Friendship Between a Boy and a Baseball Legend
• Barbed Wire Baseball:  How One Man Brought Hope to the Japanese Interment Camps of WWII

Notice a pattern?

These were all books in the Essential Voices Library Collection, highlighting the stories of a variety of ethnic, religious, and gender minorities.

The thing is, it would be really, really surprising, if it wasn't so transparent.  DeSantis may claim the laws were designed to remove only the books that 99% of the public would oppose.  But anyone who actually read the bills could tell him this was what was going to happen.

It's a feature, not a bug.

Plus, this is only one county, one school system in Florida. 

It's happening all over the state.

“The books are to remind us what asses and fools we are.”

We often seem to forget the purpose of art, of literature.  While it exists for many functions, literature, like art, exists to hold a mirror to ourselves.  Literature is meant to push us.  To expose us to new opinions, new ideas, contrary opinions, contrary ideas.  It's meant to make us empathize with people we could never otherwise identify with.  It's meant to shock us.  And yes, it's even meant to offend us sometimes.

We are best served by a wide exposure to as much literature as possible.

Can we agree that there are somethings that should not be in an elementary school, a middle school, a high school library?  Of course.  There are such things as grade level appropriate. 

Remember, though, there are always those who read above grade level.  Who think above grade level.  Those who have life experiences that would not be deemed grade level appropriate.

Are we really so afraid of our students actually learning something and growing, that we will strip away all access to non-lowest common denominator information?  To only provide the most sanitized of sanitized material for our children?

I realize knowledge is a weapon.  

I just didn't realize we wanted our children un-armed.

“Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change. Don’t give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy."

Throughout this post, I've been including quotes from one of my favorite novels.  I read it in high school and it has continued to impact me since that first read.  I've read it multiple times since then and it continues to get more applicable, more prescient, and more frightening.

In Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury imagined a future in which books were burned.  There firefighters didn't stop fires; they started them, burning any books they found.  The masses were controlled by removing their access to information.  Or I should say, by removing access to information that the state didn't like.  The people had video walls full of information, enough to overwhelm the viewer.

Drowning in information for a lack of comprehension.

I wonder if my kids will have the experience of reading this book as part of their high school English curriculum.  Or will it be deemed to controversial?  

Too dangerous?

There are similar bills being discussed and enacted across the United States.  Here in Indiana.  In Texas.  And at least thirteen other states.

We're not to burning books, yet.

But it's hard to imagine a future with so many empty shelves.

With everything "pending review."

Why Do We Make Voting So Frustrating?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, right?

With that said, why do we keep making voting such a frustrating process?

I went to vote yesterday afternoon, leaving the house just after 4:00 pm.  It was 6:25 pm by the time I had actually cast my ballot and left the building.  A frustrating experience all the way around for several reasons.

First, by four, every polling station had at least an hour line.  Jamie had gone at 2:30 pm and waited in a forty-five minute line.  

I went to a station out at the Lucas Oil Motor Speedway.  From the outside, large building, should be able to process a lot of voters.  Short line outside, so things looked good.  When I got in the line though, I learned that the wait was an hour from the point where you got to the door.

The large building was just primarily used to house the line that snaked around inside.  Only six voting machines, so only six people maximum could vote at a time.  And the polls were going to close at 6:00 pm to new voters.

Why have we not worked on ways to improve this yet?

We hold the election on a work day, when it is difficult to get to for most people.   We limit machines to artificially inflate a wait time, as the actual time to cast a ballot is minimal.  Plus we rely on machines that still confuse people in voting to this day, such that they require a person to walk you over to them and explain the process.

It's past time to rethink our process.  Election day as a national holiday, or moved to a weekend.  Paper ballots across the board.  Universal mail in voting.  An increase in capacity at most voting locations.

Something.  Then maybe we can get voter participation up over 70%.

Or let's least admit that the difficulty is a feature, not a bug.