Palestine: The Rose of Sharon Withers

In my youth I was an uncritical idealistic supporter of Israel because the new State seemed a noble ideal in the aftermath of the Holocaust and the brutality of World War 2.  During my college years of 1955-59 the second of the Arab-Israeli wars broke out.  My professor of Greek Language at the University of Richmond found time while translating Thucydides’ The History of the Peloponnesian War to use his knowledge of the region to pontificate on the underlying political and strategic issues of the Arab-Israeli Wars of 1948 and 1956. It was noble David fighting off the combined military forces of the Arab Goliath. 

David won. Well, maybe better stated that Israel fought off the Arab aggressors and the wars ended in a stalemate with Israel preserving its independence but the fundamental issues of the war unresolved.  Regrettably those issues still have not been resolved despite regular bloody battles large and small interspersed with truces and futile attempts to resolve the conflict with a two-state compromise, but with no resolution of the fundamental issue there can be no lasting peace. 

So what is this issue?  Simply put, it is about stolen land.  A little history* may help since most people today were not alive when the events occurred that gave rise to the ongoing conflict, and the breathless talking heads on the morning news obfuscate the issues through lack of context, ignorance or political agenda. 

Following World War 2, with little consideration of the trouble it would create, the Western Allies resettled the displaced Jews from the refugee camps of Europe to the British “Mandate” of Palestine, which had been occupied for centuries by Jews, Christians and Arabs co-existing together in a stable if not always harmonious relationship, to carve out a new homeland for the Jewish people by evicting non-Jewish residents from Palestine and moving them to “temporary” tent cities outside the newly-created Jewish homeland. The intent was for them to be absorbed into the surrounding largely Arab nations. The wealthier evicted residents emigrated elsewhere (the U.S., Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan), while those without resources were stuck in the refugee camps.

Tensions in the Middle East escalated as Israel became stronger.  With no resolution for the displaced Palestinians and little interest among the Arab nations in absorbing them, war broke out again in 1967 that resulted in Israel again defeating the Arabs and seizing territory on the west side of the Jordan River and in Sinai, now called the Occupied Territories.  Israel annexed these territories contrary to international law and UN resolutions and began a systematic policy of building Jewish settlements on land taken from Palestinians, demolishing their homes and villages, revoking their residency rights, denying building permits to non-Israelis, putting down protests violently with the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), and killing Palestinian teens who threw rocks in protest against systematic abuse—all to intimidate and harass the Palestinians and to seize and occupy Palestinian land with the intent to make a two-state solution impossible.    

This is now and always has been an increasingly desperate fight between Palestinians whose homes and lands were taken forcibly from them and the State of Israel, whose citizens now occupy Palestinian homes, farms and villages.  It is a fight over land and related issues of property rights, title to property, eminent domain, right of conquest and just compensation, all complicated by different legal systems, some based in common law and others based in religious doctrines of competing religions that do not allow for legal niceties, practical politics and reasonable compromise.  To complicate the land issue there are emotional issues that intrude: religious history, hopes and dreams, cultural heritage, ethnic cleansing, the right of return, collective punishment.

Israel and its supporters argue that it has the right to defend itself against terrorists but however true that may be as a general principal surely that is not the issue here.  There is a legitimate argument that when your homes, villages, orchards and livelihoods are being stolen from you by a powerful state that daily threatens your survival, you fight for your life and livelihood any way you can.

That is not terrorism, it is asymmetrical warfare.   The Palestinians have no army, no tanks, no air force, no artillery, so they use what weaker peoples always do when fighting against a conventional military force, they use guerrilla tactics, they use what weapons they make in their cellars.  That is not terrorism, it is the right of self-defense and survival.  Israel knows that—they are the same guerrilla tactics the Irgun (predecessor of the IDF) used against the Arabs in the 1930s and 40s.

The current escalation of hostilities appears to have begun with the imminent eviction of six Palestinian families from their homes in East Jerusalem and spiraled out of control from there.  That may have been the final straw but there was always a preceding event and we could get into a long senseless argument about who started this current round of violent conflict by looking at each event and what preceded it ad nauseam into the past, but that would be singularly unsatisfying and unproductive—it would not help to end the conflict and stop the bloodshed.

I have been an interested observer of this conflict all my adult life, literally since its beginning, but I have become increasingly cynical as the years have gone by that there is any negotiated or compromise settlement possible given the complex and intractable nature of the issues and the obstinance of the feuding parties.  The flower fades. Hope and peace are withering away.

I last wrote about the Arab-Israeli conflict in 2010 when former Vermont Senator George Mitchell, an experienced negotiator, was dispatched to the region to try to jumpstart negotiations.  I believed then and I still believe that the “two state solution” makes rational sense by giving each side much of what it wants: an independent Palestine incorporating the contiguous occupied territories; Israel at its original borders; Jerusalem as an independent free city controlled jointly by Christians, Jews and Muslims; and a mutual non-aggression pact that assured the cessation of hostilities and a measure of tranquility. 

What has changed in the past ten years is that while I still believe the two-state solution is the most desirable outcome, I no longer believe it is a possible outcome.  I cannot see any circumstance in which Israel voluntarily surrenders the Occupied Territory for use as the Palestinian homeland, or vacates Jewish settlements built on Palestinian land, or gives up Jerusalem as its undivided capital, and I cannot foresee any stomach in the international community to pressure it to do so.  Anything less than that would not be acceptable to the Palestinians and would not result in lasting peace.

Writing in 2010 I had suggested that actions by the government of Benyamin Netanyahu and his ultra-right political allies made peace less likely because Israel had imposed a series of draconian and punitive measures on the Occupied Territories: restricted movement of Palestinians; built new Jewish settlements among the Palestinians, taking Palestinian lands and dispossessing the inhabitants; bulldozed Palestinian homes built without Israeli permits while refusing to issue permits to Palestinians; used repressive and aggressive military and police actions against Palestinians; imposed restrictions on food, medical supplies, fuel and food brought into the territories; blocked export of trade goods out of the territories; and interfered with international charitable and social service agencies providing much needed relief services.

A reasonable person might conclude those strategies were intended to provoke the Palestinians to violence in order to give Israel’s political and military leaders cover to justify continued repressive tactics while they built and expanded Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory.  When the Palestinians fight back against the repression Israel loudly proclaims that its right of defense against Palestinian “terrorists” justifies and excuses wildly-disproportionate destructive attacks on Palestinians, currently evident in the IDF attacks on Gaza.

When there is such disproportionate power between the two sides, as there is between the Israelis and Palestinians, a negotiated resolution is impossible because it would be a de facto surrender.  The brutality of the current conflict has resulted in the expected and dutiful urgent calls by international powers for both sides to stand down into some form of truce. Of course if an armed truce happens it will be a temporary respite until once again the Palestinians are fed up with the daily abuse and sanctimonious pronouncements by the Israelis that they are the good guys trying to maintain order against hostile troublemakers and terrorists while they feign ignorance about any alleged abuses. 

Eventually the international powers may get fed up with these ugly and dangerous periodic destabilizing violent flareups and could get together to impose a solution on the partisans.  But don’t hold your breath.

_________________   

*This is a brief outline of events in a complex, rich and interesting history.  It is not possible to understand the difficulties of peace without comprehending how this intractable problem has developed, the current players and parties to the conflict, and their various agendas. To name a few:  The extreme right wing religious parties of Israel led by Netanyahu who argue that they have the right to all the land formerly occupied by Jews in Old Testament times.  American Christian Fundamentalists, who have co-opted elements of the extreme right wing of the U.S. Republican Party, who support Israel’s Zionists because they believe that Jesus will return when the Jews are in full control of the Promised Land.  Elements of Hamas, Iranian-backed Islamist militants, with their own agenda that includes gaining control of the al Aqsa Mosque and East Jerusalem, which has significance as the third most important holy place for Muslims.  The Palestine Liberation Organization. 

Christians, Mother’s Day and the Pandemic

Yesterday was Mother’s Day and that led me to reflect on the sadness in many homes at the loss of so many mothers and the grief experienced by so many mothers at the loss of their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, as a result of Covid.  My hope is that these family tragedies do not repeat themselves and that we will be free from Covid in the coming year.  We can rid ourselves of this scourge if we keep these things in mind as our human duty in the days ahead.

The pandemic is not over. I wish it were.  We would all like to be free of the constraints we have been living under for the past 15 months.  The vaccinations against Covid, the social distancing, the handwashing and other sanitation procedures, and the mask requirements together have substantially reduced the number of identified cases of the infection, but they have not eliminated the disease and now is not the time to reduce our efforts and to put our guard down and act as if the infections are over. 

Here are some facts that everyone needs to keep in mind:

     [1] Vaccinations are very effective (approximately 94%, by comparison to the flu vaccines, which are only 50% effective) but they are NOT 100% effective.  That is why people who have been vaccinated can and do get sick, can have Covid and not have symptoms, and can be carriers without knowing it.

     [2] Masks do not keep anyone from getting Covid.  They are helpful in reducing the spread of droplets by the wearer but they do not protect the wearer from infected people except to the extent they reduce the danger of infection from coughs and sneezes.  The attitude of anti-maskers that they are not concerned about getting infected and if others are concerned they are free to wear masks is ignorant and uninformed.

     [3] Getting together in groups is still unsafe unless all or most of the individuals in the group are vaccinated, the group is meeting outdoors, social distancing is maintained, and masks are worn.  Infectious disease specialists have said that it is reasonably safe if 3 of those 4 safety criteria are met. 

     [4] Singing, shouting, yelling or cheering are quite effective in spreading Covid particles, which is why choral groups and athletic events are particularly dangerous. 

     [5] As long as countries such as India and Brazil lag behind in vaccinations and disease prevention Covid will continue to be dangerous and new variants of Covid will proliferate and appear in the U.S., some of which will prove lethal regardless of one’s vaccination status. It is in America’s best interest to encourage the availability of vaccines to third world countries.

     [6] Covid is not a political issue, it is a very serious and deadly public health issue. It is an embarrassment to Christians everywhere that fundamentalist Christians have hitched their wagon to the Trump Jackass and have been taken down the trail of anti-vaxxers and science deniers, with the result that they have created irrational public resistance to vaccinations that could inhibit herd immunity and negatively impact the health of all of us.

     [7] Failing to do all of the things we can to prevent the spread of Covid (masks, vaccination, social distancing, washing hands) is like saying we have fixed most of the leaks in our boat so we need not be concerned about a few small leaks as we row across the lake. 

You are invited and encouraged to send commentary to your friends and enemies.  We need everyone clear about these issues. 

 

 

 

The Politics of Cultural Despair

 I don’t usually use texts written by others in this blog, but this article lays out clearly the issues faced by serious Christians in our current toxic religio-political environment. It is both blunt and radical, as is the message of Jesus to his followers.

Below is an excerpt from a talk by Chris Hedges entitled “The Politics of Cultural Despair” transcribed and printed in Scheerpost October 19, 2020.  To read the complete article click <here>.

All fascist movements paper over their squalid belief systems with the veneer of morality. They mouth pieties about restoring law and order, right and wrong, the sanctity of life, civic and family virtues, patriotism and tradition to mask their dismantling of the open society and silencing and persecution of those who dissent. The Christian Right, awash in money from corporations that understand their political intent, will use any tool, no matter how devious, from right-wing armed militias to the invalidation of ballots, to block Biden and Democratic candidates from assuming office.

Capitalism, driven by the obsession to maximizing profit and reduce the cost of production by slashing worker’s rights and wages, is antithetical to the Christian Gospel, as well as the Enlightenment ethic of Immanuel Kant. But capitalism, in the hands of the Christian fascists, has become sacralized in the form of the Prosperity Gospel, the belief that Jesus came to minister to our material needs, blessing believers with wealth and power. The Prosperity Gospel is an ideological cover for the slow-motion corporate coup d’état. This is why large corporations such as Tyson Foods, which places Christian Right chaplains in its plants, Purdue, Wal-Mart, and Sam’s Warehouse, along with many other corporations, pour money into the movement and its institutions such as Liberty University and Patrick Henry Law School. This is why corporations have given millions to groups such as the Judicial Crisis Network and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to campaign for Barrett’s appointment to the court. Barrett has ruled to cheat gig workers out of overtime, green light fossil fuel extraction and pollution, gut Obamacare and strip consumers of protection from corporate fraud. Barrett, as a circuit court judge, heard at least 55 cases in which citizens challenged corporate abuse and fraud. She ruled in favor of corporations 76 percent of the time.

Our corporate masters do not care about abortion, gun rights or the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. But like the German industrialists who backed the Nazi Party, they know that the Christian Right will give an ideological veneer to ruthless corporate tyranny. These oligarchs view the Christian fascists the same way the German industrialists viewed the Nazis, as buffoons. They are aware that the Christian fascists will trash what is left of our anemic democracy and the natural ecosystem. But they also know they will make huge profits in the process and the rights of workers and citizens will be ruthlessly suppressed.

If you are poor, if you lack proper medical care, if you are paid substandard wages, if you are trapped in the lower class, if you are a victim of police violence, this is because, according to the Prosperity Gospel, you are not a good Christian. In this belief system you deserve what you get. There is nothing wrong, these homegrown fascists preach, with the structures or systems of power. Like all totalitarian movements, followers are seduced into calling for their own enslavement.

As the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels understood: “The best propaganda is that which, as it were, works invisibly, penetrates the whole of life without the public having any knowledge of the propagandistic initiative.” 

Isn't Everyone Entitled to a Basic Income?

Back in the 1970s, when I was minister of the Unitarian Universalist Church in Meriden, Connecticut, civil unrest was sweeping our country, cities were burning because urban society had become frustrated and restless, black urban youth in particular were unable to find jobs because automation made many low wage jobs in urban areas redundant and manufacturing jobs were moving to where land was abundant and taxes were low, the welfare system was under attack by the conservative politicians of the right as promoting laziness and creating a disincentive to work and giving their money to the undeserving, the unpopular Viet Nam war was raging amidst anti-war protests, and I was foolish and idealistic enough to think that there was a better way. 

It was obvious to me and to others that one of the most disturbing implications of modern society was that workers were becoming less important to industrial development, over time blue collar jobs would be increasingly scarce and become more repetitive and less meaningful, automation would increase and many workers would become redundant, and consequently and inevitably unemployment would increase because fewer workers would be necessary to produce the goods needed by society. [This was long before industries were moving their factories to the under-developed world to save labor costs, thus reducing the need for domestic labor and increasing unemployment.]

Two ideas seemed to flow from this: first, that structural unemployment would become a fixture of modern society to which a better solution than welfare and unemployment insurance would have to be found, and second, income (monetized distribution of goods and services) needed to be separated from wage producing employment.  Providing everyone with a basic income was a radical idea at the time, but I proposed it in a Sunday sermon and a lengthy and vigorous discussion followed.  The issue got some press when the editor of the local paper wrote a front page article on the controversial topic.  The ensuing debate, which continued the discussion at a more heated level in letters to the editor and a call-in talk radio show, went on for some weeks afterward.

That concept, now called universal basic income, is alive and well, has been discussed in policy circles off and on for years, and has been developed and tried in some nations.  The two most often raised objections to giving everyone a guaranteed income are that (a) it disincentivizes work , that without the need to work for an income people would not work, jobs would go unfilled, and economic society would fail; and (b) it is immoral because it gives people something that they have not earned, generates laziness, and creates a society that is unfair because some people work and others do not. 

Both classes of objections are handily vanquished.  The first, that it disincentivizes work, is a factual assertion that has been tested and shown to be false.  While some people may choose not to be engaged in economically productive activity, many others are engaged in humanitarian, artistic or humanistic work.  The pandemic has taught us that people are eager to be productive whether to get back to work or back to the classroom. A guaranteed income eliminates homelessness and food insecurity; they are no longer social welfare problems. 

The philosophic and moral objection is a bit trickier to deal with, particularly for Americans, because our Victorian and Puritan ancestors have instilled in us the idea that work is a moral good and that its opposite, laziness or sloth, is sin.  However true it is that since Adam work has been necessary for our survival as a species, it is a bit of a stretch to the conclusion that work is therefore a moral good. 

The common assumption of society that income should be assigned on the basis of gainful economic employment in the production of goods and services may actually be unhelpful and unwise in our current economic circumstances.  I will oversimplify why that is true for the sake of this discussion and those interested can pursue it in more depth.  In brief our hunter-gathering ancestors were able to domesticate plants and animals, increasing their surplus production sufficiently to support trade, subsidize diversification of occupations to merchants, tool makers, artists of various kinds, soldiers, officials and priests.  Note that the accumulated surplus supported those who were not directly involved in economic production.

The industrial revolution and the accumulating surplus of capital eventually led to our current dilemma which is that there is now a serious imbalance in our economic life caused ultimately by the monetization of labor that can be described on the one hand as the shift in the accumulation of the rewards of labor into the hands of fewer and fewer people (which will ultimately result in the collapse of the economy), and on the other hand, an economic society that does not need everyone working at economically productive jobs to sustain our economy, creating increasing unemployment that unfairly and unreasonably restricts some people from earning a share of that surplus.  That inequitable imbalance has created social problems that society must fix.  If they are not fixed they will result in social instability.

Giving everyone a basic income goes a long way to fixing the problem of structural unemployment in American society.  [There is an additional factor that has to be considered: in the United States health care has most commonly been provided as an employment benefit and that also has to be disconnected from employment and become universally provided.]

This has been a long and not entirely satisfactory introduction both to the concept of universal basic income and to an important article in New Scientist that discusses scientific real world testing of the concept of universal basic income that debunks a basic criticism of universal basic income—that it creates a disincentive to work. 

Finland ran a two-year universal basic income study in 2017 and 2018, during which the government gave 2000 unemployed people aged between 25 and 58 monthly payments with no strings attached.

The payments of €560 per month weren’t means tested and were unconditional, so they weren’t reduced if an individual got a job or later had a pay rise. The study was nationwide and selected recipients weren’t able to opt out, because the test was written into legislation….

The study compared the employment and well-being of basic income recipients against a control group of 173,000 people who were on unemployment benefits.

Click <HERE> to read the entire article.

The concept of Universal Basic Income needs to be fleshed out by Democratic Progressives into a workable Federal program, as a replacement for unemployment insurance, Social Security, housing subsidies, food stamps, school lunch programs,  welfare payments, and other Federal and State income subsidies, and implemented by the United States as a matter of both social and economic policy.

 

 

Discussion of this topic by readers is specifically encouraged.  Until this concept is understood through widespread discussion and debate it will not have enough sufficient acceptance to have any chance of being enacted into law. 

The U. S. Is NOT a Christian Nation

 

A few days ago I received one of those annoying emails that circulate around the internet that encouraged the recipient with some urgency to forward it to everyone she knew.  The focus of that email was an ad by the Biden for President campaign directed toward Muslim Americans that encourages them to vote because that is the way change happens and that their vote matters.  The premise of the email, not specifically stated but implied by its urgent tone, is that our Christian nation is being overwhelmed by Muslims and encouraged by Biden to undermine our Christian values.  There is a link to that Biden ad with a breathless plea to watch all of it to see how far our Christian nation has strayed from its roots by catering to foreigners with different values. 

Usually I ignore these chain emails but this one came from a very conservative religious and lovely elderly lady who is a dear friend and she sent it to a lot of people we know in common.  Because of the urgency of the times and the dangerous spread of disinformation from domestic groups and meddling foreign trolls in advance of the election I concluded that I should respond.  Evangelical Christian assertions to the contrary, the fact is that the Founders consciously and intentionally established this nation to be free of and from religion.  They saw religion as divisive and wanted the new nation to be neutral with respect to religion so that each citizen could worship or not in accordance with his/her beliefs. 

The email in question said that every American needs to watch every second of Biden’s political ad and that it would make the hair stand up on your neck.  So I watched it—twice.  I did not see anything scary.  It was directed to Muslim Americans. It quoted from the Koran.  It urged all Americans to vote in accord with their values.  It seemed a normal political ad, similar to ads directed to specific groups to remind them we are in this struggle together for the soul of the nation—labor union members in the Midwest, or the Jewish community in South Florida, or Hispanics in the Southwest—and that their voice matters.

I replied to her, from which I quote some excerpts below, slightly edited:

As you requested I listened to every word.  What he said was that every vote counts and that EVERY AMERICAN whether they are Muslim, or Jew, or Christian, or Black matters and needs to make their voice heard.  He quoted selected peaceful quotations from the Koran, just as Christians quote selectively from the Bible.  He said that Muslim Americans have a right and duty to vote in a democracy.  Every political presidential campaign, including Trump, sends messages to select groups of voters whose votes it is seeking.  There is nothing that was said in that Biden ad that any American who believes in democracy, the right to vote, and a better and more caring world should disagree with.

I am concerned that there is a conscious and deliberate attempt by Trump and his supporters to fan racial hatred and to claim that Americans should not participate in the Black Lives Matter protests against the injustice of treating poor blacks differently than well off whites.  That is the not very hidden theme of Trump’s law and order movement, to limit and criminalize the right of Americans to protest and why it is so important that all Americans protect our civil liberties from the abuses and fascist tendencies of the current Attorney General, who tried to use military style tactics in the streets of Portland to deny protest and turn it into a war zone.

There are two things that seem to be implied by that forwarded email, that there was something wrong and disturbing about the Biden video because it sought to encourage Muslim Americans to vote in our Presidential election, and that the US is a Christian country endangered by Muslims.  The issue of the U.S. as a Christian nation has been argued before and is a matter clear in our history that has been intentionally distorted by Evangelical Protestant Christians since the 1950s who assert that the US was founded as a Christian nation.  It was NOT.  [I taught US history, back quite a few years ago.]

Many of the original 13 colonies were founded by religious groups, Puritans, ana-Baptists, Calvinists, Catholics, Quakers, etc. ALL WITH THE INTENT of getting away from Europe's oppressive church-state religions and insisting on the freedom to worship (or not) as they chose.  The Founding Fathers were clear--in order for the colonies of the new nation to exist peaceably with each other there could be no establishment of religion.  We would be a new nation established in freedom of and from religion, where the nation was neutral and the people were free to worship as they chose.  That is a fundamental premise of democracy.  [Here is an article I wrote on the U.S. as a Christian nation.] Most of the Founders, including Thomas Jefferson in particular, were not Christians, they were Deists.

These are troubling times and the danger of fascist solutions are tempting.  I hate that the Trump people are trying to sow discord and division and promoting racial hatred and White Nationalism under the guise of a narrow view of Christian religion that is amenable to limiting freedom.  Our country deserves better.  We need new national leadership that is committed to democracy, that has the will and the ability to solve our pandemic problems, and to re-establish our place in the world of free nations—not make things progressively worse.  It will take an election in November to achieve this.

 

Attack On Our Democracy and Our Values

This has been the week from hell in the U.S.  We have faced multiple threats to our security and our peace: a pandemic that has crossed the threshold of 100,00 lives lost; lack of national leadership that will result in many more deaths from Covid-19 in the coming weeks; another black man killed by police using unnecessary and excessive force who has become the latest symbol of racial oppression; massive peaceful protests that have spread from Minneapolis across the U.S. and into countries around the world; looting and troublemaking during the night by white nationalists, anarchists and criminals who have infiltrated and hidden among the protestors making the police response complicated and difficult; and the final absurdity—an out of control would-be emperor launching an attack on unarmed and non-violent protestors by militarized police in full battle gear to clear the street in front of the White House so that he could have a photo op at the historic St. John’s Church.

Our democracy is not threatened by protests against excessive force used by bad cops, but it is threatened by bad cops who use the color of their uniform to treat blacks differently and with greater force than they treat whites under the same circumstance. 

The protestors held up signs and shouted: 

Hands Up, Don’t Shoot  

No Justice, No Peace  

I Can’t Breathe

I’m old enough to experience this protest with a sense of déjà vu.   In the late 1960s I witnessed our cities burned down with the frustration of decades of physical and emotional abuse of blacks.  In those days we marched with the iconic leadership of Martin Luther King, Jr. and while protestors marched during the day, destructive criminal elements used the chaos to torch our cities and loot our stores largely but not entirely during the night.  The looters made it hard to hear the voices of the oppressed demanding freedom, but ultimately the message got through and the Civil Rights Movement was largely successful.

 Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence.

                                                                                          Martin Luther King, Jr   

Washington DC has a tradition of protests.  Our Constitution asserts the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition the Government for redress of grievances. Which is what they were doing—when without warning heavily armed Park Police backed up by Mounted Police fired tear gas and flash grenades and moved against the stunned protestors, pushing them off the street and out of the park.  

Why were nonviolent protestors acting within their Constitutional rights attacked?  Not because they were rioting but because the President wanted a photo opportunity for his campaign!  His staff thought a show of military force would make him appear strong and in charge, apparently to counter the fact that he spent the previous evening cowering in his bunker under the White House because he was afraid of college students protesting in Lafayette Park.

The Rector of St. John’s did not know that Trump was coming to the church for a photo op.  Trump only wanted the church and the bible as props.  He had no interest in entering the church for prayer or opening the bible.  The Episcopal Bishop of Washington was annoyed.  As reported in The Guardian she said: “Let me be clear, the president just used a Bible, the most sacred text of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and one of the churches of my diocese, without permission, as a backdrop for a message antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. We align ourselves with those seeking justice for the death of George Floyd and countless others. And I just can’t believe what my eyes have seen.”

Believe it.  Trump has no values, no principles, no integrity, no consideration for anyone but himself and his reelection.  That is why he is so dangerous and so unpredictable.  That is also why our democracy is in danger.  He is flirting with use of the 1807 Insurrection Act to send the US military to quell lawful protests by considering them a form of “insurrection.”  He got little pushback from his Republican allies.  What might he do if he sees the election slipping through his fingers?

  

"When peaceful protesters are dispersed by the order of the president from the doorstep of the people's house, the White House - using tear gas and flash grenades - in order to stage a photo op at a noble church, we can be forgiven for believing that the president is more interested in power than in principle," Biden said in a speech in Philadelphia on June 2.

We have an alternative.  Let’s use it.

During the Pandemic Does It Make Sense To Decrease Wages of Hospital Personnel?

CBS News reported last week that hospitals have been cutting the pay of physicians and reducing nursing and other staff in their Emergency Rooms in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic.  In fact there are many reports from all across our nation of wage cuts for medical staff in hospitals and group medical practices just at the time when they are most needed, the risk is high, the demand is critical, and they are being honored by the public as heroes for their commitment, Herculean efforts and life-saving skills.

In what Alice in Wonderland world does that make any sense?

By way of contrast a news article in today’s Washington Post reported that the African nation of Ghana, where Covid-19 is becoming a serious problem, announced an immediate 50% increase in wages for medical personnel, care for any staff who acquire the disease, and death benefits.

Why do we have this absurd difference in the treatment of essential personnel? 

There is an explanation.  Most hospitals today are owned by corporations and operate as business entities where profitability is the goal even in hospitals that maintain the fiction that they operate as not-for-profit entities.  Some hospitals [including my local hospital in Florida that is owned by Cleveland Clinic] contract the operation of their ER to for-profit management companies that employ physicians the way Walmart hires workers and treats them comparably.  Hospitals are “losing” money because highly profitable elective procedures have been postponed and treating those who need medical care in the ER is unprofitable.

 

Hospitals could choose to incur debt or transfer building or unrestricted funds to cover their increased operating expense, suspend executive pay during the crisis and let them volunteer, postpone the purchase of million dollar pieces of equipment, suspend construction projects temporarily, delay acquisitions for a year and focus on using those funds to increase wages rather than decrease them.

While some will argue that I have oversimplified medical services’ financial problems, which I concede have been exacerbated by Covid-19, I contend that the pandemic has brought the real issue into focus—the profit motive that underlies almost everything in medicine.  Hospitals want to build bigger, better, fancier.  Medical equipment is highly profitable.  Prescription drug prices are more expensive than their real costs warrant.  Personnel management companies want a piece of medical personnel wages.  Hospital managers are driven by profits and high salaries.  Insurance companies pay for some of the direct costs but they want a piece of every service.  Every part of the system is driven by a profit motive that is inappropriate in what--I believe--should be a service industry.

At the end of the day it depends on whether the primary driving purpose behind physician and hospital services is to save lives and serve people or to make a profit for owners and managers.  That will determine the priorities, how the money flows and who benefits from providing medical services.