Corona Virus in the Moment

We are about two weeks into the Corona virus lock-down, and while we have far surpassed my initial estimates of 50K infections and 1K deaths, we are still nowhere near the millions that certain people were predicting.  Some people want to lift the restrictions, while others want to tighten them,  Some are convinced it will eventually infect nearly everyone, and we are just slowing it down.  But viewing the progress in foreign countries, whether Europe or Asia, indicates that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, as things seem to be improving there.  Auburn never took the shelter in place orders as seriously as our more densely developed neighbors, but so far seems no worse for the wear.  I am much more concerned about the precedents set by enforcing those orders than I am about the spread of the virus, but both are potential problems, that have the possibility of getting way out of hand.

Personally, I have been focused on installing my own solar panel system for the last few weeks, but now that it is up and running, I will have a bit more time on my hands to try to use wisely while stuck at home.  And I am fortunate enough to have the resources to stay home for the time being, and just make preparations for the future, as we all try to determine what that will look like.  I still think is in likely that things will improve within a month, but I am planning for the eventuality that it does not.  The garden becomes the next focus, as things warm up, as an alternate source of food.  Might be time to expand the chicken flock as well, since that has been an under utilized resource.  But those things are longer term investments, that we have to make it through the short term in order to benefit from.

Current totals are 270K infection and 7K deaths.  At this point I think we may see 1M infections, and 50K deaths, but it is hard to know who to trust, as both the media and the government are incentivized to exaggerate the extent of the issue.  It will be interesting to see with hindsight how many people had minor infections early on, without realizing it.  Lots more people think they have COVID-19 than actually do (<80% of tests are negative) and lots of other people thing they have already had it.  It will be really interesting to see the blood test results when searching for anti-bodies in a random selection of the population.

Politics in the Moment

This time period will be interesting to look back on with the benefit of hindsight, but it will be hard to remember what it felt like in the moment, which is that value of recording it in writing.  With 25 Democratic challengers competing in the presidential primary, it is anyone's guess who the nominee will be.  Trump had barely entered the race at this point four years ago.

Twitter conversations continue to be a popular topic in the media, continually escalating the partisan dialog to new lows.  It is hard to tell whether Trump is impulsive and lucky, or a cunning mastermind.  Either option can be comforting or scary depending on how you look at it.  Part of me thinks he is too inept to effectively do to much damage to the country, while another part of me recognizes that he succeeds at half of what he sets out to do.  Fortunately I agree with more of what he has done than what he has said, and what he has done matters more in the long run.

Racism is the topic of the moment, even though it's definition has been expanded beyond the point of recognition in order to apply it to recent events.  Most of the incidents it is applied to have less to do with race than nationality or culture.  But their has been an interesting distinction made between "Go back where you came from," which implies making a choice to leave, and "send her back," which implies unilaterally doing something by force.  Having a high value for Freedom, it makes a significant difference to me how these possibilities are framed.  Fortunately everyone, including Trump, has come out against the latter, which was heard from the crowd, not from him, at a campaign event.  But it is a natural extension of "Lock her up," which was a popular slogan of the first race.

Part of me wishes Trump would shut up and focus more on getting work done, but he seems to have figured out how to feed the 24/7 media what they need to stay in business manufacturing partisan hysteria for profit.  And that may be a key ingredient in shifting attention away from the actual issues that are getting worked on.  Only time will tell how effective that approach is.

Forgiveness and Moving Forward in Light of the Past

Last winter I reconnected with someone I had worked with seven years before.  I had previously been in a position of informal leadership over them, before life took us separate ways.  He resurfaced in way that clearly seemed to be God's timing, during a series of other events that I interpreted as His leading me a certain direction, and we began working together, very informally, from across the country.

A few months later, I suddenly stopped hearing from him entirely.  I later learned that was because he had gotten himself into some pretty serious trouble.  From the info I have been able to find, he clearly made a few bad decisions and showed poor judgement, but it seems likely his actions may not have warranted the string of consequences he was potentially facing.  All of the charges against him were dropped a few weeks later, so there will probably be no more legal ramifications, but the publicity has wreaked havoc on his credibility and reputation, as well as his nearly completed graduate degree.  It is a pretty rough situation for him, and many people are probably running the other way, "out of an abundance of caution."

At Men's Bible Study this morning we were discussing how the church is as guilty of this phenomenon as any other entity, if not more so, even though we preach about grace and forgiveness.  Personally, I am a bit removed from the situation, with only a couple people we both know, mostly indirectly.  So while the truth does matter, as always, I have few details, and little way of verifying any of them, and the past incident may not be as significant as his reaction to it.  Whatever the truth of the past may be, as long as he is repentant, and wants to change, I am open to continuing to work with him, which I believe is the right attitude to have.  The practicality of making that happen is a different matter entirely.

While it would theoretically be possible to resume communication with him, and never even mention or acknowledge the incident and aftermath, that doesn't seem like a very healthy approach for anyone involved.  But initiating a conversation about the recent events, that I know little of the true details about, is quite challenging.  I want to bring the issue up, without being dismissive of or insensitive to what he has gone through in the aftermath.  I want to communicate that I have heard certain things, so I am not totally in the dark, without making assumptions or judgments about the incident itself until I hear his side of the story.  And I want to open the path towards resuming our relationship, while still setting boundaries while I learn more about where he is at, and what effect these events have had on him.  So that email draft has been bouncing around for a while, both in my head and now onscreen.  A textbook example of the significance of articulate and sensitive diplomacy, and a test case for reconciliation and rebuilding.  But it ain't easy, and who knows how it will be received.

Courage and Cowardice

While most virtues are losing their regard in popular society, courage is still valued, and cowardice frowned upon.  It is interesting to observe which current events are made all consuming for a moment, and then forgotten in a week, and which are more enduring, resulting in actual changes.  The Valentine's Day shooting in Florida seems to be sticking around in the public consciousness, more so than other mass shootings in recent memory.  This may be due to a few unique characteristics compared to most other recent shootings, that shed some light on how we very courage and cowardice.

Besides the tips that law enforcement ignored ahead of time, there were armed officers on scene during the event that didn't get involved.  The one who was on site from the beginning of the event has already been removed from his position, but there are three other officers who are accused of arriving during the shooting and not engaging the shooter, who initially escaped the scene.

If reports are correct that the officers in Florida took cover outside during the shooting, that is one more result of the erosion of honor in our society.  In trying to remove all forms of shame, we have lost honor in the process.  Men used be more afraid of being a coward than of dying, but that doesn't appear to be true in this case.  But the public reaction seem to be a sign that not all is lost in that regard.  We still do view cowardice with disdain, and are looking to shame and punish those who exhibited it.  This is the first time I can recall hearing of someone being removed from their position based on cowardice, and it will be interesting to see to what degree the other three are held accountable.

It is also interesting to observe the popular public reaction in regards to limiting access to guns to law enforcement triggered by an event that in reality highlighted exactly why we can't rely on law enforcement to be the only force available to react to these kinds of violent events.  But the public is not known for being logical in their reactionary campaigns to current events.  Which is why we need people who have courage to stand up for what is right as opposed to what is popular.

"We (demons) have made men proud of most vices, not not of cowardice.  Whenever we have almost succeeded in doing so, the Enemy permits a...calamity, and at once courage becomes so obviously lovely and important even in human eyes that all our work is undone, and there is still at least one vice which they feel genuine shame." (C.S. Lewis's Screwtape Letters 30)

NFL and Respect for the Flag

The whole country is in an uproar about whether or not professional athletes should be forced to stand at attention when the national anthem is played before their games.  Certain players and teams are refusing to do so as a protest again what they see as racism in the police force and other institutions in the country.

I think the whole thing is a manufactured issue, that the media created, to successfully get more attention to the things they are showing.  Starting with Colin Kaepernick last year, the issue has simmered until last week when it exploded across the world, with Trump denouncing it, players in England taking part, entire teams not attending the anthem, and it spreading to other sports.

Mostly this has occurred as players taking a knee during the anthem, or remaining seated when the rest of the team stands.  Other players have remained standing but raised a fist instead of placing their hand over their heart.  The Steelers took it a step farther by not showing up on the field for the anthem.  It will be interesting to see what happens next, as people try to top that move in their quest for attention.  It is an increasing level of disrespect for the flag, and country depending on how you look at it.  Part of the spread seems to be fueled by rebellion against the idea that certain people have been expressing: "that the players shouldn't be allowed to protest."  Just because someone can do something doesn't necessarily mean that they should.

From a first amendment perspective, there is nothing that the government can or should do about it.  So in that way, Trump is totally out of line, and the last person that should try to influence the situation. The NFL or individual team owners have the right, but not the obligation, to put a stop to it.  The owners of certain teams like the Cowboy's have prohibited their players from taking part, while others like the Patriots have supported the protest.  The Jaguars owner took part in the protest himself, while the Steelers coach (unsuccessfully) tried to pressure his entire team into taking part.

The unexpected result of this was that it gave one Steelers player the opportunity to make a protest of his own.  Standing outside the locker rom at the edge of the field, the former Army Ranger stood at attention during the anthem, in a move that implicitly protested the ongoing disrespect of the flag and country.  Now the one standing apart and getting attention is the one doing the normal thing, which becomes counterproductive for those trying to point attention where they want it, so that might be the key to ending the issue.  It is not a protest that is sustainable or scalable.  Once entire teams are doing it, it becomes the new normal, and no one is getting special attention, and people stop talking about it.

I think the entire issue is a good highlight to the general public of what the first amendment does and doesn't apply to.  People care far more about sports than I think they should, but if that interest motivates them to examine this legal issue closer than they otherwise would, so be it.  It should help them understand that the first amendment only protects them from the government punishing them in disapproval of their free expressions.  Other people are free to express counter opinions in response, or even to terminate their relationships or employment with them (Within certain parameters).  This is similar to the dancers who didn't want to perform at Trumps inauguration, they have a right not to, but at the expense of their jobs.  It will be interesting to see if this grows into a conflict between people who do have authority to change things (the league and owners) and the players.  Because up until now, nothing of any consequence has actually taken place as a result of the entire thing.  And I am not sure how much of anything positive really could, given the broad nature of what they are protesting.

Confederate Monuments and Other Historical Memorials

The debate about Confederate monuments has expanded since my last post, and now has begun to include anyone who owned slaves, or is perceived to have held racists views.  Since pretty much everyone prior to the twentieth century held racist views, (Same as they believed smoking was good for you, and all sorts of other things) that pretty much provides a wild card to justify attacking any part of America's history or heritage.  Even Abraham Lincoln, famous for fighting to end slavery, still expressed extremely racist views by our modern standard.  Instead of that fact providing people with a little more perspective on the realities of the past, it led someone to deface (literally) a statue of Lincoln in Chicago.  There are people calling for changes to Mt. Rushmore, because it honors people who were "racist" (all of them) and slave owners (Washington and Jefferson).  ESPN even removed a sports commentator to avoid offending people who might be bothered that his (Asian) name is Robert Lee.  Seems kind of racist to me to remove someone from their position due to their last name.

Anyhow, I had already written up both sides of the debate about Confederate statues, because I wasn't sure exactly where I stood on the issue, and figured that it would need to be a case by case thing.  But in light of these new over reaching demands, I am opposed to removing any historical monument (or doing much of anything else in life) purely to avoid offending someone.  But let's examine both sides of the original issue:

There are a number of different reasons given by supporters of removal, including that Confederates were traitors that shouldn't be honored, that they were racists who oppressed blacks in the south, and that the statues were erected decades later by white supremacists.  Those opposed to removing them point out that they are works of art, those honored were Americans, and part of the South's heritage.  They also point out that past leaders, and pretty much everyone else, held views that are considered racist today.  So if that disqualifies historical figures from being honored, there would be none left.  And even if those honored did hold offensive views, deliberately erasing them from the public consciousness does nothing to change the past, and only makes it harder for society to recognize and learn from its past mistakes.  If we agree to start removing historical monuments, how do we determine which ones should be removed?  Confederate leaders is a tangible line, but if the issue is really racism, then where does it end?  As part of the reunification after the Civil War ended, Confederate soldiers were forgiven, and given status as US veterans.  Who are we to "unforgive" them now?  Compare the results we experienced to Iraq, where the ideological conflict between Sunnis and Shiites or other factions goes on for generations.  While we have our polarizing differences of opinion and vision for the country, we are far more united than we could be, due in part to the reconciliation process after the Civil War.  The reconstruction process was far from perfect, but it wisely made an effort to avoid demonizing the opposing side who had lost.  But we are beginning to do that now, and seeing the resulting conflict.

The one change that I have heard proposed, that at least loosely makes sense, is that the committee that manages the Jefferson Memorial is looking at adding more placards that examine the Virginian's views on racism and slavery.  While he did own slaves, he argued against the morality for slavery from an academic and moral perspective.  And to further complicate the issue, it is alleged that he had "relationships" with some of his slaves, which opens up a whole different set of race issues, but it was wisely determined that those more controversial questions were better left to be addressed by exhibits at Monticello, the museum of his home.  I am always in favor of exposing the truth ("better than living a lie") but I am a bit concerned the people will use these types of things to further discredit the founding fathers and their values in other areas: for example, limited government, and individual freedoms.

The fact that this all became a huge issue within the last month is pretty much comedy.  Why now and not five or ten years ago?  The overly offended crowd hasn't even succeeded in getting the Redskins to change their name, and now they want to take on everyone in history?  The world is not a perfect place, and pretending otherwise is never going to help anyone.

Charlottesville Conflict

Last weekend's events in Charlottesville Virgnia have led to all sorts of commentary and discussion online.  This is in part because the events in question (and the context surrounding them) reveal larger differences in values between different segments of our polarized culture.  The actions and responses raise all sorts of important questions in a number of areas that are worth addressing.

First off we have the original issue of whether we should be removing monuments to our country's history and past leaders.  And if so, who should determine which ones, based on what criteria?  And how should those doing it without legal authority be treated?  Then there is the issue of how should we as Christians respond to the fact that their are people openly supporting Nazi ideas marching in the streets?  And how should we feel about the secretive "Antifa" that violently confronts those seen as Nazis?  Should people be allowed to be armed when attending these kinds of demonstrations?  What about the person running down pedestrians with a car, and killing one of them?  And then there is the issue of how the president and the rest of the government should be expected to react to the events that are taking place.  And should they be held in any way responsible for the fact that these events are taking place during their administration?  So there are a lot of separate issues at influencing the situation, and therefore people's views on what should happen, and why.

The source issue that led to the event in the first place is the larger movement to remove Confederate statues across the country.  This is a vast topic, that I will dedicate a full post to soon.  For now we can just say that if the conclusion is that we shouldn't remove them, the results are simple.  If we agree that some should be removed, this leads to the complex questions of which ones, and what should the process be for determining that, which I will examine more in that next post.  What we have right now, are groups of people taking it upon themselves to remove or destroy statues, and should we turn a blind eye to those acts of vandalism?  The only reasonable thing to do is prosecute people doing it illegally, otherwise there would be no logical arguement against burning down abortion clinics, or any other institution that some party finds offensive.  This should be obvious, but there are some trying to defend these people and their vandalism.

The fact that there are modern people with a favorable view of the Nazi Party and their ideas does boggle the mind.  But they do exist, and they are publicly exercising their right to free speech by expressing their misguided views.  So would should the reaction to that be?  First off, the government should not do anything beyond keep an eye on them as long they don't go beyond saying things, even if what they are saying is hateful and offensive.  Individuals and private companies should be free to avoid associating with or serving or employing them.  But as Christians we shouldn't hate them, C.S.Lewis addresses the proper Christian response in Mere Christianity (Bk3-Ch7 Forgiveness).  We should always hope for their change of heart or redemption, even if we have to use lethal force to protect others from them.  So hating Nazis just makes you more like one of them.  This should be obvious, but there are some trying to make Nazis the exception to all civilized rules.

Once someone moves beyond hateful words, to hateful or violent actions, we are in a different situation, and I have no hesitation for the use of force in response.  But that escalation from expressing ideas to implementing them forcefully is a significant one.  Most of the violence last weekend appears to be conducted between people looking for a conflict, on both sides.  The Nazis weren't the only party looking for a fight.  Members of Antifa openly advocate violence as a justified response to Nazis, and anyone else they don't approve of.  In my opinion Antifa seems more violent than the current generation of Nazis, and I see them as a more realistic threat to our culture, because there is no overwhelming majority actively opposing them.  And Antifa operates in anonymity, like the old KKK, while the Nazis are out in the open, allowing them to be identified.  Those supporting the Nazi's antagonists might want to consider that 4 years of conflict with Nazis resulted in 40 years of conflict with Communists.  This should be obvious, but there are some trying to defend the violent aggression of Antifa's members.

Allegedly someone deliberately ran into a group of pedestrians, killing one and injuring many others.  If that is true, it is murder, and I am all for their punishment.  but unlike the similar ISIS attacks in Europe, this seems like an impulsive act of malice, not an example of Nazi tactics that we should be concerned about.  Due to Virginia being an open carry state, there were also many protesters on both sides of the issue who came armed with guns, presumably for self defense.  In my opinion, this is exactly why the 2nd amendment exists, and a success story for the value of having armed citizens.  Hundreds of people were involved in a violent conflict, and not a shot was fired, because most of the violence was between the unarmed members.  Guns raise the stakes to point where violent conflict is no longer worth the risks. (Similar to nukes in international relations)  It is hard to prove that the presence of guns reduced the amount of potential violence, but since not a shot was fired, it would be hard to argue that it increased it any at all.  Taking a way guns wouldn't have prevented the one death that did occur, and might have led to more, similar to Europe's current problem with alternatives to guns being used in violent attacks. (Knives, acid, vehicles, etc.)  It should be obvious that guns aren't the source of the violence problem, but there are some trying to outlaw their presence, or even existence.

Some how a violent riot in Virginia is being blamed on the President.  While a leader is technically in charge, he doesn't control everything that happens within his domain of influence, especially with our limited form of government.  But there are some participants who were quoting various things he had said, so he has had some influence on the people involved.  He didn't come off very strongly against those involved, especially in his first response, but I can't fault him for blaming both sides.  There are many who were offended that he criticized both sides, based on their opinion that the ideas of Antifa aren't as bad as the ideas expressed by the Nazis.  But even if that was true, two wrongs don't make a right, and being "better than Nazis" does not make something "good."  I find it interesting that this is the issue that appears to be "sticking," more than the weekly issues of the past few months that the media has highlighted in their ongoing effort to discredit the current administration.  I wouldn't be surprised if we see more events like this in the near future, as those who are trying to generate narratives like this one appear to have found a successful approach.