Sanity and mercy for the alien

Matthew 5:7 Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy

The third beatitude spoken by Jesus at the Sermon on the Mount hits at a key double standard that plagues humanity. That is, people universally want mercy extended towards them but adopt stances that lack mercy towards others. Christ repeatedly linked the incoming with the outgoing, because it’s the foundation of community in a human condition where people have a strong likelihood to fall into destructive and hurtful behavior.  So the statement has a flip side – no outgoing mercy, none coming in.

I take it as a given that we all need mercy.

I’m going to write about a hot button issue with the hope of being a cooler head and inspiring other heads to cool off as well. And become exercise more mercy, because they need mercy towards themselves.

As we experience the actions of individuals and groups, we will observe behavior that can offend and injure ourselves or our group. That behavior is widely various and so are its effects.

When the others’ behavior becomes a hot button due to flash points or political arousal, the practice of outgoing mercy evaporates and hearts are made hard.

Image result for quichua milford ma

The current turmoil of sentiment against illegal American aliens is a very good example. Offenses, real and imagined, have energized a movement and candidate to take decisive action. And the backlash of liberal ideology that embraces immigrants then became merciless towards their political foes who they didn’t bother to understand, let alone even consider exercising mercy.

I’m a moderate, which means I have very few political friends – or better put my political friends are actually civil enough to see both sides of the issues. So you know

  • I do understand the problems caused by illegal aliens – lack of tax-paying while consuming services, taking jobs from American citizens, breaking the law by being here illegally, crime and more.
  • I do understand compassion – that these people came to our country for a better life just like all immigrants before them, that they are “illegal” because of laws that have failed and that they have families just like mine.

I’m also an engineer and part of my make-up is trying to solve problems. So I want to advance some ideas, not necessarily new ones but in composite perhaps only lightly articulated. I would ask readers – who mostly fall into the camps described above – to avoid finding a problem with every solution. Mostly because we have no solutions now and the very will to find workable ones is primary to getting out of the current turmoil.

Here are the bones of a plan:

  1. Establish a path to citizenship for aliens currently in the country. Make it attractive and make it well-defined with steps anyone could walk. Start with a social security card to go with a path towards a green card.
  2. Provide a deadline by which people have to sign up for the plan and make it clear that if they fail to do so, they will be deported. I mean forcefully.  Serve strong notice to all known employers of undocumented aliens.
  3. Once the deadline is reached, aggressively go after scoff-laws and have them either sign up or leave. Hit places of employment very hard.  Yes, this is merciful because it advances responsibility.
  4. Reform the immigration laws. Establish reasonable quotas (higher than they are), asylum rules and vetting processes. Provide a method for safe haven for refugees while keeping out those who would harm the country.
  5. Make a 5-year review of immigration law mandatory. That is, times and people movement change. And so should the law.

.. or some set of points like that.

I realize this forgives the offenses of overstaying one’s visa, illegally crossing borders and potentially lying about it.  I don’t do that lightly but as a pragmatic step whose only alternatives both lack the mercy and are too costly on many fronts to make them viable.

And I would definitely both share the riches of my country with others and insist that if they are here, they become part of “us”. Because we need each other.

Can we learn from Bruchko? Please?

We have just celebrated the American holiday of Thanksgiving.  Along with the general attitude of gratitude suggested by the holiday is a the history of least a single point-in-time harmony of Europeans and Native Americans.  The image of the two groups in fellowship, enjoying a share meal is seared into the minds of young American children from early age.  And it’s not that inaccurate:

Related image

But it’s also not complete as a story.  Because the whole story mostly features the two group not getting along well at all.

Native Americans were misnamed “Indians” by the wave of southern European explorers who found themselves landing in the shores of the Americas. “America “ itself was a name bestowed upon the new world, after the explorer Amerigo Vespucci.

By most DNA and historical analysis, the tribal groups inhabiting the Americas at the time of the “discovery” by Europeans had migrated from eastern Asia thousands of years earlier. Their distinction as the earliest inhabitants establishes a context for what would follow, but their real origin makes the moniker “Native American” a bit less sticky.

Whoever or whatever existed in the American continents prior to their arrival would be more “native” than they. This does nothing to soften the horrible tale of brutality later practiced against them. I mention their origin only to note that their discovery and settlement of the same land traveling from the east had at least the same aspect of people movement as that of the discovery and settlement from the west by Europeans. And we’ll never know what else it had in common.

I have thought and hard about how the ensuing conflict between the two cultures could have been avoided or lessened. Aside from the Europeans sailing back and leaving the Americas and their residents alone – maybe establishing trade partnerships, say – there was going to be conflict. Consider:

  • The Europeans who came to the New World were discoverers and settlers. Negatively they could be called conquerors, though the European version of conqueror was quite different than these settlers. They were not diplomats or people sensitive to other cultures. There were traders for sure, and perhaps these were the most likely strike a harmonious balance with the indigenous people.
  • Cultures were going to clash. There were many difference, but the principle one causing conflict concerned land. Owning and permanently settling on land was a foreign concept to Native Americans. And restrictions of where could live, hunt, fish and farm were also foreign.
  • There was a profound technological advantage. There has been much said and written about the forgotten (or repressed) advances of the Native American people. In spite of this, the Europeans held a 800-1500 year advantage in development upon their arrival. I do not say that to say that made them better as a people group, though that’s exactly what they concluded. The racist attitudes created an atmosphere that squelched any move for reconciliation.

Related image

Now, Native Americans were not the only people treated poorly by the westward moving whites. Mexicans, Asians and Africans also received prejudice and brutal abuse.

So, beginning with King Phillip’s War, there would be conflicts between the peoples. The Europeans prevailed, supplanting their culture over the land. It is in the wake of that prevalence after conflict that we live today. It can also be said that the conflict is not over – there have been skirmishes that persist even today.

Native American population is thought to have decreased from 12 million to about 250 thousand by the end of the 19th century. Most of the decrease is attributed to disease, but loss of life due to conflict and relocation was awful.

Image result for indian dead at wounded knee

Saying that conflict was inevitable is not to say that cruelty or maltreatment was. The war had atrocities like many others, and after a point, neither side cared much about the culture or even survival of the other.

There have long been voices calling for restitution and restoration but I would hold that neither can occur without allowing Native American culture to dominate, at least provincially.  And yes, that means the war for cultural dominance is still with us.

I will assign value to advancement in technology for the benefit of people without it, divorced from its often-linked cultural domination. Some might call this culturally insensitive; I really just want the best for all people. I believe that the advancement of the human race through innovation and invention is a blessing for all humankind. And yes, not all technology is good or used well, of course. Like all people who are exposed to new things, we do well to be suspicious of the motives and practices of those introducing us to new things.

So how can Culture A be brought up to speed with the blessings of Culture B? And how can the differing elements of culture be reconciled?

I thought about this and one story came to mind.

Image result for motilone bruce

It was Bruchko – the story of Bruce Olson who sought out a reclusive tribe of Native South Americans in Venezuela – the Motilones – and not only brought them into the 20th century, but made them a political force to be reckoned with in the nations of Venezuela and Colombia. They kept their land and evolved their way of live mostly peaceably.

And please, if you assign him a stereotyped role as “missionary” you will miss a very important story of compassion and cultural sensitivity.

Image result for pipeline protest

How can this story help us today with Native Americans in the US? I don’t know, but I want to believe it can be done. Because it has been done.

Nothing “senseless” about it

I don’t like war. But when it happens, it doesn’t matter what I like. And if I dub an act of violence “senseless” when it makes perfect sense in war, I practice self-deceit.

We’re watching war, like it or not. We’re at war, like it or not. We have a tough time saying that word “war” because a) the events don’t fit our patterns of territorial acquisition – though they really do – and b) our very neighbors can be turned into the enemy without our knowing. And let’s be sure we fully understand the murderous antipathy that happens in b); body counts tell a vivid story of hatred.

The root of Islamic terrorism is a mix of greed, poverty and broken, missing or dysfunctional government. I don’t mean American or European government, but that in the Middle East from where most jihadists hail. They find Quranic verses to justify all manner of depravity and slaughter. But they recruit those who calculate they have little to lose in life and yearn to be heroes of something. And indeed they do not.

jihadpic

Why then are the targets America and Europe? It’s because those nations are seen – somewhat accurately – as those with interests that prop up corrupt and oppressive regimes while vaunting an un-Islamic culture. Jihad is waged against infidels – those of another belief system. But it’s more than that internally. It’s a tribal-based chauvinism directed against those who have shamed the tribe. And there is no statute of limitations on such feelings of shame – the nations of Europe and America are called Crusaders due to a long, selective memory (indeed there was no America yet).

It is of interest that if America and Europe stopped consuming Mideast oil that China and Russia would continue – propping up those same leaders.

As important as any of those sentiments are, there is one that is greater. It is so strong that bitter Muslim enemies unite behind it. Of course I mean resentment towards the democratic state of Israel. Its Jewish identity offends Muslims. The tragic relations between Arabs and Jews have created a permanent state of war. Of course, who but the Europeans and Americans are those who support Israel? Thus, the lumping. And again, not inaccurate.  Though to emphasize the good sense in supporting Israel – it remains one of the only nations in the Middle East where an Arab (yes Arab!) can vote.

But there’s no getting around it – Western Civilization, for all its flaws and injustices – stands opposed to the caliphates, monarchies and oligarchies of the Middle East. And I have no issue with citing its evolved superiority. I don’t say that proudly because there is no human history without systemic crimes and injustices. But the means in place to address those are further along in the West.

It’s obvious that this war cannot be fought conventionally. George W. Bush said that after 9/11 but no one has gone deeper into strategy beyond better military options. I am no pacifist in this conflict, but if one leads with guns one or uses only guns, then it will only enforce the hatred, ironically because our guns are better than theirs.

So, what to do? There are thousands of lists out there, so here’s number 4903:

  1. Love a Muslim. It is absolutely true that most Muslims are NOT jihadists. They don’t even bite. They need to be heard, understood and loved.
  2. Nix the tribe. Individuals are much more effective to engage with than armies. And I don’t even mean the armies with guns. If I want another to surrender his/her preconceptions, I should surrender mine. Because most of them did not come from me in the first place.
  3. His name is Jesus.  The Crusaders got it wrong.  Very wrong.  This is not at odds with “nix the tribe” because Jesus followers are from every tribe.  He didn’t conquer by force, he did so by dying, loving those who were killing him.  And yes, that’s more powerful than suicide belts.
  4. Work and support justice for the poor. Very few charities get the money to the problem. Find one. Support it. Raise a child.
  5. Become energy independent. Not only in the name of being green, or more natural but because Mideast oil is too valuable to the whole world.
  6. Advocate for better Israeli/Arab relations. It’s a bitter past but not all Arab people are united in the desire to destroy Israel. Nor are all Israelis hateful of Arabs. There has to be middle ground to find here. Support those who seek to find and walk on it.
  7. Pray. Doubtless there are those who are decidedly non- or even anti-spiritual reading this. That’s okay, we’ll pray for you too. These problems are bigger than us all, so I have no problem promoting them to One who can actually help.
  8. Fight and support the fight. Yes this includes supporting the military forces of the West, but it’s also a cultural and moral fight. Learn the truth and tell it – even if it indicts our side and thus pollutes our cause. Truth wins the war.

We have a mess on our hands. Doing nothing is not an option. Jihadis want us dead. It’s a war.

The Hubris of Revision

I read an article yesterday picking on Valentine’s Day. It took down the card companies, the forced and scheduled love, and even the Single’s Awareness Day which it has fostered.

The article said it was fine to celebrate. But somehow it was necessary to find things wrong with that, which is akin to saying “You are free to do that, but you’re an insensitive and ignorant idiot.” At least that’s what I heard.

It didn’t really go into history, and I think that’s because the writer may have found himself attacking something really beautiful. But historical and cultural revision is all the rage.
RevisionistHistory

And I’ll say it – it’s predominantly by the millennial generation.

Now getting history right is good. Let me talk a little about a popular-to-malign figure, Christopher Columbus:

I do think Columbus has been over-lionized, and mostly by a distinct group – my ethnic Italian friends. But the attack on old Chris has presented him without any good qualities. He was, at the very least, a daring explorer. And on the bad side, at the very least, a horrible governor. So now if you celebrate his day – which was always a good day to take off from work – you are a heretic and one espousing pillage and rape.

Not so!! I have no particular connection with things Columbus and I’ve known since 15 years old or so that the Norwegians were the first Europeans to set foot on North America.

So what? Columbus set sail across an ocean not knowing what he would find. His modern critics have the courage to post entries on the internet.

His crew was a collection of tough, morally compromised men who believed they answered to no one, not even Columbus.

I don’t know the details and context of the abuse his crew and people heaped on Native Americans. Neither do his detractors, though they love to find and spit disconnected writings as if they prove their points. We can probably say he at least didn’t stop it. But we don’t know what would happen if he did. There are other explorers who treated the indigenous people they encountered with kindness and dignity. Bartolome de la Casas is such a person.

Columbus had weaknesses – in particular he was a poor leader and governor. His men ran rampant and did their brutal best to ruin the good country and people they had found.

I’m not making excuses for Christopher Columbus. I’m saying he wasn’t as good as the holiday says and not as bad as his modern critics say.

The more troubling phenomenon is the need to revise. To make some points:

1. Snobs revise. C.S. Lewis coined the phrase “chronological snobbery” to describe the phenomenon of a generation declaring its superiority to past generations by applying its enlightened perspective to those living in past centuries. Note that he wrote that in the 1940s – so there’s nothing new about revisionism.  But “snobbery” is an accurate description of the practice.  One thing is certain – that same practice will be exercised by one’s children.  The snobs will be vilified by future snobs.

2. Context and progress matter. In the American south during the slave era, racism was rife. Believing that Africans were subhuman was required to live in a society where they were treated that way. It was wrong, horribly unjust and we live with the wounds of that society to this day. But expecting someone who lived in that society to have the values of 21st century America ignores the economic system in force and the struggle it would take to bring justice. So, reading the words of a white slave owner – like Thomas Jefferson – and coloring them all with a single fact is willfully ignorant and unfair.

3. Injection is fallacy. Like Walter Mitty, those who insert themselves as heroes, retroactively into systems and times of injustice and abuse are day dreaming. It’s so easy to write critically and spew ad hominem vitriol on one’s forebears. It’s an entirely different matter to live under such systems and stay alive to make change. Nazis killed detractors; and the fear that spawned helped poison the minds and actions of an entire generation of German people.  There were heroic ones who resisted, but they did so risking it all.

4. Do revisionists really care? If those writing so critically applied the same energy to the known injustices of today; they would get a taste of the roadblocks and realities of the good fight. That way they would understand better that, for instance, misogyny was once a sea in which entire cultures swam (indeed still swim) and its practice, assumptions and language permeated everything.

Please, let’s revise US. And let’s practice mercy – finding the good and virtue amidst whatever else we might find wrong – with our historical past.

We will then find that mercy triumphs over judgment. Period. And when we need mercy, we will also receive it. There was someone really important who said:

Matthew 5:7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

Of Tyrants and Thieves – Part 2

I need to pop Robin Hood’s balloon here. I like Little John and Friar Tuck. They’re great guys to have on your team.

And in the face of real oppression, the team is well-formed, -purposed and -led. But it’s only a story. Because

  1. Rich people can be very good people with vital talents. I mean they can be charitable and generous.  And if they lack those attributes then they are at least “good with money”.  Their profits are revenues that someone else once had, but so are monies that go to charity and welfare.  The thing is, they understand a good investment. And a bad one. They tend to be smart and creative. They are good strategists and tacticians.

  2. Poor people can be very bad people. Regardless of income, they can be just as greedy and oppressive as those “over them” in authority and resource. Despite romanticizing Robin Hood, thieves are generally not heroes. They are thieves. In practice, they steal from their own more than from the wealthy.

Now this is no defense or advocacy of leaving the poor impoverished. Poverty is a terrible problem; an ancient scourge on humanity. And its persistence across the generations humbles all who would hope to address it. As Jesus said, referring to the objection of some to a poor woman pouring expensive perfume over him:

Matthew 26:11 The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.

But the Robin Hood solution will not work. As I wrote above, it’s a lousy projection – the patterns are contrived.  Also, the poor in Nottingham remained poor even after Robin had returned their money. Because that’s often (not always) what happens when poor people – really almost any people – get one-time deposits of money.

So these are brief principles to move towards more effectively fixing things. They have implied action in public policy and yes .. political action. I won’t engage in the nasty banter of the latter here.  Just posit some ideas.

  • Help the wealthy own the problem. I did not say “Make” but “Help”. As in provide an incentive for. The opposite of greed is not deprivation but generosity. One thing we can “make” is to make generosity attractive and in vogue. That would help these best-in-the world problem solvers and investors find ways of developing the human potential of poor people. The trouble is that the rich are not trusted to do anything but make themselves richer. That’s a mistake and a misjudgment. Bill Gates is a good example. He will always be rich, and he stands to gain from some of his investments in human capital. But so what? The guy is trying to cure malaria. Let taxes be paid by hiring and training the jobless. And by investing in civic and human infrastructure in poor communities. Borrow from the Incan mita system, allowing taxes to be paid via service. It can be done; we just have to want to do it. And stop the worthless class warfare.

  • Change entitlements. I did not say “Eliminate”. The poor need help, but Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty made poverty worse, the jury is in. Avoid the right’s equation of all aid being handouts (= irresponsibility). But also the left’s sacred cow of assuaging guilt by spending money. Neither is helpful. Aid needs accountable focus.  The physical operation of the system is archaic.  Waste and fraud need elimination by doing away with paper transfers like stamps and physical vouchers. A single card could be used to provide benefits, say. Tracking and strongly encouraging/promoting life-progress should be a component of any benefit provided. People who can work must work. Slant towards making benefits conditional using the strategic like education and job-skill attainment. Of course there are people who do and can not progress, but that is a particular class of benefit. Clean up and streamline government agencies administering such benefits. Open up competition to such agencies in the private (or faith) sector, if necessary, to make them efficient and diligent where need be. Some of this has been and is being done; do it all the more.

  • Let Friar Tuck help. Bar none, the most efficient and effective charities are both faith-based and Christian. I make no apologies for the plug. And I advance the conviction that “faith-based” is neither a negative term nor one laden with any toxicity. The Salvation Army already receives government funding, for example and they preach the gospel. Values-based exclusion of the contribution of faith groups to helping the poor is ignorant. It shows the projection of other stories (than Robin Hood) onto the landscape. Inaccurate and unfair. And values are ALWAYS being advanced when aid is given; it’s only a matter of whose.  Indeed, Robin Hood was a friend of Friar Tuck for a reason – it even legitimized his work.

  • Involve the people. I mean all the people, not just those in “government”. Class-ism is as bad or worse a problem as poverty, since it destroys a nation. Anti-immigrant people need to know an immigrant family. Anti-poor need to know one that’s impoverished. Anti-rich need to have spend time with those who own yachts (plural) without money on the conversation agenda.

Sherwood Forest is pretty but not a good place to stay warm and dry. And though we may find evil tyrants and heroic thieves, there’s a whole lot more people who really care out there.

I don’t just believe that, I’ve seen it. Psalm 112 is recommended reading.

Of Tyrants and Thieves – Part 1

The rich history of the legend of Robin Hood is a study in itself. Legend has its foundation in history. And in historical pattern.

So there was, in this story, a tyrant, King John, the evil brother of good King Richard who was away His minion, the Sheriff of Nottingham, exacted taxes for the royal coffers that financially crushed those who were already poor. Robin Hood righteously rebelled against the Sheriff and King John. He organized a group of colorful, wonderful followers who lived in the woods and raided (stole from) the royal treasury anyway they could. They returned the money to the poor. Robin fell in love with a lady of high social standing, Marian. She secretly helped Robin in his just endeavors. Eventually, King Richard returned and justice was restored to England.

It is the pattern of this story that I want to look at in this post. Its archetypes and rehearsed morality. And there are basically two active character types here.

  1. Tyrants – King John has all the goods he needs. Yet he is greedy and wants still more. In his merciless oppression, he forcefully takes from those who can least afford to give. People hate him, except for those in his employ. Those people enforce his rule by violent and ruthless means, because they stand to gain from its bounty. Or they are afraid to cross the king, and that is an important distinction.

  2. Thieves – Given the oppression, stealing is believed to be a righteous act. Robin Hood is a hero as he leads a band of rebels to recover what was stolen by the tyrant. In many accounts, his means of seizing the tax revenues are ingenious and humorous and non-deadly. He’s a good thief, even to the point of enlisting the blessing of the only cleric in the story, the lovable Friar Tuck.

While this is hardly the only story in Western Civilization with these themes and archetypes, it is a prominent one. And I’d say some in the culture repeatedly go to some lengths to project it onto the modern landscape.

Here’s what I mean – I hold these to be provably false:

a. All rich people are evil tyrants. If someone 1) makes a wage above a certain level, or 2) has property above a certain threshold, it’s because that person is greedy and selfish. Any effort to protect wealth is further evidence of these attributes. Everything such a person does is tainted by his/her having too much. Even world-changing charity.

b. All poor people are noble victims. Every crime committed, every dysfunctional aspect of life is caused by deprivation of the goods it takes to live well. Therefore supplying those goods will make the problem of poverty go away. All poor people would be happy and will be happy with more money.

Maybe you look at those and completely agree with them. Maybe you scoff at it and say “who believes that?” Or maybe you’re somewhere in the middle.

To be sure there is a Biblical proverb that covers the sentiment that lionizes Robin Hood:

Proverbs 6:30-31 Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house.

In other words, a thief is a thief. He has broken the law. But isn’t this “good stealing”? After all, isn’t Robin Hood just doing God’s work?

Psalm 35:10 My whole being will exclaim “Who is like you, O LORD? You rescue the poor from those too strong for them, the poor and needy from those who rob them.”

Yes, and a tyrant is a tyrant. That person has also broken God’s law of love when it was in his/her power to be generous and supportive.

To be sure, there is justice here. And recompense. It can be said at some level that God used Robin Hood.

The trouble happens when people fall too much in love with the pattern of the story. When we superimpose it onto every instance of rich and poor we find.

More on that in part 2.

Be it known – cops are heroes

First, read this – http://newsninja2012.com/exclusive-nypd-police-officer-speaks-out/

He’s connected some dots – and he’s not the only one – that aren’t as connected as he thinks.

So you know, I’m not a protester. My feelings on the Martin/Brown/Garner cases are that they all involved a fight and someone died. The person happened to be black in each case and the one(s) who survived were not black. Because of the struggles – with weapons at had to be used by either party – they make lousy examples of bias on the part of the police. If the race of anyone in those cases had been different, we would have heard very little about them.

Only in the Garner case did I think there was adequate proof that the cops probably should have acted differently. That is, I think if someone says “I can’t breathe” when you have a choke hold on, even if there’s a 99% chance he’s faking, you let up.

That said, I do believe there is still anti-black bias in America today. It’s not as it had been (I was going to post this picture but due to its graphic nature, I’ll leave it up to you to follow the link – http://abhmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/7-Beitler-photo-best.jpg – the look on the white people’s faces is vicious and satanic). Truly we have progressed. But we’re not done.

And there’s a part that black people play as well – because sadly the ones who thinks that black lives matter the least are themselves black. I believe the church is the place where this has to be remedied. The gospel, when believed and acted upon, infuses equality and hope.  And I do not mean only the church among the poor, but the church at large.  Segregation and prejudice has no place in the church that Jesus builds.  When those are present; it’s a good church to change.  Or leave.

Over all, America’s race problem has to be fixed. But honestly the fix has been progressing and already it’s taken generations to get to where we are now, from forced slavery to having a black man in the White House. Whatever political stance you make, that demographic is significant as is the long-term perspective. We’re just impatient and for good reason – people are suffering.

Understand I am NOT part of the protest movement. I do know people who are or who sympathize, but I do NOT.

Now, going back to what the NYPD cop said, here are the places I think he jumps to conclusions:

  1. That people see the cops as the enemy. First of all, it’s only a small part of the populace that has protested in recent days. Secondly, it’s not clear how many of them think cops are the “enemy”. No doubt some do. But it’s a stretch to say all.
  2. That Ismaaiyl Brinsley acted as part of the protest movement. He could say whatever he wanted, but the protests were at most disruptive. No one was killed and if there were injuries they were accidental. Put another way, if the protesters started carrying and waving (and shooting) guns then they would become an armed militia and enemies of the state, to be put down by quick and violent means.
  3. That no one thinks cops are heroes. This is the one that breaks my heart because TONS of people are grateful for every day that every person wears that uniform. They need to say so and get out there publicly. Maybe that’s me. Maybe I personally need to do more like that, just because there are cops who really feel this way.

The coward and madman, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, is dead. His mother said he was a very sick person; and he used the climate and movement of the day to capitalize on his murderous intents. Think of it, without the protests, what would his crime have been? An isolated incident, no more.

People, inspired by the media, are marching to beats fueled by anger and frustration. Without stereotypes, the march would lose its beat and healing might occur. But that doesn’t sell newspapers or get people elected. The cultural divides are hundreds of years old and though some mending has occurred, it’s not happening through this movement.

Black neighborhoods need MORE police to enforce the law and keep people safe. Instead, those neighborhoods are ruled by gangs who label and duly punish any “rats” who inform the police about them. It would be an interesting study in analogy to compare such “rats” to another species. Would that other species be snakes? Or predatory cats of some kind? Anyway, such a “rat” is a noble person; one who hungers and thirsts for righteousness. Or just justice.

But even the snakes are candidates for grace; that’s the gospel. And that’s where my money is, and my prayers.

I note that Rafael Ramos, one of the slain officers, was training to become a chaplain.