Conclusion – So there you have it. With three monumentally bad decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has lost its status as an impartial arbiter interpreting the law according to precedent and has shown itself to be just another political body where 5-4 votes along political lines decide our most important social issues. Because of these bad decisions, we have had an “optional” war in Iraq directed by a man who was handed the Presidency by a court. We have had a decade of mass shootings by people who should never have been able to buy a gun. And we have had our Congress become unable to get even the most essential work done because of the fear that corporate money will be brought to bear against them in the next election.
And it’s all traceable to a Supreme Court that has lost its respect for precedent, turned blatantly political, and thereby lost the respect of the people.
Naming names in popular songs
May 2018
Probably the most common element of popular songs of the late 20th century, after the word “love,” was the name of the woman who was the object of the songwriter’s love (or obsession as the case may be). Popular songs of the 1960s and ‘70s especially called out women’s names on the radio every hour of every day.
And just about every singer or group had at least one recording that named names. Some of the most popular were songs like “Michelle” by the Beatles, “Barbara Ann” by the Beach Boys and “Angie” by the Rolling Stones. But there were scores of them. And since most of the songwriters were straight men, women’s names were much more common than men’s names. Here are some you may remember:
Aimee – Pure Prairie League
Angie – Rolling Stones
Barbara Ann – The Beach Boys
Bernadette – The Four Tops
Billie Jean – Michael Jackson
Brandy – Looking Glass
Delilah – Tom Jones
Diana – Paul Anka
Donna – Ritchie Valens
Layla – Derek and the Dominos
Lola – The Kinks
Lucille – Little Richard
Melissa – The Allman Brothers
Michelle – The Beatles
Peggy Sue – Buddy Holly
Rosanna – Toto
Roxanne – The Police
Sherry – The Four Seasons
Suzanne – Leonard Cohen
Valerie – The Monkees
I have limited my list to songs that have just the woman’s name as its title. There are many, many more that have the name with other words in the title. Examples are “Wake Up, Little Susie,” “Mustang Sally,” and “Sweet Caroline.”
I wonder how many baby girls were named after popular songs like these. I also wonder how the women who had these names felt about “their” song. Did they cringe when they heard it or did they revel in it? I hope they cherished the notoriety.
In any case, using women’s names in songs seems to have gone out of style. A glance at lists of top songs of 2017 and 2018 reveals just about no songs named after women, or men for that matter. It’s a shame.
Songwriters paying tribute to the women who moved them by naming names gave a ring of authenticity to the sentiment. And I think that it also brought a smile to the women whose names were sung, as well as to the men who loved them (and perhaps used the song to say so).
These days I find that when I want to hear these old songs, I call out another woman’s name – “Alexa, play my Women’s Names playlist.” It is the 21st century after all.
Zero tolerance makes zero sense
June 2018
The term “zero tolerance” is much in the news these days. Many people think it’s a good idea. I think it would be a good idea to take a look at what “zero tolerance” means in practice. Let’s start with a definition. The one in Wikipedia is as good as any:
“A zero tolerance policy is one which imposes strict punishment for infractions of a stated rule, with the intention of eliminating undesirable conduct. Zero-tolerance policies forbid persons in positions of authority from exercising discretion or changing punishments to fit the circumstances subjectively; they are required to impose a pre-determined punishment regardless of individual culpability, extenuating circumstances, or history. This pre-determined punishment, whether mild or severe, is always meted out.”
It has always seemed to me that the primary reason for a zero tolerance policy has been the distrust of public justice officials such as police, prosecutors and judges. We don’t trust these people to exercise any discretion. We want them to just mete out punishment regardless of the circumstances. That’s why zero tolerance policies are popular with people who distrust government or want very limited government.
When I worked as a municipal court prosecutor, I found that the most popular plea was “guilty with an explanation.” It went along the lines of “I was speeding, but my wife was in labor” or “I went through that red light, because I was following somebody and didn’t want to get lost.” The effectiveness of these pleas depended on the judge and on the sincerity of the defendant.
Every once in a while (and it was rare), someone would come in with extenuating circumstances that were genuine and material. Often it was a matter of simple mistake, such as the woman driving a car without a registration because she didn’t know her husband had taken it out of the glove compartment. Sometimes it was a case of “no good deed goes unpunished,” such as where a man stopped to be a good Samaritan and help an elderly woman change a tire, and when the police stopped, he got a ticket for having a headlight out. In cases like that I would use my prosecutorial discretion to drop or reduce the charges and allow the defendant to plead to a lesser offense.
As a prosecutor or a judge, it was your job not merely to enforce the law, but to do justice. Justice is always colored by mercy. Justice requires a human being to weigh the wrong not just against the penal code but against the norms of society. Of course, some people are uncomfortable with judges or prosecutors having discretion. These are people who see the world in black and white. For them, there is no gray area. There is nothing to think about, nothing to weigh. Punishment follows infraction like the night follows the day.
But does the mindless enforcement we call “zero tolerance” really work? Does it help if we take judges’ discretion away? Studies have shown that all mindless enforcement does is denigrate respect for the law. People want their justice system to be just and merciful much more than they want it to be heartless and efficient. This is particularly true when they, or a loved one, are the person pleading “guilty with an explanation.”
Tolerance seems to have fallen upon lean times these days in every part of American society. It is particularly derided by conservatives who purport to be religious. Yet tolerance is at the heart of Christian teaching. The New Testament is full of stories like the Prodigal Son, and the forgiveness of the adulteress’ sins by Jesus, who told the crowd that the person who is without sin should cast the first stone. Even the Lord’s Prayer contains the line “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Yet somehow, many people who call themselves Christians seem to be opposed to the same tolerance for wrongdoing in modern society.
In my mind, zero tolerance is simplistic and we deserve more than computer-programmed verdicts and sentences from our justice system. We deserve reasoned consideration of the circumstances, weighing the charged wrongdoing against the potential injustice to the defendant in each case. Yes, it’s harder and it’s more costly to have thinking justice than a kangaroo court. But isn’t it worth it? And isn’t it what the Founding Fathers intended?
A product of the contentious ‘60s still speaks to us
June 2018
It’s been 15 years since we lost Fred Rogers, the iconic host of Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood from 1968 to 2001. Fred was one of those people among us who you often take for granted, until they’re not around anymore. And then you feel the loss. America has felt the loss these last 15 ill-tempered years.
It is well-known that Fred Rogers was an ordained Presbyterian minister. But he never brought organized religion into his show. He worked in a plane above religion. He worked in the plane of morality and goodness and love. You could feel the love emanating from the television set.
Right now a new documentary about Fred Rogers called Won’t You Be My Neighbor is out in theaters. And many PBS channels are playing another documentary called Mister Rogers: It’s You I Like. All this comes as we mark 50 years since the premiere of Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood.
Both documentaries are full of examples of Fred Rogers’ love of mankind, and especially children. His message was that every child was special and he liked you “just the way you are.” It’s exactly the type of thinking that conservatives mock – Snowflakes with a touch of Kumbaya. And yet it is exactly the teachings of all the great religions.
While he had the background of an ordained minister, Fred’s ministry was television and he ministered to people’s souls through pure love. No fire and brimstone for him. Fred Rogers believed that God is love and that love can conquer hate. No matter who you were, no matter where you were born, no matter what color skin you were born with, Mr. Rogers accepted you and asked “Won’t You Be My Neighbor?”
Just one example will suffice. In the early days of Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood, many African Americans were not welcome at public swimming pools. Fred Rogers set up a kiddie pool on his show and invited an African American cast member to soak their feet alongside his. The close-up of the white and black feet in the pool side by side was an unmistakable message.
Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood dealt with all sorts of important topics such as death and divorce. It never talked down to children. It never sugar-coated either. When it was time for fantasy, Fred signaled it to children with a trolley car. He wanted children to differentiate reality from make-believe.
I think that Fred would be quite disappointed at the political and social rhetoric in our country since 2016, especially its effect on children. He would be doing his best to counter all of the coarseness with his calm smile and loving ways. He would want to make America good again.
Although we have lost Fred Rogers, the man who was certainly a living saint has left us a legacy of soul-healing television. The next time you feel overwhelmed by the state of the world, spend a little time in Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood.
Using Christianity as an excuse for bigotry
June 2018
This week the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In a 7-2 decision, the Court held that a baker could not be penalized for refusing on religious grounds to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
Reading the decision, I think that this is a case where bad facts make bad law. Members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission compared what the baker was doing to justifying slavery on religious grounds, and discrimination against Jews during the Holocaust. The Commission clearly went overboard in condemning the actions of the baker. The majority of the Supreme Court felt that the Colorado agency trampled on the rights of the baker to freely exercise his religion. I think a more impartial approach by the Civil Rights Commission recognizing the rights of both parties would probably have led to a different result in the Supreme Court.
But I’m not here to talk about constitutional rights. I’m here to talk about religion.
The Colorado baker’s name is Jack Phillips and is a self-described “devout Christian.” According to the Supreme Court majority opinion, Mr. Phillips says that his “main goal in life is to be obedient to” Jesus Christ and Christ’s “teachings in all aspects of his life.” And he seeks to “honor God through his work at Masterpiece Cakeshop.”
Mr. Phillips says that among those “teachings” is his belief that “God’s intention for marriage from the beginning of history is that it is and should be the union of one man and one woman.” And so, Mr. Phillips feels that “to create a wedding cake for an event that celebrates something that directly goes against the teachings of the Bible, would have been a personal endorsement and participation in the ceremony and relationship that they were entering into.”
It seems to me that the people who provide the material elements of a wedding reception such as food and drink or chairs do not endorse the ceremony in any way. It seems to me that this is simply a “holier than thou” rationalization. It is the arrogant Pharisee who looks down on the sinning tax collector. This is not Christian. If we want to know what Christian is, we need to listen to the actual words of Christ as reported by the evangelist Saint Luke:
“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned.” (Luke 6:27-37)
This is the Christianity that Jesus taught. The hate-filled actions of some who call themselves Christians give Christianity a bad name. Christ could sue for tarnishment of his trademark. Because of definitely un-Christian actions like those of the Colorado baker, for many people it has almost become a pejorative to call someone a Christian.
It is good to recall that the founder of Christianity was himself a wedding party supply provider. And Jesus did not ask for the credentials of the wedding party at Cana when he turned water into wine. Jesus embraced sinners; he shared meals with them. People who wrap their hate in supposed obedience to the tenets of Christianity take the Lord’s name in vain. Shame on them.
Do people who make or sell guns endorse the killing that is done with them? Do people who pay taxes endorse the wars they finance? Do people who rent hotel rooms to unmarried couples endorse what takes place in them? Much less then does a baker endorse a same sex marriage by simply making a cake.
So I am not offended by the Supreme Court’s decision; I am offended by the baker who thought that practicing his religion meant not serving people he considered sinners. Jesus would not agree with the baker. He said “Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned.” (Luke 6:37). That’s real Christianity. That’s being a Christian.
The last days of
Americo Consolatore
July 2018
“I’m never going to see Werner Avenue again,” my stepfather Americo said when I visited him in the hospital on the 16th day of his stay. He had come into the hospital with a diagnosis of sepsis on the 4th of July. We had found him shivering in his beloved Werner Avenue home on a day when the temperature was in the 90s. Something was seriously wrong with the man, who at age 95 still insisted on living on his own.
Luckily, it was not a normal Wednesday, but a holiday, so my brother and I had planned to visit. We called a nurse who had been treating him at home after an earlier hospital stay. That May a hospital stay had resulted in Americo (Merc for short) coming home with a catheter. After examining him, she called for an ambulance. It seems his catheter had given him a urinary tract infection. Doctors and nurses at the hospital quickly got that under control and Merc was sent to rehab to regain his strength so that he could resume ta
king care of himself at home.
Then something unexpected happened. He developed a bleeding ulcer. Doctors tried to stop the bleeding but were unsuccessful. It was right around this time that Merc prophesied that he would never see his beloved home of 60 years again.
When doctors offered him the option of having the first surgery of his life to remove the bleeding ulcer, he jumped at the chance. He said that maybe the surgery could allow him to at least leave the hospital and die at home. That’s all he wanted.
I should point out here that until May, Merc was not only taking care of himself at home, he was still driving his car! He would drive to the local supermarket to get food; he would drive to the bank and to the drugstore too. He even did his own wash. His mind was still good. Oh sure, the short-term memory was not what it used to be, but he was perfectly lucid.
And so, when it came to deciding to have surgery, Merc made the decision all on his own. He didn’t consult with any family members. Because he was bleeding internally, the surgery was done on an emergency basis on a Sunday morning.
When we got to the hospital on Sunday morning the surgery was already in progress. The surgeon came to talk to us afterwards and said that they had successfully stopped the bleeding. Now all we could do was wait to see whether Merc’s 95-year-old body could survive the trauma of the surgery. It turned out that it couldn’t. He never awoke from the surgery. He died two days later.
Americo Consolatore and his beloved Werner Avenue home
Merc’s death was not as sad as it might have been because he had been saying for months that he was ready to go. He would say it so often, that I got to the point that when he told me he was ready to die and join all his friends and family members, including two wives, I would put my hand up and say “Check, please!” That would always make him smile.
Tales of the Tarantula Page 23