Saturday, February 15, 2025

Condoms to the Taliban! (Or Was It Hamas?)

Once again, I am in receipt of a communications from my not-so-esteemed Congressional Reprsentative, Robert Aderholt of the 4th district of Alabama.

Actualy, Representative Aderholt was responding to a phone call from my wife.  She was expressing concerns of some of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) actions. One of her concerns was the cancellations of funds going to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and foreign aid through the State Department.

The respresentative's letter to her listed a litany of MAGA/DOGE talking points.  No surprise there.

It was the conclusion about USAID that caused me to pay particular attention.

Representative Aderholt cited a statement by Representative Brian Mast, Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which concerned waste, fraud, and abuse by the agency.  The list included:

  • $15 million for condoms for the Taliban through USAID.  (The White Huse Press Secretary had it for Hamas, but details don't matter do they?)
Now let's think critically about that for a minute.  Is it likely that the oh-so-forward-thinking Taliban are even interested in family planning, especially family planning where the male has responsibility?  That leftist pinko publication Forbes refuted this and other silly claims in Forbes.  There have been disbursements to the International Medical Corps that provides aid to victims of war, totaling more than $100 million, in which “family planning programming,” including contraceptives, were included, which is typical for aid packages to developing countries, the Associated Press reported.  In the last three years, there have been no disbursements for condoms to any countries in the Middle East.

(Man, this fact checking can be exhausting!)

Other equally suspect items on the list:
  • $1 million to boost French LGBTQ in west and central Africa through the State Department.
  • $20,600 for a drag show in Ecuador through the State Department.
  • $446,700 to promote the expansion of atheism in Nepal through the State Department.
From Newsweek:  The source for his claim is likely the U.S. government proposal from April 2021, which offered funding to help overseas groups "combat discrimination, harassment and abuses against atheist, humanist, non-practicing and non-affiliated individuals of all religious communities."
Read in detail, the proposal from the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) is an offer to fund these groups so they may practice their views with safety and support—much like American citizens do under the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.
The money, to be used over an 18 to 30 month period, was made available to groups and organizations in South/Central Asia and Middle East/North Africa (excluding Libya, Syria, and Yemen) only.

Not exactly the same as "promoting" atheism, is it?  It's more like we're promoting the spirit of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The point I guess is we have a department of the government, Treasury, making misleading statements to Congress and Congress (two of the representatives) simply repeating those statements.  Joseph Goebbels couldn't do it any better.

Oh, and Representative Aderholt proudly tells us that he has joined the DOGE caucus.  It's all very cringe worthy.

 

Thursday, February 13, 2025

Note to Senator Katie Britt February 14, 2025

 February 14, 2025


Senator Katie Britt

660 Gallatin Street Southwest

Suite 1400

Huntsville, AL 35801


Dear Senator Britt,


I write to you to express my dismay at your support of President Trump’s executive actions.  Here are two examples.


1. First, thank you for your response to my earlier email. I found that the content of that response to be dismally lacking in fact, parroting the “declarations” by President Trump of wholesale waste, fraud, and inefficiency in the various agencies of our federal government and referring to “foreign entities and radical leftwing causes.”  No one in the administration or DOGE is bothering to cite specific examples of these deficiencies. Forgive me, but my experience with the first Trump presidency makes it difficult for me to accept these declarations as true.

2. I see where you have introduced legislation attempting to codify the removal of birthright citizenship as guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Refer to an episode of Throughline, NPR's history podcast on birthright citizenship. After much thought, I believe revoking that clause implies none of us are citizens. Going back to our earliest ancestors to come to America, their children would not have been citizens. Nor would their children, and theirs, and so on until the present generation. 


I could go on, but you get the idea. In my opinion and with apologies to our Latin American neighbors, President Trump is acting more like a banana republic “El Presidente.”  He lies and his minions, including Elon Musk, repeat those lies. 


Please do your job. Exercise some oversight into the Executive Branch and please, please find a spine.


Jim Coleman

2099 Hickory Trail NE

Arab AL 35016

256.640.0405

jcole724@gmail.com


Friday, February 7, 2025

What's Goin' On

 With apologies to Marvin Gay.

What's goin' on:

  • The president has broken our country's promises and moral obligation to people from Afghanistan by turning his back on them.
  • During the campaign, he promised that he knew nothing about Project 2025.  Yet, his executive orders are carbon copies of the Project's playbook.
  • Multiple administrations from both parties have long supported USAID.  Its efforts served as "soft diplomacy" to encourage friendly relations with many countries in the world whose people were on the margins.  But now it's gone.
  • I pity my children and grandchildren who will suffer the effects or the president's cancellation of funding for renewable energy projects and general rejection of climate change as a reality.  I see irony in his continued denial of climate change but insisting that climate change has changed the shipping lanes so that Greenland suddenly becomes an object of his avarice.
  • What he has done to the immigration system is morally reprehensible.  Why do people want to come to the United States?  They see it as a land of opportunity and hope, when they live in hopelessness.  
  • Why does he lie so much?  And his administration doubles down on the lying.  I don't know how his new press secretary can look herself in the mirror in the morning.
  • Then there's the whole Elon Musk business.  If that's not frightening, I don't know what is.  Allowing unvetted persons to have access to some of our country's and its people's sensitive data borders on treason (and maybe more than borders on).
  • Now he's rambling about turning over the air traffic control system to Musk's Starlink network.  What's the worst that can happen?
  • Now he's charged his new Attorney General with wiping out "anti-Christian bias" from the government.  Really?  Where are Christians under attack?  Christians are the least discriminated against sector of the population.  We're not a Christian country, but that hasn't stopped us from building churches on every other street corner!
  • He's questioning funding for the United Nations.  Really?  How many of us remember trick or treating for UNICEF?  His attitude oward international bodies like the UN, the International Criminal Court and the World Health Organization is very suspicious.  There's isolationism but this is ridiculous.
  • While we're on morally reprehensible topics, there's Gaza.  He actually thinks he can simply declare that he's going to relocate people from their homeland and build a fabulous resort after clearing away the ruins of the Gaza war.  "It's going to be beautiful!"  Maybe that's why he gets nervous when the International Criminal Court is mentioned.
  • He's signed an executive order instructing his successor to obliterate Iran if Iran is reponsible for his assassination.  He thinks he can control things from the grave.
  • Where did this idea about Canada becoming our fifty-first state?  How insane is that?
  • He thinks the United States should take back the Panama Canal.  Ludicrous!
  • He falsely, of course, claimed that the US sent fifty million dollars in condoms to Hamas.  That makes me think someone has a worm in his brain.
I could go on but I'm sure there will be more to add to the list.

Never, and I mean never, have we had such a deranged President fostering so much corruption in our government.

Saturday, February 1, 2025

Some Thoughts on a Different Kind of Evolution

It appears to me that we Christians have had it all wrong for some period of time.

Let's talk about God, first and foremost.

The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) starts us off with two stories of creation.  God speaks all  things into existence.

It's time for us to grow up and recognize the Bible for what it is and isn't.

Implicit in Genesis is a common acceptance that some things are wrong:
  1. Murder -- Cain and Abel.
  2. Deceit -- Jacob "stealing" his birthright.
  3. Theft -- see #2.
  4. More deceipt -- Joseph's brothers and their treatment of him.  Selling a brother into slavery.  Envy.  Lying to Jacob about what happened.
On the flip side, some things are "right":
  1. Mercy -- God does not exact retribution on Cain.
  2. Forgiveness -- the reconciliation of the two brothers Esau and Jacob and the reception Joseph gives his brothers in Egypt.
As we move into Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers, the law is laid out.  First the ten commandments, broken into two sections:  how the people treat God and the people should treat each other.  These are followed by the six hundred elements of the laws of the Hebrew Testament.

What is their intent?  I believe they were primarily meant to help people live together.  Seems obvious, doesn't it?  Don't murder each other, don't lie, don't want what your neighbor has, don't steal, don't take your neighbor's spouse.  In hindsight, it is obvious; in fact, it's the basic bedrock of any society, large or small.

Now, let's take a brief detour from the Bible and into science.  Darwin's theory of evolution is a theory, it can't be proven.  But you would be hard pressed to cite instances of where it has been disproven.  So, let's assume it describes the way life came to be on planet earth.

From one-celled creatures in the swirling waters of the seas to fish to reptiles that crawled upon the land, then birds, dinosaurs (they are gone, thank goodness), mammals, primates.  At some point, one of these creatures became aware of its own existence.  It congregated into communities of similar beings.  Eventually, one of these self-aware creatures realized, for the tribe/family/community to survive, there needed to be some rules for living together.  The earliest of these rules were no doubt passed around verbally or orally, writing not having been invented.  Later, in the cradle of civilization in what we now call the Mideast, laws were written down.  Several have been discovered, the oldest and best known being the Code of Hammurabi.  

Later, the Hebrews came along and committed to writing the stories of their history and the laws that had been formulated.  If you declare that they came from God, they have a certain amount of weight!

Now the other idea that early humankind shared is a need to explain how everything came to be.  And, to make a very long story short, that explanation is given a name:  in English, God; in Arabic, Allah; in Hebrew Yahweh or Jehovah; in Hindu India, the gods have many names and many purposes.

So, you can believe that some being created everything including the rules to live by or you can believe that the rules came about naturally, as a means for community survival.


Saturday, April 29, 2023

Blessed Sacrament School

Gentle daughters,

(I started writing this three years ago but left it and forgot about it.)  

I turn to telling you what it was like to grow up Catholic, attending a parochial school in the fifties and early sixties.  It was very different from your experience at an Episcopal school for girls in the eighties, nineties, and aughts of the twenty-first century.

First Grade

In the fall of 1955, I entered first grade (there was no kindergarten available at the time).  I had just turned six years of age.  I remember the first time we gathered outside the little (and old) building that housed the first grade, second grade, and the school cafeteria.  Because the school had limited space (remember, this was during the famous post-war baby boom), there were five classrooms on the second story of the parish church building.  Another building on the "church block" housed the sixth grade.  This is a picture of the church today.  The exterior hasn't changed much in sixty years.

My first grade teacher was Sister Mary Gemma, S.M. (Sisters of Mercy).  The Sisters of Mercy were an order of nuns, founded by an Irish Catholic woman.  The nuns who taught at the school lived in a convent building across the street from the little first/second grade building.  At the time they wore a "habit", kind of a nun uniform.  This is a picture of nuns wearing the habit.  They never showed their hair and wore a large rosary around their waist.  There were about five who lived in the convent and taught at the school, including the principal.

As intimidating as the habit made them appear, Sister Gemma was a wonderful teacher.  She taught me arithmetic, reading, spelling, and religion.  The lay teacher in the second grade next door, Mrs. Lowery, would teach us phonics while Sister Gemma taught the second grade religion.

I think it's important to pause here and explain about phonics.  I'm sure a later version of phonics was taught in your school, but the subject matter involves the sounds letters make in the English language.  Although English can be a quirky language phonetically (e.g., though, tough, thought), you can get by pretty well the majority of the time by knowing the sounds the letters represent in the language.  I believe phonics is the reason I became skilled at spelling and reading, in fact developing a lifelong love of reading.

I didn't attend kindergarten (our school didn't have one) so one of the first things Sister Gemma had to teach was the alphabet.

The interplay of phonics, spelling, and reading provided a tremendous foundation for later learning.  I think your grandmother, Mildred Stevens, would have had a lot in common with Sister Gemma and Mrs. Lowery.

Religion and arithmetic were taught by rote, memorizing the Baltimore Catechism and number facts.

The Baltimore Catechism was developed by the Catholic Church during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as a means of helping Catholic students learn about their church and their beliefs.  I think it was likely motivated by the influx of Irish and Italian Catholic immigrants and the children who were their offspring.

The Book of Common Prayer of your Episcopal upbringing has a Catechism.

At the age of six, first graders were not ready for more complex questions and answers, so the question-response nature of the catechism was watered down.  "Thou shalt not bear false witness" translated to "You shall not lie".  "Thou shalt not kill" became "You shall not become angry."  "Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's wife " transformed to "You shall not have impure thoughts."  (Although, frankly, I can't imagine what impure thoughts a six-year-old could have.)  This will give you a hint as to what it was like.

Arithmetic was basically memorizing many number facts.  Having not attended kindergarten, arithmetic first meant learning how to count.  Then we had to memorize "addition tables" (one plus one equals two).  The relationships between numbers was not, to my recollection, a part of this early training.  We learned which numbers were odd and which were even.  Once we learned how to add, constant drill occupied our class hours and homework.

Our day started, every day, with 8 am Mass.  The entire school was expected to be in the pews at 8:00.  Mass usually ended around 8:30 when we were marched to our classrooms.  Mass in those days was conducted entirely in Latin, without homily or sermon, the priest at the altar with his back to the congregation.  We first graders were not permitted to receive communion (more on that later).  In fact a stern rule of silence was in place. Apparently, I must have broken that rule once.

One day, Sister Gemma called me to the front of the classroom where she waited with my friend Russell Caccamisi.  Sister looked at me and asked, "Were you and Russell talking during Mass?  He says you were."  Flustered, I frankly couldn't remember whether I had been talking or not.  Of course, I confessed and received a punishment to write from 1 to 200.  (I don't know what she was thinking.  I didn't know what 200 was.  So, I wrote from 1 to 102 and gave it to her and she asked that I do it again.)  Later in my school days, a similar event took place with more dire consequences.

I promise I'm not bragging when I tell you that I was really smart compared to most of my peers in elementary school.  For a while, there was always one girl who equaled or exceeded my grades and other accomplishments in school.  One was a girl named Linda Pounders.  After the first grade she was permitted to skip second and enter the third grade.  I was jealous when that happened.  We were always the last two standing in spelling bees.  We both were selected for a special day at CBC where we were introduced to a different way of teaching arithmetic, a method where you saw the relationships among the numbers.  We were both in the top reading group, the Redbirds if I recall correctly.

You would not have been comfortable with class sizes.  My class ranged from twenty-five to thirty students in a class supervised by one teacher at a time with no aides.  This held true from first through the eighth grades.  The more accomplished students sometimes were enlisted to help.  For example, Sister Gemma might ask me to hear other students recite their alphabet or their numbers.  I do have a distinct memory of being assigned to listen to two or three classmates recite a set of numbers.  At the end, Sister asked me how they did and I said, "Alright, I guess."  (I had become bored listening to them and lost track of their accuracy.)  I think she stopped asking for my help about then.

I had a few friends who went all the way through high school with:  Walter "Bubba" Marshall (who also graduated from college with me), Terry Ryan, and Sean Gillespie.

Second Grade

After an endless summer, we returned to the same little separate school building where we spent our first year, this time with Mrs. Lowery as our teacher.  Because she was our primary teacher, we of course continued learning phonics, reading, arithmetic, and spelling.  I'd lost my academic nemesis, Linda Pounders, to the third grade.  However, she was replaced by an equally imposing challenger, Terry Reedy, another blond girl.  Neither one, I assure you, contributed to any of the "blond jokes" that were being told a generation ago.

I suppose the highlight of this year was preparation for our First Holy Communion.  In the Catholic Church, this is a big deal.  Although we continued our memorization of all of the Catechism's answers, after the break for Christmas, our attention swung to the big dual event in the spring, First Confession and First Communion.

First, Sister Gemma (still switching a religion period in Mrs. Lowery's class with a phonics period in her first grade classroom) had to teach us to make our first confession.  In the Catholic Church, it was a requirement to confess your sins to a priest regularly.

I guess I should explain the Catholic notion of sin first.  In that theology, there are two kinds of sin:  venial and mortal.  A venial sin is a minor sin:  the little white lie, eating all the cookies in the cookie jar, disobeying parents.  A mortal sin is a major sin:  murder, rape, adultery, robbing a bank, missing church on Sunday (more on that at a later time).

The picture painted for us went like this.  Think of your soul as a white canvas.   Venial sins spot the canvas.  Mortal sins paint the whole thing black.

If you have a mortal sin on your soul, you cannot receive Holy Communion.  You must confess the sin to a priest who grants you absolution after you've done a penitential act (a penance).  You may receive communion with mere venial sins on your soul, but it's not advised.

The sacrament of penance, also known as confession, was taught in this way.  The priest sat in a three piece box known as a confessional.  He sat in the middle section.  Penitents knelt on either side.  There was a curtain providing a certain amount of privacy for the penitent.

For your first confession, you entered the confessional and knelt.  There was a small sliding window between the priest and the penitent.  When the priest slid the window open, you said, "Bless me, Father, for I have sinned.  This is my first confession and these are my sins."  At that point, you told the priest all of the sins that were on your soul and how many times you had committed them.  The priest gave you a penance (e.g., say three Our Fathers and three Hail Marys).  You then recited the act of contrition, a prayer you had committed to memory, "Oh my God.  I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee..."  Then you left the confessional with you canvas all clean again, provided you "did" the penance.

In subsequent visits, you told the priest how long it had been since your last confession.

We made our First Confessions on the Friday before the Sunday when we made our First Communions, striving to keep our souls pure on Saturday.

At that time, the rule was that you must have fasted for three hours before receiving communion.  So no breakfast, no orange juice, no anything.  Your body must be as free of food as your soul was free of sin.

On Sunday, we gathered for a special Mass.  The boys were dressed in white suits with white shirts and white ties.  The girls were dressed in white dresses.  We processed into the church slowly and reverently to begin the service.  We had a special reserved section of the church for us.  In place of a sermon, the pastor quizzed us on the Baltimore Catechism.  Of course, I answered perfectly.

I have a picture of my first communion class.  See if you can pick me out.  




At the time for communion, we processed to the communion rail where we knelt and received our first wafer.  We did not receive wine back then.  That was true for adults as well as children.

All of that may sound infantile to you, but to us seven-year olds, it was "gospel."



Wednesday, January 13, 2021

Impeachment #2

 I've been watching the activities in the House of Representatives today.  

I must say that I find both sides lacking in oratorical skills. 

I'm disturbed that both sides use terms like "holy" and "sacred" when talking about the Capitol building.

That implies a degree of divine benediction over the seat of our government.  And that is dangerous.  It ultimately leads to statements like "God is on our side" or "God has blessed America" as though the deity would only favor our country over any other.

But I'm particularly disturbed by the repeated tactics of the Republican speakers.  They clearly were speaking from a script.  They invoked "whataboutism".  Over and over they referred to the Black Lives Matter protests, contrasting the reactions of Democrats to the rioting and looting in those events to their reaction to the action that took place in the Capitol last week.

To me, this is a classic case of false equivalency.  Some of the BLM protests did spawn some more violent actions:  rioting, vandalism, looting.  To that extent, the attack on the Capitol and the BLM protests were similar.

They differ in one fundamental aspect, however.  The BLM protests were happening (and still are happening) in response to a truth:  a systemic abuse of power by police departments across the country.  The abuse resulted in the deaths of black individuals at the hands of white police personnel.  Rarely have the police been held accountable.

The protest at the Capitol was motivated by a lie:  that there had been widespread voter fraud in the November 3 election, enough to steal the election from President Trump.

Comparing the two sets of events is, therefore, specious.  Our representatives should know better, but they've learned from a master at sleight of hand.

Perhaps Godwin's Law may have to replace "what about Hitler" with "what about BLM protests" as the ultimate effort in a losing debate.


Tuesday, November 3, 2020

How the Electoral College Robs Many of Us of Our Vote

 I hate the electoral college.

I vote blue in the reddest of all red states, Alabama.

So, when I vote, it's an exercise in futility.  My vote is not going to get anyone elected.  My neighbor's vote will get someone elected.  

Another feature of the electoral college is that thing the pundits call "swing states".  You know, those half a dozen states that candidates at the top of the ticket spend most of their campaign dollars and time in.

Neither a Democrat nor a Republican, once the primary season is over, is going to bother with us.  The Republicans know the state (and its electors) are in the bag.  The Democrat knows the same thing.

Similarly, no one bothers to campaign in Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, California...we all know what states get the attention:  Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Florida.  This year, apparently Arizona inexplicably is up for grabs.

So for most of us, our states receive scant attention from those at the top of the ballot.  Our states receive very little of the considerable cash infusions the swing states get.  The cynical way both sides approach the election is unworthy of our highest ideals.

It's enough to make me embarrassed.  Having read some of the background behind the creation of the electoral college, I know it was based on the agrarian economy of the late eighteenth century and the slavery that enabled much of that economy.  It was an attempt on the part of the slave states to guarantee they would have a bigger voice than their population warranted.  

We no longer have an agrarian economy.  We no longer have slavery.  Why do we have this vestige of both?

To be sure, states with lower population density want to maintain the college.  It continues to give them a voice, in fact, more of a voice than states with higher population density.  This results in a rural versus urban standoff.  There is little or no doubt that the modern Republican party benefits from the college.  It's just math.

Surely, my Republican neighbor in California would like for his vote to count just as much as my Republican neighbor here in Alabama.  

Because the college is established by the Constitution (for an explanation of the rationale behind the college follow this link), it can only be changed through the amendment process.  

Of course, this has been a hot button for Democrats, especially since the 2000 and 2016 elections when the Democrat who won the popular vote failed to win in the electoral college.

I believe it should be an equally hot button for both Democrats and Republicans in states that are not swing states (i.e., most of them).

What do you think?