There is something of theme this week: divisions
Anyone else find it amazing that a sense of common ground, shared reality keeps getting harder to find? People who get their news from FOX are skeptical of reports from other sources like NPR or long respected papers like the New York Times or the Washington Post. NPR listeners question the veracity of what FOX reports. The Republican Party was once considered the “country club” party, but now it’s the “country” (meaning rural) party … and the Democratic Party, once viewed as the party of the common people, is now seen as the party of and exclusively for the elites (meaning urbanites, city-folk). How did this come about? And what might be done to bridge the divide? This piece points to what just might the real source of all this polarization (hint: It’s the economy – or at least the personal one) … but it also suggests bridging the gap may be even harder than it already seems:
There’s been a lot discussion this week about the separation of children from parents by Immigration and Customs Enforcement … why this is being done … what the law requires … what options could be considered. These two pieces sum up the reasoning (or lack thereof – YMMV) to regard all border crossings (even by those seeking asylum) as criminal, rather than civil, violations and how criminal incarceration of adults means the children cannot stay with them. But it is very damaging. Is this really the best approach?
Attorney General Jeff Sessions introduced the Bible into his arguments for his current course of action regarding people from other countries crossing our southern border, apparently as pushback against a number of Christians and faith-based organizations publicly condemning his policies. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was also quizzed on this subject by a number of reporters (including one from Playboy magazine). Any marginal Bible scholar can tell you it’s possible to proof-text just about anything if you do it right. The deeper question is what kind of God do we seek … want … have? Leonard Pitts, as usual, cuts right to the chase:
The current occupant of the Oval Office is trying to blame the Democrats for the policies (ie: if they would agree to fully fund the construction of his desired border wall, then he might reconsider the current practice), essentially using children as hostages in a power struggle that has nothing to do with them but is doing tremendous (possible irreparable) harm to them in the process. (And whatever happened to the promise that not one cent of US money would be spent on this wall project?) Here’s what is trying to pass for justification of this patently unjust policy:
They know the risks when then come. They know what’s likely to happen. If the policy doesn’t drive opponents to acquiesce and fund the wall, it should at least scare would-be refugees from coming here. Or so the arguments go. They know; why do they still come? Because they judge the risks they face traveling to the border and in crossing the border to be less than the risks at home. And as for the risks at home, well … we have a hand in those, too. Our culture of gang violence gave rise to MS-13 … and then we deported it to Central America. Since we helped create this mess, do we not have a part to play in dealing with the damage?
And finally on the subject of divisions, much has been made of the meeting between the current occupant of the Oval Office and North Korea’s “dear leader” … who apparently endeared himself to the occupant. The meeting has been appropriately described as heavy on optics and light on substance … so much so that the signed agreement is reminiscent of cotton candy – the paper thing it comes on is the most substantial part. However, the current occupant’s appreciation for dictators is far more disturbing than the agreement is assuring: