On being Christian. . .

Bishop Myriel from Les Miserables
depicted by Gustave Brion

It is Christmas and typically my thoughts and heart focus on the home at this time. It is largely the same this year no doubt. And honestly it is the home, those in it, and the gingerbread too..  That said, this year I do wonder if we have lost something. Yes I raise the question of Christ. Have we neglected Christ, despite celebrating his birthday?

The story of him being born in a stable is presented to us at every Christmas Mass or Service. The question being asked of us each time, I think, is will we let him in? Would we have made room for him? It is customary in some families and traditions to set a plate for him at the Christmas meal.

And let me qualify, Christmas Eve Mass is one of perhaps the two or three times I make it to church each year, and honestly I go largely for the two or three carols I get to sing. So I do not see myself as any great Christian. Honestly, the question of any faith really has not been answered for myself. Regardless of all those speculations, I wonder if many who do profess a faith, have lost their way.

I say this in regard to our responses to the ongoing refugee crisis in Syria and to a lesser degree Libya, and all of the related challenges in Europe, This includes Aleppo, the huge camps in Jordan, Turkey, and elsewhere, the swelling populations of refugees across Europe, and the terrorism that seems to have followed in the past year in Europe. All of it unfortunate. And America's response to all of it seems to be that we will have none of it.*

I talk not of actual refugees that entered our country. We brought roughly 80,000 refugees into the United States in 2016. Roughly 40,000 of those were Muslim. Those numbers are for the fiscal year 2016.**

No, I respond not to these numbers, but more to the attitudes of the President elect and others who cry that we cannot allow such things to happen or continue. We cannot allow such refugees to come into the US due to the terrorist threat. And I know he has not defined a specific policy regarding this. I am aiming not at policy here, but rather what drives our policy. I point to our attitudes, our thoughts and beliefs, our concerns It seems that we will no longer care that such groups exists. Rather, we ask first are we safe? We ask can we trust? We distrust.

This Christmas, we leave Christ at the stable. We have not seated him at our table. I am afraid that Myriel looks down disappointingly.

*https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/02/syrias-refugee-crisis-in-numbers/
**http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-record-number-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016/

Rachel Maddow and an Amazing Hour of TV!

If one wanders Facebook at all you find people can be cruel and just plain nasty. Nothing new there. It is Facebook.  Especially regarding today's political leaders or members of the press who one does not agree with. Just part and parcel of what it is.

Regardless, it is disappointing and annoying to see folks, folks I often engage with, comment on and basically attack Rachel Maddow with nothing but crude language. The comments simply offer nothing. Again, you could simply point to the site. It is, as I said, Facebook.

Tonight, however, I had to just challenge that. Tonight, Rachel just offered a show, which I just found incredible. Tonight, she had on Kellyanne Conway for the hour basically and it was just amazing. You may not find Rachel attractive. You may have an issue with her sexual preferences (though I am not sure how or why that should matter!), You may disagree with her positions, but the woman is informative, challenging, and just offers provocative TV.

Here are some of the points that came out, or were at least touched upon during the course of her interview with Kellyanne:

• Regarding the President elect's Nuclear Tweet this afternoon, after several attempts to pin down what it actually meant, neither Kellyanne nor Rachel really knew what he meant or intended. And Rachel's point that people take seriously what the President Elect says and tweets may or may not have registered with Kellyanne.
• Regarding the selection of  Gen. Michael Flynn for the position of National Security Advisor, what followed was a discussion of what should and what should not be considered in such a selection process. Basically, Rachel was asking do wild assertions made on Twitter or spoken to the press mean anything? The answer seems to be no. Regardless of how outrageous they are.
• This led interestingly to Kellyanne to touch on Aleppo. She was suggesting that the current administration has also suffered from bouts of poor judgment. Point taken, but allow me to continue that thought here. . . Grant that it was a poor judgment, and grant Kellyanne's earlier assertion that Obama also entered the office of President with little experience. So you are saying that the President Elect who again has no experience and who has just brought on a National Security Advisor that has some issues regarding judgment, will do better. OK. 
• The next issue that grabbed me was pay to play, and just the mixing of business and politics. Rachel brought it up in various ways, and each time Kellyanne denied a pay for play relationship would or could exist. Somehow, foreign entities and others doing business with, and facilitating Trump businesses is not or would not lead to Pay to Play scenarios. That the two, the President elect, and the Trump business entity are two distinct things, despite the fact that he basically owns that business.  
• Rachel started the above discussion by pointing to a Wall Street Journal article that came out today regarding the President elect's pick for Health Secretary, Rep Tom Price, trading medical and pharma stocks while in the US House. Keep in mind he is a leading Republican in the House regarding issues of healthcare. Kellyanne was not familiar with the details but again, it seems that she would like to argue that this sounds like nothing. In short, he did nothing unethical trading such stocks while engaged in policy and legislative debates about such. His profits are unintended consequences of his actions, which are obviously benign and with the public good at heart. This seems to the argument for both Rep. Price and the President Elect, There is nothing illegal or unethical here, further, there is nothing unseemly about such business transactions and relationships. This needs to be qualified. 
• Lastly, Rachel brought up the President Elect's relationship with the press. She started with the fact that he has described on several occasions Martha Raddatz of ABC News being in tears on TV upon hearing that he had won the election. In fact that was not the case. Kellyanne did not deny this, so the President Elect either lied or misspoke, but has yet to apologize. Kellyanne basically said that was forthcoming, but this topic just led to the next topic:
• Two questions - 1. Is it appropriate to destroy a news organization because they misrepresented or distorted or even slandered you in their pages? 2. Is it appropriate for a President or a First Lady to pursue such a strategy, or even to simply sue a member of the press for such? Considering the fact that every President throughout history has accused the press of such. Should Harry Truman gone and found a solid trial attorney to pursue such a strategy and destroyed the Washington Post and its Music Critic, Paul Hume, back in 1950? Kellyanne responded that she was unsure if that is a good strategy and that the First Lady was not in fact pursuing such a strategy. She did defend that she does have the right to sue, which she does, but the question was whether it was in fact a good policy or practice.

I have quickly just listed all the things I took in from tonight's Rachel Maddow Show. I wish I saw more of such TV. She is often good, but. . . This is the kind of political debate I want to see. And anyone that ignores these points, regardless of your politics will miss some of the key debates going on right now and those debates have and will continue. 

When I started this around 11 PM, the show, which aired on Thursday, December 22nd was not available on her site (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ) as of yet. It is in fact now available. I do urge all to check it out!

And thank you Kellyanne Conway for going on the show and thank you for the lively debate of ideas!

And lastly, what is up with Blogger? I go to embed a video clip from the Maddow site, and it will not allow it?