A move towards reconciliation?

Fourth Presbyterian Church, one of the largest in Chicago and a major political force both locally and denominationally, has taken what I think is a positive step to help melt some of the discord between us and various Jewish groups angry at our decision to consider selective divestment in companies that enable various unjust activities by Israel in Palestinian territories. They've not stood against that decision, but have taken the further step of purposively investing in Israeli infranstructure. This is a gesture to say that while we stand opposed to certain social injustices committed by Israel upon innocent Palestinians, we also strongly support the right of Israel to exist, and indeed to flourish.

This is the gist of Fourth's intention, reports their pastor John Buchanan:

"Everybody thought we wanted to say something along the lines that divestment is not aimed at Israel's existence or Israel's economy but Israel's policies regarding the conduct of actions with Palestinian people," Buchanan said. Funds would be used to support companies that build infrastructure, such as schools, homes and roads.

So I think Bob Reynolds, executive presbyter for Chicago Presbytery, is right when he says:

"It's Fourth acting faithfully and forcefully as a peacemaker," said Rev. Bob Reynolds, head of the Chicago Presbytery. "They're doing that by investing in the products of peace at the same time the church is also divesting from the weapons of war."

I hope the rest of the church can emulate this approach.

The Borrow-and-Spend Republicans...

What's worse? Tax-and-spend or borrow-and-spend? I dunno, but so much for fiscal discipline outta those that control both chambers of congress (hint: that aint the democrats).

Cynical either-or: Either they're trying to break the bank and make it impossible for the federal government to provide any kind of program for its citizens, or they're greedy enough not to care about the debt they're leaving for the future, wanting their tax breaks now to line their pockets. They'll tell you their plan is to stimulate the economy or some such thing. Sure's worked so far (that's sarcasm folks), and the bonus: the rich get even richer.

Followup on the House rule change to help DeLay

Over at archpundit they're looking into area republican votes against this rule change. The discussion there is worth following.

Changing the Rules of the Game, Chicago Style

I've had my arguments with some (particularly folk who spend way too much time on the usenet group rec.autos.driving) who believe that all speed limits and subsequent enforcement is about revenue collection rather than safety or good o' fashion law and order. I think people who get pulled over or ticketed for breaking traffic law have little reason to complain about it: pay the fine and get on with your life.

Today Chicago announced that they have this plan to retrofit red-light cameras at intersections to now trap speeders. I have little problem with the cameras catching red-light runners (provided, of course, that the intersection was fairly labeled as such and that the engineering of the lights were fair too, with enough of a yellow to allow drivers to stop in time and safely). Switching them now that they are there to catch speeders too seems like they were fraudulently sold to us. I still think speed limits and similar traffic laws are absolutely necessary for driving safety (and I'm mildly open to looking at 85th percentile changes to limits, on some interstates). But its hard not to see these changes in Chicago as linked to its current budget crisis.

The CTA is a mess...

Does anyone have a clue over at the CTA? What gives with them waiting until the veto session to beg for money? And either way, the system was subsidizing rider costs; either fares would have to go up or more money brought in if they were going to maintain service. As it is, it will likely be drastically cut. Guess who that will hit the hardest? The poor.

Nice.

I ought to do this...

This really seems like a good idea:

www.drinkingliberally.org

Maybe I'll drag my busy self to one of these some day.

GOP Changing the Rules of the Game II

While I'm referring to Kevin Drum's comments over at Washington Monthly, a word might be said about what Republicans in the other chamber are up to, particularly with regard to confirmation of judicial nominees.

They've been complaining lately about how Democrats have been obstructing senate votes on nominees or threatening filibusters, and have been exploring what they call the nuclear option of amending senate rules to make such filibusters harder.

But check out Kevin's research on Republican history with regards to judicial nominees. Drum concludes:

Bottom line: Yes, Democrats are filibustering some of George Bush's judges, but they're doing it only because Republicans have relentlessly dismantled all the avenues of dissent they themselves took advantage of back when Democrats controlled the Senate. There's no principle involved in this, just a raw exercise of power.

That actually sounds about right to me.

GOP Changing the Rules of the Game I

I gather I shouldn't be shocked by those in power to manipulate the system to promote their agenda. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

Here's one good example: Tom DeLay, House Majority Leader, is about to be indicted in Texas for fundrasing violations. The House, many of whose members owe DeLay and his PAC big time for their own election bids, are about to try to save his butt as long as they are able.

From today's Washington Post:

House Republicans proposed changing their rules last night to allow members indicted by state grand juries to remain in a leadership post, a move that would benefit Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in case he is charged by a Texas grand jury that has indicted three of his political associates, according to GOP leaders.
The proposed rule change, which several leaders predicted would win approval at a closed meeting today, comes as House Republicans return to Washington feeling indebted to DeLay for the slightly enhanced majority they won in this month's elections. DeLay led an aggressive redistricting effort in Texas last year that resulted in five Democratic House members retiring or losing reelection. It also triggered a grand jury inquiry into fundraising efforts related to the state legislature's redistricting actions.

They've got cajones, no doubt.

Nota bene Kevin Drum's comments about what this should signal to congressional democrats.

More on troubled waters

Just to highlight something from the post below, I'd particularly encourage those interested to read this precis of Presbyterian policy and rationale towards the Israel-Palestine conflict. In particular, these exerpts are germane:

Although the decision to “initiate a process of phased, selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel” may be presumed by some to invite comparison of Israeli policies with those of apartheid South Africa, the Assembly has not asserted any moral equivalency between the two. The two situations are distinct. The focus of this action is to explore use of a proven tool of economic pressure to motivate real change in Israeli policies and movement toward peace.

Again, the Assembly’s action calls for a selective divestment, and not a blanket economic boycott, keeping before us our interest in Israel’s economic and social well-being where these do not inflict suffering on Palestinian or Israeli people.

This is particularly important in light of Dershowitz's comments assuming that the church is likening Israel to South Africa.

And importantly, read the summary here:

5. These actions are rooted in a longstanding commitment to the secure existence of Israel and the Israeli people, in a similar commitment to the security and existence of Palestinians in their own state, and in a passionate vision of negotiated peace as the only viable way forward. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has consistently supported the existence of Israel within legitimate and secure borders, and prayed for its security and well-being. It is, however, the conviction of the Presbyterian Church (USA) that “the security of Israel and the Israeli people is inexorably dependent on making peace with their Palestinian neighbors, by negotiating and reaching a just and equitable solution to the conflict that respects international law, human rights, the sanctity of life, and dignity of persons, land, property, safety of home, freedom of movement, the rights of refugees to return to their homeland, the right of a people to determine their political future, and to live in peace and prosperity.”

The whole thing is helpful, but that's the gist of it.

Into Troubled Waters

So I heard today that my denomination, of which I am a candidate for ordained ministry (something that ought happen one of these days), received an arson threat Wednesday. The threat claims to be in response to several actions of our denomination at its summer meetings, many of which have been poorly understood and grossly misrepresented. Admittingly, some of those actions were just plain stupid, particularly our decision to keep funding so-called "messianic" churches. But I'm supportive of our action to consider selective divestment as an ethical response against what we perceive to be injustice in the effects of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, particularly the entrenchment of settlements and the incursions' effects on innocent Palestianian civilians.

The church has a rather long history of active support for the state of Israel, on the one hand, and seeking peace and justice for the people of Palestine, on the other. The stance against Israel's actions in its occupation isn't new, just the consideration of backing it with our money as well as our words. But it is that consideration which has several Jewish organizations claiming that my denomination is being motivated by anti-semetic concerns, even as we've been clear about our history and our motives, including our positions against terrorism and in favor of the security of the state of Israel. One example is this missive by Alan M. Dershowitz, which really misconstrues many of the actual actions of the church, seems to imply that Israel can do no wrong in its just defense, and that those that wish to criticise Israel for anything they might do wrong border on anti-semitism in doing so. He's not representative of all the backlash, but he's a particularly important component of it.

This week our church worked to set the criteria for any divestment, and there've been several attempts to open dialogue with Jewish groups to see where our differences lie, where we're talking past each other, and where we can act to heal any wounds that we've opened or have caused to get worse. I hope those efforts bear fruit; personally, I think our statements against evangelism to Jews and in favor of support for Jews all over the world, and in Israel, are right on. Their misperception of our motives hurts me. But I am convinced that the church is not motivated by anything other than justice for the innocent in our actions against Israeli incursions and occupations of Palestine. We're aware that these are complex matters, that Israel has every right to defend herself, and that any terrorism against its citizens are horrendous evils. At the same time, that doesn't justify everything Israel does in her self-defense, just like America isn't justified in its evil actions (cf. Abu Garaib) in response to 9/11. And as the church walks into troubled waters, attempting to be a faithful witness, it must do so with humility and love for both sides. That, I think, is what it is trying to do, even if not everyone understands it. And I hope we don't get firebombed in the process.

About Me One: My Addiction to Losing Sports Teams is a Tragedy

I've never lived there myself, but my entire family (mainly boys/men, plus my poor mother) follows Kansas City sports teams religiously. And this year we suck. The Chiefs just lost again to a team they shoulda beat, and the Royals lost 104 games this season. Not much to hope for, not for a rather long time. And the St. Louis Blues (no hockey team in KC), reasonably a good bet for a regular contender, ain't lacing up the skates these days either. *Sigh*.

I'm not sure why that's the first thing I post about. Probably because we lost today, and that's the pain for the day.

First Post

So this is my first blog post. I'm probably considered a fairly mild blog-reader, more active than some, way less active than others. This first post, a placeholder of sorts, will get things going. In short, I'm a left-leaning graduate student working on a Ph.D. in Theological Ethics and a candidate for ordination in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Longer bio, I'm sure, to follow.

dctoo.