Saltsman claimed that the media judged him by a double standard. He was vilified for distributing Paul Shanklin’s parody, which Saltsman says, “should be easily recognized as satire directed at the [Los Angeles] Times.” The Times in March 2007 ran an op-ed piece with the headline, “Obama the ‘Magic Negro’.” According to Saltsman, no one was outraged at the Times, and thus the double standard. But as the saying goes, context is everything.

Part of the context, as pointed out in a LA Times blog^[1] , is that the piece is “op-ed.”

An op-ed, abbreviated from opposite the editorial page (though often believed to be abbreviated from opinion-editorial), is a newspaper article that expresses the opinions of a named writer who is usually unaffiliated with the newspaper’s editorial board. These are different from editorials, which are usually unsigned and written by editorial board members. Op-eds are so named because they are generally printed on the page opposite the editorial.^[2]

In another LA Times op-ed piece, this one responding to Saltsman’s distribution of Shanklin’s parody, Tim Rutten makes an important point about the context of national politics:

The point is, when it comes to discussions of race in America — and particularly racial or ethnic humor — context is everything. In fact, racial and ethnic humor are probably the most contextually sensitive of all forms of satire. They work only when everyone is clear that the person making the joke regards the differences and foibles of another group affectionately and as something that makes everybody’s life more interesting. Lots of traditional Jewish and Irish humor falls into that category, though even there, it depends on who is telling the joke, and to whom.

The right contextual conditions, however, never exist in politics, which is why ethnic or racial references in that venue nearly always offend — or, at best, fall flat.^[3]

It is entirely possible for ethnically different people to get along, poking fun at themselves and each other. Yet, as Rutten points out, there must be a context assuring the good-will — maybe even compassion and care — of every member of the community. Most importantly, politics are a combined context in which this can never be assured. As a communication context, politics always imply ambition and what Nietzsche called the “will to power.” Not exactly the heights of good-will, not to speak of care or compassion.

So, when a white man sings in a faux Al Sharpton voice, “Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C. / The L.A. Times, they called him that / ‘Cause he’s black, but not authentically. / Some say Barack’s “articulate” / And bright and new and “clean.” / The media sure loves this guy, / A white interloper’s dream!”^[4] , it is entirely different from black director Spike Lee labelling the stock characters typically played by Morgan Freeman the “super duper magical negro.”^[5] Why? Because context is everything.

(As an aside, when a white man imitating Al Sharpton discourages voting for a black man because he’s too white, it is the height of dramatic irony on so many levels.)

Which brings us back to the original op-ed article by David Ehrenstein.

The only mud that momentarily stuck was criticism (white and black alike) concerning Obama’s alleged “inauthenticty,” as compared to such sterling examples of “genuine” blackness as Al Sharpton and Snoop Dogg. Speaking as an African American whose last name has led to his racial “credentials” being challenged — often several times a day — I know how pesky this sort of thing can be.^[6]

A week ago, former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele was selected as the chairman of the Republican National Committee. Saltsman withdrew his name at the eleventh hour without explanation. Steele becomes the first African-American GOP chairman.^[7] Perhaps Republicans selected Steele as a response to President Barack Obama’s victory in November. Or maybe, Republicans were responding to Saltsman’s tasteless self-advertising. Context, as they say, is everything.

Sounds outlandish! Unreal. Even as fiction, no one would believe it. Now, stop imagining and see that this is the reality of the situation in the Gaza strip.

The current conflict has been marked by little or no restraint on the part of Israel. Israel Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said in an interview with the Washington Post, “I don’t like the term cease-fire since it looks like an agreement between two legitimate sides.” Elsewhere in the same interview she said, “Israel is not going to show restraint anymore. . . . it is not a missile against a missile. We are going to attack strongly if they continue.”^[1] If we were to decode the political rhetoric, Livni’s statement might read:

“We have a far bigger stick than you, and we will level you to the dirt.”

Israel supports its overwhelming use of military force by saying it is a response to “terror.”^[2] Many nations list Hamas as a terrorist organization.^[3] Yet according to many sources, Israel originally supported Hamas secretly to destabilize support for the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). “according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years. … Israel’s support for Hamas ‘was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative,’ said a former senior CIA official.”^[4] In a recent email letter to her supporters, Dr. Maria Khoury, a Palestinian Christian who lives in Taybeh, West Bank, relates a personal memory of this support for Hamas by the Israeli government. If this knowledge was widespread throughout Palestine, how demoralizing it must be for Palestinians to be used as pawns.

Far more demoralizing, though, is the human cost. Families seeking refuge from the destruction are killed while they try to escape.
“Movement [while fleeing] is complicated by the confusion over when it is safe to leave,” writes the New York Times. “When the Abu Hajaj family received a leaflet last weekend, they took it as a sign of safe passage. But Majad Abdel Karim Abu Hajaj, a teacher at a United Nations school, said his mother and sister were killed as they walked holding a white flag. Their bodies remain where they fell, he said, because ambulances cannot get to the area.”^[5]

We have a far bigger stick than you, and we will level you to the dirt.

And what has been the cost for Israel? The Los Angeles Times reports that the death toll for Israel is thirteen. “Israel has suffered 13 dead: 10 soldiers, four of them by ‘friendly fire,’ and three civilians by Hamas rockets.” How does that compare to the cost suffered by Palestine?

The Palestinian Ministry of Health reported Monday that the death toll had risen from 884 to 910, according to an update from United Nations officials in Gaza. The dead include 292 children and 75 women, the officials said. The number of injured Palestinians stood at 4,250, of whom 1,497 are children and 626 are women….

More than 28,000 Palestinian civilians have been displaced, inundating makeshift refugee centers.^[6]

We have a far bigger stick than you, and we will level you to the dirt.

We can do little to change the political situation. The nations of this world will continue their demonic use of military power until the end of the age. However, we must help sacrificially as we are able. Recently, Metropolitan Jonah (Paffhausen), the Primate of the Orthodox Church in America, released a public statement encouraging support of the International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC) and spoke directly about our obligation to Palestine:

The parishes and members of the Orthodox Church in America should urgently offer their financial support to IOCC, earmarking this support at this time for work in Gaza. As Orthodox Christians, members of the Orthodox Church in America are in deep solidarity with the suffering people in the Middle East — Christians, Muslims, and Jews. The many hundreds of dead and wounded civilians in Gaza and in the whole region bear witness in their suffering to the real meaning of military and political conflict: it is innocent people who suffer the most.^[7]

We are mostly powerless to change the political situation, but I can express solidarity with the Palestinian people through sacrifice — giving of myself as an offering. Here are three things I will be doing:

1. Give. I will give to the IOCC.^[8] They already have an infrastructure on the ground in Palestine, because they have been working there for many years. Give sacrificially.
2. Pray. “The heartfelt prayer of someone upright works very powerfully.”^[9] I will pray an akathist for the people of Palestine and specifically for Gaza. Take extra time during your day or your week to pray for the people of Gaza and Palestine. Pray an akathist, a decade of the rosary, or an additional round on your prayer rope (chotki, komboskini) for release and relief. If set prayers are not part of your faith tradition, set aside extra time to pray extemporaneously for Palestine. Pray sacrificially.
3. Speak. Declare it. I have already written this article, obviously. Get the word out. Blog, tweet, or post on Facebook and other social networking sites. I will also speak out at my church. Speak out at your church, mosque, temple, or other house of worship. Be bold. Tell people what you know. Speak sacrificially.

Of course, there is so much more. Be creative. You can sacrifice your time, either by organizing a fundraiser or even by participating in one near you. The most daring among you can sacrifice your time by volunteering with an organization and traveling to Gaza in the flesh. This is ultimately the deepest sacrfice you can make. Do not let your fear put your motivation on the shelf: Do something.

Photo by Marc Nozzel, CC BY license

• Obama and the Islam factors, GetReligion.com
• Obama and the Bigots, NY Times op-ed
• Obama Urban Legends on Snopes

The videos and quoted material on Snopes is great. It may be my new best friend for debunking stupid stuff.

Dear Mom and Dad: Love you lots. Call me when you read this!

by Clark Carlton

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

The 2008 US presidential election is almost a year and a half away, and yet the various campaigns are in full swing. With states vying to move the primary season up into late 2007, it is time that we as citizens of the United States start to think about who we would like to see elected to the White House next year.

Before I express my own thoughts about the upcoming election, let me begin with a couple of obvious, but nonetheless vital, observations. First of all, reasonable people – and certainly the reason-endowed sheep of Christ’s flock – can disagree about political philosophies and the relative virtues and vices of particular candidates. I do not believe that there is one “Orthodox” answer to some of the questions that I will raise below. In other words, I will question neither the purity of your faith nor the sincerity of your commitment to Christ if you disagree with my thoughts.

Read the rest: An Open Letter to Orthodox Christians, on Behalf of Ron Paul by Clark Carlton

Congressman Paul probably will have my vote this year, even if he does not receive the Republican nomination.

…if government by the consent of the governed means anything, it means the right of the people to know what their government is doing to evaluate its wisdom and to adjust their political loyalties or activism accordingly.

…

Congress has turned invertebrate for twofold reasons: Members are too ignorant of the Constitution to appreciate the magnitude of their derelictions or to fight for their prerogatives; and their loyalties to party dwarf their attachment to the Constitution. If there are any ways to correct these conspicuous member shortcomings, they do not readily come to mind.

Read the whole thing: Moribund Congress

From the Christian Science Monitor:

“The suspension clause is a limitation on the powers of Congress,” Judge Rogers writes. “It is only by misreading the historical record and ignoring the Supreme Court’s well-considered and binding dictum in Rasul v. Bush” that the court can conclude that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the detainees’ cases.

From the Guardian:

Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, a lawyer representing several of the detainees, said: “The court of appeal has said it is perfectly legal to lock men up for ever without even a hint of due process.

“The conclusion would seem to violate most principles that most Americans believe are fundamental to our country.”

…

In the ruling, the appeal judges said: “Precedent in this court and the supreme court hold that the constitution does not confer rights on aliens without property or presence within the United States.”

Does the Constitution “confer” rights? Or does it protect them?

What could the Tenth Amendment possibly mean if the Constitution confers rights? To read the Wikipedia article on Amendment X is to read a sad story of the subversion of the Constitution, begun under Lincoln and expanded under Roosevelt.

This phrase is, of course, taken from the final act of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s dramatic address at the United Nations. …[H]ere are the crucial quotes:

I emphatically declare that today’s world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.

O, Almighty God, all men and women are your creatures and you have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by you, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.

Does that sound familiar? Did you see this passage played over and over on the evening newscasts and debated on the niche-market shows on cable?

You didn’t?

…Try to imagine what would have happened if President George W. Bush had ended his U.N. address with a call for the second coming of Jesus Christ and pledged that he would strive to see this event come to pass, sooner rather than later. Imagine the mainstream media response. Do you think this would be mentioned in major media? Do you think journalists would jump to cover that topic (as well they should)?

Read the rest: GetReligion: September 25, 2006 — “Waiting on the perfect righteous human being”

Tuesday 18, at 13:22pm, the Israeli Army bombed – by land and air – the old Orthodox Church of St. George in Rashaiya Fakhar (Hasbaiya, Southern Lebanon) as well as its meeting house, the parish priest house and the Orthodox School with 15 bombs, some of them are phosphoric. It destroyed the southern wall of the church and caused a big fire in it. At that time, many parishioners were hiding and praying with their parish priest asking God’s protection. Ten were burnt and wounded. I have to mention that there was a white flag flying on top of the church.

It is impossible for someone to steal identity. If, hypothetically, someone made themselves the exactly the same as you in every way, they would be identical to you. You and that person would have identity. Luckily, that horrific case is not within the realm of possibility (outside of science fiction thrillers).

What is called “identity theft” actually already had a name; it’s fraud. People who use your name and identifying information (date of birth, social security number) for clandestine purposes are fraudulently pretending to be you. They haven’t stolen your identity. You are still you. There’s no need for new laws or renamed task forces. Just prosecute them for fraud.

So, I’m a little disgruntled that the administration that came up with silly names like “Department of Homeland Security” has created a “President’s Identity Theft Task Force.”

Danforth, a Missouri Republican and an Episcopal priest, made the comments in a speech Saturday night to the Log Cabin Republicans, which support gay rights. He said history has shown that attempts to regulate human behavior with constitutional amendments are misguided.

“Once before, the Constitution was amended to try to deal with matters of human behavior; that was prohibition. That was such a flop that that was repealed 13 years later,” Danforth said.

Referring to the marriage amendment, he added that perhaps at some point in history there was a constitutional amendment proposed that was “sillier than this one, but I don’t know of one.”

Read more: AOL News – Danforth Says Gay Marriage Ban a Silly Idea

Perhaps he does not consider Amendment XIII (Abolition) to be a real amendment; Missouri was a Confederate state, after all. However, I think he’s probably just being historically myopic to make a silly point.

The point is, after allof course, rather silly. An amendment to define marriage would be just that: A definition of marriage. It would not attempt in any way to curtail anyone’s freedom. It would be an agreement of the United States on the definition of marriage. (One which, recent events should make obvious, is sorely needed. No one needs to define institutions we all agree upon; only when unstable people insinuate absurdities — which begin to be naïvely accepted by the masses — is society compelled to stop and define itself.)

When viewed realistically — and not as a stage for populist soundbites — the amendment aims to do what every amendment does: Define the jurisdiction of the federal government and the states. In this caseHere, the proposed amendment simply makes explicit that neither the federal government nor the statesdoes not have the power to magically make absurdities into realities.

In truth, American society is doing what all societies do: Enacting legislation to protect its own existence and the welfare of its people. In this case, it is explicitly stating that the basic unit of society is the family and not the individual, that living in accordance with nature is better than chaos and anarchy. It is also protecting the welfare of future generations of Americans by refusing to allow dangerous fantasies to be masqueraded as healthy realities.

In short, this amendment is entirely unlike the eighteenth amendment (Prohibition). Whereas one attempted to outlaw a practice that has been a generallysometimes felicitous part of the human experience since the first nomads discovered fermentation, the other explicitly approves and states what has been an essential part of the human experience since well before the dawn of reason upon our ancient hominid ancestors.

As for sillier amendment proposals, I’d say the title definitely goes to the proposed amendment to repeal Amendment XXVI (Right to vote for citizens eighteen years old) and granting the right to vote to citizens sixteen years old.

Hat tip: Fr. Joseph Huneycutt