Political update for July, 2010

Two from the wacky world of Israel.

Israel claims it is democratic and that it is a republic. I’ll agree it is a representative democracy, and that it is not a monarchy or a tyranny. But, it is also a theocracy, whether it calls itself one or not. Domestic relations are controlled by religious courts. Jews have different rights than non-Jews, including the right to citizenship no matter where they are from (the Law of Return). This right has been liberally interpreted and even some groups from disparate countries not exactly thought of as Jewish have been permitted to become citizens. Like, from India.

Israel’s legislative body is the Knesset, which has one house. Last week, a committee in the Knesset passed a law which, if it became law, would give a small group of rabbis, usually referred to as orthodox, to determine who is a Jew. Considering that Israel gets much of its worldwide support from America and American Jews, some see it as somewhat amazing that they would risk alienating so many Jews around the world. The group which would have this power does not recognize conservative or reform Jews as Jews.

The PM, Bibi Netanyahu, isn’t an idiot and has come out dead set against it.

No one should be surprised that Israel is in part a theocracy, although I think it is, can’t think of a better world, stupid. After all, it bills itself as the Jewish homeland and it is surrounded by theocracies and dictatorships (that’s the understandable part). Even some European countries like England and France reserve some vestiges of religious rule, however much they have decentralized power. But, Israel is much more of a theocracy than those, which are more a formality.

There has long been a debate in Israel about whether it should be secular or religious. It has, since its creation, been schizophrenic about it. Whatever the percentage of those in Israel who think a theocracy is better than a secular country, but, it can’t be completely secular and maintain its Jewish nature and right of return (while denying same to Palestinians) without it. It can’t become fully theocratic and maintain support from America or even its own people.

This is not the first time that some have tried to consolidate their religious power, mullah like, but it is always sad to see it getting this far through the Knesset. I do not see it going further.

From what I understand, this wildfire has been put in suspended animation by mutual consent for six months. Hopefully, to die.

But, consider this really stupid move, this one by Israel’s secular judiciary. An Arab man, already married, lied to a Jewish girl, telling her he was Jewish and single. It worked and he scored.

Yes, it was lie. Not nice. We all agree. Even inveterate liars usually agree that lying is generally wrong. But, here’s the stupid part. He was prosecuted for and convicted of RAPE because of it. Rape by deception.

The ruling was upheld by Israel’s high court. That means, unless the Knesset passes a new law saying lying can’t be a basis for rape (sure, politicians being known for their courage when it comes to sexual politics), it is the law.

I don’t have to tell you why this ruling must put the fear of Jehovah into every Israeli man who intends to have sex with a woman. Men lie all the time to get girls. They pretend they are rich, they have jobs, they where a uniform, have a nice car, even that they are nice guys. They even say “I love you” and “I’ll marry you.”

Obviously not all guys all the times. But a lot of guys a lot of the time. This is not a secret. Not in Israel, not here, or pretty much anywhere else.  And, girls lie to, although often in different ways.

Hey, I was once told by two women on different occasions that I lied to them by telling the truth because no woman would think I was doing so. On another occasion, however, one told me that men should lie to women to get them in bed because the women know it and it helps them justify it.

I doubt my experiences were unique. The game of sex is one with difficult rules. Arguably, lying is almost required in our and every other society to some degree. Because sexual politics are so difficult, we’ve pretty much de facto decriminalized adultery in this country. You have to be a politician in the wrong place, wrong time, in order to get arrested for it.

The only way I could see a rape by deception being fair is if someone convinced a blind person they were their husband, or something like that. That's more likely in a movie than in real life.

In Israel, the defendant has complained that this was just racial prejudice, given the social disapproval among Jews of intermingling with Arabs. Some suggest this will be an aberration in the law. Maybe so. Whatever it is, it’s stupid.

Which is dumber, the Who’s a Jew proposal that passed the Knesset committee or this ruling by the high court? I’m going to go with the Who’s a Jew proposal, even though it’s not law yet, because it will affect more people if it is ever passed. Tear the country apart as the PM says.

But, they were both stupid.

Don’t they get tired of it?

Now, I’m not picking on Harry Reid right now. He’s an accomplished politician, but he is paying the penalty for activities in getting the health care reforms into law. A long time incumbent, he should be having less of a problem with the newbie, Sharron Angle. Right now, he’s closing the gap, only 3% behind her in the latest Rasmussen poll. However, he also has about a 10% higher favorable but also unfavorable rating. That might just mean a lot of people don’t know her. But, according to Rasmussen, at this point, you look at the unfavorable rating.

What caught my attention a few weeks ago was a statement he made, which cable tv cut down to a few seconds. It went like this, if I have the quote right – “They're betting on failure. They think that the worse the economy is come November, the better they are going to do election-wise."

At risk of being insolent, may I say – “d’uh!”

Naturally Republicans are betting on failure. I’m sure they remember that around the middle of September, ’08 Sen. McCain was running almost even with Sen. Obama when the economy collapsed and so did his campaign. Republican politicians’ jobs, like their Democratic counterparts, is to get elected, obtain power and doll out favors to friends and supporters.

In order to do so they have to get people to identify with them, excuse their incompetence and corruption and like them. How are they going to do that if the economy is going well. Of course they hope the economy doesn’t work.

To be fair, I’m sure a good Republican would tell you – “If the economy does well right now it will be a fluke or cyclical and it means the liberals will be encouraged to continue their tax and spend policies and drive us to ruin.”

Naturally, Democrats were delighted when the economy collapsed last year just before the election. It meant they were going to win and take power.

Also to be fair, I’m sure a good Democrat would tell you – “If the economy did well in 2008 it would have only been because Bush was having the fed prop it up, and it would have meant the conservatives would have been encouraged to continue their tax cuts for the rich and support for the big guy over the little.”

My point is, of course, neither side really cares about the economy when they aren’t in power. If it fails they will have a better chance of controlling things and “saving the day.” It’s like when the citizens of one city get excited because a ballplayer on another city’s team gets hurt, so their team will win. How many people think, too bad, it will be a less competitive game?

Reid, of course, couldn’t wait to get on the floor of the Senate and announce that we had lost the Iraq War. I have never heard him say “Oops” about that. I’m sure he had convinced himself that it was true and he was not only grateful, he wanted voters to know it.

Neither side ever seems to get tired of pretending it’s only the other side that does this. It isn’t going to do Harry Reid any good to say it, just as it didn’t do any good for conservatives to say the Democrats want us to fail in Iraq (also, in my opinion, true at that time).

The real question is, why don’t we ever get tired of it?

The whole black, black, black, etc., thing.

Years ago I was at Thanksgiving dinner with my family at a restaurant. Excepting my daughter, they are extremely racially sensitive.  The mention of an ethnic group, even innocuously, makes them embarrassed and uncomfortable. The mention of the color black at all makes them squirm.

At one point during dinner, I referred to someone who was a black guy as a “black guy”. I forget the reason I felt the color tag was helpful, because I can’t remember the actual story I was telling. I can’t really remember their exact reaction either, but it was generally one of heightened embarrassment, looking around, and I believe genuine fear. What if a black person heard me refer to a black person as black? 

Now, we have a sort tit for tat in my family. They like to greatly exaggerate stories to make me sound  horribly racist (they’ve actually started to admit this lately, which is gratifying and surprising) and I like to torture them about their racial squemishness. So, I looked around at them, gathered their attention, and said loud enough for other tables to hear - “BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK, BLACK”.

I know you are thinking "So?," but they nearly died. Great moment for me in the family annals.

If you are wondering if there is a point to this, we are going through somewhat of the same thing in our country now. The mere mention of race or someone’s ethnic identity in public is enough to make people crazy.

Few politically active people will deny that race is still a problem in America. The liberals tend to believe we must be very conscious of race, that slavery and racism is America’s great shame, that we should not mention or show a minority in any bad light, always give their opinions credence, never forget slavery, never forget Jim Crow, never forget lynchings, and give minorities advantages now so as to make compensation for the past. Even though we are a country filled with post-Civil War immigrants, we can't apologize enough and we must tip the legal scales in favor of minorities.

The conservatives feel that we are past our most racist past, that we should celebrate the strides we have made, that Western civilization ended slavery, that the best way to get rid of racial vestiges is to ignore it and judge people on their merit, and not give anyone advantages in law as a way to make up for the bad acts of our ancestors or governments.

I see both sides as having some truth or right on their side (does that surprise anyone – I’m a fence sitter). Race is both our greatest shame and the source of our greatest triumphs. It is still a difficult problem and no one can see the end of it. I don’t want to act as if there is no racism, but I don’t want someone to have an advantage in law because of their skin color either. Race means something, but it doesn’t mean everything.

But, I have no secrets to success which I can offer. One day a few years ago, when I was teaching a constitutional law class, we were discussing the fighting words doctrine, that because the government has an interest in preventing violence they may violate free speech rights in order to prevent fighting words.

During the class, one young black woman (I obviously don’t prefer the term African-American, as I believe it is illogical, divisive and dishonest) used the dreaded N-word, unabbreviated and un-hyphenated, but I thought in an appropriate way. Then, a young white man used it, also, I thought, in an appropriate way. Unfortunately, he happened to be the class wise guy and that might have made the difference. Maybe not though.

Another black woman looked at me and said loudly, pointing at him, that someone has to tell him to “Shut up.” Let me tell you, I wasn’t prepared for this. All I could think to say was something like “Well, I can’t solve this problem, but, it does show us how painful some words can be and why we have the fighting words doctrine.”

Later, the white kid came up to me when I was talking to some other students after class and asked what he had done wrong. He was clearly embarrassed and saddened. I said that I didn’t think he had done anything wrong, but he had to understand that in our culture, if he, a white man, was going to use that word, many blacks and some others would get angry at him. It was his decision.

I was teaching a class, not running for office and I wanted peaceful, motivated discussion; not a race war. A few white students later told me they thought I handled it really well. But, I noticed that an unusual number of the black students decided not to come to the next class. Naturally, I can’t say for sure if it was related. But, maybe I handled it well from a white viewpoint, but not a black one. No black student came up to discuss it with me. Although I wish I had handled it better, had something wise to say so all the students would sigh and say, "Oh, okay," I still don’t know how else I could have managed it. I’ll never have the moment back anyway. I doubt there was a solution.

I look at my own experience as a metaphor for the whole racial situation in America. We don’t know how to handle it and are slowly feeling our way forward. Some people are satisfied and others not. I can say for sure that I know it is a lot better than when I was a kid. Then again, when I once ventured that opinion in another class, one student at least couldn’t hear it and seemed to think I was saying there is no racism. That’s a problem when anyone discusses racism. People hear it through a very cloudy filter. Perceived code words often overwhelm actual words.

In the last couple of months we’ve had an outbreak of media events surrounding race. I am not sure of the order, and it’s not really important, but I believe the Arizona immigration issue was first. During the Civil War, supposedly fought over economic or political reasons, everyone knew it was fought over slavery. And, even though the federal lawsuit against Arizona (in my opinion a borderline frivolous one) is not about race at all, but about federal pre-emption, we all know it is both about ethnicity and/or votes.

Then there was the NCAAP flap, where their convention passed a resolution accusing the tea parties of racism, wanting to smear the movement with for the statements of a handful. There was also the letter from tea party leader Mark Williams which satirized the NCAAP and its leader in such a way that every media figure and progressive/liberal could easily call him a racist and his own party, not trusting that people could recognize obvious satire when they saw it, and he was trying to suggest that it was the NCAAP that saw blacks this way, through him under the bus. There is no honor among partisans.

The New Black Panthers were a scandal that shouldn’t go away, but probably will while we have a Democratic controlled congress. If the Republicans take over a house, and there aren’t more pressing issues, there might be one.* There, a long time white Justice Department lawyer retired after he learned that his bosses had dropped the easiest case he ever prosecuted, one against a couple of New Black Panthers who stood in front of a polling place intimidating whites. The administration claims that the voluntary injunction they obtained not to intimidate voters until after the 2012 election was satisfactory. Personally, it is an insult to all of our intelligence. Somehow, I don’t think I would have gotten off so easy had I tried to intimidate anyone.

Andrew Breitbart’s website, biggoverment.com, recently posted an excerpted speech by a black USDA official, Shirley Sherrod, in which it seemed as if she was bragging about not helping a white farmer. It went viral and she was fired. Sure enough, it turned out when you listened to the whole speech, she was talking about how she learned to get past her own racism. It takes a certain amount of courage to do that if you have a job where you must be politically correct.

Of course, let’s not give anyone too much credit. The administration fired her without a thought, not bothering to listen to the speech because they could care less about what happens to her. They were out for themselves. When they offered her a job back after apologizing, they were doing the same. And, Mr. Breitbart, a conservative blogger, either deliberately edited the speech or was grossly negligent. Either way, he didn’t care that he might be slandering someone as long as he could score a political point. The right wing is busy protecting him right now – he was “set up,” according to Ann Coulter, but, it's only because he’s on their team. The really interesting thing is watching how both parties and ideologues are using the episode to insist that the other side is racist. Yet we vote for these people.

Perhaps last is Tucker Carlson’s revelation of emails from a progressive group called Journolists (the “o” was for Obama) who formed their own invitation only social network where they could rant about conservatives and help each other target anyone who disagreed with Obama. One of these ways was to accuse conservatives or people on Fox (Fred Barnes and Karl Rove come to mind) as being racist. Sad, but that is the state of journalism today. It's why I hardly bother anymore.

After each sentence above I could have written - this is what partisans do. It’s rarely about us. Unfortunately, most Americans have from birth been indoctrinated into one side or the other and we give these partisan leaders credibility, as if there really are only two sides to each issue and the ideologues own all of them.

You can read about these mini-scandals anywhere and that’s why I just touched upon them. The larger point is this: the idea that we are a “post racial nation” is certainly untrue. It is better here now than at any time in our history, and as we can see, a black man can even become president. Despite the fact that liberals are sure conservatives are racist and visa versa, I feel assured that if Republicans ran Clarence Thomas, an extremely high majority of conservatives would vote gleefully vote for him and an extremely high percentage of liberals adamantly against him, regardless of his color. Ideology is the new colored.

Amazing as it sounds, the partisans on both sides have managed to warp and reinvigorate racism as it slowly dies out. They’ve pretty much eclipsed it with "race shenanigans". It is now a weapon each side wields against the other. I’m not suggesting that there is no real racism, just that false or exaggerated accusations of it have become more of a focus for the partisans and the media than the actuality of it. No one cares if any of the people mentioned above are really racist – they care if they can make a claim that someone on the other side is racist and whether it will have legs.

Ah, once again I show my ability to turn almost any topic into a rant against partisanship. It never gets old for me (maybe you, but that’s your problem).
My suggested definition for partisans: “A group of people so profligate, so mired in their priorities, and so amoral in believing the success of their country is synonymous with the success of their political party or ideology, that they could turn a tradition as old and discredited as racism into a spear point for their own ends; they are neither fit to mind the government, never mind disseminate knowledge and opinions to us. Alas, they have a lock on all of it.”

*Post note - I don’t have the best record predicting what scandals will stick, but I’m not sure anyone does. It depends on who controls congress and what else is happening at the time. If the Republicans end up controlling the House, they might decide to look into it as well as the Sestak affair. However, the Democrats will still likely control the Senate and they might decide, in response, to re-investigate Bush era issues like torture and wire-tapping. It might just suggest to everyone that they calm down.

The one where I make fun of the left and the right

If you look at the title of episodes of the show Friends in your television guide, you will see that they all start with "The one . . ." followed by a brief description. So, in tribute, I called this post, The one where I make fun of the left and the right. It would make more sense, of course, if that title wouldn't describe most of my political blogs.

The part where I gleefully point out how crazy the left is when it comes to white guilt

According to liberal theory, we can not ignore the fact of skin color, even where it much of the effects of it have been outlawed, even, in some cases presumed to exist from appearances, as it would then presumptively lead us to ignore fixing problems caused by color prejudice. Okay, I won’t even argue it here. But, apparently, given the fix Senator Reid finds himself in, when we talk about color, we may only say things which are definitively positive towards so called “people of color”.

Even Barak Obama has stated that color was a factor in some people’s voting. I think he was right – some voted against him because of color and others voted for him because of color. Why can’t Harry Reid say it?

His comments were not the least bit offensive. He, an Obama supporter, said that Obama would win because he was light skinned and spoke without a black dialect. It was a political observation. If he lost, would not everyone on the left have said, he lost because he was too dark (I think everyone agrees he speaks without a “black” dialect). Yet, the liberal world is acting as if Harry Reid said, that incompetent boob Obama will win because he’s black but not too black, the lucky stiff.

The amount of what other’s (I believe the first book about it was by a black man) called White Guilt never fails to astonish me. One fellow I know is so guilty, the only athletes he can find to praise are black, even in tennis where there is only occasionally a top rated black man, and can find only right and no wrong with blacks, with the exception of Jesse Jackson, who he waves around as a flag as proof he doesn’t favor blacks. But, that’s just one person, of course. I use him as an example.

Yet, we see this all the time. When Joe Biden, now Obama’s vice president said essentially the same thing, he too felt the need not only to apologize to Obama, who graciously accepts (but I believe is secretly embarrassed), but then also go around and apologize to every black leader they can think of, even Al Sharpton, who, if he has fought for blacks his whole life, has never once apologized for and still defends his actions in the Tawana Brawley case (did you ever pay the judgment against you?) Sharpton, long a media darling, is so racist, that he couldn’t even pile on Tiger Woods for adultery (itself annoying beyond words) without stating that he should be ashamed of himself for not cheating with a black girl too. Yet, I’ve seen him on talk shows lately and no one asks him about that obviously racist statement. Apparently, according to Mr. Sharpton (I can’t call him Reverend) even when cheating, Mr. Woods has to show his diversity by sleeping with a white woman or he is a racist. I checked to make sure this Sharpton thing wasn’t a hoax and sad to say it’s not.

But, I digress. How is it that it is okay to say that being black might hurt you in some things, but you cannot suggest that it helps you in others? Look, if I walked onto a basketball court at the same time as a black man most people who have even the least familiarity with the sport are going to suspect that he’s going to be a better player than me, including him and me. That’s a form of prejudice because it is pre-judging based on something that is probably not a real factor. And, certainly, it’s not always true. The opposite would occur if it was hockey or swimming. That’s prejudice too, even if, in our experience, blacks dominate some sports and white’s others. We know that skin color doesn’t make you good at one thing or another, in general, but certainly, white culture and black culture has led those of different colors to concentrate on different sports. What would be bigotry, as opposed to mere prejudice, by my definition, at least, is if I was not permitted to try to compete in basketball or he in hockey because of our color, as we know used to exist. Or if the foul was called on one of us because of our skin color. That would be bigotry too.

This extreme liberal attitude towards color is inherently bigoted, even if they think it is justified by all of the racism heading the other way. No one seemed to care when Obama said that some people voted for him because of his skin color, and no one much would care if Jesse Jackson said it (except for Jesse Jackson haters). But, Geraldine Ferraro was castigated for saying that Obama had an advantage (during the Democrat primaries) because he was black, in the current climate, even though she acknowledged that she had an advantage in ’84 because she was a woman. She was not forgiven by many of her Democratic “friends,” partially because campaigning going on and the sickness that goes on during that time period is extreme and beyond the scope of this post, but also because she decided to justify, and rightly so, her remarks, rather than call Obama and apologize, and, apparently, the elite list of black politicians and media figures.

I understand that some people cannot even read what I have written above without at least their gut telling them that I am a bigot and must also be a right winger; such is the power of partisanship and white guilt. Nothing I can do about that.

Harry Reid is a formidable man, despite the anger of his political enemies towards him who cannot stand anything positive said about those they disagree with. But, he certainly understands politics, or he never could have gotten the bill passed in the senate, and has shown himself good at it. The health care legislation is his greatest moment, even if it fails because the other house refuses to play ball. He bought his victory in the Senate with what in any other setting would be considered bribes. But, that’s politics, and not too many people seem to think that there is anything wrong with it (at least, if it is their team that does it). But, if I could have my moment at a town hall meeting with him, and could ask a second question (the first would be about political bribery), it might just be, “Aren’t you embarrassed to have to suck up to bigots who believe you can’t suggest that some black might have a political advantage sometimes, just because you are white?

But, let’s face it, Reid, the cagey politician, is perfectly aware what will happen. The media will have a story. They don’t care that he didn’t say anything offensive. They will put people on the air or quote them to say that they are offended by the remarks. How many of them (excepting the right wing media who certainly won’t defend their nemesis) would likely say, “C’mon, what is wrong with what he said?” That, apparently, would ruin everything for them.

So, Reid got ahead of the story and started making phone calls, cowardly apologizing. Which is why long ago, Mark Twain wrote in a letter of congressmen, “. . . the smallest minds and the selfishest souls and the cowardliest hearts that God makes”.

It would be great if people didn’t look at color when they voted, but sometimes they do. Politicians, if they want my respect, have to stop apologizing when they haven’t said anything offensive about race, just because they have lighter skin than others, and made a political observation.

Of course, the suggestion of Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican Party, and a man I used to think something of, but now I think is a Republican liability, that Reid should step down, is also, almost humorously, absurd.

The part where I gleefully point out how crazy the right is when it comes to religion

According to conservative theory, religion has an important place in society, even government. We should all be religious and something's wrong with you if you are not. It's not like I'm comparing them to the the mullahs or the Taliban, because they are non-violent even in their rhetoric. I don't know if I've ever heard any pundit or politician ever say an aggressive word about it, although occasionally some jerk will say something a little chilling. But, as we know, the slide is not a long one – at least many of the founders and I believe so – and the First Amendment and many State constitutions protect against it – so far.

When Brit Hume, a newsman and commentator I always liked came out with his opinion last week that Tiger Woods should consider become a Christian because it offers forgiveness and Buddhism does not, he offended many people. I can’t go as far as to say I’m offended, but I am embarrassed for him. All the conservative blogs I read last week uniformly defended him as did the large number of those commenting on them. I will say I do personally know some conservatives who were embarrassed by what he said too, but they tend not to be religiously motivated Christians.

Naturally, I know there are those who couldn't read this without thinking I'm saying that he didn’t have a right to his opinion, or that Fox is somehow “wrong” for his saying it, or that something bad should happen to he or Fox because of his statement. Certainly not, and he shouldn’t even have to apologize for it.

But venue matters. Some things said in one forum are embarrassing in another. Think, for example, how offended conservative Trent Lott was, when he went to the funeral of Senator Paul Wellstone, only to listen to Wellstone’s son make a political speech assaulting conservatives. I agreed with him. Wrong place. If I speak at a funeral (which has never happened) I know to refrain, for example, from making dead baby jokes. I love dead baby jokes, but unless it’s my funeral, it’s not the right place. In fact, had Brit Hume said the same thing in many other forums, privately, or on a television show which does not have pretensions of being a news show, or in a speech he was personally invited to make, I’d likely have no problems with it at all.

But, on a news show (even if it is news commentary), to take the position that your mommy and daddy knew best (or, even if it is the minister, guru, rabbi, etc. who changed your life) and only your arational faith is best, well, sorry, but that’s just ignorant and the speaker should be embarrassed. Nor would I care if the speaker was any other religion. And, I don’t even know if Tiger Woods really is a Buddhist or takes it seriously at all. For all I know he is a Christian or an atheist. It doesn’t matter.

Here’s what many conservatives are pretending now. That Brit Hume is being accosted for stating out loud his religious faith, especially because he’s Christian. Please, our country, including the liberals, is largely Christian, who believe much like Mr. Hume believes, and most of whom celebrate Christmas. The constant whining from the right that Christianity and Christmas are being unfairly attacked is as ignoble as the left’s whining I described above. I suppose there are some people somewhere who want to attack Christianity in America, but they are very few. I do not believe going to court because you believe that governments should not be displaying Christian symbols to the exclusion of others is evidence of attacking Christianity.

But, I digress again. What exactly did I find embarrassing (for him) about his stating his personal beliefs? Now, I’m an atheist. I don’t believe that there is any being which created the universe, although I am perfectly content to say that I have no idea how it happened either. Someday, I expect that some future Einstein aided by the accumulation of human knowledge will give us some reasonable theories which we might never be able to confirm or deny, unless they can duplicate the big bang out of nothing. But, that’s for the future. Right now, no one knows the answer to these questions. Some people, I would say by far the majority of people in America, have arational faiths, that is they believe in supernatural phenomena, admitting that there is no proof one way or the other. That is often true even of those who are very certain in their faiths. I have debated many of that stripe.

For Hume to suggest on a news show, and not, say, a show about religious faith – that his religion is essentially superior way for Tiger Woods to feel better, that’s just silly. Now, he could have said “I hope he turns to whatever religion he has, as in my experience, that can really help in tough times,” or, “You know, in my faith we (blah, blah, blah) but . . . ," or, "It's for God to forgive, not me," but, he didn’t do any of this. He indirectly but certainly asserted on a news show as a news person the superiority of his faith over someone else's. Again, he has every right to his opinion, but poor judgment as to where to state it. I guess, getting older and being semi-retired, he just doesn't care.

First, call it instinct - Brit Hume doesn’t know much about Buddhism (not that I’m any expert, but at least I can say I’ve read a half dozen to dozen books about it and related religions), but like Christianity, has many sects and variety of beliefs. However, in my understanding, he is only partially correct that “forgiveness” is not a tenet of Buddhism, in the sense of a deity forgiving sins. In one of the main divisions of Buddhism, there is the destruction of negative karma through certain rituals, which I believe would be analogous to divine forgiveness.
So, there.

But, even among those Buddhists for who this is not the theology, the act of forgiveness towards others itself does play a role. In very general terms, the practitioner seeks to live and think in such a way that he becomes enlightened (bodhi or nirvana), and hopefully, will stop being reincarnated into the wheel of life, instead becoming a buddha at one with the universe. Forgive me for the brief generalization. There are actually many similarities between the theology of Christianity and Buddhism – some Buddhists entwine the two or mix Buddhism with other religions. You can Google that yourself.

Reading Ann Coulter's blog this week, I was not surprised to see her mock Buddhism by saying that practitioners try to become God. I won't even say that she is completely wrong, in a sense, if you take becoming a Buddha the same as becoming a god, but, even taking her assessment, she writes it in a way that those who don't know anything about the religion will presume some great arrogance or stupidity on the part of Buddhists for so believing. Yet, personally, I don't see why that belief would be logically any less likely than the belief of Christians that a man was the creators's son, came to earth to die for our sins, was resurrected, etc. (I think you know the story). But, Ann Coulter is not exactly famous for her fairness (although, she is one of my favorite conservative writers).

Besides all that, and not that I would ever dream of throwing Hume's own religion in his face, but, didn't Jesus say, when asked by Peter if he should forgive a transgressor seven times, that no, he should forgive him seven times seventy times (my math skills are just good enough to know that's 490 times; that's just a masochist in my book). Perhaps Hume should offer personally offer that to Woods, particularly as he is not God and has no say in who shall be forgiven.

I also suggest that Hume’s statement diminishes his own religion. He is suggesting, apparently, that as a selfish act, Woods at least pretend to be a Christian. That would certainly be a very cynical and hypocritical thing to do. I don't think it is what most theologists would approve, but, I don’t think Hume and many others would mind. I’ve always believed that people are more concerned that others accept their irrational or arational opinions, more than their rational ones. It just makes them feel better. I’m sure that Hume would say to that, “No, I meant that he should really believe it," but, sorry, I wouldn't buy it.

Last, I ask, who is Hume or anyone in the media to question Tiger Woods, knowing nothing about him or his marriage, and, keeping their own secrets as to their own and their famous and wealthy friends' pecadillos. Perhaps it is the media that should seek forgiveness.

It was as a result of those like Hume that many years ago I created the religion of "Oopsiism" (which was divinely inspired while I was reading an Archie comic book). In this religion, you did not have to fast and go to Temple to be absolved of your sins, or go to confession, or anything similar. You just had to say "Oops". Of course, we are not yet a major religion. So far, just one of us.

I will say one thing in mitigation of Hume's behavior. Sometime in the 1990s his son died, committing suicide. He has said that Christianity has become very important for him as a result of it. I can't imagine the pain of that, and, I imagine he might feel a great desire to share whatever relief it provides him. That's not justifying the remark, but maybe explaining it to some degree.

My brilliant summation where I condescendingly forgive all and say something nice about our country that often goes overlooked

Truth be told, it doesn’t make much of a difference what either Senator Reid or Mr. Hume have said in the big picture. I disagree with them, but they are not horrible things in any sense of the word. Probably it's just a slow news week. However, the motivations underlying what they said, being largely held by the opposite parties in general, is a little troubling to me or I wouldn’t have bothered writing this.

What Senator Reid and Brit Hume said trouble me for different reasons. With Senator Reid, I cannot believe that he thinks that he said anything wrong. To believe he does is so illogical as to have very little probability. With Mr. Hume, I am sure he does believe what he said, and am embarrassed for him for his ignorance and arrogance, even if it was good hearted.

Yet, in saying that, I do think how much better it is now than it has ever been before in our country concerning race and religion. For what rational person cannot say that race relations in America are not much better than they ever were and that tolerance between religious groups also is at its highest point in history. I am glad that in my little Southern town, for example, where most people are conservatives and on the average, older than most places, a black and white couple can walk hand and hand down the street and not be accosted, even if some people silently disapprove, as can a gay couple.

Think about Malaysia, where a group of Muslims have so far successfully sued a group of Christians to make them stop using the word “Allah,” which is not even native to Indonesia, but the Arabic word for “God”. Many Christians in the Middle and Far East use it exclusively for that purpose. They don't even learn the English word. This, is, of course, religious insanity, and compared to it, what either Brit Hume or Harry Reid had to say is bupkis. And, as I believe I’ve written on recently, in Jolly Old England, the high court has ruled that the government may determine who is a member of your religion if they decide you are ethnically discriminating EVEN where there doesn’t appear to be any actual ethnic discrimination.
So, thank God, says this atheist, that we live in America, which after all, is in some respects, a rational, wonderful and peaceful place.

Please write in with your comments stating how correct you believe my opinion is.