An Aid To Memory

I covered the Arthur Buford / Damon Wells controversy in Cleveland, so I thought I would update everyone about it. Cleveland is still buzzing from the shooting, and it seems like it has become a chance for Cleveland (and other major urban areas) to deal with the crisis of unsafe neighborhoods. Just today, Arthur Buford’s accomplice is being charged with murder because his criminal actions helped result in Buford’s death. It seems as if Clevelanders are sick and tired of living in neighborhoods controlled by thugs, and many are also tired of the things that lead to this sort of behavior.

Regina Brett wrote an article, Silence of Pain, Harsh, Deafening, that looks at the effect this incident has had on the local community, with some friends of Buford defending him, and others sick and tired of living in fear because of punk-kids just like Buford. What this case does highlight is the failure of Buford’s parents (drug-addicts), and community, to raise him and protect him. And let’s not just blame the “inner city” environment here, because suburban youth are suffering from similar broken homes, and turning to drugs, crime, and suicide. I definitely support Wells’ right to defend himself, and agree with those who want to see “thug culture” die a quick death. I think it is high time communities stand up against the criminal elements that are destroying once beautiful neighborhoods, just as Damon Wells did. However, I think this issue is not just about whether a man has the right to defend himself, but about whole communities and generations destroyed by broken homes, drugs, and the glorification of drug/gang culture that results.

Rich, white academics may have pioneered the sexual and cultural revolution that told us we don’t need two-parent families, that dad’s don’t matter, or that all is relative, but it is the poor and middle-class that bear the brunt of this hastily-proclaimed revolution. I think it is time for us to examine ourselves and look at why a generation of “liberated” persons relies so heavily on anti-depressants and feels such anger toward their own communities and families.

Kevin O’Brien of the Plain-Dealer asks similar questions in his article, How shall we answer Arthur? How is it that a boy of 15 can get to the point of practically “raising himself,” living in an abandoned house? O’Brien writes:

Too many minority neighborhoods are thugocracies. And the thugs aren’t old. They are, in many cases, the neighborhood children, recruited young and initiated into crime while they’re at their most impressionable.

Now before we cry “racism” here, I think many white neighborhoods end up this way as well. How in the world have we gotten to a point where neighborhoods can be run by teens with illegal guns? I think the social policies and assumptions that came about in the 60s and 70s have failed. Perhaps, as O’Brien suggests, we need to return to the most basic solution: strengthening the family. Again, the rich have weathered the sexual revolution pretty well, with the money and resources to treat, cover-up, and medicate the damage done by unstable families, but the poor and middle-class have not been so fortunate.

No, I am not a big fan of cities, and anybody who knows me can tell you this. I am probably a rarity these days, but I prefer small town (<40,000 people) life to big city life any day. You can make fun of me for living in a non-diverse area with little "culture," and while I lament the lack of these things in my smaller town, I still will stick to just visiting the city, thank you. Crime, inflated prices, corruption, smog, high taxes, and so forth, are all reasons why the urban life is not for me. I remember when I was getting ready to live in Atlanta looking for housing. The prices were very high, even in bad neighborhoods. A friend of mine was paying 900+ dollars a month for an apartment in an unsafe neighborhood. They moved after someone was robbed at gunpoint in the laundry area of their apartment. They moved to the suburbs, paying even more for rent.

Today though, I want to focus on crime, and the "blame the victim" mentality we often see. Crime is rising in many cities, and many people live in fear. Yesterday, I was reading a news article about a man who defended himself in Cleveland, a city I visit, but one where I would never live. I admit that reading the stories about this case has gotten me a little hot under the collar, so excuse this rant. What happened: An African-American man named Damon Wells shot a teen, Arthur "Ace Boogie" Buford, who trespassed on his property. The fifteen year old, on probation for armed robbery, and an accomplice, approached Wells, pointing a gun at him. Now, tragically, a teen is dead. The prosecutors are not going to charge Wells.

I agree this is a tragedy all around, and that Jesus' adage is still true, that if you live by the sword, you die by the sword, but the media doesn't seem to get it, nor do many of those in Wells' neighborhood. The first article from the Plain Dealer about this mentioned this will cause debate about guns and concealed carry permits. Actually, this man was on his own property, so legally he didn't need a permit, but secondly, where is the debate exactly? Concealed Carry was legalized for reasons just like this. Either way, there doesn’t seem to be much “debate” on the comments thread at the Plain Dealer. Around 95% of commenters agree that they are sick and tired of punks terrorizing certain neighborhoods, hindering peaceful citizens from living freely and safely.

What gets me upset about this is how so many, including some media elites, are now blaming the victim. Damon Wells, with no criminal record, was minding his own business, and was terrorized by a couple punks with criminal records. It is easy for us to sit in judgment while pontificating from our good neighborhoods, but when you live in a neighborhood where you can’t walk out during most times of the day for fear of your life, reality is a little different. Perhaps the academics, reporters, and politicians might be a little more realistic about all issues if they had to live outside their good neighborhoods with quick police response time for even a day. We don’t know how we would react in this situation, with a gun pointed at us, possibly leading to our own death or that of our family. Many elites would simply let their armed bodyguards take care of it, a luxury most of us lack.

Now we are seeing vigils on behalf of the late Arthur Buford spring up, and a community is angry that Wells got off without charges. Buford’s cousin is upset and blames Wells. Ace Boogie’s friends believe he did nothing wrong. Notes left at a makeshift memorial say, “God gave me a new angel man . . . Why Da Good Die Young . . . I’ll see you in eternity . . . You are with the Lord and we happy for that.” In good thug fashion, Damon Wells is being harassed, and his house has been vandalized. Goodness…where to begin with this! I have no problem having a vigil for Buford. It is a work of mercy to bury the dead. He was a human being, a precious life with basic dignity, but his actions in life show that he did not behave virtuously, or responsibly. However, instead of defending Buford’s actions, why not have a vigil in his name as a way to make sure that children do not turn into the next Arthur Buford? Why not use this death to look at the cultural and social problems that turn an innocent child into an armed robber by age 15? The family should be outraged, not at Wells, but at themselves, their neighborhood, and primarily at their departed relative. They should be outraged that a freshman could get to the point where he was on probation for armed robbery, and that he was illegally carrying a weapon, and harassing neighbors, apparently unsupervised. If I were Buford’s relative, I would meet with Wells and apologize for the actions of Buford, and then work with Wells to reduce crime in the neighborhood. Why not make it so when people think of Arthur Buford they think of a new future for America’s teens rather than using his name to glorify wrong behavior?

I do not think killing another person in self-defense is ever good, but if done unintentionally (i.e. you intended to defend, but not kill), from a Catholic perspective it is not a mortal sin. If you or your family are in mortal danger, it may be the lesser of two evils to shoot your attacker. Regardless, crime is out of control in many cities, and blaming the victim is not going to remedy the problem. Let’s let something positive come out of this, including allowing children to see how stupid being a thug actually is.

For a good piece on this tragedy, see No Sympathy for Thug Culture, written by Regina Brett of the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

I have been staying up to see what happens tonight. Ever since I was in high school, I have always been interested in the election, even staying up way too late to catch the results. The first election I followed fairly closely was when the Republicans swept into Congress in 1994. Here are a few election night thoughts based on early reports.

This year, I think the Republicans are in trouble, at least in the House, but maybe the Senate. As a person who often votes Republican, I will save detailed comments for later, when I comment on what a mess the party has made of itself in the last few years, and the problems start from the very top.

This election seems to be about two things mainly: the war in Iraq and the economy. I notice that minimum wage increases are passing by huge majorities in the states that have them on the ballot, and exit polls indicate a deep dissatisfaction with president Bush and the War in Iraq. Perhaps the message to Republicans is that the middle class feels left out of this “strong economy” and is growing weary of fighting an expensive war of “liberation” for people that don’t want us there anyway. Also, associated with the economy are high gas prices and the rising cost of health care and college, and Republicans aren’t exactly seen as “with the common people” on these issues, but rather too snuggly to Big Oil and Big Pharma.

While the voters are sweeping the Democrats into power, this doesn’t necessarily seem to be an endorsement of liberal causes per se. Despite the fact that Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary (thanks mostly to the far-left in the Democratic party), Lieberman has easily won his senate seat as an independent. Most of the state issues banning same-sex marriage are passing, an anti-affirmative action issue passed in Michigan, and an “English as official language” issue in Arizona was declared as passed by CNN before the voting was even over. Maybe all of the goings-on in this election do not constitute a “mixed message,” but rather indicate that both parties are basically out-of-touch with middle America.

Finally, in Ohio, the broad smoking ban (Issue 5) has passed and Issue 4, which would have allowed smoking in public places, failed. This is a pretty strong message that people do not want to breathe other people’s smoke in public. I think I will celebrate by getting some wings at BW3, and breathing in deeply, something I have been unable to do there in the past.

Charlie Wingate has posted some excellent observations on Episcopal church politics (and I think the post reflects mainline politics, and even all politics). The article is entitled, A Right-Wing Conspiracy, Of Course.

He is talking about accusations by a progressive Episcopal minister that the Institute for Religion and Democracy, a conservative mainline protestant interest group, is an angry, threatening organization motivated by fear. I am not a huge fan of the IRD myself. However, the condemnation of the IRD by the protestant left for using the left’s favorite tactics is ridiculous. Here is my favorite part of Mt. Wingate’s post, a true and cutting critique:

So let’s go back to Fr. Webster’s earlier article on the subject. At that time, he said:

But this article started with power and control. Liberation theology, feminist theology, inclusivity of all whether they be homosexuals, people of color, the poor, have all threatened the “power holders” throughout church history.

I shall be blunt: this is all so much bullshit. Liberation theology has been accused, in my opinion with utter justification, of being upper middle class dabbling in leftist politics. Feminist theology is likewise an upper middle movement, straight out of the academy, which is ensconced in the power structures of ECUSA in the form of the Office of Women’s Ministry: an organization seemingly impregnable in spite of numerous incidents of dabbling in non- and anti-Christian religion. Homosexuals in the church are not, by and large, powerless people. Black bishops in ECUSA are commonplace and unremarkable, reflecting their ascent into the gentry decades ago. Black bishops in the communion are of course the norm now– but that seems to have become a problem. All in all, the liberals are borrowing the grievances of the downtrodden, but without the actuality of oppression or poverty.

Exactly Charlie. As I have always said, a bunch of rich, white, highly-educated men and women in an air-conditioned suburban church moaning about “oppression” while drinking fine coffee and fancy pastries is totally hypocritical. Then Charlie goes on to say:

Given the actuality of strictly religious arguments about sexuality and femininity (race having, in practice, passed entirely out of the discussion in these latter days) I must conclude that the Real Agenda of the Wealthy Right Wingers is to protect their position and their pocketbooks. I’ve already discussed how they and the liberal powerful share position, so let’s move on to money. To a great degree, they share that too. Oh, the lawyer’s wives (and ex-lawyers) may not be living on trust funds, but the Ordination Process that prevails in the big, urban, liberal dioceses largely guarantees that only the comfortably well-off can afford to pursue ordination. It’s already clear that the powerful in ECUSA are not going to give up their bishop’s palaces and their beautiful old rectories and their handsome faux-gothic churches. They will not move into apartments and walk-ups and storefronts, but they expect the opposition to do so.

Once again, he is right on. The IRD behaves just like the liberal agenda groups, and both groups are run by wealthy folks who have known very little oppression in their entire lives. It is very expensive to get ordained in the Episcopal church. I can tell you this from first-hand experience. This essentially screens out poor applicants. I am sick of liberal mainline leaders complaining that conservatives have started using the same tactics they pioneered. Both sides are well-funded too, and there is nothing I dislike more than two angry rich people going at it, even if one side does claim to be on the side of the oppressed (but wouldn’t hang out with the oppressed if they had to)!

There is a good article by Christine Rosen that asks, Women Dominate America’s Pews, Is that a Problem? The answer I think, is "yes." When a whole gender is dropping off from church attendance in droves, we have a large problem. If this was reversed, and women were not attending church, certain groups would be up in arms, holding boycotts, and developing some "theology" to correct it. Where are the "masculinist theologians"? When are classes on the masculine interpretation of Scripture going to be offered? When is the offensive quote of Jesus about gathering Jerusalem like a hen going to be exised from the Bible so men no longer get offended by the feminine imagery? Ok, I got a little started here…

My favorite observation of the whole piece:

Interestingly, Mr. Murrow notes that, among the major Christian denominations,
it is the mainline churches that suffer the largest gender gaps in church
attendance. These churches, still pilloried by feminists for their patriarchal
pretensions, have in fact become spiritual sorority houses. It is the more
conservative denominations, such as the Southern Baptists, that have the most
even ratios.

[note: I think the same is true of race and class. Even though many mainlines like the Episcopal church talk about diversity, most are still educated, upper-class, white folks. If you want to see real diversity, even though they don’t always talk about it, go to a Pentecostal or Catholic Church.]

So…Where are all the men? According to the article, in churches like the Catholic Church that have dimensions emphasizing spiritual rigor and competition. Where are men not? In lovey-dovey, feel-good, bland churches, both liberal and conservative. I don’t have all the answers, but I think we have a problem here. This is probably the fifth article I have read on this topic since I have started this blog, so even without the information presented in this article, we seem to have a real problem.

Hat tip: Canon Kendall Harmon

A study by two prominent Democratic strategists suggests what I have been saying all along, which is that if the Democrats are ever going to win the presidency they have to return to the center and abandon the fantasy that appealing to the far left "base" in their party is the way to go. The 2004 election proved that this belief has disastrous results. High voter turnout and an angry and energized base still resulted in a John Kerry loss.

Let’s face it. There hasn’t been a non-Southern Democrat elected to the presidency since JFK. In other words, since the sexual and cultural revolution took hold, Americans have only elected Democrats who either are moderate or have a conservative look and feel to them because of their Southern credentials. Clinton is an excellent example. He was centrist, tough on crime, and commonsense on welfare reform and other issues. With Clinton, you did not get the feeling you were dealing with an out-of-touch academic (and this is not "anti-intellectualism"; I am an academic myself). While Clinton was more liberal on the abortion issue than America-at-large, he was mostly a centrist, and very popular and effective because of it, despite his women problems.

A centrist Democrat could win the presidency in a heartbeat in 2008. A pro-life Democrat who would deal with our oil crisis in an effective way (in other words, not with the "band-aid" joke that is the current energy bill), while being tough on crime and terror (without invading sovereign nations who have nothing to do with our security) would tear up in the polls. The problem is that the Democratic party has become like many Universities: controlled by those who are out-of-touch with reality, yet are unwilling to bring themselves back into reality. It leaves many of us effectively without a party. Many Catholics don’t exactly love the Republican party, but then again, we always find ourselves saying, "but we can’t vote Democrat under the current circumstances either." Maybe this new report will be a reality check.

I admit I like to watch Bill O’Reilly on Fox News. Do I always agree with Bill? No. I do find him entertaining and since he gets flak from conservatives and liberals, I do think he offers some balance on issues.

He was pretty upset last night about record profits by oil companies while middle-class Americans are getting squeezed in the pocket books. He suggested that oil companies reduce their record profits by 20% and pass that reduction to the struggling consumer. Honestly, I doubt this will happen. As far as what we can do, Bill suggests reducing our driving by 10%, and banding together and refuse to buy gas on Sundays.

I doubt refusing to buy gas on Sunday will have much of a price impact on its own, since we will just buy the gas we need on Monday morning. However, if the majority of Americans refused to buy gas on Sundays, it would send a message to the oil companies that we Americans aren’t too happy about paying these prices for gasoline. However, the most powerful message we could send to oil companies (and automakers) would be to buy cars that are fuel-efficient. We also would send a powerful message by using alternative fuels, and demanding that our corporations and governments research and promote new energy sources that would reduce our demand for fossil fuels.

Despite the fact that the effect on gas prices would be minimal, I still think I am going to refuse to buy gas on Sunday, if anything just to make a point. As for buying coffee from gas-station convenience stores on Sunday, I promise nothing.

UPDATE: I was watching Bill O’Reilly the other day, and he was responding to a reader’s letter who told Bill that "the free market should continue to decide oil prices." Bill’s response was something like, "sir, if you think the price of oil is determined by the free-market, you are free-basing." I loved it.

…You don’t buy a gas-guzzler, and you especially don’t buy a gas-guzzler and then complain about high gas prices when you fill it up!

Ok, I am little peeved about current oil and gasoline prices. I have followed oil and gas futures and spot prices for about 3 years now, mainly as a curiosity. Lately reading the daily figures gets me irritated. They are irritating to me, your average American, and the local gas station owner, whose profit margins are low. Hedge fund investors, energy futures speculators, and oil company high-ups probably aren’t complaining. Believe it or not, I am not aggravated at OPEC this time (who for once are trying to lower prices), nor the government (although they still don’t "get it" and should be more strict about fuel economy standards and alternatives). I am mostly aggravated at American materialism, a philosophy which tells us that we can "have it all," even if that means being wasteful and living off of credit cards. American materialism also tells us that we can use all the energy we want, never thinking that our unreasonably high energy consumption might hurt our neighbors (and our economy) by fostering high fuel prices. Think about it. We have two energy crises: We have too few fossil fuels, and too much body fuel (obesity/inactivity). The result? High energy prices and high health care costs.

Gas is 2.50 a gallon right now, so why were Ford SUV sales 99% higher this July than last? Why are GM’s numbers similar? Why are so many drivers accelerating like bats out of hell and driving like maniacs just to go nowhere? Why are consumers not shopping around and rewarding the gas stations that are the lowest in the neighborhood? Why are people driving to the Post Office, the library, and Uncle Joe’s when they are within easy walking distance?

I am by no means an environmentalist (Politically I have a lot in common with old-fashioned conservativism), but I am into saving money. I am also into keeping money in the US economy rather than going to countries where the money is used for terrorism and often not dispersed to the average citizen anyway. So I think all of the above questions are commonsense ones Americans should reflect on. Maybe I am just overreacting. Maybe some folks can just afford to absorb high gas prices, and the cost of filling up a Hummer (about 50 dollars now I suspect). Maybe paying that much in gas is worth the status you get when you have a Hummer in your driveway. I guess I would rather have 25 dollars extra dollars a week in my pocket for things like food, shelter, and books. Plus, my GM Impala is a nice size, highest in its class in safety, has a nice V6 engine, and still gets 32 mpg on the highway. I don’t feel like I have to sacrifice class for fuel economy.

Just so everyone knows, I am aware energy prices are more complex than supply/demand, and that factoring in inflation, current gas prices aren’t that unreasonable. However, I think most Americans would agree that gas should be cheaper, and that we would be better off if we were a lot less dependent on foreign oil and oil in general.

So practically what can we do to reduce our high oil consumption?
-Consider fuel economy when buying a vehicle
-Accelerate slowly, drive evenly, and coast when going downhill.
-Walk or Bike if you can.
-Combine errands into one trip.
-Stay at home with your family instead of always going out.
-Carpool or take public transport

Image from: http://www.joe-ks.com/stress.htm

Robb over at lutherpunk (in this post) has drawn our attention to HerChurch.Org, the website for Ebenezer Lutheran Church in San Francisco. If Martin Luther could have seen this website, he most certainly would have turned his attention away from Zwingli and Catholics, and spent his remaining years fighting this stuff.

No, this site is not a joke. It actually does have a "she who is" retreat, and, most notably, a "goddess rosary" recitation on Wednesday nights, where they recite:

Hail Goddess full of grace.
Blessed are you
and blessed are all the fruits
of your womb.

For you are the MOTHER of us all.
Hear us now
and in all our needs.
O blessed be, O blessed be.  Amen

The church makes/sells the beads, where the traditional rosary with crucifix is replaced by a classical goddess image.

Like Robb, I similarly ask, "if you have moved so far away from the Christian faith into paganism, why even retain the name ‘Christian?’" Be honest, and be a pagan. Be the best pagan you can be, but don’t pretend that Lutheran Christianity allows for this sort of thing (of course, if this church is tolerated by ELCA leadership, maybe it effectively does allow it??). This is the postmodern era. There are very few social pressures to be Christian. Just admit you have moved on from Christianity, and go pagan. Granted, we as Christians always prefer someone remain Christian, but if you can’t do that anymore, be honest, and don’t water down a venerable tradition.

I have linked to a recent story where a Catholic pharmacist in Madison, Wisconsin refused to fill a birth control prescription, and is now getting hassled by The Wisconsin State Department of Regulation and Licensing. I am sure that his behavior is perplexing to non-Catholics, to say the least.

I applaud Neil Noesen’s action and moral choice, while clearly being aware of the thorny issues his actions raise. While I do believe one can possibly fill a birth-control pill prescription and not necessarily be guilty of participating in the sin of the one using the pill, I admire Mr. Noesen for standing up for his Catholic faith. I would probably feel the need to do what Mr. Noesen did as well, in order to be completely sure I would not be participating in the sin of someone else. I just don’t know if I would have the guts to actually stand up in the way Mr. Noesen did.

Image from www.mshealthcareers.com