A Good Start

So Nikki Haley is apparently struggling to find a “rhetorical middle ground on reproductive health policy“. Towards that end she has expressed support for Alabama’s Supreme Court’s recent ruling that embryos – frozen or otherwise – can be considered children under state law.

I’m glad for her statement – “Embryos, to me, are babies.” It’s not a bad start, and certainly a refreshing one to hear from a candidate for office. Or anyone else for that matter. But it’s a weak start.

First off, Haley shows signs of something I struggle with and what most post-modern writers and communicators struggle with – authoritative statements acknowledging objective truth. In order to soften her words, or perhaps in acknowledgement that others disagree with her, she couches her statement as a personal one. Embryos are babies – to her. Which means of course that embryos might not be babies to somebody else. A truly Shroedingerian dilemma it would seem.

But it’s not just Nikki Haley who ought to be identifying embryos as babies. Of course as a Christian I think our faith and the Bible that forms the basis of our faith should guide our beliefs. A few verses pertinent to this stance:

• Psalm 139:13-16
• Jeremiah 1:5

And because of these verses, the commands against murder apply to embryos as well as unborn babies. As well as delivered babies and toddlers and children and teens and young adults and adults and senior citizens. Period.

I’m not going to try and dissect Haley’s faith. Whether she shares mine or not is important eternally but may not be relevant to this issue (for her). But she certainly has more to lean on than just her own subjective feelings. If it is only a matter of subjective feelings or ideas about something, we get nowhere, and whoever has the biggest gun ends up having their feelings ‘win’.

Objectively, scientifically, embryos are new human beings. They are not the equivalent of hair or fingernails (a traditional abortion-rights argument and analogy). They do not share the same DNA makeup as the mother OR the father. Rather, an embryo is a unique combination of maternal and paternal DNA that is unduplicatable (aside from cloning). It truly is a new, unique human being that begins at conception. From the moment sperm and egg unite and are fertilized, someone new and different from any other human being in all of human history is created.

What IS subjective would be to only acknowledge this innate humanity once the baby reaches a certain size. Or when the baby has existed for a certain period of time. These are dangerously subjective metrics because as we’ve seen, they can be slid back and forth to deny humanity based on size or age.

Perhaps the difficulty should not be Nikki Haley’s in this matter, but rather the scientific community that remains strangely silent about objective reality in the face of strident claims to the contrary in a variety of realms by a tiny minority of people bent on recrafting reality to suit their subjective preferences. Perhaps if the priests of Western civilization’s current religious preference stated what they claim to be true and refused to be cowed into silence, it would be easier for policy makers and would-be policy makers to find the right footing.

So Nikki Haley is right. Not because of her feelings but because of objective reality that stubbornly refuses to allow us to ignore it for too long, and only at our own peril. Does this complicate reproductive health policy? I suppose it does. For some people. I don’t see it as that complicated but then again, I allow my subjective faith in an unseen objective reality guide me as best possible. Not perfectly to be sure, but more or less on a given path. And that path indicates that just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should, and doesn’t mean it’s ultimately best for us if we do it.

The problem – not just Nikki Haley’s but all of ours – is that we can’t seem to stop ourselves.

A Simple Solution

Media and international pressure is once again mounting towards trying to force Israel to stop the ground offensive in Gaza, particularly in light of plans to complete such operations once Rafah is adequately searched.

Assumptions:

1. Everyone should condemn the unprovoked invasion of Israeli territory on October 7 of last year resulting in hundreds of deaths and hundreds of civilian hostages (from different countries) being taken into Gaza.
2. Everyone should lament the loss of civilian life and the widespread destruction necessitated both by Israel’s predictable response of invading Gaza and Hamas’ predictable tactics of hiding behind humanitarian buildings (hospitals and schools) and otherwise using civilians as human shields (both the hostages and their own people).
3. Bringing the situation to a close quickly without further loss of life on either side is highly desirable.
4. Such a situation should involve not just a cease fire and the staged exit of Israeli forces in Gaza, but the immediate return of all remaining hostages (living) as well as details about where to find the bodies of those hostages already deceased.
5. Such a resolution should also require all remaining Hamas senior leadership to turn themselves over to Israel immediately to face prosecution for their roles in the October 7 attack.

It’s that last point I think is particularly interesting. While I read a lot about countries and groups and people demanding Israel stop, I see next to nothing in intelligent reporting about why Israel has not stopped and what it’s goals might be. And I see equally little call for accountability by Hamas’ leadership for the October 7 attack.

Demanding not simply that Israel stop, but that Israel be given reasonable incentive to stop is the simple solution. Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) no doubt have a very specific list of who in Hamas they want to either apprehend or eliminate. There’s also a pretty specific list of known hostages Hamas should be liable to accounting for. Why not make these terms the focus of discussions (let alone demands) for Israel to cease and desist?

It will complicate things as it will require the Israelis to detain and imprison Hamas leaders and officials which, unfortunately, will provide fuel for future attempts to take hostages in order to demand exchanges. But it could equally be argued that simply eliminating Hamas targets will fuel anger that will inevitably lead to future attacks. There is literally no ‘winning’ situation for Israel. They’re simply hoping to prevent future damage for as long as possible by eliminating current leadership.

At least that’s my assumption about what their goals are. I would imagine most other countries who suffered such an awful loss would be equally keen to ensure those responsible were held accountable and prevented for doing it again for as long as possible.

Is this a simple solution?

Almost Gone But Not Forgotten…

I snagged this article over a month ago but in a different browser. So glad I noticed it!

In Lutheran (and perhaps broader Protestant circles) one of the impetuses for Martin Luther’s 95 Theses was his beef with the Roman Catholic system of indulgences. For a price, someone could purchase the forgiveness of sins (while at the same time financing St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome). We’re taught in our theological circles to be aghast at such a crass practice, and rightly so. It muddies considerably (or outright drains) the waters regarding the sufficiency of Christ’s death, making it seem like the Son of God’s sacrifice on our behalf is not quite enough to truly forgive all our sins. But for a few pieces of copper we can tidy that up.

This plenary indulgence was offered by the Roman Catholic Church during the Christmas season. No financial cost was involved – just the requirement to pray in front of a nativity in a Franciscan church. And to pray specifically for the “intentions of the Holy Father”. Whatever that means. It seems awfully broad and unspecific to me! The hopeful recipient must also abstain from all sin, receive Holy Communion and participate in Holy Confession within 20 days of the nativity prayer. 

In return the temporal guilt and punishment for sin is removed. According to this site, the temporal punishment (earthly and in purgatory) of all sin committed up to the time the indulgence is received is pardoned. The person must detest the sin, however, which makes me think that only sins the person is actually aware of are covered, and sins the person inadvertently or unknowingly committed, or has forgotten, may slip through the cracks and not be covered.  The goal is both an avoidance of punishment here and now and probably more specifically in Purgatory – the in-between place for Christians covered from the eternal punishment of sin by Christ’s blood but subject still to the temporal punishment for them. This is a distinctively Roman Catholic teaching that Protestants (at the very least) reject as Scripturaly indefensible. 

But you can see the appeal. Rather than cooling your heels and serving time in Purgatory for your sins, just pray in front of a Franciscan nativity and for the Pope’s “intentions” and partake in the sacraments of Holy Communion and Confession and boom – you have a clean slate! While you have no idea how much time you’ve shaved off Purgatory, or how many rosaries our Our Fathers you have avoided here and now in Confession, the up-front cost is sufficiently low to make it worth your while. The return on investment is pretty impressive. At least if you’re a practicing Catholic. I presume the real intent of this particular plenary indulgence is to bring lapsed Catholics back into a physical church and the touchstones of their faith. 

Protestants object to the idea that anything beyond the sacrificial incarnation and death of the Son of God is necessary to forgive sins. That means indulgences are unnecessary. But it also means the “merits” of Jesus’ mother Mary as well as the saints are unnecessary. They can’t add anything to the “great treasury of merits” the Roman Catholic church claims to steward. The Church is not to sell or trade the forgiveness of sins but only to declare it (John 20:23). And the forgiveness of sins comes only from a repentant heart convinced the blood of Christ is shed for that person and that sin, demonstrated in Acts 2:37-39. Nothing was required beyond what Jesus commanded in the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20). Nothing is required still.

So Merry Christmas to those redeemed in Christ. And to those who have not accepted this forgiveness or can’t believe it’s for them, know that the offer of forgiveness based only and wholly on the sacrificial life and death of the Son of God remains available to you. I’d be happy to talk with you about what this means and looks like.

As I See It….

It’s the third month of open hostilities between Israel and Hamas. Certainly things were hostile ideologically before, but Hamas’ attack on primarily (if not exclusively, even) civilian targets in Israel on October 7 definitely opened this current round of military activity. Monitoring news feeds and ruminating on the other side of the world, here are a few of my thoughts & observations.

Hamas certainly knew the kind of response their attack on October 7 would bring from Israel. I can’t believe anyone in the planning and execution of this atrocity was ignorant or smug enough to think Israel would not retaliate with overwhelming power. Failure to do so would manifest egregious weakness on Israel’s part and set the stage for duplicate attacks by Hamas, Hezbollah, and literally anyone else with an axe to grind. 

If there’s one thing the Middle East is not in short supply of, it’s axes. 

Knowing Israel would respond not just in kind but in a display of power truly impressive, Hamas proceeded anyways. Israel allegedly knew nothing about the plans or the attack until it was already well underway. This means one of two things:

1. Hamas informed the citizens of Gaza of what it planned to do, warning them in advance of the devastation this would bring on Gaza. Being duly forewarned, the citizens of Gaza agreed this was a good idea and they would support it by not providing any intelligence to Israel. I find it impossible to believe Israel does not have a good supply of informants in Gaza, and as such, those informants did not share this advance information to help avoid bloodshed on both sides. In other words the entire civilian population of Gaza supported the Hamas plan in advance and is complicit in not only the deaths of the people in Israel on October 7 but every death in Gaza since then. I do not believe this scenario is likely or true. 
2. Hamas, knowing full-well the suffering Israel would inflict on Gaza, went ahead without informing anyone in Gaza. They deliberately kept their entire population in the dark despite knowing these same people would suffer and die. Not just because of Israeli retaliation, but because Hamas has deliberately used civilian buildings and populations (hospitals, schools, etc.) as covers and shields. I other words Hamas was willing to place their entire population in poverty and death and suffering for the sake of the October 7 operation. I believe this alternative is the truer one.

I assume Hamas trusted that once it acted on October 7, it would be supported actively by other international players – Iran most notably but perhaps Hezbollah and others. I assume Hamas’ goal was a larger war in which Israel would find itself under attack on multiple fronts. This would both contribute towards the stated goal of eradicating Israel, but would also mute and blunt Israel’s ability to focus retaliatory actions on Hamas and Gaza. Hamas’ trust was misplaced in this respect. Although there has been minor activity from Hezbollah, Iran has refused to directly enter militarily into the conflict, and Israel has been free to focus attention on Hamas and Gaza.

Hamas knew it could not withstand such a focused retaliation – or frankly any sort of retaliation. Hence the hostages. Hostages had to be a major focus of the October 7 attack as they might provide Hamas with some level of protection from Israeli and/or global retaliation. Just as it hides behind Gazan civilians, Hamas deliberately hides itself behind the shield of civilian hostages as a means of blunting Israel’s response. This has not worked, other than buying a much needed gasp of air for Hamas during a negotiated cease fire. To achieve this they released some but not hardly all of their hostages. Now that Israel seems to be close to achieving total military victory over Hamas leadership (as opposed to Hamas ideology, which can’t be so easily crushed) the threats of executing the remaining hostages resurface. The hostages are there just to save the life of Hamas’ top leadership and planning infrastructure. 

So that Hamas can plan their next attack.

Israel’s retaliation is intended to completely destroy Hamas’ current leadership and planning capability. Israel cannot eliminate Hamas ideology. But it can destroy every current leader. It can make an example of Hamas to discourage similar attacks – either from Hamas or from other groups like Hezbollah. It can’t prevent a repeat of October 7 necessarily, but it can prevent a repeat of this event from Hamas. For a decade. Perhaps more. Israel knows this is essential and therefore is not going to stop until they believe victory has been achieved. 

Hamas is counting on international pressure to stop Israel from achieving their goal. I’m amazed by how exclusively news articles around the world focus on the plight and suffering of the Gazan people and how little they focus on the atrocity that precipitated this suffering. How little they discuss the plight of the hostages. How little they focus on the reports of sexual violence by Hamas. There is no discussion of an alternate course of action by Israel other than cessation of military action. There is practically no discussion of the responsibility of Hamas for October 7 and for everything that followed. 

I see no calls for the eradication or dismemberment of Hamas as an organization. I see no calls for Hamas leadership to be apprehended and face trial for their actions. I see no calls for their leadership to voluntarily surrender in order to spare further loss of civilian life. I only read about demands Israel stop military action in order to stem further loss of civilian life. Unfortunately, Israel understands what international news organizations do not – if Hamas leadership is not eliminated, there will eventually be more civilian casualties both in Israel and Gaza. Sooner rather than later.

But the emphasis from the media is exclusively on human suffering and not on the causes of that suffering (other than a shallow blame of Israel). There is no discussion about alleged tunnels and bunkers found beneath hospitals and schools – the existence of which Hamas vehemently denied and which Israel claims to have proved true. That discussion is completely absent. The discussion of how Hamas is hiding behind hostages and Gazan citizens is completely ignored. The only international demand is Israel stop, without any recognition of what such a stoppage indicates for the future. The future of Gaza as well as the future of Israel.

This is not a justification of civilian suffering and death. But it seems quite obvious that much of that suffering and death – if not all of it – was precipitated and actually counted on by Hamas in order to survive. They assumed – it would appear incorrectly – that Israel would either stop of it’s own accord or from international pressure to stop. But Hamas knew full well that until that point, there would be a destruction of human life and infrastructure that would be truly horrendous. Still they went ahead with their plans for October 7. 

I hope Israel accomplishes their goal of holding Hamas leadership accountable for the October 7 atrocity. Particularly since nobody else seems concerned with this detail. I hope this can be accomplished without loss of further life, but I believe this is also a fool’s hope. Hamas’ entire plan relies on the suffering and death of Gazans to ensure it’s own survival. It cannot and would not engage Israel in a purely military fight. It could not and can’t survive such an encounter. It simply has to hope the outcry over civilian deaths will put a stop to Israel’s retaliation and salvage the lives of Hamas leadership.

If so, these leaders will not be held accountable, either by Gazans or the international community. They will not be sought for extradition and trial for genocide or war crimes. They will live on in impunity to plan the next massacre. They will become idols and inspirations to a new generation of terrorists they actively groom and recruit. 

I believe many Gazans disagree with Hamas. From the comfort of our armchairs it would be easy to blame Gazans for allowing this. But I presume Gazans have no choice. I believe elections are not likely free. That failure to support (or at least not actively oppose) Hamas is met with a brutality equal to or worse than the current actions of Israel. I believe Hamas holds the Gazan population hostage. Unless Hamas is broken, there is no hope for Gaza. 

Tragically, I also believe that even if Israel succeeds and Hamas is obliterated and unable to ever reassemble itself, another group with a similar ideology will spring up. Such is the nature of hatred. Such is the nature of evil. But to refuse to call out evil for what it is simply to try and save a few lives in the short run is incredibly naive. And ultimately dangerous and a committal of even more lives to slavery and death. As we should have learned in the last century accommodation is not an effective means of diplomacy and peace-keeping. 

This is not a defense of Israeli foreign or domestic policy. This is not to pretend this isn’t only the latest in a long line of back and forth covert and overt hostilities between Israel and opposition groups and nations. It’s just an evaluation of the chain of events from October 7. 

That’s what I think. But what I think doesn’t matter much. And so I pray. Come Lord Jesus, come. Only then will we know peace. In the meantime we have to do the best we can to accomplish limited peace for a limited time. 

Surprisingly Good Analysis

I saw this article headline and presumed it would be a disappointing tirade against ‘non-experts’ daring to ask questions about things they know nothing about. I was pleasantly surprised to find this was not the case, and instead the article offered a good assessment of the dangers of public debates as a means for disseminating truth.

Although the article begins with insinuations that a debate on the issue of vaccines is inappropriate because it “creates a sense of false equivalence”. In other words, because there’s allegedly so much pro-vaccine scientific literature compared to anti-vaccine studies, a debate misleads people into thinking the truth really is in question when it’s not. I think the author means that while debate within the scientific community might be acceptable or desirable (though it hardly seems that way anymore, at least in regards to vaccines), such debates beyond the scientific community are only likely to lead to further confusion amongst the general population. I’d argue that even this somewhat charitable interpretation is somewhat insulting to the general population, I do think it’s something that bears consideration.

But the critiques about debates as primarily about public image instead of learning seem to make a lot more sense. And the rest of the article is surprisingly even-handed and unbiased, but also not limited to just the issue of vaccines. Rather, it’s a good communications primer in an age where all people want are sound bites and followers.

Snakes & Legs

I don’t remember this when I was in school. Of course, as my former teachers or classmates might tell you that doesn’t mean it wasn’t covered. And I could always blame advancing age for not remembering.

Apparently it’s not such a strange idea among scientists that snakes might have once had legs. Or more accurately, among scientists it is strange that snakes don’t have legs. So strange in fact that they’re researching how and why snakes may have lost them.

Reminds me of a similar, far less technical assertion made a long, long time ago.

Shirking Duties

Two very different stories, bound together (at least in my mind) by the issue of taking responsibility.

The first story concerns a first (presumably) worship service mostly created and led by artificial intelligence (AI). Kind of amazing that the country that birthed the Reformation is now being noted in the news for a gathering of Protestant church leaders who also witnessed or participated this different kind of first.

Hardly surprising at the responses of some in attendance, ranging from wonder at the technology (rather than the Gospel!?) to a recognition that a computer-generated sermon delivered by an avatar is hardly a fitting replacement for a human pastor. Wonderful to think the Church can struggle for the next ten years or so not just with the issue of which humans should be ministers (men, women, homosexuals, transgenders and???) but whether ministers need to be human.

As a pastor I’m appalled at this, even as I’m impressed by the technology that’s developed in just the past 25 years. But technology is just a tool. When technology replaces the distinctly human privilege of sharing the good news of Jesus Christ both with the faithful in need of forgiveness and strengthening as well as with those living in the hopelessness of atheism or false belief much is lost in the transmission. An AI can emulate a person to a certain degree (a degree that will only increase with time without ever reaching 100%), but is not a person. There’s something about a man with a soul, grappling with the reality of his own sinfulness and mortality conveying the Word of God to other human beings grappling with their sinfulness and in need of the assurance of God’s grace through Jesus Christ. The words an AI say might be identical, but it speaks as a tool, not as someone created in the image of God. AI is created in human image, which is very different.

The second story is a heart-wrenching story of a mother’s struggle with her depressed child who wants to die. It’s heartbreaking such situations occur – and occur with greater frequency these days. This story caught my eye because the child is 10 years old. At an age when children should be occupied with school and friends and learning and play, this child is preoccupied with the existential angst and crisis of the world.

It’s a complex report, for the most part, and only at the very end is a slight hint given that some of this girl’s struggles might be because of the inundation and brain-washing of educational facilities and media loading children with fears of the impending end of the world. It’s not clear that’s what the author intends but it’s odd to bring in comments about the world we have created for them (children) does not work for them.

But I think that intended or not the wording is quite accurate. We are force feeding our children (collectively, in the West) a world we have created. As our culture has decided to relegate religion entirely to the private sphere as a matter of choice, to be indulged in as a caregiver might indulge a delusional patient, but to be quickly dismissed in any matter of public policy or other forms of importance. The world children are given today is a world devoid of hope. A world reliant upon the confidences and abilities of human beings who, predictably, demonstrate their utter inability to do what they most want and try to do in terms of creating a safe and sustainable world. Children today have been gifted with a world devoid of hope. As mere blips in an evolutionary timeline there is no greater meaning or purpose conveyed or possible in such a conceptualization. The best we can do is enjoy ourselves, which media bombards us with in terms of personal gratification in almost every area. But even this is no solution as our over-indulgence is, apparently, destroying the world, speeding up our existential angst as we race against a clock we think we have made or unmade.

I can’t blame the girl for being depressed if even a fragment of the world we have created is the world she assumes to be real and true.

The parents’ efforts for their daughter’s well-being are impressive and aided by probably a higher level of material resources at their disposal than most. Yet it isn’t enough. Isolation, medications, therapies – none of these are able to remove the girl’s depression. Any number of agents are implicated in all of this from schools to insurance companies to political realities to an under-equipped mental health infrastructure.

These are all the assumed sources of healing. They are supposed to be able to fix their daughter, to relieve her depression and desire to self-harm. And in the best of situations perhaps they can indeed provide some level of assistance. But they are not able to provide the one thing the world we have created lacks most noticeably, needs most desperately, but is definitionally (our definitions) unable to provide: hope. Meaningful, credible, real hope. Not simple distraction or culturally acceptable self-medications but real, solid hope.

There can be no real hope in a self-defined world limited to cause and effect and devoid of any entity more powerful and more good than human beings. If we are just an accident of evolution and the universe itself is just a blip of a multiverse or a repeated big-bang cycle (neither very helpful assertions but apparently the best we’ve got at this point) then there is no meaning. Even our self-created meaning is meaningless because who’s to say our meaning is actually meaningful to anyone beyond ourselves? And even our own self-meaning is prone to the wild swings of culture as to what is acceptable, permissible, tolerable.

There’s no mention in the article of God, though there is, curiously enough, a reference to hell at the end. There’s no mention of this girl’s life experiences that might contribute to such crushing hopelessness, other than that her parents are divorced (though working together on their daughter’s behalf admirably despite this).

Why shouldn’t this girl be depressed, even at such a young age? Why shouldn’t more of us be crushingly depressed if the world we have created has no actual hope in it? Statistics indicate that depression is definitely at all time highs. Other, unrelated studies point to massive rises in self-medication, whether wine and alcohol or legal or illegal drugs. And of course the speeding whirlwind of violence continues to suck at our collective soul. The world we have created is a world where depression should reign supreme. And it certainly, more and more, seems to be king.

But that king is not the real king. And the world we have created is not the real world. We’ve tacked up black paper over every human instinct (and there are quite a few of them it seems) towards something greater than ourselves. We’ve screamed out prayer in schools and screamed for the right to murder unborn babies we deem inconvenient. We refuse to acknowledge the beauty of creation and insist on creating new, artificial ways to amuse and impress ourselves. Which of course entails greater burdens of crushing debt in even the richest countries in the world.

The author concludes by condemning our old systems, which never worked and still don’t work. And she’s right, if she’s talking about man-made systems, the world we have created. Such systems have never worked, whether they involved apples in a garden, forbidden towers, blind and deaf theocracy, or the reliance on strictly Aristotelian definitions of reality that are, conveniently enough, completely and solely dictated by human beings and our senses. Such systems have never been able to bear the weight of actually being reality.

But hope isn’t found in any of those. Hope is found in the original system, a system that was beautiful and perfect and declared very good by its creator. Hope is found in acknowledging our substitutes have never worked and can never work. Only the Creator’s system can work. Only in embracing the truth of reality that we are not gods and were never designed to carry such authority and attempting to only continues to twist us down and inward in more and more grotesque ways.

Only in accepting the truth that we are created not just for one another – which the girl sees as her missing peer group and the mother suspects might be her increased presence in her daughter’s life due to losing her job – but also for our Creator. Only in accepting, as Augustine so beautifully described 1700-some years ago, that we are never going to be satisfied until we know who we are in relation to the God who created us. Only in accepting that there is hope but not hope on our terms or by our methods, but a hope that lies beyond our control, our ability to manipulate, subvert, or otherwise unfairly profit by or damage others with. A hope radically based in one man who demonstrated He was more than just a man by refusing to stay dead. A hope based in the past, present, and eternal reality of Jesus the Christ. A hope that means that girl’s loneliness can begin to disintegrate as she experiences the reality of a God with her and for her.

A hope that can and should be fed by a community of Christian, Biblical faith, which I pray this family finds. And I pray that if and when they do, it’s a real man in the pulpit and not an AI.

Age and Media

It’s nice to see the major news outlets have taken my cue and brought up the issue of whether considering President Biden’s age is fair or not. Just today the New York Times weighed in on the topic as well as Forbes and the Guardian. Happy to do my part to stimulate global discussion and commentary. Such as it is.

Ageism is a term appearing often in these articles and particularly in the op-ed piece in Forbes. But ageism is pointedly different than asking about the particular capabilities of a particular person. An ageist has a problem with older people in general. I want to talk about the specific capabilities of a particular person, Joseph Biden, who happens to be and wishes to continue to be the President of the United States of America. Two very different things and it’s intellectually dishonest or pure idiocy to pretend otherwise.

The articles often compare Biden to Trump, who is only four years younger than Biden. I have the same concerns (in addition to other ones) about Trump’s ability to serve effectively as the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world as I do about Biden’s.

I’m continually fascinated – not just on this issue and in these articles but in general – about how the President (any President) is discussed in isolation, as though he doesn’t have a battery of aides, advisors, counselors, associates, friends and peers providing advice and input on every single issue whether large or small. Yes, the President must make the final decision but even that is hardly within a vacuum, guided as it is by party platform demands. Arguably by the time you reach POTUS status you have incorporated those platforms into your own personal values and ethos and would not be likely to discard them, but it’s yet another layer of consideration into what a President can and can’t do as an individual.

All of these articles focus on whether he is capable. None of them mention the issue of whether it’s good for him to continue this path, regardless of his desire to or not. None of them talk in terms of what is best for Joe Biden as a person rather than as a representative of an age group or vocational abilities. I can’t imagine what he must be thinking about as he falls asleep at night. Not just the massive burden of the presidential mantle but the awareness of his limitations which, ageism aside, do increase as we get older.

My curiosities about this entire issue are (as far as I’m able to tell) separate entirely from ideological or political leanings. I remember well the mocking Reagan received from his critics due to his age. And though I think I’m being neutral in wanting to discuss this issue I wonder how many of those defending Biden would be on the attack if it were Trump in office, and visa versa.

Ageism or Elder Abuse?

Watching President Biden’s most recent tumble the other day I wondered whether voters or the Democratic Party ought to be held liable for elder abuse. Surely in any other situation, allowing someone of Biden’s age to continue to put themselves in danger of falling and severely hurting themselves or even causing their death would be seen as irresponsible in the highest degree. And I’m sure there is no shortage of folks who, watching their aging parents or grandparents being allowed to go about without assistance (human or mechanical) would find that suitable grounds for a negligence lawsuit.

But then I realized that such an action could be construed as ageism. According to no less an august authority than the World Health Organization (WHO), ageism is: the stereotypes (how we think), prejudice (how we feel) and discrimination (how we act) towards others or ourselves based on age.

But watching someone of any age continue to put themselves at risk – in fact requiring themselves to put themselves at risk – of serious personal injury or death is hardly a stereotype if that person does indeed demonstrate a repeated cycle of trips and falls. It isn’t prejudicial to note a specific case of someone who has increasing difficulty with walking and climbing stairs and is at risk because of that. And is it discriminatory to think and suggest or even require that such a person take reasonable precautions to prevent (as best possible) further risk of injury?

Instead, is it ageism to assume the President of the United States is better to risk his incapacitation or death rather than resort to a walker or other ambulatory aid? Granted, in my work with people older than myself the idea of relying on such a device is almost universally pushed away and resisted as long as reasonably possible. Until they see the risk they’re putting themselves at as a real and ever-present thing they won’t utilize any kind of assistance. Such devices are seen as indicative of a weakness or failing of some kind, and most people (myself included) don’t like to acknowledge such a weakness or failing, even if it’s completely out of their control.

With Biden planning to run for re-election the question of ageism vs. elder abuse is one that ought to be raised. It’s a non-partisan issue, for the most part. And it’s certainly an issue that has broader implications for other elder statespersons. Broad laws or rules about denying people of a certain age the privilege of serving if elected seem definitely closer to ageism. But addressing specific instances and individuals is more a matter of showing care and love to a person.

Or are such considerations not important if you don’t have a better candidate to represent your organization? Curious. I’m sure lawyers would have a field day with this sort of issue! Funny the press isn’t willing to ask such questions and instead reluctantly reports these continued stumbles without further comment or consideration.

Freedom at All Costs

A short blurb on – what else? – Florida.

This time the state is making the news for a new law denying citizens of China (or Iran, Russia, Korea, Cuba, Venezuela or Syria) from purchasing residential property in the state of Florida. In turn, the state is now being sued by Chinese citizens who claim the law is unfair for a variety of reasons.

Living abroad for over a year now this is fascinating and more than a little humorous. For years – long before living elsewhere in the world – I’ve maintained that the sale of US land to foreign firms and/or citizens should be at the very least monitored more closely and likely limited if not banned outright. Certainly there will be those who accuse me of racism (as they are accusing Florida), but this is not based on race or ethnicity but ideology. Many other countries stipulate more requirements for foreigners who want to purchase land in their country than simply having enough cash (some examples are here, but mostly these are countries where it’s possible for foreigners to buy land even if there are some restrictions or extra requirements). I’m currently living in a part of the world where foreign land ownership is not permitted at all (as explained a bit here, though I’m not living here). Is that racist? I don’t think so. There’s just the understanding that this is their land – literally – and they aren’t interested in having non-citizens own it. Makes perfect sense to me.

The litigants in the Florida situation make a variety of assertions why the law is wrong. Some of them are emotional – equating long-term presence in the state of Florida and property ownership as somehow a necessary reciprocity. Even if you can’t buy property in some countries you can still lease there and live long-term there provided you meet certain requirements (usually financial in nature to ensure you won’t become a financial burden to the host country – whoa, what a concept!!). In other words if you choose to make another country your home there is no de facto reason why that entitles you – or your great-grandchildren – to buy property there if you’re maintaining foreign citizenship. Of course, if you give up that foreign citizenship to become a citizen (assuming that’s possible) the situation might change dramatically.

I think it would be interesting in this discussion to disclose how much property in the US is actually owned by foreign companies, countries, or individuals (meaning citizens of foreign countries without American citizenship. The issue of dual-citizenship makes things more complicated all the way around). There is some data on this if you want to wade through it. For instance here is a chart on purchases of US residential properties by Chinese nationals over the last 12 years. It’s also clear that other states already implement restrictions or conditions on the purchase of land by foreign nationals (though the data referred to in this report is limited to agricultural land). Florida is not necessarily being draconian and their move may not be unprecedented. If it could successfully be argued this is a matter of state jurisdiction rather than Federal it would weaken the plaintiff’s position (which is why they’re trying to argue this law is unconstitutional).

Now, arguments can (and undoubtedly should) be made about what percentage of overall US property these figures represent and I’m sure the numbers are on the small side. But, once a property is sold to a foreign national (or anyone, but we’re talking about foreign nationals here) that property may never revert to the open market again to be purchased by someone else. So the small numbers need to be aggregated to reflect that every year the amount of foreign-national owned US property is growing as a whole. And if you want to be dark, you eat an elephant one bite at a time.

Maybe it’s better to continue allowing foreign nationals from hostile or problematic countries (ideologically again, not personally. Not all citizens of an ideologically hostile foreign country are individually hostile!) to purchase property in the US. Or even Florida. I just prefer that the arguments for (or against) would take into account a broader perspective. Just like the arguments about border control and illegal (and legal) immigration. Perhaps wisdom can be gained in our increasingly polarized culture by looking at what other countries are doing and how they’re doing it as well as why.

That’s a statement I couldn’t or wouldn’t have made as a teenager. I grew up in a much more patriotic climate than today and bought into some of the over-simplified jingoistic ideas of the day that scoffed at the possibility America could (or should) learn anything from anyone else. But a lifetime of broader engagement has changed my perspective substantially. I’m still American and proud of our country and what it stands for (or used to stand for) and the opportunities it has provided for so many people over the last 250 years. But I’m also humble enough to recognize some things are done better in other places, and rather than attempt (and often fail) to reinvent every single wheel better, maybe we could learn a few things from others.

Even in Florida.