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.

Discipline vs. Human Rights

The small island-nation of Singapore just executed someone for attempting to traffic marijuana into Singapore. This is the second such execution (by hanging) in the last three weeks. Last year a total of eleven people were executed for drug-trafficking related offenses.

The article highlights the typical Western response – protesting against allegedly draconian punishments as a potential (or actual) human rights violation. I think it’s funny the article refers to both the United Nations and Richard Branson as evidence of this disapproval and some sort of validation of why such disapproval should be taken seriously. Why is Richard Branson considered on the same level as the United Nations?!? Or perhaps, more reasonably, the UN is being reduced in importance to the same stature as a business “mogul”. Hmmmm.

The assertion is that the death penalty is not effective as a deterrent. Given the large amounts of money to be made in successfully trafficking drugs, I wonder if there is any deterrent that is truly effective. Someone will always either be daring or desperate enough to take the risk. That some people are successful is evident by the reality that there exists a drug abuse country in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and other countries with death penalties for these kinds of crimes.

Perhaps Sir Richard Branson is right?

Or, perhaps we should examine the huge problem that reducing penalties for drug trafficking seems to create. In the US there has been a persistent push for and recent victories in decriminalizing marijuana usage, possession and trafficking. Now harder drugs are being gradually treated the same way. Enforcement is spotty – with only the most egregious violators likely to be caught. Has this more relaxed treatment of drug trafficking and use resulted in less of a drug problem?

That answer should be pretty obvious. No, it hasn’t made it any better. Billions of dollars spent over the last 40 years alone have failed to stem either the demand or the supply of illegal drugs, and now prescription drugs are becoming a larger and larger problem. Normalizing the use of drugs either legally or illegally has not reduced the demand or de-glamorized it or made it so unprofitable that suppliers are no longer interested.

Harsh penalties cannot in and of themselves eliminate the desire for drugs or the willingness to risk life in prison or even death in order to make vast amounts of money in providing the drugs. But this can’t be the sole determinant of whether stricter rules are useful. While it cannot eliminate the problem, I’d argue it does slow the problem at the very least, or keep it at a lower level. Zero tolerance is not simply a criminal matter in the courts but a social and cultural one as well. Something everyone knows is illegal and carries a huge and real risk of life-altering or ending repercussions is not likely going to be glibly offered at a casual dinner with friends.

This isn’t a new debate.

I remember as a high schooler hearing stories of an American being caned in some Southeast Asian nation for breaking the law. Some of my classmates who thought that was barbaric and unfair and he should be exempted from such punishment as a foreigner. However I felt then, as I do now, that strict laws and harsh punishments are helpful deterrents. The influenceable middle group of folks who might or might not be induced or seduced into breaking the law are more likely to resist such offers if the stakes are higher than if the stakes are lower.

The only alternatives ever offered seem just as limited in the good they foster and less effective in terms of the evil they restrain, and definitely lead to a more permissive culture that only facilitates further abuse until the abuse has to be legalized to prevent unjustifiable numbers of citizens being locked up.

I chuckle to myself these days that as I fly in and out of countries – often Singapore, Malaysia or Indonesia – there is an announcement about 30 minutes before landing warning passengers these countries have very strict drug laws and violating those laws can lead to imprisonment or execution. I think it’s funny they announce this just before landing (as opposed to just before boarding). Perhaps all those people making a beeline for the bathrooms upon landing are heeding more than just nature’s call.

To Sing or Not to Sing

Some interesting articles that caught my eye belatedly regarding an interesting (though I’d say hardly surprising or even new) trend in Christian worship – congregations aren’t singing.

As if often the case (when I remember to check their website) the good folks at GetReligion.org first caught my eye with this story. Which in turn led to this essentially same article, which in turn led me to this list of nine reasons one person thinks congregants are no longer singing in worship, in an ironic reversal of the Protestant tradition of congregational singing contra the previous Roman Catholic tradition of singing relegated to choirs rather than congregations. I think the list is very useful and accurate.

In my times worshiping in other Christian traditions the challenge of congregational singing is evident. Certainly in the more non-denom, big box environments where professional musicians, lighting experts, sound mixers, and special effects artist create a ‘worship’ experience to rival a lot of smaller-scale secular professional performers this is the case. But even in some traditional mainline denominational congregations I’ve experienced difficulty joining in the singing. One notable location plays familiar enough hymns, but the accompanist has the annoying habit of raising the octave with each stanza, so what began as a graspable but slight reach for my aging voice becomes near-impossible to sing by the third verse.

Is congregational singing an important or even necessary part of Christian worship? I posed that question to a small online discussion group this evening. We came up with several reasons why congregational singing ought to be part of Christian worship. Strangely enough, we came up with nine reasons :-)

1. Music is beautiful!
2. As such music is a near-universal part of the human experience whether on the large scale or individual scale. If we listen to music for simple enjoyment, and if we sing along in the shower or during our daily commute to the office, why wouldn’t we also sing in worship?
3. Congregational singing is very Biblical. Think of Moses and Mirian leading the people of God in communal worship after having been delivered from the Egyptians in Exodus 15. Think also of Revelation and the continual chorus of praise raised to God by angels and the saints.
4. Because of this, much historic liturgy and music is drawn directly from Scripture. As we sing together in worship we are joining with the communion of the saints who are doing the same thing, and practicing what we will be doing in eternity.
5. Congregational music is a way of teaching.
6. Music is often a good mnemonic device to assist people in remembering.
7. As an extension of this, I’ve had numerous parishioners over the years suffering from severe illnesses who reported that while they weren’t able to think or communicate much, they had hymns playing in their heads as they lay in ICU and these familiar tunes provided extraordinary comfort and peace in an otherwise terrifying situation.
8. Group singing is an encouraging experience – we grow in our willingness and even ability to sing praise to God as we join in with our brothers and sisters who are doing the same thing. This is true even in small groups (albeit a bit more timidly!) as it is in arenas.
9. Music is a part of liturgy and even when other aspects of the liturgy are somewhat lackluster, congregational singing can still deliver God’s Word and promises to people in an important way. As a pastor I take comfort that not all of my sermons will be good, but choosing some solid hymns is a way of ensuring congregants are still fed!

In my narrow Lutheran circles the argument is more often stylistic, with some preferring traditional (though no less arbitrary, just with a longer pedigree) forms of hymnody and instrumentation while others feeling more updated music and lyrics are necessary (particularly for “the young people”). Perhaps the focus needs to be more on how to engage communicants in singing than worrying about the instruments or tempos they’re singing to/with. And I’d argue it’s another good reason to reconsider building a stage and putting the praise team on it to “lead” worship. While this can work, I suspect it more often than not leads to less congregational participation in singing for the reasons articulated in the article above.

Artistic Slavery

I’ll say it. It ought to be obvious.

Slavery is wrong.

And if it’s wrong, then justifications for it are wrong, including retaliatory enslavement. Or enslavement for a greater good. I’d argue that most cultures that engaged in enslaving others (and contrary to popular depiction, this includes a stunningly broad cross-section of cultures across human history and geography and includes cultures with no qualms about enslaving others of their own ethnicity) would have and continue to argue that the slavery is necessary for some greater good. This might be an economic advantage. It might be an effort to enlighten or raise up a less advanced culture through education and the sharing of new values.

Or it might be argued that slavery is necessary and proper in order to elevate an underrepresented or historically marginalized group.

Which is what is happening with Hollywood. Hollywood is being enslaved towards an ostensibly higher purpose. Not everyone is handling the enslavement as quietly as their enslavers would like.

Hollywood is being enslaved to tell certain stories and utilize certain actors and actresses to tell those stories. New rules by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences set to go into effect in 2025 are the means of enslavement. Failure to do so automatically disqualifies a film for consideration of an Academy Award for best picture. No matter how good a movie might be, if it doesn’t have a minority lead character or a cast comprised of at least 30% of a pre-defined minority group making up the general cast, the movie won’t be considered for the coveted award.

Ostensibly this is to reflect the fact that movies are global merchandise now. Or, if you want to use fancy, artistic-speak, “The aperture must widen to reflect our diverse global population in both the creation of motion pictures and the audiences who connect with them.”

Are any other global studios being placed under such slavery? Are Bollywood Awards now mandated to include non-ethnic Indians under threat of disqualifications? British-made movies? In other words, is this a universally recognized, necessary slavery, or simply the arbitrary enslavement of US-made movies?

On the flip side, arguably what makes American films popular around the world is that they are American films. This means that oftentimes the characters will be overwhelmingly American-looking, which historically has meant Caucasian. Certainly the demographics have shifted a lot in the US in the last 100 years so that to have non-Caucasian American characters is appropriate. But to mandate it? Hmmm. And at what point, when whites are minorities in the United States, will they be included in the list of approved minority groups?

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting on that update.

Some argue these new rules really won’t have much impact on best picture contenders because already such films typically utilize minority actors and actresses or tell minority stories. Either that means Hollywood is voluntarily shifting towards a shared set of values, or it is succumbing to less formalized media pressure. Given that Hollywood is motivated increasingly by profit rather than artistic aesthetics, if these values truly are real with real dollar implications, Hollywood shouldn’t need to be enslaved. It will run after those dollars full tilt.

Logically, Hollywood won’t be the only slave.

How long until writers are told their stories will not be considered for Pulitzer Prizes unless they meet a particular ethnic or minority group count? At least 30,000 lines have to deal with a minority group or character? What about painters and sculptors? No National Endowment for the Arts awards unless their images are of minority groups or individuals or stories? And let’s not leave out music. Since we can’t see, either on film or in the descriptions of an author, whether there is minority representation, do we simply say conductors and lyricists have to be from minority groups in order for the work to be considered for a Grammy or an Oscar?

Slavery is wrong. Justifying slavery towards a greater cause is hardly novel and, in the lens of history, will be judged just as harshly as physical enslavement was in the past.

Ending With a Whimper

Perhaps this will be my final Covid-related post. Living outside the United States for the last 15 months provides a fascinating comparison perspective. Unlike much of the rest of the world, the news out of the US in any regard to Covid is uniformly negative, as it has been since the inception of this virus three years ago. Dire warnings of triple-demics this past winter were, once again, grossly incorrect. Attempts to milk Covid for additional revenue whether in advertising dollars or ‘free’ vaccines and boosters have, however, inevitably run out of steam.

The pandemic is over. Some might argue it was over months ago or more but let’s not dicker. The World Health Organization (WHO) determined it’s over and of course they’re the wisest voice in all of this, right?

Before we get to the article and statements from the WHO, I’ll simply say I think the 6.9 million people who died would prefer we celebrate a bit, having gotten through all of this. Instead of a whimper and simply turning our voyeuristic and opportunistic lenses elsewhere, we ought to stop to give thanks to God. If your congregation hasn’t done this, let me humbly suggest it should. An opportunity to acknowledge losses and give thanks for those who avoided infection or found it didn’t affect them as direly as it did many others.

I find it fascinating that the article (if not explicitly the WHO) credit the end of the pandemic to vaccination, treatments and herd immunity. No mention of the weakening strains of the coronavirus that have proved less and less dangerous to most of the people they infect. In other words, the pandemic is over because we beat it, not because the virus weakened and diluted and became more and more inconsequential. Not even a combination of the two factors. It was simply our ingenuity. Really?

I’m curious about the statement in the middle of the article asserting “In most cases pandemics truly end when the next pandemic begins.” What in the world is that supposed to mean? Is the presumption we careen from one medical emergency to another, one bubonic plague to the next, one Covid to the next when clearly, historically this is not the case. Or perhaps Michael Ryan of the CDC simply means there is always a pandemic, always some contagion circling the globe. Of course that might be true, though substantiation of this would seem problematic at best. The only reason we paid attention to Covid – or swine flu, or any other number of illnesses – is that we proved ill-suited in our immunological response to it, to the point where enough people died in enough places to connect dots and determine something larger was happening.

But I’d argue the statement makes little sense regardless of which interpretative line you follow.

And I’m curious exactly how Mr. Ryan thinks we will fix our weaknesses, whether biological or systemic and bureaucratic, so that no other virus can ever threaten us again and we need never fear another pandemic. Again, history certainly doesn’t bear this out. A certain humility, lacking in the comments in this article, would seem appropriate when we realize our solution to Covid was by and large to hide for three years, separated from friends and loved ones to cower in fear. It’s clear that the promise of immunity from vaccines gave way to a less grandiose, muted hope that, if they did not prevent infection, they would at least weaken the symptoms of covid and the mortality rate.

If anything should be learned from Covid it’s a healthy humility and awareness of our fragility. An awareness that even the combined resources of the richest and most scientifically advanced countries could not prevent the spread of Covid nor significantly blunt its initial impact. Science is not the impervious or impartial champion it wanted to be in all of this. People did the best they could and I don’t fault the efforts in the least, but rather the overblown rhetoric by which certain measures were justified despite little reliable data on their effectiveness. The way in which people were demonized for disagreeing or even asking questions. There is indeed a lot we could learn from this pandemic experience, but I don’t think we’re likely to. History shows us this as well.

So when will your life go back to normal? When will you gather with friends again without cringing when someone blows out birthday candles before carving up the cake and handing you a piece? When will you not jump a little when someone nearby coughs or sneezes? There’s a powerful argument to be made that despite national or global decrees, the pandemic will never be over emotionally or psychologically for those of us who lived through it.

I was fumbling with something in my shirt pocket the other night, trying to figure out what it was. It wasn’t bulky enough to be a handkerchief (a necessary, constant companion in the oppressive heat and humidity of a tropical climate). I finally managed to pull it out, and it was a face mask. While there are still plenty of people going around with facemasks in Southeast Asia, and while this may be the case for years to come, or perhaps forever, it was a profound moment that I was so surprised at what it was, that I should have it on me and not need it any more. Or at least feel like I didn’t need it.

Maybe that’s a first step towards the true, personal end of the pandemic. Thank God.

Well You Can Rock Me To Sleep Tonight…

If someone had told me 40 years ago that the lead singers of Kiss and Twisted Sister would be some of the lone voices of sanity in a sea of incredulous goofiness, I would have called you looney.

I’d have been wrong.