Treason, Really?

Ok, if you read this and you're a Trump supporter, it's time to try thinking - just a little. It won't hurt much, I promise.

        The guy you blindly follow, in the wake of the Op-Ed which recently ran in the Times and was attributed to an "anonymous administration source" erupted, predictably, with the usual shit- storm of Tweets, complete with ALL CAPS and meaningless superlatives. What was truly troubling though, in addition to the rambling, partial sentence, fragmented thoughts to which, sadly, we’ve become accustomed, was his use of the word "Treason" to describe what is simply criticism.

        Understand this point. This man sees any criticism of his actions as treason. While this may not trouble many Trumpists, many, perhaps most, of whom aren't really all that familiar with our governing document, (you know that “Constitution" thingy?) it should. The word “Treason is defined as it is (look it up, US Constitution, Article Three, Section Three) to specifically apply only to acts against the nation, and then in time of war. Trump has conflated this, in his typical five-year-old bully who has never been told "no" style, to also mean disloyalty to him personally.

        The reason the framers, conservatives as they were, wrote the document to define Treason as they did, was that another puerile tyrant (George III of England (who had an excuse, he wasn't sane most days) saw himself in the same vein as had his "divine right" predecessors and peers throughout Europe. That was, as Louis XIV of France would so eloquently put it, "L'Etat...c'est moi!" or in English, for the non-liberal arts folks, "I AM the state." (literally, “The state…it is I”) The doctrine that kings and queens had a God-given right to rule and that rebellion against them was a sin was common through the seventeenth century and was urged by such kings as the aforementioned Louis XIV.  

       This extended "treason" to cover basically anything the King didn't like. It was sometimes even conflated as even more heinous, since the King is divinely chosen by the great Sky magus, then any untoward utterance (act not required) was also tantamount to heresy. As a matter of fact, "dissing" the King was "High Treason. This latest tirade would seem to indicate that Donald Trump may see himself through that same lens. This almost makes Richard Nixon, a man who also saw personal loyalty, no matter how flawed his actions, as his God given just dues, seem relatively well adjusted by comparison.

        It is, unfortunate that so many of our countrymen are abysmally ignorant of things such as this, a foundation stone of our democratic representative republic, yet so expert on the inner thoughts of those same men regarding guns. Trump is squarely in this camp, and in fact, if Bob Woodward’s recent book, “Fear,” is anywhere close to his usual multiple Pulitzer laureate standard (bet on it), then Trump may be even farther off the rails than most of us fear.    

        Irrespective of that, the President isn't the state, and treason can't be "committed" against him. What next, Melania opining that we should simply shut up and eat the cake?

Charity Scams

         I just got a call from the “United Police Officers’ Association”. Actually, it was a telephone solicitor. Sounds impressive, though, huh? Since this was an auto-dial message, I simply hung up, rather than do what I will sometimes do if I have the time and there’s a real person on the other end. I have two strategies I really like. The first is to ask the caller to, “Please, wait a moment, since I’m at my computer, while I look up your charity on the Charity Navigator website." This last word is usually followed by the imaginary sound of crickets, since the line is now dead.

        The second and one I take really personally is to interrupt the person and explain that I am a retired public-school teacher and then ask them, “When was the last time a retired teacher called you asking for contributions?” Cue the crickets.

        In truth, no one in any public service job area should be in need of charity for medical expenses, on or off the job, since essentially all such departments provide Health insurance and Workman’s comp. insurance (required by law.)   If such a situation exists, it is a pathetic reflection on any organization involved. State for state, non-degreed police and firefighters almost universally retire earlier and with far better benefits that public-school teachers with master’s degrees. How dare they call asking for handouts?

        Of course, what is really going on with these and, disappointingly, a lot of other Law Enforcement and/or military related faux charities is that they are offered something for nothing. Companies who specialize in phone solicitation for hire get to use the official sounding name when calling and remit in many cases less than 15% of donated funds to the organization named. Of course, the organization’s share is simply the use of their name. It’s free money, except for those duped into contributing. Charity Navigator, Charity Watchdog  and other similar organizations regularly evaluate, and rate charities based on a well-defined set of fiscal guidelines. I heartily recommend one visit one such site before contributing. You’ll find that there are many legitimate service organizations (like St Jude’s) for example doing good work with contributed funds, but you might be surprised at what some others do. 

        

            To get you started toward a more critical approach to giving here’s a list to start with:

                           The 50 Worst Charities in America- How to Keep from Being Scammed.

       In the wake of tragedies large and small, they pop up like mushrooms after a rain. With tales of woe and heartbreaking images of children or helpless animals, they beg for assistance. They are the tragi-charities. Most are “one hit wonders” seeking to cash in on the tragedy of the day from floods and fires to missing children and more.

        The “pop-up charity” business is usually local, occasionally regional and only rarely national. Mostly they are the products of individual scammers who smell an opportunity to cash in using the name of a victim who may or may not even be real. They count on local press coverage and a quick website.  These ‘charities’ usually rake in a few thousand dollars and disappear.

The Professionals

Then there are the professional long-term operations, like the phone scammer I mentioned above.  They utilize direct mail or telemarketers to solicit millions of dollars in donations from unsuspecting individuals and businesses. Are you concerned you’ve already been scammed or just want to make sure you won’t be in the future? Here are some of the worst offenders:

1. Kids Wish Network (note – all the right words, Network, Kids, Wish). Unlike the three real children’s charities their name parodies (all legitimately good causes) this is probably the worst so called charity in America.

2. Cancer Fund of America (Cancer is a scary word and many phony or bad charities prey on that fact. Of these 50 bad examples 20% are “cancer” related, in name at least)

3. Children’s Wish Foundation International (another “children’s/wish scam)

4. American Breast Cancer Foundation

5. Firefighters Charitable Foundation (Thirteen of the worst 50 are LEO/First responder themed.  None of them remit more than 20% [most remit less] of collected revenues to any actual cause other than the company which makes the calls.)

6. Breast Cancer Relief Foundation

7. International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO

8. National Veterans Service Fund (Six of the "dirty 50" are veterans related. Exactly how, in most cases is a mystery)

9. American Association of State Troopers

10. Children’s Cancer Fund of America

11. Children’s Cancer Recovery Foundation

12. Youth Development Fund (Doesn’t this sound great? Now dissolved, but Charity Watch, like Charity Navigator a non-profit charity analyst, is aware of this charity soliciting donors using the following names: A Child's Dream, Children's Dream Network

13. Committee for Missing Children

14. Association for Firefighters and Paramedics

15. Project Cure (Bradenton, FL) No one is sure what the "cure" in question is and this scam funds zero research or victim assistance for any disease, but Project Cure is legendary for spending so much of what little comes in (various family members are on the payroll) that they have even defaulted in paying solicitors several times!

16. National Caregiving Foundation

17. Operation Lookout National Center for Missing Youth

18. United States Deputy Sheriffs’ Association

19. Viet Now National Headquarters

20. Police Protective Fund

21. National Cancer Coalition

22. Woman to Woman Breast Cancer Foundation

23. American Foundation for Disabled Children

24. The Veterans Fund

25. Heart Support of America

26. Veterans Assistance Foundation

27. Children’s Charity Fund

28. Wishing Well Foundation USA

29. Defeat Diabetes Foundation

30. Disabled Police Officers of America Inc.

31. National Police Defense Foundation

32. American Association of the Deaf & Blind

33. Reserve Police Officers Association

34. Optimal Medical Foundation

35. Disabled Police and Sheriffs Foundation

36. Disabled Police Officers Counseling Center

37. Children’s Leukemia Research Association

38. United Breast Cancer Foundation

39. Shiloh International Ministries

40. Circle of Friends for American Veterans

41. Find the Children

42. Survivors and Victims Empowered

43. Firefighters Assistance Fund

44. Caring for Our Children Foundation

45. National Narcotic Officers Associations Coalition

46. American Foundation for Children With AIDS

47. Our American Veterans

48. Roger Wyburn- Mason & Jack M Blount Foundation for Eradication of Rheumatoid Disease

49. Firefighters Burn Fund

50. Hope Cancer Fund

         This list was put together by the Tampa Bay Times and The Center for Investigative Reporting based on federal tax filings for the last 10 years and information collected by several of the previously mentioned charity watchdog groups.  Charities are broken up into five main categories: children, cancer, police/law enforcement, veterans, fire and other. These fifty charities account for more than $1.35 Billion in donations. Of that, $970 million went not to victims, but to the people who collected the money. The analysis below breaks down the sordid story further.

        The percentages spent by these “charities” on direct aid to victims range from 0% to a high of only 11.10%. Most of the organizations spent between 0.10% and 8.6% of what they collected in direct cash aid. This is a far cry from what well-meaning contributors intended for their contributions.

        The worst of the worst paid more than 90% of what they collected to solicitors. Thirty-three of the fifty paid between 70% and 89% to solicitors. Overhead costs consumed large chunks of what was remaining. Only the very small amount left may get to the people who actually need it!

        Sooo, the next time, try my “Please hold while I look you up,” or just lay the phone down and go on about your day.

Fake News in a Righteous Cause is Still Fake news

        There is currently a video making all those side bar “click here” areas of the computer screen in which a beautiful light brown skinned girl smiles as she tells us that tipping is an American institution created to disadvantage former slaves by getting them to work for low hourly wages (if any). She continues by pointing out that 60% of ‘servers” are females and 40% of those are Black. As in too many of such “educational” videos, it plays fast and loose with the truth, primarily (and unfortunately) because, of course, racism does exist in America, just not under every conceivable rock or integrally with every institution. Understand - this video, to the uninformed or the eager to accept, comes across as an indictment of the US for inventing tipping in the post-Civil War South, claiming that former slave owners created the system to avoid paying former slaves.

        So, what’s my beef? It is simply that it dilutes the real cause of racial equality and respect by lying about issues such as this. For the bigot, finding one such allegation to be false serves as a talking point to negate them all. So, then, what exactly am I talking about?

        The history and origin of tipping is European and predates the US Civil War by centuries. The practice of tipping began in Tudor England. (mid 1500s) By the 17th century, it was expected that overnight guests to private homes would provide sums of money, known as "vails", to the host’s servants. Soon afterwards, customers began tipping in London coffeehouses and other commercial establishments. The etymology for the synonym for tipping, "gratuity" (because we all feel “gracious” when we tip, right?), dates back either to the 1520s, from "graciousness", from the French gratuité (14th century) or directly from Medieval Latin gratuitas, "free gift", probably from earlier Latin gratuitus, "free, freely given". The meaning "money given for favor or services" is first attested in the 1530s. So hardly American, hardly Southern, hardly post war. While it may well have been discriminatory based on social class, it certainly wasn’t race based.

        By the 1900s, Americans considered tipping to be the norm and, in fact, were frequently criticized for over tipping (yeah…right!).  Englishmen complained that "liberal but misguided" Americans tipped too much, leading servants to feel shortchanged by the British.  Similarly, a 1908 Travel magazine found that Americans over tipped but received poorer service because Americans “did not know how to treat servants and service members.”  Why include this information? Because it points out, that, contrary to the thesis of the video, that Americans actually tended to tip service persons, race irrelevant, better than Europeans. This statement is also relevant to metropolitan, urban areas, where race of serving persons varied over an extreme spectrum.  It was Benjamin Franklin in 18^th century Paris who said, "To over-tip is to appear an ass: to undertip is to appear an even greater ass."

        As tipping became widespread in America, many found it to be antithetical to democracy and American ideals of equality.  In 1891, journalist Arthur Gaye wrote that a tip should be given to someone "who is presumed to be inferior to the donor, not only in worldly wealth, but in social position also."  "Tipping, and the aristocratic idea it exemplifies, is what we left Europe to escape,” William Scott wrote in his 1916 anti-tipping brochure, “The Itching Palm,” in which he argued that tipping was as "un-American" as "slavery

                Prior to 1840, Americans did not tip, or at least it wasn’t considered tipping to reward a service person for good service.  But, after the Civil War, newly rich Americans visited Europe and brought the practice back home to show that they had been abroad and knew genteel rules.  A New York Times editor grumbled that, once tipping got hold in the United States, it spread rapidly like "evil insects and weeds." Now here’s where the Berkeley study cited in the video goes off the rails. With no historical citation or justification, it posits that former slave owners “miffed” (my word) at the loss of free labor (Slavery wasn’t “free” labor in any case, just uncompensated to the slave, but costly to the slaveholder) invented (we now know that’s blatantly false, so let’s say “implemented”) the system of tipping to avoid paying regular wages to Black employees on railroads and in hotels. So, you ask, “What’s wrong with that statement?”

        To begin, most freed former slaves in the South were agricultural workers.  While the number of slaves owned varied from one to hundreds, most worked the soil, with a significant but much smaller percentage owned by city dwellers and serving as house servants.  While there is no extant research which details the numbers regarding how and where these former bondsmen and women became employed and how they were compensated, this is nonetheless true: The majority of former agriculturally utilized slaves, male and female, remained on the land as share croppers. A high percentage of former house servants remained in service, but we simply have no data on how, or how much, they were compensated.

        Making some assumptions: first, the video continues to the end to indicate that tipping is still racist today and states that 60% of waitresses are women and about 40% of those are Black.  Unfortunately, they have a conflict in that statement with those well-known pollsters, the US census bureau. As of 1991, the last year for which I could find data, the numbers are waaay different.  While 81.6% of food servers were women, a mere 4.2% were black. 7.1% were Hispanic, which means that food service females getting tips as part of compensation were 70% Caucasian!  This directly contradicts the assertions made in the video. I also need to stress that the not so thinly veiled implication is that tipping is a way to pay less (it can be for the employer) and then goes to the illogical conclusion that those working for tips are under-compensated.  While this may be true for some cases, in most it is not.  Waitresses in metropolitan areas average about $15 hourly in tips, to which is added the (ludicrously low and insulting minimum allowable in all but 7 states) $ 2.13, for even in those states, an average $17.13 hourly wage for unskilled labor. In the seven states requiring higher minimums for wait staff it comes to over $22 hourly!  In truth, many make significantly more, depending on where they work.

 So, recapping:

 Tipping wasn’t a Southern invention but was centuries old when Americans travelling overseas were exposed to it.

 Most freed slaves were not equipped to work in areas of employment where tipping was the norm.

 Tipping was far more prevalent in the North.        

Most workers earning tips today are not minorities, but many are female. Most make more with tips than a minimum wage would provide. Yes, tipping does allow employers to pay less, but that “extra” cost is borne by the customer  

Finally, tipping, although common and much more generous in other areas of personal service (massage therapists, hairdressers, etc.), is primarily associated with low skill, minimum or zero training jobs, which would in any case be minimum wage jobs.

       Does that suck? Perhaps, but in a nation with free public schooling and vocational programs there are other opportunities. The choice to avail or not to avail oneself of said opportunities is personal.

       Overstating the impact of race in areas where the validity of such attribution is questionable, at best, dilutes the cause of racial justice and equality in those areas where there is legitimate and pressing concern.  Automatically injecting an allegation of “racism” into areas where other factors may well be in play weakens, rather than strengthens the moral stance of those opposing racial bias and discrimination in America. Faulty “history” is no excuse for “Fake News,” even in a righteous cause.

No Time Travel Option

         

https://www.facebook.com/InTheWoodsWithPhil/videos/231127270896442/

The video above was posted to public media by someone who believed it to be demonstrative of reality in the world today. Unfortunately, this indicates ignorance of economics more than any other single concept,

        The real message here isn't that the Chinese are producing "cheap junk" since there is, and has always been, plenty of American made cheap junk. Same materials, same machinery, higher labor cost. In Trump world, the bad guys are the people who, understanding economics, (which he demonstrably doesn't - can you say "five bankruptcies?") supply the US demands for cheap products. One of the major players in this charade is ...wait for it.... that icon of conservative Republican support, Walmart.  Sam Walton made his rep with "Made in America" signs all over the stores. Find one now if you can.

        Historically, Walmart has pushed US companies like Rubbermaid to shift production to China and elsewhere by telling them what they (Walmart) would pay for a product and that if they couldn't produce it domestically at that price, then they'd have to make it elsewhere. Bye-bye American made Rubbermaid products, hello cheaper Chinese made Rubbermaid products. A note here, many of these Chinese products, especially sports team logo wear are marked up tremendously by the American company and Chinese workers get relatively little of the upcharge. A golf shirt with logo which Under Armor manufactures in China for about $9  is priced at  $96 dollars in the US Naval Academy gift shop. There are American shirt makers who produce as good a product but are shut out because Under Armor outfits the football team as well.  Under Armor is American owned.

        The tragically ignorant thread here, is that headband wearing, redneck, cousin lovers such as those in this video shop where? Walmart, because it's cheaper. Blaming China for meeting the demand of Americans for cheaper products is ludicrous, and sadly, indicative of the many of our citizenry who have almost no cognizance of Economics. These are the same people who, at an auto dealership only care about "How much is my payment?" and jump at the offer to wait three months before making the first one, not realizing that the interest will be added to the final cost anyway.

        There will continue to be a market in certain sectors for luxury products made in America and elsewhere, but the majority of minimum wage, two jobs families aren’t the market for those products. Of course, Trump bitches about “cheap, Chinese” products, since he will never buy any of them for personal use. This, however doesn’t meant that he and his practice what he preaches.  Since Election Day, the apparel brand run by Trump’s daughter has imported 56 shipments of Ivanka Trump products from China and Singapore, part of a total of 215 shipments from Asia since Jan. 1, 2016. In Trump’s signature DC hotel (from which he was supposed to distance himself due to potential conflict of interest but hasn’t) the four-story American flag in the lobby towers over Swarovski chandeliers made in Austria. Lamps lining the hallway are from China. Small decorative boxes on the coffee tables are marked with stickers that read “Made in India.” In addition, the majority of items in the $800 per night rooms are not “American made.”  In all, 21 of the 31 products whose provenance could be identified come from outside the US. Here's a partial list: Lamps (China), Glasses (Italy), Phones (Malaysia), Remote control (China), TV (South Korea), Soaps and shampoos (Canada), Towels (India), Scale (China). Hair dryer (China). Sheets (Italy), Tissue container (UK), Umbrella (China), Robe (China), Tray (UK), Ice bucket (UK), Dishes (Germany), Chandeliers (Austria).  

        Now here’s the paradox which makes my head hurt. The majority of Trump supporters who cheer at his jingoistic speeches about economic issues have several huge lapses of logic at work in their thought processes, whatever they may be:

First: Their “default position” is, “If we manufactured these things here in “’Murrica” instead of overseas there’d be more jobs, we could make more money! Of course, this leads to logic lapse number two which is:

Second: These same naifs would expect American wages, which when added to higher domestic overhead and materials costs would make these products much more expensive. Over the entire manufacturing spectrum, this means a rather large increase in cost of living for those who can least afford it, most of whom ignorantly support this convoluted and retrograde notion. Of course, Trump and his ilk couldn’t care less, since they don’t shop at Walmart.

Third:  These folks, like their President, don’t “get” that the economic balance and nature of the world has changed and cannot be “reset” simply because they want it to be.  We are no longer in possession of all the raw materials which forged the world’s most robust economy in 1946, when Trump and many of his supporters were born. [One quick example is the rare earths required for many of the electronic systems prevalent in almost every aspect of modern life, from cell phones, to jet fighter weapons control systems, to satellite technology. China and Brazil control almost 75% of proven sources of those minerals currently known to exist!] The US economy cannot simply click its heel, chant “There’s no place like home” and return to that economy. The era of manual labor supporting a family is pretty much over.

Fourth, and just as troubling: The sub plot in much of this is Trump’s carefully orchestrated, implied “fear of the ‘other’” scenario. It’s not just xenophobia, because he has managed to make many of his sycophant base see their fellow Americans as the “other” as well as those of brown skin, almond eyes and strange accents. Somehow “they” are to blame, whether it’s “taking American jobs” which is a blatant lie, since immigrants are in most cases taking either high tech jobs because they have the training, skills, and motivation Americans lack, or entry level jobs which many Americans are too (“good”, proud, whatever) to take. Meanwhile crops rot in fields in some areas because those who have, in the past, picked it, are afraid to come to work. The other “other” is those of us who see the man for what he is and more importantly, for what he isn’t. If we mention the racism, ignorance, and general lack of respect for others exhibited by the Trump administration, we are now the enemy as well. Reporting factual data becomes “Fake News.”  In fact, anything not specifically pro-Trump is likely to be labeled as such. Trump consigliere/mouthpiece Rudy Giuliani even recently stated that truth is, “Not necessarily,” truth. Say what?

        A trip to Arnold’s Drive In, if we could hop in the Delorean and make it, would reveal that, for better or worse (but forever, in any case)  Ritchie Cunningham, Potsie, Ralph and the Fonz have been gone for decades. In many cases, so has “Made In America.”   

Any Questions?

          I have, from time to time, been perplexed, disappointed or irritated (and sometimes all three) by the sheer stupidity exhibited by some professional athletes. Coaches can sometimes come in a close second. It is unfortunate, but all too frequent, that sometimes the attitudes of these grown children percolate into the population in general, displacing such adult concepts as reason, restraint, civility and self-awareness.

       It is troubling to me, as exemplified by a most recent incident that, when an athlete is performing well and exercising their skills developed over years of practice, others will consider them deserving of being injured or hampered, simply because they are winning. Tonya Harding and her husband injuring Nancy Kerrigan is one such an example. Professional football and hockey abound with such louts, (Ndamukong Suh, Lyle Alzado, Conrad Dobler, Bill Romanowski, are a few of football's "roid rager" examples.)     

        While many sports require skill and coordination, there are several where high achievement is measured by being successful only about 1/3 of the time. Golf is one such; baseball is another. If a golfer won just a third of all tournaments entered, he’d be iconic. A baseball player who reaches base safely on a hit just a third of the time is a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame, with a lifetime .333 batting average. In fact, in the modern era only eight individuals have managed such a lifetime batting average.

        When a golfer is doing well, leading a tournament field, what is the setting? Generally, the crowd is urged to be quiet, and the golfer will step back and wait if that doesn’t happen. Tournament officials and will intervene if conditions are not appropriate. No one runs out of the crowd and hits the golfer in the shins with a putter. His or her playing partners are respectfully quiet and appropriately congratulatory when the player executes well.    

        Now let’s look at a professional baseball game which took place two days ago in Atlanta, Georgia. The division leading Braves were home standing against the hapless (21 ½ games behind them) Miami Marlins. For the Braves, a highlight of the season has been the performance of young left fielder Ronald Acuna, Jr. Acuna entered Wednesday’s game having hit 5 home runs in the previous four games, the last three of those games against The Marlins. Each dinger had been a leadoff home run.

        This brings me to the point of this essay. As manager of the Marlins, what are your options with regard to Acuna?  Well, you could intentionally walk him, or perhaps tell your pitcher, one Jose Arena, a journeyman, with a 3-12 record to date, not to give Acuna anything in the strike zone, even simply have your pitcher do his best and allow whatever happens to happen, or, and here’s the issue at hand, tacitly let him know it’s appropriate to throw at the batter, which Arena did, “plunking” Acuna in the elbow so blatantly that the league has suspended Acuna for six games and fined him an “undisclosed amount”.

         All of Arena’s protestation to the contrary is belied by the fact that it was the first pitch of the game to (and at) a guy who has owned Marlins pitching. It was almost assuredly not a decision made by Arena himself, although he’s been hung out to dry for it. It was not a “back him off the plate” throw either, but exactly what it looked like, hitting a batter as punishment for his skill. It was Happy Gilmore on the mound. Fortunately for Arena, Acuna was the adult on this occasion and did not go to the mound, bat in hand.

        The practice of throwing at (“plunking”) a batter for doing his best in the face of your team’s inadequate pitching has long been a nasty part of the game which good managers decry and poor pitchers and managers defend. It should be punished to a far more serious extent and consequence than it is. A baseball at 85 to 90 miles per hour is a deadly weapon, and while helmets now protect the heads of batters, other parts are unprotected. In the last 40 years at least 20 major league players have had careers ended or diminished by thrown baseballs. Fortunately, X-rays showed no joint damage to Acuna’s elbow in this case.

        So, enter one Keith Hernandez, former National League MVP and New York Mets broadcaster. The following night he actually said this: “You got (sic) to hit him. They’re killing you, you lost three games. He’s hit three home runs; you got to hit him. I’m sorry, people aren’t going to like that. You know, you got to hit him, knock him down.”   To the credit of others, these comments weren’t well received by most baseball folks, but they are indicative of an attitude which exists in baseball and other sports as well as recently seeping into much of public discourse.

         Let’s translate Hernandez’ comments into general terms: “This person, because of hard work and training has achieved a degree of skill which allows him to perform his job at a high level. He’s doing his best and we’re doing our best, but our team sucks, and we are not as capable. Rather than do what we can within the rules of the game to make ourselves better, let’s hurt or disadvantage the other person.”  Now read most recent “presidential” tweets. Any questions?     

Don't Act Surprised!

       This is a follow on to an excellent post elsewhere, by a friend, a married female  lead pastor of a large progressive Protestant congregation, related to the recent  Willow Creek megachurch scandal involving multiple incidents of sexual abuse, and the Church consistory's (eventual) response. That response was their mass resignation, probably because they had known, but resisted acting on that knowledge for too long. One excellent point she made was that having met the individual (male Senior Pastor, sexual predator) in the center of all the controversy, she was relatively unsurprised. It made me wonder how prevalent this sort of thing really is and the results of my brief research were revelatory, but not particularly surprising to me. 

                        Don't Act Surprised!

        Some 15 years ago, a scholarly study by a moderate religious seminary concluded that: 10% of all psychologists have had an affair with a client; while 30% of all pastors have had an affair with a member of the congregation. Four, more recent, (2007) self-reporting surveys of pastors (“High Risk Factors in Pastoral Infidelity,” by Carder, D., Christian Counseling Connection, 2007) were summarized thus: “14-18% of pastors admitted to an affair and an additional 18% admitted to an emotional affair.” But because 14% of the pastors admitted that they lied on the survey, the surveyors assume the rate of either physical or emotional infidelity among pastors is at about 40%.

         The shocking (to some, not so much to others, including myself) numbers would seem to be borne out by the current frequency of “outing” of poor pastoral self-control nationally. In too many cases, initial reports have been pigeonholed by Church hierarchies unwilling to confront the inevitable attendant publicity. (Note: this is not a study of priests (another, perhaps even more sordid, tale) , but of major non-celibate Protestant clergy, and does not include anything which would be classified as pedophilia).

       This issue has recently re-risen to national  notice because   one of the growing numbers of large congregations known as “Megachurches,”  Willow Creek Community Church which had already agreed to pay more than $3 million to settle lawsuits over the sexual abuse of two developmentally disabled boys by a church volunteer, was revealed by the Chicago Tribune to have made a second settlement,  for $1.75 million, in February, before the Tribune revealed that the evangelical megachurch’s founder, the Rev. Bill Hybels, engaged in inappropriate conduct with women, eventually leading to his early retirement and, this month, the resignation of the church’s two leading pastors and its entire board of elders.  

       Back to the statistics: we may be able to account for the difference between the 10% and the 30% in this way: Psychologists have to take a course in ethics, which includes teachings on how to draw boundaries with clients, how to seek counseling for themselves in order to understand their how to gain victory over personal flaws, how to avoid temptations in the office, how to make appropriate referrals, learning professional consequences of inappropriate behavior (losing one's license), grasping the importance of "doing no harm" to a client, learning about the requirement to report another psychologist that you hear about that's having an affair, and other important ethical and legal teachings. Perhaps a more meaningful query would be to determine why intensive bible study and seminary training would leave the recipient in need of ethics training.

        If one studies the principal role of a “real” pastor, meaning one who actually deals with parishioners as a spiritual counselor and mentor, it is far different than that of the televangelist frauds whose contact with the faithful revolves around having staff open the envelopes, save the checks and throw away the prayer requests. (Robert Tilton’s fraud exposed by ABC News in 1991). As bad, are the many “business opportunities" hyped by these men and women such as Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell, another megachurch pastor, a United Methodist yet, (former advisor to Bush 43) and a business partner, Gregory Smith, who sold millions of dollars of worthless Chinese bonds, telling investors to "remain faithful and that they would receive their money," and of course Jim Bakker the shill supreme. In fact, when scanning the dials for televangelists it’s more likely that you’ll find frauds than righteous men.

        Like most of the televangelists and perhaps as great a percentage of mainstream evangelical pastors (if that’s not self-contradictory), many pastors are undereducated for their chosen field by comparison. This is especially troubling when, in truth, much of a pastor’s principal job is in loco mental health counselor. A Psychiatrist would have at least 8 years of job specific training, a  licensed counselor would have a minimum of a master's degree (6 years post secondary education). 

        This is not an indictment of most principal protestant seminary programs, but of those Evangelicals who seem to feel a $100 haircut hair and a fake smile are all it takes to minister to a congregation. (see: Osteen, Joel, studied Communications at Oral Roberts, did not graduate, has no seminary training or divinity degree).  Two years of seminary and three years of “Bible College” just don’t cut it. If any Fundamentalist/Evangelical seminaries and Bible Colleges presently even provide such real courses (as in practice based and justified by current Medical and Psychological theory) in Counseling and ethics, I'd be mildly surprised.

        So, what do we know about these clergy offender characteristics? Unsurprisingly, the one universal trait that has been found in prior studies pertaining to both sexual misconduct and abuse is that the overwhelming majority of known offenders are male (Studies in: 1998; 2004 and 2010). This, of course, shouldn’t be considered surprising since most Christian denominations (88%) only allow males to assume leadership positions within the church. The “best” estimates that exist are from faith-based insurance companies that have released data on claims paid for religious institutions. Specifically, three faith-based insurance companies that provide coverage for 165,500 churches—mostly Protestant Christian churches and 5500 other religious-oriented organizations—reported 7095 claims of alleged sexual abuse by clergy, church staff, congregation members, or volunteers between 1987 and 2007 (Seattle Post-Intelligencer 2007).

        Another key characteristic found regarding clergy who have been known to have engaged in sexual misconduct is that most have had significantly higher-than-normal levels of narcissism when using Raskin and Hall’s (1979) Narcissistic Personality inventory.  Narcissism is seen as a key trait that can amplify instances of sexual abuse for individuals in positions of power. Obviously, this power/narcissism connection has ramifications for the human race as a whole and is not limited to clergy, as the current US political atmosphere would indicate. Unfortunately, the clergy, to a greater extent than most are seen as “safe”, “trustworthy”, “moral” (and other reassuring adjectives) by most of their flocks.

       Findings also revealed several key characteristics pertaining to offender characteristics being mostly white males. Offenders being male should not be a surprise since the majority of known adult sex offenders are male (Rennison and Rand 2003) and males occupy 88% of all Lead Pastor positions in US Protestant Christian churches (Cooperative Congregations Studies Partnership 2010). Thus, women in most congregations may not be in positions of power that can influence the propensity to engage in sexual abuse. That offenders are mostly white also mirrors what is known about most sex offenders (Ackerman et al. 2011) and those who identify as Protestant Christians (Pew Research Center 2007). With the average offender age at 40.4 years, these findings are considerably younger in comparison

        As categories of the final offender characteristic measured in the present study of offender-role, there were several individual roles represented - volunteers, non- clerical employees, etc. However, nearly two-thirds of all offenders held the roles of Pastor or Youth Minister (a clerical position in most churches).  

       To summarize, I feel it relatively unsurprising that persons with fairly little accountability and a large pre-assumption of moral fabric on the part of their charges, coupled with far too little actual preparation for the “real” job of day to day pastoring, take advantage of that position or allow themselves to exert that implied power through bad behavior. It may be that those in the primary position of power and control in the church are those that are the most likely to offend in this environment. It is also possible that those in the primary position of power within their church view sexual offending as a mere extension of their power and control over their environment and their congregants. (the narcissism factor) This is especially probable since power and control have been identified as key traits for male rapists with female victims.

        In any event, don’t act shocked that clergy are no better and perhaps even worse than the average person in the area of personal sexual responsibility and moral behavior. Remember, as Admiral H.G. Rickover used to say, (I paraphrase only a bit) “Personal integrity or lack of it, is exemplified by what you do when no-body’s watching!”

So Let's Get This Straight

        The body of the essay that follows was written in response to an individual who, after a lengthy discussion of the divisive nature of Donald Trump's almost continual stream of invective aimed an anyone with the temerity to disagree with him, opined that it was really  Barack Obama who "divided the country."  This is an all too frequent "fall back" position for Trump supporters. Try as I might, and I have several times attempted to engage in civil dialogue on this particular point, no one has even tried to parse a cogent support of that statement. It seems almost a rote recitation , sort of like "Well, oh yeah?"  

                 So; exactly what did Barack Obama say or do (other than be born black) which as you claim, "divided the country?" I've heard this statement made numerous times but have yet to get a real answer that makes any sense. Certainly nothing legislatively did that. I've been politically aware through Eisenhower's second term to the present.  I've seen presidents who had Congressional majorities against them and with them. I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats. None of them has ever felt the need to publicly deride others simply for disagreeing with them. None has been so childish as to believe that their fifth-grade level rants were more important because they use all capital letters.

         Many disagreed with Bush 43. Many criticized him, some viciously in print media. He initiated a military action in a country with which we were not engaged (Iraq) based on fallacious allegations, urged and abetted by his aides. Tens of thousands of American casualties as well as more than 4,000 deaths occurred there as a result. Despite the harsh criticism of others, including some in his own party, he remained civil.  FDR was hated by most Republicans and was brutally and publicly attacked by people like Father Coughlin, Walter Lippman and Joe Kennedy and many others but remained civil. What is different in this case is, as Lindsey said, too much access to public fora (like FB) by people who have little to say but are all too willing to say it.

         Even more to the point is that the current president has been far more vile and abusive of his power than as any sane American would ever have imagined.  This is a direct reflection on his personal mental makeup, having never been told “no” and believing those who have praised him. This manifests as simply declaring that any media statement, even if totally factual and verifiable, which disagrees with or contradicts his position or a statement on the issue is “Fake.”  Reality is that of all the verifiable public statements the man has made, just under 70% are mostly false or worse! A recent example, He states “US Steel is opening six new plants in the US.” No, US Steel isn’t, not even one and they said so, after Trump’s bold-faced lie, which he hopes you’ll believe.  This difficulty with the truth is compounded by  his appointment of incompetent cabinet members and aides, many of them gone now, who abused the public trust and its money.

         Our  foreign relations posture with the rest of the world, many of whom used to be our allies, has never been worse in the last 60 years, even during the Viet Nam war.  In our travels over almost all of Western Europe over the past five or so years, I have been frequently amazed by persons who, having decided I was American, complimented Barack Obama simply offhand, sometimes even initiating conversation to do so. You won't hear anything like that now with regard to our current POTUS. Sixteen years of good will and sound alliances built by both Reagan and Clinton have been grievously eroded in under two years. He has poisoned the well of foreign relations. This isn't opinion, but simply fact.

       In summary. If one believes that Barack Obama “divided the country”, one should be able to substantively point out something bad that he did. Now, if that immediately brings The Affordable Care Act to your mind, well, then we simply have a difference of opinion regarding the general welfare of our fellow man. On the other hand, if you, for whatever reason you rationalize your dislike, simply “don’t like him,” then it is you and your kind who divided the country. In other words, if you agreed with Trump that there were “good people on both sides” in Charlottesville, then the issue is your racism.

       If you consider it "divisive" when someone points out the huge racial disparity of police shootings or killings of unarmed persons, then consider this. That's simply data, not political race baiting. It isn't "Fake News." Likewise highlighting the massive incarceration and severity of punishment gulf between persons of color and others charged with identical crimes is just data. It is, lamentably, a fact of life in America.  If you think pointing out real racism by the numbers is "divisive" then the problem has been isolated. It's you!

        If you have issues with anyone who says we should evaluate people one by one as we interact with them rather than simply dismissing “them” or “those people” as inferiors because of their race, religion, gender or sexuality,  then you are the divisive one. In 26 years in the military and another 20 in the public schools, I learned better. 

       Of course, I had a distinct advantage; I was raised by parents who valued and evaluated people individually on their merits and made sure their children did too. Racism is a mental defect. So is malignant narcissism. Trump is a poster child for both maladies.