Showing posts with label Inauguration Day. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Inauguration Day. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 28, 2025

On the Aftermath of the Budde Homily

Let’s talk about Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde’s homily last week, or rather the responses to it.  You will recall, Gentle Reader, that she closed her remarks with the following:

Let me make one final plea, Mr. President. Millions have put their trust in you. As you told the nation yesterday, you have felt the providential hand of a loving God. In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now. There are transgender children in both Republican and Democrat families who fear for their lives.

And the people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings; who labor in our poultry farms and meat-packing plants; who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shift in hospitals—they may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes, and are good neighbors. They are faithful members of our churches, mosques and synagogues, gurdwara, and temples.

Have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away. Help those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands to find compassion and welcome here. Our God teaches us that we are to be merciful to the stranger, for we were once strangers in this land.

May God grant us all the strength and courage to honor the dignity of every human being, speak the truth in love, and walk humbly with one another and our God, for the good of all the people of this nation and the world.

Curmie has three other essays partially written, and he acknowledges both that he’s late to this particular party and that he could never be as informed or articulate as Hayden Vaughn or Mark Sandlin or Tom ChristoffersonRex Huppke’s snark is pretty good, too.  Seriously, please read those posts.  All that said, Curmie wants to follow up on a couple of ideas.

First, obviously, is that Bishop Budde owes no one an apology for suggesting that <checks notes> “Blessed are the merciful” (that’s Matthew 5:7, for those of you keeping score at home).  Nor does her Church.  The closest her critics can come to a rational argument is that she shouldn’t have addressed her closing remarks directly to the newly-installed President Trump. 

To this criticism, Curmie offers the following rebuttal: 1). It is her right, indeed her responsibility, to inject an ethical perspective into the proceedings.  Representing the teachings of the faith the new President purports to believe in doesn’t seem out of line. 2). The ceremony was part of the inauguration festivities.  We know that because Trump was in a church.  (Curmie hasn’t attended a regular church service—as opposed to, say, a wedding—in years, either.  But Curmie isn’t a hypocritical billionaire hawking autographed Bibles, either.) 

But let’s move on to the reactions of three people in particular.  The first, of course, is the POTUS himself.  (That’s an acronym for Petulant Obnoxious Toddler of Unusual Size, right?)  You can read his screed in its entirety here, if you must.  By now, though, you probably know the salient points: that she’s a “so-called bishop,” a “Radical Left hard line Trump hater,” that she was “was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart,” and “the service was a very boring and uninspiring one.”  Yadda yadda yadda.

Actually, of course, she was simply doing her job, suggesting that the most powerful man in the world (but don’t tell Elon that) might show some mercy.  She didn’t say anything political, strictly speaking, at all.  That Trump would take offense at an indirect suggestion that he might pay at least a little attention to one of the central tenets of the religion of which he purports to be a member tells us all we need to know.

But we expect such brattiness from Trump, so it practically doesn’t register.  And, by now, we probably ought to expect even greater inanity from Representative Mike Collins of Georgia, who is primed to give his fellow Georgia Congresscritter Marjorie Taylor Greene a run for her money if she wants to retain her title of Biggest Idiot in American Politics.  This is the same yahoo who claimed that Joe Biden was behind that “assassination attempt” on Trump that Curmie still isn’t convinced was anything but a poorly directed community theatre production.

Now this blithering buffoon has posted that New Jersey-born Bishop Budde “should be added to the deportation list.”  Collins is, of course, too stupid to realize that in his zeal to protect the Tangerine Tribblehead that he’s undercutting what few philosophical underpinnings there are to the ongoing mass deportations (but notably, not from blue states with the exception of notoriously liberal Austin, Texas).  

If you want to claim that people are are “criminals” if they’re in the country illegally, even if they’ve been taxpayers and community leaders for decades or if they arrived as infants and never knew another country, there’s at least a legalistic argument there.  But Collins has shown very clearly that the intent of the MAGA minions isn’t grounded in the law, but in the attempt to get rid of anyone who isn’t willing to say and do whatever the Fat Felon wants.

And finally we move on to Karoline Leavitt, the new White House Designated Liar Press Secretary, who claimed that Budde had “weaponized the pulpit” (unlike, say, Franklin Graham or Jerry Falwell, apparently), that her comments were “egregious,” and that “she should apologize to President Trump for the lies that she told.”  Look, we all understand that whoever is in that job is expected to shill for the boss, and if it takes a little dishonesty to do that, none of us are shocked that we’re fed a line of bull.  This is true of every administration Curmie can remember; Republicans don’t have a monopoly. 

We can also extend to Leavitt at least a modicum of respect for clinging (retroactively) to the legalistic argument outlined above.  Technically, anyone in the country without either citizenship or appropriate other credentials is a “criminal.”  This would include even Dreamer kids, who have done literally nothing “wrong” other than not leaving the only home they have ever known, still as children, and without their parents...  or a passport, for that matter.  (Curmie expresses precisely zero surprise that the DACA policy introduced by the Obama administration has been ruled unlawful by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which often rules in ways no rational and even marginally empathetic person would do.)

So we can blame a little of Leavitt’s accusation that Budde “lied” on an inelegant phrasing by the latter, but notice that Leavitt objects to Budde’s “lies.”  That’s plural.  Where are the rest?  Are there people in this country right now who are scared?  Hell, yes.  Curmie is a little trepidatious, himself, and he’s a cishet white male American-born citizen.  He does have this awful habit of speaking his mind, however, and that there’s even a remote possibility that he’ll end up in trouble for that is more than a little ominous.

Are there trans kids in both Republican and Democratic households?  Yes; Curmie knows both, personally.  Do “the vast majority” of immigrants, even those without documentation, pay taxes?  Yes.  Are they good neighbors?  Yes.  Do they attend religious services?  At least as much as citizens do.  Are some of them “fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands”?  Yes.  Does the Christian God teach that “that we are to be merciful to the stranger”?  Undeniably.  So… about that plural, Ms. Leavitt…

It is indeed clear that Budde is no fan of Trump.  She wrote in response to Trump’s media stunt standing holding a Bible in front of St. John’s Church after having police and National Guard troops clear the area with flash-bang and tear gas munitions, “Mr. Trump used sacred symbols to cloak himself in the mantle of spiritual authority, while espousing positions antithetical to the Bible that he held in his hands.” Tell us what you really think, Bishop!

By contrast, Budde is pretty accurate when she says “It was a pretty mild sermon.  It certainly wasn’t a fire and brimstone sermon. It was as respectful and as universal as I could, with the exception of making someone who has been entrusted with such enormous influence and power to have mercy on those who are most vulnerable.” 

That seems reasonable enough to Curmie.  He’s now officially a fan.

Monday, January 20, 2025

It's January 20, and...

 

By unfortunate coincidence, January 20 falls on a Monday this year, meaning that Inauguration Day and MLK Day happen on the same day.  It would be difficult to find two men more diametrically opposed than Dr. King and Don the Con.

True, there are some similarities—neither is a shining example of marital fidelity, for example—but the differences are extraordinary.  The snarky comparison on the McSweeney’s site serves pretty well to clarify the issue.  Gee, which one of the two said, “An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity”?  And which said “Nobody knew health care could be so complicated”?

Dr. King imagined—dreamed of, if you will—a nation and a world in which people will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.  Mr. Trump, if he had the imagination to dream, would envision a paradise in which those with inherited wealth and an utter absence of morality would have carte blanche (to be fair, it’s doubtful he’d know that term) to exploit literally everyone else at whim.

This goes beyond mere political disagreement.  There’s a case for some of Trump’s stated policies.  Curmie doubts he has any intention of implementing any of them, but that’s a different matter.  So is the nomination of a host of particularly unqualified folks—mostly male, overwhelmingly white, all rich—for high-ranking government positions, although that heads a little closer to the point.

Curmie is not so naïve as to believe that any politician of any political stripe will always adhere to high moral and ethical standards when pushing or even exceeding the limits of appropriate behavior is more likely to get them what they want.  Trump is worse than most if not all, but that’s somewhat beside the point.  Significantly, when Biden or Obama or Bush or whoever did that kind of thing, it was to achieve a goal for like-minded individuals.  The rationale was political efficacy, for the good of a philosophy or an approach.

For Trump, it’s purely narcissistic.  He’s interest only in himself and perhaps a few family members and cronies.  The latter will, of course, be cast aside when they are no longer useful.  Curmie isn’t sure whether the best example is from history (say, Danton or Trotsky) or from Trump’s own past (e.g., Mike Pence).  Those nominees mentioned above share one one attribute, and it sure as hell isn’t competence.  Rather, it’s an apparent willingness to yield all authority to the “stable genius” who doesn’t come close to fulfilling either word in that description.

The three headline-making stories from this week—moving the inauguration ceremony indoors, the whole TikTok brouhaha, and whatever the hell was going on with that meme coin business, all underscore the same conclusion: Donald Trump is an egocentric, mendacious, grifter.  We all knew that, course… or at least the overwhelming majority of the people reading these words did.

A fair number of erstwhile Trump supporters who had spent thousands of dollars to attend the inaugural ceremony only to be left literally out in the cold are beginning to learn how expendable they are.  These are folks to whom the few thousand dollars it cost them to fly to DC, get a hotel room, etc., actually means something.  But too bad, so sad, you can’t actually see it live, because there aren’t enough of you I’m all about manliness until I have to demonstrate it it’s almost as cold as it’s been for several other inaugurations in recent memory.

The result, of course, is that Trump surrounds himself with his cabal of billionaires and a few obeisant lawmakers and no one else.  If he were smart enough to understand symbolism or irony, there’d be a different look.  Or perhaps he just doesn’t care.  Our only hope is that he truly is as incompetent as he appears to be… or that his base realizes that they’ve been played.

The TikTok debacle may also serve to accomplish this potential outcome.  Shutting down that platform was Trump’s idea, of course; he even tried to do so by executive order.  Now he’s positioning himself as the hero of the 1st Amendment by reversing course and proclaiming that he won’t enforce the law.  Gentle Reader, Curmie has no idea the extent to which TikTok poses a threat.  He suspects that yes, there’s a lot of data mining being provided to the Chinese government, but it’s probably no more intrusive than what Trump minions like Zuckerberg and Musk are doing for our own government’s surveillance.

Here’s the thing: if TikTok posed a threat back when Trump was in office before, it poses a greater threat now that its popularity has expanded significantly.  More users: more intrusions into citizens’ privacy.  Yet the principal argument other than the 1st Amendment to restoring TikTok is that a lot of people use it. 

Anyone who believes that Donald Trump reversed course out of principle probably believes they’ll soon be getting a huge check from that Nigerian prince, that tariffs are paid by the exporting country, and that the price of eggs is about to plummet. 

Martin Luther King, Jr. sought to raise up those who were treated unfairly, those who were poor, those who had little but hope.  Donald Trump seeks to raise up his fellow plutocrats.  MLK advocated non-violence; DJT told supporters he’d pay their legal bills if they roughed up anyone who didn’t drink the proverbial Kool-Aid (though why anyone would believe that when he’s notorious for not paying his own bills, let alone anyone else’s, is a bit of a mystery).  King sought a world in which no one has to struggle to survive; Trump wants to cut Medicare and Social Security to provide further tax cuts for the already obscenely wealthy.

Today is a day to commemorate a King, not a would-be king.