The Episcopal Church: plus ça change

Bishop Austin Rios

It's no secret that the vast majority of Episcopalians, both clergy and laity, are politically liberal; in various gatherings around the Bay Area I have never met an Episcopalian who will admit to conservative or Republican leanings, although, to be fair, lay people rarely initiate political discussions.

Austin Rios, who was installed as our Bishop three months ago, has words of reconciliation (complete message after the break) after first stating his own disappointment in the election's outcome: [bold added]

As a long-term supporter of immigrant rights and the former director of an international refugee center, I do not believe mass deportations, promised by the Trump campaign, will make America greater or stronger.

As a former resident of small towns in Texas, Wisconsin, and North Carolina, I have seen how misinformation can easily manipulate the views and feelings in more insular communities.

And I’ve also seen how small communities can sometimes show-up for their neighbors who are in crisis more consistently than those who call big cities their homes.

There is no denying the cognitive dissonance that arises from many Americans preferring an older white male felon to a younger multiracial female prosecutor.

I was uncertain when Bishop Rios was elected, but now it's clear: the Diocese will be led by another social justice warrior for at least a decade. The giveaway is in the last sentence, where the Bishop assigns virtue or vice based on a candidate's sexual and racial identity. I'm disappointed, but as a believer in democracy, I accept the will of my fellow Episcopalians!

BTW, there's a decent chance that all his convictions will be overturned on appeal, and all charges will be dropped in other cases. Will President-elect Trump still be a "convicted felon"?

Diversity in Appearance But Not in Thought

Tabia Lee (Chron photo)

The director of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) at De Anza College in Cupertino has been fired. Tabia Lee, a Black woman, had served less than two years on the job. [bold added]

Tabia Lee received a letter in March saying her contract would not be renewed in June because she was uncooperative with colleagues, unwilling to accept constructive criticism and unlikely to change. Lee is a vocal critic of many of today’s diversity and inclusion practices, and many colleagues at the school said she belittled their racial justice initiatives...

Lee said she will fight to keep her job as faculty director of De Anza’s Office of Equity, Social Justice and Multicultural Education, which she has carried out remotely since the fall of 2021. Her job description at the public community college of 16,000 students is to promote a “commitment to equity, social justice and multicultural education” and create an “inclusive campus environment” within an “institution-wide transformation.”

Critics said Lee sought to transform the college in the wrong direction. Groups representing Latino and Asian Pacific American employees urged the district’s Board of Trustees to remove her, contending that she subverted anti-racism initiatives by opposing everything from their efforts to gain more say in campus governance to their use of the gender-neutral term “Latinx.” In a letter to the college, Lee cited research suggesting the word has little support among Latinos themselves.

Debates on its merits can fill volumes, but my own take is that the vast majority of community college students have little use for DEI. They come to De Anza, Foothill, and the College of San Mateo to learn practical skills that they can use on the job today.

Racism and social justice may be important to some people, but those are distractions for students who are trying to learn computer programming or accounting or chemistry. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, both of whom went to De Anza College, seem to have done just fine without DEI.

Reduce Inequality by Making Everyone Poor

(Image from Algebra I Review)

Back in the 1960's my school had two Algebra classes for 7th-grade kids who showed some aptitude in math, and the rest of our age group took Algebra in 8th grade.

It's a sign of how education has regressed that no one is offered Algebra I in San Francisco in middle school, even if a student is capable. Worse, the deliberate holding back is being done in the name of equity. [bold added]

For years, San Francisco public schools have been caught up in a bitter debate over the district’s math curriculum. A vocal group of parents has argued that the district’s decision to delay teaching Algebra I until high school hobbles children who are ready to take the math course in middle school. But some experts and district leaders have argued that pushing back algebra can level the playing field for kids who are struggling in math.

This is what happens when you put Progressive ideologues in charge of education. They reduce inequality (how that ever become the objective instead of encouraging children to develop their individual gifts is baffling) by hamstringing the top performers, as opposed to lifting up those on the bottom.

This ideology would have a talented musician play basic chords until the tone-deaf can catch up, or have track athletes wear ankle weights so the slower kids can keep pace.

Give the advanced kids as much as they can handle, and offer extra help to those who are struggling--and here's an idea--try to make it fun.

Worn Out

While shopping in San Bruno, I was ticketed for an unreadable license plate (picture, right). The plate is perfectly decipherable to human eyes, but traffic scanners have trouble discerning it.

I wrote a letter contesting the $50 fine. Not only did I point out that I didn't see(!) the problem, I also noted that the Camry had been parked outdoors for 16 years.

Any degradation in the license plate had to be due to wear and tear from exposure to the elements, and surely the law didn't mean to fine us folks who couldn't afford a garage or car port. The pity-me social-justice-y argument didn't work, and a harshly worded notice for $50 arrived four months later.

So I paid up.
1) Saving $50 wasn't worth pursuing the matter.
2) I did feel sorry for San Bruno. The plague of homelessness, drug use, and property crime has spread south from San Francisco, and SB is feeling financial pressure.

Later a Foster City cop pulled me over with a warning that the license plate was unreadable. At the DMV the cost of replacement plates was $22, under the condition that I give the old ones back.

The only advice I have after all this is to pick your fights with City Hall, because most of them aren't worth the price.

Small Town Mess

Kylie Clark (LinkedIn photo)

Two months ago we noted how the Los Gatos City Council censured planning commissioner Kylie Clark for writing to the State that "rich, white, anti-housing men” controlled housing policy in Los Gatos. The ACLU threatened to sue the town for violating Ms. Clark's free-speech rights, and the City Council removed the censure.

Los Gatos caved to the ACLU because its planning commissioner purportedly was speaking as a private citizen.

[Los Gatos Town Attorney Gabrielle] Whelan said the lawsuit would potentially have cost the town upwards of $400,000.

Since Clark identified herself as a planning commissioner in her email to the state but said she was speaking as a private citizen, she is protected from being disciplined by current case law, the ACLU argued.

To this non-attorney it seems disingenuous to claim that she was speaking as a private citizen on a subject (housing) that fell under her purview as a planning commissioner. Where does this stop? Whenever a politician makes a controversial statement, he or she could walk it back by claiming it was a personal opinion as a private citizen.

But there are further complexities. In real life Ms. Clark has a conflict of interest.

Councilmember Matthew Hudes voiced concerns about Clark’s role as assistant manager of advocacy and public policy at West Valley Community Services (WVCS) overlapping with her role on the planning commission. WVCS provides food, housing and support services to low-income and homeless people in South Bay communities including Los Gatos.

Paid advocacy for a social service organization would seem to color (in a manner of speaking) Ms. Clark's opinion.

But here's the best part:

Clark is in a relationship with Councilmember Rob Moore, who chairs the policy committee, and Hudes said it’s not appropriate for Moore to provide feedback.

Los Gatos, home to Netflix, is very wealthy, but it's still a small town of 33,000, and this is a small-town mess of its own making. Whether Los Gatos continues to chew on this problem or not should not make a difference to the rest of the Bay Area.

San Francisco Gloom and Doom

(Chronicle illustration)

The reversal of fortune happened quickly.

San Francisco boomed before COVID, despite persistent homelessness and property-crime problems. It was the cultural center of the tech universe and a top-five American tourist destination. Commercial and residential properties commanded the highest rents and/or prices in the nation; trains, buses, and roads were packed during the week.

During COVID commuters realized that they didn't have to endure a grueling two hours of daily travel to get work done, while residents found more spacious and cheaper lodgings outside the Bay Area.

San Francisco could be in a doom loop.

Interconnected forces trap the city in economic free fall: Workers remain primarily remote; office space sits empty; businesses shutter; mass transit is sharply reduced or even bankrupt, making it even harder for low- and middle-wage workers who enable restaurants and small businesses to operate, causing major budget shortfalls from declining tax revenue that imperil numerous city services, trigger mass layoffs of city workers and shred the social safety net, all of which causes more people to leave.

Cheerleaders for the City argue that San Francisco hasn't lost its fundamental charm; commuters and tourists will return, and the city will spring to life.

IMHO, the downward spiral will be very difficult to reverse. The surpluses have evaporated, and with budget cuts to police, homelessness, and transportation programs, those who departed will have little reason to come back.

I hope that I'm wrong

MLK Day, 2023

Note: August 28, 2023 will be the 60th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.

After re-reading my previous posts on Martin Luther King Day, the great man seems more relevant than ever to this boomer blogger. Unfortunately, his doctrine of non-violent civil disobedience seems increasingly quaint. Today speakers will honor him, all the while willfully ignoring what he called them to do. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence.

From 2010:

Martin Luther King, Jr. was an American original whose stature has only grown since his assassination in 1968. His I Have a Dream speech and Letter from Birmingham Jail are masterpieces of the rhetorical art, replete with religious themes, historical references, and poetic flourishes. Dr. King pushed, pulled, and forced a preoccupied postwar superpower to confront the difference between its glossy self-image and ugly racist reality.

He did this by conveying a vision of an America that was full of hope and was consistent with its founding ideals. He delivered that vision in soaring preacherly cadences that called, if not compelled, his audiences to act. On the holiday of his remembrance Dr. King's wisdom has not dulled with time's passage:

On non-violence:

In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence.

On the difference between just and unjust laws:

An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

On civil disobedience:

In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

How to effect peaceful change:

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action.

Dr. King asked his followers to “purify” themselves, that is, lead blameless lives in accordance with the very principles that they would demand others follow. Walking the talk remains as difficult as it is noble, and it is as relevant to leadership today as it was 60--and 2,000--years ago. © 2023 Stephen Yuen

Have Faith, Churches: Just Be There

Zaina Qureshi, 16, says gender
equity, immigration rights and
racial justice are important. (WSJ)

Not exactly a shocking conclusion from a report on the views of teens and young adults: "Young People Say Disconnect Keeps Them From Church". So what are the issues that young people do care about? [bold added]

Half of young people ages 13 to 25 surveyed said they don’t think that religious institutions care as much as they do about issues that matter deeply to them, according to a report released Monday by the Springtide Research Institute, a nonpartisan nonprofit. Those issues include racial justice, gender equity, immigration rights, income inequality and gun control. Springtide tracks the views of American teens and young adults. It has done research work in conjunction with the Princeton Theological Seminary and the Mennonite Church, among others.

The biggest disconnect involves LGBT rights. About 71% of youths said they care about gay rights, but feel that 44% of religious communities care about the same issue, according to the survey of 10,274 people across the country representing various faiths.

‘I was afraid to live my life,’ says
dancer Amethyst Rose. (WSJ)

If you asked me and my peers what we cared about as college freshmen, we would have said: the war in Vietnam, race discrimination, sex discrimination, the military/industrial complex, the Bomb, police brutality, and freedom of speech. 50 years later those issues have either gone away or have shifted leftward--I don't mean the latter in a pejorative sense--equality of opportunity has mostly been replaced with equality of result.

The main point is that, as a young person, I was too busy making plans pursuing worldly goals, though I never completely disengaged from organized religion. I only started drifting back due to: 1) more frequent reminders of my own mortality; 2) attainment of some objectives did not achieve fulfillment and raised the is-that-all-there-is question; 3) the Christian perspective really did prove insightful at crucial turning points.

Because I am not a priest or have a personal stake in keeping every religious institution alive--let's face it, there is overcapacity given the demand--I am not worried about the decline in membership. This is a temporal trend that will reverse; just study the history of American great awakenings,

The goal of churches should be just to stay alive, to be available to individuals for when the inevitable personal crisis arises and they find that the answers do not lie with politics or their racial or gender identity.

Have faith: they'll come back, they'll need you, so just be there.

Quotas, Even at the Top

Merck has a diverse corporate board.

The WSJ reports on one of the ESG (environmental, social, governance) movement's principal initiatives: racial and sexual diversity of corporate boards of directors. [bold added]

U.S. public companies added the most diverse slate of new directors on record to their boards over the past year, with a surge of Black nominees and elevated numbers of women and first-time directors, according to two new studies.

The gains were uneven, with about half of public-company boards adding no new members and smaller companies lagging behind their bigger counterparts, according to one of the studies, from the Conference Board and data analytics firm ESGauge. In addition, more companies of all sizes have started disclosing the racial and ethnic makeup of their boards.

The second study, by executive and board recruiting firm Spencer Stuart, found that a third of new independent board members for S&P 500 companies identifying director demographics were Black, up from 11% the year before, and 7% were Latino, up from 3%.

To this cynical boomer, diversity "gains" defined by how many boxes are checked are redolent of unwritten affirmative action quotas that did little to advance group welfare--which the AA advocates (unwittingly) admit because they proclaim that the income/wealth/health gaps have only gotten worse in the decades since AA was implemented.

No one is looking at whether diversity is improving corporate decision-making---if researchers are, it's not mentioned in the article. A clearer picture will emerge when stock-price and other financial indicators measure the performance of companies that have diverse boards and those that do not.

In any event change will be slow because attrition of board members is gradual:

The rapid addition of minority directors has been slow to diversify overall board demographics in part because of low turnover. Nearly 40% of S&P 500 companies didn’t change their boards over the past year, and about half of the companies in the S&P MidCap and Russell 3000 indexes didn’t, the Conference Board found.

A good thing about diversity that may really be a bad thing:

First-time directors are less likely to be retired and more than twice as likely to be under 50 years old, Spencer Stuart found. About two-thirds of these younger directors are from historically underrepresented racial or ethnic groups.

[Blogger's comment: personally, I'd rather have qualified under-50 women and minorities running a dynamic company than overseeing three or four.]

Good and Bad News: Religious Needs Are Unmet

Rabbi Ari Lamm

Americans' participation in organized religion has never been lower, but Rabbi Ari Lamm believes that

The Prospects of American Religion Have Never Been Higher

A recent Gallup poll included some grim news: Less than 50% of Americans belong to a religious community such as a church or a synagogue, the lowest since the organization began asking the question in 1937. As an Orthodox rabbi, I might feel gloomy about the future of my profession. But the prospects of American religion have never been brighter....

This isn’t news for those of us who have dedicated our lives to the rabbinate or priesthood. The reasons for the decline in synagogue and church attendance range from the changing nature of cities to competition with digital communication. Congregating with others in a physical space is a cornerstone of most faiths—I happily do it three times daily—but there’s much more to religion than sitting quietly on a wooden bench and listening to a sermon.

Seen this way, the new Gallup survey should be read not as an obituary but an opportunity. Religion is ripe for disruption, to borrow a term from Silicon Valley: Plenty of Americans still love the product—just not its current platform.

For centuries critics have claimed that organized religion diverts attention from the fundamental teachings of faith. Churches and synagogues had placed their priorities on soul-numbing procedures, meetings, fund-raising, and socializing.

Lately the emphasis has been on social justice, global warming, systemic racism, and other issues, which, however important, make churches just another political advocacy group. That's not what most people want from their religion.

People attend religious services because they want a spot of religion. Yet worshipers hear too much about climate change, systemic racism and transgender rights and not enough about Abraham, Sarah and Isaac or Luke, Matthew and John. Treating religion like the Academy Awards or the National Basketball Association—which also don’t draw the same attention they used to—has left Americans suspicious about traditional faith. This can be rectified by focusing on what business-school types call the core offering.

Your humble blogger has posted frequently on how the Episcopal Church seems to pursue social justice over spreading the Word in its public pronouncements. Since I composed the above in 2012, it has only become more involved in partisan politics.

COVID-19 upended worship-as-usual and caused churches to initiate or improve virtual services. It offers them a chance to reset. Will my church and other religions seize the opportunity to turn away from the path they were on and go back to basics? Rabbi Lamm is hopeful.

Father Mike Schmitz’s “Bible in a Year” became one of the most downloaded shows in Apple’s podcast app. Tens of thousands of Jews who hadn’t been to a shul in years now tune in weekly to listen to “Unorthodox,” the world’s most popular Jewish podcast. This is as an invitation to every rabbi, priest and minister in America to do as good spiritual shepherds have always done and come meet their flock where they graze...

Services offered during the pandemic were just that—religious services. They were not, as so many felt compelled to offer before the pandemic struck, social gatherings with thin religious veneers. For decades houses of worship had flourished with the American suburb, serving as a focal point of communal life. In Jewish circles, this is known as “a shul with a pool,” suggesting that congregants should see the synagogue as the destination for everything, from Sunday school to a quick swim. This model is fading, and organizations that focus on the heart of the matter—the prayers and rituals and rites—are likely to reap the rewards.

Church conventions that I've attended have always been more about politics than the spiritual needs of the members. Perhaps some of the passion has dissipated now that the Federal and State governments are controlled by politicians whom the church agrees with. So I'm hopeful.

Answering the Trap Questions

Out: build a better (mouse)trap. In: avoid
trap questions. (Korn Ferry photo)

Leaders of major companies are more highly compensated than ever. To be fair, their jobs are also more complicated than ever.

They have to answer to a multitude of constituencies ("stakeholders"), some of whom are concerned with matters other than revenues and profits. The slightest verbal miscues, even not saying something, can put a CEO's job at risk.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella is a master at answering the "trap question." Here's an example of one from last month's Stanford economics conference:

"Let’s talk a little bit more about equity. Before the pandemic, the world was facing big challenges: climate change, structural racism, economic insecurity, wealth inequality and more....What is the responsibility of the corporations, particularly the underlying connection to racial justice in the U.S. and elsewhere?”

Before reading Mr. Nadella's answer, how would you respond, dear reader? All the problems on the list are intractable, beyond the capacity of even mighty Microsoft to solve. Also, "responsibility" is a trap word: if he says Microsoft is responsible, it can never succeed; if it is not responsible, he will sound callous.

Here is Mr. Nadella's answer, as described by WSJ writer Andy Kessler:

Mr. Nadella isn’t CEO of a trillion-dollar company for nothing. Coolly and calmly, he explained that “the social purpose of a company is to find profitable solutions to the challenges of people and planet,” crediting Oxford economist Colin Mayer for the definition. “Driving broad economic growth is perhaps the biggest thing that a company can do,” Mr. Nadella added. “In order to have the pie distributed evenly, the pie should first grow.”

As Andy Kessler explains:

finding “profitable solutions” is—shh, don’t give it away—basically the same as Milton Friedman’s “the social responsibility of business is to increase profits,” except with the crowd-pleasing word “planet” tacked on.

IMHO, public figures aren't liars when they say they are against climate change, racism, etc. However, they couldn't have gotten to where they are without a single-minded dedication to their business, their personal skills in sports or entertainment, or whatever else got them to the top of the heap.

Besides obeying the law, all other considerations are nice but secondary, and too many distractions could jeopardize their primary mission. Invest in social-media consultants, practice using words like "systemic racism", "sustainability", "equity", and others that placate the woke, and carry on.

"NASDAQ is Nuts"

You would comply if your Zoom board meetings looked like the above  (alderkoten image)

NASDAQ has proposed a diversity rule for corporate boards of directors: [bold added]

the rules would require most Nasdaq-listed companies to have, or explain why they do not have, at least two diverse directors, including one who self-identifies as female and one who self-identifies as either an underrepresented minority or LGBTQ+. Foreign companies and smaller reporting companies would have additional flexibility in satisfying this requirement with two female directors.

An "underrepresented minority" is defined as "Black or African American, Hispanic or Latinx, Asian, Native American or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, [or] two or more races or ethnicities."

Companies may be excused from compliance by "explaining their rationale for not meeting that objective", but it's probably easier not to get on the wrong side of the woke crowd. Just add a board seat or two and fill it with someone who checks the appropriate boxes. Your humble blogger qualifies to be in this group and respectfully raises his hand to be included in this gravy train necessary correction to the long-standing biases of corporate America.

The WSJ editorial board lets Warren Buffett, the greatest investor in American history, do the talking: [bold added]

The more we think about the new racial, gender and LGBTQ mandates for corporate directors that Nasdaq announced on Tuesday, the more absurd they seem.

How is a company supposed to find out if a board candidate is gay if that isn’t already known? Is it supposed to hire private detectives to look into it? Once that person joins the board, does the company then have to broadcast his or her sexual orientation in the annual report so progressives can be satisfied that the quota is met? We could go on.

For a dose of sanity, we thought readers might enjoy Warren Buffett’s views on what he looks for in a director. The following is from the legendary investor’s 2006 letter to shareholders in Berkshire Hathaway’s annual report:

“In selecting a new director, we were guided by our long-standing criteria, which are that board members be owner-oriented, business-savvy, interested and truly independent. . . .

Can't we all just get along?

“Charlie [ Munger, Berkshire vice chairman] and I believe our four criteria are essential if directors are to do their job—which, by law, is to faithfully represent owners. Yet these criteria are usually ignored. Instead, consultants and CEOs seeking board candidates will often say, ‘We’re looking for a woman,’ or ‘a Hispanic,’ or ‘someone from abroad,’ or what have you. It sometimes sounds as if the mission is to stock Noah’s ark. Over the years I’ve been queried many times about potential directors and have yet to hear anyone ask, ‘Does he think like an intelligent owner?’

“The questions I instead get would sound ridiculous to someone seeking candidates for, say, a football team, or an arbitration panel or a military command. In those cases, the selectors would look for people who had the specific talents and attitudes that were required for a specialized job. At Berkshire, we are in the specialized activity of running a business well, and therefore we seek business judgment.”

Nasdaq is nuts.

Sierra Club: They Thought They Were Protected

Some conservatives have decried leftism's "long march" through American institutions like universities, entertainment, mass media, churches, and big-city governments. With few worlds left to conquer, progressives are turning on liberal institutions that once gave them succor, such as the Sierra Club:

Teddy Roosevelt and John Muir at Glacier
Point in Yosemite National Park in 1903.
(Chronicle image)

The executive director of the Sierra Club apologized Wednesday for its “substantial role in perpetuating white supremacy,” and said John Muir, the club’s founder and an icon of the environmentalist movement, was a racist.

In his early morning post on the organization’s website, Michael Brune said that just as Black Lives Matter activists are pulling down monuments to Confederate leaders, the club must re-examine its past and “take down some of our own monuments.”

That includes Muir, who Brune admitted was beloved of many of the club’s members and whose writings “taught generations of people to see the sacredness of nature.”

But Muir also was close friends with Henry Fairfield Osborn and others connected to the eugenics movement, which looked to sterilize those whom white supporters of the movement pegged as “deficient”: the poor, physically and mentally disabled people, and those of “unfit” races, including Black, Latino and Jewish people.

Though I've often disagreed with Sierra Club policies, I respected their single-minded dedication to the environment. One always knew where they stood.

I could not care less about what John Muir said about non-whites like myself; Yosemite National Park and Sequoia National Park would not exist without him, and I give thanks for a life whose accomplishments far outweighed its faults.

Straying from its original mission into wokeness not only will dilute its effectiveness, but the Sierra Club will likely experience a melting away of existing members and their donations. We have seen this phenomenon occur in churches and college alumni associations and newspaper/magazine subscriptions.

I suppose that I should be happy about the slow dismantling of an institution whose politics are different from mine, but I'm not.

They Didn't Think This Through

Washington, DC (abc.net.au)

Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser has renamed a street leading to the White House "Black Lives Matter Plaza" and had the slogan painted in huge yellow letters on it.

"Black Lives Matter" murals and street signs are springing up all over.

I wonder if politicians have thought this through. The understanding that overt political messaging is forbidden on public property has been resoundingly overturned by officials who created the well-meaning signage.

Is "Black Lives Matter" spray-painted on a a fire-station wall still a crime? The graffiti artist was just emulating the example of the mayor.

If it isn't a crime, what about painting "All Lives Matter?" Any attempt to criminalize "All Lives Matter" counter-signage will be viewed as more liberal hypocrisy, i.e., free speech for me but not for thee.

People are already resentful of being scolded and even arrested for gathering in crowds while public health officials make an exception for politics they support.

It strains credulity that police defunding, dismantling, and disbanding is seriously being discussed when riots have destroyed city blocks across America.

Like the super-volcano under Yellowstone, I sense an anger building quietly beneath the surface. It will explode in November, and not in the direction that the headline writers hope for.

Concluding note: your humble blogger has long ago ceased to be angry about hypocrisy, injustice, and unfairness. Getting worked up about politics--or anything that I have no control over--is injurious to health.

Once this blows over, and it will in short-attention-span America, I will work toward improving the lives of the less fortunate as I have been doing for a while.

The Episcopal Church Unmasked

In the days after 9/11 no one in the general public knew much about why or how it happened. There was more FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis.

The twin towers were still a smoking ruin, and hope of finding survivors was fading. We were afraid to ride a train or airplane or attend a ball game or concert or go back to work in our high-rises.

Who were the terrorists who had slaughtered thousands of innocents? Where would they strike next? The anger was starting, and it was unfocused because we only had a general idea of where the terrorists came from.

I went to a crowded evening service that week to pray for wisdom and guidance and the souls of those who died.

The church did mention those subjects but had a different emphasis. The message from the pulpit was about forgiveness. Priests were already worried that we would lash out in anger at those who looked like the terrorists or those who came from the same countries.

That was one of the reasons I like going to church--to remind us how we can be better, to appeal to the better angels of our nature.

Over the years I've become alarmed at the changes in my church. In the name of social justice priests ask us to forgive some people but I've seen them become angry at those with different political views.

I still remember, while attending a convention before the 2016 election, how a lay delegate spoke against electing someone who would create a "vile" Supreme Court. (It was a middle-aged white woman from Marin County--see how stereotypes are created?)

Variants of this sign are in front of every Episcopal Church.

In the past week I've seen how Episcopal bishops, priests, and lay people have become extraordinarily upset by President Trump holding a Bible in front of St. John's Church.

Whether his photo-op was "appropriate" is controversial, but his right to do so on a public sidewalk cannot be in dispute.

The Episcopal Church in the 21st century: its leaders preach peace, love, and forgiveness when 3,000 are murdered in New York but fulminate against a President whom they loathe--yes, they should admit it!--taking a picture in front of a church.

Live to Recycle Another Day

I'd rather be in a car. (NY Daily News)

Two months ago we noted how environmental measures are now less important to the general public:

Washing hands frequently with soap and hot water for at least 20 seconds is recommended by State and Federal authorities, with nary a peep from local water districts, and everyone does this 10 to 20 times a day.

Chemical wipes are used all the time on public surfaces, and no one disapproves. No one frowns at the extra amount of trash.

If driving a car to work or school is at all an option, have you seen anyone choosing to put themselves or their kids on a filthy bus or train?

For years Starbucks and other coffee shops offered discounts to customers who bring in reusable (hard plastic, ceramic, metal) cups to reduce trash. The coronavirus has caused Starbucks to suspend this policy for sanitary reasons.

Now it's business' turn. Corporations who have touted their Environmental, Social, and Governance cred realize that ESG is secondary to survival: [bold added]

Today, every occupant of every C-suite is trying to figure out what they’re willing to throw overboard as the economic storm spawned by the pandemic is swamping their ships. Businesses that were planning to help save the world are now simply saving themselves...

“Belief in a new ‘sustainability’ model of capitalism is growing but will it endure?” Paul Pellizzari, the sustainability chief for Hard Rock International, wrote in a piece published Monday on the environmental media site GreenBiz. “Will mad scrambles to save profitability and market capitalization stall or kill a new paradigm?”

History suggests this new paradigm is probably on the back burner.

“Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."---Samuel Johnson

When It's OK to Steal

Helen Raleigh (Federalist)

Helen Raleigh is fed up, not with cultural appropriation, but with those who complain about it. [bold added]

No one is safe from being accused of “cultural appropriation,” or even “racial identity theft.” Whether you are rich and famous or an average Joe going about your life, culture police are everywhere to make sure that people don’t out of their lane to claim something that’s “not theirs.”

...Based on the social-justice warriors’ logic, people must only function within the ethnic identity and culture they were born into—for life. Authenticity, to them, means each cultural group must embrace its own culture and fiercely defend its unique traits from others.

Hamilton cast in 2016 (Entertainment Tonight)

Cultural appropriation is a sin committed only by whites. In fine dining Chef Gordon Ramsey was excoriated for opening an Asian restaurant when neither he nor his head chef were Asian. Yet here in San Francisco no one says a word when Asian chefs serve Italian or haute cuisine.

In entertainment, productions of the Mikado have been criticized heavily if they don't have Asian actors. On Broadway Hamilton, a musical about the American Founding played by a non-white cast, has been showered with accolades.

Helen Raleigh, who immigrated from China, welcomes Westerners trying to adopt elements of Chinese culture. Similarly, she is enthusiastic about Zumba and yoga classes, and she will snack on nachos on Super Bowl Sunday.

Your humble blogger pays no attention to those who want people to stay within their cultural confines. When they criticize Hamilton for cultural appropriation, I'll start listening.

[Note: just in case it isn't clear, I have no problem with the Mikado played by an all-white cast or Hamilton with non-white actors.]