Safe Haven

 I tread lightly, because this discussion takes place after the brutal murder of eight Asian-Americans by a white shooter near Atlanta, Georgia. I certainly join all of the condemnations, and I am not afraid to examine the insularity and privilege which allows these sorts of things to happen. I simply have a question or two--perhaps more--for the progressive framework which has given us "intersectionality," "white privilege," and other terms. Does the framework intend to say that white males, for example, are always in the position of an oppressor? Does the framework intend to say that certain subgroups of people are always in the position of the oppressed? If the answer to either or both of these questions is "yes," then how might a white male have access to truth that he was not given? In other words, does privilege prevent the man's access to truth that is ascertained by reason? Does the framework allow for shared access to the truth known by reason

 Light and darkness is a constant theme for St. John in this Gospel. If you want, you can go back to my thoughts on the prologue at the very beginning to see this. That's St. John talking directly to the readers, in a sense before he begins to tell us the story of Jesus. Even there, St. John wants us to know that he believes Jesus is the light of the world. In this section, Jesus tells us himself. Jesus and the Pharisees get into an argument about the authority of Jesus's testimony, because everyone in the discussion is aware of what the law given to Moses says about the importance of witnesses. Jesus again reminds the listeners that he has been sent by the Father. For Jesus, this would be enough, but he had also previously said that his own works bear witness to his identity. In other words, according to Jesus as recorded by St. John, Jesus has provided enough evidence to be trusted and listened to. It is up to each of us to decide what we think about the most important questi

I do not intend to say that there are no valid concerns about the influence of giant multinational corporations over the national and international interest. What I do intend to say is that as long as tech companies are governed by wealthy, mostly white, educated liberals and progressives, there will be plenty of resentment that can be repackaged as fears about corporate influence. The Republican Party is still driven by populism on the one hand, and resentment toward urban white liberals and progressives on the other. Unless and until some trust-busting instincts issue forth in policy prescriptions, I'm calling this out as dishonest. And this populism does have a tinge of racism, if not more than a tinge. You can't absorb the old Democratic "solid South," change nothing, and not be held back by regressive racial attitudes. The fault comes in for the political organization when you lean into it intentionally. That's what conservatives--whatever that means, anyway-