Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Political Half-Truths and Patronizing Comments

News item from ABC's website on that Clinton finance committee member, Geraldine Ferraro's patronizing comments on Barack Obama. She says:

"the black community came out with ... pride in [Obama's] candidacy. You would think he would say 'thank you' for doing that, instead, I'm charged with being a racist."

In short her argument should sound like this (I'm paraphrasing for her): "Of course Obama got where he is because he is black and he has the support of the African American community. Hillary is being discrimnated against because she is a woman. But of course we being high-minded and playfully indulgent of the African Americans' little pipedream to get one among them into a presidential race can tolerate it to an extend- and they should just accept it with gratitude instead of going about as if they actually believed they are a community on the ascend."

What did Obama say about her? That Ferraro's comments are divisive. That he would leave it to the Clinton campaign to decide whether to fire her or not (in response to a question on this topic).

America can pat itself on its back till the cows come home about having a woman and a black presidential candidate competing for Democratic nomination, but the test will remain this: Are the American people deadly serious about this? If so it is not very convincing to hear Ms Ferraro's pompous comments about Obama's skin colour and Hillary's sexist problem. After all it really looks like she is the one who is playing the victim card for Hillary being a woman and trying to garner votes on that basis. Not Obama. When has Obama capitalized on his ethnicity overtly? If he actually did that would he have got close to getting the kind of support he is getting from so many Americans?

It's so sad to hear these comments.

On another note the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the Republicans are slowly strengthening in their support for John McCain, upto 77 percent of them being united in their support, while Democrats are divided over their support for either Obama or Clinton, many saying they would rather stay home on the election day than vote for the "other" Democratic candidate if he/she were chosen.

Washington Post reported yesterday just the opposite. Their 'nationwide' poll stated that McCain didn't have any support from the Republicans while 80 percent of the Democrats would vote for either Clinton or Obama and either nomination would not affect their decision.

Who is telling the truth? Perhaps their polls were targeted at their readers. In the case of WSJ they were likely Republican loyalists; and of course the Washington Post attracts primarily the Democratic loyalists. But this is as clear an indication s you would want to see that the media isn't and could never be the measure of truth in our society as they often purport themselves to be.

Friday, March 7, 2008

An Innocent Man Pays for a 26-Year Silence

"You've been telling half truths.One who tells lies hides the truth but when telling half truths,you've forgotten where you've put it."- Mr. Dryden, in Lawrence of Arabia

Evey now and then a stoy like this tugs at our notions of human justice. Here are the questions that come to mind at first shot:

1. Lawyers need to keep their clients' information confidential. Are there any exceptions to this? What if it threatens the survival or sovereignty of the nation? What about an outright confession of crime, such as in this case, when silence would mean that an innocent man will be punished in the perpetrator's stead?

2. Isn't it an obstruction of justice to keep knowledge of a crime secret? Doesn't that conflict with the lawyers' bond?

3. If these lawyers had come forward with this information, what would have happened? They may have lost their jobs and their licenses to practice law. But wouldn't it have been admitted in court as evidence?

4. If such a disclosure on the lawyers' part would have been admitted in court as evidence, shouldn't we question ourselves as to what we need law schools for? Are we (the same question could be asked medical schools) fostering simply careers by establishing law schools? Or aren't we attempting to uphold the law? Isn't the law at least partly sacred? From the Christian vantage point, isn't the law a poor version (but a version nevertheless) of God's law?

From a purely humanistic point of view, that last question doesn't hold any meaning. An innocent man was punished, the criminal went free, nothing more was said or done. The criminal completed a full life and handed in his dinner pail. The unfairly accused gets a re-trial after 26 years of his life have been wasted behind bars. The rest of the world went about their normal lives. Not a blip in the course of history. By and large the humanistic paradise didn't move much, did it? From a Christian's point of view this is injustice which will be surely answered with the perfect justice and the perfect mercy of God's judgment. This is an affront to God's original plan for humanity just as every sin has been before this.

If anything at all it points out to us the frailty of human justice and the still small voice inside of us seeking true justice. The Cross tells us that such justice is to be established first in ourselves. The judgment must indeed be meted out to each of us and the Cross cleanse us in fulfilment of that judgment and God's mercy.

Alton Logan paid for not just Andrew Wilson, the perpetrator, but also the lawyers whose silence sealed his fate, not to mention the loved ones of the accused whose desire for justice consumed him. Except in human terms he was unable to save any of their souls. That is possible only by the vicarious death and resurection of the One who being in the form of God did not consider equality with God something to be grasped to himself, btu made himself of no reputation, was found in fashion as a man and took our sins on his ravaged body on the Cross. Death could not keep him down and his life is our only hope.