Diane Rehm on Shopping Addiction

Continuing with the recent focus on stewardship issues, during the holidays I came across several items in the media about the modern materialism of Christmas.  That is a topic I’ve explored in my blogs in past years during the holiday season.  As described previously, it is deeply distressing to me that a holiday of deep religious importance is exploited for financial gain.  I also just have trouble wrapping my mind around the irony of using the birth of the Prince of Peace in a humble structure for animals to encourage an orgy of retail consumption.  To me, these are extremely troubling aspects of our modern American culture.

Last month, I caught a radio program Diane Rehm did on “Shopping Addiction.”  The show is accessible at the link below.

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-12-19/shopping-addiction

Clearly, Ms. Rehm timed this topic when she did because destructive shopping is particularly a problem in the weeks leading up to Christmas.  I appreciated the timing because as a Christ-follower I particularly worry that our savior’s birth has become a time of suffering for many due to overindulgence in consumptive spending.

There were several points in the radio program that particularly got my attention.

First, in discussing shopping addiction, the guests described it as “an emotional and even spiritual issue.”  One guest talked about going to Debtors Anonymous to “find a spiritual solution” in the 12 step program.  (The first step is admitting one’s powerlessness to the addiction, then the second step is belief in a higher power who can restore and give strength.)

I thought recognizing the spiritual aspect of this problem was a good point.  Blaise Pascal described the “God-shaped vacuum” in every human heart that we try unsuccessfully to fill with other things.  Listening to the stories of people who spend so recklessly and jeopardize their families’ financial health, it is hard for me in some ways to understand.  But thinking of this problem as a spiritual issue helps me to understand better.  We all have hurts and fears and vulnerabilities.  Different people deal with those issues in different ways.  A lot of people in our society drink large amounts of alcohol.  Others smoke, use narcotics, eat junk food, have lots of sexual partners or gamble.  And apparently, some folks shop excessively.  I find that so sad because that is not a sustainable solution to our struggles, and will never fill that “God-shaped vacuum.”

Second, one of the guests on Ms. Rehm’s show, Dr. April Benson, described shopping addiction as a “smiled-upon addiction because consumption fuels our economy.”  Dr. Benson went on to say that “[t]he only other addiction that I think is condoned by society might be workaholism. However, the same brain chemicals that are stimulated in alcohol and drug addiction we think are stimulated in compulsive buying episodes and some of the same underlying causes create a compulsive shopping behavior.” 

I thought these were fascinating statements. 

In essence, our modern consumer society is so dependent on copious spending that we turn a blind eye to very destructive behavior.  The focus on shopping is not just destructive because people get into debt or spend when they ought to be saving.  The overemphasis on consumption, in my opinion, is also spiritually destructive.  If our focus is always on accumulation of more stuff, then it is not on spiritual matters.  If we use our time shopping, we’re not spending time with our Higher Power, supporting our loved ones, or serving the least of those around us.  Recreational shopping may temporarily prop up parts of the economy, but in the long-run it does not help build a healthy society.

It was also fascinating that Dr. Benson describes workaholism as another condoned addiction.  To me, that is another manifestation of our consumerist society.  We value human beings for their productivity in terms of quantifiable, economic output, e.g., the number of billable hours, the number of widgets manufactured, the volume of sales, etc.  Our society approves of those who work excessive hours because that demonstrates a strong work ethic and produces quantifiable, economic output.  Due to the familial culture in which I was raised, and the fact that I’m a member of a workaholic profession, I certainly respect a strong work ethic.  I’m not advocating that we become a nation of slackers.  But when people work excessively at their jobs such that their family and/or community are neglected, that is not a healthy situation for any of us.  However, we don’t tend to recognize that much.

 

 

Matthew 6:19-21

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

The Election of Rev. Fred Luter, Jr.

I recently came across an article about the election of Reverend Fred Luter, Jr. to lead the Southern Baptist Convention:

http://news.yahoo.com/southern-baptists-elect-1st-black-president-200546902.html

The headline read: “Southern Baptists elect 1^st black president.”  I had heard several months ago that this was a possibility, so this news did not really surprise me.  But it was interesting nonetheless. 

More so than some other mainline Christian denominations, I actually have a relatively close connection to the Southern Baptists.  I’m from the South, so I’ve certainly had plenty of friends and acquaintances who were Southern Baptists, but my connection is closer than just that.  A lot of my family and many of my closest childhood friends are Southern Baptist.  I’ve attended Southern Baptist churches all my life.  As a teenager, I even worked at the day care center of a Southern Baptist congregation in the neighborhood where I lived. 

Based on these experiences, I can say honestly that the Southern Baptist denomination is not my cup of tea. I never felt led to be baptized in that denomination or even attend one of its churches regularly.  That is ok.  Everyone is different.  I mean no disrespect in saying the Southern Baptist Church is not for me.  I respect that lots of fine folks are Southern Baptists and the Church does a lot of great work. 

One of the reasons I was never real comfortable in the Southern Baptist churches I attended was my sense of its homogeneity.  Pretty much everyone was white and middle class.  They were also very conservative politically; “Reagan” was a name folks liked, “Jane Fonda” was not.  When they went to church, the Southern Baptists I knew wore their Sunday best.  Many of the ladies had the same floral patterned cloth Bible covers.  Everyone was good at rote memorization and could rattle off Bible verses.  I never felt like I fit in with any of that.

I think I was always familiar to some degree with the history of the Southern Baptist Convention.  But more than the reason it was formed in the 19^th century, as a kid I always had a sense of the modern, on-going implicit racism. 

My own Southern Baptist grandparents were white Southerners of a generation pretty warped by bigotry and poverty.  The “n word” was certainly a part of their vocabulary, which horrified and confused me even as a little child.  I knew that was a vile word you were not supposed to ever say.  So, it always stunned me when my Southern Baptist grandparents muttered it. 

And it really confused me because that set of grandparents were the most religious ones in my family.  How could my most religious relatives also be the most racist?  That never jived in my little brain.  I didn’t understand how people who seemed to take Jesus so seriously would be so racist.  Even as a kid, the little I knew about Jesus led me to think he would not have been uttering racial epithets or supporting second-class treatment of people of a different race or ethnicity.  I did not understand. 

What’s more, I was particularly confused when we went to my grandparents’ huge church and the only non-white faces were the row of gentleman in the back row in traditional African garb.  Their presence was evidence of the church’s enthusiastic support of foreign missions.  It didn’t make sense to me that my grandparents’ church would seem inhospitable towards people of African descent when they were born on American soil, but would go out of their way to bring people from Africa across an ocean to Texas.  That really seemed like a contradiction my little brain couldn’t comprehend.

But I know the Southern Baptists have made great strides over the years. 

My Dad’s church (which is the same one where my grandparents were members) is much more diverse now.  They have a very vibrant ministry to Laotian immigrants, and the church does extensive work to help the immigrants get settled into homes and find jobs in the community. 

One of my close friends is on the board of the congregation where I worked as a teen in the day care center.  That Southern Baptist church hired a pastor a few years ago who is a woman and African American.  Their congregation also has a strong ministry in the Latino community and has learned to do quinciñeras. 

When I was in law school, my husband used his extra free time by teaching in an ESL ministry of a local Southern Baptist church.  They taught hundreds of Latino immigrants practical language skills regardless of their religious affiliation.

Because I know Southern Baptists have made great strides, I wasn’t surprised by the headline of this article.  It simply seemed like a good thing.  What actually got my attention in reading this article was a point very relevant to the recent posts of this blog.  Per the article, Reverend Luter grew up with “a divorced mother and no father in the house.”  As a result, he prayed that he would be the role model for his own son that he himself never had. 

Apparently, Reverend Luter’s ministry has involved an “intensive outreach to men” in his hometown of New Orleans.  He has also expressed “concern that men in his inner-city neighborhood were not taking responsibility for their children.”  I’m not even sure what his ministry does exactly, but it sounds good to me. 

I think more churches need to minister to men.  It is confusing in this day and age as to what is expected and appropriate of men.  For the past century or more, the role of father in the family has consisted almost exclusively of breadwinner.  Dads left the home to earn money to support the family.  Period.  That model doesn’t really work in the 21^st century when many women outperform men in terms of educational attainment and earn a paycheck. 

Moreover, in many economically depressed and isolated communities, there are few if any legal means to earn a paycheck.  Not being able to provide for one’s family can be such a crippling blow to a man’s self-respect due to society’s expectations.  “Demoralizing” doesn’t begin to describe the impact.  I certainly don’t condone but can perhaps understand to some degree why men in such situations might withdraw from their families when they cannot provide for them financially.  I’ve seen in happen in families I know.  It is heartbreaking on many levels.  The church may not be able to provide jobs to men in such situations, but we can certainly help men cope with that sort of challenge.

Job 29:16

I was a father to the poor and assisted strangers who needed help.

Devotion

I’m not sure how, but I recently came across the following article on David Beckham:

http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/dish/201206/david-beckham-diaper-changing-retirement-plans

Honestly, I’m not much of a soccer fan unless my children are on the field.  And I am aware that Mr. Beckham is married to and has kids with one of the former Spice Girls, but I don’t follow celebrity “news” closely, so I don’t know much about their family.  Nonetheless, I somehow came across and read this article, in which Mr. Beckham’s post-soccer plans were discussed. 

Admittedly, it was a strange article.  It is based upon Snoop Dogg’s discussion of Mr. Beckham’s plans based on private conversations the two friends have had.  I must confess that for a variety of reasons, I’m not a fan of Mr. Dogg.  I admit I’m not terribly familiar with his work, so perhaps I’m being unfair.  I guess I have trouble getting past the associations with drugs, violence and sexualization in his media persona.  But perhaps that is all just hype and he is a great guys.

Anyhow, the article above was about how (per Mr. Dogg) Mr. Beckham wants to devote himself to his kids full-time and even have more kids when his soccer career is eventually over.  Apparently, Mr. Beckham had told Mr. Dogg he would “love to be a stay-at-home dad” in the future.  The thought is that Mr. Beckham’s wife, Victoria, could devote more of her time to her clothing labels while Mr. Beckham is “staying at home and making the breakfast and changing the diapers.” 

Mr. Dogg commended Mr. Beckham for being such a “passionate father” and for “keeping it real for all fathers out there.”  The article concludes with the author, Ben Maller, indicating: “All things considered, with a reported net worth of more than $200 million, Beckham can afford to retire as Mr. Mom with many more children.”

I don’t know the Dogg or Beckham families, so I cannot comment on the accuracy of the information in the article.  But I thought several aspects of this article were interesting.

First, it is apparently “news” that a father wants to spend more time with his children.  That seems unusual to most of us, maybe even odd.  Lots of moms want to spend more time with their kids.  That seems to be expected though.  In our culture, we don’t necessarily expect a dad to want to spend time caring for his kids.  The unspoken assumption seems to be that fathers should be accomplishing things with their time, not investing it in their families.  What does that assumption say about our culture?  What does it say about our values?

Second, per Mr. Dogg, being a stay at home parent seems chiefly to involve “making the breakfast and changing the diapers.”  I am not picking on Mr. Dogg.  I suspect that he is actually representing the view of many people in our society when citing tasks like those first in a quick brainstorm of the responsibilities of a stay-at-home parent.  That is interesting.  Those are fairly ministerial tasks.  Rich folk like the Doggs and Beckhams can hire someone to cook breakfast and change junior’s diaper.  Heck, less affluent folks effectively do the same when they send their kids to day care.  To me, that is not the greatest value of a caregiver.  You can feed someone and wipe feces off their butt without caring about them as human beings.  To me, the real value of parents or any caregiver is investing time in a child.  Making them feel loved by listening to them, engaging them, playing with them, and teaching them. 

Third, I thought Mr. Maller’s closing statement about Mr. Beckham being able to “retire as Mr. Mom” was very telling.  For those who don’t know, Mr. Mom was a 1983 film by John Hughes starring Michael Keaton as a dad who lost his job and became a full-time caregiver while his wife resumed her career to support the family.  It was a silly comedy about role-switching adventures when husband and wife exchange traditional roles.  It was such a crazy concept at the time: a husband staying home to clean the house and take care of the children.  Wild stuff!  But that concept is still so novel that almost 30 years later, when a father contemplates staying home to care for his kids, this silly film is still referenced. 

Further, Mr. Maller’s phrasing suggests that being a caregiver is not a sufficient enough vocation for a primary career.  Being a full-time caregiver is something you retire to—like playing golf or taking up crafts.  It is essentially a leisure activity.  It is not important.  You do it only after you are finished with your “real” career.  (Kicking a ball around a field is clearly so much more important than raising children to be happy, well-adjusted adults.)

I find these attitudes interesting and telling.  They are really insightful into tragic societal attitudes about caregiving in general and fathering in particular.

Psalm 94:6
They slay the widow and the foreigner; they murder the fatherless.

Reflections on Mother’s Day

As an academic, May is a very hectic time for me professionally.  It was a blur, but Mother’s Day was almost two weeks ago.  Around that time, two very different Mother’s Day-themed articles caught my attention.  They seemed apropos to share in light of my recent posts on women’s roles and family separation.

The first article is about the “most powerful” moms: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/world-s-most-powerful-moms.html?page=1.  It originated from Forbes. 

I wasn’t really sure what they meant by “powerful.”  That is sort of an ambiguous term.  Power derives from a variety of sources, e.g., actual authority in the work place, influence in the home, influence in one’s community or profession, physical strength, the size of one’s bank account or credit limit, etc.  I wasn’t even sure what kind of power Forbes was intending. 

And it just seemed an odd thing to try to rank.  Power is hard to quantify.  I’m not really sure why one would want to quantify it and rank people, but there is interest in that apparently. 

When I came across the article, I also just wondered about societal attitudes towards power.  I guess by virtue of this ranking by a famous business magazine, power is something people admire and maybe even desire. I suppose I know that intellectually, but that does not make a lot of sense to me.  And I don’t know I had any particular admiration for the women who made it into this elite list.

From a Christian world view, power is not something to be envied or necessarily pursued.  Jesus rejected attempts to give him earthly power and instead made himself vulnerable on the cross.  Dr. Tony Campolo wrote a fascinating book about that: Which Jesus?: Choosing Between Love and Power.  I blogged about the book a couple years ago: http://progressivechristianitylaw.blogspot.com/2009/10/which-jesus-choosing-between-love-power.html.  It is a terrific book and I highly recommend it.

The second article I came across was a photo essay about Mother’s Day in Prison:  http://news.yahoo.com/photos/mother-s-day-in-prison-slideshow/#crsl=%252Fphotos%252Fmother-s-day-in-prison-slideshow%252Fmother-s-day-in-prison-photo-1336857250.html.  Having just spent a lovely day with my own precious kids, I shed a bunch of tears when I looked at these photos on Mother’s Day evening. 

Being a mom inspires one to want to protect and nurture the vulnerable little human beings who are your children.  That is what being a mom is all about.  It is your job to take care of them, keep them from harm, and help them develop into the people God intended.  You’re supposed to hug them when they have nightmares or get frustrated by long division.  You are supposed to give them a smile and tell them they are beautiful even when they feel ugly due to a new hairstyle or a pimple.  You are supposed to make them a healthy breakfast even if you are exhausted and haven’t consumed your coffee yet.  You do those things not because anyone makes you do them, but because you have such a profound and powerful love for these little people.  You’d do just about anything for them. 

With that mindset, I looked at the photos in this slideshow and tried to imagine the experiences of these children and mothers who live so far apart, who see each other so infrequently.  These children, who have to be bused in to see their moms on Mother’s Day, are essentially growing up without a mom.  Quite a stark contrast to the Forbes article, these incarcerated moms are incredibly powerless.  The most personal, most vital relationships of their lives are completely dictated by the impersonal decisions made by others in the criminal justice system.

I teach Criminal Law.  I understand retributionist and utilitarian arguments for imprisonment.  But the reality is that the vast majority of women in prison have not committed any violent offense.  Most are serving time for drug offenses and/or are caught up in an overly broad net of accomplice liability when their husbands, boyfriends or lovers actually commit the target offense. 


And I won't even get into the issue of wrongful conviction.  Over 90 percent of criminal cases never go to trial.  Hiring a lawyer is expensive and court-appointed attorneys are notoriously over-worked.  So, there are serious issues as to whether people in prison have even committed the crimes for which they are serving time.  But that is a complicated issue for another day.

Even assuming everyone in prison is guilty, in this age of dire government debt and overspending, I don’t understand why we insist on continuing our ill-conceived experiment in mass incarceration.  Others have written at length how we incarcerate a higher percentage of our population than any other nation—even the People’s Republic of China can’t compare.  Criminologists and fiscal conservatives have made cogent arguments that we need to take a smarter, more financially responsible approach to criminal justice.  I tend to agree.

But looking at this photo essay, the more pressing issue to me was what we’re doing to families.  Our experiment in mass incarceration has been going on for several decades.  In a country that purports to embrace family values, how can the ripping apart of families be a good thing?  How can there be no allowance made to support the retention and nurturing of family bonds?  What do we think will happen to the precious little children who grow up without enough hugs and encouragement from their moms (and dads)?

Psalm 116:16
Truly I am your servant, LORD; I serve you just as my mother did; you have freed me from my chains.

Discovery Atlas: China Revealed (Women and Families)

There were a few other parts of Discovery Atlas: China Revealed that seem particularly relevant to this blog.    For example, part of the documentary featured the PRC’s war on drugs.  The film focused on the nation’s drug police.  There was a scene where a taxi driver was arrested for dealing drugs, and the narrator noted that he would face the death penalty for such crimes.

The film then focused on the experience of a female drug police officer.  As a woman, she had broken barriers to succeed and excel in her profession.  It was noted how rare and amazing her achievements were in the male-dominated culture of the PRC.  It was also noted that she constantly had to prove herself despite her past achievements.

The film also noted that this female drug police officer was a single woman.  In her interview, she expressed that she couldn’t find Mr. Right, and men did not seem to approve of her professional accomplishments.  In listening to her, I came away with the sense that she was destined to a life of loneliness simply due to her professional success.  That was very sad to me.

However, I was heartbroken by the attitudes of the parents of this female drug police officer.  Apparently, she was their only daughter.  In their interview, they initially described their pride in her accomplishments.  But contradictorily, they also spent a lot of time expressing concern that she had not taken a more traditional path in life.  Her parents wished she had become a full-time wife and mother. 

My heart just broke for the female drug police officer.  She had worked so hard and accomplished so much, but she was still being condemned by her parents.  And how hurtful it must have been to be condemned for not having started a family.  I had the sense that she was already sad about her inability to find a supportive, suitable partner.  I had the sense she did not want to end up alone in the world such that her parents’ condemnation seemed to be rub salt in the wound.

Moreover, I felt very frustrated that the parents were so ungrateful for their daughter’s hard work.  Despite the fact that she comes home late from grueling hours at her job with the drug police, she cooks for her parents and cleans their clothes (by hand because they did not have a washing machine).  She seemed to be supporting them financially and caring for all their basic needs.  They lived in her home.  She was clearly making a lot of sacrifices for them. 

This drug police officer was caring for them and was asking little of them, which seemed odd to me.  They looked to be about 60 years of age and in very good health.  Indeed, I was surprised they didn’t have jobs themselves.  They seemed a little young to have retired.  But even if they had retired, they seemed to be perfectly capable of caring for themselves.  I was stunned that they were not doing more to pitch in around the house.  From my perspective, they ought to have been washing her clothes and having a hot meal on the table for her when she got home from a long day on the job.  The parents’ attitude seemed selfish and not loving.

Colossians 3:21

Fathers, do not aggravate your children, or they will become discouraged.

John & Wanda Casias in Mexico

I have known a lot of people over the years who have done short-term mission work in Mexico.  This is perhaps not a great surprise because I have lived in states along our southern border for most of my life.  However, I have even known folks from northern parts of the United States who have gone to Mexico on mission trips.  Mexico has traditionally been an attractive place for Americans to do mission work because of its proximity.  Many people drive from their homes to the specific location in Mexico where their mission project takes place.

Typically, the folks I have known who have done mission work in Mexico have been white, Anglo Protestants with little or no familiarity with the Spanish language.  Generally, they go to rural areas of Mexico that are underserved and experiencing tremendous poverty.  I have known people who went to build schools, churches or homes.  I have also known folks who have gone to work with children in orphanages or to help Mexican communities set up their own non-Catholic Christian churches.  The people I have known generally have gone on these short-term mission trips under the auspices of their own home church in the United States.  Occasionally, these trips are organized in conjunction with a larger organization like Habitat for Humanity.

In recent years, the drug trafficking violence in Mexico has escalated dramatically. In some areas, it seems to have spiraled out of control and lawlessness reigns.  As a result, traveling in Mexico for pleasure or in service of others has become much more dangerous.  During this time, I haven’t heard of as many ministries reaching out to serve the people of Mexico. 

Not long ago I came across a news article about two American missionaries who were killed in Mexico.  Those missionaries were John and Wanda Casias.  I did a little more research and found their website:

www.casias.org. 

The Casias were Baptist Christians from Texas.  They moved to Mexico to serve full-time as missionaries almost 30 years ago.  They gave up a comfortable lifestyle in their own country to minister full-time to people in a fairly remote part of a foreign nation.  And they did this not for just a brief stint, but for a significant portion of their lives. 

I have read a lot of the Casias’ website and I probably disagree with some of their theology.  But I admire their sacrifice and dedication.  I admire the great love they clearly had for the people of Mexico to have served them for so long.  Their love was apparently so great that they did not leave when violence in Mexico became more pronounced in recent years.  That is quite a testament to their faith and to God’s love.

John 15:13

Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

The Rush Limbaugh Show

During our family’s long Christmas road trip, we drove through lots of remote parts of the country that was frankly underserved by radio programming.  At times, my husband and I got a little tired of all the holiday music and the juvenile fiction audio books our daughters were listening to.  We wanted a change of pace and were a little desperate for something else.  At a few points on the journey, we came across Rush Limbaugh’s show as the only radio option. 

My husband and I actually find Mr. Limbaugh kind of funny in some ways.  I know many left of center folks find Mr. Limbaugh highly offensive and believe it is a travesty that he broadcasts at all.  I don’t know that I have much (if anything) in common with Mr. Limbaugh from an ideological perspective.  My faith informs my political values, and as I understand Mr. Limbaugh is not a particularly religious man.  Nonetheless, I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment and would vigorously defend his right to broadcast. 

My husband has a great sense of humor and cracks me up a lot.  He is one of the least political people I know.  He wasn’t even registered to vote until we were engaged and I got wind of the omission.  My husband is also from a small town in rural Texas and he worked for years in corporate America.  In such contexts, Rush is often cited as a minor prophet.  But my apolitical hubby has always seen through Mr. Limbaugh and thought his ramblings were a terrific joke to garner ratings.  Always the joker, my husband would gently antagonize co-workers when they were quoting Rush with reference to his violations of our nation’s drug laws and his many marriages.  That often got the goat of Mr. Limbaugh’s devoted fans, which amused my husband to no end.

As a result of this perspective, when we found Mr. Limbaugh’s program on the dial in those remote areas on our trip, our eyes lit up and with eager amusement we agreed to listen.  Neither of us had taken time to listen to Mr. Limbaugh in many years.  We’ve been busy raising our kids and frankly don’t have as much free time for such things.  But when I used to listen to Mr. Limbaugh regularly (in part to know what folks around me were talking about), he seemed to have a well-grounded point.  I rarely agreed with him and there often seemed to be an odd strain of paranoia in his ramblings.  But at least he seemed to have a discernible ideology and some consistent analysis.   

When we listened to several of his shows recently, however, Mr. Limbaugh seemed quite different from his old self from years past.  He seemed to have run out of steam.  We listened to several shows on the trip, so I don’t think this was just an off program.

For example, Mr. Limbaugh often made references that seemed racist.   He went on and on about political figures he disliked, and then made strange, seemingly off-topic comments dripping with sarcasm about how at least the person was not a racist.  Those seemed to come from nowhere and didn’t seem to make any sense in those contexts.  Other times he made references to Republicans being afraid to stand up to President Obama because he was black.  I didn’t quite get that.  He also railed against President Obama going Christmas shopping.  I didn’t really see how that was an issue.  Didn’t that support conservative concerns such as the economy, capitalism and the recognition of Christmas?  Mr. Limbaugh seemed to really be scraping the bottom of the barrel at that point.

In a truly strange segment of one show, Mr. Limbaugh went on at length to defend parents who had named their children after Nazis and had had their children taken into protective custody.  It was really hard to follow what his point was with that rant.  At times, I got the impression Mr. Limbaugh was endorsing white supremacy, which is not a bent I would have thought he would embrace.  Towards the end of the rant, Mr. Limbaugh questioned in a paranoid fashion whether children would be taken by CPS if their parents had named them for Che Guevara or Mao Zedong.  I didn’t really follow what he was getting at.  I am a registered Democrat.  I don’t approve of anyone who callously violates human rights to secure or hold political power—whether or not such violations are allegedly done in order to minimize the misery of the poor.  I don’t know if Mr. Limbaugh thought that the American left reveres Guevara or Zedong.  That certainly has not been my experience.  There are no children named “Che” or “Mao” in our family’s social circle.

A particularly odd segment of the radio program occurred when Mr. Limbaugh had been criticizing Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy, then took a caller who offered a countervailing view and defended the president’s record.  Initially, Mr. Limbaugh was respectful and let the caller state his views.  Then the caller made an unfortunate, mistaken point about the Obama administration spurring job growth in the caller’s community—particularly good factory jobs.  Mr. Limbaugh then asked the caller to elaborate on the kind of “factory jobs” in his community, and the caller referenced what are really retail jobs at Wal-Mart and Target.  Clearly, the caller was mistaken and didn’t understand what factory jobs were.  Mr. Limbaugh did not challenge the caller when he was on the line, but after the caller hung up, Mr. Limbaugh went on at some length to make fun of the mistake.  My husband and I were quite skeptical that this was a legitimate caller, the whole thing seemed to be staged.  How many supporters of President Obama listen to Mr. Limbaugh’s program and then also call in to defend him?  Interestingly, the caller spoke in an African American dialect.  I’m sure we listeners were supposed to catch on that the caller was black.  In that context, the whole (probably contrived) exchange seemed particularly offensive.  To me, it seemed to be patently racist. 

Later, Mr. Limbaugh referenced Representative Barney Frank, and did not miss the opportunity to make a comment about fruits and vegetables.  It seemed a pretty immature comment.  Yes, we all know Mr. Frank is homosexual.  Let’s make a silly reference to “fruits” to make fun of that point.  Giggle, giggle.  How comical.  It is the sort of unsophisticated humor that kids use in junior high.  Mr. Limbaugh is way beyond junior high, however, so it seemed very sad that he would sink to that level.  Mr. Frank has done a lot during his career.  But apparently Mr. Limbaugh cannot get beyond his sexual orientation, and is so threatened he has to make silly jokes.  I was embarrassed for Mr. Limbaugh.

After the “fruits” comment, my husband and I just couldn’t listen anymore and turned the radio off.  We didn’t want our kids exposed to that kind of language.  I felt sad for Mr. Limbaugh.  If you are a principled conservative, there is plenty to talk about in a radio program.  But his show seems to have devolved to just silly, bigoted nonsense. 

 

Zechariah 7:10
Don’t oppress the widow, the orphan, the stranger, and the poor; don’t plan evil against each other!