It was bad enough that the only Capitol Police allowed to testify at this week's January 6 Commission hearing were disgruntled members of the force, one of whom has a long record of anti-Trump statements and support for Black Lives Matter riots. We have also learned that the Capitol Police are opening offices in Florida and California, the better to investigate potential threats against legislators, which is normally the job of the FBI.
Now Nancy Pelosi is ordering Capitol Police to arrest anyone in the complex who refuses to wear a mask -- a penalty more severe than any that is imposed anywhere in the nation on anybody.
Pelosi has long been a petty tyrant. She centralized power in her office during her first tenure as Speaker (2007-11), infamously passing Obamacare before anyone really knew what was in it. When she regained the Speaker's gavel, she insisted that she was co-equal to President Donald Trump, whom she also impeached, twice, on flimsy grounds. She used proxy voting -- not just to fend off the coronavirus, but to centralize power even further. Since President Joe Biden took office, she has lorded it over the opposition, despite losing seats in the last election. She has kicked Republicans off committees, undermining the legitimacy of the opposition, and now she wants to arrest people who dare not to wear masks, even though they may be vaccinated. If masks work so well, then someone else not wearing one is not really a major additional risk, is it?
I believe masks do work, but I would deliberately not wear one in Congress, if I were working there. Let them arrest me. Civil disobedience to this tyrant is absolutely necessary and long overdue.
But beyond the issue of masks, what we see happening is the deliberate politicization of the Capitol Police into a praetorian guard -- the one police force Democrats want to valorize, since it protects the elite politicians against the voting rabble. This damage will take a long time to undo.
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
