A Big, Very Big One

Dictators, in particular, are fond of erecting large, flattering statues of themselves. It seems they need to see a physical structure to reinforce the notion of their fleeting greatness.  They also tend to have large military parades to reassure themselves of their power. And then when their moment in history disappears, their statues come tumbling down ala Saddam Hussein.

In light of that, I was fascinated to learn of the new statue of Sadar Patel in Gujarat, India. Rather than a figure of imposing power, this represents a man in quite ordinary clothing, shoes with toes missing, an unflattering middle-aged girth. Sadar was a key figure in India's freedom movement in the 1940's and a popular deputy prime minister.

This statue, known as the Statue of Unity, is a record 597 feet tall.

In comparison, the Statue of Liberty is a mere 305 feet.


My fear is that Donald Trump will hear of this statue and will want to build one of himself, only larger of course. He is into building things with his name attached. After all, he is the one who after the World Trade Towers collapsed on 9/11 proudly remarked that Trump Tower was now the tallest in NYC. He is, also, the man who admires dictators, whether Kim Jong-un or Vladimir Putin, and their military parades.

How could he resist building a "big, a very big" statue of himself? And, of course, Mexico will pay for it!

Or perhaps, he will redo Mount Rushmore.



Or maybe a classic nude.

No, that's just disgusting.

How Would St. Francis Vote?

St. Francis

Today, election day, 2018, I was fortunate to come upon "The Franciscan Benediction," and it spoke to my condition, discomfort with our leaders spewing forth multiple self-serving lies, anger with the political use of fear  and hate, tears for those suffering from the abuse of power and wealth, and finally foolishness for not doing my part in the cause of social justice.





Let's hope that today Christians will embrace their discomfort, anger, tears, and foolishness, and at the very least, go out and vote.

The Minority Menace

At the present time, the Republican Party controls the presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and a majority of the 50 governorships. Therefore, one would be tempted to conclude that since the USA is nominally a democratic nation, the Republican Party is the majority party; and of course, that is an erroneous conclusion.

More Americans identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans. President Trump is a minority president. He received 46.1% of the votes cast in 2016, fewer votes than his opponent, Hillary Clinton. In the Senate, although the GOP is in control, they were elected by only 46% of the popular vote. The GOP controls the House of Representatives as a result of gerrymandered congressional districts, allowing a popular minority to garner a majority of the seats. And then, the Supreme Court, whose members serve for life, has a Republican majority because of a two minority presidents (George W. Bush and Donald Trump).

In addition, those who govern in the US do not represent the population. The majority of our country is not composed of old, white, wealthy males.

Thus, it's no surprise that many consider the United States to be a marginal democracy. Each person's vote does not count the same. The will of the largest number of  US voters is irrelevant in our system of government.

Our Founding Fathers were squeamish about true democracy and created undemocratic constructs like the Electoral College and the US Senate. Because of the Electoral College, we have minority presidents like Donald Trump. Because of the structure of the US Senate, we have a situation in which a vote in Montana counts many times more than a vote in Illinois. But if one happens to be a US citizen in Puerto Rico, forget it. You have no senator; thus, no voice.

And, on top of that, they created a Supreme Court, an institution immune to the will of the people. And, as we have seen in the case of Brett Kavanaugh, although only 41% of the citizens approved of him, he was placed on the Court for life because of a few votes in the Senate.

2000 Supreme Court

The minorities reached new levels of power in the 2000 Presidential election, which was decided by ONE vote in the Supreme Court. Although more voters voted for Al Gore, George W. Bush became the next president because 5 of the 9 Supreme Courts Justices voted for him. The will of the majority of voters counted for nothing. One vote was more valuable than that of the rest of us.

Framers of constitutions frequently worry that the rights of the minority will be trampled by that of the majority. Is it not ironic then that in the US minorities can control the seats of power to the detriment of the majorities?

It appears, all things considered, if the will of the US people is to be served, an overwhelming majority is required, and even then the majority's power will be limited.

The past two years have demonstrated the menace of minority power. At any time in our history, a president like Donald Trump, even if elected by the Electoral Colege, would have been impeached. But since the GOP is in power in Congress, and is eager to maintain power, they are protecting the president and hoping that the Supreme Court with two Trump appointees will do the same.

Sadly, "promoting the general Welfare" as stated in the Consitution is not likely to occur under minority rule. Minorities, almost by definition, focus on their own welfare, not the common good.