Political Correctness, Apu, and the Golden Rule

from a photo by John Biehler

Hank Azaria talked with the New York Times about why he decided to stop voicing The Simpsons South Asian character, Apu.

“A key turning point, Azaria said, was realizing that while he may not be offended by a prominent character that mocked white Jewish men like himself, ‘[If] that character were the only representation of Jewish people in American culture for 20 years, which is the case with Apu, I might not love that.’”

That realization does seem like a turning point. 

These days, all the people I know who regularly complain about political correctness are a) White people who identify as Evangelical Christians, and b) deeply offended by common stereotypes of White American Evangelicals. (I’m not saying White Evangelicals are the only ones who complain about political correctness ... just that that’s who I hear complaining.)

Of all the people I think should be able to put two and two together on the question of mistaking situational awareness and kindness for political correctness, the most obvious to me are those claiming to have a personal relationship with Jesus, who famously said:

“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. — Matthew 7.12 New American Standard Bible

I don’t find a lot of wiggle room in this Golden Rule that seems to me like a pretty good example of plainspeak.

These days, on the whole, my American Jewish friends seem to be closer to Jesus on this than many of my American Evangelical Christian friends.

To be clear, I do not claim a large number of American Jewish friends — only that the people I know who identify as both American and Jewish behave as if this ethic were indeed the Law and the Prophets. Whether or not they would say, in so many words, that they agree with Jesus on this point, I bear witness to what looks to me like excellent behavior in this regard.

On the other hand, I have had, and have, a multitude of friends who think of themselves as Evangelicals — they are the tribe who raised me. And it is my testimony today that many of them seem less than enamored with - if not at odds with - the Jesus whose words make up all but the last sentence of chapter seven in Matthew’s Gospel.

If Matthew is to be taken as a serious source, and if Jesus is to be believed, I think people who hate being stereotyped, disrespected, and mischaracterized for being White American Evangelicals should not be the last to identify the cultural doctrine against political correctness as an excuse for rudeness, exclusion, and lovelessness … they should be the first.

But they’re not. I don’t mean everyone who thinks of himself as an American Evangelical; I just mean the ones who mock other people for being snowflakes when they are awfully sensitive themselves — sensitive to the point of entitlement … sensitive to the point of looking silly — and then acting hurt and angry when people laugh at them. 

I don’t imagine any of the people I’m thinking about would, in so many words, disagree with Jesus about the Golden Rule. But if, as Jesus says a few sentences earlier, we are meant to recognize trees by the fruit they bear, it would appear that what some folks want is to be treated with contempt, because that’s certainly how they treat others.

Nothing to see here post impeachment trial

In the two weeks following the impeachment trial, the President:

• Intervened in the sentencing of an accomplice convicted on multiple counts

• Called for a wholesale prosecution of his “enemies”

• Punished government employees who lawfully testified in or leading to impeachment hearings

• Fired the Director of National Intelligence for permitting a proper intelligence briefing to Congress

So … this is going well…. 

Red Dawn | the 2020 presidential election

2020 is turning out to be the Red Dawn presidential election — US intelligence agencies spotted Russians landing on US soil and, now, the President has apparently responded by firing the Director of National Intelligence for briefing Congress on the landing.

You know Patrick Swayze — or Chris Hemsworth, if that’s your bent — and the Wolverines would not take this lying down ... nor should any American.

one way to respond to impeachment acquittal

Transcript of President Clinton's Rose Garden Statement after acquittal by the Senate on two counts of impeachment, February 12, 1999, Courtesy of C-Span

President Clinton enters the Rose Garden.

The President: Now that the Senate has fulfilled its constitutional responsibility bringing this process to a conclusion, I want to say again to the American people how profoundly sorry I am for what I said and did to trigger these events and the great burden they have imposed on the Congress and on the American people.

I also am humbled and very grateful for the support and the prayers I have received from millions of Americans over this past year.

Now I ask all Americans, and I hope all Americans here in Washington and throughout our land, will rededicate ourselves to the work of serving our nation and building our future together. This can be and this must be a time of reconciliation and renewal for America. Thank you very much.

As the President leaves the podium, a reporter calls out: In your heart, sir, can you forgive and forget?

The President returns to the podium: I believe any person who asks for forgiveness has to be prepared to give it.

The President exits.

Kind words on Crossing the Difference

Kind words about 3Practices for Crossing the Difference Divide from my longtime Solana Beach, California friend, Mike Deal. Thanks Mike!

So enjoying this awesome little book. It’s not about winning, it’s not about being “right”, it’s not about changing opinions, it may not even be about finding common ground. In fact it might be about finding uncommon ground. 

I don’t know how it ends, but it’s got my feet to the fire.

There's lots more about the 3Practices at 3Practices.com. Browse around, see what you think.

Super Bowl Canceled by Refs

Senators: Give the President a Fair Trial

Call Witnesses . Require Documents . Deliberate. 

"…give me back the damn money that I’ve been paying you for so many years." — Donald Trump

From time to time, Salvador Rizzo, reporter for The Fact Checker, delivers a detailed analysis of false or misleading claims made by American political figures from both parties.

I think Rizzo's accounting of Donald Trump's December 18, 2019 rally in Michigan is especially noteworthy because,

A) in his two-hour speech, Mr. Trump made 179 assertions of fact, of which 120 ... two out of three ... were found to be false, mostly false, or unsupported by known evidence, and,

B) one of the most troubling moments in the speech came in a statement that is mostly accurate. 

Donald Trump told the crowd in Michigan:

I see a woman, Carolyn Maloney. I was with her. Her first race, I helped her. She was always so nice. Oh, thank you. Thank you. I made lots of contributions over the years. You know in New York, it’s like, purely Democrat, especially Manhattan. So, what happens? I make lots of contributions for years and years and years. ... ‘I raise my hand to impeach.’ Well, give me back the damn money that I’ve been paying you for so many years. Let her pay me back all the money.

Mr. Rizzo found confirmation from Federal Election Commission records that Donald Trump did, from 1993 to 2009, contribute $4,000 to Representative Maloney's campaigns — though his first donation was apparently after she was already in Congress, not during her first race.

Most important, to me, is the fact that Mr. Trump regarded those political donations as payments. He asserts that he was buying something from a Member of Congress ... that his $4,000, disbursed over 16 years, were payments to Representative Maloney.

As it turns out, he appears to believe he was buying a "no" vote on articles of impeachment:

"Well, give me back the damn money that I’ve been paying you for so many years. Let her pay me back all the money.”

What a bizarre and simplemindedly corrupt understanding of citizenship and governance.

Mr. Trump's boyish misjudgment in this matter dates from 1993, when he was just a 47 years-old with a dream and staggering debt.

But he asked for his money back last month, the day he was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives at age 73.

There is, as far as I can imagine, no good reason for a president of the United States of America to think as little of representative democracy as this man does. We will be well shed of him ... the sooner the better.

A question no one is asking: "What did he know and when did he know it?" 2-minutes-19-seconds

Why is no one asking, "What did he know and when did he know it?"

“There’s a reason no one has said, 'What did the President know and when did he know it?’ From  the  evidence you have  presented .... we know one thing, and one thing is clear: As it related to this scheme, the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, knew everything.”  —  Rep.   Eric Swalwell, December 9, 2019

3Practices for Crossing the Difference Divide

On November 24, Brian McLaren met up with Jim Henderson and me for an online chat about crossing the difference divide. 

On November 27, our new book, 3Practices for Crossing the Difference Divide landed in paperback and digital tablet editions. 

Jim Henderson and I are awfully excited about this milestone in our rollout of the 3Practices.



3Practices for Crossing the Difference Divide is for people who are sad, angry, and apprehensive about important relationships being sucked into the vortex of the difference divide. It’s a book for people who aren’t ready to accept this as our new normal — where we have no choice but to write off relationships that mean a great deal to us.

The 3Practices are a map across the difference divide.

 — Practice One: I’ll be Unusually Interested in others

 — Practice Two: I’ll stay in the room with difference

 — Practice Three: I’ll stop comparing my best with your worst.

This book shows how you can:

1. Create a safe space for learning the 3Practices.


2.  Teach a simple skill people can take home and apply immediately. 

There’s lots more coming in 2020, including events, 3Practice Referee Training Days, and a webcast series featuring the whole of our conversation with Brian McLaren, alongside our interactions on crossing the difference divide with Peter Block, Aneelah Afzali, Todd Hunter + Karla Stephenson, and Wm. Paul Young.  

For now, head on over to Amazon and pick up your copy of 3Practices for Crossing the Difference Divide!

Brian McLaren Talks with Jim Henderson + Jim Hancock About Crossing the Difference Divide

Brian McLaren met up online with Jim Henderson and me to talk about crossing the difference divide. Here’s a three-and-a-half-minute clip of our conversation, including Brian’s very kind words about our 3Practices project. Here’s a link to our new book, 3Practices for Crossing the Difference Divide.

There’s more on the 3Practices at 3Practices.com.

So we can put you down as a ‘yes’ then...

Among the very best lines of the week, I thought, was Congressman Schiff saying that President Trump repeating "No quid pro quo" over and over again is his "I am not a crook" defense.

Ambassador Sondland put that to bed explicitly in his opening testimony on Wednesday November 20, 2019.

“I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’,” Sondland said. “As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.” It got better — meaning worse, from there.

Read It Yourself | Am. Taylor’s Statement 10.22.19

Here’s a searchable PDF of US Ambassador Bill Taylor’s opening statement to Congress on October 22, 2019. [1]

It’s extraordinary.

In the present inquiry, this is not testimony drawn out of a witness by a prosector; this is Ambassador Taylor’s voluntary opening statement, before a single question has been asked — what he affirms under oath to the three congressional committees charged with sifting testimony to see if there is evidence of wrongdoing.

Were I seated on a grand jury empaneled to consider this matter, I think I would find this testimony compelling.

As I write, the impeachment inquiry committees are hearing testimony from Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman….

[1] I downloaded the PDF image file of Ambassador Taylor’s 15-page statement to Congress from the Washington Post, then translated the document to a searchable PDF using the PDFity app.

I was careful, but I did not do a word-for-word comparison between the image file and the translated PDF, so it’s possible that errors may have been introduced during the translation. If you find anything I missed, I’ll be happy to make corrections.