The eCrozier

The Church’s General Convention has now concluded. As your Bishop, I did my best to represent this Diocese while also holding in mind, as my ordination vows remind me, that I’m a bishop for the whole church and not just this Diocese. I must admit, I’m not much of a conventioneer. We’ll never meet most of the Church’s challenges by passing resolutions or changing canon law. Resolutions that tell people outside the Church what they should do seem pointless to me, even if they help us feel better about ourselves (often self-righteously so). Still, some of what we decide at our triennial convention matters, particularly decisions that determine how we pray and serve together. So, let me highlight three decisions from General Convention that I think matter most.

First, we approved a trial-use liturgy that makes minor changes to our Rite II Eucharist while fully retaining Creedal, Trinitarian, and the Lord’s Prayer formularies. The changes alter some liturgical language so it’s gender-inclusive. I’ll seek advice both from the Standing Committee and the diocesan Clericus before deciding if we’ll use this trial rite in Georgia. We have time. It won’t be canonically available until Advent of this year. The BCP 1979 is unchanged. It will remain, as it has been, the norm for all liturgies in our Diocese. It should go without saying, but let me say it anyway, that if I approve these trial rites, no priest or parish must use them.

Second, we found a way forward on marriage equality that preserves the dignity of all while also making the sacrament available to those couples who meet the requirements of the canons. Bishops, who because of conscience, can’t endorse same sex marriage in their diocese, will be able to invite another bishop who does sanction it to provide pastoral support to the clergy and congregations who want to offer the sacrament legally and canonically. This doesn’t affect our diocese at all. I authorized such marriages in Advent 2015. Priests in charge of parishes in our Diocese still retain the right, given in ordination, to decide to solemnize/not solemnize any marriage.

Third, those who participated in General Convention all received a deeper awareness of how the Church hasn’t always adequately protected those who have suffered misconduct from people in authority, particularly in the area of abuse, harassment, and gender inequity. I was quite moved by the personal stories I heard. I was also thankful that we in Georgia had made progress on much of these concerns long before this General Convention. That, of course, doesn’t mean we don’t have more work to do. We do. The Church can never tolerate or acquiesce to any abusive behavior or deliberate effort that promotes deliberate inequity among her people. You have my promise as your Bishop that we’ll persevere in this work. We can never be satisfied that we’ve addressed this as long as any kind of abuse or intentional inequity occurs. I still have much to learn and I pledge that I will listen to voices who may have been unheard before and to make changes, not only in my personal leadership, but in how we address these issues in our relationships, in diocesan policy, and in clergy deployment.

+Scott

The eCrozier is going on holiday with me for a few weeks. We both will return in August.

Two separate social science studies caught my attention this week. The first looked at the connection between people’s spiritual experiences and their brain activity. It concluded that whether it’s a connection to God, the wonders of nature, or a strong loyalty to a college football team (Go Dawgs!), people feel a sense of spiritual connection to something beyond themselves, but one that’s still very much connected to their lived experience. Among their findings, the study’s researchers found that when research subjects recounted their spiritual experiences, the parietal cortex lit up. The parietal cortex is the part of the brain responsible for our awareness of ourselves and others.

The other study was published in the journal “Social Forces.” Researchers conducted three separate studies designed to gauge white Americans’ attitudes toward race and welfare programs. In the first, the researchers analyzed the last 10 years of national data on the subject. They found opposition to welfare rose among all Americans, but more markedly among whites. Correlation, however, doesn’t mean causation. The researchers had to do two additional studies to find causation: One where they asked people about welfare recipients after seeing data on demographic changes and another that sought people’s opinions after being told that minorities benefit more from welfare (which isn’t true since white Americans are larger beneficiaries of Medicaid and SNAP programs). These additional findings suggest that racial anxiety is a more powerful driver to cut welfare programs than white people’s political convictions. As one lead researcher concluded: “We find evidence that these shifts are specifically directed at programs (white) people see as benefiting minorities instead of whites.”

These separate studies confirm what we’ve known for some time. People have a deep sense of connection to their lived experience beyond what can be explained purely by rational means. And they describe that connection spiritually. Is it any wonder then that the great cathedrals of modern America are now more often places like Athens’ Sanford Stadium rather than New York’s St. John the Divine or the Grand Canyon? Our sense of spirituality is connected to what we know and experience and thus is evidenced in our tribal loyalties. That probably explains much of the persistent racism shown by the other study. It’s not that white people are born racists. We grow into it as part of the familiar loyalties of our lives. And when we perceive our loyalties are being challenged, we react deeply (and no doubt subconsciously) from the parietal cortex.

That’s why as Christians we need to be proactive in having experiences that take us out of only what’s familiar, so we might broaden our spiritual capacity beyond our tribal loyalties. When we’re baptized, we’re grafted on to a spiritual vine that knows no race, gender, or nationality (“in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” – Galatians 3:26-28). And yet, we must still recognize the strong headwind we face demonstrated by the neuro-science data. It’s a spiritual challenge to tend the functioning experience of our parietal cortex.

+Scott

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained the government for his purposes.” — Attorney General Jeff Sessions

I’m occasionally accused by readers of bringing politics into what I write. I’m told to “stay in my lane” and not deviate from my role as Chief Pastor of the Diocese. I should, these readers contend, stick to religious instruction. I’ve consistently responded to such feedback by saying I try to do my best to stay away from “partisan” politics, that is, advocating for one political tribe, but our faith is lived out in the real world and that means we can’t avoid political issues because they have relevance for following Jesus.

Well, now, our Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has veered out of his lane and brought the Bible, specifically St. Paul, to justify what can’t be justified by any Christian, namely, the removal of children from their parents while they await hearings on their immigration claims. Entering this country with a claim for asylum status isn’t a crime, and even entering without documentation, isn’t a felony, it’s a misdemeanor. When is a misdemeanor justification for separating children from their parents? But I digress.

Mr. Sessions chose to enlist St. Paul saying: “God has ordained the government for his purposes.” O has God? That’s a high-jacking of Romans 13 (thank God he didn’t cite Matthew 2:13-18 to justify governmental prerogative). St. Paul writes assuming the government is behaving justly. He instructs us to follow just laws and honor those who enforce them. But sometimes a law, or a law’s application, is unjust even if the government says otherwise. For example, when Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor turned water hoses and dogs on black teenagers in Birmingham, did God approve that simply because the government did it? When FDR ordered the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII solely for being of Japanese descent, was God ordaining that? When policeman choked Eric Garner to death for the crime of illegally selling cigarettes, was the government an agent of God’s purposes? I hope we all see the absurdity of Mr. Sessions’ claim that God sanctions everything the government does just because the government does it.

When laws are unjust or when they are used to promulgate injustice, St. Paul would never insist that disciples of Jesus support such injustices (read Romans 13:10 to see how St. Paul fully understood the law). We know from our history that our government told us to go along with the “Jim Crow” laws because God had ordained segregation. It’s central to the playbook that government leaders have used in the past to baptize whatever the government wishes to do. And they know exactly what they’re doing when they do it. I’m not suggesting Mr. Sessions should avoid all reference to his religion as Attorney General. I don’t expect him to stay in his lane any more than he should expect me to stay in mine. But if he’s going to use the Bible as justification, then he should at least not take it out of context. Maybe he didn’t know he was doing that? He’s, however, using an old playbook. And, in that regard, he knows exactly what he’s doing.

+Scott

“For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ If, however, you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.” – Galatians 5:14-15

What are we modeling for our children and grandchildren? Media is full of seemingly full-grown adults hurling vulgarities at one another and regurgitating rude, derisive expletives toward other people. And these grown adults are in the White House, in Congress, on TV Award shows, and on local school boards and city councils. Read the news each day and we’re exposed to yet again someone who can’t refrain from being a “potty-mouth” whose sole (soul?) purpose seems to be the demeaning of another person in order to “score” points for their side. Astonishingly, people are actually applauding, even defending, this behavior (as long as it comes from someone who’s in their political “tribe”). If I had the power, I’d send them all to their rooms for a long “time out.” We’re supposed to be the adults. When are we going to start acting like it?

Our country is losing our collective mind with this behavior. It’s not just politicians and celebrities that are modeling this vulgar behavior. It’s people just like you and me, ordinary Americans, who are engaging in public outbursts that less than a generation ago we would’ve seen as unacceptable behavior. So, here’s how it seems to go these days: Someone explodes with some sort of insult or mean-spirited attack and then those on the other side who are offended throw a fit over it and say: “Look, look, what he (she) just did!” But, of course, when the shoe is on the other foot, such an attack is defended as being made necessary by the previous awful behavior of the other side. To quote an old “Cold War” term: This is “Mutual Assured Destruction” known by its acronym MAD.

I know. I know. Someone will no doubt write me after reading this and say: “They started this!” “They” being anyone who isn’t aligned with the political-social tribe of that particular reader. I get plenty of those emails weekly. Each inevitably begins with: “What about (fill in the blank with the latest outrage from the side they’re not on)?” I don’t even need to read those emails. I can write them myself. Do you know what that sounds like to me? It sounds like when I had to break up a fight between my two boys when they were young. Inevitably, the excuse would come out of one of their mouths: “he (meaning his brother) started it.” It’s pointless to try to determine who started our current pattern of vulgar outrage. It really doesn’t matter. What matters is our continued participation in this tit for tat childishness.

To be sure, all sides of our political-social tribal affiliations have grievances and old scores to settle, all of which they see as legitimate (and some no doubt are). So did the Hatfields and McCoys. Hamlet of Shakespeare fame also thought he had “legitimate grievances” and at the end of the play, as you’ll recall, most everyone was left for dead on the stage. But holding on to old resentments, mounting grievances, and then sharpening our knives for score-settling will only lead to further collective emotional bloodshed and the death of our democracy. And it will ruin any chance we have to work for the common good, which always requires compromise and not getting all we want. That’s what we were supposed to have learned by the time we reached adulthood.

So, I say now what I said to my two boys years ago: “For Christ’s sake, just stop it!”

+Scott

Years ago, I came across the comparisons below. They were offered by Tom Blodget, who at the time, taught Spanish at Butte College and Shasta College in California. He may still do so. The comparisons he offers are as applicable today as when he first made them.

+Scott

What did Jesus really say? [Find his actual words in italics]

“State your devotion to God often when making public pronouncements that are devoted to politics, the economy, and war, and associate it with the ends you are pursuing, as this is pleasing to God.” [“Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 7:21]

“Blame the poor and the suffering for their condition and ignore their plight; they deserve what is happening to them.” [“But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind.” Luke 14:13] and [“Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” Matthew 5:42]

“Forgive no one. Those who wrong you are wrong. By forgiving them, you excuse the wrong, and only encourage them.” [“If you do not forgive people their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” Matthew 6:15]

“Hate those who hate you; were they worthy of your love, they would already love you. Tell me, if you love those who hate you, why are you to be commended for that? Only a fool would return love for hate. Loving those who hate you only encourages them to take further advantage of you.” [“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.” Luke 6:32]

“Blessed are the warmakers, for they shall be called children of God. Kill those whom you fear may kill you.” [“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” Matthew 5:9]

“Those who live by the sword shall not only live, but prosper, by the sword.” [“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword shall die by the sword.” Matthew 10:52]

“The rich shall forever rule the earth, so adjust your loyalties accordingly.” [“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” Luke 6:20]

“It is written, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’; but now I say to you justice is better served by taking out ten eyes for every eye, and ten teeth for every tooth”? [“You have heard it said, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but I tell you, do not resist an evil person.” Matthew 5:38-39]

When someone calls for healing without first calling for justice, then that’s an indication we’re probably witnessing an effort to protect those in power from the consequences of their actions. Rather than listening to the pain that these actions have caused and responding appropriately, there’s often a rush to get past “all that” so “we all can heal” (one’s left wondering, however, who the “we” is when it comes to these calls for “healing”). That seems to be the pattern for how sexual misconduct has been dealt with for too long. The recent allegations by multiple women against a prominent mega-church pastor, Bill Hybels of the Willow Creek Church in Chicago, are just the latest in a series of revelations about male church leaders abusing their power through sexual misconduct. The #MeToo movement is also rightly now in the church: #ChurchToo.

That’s not to discount the need for healing, which we all need. To be sure: “There is a Balm in Gilead to heal the sin-sick soul.” God’s mercy is offered to all us penitent sinners. When people are hurt, whether physically, emotionally, or spiritually, then we all desire their healing. But the quick call for healing can be a way to avoid truth-telling. It can be a way, using pastoral and biblical constructs, to distract us from the hard work of facing up to what really happened wherever men have abused their power in the Church (women can also be abusers, but the facts show that this by far is a male problem). And most importantly, the women who have been abused by these men must be listened to and cared for; they must see the Church as a people committed to the truth, come what may, cost what it will.

The Episcopal Church is far from perfect. And the Bishops of the Church, myself included, well-exemplify our imperfections. Yet, my colleagues in the House of Bishops and I are committed to the truth no matter how difficult it may be. That’s why when we meet next month at our General Convention the House of Bishops will spend an extended time listening to stories of those who have suffered sexual misconduct in the Church. We’re committed to not only listen, but to respond fairly and justly to those who share their stories, and then to help them find the resources they need for healing. The truth must come first. Then, and only then, can the healing come.

No one can undo what’s been done. All we can do is work toward a just accounting of the sins of the past. But, as a Bishop of the Church, and particularly as the Bishop of Georgia, I can ensure we continue to expect virtuous behavior among our leaders; the kind everyone should expect from those who follow Jesus. And, we’ll continue to insist upon safe and hospitable contexts as we live out our common mission. Together with my colleagues in the Diocese, we’ll insist upon being a truthful people who protect the vulnerable while also being compassionate with one another even as we, at times, fail to be all we’re called to be. Being compassionate never means ignoring the truth. It means facing the truth and its consequences whenever misconduct occurs. It means caring for those harmed while also honoring everyone’s inherent dignity as a child of God. The Church can and must be a people of both truth-telling and compassion. The integrity of our Gospel witness depends upon it.

+Scott

“FOLLOW ME TO MEXICO.” Those words were on the back door of a recycled school bus that gubernatorial candidate, Michael Williams, had been driving around our diocesan boundaries in recent weeks. He called it the “Deportation Bus” to show his support for a tougher stand against illegal immigration. In a press release last week, he said he wanted to “shine a light” on the “the overwhelming problem of illegal immigration.” Well, if we had an “overwhelming” problem of illegal immigration in Georgia, then that would be one thing. But we don’t. We know that because we can examine the facts (they still matter, don’t they?). For over ten years now, the number of immigrants who don’t have documentation to live in this country has been on a steady decline. That trend began long before Mr. Williams painted his bus and started his campaign. Since 2009, according to the Pew Research Center, such immigrants declined by 55,000 in Georgia alone. Even before that, they represented only about 5% of the total workforce in Georgia, doing the work that most citizens of the state weren’t willing to do. That 5% figure remains steady today during a time of low unemployment.

So, how is this an “overwhelming” problem? It isn’t. It’s simply an effort by some politicians to gin up a distraction so we’ll not notice that our elected leaders aren’t addressing the very real problems of living wages for those who are trying to support their families, lowering health care costs that can financially ruin a family, or increasing the quality of our children’s education in our public schools. Williams was just acting like a bully who picks on an easy target, one that won’t or can’t fight back. We all have seen such behavior before and it’s unconscionable.

I hope Mr. Williams was only acting like a bully and this stunt wasn’t indicative of his true character. Maybe his campaign consultants talked him into this since his polling was so low? I’d like to think that if he’d actually known the facts, then he wouldn’t have behaved this way. I don’t know what he truly believes or even if he sees himself as a disciple of Jesus. If he does, then I’d want to remind him about what Jesus had to say about poor strangers in our midst and how we’re to treat them. I’d want him to know that our discipleship isn’t just about what we affirm in creedal affirmations or in testimonies we make at a church service. It’s also about how we behave; how we treat poor and vulnerable people; and, how we care for strangers in our community.

We’re sinners, to be sure. We all fail to live as Jesus calls us to live, but when we fall short of Jesus’s calling, we shouldn’t celebrate such behavior as a virtue. Bullying and scaring immigrants isn’t virtuous. It doesn’t even remotely look or sound like Jesus. It appears to be what it is: Just a cheap and immoral attempt to appeal to the worst in us at election time (in Mr. Williams’s case, it didn’t work). I hope we don’t just dismiss this stunt and conclude that’s simply how the political game is played. I hope we desire more virtue, not less, in people seeking election to public office. Even as we all sin, we’re still called to the “love of strangers,” which is the literal translation of the Bible’s word for “hospitality”. The next time your hospitality committee (and I hope you have one) meets at church, remember what that word truly means.

+Scott

In the film, “20th Century Women,” there’s a compelling scene between a mother and her teenaged son. The mother has just brought him home from the hospital. He had been rushed there after playing a game with his friends that went wrong. The game involved him hyperventilating while another boy stood behind him, wrapping his arms around his torso, and squeezing. This caused him to pass out. Normally, a person comes to in just a few seconds after that happens, but in this case, the teenage boy didn’t come to and was rushed to the hospital where he remained unconscious. By the time his distraught mother arrives he has awakened, and the doctors determine he can go home.

Later, when she brings him home from the hospital, they have an argument that (from my memory of the film) starts out this way:
Mother: “Why did you do something so stupid?
Son: “I dunno know. I mean, everyone was doing it.”
Mother: “So you just went along with it?”
Son: “It looked like fun.”

The argument in the film, as I recall, goes on for some time after that, but the mother really should’ve stopped there. Asking a teenage boy why he did something stupid is pretty much a waste of time. The son in the film honestly replies: “I dunno know.” A parent isn’t going to get a reasoned, articulate answer to that question. He doesn’t really know why he did it. We parents who’ve lived through the teenage years of our children know that to be true. And our parents knew that to be true when we were teenagers. We had no idea why we did the stupid things we did. We just did them. In fact, I did the very same stupid hyperventilating game many times as a teenager. I did many other, far riskier, stupid things that I never told my poor mama about while she was alive because I knew it would’ve probably caused some post-traumatic episode inside her.

We now know through neuro-science that the brains of teenagers, particularly teenage boys, aren’t developed enough yet to weigh the pros and cons of doing stupid stuff. So, they really don’t know why they do the things they do. When they’re “doubled-dared” to put their tongue on a frozen pole or to jump off the roof of a house, they just might do so. Why? Because they’re stupid, that’s why. I can still hear my father saying to me: “I will let you make up your own mind when you have a mind worth making up!” He didn’t know the brain science, he just knew that, as a teenager, I was walking bundle of stupid.

When I look back at all the stupid things I did as a teenager, it’s a wonder I lived to adulthood. That’s why as a parent it does no good to ask our teenager why he did something stupid. We should know the answer already, because we’ve been through the same stupid phase. I’m certainly no parenting expert, but I believe our best response is to hug them tightly, sloppily kiss them in a way that’s sure to embarrass them, and then tell them how much we love them. That’s a grace imputed to them and knowing they’re loved unconditionally just might give them pause the next time a stupid idea enters their underdeveloped, teenaged brain. But then again, maybe not. We can only hope.

Earlier this week, diocesan clergy gathered for our spring clergy conference. While the primary focus of the conference was God’s commandment to: “Remember the Sabbath, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8), the clergy gathered on Monday evening to listen to one another; to hear what we liked about our ministry together in the Diocese of Georgia; to hear from one another about wishes we each had; and, to share our hopes for the future. For me, it was grounding and gracious. It was grounding in the sense that I can’t be a faithful and effective bishop unless I know what’s on the hearts and in the minds of my clergy colleagues. And it was gracious in that our time together created in me a deep sense of gratitude for the privilege I have to serve with such wonderful people. It also gave me a “reasonable hope” (as the Book of Common Prayer calls it) for our future together in this Diocese.

Let me explain a bit more why I feel that way. Over the last eight years in the Diocese of Georgia, we’ve embarked upon an experiment of sorts. While we never proclaimed it as an experiment, I think it’s safe to call it that. We’ve operated under an educated and informed “hunch” that if we invested broadly and deeply in training people in the practical skills of parish leadership, human relations, emotional intelligence, conflict management, all supported by peer coaching, then we’d see long-term results in the competency and effectiveness of those leaders. From my perspective, we’re a little over halfway through that experiment as it takes (if those who study such things are correct) about 15 years or so to significantly change any organization’s culture and its underlying expectations for those who lead in it. I believe we’re over the hump toward that change, but the follow-through is still crucial.

What have we learned so far from this experiment? Well, it’s probably more appropriate for me to relate what I’ve learned and let others speak for themselves. So, I’ve learned that relationships of trust are the foundation of building good leaders in any healthy organization. I heard so many clergy at our conference talk about their relationships with one another; how they could talk candidly with one another about challenges they were facing without fear of ridicule or shame; that they knew they could go to a colleague to collaborate and not be threatened by an unhelpful sense of competition; that they fundamentally trusted one another. This has come primarily from the work they’ve done together in these various training programs. So, while the content of what they learned as they trained together has been important, so too has been the trust they’ve developed with one another as they’ve done so. This “spillover” benefit, if you will, has been a grace received that wasn’t necessarily planned, but we now enjoy.

We’re now building on this foundation of trust with one another. Yet, we humans don’t trust easily. It’s earned through experience after experience with one another. And it can be so easily broken early on because the relationships aren’t strong enough yet to endure any hiccups along the way. But once it’s solidified, it can withstand those hiccups. This is all to say how profoundly thankful I am that I have the privilege to serve with the clergy of this Diocese. Together, they’re the finest and most faithful people I know.

+Scott

Michelle Wolf’s performance at the Annual Correspondent’s Dinner was mean-spirited and needlessly vulgar. But worse yet, it wasn’t very funny, except when she was poking fun at herself. Then she was quite funny. I’m not suggesting she shouldn’t play the court jester and hassle the “king and his courtiers.” Skewering the powerful has always been an important, needed task from comedians. But for the love of Pete, be funny doing it. She wasn’t, at least to me, and I love a good comedy routine (I’m a bishop after all).

A reader of my eCroziers wrote me recently urging me to “take on” Michelle Wolf since I’m always claiming I’m not a political partisan (this reader thinks I secretly am and is always trying to expose me, to which I say he should have better uses of his time). In his mind, by taking her on, I’d prove that I’m not a partisan who supports all things liberal. But here’s the underlying, mistaken assumption this reader makes by framing it that way: We all have our partisan “tribes” to which we belong and to our partisan tribes we offer unwavering loyalty. This means that even when a member of our tribe does something stupid or behaves in an ugly way, we must find a way to discount it or explain it away as not all that big of a deal. We thus become undiscerning apologists for our tribe, excusing our tribe’s faults and accentuating the faults of the other tribe.

We saw that with the women who came to President Clinton’s defense when it became clear he had a pattern of cheating on his wife. While they acknowledged his behavior, they argued that because he championed so many other issues they were concerned about, they’d excuse his philandering. We saw that with President Bush’s endorsement of torture. Those defending him said we had to go to the “dark side” to fight terrorism even though experts on interrogation argued that such torture was counter-productive, not to mention morally bankrupt. We saw that with President Obama’s use of drone executions of American citizens where the bomb was judge, jury, and executioner. We’re now seeing a similar pattern in those offering an apologia for our current president’s behavior toward women and his many other problematic behaviors.

Now back to Michelle Wolf’s performance at the Annual Correspondent’s Dinner: Why should criticizing or not criticizing her routine break down along partisan lines? Social scientists have studied this type of behavior for years and have arrived at consistent conclusions. They call it myside bias, which is the tendency to evaluate an event or another person’s actions in a manner biased toward the evaluating person’s already held opinions and attitudes. This often leads to the undiscerning apologia I described above by those who defend such immoral behavior. And researchers have discovered another important element in all this: it’s totally unrelated to the intelligence of the person. In other words, smart people fall into this trap as easily as anyone.

Sometimes our leaders behave in morally reprehensible ways. Naming that behavior for what it is shouldn’t be determined by our political convictions. And, yes, sometimes a comedy routine is just mean-spirited and not very funny even if you agree with some of the comedian’s points. Why can’t we just say that? I just did.

+Scott