About Me

Name: Kenny Kemp
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

My TV Cannot Survive the Iranian Uprising

 I WAS SO ANGRY, I ALMOST THREW MY SHOE AT THE TV. An entire nation had been subjugated, a people enslaved, their culture decimated, their vast wealth purloined by a totalitarian regime. The world stood by, the extent of its outrage limited to making angry faces at the aggressor.

I am not talking about Iran. I am talking about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. When George H.W. Bush finally ordered the liberation of Kuwait, it was over so fast that everyone was stunned. They called it the "100 hour war."

Kuwait secured, our army amassed on the Iraq border. "Go get him!" I shouted at the TV. "Get the maniac who started this whole thing!" But President Bush, himself a creature of diplomacy (he had been U.S. ambassador to China) refused to do the obvious. "That is not our U.N. mandate," he said in measured tones. The Left heaved a sigh of relief ("We are not aggressors!") and the Right chucked their footwear at televisions all across America in exasperation. And so our troops came home and over the next decade, Saddam Hussein murdered more than a million of his own people before we finally removed him, at great loss of American life and treasure.

No history lesson has ever been more indelibly etched on my consciousness: When evil threatens liberty, free men must fight.

History repeats its lessons often, so even the dumbest student will eventually understand. It is doing so in Iran at this moment. A revolution not unlike our own American revolution is struggling to get traction. People are rebelling against an oppressive regime, marching in the street, using social networks to organize (twittering on the Internet instead of placing lanterns in church towers), and risking their lives.

And what does our Blatherer in Chief do? After almost a week of silence, he finally mouths a few lofty sentiments but does nothing. It is left up to individuals, including thousands of American citizens, to create ersatz servers using cell phones, so Iranians can communicate with each other. Facebook users all over the world are changing their network to Tehran, so the government doesn't know they are outside Iran and thus shut their pages down.

Yesterday, I witnessed a small, pro-Iran march in Salt Lake City. Like their Tehran counterparts, most of the marchers were college-age kids. They were clean-cut and conservative in their dress, clearly from the right side of the political spectrum; ordinary kids who came out in support of freedom, not the usual special interest politics of the Left.

And where is the Left? Where are all the people who bombarded me with e-mail about genocide in Darfur? They are silent, because while the Left is full of compassion, it has no interest in actual freedom. It wants to save the starving child but not the angry young adult. The difference is revealing: the starving child cannot survive without the do-gooder's compassion; a true revolutionary wants only the tools to secure his own freedom -- he doesn't want your compassion; he wants a gun. Thus, his needs do not coincide with the true needs of the Left, which are about obtaining feel-good, self-congratulatory mantras to intone at the next faculty mixer.

Twenty years ago, Tianenmen Square in China presented the West with the same dilemma. Should rhetoric be our only weapon against oppression? What did we do to help the protesters in that communist country? Nothing. Many died then; many are dying today in Tehran. A million died in Iraq before we finally did anything.

And this time around it's a no-brainer, because Iran is not only ready for democracy, it is almost ready to explode a nuclear device over Tel Aviv. Nuclear capability is the reason we did nothing to aid the Tianenmen Square demonstrators. North Korea (where two generations of starvation has reduced the average height to just 5'2") continues its self-annihilation because it has nuclear weapons. Why don't my friends on the Left send me e-mails about genocide in North Korea?

History repeats itself. I just wish it would shout, because we are clearly deaf.

My TV's days are numbered . . .

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

In the Valley of the Death of Perspective

IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH is a well-wrtten, well-acted, well-made, and completely wrong-headed film that speaks volumes about the actors, filmmakers, and Hollywood executive' left-wing and anti-American world view. Out of the their own mouths, so to speak.

Tommy Lee Jones plays Hank, a retired military investigator working with small town detective Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron) to first find, then uncover the reason for the death of Hank's son Mike (Jonathan Tucker), a recent returnee from the Iraq war. They ultimately discover that Mike was murdered during a night on the town which included visiting a strip club, fighting in the parking lot, illegal drug use, and having sex with a hooker . . . you know, just a typical Saturday night for our enlisted men. The climactic reveal is that Mike was senselessly killed by one of his buddies, a combat comrade in Iraq, for no apparent reason. Indeed, said the perpetrator: "It could have easily been Mike killing me."

No wonder the film (which cost $23 million) did less than $7 million US boxoffice.

I have no problem with the film strictly as film. It is perfectly acceptable fare: a murder mystery. And I have no trouble with the military setting. People do terrible things everywhere. But why In the Valley of Elah was one of the first (and few) Hollywood films to be made about the Iraq war is inexplicable. Surely, no one on the Left is asserting that more than a minscule proportion of our soldiers are murderous sociopaths. No, what they're really saying is that war, especially war the way America fights it, turns decent young men like Mike into sociopaths; in other words, we're creating a whole generation of brutal murderers.

This is the "Gitmo creates terrorists" argument, for which, statistically, there is absolutely no evidence. But lack of evidence never deters a true believer. In fact, lack of evidence gives rise to a leap of faith, which is the staple of under-informed, emotionally-oriented people. "I care! Isn't that enough?" they seem to shout when contrary facts arise.

No, it isn't enough. Accuracy would also be nice. And lest anyone reject my assertion that this film is anti-American, how else do you explain the final shot, where Hank raises a weathered American flag upside down, a universal sign of distress. With this image, the filmmakers are saying America is in trouble because of the way we fight wars; we are destroying the young men and women in our military. This is also an age-old Leftist canard: soldiers are victims. (Ignore the fact that our military is 100% voluntary.) In one scene (I love how filmmakers reveal their own motivation as well as their characters'), Hank's wife Joan (uber-Leftie Susan Sarandon), chides him for his military background, saying their son Mike joined up because he was raised in Hank's home; he literally had no choice. So not only are soldiers victims, they were brainwashed into being such.

To recap, this is Hollywood's view of the military and America's foreign policy: Evil engagements abroad (always for ultimately nefarious reasons, e.g. "blood for oil!"); CYA coverups by the military (the liaison, Lt. Kirklander (Jason Patric) is an unlikeable, insensitive company man); immoral behavior by our troops (the inciting incident in the film, which drove Mike "crazy" was his hitting a child on an Iraqi street with his Hummer, because there were standing "orders" to never stop a convoy for a pedestrian because that usually set them up for an ambush (sounds like a good policy to me), yet Mike never swerved or hit the horn; he just roared straight ahead, killing the child); illegal drug use, drunken fighting, consorting with hookers and murder being de rigeur behavior of soldiers on leave; yet these same soldiers are credulous children, victims of over-zealous, gung-ho parents and the corrupt militaristic American culture, which put them in the position where they have no choice: they simply must become sociopaths.

If this is the sort of film Hollywood makes to mark the Iraqi war (a war which, by the way, has been, for all intents and purposes, soundly won), then the upside-down flag is indeed apropos. But instead of the local VFW post, it should be flown over the Kodak Theater where they hold the Academy Awards.

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Labels We Wear

BENETTON. QUIKSILVER. HOLLISTER. NIKE, AMERICAN EAGLE. Signs of the times. I thought the 60s did away with the notion of kids' spending habits being manipulated by the "man" (corporate America), but I was wrong.

When I was growing up in the California surf culture of the 1970s, the label phenomenon was still in its infancy. Labels were small and discrete, like the tiny penguin logo on a polo shirt or the Levis "V" pocket stitching. But when no one complained; indeed, when everyone began proudly wearing these instant status-confirmations, the logos got larger and larger until now, the American Eagle logo fills the entire shirt. Recently, it has become so large they had to shorten "American" to "Am" just to fit it in. And justly so, for how are they going to sell a shirt outside of the USA if it proudly (and loudly) proclaims it's from America?

I watch this walking billboard phenomenon everywhere I go and it makes me sad. Combine it with the multiple piercings (and I mean everywhere!) and tattoos (ditto), and I can only be dismayed at the apparent lack of self-esteem so many people must have. Don't they know that individuality is a function of what's inside them? What they think; what they believe; what they do, is what actually differentiates a person from the crowd, not what they wear, how they cut their hair, pierce their ears, or what corporate logo they plaster across their chest.

Of course, I can understand why children like labels: it makes them feel safe. After all, one of the hallmarks of childhood (especially the teen years) is the need to fit in. I remember the "uniform" I wore as a teen: deep-pocketed corduroy shorts, horizontal-striped long-sleeved t-shirts, zorries (thongs), and long hair cut in the surfer style. I look at pictures of myself from those days and shake my head. Yet the labels I wore were the clothes, not the words on the clothes. But was there a difference, so long as we all wore the same uniform? Not really.

But I was a child then; now I am an adult and I've put away labels as much as possible. I buy most of my generic clothing at Costco. Even my tennis shoes are non-descript; I haven't worn a pair of Nikes in . . . I would have to say . . . forever. To me, no pair of tennis shoes is worth more than $25 unless they can actually make me dunk like Michael Jordan.

But everywhere I look, I see adults emulating their children, though the labels get more expensive as we grow older. My first car was a VW beetle, an icon in its own right. I proudly drove my surf rack-festooned bug to the beach and back for years. For some time in the 1990s, I had a BMW 5 series sedan, which I babied. But at heart, I'm a truck guy and one day when I went into the garage, I noticed my precious Beemer was layered with a coat of dust. I hadn't driven it in a couple of weeks. I promptly sold it. I was done with labels, I guess.

Now I drive a nondescript truck. I removed the dealer logo from the tailgate and chucked the license plate frames. If I could get the Toyota sombrero logo off it, I would, but it's molded into the front grill.

If we must wear labels, wouldn't it be fascinating if we were required to wear labels that described the person we actually are? Imagine walking around the mall wearing a "Grouchy Bigot" T-shirt. (Okay, I've actually seen that one.) But what about "Zero Self-Esteem" tank top revealing all those tattoos? Or "No Time To Work Out, But Plenty of Time To Pierce My Ears" women's tops in XXL sizes?

I would hate to see the shirt I would have to wear.

There's one I hope would apply to me; one I would proudly wear: "The only limitation is your imagination."

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Advice to a Graduate

YOU'RE A GRADUATE! Congratulations on achieving this important milestone. You've heard it before, but behind every tired cliche is a grounded truth: Education is the key to properly dealing with life's most important opportunities. I remember a television ad campaign from my youth. It said simply, "To get a good job, get a good education." But life is not just about the job; it's about, well . . . life. Living. And living well. Not necessarily accumulating wealth, but more properly health -- physical, spiritual, and mental health. But how do we achieve this kind of wealth? Since a picture is worth a thousand words, let me draw a metaphor for you:

Imagine yourself in the Coliseum, like in the movie Gladiator. You are standing in the middle of the arena. Thousands of people are in the stands, watching to see what will happen next. Will you make the right choice? Or will you fail? Some of the spectators wish you ill; others hope you will make the right choice; but the vast majority are indifferent to your plight. And no one is down on the field of battle with you. You are alone; only you can make these important decisions.

You look around at your options. A tall wall surrounds the circular field upon which you stand. At regular intervals, all along that curving wall encompassing your life, are doorways. When you were born, almost all the doors were open to you, though some were already shut. For example, I was born a man and the "female" doorway was closed to me at birth. But the “male” doorway was open and on the other side of it were -- and are -- many great opportunities. The same is true of all the other doors. Take a minute and think about all the doors that were opened to you when you were born. The choices were almost limitless.

And though there were some doors closed to you at birth, they are not necessarily destined to remain so. Knowing how to drive a car is one example. Through your hard work and diligence, you opened that door yourself. I know it's not lost on you how many opportunities come to us as a result of knowing how to drive.

So consider for a moment how many doors are open to us, or remain closed to us, or that we deliberately shut ourselves, depending upon our choices.

My philosophy has always been to keep as many doors open as possible, and pry others open if I can, thus adding to the options of my life. For that reason I went to law school, though I never really wanted to practice law. I just wanted to know what lawyers know (which is, quite simply, how the world works), and now I do. That door remains open to me and is a great benefit when it comes to understanding current events and politics.

I find it amazing that at people in their twenties are expected to make decisions that will continue to be valid for the rest of their lives. I find this premise sad and untenable. Not that you should put off some of these decisions (career, marriage, etc.), but before making any life-changing decision you should remember the importance of that decision and make it in an informed manner. A proper education will make your decision much easier.

Though you are a graduate today, you have really just began your real education. It does not matter the extent of your formal training, what matters is that you make learning a priority and a habit in your life. That will keep more doors -- and more opportunities -- open to you than anything else I know of.

This is my gift to you on this important occasion. Good luck!

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The "Twilight" of Our Culture

IN GREEK MYTHOLOGY, Cassandra (literally, "she who entangles men") was a woman so beautiful that Apollo granted her the gift of prophecy. But when she did not return his love, he cursed her so that no one would believe her predictions. Thus, the title Cassandra is given to voices in the wilderness that prophesy calamities that no none believes will come to pass. Until they do, of course.

Today, I will do a little prophesying myself. First, my bonafides: I am an internationally-published author whose books deal with spiritual and social themes. I am interested in the state of the heart and soul, and I have spent most of my adult life examining and pondering our culture and times, and then writing about them.

Over the past three months I've been promoting a new book in Costco and Sam's Club stores, where people buy everything from turkeys to televisions. And not a few books. My signing table is usually set up at the end of the book aisle, a great placement, as most shoppers pass me as they head for the food section. Behind me, in recent weeks, are pallets of Stephanie Meyer's four-volume hardbound "Twilight" series, priced at $45, a stiff price to be sure, but a steal when the suggested retail is $75. It's a steal all right, but I fear the theft is of the virtue and judgment of the largely female readership of these popular books.

The author, Stephanie Meyer, is following in J.K. Rowling's footsteps: an instant millionairess, having sold 40 million copies of the books worldwide. But Rowling's appeal was limited largely to young boys, while Meyer's Bella Swan is obviously designed to balance the equation and draw in young girls. Bella is a young, chaste girl who falls in love with a vampire, who acts as not only the object of her romantic yearnings, but as her protector and savior.

Vampirism, from its inception, has always had obvious sexual connotations. The drawing the blood of a docile or sleeping female through a "kiss" on the neck by a powerful male results in her falling under the vampire's thrall, and her own soul is now drawn into the darkness of murder and mayhem that delimits the vampire existence.

But not Twilight. In this artful remaking of the myth, the vampire (Edward Cullen) drinks only animal blood and so he's "safe" for Bella. This, of course, is another sexual euphemism: Ed and Bella don't go "all the way." Bella has no idea what Edward does outside of her presence beyond his assurances that he drinks only animal blood, and, like the young girl she is, she naively believes him. Of course, in the end, their "love" is consummated, as "love" always is. But it's done so cleverly that the readership -- primarily, pubescent girls and their mothers -- see it as "love" and not an act of sexual violence, as vampirism always is.

Perplexed by the books literally flying off the shelf behind me, I asked a woman in her mid-forties what her take was on the phenomenon. She said her two teenaged daughters read the series, and so she read it as well, "to get an idea what was going on." She looked thoughtful for a moment, then smiled: "I think it's a bit of the 'bad boy' thing . . . women are attracted to the bad boy. And since the young vampire doesn't drink human blood, he's not really that bad, is he? Plus, he's nicer to her than the mortal boys her age."

So here was a woman who seemed, for all intents and purposes, to be a good mother who was involved in her daughters' lives to such an extent that she even reads the same books they do. But she saw nothing wrong with vampirism, so long as Edward didn't murder (read: rape) Bella. And since Edward is "nicer" to Bella than the troglodytes on campus, Bella can be excused for succumbing to Edward's charms.

Horrified, I reflected on the state of parenting in the world today. Instead of guiding children toward literature that uplifts and instructs, parents now join their children in reading not only childish and soul-destroying books, but they assuage any resulting guilt by actually believing they are "involved" in their children's lives . . . that they are "sharing" something.

Something like a needle, I think.

But it's been thus for years. The Harry Potter phenomenon was no different. This children's book was also read widely by adults, who, fleeing the increasingly unacceptable violence and language of "adult" fare, retreated into the safe world of a child's story about magic. That itself is not alarming; most people understand that magic is pure fantasy. But the subtextual messages of Harry Potter are what concern me. Unlike the time-honored "hero's journey" of literary tradition going all the way back to Odysseus, Harry Potter was a new kind of hero: he started out a hero and shows little true emotional growth throughout the books. His in-born talents are apparent the first time he stretches out his hand and the broom pops up from the ground. He's a natural! Of course he is, his parents were remarkable wizards themselves -- it's genetic! Throughout the books, people meet Harry and exclaim, "My God! You're Harry Potter!" as if that explains everything about the lad. He simply has to "discover" his talent and use it. No growth (besides puberty) is thrust upon Harry. He is destined to be a great wizard because he already is.

I find this lack of personal development in a protagonist alarming. Our own lives are nothing but challenges that reveal our character; challenges that make us stretch and grow. But Harry is already a great wizard, and, magically, he will show himself to be such. This kind of magical thinking might save Harry's life in the books, but it's death for us in the real world. We mere muggles are doomed to have to learn and grow, to actually mold ourselves into something worthwhile. Our birthright is a mere potential; it's not an exclamation of divine right.

But it doesn't stop there: George Lucas, off to such a stirring start in the first three Star Wars movies, completely destroyed the Force itself when, in the fourth film, Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn informs Anakin's mother that tiny, microscopic organism -- mitoclorians -- are the real source of the Force, and Anakin has a remarkable concentration of them in his blood! No wonder he's going to grow up to be Darth Vader! It's inevitable!

So instead of Luke Skywalker's journey toward adulthood and heroism, where he grows by fits and starts, unable to prevent the remote from zapping him when he has the blast shield on his helmet lowered or failing to see Darth Vader in himself in the Dagobah cave, his father Anakin comes out of the womb fully prepared to be a Jedi Master and later, Darth Vader. Of course, those darned mitoclorians. Too bad I don't have any in my blood.

These shortcuts to power (Harry Potter and Anakin Skywalker) are dangerous lessons to teach our children, for those of us not living in the fantasy world of books and movies know there is nothing more crucial to success in life than achieving -- through our own blood, sweat, and tears -- actual competence, whether it be our ability with a light saber or a magic wand. (And thus far, no one I know on this planet has any talent with either!)

To the mix of incompetent arrested-adolescent adult males spawned by Rowling and Lucas, Stephanie Meyer is now adding young women infected with the dangerous notion that it's okay to date the Edward Cullens of the world, so long as he doesn't drink their blood. What Twilight says about sex is obvious to any girl who has ever been in the backseat with a boy: "It's okay," he coos, "we won't go all the way." What he's really saying is that they won't go all the way tonight. But eventually they will, and it will be she who bears the consequences of his "love": destroyed self-esteem, STDs, and perhaps even pregnancy, while he finds another victim down the road. More and more Bella Swans of the world will be left behind with shattered lives. Good job, Stef.

Congratulations, Mom, on reading Twilight with your daughter. When she turns thirteen, maybe you two can get matching tattoos.

Just call me "Cassandra."


 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is America Racist?

BARACK OBAMA WON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 53-46. Given the paroxysms of delight experienced by many who voted for him, in explaining his win I'm going to discount his policies in favor of his "presence," especially since he has moved to the center (even center-right on some issues) since the election. Those who hoped he'd start pulling our troops out of Iraq on January 21st must be sorely disappointed, but apparently, most are still in the spine-tingling thrall of his beatific beingness.

I tend to vote issues, not people. Domestically, George W. Bush was far less a conservative than I had hoped. I thus found it easy to distinguish between what I wish he had done and what he actually did. Thinking people can do no less; "feeling" people can do no more.

But the orgiastic Obamaniacs have no such healthy bifurcation of belief. They will blindly believe in the Messiah until the moment they lift him up on the cross. One wonders what it will take for them to turn on him? Not immediately declaring a loss in Iraq? No. Not immediately closing Guantanamo? Nope. Failing to raise taxes on the reviled rich? Huh-uh. Escalating the Afghanistan war? Not at all. Nothing he's done seems to sway his beaming believers. Nothing yet, at least. Perhaps if he goes on Rush Limbaugh's show.

So why are Obama supporters such true believers? Why would the electorate that voted him in not then turn on him (or at least point out his hypocrisy) when he flatly refuses to keep his campaign promises? The answer is simple and devastating: They are racists.
 
Since his failure to keep his word on the issues is not enough to discourage their support, only one reason remains for their fawning worship: it must be his race. Obama is black (well, half-black anyway) and those who voted for him and who still support him (his popularity as of this writing is a strong 67%) must have voted for him because of his skin color. It certainly could not be his enthusiastic campaign promise-keeping.
 
Racism, by definition, is allowing skin color to be a rationale for either liking or disliking another person. In our history we've seen ample evidence of "negative" racism. But the gushing, weeping, hallelujah-I-have-seen-the-light sort of "positive" racism has previously been low-key. Certainly, affirmative action is "positive" racism; a racism intended to reward a person for nothing more than the color of their skin. Way back when, Colin Powell had the Republican presidential nomination his for the taking due to this sort of postitive racism. His behavior since that time proves that he is a RINO, a "Republican In Name Only." The GOP dodged a bullet when it came to Powell.
 
The election of an unaccomplished, half-term senator with a flimsy resume as a "community organizer" can only be explained in racial terms. He was black (sort of) and thus, the percentage of the electorate that responds to dark skin color (as opposed to his true heritage, which is half black and half white) eagerly voted him in.
 
Therefore, if one took the percentage of the nation that voted for Obama (53%), one could make the powerful case that America is indeed a racist nation. It remains to be seen, however, how many of his formerly adoring acolytes will continue to applaud his essence when he, by necessity and political instinct, turns from his campaign promises with the fluidity he shows on the court as he rolls off a pick toward the hoop. If they still faint in his sublime presence, the jury must return the only verdict possible:
 
America is racist.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Belief: The End to Logic?

I HAD AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION recently with a friend. We were comparing our different belief systems. While cordial, the conversation began to get heated when I pointed out several long-standing, bigoted beliefs inherent to his religion, which he explained as one of those things that could not be answered, because "God's ways are not our ways." The following exchange occurred:

ME: But you believe we are made in God's image, don't you?

MY FRIEND: Yes, but we're a poor reflection of God. We cannot comprehend His methods, much less His mind.

ME: But if God made us, then we are a result of His making, and our flaws and inability to comprehend His ways is a function of that design. In short, it's His fault we cannot grasp His mind, isn't it?

My friend shrugged, but my point was crucial to the rest of our discussion. I went on to say that, leaving aside our poor understanding of God, He certainly would know us well enough to tailor-make our thinking processes so we could understand, as best we are capable, His methodology and intentions.

MY FRIEND: Why is this important?

ME: Because I pointed out a serious flaw in your religion--the bigotry I mentioned earlier--and you blamed it on God. But I wonder: hasn't God himself said He is no respecter of perons? If so, why should we be? Why should we differentiate between black and white, male and female, bond and free, etcetera?

MY FRIEND: Well, that's where logic must give way to faith. I see things that seem wrong, but the Spirit whispers to my soul that there is an underlying reason for it that I cannot understand. Someday, maybe, but for now . . . that's what faith is all about.

ME: So you're saying that when we reach the limits of logic--like when I point out that if God is no respecter of persons and that a religion that purports to worship God is a respecter of persons--that the contradiction between the two can only be explained by the word "faith"?

MY FRIEND: Yes. Faith supercedes logic. Again, we cannot know the mind of God or His reasons.

ME: For the moment, I'll accept your point, which seems to be this: there are things outside or beyond reason that we must simply accept on faith.

MY FRIEND: Yes.

ME: And the reason we can do so is that we receive a "burning" sensation in our hearts when we accept the bigotry, for example, as something we simply cannot understand.

MY FRIEND: "Burning" is one way God's influence--the Holy Spirit--is felt. God has many ways of speaking to us: a still, small voice in our minds, a burning in our bosom, a sense of rightness in our hearts--even in the face of man's logic that might contradict the feeling.

ME: So, at times like this, when you find yourself at the "end" of logic, and these feelings kick in, you are willing to disregard logic because you believe you've "felt" the Holy Spirit "whispering" a greater truth to you?

MY FRIEND: Yes. An extra-logic truth, if you will, that we cannot comprehend with our minds.

ME: Fine, but what is this "burning in your bosom" based on? I know you've said it is a feeling, but why do you think it feels "right" as opposed to feeling "wrong"?

MY FRIEND: I'm not sure I can explain; it may be beyond the limits of language. But I know it comes from God.

ME: But how do you know it?

MY FRIEND: Because it feels right.

ME: So there is a logic at work here, after all: it feels right according to some standard, some rationale. When the Spirit speaks to you, it fills you with peace and light, doesn't it?

MY FRIEND: Yes, it does! It feels, as I said, right.

ME: And whatever fills you with peace and light--knowledge and wisdom, I think you mean--must be of God.

MY FRIEND: Yes, because it prompts me to do good, to do right.

ME: So that is a form of logic. To put a spin on the popular mantra: If it feels right, do it!

MY FRIEND: I suppose. The Spirit of God always encourages us, as Lincoln said, to follow the "better angels of our nature."

ME: So when I use logic to support my belief that bigotry is wrong, isn't that logic really based on a feeling that the Spirit whispered to me? In other words, aren't many of man's ethics a result of the "still, small voice" gently communicating right and wrong to us?

MY FRIEND: I'm sure they are.

ME: So, even though I tend to think of myself as living primarily by logic, and, in cases like this, you live by feelings, aren't we both influenced by the same Spirit which dictates the parameters of our beliefs? Aren't we really using the same Spirit to determine right and wrong?

MY FRIEND: I suppose we are, if we listen to it.

ME: Yes, that is the key. So here's the nut of it: if the Spirit of God has informed both our standards as to what constitutes bigotry, isn't it wrong to believe that those standards are going to change when one leaves logic and enters the realm of faith? If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, isn't His Spirit also changeless? In short, wouldn't God speak the same, both to our minds (logic) and our hearts (feeling)?

MY FRIEND: I suppose He would.

* * *

I take some liberty here with our conversation. My friend never quite admitted that logic and faith are based on the same thing: an ethic burned into mankind's hearts and minds that have formed the basis of our life on earth for thousands of years. He never admitted that to use the old excuse for our failure to exact from religion the same standards we exact from ourselves is the worst sort of self-dealing; we do ourselves a massive injustice when we allow religion (and, by extension, God) to operate by standards that are less than those we expect from ourselves. In fine, my friend, a good, honorable man, was letting himself and his church off the hook from a great wrong (bigotry) by blaming it on God, who, I'm sure, is neither bigoted nor uncommunicative to us mortals about the wrongfulness of bigotry.

But men do not always listen to their "better angels" and must somehow rationalize their wicked behavior. As any child will do, they blame their parents for their troubles, oftimes for many years after they themselves have grown to adulthood.

So to say that God endorses bigotry is . . . faithless.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Homosexual Marriage: Clear Thinking on a Charged Issue

HERE'S HOW I DEFEND THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE:

Me: "From now on, just call me 'doctor'."

You: "But you're not a doctor."

Me: "Yes, I know. But I want to be treated like I actually was a doctor."

You: "You mean, see patients and prescribe medicine?"

Me: "Of course; that's what being a doctor is."

You: "But you aren't a doctor! And acting like one is going to get people . . . well . . . killed!"

Me: "I don't care. I want to be a doctor. I want to be looked up to by the public, get the good parking spaces, and wear that white coat with that black thingy hanging around my neck that hears the heartbeat."

You: "Well, we can't allow you to do that. It would be too dangerous. The State has an obligation to prevent people from pretending to be doctors."

Me: "Why? It's none of the State's business. It's just me and my patients. The State has no right to interfere with our "union."

You: (exasperated) "The State has not only the right to interfere with you, it has an obligation to do so in order to protect society."

Me: "I don't care about society--I just want to be a doctor!"

* * *

You get the idea: The State has an interest in the traditional family, which has been the basic building block of civilization for over ten thousand years. Therefore, traditional families should be encouraged as much as possible because they are inarguably the best place to raise children, which results in a stable, constructive society. To that end, I also think we should outlaw "no fault" divorce; otherwise we're being hypocritical as not fully supporting the traditional, intact family with both a father and a mother present in the home.

All other rights between homosexual couples should accrue--no reasonable voice on the right is advocating anything less--but the traditional notion of marriage should be reserved for traditional unions, as a way of giving the imprimatur of the State to its most cherished and important pillar. Otherwise we're Rome apres Caligula.. . .

But I have nothing against gays being chiropractors!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Changing the Rules in Congress

CONGRESS, WITH AN APPROVAL RATING AT AN ALL-TIME LOW (9%), is a perennial source of dissatisfaction for Americans of all parties. Though the explanation is usually given as "gridlock," the real complaint is not that the parties are partisan. They are, after all, expressing opposite views that would require capitulation by one side for the other to prevail. Thus, partisanship is as much a part of a representative democracy as is tri-colored bunting at rallies.

The problem is not partisanship; it's ineffectiveness, and the electorate obviously believes the people in Washington are not about the country's business. Not that they aren't doing business back there; it's just not the country's business--it's each individual state's business: they are bringing back the pork (now called 'earmarks,' as if that makes it less offensive) to their constituents, and that makes those who elected them happy. But the other 99% of us are not, unless our own representative slakes our thirst with his dippings from the communal trough. So we complain about the Bridge to Nowhere, but what we're really unhappy about is that it isn't being built in our district, where it would provide (as it did in Alaska) jobs and income for thousands of people.

The popular solution to this conundrum is term limits, as if the answer was in preventing anyone in Washington from being there long enough to unravel the Byzantine rules of power and procedure. But the problem is not how much time a representative spends in Congress; it is what he or she does there.

And what they do is this: they outlast other representatives and in so doing, they get the plum assignments and the committee chairmanships, which are given out according to seniority. That is why Teddy Kennedy continues be elected by the otherwise intelligent voters of Massachusetts. Why serially elect a man guilty at least of negligent homicide and perhaps even murder? Because Kennedy is the senior Democrat on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. He also serves on the Judiciary Committee, where he is the senior Democrat on the Immigration Subcommittee, and on the Armed Services Committee, where he is the senior Democrat on the Seapower Subcommittee. That's why.

And he got all those jobs because he's been in the Senate since 1962--forty six years! Indeed, the voters of Massachusetts are not stupid; they are smart. So long as Kennedy is in a position to use his power for their benefit, replacing him with a neophyte would be stupid.

And to be fair, it's also why Utahns re-elect Orrin Hatch every six years. Even by Utah's low requirements, Hatch is a poor public servant, but since he's the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, he is a very important man when it comes to Supreme Court nominations. Thus, he is also returned time and time again to the Senate. He's been in office 32 years, and yet he is only the fourth most senior Republican! But has he served anyone, really? And, more importantly, is he the best person to chair the Judiciary Committee when the Republicans are in power? Who can know? So long as Senate seniority rules prevail, he will remain in office, for Utah voters are no less intelligent than their Massachusetts counterparts: without their seniority-rewarded representatives, who can doubt that neither Kennedy nor Hatch would be elected year after year?

So the answer is not term-limits, which punish representatives who have an important expertise they garnered prior to going to Washington and are willing to put in the time to learn how to navigate the halls of power. Seniority rules in both houses should be repealed, and committee members and chairs should be elected by the other members of their respective deliberative bodies. If you are a newly-elected senator who practiced medicine for twenty years, you might be a better choice to serve on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee than Teddy Kennedy. Imagine . . . if your pre-Washington credentials were impressive enough, you might even be elected across party lines. Under such a regime, senators and congressmen would serve where their talents would be best utilized, not suffer as underlings for decades to various fossilized Foghorn Leghorns until their own time for leadership comes, and when they, too, have become a laughable parody of a public servant.

The Law of Unintended Consequences applies. In 1978 California voters passed Prop. 13, which effectively froze property taxes, reducing the money available to a spendthrift legislature. But it didn't stop the spending. The legislature first stopped funding "ancillary" items like city parks, street cleanup, and high school marching bands, then started deficit spending. Which is why today, instead of throwing the bums out thirty years ago, California is begging the federal government for a bailout. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there were people in the state legislature today who were there in 1978, and are still unchanged by the experience. Freezing property values in 1978 California was not the answer, nor are term limits today. Term limits would simply chase everyone out, no matter their capability or integrity, and no one in congress would know what they were doing. It's hard to imagine the whole shebang working worse than it does now, but just wait until term limits are the rule, not the exception.

No, change must come from within. The alcoholic must want to stop drinking, and the legislature must want to stop spending. So the answer is not term limits, but changes within the legislature to the rules by which committee assignments are given out. The process will begin only when we elect representatives who will pledge to eradicate these archaic seniority rules. Only then will our representatives truly represent us.


NEXT TIME: Solid logic behind the opposition to homosexual marriage.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Primary Madness: The Tyranny of the Few

THE SIMPLE REASON JOHN McCAIN LOST THE ELECTION is that, even with the nomination of Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential candidate, the Republican base was still not sufficiently energized to turn out in sufficient numbers (and to encourage others to do so) to elect the so-called maverick. In short, McCain was just not conservative on enough issues to win us--and the nation--over. His alignment with Democratic senators Feingold, Kennedy, and Lieberman on a series of wrong-headed legislation not only tarnished his claim to conservative credentials, but his claim to good judgment as well. So why did Republicans choose such a poor candidate as their standard-bearer in '08?

Because a few chaff-headed farmers in Iowa and a couple of tree-tapping saps in New Hampshire exerted a disproportional influence on the primary process. There may have been a time when these small state primaries made sense, but I cannot recall it. I cannot even formulate a good argument for its continuance today. So I have what I think is a better idea: A national primary.

Here's how it would work: As we have seen, the presidential election now takes almost two full years from start to finish. I don't like it, but as a believer in the Free Speech clause, I think we should not limit it. Let all the contenders speak, debate, and run ads to their hearts' content, and let them spend all the money, from whatever source, they wish--just require full disclosure of their donors' identities and donations, so the American people can judge who is owned by whom.

Then, we'll hold a national primary for each party in May. Anyone (Rep or Dem) could vote in either primary, but no one could vote in both. That way, in order for miscreants like Rush's ill-advised "Operation Chaos" mind-numbed robots (who effectively elected Obama, thank you) to cast ballots for the "weak horse" (as they thought Obama would be), they would have to sacrifice a vote for their own favorite candidate. I think most people would rather put their own candidate in office than disrupt the other party's nomination process.

This would not disenfranchise voters in Iowa; nor would it disenfrachize voters in California, Alabama, or Utah. Everyone would have a say in narrowing the field, say, to three on a side, who would then go to their respective nominating conventions.

Then, the real campaign would ensue, and it wouldn't be for president, either, but instead for delegates to the national party conventions. Instead of choosing electors based on insider-trading and political payback, each state delegation would be filled with people who run for the office. Their prime qualification would be their reasoning behind which of the three candidates they would support at the summer convention, where their votes would not be secret, but public, because they ran for elector based on their support for a certain candidate.

The nomination convention would then return to its first purpose: to select the best representative of the party in the final contest in the fall. Convention rules could permit a change of vote (after, say, the third tied ballot). In any case, it would be the will of the party overall that would select the best candidate, and not just a few insiders in obscure states.

Looking back at the recent Republican primary, I am certain that the candidate thus chosen would not have been the contrarian John McCain. Rather, if a whole nation of Republicans had an early voice in winnowing down the field of contestants, I believe it most likely that Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani, and Mike Huckabee would have entered the convention as final contenders, and people like the guy down my block who cares enough about Republican politics to run for elector and go to the convention on his own dime would then choose the best party representative for November. Thus, in voting for the elector, I would have a say at the national convention.

If both parties had chosen their candidate this way, I have no doubt that today we'd either have a president Guiliani or Clinton, both vast improvements over the faux-conservative McCain or the ultra-liberal Obama.

NEXT TIME: Why Congress Doesn't Represent Us
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Top Secret McCain Memorandum

MEMORANDUM -- EYES ONLY

From:   Sen. John McCain
To:       Republican National Committee
Re:       Proposed Arrangement

As per your request, I'm reducing to writing our agreement regarding my nomination as Republican candidate for the presidency. Though I eschew closed door arrangements, I understand your desire that our agreement be reduced to writing to protect the party's interests and insure the future thereof.

First, some straight talk: I'm well aware that I am not the party's first choice for its 2008 nominee. I recognize that my contrariness over the years has reduced much of my stature among the party faithful. In my defense, I've always tried to do what I thought best, though in retrospect it is now obvious that many of my attempts to cross the aisle in the Senate have resulted in bad law and even worse outcomes. McCain-Feingold, our feckless though good-hearted attempt to regulate political speech, was a major disaster, I'll admit. It just goes to show how hard it is to draft legislation; you try to foresee every contingency. Who would have predicted the free-for-all that resulted from the 527 organizations, both left and right?

I know, I know. You predicted it, and I now stand corrected. I think my position on border security was defensible, even now, though I admit I am in a shrinking minority in this. And me from Arizona! Yet, as I've said on the stump, the longest I've lived in any one place is the Hanoi Hilton. I hope I can be excused for not identifying sufficiently with my fellow border-staters. I will do better.

But what finally nearly sealed my changed views has been my stance on environmental issues. I truly believed Kyoto was a good idea; I believe in global warming (or cooling or whatever they're calling it this week). When the nomination was in sight but gas prices were not, I reluctantly signed on to off-shore drilling. I thought that would be enough to satisfy the base, but again, I misunderestimated (to coin a word) my own base. Two decades in Washington, D.C. have apparently done their mischief, even to me.

Now they're clamoring for ANWR drilling, which I still don't want to do. I know, I know, I haven't even been up there (not even to see Sarah), and I know the size of the site is equivalent to a postage stamp on a football field, but I hope you understand how hard it is for me to change from being a maverick to toeing the party line.

Ah, you say, but you co-opted BHO's rhetoric for change, so what's the problem? And you're right, you're right. I've got a few more "fine tunings of my position" left in me, to quote my prompter-dependent opponent, so ANWR is now on the chopping block. And I'll read that Crichton book about global warming that Karl sent over and try to have an open mind.

All this being said, I knew that my pick for Veep was crucial. I thought long and hard about it. My advisers wanted me to go with one of my primary opponents, to show I don't hold as hard a grudge as many allege. But Romney was too Mormon (and too young, tall, and good-looking, to be truthful). Huckabee gave me the creeps with his fundamentalist roots (I know you remember my regretful comments about JF being an "agent of intolerance") and physical transformation (how could a guy be fat for so long and then suddenly lose it all? Did he suddenly acquire self-control?). Rudy would have been good (he can melt ice with his disdainful sneer), but I can't help but feel there are bogeymen in his past he just couldn't let off the leash. Thompson (still my choice for SC, or if he wants it, SecState) apparently just didn't want it bad enough. If he'd had half as much energy in debates as he puts into his Townhall column, he'd have slayed me up there. Plus, people loved him in that Indiana Jones movie.

None of my challengers seemed quite right. So I stopped looking inside the beltway and began looking at my base and what they wanted. And it came to me like a revelation: Sarah Palin, the ultimate feminist/stay-at-home hockey mom who took on the oil companies in Alaska. I liked how she rejected the ultimate earmark, that stupid Bridge to Nowhere. Her selection, I reasoned, would solidify the maverick moniker I've fought so hard for (some say unwisely, but let's let that go), and she'd galvanize the base which was, to put it mildly, rather tepid about me.

And boy, was I pleasantly surprised! She did that and more. You folks at the RNC were tickled with her choice as VP and I saw more than one person nodding, mouthing the word "Reagan."

Well . . . I knew Ronald Reagan. I served with Ronald Reagan. And I know . . . I'm no Ronald Reagan.

So here's my offer: If the RNC will truly get behind my candidacy (I know you were soft-pedaling the entire project prior to my choice of Palin) and get out the vote for November, I'll promise you this:

1. I will continue to manage the war effort just as W has, with additional pressure on Pakistan to either deliver OBL or watch team after team of SEALS violate their border every night until we get him or his corpse.

2. I will continue my popular assault on earmarks. I'll use the presidential veto as never before and will, as I said publicly a few days ago, "make those who sponsor earmarks famous."

3. Just after the House reconvenes in October to vote on whether to maintain the off-shore drilling ban or let it lapse, I will announce that given the state of the economy, overwhelming public opinion, and the high cost of gas, I will fully support drilling in ANWR and let the caribou and polar bears sidle up to the pipeline for some much-needed warmth during the long Alaskan winter. I will also forget I ever heard of Kyoto. And I'll read that book. Hell, I'll even give time in one of my presidential debates for Crichton and Gore to square off. I'd like to emcee for a change; show my Jack Barry chops.

4. Supreme Court: More justices like Alito and Roberts. 'Nuff said.

5. I will bring Palin forward as the most involved VP in history. She'll be in every cabinet meeting, every NatSec meeting, and every Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner (though with size of our combined families, I'm sure we'll all need an extended vacation afterwards!) because I know she represents not only the core of the Republican party, but its noble past and its hopeful future.

6. And after my term(s) (I can hope, can't I?) expire, I promise to shepherd Sarah Palin into the presidency. I know my time as leader of this party will be an aberration from what you folks at the RNC really want, but if I give you the justices you desire, keep America secure and taxes low, then the next generation (Palin, et al) can worry about reversing Roe, taking the culture back from the Hollywood miscreants, and further solidify the Court.

That's the deal. I know I'm not the guy you folks were hoping for. I even saw a "McWhatshisname/Palin" bumper sticker the other day, so I know exactly where I stand. I may have stood last in my class at Annapolis, but I stand behind no one when it comes to keeping my word. If you do your part, I'll do mine. Count on it.

Respectfully,

John McCain
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Proposal: Thorazine for the Liberal Mind

I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT HAPPENS. I don't know why it happens. I only know that it happens, but only to about half of the people. The other half seem immune from the disease. But those who are afflicted, who have apparently forgotten everything they were taught as children (and have even taught their own children), now see the world in a way that is, simply . . . crazy.
 
I'm talking about, of course, the shift from conservative to liberal. Make no mistake, we all start out conservative. As children, we hoard memories and marbles with equal zeal. We count the peas left on the plate that we must eat before Mom will let us up from the table. We count the minutes until our favorite TV program comes on. We count the pennies, nickels, and dimes in our piggy banks. We keep track of who cuts in front of us in line. We mow the lawn so we can borrow the car Friday night. We work for good grades so we can get into college. We do our best to romance the object of our affection. And when we have children, we teach them the same.
 
What I've just described is a conservative, someone who conserves time, money, relationships, grades, careers, homes, families, forests, nations, and the planet. A conservative simply applies time-honored principles to his own life. Most people never stray from these principles. They balance their checkbook, knowing that if they don't, they will not be able to buy the things they want and need.
 
What's amazing is that about half the population, while scrupulously balancing their own checkbooks, believes that government shouldn't have to balance theirs. They insure their own car, but aren't sure if others should be required to do so. They bring an I.D. with them to vote, but think it's racist to require others to do so. They conserve water by running the sprinklers at night; mow the grass to conserve its health; trim the tree branches to conserve the neighbor's roof. In short, they are conservatives . . . when it comes to their own yard.
 
Yet half of them vote liberal in elections. How can this be, when their own success results directly from conservative principles? If I balance my checkbook, why would I vote for someone who won't balance the federal budget? If I teach my children that they get their allowance after they've done their chores, why would I give money to a panhandler? If I lock my doors at night, why would I vote for anyone who would oppose a border fence? If I'm faithful to my spouse, why would I think anyone who is not faithful to theirs is honest?
 
In short, everything that works in the private sphere works in the public one. If we go to the gym, eat a good diet, and get enough sleep, we will generally be healthy. Sometimes bad things happen, but a conservative knows that the smoker dying of lung cancer is less worthy of his compassion (and limited resources) than someone born with cerebral palsy. A conservative (and a successful liberal) knows that you pay the mortgage first, put food in the fridge, and if there's money left over, maybe we'll have cable TV.
 
But liberals are nutty. They disconnect their own experience from the world they live in. While they balance their own checkbook, it's OK to let government spending spin out of control if it's for a "good" cause. Yet they don't give their mortgage money to panhandlers. Instead, they give a dollar and pretend they are both helping the beggar and being generous. They are Scrooges when it comes to their own kids' allowance because they know that teaching a child the value of money is one of the most important things they can do to insure that child's success later in life.
 
Conservative principles work on the macro level as well. We step in when bullies are beating up a defenseless child, but we also teach that child to defend himself in the future. The U.S. protected the defenseless a generation ago and we rebuilt the economies of our former enemies so that today they are our allies. This decade, we freed 40 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq, freeing them from bullies and are now teaching them how to live as free people. They will learn to balance budgets, govern themselves without corruption, and have peaceful relations with their neighbors. If we are successful, they will, like many of the former Soviet Union satellites, have conservative governments.
 
So why would anyone believe that the bedrock principles that made their own life successful (thrift, hard work, honesty, and fidelity) be any less indispensable to the success of any other person or country?
 
There is only one answer: Such a demented person thinks you are stupid and need their help. This is the unspoken, core truth of the looney left. And yet it was conservative principles that placed them in a position to "help" you. Why are they, notwithstanding their "superior" intellect, unable to recall their own conservative roots? Because they are no longer balancing their own checkbook. The checks they are writing, the ones with all the zeros, come from your checkbook.
 
It's human nature, I guess. Studies have shown that people use much more TP in public restrooms than they do at home. Someone else is paying for the TP, right? At home, we turn off the lights because we're paying for the electricity. But when people get into government, conservative principles often go out the window. Conservatives are not immune. They hear the siren song of "helping" the "helpless" and start throwing good money after bad, but their own moniker eventually reminds them of their folly. Liberals, on the other hand, not only think they are smarter than you, they also believe their compassion trumps your right to manage your own checkbook.
 
The result is a nation with a bloated, unbalanced budget, out-of-control spending, broken fences with our neighbors, and a populus, nearly half of which apparently doesn't know the difference between giving a child an allowance for helping around the house and tossing a quarter to a bum.
 
The drafters of the Constitution envisioned "citizen legislators" and a system of checks and balances (an apt economic metaphor) to constrain each branch of government to stay within reasonable bounds. Each branch naturally wants to extend its power. Adherents to the philosophy of a "living" Constitution currently hold sway in the judicial arena, often overriding legislation they deem to be insufficiently progressive. The legislature is too timid to make hard decisions (Roe v. Wade is one classic example of the judiciary stepping in when the legislative branch refused to act), and the President winds up doing the legislature's job via executive orders. And the fourth branch of government--you and me--seems more interested in American Idol than America, so we fail to hold any branch responsible. It's like we left an 8 year-old in charge of the baby while we went out to a movie. In a conservative world, such dereliction of parental duties would result in dire consequences.
 
Why we do not demand proportional punishment for those who ignore timeless conservative principles in the public square is beyond me. The liberals must be, simply . . . crazy.
 
May I suggest a Thorazine drip?


 


 


 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The American Dream: Not What You Thought

SINCE THE ARRIVAL of the Puritans at Plymouth Rock, America has been a dream, a hope, a possibility. It continues to be so today, except for many Americans themselves, who have instead adopted the very beliefs that drove our forebears from Europe to America, where they lived lives of privation, danger, and early death.
Why would anyone leave the comfort and safety of Europe for the malaria-infested shores of a distant, uncivilized continent?
 
One reason alone: freedom. The Puritans were not so much headed for America as they were escaping oppressive European governments, which had limited their religious freedom, their right to assemble, and their right of self-determination--the very rights guaranteed a hundred years later in our own Constitution, but now largely forgotten by most Americans, judging from the polls. Important rights today seem to be the right to not be offended by another's views, the right to cradle-to-the-grave healthcare, and the right to 100+ cable channels and a 2000 calorie Whopper.
 
I do not make this charge lightly, for it has been my habit over the last twenty years, whenever I talk to someone who is disgusted with American foreign policy, to ask them what exactly does America stands for? What, precisely, is the "American dream"?
 
What I usually hear is a monetary version: "Home ownership," is the most common response, a kind of updated Depression-era "chicken in every pot" homily. But even eighty years ago the dream started to turn into a nightmare, reducing the core value of political, religious, and personal freedom to mere creature comforts. Back then it was a chicken dinner, in the post-war period it was home ownership, now it's universal health care, none of which satisfy the innate human need for freedom. Interstate highways, better cars, 24-7 sports channels, 3-day weekends, safe consumer products--all this seems to be the goal of most Americans, but none of these is why America came into being, and none of them are why it should exist today. In short, America should not stand for the easy life--it should stand for a better one.
 
Except for tours of French museums and Mexican cruiseship dockings, most Americans have never really been in another country. In Rio, the world's worst slums lie less than a mile from Ipanema Beach, but no tourists go there. Calcutta squalor is seen through the viewfinder of a camera and dismissed just as easily. For two years I lived in Ecuador, one of the poorest countries in South America. I saw first-hand how hard life could be without the creature comforts I grew up with. Even getting water involved walking a mile to the common well. At first I was horrified by the living conditions: In the tiny hamlet of Jipijapa there were no paved streets, no running water, very little electricity, and cockroaches as big as your fist. For many days after my arrival, I focused on what these people did not have, until I met a carpenter who dreamed of coming to the US.
 
"Life is better there, no?" he asked.
 
"It is," I said. "We have everything."
 
"Yes. You have freedom," he said simply.
 
I looked at him. Freedom? Well, sure, we had that. I'd never thought about it before.
 
"You can live your life as you please," he added. "Any way you choose."
 
Yes, that was also true. Then he began to tell me how Jipijapa was ruled by a jefe malvado, a strongman owner of a coffee plantation, who paid the workers a pittance, fired them if they complained, and ran off or killed those who opposed him.
 
"But the liquor is very cheap," said the carpenter, smiling ruefully. "It puts us to sleep."
 
At that moment I began to see how this simple man--who earned one dollar a day--saw the world, and I realized he was more informed about it than I was. Life was not about cheap liquor (or food or gas or homes or TV). It was about the freedom to choose one's own life, and this Ecuadorian carpenter believed in that dream because of the USA. Nothing in his world even remotely mimicked the freedoms we enjoy; but he'd seen Dallas on TV, and instead of being covetous of the incredible standard of living the characters on that show enjoyed, he saw a weekly morality play: good prevailed, wrongs were righted, and evil people were eventually punished. After all, J.R. was shot.
 
I returned to home to a different country than I had left. In truth, I was different, and I've never ceased to see the crucial connection between our standard of living and the freedom that underwrites it. But I fear many of my countrymen, who've never lived in another country, do not recognize that the foundation for our life is not capitalism; it is the freedom to choose how we live our lives.
 
So what does America stand for? Freedom. Freedom to fail, freedom to succeed. Now, with that in mind, where do you come down on the issues of the day? Should the government guarantee that no one ever stubs his toe? Should the government be blamed for every minor inconvenience we experience? Should everyone have the unlimited right to absolute personal health, wealth, and welfare?
 
Or should America merely be the level playing field where we get to see what we're made of? Will we win or lose? If I get injured, isn't that part of the game? If the other team scores, should they be required to let me score as well? If they have a star player, shouldn't he be required to play half the game for my team? When I'm tired, shouldn't the coach let me rest? And should I let the attractive cheerleaders divert my attention from the game?
 
When people say George Bush is the worst president ever, I just smile. Sure, as a conservative, there are many things I dislike about his administration--the unbridled growth of the federal government, to name just one--but for me, he will go down in history as a great president because of just one thing: he gave the freedom to choose to 40 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq. They may choose wrongly. Afghans may return to an opium poppy economy. Iraq may break up into a dozen warring factions. But President Bush gave them the unprecedented freedom to choose, and that, in my book, not only makes him a great president, but it makes him a great president of a great country, because the freedom is what we stand for. It is our greatest export and the very reason for our existence.
 
So this Fourth of July I will bow my head and offer a prayer of thanks for those 4,000 Americans who freely gave their lives so that 40 million strangers could experience freedom. And the kind of person who would give his or her own life for another is the natural outgrowth of a nation "conceived in liberty."
 
God bless America, and may God bless Americans to remember what it means to be an American.
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Seek And You Shall Find . . . Unfortunately

PERHAPS IT'S THE ELECTION YEAR or perhaps it's just the stage of my life, but I'm a little worried about our culture. Everywhere I look, I'm assaulted by images of people frantically searching for someone to follow, or by images of people seeking to lead. One would think that this would create a nice mix: the followers want a leader; the leader wants followers. Voila! A match made in heaven.

But what concerns me is the dynamic itself. There was a moment in my life, one I now recognize as the moment I became an adult, in which I realized there were no real leaders for me anymore. It happened in stages. During the Watergate and Vietnam episodes, like most young Americans I came to distrust the government (in addition to anyone over thirty.) At the end of the 1970s, when popular music basically died, I realized there would be no more Beatles. When Jimmy Stewart passed, I realized there were to be no more movie stars, either. I read one too many books about religion in general and mine in particular to believe in people with a hotline to God or who brunched with Jesus. My parents' foibles became excruciatingly apparent. Even my peers, those who I celebrated for their vision and courage, proved that they, too, had feet of clay.

All that was left was for me to realize that the time for following had ended. There were no experts, no professionals, no prophets, no gurus, no teachers of transcendence. Only people who were facing middle age as I was, as sadly unprepared as I was, and as afraid as I was, truth be told.

So I grew up. I quit listening to the "expert," who, my dad always said, was just "some guy from out of town with a briefcase." I started thinking for myself. Not just criticizing, rebelling, or being contrary, but actually thinking: considering the facts, weighing the arguments, coming to a conclusion, and putting it into practice. In that order.

And guess what? Life went on pretty much as it did before. I had my successes and failures, my ups and downs, and I became aware that I had made my life's decisions pretty much on my own. This is not to say I didn't benefit from the years when I had leaders and teachers and guides and parents, only that I took from them the wisdom and knowledge they had to share and then struck out on my own.

I became aware that the answers I came up with were pretty much as good (and once in a while better) than the generic, one-size-fits-all answers my "leaders" had always given me, answers that seemed, like any policy, to ill-fit almost everyone, even though they were designed for wide application. I came up with a quip: "Policy is what you come up with when you're tired of dealing with individuals."

So my life became a reasoned attempt to weigh the aphorisms and advice I'd received from my "leaders" with my own experience and wisdom. I became less interested in joining . . . anything. I found myself uncomfortable sitting in an audience while some "expert" spoke to me about things I already knew. I still saw the power of unified action, but most of the time when we sit at the feet of "leaders," we are passive and nothing much happens. I found sitting in such environments actually painful, even when the speaker or leader or expert was sincere. In terms of religion, I heard Jesus say, "Love one another." Because of the astonishing difficulty of actually putting this advice into practice, I found I had little time for the further nuances of religious differences, doctrine, or dogma. And since I believe we all have a personal relationship with God, and He knows us better than we know ourselves, how can another human being possibly teach and guide us better than He can? So, to quote a good friend: I "cut out the middle man."

I found that my life took on a wonderful new direction. I still made many mistakes and false starts, but at least they were my mistakes and false starts. As a proactive person, I no longer had the luxury of blaming others for my plight. If I didn't like my job, no one knew me as well as I did and could not possibly advise me better than I could advise myself as to the course of action I should take. If I was uncertain about an idea or philosophy, it was up to me to suss it out and discern a proper course of action. When elections rolled around, I almost reflexively shied away from the candidate who promised me anything. As an adult, I know there's no free lunch, so if this pol wants my vote, it's going to cost me something, usually my freedom. Ben Franklin said, "anyone who would trade freedom for security deserves neither." So I chose freedom.

Spiritual leaders, convinced of their own insider knowledge and wisdom, abound, but I eschew them all, because no one knows me better than God and He and I already have a relationship. I don't need anyone to tell me what God has in mind for me; I'm in the process of learning from Him what that is, though it's often slow going.

I worry about a country and culture where there are so many eager leaders and so many passive followers. What I wish there were more of were adults, those who are reluctant to join not only a rally or a party, but also a mob or a church. So long as we find ourselves in large groups, I do not see how we can discern what our individual purpose in this life is. No one, not even the most prescient prophet, can know that any better than the individual himself.

So the next time anyone tells you how it is (including me, I suppose), your first response should not be, "How many honorary degrees are appended to your name?" or "How big is your constituency?" or "How many books have you written and have you ever been on Oprah?" but perhaps, "I'm sorry, but I'm in a bit of a hurry... I'm busy living my life right now, but when I get done with it, then you can have it."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Obama Benediction

BARACK OBAMA, seemingly destined to be the democratic candidate for president, has taken the country by storm and everyone wants to know why. How can this one-term senator with almost no legislative accomplishments or clear plan for the future be prepared for the presidency, and why do tens of thousands of people turn out for his rallies, chanting his name like he was the Messiah?

Because they think he is.

Here is why: As Shelby Steele points out in his book A Bound Man, Obama, the son of a white mother and an absentee black father and essentially raised by prosperous, white mid-westerners, faces the dilemma all blacks in America face: How to deal with the majority that wields power over the minority?

Steele calls the usual racial response, "masking," wherein blacks reinvent themselves through their strategic relations with whites. Masking generally demonstrates itself in one of two ways. The first is the bargaining mask, where blacks say to whites, "I will not use America's horrible history of white racism against you, if you will promise not to use my race against me." In other words, Steele says, bargainers grant whites the innocence and moral authority they need in return for their goodwill and generosity. Bargainers give before they ask, and they trust that reciprocity will prevail -- that goodwill will elicit good will. Bargaining is effective because it begins with magnanimity. Examples of successful bargainers are Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Oprah Winfrey, and Barack Obama.

The challenging mask, on the other hand, says, "Whites are incorrigibly racist until they do something to prove otherwise." This high ground as the historic victim of racism gives the challenger great moral power in the white community. In a society where the greatest shame has been white racism, the challenger has the power over the guilt and innocence of whites. This is why Don Imus, in penance for a racial aside on his show, did not seek absolution from Oprah Winfrey; instead, he went to one of the premiere challengers of the day: Al Sharpton. Imus did not go to see Colin Powell because Powell does not wield the racist stigma as his main source of power in American life; Sharpton does. And only a challenger can remove that stigma from whites whith finality, and then only when the challenger gets something in return: a public confession of racism, affirmative action, promises of diversity in hiring, etc.

But while challengers remain forever mired in racial conflict, bargainers can transcend those conflicts when the synergy of innocence given and gratitude received elevates them to an iconic status in the culture. Steele calls this the Iconic Negro, someone who embodies the highest and best longings of both races. Oprah Winfrey has achieved this status, as has Sidney Poitier. In dealing with them, whites can experience themselves shorn of racism, as people capable of complete human identification with a black person.

The drawback for both blacks and whites is that Oprah has obtained her iconic status through masking: she was a bargainer first. This is a tough position to be in: The Iconic Negro lives in that territory between the doubt they feel over the self-suppression they engage in in order to make things happen and the charge from their own group that their success proves them to be sellouts. But while they do not solve the country's race problem, they do nudge the culture in the right direction.

Barack Obama has become an Iconic Negro, which is why white women are swooning at his rallies. He offers racial absolution to a white populace weary of being accused of being racist. The problem for Obama, however, is in his own self-identification as black, rather than white. His bi-racialness makes him suspect to those wearing the challenger mask. Which is why Obama goes out of his way to downplay his privileged, white upbringing. After law school, instead of opting for Wall Street, he worked in the south Chicago projects and joined a black-themed church that essentially excludes whites. Even Obama was paying respects to the challenger mask.

But the real problem for Obama is not his race; it is the fact that he wears a mask at all. Both masks assume a fact not in existence: that no amount of black responsibility will lift the black race into parity with whites. Both masks are designed to deal with the white majority. So only transcendence from mask-wearing will raise the race, as it did a young Obama himself. But if black poverty and suffering are no longer automatically tied to white racism, then black uplift is dependent upon what blacks do. And if blacks are responsible for their fate, then whites no longer need to trade for their innocence with blacks, and mask-wearing blacks no longer have power to bestow racial absolution upon whites. Instead, they must be judged as individuals.

Can Obama achieve this worthy goal? Not so long as he wears a mask. Steele calls black responsibility the third rail of American race relations. If whites mention it, the stigma of racism falls upon them. If blacks mention it, they are Uncle Toms betraying their race by letting whites off the hook.

The only famous black who seems to have transcended race is Bill Cosby, who has recently become a great criticizer of the self-destructive aspects of black culture. He stages "call outs," where he challenges inner-city blacks to take charge of their families and raise their children with values and purpose. He brings on stage mothers of teenagers killed in gang violence, people who lost themselves to drugs, girls who all but destroyed their lives with teenage pregnancies. And, in a moment of great theater, he removed his Iconic Negro mask in public, when he said at the NAACP convention, "I don't care what white people think."

But it cost him. Bill Cosby is now something of a liability even to whites who privately admire his efforts. By refusing to wear any mask whatsoever, he is now a risk to white innocence, rather than a source of it. He no longer sells Jell-O, or anything else, on national television. But he has trancended race.

Cosby knows, and I believe, that only by seeking Martin Luther King's vision of America, where "a man will be judged, not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character," can we truly heal the racial divide. And yet, to listen to an Obama speech, for the subtle racial nods in the interstices (the incessant calls for "unification"), or to hear Michelle Obama lament that only with Barack's ascendency has she "been really proud to be an American," one can see that they both continue to wear masks, albeit different ones. Obama is an Iconic Negro, his public face that of the bargainer; Michelle seems to have donned the challenger mask.

But so long as they wear masks at all, the voters will suspect something is amiss. Before reading Steele's book, I, too, suspected something wrong in the candidacy of Barack Obama. I suspected he was not who he said he was. And Steele's book has given definition to my unease. I don't support Obama because he is a nutty liberal, not because he's black. And I can't support him because he wears a mask that hides his true identiy, the one he was raised with: the truthfulness and awkwardness of individuality not tied to race. To get my vote, he would have to promise to defend the country, not parley with the madmen who wish to kill us. And beyond that, he would have to dispense with the expectation that white racism has anything to do with black responsiblity. He would have to take off his mask and cease offering me racial absolution, which I don't want or need and which he cannot truly give.

But can Barack Obama remove his mask? If so, he runs the risk of becoming an individual like Bill Cosby, and will probably lose political and racial capital, both with whites and blacks. He may survive such a move, but the messianic specialness will evaporate. White Americans will no longer see the possibility of their own racial innocence in him.

And white women will stop fainting at his rallies.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »