Racial tension is increasing in America today. The Trayvon Martin shooting is but one of many catalysts. Another is that the general public, especially the general, white, public, is no longer buying into the approved meme of "black victimization at the hands of white racists." The rise and acceptance of African-Americans in politics and industry, has removed the sting from accusations of racism. In short, those that once claimed to be held down by 'The Man' have themselves become 'The Man'. It's tough to convince people that you are oppressed when someone that you claim as your own occupies the most powerful office on Earth.
Moreover, it is ludicrous to point to one incident and claim that it is indicative of reality in America. If that were the case, and the news media were as honest and unbiased as it claims to be, there would certainly be grounds for accusations of racism but those accusations would more rightly be from white people towards African-Americans. African Americans are more likely to commit crimes against white people than the reverse. I make this assertion, not through the lens of a distant outsider, but as one who has been the target of racism, both personal and institutional.
I grew up in one of the most racially divided cities in the nation; Detroit, Michigan. This divide was emphasized and exploited by then Mayor Coleman A. Young, a race hustler and scandal magnet that managed to stay in office from 1974 to 1993, largely by keeping African-Americans angry and suspicious of what he called "hostile suburbs" in order to retain their votes. His was a masterful use of the race card and manipulation of "Black Rage". His repeated accusations of racism usually coincided with reporters asking him tough questions about questionable practices or missing city funds, causing a typically craven Detroit news media to back off and leave the issue alone.
In the Detroit of the 70's and 80's, the racial divide was glaring and tainted every aspect of life. Between the rising crime rate and the loss of jobs resulting from a shrinking auto industry presence, Detroit was becoming less and less desirable as a place to live. The final nail in the city's coffin was the implementation of busing, the practice of transporting schoolchildren far away from their neighborhoods to attend schools elsewhere. This created the phenomenon known as 'White Flight', the migration of people of European ancestry from urban centers to suburban centers. Modern thought attributes this to fear and suspicion on the part of white people towards minorities, my experience was that it was more a quality of life issue than it was about fear.
Indeed, the dischord sown by Mayor Young and his cronies short-circuited any attempt to tie the region together through mass transportation or cooperation between city governments. The result was that Southeastern Michigan evolved into a group of city-states that were independent of the urban hub. they created their own infrastructure, public venues, and urban cultures. They thrived while Detroit began a downward spiral into poverty.
African-Americans (in those less enlightened times, we called them 'Black People') moving into your neighborhood signaled the decline of property values and a rise in crime. The logical conclusion was to move to the suburbs. Venturing across that border made famous by Eminem was like travelling to a distant land of prosperity and safety. Across Eight Mile Road, people walked the streets without fear, stores stayed open after dark, bulletproof glass was virtually unheard of, and the police were viewed as the good guys. Strolling along the side streets, one was treated to a variety of manicured lawns bordering well-kept houses on well-lit streets.
Simultaneously, in Detroit, it was rare that street lights worked at all, let alone light the streets. lawn care was something that few people did, and most large chain stores closed up and moved out due to losses as a result of theft and vandalism. The typical convenience store was more like an outpost in hostile territory, what with bars on the windows and the clerk being encased in bulletproof glass. These were prudent precautions as the Motor City was, at the time, The Murder Capital of the world; a title that Detroit has either maintained, or been in contention for, ever since I can remember.
And the schools? I can only speak for the ones that I attended. The faculty at Finney High School was the biggest collection of drunks, ne'er do wells, and perverts I have ever seen outside of a prison. Those few exceptions were completely overwhelmed by the influx of students from the inner city; a collection of loud, rude, undisciplined, rabble that had no interest in learning, and saw high school as an opportunity to hone their skills in intimidation and drug dealing. In the end, school was less about learning than it was about storage. By keeping us off of the streets, the school system at least minimized opportunities for juvenile procreation; the results of which usually ended up on the ever-expanding welfare rolls. To be honest, I suspect that fully half of my graduating class could neither read nor write at a high school level, if at all.
Yet, if you talked to anyone in the Detroit City government, they would paint a picture of sunshine and roses. They would point to The People Mover, a multimillion dollar boondoggle that was falling apart even as it was being built, The Renaissance Center, a huge office bulding and shopping center on the river front (which is laughable because it was built largely by Ford Motor Co. funds), and Hart Plaza, a huge slab of concrete that includes a fountain, and say, "Detroit is on the rise again!" Meanwhile, neighborhood infrastructure was crumbling and street crime was out of control. Downtown development was Coleman Young's Potemkin Village, and he, like the Czars, grew richer while the citizens grew poorer.
To someone like me, growing up in a blue collar neighborhood that was swiftly declining into ghetto-hood, it was baffling as to why the minority, which was now the majority in Detroit, could not see how the city was becoming unlivable. Or why they kept re-electing the most corrupt politicians to positions of power. It was even more confusing as to why the new majority seemed incapable of doing even the most elemental maintenance on their property and possessions (lawn care was virtually nonexistent, and it was as if housepaint was a rare and unobtainable element). The descent into ruin seemed to be embodied by the people as well as the city. In 1991 I, like many before me, threw my hands up in disgust and left the city without looking back.
Today, Detroit is in ruins. The police and fire services are all but gutted, the city itself more resembles a war-torn Third World nation than an American center of industry, and crime is so rampant that I imagine one would be safer in downtown Mogadishu than in downtown Detroit. And those havens of prosperity, the suburbs, have become the recipents of the refugees from Detroit. Ironically, history seems to be repeating itself, as people are moving out of the suburbs to suburbs that are even farther away from Detroit, while those in closer proximity to The Motor City are themselves becoming smaller replicas of ruin and strife.
All of this to say that, racism exists in America, but it is a two-way street and it is emphasized and encouraged by those that stand to make a profit from it while solidifying their own position of power and wealth. Moreover, those same individuals that have worked so hard to keep the hate alive, work equally hard to prevent us all from seeing the truth that is America; racism is a facet of American reality, but it is a tiny one and one that is easily eliminated. Racism in America is almost a footnote (unless you happen to be the victim of it) compared to how it is expressed in the rest of the world.
In other countries, racial tension is a euphemism for hatred. In various African nations, racial tension leads to massacres, war, and genocide. In Europe, racial tension in Nazi Germany killed six million Jews. Racial tension in the Balkans of the 90's resulted in some of the most horrific atrocities ever inflicted upon human beings. Racial tension in Turkey resulted in the slaughter of a million Armenians.
In America, racism is seen for what it truly is; collectivism in its most extreme. To indulge in the mental gymnastics that are required for one to indict an entire race for the actions of a few, one has to believe in the hive mentality. You must be willing to suspend the belief that two individuals that have the same outward appearance can be as different as night from day, and that physical characteristics determine thought and action. Here in America, such concepts are ridiculous to all but a few splinter groups that prefer to wallow in hatred.
So why has America escaped the racial violence experienced by other countries?
The answer is complex. The Second Amendment? Certainly a part of it. it's tough to oppress someone who has the ability to pick you off hundreds of yards away. As Robert Heinlein put it, "An armed society is a polite society." The internet? Absolutely. The old media venues no longer have a monopoly on the dissemination of information. The Racial Grievance Industry is subject to the same amount of scrutiny as any other public figure, and everything they have said or done is on the net, somewhere.
But the simplest answer is prosperity. It is difficult to become angry when you are vacationing in Hawaii. Ginning up a movement based in hatred is difficult when those that you would target have a hundred and twenty other channels to choose from. Rioting in the streets on a hot Summer night is less preferable to sipping a cold beer next to your pool. In short, satisfied people don't act out.
The road to racial harmony is the same that it always has been; protect the rights of the individual, protect the right of the individual to own and use property, and keep the government out of the way. That way, it is up to the individual to advance or fail according to his or her abilities and talents. Given a clear path to prosperity, most people would be too busy working to indulge in hatred.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Dancing in the Blood of Trayvon Martin
The death of Trayvon Martin has brought to light a number of issues that have long been known but unspoken. First, young Mr. Martin's body was barely cold before the usual gang of race hustlers, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan, stampeded towards the nearest news camera to express their collective outrage about the incident. At face value, the rhetoric spewed by these hucksters would have one believe that Mr. Martin's death at the hand of George Zimmerman signaled America's regression to the racial policies of the Antebellum South.
Were the circumstances not so tragic, that assertion would be comical.
President Barack Hussein Obama who, you will recall, is an African-American, expressed his sympathies to the Martin family and his opinion of the situation. To evoke images of a racist past in the era in which African-Americans have risen to such prominence today, is to bring to question the motives of the players that are rushing to capitalize on yet another tragedy in a pathetic attempt to remain relevant.
Al Sharpton, more infamous than famous as a result of the Tawana Brawley Scandal, seems not to realize that his very presence invalidates whatever argument he supports. His continuous race-baiting and perpetual finger pointing at the white community exposes him as nothing but a whiny, contemptible, attention whore.
Jesse Jackson, whose racism has long been known, and whose lies are legion, is doing his best to reclaim those halcyon years when his threatened disapproval caused purses to open and money to flow into his pocket. A mere shadow of his former self, he resembles nothing so much as a boxer who has extended his career far beyond his prime and is now more of a testament as to why you should not fight.
And finally, Louis Farrakhan, the leader of The Nation of Islam and admitted catalyst of the murder of Malcolm X. Long a self-proclaimed enemy of this country, Farrakhan has made a fortune by spreading hatred and discontent, all the while cloaking himself with the guise of "religious leader." Regarded outside of his circle of influence as a kook with delusions of grandeur, Farrakhan nevertheless manages to gain the ear (and the cameras) of various news agencies, resulting in perpetuating mutual suspicion between the races, insuring that he maintains his position of power within the Nation of Islam.
Separately, these radical has-beens are just sad remnants of an era in which giants like Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X walked the Earth. They are much like the Japanese holdouts that appeared for decades after WWII; still fighting a war that everyone else had put behind them in order to get on with their lives.
Together, they serve as an example of all that is wrong with race relations; no one can let go of the past, no one can accept the apology of a nation that has repeatedly admitted its wrongdoing and has made a monumental effort to atone for it, and no one can be allowed to move beyond the old paradigm of white guilt and black anger.
Sadly, the entire controversy surrounding Trayvon Martin's death has resulted in one rather ugly development; the New Black Panther Party offering of a bounty for George Zimmerman 'Dead or Alive.' This, more than Mr. Martin's death, threatens to create animosity between the races that has not existed for better than thirty years. Forgetting for a moment that such a thing is illegal, to escalate the conflict on racial grounds has the potential to initiate the law of unintended consequences to a degree that would dwarf the worst events of the sixties.
Then again, not everyone would suffer from such a crisis. Indeed, such a crisis could launch Messrs. Sharpton, Jackson, and Farrakhan back into the limelight.
Of course, that could be the goal.
Were the circumstances not so tragic, that assertion would be comical.
President Barack Hussein Obama who, you will recall, is an African-American, expressed his sympathies to the Martin family and his opinion of the situation. To evoke images of a racist past in the era in which African-Americans have risen to such prominence today, is to bring to question the motives of the players that are rushing to capitalize on yet another tragedy in a pathetic attempt to remain relevant.
Al Sharpton, more infamous than famous as a result of the Tawana Brawley Scandal, seems not to realize that his very presence invalidates whatever argument he supports. His continuous race-baiting and perpetual finger pointing at the white community exposes him as nothing but a whiny, contemptible, attention whore.
Jesse Jackson, whose racism has long been known, and whose lies are legion, is doing his best to reclaim those halcyon years when his threatened disapproval caused purses to open and money to flow into his pocket. A mere shadow of his former self, he resembles nothing so much as a boxer who has extended his career far beyond his prime and is now more of a testament as to why you should not fight.
And finally, Louis Farrakhan, the leader of The Nation of Islam and admitted catalyst of the murder of Malcolm X. Long a self-proclaimed enemy of this country, Farrakhan has made a fortune by spreading hatred and discontent, all the while cloaking himself with the guise of "religious leader." Regarded outside of his circle of influence as a kook with delusions of grandeur, Farrakhan nevertheless manages to gain the ear (and the cameras) of various news agencies, resulting in perpetuating mutual suspicion between the races, insuring that he maintains his position of power within the Nation of Islam.
Separately, these radical has-beens are just sad remnants of an era in which giants like Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X walked the Earth. They are much like the Japanese holdouts that appeared for decades after WWII; still fighting a war that everyone else had put behind them in order to get on with their lives.
Together, they serve as an example of all that is wrong with race relations; no one can let go of the past, no one can accept the apology of a nation that has repeatedly admitted its wrongdoing and has made a monumental effort to atone for it, and no one can be allowed to move beyond the old paradigm of white guilt and black anger.
Sadly, the entire controversy surrounding Trayvon Martin's death has resulted in one rather ugly development; the New Black Panther Party offering of a bounty for George Zimmerman 'Dead or Alive.' This, more than Mr. Martin's death, threatens to create animosity between the races that has not existed for better than thirty years. Forgetting for a moment that such a thing is illegal, to escalate the conflict on racial grounds has the potential to initiate the law of unintended consequences to a degree that would dwarf the worst events of the sixties.
Then again, not everyone would suffer from such a crisis. Indeed, such a crisis could launch Messrs. Sharpton, Jackson, and Farrakhan back into the limelight.
Of course, that could be the goal.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Random Thoughts on Civil Discourse
One of the great tragedies of our age is the loss of the art of civil discourse. No doubt, it is a result of the degradation of our education system, but whatever the reason, its loss is more than just a loss of a means of communication; it is the first step on the road to violence. There was a time when two people could disagree and remain friends. They could coexist with their conflicting political views because the world, their world, was so much larger than ours. They had interpersonal relationships with neighbors, friends, their children's teachers, and others. Not every disagreement became a matter of national importance. It wasn't necessary to win, it was only necessary to be heard. And to listen. Occasionally, some common ground was reached, and then there was harmony.
Nowadays, it seems that everyone subscribes to the 'scorched earth' method of argument. If you cannot convince the other party to your way of thinking, they must be destroyed. Worse, there is a definite coarsening of the narrative. Whereas in the past, the discussion may have become heated, it was generally accepted that ad hominem attacks, name-calling, and personal insults were a sign that one had lost control and, by default, lost the argument. Today, it seems that such things are almost a weapon of first resort. Even in the political arena, it is not unusual to hear candidates smear one another in such a manner that, in another age, would have resulted in a duel.
Above and beyond that, there is a double standard regarding who may say what. Witness the controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke. Now, it must be said that, whatever your opinion about birth control and who pays for it, Limbaugh's remarks were crass and uncalled for. Don't get me wrong, I admire Rush's ability to articulate an idea, and his abilities as an orator are excellent, which makes his foray into crude behavior all the more baffling. Perhaps he was being honest when he said that his attempt at humor fell flat. Whatever the reason, a man of his station should be above such pettiness.
That said, there can be no question that, had someone of equal fame, but leftist political views said something similar, there would barely be so much as a rumble about it. I know this sounds absurd, but I have history to back me up. When Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut, there was a brief furor, a quick apology, and it was over. And when Bill Maher referred to Sarah Palin as a "dumb twat" , the silence was deafening. In that particular instance, those that claim to be 'feminists' had a golden opportunity to become relevant again. Had they expressed the same degree of outrage towards Bill Maher as they are towards Rush Limbaugh, it would have proven that they were above the 'Left/Right' Paradigm. Instead, they have sacrificed their facade of objectivity in favor of supporting those that, rude and crude though they may be, are more aligned with their political beliefs than Rush will ever be.
But I digress...
Civil discourse in which two or more parties vehemently disagree requires three things; education, a quick wit, and a mastery of language. My absolute favorite example of this is an exchange between The Earl of Sandwich Lord Montagu and John Wilkes. The Earl, incensed at something or other that Wilkes had said, told John Wilkes, "You will die, sir, either on the gallows or from the pox," said Montagu. To which Wilkes replied, "That depends, sir, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Now, there can be no doubt that there was passion, hostility, and anger passed between the two, but the elegance of language in Wilkes' retort displayed a quick wit and a mastery of language absent from today. The closest that I can see from where I sit, is humorist P.J. O'Rourke. I love his assertion that, "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
Perhaps if the vitriol were delivered more intelligently, we could ignore who said what and concentrate, instead, on what was said.
Nowadays, it seems that everyone subscribes to the 'scorched earth' method of argument. If you cannot convince the other party to your way of thinking, they must be destroyed. Worse, there is a definite coarsening of the narrative. Whereas in the past, the discussion may have become heated, it was generally accepted that ad hominem attacks, name-calling, and personal insults were a sign that one had lost control and, by default, lost the argument. Today, it seems that such things are almost a weapon of first resort. Even in the political arena, it is not unusual to hear candidates smear one another in such a manner that, in another age, would have resulted in a duel.
Above and beyond that, there is a double standard regarding who may say what. Witness the controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke. Now, it must be said that, whatever your opinion about birth control and who pays for it, Limbaugh's remarks were crass and uncalled for. Don't get me wrong, I admire Rush's ability to articulate an idea, and his abilities as an orator are excellent, which makes his foray into crude behavior all the more baffling. Perhaps he was being honest when he said that his attempt at humor fell flat. Whatever the reason, a man of his station should be above such pettiness.
That said, there can be no question that, had someone of equal fame, but leftist political views said something similar, there would barely be so much as a rumble about it. I know this sounds absurd, but I have history to back me up. When Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a slut, there was a brief furor, a quick apology, and it was over. And when Bill Maher referred to Sarah Palin as a "dumb twat" , the silence was deafening. In that particular instance, those that claim to be 'feminists' had a golden opportunity to become relevant again. Had they expressed the same degree of outrage towards Bill Maher as they are towards Rush Limbaugh, it would have proven that they were above the 'Left/Right' Paradigm. Instead, they have sacrificed their facade of objectivity in favor of supporting those that, rude and crude though they may be, are more aligned with their political beliefs than Rush will ever be.
But I digress...
Civil discourse in which two or more parties vehemently disagree requires three things; education, a quick wit, and a mastery of language. My absolute favorite example of this is an exchange between The Earl of Sandwich Lord Montagu and John Wilkes. The Earl, incensed at something or other that Wilkes had said, told John Wilkes, "You will die, sir, either on the gallows or from the pox," said Montagu. To which Wilkes replied, "That depends, sir, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Now, there can be no doubt that there was passion, hostility, and anger passed between the two, but the elegance of language in Wilkes' retort displayed a quick wit and a mastery of language absent from today. The closest that I can see from where I sit, is humorist P.J. O'Rourke. I love his assertion that, "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
Perhaps if the vitriol were delivered more intelligently, we could ignore who said what and concentrate, instead, on what was said.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Andrew Breitbart
Generally speaking, when it comes to the death of a celebrity, I'm indifferent. But Andrew Breitbart was different; Instead of taking the easy route and climbing on the pro-liberal, anti-American bandwagon that seems so prevalent in Hollywood and Washington DC, he stood his ground and faced down those that sought to demonize all that is good and right. Even though that that path would have rocketed him to riches as it has so many lesser men, he chose, instead, to get in the face of the elitists and expose their lies and hypocrisy for the world to see. He was, in many ways, the last of a breed of journalists that were more dedicated to the truth than ingratiating themselves with the rich and powerful.
Liberty has lost one of its champions, and we are all diminished as a result.
Liberty has lost one of its champions, and we are all diminished as a result.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
My Mother
On February 20, 2012, my Mother went home to be with Our Savior. She went peacefully in her sleep, which is exactly how she wanted to go.
Life didn't give mom a lot of breaks. For one thing, money was a constant worry. When we didn't have enough, she stressed over it. When we did have enough, she constantly worried about losing it. The former was due to her being a child of The Great Depression. The latter was due to her losing her business as a result of the vagaries of IRS regulations. Nevertheless, she knew how to squeeze a penny until Lincoln screamed for mercy. Even more, we never wanted for a roof over our heads, clothes on our backs, or food in our bellies.
Bad luck, bad men, and a bad back plagued her throughout her life. Yet, if I had to define her life in one word, that word would be 'perseverance.' My father abandoned us when I was a month old, making her a single parent long before it was socially accepted. Despite the hardship and stigma attached to our circumstance in the 70's, she still managed to raise my sister and I into decent people. She did this with love, sensitivity, and, in my case, a wooden spoon.
Much is made of the Protestant Work Ethic. My mother's work ethic made Protestants look like a bunch of layabouts. Many was the day that I saw her go to work at a job she had come to hate, even though her back caused her so much pain she could barely stand. Then, when she came home, she would take care of us and cook a meal.
Cook? Such a bland way to describe what she did. In keeping with her Sicilian heritage, food was love in our house. And when she had the time and inclination, her spaghetti and meatballs were such that I'm willing to bet that Emeril would have wept with joy at having had the privilege to sample such a meal. My mother could create a feast out of a pound of ground beef and a can of Cream of Mushroom Soup.
She also had a heart as big as all outdoors. I don't know how many Thanksgiving holidays involved setting a place at our table for someone that had no family or was too far from home to enjoy the holiday with their own family. It was never a question of 'if', just 'how many?' Some people adopt stray pets, my mom adopted stray people.
The overriding thing I observed about her was, no matter how many times her heart got broken, or how much pain she was in because of some ailment or other, or how big a financial disaster fell upon her, she never waivered in her belief that things would get better. Her faith was her rock, even before she came to Jesus. When she did, in fact, profess her faith in Jesus Christ, she at last found the peace that had eluded her for so many years. I am firm in my belief that her taking that step, combined with who knows how many of her prayers, led my sister, along with her husband and children, and I to make the same journey a few years later. It was a journey that resulted in me meeting the remarkable woman who became my wife and the mother of my children.
When she sensed that her time was coming, ever the planner and preparer, she set her affairs in order, made sure that we all understood her wishes and took steps to insure that they would be carried out with as little financial burden to her family as possible. That done, she turned and faced her end, ready and without fear. On the morning of February 20, 2012, she went to be in the arms of her Creator. From where I stand, she did so having done her duty as a "...good and faithful servant." Though the world is diminished by her passing, we, who are her legacy, embrace all that she was, and all that she taught us, and we strive to pass those qualities on to our children. It is the best way to honor her memory.
Life didn't give mom a lot of breaks. For one thing, money was a constant worry. When we didn't have enough, she stressed over it. When we did have enough, she constantly worried about losing it. The former was due to her being a child of The Great Depression. The latter was due to her losing her business as a result of the vagaries of IRS regulations. Nevertheless, she knew how to squeeze a penny until Lincoln screamed for mercy. Even more, we never wanted for a roof over our heads, clothes on our backs, or food in our bellies.
Bad luck, bad men, and a bad back plagued her throughout her life. Yet, if I had to define her life in one word, that word would be 'perseverance.' My father abandoned us when I was a month old, making her a single parent long before it was socially accepted. Despite the hardship and stigma attached to our circumstance in the 70's, she still managed to raise my sister and I into decent people. She did this with love, sensitivity, and, in my case, a wooden spoon.
Much is made of the Protestant Work Ethic. My mother's work ethic made Protestants look like a bunch of layabouts. Many was the day that I saw her go to work at a job she had come to hate, even though her back caused her so much pain she could barely stand. Then, when she came home, she would take care of us and cook a meal.
Cook? Such a bland way to describe what she did. In keeping with her Sicilian heritage, food was love in our house. And when she had the time and inclination, her spaghetti and meatballs were such that I'm willing to bet that Emeril would have wept with joy at having had the privilege to sample such a meal. My mother could create a feast out of a pound of ground beef and a can of Cream of Mushroom Soup.
She also had a heart as big as all outdoors. I don't know how many Thanksgiving holidays involved setting a place at our table for someone that had no family or was too far from home to enjoy the holiday with their own family. It was never a question of 'if', just 'how many?' Some people adopt stray pets, my mom adopted stray people.
The overriding thing I observed about her was, no matter how many times her heart got broken, or how much pain she was in because of some ailment or other, or how big a financial disaster fell upon her, she never waivered in her belief that things would get better. Her faith was her rock, even before she came to Jesus. When she did, in fact, profess her faith in Jesus Christ, she at last found the peace that had eluded her for so many years. I am firm in my belief that her taking that step, combined with who knows how many of her prayers, led my sister, along with her husband and children, and I to make the same journey a few years later. It was a journey that resulted in me meeting the remarkable woman who became my wife and the mother of my children.
When she sensed that her time was coming, ever the planner and preparer, she set her affairs in order, made sure that we all understood her wishes and took steps to insure that they would be carried out with as little financial burden to her family as possible. That done, she turned and faced her end, ready and without fear. On the morning of February 20, 2012, she went to be in the arms of her Creator. From where I stand, she did so having done her duty as a "...good and faithful servant." Though the world is diminished by her passing, we, who are her legacy, embrace all that she was, and all that she taught us, and we strive to pass those qualities on to our children. It is the best way to honor her memory.
Monday, February 6, 2012
4 More Years of Obama
Political predictions are always a risky thing. Unfortunately, I have a lot of evidence to support this one. The main one is the cowardice of the GOP. When Obama came out of nowhere, flashing his non-credentials as a "community organizer", the GOP should have been able to field a credible opponent and send Obie back to whatever community he came from. Instead, they simply looked at their roster at whose turn it was to run and we ended up with a feckless campaign featuring the unfocused and relatively unenthusiastic John McCain. The end result? We got President Obama.
It's the Standard GOP Playbook: While the Democrats find young, dynamic, and passionate candidates to run for President, the GOP sends up mostly bland, sterile, white bread, Old Guard, men that speak to their audience like the animatronic presidents at Disneyland. They hope to win on the strength of their ideas, as opposed to the sound byte, bumper-sticker philosophy that is the stock and trade of the Democrats.
The ideas are sound; the combination of less spending, smaller government, less regulation, lower taxes, and more liberty has proven time and again to be the path to stunningly fast prosperity. People with more disposable income will spend more money, start businesses, save more, and do all of the things that money makes possible, thus stimulating the economy. Every GOP candidate touts these ideas as their platform, as if they were the originators of them. But, in the long run, it becomes painfully obvious that they don't really believe in them.
When Bush the Elder announced "Read my lips; no new taxes!" Americans were encouraged. He seemed to be willing to advance the ideas set forth by Ronald Reagan who at least managed to bring about some prosperity and stem some of the growth of government while battling the spendthrifts of the Democrat-held Senate and House.
Then he raised taxes.
After a lackluster campaign, we had Bill Clinton inflicted upon us for four years at which time the GOP sent up Bob Dole; another bland, sterile, white bread Old Guard Republican whose campaign died in the womb, giving us another four years of Billy Jeff and his lefty-loony administration.
Things looked hopeful when Baby Bush took office. It was as the same feeling one gets when you're caught in the middle of the chaos of a bar brawl and the bouncers show up to break it up and remove the idiots. It seemed like the adults had returned to the White House and ended the high school house party that had been going on for eight years. George W. Bush spoke unabashedly of his faith in Jesus, America, Americans, and the principles of less government and free enterprise.
And then he went on to expand government, spend recklessly, and make government control on the people easier to accomplish, even though he promised it would be used with caution. A politician's promise, worth exactly what you think it's worth.
Which brings us to today.
Instead of finding someone that can speak to the people in such a way as to make them believe that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated, the GOP has fielded (with one notable exception we'll get to later) a bunch of clones. We have Newt, who claims to be a conservative, even though his record proves otherwise. Then, there is Mitt, whom I believe he will be the candidate because he is so completely bland, sterile, white bread, and, a big plus, he is second generation Old Guard. Mitt will be The One, and he will lose. He will lose because he will attempt to out teleprompter the Teleprompter-in-Chief while attempting to explain how Romneycare is different from Obamacare (hint: it isn't).
The only true conservative in the mix is Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the only man of principle in the race; he refuses to take the government pension he is allowed by law, he refuses to vote for any tax increases whatsoever, and he believes in forcing government to work within the confines of The Constitution. Unfortunately, in this day and age of sound bytes and appearance over substance, Ron Paul is fighting an uphill battle. His shrill voice, his age, and his occasional stumbles over language work against him. Those that bother to look at his record in Congress can't help but be impressed by his consistency in voting. But, this is overshadowed by the fact that he has not managed to advance any of his bills to fruition. Part of this is because he has failed to ingratiate himself to The Machine, and part (most) of it is because the Old Guard GOP doesn't want to fix what's wrong in this country because for them it's not broken!
So steel yourself for this November. Mitt will run. And lose. Obama will continue us on our journey towards Socialism and the GOP, if we're really, really lucky, will finally learn that we no longer listen to what they say; we watch what they do. And then they will either start doing it or be replaced by a party that will.
It's the Standard GOP Playbook: While the Democrats find young, dynamic, and passionate candidates to run for President, the GOP sends up mostly bland, sterile, white bread, Old Guard, men that speak to their audience like the animatronic presidents at Disneyland. They hope to win on the strength of their ideas, as opposed to the sound byte, bumper-sticker philosophy that is the stock and trade of the Democrats.
The ideas are sound; the combination of less spending, smaller government, less regulation, lower taxes, and more liberty has proven time and again to be the path to stunningly fast prosperity. People with more disposable income will spend more money, start businesses, save more, and do all of the things that money makes possible, thus stimulating the economy. Every GOP candidate touts these ideas as their platform, as if they were the originators of them. But, in the long run, it becomes painfully obvious that they don't really believe in them.
When Bush the Elder announced "Read my lips; no new taxes!" Americans were encouraged. He seemed to be willing to advance the ideas set forth by Ronald Reagan who at least managed to bring about some prosperity and stem some of the growth of government while battling the spendthrifts of the Democrat-held Senate and House.
Then he raised taxes.
After a lackluster campaign, we had Bill Clinton inflicted upon us for four years at which time the GOP sent up Bob Dole; another bland, sterile, white bread Old Guard Republican whose campaign died in the womb, giving us another four years of Billy Jeff and his lefty-loony administration.
Things looked hopeful when Baby Bush took office. It was as the same feeling one gets when you're caught in the middle of the chaos of a bar brawl and the bouncers show up to break it up and remove the idiots. It seemed like the adults had returned to the White House and ended the high school house party that had been going on for eight years. George W. Bush spoke unabashedly of his faith in Jesus, America, Americans, and the principles of less government and free enterprise.
And then he went on to expand government, spend recklessly, and make government control on the people easier to accomplish, even though he promised it would be used with caution. A politician's promise, worth exactly what you think it's worth.
Which brings us to today.
Instead of finding someone that can speak to the people in such a way as to make them believe that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated, the GOP has fielded (with one notable exception we'll get to later) a bunch of clones. We have Newt, who claims to be a conservative, even though his record proves otherwise. Then, there is Mitt, whom I believe he will be the candidate because he is so completely bland, sterile, white bread, and, a big plus, he is second generation Old Guard. Mitt will be The One, and he will lose. He will lose because he will attempt to out teleprompter the Teleprompter-in-Chief while attempting to explain how Romneycare is different from Obamacare (hint: it isn't).
The only true conservative in the mix is Ron Paul. Ron Paul is the only man of principle in the race; he refuses to take the government pension he is allowed by law, he refuses to vote for any tax increases whatsoever, and he believes in forcing government to work within the confines of The Constitution. Unfortunately, in this day and age of sound bytes and appearance over substance, Ron Paul is fighting an uphill battle. His shrill voice, his age, and his occasional stumbles over language work against him. Those that bother to look at his record in Congress can't help but be impressed by his consistency in voting. But, this is overshadowed by the fact that he has not managed to advance any of his bills to fruition. Part of this is because he has failed to ingratiate himself to The Machine, and part (most) of it is because the Old Guard GOP doesn't want to fix what's wrong in this country because for them it's not broken!
So steel yourself for this November. Mitt will run. And lose. Obama will continue us on our journey towards Socialism and the GOP, if we're really, really lucky, will finally learn that we no longer listen to what they say; we watch what they do. And then they will either start doing it or be replaced by a party that will.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Yet Another Christmas Rant
You know what I want for Christmas? I want Christian men to grow some balls. Because, quite frankly, I'm tired of tolerating hatred towards us. The ACLU is busily forcing communities to remove Nativity Scenes while public education makes special concessions for Muslims, Buddhists. and homosexuals. But if your kid bows his head to give thanks to Our Heavenly Father before a high school football game, he's in big trouble. The atheists claim that allowing Christians to express their faith in public schools oppresses the non-believers, or something. They also insist that, since public schools are funded by tax money, the government should enforce the separation of church and state rules and prevent Christians from doing so.
Forget that no such separation exists in The Constitution, or that the majority of that tax money they're so worried about is, by and large, paid by Christians; like little children, they want what they want when they want it and no one else's opinion matters. They have no problem oppressing Christians, or offending them. The popular culture thinks Christianity is only good for a punch line and that Jesus is an object of ridicule.
We, as Christian men, tolerate, and tolerate, and tolerate this stuff, without doing what every fiber of our beings wants to do; find the perpetrators of these deeds and give them a serious ass-kicking (in the spirit of Christian Love, of course) because that's what we have been told that Jesus would do. That we should follow his example and turn the other cheek, love our enemies, and let it all slide like water off of a duck's back.
What about the Jesus that picked up a whip and a bundle of rods and chased the moneylenders from the Temple? What about The Guy that stood in full view of the public and called the reigning religious authorities of the day, "a brood of vipers?" I mean, The Guy was a carpenter! If you've spent any time at all around construction guys, you would know that they aren't exactly the "turn the other cheek" type.
Now, before I get accused of trying to get Christians to go all "Medieval Crusades" on the non-believers, understand this: this fight will not be won on the streets. Bar-room brawls are no way to spread The Gospel, and certainly no way to bring people into the fold. No, I want us to simply stop being silent. I want us to stop being ashamed to confront those that would spew inaccuracies and hatred. When some TV show decides to disrespect The Savior, we should inundate the network with complaints. When some child is persecuted for professing faith, we should make our support known. And when we are attacked by haters, we should defend ourselves with the same fervor, intensity, and tactics that they use. Jesus was a proponent of self-defense; He knew that the world the Disciples would face was hostile and brutal. He admonished them to arm themselves in order to prepare for what awaited them. We need to do as He said and arm ourselves with the weapons of our day and fight the fight.
We, who believe, have nothing to fear.
Forget that no such separation exists in The Constitution, or that the majority of that tax money they're so worried about is, by and large, paid by Christians; like little children, they want what they want when they want it and no one else's opinion matters. They have no problem oppressing Christians, or offending them. The popular culture thinks Christianity is only good for a punch line and that Jesus is an object of ridicule.
We, as Christian men, tolerate, and tolerate, and tolerate this stuff, without doing what every fiber of our beings wants to do; find the perpetrators of these deeds and give them a serious ass-kicking (in the spirit of Christian Love, of course) because that's what we have been told that Jesus would do. That we should follow his example and turn the other cheek, love our enemies, and let it all slide like water off of a duck's back.
What about the Jesus that picked up a whip and a bundle of rods and chased the moneylenders from the Temple? What about The Guy that stood in full view of the public and called the reigning religious authorities of the day, "a brood of vipers?" I mean, The Guy was a carpenter! If you've spent any time at all around construction guys, you would know that they aren't exactly the "turn the other cheek" type.
Now, before I get accused of trying to get Christians to go all "Medieval Crusades" on the non-believers, understand this: this fight will not be won on the streets. Bar-room brawls are no way to spread The Gospel, and certainly no way to bring people into the fold. No, I want us to simply stop being silent. I want us to stop being ashamed to confront those that would spew inaccuracies and hatred. When some TV show decides to disrespect The Savior, we should inundate the network with complaints. When some child is persecuted for professing faith, we should make our support known. And when we are attacked by haters, we should defend ourselves with the same fervor, intensity, and tactics that they use. Jesus was a proponent of self-defense; He knew that the world the Disciples would face was hostile and brutal. He admonished them to arm themselves in order to prepare for what awaited them. We need to do as He said and arm ourselves with the weapons of our day and fight the fight.
We, who believe, have nothing to fear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)