The Racist With The Cliven Hoof

OK, calm down.

Yes, he said it wrong.  He's a cattle rancher, not a statesman, politician, activist or orator.  Could he have said it better? Yes.  Is he a racist?  In my humble opinion, no.  Now.  Before you go all "pitch-forks and torches" on me, step back and take a deep breath and think about what he actually said.

I don't believe for a second that Cliven Bundy was advocating a return to slavery, nor do I believe he inferred such.  Here's what I *DO* believe he meant:

When under slavery;

• Negroes had a very tight, very cohesive family life and culture. 
• Negro children were raised by a mother AND a father, and were taught strict moral values.
• Negroes were very religious, very humble, very dependent on God... the singing of the Negro Spirituals was a central part of that culture. 
• Negro fathers did not abandon their babies.
• Negro mothers did not sleep with anyone off the street to get more welfare money.
• Negroes were held to a very strict work ethic.  Sloth and laziness were met with severe punishment.  And that work ethic is probably the only thing that saved them when they were freed...  they knew how to sacrifice and work hard... and knowing that they were working for their own sustenance and success gave them the motivation to sacrifice whatever it took to achieve that. 

Contrast these things with today's Black Culture.  And in case you think *I'm* being racist, just ask a Black Conservative (yes, they do exist) if this isn't the case.  From Bill Cosby to Allen Keyes to Dr. Ben Carson, the same message is being communicated as Cliven Bundy clumsily attempted to... albeit much more eloquently and with more "racial sensitivity."

Bundy's remarks were those of a sincere man, passionate about what he believes, and completely unequipped to navigate the mine-field of political correctness that has been imposed on us by those desperate to be "offenders for a word."

So... about his actual question.. ."Were blacks better off under slavery?"  The HONEST answer, at least to me, would have to be "yes and no." 

No, they are not better off under slavery as a principle, because no man should be a slave to another.  There was unspeakable, terrible abuse inflicted on slaves that untold thousands will be answering for when standing before the judgment bar of God.  It was a despicable and dehumanizing practice.  It was and is a blemish and stain on the very fabric of this great country.

But yes, Mr. Bundy does have a point of sorts.  Adversity has a way of encouraging humility, a sincere "down-to-the-bone" faith and dependence on God, and a tendency to cling together... as a people, as a culture, and as families.  This pattern has been repeated among almost all peoples who have ever been in captivity to others.  When free, pride, arrogance, and narcissism reign supreme, and the people often become lazy, unproductive, evil and haughty.

Look honestly at a significant segment of today's Black Culture.  Welfare.  Sloth.  Godlessness.  Unproductiveness.  Arrogance.  Evil.  Irresponsibility.  Dependence.

In those narrow terms, were Blacks better off culturally, spiritually, and morally under slavery?  I believe that this was Bundy's real message.

Think about it.  Your mileage, of course, may vary.

Zero Tolerance for "Zero Tolerance"

The stories aren't new.  They're repeated all across our great nation almost every day.  "Zero Tolerance."  It's become the screeching battle-cry of the mentally-impaired and intellectually lazy.

Need an excuse for making a REALLY BAD CALL as a manager or leader?  Zero Tolerance.  There ya go.  Need a convenient cover for your complete and total inability to make a thoughtful, wise decision based on the facts of an individual case?  Zero Tolerance.  Case closed.  No more annoying requirements to actually use the gray matter that sparsely inhabits your brain case.  Just claim "Zero Tolerance" and no one is the wiser.  It even sounds noble, doesn't it?  Zero Tolerance.  Kind of makes you look like a little bit of a hard-ass, too.  Score!

While reporting the story of yet another brain-dead school administrator hiding behind "Zero Tolerance," the AP reporter who was reporting on yet ANOTHER ridiculous 3-day suspension of a 10 year old simply because he PRETENDED to shoot another student... with his finger... stated:

"Since zero-tolerance policies were adopted following school shootings around the country, Columbus schools have disciplined students for violations including firing a Nerf foam-dart gun at school. A similar policy was cited last year when a Maryland school suspended a 7-year-old boy who had chewed a Pop-Tart into a gun shape."

Now.  I realize that I'm older than dirt, but at what point in this country's history did we abrogate our wisdom, intelligence, dignity and self-respect in favor of catchy bumper-sticker slogans?  "Zero Tolerance."  But what does that REALLY mean? 

Perhaps we should look to the Source Of All Wisdom, Google:

"Zero Tolerance: refusal to accept antisocial behavior, typically by strict and uncompromising application of the law."

Let's break this down and see if we can get our collective arms around this philosophy, shall we?  Let's start with the first phrase:

"Refusal to accept anti-social behavior..."

The last time I checked, elementary students playing has traditionally been seen as extremely SOCIAL behavior for as long as I can remember.  Cops and robbers.  Cowboys and indians.  Both of these have been a staple of playground fun for literally centuries.  It's not "anti-social behavior."  It's SOCIAL behavior that involves imagination and role-play.  And it's perfectly healthy.

Anti-Social?  Seriously?  Let's review THAT definition, again from our venerable Google:

"Anti-Social: contrary to the laws and customs of society; devoid of or antagonistic to sociable instincts or practices; not sociable; not wanting the company of others."

How can role-playing games such as cops and robbers be construed by any thinking person as being "contrary to the laws and customs of society"?  Policemen are role models for young children.  We constantly teach them principles of morality and ethics, and drill into their impressionable little heads that there are consequences to bad behavior... and being the good little parrots they are, these children underscore the fact that they get the message by... waaaaaait for it... mimicking that behavior on the playground in role-playing games.  It's the epitome of socialization for elementary-school children.

"Cowboys and Indians"?  Such stories used to constitute the foundation of early reading programs.. and was a staple on commercial radio, then television, as well as the big-screen for decades.  It is true-blue American custom.  Again, students participating in role-playing games that challenge and inspire the imagination are... "anti-social"?

No.  A more correct statement is that they are "not politically correct."  In other words, this behavior is being quashed by those who wish to force a "progressive" agenda in education, at the expense of childhood socialization, role-playing, and imagination.  And they do so by insisting that any variation from the leftist "party line" be met with severe punishments.  The Left, it seems, has "Zero Tolerance" for.... tolerance.

And how do those that embrace this philosophy seek to impose their will?  "by strict and uncompromising application of the law."   In other words, we're going to force you to bend to our will, "or else."  Regardless of circumstances.  Regardless of the severity of the "crime."

What is interesting here is this very philosophy stands in stark contrast to the "laws and customs of society" that this ridiculous philosophy seeks to "protect." 

The reality is that the "application of the law" in our society is neither universally "strict" nor "uncompromising" in real life.  That's why we have trials.  That's why we have judges.  And witnesses.  And evidence.  That's why we have a VARIETY of possible outcomes in punishing someone for a crime, based on the details of that crime.  Nothing in our legal system is "strict and uncompromising."

If our society functioned under a "Zero Tolerance" policy, any jaywalker would be sent to prison, even if they were crossing the street to save their sick or injured child.  Zero Tolerance, remember.

This pathetic, morally bankrupt, ethically diseased excuse for a policy is one of the foundational problems in our education system today.  It eliminates the requirement (or even opportunity) for administrators to actually think, employ wisdom, exercise patience and compassion, and the most important part, actually teach and mentor, letting the punishment fit the crime, instead of simply relying on blunt force trauma... for everyone.

The bottom line is simply this... we certainly wouldn't tolerate this in our justice system.  Why do we tolerate it in our schools?

 

"Non-Stop" into the Great Abyss of Ridiculousness

First of all, a vital and very important disclaimer.  I'm a conservative.  I'm not a "progressive," and I'm certainly not a "leftist."  In fact, I'm just the opposite.  I'm conservative, intelligent, articulate, and well-informed.  Every Progressive's nightmare.

That being said, there has been a lot of ridiculousness lately about the recent action-thriller "Non-Stop," starring Liam Neeson.  If I'm not mistaken, Glenn Beck was particularly butt-hurt over it, (which is unfortunately, because I have a tremendous amount of respect for Glenn), as well as "Chicks on the Right," who I also respect quite a bit.

And I gotta tell ya... I just don't get it.  I really don't.

NOTE:  The following is a spoiler, so don't read it if you want to see the movie.

The movie centers around a burned-out booze-hound of an U.S. Air Marshall who finds himself caught in the middle of a nefarious scheme to bring down a passenger jet with 150 souls on board.  The villian is a family member of a 9/11 victim, who wants to lash out and punish everyone for the lack of security and false assurances of safety by the government.  Along with a side-kick who is former military, who's just in it for the money.  Oh, and it has a "token Muslim," complete with Muslim traditional garb, who turns out to be <insert audible gasp here> a good guy... a gentle and conscientious physician.

</end of spoiler>

Oh, my.  I'm sure you can hear the conspiracy theories thundering down the tracks from 3 miles away.

The fact is, though, that those who are advancing those theories are exercising an embarrassing degree of ignorance combined with a heaping helping of selective amnesia... not to mention just a teensy bit of over-dramatic paranoia and a dump-truck load of hypocrisy.

Here's the truth, boys and girls:  It's just a movie.  It's fiction.  It didn't pretend to be an accurate portrayal of events real or imagined. 

What this film DID manage to do is turn the stereotypes that we gleefully throw around with abandon on their collective ears... which, quite frankly, was part of what keeps you guessing in this movie.  We are so used to seeing the "token Muslim" turn out to be the bad guy that it literally renders us speechless when the "token Muslim" turns out to be the "good guy," even though that's an accurate representation of the vast majority of the Muslim population in this country.  Those who are dropping in their respective tracks from apoplectic seizures of righteous indignation are forgetting one teensy, tiny detail... the roles and characterizations in this movie are completely believable and are painfully realistic.

Anyone remember Timothy McVeigh?  Not a Muslim.  All-American, home-grown terrorist nutcase.  Ex-Military Gulf War veteran.  Considered himself a true "patriot."  And stop me when any of this sounds familiar... McVeigh's stated reason for the worst act of domestic terrorism in the U.S. EVER... and the worst act of terrorism on U.S. soil before 9/11... was "revenge" for the actions of the U.S. government at Waco, TX and Ruby Ridge, ID.  McVeigh killed 168 people, and wounded 700... eerily similar to the 150 people on the unfortunate flight in this film.

The truth (that some wing-nut ultra-right-wing conspiracy-theory-under-every-rock extremists refuse to acknowledge) is that not every act of terrorism is perpetrated by Islam, and not every bad guy is a Muslim.  Sometimes it's just a true-blue, all-American nutcase on some misguided "revenge quest," and sometimes the Muslim really IS the good guy, which is PRECISELY what this movie is about... regardless of extremist right-wing conservative fundamentalist nutjob claims.  Seriously?

Yes, there are bad guys even here in the U.S. who are Muslim.  But there are exponentially more who are peaceful, quiet, respectful citizens who are humble and grateful for all this country has to offer... who serve in soup kitchens and who lay down their lives defending this country against those terrible stereotypical spittle-spewing Jihadists.   There are even (quite a few) doctors in that mix, who look on violence with abhorrence and disgust, and who are intensely loyal to the good 'ole U.S. of A.

What this movie ISN'T is some kind of ham-fisted attempt to paint rosy flowers on the ugly painting of Extremist Islam, nor is it a film intended to convince anyone that our own people (particularly one that one could argue has "conservative" values and attitudes) are the "real" enemy.  It is a rather entertaining action-thriller.  Period.

This feigned outrage over a movie (and I thought a particularly good one at that) is embarrassing.  Seriously?  Redirect your righteous indignation and outrage where it really belongs... laser-focused on our Clown-Central Dictator-In-Chief, and not on a movie that has the audacity to create an intense, entertaining romp that gleefully stomps all over your sacred cow stereotypes.

The Good Ship Lollipop Has Sailed

Normally, I don't blog about specific people, and certainly not about celebrities, but in noting the passing of one of the greatest, if not THE greatest child actor this nation has ever seen, I would be remiss if I didn't record some thoughts.

The current generation will most likely have never heard of her. Those that have might only recognize the name.  I highly doubt if more than a tiny fraction of 1% of today's youth have ever even seen a clip of one of her movies.  And yet, to those of us who were familiar with her, she was an icon.

Her bouncy golden curls were so desperately important to a nation wallowing in the Great Depression that President Franklin D. Roosevelt called Temple "Little Miss Miracle," declaring, "As long as our country has Shirley Temple, we will be all right."  She was the #1 box office draw for 4 years in a row, a record that still stands.  I remember as a small boy, watching re-runs of her movies on television, a medium that didn't exist during the height of her career.

What Shirley Temple represents to me, and why I find her passing so bittersweet, is the stark contrast she offers to what we, as a comparatively sick and depraved society, now accept as "normal."  And more importantly, how today's child stars respond to adversity.

After Shirley Temple's box office success, she became less and less popular.  Her audience refused to accept the fact that she had "grown up."  Her popularity waned.  It became harder and harder for her to obtain roles.

And this is where it gets interesting. 

Instead of selfishly imploding into a narcissistic, self-pitying disaster of immeasurable proportions a la Macauley Culkin et al, she never missed a beat... instead, she placed her attention where it should have been... on getting on with her life.  She became a wife and mother,  raised a family, and then quietly refocused her attention on giving back to the nation that had given her so much attention and adulation... and helping people less fortunate than herself in the process.

In 1962, she became a diplomat.  She served as the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., U.S. Ambassador to Ghana, and U.S. Ambassador to Czechoslovakia.  She served as the Chief of Protocol for the U.S., and was the only person ever given the distinction and honor of being an Honorary Foreign Service Officer.  She would faithfully... and diligently... serve in public service until 1993... a span of 31 years.

Shirley Temple Black, as she would later be known, was truly a class act.  When her career faded, she didn't allow herself to descend into the vapid pits of despair and wallow in self-pity, nor did she sacrifice her morals for the sake of shock value in a vain attempt to inject life into her career.  Nor did she retreat into the dark comfort of drugs or alcohol. 

Shirley Temple held her head high, looked around, and found a dignified place where she could leverage her considerable fame into an extraordinarily effective new career that actually helped millions of people... one that wasn't even in the same universe as show business... and one that didn't focus the spotlight on herself at all.

This, America, is what dignity looks like.  Please make a note of it.

For Whom the Blog Tolls

How much privacy can we expect when writing a personal blog?  And how much "blow-back" is appropriate when someone gets butt-hurt over a blog entry?

Personally, I find it more convenient than writing a journal.  It allows me to put my thoughts down in the blogosphere, and there is even a remote possibility that someone else might find some value in it.  Or give me valuable feedback that I hadn't thought about.  Or they might hate it, and tell me that I'm ugly and my mommy dresses me funny... but at least it might start a conversation.

I'm not writing it to a particular group of people.  I'm not trying to submit it to Time Magazine as a feature.  I very seldom even post a link to it from my FaceBook page.  To me, it is a "safe place" where I can vent about my feelings, my opinions, my thoughts... MY thoughts... without being judged or "weighed in the balance."  I'm very careful as I craft my blog entries, and I do not name names or get very specific.

So... when is it objectionable to the point of backlash when a blog post vents, but does not explicitly mention individuals by name?  One might venture, "Well, WE know because we're familiar with the situation you're describing."  But that may or may not be true.  I think the question probably should be "Would the average reader really know who this is?" followed very closely by "Why does it matter?" and finally by "What business is it of yours?  Really."

I'm feeling pretty violated right now.  To me, blogs ARE the equivalent of online journals, and are very personal.  Now I'm worried that everything that I write will be scrutinized by someone who has authority over me, and can punish me if they so choose simply because they disagree with my feelings or opinions... which I express in my own, private blog.

What's even more ironic?  The "feelings" I had been writing about had to do with feeling judged, rejected, socially isolated, and left out.

Ouch.

An Apology...

Even though I didn't mention him by name in my blog post, and in reality I was writing of a composite "Bishop," I owe our now-former Bishop an apology for implying that he had condoned sexual misconduct of his youth.  Since I didn't name him in my post, I won't name him now, other than to ensure that everyone understands that I was referring to an attitude more than a real person.  He is a good man. 

Thank you.  Now back to our regularly-scheduled programming.

Christmas Is Over

Just like the inevitable crash after a sugar high, it's time again for my annual Christmas Whiplash.

We build up to the Great Holiday with great anticipation all during the Fall, with retailers pushing ever harder to force us to start thinking about it, and buying for it, earlier and earlier.  Each holiday is a stepping stone that brings us closer to the ultimate climax of the Season.  We see evidence of it almost from the time that we're barely finished getting the kids back in school.  Give it a few more years, and we'll be seeing Christmas decorations on Labor Day.

Then, we find ourselves reveling neck-deep in our own unique interpretation of the Significance of the Season on that special day, whether it is spiritual or not... enjoying food, family, festivities, and warmth... and then it's gone in the blink of an eye.  December 26th.  Christmas is gone.  Over.  Finished.  The joyful mess has been cleaned up, presents spirited off to bedrooms, and pies still sit half-eaten on the counter.

Time to face the hum-drum reality of our normal existence again.  Not much to look forward to for a long, long time.  Mother Nature doesn't help.  The crisp Winter chill that added delicious ambiance to the Season is now just plain cold.  No wonder so many people become more depressed during January.  It's Christmas Whiplash.

In the blink of an eye, the miracle of the Holy Birth and the very Christ-child Himself vanishes from view for yet another year.  Or at least until Easter.

I've decided that the gift I'm giving myself this year, however, is defiance.  It dawns on me that I truly need the feelings of love, warmth, and charity that I feel during the Christmas Season all throughout the year... that there's a reason I look forward to Christmas so much.  Thomas S. Monson said that he felt that "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens was inspired... particularly its message admonishing us to "keep Christmas in our hearts, all year long."

So this coming year, during the long, cold months of the dreaded First Quarter and beyond, when my thoughts are attuned to everything but Christmas, I'm think I'm going to go out of my way to find something... no matter how small... that I can do each day to keep Scrooge smiling and that special warmth alive.  I need that in my life.  And if I do a good enough job at that, maybe... just maybe... I'll survive the next three months without going ape-nuts insane.