I woke up one Saturday morning and realized that I needed to go Christmas shopping. I could have surfed the Internet, but it wouldn't have been the same.
I wanted to risk a hernia by lifting the circular-stuffed newspaper. I wanted to jump in my car and choose a radio station that played Christmas music all day, interrupted only by commercials that promoted nothing more than an overrated cleverness at rewriting the words to "The Twelve Days of Christmas" so that the last word of the jingle rhymes with "cordless."
I wanted to battle traffic, with lead-foots behind me and lead-brains in front. I wanted to spend three hours searching for a parking spot, and then settle for a space farther from the mall than my house is. I wanted to be greeted by the ringing of the Salvation Army's Bell of Holiday Guilt. I wanted to dodge department store perfume commandos. I wanted to apply swift, defensive leg maneuvers on coupon-bearing elves. I wanted to fight my way through the food court's throngs of patrons (who really don't need to court anymore food to begin with). And I wanted to find everything I needed, provided everything I needed was in the wrong size, wrong color, and wrong price-range.
It was August 23rd.
Okay, I exaggerate; but, Christmas WAS in full swing in many stores on November 1st, leaving no time for the good Halloween candy to be devoured, and the bobo candy to just sit there in the bowl, forever unwanted. Given the cyclically-changing song sung by the retail industry at the end of every third quarter (break-even in good times, desperation in lean), it comes as no surprise that each year, the day many reserve to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ has been transformed into the months (yes, plural) that will pull the butts of box stores and boutiques alike out of another year's red ink. No sooner is Frankenstein folded or deflated or peeled off the glass, Santa Claus is there in his place, and every retail outlet is awash in a sea of red and green and silver and gold, piping in holiday standards by the likes of Bing Crosby, The Carpenters, Harry Connick Jr., and John Tesh. Oh, the horror of Tesh.
But all of this, and so much more (MUST Santa arrive at the mall by parachute?), is at the root of what puzzles me about one particular "front" in the so-called "War on Christmas." And I'm not picking one side over another here; both sides puzzle me.
The particular front I'd care to address concerns the utterance of "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" when a store employee offers a greeting or a valediction to a customer. In the corner to my left are those who think that when a store clerk says "Merry Christmas," that clerk is using the occasion to force Christianity down the customer's throat. In the corner to my right are those who think that when a store clerk says "Happy Holidays," that clerk is using political correctness to undermine Christianity.
The puzzling part is that both corners are so busy being offended, neither can see that they are both to blame for the very problem that has introduced military euphemisms into the season of peace, love, and snowflakes. The problem is that a long time ago, someone put their secular chocolate into someone else's spiritual peanut butter, and Christmas became a religious day enrobed in materialism.
You folks in the right corner helped create this dilemma when you shared your day with Macy's, Gimbels, et al., in a move that could be considered a precursor to stadium-naming rights. No, Christmas Day is not called "Sears Christmas Day," but the materialistic mentality of retail is associated with Christmas at a Pavlovian level. In fact, Christmas has become the movie star of holidays, and you must take some of what you think is negative along with all of the good press the day gets. If that means sometimes hearing "Happy Holidays," that's on you.
You folks in the left corner aren't without blame, either. Even though you've lived there for decades and you've earned a certain latitude, you can't rent a house and then complain that the owner doesn't like what you've done with it. Sure, you can argue that thanks to spectacular advertising campaigns and deep discounts, Christmas Day gets more exposure than every other Christian holiday combined (including Easter), but you have to consider what made you pick Christmas in the first place, and at least have respect for the day's origins. If that means sometimes hearing "Merry Christmas," that's on you.
What we (and by we I mean all us, whether our church has an altar or a cash register) are left to contend with is somehow separating the chocolate from the peanut butter on this Reese's Cup (Jesus Cup?). Unfortunately for both sides, that isn't going to happen overnight, if at all. As I see it, there are three options.
The first option is for the folks in the right corner to move the holy day of Christmas to another date and return it to its humble, spiritual beginnings. Part of me thinks that this would serve you right for subletting such an important day, sometimes to patently cheesy ends (Exhibit A: the Fisher Price Nativity Set). However, you had the date first, so you get first dibs. I'll go out on a limb and guess you'd like to keep your date.
The second option is for the folks in the left corner to take Secular Christmas and not only move the date, but rename it as well. I recommend calling it MichaelNaz Day and shifting it to August, where there are no holidays to be found. This, too, is unlikely to happen, as too many good Secular Christmas songs reference the cold, and the last thing I want to think about in 100-degree August heat are chestnuts roasting on an open fire. Plus, the first boy to buy one of The Girls a string bikini for Chri...MichaelNaz Day would create a conflict so great, it would simply crush any and all holiday cheer. I can't have that.
Since you are stuck with each other, you are left with the third option: Get over it. Both of you.
Hey Left, stop being paranoid. Christians are not secretly trying to recruit you into Christianity through mystical verbal hypnosis. Saying "Merry Christmas" is, at the very least, a long tradition that is done with best of intentions. Besides, a statement of "Merry Christmas" by the woman who just sold you three-for-one smelly soaps is about as far from Jesus as you can get. And you spent enough money to get the free tote bag, so be merry.
Hey Right, stop being paranoid. Stores are about making money, not spreading the Good Word. If a store owner thinks the best way to make money is to be as inclusive as possible, and if a store owner thinks that saying "Happy Holidays" is more inclusive, then it's a business decision, not a religious one. Besides, with the shopping season covering three major holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's Day), "Happy Holidays" is pleasant, accurate, and a little more digestible on November 1st, some 54 days before Christmas (imagine saying "Happy Halloween" on Labor Day). And you got a free tote bag too, so be happy.
Merpy Holimas, everybody!
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
A Direct Challenge To Those Who Oppose Same-Sex Marriage, PART II: THE SECULAR ARGUMENT (Thank God)
Previously, on MichaelNazSays...
In the wake of the November 4th passing of California's Proposition 8, I issued a few challenges (see PART I) to those who use the Bible as the basis for their opposition to same-sex marriage and homosexuality. Despite some readers' interpretations of my piece, the challenges were not intended to disprove, or disapprove of, the Bible or God or faith; they were meant to get those people who use the Word of God as the basis for this position to consider how they use - or don't use - that same Word of God in other aspects of their lives.
The responses I received ranged from bigoted missives (from both sides of the issue) to intellectual debate (also from both sides of the issue) to the typed equivalent of yelling the same thing over and over again. But even at its most heated, the rage only covered half of the debate.
(CUE THEME MUSIC)
My children have the benefit of satellite TV, something I didn't have at their age (like, among other things, MP3s and squeeze ketchup). Because of satellite TV, The Girls enjoy 24-hour educational programming. Me? I had to rely on daily doses of Sesame Street and The Electric Company; a weekly lesson in love, crime-solving, and asset management from Hart to Hart; and, on Saturdays, Schoolhouse Rock shorts.
Schoolhouse Rock shorts were like cartoon CLIFFS NOTES for every class in school. I'm Just a Bill showed me how ideas become laws, The Great American Melting Pot celebrated America's diverse cultural heritage, and Electricity, Electricity taught me about...well...electricity. But the mother of them all, the FIRST vignette, was a little ditty known as Three Is A Magic Number. The short's groovy tune extolled the unique virtues of the number three, citing its importance to tripods, tricycles, time (past, present, and future), and even spirituality (faith, hope, and charity). It also sang about the importance of the number to the traditional family unit:
A man and a woman had a little baby / Yes they did / They had three in the family / And that's a magic number.
But just as I'm Just a Bill failed to provide tips on how to handle those awkward airport bathroom situations, and The Great American Melting Pot never hinted how some people would rather the recipe be written in English only, and Electricity, Electricity didn't stop me from sticking a fork in the toaster, Three Is A Magic Number never pointed out that, as is the case with all magic, things are not always what they seem.
That lyric from Three Is A Magic Number neatly summarizes the foundation of the non-religious argument against same-sex marriage:
a) "A man and a woman..." represents love and marriage.
b) "...had a little baby" represents procreation.
c) "They had three in the family" represents what has come to be defined as a traditional family structure.
And it is within the context of these three things that you will find PART II's sole secular challenge. I welcome your dissent and your discourse, but please, I ask that you refrain from invoking God or His Word as it relates to this debate. That bus left last week. Let us proceed.
The other popular argument against same-sex marriage is that it defies nature and the natural progression of humans, their relationships, and the perpetuation of the human species. The argument states that the reason why nature gives men and women their unique plumbing is for the purpose of procreation (to keep humanity going), that love and marriage are natural steps toward that end-goal, and that homosexuals can never reach that end-goal. With thanks to someone with the screen name of "syscore" for taking me back, I'll leverage my childhood memory again and call this the "Rule of the O.P.S." (Old Playground Song), which says, "First comes love, second comes marriage, then comes baby in a baby carriage." Despite the obviousness of the rhyme - we fall in love, we marry, we procreate - humanity is nowhere near that simple, and it is foolish to think that this is the rule of nature as it applies to humans.
With that, I CHALLENGE YOU to refute my following argument:
Love, marriage, sex (as the mechanism for procreation), and procreation itself are all mutually exclusive; each can exist on its own without the other three, or in some combination thereof. Committed couples fall in love, have sex, and have children, but skip marriage. Single women get pregnant through artificial insemination, and bypass love, sex, and marriage. Whole cultures arrange marriages and force couples into relationships where love doesn't exist, but sex and children do. Folks fall in love, marry, and have sex, but use birth control to prevent conception. And then there are the people who have never married, who aren't in love, and who do not want children, but have healthy, active sex lives.
If you are so inclined, refute my argument and declare these people as being unnatural. But if you do, remember this: so prevalent are these scenarios that chances are good someone you know falls into one of them. Maybe it's your boss. Maybe it's one of the guys you tailgate with. Maybe it's your doctor. Maybe it's your child's teacher. Maybe it's your brother. Are they unnatural?
Maybe it's you. Are YOU unnatural?
Oh, and then there are the divorcees. I don't want to dwell on this, other than to ask you if you have ever seen any nature program on the Discovery Channel that talks about a chimpanzee demanding a prenup, or a lioness getting half-plus-alimony.
As for those who think that the traditional family structure of man/woman/child is also the law of nature and the only legitimate family environment, then I'm looking for a volunteer who is willing to lecture the president-elect on how woeful his life was having not had this type of childhood, and how this dearth of structure will lead to his social demise. Whether a single-parent, same-sex-parent, or adoptive-parent home, love is love, and I think most people would rather be in a loving and nurturing environment with a unique parental situation than have opposite-sex parents who exist in a cold, loveless marriage that they are keeping together - on paper, not in practice - "for the kids." The bottom line? You can't measure love with census data.
All of these possibilities are what separate humans from the rest of nature, and what makes the "defies nature" argument so feeble. Our intellect, our logic, and our decision-making abilities are only three examples of what separate us, greatly, from the rest of nature's pack. The "defies nature" argument simply cannot be applied to humans. We are too advanced and too different a species to be compared to the creatures of the wild.
Look, I followed the blueprint of the Old Playground Song - I fell in love with Baby, I married her, and we had The Girls. And if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't change a thing. And maybe your path was the same, and others' paths were, too. But while you and I might have what many others have, that doesn't mean that Three (or Four, or more) is magic for everyone, nor does it mean that anyone is any more or less natural than the next person.
In the wake of the November 4th passing of California's Proposition 8, I issued a few challenges (see PART I) to those who use the Bible as the basis for their opposition to same-sex marriage and homosexuality. Despite some readers' interpretations of my piece, the challenges were not intended to disprove, or disapprove of, the Bible or God or faith; they were meant to get those people who use the Word of God as the basis for this position to consider how they use - or don't use - that same Word of God in other aspects of their lives.
The responses I received ranged from bigoted missives (from both sides of the issue) to intellectual debate (also from both sides of the issue) to the typed equivalent of yelling the same thing over and over again. But even at its most heated, the rage only covered half of the debate.
(CUE THEME MUSIC)
My children have the benefit of satellite TV, something I didn't have at their age (like, among other things, MP3s and squeeze ketchup). Because of satellite TV, The Girls enjoy 24-hour educational programming. Me? I had to rely on daily doses of Sesame Street and The Electric Company; a weekly lesson in love, crime-solving, and asset management from Hart to Hart; and, on Saturdays, Schoolhouse Rock shorts.
Schoolhouse Rock shorts were like cartoon CLIFFS NOTES for every class in school. I'm Just a Bill showed me how ideas become laws, The Great American Melting Pot celebrated America's diverse cultural heritage, and Electricity, Electricity taught me about...well...electricity. But the mother of them all, the FIRST vignette, was a little ditty known as Three Is A Magic Number. The short's groovy tune extolled the unique virtues of the number three, citing its importance to tripods, tricycles, time (past, present, and future), and even spirituality (faith, hope, and charity). It also sang about the importance of the number to the traditional family unit:
A man and a woman had a little baby / Yes they did / They had three in the family / And that's a magic number.
But just as I'm Just a Bill failed to provide tips on how to handle those awkward airport bathroom situations, and The Great American Melting Pot never hinted how some people would rather the recipe be written in English only, and Electricity, Electricity didn't stop me from sticking a fork in the toaster, Three Is A Magic Number never pointed out that, as is the case with all magic, things are not always what they seem.
That lyric from Three Is A Magic Number neatly summarizes the foundation of the non-religious argument against same-sex marriage:
a) "A man and a woman..." represents love and marriage.
b) "...had a little baby" represents procreation.
c) "They had three in the family" represents what has come to be defined as a traditional family structure.
And it is within the context of these three things that you will find PART II's sole secular challenge. I welcome your dissent and your discourse, but please, I ask that you refrain from invoking God or His Word as it relates to this debate. That bus left last week. Let us proceed.
The other popular argument against same-sex marriage is that it defies nature and the natural progression of humans, their relationships, and the perpetuation of the human species. The argument states that the reason why nature gives men and women their unique plumbing is for the purpose of procreation (to keep humanity going), that love and marriage are natural steps toward that end-goal, and that homosexuals can never reach that end-goal. With thanks to someone with the screen name of "syscore" for taking me back, I'll leverage my childhood memory again and call this the "Rule of the O.P.S." (Old Playground Song), which says, "First comes love, second comes marriage, then comes baby in a baby carriage." Despite the obviousness of the rhyme - we fall in love, we marry, we procreate - humanity is nowhere near that simple, and it is foolish to think that this is the rule of nature as it applies to humans.
With that, I CHALLENGE YOU to refute my following argument:
Love, marriage, sex (as the mechanism for procreation), and procreation itself are all mutually exclusive; each can exist on its own without the other three, or in some combination thereof. Committed couples fall in love, have sex, and have children, but skip marriage. Single women get pregnant through artificial insemination, and bypass love, sex, and marriage. Whole cultures arrange marriages and force couples into relationships where love doesn't exist, but sex and children do. Folks fall in love, marry, and have sex, but use birth control to prevent conception. And then there are the people who have never married, who aren't in love, and who do not want children, but have healthy, active sex lives.
If you are so inclined, refute my argument and declare these people as being unnatural. But if you do, remember this: so prevalent are these scenarios that chances are good someone you know falls into one of them. Maybe it's your boss. Maybe it's one of the guys you tailgate with. Maybe it's your doctor. Maybe it's your child's teacher. Maybe it's your brother. Are they unnatural?
Maybe it's you. Are YOU unnatural?
Oh, and then there are the divorcees. I don't want to dwell on this, other than to ask you if you have ever seen any nature program on the Discovery Channel that talks about a chimpanzee demanding a prenup, or a lioness getting half-plus-alimony.
As for those who think that the traditional family structure of man/woman/child is also the law of nature and the only legitimate family environment, then I'm looking for a volunteer who is willing to lecture the president-elect on how woeful his life was having not had this type of childhood, and how this dearth of structure will lead to his social demise. Whether a single-parent, same-sex-parent, or adoptive-parent home, love is love, and I think most people would rather be in a loving and nurturing environment with a unique parental situation than have opposite-sex parents who exist in a cold, loveless marriage that they are keeping together - on paper, not in practice - "for the kids." The bottom line? You can't measure love with census data.
All of these possibilities are what separate humans from the rest of nature, and what makes the "defies nature" argument so feeble. Our intellect, our logic, and our decision-making abilities are only three examples of what separate us, greatly, from the rest of nature's pack. The "defies nature" argument simply cannot be applied to humans. We are too advanced and too different a species to be compared to the creatures of the wild.
Look, I followed the blueprint of the Old Playground Song - I fell in love with Baby, I married her, and we had The Girls. And if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't change a thing. And maybe your path was the same, and others' paths were, too. But while you and I might have what many others have, that doesn't mean that Three (or Four, or more) is magic for everyone, nor does it mean that anyone is any more or less natural than the next person.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
A Direct Challenge To Those Who Oppose Same-Sex Marriage, PART I: THE HOLY TRINITY
When it comes to the practice of people pretending to be what they are not, and then being rewarded for it, it's no wonder that Halloween and Election Day are so close together on the calendar. Think about it: A stranger (trick-or-treater / politician) visits you (to your front door / through your TV), wearing a mask (Spider-Man / fake smile), asking you to reward him (candy / vote), and as soon as he has what he wants, the mask comes off (usually that night / usually when it comes time to actually govern). But just as some of the scariest masks on All Hallow's Eve are worn not by the trick-or-treaters but by those who dole out the sweets, some of the scariest masks on Election Day are worn not by the politicians, but by the voters.
I've spent nearly a week trying to articulate my opinion on the passing of California's Proposition 8, which, technically, defines marriage as being valid only between one man and one woman. But really, for all practical intentions, it is a ban on same-sex marriage.
For the record, I believe Proposition 8, and any other new or existing legal measure that prohibits gays from marrying, to be nothing more than bigotry masked as the will of the people; hate scribed on parchment.
However, I've had trouble banging the keys on this issue. I've read tens of thousands of words about this, both online and in print; words ranging from pure polling statistics to Constitutional debates to arguments of rights vs. privileges to venomous and hateful blogs. So much has been written about this issue, I wasn't sure that I could add anything new. Plus, I've railed against this type of hatred before, and while the issue certainly warrants ongoing discussion, I usually try to look for different topics to comment on. Besides, a prescient argument was excellently crafted by Mark Boggs in The Salt Lake Tribune on October 18.
Then I noticed a pattern. Throughout many of the comments I have read, there are common defenses made by those who approve of the ban: homosexuality is a violation of God's word; homosexuality is a threat to marriage/procreation/family; homosexuals are okay, it's homosexuality that is the problem; homosexuality is a choice.
But it wasn't what I read that finally got me going; it was what I DIDN'T read. Sure, those in support of gay marriage have made fine arguments for their cause, but beyond the usual pro-gay language and basic name-calling, not one supporter of gay marriage has really taken one detractor of gay marriage to task for his or her negative opinions. I thought maybe someone should.
I thought maybe I should.
I've always believed that people who discriminate against gay marriage - and homosexuals - are not true proponents of God's Word, nor protectors of marriage and family and children, nor sympathizers of the gay plight. I've always believed that people who discriminate against homosexuals are misguided at best and ill-willed at worst, and use "God's Word" or "protection of marriage/procreation/family" or "love the sinner, hate the sin" as threadbare rhetoric to mask darker feelings that might otherwise invite unwanted social persecution.
But I'm a fair guy. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. In PART I: THE HOLY TRINITY, I will give those of you who declare that your opposition to gay marriage and homosexuality is not hate-based, but is indeed based on God's Word, a chance to do more than just quote Scripture; I will give you the chance to affirm your conviction. Below is a holy trinity of challenges that, should you accept them and live by (or up to) what they ask, will make you aces in my book. If you cannot execute all of these, you are nothing more than a poser, and possibly a hater. With that, let's begin.
First, I CHALLENGE YOU to live by ALL the Words of God, not just those that suit your particular agenda. And by "all the Words of God," I don't just mean the Ten Commandments and one cherry-picked quote from Leviticus (18:22). I mean all of them, including the obvious, like "Do unto others...", and the easy, like "Let he who is without sin...," as well as the not-so-obvious, like killing adulterers, and the not-so-easy, like completely disassociating yourself from women who are menstruating. Remember, you consider Scripture to be the rulebook, so it is only fair you play by all of the rules in it.
Next, I CHALLENGE YOU to take umbrage with everyone who violates any Word of God. If you are going to boycott gay marriage because you believe homosexuals violate the Word of God, then consider boycotting professional football, whose players violate the Word of God by playing on the Sabbath. While you're at it, boycott all other people who work on the Sabbath, like policemen, firefighters, and ER doctors. Just remember to take a moment to pray that no crisis befalls you on Sundays, because if your house is burning down, 12:01 AM on Monday won't come soon enough.
Finally, I CHALLENGE YOU to contact your local, state, and federal politicians and demand a ban of every other religion that isn't your religion. There was a great line in the TV show HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREET, where, at the end of a religious debate between two men of different faiths, Detective Frank Pembleton (Andre Braugher) says to Detective Tim Bayliss (Kyle Secor), "If my God wins, you're screwed." Is this not the perfect summary to the great, unspoken hypocrisy of modern faith? Publicly, members of one religion respect the beliefs of other religions, even when the basic tenets are vastly different. But behind closed doors, each swears all others are patently wrong. Why bother dancing this dance? If only one religion will win come Judgment Day, why not make sure it's yours, and why not make sure today?
I think that should do it. Let me know how you make out.
NEXT WEEK: PART II
I've spent nearly a week trying to articulate my opinion on the passing of California's Proposition 8, which, technically, defines marriage as being valid only between one man and one woman. But really, for all practical intentions, it is a ban on same-sex marriage.
For the record, I believe Proposition 8, and any other new or existing legal measure that prohibits gays from marrying, to be nothing more than bigotry masked as the will of the people; hate scribed on parchment.
However, I've had trouble banging the keys on this issue. I've read tens of thousands of words about this, both online and in print; words ranging from pure polling statistics to Constitutional debates to arguments of rights vs. privileges to venomous and hateful blogs. So much has been written about this issue, I wasn't sure that I could add anything new. Plus, I've railed against this type of hatred before, and while the issue certainly warrants ongoing discussion, I usually try to look for different topics to comment on. Besides, a prescient argument was excellently crafted by Mark Boggs in The Salt Lake Tribune on October 18.
Then I noticed a pattern. Throughout many of the comments I have read, there are common defenses made by those who approve of the ban: homosexuality is a violation of God's word; homosexuality is a threat to marriage/procreation/family; homosexuals are okay, it's homosexuality that is the problem; homosexuality is a choice.
But it wasn't what I read that finally got me going; it was what I DIDN'T read. Sure, those in support of gay marriage have made fine arguments for their cause, but beyond the usual pro-gay language and basic name-calling, not one supporter of gay marriage has really taken one detractor of gay marriage to task for his or her negative opinions. I thought maybe someone should.
I thought maybe I should.
I've always believed that people who discriminate against gay marriage - and homosexuals - are not true proponents of God's Word, nor protectors of marriage and family and children, nor sympathizers of the gay plight. I've always believed that people who discriminate against homosexuals are misguided at best and ill-willed at worst, and use "God's Word" or "protection of marriage/procreation/family" or "love the sinner, hate the sin" as threadbare rhetoric to mask darker feelings that might otherwise invite unwanted social persecution.
But I'm a fair guy. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. In PART I: THE HOLY TRINITY, I will give those of you who declare that your opposition to gay marriage and homosexuality is not hate-based, but is indeed based on God's Word, a chance to do more than just quote Scripture; I will give you the chance to affirm your conviction. Below is a holy trinity of challenges that, should you accept them and live by (or up to) what they ask, will make you aces in my book. If you cannot execute all of these, you are nothing more than a poser, and possibly a hater. With that, let's begin.
First, I CHALLENGE YOU to live by ALL the Words of God, not just those that suit your particular agenda. And by "all the Words of God," I don't just mean the Ten Commandments and one cherry-picked quote from Leviticus (18:22). I mean all of them, including the obvious, like "Do unto others...", and the easy, like "Let he who is without sin...," as well as the not-so-obvious, like killing adulterers, and the not-so-easy, like completely disassociating yourself from women who are menstruating. Remember, you consider Scripture to be the rulebook, so it is only fair you play by all of the rules in it.
Next, I CHALLENGE YOU to take umbrage with everyone who violates any Word of God. If you are going to boycott gay marriage because you believe homosexuals violate the Word of God, then consider boycotting professional football, whose players violate the Word of God by playing on the Sabbath. While you're at it, boycott all other people who work on the Sabbath, like policemen, firefighters, and ER doctors. Just remember to take a moment to pray that no crisis befalls you on Sundays, because if your house is burning down, 12:01 AM on Monday won't come soon enough.
Finally, I CHALLENGE YOU to contact your local, state, and federal politicians and demand a ban of every other religion that isn't your religion. There was a great line in the TV show HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREET, where, at the end of a religious debate between two men of different faiths, Detective Frank Pembleton (Andre Braugher) says to Detective Tim Bayliss (Kyle Secor), "If my God wins, you're screwed." Is this not the perfect summary to the great, unspoken hypocrisy of modern faith? Publicly, members of one religion respect the beliefs of other religions, even when the basic tenets are vastly different. But behind closed doors, each swears all others are patently wrong. Why bother dancing this dance? If only one religion will win come Judgment Day, why not make sure it's yours, and why not make sure today?
I think that should do it. Let me know how you make out.
NEXT WEEK: PART II
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
What Would Jesus Cling To?
If Jesus Christ appeared right now and spoke to you...in Spanish...would you demand He speak English instead?
You know what? Let's save that for later.
Of the 14 punctuation marks in the English language, I have a particular fondness for the ellipsis. Why the ellipsis above all others? Well, the period never starts anything new; the question mark is too nosey; the exclamation point is constantly yelling; the apostrophe is SO possessive; parentheses, brackets, and braces never want to let go; the comma, colon, and semicolon are a little too nepotistic; the dash and the hyphen are too busy comparing length; and quotation marks are nothing more than copycats. But the ellipsis, that set of three dots, is downright...dangerous.
That's right. Punctuation can be dangerous.
To show a pause in thought - as I did above - is one use for the ellipsis. But the more common use is to represent words that have been omitted from source material without changing the main point of that material. "Satch drove his two-seat convertible from his beach house to the golf course" becomes "Satch drove...to the golf course." The point of both statements remains the same - Satch goes golfing - but the latter is more efficient, especially when the intent of the quote is needed but the column space available is limited.
However, when used deceitfully, the ellipsis can change the intent of a statement entirely. "This movie is abysmal, especially when compared to other films more Oscar-worthy" becomes "This movie is...Oscar-worthy."
See what I mean about being dangerous? Take that, wimpy old period!
Now, if you raise the stakes by changing deceit to malice, plus throw in a corresponding audio snippet, you get danger on another level. Is the following familiar to you: "...they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion...."
The quote, such as it is, is now infamous. In April 2008, during the primary phase of what I like to call the "Hundred Years Campaign," Senator Barack Obama made a comment about blue-collar, economically oppressed, small-town voters. Obama's Democratic opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton, as well as many media outlets and conservative Obama detractors, got a lot of mileage out of that quote, and some are still trying to use it against Obama today. The quote paints Obama as portraying those gun enthusiasts and Christians as being bitter.
However, ellipses don't kill people's characters - people do. The full quote about those voters reads as follows:
"It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Before he was misrepresented, Obama was trying to convey that when times are tough, when things are bad and getting worse, when solutions are beyond the scope of understanding, people seek comfort in the things they best relate to, the things that most define them, the things they know. Those things could be the empowerment of gun ownership, the inspiration of religion, the escapism of movies, the camaraderie of league night, or the raucousness of tailgating on Sundays, or any other thing that gives people any sense of certainty in uncertain times.
I can speak to this with some authority. Two weeks ago, I was laid off from my job. No kidding. My future is uncertain. I have Baby and The Girls to worry about, and my employment represents 75% of our household income and 100% of our health benefits. Given the current state of the economy, my life feels a little out of control right now. Still, there are things I cling to - like banging these keys - that represent certainty in my life, and I'll take any certainty I can get at this point.
It was Obama's full quote that also helped me put into perspective those people who wish to make English our country's national or official language. I no longer believe it to be simply an issue of language; I suspect that most people in the English-only camp are "clinging" to the language - despite the inability of some to speak it or write it very well - as their way of dealing with the illegal immigration issue, or an immigration policy they oppose, but simply cannot directly address as individuals.
At least, I thought I understood those folks. Now, I'm not so sure how much of the English-only platform is catharsis and how much is...something else.
You see, I never hear people complain that ATMs allow users to make transactions in myriad languages, even though the machines dispense American money to Americans in America. Nor do I hear people commend foreigners for learning the English they demand those foreigners to learn. But, as soon as you inject "Press 1 for Spanish" into someone's telephone conversation, people line up to join the Border Patrol.
And therein lies what might be the core issue here; not proficiency of language, but point of origin. This ultimately begs the question, Is the clinging to English embracing certainty or masking bigotry?
In a September 29, 2008 column on DelawareOnline.com, entitled STATE BEEDS NURSES WHO SPEAK SPANISH, reporter Hiran Ratnayake of The (Wilmington) News Journal writes about a growing issue in Delaware: a shortage of Spanish-speaking nurses at government-subsidized medical facilities. In short, over 22% of Hispanics do not seek medical care when necessary, thus jeopardizing their health or risking their lives - or the lives of their unborn children - simply because of a language barrier. When care is sought, the language barrier poses challenges to healthcare providers to ensure that proper care is administered.
What follows the story is a series of 244 reader posts, reacting to the article and/or the posts of other readers. I only got through about half of the posts, but more than 90% of those were anti-Hispanic, with most posters making the leap, either directly or by insinuation, that Latinos - not French, not Germans, not Italians, not Ukrainians - who don't speak English MUST be in this country illegally.
The comments range from the common ("LEARN ENGLISH or LEAVE," or some variation of that message); to the resentful ("Article should be entitled 'More evidence that Delaware has too many damn Mexicans'"); to the unintentionally funny - my personal favorite ("If you can't speak english, you can't get no services."); to the geographically misunderstood ("I guess Mexican nurses can't swim?"); to the appalling ("Let them learn ENGLISH, DIE or GO HOME.").
That last one kind of grabs you, doesn't it? "Let them learn English, die, or go home."
I don't dispute that this country has an immigration problem, and I suspect that the solution is not as easy as either extreme suggests ("send them all home" vs. "grant them all amnesty"). But I know that denying someone medical care because they don't speak English is inherently wrong. I know that denying someone medical care because someone else thinks that "only speaks Spanish" equals "illegal alien" is inherently wrong. I know that denying someone medical care, and instead issuing an ultimatum of "Assimilate or Perish," is inherently wrong.
Were our immigrant parents and grandparents treated as such? Sure, you might argue that they learned English, and I will agree with you, but only with the caveat that they learned English eventually. Were our immigrant parents and grandparents told to learn English, die, or go home? I never heard THAT off-the-boat story from my family.
Cling to language all you want, but please, don't cling to hatred. Forfeiture of our basic humanity will not solve the immigration issue.
So, if Jesus Christ appeared right now and spoke to you...in Spanish...would you demand He speak English instead?
I told you that ellipsis could be dangerous.
You know what? Let's save that for later.
Of the 14 punctuation marks in the English language, I have a particular fondness for the ellipsis. Why the ellipsis above all others? Well, the period never starts anything new; the question mark is too nosey; the exclamation point is constantly yelling; the apostrophe is SO possessive; parentheses, brackets, and braces never want to let go; the comma, colon, and semicolon are a little too nepotistic; the dash and the hyphen are too busy comparing length; and quotation marks are nothing more than copycats. But the ellipsis, that set of three dots, is downright...dangerous.
That's right. Punctuation can be dangerous.
To show a pause in thought - as I did above - is one use for the ellipsis. But the more common use is to represent words that have been omitted from source material without changing the main point of that material. "Satch drove his two-seat convertible from his beach house to the golf course" becomes "Satch drove...to the golf course." The point of both statements remains the same - Satch goes golfing - but the latter is more efficient, especially when the intent of the quote is needed but the column space available is limited.
However, when used deceitfully, the ellipsis can change the intent of a statement entirely. "This movie is abysmal, especially when compared to other films more Oscar-worthy" becomes "This movie is...Oscar-worthy."
See what I mean about being dangerous? Take that, wimpy old period!
Now, if you raise the stakes by changing deceit to malice, plus throw in a corresponding audio snippet, you get danger on another level. Is the following familiar to you: "...they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion...."
The quote, such as it is, is now infamous. In April 2008, during the primary phase of what I like to call the "Hundred Years Campaign," Senator Barack Obama made a comment about blue-collar, economically oppressed, small-town voters. Obama's Democratic opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton, as well as many media outlets and conservative Obama detractors, got a lot of mileage out of that quote, and some are still trying to use it against Obama today. The quote paints Obama as portraying those gun enthusiasts and Christians as being bitter.
However, ellipses don't kill people's characters - people do. The full quote about those voters reads as follows:
"It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Before he was misrepresented, Obama was trying to convey that when times are tough, when things are bad and getting worse, when solutions are beyond the scope of understanding, people seek comfort in the things they best relate to, the things that most define them, the things they know. Those things could be the empowerment of gun ownership, the inspiration of religion, the escapism of movies, the camaraderie of league night, or the raucousness of tailgating on Sundays, or any other thing that gives people any sense of certainty in uncertain times.
I can speak to this with some authority. Two weeks ago, I was laid off from my job. No kidding. My future is uncertain. I have Baby and The Girls to worry about, and my employment represents 75% of our household income and 100% of our health benefits. Given the current state of the economy, my life feels a little out of control right now. Still, there are things I cling to - like banging these keys - that represent certainty in my life, and I'll take any certainty I can get at this point.
It was Obama's full quote that also helped me put into perspective those people who wish to make English our country's national or official language. I no longer believe it to be simply an issue of language; I suspect that most people in the English-only camp are "clinging" to the language - despite the inability of some to speak it or write it very well - as their way of dealing with the illegal immigration issue, or an immigration policy they oppose, but simply cannot directly address as individuals.
At least, I thought I understood those folks. Now, I'm not so sure how much of the English-only platform is catharsis and how much is...something else.
You see, I never hear people complain that ATMs allow users to make transactions in myriad languages, even though the machines dispense American money to Americans in America. Nor do I hear people commend foreigners for learning the English they demand those foreigners to learn. But, as soon as you inject "Press 1 for Spanish" into someone's telephone conversation, people line up to join the Border Patrol.
And therein lies what might be the core issue here; not proficiency of language, but point of origin. This ultimately begs the question, Is the clinging to English embracing certainty or masking bigotry?
In a September 29, 2008 column on DelawareOnline.com, entitled STATE BEEDS NURSES WHO SPEAK SPANISH, reporter Hiran Ratnayake of The (Wilmington) News Journal writes about a growing issue in Delaware: a shortage of Spanish-speaking nurses at government-subsidized medical facilities. In short, over 22% of Hispanics do not seek medical care when necessary, thus jeopardizing their health or risking their lives - or the lives of their unborn children - simply because of a language barrier. When care is sought, the language barrier poses challenges to healthcare providers to ensure that proper care is administered.
What follows the story is a series of 244 reader posts, reacting to the article and/or the posts of other readers. I only got through about half of the posts, but more than 90% of those were anti-Hispanic, with most posters making the leap, either directly or by insinuation, that Latinos - not French, not Germans, not Italians, not Ukrainians - who don't speak English MUST be in this country illegally.
The comments range from the common ("LEARN ENGLISH or LEAVE," or some variation of that message); to the resentful ("Article should be entitled 'More evidence that Delaware has too many damn Mexicans'"); to the unintentionally funny - my personal favorite ("If you can't speak english, you can't get no services."); to the geographically misunderstood ("I guess Mexican nurses can't swim?"); to the appalling ("Let them learn ENGLISH, DIE or GO HOME.").
That last one kind of grabs you, doesn't it? "Let them learn English, die, or go home."
I don't dispute that this country has an immigration problem, and I suspect that the solution is not as easy as either extreme suggests ("send them all home" vs. "grant them all amnesty"). But I know that denying someone medical care because they don't speak English is inherently wrong. I know that denying someone medical care because someone else thinks that "only speaks Spanish" equals "illegal alien" is inherently wrong. I know that denying someone medical care, and instead issuing an ultimatum of "Assimilate or Perish," is inherently wrong.
Were our immigrant parents and grandparents treated as such? Sure, you might argue that they learned English, and I will agree with you, but only with the caveat that they learned English eventually. Were our immigrant parents and grandparents told to learn English, die, or go home? I never heard THAT off-the-boat story from my family.
Cling to language all you want, but please, don't cling to hatred. Forfeiture of our basic humanity will not solve the immigration issue.
So, if Jesus Christ appeared right now and spoke to you...in Spanish...would you demand He speak English instead?
I told you that ellipsis could be dangerous.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
God, Guns, and Gays: An Unlikely Ménage à Trois
Pop quiz! According to Amazon.com, the inside flap of WHOSE book includes the following text:
"In ten practical, down-to-earth chapters, [the author] gets back to basics, mining the insights of our founding fathers and applying their wisdom to the problems of today: immigration, the culture wars, the war against global terrorism, national (and personal) debt, even the epidemic of obesity that is killing more Americans than terrorists do."
If you answered "Chuck Norris" then go to the head of the class. Norris' book is called Black Belt Patriotism: How to Reawaken America. Seriously. As for the rest of you, meet me after school to clap erasers.
While I don't place any more value in Chuck Norris' solutions for this country than I do in Nancy Pelosi's martial arts techniques...embrace the visual...I am concerned that people will listen to him simply because he is Chuck Norris, especially since I read an answer he recently gave during an interview with Reed Tucker of PAGE SIX MAGAZINE (September 7, 2008).
Tucker asked, "Do you think people are born gay?" Norris answered, "Yes, I believe many of them are. I don't think all of them are. I believe that they have a hormone imbalance. I have nothing against the gay community. In the '80s, I had a lot of friends who were gay. But the thing is, they kept it to themselves. They didn't make a big issue out of it and we didn't make a big issue out of it. Today, they're trying to make such a big issue, like maybe they're special. No one is special. We are what we are. Leave it at that."
This notion of homosexuals supposedly "making a big issue" of their lifestyle has always perplexed me. When people make accusations like Norris', statements that usually include the word flaunt, I often wonder how, exactly, they define "flaunting homosexuality." A public display of affection? A bumper sticker? A public gathering in support of the cause? Regardless, the message seems clear: live and let live, just don't flaunt it.
Then I came across a September 6, 2008 story by Bill Vidonic for the online edition of the BEAVER COUNTY TIMES and the ALLEGHENY TIMES (www.timesonline.com). The piece reports how John Noble, a Beaver County (PA) man, was arrested - some claim falsely - near an outdoor rally for presidential nominee Barack Obama. The arrest occurred because Noble showed up with a gun strapped to his hip. He did not violate Pennsylvania's open carry law, he claims he has worn his gun in public before and always without incident, and he declared that, according to the piece, "...Obama's constitutional rights didn't take precedence over his."
Listen, I'm not a gun guy, but I respect the Second Amendment. In fact, I feel kind of sorry for Mr. Noble. I mean, all he wanted to do was...oh, what's the word? He just wanted to demonstrate something that is important to him...you know, make a big issue out of it...and yet, he was punished for it. What IS that word?
Anyway, I came across another story, this one involving police. According to reporter Julian Walker of THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT (www.pilotonline.com), in a September 25, 2008 story, Virginia state troopers who volunteer as chaplains for the force were told that at "sanctioned government events," they were no longer allowed to invoke the name of Jesus Christ; any public prayers may be spiritual, but they must remain non-denominational. In private prayer matters, though, the troopers can still speak of Christ. As a result of the rule change, six of 17 affected troopers resigned their posts as chaplains only (they remain troopers with no change to their trooper status, as their religious work was always voluntary). According to Walker's story:
"One of the six chaplains who resigned that post, 13-year trooper Rex Carter, said his faith had compelled him to conduct religion-related duties. 'There were several of us who felt that because of our convictions...about what the Bible says, we couldn't agree to go along with a generic prayer policy,' said Carter, who works in Southwest Virginia."
Listen, I'm a Catholic, born-and-raised; I come complete with 12 years of parochial school, memorization of every prayer and hymn you've ever heard, and all the guilt you can eat, so I get it. I understand what these poor troopers are going through, being denied their chance to...rats! What is that word? It's like they're being told they're not special, that no one is special, that they are what they are. Oh, my awful memory.
I kid, of course, because I love. The word is FLAUNT.
Mr. Noble wants to flaunt his right to carry a firearm in public. He probably even has a bumper sticker with a pro-gun statement on it - something like Body Piercing by Smith & Wesson or If You Can Read This, You Are In Range. He might even attend gun shows or NRA rallies.
The troopers who forfeited their pastor roles want to flaunt their love of Christ. In fact, I bet at least one of them has one of those fish things stuck to his bumper, or one of them might wear a crucifix pendant every day, or one might even promote creationism. And hey, they all get to have mini-conventions every Sunday.
You know, the more I type, the more I realize that the gun people and the God people are really no different than the gay people. Just as gay people want to show their love of each other through public displays or bumper stickers or large gatherings, so too do gun people and God people want to show their love of guns and God the same way.
It begs the question, Why is one person's outward display called "flaunting" while another person's outward display is called "Second Amendment rights," and a third person's outward display is called "Ash Wednesday?"
The answer is hypocrisy. The gun guys and the God guys don't think the same standards apply to them as they apply to the gay guys. Don't believe me?
Imagine the reaction if someone said, "I believe that gun owners have a hormone imbalance. I have nothing against the gun-owning community. In the '80s, I had a lot of friends who were gun owners. But the thing is, they kept it to themselves. They didn't make a big issue out of it and we didn't make a big issue out of it. Today, they're trying to make such a big issue, like maybe they're special. No one is special. We are what we are. Leave it at that."
Better yet, read aloud...seriously, if you can, read right out loud...how it would sound if someone said, "I believe that Christians have a hormone imbalance. I have nothing against the Christian community. In the '80s, I had a lot of friends who were Christian. But the thing is, they kept it to themselves. They didn't make a big issue out of it and we didn't make a big issue out of it. Today, they're trying to make such a big issue, like maybe they're special. No one is special. We are what we are. Leave it at that."
So, if you say such a thing about the gun guys, you make them victims of attempted rights-stripping; and if you say such a thing about the God guys, you make them victims of attempted religion-assaulting; but if you say such a thing about the gay guys - as Norris actually did - you imply that no group should be treated special? You demand parity from a group that whole religions discriminate against?
With the goal of refuting their own intolerance towards their fellow man, people might say, "No one is special," or they might say, "Live and let live," or they might say, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." What they are really saying is that despite societal evolution, intolerance hasn't changed...people have just gotten better at masking it.
"In ten practical, down-to-earth chapters, [the author] gets back to basics, mining the insights of our founding fathers and applying their wisdom to the problems of today: immigration, the culture wars, the war against global terrorism, national (and personal) debt, even the epidemic of obesity that is killing more Americans than terrorists do."
If you answered "Chuck Norris" then go to the head of the class. Norris' book is called Black Belt Patriotism: How to Reawaken America. Seriously. As for the rest of you, meet me after school to clap erasers.
While I don't place any more value in Chuck Norris' solutions for this country than I do in Nancy Pelosi's martial arts techniques...embrace the visual...I am concerned that people will listen to him simply because he is Chuck Norris, especially since I read an answer he recently gave during an interview with Reed Tucker of PAGE SIX MAGAZINE (September 7, 2008).
Tucker asked, "Do you think people are born gay?" Norris answered, "Yes, I believe many of them are. I don't think all of them are. I believe that they have a hormone imbalance. I have nothing against the gay community. In the '80s, I had a lot of friends who were gay. But the thing is, they kept it to themselves. They didn't make a big issue out of it and we didn't make a big issue out of it. Today, they're trying to make such a big issue, like maybe they're special. No one is special. We are what we are. Leave it at that."
This notion of homosexuals supposedly "making a big issue" of their lifestyle has always perplexed me. When people make accusations like Norris', statements that usually include the word flaunt, I often wonder how, exactly, they define "flaunting homosexuality." A public display of affection? A bumper sticker? A public gathering in support of the cause? Regardless, the message seems clear: live and let live, just don't flaunt it.
Then I came across a September 6, 2008 story by Bill Vidonic for the online edition of the BEAVER COUNTY TIMES and the ALLEGHENY TIMES (www.timesonline.com). The piece reports how John Noble, a Beaver County (PA) man, was arrested - some claim falsely - near an outdoor rally for presidential nominee Barack Obama. The arrest occurred because Noble showed up with a gun strapped to his hip. He did not violate Pennsylvania's open carry law, he claims he has worn his gun in public before and always without incident, and he declared that, according to the piece, "...Obama's constitutional rights didn't take precedence over his."
Listen, I'm not a gun guy, but I respect the Second Amendment. In fact, I feel kind of sorry for Mr. Noble. I mean, all he wanted to do was...oh, what's the word? He just wanted to demonstrate something that is important to him...you know, make a big issue out of it...and yet, he was punished for it. What IS that word?
Anyway, I came across another story, this one involving police. According to reporter Julian Walker of THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT (www.pilotonline.com), in a September 25, 2008 story, Virginia state troopers who volunteer as chaplains for the force were told that at "sanctioned government events," they were no longer allowed to invoke the name of Jesus Christ; any public prayers may be spiritual, but they must remain non-denominational. In private prayer matters, though, the troopers can still speak of Christ. As a result of the rule change, six of 17 affected troopers resigned their posts as chaplains only (they remain troopers with no change to their trooper status, as their religious work was always voluntary). According to Walker's story:
"One of the six chaplains who resigned that post, 13-year trooper Rex Carter, said his faith had compelled him to conduct religion-related duties. 'There were several of us who felt that because of our convictions...about what the Bible says, we couldn't agree to go along with a generic prayer policy,' said Carter, who works in Southwest Virginia."
Listen, I'm a Catholic, born-and-raised; I come complete with 12 years of parochial school, memorization of every prayer and hymn you've ever heard, and all the guilt you can eat, so I get it. I understand what these poor troopers are going through, being denied their chance to...rats! What is that word? It's like they're being told they're not special, that no one is special, that they are what they are. Oh, my awful memory.
I kid, of course, because I love. The word is FLAUNT.
Mr. Noble wants to flaunt his right to carry a firearm in public. He probably even has a bumper sticker with a pro-gun statement on it - something like Body Piercing by Smith & Wesson or If You Can Read This, You Are In Range. He might even attend gun shows or NRA rallies.
The troopers who forfeited their pastor roles want to flaunt their love of Christ. In fact, I bet at least one of them has one of those fish things stuck to his bumper, or one of them might wear a crucifix pendant every day, or one might even promote creationism. And hey, they all get to have mini-conventions every Sunday.
You know, the more I type, the more I realize that the gun people and the God people are really no different than the gay people. Just as gay people want to show their love of each other through public displays or bumper stickers or large gatherings, so too do gun people and God people want to show their love of guns and God the same way.
It begs the question, Why is one person's outward display called "flaunting" while another person's outward display is called "Second Amendment rights," and a third person's outward display is called "Ash Wednesday?"
The answer is hypocrisy. The gun guys and the God guys don't think the same standards apply to them as they apply to the gay guys. Don't believe me?
Imagine the reaction if someone said, "I believe that gun owners have a hormone imbalance. I have nothing against the gun-owning community. In the '80s, I had a lot of friends who were gun owners. But the thing is, they kept it to themselves. They didn't make a big issue out of it and we didn't make a big issue out of it. Today, they're trying to make such a big issue, like maybe they're special. No one is special. We are what we are. Leave it at that."
Better yet, read aloud...seriously, if you can, read right out loud...how it would sound if someone said, "I believe that Christians have a hormone imbalance. I have nothing against the Christian community. In the '80s, I had a lot of friends who were Christian. But the thing is, they kept it to themselves. They didn't make a big issue out of it and we didn't make a big issue out of it. Today, they're trying to make such a big issue, like maybe they're special. No one is special. We are what we are. Leave it at that."
So, if you say such a thing about the gun guys, you make them victims of attempted rights-stripping; and if you say such a thing about the God guys, you make them victims of attempted religion-assaulting; but if you say such a thing about the gay guys - as Norris actually did - you imply that no group should be treated special? You demand parity from a group that whole religions discriminate against?
With the goal of refuting their own intolerance towards their fellow man, people might say, "No one is special," or they might say, "Live and let live," or they might say, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." What they are really saying is that despite societal evolution, intolerance hasn't changed...people have just gotten better at masking it.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Of Pregnant Teens and Ivy Leagues
"And let me tell you: There're more American parents with unwed pregnant teenaged children than American parents with Harvard grads. She's real."
The above quote, attributed to working mother Beth Twiddle, was in a Marc Fisher column printed in the September 11, 2008 edition of THE WASHINGTON POST. The quote was taken when Ms. Twiddle was in attendance at a Virginia rally for Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain, and his running mate, Alaska governor Sarah Palin. The context of the quote is that Sarah Palin is very relatable to "regular" people, particularly women; Palin is "real."
What do we make of this? If we assume Ms. Twiddle's assertion about parents to be statistically accurate, does that truly make Sarah Palin, the mother of an unwed pregnant child, more "real" than Harvard grad and Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama? If this is how we rate the realness of our candidates, could we not then counter with the claim that there are more parents with non-pregnant children than with pregnant children, thus giving Obama the edge on the Real-O-Meter? And then would we not shift the edge over to McCain, because he has more children than Obama?
That's silly, of course. Not that I don't like silly; it's just...maybe there is something else at work here.
This is not a question of politics, by the way; it's a question of character assessment and the importance on which we place certain things. When I decided to start banging these keys, one of my goals was, and still is, to be pragmatic above all else. This requires me to be as apolitical as possible, so that I might reach that group who thinks their opinion is right, as well as reach that OTHER group who thinks THEIR opinion is right, as well as reach the 17 folks in the middle. If I say blue, the Reds scream. If I say red, the Blues scream. But, if I say tartan plaid, everybody screams.
With that, I say again, maybe there is something else at work here.
Is any person's assertion of a candidate's "realness" simply a hollow replacement...let's call it a "McFeature"...for something more substantive? Is it easier to point out Palin's family or Obama's ethnicity or McCain's military record or Democratic vice presidential nominee Senator Joe Biden's daily Amtrak round-trips - McFeatures all - as reasons for liking them than it is to argue the finer points of their positions on immigration or foreign policy or energy or the economy? Of course it is...just like it's easier to cry "baby killer" than it is to construct an intelligent argument against Roe vs. Wade; just like it's easier to scream "Jesus freak" than it is to construct an intelligent argument against the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; just like it's easier to cruise the drive-thru than it is to actually cook a meal.
McFeatures are quick and McFeatures are easy, and we are a nation addicted to quick and easy. We like bumper stickers, news crawls, sound bites, and text messages. We read that way, we write that way, and we speak that way; why wouldn't we select our candidates that way?
Still...maybe there is something else at work here.
While I'm usually not quick to reference my own stuff, recently I wrote a couple of pieces about how people make themselves feel better about themselves. The first piece dealt with schadenfreude - people gaining pleasure from the misery of others. The second piece addressed people vicariously living through their children's youth athletics, as well as cheating at local sports. As I pondered this current piece, I noticed the trend.
Isn't this issue...this "realness" McFeature issue...yet another indicator that people will find - and use - the shortest path possible to feel some sense of self-worth, regardless of the consequences or collateral damage?
When I read a quote that says, "And let me tell you: There're more American parents with unwed pregnant teenaged children than American parents with Harvard grads. She's real," I don't ask questions to indict Sarah Palin, or her unwed pregnant teenager, or anyone in her family. I don't ask questions to indict the operatives representing both sides, at all levels, who are guilty of politicizing the matter ("Pregnant Teen?: Where Are Your Morals, You Bible-Thumping Conservatives?" vs. "Pregnant Teen!: She's Keeping the Baby, You Abortion-Loving Liberals!"). I don't ask questions to indict those who once pointed a pious, now hypocritical, finger toward Jamie Lynn Spears, at one time an unwed pregnant teenager herself (and quite the pariah as a result).
I ask questions to indict any person...regardless of social, political, religious, economic, or cultural stripe...guilty of lowering society's bar to such a level that clearing it is not the worry, but tripping over it is.
Is this what we have become? A nation content with the taste of sour grapes? When did we reach the point when we failed to aspire to some predetermined definition of success, so we became malcontented to such a degree that teen pregnancy borne of premarital sex became virtuous, while a better resume became shameful? When did this happen?
There's a scene at the end of the movie Grease (1978), where it's the last day of school and Principal McGee (Eve Arden) tries to make an inspirational announcement to the graduating class:
"Attention seniors. Before the merriment of commencement commences, I hope that your years with us here at Rydell High have prepared you for the challenges you face. Who knows? Among you there may be a future Eleanor Roosevelt or a Rosemary Clooney, and among you young men, there may be a Joe DiMaggio, a President Eisenhower, or even a Vice President Nixon."
Of course, the Nixon reference was played for laughs, as the film is set pre-Watergate. That matters not. It's the message that counts: you are young, the world awaits you, the possibilities are endless, aspire to greatness.
Isn't this what our parents wanted for us? Isn't this what we should want for our own children? Don't we fail our children the minute we make our own inadequacies the basis for critical future considerations? So now, in addition to teaching our children to mock the misfortunate and cheat the fair, must we also teach them that they can achieve anything they want to achieve in life...because the bar goes as low as their depleted self-esteem can take it?
We should be saying, "Look at Barack Obama; he's a Harvard graduate," or, "Look at John McCain; he's a war hero." Why don't we do that? What is our fear? Is it that our children will be more successful than we have been, thus making them less real to us? Do we dare repress our children so as not to feel we have been bested by them?
You know, I considered involving my pre-teen daughter in the upcoming debates. Maybe we should just watch Zoey 101 instead.
The above quote, attributed to working mother Beth Twiddle, was in a Marc Fisher column printed in the September 11, 2008 edition of THE WASHINGTON POST. The quote was taken when Ms. Twiddle was in attendance at a Virginia rally for Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain, and his running mate, Alaska governor Sarah Palin. The context of the quote is that Sarah Palin is very relatable to "regular" people, particularly women; Palin is "real."
What do we make of this? If we assume Ms. Twiddle's assertion about parents to be statistically accurate, does that truly make Sarah Palin, the mother of an unwed pregnant child, more "real" than Harvard grad and Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama? If this is how we rate the realness of our candidates, could we not then counter with the claim that there are more parents with non-pregnant children than with pregnant children, thus giving Obama the edge on the Real-O-Meter? And then would we not shift the edge over to McCain, because he has more children than Obama?
That's silly, of course. Not that I don't like silly; it's just...maybe there is something else at work here.
This is not a question of politics, by the way; it's a question of character assessment and the importance on which we place certain things. When I decided to start banging these keys, one of my goals was, and still is, to be pragmatic above all else. This requires me to be as apolitical as possible, so that I might reach that group who thinks their opinion is right, as well as reach that OTHER group who thinks THEIR opinion is right, as well as reach the 17 folks in the middle. If I say blue, the Reds scream. If I say red, the Blues scream. But, if I say tartan plaid, everybody screams.
With that, I say again, maybe there is something else at work here.
Is any person's assertion of a candidate's "realness" simply a hollow replacement...let's call it a "McFeature"...for something more substantive? Is it easier to point out Palin's family or Obama's ethnicity or McCain's military record or Democratic vice presidential nominee Senator Joe Biden's daily Amtrak round-trips - McFeatures all - as reasons for liking them than it is to argue the finer points of their positions on immigration or foreign policy or energy or the economy? Of course it is...just like it's easier to cry "baby killer" than it is to construct an intelligent argument against Roe vs. Wade; just like it's easier to scream "Jesus freak" than it is to construct an intelligent argument against the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; just like it's easier to cruise the drive-thru than it is to actually cook a meal.
McFeatures are quick and McFeatures are easy, and we are a nation addicted to quick and easy. We like bumper stickers, news crawls, sound bites, and text messages. We read that way, we write that way, and we speak that way; why wouldn't we select our candidates that way?
Still...maybe there is something else at work here.
While I'm usually not quick to reference my own stuff, recently I wrote a couple of pieces about how people make themselves feel better about themselves. The first piece dealt with schadenfreude - people gaining pleasure from the misery of others. The second piece addressed people vicariously living through their children's youth athletics, as well as cheating at local sports. As I pondered this current piece, I noticed the trend.
Isn't this issue...this "realness" McFeature issue...yet another indicator that people will find - and use - the shortest path possible to feel some sense of self-worth, regardless of the consequences or collateral damage?
When I read a quote that says, "And let me tell you: There're more American parents with unwed pregnant teenaged children than American parents with Harvard grads. She's real," I don't ask questions to indict Sarah Palin, or her unwed pregnant teenager, or anyone in her family. I don't ask questions to indict the operatives representing both sides, at all levels, who are guilty of politicizing the matter ("Pregnant Teen?: Where Are Your Morals, You Bible-Thumping Conservatives?" vs. "Pregnant Teen!: She's Keeping the Baby, You Abortion-Loving Liberals!"). I don't ask questions to indict those who once pointed a pious, now hypocritical, finger toward Jamie Lynn Spears, at one time an unwed pregnant teenager herself (and quite the pariah as a result).
I ask questions to indict any person...regardless of social, political, religious, economic, or cultural stripe...guilty of lowering society's bar to such a level that clearing it is not the worry, but tripping over it is.
Is this what we have become? A nation content with the taste of sour grapes? When did we reach the point when we failed to aspire to some predetermined definition of success, so we became malcontented to such a degree that teen pregnancy borne of premarital sex became virtuous, while a better resume became shameful? When did this happen?
There's a scene at the end of the movie Grease (1978), where it's the last day of school and Principal McGee (Eve Arden) tries to make an inspirational announcement to the graduating class:
"Attention seniors. Before the merriment of commencement commences, I hope that your years with us here at Rydell High have prepared you for the challenges you face. Who knows? Among you there may be a future Eleanor Roosevelt or a Rosemary Clooney, and among you young men, there may be a Joe DiMaggio, a President Eisenhower, or even a Vice President Nixon."
Of course, the Nixon reference was played for laughs, as the film is set pre-Watergate. That matters not. It's the message that counts: you are young, the world awaits you, the possibilities are endless, aspire to greatness.
Isn't this what our parents wanted for us? Isn't this what we should want for our own children? Don't we fail our children the minute we make our own inadequacies the basis for critical future considerations? So now, in addition to teaching our children to mock the misfortunate and cheat the fair, must we also teach them that they can achieve anything they want to achieve in life...because the bar goes as low as their depleted self-esteem can take it?
We should be saying, "Look at Barack Obama; he's a Harvard graduate," or, "Look at John McCain; he's a war hero." Why don't we do that? What is our fear? Is it that our children will be more successful than we have been, thus making them less real to us? Do we dare repress our children so as not to feel we have been bested by them?
You know, I considered involving my pre-teen daughter in the upcoming debates. Maybe we should just watch Zoey 101 instead.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Does This Legislation Make Me Look Fat?
In the years since Baby and I migrated from the suburbs to the deep suburbs (read: country), so too has urban sprawl migrated, and when you build a plethora of McMansions and fill them with McFamilies, you need McStores to support the McGrowth...and by "need" I mean "want," and by "support the McGrowth" I mean "cash-in on the McBoom." Struggling now are the mom-and-pops that were the backbone of our once-small town, as they are slowly being strangled by hands with fingers that look eerily like strip malls. But no growth industry has grown around here quite like the food service industry.
In 1999, we had three diners, a couple of pizza/sandwich shops, a Mexican place, a Chinese place, a Dunkin' Donuts, a Waffle House, a McDonald's, and a Burger King. There was something for everyone.
In 2008, we now have two diners, a few pizza/sandwich shops, two Mexican places, an Italian place, two Chinese places......an Applebee's, a Friendly's, a Hardee's, a KFC, a Taco Bell, an Arby's, a Dairy Queen, a Rita's, a Ruby Tuesday's, a Bruster's, a Starbucks, three Dunkin' Donuts, a Waffle House, a McDonald's, a Burger King, a couple of BBQ joints, some bagel hut, and a pretzel place (?!). Now, there is everything for everyone.
I wish I were making that up. As I cruise around town most days, I see a lot of people at these eateries, and these people I see at these eateries have a lot of people to them. What I'm trying to say is that this ever-growing town has ever-growing townsfolk.
It is no great secret that obesity is on the rise in this country. Simply watch your late local news every night for a week, and surely on one of those nights, a Health Watch or a Medical Alert or a First-Aid Warning will highlight something about obesity - something the network down the street probably reported the previous week, and something the network up the street will probably report the following week. The net result of most of these reports is usually nothing new: junk food is bad, fruits and veggies are good, and now here's Suzie with the five-day forecast. But sometimes they let us know how other parts of the country are handling obesity.
New York City has mandated that calorie-counts be included on many restaurant menus, so that patrons are better informed; but just because you give someone knowledge doesn't mean they know what to do with it. Think about it. Do we send our kids to schools or to libraries? Both are full of educational material, but one teaches while the other merely informs. So, when New York tells New Yorkers that Muffin X is 800 calories and Muffin Y is 400 calories, but they cost the same, will New Yorkers go for the 400-calorie muffin because fewer calories are healthier, or go for the 800-calorie muffin because if there is anything to be learned from the Wal-Mart model, it's that more of something for the same price is always better?
Los Angeles passed a temporary moratorium on the construction of new fast food restaurants in South L.A., where obesity is a greater issue than elsewhere in the city. How pointless. If overweight South Angelinos have access to X fast food restaurants today, and tomorrow they have access to the same X restaurants, do the city's decision makers expect their constituents to suddenly forget where all the fried greasy goodness came from yesterday and simply wile away their hours today standing on empty parcels of land, waiting for new fast food joints to fall from the sky? This isn't even school vs. library. This is telling the kid who never returns library books that he's not allowed to borrow any new books, but if he still has the old ones, eh, what's the harm.
And in Alabama, the State Employees' Insurance Board has indicated that it will begin charging obese state employees a $25-per-month fee to offset the increased health costs associated with obesity. This fee will also be charged to people with blood pressure, glucose, or cholesterol issues. If an employee's health improves (through various measures), the fee will no longer be assessed.
This one troubles me.
The thinking behind it is that these health problems are lifestyle-based, and if you change your lifestyle, you will improve your health, which will save your employer a few bucks, which will save you a few bucks. On the surface, it kind of makes sense: if you require more of something, then you ought to pay more for it, right?
Not so fast.
How will the boss know what to charge you for benefits? A visual assessment might work for obesity, but what about the other health issues? Do you remember that commercial with the studly older guy being eyed-up by some ladies at the pool, and instead of nailing the expected perfect-ten dive, he belly flops into the water? That was a pharmaceutical commercial, and the point of it was to illustrate that you could look great and still be plagued with health problems.
That means the boss has to make sure everyone is tested. Everyone. Are you up for that? Are you up for middle-management knowing the details of your health? They can't even change the toner in the printer; you want them to be privy to your bodily secrets?
Maybe you're ready for that, but what about the assumption that if you suffer from one of these ailments, it must be based on lifestyle, yet each of the ailments could be due to some other factor. Again with the stud at the pool in the commercial, the message is clear: you might exercise regularly and have a low Bady Mass Index or a muscular build, yet you might still be plagued with health problems.
That means someone, or a group of someones, gets to pass judgment on your health. Are you up for that? Are you up for some unknown committee or triumvirate...or worse, Human Resources...looking at your charts and hanging a price tag on you? I mean really...HR?! What if your vitals accidentally wind up in a PowerPoint presentation at the next quarterly?
So maybe you're ready for that, too. Maybe you just don't care. Maybe you believe that if someone requires more of something, then they ought to pay more for it. Faster cars, more money. Bigger houses, more money. Bigger health risks, more money, right?
Um, not so fast again.
Since when did you become a by-volume person? You are a person, period. When you go to the movies, you aren't charged by your weight or your size or your height, you are charged by your being. That's why the ticket stub says "Admit One," not "Admit (See Chart on Back)." In elections, you only get one vote. In Pollyanna, you only get one present. Why shouldn't healthcare be the same and treat you as one?
Even if Alabama has the perfect plan to avoid charging those with true genetic ailments (versus lifestyle-induced ailments), charging extra to those whose lifestyles create the potential for increased healthcare costs is a perilous path to follow, because its definition is so broad. Someday, someone in some office will be tasked with mitigating healthcare costs. The idea will hit him that the phrase LIFESTYLE can be applied to more than just diet. So, in addition to, "What's your BMI and LDL count?" you might be asked, "Do you rock climb?" "Do you ride a motorcycle?" "Do you frequently ice skate?" "Are you promiscuous?"
Feel invaded yet? Each example is a lifestyle (of sorts) and carries with it higher risks for health problems. Now, I want you to take those questions I just asked...and ask them of your spouse and of your children, because if $25 a month is helping subsidize healthcare costs, somebody in some cubicle is going to do the math as he imagines what $50, $100, or more could do.
I respect what the government is trying to accomplish, and I'm sure they are using the finest of intentions to pave that road to perdition, but Uncle Sam needs to keep his thumb out of the pudding. I mean, who knows where that thumb has been?
In 1999, we had three diners, a couple of pizza/sandwich shops, a Mexican place, a Chinese place, a Dunkin' Donuts, a Waffle House, a McDonald's, and a Burger King. There was something for everyone.
In 2008, we now have two diners, a few pizza/sandwich shops, two Mexican places, an Italian place, two Chinese places...
I wish I were making that up. As I cruise around town most days, I see a lot of people at these eateries, and these people I see at these eateries have a lot of people to them. What I'm trying to say is that this ever-growing town has ever-growing townsfolk.
It is no great secret that obesity is on the rise in this country. Simply watch your late local news every night for a week, and surely on one of those nights, a Health Watch or a Medical Alert or a First-Aid Warning will highlight something about obesity - something the network down the street probably reported the previous week, and something the network up the street will probably report the following week. The net result of most of these reports is usually nothing new: junk food is bad, fruits and veggies are good, and now here's Suzie with the five-day forecast. But sometimes they let us know how other parts of the country are handling obesity.
New York City has mandated that calorie-counts be included on many restaurant menus, so that patrons are better informed; but just because you give someone knowledge doesn't mean they know what to do with it. Think about it. Do we send our kids to schools or to libraries? Both are full of educational material, but one teaches while the other merely informs. So, when New York tells New Yorkers that Muffin X is 800 calories and Muffin Y is 400 calories, but they cost the same, will New Yorkers go for the 400-calorie muffin because fewer calories are healthier, or go for the 800-calorie muffin because if there is anything to be learned from the Wal-Mart model, it's that more of something for the same price is always better?
Los Angeles passed a temporary moratorium on the construction of new fast food restaurants in South L.A., where obesity is a greater issue than elsewhere in the city. How pointless. If overweight South Angelinos have access to X fast food restaurants today, and tomorrow they have access to the same X restaurants, do the city's decision makers expect their constituents to suddenly forget where all the fried greasy goodness came from yesterday and simply wile away their hours today standing on empty parcels of land, waiting for new fast food joints to fall from the sky? This isn't even school vs. library. This is telling the kid who never returns library books that he's not allowed to borrow any new books, but if he still has the old ones, eh, what's the harm.
And in Alabama, the State Employees' Insurance Board has indicated that it will begin charging obese state employees a $25-per-month fee to offset the increased health costs associated with obesity. This fee will also be charged to people with blood pressure, glucose, or cholesterol issues. If an employee's health improves (through various measures), the fee will no longer be assessed.
This one troubles me.
The thinking behind it is that these health problems are lifestyle-based, and if you change your lifestyle, you will improve your health, which will save your employer a few bucks, which will save you a few bucks. On the surface, it kind of makes sense: if you require more of something, then you ought to pay more for it, right?
Not so fast.
How will the boss know what to charge you for benefits? A visual assessment might work for obesity, but what about the other health issues? Do you remember that commercial with the studly older guy being eyed-up by some ladies at the pool, and instead of nailing the expected perfect-ten dive, he belly flops into the water? That was a pharmaceutical commercial, and the point of it was to illustrate that you could look great and still be plagued with health problems.
That means the boss has to make sure everyone is tested. Everyone. Are you up for that? Are you up for middle-management knowing the details of your health? They can't even change the toner in the printer; you want them to be privy to your bodily secrets?
Maybe you're ready for that, but what about the assumption that if you suffer from one of these ailments, it must be based on lifestyle, yet each of the ailments could be due to some other factor. Again with the stud at the pool in the commercial, the message is clear: you might exercise regularly and have a low Bady Mass Index or a muscular build, yet you might still be plagued with health problems.
That means someone, or a group of someones, gets to pass judgment on your health. Are you up for that? Are you up for some unknown committee or triumvirate...or worse, Human Resources...looking at your charts and hanging a price tag on you? I mean really...HR?! What if your vitals accidentally wind up in a PowerPoint presentation at the next quarterly?
So maybe you're ready for that, too. Maybe you just don't care. Maybe you believe that if someone requires more of something, then they ought to pay more for it. Faster cars, more money. Bigger houses, more money. Bigger health risks, more money, right?
Um, not so fast again.
Since when did you become a by-volume person? You are a person, period. When you go to the movies, you aren't charged by your weight or your size or your height, you are charged by your being. That's why the ticket stub says "Admit One," not "Admit (See Chart on Back)." In elections, you only get one vote. In Pollyanna, you only get one present. Why shouldn't healthcare be the same and treat you as one?
Even if Alabama has the perfect plan to avoid charging those with true genetic ailments (versus lifestyle-induced ailments), charging extra to those whose lifestyles create the potential for increased healthcare costs is a perilous path to follow, because its definition is so broad. Someday, someone in some office will be tasked with mitigating healthcare costs. The idea will hit him that the phrase LIFESTYLE can be applied to more than just diet. So, in addition to, "What's your BMI and LDL count?" you might be asked, "Do you rock climb?" "Do you ride a motorcycle?" "Do you frequently ice skate?" "Are you promiscuous?"
Feel invaded yet? Each example is a lifestyle (of sorts) and carries with it higher risks for health problems. Now, I want you to take those questions I just asked...and ask them of your spouse and of your children, because if $25 a month is helping subsidize healthcare costs, somebody in some cubicle is going to do the math as he imagines what $50, $100, or more could do.
I respect what the government is trying to accomplish, and I'm sure they are using the finest of intentions to pave that road to perdition, but Uncle Sam needs to keep his thumb out of the pudding. I mean, who knows where that thumb has been?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)