Obama, the Republican Darling

I have been combing the news outlets and political blogs recently, trying to gauge the likelihood of Obama winning a second term as President.  I have been convinced for a while that he probably won't win, mostly because I don't think he can be victorious running as a Republican - which, if we are all honest with ourselves, is the only way he could be considered true to his first term record.

When he won in 2008 on the ridiculous "Hope and Change" platform, he grandstanded spectacularly on all the things he would do different than the previous administration.  He had press conferences vilifying the Bush administration while posturing his own as the antidote to it.  And everything was Bush's fault - he inherited all this.  And it was easy enough to dismiss - the inevitable lowering of the bar before any of his decisions and policies have taken hold.  But now that he's in full campaign mode again, the "lay-it-all-at-the-feet-of-Bush" tactic is really grating on me.  He's three and a half years in - when does this become his responsibility?  Bush has been gone for quite a while now.  He has no vote in Congress.  He has no say in anything anymore.  But Obama and the DNC seriously want us to believe that his hands are completely tied by Bush.  Just how far do they think they can extend this blame?

• Bush broke Obama’s promise to put all bills on the White House web site for five days before signing them.
• He broke Obama’s promise to have the congressional health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN.
• He broke Obama’s promise to end earmarks.
• He broke Obama’s promise to keep unemployment under 8 percent - that's why he needed his stimulus bill passed, like, tomorrow - or we're all doomed.
• He broke Obama’s promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo in the first year.
• He broke Obama’s promise to make peace with direct, no pre-condition talks with America ’s most hate-filled enemies during his first year in office, ushering in a new era of global cooperation.
• He broke Obama’s promise to end the hiring of former lobbyists into high White House jobs.
• He broke Obama’s promise to end no-compete contracts with the government.
• He broke Obama’s promise to disclose the names of all attendees at closed White House meetings.
• He broke Obama’s promise for a new era of bipartisan cooperation in all matters.

Yes, it’s all George Bush’s fault. President Obama is nothing more than a puppet in the never-ending, failed Bush administration.  Clearly Bush's hand was the reason Obama disengaged himself from the debt ceiling negotiations.  Bush's hand was the reason Obama disengaged himself from even commenting, let alone doing anything, during the Gulf oil spill crisis.  Bush's hand was the reason Obama disengaged himself from the crisis in Libya and went to South America, only to finally make a decision to act when the UN left him with no other choice.  If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, all of President Obama’s problems would be solved. His promises would have been kept, the economy would be back on track, Iran would have stopped its work on developing a nuclear bomb and would be negotiating a peace treaty with Israel.  North Korea would have ended its tyrannical regime, and integrity would have been restored to the federal government.  Oh, and let's not forget what it would be like if the Democrats, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, if they didn’t have the heavy yoke of George Bush around their necks.  There would be no earmarks, no closed-door drafting of bills, no increase in deficit spending, no special-interest influence (unions).  If only George Bush wasn’t still in charge, we’d have real change by now.  All the broken promises, all the failed legislation and delay (health care reform, immigration reform) is not President Obama’s fault or the fault of the Democrat-controlled Senate or Republican-controlled House.  It’s all George Bush’s fault. 

You might recall that when Scott Brown won election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts , capturing Ted Kennedy's seat, President Obama said that Brown’s victory was the result of the same voter anger that propelled Obama into office in 2008.  People were still angry about George Bush and the policies of the past 10 years, and they wanted change.  Yes - according to the president, the argument could be made that the voter rebellion in Massachusetts was George Bush’s fault (it couldn't possibly be that even the Democrat voters were getting a little tired of the Dems legislating against the will of the people).  Therefore, in obvious retaliation, they elected a Republican to the Ted Kennedy seat, ending a half-century of domination by Democrats.  It is all George Bush’s fault.  Will the failed administration of George Bush ever end, and the time for hope and change ever arrive?  Will President Obama ever accept responsibility for something - anything, besides killing Bin Laden and a health care bill he considers a major victory, but likely to be dismantled by the Supremes next month?

The debt crisis is looming over our heads, and the DNC loves to point out that Bush "doubled" the debt from $5 trillion to almost $10 trillion, while Obama has only increased the debt by half, from $10 trillion to almost $16 trillion by the end of the year.  Yet, they miss the point.  Percentagesaside, Bush added $5 trillion to the debt (a huge chunk of which is the wars and the rebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan) over 8 years.  Obama has added almost $6 trillion in half the time.  By the end of a second term, Obama's administration will have at least doubled the debt to $20 trillion, if not more, at the current rate.

I'm not advising anyone to not vote for Obama.  Just see the forest from the trees, please.  Years back, I joined an electrical contracting firm as a project manager.  I spent my first week going from job site to job site, being brought up to speed with all the projects going on.  Part of my job was to ensure all inspections were passed (several jobs were having problems).  It was pointed out on a particular job that helpers were doing to majority of the work (for those who don't know, helpers usually assist journeyman electricians in completing their work, but it's the journeymen who actually perform the work).  For every failed inspection, there were journeymen blaming sub-par work or unmet electrical code requirements on the helpers.  The owner would visit job sites once every three weeks to a month as a matter of course.  On the Friday of my first week, he brings out paychecks to this particular job site, who had failed yet another inspection two days before (this job was one of the ones I was appointed to, to help bring them up to spec to pass inspections on the next round).  The owner says hello to everyone and has the job foreman hand out the paychecks.  He then informs the job site that the foreman and all the journeymen were fired - right then, right there - done.  Everyone was shocked, including me.  He states that in seven failed inspections, he's heard all the blame has been put on the helpers - which leads him to assume that the helpers are the only ones doing any work.  So why is he paying journeymen $20+/hour to not work, and a foreman $65,000/year + bonuses to oversee them not working?  So everyone was fired, except the helpers.  Ballsiest thing I've ever seen an owner do.

My point is this:  if everything is Bush's fault, what the hell do we need Obama for?

Give the gays a break

Ugh… the argument of gay anything is getting so tired.  This week, the Supreme Court is hearing two cases (one of them about DOMA) that seems likely to be dropped altogether.  No one has the guts to make a decision on them, or wants a vote to occur, and the fools on the bench can not stop themselves from steering the debate into irrelevant asides.  North Carolina, a state that already banned same sex marriage, threw into their constitution a while back that “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”  I love this statement, by the way, because the phrasing technically also bans unmarried heteros from living together.  Love it when the mouth breathers start thinkin’.  Didn’t anyone in politics and law creation ever take a Technical Writing class?  This is like the idiotic law in Florida that bans sex with “animals,” completely ignoring that human being are classified in the kingdom “Animalia,” making us all, indeed, animals.  So in Florida, they’ve technically outlawed sex altogether.  Absolutely love it.  And these are two great examples of why gay marriage shouldn't be left to the states.

But back to the gays.  I’m fed up with the notion that allowing gay marriage is somehow “forcing” the morals of a minority onto a majority.  Wrong.  It’s simply allowing that minority to be recognized as citizens of this country who have the right to love whomever they choose.  And let’s not kid ourselves that they are citizens.  They are citizens in name only, while treated by the majority as second-class.  The statement I hear a lot (especially when cameras are around) is, "Gays don't have the right to force their lifestyle on me."  What?  How is anyone forced to do anything?  They don’t invade our houses in the middle of the night to steal our children for their “cult.”  They don’t man the airports like hare krishnas, recruiting a gay army.  They don’t care what you do – just stop caring so much about what they do that you invade their private lives with your ideas, converted into legislation, to dictate their lives to them.  I'm still waiting for that one sob story that regales the gays forcing heteros against their will into a lifestyle they want no part of...

As for the religious roots (and they are all religious) of the argument…  you can quote Leviticus to me all you want, the simple fact of the matter is that Mosaic holy codes were given to the Judaic priests after the Jews left Canaan, to help them assist their flock in adjusting from the conformity to pagan ritualistic living the Jews had adopted to protect themselves from persecution, dating back to their days in Egypt (one of the rituals involved the penetration of young male temple prostitutes).  Heck, the text could even be interpreted to instruct against defiling the sanctity of a woman’s marriage bed.  Context makes a world of difference...   

It could also be argued that Christians live according to the direction and inspiration of Jesus Christ, through the New Testament.  While He affirmed older Mosaic law as valid, Jesus’ only two love commandments in Matthew 22:37-40 implies a way of life that had moved beyond older holy law.  We even affirm that implication ourselves today.  The Mosaic holiness codes have been largely ignored for centuries.  A view examples, excerpted from a great letter to Dr. Laura Schlesinger:

• When I burn a bull on the alter as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
• I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
• I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
• Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchases from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
• I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or can I delegate that out to a third party?
• A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than a man laying with a man as with a woman. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
• Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the alter of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room?
• Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
• My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made by two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death in a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

This brings up the inevitable question:  Why have Christians generally disregarded these laws as “outdated,” yet kept the only one that allows us to be bigots against something we disagree with?  And by the by, a quick sidebar on the word “abomination”:  The Hebrew text uses the word toevah (translated as “impurity” or “unclean”), not zimah (translated as “injustice” or “sin”), which means anything referred to as an “abomination” in Leviticus is denotatively meant to mean “ritually impure” - not “immoral.”  An important distinction, one might say, yes?  "Abomination" is one of the most often quoted, and recklessly misapplied, terms to paint homosexuality as something even Moses himself wasn't addressing.  Mosaic laws had little to do with morality.  They were almost entirely ceremonial in nature, and meant to engender spiritual purity.  God, when He did regard morality, did so in a very clean and simple manner - they're called the Ten Commandments.  And the fact the He used Moses to present both only emphasizes the distinction between the two - one regards spiritual ceremonial purity, one regards moral living.

Speaking of reckless, people should scrap the farce that gays harm the sanctity of marriage and family.  Heteros divorce at a 50-55% clip all on their own, and adultery rates are the highest ever since statistics of such things began, so it's more than a little disingenuous to have heteros claiming sanctity of anything.  Conventional procreation in the family is out, obviously, but surrogacy and adoption (average of 130,000 waiting to be adopted in a given year – sanctity of family, huh?) easily fill the bill, so that argument really has nowhere to go.  The HIV/AIDS health argument is also weak.  Gays are the most health conscious of any of us in that regard – this isn’t the 70s/80s anymore.

There is simply no real logistical reason to ban gay marriage, other than contextually inaccurate interpretations of religion (and often basic, rudimentary bigotry),  against that which makes some of us uncomfortable.  But you are no more spiritually fulfilled if Joe and Bob down the street can’t get married than you are less spiritually fulfilled if they can.

And the public in general has grown so irrationally unforgiving on the subject that they have turned the Supreme Court into a bunch of cowards who want nothing to do with it, despite the pesky fact that it's their job.  So what say we all put on our big people pants and act like adults, rather than a bunch of whiny, puerile adolescents, hmm?  End of rant.

Jennifer Anniston Gets a Life Too

I was reading a commentary today by Leonard Pitts, a Pulitzer Prize winning writer for The Miami Herald.  Many of my hometown brethren may remember him, or still read him online.  He wrote a commentary called 'Prince' doesn't guarantee happiness, about the role of women, specifically that many women still see marriage as the end game for their existence, that all facets of their lives wrap around to finding a husband.  He then pointed to women in our celebrity atmosphere, and the gossip magazines that highlight their every foible, as an example of this.  And this got me to wondering about the relationship between the celebrities, the gossip mags, and the readership that has an interest in such things.
 
While I can marginally agree, to a point, Pitts' assessment about the role of women as brides-in-waiting, as perceived by the populous, I think his use of the celebrity women culture as representative of that assessment is way off base.

The celebrity culture is bent on normal people perceiving them as having normal elements to their lives, making them relatable to us - while at the same time living vicariously through the fantasy world we imagine they live in.  I've seen a couple of magazines in the doctor's office or supermarket (isn't that really the only time we peruse them?)  even have sections of photos of celebrities at the grocery store, shopping for clothes, walking their dogs, going to restaurants, seeing movies, Christmas shopping, etc., with the page header: "Celebrities - they really are just like us!" - a shocking exhibit of mocking condescension...

The problem, of course, is that all those things are superficial elements of life.  When people pine over celebrities, looking for signs that they still have something normal about them, one of the few things relatable to the rest of us are relationships.  That's why they harp on Jennifer Anniston's reaction (or lack thereof) to an announcement that her ex-husband (Brad Pitt) is engaged to the woman she was left for (Angelina Jolie).  If Anniston is cordial and wishing them happiness, we get to hear about her strength in the face of her past betrayal.  If she is hurt by the news, we get to hear about her past betrayal continuing to haunt her on a new higher level - and it will be accompanied by a 15 year old stock photo of her crying, doctored to look recent.  Because real people have a reaction to that type of information in their life.  It makes the celebrity seem normal, however brief that may be. 

The fact that celebrities tend to romance each other simply feeds the fantasy of normal people who dream of being with one of the beautiful people.  It's why, if Jennifer Anniston started dating Jon Hamm tomorrow, it would be front page news.  Two of the beautiful people got together - women who fantasize about Hamm will swoon at the thought.  Men who fantasize about Anniston will envy that lucky SOB Hamm, who now gets to tap that regularly.  The following weeks and months would be littered with pictures and marriage and baby hypotheticals, because that's what the gossips mags feed:  the fantasy.  And by the by, who says Jennifer Anniston doesn't get to have a life?  Because she's famous, she shouldn't want motherhood or a husband, a family life?  They've made fun of her for years for wanting children, and they've run the gamut on all the men she's dated in her failure to achieve that.  Every time she dated someone new, they asked the question, "Is so-and-so the one?"  I've never cared one way or the other about the celebrity culture, but there's something to be said for her being one of the few who have handled the extreme public coverage of her private life with great poise.

Because it didn't fit into the mold of Pitts' topic, he naturally left out the other thing that gossip mags highlight to breach the normalcy gap:  illness.  It's not just relationships that grace the covers.  A celebrity who gets severely ill, especially if it's terminal, will get front page coverage counting down the days to their passing, accompanied by the requisite photos detailing their deterioration, supposed claims by friends and loved ones about the strength and fortitude and positive outlook by said celebrity.  This stuff is exploited ad nauseum, even after they've passed away.  It's how we, the little people, know that celebrities really are just like us - they even die...

As for the role of women, I think people generally define themselves, and their lives, by a few important markers: a career, any impact they can make on the world around them (most people choose philanthropy or major causes to fulfill that need), and, often the most important: family/children.  Although their are exceptions among us, it's not in the emotional or hormonal nature of human beings to be alone.  We look to connect with others and, women in particular, as the child-bearers, feel a strong urge and desire to be parents.  While that can happen outside of marriage, a partner nourishes the love that urges a family.

I always thought that's what the Equal Rights Amendment was all about - the right of women to choose what they want for their lives, and be compensated accordingly (equal to men) if they chose to enter the workplace.  But women are often looked down upon, sometimes by their own gender, if they choose to stay home and be a wife and mother, as if it's somehow contrary to the feminist movement.  Ironically, Pitts often criticizes the single parent family in his commentaries, yet he now seems to criticize the notion that women may identify their lives through marriage.  How sad, since our families are the most common benchmark of how most of us identify ourselves and our lives...

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/21/2759906/prince-doesnt-guarantee-happiness.html#disqus_thread#storylink=cpy

Congressional Lifers are Killing Us

The fate of the country is in the wrong hands.

We have a serious problem.  Our country has been on a downward spiral for several years now.  And, while I have many issues with Barak Obama as the president (based both on pre-Oval Office things and his actions since he got there), this is not Obama’s fault.  And, while George W. Bush infuriated the country with his immature attitude and selfish decisions that would bake a bishop kick out a stained glass window, this is not Bush’s fault.  And, while the 1996 Community Reinvestment Act started the sub-prime mortgages that eventually led to the corruption of the banks and Wall Street firms, and the criminally negligent bet-hedging that ensued, this is not Bill Clinton’s fault either.

We have a serious problem.  And that problem is Congress.  Specifically, the lifelong congressional members of both houses.  The congressional lifers have created a bubble, that somehow manages to eliminate both critical thinking and conscience.  They have literally taken over the country, and run it as their personal playground, no matter what it does to us.  And it is, by far, one of the most insulting institutions in the global political landscape, which has cost us credibility and respect from the rest of the world economic institutions.  And it is counter to the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

Originally, the condition for holding a Senate or House seat was either owning a company, or having a long term full-time career – because the congressional positions were both temporary and part-time service.  They didn’t want anyone’s financial livelihood tied to the job, as they knew it would foster corruption.  In the Articles of Confederation, the maximum term was called “3 in 6.”  In other words, no one could serve more than 3 years in any 6 year span, after which you could try to run again.  When the Constitution was ratified in 1787, term limits had been removed.  Until the 20^th century, this was not a problem.  The people were so conditioned to term limits that new people were regularly voted in to office simply out of habit.  Congressmen worked around that by rotating the nominations to office amongst themselves, so many of the same people would hold the office for a few years at a time, every few years.

The primary system we are in now contributed hugely to the ever-ubiquitous “Incumbent.”  As congressmen won re-elections over and over, they started campaigning for re-election as soon as the current one finished.  The average congressman today has to raise $10,000 -$15,000 a week while in office, just to be considered financially competitive for the next election.  This becomes less of a necessity once gerrymandering was allowed.  For those who don’t know “gerrymandering” is the act of carving out districts to eliminate sections that are least likely to vote for you – the intention, obviously, to protect a party or an incumbent.  The name refers to Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry who, in 1812, carved up a district in Boston so much, the end result resembled a salamander. Critics put the to terms together and the name has stuck since.   A normal voting district would look like a slice of a state – a solid chunk.  Check out the nuttiest gerrymandered districts in the country here:  http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2010/11/11/the-top-ten-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts-in-the-united-states/

As gerrymandering protects incumbents, the advent of the congressional lifer took hold.  And these lifers have changed the system within Congress itself many times over, to the degree that newcomers who want to change the system for the betterment of the people tend not to last very long.  The newbies only have a shot to stay long term if they find a way to play along with the veterans who have slickly gamed the system to their own betterment.  It’s why, while the rest of the country would go to prison for engaging in insider trading within the financial markets, legislators for decades would invest their own money into financial projects they had control over in Congress.  Even when Congress outlawed it under pressure from the people, they still looked the other way for years when some of them engaged in it.  It’s why they exempted themselves from most of the laws that the rest of the country had to follow.  That has since changed officially, but we see legislators ever year having to resign, or come under investigation for corruption.  And notice, it’s rarely the younger ones this happens to – it’s almost always the lifers.  Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangle, Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Dick Gephart, etc. have run afoul and ended up in ethics investigations.  Naturally, these investigations tend to be politically motivated, but what it represents is a willingness of Congress to look the other way on each other, so long as you don’t rock the boat too much.

Since most of these lifers rarely have to worry about being beaten out for their seat, thanks in large part to their slickly gerrymandered districts, they tend to feel impervious, invincible – and that caters to the willingness to do whatever they want, no matter who they irritate, and no matter how hypocritical they may be in doing so.  I remember being astounded by Nancy Pelosi a couple of years back.  While she was bashing every CEO under the sun for using private jets to tool around the country while the American people were suffering economically (cue the single tear and the violin), it turned out she was averaging over a million dollars a year flying an Air Force Gulfstream 5 (they even said she was averaging over $50,000/year just for in-flight food and alcohol).  And these costs to the taxpayers don’t even include the security detail that flew with her.  Apparently, “Do as I say, not as I do” is a convenient mantra…

This mindset has permeated all levels of the legislature, and even into the executive branch.  Bush pounded the Patriot Act into us, skipping over the huge curtailing of freedom involved.  He saddled us with trillions in debt to fight wars that amounted to little more than flexing to rid himself of Daddy’s shadow.  He also contributed to the financial meltdown by stripping regulations off the backs of the banks and Wall Street financial institutions that gambled away their investors’ money, while hedging their bets on derivatives that rewarded them for failure.  Obama took over and turned on the printing presses, just inventing money out of thin air, thereby devaluing the dollar around the world, ticking off all the countries that bought our debt.  The debt ceiling has been raised a couple of times, and will be raised again in early 2013 when we hit the 16.4 trillion debt mark in November.  Yet while the rest of the country struggles, the one thing he didn’t want to hear from the GOP when negotiating the budget was cutting spending.  We have no money – we’re less than broke, we’re 16.3 trillion in the hole – but don’t you dare tell anyone to stop spending money.  What does it matter, it’s just our kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids that will suffer for it… 

And the power brokers in Congress tend to be the lifers, who don’t care about politicizing every little piece of minutiae – they won’t likely lose in the next election, so no skin off their nose.  This country is in the state it’s in because the lifers in Congress have made it so, with greed, antipathy, hypocrisy, and corruption.  And we can’t get them out, because they’ve gerrymandered their way into perpetual incumbency.  They have ruined us, both domestically and internationally.  If there’s even a sliver of a chance to get this country back on track, they have to go – all of them.  And term limits and salary increases need to be decided by the American people, not Congress themselves (I can’t imagine why they’ve always gotten the salary increases they want AND manage to vote down term limits - just a tad self perpetuating, no?)  Gerrymandering has to go – normal redistricting needs to happen soon, to reflect the entirety of a district, not just the “family” members who don’t even look at the ballot anymore.  And one need only look at the Republican primary field to see just how deep we’ve sunk.  I remember thinking what a silly joke John Kerry was in 2004.  Now way could that guy be taken seriously – the embodiment of an “empty suit.”  And now I look at the GOP candidates and sigh, because it’s simply more of that same thing.  This is looking very bad for us.  I don’t want Obama in office anymore, but I can’t help but feel a GOP president from this crop would be a major step backwards.  Clearly, Congress is where we fix this, not the White House.

We have a serious problem.  And we know a solution.  We now need the guts to act on it.

Tough Love with a Tech .45

At first I laughed - hard.  I thought it was hilarious.  Tommy Jordan, a furious parent who sounds pretty well reasoned and adjusted otherwise, had had enough.  His 15-year old daughter had posted a Facebook rant, essentially smacking her parents in the mouth by putting her slavery-riddled foot down.  Done she was, doing chores, being their maid - unless, of course, her father (who had been pushing her to get a part-time job) wanted to pay her for her labor.  And they should definitely NOT count on her for help of any kind in their old age.

So, Massa Dad decided she needed to be put on notice.  He set up a video camera, printed out her rant, took a seat with a cigarette (which he probably needed, as he had to pause more than once to compose himself), and regaled his daughter's prose for the world to hear.  As, according to Tommy, she had done something similar to this once before - and had been warned against doing anything of the sort again - a hard lesson about who's really in charge of life, until you're old enough to take care of yourself, was warranted.  So Tommy pulled out his .45 caliber handgun, aimed the camera at her laptop computer, and plugged it with nine hollow point rounds - which he expected to be reimbursed for.  He then posted the video to his Facebook wall (hers too), and then posted it on YouTube, with a link to his page.  He went viral within hours.  The video was at over 23 million YouTube hits in less than three days.  Most parents out there were ready to start a rally for the guy, so enamoured they were with his chutzpah and having the brass to do what they wished they could with their unruly kids.  He also had his share of critics, implying he was being as immature as his child.

I honestly laughed really hard at this as I watched it.  And then I went back and watched it again... and again.  Something about it was sticking in my craw, and I couldn't quite put a finger on it.  The third time, it hit me.  It was subtle, because he was exhibiting a very matter of fact posture and attitude, but it was there:  the look he had on his face - I had seen it before.  Pain.  This guy was outing his daughter's attitude towards HIM - what she thought of him - and if you paid close enough attention, you could tell he was trying really hard not to cry.

I should add that I don't have children, so don't take anything I am commenting on here as telling anyone how to parent.  While I have attitudes on how I think I would handle things, I am in no position to judge anyone else's parenting.  But I was that 15-year old.  Only I was worse.  I wasn't cowardly enough to rant my attitude towards my parents to friends.  I insulted them right to their face, many, many times.  Not always about the same things, but my general attitude towards them was consistent.  I was smarter than them - they knew it, I knew it, and I was done being told what to do.  The look on Tommy Jordan's face I had seen many times on my father's.  So hurt and frustrated, you just want to run through plate glass without a helmet, because that might hurt less.  And though he would never do it, you just know somewhere deep down is that little tinge in the medulla oblongata that makes one want to hurt the kid for being such a prick, knowing he probably deserves a good ass-kicking.  I have no doubt in my mind that my father many times had to fight the urge to punch me in the face.  And I was the toughest for my parents to deal with, because I was the oldest - they had no clue how to handle me.  My younger brothers will attest that the confusion was gone by the time they started pulling similar things.

My attitude ended with me having to move out of the house with a couple of years left of high school.  And I resolved to not fight anymore with anyone, about anything, if I could avoid it.  The nice thing about being on your own is not having to care what anyone thinks of you anymore.  You're responsible only to yourself, which is a very liberating feeling.  But it tore my parents up.  Between me and my middle brother, I honestly don't know how my parents marriage survived it - call it testicular fortitude.  A beacon for married couples out there who want an example of how to make it through crisis after crisis, and come out the other end stronger together than when you started... damn amazing, really.

So I saw that look in Tommy Jordan's face, and I was no longer laughing.  Because this is what his daughter had driven him to.  Part of me wishes he hadn't gone so far with the gun.  I have read that Child Protective Services has been out to his house - and why wouldn't they?  This guy just showed the world he was driven to violence with a handgun, even if it was no where near another human being, and only exhibited on a computer.  Look at the position he put himself in now.  I admire him for taking his hurt and anger out in a benign way, while still making his point to his kid.  But could anyone be forgiven (including the daughter) for thinking that Dad really wanted to shoot her, and simply settled on the laptop instead?  For the record, I don't think he felt that way - but I understand how someone could worry that he did.

I understand why some people think he reacted immaturely.  But, having been the instigator myself, I know first hand the state of mind a parent is driven to.  And lacking any other way to release that feeling, Tommy Jordan did the only thing he could that wouldn't hurt anyone else, and still make his feelings known.  In a world where we see increased occurrences of child abuse and anger gone wrong, that's probably the most mature thing I've seen a parent do.

And I apologize to my own parents, who I know identify with those exact feelings, thanks to me.

The TimTebow Mirror

I would like to add my view on Tim Tebow to the atmosphere for a few minutes:

For starters, I grew up in a family divided.  Half of them went to UF, the others FSU.  And my brothers and I grew up going to VIP parties for the Hurricanes before games.  As I got older, I never really needed to root for any one over the other, although I did mildly root for FSU whenever they played one of the other two, out of deference to my Seminole father.  The happiest and most excited I’ve ever seen him has been when FSU was beating up on UM – the sight of him climbing the fence at the top of the Orange Bowl stadium, literally shaking the fence as hard as he could, while taunting the UM fans around us, was a sight to see.  I don’t know if he even remembers that, but I remember it vividly – by far one of the most fun games I ever went to.  It’s hard not to root for a team that your dad’s so invested in their success.  And there was nothing truly more fun to watch than members of my family fighting amongst each other for school pride during the FSU-UF game.  Mostly I rooted for all the Florida teams to do well unless they played each other.  But I would have been equally happy for all of them to be at the top of the rankings every year, regardless of who was at the top.  Mine was generally a “State” pride, as opposed to a “Team” pride.  And I still feel that way today.

I always liked Steve Spurrier.  He was a complete jerk, and had one of the worst attitudes of any coach out there for years.  I liked him because I thought it was entertaining.  But I also liked him because, despite his attitude, he had a knack for making college quarterbacks elite.  So even after he left, I always watched the QBs coming up in the Florida system, because they just had a history of greatness.

I was never totally sold on Chris Leak in the UF system.  He was a good QB, and had a very good reputation coming into college, but was kind of up and down (UM fans will disappointingly identify with this in recent years).  But there was a fervor building in the UF student atmosphere, about a new kid to come into the program – Tim Tebow.  His abilities had been the subject of much anticipation, and the rumors of his toughness were already sung far outside of Gainesville.  But Leak was the QB, so everyone had to wait for intermittent insertions into games that were long since won.  But fans at the games went nuts whenever he came in, and watching him throw touchdown after touchdown, and running over defensive players like they were right out of PeeWee league just made his growing legend that much more fun.  It was enhanced even further in his junior year when, after losing a game they should have won, Tebow stood in front of the press crying - blaming himself for the loss (notice he always takes criticism on himself, while heaping the accolades onto his teammates...), and promising the entire country, not just Gator nation, that it would never happen again.  He then led them to the national championship, and won it, fulfilling his promise.

It was here that the professions of his faith were first highlighted.  As a junior and senior, he even started wearing Bible verses on his eye-black during games, causing the NCAA (though they deny Tebow was the catalyst for it) to ban writing of any kind on eye-black, now known throughout college sports as The Tebow Rule.  He finished college with two national championships, one Heisman Trophy (a finalist in two others), awards for best QB in the nation, best football player in the nation, and best athlete in ANY sport.  And while he racked up touchdowns every year, finishing with 88 TDs passing and 55 rushing, but only 15 interceptions, pro scouts had already started to question his NFL pedigree because of his QB mechanics.  In a nutshell, for those who do not know (I would say only those in the Third World wouldn’t know him by now, but he spends his off seasons in the Third World – so much for that…), the complaints were about his footwork and holding the ball down near his hip on his drop-back, exposing him to the possibility of numerous sacks because of an inability to release the ball quickly.  This criticism hampered his draft status in the eyes of most who mattered on the subject.

That is, except for Josh McDaniels, then head coach of the Denver Broncos.  McDaniels said, after Tebow’s first round selection, that what he saw was a winner, nothing else – who’s flaws at passing were easily adjustable.  They had Kyle Orton, so Tebow would have plenty of time to work on his mechanics.  Which he did – he looked vastly improved just in his rookie preseason alone.  And all the while, the same fervor that was ignited in Gainesville was beginning to ignite in Denver.  But he was also being discussed for the notoriety in college for his outward expressions of faith.  And the little playing time he saw during his rookie season was making the anticipation of him as the starter grow by the week.  And every interview invariably asked him about his faith as much as the game – Tebow found himself having to defend his expression of faith, where he hadn’t had to do that in college much.  And he always smiled, was always gracious, and never had an ill word, even for those who criticized him.  When he finally took over permanently this season, his detractors went into full-on attack mode, while he began to win… and win… and win…

It's not because he's a Christian, or even an outspoken one.  Ever seen Baltimore Raven (an former U alumnus) Ray Lewis after a game?  He's practically giving sermons about "...giving it up to God..."  And three quarters of the running backs and wide receivers (with the exception of the ones who feel like Riverdancing or putting on a sideshow) kneel or point to the sky after a touchdown - no different than Tebow.  And one only has to turn on the AMAs, BMAs, CMAs, the ESPYs, etc to see artists and athletes alike thanking God - along with their agents, managers, stylists, chauffers, and Mom and Dad - for gracing the little people of this country with their greatness, often while wearing bling along the lines of neck-to-crotch-length diamond encrusted crucifixes ('cause if there's one thing Jesus loves, it's symbols of his death being used by rappers to signal to chicks that they're filthy rich).

The difference between him and the rest is that when he does it, you believe him, rather than roll your eyes at the postured grandstanding the others convey.  And all it took was one person to write an article about his sincerity in his faith while he was in college, and the stigma around his faith has followed him ever since.  And the real problem is that, no matter what they say about him, they can't get to him - and that drives them nuts.  I think they beat him to death with it in the media HOPING that he'll get fed up with it and lose his cool, which will make everyone else feel better about themselves.  But he doesn't.  Even the people who bash him get his thanks for the criticism, because it makes him a better person.  Do you know how infuriating that is?  And even when they bash his supposed "lack" of skills (which there aren't much - the dude's a supremely talented athlete), he keeps on winning, in outright defiance of the critics.  And they're darn losing their minds because of it.  No, Tebow gets all this animosity because just being himself, as a person, disgusts people with themselves - thinking that no one can be that good of a person, that it must be an act of some kind.   

He's not perfect - no one is.  He even stole a book of quotes from a UF football coach one time (now, with Tebow, this probably just means he took it to find a quote and forgot to give it back - what he calls theft), but he even admits it to you.  How many would own up to anything they had done?  He's flawed, just like the rest of us.  He simply makes a concerted effort to be the best person he can, living his beliefs.  Something we all learn in church and temple every week, but fail to live up to.  And when they realize it's no act, they don't know what to do with themselves - his attitude about life turns the mirror on the rest of us.  And the ones who don't like what they see have nothing left but to pray for his ruination in the one place it could actually happen – the football field.  So this entire week was about Tebow losing to the Patriots.  The vastness of hope for him to lose has been staggering – I’ve never seen anything like it, save for Tiger Woods, post-scandal.  Mass hysteria, hoping more for someone to lose than a team to win.  And it’s not that they want the “Broncos” to lose – they want him to lose.  This country is seen the world over as arrogant, self righteous, and hypocritical.  And we go out of our way to crucify one person who is anything but – someone who represents what we all wish we were, if we were to be honest with ourselves - taking pleasure in the possibility of his failure.  The Germans have a term for that, by the way, getting pleasure from others' pain, suffering, and failure:  it's called Schadenfreude.  And that says infinitely more about us than him, I’m afraid…

Death Penalty on Parade

I feel compelled to voice a disappointment.

In the recent Republican debate, Texas governor Rick Perry defended the 234 executions he approved since taking office as virtually mistake-proof.  It did not help that there were some yahoos in the audience cheering for him when the question was asked, “Have you struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those might be innocent?”

His arrogance aside, there are reported to be 5-10% of Death Row inmates in Texas to be classified as “mentally retarded,” a threshold marked by an IQ under 70.  Back in 2002, Texas passed legislation banning the execution of mentally retarded inmates.  Perry vetoed the bill, saying, “This legislation is not about whether to execute mentally retarded murderers. It’s about who determines whether a defendant is mentally retarded in the Texas justice system.”  Which apparently Perry decided that the “who” is him and whoever he appoints to decide.  Interestingly, no inmates on Death Row meet his standard of MR, and all will eventually be executed.  Mr. Perry is VERY pro-execution…

This is being highlighted at the very same time Troy Davis is denied clemency in Georgia, and will be executed for the murder of a police officer.  His conviction was unilaterally witness-won.  There was no actual evidence against him (only a pair of boxers retrieved from the dryer at his house was submitted, then rejected by the judge as an unwarranted search).  After his conviction in 1991, seven of the nine witnesses recanted some or all of their testimony, alleging police coercion.  A new witness was found, that gave sworn affidavits as to Davis’ innocence.  It’s is even believed by some that Redd Coles, the witness who pointed police to Davis, is actually the real killer.  None of this was strong enough for the US District Court of Southern Georgia, which claimed that the new evidence cast only “minimal doubt on his conviction.”  Now, the flip side of this coin is that, in the 22 years since Davis’ conviction, the state of Georgia has gone through several governors, new judges in the District court, and different judges in the appeals court.  So any claim of “institutional memory” on the part of people who were not part of the system when Davis was convicted would strain credibility – as does the claim by his attorneys that he didn’t receive a fair trial, and that the jury was predisposed against him.  The jury was seven black, five white.  I do believe that, if at all possible, doubt about his conviction exists, then it warrants a revisit.  But Davis’ execution had been stayed several times already, his case sifted with a fine tooth comb – one of the times by an investigator who’s credibility was considered so unimpeachable that the state Supreme Court refused Davis’ habeas corpus outright, with no consideration of review.  Sad as it may be for Davis and his family, he has gotten a pretty thorough tour of the Georgia state judicial system, and has come out of it in the same position as he started.  

I dragged all this out to get to my real issue:  capital punishment.  I don’t understand people’s fascination with it, the far right’s incessant need for it, the far left’s incessant protestation of it, and the drum beat that bears the subject out as a topic of entertainment, from Perry being cheered during the debate to the tantric chanting of “Kill, baby, kill!” at the Republican Convention in 2008, with Sarah Palin leading the guttural cry.

There are secular and religious reasons for abolishing the death penalty.  On the secular side, there is the philosophical/psychological:  Execution may bring some measure of closure to victims’ families, and I’m all for that – but the loved one is still lost, and nothing changes that.  Execution is simply state-implemented vengeance.  If I lost a loved one, I would probably want revenge as well – except the revenge wouldn’t be mine, it would be the state’s.  I’m not sure that would really do it for me.

Then there’s the notion that in executing the criminal, they are being let off light.  I would rather they spend the rest of their life knowing that I fought for their life sentence so they would have a daily reminder that they could have gotten off light with an execution, but their continued misery is thanks to me.  I might even go visit them once a year to simply smile at them and leave.  The worst among us do not deserve to exit this world early – they deserve far worse than that.  And at the same time, they should have the opportunity to make peace with themselves and God.

This brings us around to religion.  There are many religious arguments on both sides of the execution debate, and many are taken out of context, which perverts the claim to justice by way of the death penalty.

The Bible contains several explicit endorsements of capital punishment.  Most of these occur in the first five books of the Old Testament, called the Pentateuch - most predominantly in Leviticus, whereby Moses dictates God’s laws of holy living to the Israeli priests.  These laws pronounce death as the punishment for several offenses against God and humanity.  The lex talionis, in the book of Leviticus, lists these offenses in detail.  One of the most often quoted texts is  “eye for an eye, hand for a hand, foot for a foot…”  This, of course is among the most common mantra of death penalty supporters, despite the intended limitation on punishment that the text implies.  

On the anti death penalty side, the Bible does imply God’s desire of redemption in sinners, even though the death penalty would be warranted under previously mentioned circumstances.  Ezekiel 33:10-11 says,  "herefore you, O son of man, say to the house of Israel: "Thus you say, `If our transgressions and our sins lie upon us, and we pine away in them, how can we then live? Say to them: "As I live," says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?"   This begs the question of the purpose of the death penalty, if it strips the convicted  of the ability to amend their evil ways.

One of the strongest anti-death penalty arguments in the Bible is in the New Testament book of John, in the form of the adulteress: “Now early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him; and he sat down and taught them. Then the Scribes and Pharisees brought to him a woman caught in adultery. And when they sat her in the midst, they said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do you say?" This they said, testing him, that they might have something of which to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with his finger, as though he did not hear. So when they continued asking him, he raised himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." And again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even unto the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing alone in the midst. When Jesus has raised himself up and saw no one but the woman, he said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one Lord." And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."  Jesus never rejects Mosaic law in this story, but He clearly implies that people are in no position to judge others’ sins, that we should concern ourselves more with our own sins before condemning anyone else for theirs.

In this manner, the Bible makes for a sticky back and forth on the subject of capital punishment.  While capital punishment is endorsed and prescribed in the Old Testament, Jesus in the New Testament clearly advocates ethical expression of love and forgiveness.  Even referring to the “eye for an eye” crowd, Jesus says in Matthew 5:  “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whosoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.”  One could even make the argument that, as Christians believe the New Testament is the affirmation of the prophesies of the Old Testament, Jesus, while affirming Mosaic law, was continually attempting to enlighten people to move beyond Mosaic law, to a life of forgiveness and redemption that would preclude the need for the death penalty.

I believe the death penalty, if used at all, should be reserved for the most heinous of us.  I was amused with the ferocity of the protesters at Troy Davis’ execution.  My amusement was not because they were protesting the execution – it was that they weren’t protesting the other execution happening on the same day:  that of white supremacist Duane Edward Buck, executed in Texas for the horrific murder of James Byrd, an African American who was chained to the back of a pickup truck and dragged side to side through the streets of Jasper, Texas for two miles until he was decapitated when his body hit a culvert.  This is the case, along with the Matthew Shephard case, that inspired the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.  That no one was really protesting Buck’s execution demonstrates why a guy like Davis maybe should not have been executed.  His crime (if he indeed committed it), was the result of a fight at a Burger King, not premeditated toward the officer.  There appears to have been no malicious intent, other than extremely bad judgment in what had escalated into a high pressure situation – possibly in a state of mind that had begun earlier in the night at a party.

Since the hardest proponents of the pro death penalty argument almost always cite religion as the support of it, I have to ask, in regards to these two cases:  What would Jesus do?