How Do You Solve A Problem Like Andrew

First off, it would have made for a much better title if we were discussing Mario here, but unfortunately we’re dealing with the son, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Governor Cuomo recently criticized the uber liberal Mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, for standing with Rob Astorino, the Republican Westchester County Executive, at a press conference where they called for increased federal funding for New York in the looming national transportation bill.  And Cuomo’s not alone.  Democratic Congressman from Brooklyn, Hakeem Jeffries also took exception to Astorino’s involvement.  And why are they taking exception?  Because Rob Astorino is Pro-Life.

Let’s forget for a second that Cuomo chose to forgive de Blasio for also standing with Republican Congressman Dan Donovan, also Pro-Life, at the same press conference.  And let’s forget that Cuomo has waxed un-poetically about the necessity to find balance when working with the Republican-led State Senate in New York.  And let’s forget that Cuomo had a particularly contentious race with Astorino just last year for governor.  And let’s also forget that Rep. Jeffries is a potential challenger to de Blasio in the next mayoral election.  Let’s forget that because it’s not the point they were making and it’s not the problem that Cuomo and Jefferies, and Liberals in general have chosen to make recently, and it’s a big problem.

Government is supposed to be about making life better for the people it represents.  There are differences of opinion between the parties as to how to go about doing that, but not always.  Sometimes, like when your constituents of all stripes are about to lose tens of millions of dollars in transportation funding, there is no left or right way to address it.  When issues affect us all equally, it calls for our elected officials to come together in bi-partisan fashion and work towards solutions.  But too many Democrats and Liberals today think bi-partisanship is a sin.  Giving the other party even the opportunity to voice their grotesque thoughts and provide them the opportunity to infect others is shameful.  If a Republican proclaims they are Pro-Life, then that’s the last they should be heard of.  Liberals want to bury their voice and mark their tombstone with “Anti-Woman” and be done with them.  There’s no conversation.  There’s no chance to find common ground.  They’re just wrong.

Republicans, then, are left to stew, frustrated that they’re not being heard and upset that they’re falsely labeled as racist, misogynist, homophobic, and anything else that demeans and discredits them.  They’re left to go further to their side where the anger builds.  And Republican politicians, who are being shouted over and cannot be heard by even the moderate Democrats, are then forced to cater to that rightward anger if they hope to get elected.  In the end, what we’re left with is a deeply divided nation and a government that represents that divide, where very little is accomplished.

That’s not how government should be.  It’s not the Jets and the Sharks.  Our representatives should not be sticking to their side of the court, snapping at each other.  The goal of the battles shouldn’t just be to beat the other side.  At some point, there is supposed to be a common cause and politicians and citizens shouldn’t be censured and censored when trying to find it.

So bravo to Mayor de Blasio, County Executive Astorino, and Congressman Donovan for acting responsibly in a world where, thanks to people like Cuomo and Jeffries, doing what you’re supposed to do is equated with courage, because opposing viewpoints are seen as disqualifiers.

An Open Letter to Governor Chris Christie

Dear Governor Christie,

During last week’s fourth Republican Presidential Debate, you rightfully criticized Hillary Clinton for her proud declaration claiming Republicans are the enemy by which she would be most proud to be judged.  You said that as opposed to her role of divider, you claimed you would be a unifier, but on the same day you also emphatically announced you will not meet with anyone from Black Lives Matter.  I think you see the issue I’m having here, and I ask you to reconsider your stance.

Now I understand your reasoning: you do not want give people who chant about and promote the murder of cops the time of day (and I’m going to stop here for a second to make it clear that I am giving Christie the benefit of the doubt and accepting that that is his reasoning and this isn’t really just a political ploy to win over the hundreds of thousands of police officers and their unions, as well as their staunch police supporters.  And I can easily give that benefit here because I’m also writing here in a universe where Christie actually reads this letter).  But it doesn’t have to be police vs. Black Lives Matter (BLM).  There doesn’t have to be a demon in this struggle.  In fact, I’m pretty sure it isn’t that way, but by providing such a powerful and public voice in this rift, you are if not drawing the official line in the sand, then you are at the very least deepening the divide between the police and those supportive of them and the Black Lives Matter movement and those sympathetic to their cause.  And that’s not only not in the spirit of unifying, it’s dangerous.

As long as people who disagree with each other don’t speak to one another, then the only voices we hear are like-minded ones that push us further into our corners and rile us up all the more.  Just look at what has happened in our colleges and universities.  Students are fed one side of a narrative and then fed it again and again until they won’t even hear the other side.  When University of Missouri students asked the now-former University President Tim Wolfe what he thought oppression was, they didn’t even allow him a chance to respond before deciding he doesn’t understand.  They have the audacity to ask him if he wants to google it first.  And then when he tries to answer, they’re quick to cut him off to express their instant indignation at his opening line.  When a journalist tried to document the protests at the Missouri campus, students, led by faculty, invoked their First Amendment right to keep the press away from them, and when the journalist tried to explain that the First Amendment protects his right to be there as well as theirs, the students, again led by faculty, only shouted over the him to drown it out and physically forced him back with glee.  In Yale, a recent panel on free speech was protested by those who only want to protect safe speech.  The panel was interrupted by protesters who wanted their voice to be heard the loudest and panel attendees were spat on as they exited.  And a recent national survey on free speech by the Buckley Program found that half of the under-grad students polled feel intimidated to express views that differ from their professors and fellow students.  And when you add all this up, you get what happened last Thursday at Dartmouth College, where a group of BLM protesters took to the library, but when white students just went on with their studying, the protesters couldn’t handle that not everyone was right there with them and they assaulted and cursed at the unmoved library-goers for their “white comfort.”  This is the danger of unchecked groupthink, and if you do not like it, Governor Christie, then the worst thing you could do is stay on your side of the line and leave bad enough alone.

So challenge them on their beliefs, Governor.  Make them understand that the police force is not an institution of racism.  Allow that there are those who wear the uniform that do not do it, or anyone justice, but for every such case there are many and many more who do their best to preserve the dignity of the badge and the lives of every American of all backgrounds.  Show them that when you say All Lives Matter, that black lives are a part of that.  And give them the opportunity to show that while some have taken the Black Lives Matter movement to a wrong place, that they are not all there, and when they say Black Lives Matter, it doesn’t mean that white lives and blue lives don’t.

So just engage, Governor.  Come to an understanding that there are bad seeds undermining each side, but those seeds are a splintered minority.  And come together because the best way to stomp out those dangerous and unwanted offshoots is with a strong, unified group where an unwanted weed cannot take root.  Open with the joint proclamation that Black Lives Matter, All Lives Matter.  Do it for the sake of unity.  It may not solve racism, it may not unite us all- it probably won’t, but it could start something.  And if it doesn’t... well, at least you gave it the old college try.

The Enemy Of My Enemy Is Me

“Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said ‘I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.’  You’ve all made a few people upset over your political years.  Which enemy are you most proud of?”

That was the final question of the first Democratic Presidential debate.  

The question of who poses the greatest threat to America was already asked, so this question was basically saying, “Okay candidates, tee it up.  Rile up the base.  Tell the part of this deeply divided nation, who will vote Democrat no matter what, who they should be even more angry and resolute against and how you stuck it to them.  Go ahead, power up that righteous indignation.”

It was divisive, sensationalist and irresponsible, and completely in line with CNN.

So who answered this poorly conceived question the best?

It depends.

On the one hand, Senator Jim Webb gave the right answer.  The enemy he is most proud of is the enemy soldier who threw a grenade at him, but he isn’t around to talk to.  Or in other words, the enemy Senator Webb is most proud of is the enemy of America.  His enemy is the one who stands between him and freedom and democracy, and he killed that enemy… Or he just wanted to tell about how a soldier threw a grenade at him and he’s the one who is still around to tell the tale.  And you have to think that would have earned him at least five to six percentage points in the Republican primary.

On the other hand, to understand the other top answer, we have to look at the context of the quote that inspired the question.

It was September 21, 1932 and Franklin D. Roosevelt was campaigning in Portland, Oregon, bringing his ideals of the New Deal to the Pacific Coast.  Specifically, he was there to deride the electrical power utilities who were doing all they could to control the industry that was becoming increasingly necessary to the everyday American life and should therefore be regulated as a public utility.  FDR accused the electric utilities of propaganda and buying commissions to ensure they held a monopoly so they could continue to overcharge for a shoddy product.

His point was that the power utility was putting their own needs above the needs of the rest of the nation.  The cardinal sin of the New Deal.  

The New Deal was built around the idea that the role of government should be to ensure the greater welfare of the people.  Any individual’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness should be unmolested so long as that pursuit does not interfere with the welfare of the many.  Proper regulation should then still take into account the needs of all: the consumer, the investor and the corporation.  He actually wanted to work with the power utilities to those ends.  Cooperation and coalitions was what powered the New Deal.  But if you were unwilling to work with America to make it great, then you were against America, and so he finished his speech with this:

“Judge me by the enemies I have made. Judge me by the selfish purposes of these utility leaders who have talked of radicalism while they were selling watered stock to the people and using our schools to deceive the coming generation.”

So in the context of FDR’s speech, former Rhode Island Sen. and Gov. Lincoln Chafee’s answer was actually best.  His “enemy” was the coal lobby.  He tried to bring them to the table to work on climate change and carbon dioxide emissions, but the coal lobby would not work with him.  In Chafee’s view, the coal lobbies made him- and America, for that matter- their enemy in their selfish pursuits, not the other way around.  Lincoln Chafee, therefore, speaks best to the ideals of the New Deal and what FDR stood for.

And the worst answer?  That belongs to Hillary Clinton.

Along with Chafee, Governor Martin O’ Malley and Senator Bernie Sanders called out the special interests they have fought against, though they didn't mention any offers of cooperation.  And when the question was posed to the former Senator, Secretary of State and First Lady, she also rattled off a bunch of special interest enemies she was proud of, such as the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies- and she even threw in the Iranians for good measure- but then she settled on who she is most proud to consider her enemy: the Republicans.

It’s important to understand that in that speech by FDR, and with that quote, he was answering the question of whether or not utilities like power and electrical development was a local issue or a national issue.  He happened to believe it was a national issue, but more importantly, he believed questions like these, ones that concerned the development of the nation and the welfare of its people, should ultimately be above mere politics.  He said:

“When questions like these are under consideration, we are not Democrats, we are not Republicans; we are a people united in a common patriotism. This is the spirit of my entire campaign. If the spirit and the method that I am applying to public questions are in line with that of progressive citizens of parties other than my own, I invite them to join me now, as I have invited them many times before. In the face of present national emergencies we must distinguish between parties and their leaders.

When the great possessions that belong to all of us--that belong to the Nation--are at stake, we are not partisans, we are Americans”

In today’s political environment, that spirit is needed.  Our nation is deeply divided and fractured, and over issues of much less significance than the ability to power a country and a home.  The spirit of patriotism, of uniting for the greater good is what we need now more than anything in a leader.  But Hillary Clinton saw an opportunity to take advantage of that divide.  She gave the likely left-wing viewers of the Democratic debate what they wanted to hear, instead of what they needed to hear.  She gave a list of enemies to build her cred with the angry liberal voters and then topped it off with the Republicans to send them into a frenzy and reinforce the belief that Republicans are the enemy, instead of partners in patriotism and the realization of the American dream.  We don’t have to agree on everything, but we have to at least understand that.

Hillary decided to build herself up, and in so doing, she helped tear the Union apart.  She put her needs of attaining the White House above the needs of the many who she seeks to lead.

So in the context of FDR and the New Deal, with that spirit in mind, the enemy by which we should judge Hillary... is herself.

Live And Let Die

Here are a few things you won’t see written here:

- That what happened in Charleston wasn’t a terrible tragedy.

- That it wasn’t based in ignorance and a hatred of black people.

- That racism in this country is a thing of the past.

- A defense for the use of the Confederate flag in the United States of America.

- The N-word.

It is around those issues that the conversation has gone since the shooting in Charleston.  The Confederate flag has to go down, and President Obama said the N-word on a podcast.

Gun control has been discussed as well, but an impassioned argument on gun control is another thing you will not get here.  I’m not a supporter of guns, but there are no gun laws that could have stopped the tragedy, short of banning all legal guns.  The problem with that is that all we would have then on the streets are illegal guns, and I am not comfortable with all of the guns out there being in the hands of criminals.  Or at least the vast majority of guns, since the police are outnumbered by criminals who likely only have their guns to cause mayhem and harm.

So with gun control being a non-starter, we return to race and hate.  We return to the heart of the matter, where the gun gets its power and its impetus.  And we return to the Confederate flag and the N-word.

Should President Obama have said the N-word?  No.  And I’ll take it a step further: he shouldn’t be allowed to.  And if you’ll permit me, just a little further: no one should.

The N-word was a way to demean and abuse black people.  It’s a holdover from a time when black people weren’t considered human and it’s a word that was held over black people to make sure they knew it.  It’s grotesque that it’s not only still used today, but it’s used by the descendants of the people who were tortured with it.  

These descendants use it today with the defense of re-appropriation, but they don’t have the right to re-appropriate it.  No one alive today who uses that word like it’s nothing was bought and sold as property.  None of these people were whipped to death or had their children ripped from their arms and sold off like cattle.  None of these people slaved under the hot sun with little hope of a better life.  The people alive today who call each other by that word are the people who those people hoped would be able to live a life without being called that word.

Using the N-word is a living reminder of the darkest period of this country.  A period of hatred and division.  A period whose shadow we still do live in, and I don’t believe that shadow can subside as long as we have living reminders.  We shouldn't forget what happened- we can't, but we need to let the hatred and the word become relics of the past and give them a chance to be only memories, and not perpetuate them and allow them to remain current events. That hatred and that word needs to be deprived of the oxygen used to utter it and be allowed to die.

The N-word is also, in many respects, synonymous with the Confederate flag.  A reminder and a symbol of that dark time.  If the Confederate flag can’t be saved or re-appropriated, then neither can the N-word.  And this is not a case for the salvation or re-appropriation of the Confederate flag.

If the Confederate flag needs to be placed in a museum, then so does the N-word.  And the Confederate flag needs to be placed in a museum.

Born Which Way

I will start with disclaimer: I don’t fully understand the LGBTQ community.

I sort of understand the L and G.  They’re attracted to who they’re attracted to.  It’s uncontrollable and natural in the same way everyone can’t control what gets their pulse racing for another human being.  In that regard, I understand it, though I admit will probably never be able to fully understand it in the same way I will never fully be able to understand anyone whose shoes I don’t wear.   Not that anyone of the gay or lesbian orientation needs mine or any other heterosexual’s understanding or approval.

The B I understand a little less.  The reasoning for gays and lesbians should follow- it’s uncontrollable who we’re attracted to, but there’s something left wanting.  Maybe it’s because I have never met any bisexuals.

The Q I’m not even going to bother with.  For a society and generation so against labels, they get really specific with their sexual labeling.  Questioning? Do we really need to stamp a TBD on a person?  Not everyone needs to be labeled at every point along their journey.  Enough with the letters.  I understand the reasoning behind the inclusionary acronym: they want these people on the fringe of society to feel part of a community, but what happens when the Questioner ultimately realizes s/he is a heterosexual?  Are they banished from the community?  Let’s let some people just be for a little while.

That brings us to the T, and right now, that pretty much means Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner.  For the most part, Jenner’s transition and Vanity Fair outing has been widely applauded.  But Jon Stewart and the Daily Show found another level to the parade of praise and pointed out how a lot of the coverage in the news went from “Ya, ya it was brave, blah blah blah…”  to,  “but would you look at her!”  The coverage quickly went from congratulations and bravo to objectification.  Jenner was compared in “hotness” to other women, “slut-shamed” for wearing a corset, and even reminded that there is now an expiration date on her looks.  As Stewart put it, “welcome to being a woman in America.”

And if you don’t really think about it, as with a lot of The Daily Show, it’s very funny and smart.  But just for the opposite of fun, let’s really think about it.

Who did Bruce Jenner become?  What was changed?  We’re to understand, and I’m not Q-ing this assertion, that he was becoming who he always was on the inside.  In that case, we already know how brave and strong and courageous and inspiring he was.  We knew that way back from the early Bruce days when he was becoming an Olympic champion.  That’s not really the breaking story now, then, is it?  The story is the physical, superficial change to the exterior to match what was always the interior.  So is it then surprising, and even wrong to wash over the bravery aspect of this and discuss Caitlyn on a superficial level?

Furthermore, if it is a superficial change, should we be praising it?

At this point, I will repeat that I don’t fully understand the LGBT community and what I say here isn’t a statement accompanied with a downed foot.  If you would notice, there are many question marks being employed here because I am asking questions in hopes of better understanding.  And the one thing I thought I understood about the gay and lesbian experience was that it was something they couldn’t control, it was innate, inside them.  It was natural.  But transgender isn’t natural.  There’s a very superficial change that takes place, changes that are not as laudatory in other parts of society.  

If a woman wants to go through a procedure to alter her appearance because when she looks in the mirror she doesn’t see the reflection of the person she feels is on the inside, society widely presses her not to go through with it.  We try to make her see she's perfect just the way she is.  That it’s all about the bass.  I don’t understand why, then, there is such support and praise for the transgender movement from a society where we encourage everyone to be proud of who they are and love who they are without changing themselves?

It Gets Better... Or At Least It Should

In the short time we’ve had with 2015, two high profile politicians have already stepped down from their post in varying degrees of disgrace.  A governor and congressman have resigned from office in the last seven weeks, one as an ethics commission investigates whether or not he broke ethics laws when his fiance received state contracts, and the other after admitting to tax evasion from a life prior to his time in politics.  And now, I’m going to connect those two acts of crime... with President Obama’s BuzzFeed video for the Affordable Care Act.  And by acknowledging the anachronism, I hope to convey that this isn’t just an utterly insane rant against the President of the United States, but rather an even-tempered, well thought-out rant against the President of the United States.

Now, I’ve heard the case for this video.  That it was actually a brilliant move to take his affordable health insurance market pitch to where the young people are, his target audience.  But let’s be honest, he didn’t have to do it himself.  He has a cadre of celebrities that could have garnered the same attention to it.  Heck, his teenage daughters, who are actually where the young people are in that they’re young people, could have done something and it would have been as successful.  Maybe even more so, considering it would have been the debut appearance of the Obama girls on the public stage.  I can’t say why the President decided to do it himself.  I have thoughts, but it’s just conjecture, and more importantly this really isn’t a rant against the President nor an attack on his character.  The issues with this video are deeper and bigger than him.

First, it was a shameless sales pitch by the President for his policy, a far cry from the days when Presidents found it beneath the dignity of the office to campaign on their own behalf.  Okay, that one does seem to be a shot at the President’s character, but the truth is that issue is not specific to this politician or this video.  Too many politicians mine the depths of dignity today.  What we saw in this video, though, specifically, was our President acting the fool: winking at himself in the mirror, sticking his tongue out at himself, shooting finger guns at himself while modeling aviators and, worst of all, posing for selfies.  These are things the video bills as “Things Everyone Does But Doesn’t Talk About,” and that premise takes us to the larger issues.

I want you to consider that title and think about all the things that you do but don’t talk about…  Yep, all of that.  Is that the person you want as your Commander-in-Chief?  Representing America on an international stage?  Being the face of human rights and dignity?  Dealing with the Islamic State and negotiating with Iran over nuclear weapons?  That person doesn’t really inspire confidence, does it?  And that touches on the bigger concern: it’s not very inspiring, at all.

The video is meant to humanize the President, but should the Leader of the Free World be humanized?  Humans make mistakes.  They have deficiencies, flaws and faults.  They even commit crimes.  They give favor to loved ones.  They skim a little off the top to keep some of their hard-earned earned money.  And they can be forgiven for that because, hey, they’re only human.  We all make mistakes.  But politicians need to be more more than just a person.  They need to be better than us.  To represent thousands or millions of people, you need to be more than a mere human, you need to be super-human.  You need to be someone we can be proud to look up to and follow.  Someone who inspires.

The President of the United States is supposed to inspire people, particularly young people, probably more than anyone else in our country. And because of certain circumstances, this President has been given the opportunity to inspire more young people than any President before him.  And these young people all across the country are supposed to look up at this man and say, “One day, I want to be the President of the United States.”  They shouldn’t say, “Ya, I’m already there. In fact, I should take a picture of this.”  Leave it to the selfie generation to put a premium on being just like us, right?  

Yes, we’re all told we’re perfect just the way we are, but we’re not.  Not really.  And if you believe you are, then you’re probably insufferable.  The truth is, we can always improve.  We should never rest on our laurels.  We should always strive to be better.  And our leaders and our heroes are the ones who are supposed to inspire us to strive to that next level.  They’re not mutants or aliens or gods that represent a perfection we can’t attain, but real people who have overcome the basest of human deficiencies to rise above.  Someone we can actually pin up as a model to emulate.  Of us, but the best of us.  But when our heroes are just like the rest of us, then what do we strive towards when we’re already where we need to be?

Re-calculating

I want you to imagine America as a car- probably a pick-up.  And we’re driving this pick-up down a long highway.  There are other cars on this highway: Fiats and Hondas and Volkswagens and Hyundais and Volvos and Jaguars, but we’re focusing on the American truck right now.  And it’s riding down this seemingly endless line of road.  Straight and steady, all the way.  But after driving straight-as-an-arrow for so long, the highway begins to ever-so-slightly veer to the left.  It’s so slight, it’s barely even perceptible, and so we continue on straight without any adjustment to the wheel.  

Sure enough, though, after a while, our front right tire slowly encroaches on that yellow line.  Now, we’ve been on this path for so long, maybe we don’t even realize it, maybe we became complacent behind the wheel, and so we continue to hold straight and steady.  In fact, even when we’ve completely crossed that yellow line, we’re so set in our way, we still don’t think to turn.  Even when we rumble over the tread strip and are jerked back to, we still can’t believe or won’t accept that we need to change course.  We check the rearview mirror and then look ahead, and it just doesn’t feel like turning is called for.  Not until we finally bounce off the guardrail, scraping metal to metal, sparks flying and damage is undisputed do we finally realize we need to turn, but by then it’s too late for rational thought to dictate action.  And while a slight adjustment would take us to the middle of the road, the natural reaction is instead to grab that wheel with both hands and pull a hard turn away from the rail, and now... we have four female Ghostbusters.

For so long a time, and more than too long by all of it, we thought nothing of keeping a woman in her place.  It was the general rule that men took care of business and women took care of the home.  Now, it’s only acceptable to allow that Beyonce and women run the world.  

Up until recently, we called anything we didn’t like “gay” and thought nothing of it.  Homosexuality was seen as wrong and a perversion, and that was taken as gospel.  Now, we are more understanding and respectful of homosexuality, but calling God’s flock backwards, mouth-breathing, incestual cretins is completely kosher.  In fact, ironically, the only instance where “gay” is still used as a way to kind of insult someone today is when pinning that rainbow flag on conversion therapy pastors.  

There was an over-extended period of time in this country when black people were kept down.  They couldn’t sit where white people sit, eat where white people eat, learn where white people learn, and this was an improvement over the previous period.  Now, we have Affirmative Action and streets and highways are shut down to show #BlackLivesMatter, but apologies need be extended for proposing the possibility that all lives matter.

Now, let’s be honest, it’s still probably more beneficial to be a straight, white man in this country than it is to be a gay, black woman.  And one can say that without incurring wrath.  But if it were to be put in a slightly different way, as: “Straight, white men are better than gay, black women,” then there would be letters.  On the other side of that, if one were to say “Gay, black women are better than straight, white men,” there would still be letters, but they’d be made up of individual letters cut out of magazines.  A fringe response which shouldn’t be ignored, but not one that neither represents nor influences American society, and therefore far less substantial.  And that substance of the matter is what’s being overlooked here.  We’re getting to a point where there can be no substantive reason to critique a minority.  

The Libertarian Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul has come out against the current nominee for U.S. Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, for what he sees as stances she has taken that infringe on Americans’ rights.  He’s given clear and specific examples.  And in response, the Congressional Black Caucus has said he’s just trying to keep a black person from reaching a high position.  This, while Sen. Paul is working with Senator Cory Booker, a black Representative from New Jersey, to reform our criminal justice system so that more young black men can still have the opportunity to rise in this country.  That’s substantial, but if you have an issue with a black person, then you’re a racist.  Simple as that.  If you have an issue with a woman, then you’re a misogynist.  With a gay person, you’re a homophobe.  And with a straight, white man… well, then you probably have a point.

“Well, it’s only right after all those years of damage done to women, gays and black people.”

But is it right?  Is it right that all men are punished for the insecurity of the boys?  All of the people of God for the sins of the zealots?  And all the white people for the white supremacists?  We’ve been working so hard to put an end to the unfair prejudices that women, black people and gays face just for falling into a category; is it right to just shift that prejudice to different groups?  Are we ending inequality, or just transferring it?  Is hatred like energy?  Can we not destroy it, just change it from one form to another?

“Well, all women, gays and blacks were collectively tucked under the blanket of discrimination.”

Yes, but shouldn’t they then be against that behavior all the more so?  Senator John McCain is not shy about war.  He may even be more hawk than man at this point.  And he has not been soft on the radical Islamic terrorists threatening civil life as we know it.  Yet, few were more vocal in their support of the humane treatment of these mentally-stunted neanderthals than Senator McCain, likely because of his own experience as a POW victim of torture.  

And with all that said… I breathe a deep sigh and say: Maybe it is right.  Maybe it doesn’t matter if it’s fair.  Whether or not everyone participated in it, the culmination of circumstances and discriminatory practices has led to a White Boys Club that has made it more difficult for others to rise.  Not impossible, but harder, and it’s hurting our society.  Something has to be done; but what?  We’re stuck between a guard rail and a divider here.  We either continue holding the wheel as we are and crash into the other side, or course correct now and move on with just the damage already done and do all we can to ensure we incur no more.  The sad truth is, there is no great option here.  No matter what we do now, we’re damaged.  But the question I keep coming back to is: Do we really want to crash into the other side, just to even it out, when in the end it’s just more damage that we’ll all have to pay for?

What Is The Meaning Of This?

It’s always the same after every terror attack in that nothing is ever the same anymore.  Everything we thought we knew must be rethought all over again.  In the week since the attacks in Paris rocked us to our cores, the very meaning of basic principles we thought we once understood are up for debate.  What does Freedom mean?  What does it mean to be Brave?  Or Innocent?

In response to the Charlie Hedbo shooting, and specifically to the Charlie Hedbo shooting, Hamas said “any differences in opinion is no justification for killing innocents.”  Now, why would they say that?  Not because it’s wrong, but because it’s wrong coming from them.  This is the same organization, after all, who indiscriminately fires rockets into Israel to kill anyone they can and more recently instructed Palestinians to drive their cars into crowds of Israelis, resulting in the deaths of a mother and her baby in its stroller.   A baby.  What could that baby have possibly done?  Was it not innocent?  Or according to Hamas, are no Israelis innocent?  Or are the implications even more troubling?

Hamas-run Al Aqsa TV airs a children’s program called The Pioneers of Tomorrow.  It’s a show in the same vein as Barney & Friends in which a young female host named Saraa and costumed characters entertain and interact with their young viewers, callers and in-studio guests.  And disguised in the fun, they also educate with stories and songs and special guests.  They teach the children key life lessons, or as the first mascot of the show, a Mickey Mouse-type named Farfour, put it: “we are placing together the cornerstone for the ruling of the world by an Islamic leadership.”  In that way, it does differ a bit from Barney.

The first element in that cornerstone is pride in speaking Arabic and not English, the crass language of the infidel.  Though, in later seasons, the benefits of knowing the language of the enemy to better understand them is encouraged.  The show presents thought-provoking debates about what to do with the Jews in Israel.  Saraa takes the stance that they should be expelled and left to scatter around the world, while Nassur the bear contends the Jews should be slaughtered.  They ultimately reach a compromise wherein Jews are expelled from Islamic holy lands, but by any means necessary.  So if they won’t go peacefully, then it’s expulsion by slaughter.  Until that time comes, the host and cast of characters encourage children to throw rocks at Jews, shoot them, punch them, kill them, and Assud goes so far as to promote eating them.  And in 2008, when a cartoon came out of Denmark, he broadened his appetite to include Danes.

If there is a central theme of The Pioneers of Tomorrow, it’s the need to protect Islam and the Al Aqsa mosque and take revenge on the criminal infidels who occupy it “by means of morning prayers, blood, sacrifice, and pain by means of martyrs and endurance.”  And to drive home the point, over the life of the show, three of the mascots, Farfour the mouse, his cousin Nahoul the bee, and Nahoul’s brother Assud the rabbit die on screen a martyrs death.  Just in case anyone thought they were getting too preachy and not putting in enough practice.  They even sing the classic “When We Get Martyred” song.  It goes a little something like this- sing along if you know it:

When we get martyred we will go to Paradise.

When we get martyred we will go to Paradise.

No, don’t say we are too small, this life has made us grown ups.

Without Palestine, our childhood means nothing.

Without Palestine, our childhood means nothing.

Even if they gave us all the money in the world, it won’t make us forget.

I am willing to sacrifice my blood for my country.

Without Palestine, our childhood means nothing.

Without Palestine, our childhood means nothing.

Our childhood means nothing…  It’s not just Israel.  In the Radical world of Islam, there simply is no innocents.

The Taliban has been taking advantage of gullible children, coercing and bribing them to be suicide killers for years.  al Qaeda has its Birds of Paradise and Islamic State their Zarqawi’s Cubs Camps where they train prepubescent boys in, and romanticize the life of jihad.  They take their own young and darken their hearts and wash their minds of the ability to make their own choices.  Which is what it means to be Free: to be able to make your own choices.  And standing by those choices in the face of adversity and consequence is what it means to be Brave.  And being Innocent is the ability to make those choices free of prejudice.  And right now, that is not what it means to be Islamic in too much of the Muslim world.  And it's the meaning of Islam which is at stake here.

Howard Dean and President Obama can say the radical terrorists aren’t Islamic, but that’s like the world telling America what it means to play football.  If anything, that just makes America angrier about soccer.  Only Islam can define Islam.  The free world can fight the immediate threat of the radicalized subset of Islam, but the real war is for the innocents of Islam.  Not just for now, but for the future generations of Islam.  Will those generations be future representatives of peace and love or will the innocents be lost to violence and hate?

Right now, those two diametrically opposed sides are making their cases, but one is making theirs a lot louder than the other.  We keep hearing that moderate Islam is condemning terror in the name of Islam, we just don’t hear about it all the time but it's there.  Well, we have to hear it, because we hear the Radicals, and they seem to be winning.  If not the hearts of the world, then the minds.  If moderate Islam is going to win out, they must stand up in the face of Radicalism and in a full throat, with no justification or equivocation, they must condemn the acts and make clear what it means to be Islamic and as they're acts today are defining Islam for today and tomorrow, any acts done in the name of Mohammad are returned in kind on Mohammad.  If you are respectful in the name of Mohammad, then you are respecting Mohammad.  If you love in the name of Mohammad, then you are loving Mohammad.  And if you kill in the name of Mohammad, then you are killing Mohammad.  This must be done, not just for the peace of mind of the rest of the world, and not at all to take ownership of or apologize for Radical Islam, but to save the innocents of Islam, to ensure the meaning of the innocence of Islam.

Nothing But The Truth

On December 18th of last year, The Colbert Report signed off.  Nine years of reporting at people from the gut.  Because as he explained on his first show, when he introduced The Word “Truthiness” to the world, “The truthiness is, anyone can read the news to you; I promise to feel the news at you.”

As it turned out, Colbert was only playing a character, satirizing the prevalence of opinion journalism in today’s media where journalists don’t report the news as much as inform their audience what they feel the news is really about.  In reality, Colbert was making the point that you can’t use feeling as a basis for policy.  Feelings can be misleading.

People feel afraid of household spiders.  They want to crush and flush them, but the reality is spiders are beneficial.  They eat disease-ridden bugs, like mosquitoes and bed bugs, and pests that destroy crops.  In fact, if we got rid of all of the spiders, we would quickly fall into a devastating famine that would threaten the very existence of the human race.  So while we may feel afraid of spiders and feel it necessary to kill them, they’re actually there helping us. And that's a rule which can be applied further. For instance, to the Police.

But that’s part of a conversation we’re about to have.  At least that’s what everyone keeps saying.  That we need to have this conversation.  Though, we’re still waiting for it to begin.  People are talking, yelling and chanting from all sides, but no one seems to be listening to the other.  Yet, somehow, one side has managed to reach their conclusion.

The protesters in New York have demanded the job of NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton and an end to the “Broken Windows” policy, in which Police target small crimes in order to curtail an atmosphere where bigger crime can thrive.  A policy which protesters feel endangers their lives.  But just because they feel it, doesn’t make it true.

Mayor de Blasio himself just last month stood up at a press conference to announce that crime in New York City, under this policy, is down to more-than-decade-long lows.  In Newark, one of the most crime infested cities in the country, the “Broken Windows” policy was implemented by now-New Jersey Senator, then-Newark Mayor Cory Booker and crime dropped.  In 2010, the mid-point of Sen. Booker’s Newark reign, the city experienced its first murder-free month in more than forty years.  

Yes, feelings are real, but the facts bear out reality.  And the facts are that the Police make neighborhoods, especially dangerous neighborhoods, safer.  So now, with protesters demanding the end of a productive policy and the removal of a Commissioner who has been at it since before most of these protesters were born, and with chants dedicated to men who didn’t deserve to die but whose last acts on earth were criminal, it feels like the protesters aren’t fighting for inherent rights, but for the right to commit crime.

But that’s only a feeling.  And I’ll allow for it be wrong- In fact, I’m sure it will be proven to be so, once we get into the conversation and find the facts that do that.  So where do we start?

We could start with Police arresting minorities at a far greater rate than white people.  But it wouldn’t be a complete picture without mentioning that minorities are caught committing more crimes, so maybe we should start there.  But then why are Police in minority neighborhoods more to make those arrests?  Is it only because minorities neighborhoods provide more opportunity to fill a quota of a rigged system?  But that still doesn’t account for the reason why minority communities provide that opportunity, which seems to set off the entire cycle.  So maybe we should start there.

Or maybe we should go further back.  152 years back.  To New Year’s Day in the year 1863.  The day President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the first of the slaves from that day and henceforward.

 

Now, President Lincoln’s Proclamation didn’t end racism in this country.  It didn’t even entirely end slavery.  The struggle continued for many, many years.  The War itself didn’t end for two more years.  Then there were the fights for equality: To own land.  To work.  To get educated.  To vote.  To sit on a bus.  To be a person.  Heck, the struggle continues now.  It’s a struggle that should never have been necessary, but one that has proven to be immensely valuable and worthwhile, and it was only made possible by that Proclamation and the millions of Americans who conspired to make it happen.  But sometimes it feels like whenever there’s a conversation on race in this country, it carries the undertone, sometimes even an overtone, that this is a nation with slavery and racism at its core.  A tone that ignores the Emancipation Proclamation and the fact that hundreds of thousands of American men died fighting to meet its purpose.  And when they’re sacrifice is washed over, it feels like those men died in vain.

But the fact is those men fought and died for something. And it wasn’t to conquer land, for self preservation, or even to win a voting bloc.  It was for the North.  For the Union.  For freedom.  Because they knew a Truth.  A Truth which was self evident, that all men are created equal and with rights.  Among them: liberty.  The same Truth that less than one hundred years prior, Americans, in their own name, fought and died for.  And it’s that Truth which set the slaves free. Because that’s what the truth does.

Yes, there was slavery in this country.  Yes, America profited from it.  And yes, there is racism in this country today, but it’s not the core of this country.  Freedom and equality is the core.  That’s the truth which the facts bear out.  The lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans who fought for the rights of African men and women prove it.  And that truth, and not some truthiness version of it, must now set us free from the deep-seeded resentment which has infected every conversation this country has ever tried to have on race.  And it is only from that place where we must start and finish the last conversation we should ever have to have on the subject.