Tag: musings

AMERICAN ANTHEM

1 Comment

You may be surprised to read this, but in 2016 when NFL player Colin Kaepernick began kneeling during the playing of the national anthem prior to the game, it did not bother me. But very quickly, it had ruffled enough feathers to become a genuine kerfuffle.

Frankly, I couldn’t get all that exercised about it. It seemed to me that he had every right to do it. Even as a Veteran…no, especially as a Vet…I always believed those kind of protests were precisely the sorts of freedoms I had been serving to safeguard. Our free speech protections don’t exist to protect speech we like or agree with. They exist precisely for the opposite reason: to protect speech we don’t agree with and don’t like. This is the crucial point many on the political left, who are so fond of speech codes, miss. I think, in this instance, Kaepernick picked an issue wherein the political right was vulnerable to being suckered into a silly, counterproductive fight, and they were forced to defend an ultimately un-American position. I think if we all had just ignored him, like any sensible adult does when a child throws a temper tantrum, it would have blown over quickly.

Now, if you’ve read any of this blog before, you will certainly know that I in no way endorse Kaepernick’s worldview. I believe the reasons Kaepernick provided to justify his actions revealed him to be a shallow thinker who possesses a dubious moral compass and suffers from a severe gratitude deficit. But that’s just my opinion. He has a right to his. And, in this circumstance*, he most definitely has a right to kneel during the anthem. Additionally, despite my disagreements with his assessment of America, I must give Kaepernick credit where credit is due. Many may not have realized that Kaepernick began his protests by sitting on the bench during the anthem. However, after receiving a thoughtful letter from a U.S. Army veteran, and NFL player, who encouraged Kaepernick in a private meeting to respectfully kneel instead of casually sit during the anthem, as a compromise and a show of respect for veterans, Kaepernick listened and began to kneel instead.

(*If he were representing the United States in any athletic competition, then I would say the governing body, such as the USOC, would be justified in dismissing any athlete who engaged in such behavior. I think it is cowardly and shameful that the USOC allows the women’s national soccer team to kneel during the anthem. Representing your country is a privilege that comes with certain expectations, one of them being to represent your country with pride. If an individual cannot do that then they can go kneel at home or play for some other country they like better. The USOC should have the courage to dismiss those players, even if they are the best players. If we lose, we lose.)

When it comes to the First Amendment, I’m with former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Hailed, and rightly so, as a model conservative jurist, Scalia demonstrated the proper conception of our First Amendment when he sided with the majority in Texas v Johnson, the 1989 case in which the Court struck down as unconstitutional a Texas law that prohibited the burning of the American flag.

A MODEST PROPOSAL

All of this may seem like old news, but it has been brought back to my mind in light of the NFL’s decision to play two anthems before each game. No, not because there are suddenly Canadian teams in the league, like there are in the NHL. That league is right to honor the home country of each franchise in cases where a Canadian based team plays and American based one. Besides, “Oh, Canada!” is a rousing tune if you ask me.

In a deeply cynical manuever, reflective of the NFL’s craven approach to most of these issues, the NFL has decided to side with the destructive voices determined to further divide us into warring grievance camps. They recently announced they are going to have two songs performed before each game. The Star Spangled Banner and a separate national anthem for black Americans.

I’m not going to get into the tired arguments about Francis Scott Key (it seems he was by all accounts racist in his thinking about blacks) or the supposed racist parts of the third verse (the word slave is mentioned, but a competent reading of the verse in light of the history of the War of 1812 reveals Key is referring to persons in the British Army who had been conscripted, not African American slaves).

I would like, instead, to offer a compromise. Let’s not refer to either song as our National Anthem.

Let’s face it, The Star Spangled Banner is a mess of a song, lyrically and musically. Ask many a professional singer, and they will say it is terribly difficult to sing, requiring a tremendous vocal range to sing it well. There are only so many Whitney Houston’s to go around, and those talents can’t be there to sing it all the time. Why should we subject ourselves to this, the much more common result when folks try to sing it? And those lyrics? Have you listened to them? One interrupted phrase after another, never quite getting around to the point (I know what you’re thinking…I’m not that bad, am I?). The only inspiring part is the last line.

Lift E’vry Voice and Sing is referred to as the Black national anthem. As fine as the sentiments that are expressed in that song are, chronicling blacks struggles during slavery and Jim Crow, it is consciously promoted as a song for black Americans alone. Do we really need to further emphasize our differences and points of friction in our NATIONAL anthem?

In light of the fact that neither of these choices are satisfying, I hereby offer the following modest proposal:

We should adopt “America the Beautiful” as our National Anthem. The song is much easier to sing and the lyrics speak movingly and directly about beauty, faith, and brotherhood; all things we could use much more of these days.

One more thing. While not always practically possible to have performed, the U.S. government approved official rendition of the song must be Ray Charles’ 1972 recording. If your emotions are not stirred and chills do not run down your body when you hear this soulful, lovingly rendered tribute to America, then I’m not sure anything could.

THE DOWNLOAD

2 Comments

FEBRUARY 2021

SHE BLINDED ME WITH SCIENCE

For those of you that did not come of age during the early years of MTV, when they just played music videos, the headline to this paragraph is of course the title to the Thomas Dolby song…more famous for the bizarre video than the actual song. In fact, I do not remember ever hearing the song on the radio…only “seeing” the song, if you will, on MTV. I suspect there were many songs like that during that era. They were composed merely as vehicles for the frustrated cinematic aspirations of the songwriter. Dolby admitted as much in 2011 when he was interviewed about the song’s origins.

I mention it here not only because so many of those early MTV videos still cling to my grey matter like lichen to a stone (such is the brain of a teenager), but also because I’ve noticed a curious trend regarding the role of science in our politics.

The Conservative sensibility tends by nature toward “adherence to the old and tried as opposed to the new and untried”, as Lincoln formulated it. This makes it naturally more circumspect when it comes to embracing the latest “thing”, scientific or otherwise. Chesterton, unsurprisingly, wonderfully articulates the virtues of conservatism with his famous thought experiment about “the fence”:

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

GK Chesterton

Of course, human nature being what it is, thoughtful resistance to radical change can morph, whether thru fear or selfishness, or both, into the reactionary posture most famously represented by the Luddites.

Conservatism’s opponents long ago seized on the Luddite caricature to tar all of conservatism as anti-science and anti-progress. Countless disingenuous portrayals of the conservative as an unapologetic Luddite saturate our media and popular culture. These portrayals, usually beginning with Galileo and his spat with Pope Urban VIII, have been largely successful in cementing the public perception that progressives desires are motivated solely by the cold, hard facts of science, while conservatives “cling to their guns and religion”, as a prominent progressive once famously proclaimed.

Of course the conceit that Progressives are simply “following the SCIENCE” when crafting their political positions was always just that–a conceit. Their fidelity to “SCIENCE” (as they always seem to prefer to type it) is tenuous at best.

Take, as just one example, Progressives’ full fledged endorsement of the radical transgender agenda. It doesn’t get more scientifically basic than the biological fact that XX is not XY. Yet, we are told to ignore this fact in service to the ludicrous concept that it is a fundamental civil right to not only decide for yourself you no longer wish to be the sex you were biologically assigned, but also to force the society in which you are blessed to live to acknowledge your new identity as a civil right. Just ask those girls, who are being forced by the Biden Administration to compete with…and lose to…biological males in high school athletics, what they think of Progressives’ commitment to science.

Or, what about the issue of abortion? In an ironic twist, the ongoing advances in science and technology have served to undercut the political position of most progressives. Abortion supporters long standing claim that the choice a woman makes when she has an abortion does not involve the killing of a human being is becoming nearly impossible to honestly defend.

Any parents of school aged children out there? At this point in the COVID-19 pandemic, when numerous private schools have figured out a way to get kids back into classrooms successfully, where is the science behind the refusal of so many public schools to reopen? Progressives craven political calculus-that fealty to the teachers unions is their most pressing concern-is the only whiff of science you’ll find there.

Funny thing, science. It doesn’t care about your feelings, or how you wish reality to be, or even which political constituency you find yourself needing to placate. Facts are stubborn things, as the saying goes. The Luddites found that out. Now, despite their snarky putdowns and sanctimonious preening, Progressives are having to face the facts as well, and it isn’t pretty. There is no bigger tell of the cognitive dissonance they are experiencing than their annoying habit of putting the word “science” in all capital letters whenever they type it. That’s the written equivalent of someone yelling at the top of their lungs in an argument. Dr. Freud might call that overcompensation. When the facts are not on your side in a debate, you have two choices: Concede the argument, or yell louder. Who is clinging desperately to the past now, Mr. Obama?

ON LENT

The Lenten season has begun. Six weeks of trying to refocus our priorities to what’s important. Interestingly, speaking of science, research has shown that in order to make any lasting habitual changes, we humans need 66 days on average to imprint the new behaviors. A Lenten commitment to change our ways puts us well onto that path to success. Maybe the Church was not so anti-science after all?

The fact is the Church has never been anti-science. That is a myth. Many of the great discoveries of science were made by “church men”. Science and religion are not antithetical. They simply are exploring different questions. What really troubles those steeped in post modern, purely “scientific” modes of thought is the Church’s small “c” catholicism. By that I mean, her comfort in embracing all modes of thought and being, material and non-material, and her ability to embrace paradox and revel in the mysterious.

As Chesterton observed…there’s that guy again! Do yourself a favor this Lent and discover Gilbert Keith Chesterton. Start with his own story of conversion, Orthodoxy. It is a short book, which is good, because you will want to read it several times…anyway, as Chesterton observed, modern rationalism seeks to explain everything with reason. It wants to do away with the jagged edges of humanity and existence, smoothing everything out into a perfect sphere of logic and rationality. That is why the perfect symbol for modern thought is the circle. Of course, Chesterton notes, the circle also represents madness. Modern rationalism just goes around in circles, like the ancient symbol of the serpent eating its own tail.

A madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

GK Chesterton

The symbol of Christianity is, of course, the cross–the ultimate paradox. The cross is the physical representation of paradox, the holding of two opposing ideas at once: the horizontal and the vertical. Christ on the cross is the spiritual representation of paradox and the essence of the faith. One will never be able to embrace that faith until one is able to accept the ultimate mystery of the crucifixion and resurrection.

A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL

1 Comment

Justin Thomas, the talented young professional golfer, got himself into trouble out in Hawaii earlier this month. Although he might think he has taken the necessary steps to ameliorate the situation, I fear he may have just made a deal with the devil.

Thomas’ woes began on January 9th of this year during a tournament in which he was competing. Despite Thomas apologizing for his transgression after both the third and fourth rounds of the tournament and responding to reporters questions regarding the incident, one of his sponsors, the clothing company Ralph Lauren, announced within a week they had “discontinued their sponsorship of Mr. Thomas at this time.” The statement went on to say the company hopes “Mr. Thomas does the hard and necessary work in order to partner with us again – truly examining this incident, learning, growing and ultimately using his platform to promote inclusion.”

Apparently Mr. Thomas got the message. On January 25th, investment bank Citi announced that it had reached an agreement with Thomas in which they will maintain their sponsorship of him while “requiring him to donate a ‘meaningful portion’ of his deal as part of an active role in (these) causes.” Carla Hassan, speaking on behalf Citi, noted that while many of her colleagues felt termination was the only appropriate action to take considering the circumstances, Citi instead decided it was better to work with Thomas: “We considered terminating our relationship with him. It would send a clear and important message, but we decided to use this moment to work with Justin to try to create change.”

STICKS AND STONES…

What did Thomas do to elicit such a tidal wave of opprobrium? Did he assault another player or caddie during the match? Did he throw a club in frustration and hit a bystander? Did he beat his wife or girlfriend? Did he berate a rules official or spectator, hurling vicious slurs or epithets at them? No, No, No, and No.

Here is what Thomas did: After missing a short putt, Thomas berated…himself; he muttered to himself an admittedly ugly word, calling himself a “faggott”. A television microphone near the green picked up audio of Thomas’ self flagellation, and the public flagellation began.

I’m sure Thomas wishes he had used another “F” word instead. If he had, we’d have never known about it, and rightly so. It would not have created a ripple, never mind a tsunami. If you’ve ever played any golf, surely you can sympathize with the maddening frustrations it can induce. As Thomas’ outburst demonstrates, the most talented practitioners of the game are not immune from the game’s tortures. Sometimes in the heat of competition, they say bad things. Nearly always they are directing that salty verbiage at themselves or their long suffering caddie.

As already noted, Thomas, once he realized the comment had been captured for posterity, did not hide or ignore it. He apologized, twice, and answered any and all questions about it. He said a nasty word, no doubt, and then he expressed his sincere regret for using such language, even though it was in a moment he thought was private. And that should have been enough.

DANCING FOR DOLLARS

Unfortunately for Thomas, and for anyone in the public eye, the advent of around the clock, full spectrum media coverage, has coincided with the cultural dominance of a Progressive clerisy, whose lack of tolerance for any public transgression of its woke orthodoxy would make the Puritans blush. No doubt once we have the technology perfected, they will add private transgressions to the list. Look out Joe Six Pack. Impure thoughts shall not be tolerated.

Citi tipped their hand to this current reality in their statement, from which I quoted earlier. The statement appeared in a company blog post entitled, “When an apology is not enough.” Indeed.

I do not object to either Ralph Lauren Co. or Citi deciding to drop Thomas as a paid spokesman. They are both private companies. They have the absolute right to decide whom they will employ. They also have the right to dictate the conditions under which their employees must labor, up to and including requirements to publicly (at least for now…the private part may be coming) support whatever causes they deem worthy.

What concerns me is why Thomas decided to voluntarily accept those conditions. He is a very talented golfer who earns substantial sums from his performance alone. He is a paid sponsor for several other companies, who as of this writing, still employ his services. He could, unlike many of us, easily walk away. Instead, Thomas has agreed to become Citi’s organ grinder monkey.

JUST(IN) SAY NO

Maybe Thomas truly believes it is necessary for him to “examine this incident” and “learn and grow”. Maybe he feels he needs to protect his public image. Maybe he doesn’t want to forego the money. Maybe…probably…the truth is that some or all of these concerns are driving his decision.

However, I would advise Mr. Thomas to review Citi’s press release very carefully. Near the end it reads, “If at any point we feel Justin is not sincere in working toward this goal, we will end our relationship with him.” If he did not feel a chill go through him, like I did when I read that, then maybe he needs to look up the phrase “Faustian bargain”.

Either way, if I were Thomas, I would be saying thanks, but no thanks, Citi. I’m not ceding, to you or anyone else, the power to pass judgment on my depth of sincerity, my true motives, or my decency and basic human worth, based solely on how strictly I adhere to your preferred political or social orthodoxies.

I hope, whatever Citi is paying him, it is enough to support him and his family going forward. I think he may find it hard to earn much more money on the golf course. Success in the game of golf is notoriously fickle, and it takes incredible talent and drive to sustain a consistently high level of play. Its even harder when you have so many strings attached to you they start calling you “Pinocchio”.

THE LESSER ANGELS OF OUR NATURE

2 Comments

The ransacking of the United States Capitol on January 6th by pro-Trump rioters was a disgrace. Especially disturbing is the fact the rioters proclaim themselves “Patriots”. If they were “Patriots” the word has no meaning with which I am familiar. Attacking and vandalizing the most recognizable symbol of our system of government are the actions of idiotic morons, not patriotic citizens. They are no better, nor worse, than the violent mobs we witnessed this past summer burn communities and take over parts of cities.

The optimist in me tries to reassure my distressed spirit by telling me that in spite of this insanity, the center ultimately held. The bulwarks designed by the Framers were triggered and there were still enough people committed to defending the integrity of our institutions to prevent any permanent damage to their structure. The pessimist in me wonders: for how long?

“Character is destiny.”

HERACLITUS

The events of last week were in no small part the result of the defective character of our current President. For anyone willing to see it, this was how it was destined to end for Donald Trump’s administration. Yet his character flaws were not only overlooked by his supporters, in the eyes of his most dedicated fans (fan is short for fanatic I’ll remind you) they were actually celebrated. Petty, vindictive, boorish was transmuted in their minds into “HE FIGHTS FOR US!”.

The Founders were not naive. They understood the office of the Presidency was a political office and would not always be occupied by virtuous men such as George Washington. That is why they designed the government the way they did. As I have noted in previous posts, the Constitution contains many safeguards designed to prevent any one person or branch of government from being able to exercise complete power. Despite the drama of the past week, the system worked, effectively checking the self absorbed whims of the current occupant of the White House.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

John Adams

But what of our character…and ultimately, our destiny…as a nation? That a person of such spectacularly poor character as Donald Trump was, if not outright championed by so many, deemed at least the lesser of two evils in 2016, is a sad and troublesome commentary on our society at large. I am not the first to identify Trump as merely a symptom. Many have recognized this fact. The nature of the disease is harder to pinpoint.

THE SELFIE SOCIETY

We love to nickname our generations: The Greatest Generation, Baby Boomers, Gen-Xers, and Millennials. We also label certain historical eras in an attempt to convey the mood of the time: The Gilded Age, The Jazz Age, The Me Decade. I can think of no better moniker for our current moment than “The Selfie Society”. Its defining characteristic is an all encompassing self-absorption. Is there a more telling cultural artifact than “The Selfie”? Taken on our “I” phones (of course), it captures the outside world as meaningful only in relation to ourselves. Social Media platforms dovetail perfectly with this mindset, simultaneously reinforcing and expanding our subjective existence until there is barely an objective reality to speak of. The saying used to be you are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. Now we are each entitled to our own facts. What is good is what I agree with. What is bad is what I disagree with. What is true is what I want to be true. Is it any wonder we struggle to find any “common ground” these days? Our governing system is designed for persuasion and compromise. The psychological mindset of the Selfie Society creates ever increasing alienation and division.

The Selfie Society is not only destroying our interpersonal relationships, it is infecting our institutions as well. We are all wheels and no cogs. The survival of our institutions depends upon individuals subverting their personal needs and goals for the betterment and ultimate flourishing of the institution. Where will we find the people willing to make this kind of sacrifice in the Selfie Society? Institutions and organizations are not to be served but to serve us…as platforms for our personal brand. We see it more and more in the sports world and the business world. The operative question has become, what’s in it for me? The idea of being a team player or a good company man is unimaginable in the Selfie Society. And now our institutions of public service have been infected by the same mindset. Increasingly we are seeing people get into public service because the “public” part of the phrase “public service” provides an excellent platform for their personal brand. The “service” part is conveniently forgotten.

Donald Trump is only the most prominent example. Oh, you say, politicians have always been egomaniacs craving attention! Of course they have. To a point. I submit to you that the Selfie Era politician is of a different breed–a breed whose continued propagation will deal a fatal blow to this republic. Think about this: Richard Nixon, whose personal ambition and thirst for political power were unsurpassed by any of his contemporaries, did two things in his career that would be inconceivable to Donald Trump. After the 1960 presidential election, in which Nixon ran against John F. Kennedy and lost by a razor thin margin, it was widely accepted among those in the political classes that widespread voter fraud in the Democrat controlled city of Chicago had tipped the balance in Kennedy’s favor. By all accounts, Nixon could have mounted a very strong (stronger by a magnitude of a thousand than the claims Trump has been touting) challenge to the final result. But he chose not to. There probably were many self serving reasons why Nixon chose to not challenge the result, but at least one of his reasons was that he felt it was better for the country to not put it through that drama. Fourteen years later, facing impeachment and certain conviction after the exposure of the Watergate break in and cover up…at his arguably personal and definitely his political nadir…he chose to resign rather than put the country through the turmoil of impeachment.

Fast forward to 2020 and the Selfie Society. After losing an election-mostly due to his own lack of discipline–Donald Trump refused to concede. Instead, he has continued to push the lie(over Twitter, of course–the perfect medium for the prototypical Selfie Society politician) that the election was stolen. He has repeatedly peddled bogus conspiracy theories and riled up his equally self deluded followers. He even threw his loyal Vice President under the bus by insanely insisting Mike Pence had the power to overturn the election results. After Trump egged on a riot at the Capitol on January 6th, he now also faces Impeachment and ever increasing chances of conviction. Yet, he argues that those pursuing the impeachment are provoking more riots and chaos and that he needs to continue to fight.

The saddest part is that his die hard supporters continue to believe he really fights for them. If he thought of anyone but himself, he would resign and spare the country the turmoil he claims to believe would result from his impeachment. The fact is he has never fought for anything outside of his own self interest. There is nothing bigger to Donald Trump than Donald Trump. Just ask Mike Pence. Trump is the Selfie President.

“At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reaches us, it must spring up among us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time or die by suicide.”

Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln understood what the Founders understood. The survival of this form of government and this nation depends upon us. Hopefully the tragic events of the last week will force us to lift up our eyes from our backlit screens, venture out of our Selfie induced nightmare, and rediscover the ‘better angels of our nature’.

THE DOWNLOAD

Leave a comment

DECEMBER 2020

A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE

Since the turn of this century, the United States has conducted six presidential elections. With the exception of 2012, when Mitt Romney gave an election night concession speech, conducting himself with a statesmanship that now seems anachronistic, there has not been a single contest that did not feature at least some accusation of fraud, and ultimately intimations of illegitimacy, hurled at the incoming chief executive, senators, or representatives, by his or her political opponents. This year, unsurprisingly, has lowered the bar so far that Verne Troyer wouldn’t be able to limbo under it. What is going on here?

I perused election related legislation of the past fifty odd years while thinking about this topic (you’re welcome…someone had to do it). Since 1965, when Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, finally eradicating the last vestiges of the Jim Crow system in the South, wherein blacks were systematically denied a fair opportunity to exercise their right to vote among other indignities, the focus has turned to “expanding access to the ballot box” and “reducing the influence of big money in politics”, to borrow language from a pending bill in Congress, H.R. 1, introduced in 2019 (named the “For the People Act”). Before this “landmark” legislation, there was the National Voter Registration Act (passed 1993, aka the “Motor Voter” Act), the Help America Vote Act (2002) and the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill (2002). Looking at these bills reveals a constant and disturbing theme. Democrats are obsessed with the myth of ongoing and pervasive voter suppression. They see George Wallace and Bull Connor lurking behind even the most modest regulations or restrictions. Republicans, more so since the emergence of the Trumpists, are obsessed with the myth of widespread election fraud. They are haunted by the spectres of Boss Tweed and Mayor Richard Daley, blaming every defeat at the ballot box on some vast conspiracy perpetrated by some big city Democratic machine…or, most recently, Hugo Chavez and corrupted Dominion voting machines.

SPEAKING OF BANANA REPUBLICS…

If things go on like this, we are going to make Venezuela look like a model democratic society. Things have gotten out of hand. Both sides need to drop the overheated rhetoric. Every expansion of access or voting innovation is NOT some kind of conspiracy to commit fraud. Likewise, reasonable measures to combat fraud and insure electoral integrity do NOT impose some kind of undue burden on the voter.

I have no intention of attempting in this post to submit a comprehensive election reform statute. As I said, I read through some of those bills. Whew! What a mess. It’s clear to me now why most of our elected representatives went to law school. Only a trained lawyer could compose that kind of…what shall I say? Oh, President Elect Biden, what do you think? MALARKEY! Yes, that’s it.

Anyway, the Constitution (remember that thing?) directs that each state legislature is tasked with establishing the means and methods by which elections are to be conducted in their respective states, with some general Federal oversight (such as the 1965 Voting Rights Act) to ensure Constitutional compliance. Herewith, for the benefit of any state legislator who may be interested, some foundational principles to consider.

VOTING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A DRIVERS LICENSE, RIGHT?

Just spitballing here, but it seems to me the default position, when it comes to both registering to vote and the act of voting, should be to insist the prospective voter do that in person. We require citizens who wish to be licensed to drive to show up in person, provide proof of their identity, and even take a test. Is voting a less significant activity than driving? Is it too much to ask of our citizens to make the effort to show up in person to ensure the integrity of one of the cornerstones of our democratic system? I don’t think so. In fact, the process of registering to vote should be modeled on the process involved in getting your driver’s license. In order to be a properly registered voter, one must go in person to the local DMV with an identification to prove both your age and citizenship. If you are only 18 you will have to pass a written test on civics. Then you will be issued your voter registration card. Just like your driver’s license, it will expire at some point and you will be able to renew it online or by mail without needing to take the test again. If you move, all voter registrations will be honored by all other states. If you would like to vote in your new state with your old registration, simply fill out a postcard to notify your new state of your local address and voter registration number in order to be entered into that state’s database. Once the original registration expires, one must re-register in person in their new state, just like when your old driver’s license expires and you are living in a new state. I can already hear the anguished cries of ACLU junior staffers ringing in my ears. Okay, I’m a reasonable guy. You don’t want to take the test? You think that is an unfair burden? Fine. Then you have to wait until you are 21 to vote. That’s called a compromise.

What about actually voting? Again, basic principles apply. The default position is that there is a designated election day and if you want to vote you show up on that day in person and vote. No early voting. No online voting. No giving your ballot to some representative for the state to deliver for you (this is known as ballot harvesting and is ripe with fraud). Again, I am a reasonable guy. I propose states implement a four day voting window. From the previous Saturday through the actual election Tuesday, all registered voters can vote in person at any time during that window. Now, before everyone goes ballistic on me, I am simply saying this is the default norm. Of course there will special circumstances. If a properly registered voter (see above) desires to vote but cannot show up in person during that 96 hour window, they will have to request permission, either by a simple postcard or online, to receive an absentee ballot (for out of state voters or military) or a mail in ballot (for those who are physically unable to get to the polls). Their vote must be postmarked by election day in order to count. I am not about to decree the ballot must arrive by election day and make someone’s vote dependent on the efficiency of the U.S. Post Office. What kind of kook do you think I am? (Don’t answer that.)

A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT…

Despite the generally lighthearted nature of this post, I take voting very seriously. I think it deserves to be rescued from the partisanship that has so skewed our thinking about this issue. I’ll close by reminding us all that voting is the right of every citizen. However, let us not forget that along with that right are concomitant responsibilities that we need to take seriously again if we want to keep the Republic bequeathed to us by the Founders.

A LITTLE NIGHT LANGUAGE

Tonights word: ENSORCELLED. It means to be enchanted by or fascinated by; to fall under the spell of someone or something.

What a great word. Well, until next time…

THE DOWNLOAD

2 Comments

MUSINGS ON THE CURRENT SCENE: NOVEMBER 2020

Well, that was fun wasn’t it? The 2020 election is finally over…yes, diehard Trumpers, it’s over. And its the type of antics Trump is engaging in now that are the reason. Trump lost because he was too lazy to just show the least bit of discipline in his campaign. Trump is about Trump, always, which makes it remarkable he was able to convince people he was “fighting” for them.

Now I can go back to fighting for myself instead of hearing how some politician is going to fight for me. I follow the Carolla Rule, first enunciated by Adam Carolla: I never vote for any politician who tells me they are fighting for me. Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll stick up for myself. Please, Mr. or Miss Politician, stop fighting for me and focus on doing your job, which involves something more like ensuring the garbage is picked up.

So, how much do you think we’ll be hearing about how terrible the Electoral College is over the next few years? Not much I suspect, since Mr. Biden won there. Funny, when I hear progressives gripe about it, I always hear how it’s not fair that sparsely populated Montana or Idaho gets the same representation in the Senate as California or New York. I never hear how its unfair that tiny states like Vermont or Rhode Island or Delaware get two Senators also.

Its not just progressives who have this annoying habit. How long will it take Republicans to start griping about the federal debt and overall spending now that Democrats have the presidency? They somehow forgot about those things when their guy was in there. There’s an old political joke that says you only hear about the homeless when a Republican is on office. Kind of makes you wonder how serious these politicians (who are fighting for you, remember) are about tackling real issues, or are the issues just talking points in service of their gaining or keeping power. The question kind of answers itself…

Speaking of Trump and Trumpism, you probably guessed I am not a fan of Trump. Not my cup of tea, as they say. He just reminds me of the blowhard at the end of the bar who is always spouting off about something he doesn’t really know that much about, but he says it in such a colorful and sometimes humorous way, that people just smile and let him do his schtick. Some people, heck, many people obviously, loved it. The common theme to me with his supporters was that Trump annoyed the people that annoyed them. It was more about who his enemies were, not him really. I mean, who would guess that a rich kid from Queens, who inherited his money, would be the hero of the working class? Only in America.

But what of Trumpism, if there is such a thing? Many Republicans are no doubt scrambling this very minute to figure out how to tap into that phenomenon. I think they will fail miserably (and, more importantly to me, further damage the viability of conservative ideas) if they try to adopt his style, which I think when you boil it down, is all there is to Trumpism: Style. You love him because he annoys your opponents so much. He’s the classic player you love when he’s on your team and hate when he’s on the other, which add up to…he’s just annoying, period. He had no political philosophy to speak of. He had some instincts I agreed with. With the help of those dastardly establishment types like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, his administration achieved some very conventional republican goals: cut taxes, push back on regulatory overreach (particularly in the Department of Education), appoint judges who will do their job, not the job of a legislator, etc.

I will give Trump credit for this: By so thoroughly getting under progressives collective skin, he brought out the worst of them and their most extreme ideas, allowing the average citizen to peek behind the facade if you will. I guess he was like Toto, pulling back the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. I think that is the big takeaway from the election results. Americans agreed with the Democrats primary argument, i.e. it was time for Trump to go. Joe Biden is President (wow…is he the luckiest career politician or what!) because he fulfilled the biggest requirement of the American people: to not be Donald Trump. But any fever dreams of progressives that this election was going to be some big blue wave and affirm a transformation of American politics along progressive lines were definitively dashed. Americans saw riots and heard them described as “mostly peaceful”, listened to progressives talk of Green New Deals, and packing the courts, and adding states, and said no thanks. Mitch McConnell, hated by progressives and Trumpers alike, is the most powerful man in Washington now.

I think, if you are of a conservative sensibility like myself, you may look back on this election as the turning point toward better days. Trump, the bull in the china shop, has done his job. There is no more china to smash, if you will, and it is time to go. One needn’t worry about Biden…he is a placeholder. He will be pushed by his left to implement their progressive wish list, but he will not be able to as long as the Republicans control the Senate. A potential President Harris will run into the same problem. The Republican party, which beyond anyone’s expectations, actually picked up House seats, many of whom are women and minorities, and may have a good chance of taking the House in 2022. Maybe by 2024, some Republicans will figure out how to speak the language of conservatism to more people, be able to move that Overton window back toward the right a bit. But if they take the easy way and just try to be mini-Trumps, it will be a disaster. Playing the politics of demonization doesn’t work for left or right for very long.

My goals politically are not for the Republicans to win per se. It is to try to convince as many people as possible to look at things from a more conservative viewpoint. If you’re always arguing about things with a progressive set of assumptions, its really hard to sell conservative solutions. Hell, its hard to sell conservative solutions anyway. They tend to be for grown-ups. We seem to have less and less of those in either party, and the electorate as a whole, these days.

Which reminds me…can we put to rest these calls…mostly from the progressives I must say…to lower the voting age? If anything it should be raised. My son had a homework assignment a few weeks ago in which he was asked to answer the question, “Should 11 year- old kids be allowed to vote?” I should have had him answer, “Only if they are allowed to smoke and drink.” But I didn’t want him kicked out of school. I think the voting age should probably reflect the average age of adult responsibility in a society. I could sign off on the 11 year old vote 300 years ago. Heck, those kids were getting up at 5 am to milk the cows. Then they spent most of their day in some kind of hard labor. They were a lot more adult than most 25 year-olds today. Today, unless one gets married and has children, i.e. is forced (presumably) to think about someone else’s needs, we have delayed adulthood on average into one’s 30’s. I mean, under Obamacare, people can ride their parents healthcare until age 26. Under that standard, maybe the voting age should be 27.

So, what will the Republican and Democratic parties look like in 2024? Things seem to be shifting. In my lifetime, Republicans were always characterized as the party of the rich and big business…the monocle guy from Monopoly. Democrats were portrayed as the party of the working class, unions, and minorities…Joe six pack. Doesn’t that seem like it is flipping around, or at least changing somewhat? Even the minority vote, which among blacks is still overwhelmingly Democratic, is starting to not be so monolithic. There is a lot of egghead talk going on about how the Republican party post-Trump is now a multi ethnic, workers party. I’m not so sure. As I said, conservatism works best with an adult electorate. We are a juvenile society. But maybe we’re ready to move beyond the temper tantrums of the last few years and grow up. If so, then maybe a conservative message has a chance. I won’t be holding my breath.

A LITTLE LANGUAGE

To end with a little mental enrichment is always a good thing. I love this word: Animadversion. It means criticism or censure. A comment or remark that is censorious. The word just tickles my senses for some reason. Anyway, thought you’d enjoy learning it too. Until next time…

VETERANS DAY 2020

2 Comments

(Author’s note: The following is the text of a brief talk given by the author in conjunction with a Veterans Day ceremony)

Good morning.  On behalf of all veterans, thank you for taking the time to formally recognize Veterans Day.  Recently it seems our society has been too prone to quickly dismiss as irrelevant or unworthy the traditions our not so distant ancestors established, so I am glad to take part in a ceremony that honors those traditions. 

Speaking of history, I suppose I am what is known as a history “buff”.  I’m certain my long-suffering wife and son will attest to this fact, having been subjected to one too many documentaries about some obscure battle of the civil or revolutionary wars.  So, this opportunity to satisfy my historical sweet tooth was too tempting to pass up. Be not afraid, however, as I promise to inflict upon you only a small portion of the pain so ably endured by my family. If you will indulge me, I hope to use the following brief talk to encourage you to understand and appreciate Veterans Day in a new way.

There are two days in the United States set aside to honor military service: this day, and Memorial Day.  Memorial Day honors those who have given, as Lincoln so eloquently put it in his Gettysburg address, “the last full measure of devotion.”  As any veteran who fought in battle will tell you, the real heroes are the ones who did not come home.  Memorial Day, originally known as Decoration Day, due to the custom of placing flowers at the graves of the war dead, is intended to be a somber recognition of the supreme sacrifice undertaken by those honored dead on behalf of this country.  As Lincoln also said on that November day in Gettysburg, “It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.”   

So, what about Veterans Day?  I believe most people probably think of Veterans Day as simply a less somber version of Memorial Day; a day to express a more general “thank you for your service”.  While we veterans welcome any note of thanks and appreciation, I want to ask you today, and for all Veterans Days going forward, to remember and reflect upon this fact:  All veterans, officer and enlisted, upon signing on the dotted line to begin their service to this country, take an oath.  In that oath they pledge to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic…”.  Think about that.  We do not pledge to protect the president, or congress, or any one person.  We do not pledge to defend a piece of land.  We pledge to protect and defend a document, a piece of parchment.  But not just any piece of parchment. Our Constitution embodies a revolutionary set of ideas and principles that were first voiced in the Declaration: We hold these truths to be self evident. All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have all heard these words before, but I want you today to understand their extraordinary significance. Those ideas are the true American revolution.  They are what we mean by American exceptionalism.  We are a people and a nation spoken into existence; the first nation ever able to pinpoint the exact moment of our birth.   We are a people dedicated to a set of ideals and principles about the best way to arrange human affairs and promote human flourishing.   Being human, we, from the beginning, failed to fully live up to those principles.  Yet, we have made great progress, and today we continue the great American experiment of trying to more fully realize those ideals. 

We veterans, all the men and women who have served, or are serving, in the United States armed forces, have pledged to protect and defend, with our lives if necessary, the principles first enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and subsequently codified in the Constitution.  It is not the only means to defend and preserve these ideas for future generations. But in a world full of, shall we say, “contrary perspectives”, perspectives that are sometimes expressed with guns, and bombs, and gas chambers, and airplanes flying into buildings, it is a necessary duty that we veterans are proud to have undertaken.  

So, this Veterans Day, and on each one hereafter, thank us for our service if you wish.  But, more importantly, remind yourself of what we veterans pledge to protect and defend: the Constitution of the United States. It is for the blessings that document has endowed on this nation that I implore you to reserve your deepest gratitude.

MORE DISCRIMINATION, PLEASE

Leave a comment

Breonna Taylor, the young black woman shot to death in her apartment by Louisville police officers in March of this year, was not the victim of racist police officers or systemic discrimination by the criminal justice system.

Sadly, the mischaracterization of the circumstances of her death, either due to simple ignorance, or more perniciously, as a result of the appropriation of Miss Taylor’s story in service of a certain political narrative, squanders an opportunity for genuine improvement in our society.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE

Courtesy of the New York Times reporting of Rukmini Callimachi, here is a basic summary of the case:

1. The police obtained a no-knock warrant to raid Taylor’s apartment based on allegations that a suspected drug dealer named Jamarcus Glover had received packages at Taylor’s home (Glover and Taylor had a previous relationship). The police sought the no-knock warrant out of a desire to preserve evidence.

2. Before the warrant was served, the police were directed to knock and announce rather than execute the warrant without knocking. At approximately 12:40 a.m. on March 13, the police pounded on Taylor’s door. Taylor was inside with her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker. He lawfully possessed a handgun.

3. At this point the facts are in dispute. Police claim that they knocked and announced they were police. A witness corroborates this account, but other witnesses dispute it, claiming they never heard the cops identify themselves. Walker claims that he was startled by the pounding, asked who was there, never heard a response, and was worried that it might be Glover. So he grabbed his gun.

4. The police then broke down the door to enter the apartment. Walker and Taylor saw them in the darkness, and Walker fired a single shot, striking one officer in the leg, severing his femoral artery and gravely injuring him. Under the available evidence (Walker hadn’t heard the police identify themselves and unknown individuals were violently entering his home), Walker had a legal right to shoot at the intruders, even if they were police. 

5. At the same time, the instant the officers saw that Walker was pointing his gun at them—and certainly when he pulled the trigger—they had their own legal right to shoot back. They were performing their official duties, and an armed man was quite plainly placing them in immediate, mortal danger.

6. They did not, however, have the right to use indiscriminate force. Two officers fired directly at Walker. They hit Taylor, who was standing nearby. But given the proximity of Taylor to Walker, it would be virtually impossible to prove that the officers’ startled response—aimed directly at the perceived threat—was reckless enough to be criminal.

LACK OF PROPER DISCRIMINATION

After looking at the available evidence, the fact is Miss Taylor was the victim of not enough discrimination…on the part police officers, judges, and legislators who were complicit in creating the conflicts of interest that led to her tragic death at the age of 26.

In its original sense, discrimination meant discernment-using one’s reason and judgment to distinguish between competing priorities to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. Only in the last century or so has it taken on the meaning we commonly associate with it today: the prejudicial treatment of others based on categories of race, class, gender, etc. It was the failure of judgment and reason-not blind or callous prejudice-that ultimately led to Miss Taylor’s death.

I understand the desire to maintain the element of surprise. In general, law enforcement does not want to give the subject the opportunity to either escape, destroy incriminating evidence, or prepare an armed defense or barricade. However, it is incumbent upon the police, for their own safety as much as for the safety of the public, to plan each arrest or search warrant according to the best information available for that specific situation.

Simply conducting business as usual, just because that is the way ‘we have always done it’, is not good enough. Hard questions need to be asked each time law enforcement is contemplating using its awesome powers. Did anyone involved seriously consider the following questions:

  1. Was the evidence possibly present at Taylor’s apartment significant enough to justify the risks inherent in executing a “no-knock” warrant at 12:40 a.m.?
  2. Was the potential recovery of evidence in that manner and in this context reasonable in light of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure?

In the case of the tragic events that unfolded last March in Louisville, I recognize it is easy to ‘Monday morning quarterback’ the entire episode. It is clear now, to me at least, that the answers to the two questions posed above are an emphatic “NO”. However, it does no good to be right after the fact. In this case, the answers to those questions should have been “NO” prior to the operation. Why weren’t they?

BALANCING COMPETING INTERESTS

David French, at The Dispatch, argues that Miss Taylor’s death was the tragic result of the confused and contradictory jurisprudence surrounding the legitimate interests of the government in enforcing the law and the competing right of the individual to be secure in his home. As a law enforcement professional for nearly twenty years, I believe French is correct. Something bad was bound to happen. It was only a matter of time.

The police and the courts got it wrong here, and it cost Miss Taylor her life. That is the simple fact. They were wrong not because they were discriminating against a particular group of people. They were wrong because they failed to be discriminating enough about their responsibilities to the public. The question now is, “How do we make sure they do better in the future?”

A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT

Upon leaving the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was reportedly asked by someone outside what the convention had produced. He famously replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Franklin’s response intimates an inescapable truth of our system. We need to do the hard work of maintaining it. In the case of Breonna Taylor, we need to demand our elected officials look critically at the inherent tensions created by recent jurisprudence in the areas of search and seizure. We need to elect representatives who will reform the law, where necessary, so that we clarify the proper constitutional balance between individual liberty and the rule of law.

What we do not need is simplistic sloganeering and irresponsible rhetoric. Yes, being responsible citizens, just like being a responsible adult, is hard..much harder than making a sign and yelling through a bullhorn. If we really want to honor the memory of Breonna Taylor, we need to accept the responsibilities of citizenship and commit to the hard work of building a better republic. We owe it to her and to ourselves.

Midweek Miscellany

Leave a comment

Oh My! as sportscaster Dick Enberg liked to say. So much going on, but here are just a few quick thoughts on the passing scene…

SUPREME TEMPER TANTRUM

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last weekend has added another piece of kindling to an already robust political bonfire. That this is so is the result of the Court’s unfortunate transformation over the last fifty years into a kind of supra-legislature. Both in the minds of most of the public, and sadly, in the minds of many of those who should know better, including some of the Justices themselves, the Supreme Court has come to be understood as a black-robed oligarchy, tasked with enlightening the less enlightened as to the laws they should be living under.

If one accepts this flawed conceptual framework, then the nomination process for Supreme Court justices necessarily morphs into the circus we have been witnessing since at least the failed nomination of Robert Bork in 1987. If the Court is to act as a quasi-legislature, as a vehicle to enact political ends that have been thus far frustrated at the ballot box, then it is no surprise that persons invested in that view become so agitated whenever a vacancy arises. They fear their legislative policy goals will be thwarted, unjustly, by the appointment of justices who don’t share their political preferences.

Unfortunately, Justice Ginsburg, as Kevin D. Williamson notes, didn’t understand her job. Nor do the multitudes wailing and screaming about how unfair it is that the vacancy on the Court may be filled before “the people” have a chance to decide the issue in November. This is, as Joe Biden might say in another context, pure malarkey. Sadly, we have strayed so far from our Constitutional moorings that supposedly serious people are lending credence to the notion that the only proper thing to do in this situation is let the voters decide this coming November. Or, even more preposterously, that because it was Justice Ginsburg’s dying wish, that we allow the issue to be decided after the election (see here).

Sorry, but this is very simple. In our constitutional system, the President is empowered to nominate persons to fill vacancies on the Federal bench, including the Supreme Court. The Senate is empowered to either accept the nomination, reject the nomination, or simply ignore it. End of story.

I find it quite hilarious that the same people most ardently attached to the undemocratic and unconstitutional idea of rule by judicial fiat are the same people claiming this current situation is unfair and also undemocratic. It is not. The last time the people were given a choice, they chose this President and this Senate. In fact, many observers believe Donald Trump’s pledge to appoint justices who would uphold the Constitution’s original intent was a key factor in his victory. Now, some will protest that Donald Trump lost the popular vote and therefore he was illegitimately elected. But they betray their underlying anti-constitutionalism with this complaint because they are ignoring the fact that the gross total number of votes for President is…take a deep breath…irrelevant in our system. Their proposed solutions to the current situation..abolish the Electoral college, abolish the filibuster, pack the Court …are even more revealing of their profound antipathy toward the founding vision for this republic. At least these kind of controversies allow us to see through the veil of their publicly professed allegiance to the constitution, revealing more clearly the anti-constitutional project they are pursuing.

THE PRESIDENT WHO CRIED WOLF

Someone in the Department of Education (DOE), no doubt with a keen sense of humor, decided to take Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber at his word. The DOE launched an investigation of Princeton University for civil rights violations based on statements recently made by…Eisgruber. In the midst of this country’s “Great Awokening”, Eisgruber, eager to proclaim the complicity of his own institution in the rampant institutional racism decried by groups such as Black Lives Matter and their supporters, said:

Racism and the damage it does to people of color nevertheless persist at Princeton as in our society, sometimes by conscious intention but more often through unexamined assumptions and stereotypes, ignorance or insensitivity, and the systemic legacy of past decisions and policies.  Race-based inequities in America’s health care, policing, education, and employment systems affect profoundly the lives of our staff, students, and faculty of color. Racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself.  For example, Princeton inherits from earlier generations at least nine departments and programs organized around European languages and culture, but only a single, relatively small program in African studies.Racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself. 

Christopher L. Eisgruber (Excerpted from a letter to the Princeton Community, 9/2/ 2020) (Italics added)

Of course, upon reading the entirety of the letter, it is clear Eisgruber was simply intending to make sure the country was keenly aware of how “on board” Princeton is with the current cultural diktats. He, much like store owners in Minneapolis and Portland, was anxious to post in bold letters on the store front: Black Lives Matter. No doubt he hoped this prophylactic measure would ensure he and his Institution would be spared the ill-informed, know-nothing rage of the mob. Ironically, in his eagerness to step into a leading role in the current Kabuki theater of racial discourse, he instead stepped into his own woke pile of dung.

AUTUMN BLISS

I will end with a note of gratitude. As Chesterton noted:

When it comes to life the critical thing is whether you take things for granted or take them with gratitude.

G. K. Chesterton

I am grateful for the Fall season and the heavenly weather it brings, particularly to the Northeast region of our beautiful country. How can there be a more glorious gift of the Almighty than the invigorating, intoxicating pleasure of the perfect Autumn day? The bright, radiant sun, warming without being wearisome; the calm, crisp air, inviting deep inhalations of its freshness and vitality; the rich, bold tapestry of colors, evoking a Mother Nature fashioned tie-dyed tee shirt . It is an absolute wonder to be alive on days such as these, and everyone needs to make sure he experiences as many of them as possible.

The Wolf You Feed

Leave a comment

The death of George Floyd at the hands of Officer Derek Chauvin in May in Minneapolis rightfully sparked widespread protests. It was an egregious abuse of power. Floyd’s death also reignited a quite heated discussion of the treatment of African Americans by law enforcement in the United States. Among the many articles, op-eds, essays, and tweets decrying police brutality, systemic racism, and white privilege, I also noted several mentions of “The Talk”.

Here is the Wikipedia definition of “The Talk”:

The talk is a colloquial expression for a conversation some Black parents in the United States feel compelled to have with their children and teenagers about the dangers they face due to racism or unjust treatment from authority figures, law enforcement or other parties, and how to de-escalate them. The practice dates back generations and is often a rite of passage for Black children.

In trying to understand this phenomenon more clearly, I came across the following essay: https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/06/white-parents-the-talk-racism-police-brutality.html

Please click on the above link and read the essay carefully.

I’ll wait…

Assuming you’ve done your assigned reading, I’d like share with you a few thoughts and questions that came to my mind.

The author tells us that after giving her version of “The Talk” to her seven year old in the wake of Floyd’s death, the child was brought to tears and he was terrified. She says he asked a lot of tough questions about hate and racism, and he ended by asking to leave the United States.

Well…okay then. Good talk.

If this is what results from “The Talk”, how is this in any way helpful? Instilling such fear in a child seems a bit counterproductive to me. As the Jedi Master Yoda told Luke Skywalker, “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Now, I’m not generally disposed to taking my philosophical bearings from little, green, and yes, fictional creatures (sorry Star Wars true believers!), but old Yoda makes more sense to me than terrifying your child in the name of…what? Authenticity? Keeping it real?

There’s a big, and crucial, difference between creating awareness and creating an attitude. Its like the difference between giving a hitter a scouting report about a pitcher’s tendency to throw inside versus telling him the pitcher is looking to throw at your head. Who is more likely to get a hit? Who is more likely to charge the mound after one inside pitch?

Now, I’m no Pollyanna. I am not for one minute dismissing the reality of the Black experience in the United States. And it is not my purpose here to debate the complicated history of that reality. Frankly, I’m not qualified. But more pertinently, I don’t believe it would do much good. There is a time and place for discussions about the proverbial number of angels on the head of a pin. Preparing your child to succeed in an often dangerous world is not one of them. It reminds me of the scene in Apollo 13 where one of the engineers is frantically trying to convince Gene Kranz, the Flight Director, that he needs to inform the crew that their flight path is not quite optimal. The engineer has calculated, quite correctly no doubt, all the dire outcomes the crew might face based on their current situation. He feels compelled to share his expert knowledge with the crew as they are beginning their crucial entry into the atmosphere of Earth. Kranz, however, has a different focus. He interrupts the engineer in the midst of his “talk”, and asks him one simple question: “Is there anything they can do about it?” The engineer is forced to admit that at this point there is not. “Then they don’t need to know,” says Kranz. Kranz isn’t advocating ignorance or willful blindness. He is simply reminding the engineer that right then and there his mission is to help the crew get safely back. It doesn’t serve that mission to provide them with information not germane to that mission. All other concerns are secondary. There’s plenty of time for that in the post flight debrief. But first let’s get to the debrief. When I heard about “The Talk”, I assumed its focus was the same as Kranz’: Get them home safe. Maybe I assumed too much.

Now, I don’t know precisely what Miss McDonald said to her son. Maybe he is a particularly sensitive child. But the results of her talk are telling. In a few years, her son seems primed to forgo his fearful tears and charge the mound. Fear leads to hate, hate leads to anger…

Miss McDonald does, however, provide us some clues. After claiming that she would never presume to tell another parent what to say to their own child, she graciously provides some helpful hints. I found this bit illuminating:

Avoid using the word “tolerance,” and don’t try to teach your kids to be “color blind”—that’s not a real thing. Identity isn’t something to be put up with or ignored; it’s to be respected and celebrated. And it’s not enough to simply insist that they “acknowledge” their privilege. That privilege must be actively wielded as a shield for Black lives.

Autumn McDonald

I also found it deeply dispiriting. To think this is the sort of “Talk” young Black children are receiving from their parents is unnerving enough. But Miss McDonald goes further. In her desire for what she calls “allyship” from white parents, she urges them to have the same kind of “Talk”, with the same ideas expressed in the above quoted passage, with their children. Heaven forfend!

A perfectly tolerant and color blind society is not a real thing. I agree. As long as there human beings this will be true. It is, however, a noble aspiration worthy of societal striving. But Miss McDonald does not dismiss tolerance and color blindness because they are difficult, or even, truth be told, out of our worldly reach. She dismisses them because they are out of sync with her worldview. To her, color is identity. According to her, our most important concept of self begins and ends with our color. It is a view she shares, unfortunately, with many others today.

Sorry, Miss McDonald, I will not be your ally. I will not tell any child his skin pigment is the most important thing about him and everyone else in the world. I will not set him on the path to fear, anger, and hate, because it will lead to only sorrow, for him and the world.

I will tell him there are two kinds of people only: the decent and the indecent. I will tell him he is called upon by his Creator to treat every person as an individual. It will be difficult. He will be tempted, by his own inherent sinfulness, and by the indecent influence of others, to give into his fear of the other, the superficially different. But I will tell him he must not give into that temptation. He must not listen to anyone who tells him he should base his treatment of other people on such trivialities as skin color, ethnicity, religious belief, sex, or sexual orientation. I will tell him these things again and again. I will tell him the world is a difficult, often unjust, and sometimes dangerous place. And I will tell him this story:

One evening an old man told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside every man.

He said, “My son, the battle is between two “wolves” inside us all.

One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.

The other is good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.”

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: “Which wolf wins?”

The old man simply replied, “The one you feed.”