30 November 2011

Manipulation beyond manipulation

I just heard on the 5:00 news about how good the Cain baloney is for Newt Gingrich. Here is the real agenda. Newt Gingrich? Do the media really think by manipulating with their magic wands they can get the Republicans to nominate a man who should not even be running and doesn't have a snow ball's chance of beating B Hussein Obama? Come on, now!

I think it's the same logic that makes them not even mention Ron Paul. There's a man of principal who has had the same fundamental and conservative views for years (instead of waffling the way Mitt does). They didn't even mention Ron when they went over the results of the Iowa Republican Straw Poll last summer, and HE FINISHED SECOND. All the media could mention was that Bachmann finished first and whoever it was finished 3rd. Paul finishing second? Apparently not news.

Come on people. Wake up, and tell the media to wake up.!!!!

Ignominy

I'm getting tired of the news media. Since the media are 90% liberal Democrats, according to statistics I heard in the last presidential election, their slants, leanings and ravings should not be surprising. Since I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, I'm past the stage of chuckling and into deploring the way these supposed grownups are acting.

I think I pointed out before some of the columns about morality, which point out that immoral actions are always what the other guy or the other side does. I remember Gary Hart, who I personally knew and thought was a really nice guy, lost a chance to run for Presdient because, as a married man, he spent a weekend on a schmantzy boat named Monkey Business with a leggy, smiley blonde (Donna Rice, truly a real looker and herself a pretty nice girl). Even had he been an inveterate philanderer, he would have been much better than who we ended up with as a Democratic candidate in my opinion. Who really remembers Fritz Mondale? And, can you tell me who did run against Reagan's election in 1988?

Then, though, the "our side is ok but let me tell you what they did" attitude came in. The Clarence Thomas hearings with Anita Hill, for example. Compare those to President Clinton, the Oval Office, the blue dress and his cigar. I mean, Hollywood could not write that script, yet he survived.

Now we witch hunt Herman Cain. Having no substantial political reason to eliminate him from the race, the media rely on the old rumor mill. OK, let's say he DID have a 13-year affair and is lying about not having it. Is he guilty? According to the legal precedent, remember, "that depends on what your definition of is is." Folks, either it doesn't matter and candidates should be allowed to run even if they have colored personal morality (that is NOT a racist remark, by the way), OR we should dumped Clinton way back when. Personally, I would just as soon leave all this personal life stuff out of the election emphasis. It's not like they're gonna be successful at hiding it anyway once it is just casually mentioned. Let us discuss it in the Iowa caucuses, let's see what "We the people" think about this, not we big business, we Wall Street or we the news media.

And, by the way, I think it's the wrong thing to do, but if he wants to have an affair, what business is that of mine, anyway? Only if it threatens national security or turns into blatant hypocrisy. That's my bottom line.

23 November 2011

Crowds and Control

It's not an issue of "crowd control." It really never has been as I have seen it. It is an issue of "crowds" and "control", or, more aptly, expressing control over and in the presence of crowds.

I was in Chicago the summer of 1968. We lived there. Dad worked across the street (literally) from Grant Park. The crowds in the park conflicted with Mayor Dailey's absolute control. Dailey won. Whether the crowd could have been controlled in any other way is immaterial; Dailey's control was the issue.

I went to school with Bill Schroeder. He sat next to me in Western Civ in the spring of 1969. I graduated from Colorado School of Mines that May, Bill transferred his ROTC scholarship to Kent State. The issue was not to control crowds; the issue was exerting control in a protest situation with multiple, equally unpopular viewpoints. The governor won by bringing in the National Guard. We all lost because of the failure of anyone to be able to control the [real and probably justifiable] fear in the hearts of the National Guardsmen. Bill was, as I understand to this day, merely on his way to class and not at the front lines. But, .30 caliber 165-grain military rounds travel 2-1/2 miles with lethality. Wherever that one came from, it landed lethally and Bill became one of the 7. He was neither a crowd nor a controller, and the results didn't control anything but really threw a lot of things out of control.

Pepper spray, CS gas, tasers, ultrasonics, rubber bullets - all kinds of non-lethal but painful and potentially debilitating ordnance are out there. They are frequently used by those in control to profess their control over crowds. The actually percentage of the time that the crowd needs to be controlled, or in which the methods achieve actual crowd control, is probably miniscule. Every time they are used they are an attempt by someone to back up their statement that, as of now, they are in charge.

You know what? It may work, it may not work. I also had a classmate who had been in the Marines and was given a medical discharge when they found a heart murmur in the physical before his match to become light heavyweight champion of the Marine Corps. Ernie used to go into one particular bar on West Colfax on Saturday night and assert his control over anyone who wanted to take him on. Anyone who questioned that Ernie was in charge quickly found out that the left was usually enough and the right, if called into play, controlled anyone.

Until one Saturday night. The big guy at the bar wasn't paying attention to Ernie, so Ernie walked up, punched the African American in the back of the neck, and said "I'm talking to you (derogatory)". Whereupon the gentleman took another drink of beer, casually turned around, and said "Now I'm gonna have to hurt you, white boy!" This was the mid 60's, and Ernie had just picked on one of Sonny Liston's sparring partners. I have never seen anyone so beaten without having serious injuries or broken bones - just devastatingly black, blue and painful all over and bleeding from a couple-dozen places.

So, what is the point of my rambling for today? There ARE times that violence is necessary in response to violence; this is the structure of "just war." Not to open that argument, just to make that statement. Yeah, I know that for a lot of you war is never justifiable; but, if it is, this is the root.

As I was brought up, we were taught to respect authority and the laws or we would suffer consequences. The consequences were generally corporal punishment. I have always believed that opposing authorities attempting to control situations may result in consequences that I do not want to be on the receiving end of. However, I also know that if the government is destructive of the ends of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish the government by such means as they may muster, including peaceable assembly and demonstration. Here is the rub - if the assembly violates previously established laws like curfews or park hours or whatever, government may choose to exert its control over the assembly. It is the use of excessive or extreme means to control the assembly, the transition to the boasting of controlling, that becomes dangerous. Then, "authority" transcends justifiable action OR, more importantly in the current situation, something happens to the guys on the front line. There are two kinds of officers here spraying pepper spray. One kind are the Tackleberries of the world - joined the force to be able to shoot big guns. The other kind is the scared soldier, the evolutionary relative of the Kent State Guardsman. Both are likely to invoke ordnance that, to a logical, removed bystander/observer, is not necessary. For the front line, it is necessary. In retrospect, or on the other side, it's excessive.

So, what is the bottom line? I don't think there is a bottom line. Demonstrators need to be ready to accept the consequences, such as those may become, whether they are justifiable or expectable. Look at history, know what can happen. Authorities, if that is a reasonable name, need to consider careful their exercise of that authority and the means by which they choose to do so. The post-event yelling and crying from both sides can get out of hand with little constructive results; but, neither demonstrators or authorities want to see non-constructive results.

So I guess my bottom line is that there must be better ways. A better way for each side. I just don't know what that is. Anyone have ideas?

11 November 2011

James 1:27 (The Message) Real religion, the kind that passes muster before God the Father, is this: Reach out to the homeless and loveless in their plight, and guard against corruption from the godless world.

This is a guideline for our time. Occupy Wall Street protestors need to understand this includes them. They are not reaching out, they are sucking from. Accepting vs. sucking away from. There is a big difference.

10 November 2011

Joe Paterno

During my academic career, I was on the research faculty of The Pennsylvania State University. Considering he was coaching at Penn State when I was still in diapers, Joe Paterno was already a fixture in those mid 70's when I was there.

My oldest two kids know there are African lions, mountain lions, and Nittany Lions. I've had ice cream from the Campus Creamery. I hit my hand while splitting wood and had to go to the hospital for an X ray to see if I had broken it on a Saturday afternoon during a home game. To get to the hospital, you had to drive past Beaver Stadium.

The doctor in the emergency room was wearing an Orange Bowl watch.

Anyway, I have taught at 4 universities and 1 college over the past 35 years (not the whole time, just some of the time). And, I feel somewhat qualified to make a comment or two about the Paterno situation.

I think the Board of Trustees is running scared. I think they are dishonoring Mr. Paterno if not outright disrespecting him. So far, I have not heard any allegations of wrongdoing by Joe. Oh, yeah, he himself admitted he probably could have and should have done "something more." But his inaction did NOT violate any rule or law of which I am aware. Action, had he taken it, would have been in response to something within. If you get right down to it, even, taking action might have been against University policy, and from what I have heard would have been based on third party hearsay.

If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd have a jolly Christmas. There is a big if and but game that could be played. The bottom line that I see is that in response to some definitely wrong actions taken by other people who may or may not have been under Joe's supervision, and by the people up the line to whom Joe duly reported what he knew, Joe Paterno has been thrown out with the rest of the dirty washwater. A coach that got away, allegedly, molesting children for years would obviously have been really good at hiding what he did; Joe Paterno has not been shown to have had first-hand knowledge of anything.

He should have retired a couple of years ago. He didn't. I don't think that was necessarily out of any personal vanity but out of a love for PSU and in the firm belief that he would be spending the rest of his life doing for the school what he had spent the prior rest of his life doing for the school. It is inconceivable (yes, I do know what that word means) to me that Joe Paterno could willingly and knowledgeably do anything to the detriment of The Pennsylvania State University. He was, and is, a dedicated, honorable and committed man of impeccable integrity. Now, he has been slammed by a handful of people who are not nearly up to being his peers, without having any charges that have been publicly acknowledged (by the board or by Joe), apparently without having any witnesses for or against his actions. And, in typical Paterno fashion, his response is: that's their decision, I shall live with it.

Now I heard they're going to take down his statue.

This whole thing is a malevolent aggregation of excrement, and it stinks to high heaven. Coach Paterno deserves better. We should give it to him.

Emerging Church

OK, there are now two areas of primary interest for me. One is what I am, for lack of a better title, calling 127, after James 1:27: " Real religion, the kind that passes muster before God the Father, is this: Reach out to the homeless and loveless in their plight, and guard against corruption from the godless world." This is probably the same thing that Andy Stanley calls "How To Be Rich".

They're probably pretty much one and the same. Both are challenges to behave as did the Pope played by Anthony Quinn in "The Shoes of the Fisherman" and give our redundant resources to the needs of the world. This is clearly the true Christian religion as far as I am concerned.

Church Is Flat The Relational Ecclesiology of the Emerging Church MovementThe second cusp of my followings is what is known contemporarily as Emerging Church. I know what I mean by this, but have yet to come up with an adequate and succinct definition to share with others. My interest goes as far back as the late 1990's when I began to have run-ins with post modernism, kind of highlighted for me for the first time by Don Matzat in 1998. Recently my curiosity was piqued by a tweet from Jay Bakker regarding a new book, The Church Is Flat: The Relational Ecclesiology of the Emerging Church Movement.

These are the two areas I plan mainly to be addressing.

Finally, I have moved bag to google blogging from wordpress. I had forgotten about my old Google blog, but thought I would ressurect it to link it with Google+, LinkedIn and Twitter.

See you all online.