Thanks all! XOXO

During the We Might Shutdown the Gummint and All Hell Might Break Loose debacle, I posted a link from the Heritage Foundation, decrying President Obama’s statement that he would veto a bill paying our servicemen and women if the Gummint did, indeed, shut down. My friend replied, “And the Republicans are turning their backs on various social programs intended to help the most vulnerable Americans.”

And so the BroooHaHa began. It all comes down to two separate views of government’s role and, ultimately, morality. I believe that government is responsible for the basic protections of her citizens and to be “of laws and not of men” as John Adams famously said. Others, my friend included, believe that the government is responsible for the basic health and well-being of her citizens as well – meaning that we don’t simply have to provide an unravaged-by-war land in which to govern one’s own destiny, but we must insure that one’s own destiny is one of health and comfort.

I can completely understand both perspectives. I know that both sides of the debate think the other is evil and uncaring (thanks, Harry Reid, for that) but I don’t. What I do think about the idea of state-run charity is that it’s unfairly inconsistent, horribly wasteful and intellectually dishonest.

There’s a lot of pieces to this debate, hence why it doesn’t play out well in Facebook discussions, but I think the largest component is the inconsistency of the idea of state-run charity and morality. Often this debate lands on economic turf, but even if we had the money (which we don’t) to run every social program we’d like to, I would still hold that this view is flawed.

If I wasn’t a Christian, I honestly don’t think I could argue much on this topic, other than from a simple, selfish standpoint of wanting to keep my grubby mitts on my own money. Because I am, however, and I do believe that we have a moral obligation to help those around us, I want to do that in a way that actually helps. As a Christian, I’m frequently told to sit down and shut up when it comes to these debates.

Don’t believe in gay marriage? You’re a homophobe. Believe abortion is wrong? You’re sexist. Don’t want to pay higher and higher taxes to support endless state-run programs? You hate poor people, you immoral money-grubber.

The deal is, I can’t vote against my conscience in any of these topics, and just because I’m a Christian and believe we should help the poor does not mean that I believe the government should make me help the poor. There’s a difference between seeing a need and reaching out to assist in that need, vs. funneling money through endless bureaucracies in order to reach that need. As a person of faith with a moral obligation to reach out and help, I am offended by losing more of my hard-earned money to government programs that I could have used to actually help someone. (Of course I know that government can help people. Please don’t comment with endless stories about your sister’s boyfriend’s aunt who would have ______ without Uncle Sam. I get it. I also get that smaller organizations with more oversight do a better job.)

We’re often told to leave our faith out of the discussion. We’re told to leave our biases at the curb. But I can’t, anymore. I’m tired of hearing that the American Dream is unattainable, when I personally could have made more on Unemployment Insurance and instead have spent the last two years pinching pennies and starting my own business, only to have the government demand my profits for someone else who “needs it”. I’m tired of being told that because I want to be sure that my money goes to a cause I believe in (not Planned Parenthood, plzthx) I’m somehow immoral and uncaring. I’m tired of looking around me and seeing a nation of college-educated, cable-watching victims who honestly believe that America somehow owes them more than just freedom and a chance to make their own way.

If you have food in the refrigerator, clothes on your back and a place to sleep, you are richer than 75% of the world. If you have money in the bank, in your wallet, and spare change in a dish someplace, you are among the top 8% of the world’s wealthy.

That describes America. Let’s stop attacking each other and acting like people are dying because Steve Jobs is just too rich and brilliant and needs to pay more taxes. We can figure out better ways to help – one of the best is to let people to realize their own potential and stop forcing our job creators and leaders of industry into state-run, ineffectual charity. Instead, let loose of the rules, release industry of the grip of over-reaching micro-management and let them hire people, give to organizations that really do good, charitable work and be free to use their money to give our country prosperity and real, American Dream-style hope.

The liberal knee-jerk reaction is anti-war and pro-Middle-Eastern dictator, but since their favorite president is ordering this and Europe is behind us and they really really want Europe to like us, they are tongue-tied. Conservatives knee-jerk reaction is “Yeah! Let’s bomb the jerks and come home” but middle-America is war-weary and conservatives have recently woken up to a terrifyingly bad economic reality, and are wondering if $600,000 Tomahawk missiles are where we should be putting tax money.

Clearly, everybody needs me to weigh in on this and grant some clarity. (Sarcasm intended).

Unfortunately, it’s taken me a few days to get my thoughts together, which I realized, is not entirely my fault. The reason why I and everyone else I know is horribly confused on the Libyan issue is because there IS no clear message.

Obama is asserting that this is a humanitarian mission, but that doesn’t really hold water. If the U.S. is in the business of bombing cruel regimes, why aren’t we striking Darfur, where were we a few months ago in Iran when they were beating, killing and imprisoning protestors, and why on Earth wasn’t Obama jumping for joy when Saddam Hussien was ousted from power?

So if it’s not a humanitarian mission, it’s a foreign war. No way around it. We are sending our selfless, brave men and women to once again perform the thankless job of being the police officers of the world. Oh, but this one is supposed be different, we’re told. We’re multi-lateral now, and we have the UN and Europe behind us. Well, that’s really nice… unfortunately, nearly every leader of the civilized world offered support, condolences and help after 9/11, completely standing behind our decision to retaliate in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Should I continue, or let the deafening silence make my point? Where are they now, eight YEARS later?)

So, once again, the U.S. is sticking her neck out for the world, and our anti-war president gets away with it because he labels it a humanitarian mission, avoids Congress entirely and runs off to South America before anyone can protest.

Don’t get me wrong – I think Qaddafi is a murderous felon and I wish we would have succeeded when Reagan tried to take him out in the 1980s. Unfortunately, I don’t think that this administration has the guts to finish the job, and hiding behind humanitarian excuses only expends our national treasure on yet another endless foray into foreign nation-building. The might and force of the U.S. military should not be so belittled, and our people should not be forced to pay for our leaders’ wobbly policy.

Adam and I in front of the original capitol building in Williamsburg, Virginia, October 2010

The wonderful thing about this particular production is that it tells the whole story, and nothing is excluded or included for effect. There’s no effort made to force us to like or dislike John Adams – we like him despite his foibles and we admire him even though we must grant that he was probably a tough man to live with.

We are introduced to Adams when, as a young family man and lawyer, he defends the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre, much to the outrage of his friends and neighbors. The imagery of him boldly fighting for unvarnished truth and braving the storms of public disapproval set the tone for his entire life. His famous line, “we should have a nation of laws and not of men” feels oddly well-placed in today’s celebrity culture, one in which it matters not what someone says, but who they are, how they say it and who endorses them.

A history geek like me knows that many of the lines are directly taken from Adams’ correspondence with his wife, Abigail, and others, which lends the series its documentary-like appeal. While Adams is not the most well-remembered or the sexiest of our founders, I think it’s incredible that HBO took the time to treat a loyal, dedicated and largely overlooked hero with the respect he deserves. In his lifetime, Adams was alternately loved and hated, scorned and exalted. But his honest sentiments still ring true centuries later, and give us courage to live up to our beliefs, and the rights that he and his compatriots worked so hard to protect.

In a letter to Abigail in 1780, John Adams wrote; “I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.”

The miniseries places Adams at a state banquet in France when he delivers this line, which a French statesman laughingly translates for the others at the table, sarcastically adding that “he [Adams] has it all figured out.” Although this setting is fictional, created for effect by the filmmaker, it is well-placed. Adams was an unpopular ambassador to France, probably because of his serious outlook on the revolution, but France, despite her outward frivolity, was headed for a bloody but unsuccessful revolution of her own; even as the French court laughed at Adams’ ardent love of country and liberty.

It struck me that we can learn something from this bit of artistic license. We’ve had a lot of comfort in America since these patriots risked everything to create a new nation, and through growth and distance, we’ve largely forgotten the reasons we became independent in the first place. America is the French court, laughing heartily at serious-minded, plain-clothed John Adams and his dire predictions.We don’t see revolution and we don’t expect our tidy lives to be interrupted, despite the storm clouds on the horizon.

Would it not be wise, then, after two centuries of studying painting, poetry and music on the shoulders of giants, that we consider a return to more serious arts, in an effort to preserve our own revolution and liberties?

***

I started this post by mentioning our trip to Washington D.C. and Williamsburg. When we were coming home from that trip, I mentioned to Adam that I liked both places – but I felt that in Williamsburg, history is felt and honored, whereas in DC, history is cast into statues and made untouchable by pomp and circumstance.

John Adams helped me feel history again, and reminded me why it matters – not just why we have busts made of notable statesmen, but why they are notable in the first place.

Charlie Sheen, with his self-destructive behavior and his repetitive delusional media interviews, is exploding across the news, as a self-destructive three-ring circus in one Hollywood star’s body. Just today, he was officially fired by CBS and Warner Brothers, and once again we are gasping over his comments, analyzing his behavior and sighing over how sad his descent has become.

Read more here.

However, say what you will about Beck’s TV personality, his nonfiction books are fabulous. Optimistic, funny, sensible and even-handed, they do everything that most pundits would think was impossible from anybody on Fox News – simply put – they are FAIR. (and balanced. Ha).

Broke is one of the best elementary economic books I’ve read yet. It doesn’t veer into “sky is falling” territory, nor does it gloss over obvious issues in an effort to reach a broader base – it simply states facts in a clear, conversational and often subtly humorous way that is completely unexpected and refreshing.

One of the only criticisms I have is that Broke often deals in the elementary, since I would assume that anybody who’s buying a college-textbook-sized tome with Glenn Beck’s face on it should be fairly well-educated on these subjects. However, I could be wrong, and if so, this is the perfect book to introduce a curious friend to a uniquely truthful economic perspective. With graphs, illustrations and occasional witticisms sprinkled throughout, it’s an easy book to skim or a great starting place for more research. (Especially since Beck makes his points with history as far back as Ancient Rome, it’s fair to say that even a book this size doesn’t begin to cover all the info.) The best part about most of Broke‘s points is that it deals with common-sense. It doesn’t pretend that these problems are easy to solve overnight if only you are a Republican, and it doesn’t talk down to those of us without a Ph.D. in Economics – it simply lays out the best forseeable plan in a friendly tone and lets you make up your own mind.

Definitely worth reading whether you hate Glenn Beck with everything you are or think he’s God’s Gift to mankind.  Probably neither end of the Glenn Beck Opinion Spectrum will agree with Broke, but both of them will start thinking about this stuff, which is the whole point.

(New feature… buy it from Amazon and help me out! You get a book, I get monies. Win-win!)

Kennedy also is shown to us as a politician first. Not much of his early life is shown, and we seem to walk in on him quickly ascending as a rising star to Nixon’s fumbling, sleepy planet, giving us no glimpse at early failures, insecurities or blunders.  His campaign speeches ring powerfully pro-America, and despite the civil-rights turmoil of the 60′s, he admits the failures of his country but never apologizes for her. He insists that she move forward, unapologetically insisting that she is the greatest country in the world.

The narrator stays out of Kennedy’s way, allowing us to see him in campaign spats with Nixon, later, when he gets elected, we watch him laugh at what he considers an eccentric question from a member of the White House Press Corps  – a surprising moment of lost decorum included in a mere 90-minute film.  We get a few of the obligatory shots of Jackie O., charming as always, and his small children running around the White House in a nod to his unprecedented youth and likability. But the strongest moments come in the rare footage from Oval Office discussions – how to handle the civil rights tensions at the University of Alabama, the Cuban Missile Crisis and always, the threat from the Soviet Union in the Middle East. The narrator is silent and we are enraptured, watching 50-year-old history unfold and, because we are left alone with the scratchy recorded voices of these decision-makers, we are free to make our own opinions about what transpired. After one gnarly set of foreign policy decisions, Kennedy tells the Press Corps, “we have made an error, but an error is not a mistake unless we refuse to correct it”. Wouldn’t that be a great thing to hear a politician say today? The film ends without any of the terrible footage of the assassination, but with the tearful faces of Americans at his funeral and the sound of cannon-fire in remembrance of a fallen leader.

Reagan’s moment in the HBO spotlight, begins, as I said before, with much more controversy than JFK’s, and the film seems bent on both bringing the Reaganite love down a peg and reducing the man himself. Early portraits about Reagan are endearing but not particularly inspiring – one moment he is portrayed as a clever puppet playing a role and the next as a driven (though still likable) idealogue. Unlike the Kennedy film, which let us sit and observe unmolested, Reagan has an army of critics and admirers, determined to express their views about who he actually was. His son, Ron Jr., is frequently interviewed, and seems far too excited to have the cameras on himself for once, readily jumping on the Brave New World bandwagon – you know the one – your parents were probably dumb just by virtue of being your parents, question everything, talk about things so esoterically that people assume you must just be Very Smart because you never commit to a Real Point of View, (except the one that ignores your parents and questions stuff). It’s the same bandwagon that Meghan McCain has been riding for some time, much to the derision of true conservatives and false adulation of the gals on The View.

Reagan has moments that transcend any attempt to shrink him, proving why he continues to be a powerful and polarizing figure in politics. His affable grace, fearless determination, stirring speeches and truthful approach make every time he appears on screen feel hopeful and forthright. Even as economists argue (hilariously, one interviewee told us that the government nearly fell to pieces because the Laffer Curve failed and no tax-money was coming in, the next charged that Reagan raised taxes and made rich and poor people miserable alike) and his son waffles (“Am I going to turn on my dad? No. Am I troubled by his actions? Yes.”) the man himself still leaves a powerful impression. If the Reagan director would take a cue from the Kennedy biographer and let him speak for himself, the documentary would have been even more powerful.

As it was, I came away grateful for both presidents, and for those eras in American history when our leaders were proud of their country. Both films reminded me that the truth sets us free, and that we, too, as citizens of this great country, have a “rendezvous with destiny”.

“Bring it on! I’d prefer an open fight to all this sneakin’ around!” – Han Solo

Han Solo is easily one of the greatest movie characters ever created, in one of the most timeless stories ever relegated to film. We love him because he is relatable – few of us have the integral sense of calling like Luke Skywalker or the blind faith and gentle courage of Leah – most of us would rather blaze around the galaxy on the wings of our own bravado and charisma, getting by on a wing and a good blaster by our side. This image of Han Solo is intimately and unabashedly American – courageous, sometimes rash and foolhardy, true to his friends and occasionally overzealous – we’re generally not as cool as we think we are, but we’re trying to do the right thing, goshdarnit.

I bring Han Solo up, because, to my generation, the one that grew up on our parent’s well-worn VHS tapes of Star Wars and John Wayne westerns, there’s still something in that America that appeals to us. Even the most progressive of my peers appreciates sunny outlook, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps mentality of the heroes we remember from childhood. At least that’s what I thought.

Today I saw some things that made me weep for my generation and wonder how we let ourselves get so hateful over such foolish things. You all know about the kerfuffle about whether or not the Arizona assassin was a Tea Partier or not, and I’m not here to debate what already seems a solved issue. I’m just here to remind everybody that a few years ago, then-senator Hilary Clinton rightly asserted that “…we are Americans and we have the right to disagree with any administration” and she was absolutely right. We have the right to debate and disagree, but can we even pretend that this is OK?

I’m not by any means suggesting censorship. You and your First Amendment rights can fantasize about killing Sarah Palin all day. I’m just saying, why are we sneaking around, as Han Solo said? Why not an open fight? Conservatives and Liberals and Greenies and Undecideds and Apathetics alike need to get out of their cloistered Facebook groups and start a real, civil discussion. Will a group wishing that Sarah Palin kills herself really advance a progressive perspective? What is such a group accomplishing?

I don’t know. If you really hate her and it’s somehow comforting to you to join a group of other haters, go right ahead – but don’t pretend to be blameless in a culture of increasingly personalized political attacks.

Speaking of civil discussion, here’s the piece that really broke me down.

As somebody has spent more time than was excusable in fights with my own dad, I get where this kid is coming from. (In fairness, I spend more time fighting with my dad more because we’re alike than because we’re different, but that’s a story for another day.)  But to secretly film, then to spend the time to insert derisive comments about him behind his back  is a premeditated  piece of meanness that I find incredibly ugly. I ask again, why not an open fight? Why couldn’t this young man and his dad have debated the issues? Perhaps then we would’ve been won over to the son’s position instead of just feeling disgusted by his after-the-fact, cowardly remarks.

I am so sad for my generation. We’ve learned to stomp off and slam the door when provoked, instead of manning up and owning our convictions. We find solace in flimsy internet relationships and ignore the wisdom of our parents. We only talk about controversial issues as a way of slinging mud instead of a path to understanding, and we assume that anyone across the aisle politically or socially is a complete idiot.

I started this blog because I wanted to change that. I wanted to discuss important issues with people who don’t always agree with me (of course, secretly hoping that I would sway them ) and I wanted to talk about these things cordially. These things matter, and how does a cheap shot fix anything?

I want the next generation to be different. I want us to remember that “Father Knows Best” and that an open fight is always preferable to sneakin’ around. Blog-friends, renew my faith in the internet. Is there anyone out here who’s not a snarky ass? Anybody who can disagree with class?

If so, raise your hand, because I am disheartened. (Oh, and P.S. – I love you, Dad.)

There ya have it. I can dust off my hands and walk away from the keyboard, content in a good day’s book summary.

Trouble is, life is more complicated than these hallowed sayings. Especially in the areas of personal relationships and sexual choices, these kinds of concepts are hard to live up to and harder to convey to a world that often doesn’t believe in our love, despite our best efforts. Personally, I’ve written about this issue, and in the process found it incredibly frustrating to be pigeon-holed as “unloving” simply because of my point of view. Where do I go from here? Do I just shut up about this or is there a better way to have this conversation?

What I appreciated about TCCM (sorry, the title is WAY too long for this blogger) is that Campbell never wavers from a loving approach. It’s obvious that he has taken a lot of heat for his staunch Biblical position on homosexuality, but he never allows anger or spite to tinge his cordial tone, even when it seems like it would be only fair for him to fire back in return. He is consistent, always pointing to his faith as the redemptive element. He also is refreshingly apologetic, understanding that both sides of this debate have been deeply wounded by the other, but that does not mean that there isn’t truth, justice, compassion and forgiveness lurking just around the bend.

He also uses real-life stories and examples, helping the bruised evangelical to see a hurting soul behind an angrily marching Gay Pride-er, or an indignant member of the gay community to recognize that many Christians are not waving “God hates Fags” signs, but rather desperately trying to follow Jesus in the frustrating marriage of conviction and compassion. He also talks directly to church leaders, giving concrete steps toward building ministry for all kinds of sexual sin and broken relationships, continuously tying all of his efforts to Scripture and real-life models.

Christians, despite popular opinion, are not called to a blind, fluffy, illogical love. Neither are we called to abandon our convictions or the truth of our redemptive story when it becomes unpopular. Campbell’s book does a good job of threading the needle in a contentious issue, and I hope that this is just the beginning of an exciting conversation.

Review posted as part of a blog tour sponsored by ChurchReflections.com

This ushers in a new era, we’re told, an end to bigotry and injustice.  In reference to DADT, John Legend tweeted the other day: “I wonder if Republicans enjoy being on the wrong side of history when it comes to justice and discrimination”. Which comment caused me to wonder if he enjoys being on the wrong side of the facts, since a DEMOCRAT (Bill Clinton) enacted DADT, but that’s a minor quibble. Personally I’m a bit tired of taking hits on behalf of parties who clearly forgot long ago that they are elected “by the People, for the People”, so I won’t waste my breath.

Anyhoodle, back to this new day, new era, righteous equality business. We’re told that DADT was cruel, horrible – a piece of legislation written by Bible Belt types whose very existence is a planned attack on everyone else’s way of life. Except for this one, tiny, indisputable fact – that gays were allowed to serve in the military, just not broadcast their affections. I’m sorry, but I don’t walk into my workplace and announce “I AM A 27 YEAR OLD, WHITE HETEROSEXUAL FEMALE”. Personally, I was offended by the race question in our most recent census. Am I an American, or am I merely a white (not eligible for any government understanding or voice on account of my skin color) heterosexual (probably homophobic and bigoted) female (ok, that’s my one shot at open-minded-ness, so I better use my limited power wisely).

My question is simply this – if we’re so enamored with the growth of “No Labels” and everybody having equality and all of that, then why do we care? Why do we have to ask or tell anything about ourselves? Why does every government agency demand to know my sexual orientation if it’s all equal?

How does revealing everything about oneself erase bigotry? Doesn’t it make more sense that all people have assumptions about certain classes and types of people, and the more we can accept people at face-value without such pre-conceived notions, aren’t we better off? But here’s the ugly truth. The gay rights movement has never wanted equality. (Now, if you’re one of my many admirers who happens to be gay and are about to write me a nasty email about how equality is all you want, DON’T TOUCH THAT SEND BUTTON. I get that, and I’m with you - “All men are created equal”, baby. However, your esteemed leaders in DC are not into equality, and probably don’t represent you. That’s what I’m addressing.) They are, in contrast, into privileges. Everybody is into privileges and entitlements these days – whether for race, sexual orientation or social status, everybody assumes that they deserve special treatment for something, which is precisely what repealing DADT is about.

Personally, I don’t really care about DADT, but I do care about holes in our collective logic, which I think this fluttering excitement over the repeal represents. This does not erase the normal human impulse to put individuals in boxes any more than electing a black president eliminated racial tensions. Nor is this really a discussion about equality and acceptance, since such a movement would require a lack of stereotypes and labels instead of an enforcement thereof. Personally, I wish we’d spent this time trumpeting the ill-advised START treaty or other real threats to national security instead of a fluffy, feel-good story on how warm and accepting we all are now, thanks to yet more legislation.