Family Matters

I write about things here because I believe they matter. At least they matter to me. I know that some of the subjects I address matter more to me than they matter to other people; and I know that there are other subjects that matter to other people far more than the subjects I address. Such is the world of personal opinion.

But, there are subjects that matter to everyone. There are subjects that remind us once again that we are all more alike than we are different. One of those universals concerns is pain in our families. The source of the pain doesn’t particularly matter; the type of pain doesn’t particularly matter. What matters is that people we love deeply are hurting deeply.

When family members are really hurting it can easily become the dominant reality for the loved ones around them. Rather quickly, political and religious issues don’t matter as much; even poverty, disease and war are relegated to a lesser place in our thoughts and feelings. For a period of time there’s only one thing that matters – that our family members get through their pain and return to a measure of peace and well being.

When I think about it, seeing and connecting to the pain that is being inflicted on other families in places around the world is what makes other things, like poverty, disease and war, matter to us. We see a mother holding a starving child; we see a son carrying a severely wounded mother; we see sisters and brothers mourning the loss of brothers and sisters – and we feel it; we know it; we connect to it. We’ve been there at some time in one degree or another. Familial love binds us on a common level. When we experience genuine compassion for others who are in pain over members of their families, then they begin to feel like members of our family.

Today, there are members of my family who are hurting. At this moment, that’s all that matters to me. They’re not hurting because of poverty, disease or war, or because of political or religious injustice or oppression. They’re hurting for other reasons. All that matters to me is that their pain is real; the relativity of that pain in the grand scheme of things is something that others can assess.

My loved ones are resilient; they’ll heal, and they’ll move forward. But not today; and probably not tomorrow; and maybe not the day after. In due time, other things will begin to matter again to them, primarily because they're part of a family. Their attention will turn to children, to spouses, to siblings, to parents, to others they love and care about, and the same familial love that brings them pain today will be the vehicle that returns them to their daily lives.

I send them my love – today, tomorrow and the day after.

Shame on Abe

I realize that I rag on the Rebs far more than the Dims. There are two good reasons for that: 1) the Rebs are in power and the party in power is always on the receiving end of much more criticism than the so-called “loyal opposition”; and 2) the Dims don’t say or do anything worth commenting on, which is worthy of criticism in its own right but how many times can that comment be repeated.

The Dims can’t reach consensus on anything. For example: the war in Iraq. Half of them are trying too hard to act like the exact opposite of President Bush, which fires up and polarizes the hardcore base in both parties but doesn’t produce anything, while the other half are trying to act like they’re just more nuanced and reasonable versions of W, which disgusts the Dim base and amuses the Reb base and still doesn’t produce anything. At one point early this year I didn’t think the Dims could find a way to lose the next election; now I wonder if they can find anyway to win it. It’s amazing to watch them. Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson must be doing the proverbial bone-yard rollover, while Presidents Carter and Clinton salve their party wounds by leaving town to fight election fraud and AIDS in foreign countries.

But, I digress. Let me get back to those whacky Rebs.

Recently, the Reb faithful who stand staunchly behind the Bushwhacky policy that has produced the current state of the war in Iraq and the somewhat apparitional war on terrorism have apparently grown fond of quoting Abraham Lincoln. You just can’t go wrong if you quote Honest Abe on a regular basis – provided, of course, that you’re being honest when you do so. Unfortunately, honesty has become an expendable virtue in American politics. Honesty is for wimps, and for presidents who had never heard of a sound bite.

The Lincoln quote du jour goes like this: members of Congress who do anything to damage military morale in wartime "are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged." Whoa, who knew that the lanky gentleman from Illinois had such a serrated edge? He should be called Hang-‘Em-High Abe.

For example, Diana Irey, the Republican candidate running against Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, used the "quote" recently in an appearance before the National Press Club in Washington. FactCheck.org reports that their research shows more than 18,000 internet references to this “quote”, in addition to it being used in newspaper articles, letters to the editor, and in Republican speeches. Politicians and pundits who are fond of accusing war critics of disloyalty or treason have fallen in love with this little chip of log-cabin wisdom.

There’s just one tiny problem – Lincoln never said it. The flurry of false attribution springs from conservative author, J. Michael Waller, in his article entitled “Democrats Usher in An Age of Treason”, as published in the December 23, 2003 issue of Insight magazine where he said:

"’Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged,’ that's what President Abraham Lincoln said during the War Between the States.” This is the quote used by Irey and others.

Waller has publicly admitted that the words are his, but claims he never meant to put them in quotes. He blames an editor for the mistake. The editor says, “Nice try, buddy, they were there from the get go.” (Okay, okay, I admit that those are my words not the editor’s. I didn’t intend to put them in quotes; Microsoft Word did it.) In Waller’s case, I’m not sure the quote-mark defense matters because if you remove the quote marks you still get precisely the same false attribution. (In my case, I have no defense, other than being a registered Republican.)

It’s one thing to accuse John Murtha, a 30-year Marine vet with a chest full of combat decorations, of being an unpatriotic saboteur who provides “aid and comfort to our enemy,” as Irey did. But it’s another thing to claim to have the support of Abraham Lincoln in leveling that ridiculous charge and to suggest that hanging is an appropriate response for a member of Congress who dares to oppose a presidential policy on war. That kind of conduct is worse than unpatriotic.

Politicians like Irey are more likely to sabotage our constitutional form of government than many of the foreign threats that we’re fighting and guarding against. Dishonest rhetoric like that employed by Irey and any number of the 18,000 references mentioned above is a form of political terrorism that undermines our national security by breaking down our political process and turning congressional debate into a pile of partisan flotsam and jetsam.

You can quote me on that.

Proud to Serve

When I was in Colorado week before last I had the opportunity to tour the Air Force Academy and the NORAD facility inside Cheyenne Mountain as part of the conference I attended. The tour guides and speakers at the conference included Major General Mark Volcheff, Brigadier General Taco Gilbert, and several other active-duty or retired military officers. The subject of the conference was leadership and these officers aptly demonstrated the leadership qualities being taught. They also demonstrated why I frequently get caught in a wave of nostalgia about my military service, a feeling that often results in a reoccurring thought – I should have remained in the service.

I’ve often said, “If you like where you are in life then don’t regret the road that got you there.” I like where I am and, for the most part, I don’t regret the road I’ve traveled. When I look back on the decision to leave the Navy JAG Corps the word “regret” is too strong; but I regret the questionable reasoning that led to the decision. My wife and I made that decision, first and foremost, based on the almost pathological Mormon “homing instinct” that was pulling us to the “safety” of Zion. We thought we wanted to raise our family in Salt Lake City surrounded by Latter-day Saints and the formidable LDS support system we believed awaited us “back home”. Among Mormons who had roots in Utah, we were anything other than unique in this regard. We were painfully typical.

All was well with that decision until an economic downturn significantly impacted the clientele that formed the foundation of my law practice in Salt Lake. That impact, along with other issues related to my practice there, caused me to look for opportunities to move my career “in house”, a search that led me to Shell Oil Company in Houston. Once my family and I left “the shadows of the everlasting hills” along the Wasatch Front, I began to gaze into the rearview mirror from time to time and wonder about the decision to leave the military.

There are two things I miss the most from my military experience, both of which were present day-in and day-out. First, is the undeniable esprit de corps, a bonding force that gives rise to phrases like “comrades in arms” and “band of brothers”. There’s a kinship among service members that’s rarely duplicated outside a family structure. It’s a relationship built not only on many shared experiences but also on many unique experiences. There’s really nothing else quite like it.

Second, is the clear sense of mission that I had. Every day I knew what my individual mission was and I knew how it fit into the overall mission of my unit, and I knew that the mission of the unit was paramount to the mission of the individual. While military decorations are awarded to servicemen and women who exhibit extraordinary individual courage or heroism, there is much more focus on rewarding behavior that contributes to the well being of the unit and the success of its mission. If you look through the citations supporting each award of the Medal of Honor you will find more instances of heroic action taken to protect or rescue the recipient’s comrades than to defeat the recipient’s enemy.

Actually, as I type this I realize that there’s a third element that I miss as much as the other two. I recall standing in front of the mirror in a small above-a-garage apartment that my family rented on Third Beach Road in Newport, Rhode Island, when I reported to Officer’s Indoctrination School in May 1995. It was the first time that I donned the uniform of a United States Naval Officer. It was one of the proudest moments of my life.

Later that day when I drove up to the security gate at the Newport Naval Station I returned the salute of the Marine sentry on duty. That was the first time that I’d been on the receiving end of a salute. Tradition says that an officer is supposed to give a dollar to the enlisted man who salutes him for the first time. I gave the Marine sentry a $5 bill. He said, “Sir, it’s only supposed to be $1.” I said, “Corporal, I feel five times better than the average ensign today.” He smiled; said, “Yes, sir;” and waived me into the beginning of my service in the Navy. I was proud to serve every day that I put on the uniform for the next four and a half years. I miss that particular sense of pride.

When I get back into the presence of a group of active-duty service members, as I did in Colorado, I easily reconnect to these feelings and that turns my attention to two mirrors – the rearview mirror of present doubt and the apartment mirror of past pride. At times like that, I try hard to focus on the latter.

I am proud to have served in uniform with the men and women of the United States military. May God bless and protect them.

I'll Take the Hog Dog, Please

I played 54 holes of golf in 28 hours this weekend, which was a little disappointing. Three work colleagues and I had hoped to play those holes in 27 hours so that we could average one hole every 30 minutes. That’s the problem with expectations – they always allow a little disappointment to leak into any experience. The 26-ounce T-bone steak that occupied the dinnertime between rounds didn’t disappoint, however; probably because I had no expectation of being able to finish it and I met that non-expectation.

We went to the coast to play three courses in Nipomo and Avila – Black Lake, Cypress Ridge and Avila Beach. As expected, I averaged 90 for the three rounds; thus, there was no disappointment in the golf, being the ambulatory bogie that I am. It was a fine time.

But, the thought crossed my mind several times that, as good as it was, it wasn’t nearly as much fun as being in Petco Park on a perfect evening in San Diego two weeks ago watching the Padres beat the Nationals with my son and his son. A half-pound Randy Jones hot dog slathered with hot mustard and onions certainly didn’t detract from the occasion – it was better than the T-bone. The evening was so nice that I hope to live long enough to add a fourth generation to that experience in about 25 years.

That night reminded me of other occasions with the newest generation in my family – like watching my oldest grandchild write, produce, direct, design the costumes for and then star in his backyard play; like spending an afternoon shopping for fishing gear with another grandson; like watching my oldest daughter’s son discover one new animal after another at the Wild Animal Park; or watching the younger grandchildren enjoy their first birthday parties or Christmas mornings. This is a list that I hope will grow long over the years.

Then there’s another layer of enjoyment in my life, an even deeper one. It’s being with my wife anywhere, anytime, doing anything that we enjoy together. It might be having breakfast on a Hawaiian veranda; or strolling through a flower, vegetable and fruit market in Nantucket; or gazing at the rock and white sand garden at the Ryoan-ji temple in Kyoto; or a daytrip to the LA County Museum of Art; or watching her enjoy the act of creating a new painting of her own in her home studio. This is a list that could go on and on and on.

Golfing with the guys is great, especially on some of the most beautiful courses around. But, there are better ways to spend a weekend; there are ways to make a hot dog better than a steak; and there may be nothing better than strolling hand-in-hand from the Jared Coffin House to a sidewalk market in Nantucket on an October morning.

Time For Party No. 3

I've never made two HOTS postings in one day, but I want to post an editorial by David Brooks from the New York Times because it's a natural extension of the sentiments expressed in my post earlier this morning. It addresses the partisan "flamers" and political "tribalism" in America, our own form of venomous Sunni-Shiite division. It's worth reading and thinking about.
_______________________________________

PARTY NO. 3

By DAVID BROOKS (NYT)
Published: August 10, 2006

There are two major parties on the ballot, but there are three major parties in America. There is the Democratic Party, the Republican Party and the McCain-Lieberman Party.

All were on display Tuesday night.

The Democratic Party was represented by its rising force -- Ned Lamont on a victory platform with the net roots exulting before him and Al Sharpton smiling just behind. The Republican Party was represented by its collapsing old guard -- scandal-tainted Tom DeLay trying to get his name removed from the November ballot. And the McCain-Lieberman Party was represented by Joe Lieberman himself, giving a concession speech that explained why polarized primary voters shouldn't be allowed to define the choices in American politics.

The McCain-Lieberman Party begins with a rejection of the Sunni-Shiite style of politics itself. It rejects those whose emotional attachment to their party is so all-consuming it becomes a form of tribalism, and who believe the only way to get American voters to respond is through aggression and stridency.

The flamers in the established parties tell themselves that their enemies are so vicious they have to be vicious too. They rationalize their behavior by insisting that circumstances have forced them to shelve their integrity for the good of the country. They imagine that once they have achieved victory through pulverizing rhetoric they will return to the moderate and nuanced sensibilities they think they still possess.

But the experience of DeLay and the net-root DeLays in the Democratic Party amply demonstrates that means determine ends. Hyper-partisans may have started with subtle beliefs, but their beliefs led them to partisanship and their partisanship led to malice and malice made them extremist, and pretty soon they were no longer the same people.

The McCain-Lieberman Party counters with constant reminders that country comes before party, that in politics a little passion energizes but unmarshaled passion corrupts, and that more people want to vote for civility than for venom.

On policy grounds, too, the McCain-Lieberman Party is distinct. On foreign policy, it agrees with Tony Blair (who could not win a Democratic primary in the U.S. today): The civilized world faces an arc of Islamic extremism that was not caused by American overreaction, and that will only get stronger if America withdraws.

On fiscal policy, the McCain-Lieberman Party sees a Republican Party that will not raise taxes and a Democratic Party that will not cut benefits, and understands that to avoid bankruptcy the country must do both.

On globalization, the McCain-Lieberman Party believes that free trade reduces poverty but that government must invest in human capital so people can compete. It believes in comprehensive immigration reform.

The McCain-Lieberman Party sees Democrats in the grip of teachers' unions and Republicans who let corporations write environmental rules. It sees two parties that depend on the culture war for internal cohesion and that make abortion a litmus test.

It sees two traditions immobilized to trench warfare.

The McCain-Lieberman Party is emerging because the war with Islamic extremism, which opened new fissures and exacerbated old ones, will dominate the next five years as much as it has dominated the last five. It is emerging because of deep trends that are polarizing our politics. It is emerging because social conservatives continue to pull the GOP rightward (look at how Representative Joe Schwarz, a moderate Republican, was defeated by a conservative rival in Michigan). It is emerging because highly educated secular liberals are pulling the Democrats upscale and to the left. (Lamont's voters are rich, and 65 percent call themselves liberals, compared with 30 percent of Democrats nationwide.)

The history of third parties is that they get absorbed into one of the existing two, and that will probably happen here. John McCain and Hillary Clinton will try to reconcile their centrist approaches with the hostile forces in their own parties. And maybe they will succeed (McCain has a better chance, since the ideologues on the right feel vulnerable while the ideologues on the left, perpetually two years behind the national mood, think the public wants more rage).

But amid the hurly-burly of the next few years -- the continuing jihad, Speaker Pelosi, a possible economic slowdown -- the old parties could become even more inflamed. Both could reject McCain-Liebermanism.

At that point things really get interesting.

The RNC Takes a Dump

Yesterday a federal judge in Detroit ruled that the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretap/surveillance program is unconstitutional and a violation of federal law. With several dozen lawsuits having been filed around the country challenging this highly controversial program, it was almost inevitable that one or more courts would rule in favor of the plaintiffs. After all, anyone who has had a basic political science or undergraduate constitutional law class can see the basis for several arguments against the program. Well, just about everyone.

Apparently, no one on the Reb National Committee can see any basis for any argument against warrantless wiretaps and surveillance. To me, that’s where the story lies. This post isn’t about supporting or attacking the program in question. I have no difficulty seeing reasonable arguments on each side and no difficulty seeing the likelihood that equally reasonable federal judges at the District Court level will disagree on the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in question. Clearly the issue will only be settled in the appellate courts. This post is about the mindless, and dangerous, RNC reaction to the decision yesterday.

The RNS issued a press release bearing the title, “Liberal Judge Backs Dem Agenda to Weaken National Security”. It’s hard to imagine jamming more idiocy into less than a sentence. Any person, be they Reb or Dim, should be offended by this disgusting reduction of a legitimate constitutional issue down to political fecal matter.

First, we get handed the now worn out reference to a “liberal judge”. Every cur in the RNC kennel howls this line every time any judge follows any line of reasoning that disagrees with their increasingly narrow agenda. It is an intellectually dishonest piece of ad hominem that has become the stock and trade of the nearly rabid American partisanship that gets served up to us day after day.

Next, we get told that this judge’s opinion isn’t just philosophically liberal but it is also supportive of a political agenda, in this case the Democratic agenda. First of all, there is precious little evidence that the Dims have any agenda, at least any cohesive agenda. Second, see the paragraph above. Third, this kind of polarized reasoning takes all issues of significance and divides them into two grossly simplistic piles (I’m not letting go of that fecal matter word picture) – the black and the white; the left and the right; the right and the wrong; the good and the bad; us vs. them; Reb vs. Dim; or whatever other dualistic division strikes your fancy. It’s moronic.

Finally, we get to the dangerous part – the ritualistic invocation of national security, which the Reb hierarchy now invokes like neo-clerical automatons. The assertion that the Democratic Party has an agenda to weaken national security is preposterous. Assertions like that are so inflammatory and deliberately divisive that they become threats to our national security in and of themselves. They are an affront to any thinking American, no matter which end of the political spectrum they spew from.

This argument takes the tact that if you don’t agree with me and my approach to securing the country, then you’re just another disloyal threat to our freedom and security. Terrorists have an agenda to weaken our national security; al – Qaeda has an agenda to weaken our national security; Iran and North Korea have an agenda to weaken our national security. But neither the Rebs nor the Dims have anything of the kind and any assertion that they do is a disservice to the country.

It’s fair game to argue all day long about which party has the best agenda for strengthening our national security. Let the debates on that point go on and let the American people make their choice in November 2006 and 2008, just like they did, like it or not, in November 2002 and 2004. But, it is an entirely different matter to turn the debate inside out and declare that one or the other American political party, each one of which represents approximately half of the American people, has an agenda to weaken our national security. Again, it’s a moronic notion. And when partisan morons rule, national security is in danger.

A Morning Ride

Yesterday morning on the way to work, on a workday that I expected to be anything other than pleasant, I saw a more than pleasant scene that took the edge off that expectation. I saw a woman riding down the sidewalk in a motorized wheelchair. It wasn’t immediately obvious what ailment or disability may have made that chair necessary, but I assume that anyone who has a motorized wheelchair is probably not dealing with a temporary condition.

I briefly wondered, what were her expectations for the day? Did it include pain or medication, or did it simply include the day-to-day grind of getting around and getting by with limited mobility.

But as I approached her it took only a second for my attention to rest on two other, much more important things. This woman had two young girls riding on her lap, one on each leg, facing each other. The woman appeared young enough for the two girls to be her children; but she appeared old enough that they could have been her grandchildren. It was the second observation that froze my attention – this woman had a huge smile on her face and then she appeared to laugh with gusto. So did the children. The three of them appeared to be enjoying their morning ride immensely – they seemed happy with life at that moment.

At that moment, I stopped wondering about what illness or injury in the past had put the woman in that chair and I stopped speculating about what the rest of the day held for her – and what the rest of the day held for me. I realized as I passed them that I was smiling and that I was enjoying the moment, too.

This fleeting encounter reminded me to stay with the here and now, to remember that the present moment is filled with potentiality, most of which, and sometimes all of which, never comes into our awareness because we’re looking in the rearview mirror or practicing “defensive driving” by focusing down the road. That’s a good way to drive; but it’s a poor way to live. When we live that way we miss the gifts that life brings us in each moment. We miss the woman and the two children enjoying a morning ride in a wheelchair. And we miss the opportunity to smile and to laugh with others. We miss life, and that’s something we can’t afford to do.

Breathing In Life As It Should Be

I just concluded a road trip that took me to San Diego for three days and then to Colorado Springs for five days. Visiting two places like that can create reentry issues when returning to Bakersfield in August. Sure, the difference in temperature is readily felt, but it’s the dustiness and attendant brownness that are most apparent to me. I’m having trouble shaking the visions of blue skies, white cumulus clouds, and green grasslands, not to mention the mild temperatures and occasionally refreshing summer rain that I thoroughly enjoyed for five days and nights in Colorado Springs. My traveling companion and I immediately noticed that there was a distinct freshness to the air there; it had a sensual quality to it.

My home town has recently been involved in a debate about a proposed city slogan that proudly proclaims that Bakersfield is “Life as it should be.” The public response, to the extent that can be measured by letters to the editor or local blogs, has been decidedly skeptical about adopting that somewhat presumptuous proclamation. Even the most ardent supporters of our city are able to see daylight, albeit dust-laden daylight, between life as it is here and now and “life as it should be”. San Diego and Colorado Springs, while not perfect by any means, are more clearly competitive for such a lofty designation.

I admit that San Diego has several of the downsides of a large metropolitan area and Colorado Springs is not green and mild in the winter when the precipitation often doesn’t qualify as refreshing. These places have their faults and shortcomings and aren’t sterling examples of “life as it should be” in every respect. On any given day, and under certain circumstances, life can be better in Bakersfield, I suppose.

For ages people have believed that all things are comprised of four basic elements – earth, water, heat (fire) and air. Some add the element of space, which is different than air. Others add consciousness, but that takes us down another path. The point being that the quality of the earth, water, heat (temperature) and air are essential to the quality of life. For me, and this is all very subjective, the distinguishing physical characteristic between my city and cities like San Diego and Colorado Springs is the air.

Bakersfield has high quality earth and water. The quality of its heat is subject to personal preference but, again, on any given day it can beat the heat, or lack thereof, being experienced in a lot of other places. The fact that Bakersfield is part of California’s San Joaquin Valley, the most productive agricultural area in the world, attests to its blend of high quality earth, water and heat.

But, the air is another story. While it’s true that the air in Bakersfield is better than it was 10 or 20 years ago, it’s still, relatively speaking, the worst or second worst in the country in certain respects. Our air conditioning maintenance man, clearly an expert in the field of conditioning the ambient air, recently told us that our city is experiencing significantly more, not less, failures in AC units due to an increased accumulation of particulate matter in those units – i.e., the brown stuff that seems to fill all spaces and cover all things here, at least during this time of the year.

It’s fair for people here to decide that they will settle for having two or three out of the four basic elements in the high-quality column (again, there could be debate about the heat). Clearly, that’s more of “life as it should be” than can be found in the long list of places that have fewer check marks in that column. Still – the air is so omnipresent! Of the four basic elements, it’s the one that is unavoidable; the one that can’t be enriched by adding nutrients (earth) or enhanced by being bottled (water) or mitigated by HVAC systems (heat).

The air is what it is, for better or for worse. We have two basic choices: breathe it or leave it. Actually, there are two other choices regarding the air: you can choose to live where you can see it or to live where you can’t see it. You can see it as you breathe it in Bakersfield; you can’t see it in Colorado Springs. If you want to consume dirt in Colorado Springs you have to bend down and grab a handful of it and shove it in your mouth. In five days there I never saw anyone do that. In Bakersfield, you just need to take breaths. In 19 years here I’ve seen everyone in this city do this every minute of every day.

The point of this babble is obvious – air matters a great deal when it comes to the quality of life and we should pay close attention to what we suck into our lungs 15,000 – 20,000 times a day. If what we breathe isn’t good for us for any reason, then we should do something about it and that effort should be consistent and aggressive. If we’re gong to make such a hullabaloo about second-hand smoke from cigarettes, then we should be equally focused on toxic smoke from all other sources. There should be no exceptions – every person, every business, every industry, and every community must do all that it can do to improve the quality of the air. We owe that to ourselves, but we especially owe that to our children because they breathe what they do and where they do because of our choices, not theirs.

When it rains in Bakersfield or when a wind blows and the bad air is suddenly and almost magically removed from our valley for a few days or even for a few hours, then we’re given a pleasant glimpse of “life as it should be”. On those days, this is a beautiful place to live, with mountains framing our view on three sides. On those days, we’re fond of observing how “close the mountains are today.” On those days, someone could visit here and then return home to Colorado Springs and tell their neighbors, “The folks in Bakersfield have a great slogan, “Life as it should be.”

Welcome Home, Dorothy

Finally, there’s once again evidence of intelligent design in Kansas, or at least enough evidence to support a theory of intelligent design in Kansas. Dorothy can come back home now, having spent enough time wandering through the poppy fields in Ozzie land.

Kansas voters reversed their devolutionary slide into the backwoods of education by effectively electing a majority of pro-evolution members to their state board of education. The final makeup of the board won’t be decided until November, but the results of this week’s Reb primary ensure a new majority that can speak the name Darwin without being sent down the hall to have their mouths washed out with soap.

Last year, Kansas made international news when its state board rewrote the definition of science so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena. A 6 – 4 majority on that board favored classroom standards that muffled the big-bang theory, significantly devalued Darwinian concepts, and required the teaching of intelligent design in all science classes. A primordial groan was heard round the world as Kansas adopted a flying monkey as its state mascot.

I have no problem with the belief that there’s evidence of ID in the universe. I have no problem with the belief that the world exists at the hand of a creative power, aka God. At this point in my evolution, I have no problem believing in both. However, these ideas are neither scientific facts nor scientific theories. They’re matters of religious faith and personal philosophy.

Evolution, on the other hand, belongs in a science class. I don’t care whether we call it a scientific fact or a scientific theory. What matters to me is that it’s either, with “scientific” being the common element. At this point in my evolution, I have no problem accepting evolution as a scientific fact. If others want to keep it in the theoretical bucket, as part of scientific debate, that’s fine.

As for creationism, which adheres to the biblical notion that the world was actually created in six days only six thousand years ago, there’s no way that notion belongs in a science class. It barely belongs in a religion class and it doesn’t have enough credibility to make the cut in a philosophy class. It’s poppycock. Although, I must admit that if we could add one more six to the creation equation, maybe by believing that God wrapped up creation at 6PM on the 6th day of the last week in the 6th thousandth year, thereby making it a catchy 6-6-6 theory, then we’d have a devil of a time resisting what would clearly become one hell of an idea.

There are people who see ID as a Trojan horse for creationism, fearing that any teaching of ID will eventually remove its smirking mask and reveal the underlying six day / six thousand year idea. I can make enough distinction between ID and creationism to not dismiss the former for the sins of the latter. More importantly, I see no reason why ID and evolution can’t peacefully coexist. The proposition that evolution is evidence of intelligent design sits okay with me. Adaptability seems intelligent; natural selection seems intelligent. The idea that a creature would crawl out of a swamp so it can learn to walk, cover up its genitals, cook meat over a fire, use a wheel, learn to read, print money and then earn enough of it to buy a couple of iPods – all seems intelligent to me.

But peaceful coexistence still doesn’t mean teaching both subjects in a science class. Any teaching of ID in public school belongs in a social studies, philosophy or history of religion class; it does not belong in a biology, chemistry or physics class.

But, there’s another approach that appeals to me – teach evolution in the science classroom and then teach intelligent design in the Sunday school classroom and in the No. 1classroom otherwise known as home. It’s interesting to me that the supporters of teaching ID in public schools seem to believe that they can’t adequately balance the things their kids learn at school by what they teach their kids in church and, much more importantly, by what they teach them at home. There’s a long list of subjects that kids are taught at church and home that no one would seriously consider adding to the public school curriculum. How did pastors and parents suddenly become incapable or inadequate in teaching ID or creationism or a story about flying monkeys to the children in their charge?

Frankly, pastors and parents are neither incapable nor inadequate. This has simply become another issue intended to fan the flame of our ongoing cultural war between liberals and conservatives; between believers and non-believers; between Dims and Rebs; between secularists and sectarians – between the right and the wrong and the good and the bad. But, in the Kansas primary it took on a newly honed divisive edge. There, this issue was used to define the difference between a moderate and a conservative Republican. Next, we’ll see issues of this ilk used to define the difference between true conservatives and neoconservatives; then between the religions right and the religious far right; then between ….

The Bible says that a house divided will not stand. We’re in the process of falling over in this country because we’ve become addicted to division and to the overwhelming need to be right. That’s what happens when you wander around in a land filled with poppy fields. Even the innocent Dorothy couldn’t keep from falling asleep on that path. Maybe the Sunflower State can show us a better way.

What Evil Lurks ...?

The popular old radio show, The Shadow, opened with the line, “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!” Perhaps it would be good for each of us to ask ourselves what evil lurks in our hearts and to consult our “shadow” to help get an answer. The character in the radio show did his crime-fighting, justice-dispensing work by employing the ability to “cloud men’s minds.” We might also ask, how clouded have our minds become under the influence of our shadow? (I offer my apologies to all Jungian psychologists who might furrow their brow at my shallow “shadow” references.)

This post is prompted by Mel Gibson getting arrested for a DUI early Friday. The story isn’t about another celeb getting tagged for an alcohol or drug offense. That’s just gossip fodder. The obvious story lies in the anti-Semitic rant that Gibson went into during the arrest. He’s admitted making the remarks, including a declaration that “the Jews are responsible for all wars in the world,” and asking one of the deputies, “Are you a Jew?” The relevance of those statements, which came from a clearly clouded mind, remains a mystery to everyone other than Mr. Gibson’s rather dark shadow.

Charges of anti-Semitism aren’t new to Gibson. When he released his religious blockbuster, The Passion of the Christ, he was hounded by accusations that he was laying the blame for the crucifixion of Christ at the feet of the Jews. Then there’s his seriously off-center father, Hutton Gibson, who denies the scope if not the reality of the Holocaust and believes that the Second Vatican Council was an anti-Catholic plot unfolded by conspiring Masons and Jews. The senior Mr. Gibson also maintains that the 9/11 attacks were done by “remote control” rather than by Islamist terrorists on the planes. (Pause for effect.)

Biblical insinuation notwithstanding, sons shouldn’t be held accountable for the sins of the fathers. The issue for Gibson on this score is that he’s never put any distance, healthy or otherwise, between his father’s beliefs and his own, leaving people to speculate that father and son share similar beliefs on the Holocaust in particular and Jews in general. When ABC yesterday cancelled Gibson’s pending mini-series on the Holocaust, Yale law professor Jack Balkin delivered the quip of the day when, referring to the mini-series, he said, “Apparently it has a surprise ending.”

Now, under the influence of a .12% blood alcohol level, the real Mel Gibson may have leaked out. It’s clear that there’s something lurking in that heart of his and, to his credit, he seems to sense that, too. His mea culpa statement says that he’s “in the process of understanding where those vicious words came from.” He should ask The Shadow, who knows the answer – it’s in the heart.

There may be apologists who say he can’t be held accountable for drunken babble “blurted out in a moment of insanity,” as Mr. Gibson put it. But, I’m not trying to hold Mel Gibson accountable; others can do that. I’m interested in something more important – namely, exploring the extent to which the rest of us have evil lurking in our hearts that will come out when some substance or event simply unhooks the restraints. How much bigotry resides in our hearts; how much bigotry resides in my heart? Mel Gibson isn’t the only person with evil-lurking issues. There are shadows everywhere.

Mr. Gibson has declared, “I am not a bigot. Hatred of any kind goes against my faith.” Well, Mel, every fiber of my external self wants to declare to all within the sound of my voice, “I am not a bigot; I am not a racist; I do not harbor ethnic, religious or gender prejudice!” I suspect every member of my family and every close friend I have wants to declare the same thing. I wouldn’t associate with anyone who I believed to be a bigot, a racist or seriously prejudiced. (I confess that I’m just a tad prejudiced about self-righteous uber-conservatives, but how can that be anything other than helping the fight for truth, justice and the American way!)

Back to the point – is the evil of bigotry in me? Is it in you? Are we as free of this and other evil as we believe we are? What happens when, for whatever reason, through whatever means, the doors to our inner chambers suddenly swing open and the lurking presence is freed? What does my shadow want to declare? What is capable of coming from my unprotected heart when my protecting mind is clouded? I’m not sure. Who can be sure without going into those chambers and finding out for themselves, rather than waiting for some revelation to occur at 2:15AM on the side of some highway.

I certainly hope that Mr. Gibson can make something good come from his misfortune as he attempts, in his words, “to discern the appropriate path for healing.” But I’m more introspective about what I and others can make of it. I believe the path of healing for all of us is the path upon which we all lay down our collective ego – our race-based; ethnic-based; religion-based; partisan-based; economic-based; social-based; or culture-based ego that compels us to divide the world into grossly simplistic categories and declare with such self assurance, “We’re right and they’re wrong; we’re good and they’re bad; we’re righteous and they’re evil; we’re saved and they’re damned; we’re educated and they’re ignorant; we’re wise and they’re foolish; we deserve what we have and they deserve what they don’t have.”

Mr. Gibson, following the lead of noted LA philosopher, Rodney King, says the issue is about “existing in harmony in a world that seems to have gone mad.” Maybe he’s right. But what madness in the world exists outside the ego-driven dualistic model represented by the string of statements above? Not much.

What evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows, indeed.

Hey, Sport - Poker is Not One of You

Can we all agree on something that seems beyond obvious – poker is not a sport! The “World Series of Poker” is going on right now and it’s being covered in the sports section of the newspaper. What’s that about? Just because someone hangs a “World Series” tag on something doesn’t make it a sport. What’s in next weeks sports section – a friggin’ bridge “tournament”?

Assuming there’s any news in a group of people playing poker for a big wad, it should go in the entertainment section, which is filled with “news” about the things people do with time and money to waste. I have nothing against poker or most anything else that people do for entertainment, but just because they’re having fun or are engaged in some “activity” or are involved in some degree of “competition” against other people doesn’t make their pastime a sport. It’s equally obvious that just because something isn’t a sport doesn’t mean that it’s not worthwhile and enjoyable (wow, that’s a seldom-used triple negative; I should probably rewrite it, but I don’t want to because they’re so rare). People can have a lot of fun sending a lot of time and losing a lot of money at a card table – it just isn’t a sport.

I’ll be the first to admit that there’s a measure of luck in most sports, but it’s not the ever-present and dominate reality like it is in poker. You can be the best poker “player” in the world and get absolutely tromped time and time again by nothing more than the proverbial “bad draw”. Also, you can bet on a sport, but you can’t bet in a sport. If you bet on a sport while you’re playing in that sport, then they’ll kick you out of the sport. In fact, you can be banned for life for betting on while you’re playing in.

Sports involves athletes and athletic training; sports involves extraordinary physical skills and amazing hand-eye coordination; sports involves jumping high, running fast, hitting long, throwing hard, and shooting straight when there’s a hand in your face or a body on your back; sports have referees, umpires, linesmen and field judges; sports have clocks, timers, innings, quarters, half time, periods, overtime, and sudden death; sports involves penalty flags, penalty kicks, and penalty shots; sports involves keeping score in points, runs, baskets, goals, times, percentages and other stats that people talk and argue about on Monday morning; sports have record books that kids dream about getting into some day.

Sports are what they do at the Olympics; sports are what cheerleaders cheer for in high school and college; sports involves coaches, managers, trainers, travel secretaries, ball boys, and ball girls; sports involves teams or teamwork among individuals or individuals doing what could be done by teams; sports have people wearing uniforms that have names, numbers, team affiliations, and sponsor logos on them; sports gets people on the front of a Wheaties box or into Gatorade commercials. Sports are … well, you know … sports.

Now that I’m on the subject, I don’t think hunting and fishing are sports, either, and putting them in the sports section of the paper is only slightly more appropriate than putting poker in there. Hunting and fishing are, respectively, hunting and fishing. Just because a few guys get together, stop shaving, get sweaty, stop showering, take deep breathes of fresh air, and scratch their crotches while drinking beer together doesn’t make it a sport. In this instance, sudden death isn’t enough to make it a sport. It’s an outdoor activity; nothing more, nothing less. It can be damn good fun, but if there’s any news associated with it then put that news in the outdoor section or the entertainment section. Or, start calling the sports section the “Sports and Outdoor Activities” section. Just make it clear that these things aren’t sports.

And, dog racing – dog racing isn’t a sport, either. I’ll cut horse racing a little slack because the jockeys are athletes who train hard and meet several of the criteria for sports. But dog racing – that is not a sport. Anyone who has ever made the mistake of placing a bet on a greyhound knows that dogs are just as likely to stop in the backstretch and take a dump as they are to keep chasing that mechanical rabbit. In fact that word picture points out a couple of other criteria for identifying a sport – if taking a dump or a mechanical rabbit is involved, it isn’t a sport.

Are we clear on this? Because if we’re not clear on this, I could go on and on for a very long time.