Liberty Postings

It was only two weeks ago that I wrote about the lovely comments made by State Representative Richard Floyd regarding his desire to “stomp a mudhole” in any transgendered individual who tries on a new blouse in the proximity of his spouse.  Today, State Senator Stacey Campfield took to the airwaves and made Floyd sound, in comparison, like someone who could lead the next LGBT Pride Parade.

Campfield visited a show on XM radio and shared this fantastic insight into a health epidemic that has caused devastation around the world for three decades:

“Most people realize that AIDS came from the homosexual community — it was one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men. It was an airline pilot, if I recall. My understanding is that it is virtually — not completely, but virtually — impossible to contract AIDS through heterosexual sex…very rarely [transmitted]. What’s the average lifespan of a homosexual? it’s very short. Google it yourself.”

There is so much going on in these five lines that my head is spinning in my attempt to digest it and write coherently about how ill-informed and absurd these comments are . . . made by a man who has actually been elected to office . . . more than once!

(Side note — For those of you familiar with Senator Campfield’s blog, to which I often look for inspiration concerning how to craft elegant and persuasive prose, you will realize that if Campfield had written these words instead of speaking them, it would have appeared something like “scrooing a monkee.”)

It’s shocking how irresponsible an elected official can be in stating publicly that it’s virtually impossible to contract AIDS through heterosexual sex.  Luckily, the average ninth grader who’s completed a semester of Health class knows better than that.  The CDC reports that in 2009, nearly 30% of new HIV infections in the United States were due to heterosexual sex.  I know it’s some tricky math, but I don’t think that qualifies as “very rarely.”  In the rest of the world, the AIDS crisis that rages on is overwhelmingly furthered by unprotected heterosexual sex . . . between two humans (just thought I would add that in case Campfield wants to continue to blame the monkey for ongoing risky sexual decisions).

The fact that Campfield says these ridiculous things out loud, and that some of his constituents might actually believe him, is simply dangerous.  Let’s see how Campfield’s “very rarely” conclusion holds up when placed against the 14 million orphans of the AIDS crisis in southern Africa.  Those precious children are without a mom or a dad because of a virus transmitted through heterosexual sex.

And, I like that the fine Senator falls back on the always handy “gay guy = guy who engages in bestiality” equation.  He makes it sound like a pilot put his plane on cruise control, invited a primate into the cockpit for some intimate inter-species relations, and immediately following that encounter, walked up and down the aisles to have sex with multiple unsuspecting men who then landed and . . . boom . . . started the AIDS epidemic.

It is true that transmission of HIV is higher as a result of gay sex than heterosexual sex, and that AIDS began primarily as a disease within the gay community in our country, but this is not a “gay disease” that flourished from a one-night stand with a monkey.  It is widely accepted that the virus first spread from chimpanzees to humans in the early 20th century, likely to bushmeat hunters in Africa who had a lot of exposure to the infected animals and had the infected blood pass through a cut in their skin.  These hunter dudes then had sex with lots of WOMEN (and probably some men, too . . . I’m not discounting that factor) and the virus took off.

I assume that the statistics about the lifespan of homosexuals that Senator Campfield wants us to discover through our Googling are based on the “research” done by Dr. Paul Cameron and the Family Research Institute, which has been thoroughly debunked by multiple scientific organizations and by anyone who can read the methodology with any level of critical thinking.  Cameron sampled obituaries posted in gay magazines and newspapers and said, “Look at how young all the gay people are dying!”  Oh, that’s conclusive.

Maybe we should ask questions like, “Is it possible that some older men and women just never were comfortable sharing their sexuality publicly?” or “Is it possible that just the untimely deaths by AIDS were being highlighted in order to raise awareness about the disease?” or “Is it possible that some gay men and women were never accepted by their families and therefore there was no one to write the obituary of the 90-year-old lesbian who lived down the street?”  Or, maybe Cameron was just looking for an excuse to thumb through hundreds of gay publications.  Whatever his motivation, Dr. Cameron’s efforts have gotten him expelled from both the American Psychological Association and American Sociological Association and his work has never been published in a reputable journal of his field.

Sadly, this is about what I would expect from Senator Campfield, so I shouldn’t be surprised.  He has a fine and well-deserved track record of absurdity.  It just makes me sad that some people in this state that I have now called home for almost a decade and love dearly actually want this guy representing our interests and priorities in the General Assembly.  That truth is stranger than the fiction that the senator was spewing today.

Over the past week or so, I’ve seen the image above posted on the Facebook walls of several friends.  And, it’s bothered me for a couple of reasons.  First, there should not be an apostrophe in 1970s.  But beyond my frustration with the widespread sharing of poor punctuation, I don’t understand why the fun in the photo has to be a thing of the past.

I’ve written plenty of times about my approach to parenting –  letting my kids play outside without standing right next to them, walking or riding the bus to school, giving them the opportunity to bleed, cry, and fail once in a while — and I get we all have our own way of doing things.  We all love our kids and want the best for them.  Each mom (or dad) has to do what she thinks is best for her kid and there are countless different ways to be a great parent.

All that being said, I honestly don’t get why building a ramp and flying off the end of it with your big wheel or bike or scooter has to be considered a relic of the past.  Can you help me with this one?  People have commented on the photo, “I wish our kids could do things like this” and “We had such a blast.  Wouldn’t change a thing!  Our kids will never experience this feeling.”  Why not?  Why not use the next sunny day to say, “Hey, kid of mine!  See that cinderblock over there?  Put that piece of plywood on top of it.  Now ride your bike really fast over it!”  If you don’t want them to be unsupervised, stand five feet away and watch them.  Heck, go ahead and have the Neosporin and bandaids at the ready.  Winter is the perfect season to give it a try — more layers of clothes to protect the skin!

If you take a look at that photo, that kid has MAYBE two and a half feet of air under him . . . the injuries sustained from that height can’t be that bad.  Surely the possibility of a few scrapes and bruises can’t even come close to the beautiful look of both thrill and terror on that boy’s face, and the absolute pride he probably felt when he came back to the ground, quickly pedaling his bike back behind the ramp to do it again.

Were you allowed to use your imagination to create backyard or playground adventures that bordered on dangerous and physically painful when you were a child?  If so, did your mom love you less than you love your kids? 

I agree that some safety measures that have been implemented since the 1970s are a good thing.  I get that buckling my two-year-old son into a car seat is important and gives him a much safer riding experience than I had at his age, which would have been in 1977.  But, it makes me sad that simple, outdoor, mildly risky fun with nary an electronic device in the picture has to be seen as a nostalgic memory from times of yore.

I showed this photo to my daughter and she is very excited to build a ramp at the end of our dead end street this weekend.  She’s even found the perfect materials left in our garage by the previous homeowners.  We invite you to come on over with your bikes, skateboards, or whatever wheels you may have!  Several of our neighbors, who I am pleased to say routinely engage in daredevil acts up and down our street, hopeully will be joining in the fun.  My girl is going to rev up that princess bike of hers and let it fly.  We’re bringing a little bit of the 1970s into 2012!

So, tonight an interview with Marianne Gingrinch  is supposed to air on ABC that is going to shock the world.  I have my doubts.  If she is going to share that Newt Gingrich is a pompous, self-absorbed cad who considers himself above the standard morals by which normal married men are expected to conduct themselves, then I think you can go ahead and file that under “Least Shocking Stories of 2012.”   

The former Mrs. Gingrinch is entering into her tell-all interview with a couple of credibility issues.  First of all, she was once a mistress herself, as she started dating Newt “Super Stud” Gingrich while he was still married to his first wife.  So, crying foul about an affair loses a bit of its traction here.  She should have paid more attention to that “once a cheater . . .” line her friends and her mama tried to tell her.  Also, she is an ex-wife.  No matter what, and as spot on as she may be about the despicable way in which Gingrich treated the covenant of their marriage and the fact that he does not have the character needed to lead our nation, she will be painted as bitter and vindictive.  Raise your hand out there if you have an “ex.”  How many of them would describe you as a wonderful person who skips through fields with puppies and betters the world of everyone you meet?  I actually feel sorry for her, that she feels the need to broadcast their marital troubles more than a decade after the divorce.  Let it go.

This morning, a local talk show host asked supporters of Gingrinch to call in and state whether or not Marianne Gingrich could say anything tonight that would change their minds about their candidate.  Most of them said that Mrs. Gingrich (#2) had no impact no their love for The Newt because his personal life doesn’t affect his ability to lead the nation, he has sought redemption from God, he’s a strong conversative, and he could beat President Obama. 

Thought One:  How many Newt supporters who now overlook his “indiscretions” for the chance to have a Republican back in the Oval Office thought that President Clinton was the biggest sleaze ever and that his character defamed the office of the Presidency?  Let’s be consistent, people.  The argument can be made that a man can cheat on his wife with a different woman every week and still run a country well, but that has to apply whether or not you like the guy’s policies.

Thought Two:  I know I’m not supposed to judge what is in a man’s heart and I really have  no way of knowing what kind of conversations Newt Gingrich has had with God.  But, I’m not buying it.  I think he is simply saying the words he knows conservative voters need to hear.  I get the feeling that Gingrinch is the type of guy who doesn’t really feel the need to apologize or seek forgiveness for anything ever. 

Here’s the thing, though.  If I had the opportunity to vote in a primary today (although I barely consider myself a Republican at this point because it’s hard to find any true small-government leaders in my party) and given the choices put before us, I would cast my ballot for Newt.  He seems like he’s pretty much a jerk, his ego is out of control, and he just may walk out of negotiations with another world leader in a tantrum when he doesn’t get his way, but he’s the best we’ve got.  (I hereby give the Gingrinch campaign permission to use the previous sentence in campaign literature or television ads.)   I like a lot of what he has to say during the debates.  I would be the first to sign up my kids to work cleaning up their school in order to learn about work ethic and how to handle a paycheck.  I do believe that unemployment checks, at least those that are given for an extended period of time, should come with job training.  I do think we should have a 15% flat tax.  I do want to shrink the Department of Education and put more control back locally.  And, so on.  That’s where I am. 

Will I tune into the interview tonight?  Probably not.  I’ll read the highlights and then listen to Mrs. Gingrich (#2) get trashed on talk radio in the morning for ruining a real conservative’s chance at the White House by the same people who probably condemned their political adversaries in the past for Newt-like behavior.  That will suffice as my political entertainment for the day.

I love the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  I love reading them in print and hearing King himself speak the words in front of crowds with an eloquence that most leaders today can only envy.  He is one of my heroes as a writer.  I stand in awe of the fact that he was only a couple years older than me when he was tragically assassinated and how much he accomplished in so few years.

Many others have shared quotes today from King’s “I Have a Dream” speech and these well-known words are always worth repeating.  However, I decided to spend some time tonight looking back on thoughts concerning the collective and the individual shared by Dr. King and what they mean for us today.

“Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both.” Martin Luther King, Jr. addressing the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1967

King stood both for the value of a collective society and the difference that can made by a single individual.  He knew that we could not reach our potential as a society unless we cared for the least among us, as he would have learned reading the words of Jesus while growing up as a Christian.  How can you be happy with millions of dollars in your bank account when you know there are children who went to bed without anything to eat?  How could you teach your children that others are less valuable than them because of the color of their skin?  Do you not see amazing potential for a nation in which we all truly cared for our neighbors and made their concerns, their fears, and their celebrations our own?

I hope my children grow up to be wildly successful, and that includes financially.  There is no shame in creating wealth for yourself.  Work hard, spend wisely, and enjoy the fruits of your labor.  But, I also want my kids to give of their money,  and more importantly of their time, with a passion and dedication that exceeds that of their investment in self.  I want them always to be aware of what is happening to the family across town that just learned dad lost his job, or the young girl who lives in Appalachia who attends a school in which the roof leaks and the heat doesn’t work, or the terrified teenage girl who is about to become a mom and has never known real love or what it means to have a support system, or the senior citizen who sits alone in a nursing home for weeks without visitors.  I want my son and my daughter to know that the circumstances of others matter and it is their responsibility and their privilege to make a positive difference in our society as a collective.

“There is nothing more dangerous than to build a society with a large segment of people in that society who feel that they have no stake in it; who feel that that have nothing to lose. People who have stake in their society, protect that society, but when they don’t have it, they unconsciously want to destroy it.”

We all need to have our stake in this society.  This includes a financial investment.  When half of the people in this country do not pay federal income tax in 2012, they have no stake in how our money is being spent or, in many instances, wasted.  They aren’t anxious to protect a society that is (should be?) built on fiscal responsibility and careful guardianship for the generations to follow when it isn’t their money that is at stake.  Like it or not, one way in which we collectively strengthen a society is by making sure that ALL of us contribute individually.  We all deserve that respect of worth and inclusion.

Beyond the impersonal stake created by paying taxes, how many of us don’t feel connected to the people we have chosen to represent us or don’t know our kids’ teachers or don’t even know the names of our neighbors?  And, isn’t that our responsibility to change?  Are our stakes planted in this society?  We must take some of the blame if we have never attended a town hall meeting with our congressman or asked what we can do to help our kids succeed in their classes or knocked on the door of the new person in the neighborhood and offered to help unpack a few boxes or cook a meal.  We can’t leave it to others, and certainly not to government, which is more than happy to take over, to plant these stakes for us.

“Everybody can be great…because anybody can serve. You don’t have to have a college degree to serve. You don’t have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.”

Embedded within the value of helping the collective is the worth and importance of each individual.  There are millions of different paths to finding significance in your own life and the lives of others.  Maybe that means you don’t go to college and earn a degree.  Maybe you do.  We each have the exciting and sometimes overwhelming opportunity to create our own course in life.  I’ve already shared with my daughter that college is only one possible direction for her to take after high school.  I just want her self-chosen path to be one of substance and significance, both for her as an individual and for the people she touches as she takes her journey.

“I want to suggest some of the things that should begin your life’s blueprint. Number one in your life’s blueprint, should be a deep belief in your own dignity, your worth and your own somebodiness. Don’t allow anybody to make you feel that you’re nobody. Always feel that you count. Always feel that you have worth, and always feel that your life has ultimate significance.

And when you discover what you will be in your life, set out to do it as if God Almighty called you at this particular moment in history to do it. don’t just set out to do a good job. Set out to do such a good job that the living, the dead or the unborn couldn’t do it any better.

 If a man is called to be a streetsweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great streetsweeper who did his job well.” — spoken to students at Barratt Junior High School in Philadelphia in 1967 (one of my favorite speeches by Dr. King ever — I get chills every time I read it.)

ONE person can change the course of a society.  ONE person can develop a new idea and create thousands of jobs.  ONE person can reach out to another who is in pain and offer comfort through a hug and an offer to listen.  How are we doing at valuing the individual today?  Is every little boy and girl being instilled with the belief that they can achieve anything?  Do we have a national identity in which kids can dream big?  Just as importantly, do our kids value the notion that even the smallest choice or contribution they make matters?

Have we taught our kids the essential importance of work and how it should be approached with pride no matter the task?  I don’t care if you are flipping burgers or fixing toilets or building a rocket or signing bills in the Rose Garden.  You should work hard and stand tall knowing that you have done your best at whatever you have been called to do in that moment.  How many young men fresh out of high school would accept a job as streetsweeper in 2012 and do it with pride, as if they were painting like Michelangelo?  How many children have we raised into young adults who believe that certain jobs are just beneath them and that instead someone else should provide for them?  Dr. King taught us that no task is devoid of meaning and that we should expect the best from ourselves at all times.  Even if your ultimate life dream may have you scoring a touchdown in the NFL or making million-dollar trades on Wall Street, there is no shame in any hard labor you must do before you reach that desired destination.

So, what do you think?  Where do we stand now, fifty years after Dr. King and his peers engaged in a civil rights movement that changed our nation forever, in valuing both our strengths as a thriving collective and as unique individuals?  How are we doing at caring about the plight of others and what it means for the betterment of all of us as a society?  And, how are we doing at valuing the contributions, the worth, and the dignity of the individual?

It’s one of those instances that you already can see being played out on The Daily Show before it even happens.  Jon Stewart lampoons a ridiculous legislator saying something ridiculous (and, in this case, rather horrific) and then everyone in the studio audience gets a good laugh out of just how ridiculous the whole thing is . . .  while you cringe and think to yourself, “Yep, he is actually an elected official in my state.”

Every state can claim its share of yahoos who somehow manage to be deemed fit to represent the people living within a designated geographic portion within its borders.  State houses across our great land are home to some men and women who will leave you stunned at the ideas and opinions that come out of their mouths.  I can think of several such folks right here in Tennessee, and today I choose to highlight one of them — Rep. Richard Floyd, a Republican out of Chattanooga.  (I’m thinking that given his location, perhaps we can gently nudge him across the border and try to convince Georgia to take him.)

Rep. Floyd, in the spirit of limited government and personal liberty upon which this nation was founded, wants to check your panties before you enter a public restroom or dressing room.  Or, if you refuse such inspection, a simple presentation of your birth certificate will do.  Why?  The fine legislator wants to make sure that all of us are only going into the bathroom that is designated for our gender.  Uh oh.  My 2 1/2 year old son better learn to use a urinal and reach the bathroom sink real quick in the men’s room because he can’t come in the ladies’ room with me anymore!

Of course, the real motivation behind Floyd’s bill is not to separate parents and children when the need to use a public facility arises (although questions have been raised about how the bill affects such situations).  Instead, he wants to keep those transgendered folk away from the rest of us.  And, if this bill doesn’t succeed in passing (and I am pleased to say that it seems to be unpopular among his constituents for being so . . . as I already mentioned . . . ridiculous), Rep. Floyd has made it clear that he intends to address the problem himself.  In his own words, proudly shared with the public:

“I believe if I was standing at a dressing room and my wife or one of my daughters was in the dressing room and a man tried to go in there — I don’t care if he thinks he’s a woman and tries on clothes with them in there — I’d just try to stomp a mudhole in him and then stomp him dry.”

How sweet.  I must admit, I’m not sure exactly how one goes about stomping a mudhole in someone, let alone proceed to then stomp said mudhole dry, but it doesn’t sound like an act of kindness.  What a vile thing to say.  I wonder if he shares these thoughts with his fellow members at the Baptist church he attends in Chattanooga or while attending the Christian Businessmen Committee or while participating in the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (all of which he touts on his page on the state government website).  I could be wrong, but I don’t think that “stomping a mudhole” in people is part of the Great Commission we read in Acts.

If you are going to threaten violence against someone because you don’t like the way they are living their lives and believe these life choices may threaten you or your loved ones, even if no harm has actually been done or directly threatened, then I’ve got some more suggestions.  I should be able to “stomp a mudhole” in people who smoke in my vicinity because their second-hand smoke actually DOES pose a risk to my children and me.  I should be able to “stomp a mudhole” in people who fail to use blinkers when turning or can’t seem to navigate the tricky subtleties of a four-way stop, because that certainly constitutes a threat to my safety.  If this is where we’re setting the bar for being able to “stomp a mudhole,” I’ve got a long list ready!

Beyond the threats of violence and the exaggerated concern over who may be relieving themselves in the stall next to you, a basic issue is that this bill is not enforceable.  You can’t check the government-approved gender status of every person entering a bathroom.  While “panty checks” would make for a fascinating oral argument that eventually would land in front of the Supreme Court, we have many more important issues that deserve the time and resources of our state government right now.

I know several transgendered women and couldn’t care less if they need to take care of personal business or try on a new skirt in a private stall near me.  It is not threatening; it is not dangerous.  I have been in thousands of such stalls in my lifetime and I can tell you that we all pretty much keep to ourselves.  Transgendered women are not men putting on a dress and slapping on some lipstick so that they can put themselves in a position to attack women. In fact, they are the ones who would be placed in more danger if told they must go in a men’s restroom.

If someone is in a restroom or dressing room and acting in a menacing manner, then throw that person out with force, if needed.  If someone threatens or actually harms my child in one of these locations, then you can believe that I will “stomp a mudhole” in that person.  Beyond that, just leave people alone!

I would like to offer a counter proposal, if Rep. Floyd really wants to have a say in our stall behavior.  Let’s punish those folks who talk on their cell phones while going to the bathroom.  Now that’s disgusting!  Who’s with me?

What do Republican president candidate Rick Santorum and President Barack Obama have in common?

They both LOVE big government!  I mean, love it so much that they probably draw its name in cute ways on their notebooks and dream about it asking them to the prom. 

President Obama loves the notion of big government being used to redistribute wealth, punish profit, centralize power, and give all kinds of “free” stuff to people in order to keep them satiated and complacent.

Santorum loves the idea that he can use big government to remove rights from the individual states when he thinks what they want to do is kind of icky, to deny women contraceptive opportunities, and to creep into your bedroom at night with a flashlight because he’s really curious about what you are doing under those sheets and how it may possibly be causing the end of the American family as we know it.

Here’s a quote straight from Pennsylvania’s culture warrior himself,

“They [libertarian-leaning folks on the right] have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom or in cultural issues. That is not how traditional conservatives view the world.”

The man is actually saying here that government should be allowed to go into your bedroom!  Doesn’t this disturb people?  Look, I understand the arguments against government-sanctioned gay marriage.  I don’t agree with them, but I understand them.  (I don’t think government should sanction any marriage.)  What Santorum is saying here goes further than that.  He thinks that he should be able to step in if two grown men are together in their own bedroom . . . with the lights off . . . disturbing no one else . . . even if they are asking for nothing from government or society!  Yikes.

In his own book, It Takes a Family, Santorum writes (or someone who gives Santorum the cover credit for the work writes), ““Some will reject what I have to say as a kind of ‘Big Government’ conservatism.”  Indeed.

Santorum even admits that those who love big government, such as President Obama and himself, have come full circle and now can hold hands and bask together in the glow of the impressive power that they can wield over the individual:

“You know, the left has gone so far left and the right in some respects has gone so far right that they touch each other. They come around in the circle.”  Kumbaya, Senator, Kumbaya.

Here’s the thing.  If you love Santorum because you agree that political leaders should be able to use government to impose their theology and personal morals on individual adults in this country and you are ready to admit that you like a heavy-handed government in these instances, then go forth.  But please don’t ever use the Reagan quote “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem,” as seems to be a favorite among Republican activists, or complain about the growth in the size of government under President Obama.  That just makes you a hypocrite.  You want government to control people’s lives, too . . . just in the way that YOU see fit.

I cannot be more serious about this — I think a Rick Santorum presidency would be just as harmful to the founding principles of this nation as our current administration.  If Santorum somehow manages to win the nomination (which I highly doubt and the idea makes me shudder), I will not be voting for him in the general election.  I could never in good conscience push a button for him in the voting booth and walk out of there not feeling like I had just betrayed my respect for the individual, my love for freedom, and my opposition to big brother government.

I can’t vote for Mitt Romney.  Just can’t do it.  He has no confirmed set of principles by which he would operate this country; he just wants to be president and he will say whatever he thinks you want to hear.  I’m pro-choice!  I’m pro-life!  I’m for amnesty!  Let’s send all the illegals back!  Government-run health care is awesome!  Obamacare is the worst thing to happen to our country since that Tylenol scare back in the early ’80s!  I understand that, to a degree, all politicians have to say what they think the voters want to hear.  Usually, that involves twisting your own principles to make them sound like they are aligned with your potential constituents.  Romney takes it a step further and becomes the political equivalent of an adult phone chat employee: “Who am I?  Well, baby, who do you want me to be?”

So, I am told that leaves me with Newt Gingrich.  Fantastic.  I always enjoy the pundits when they say, “You gotta admit; he’s the smartest guy in the room!”  I heard that at least ten times just yesterday.  That’s like pointing to the one live body in a morgue and stating, “See that one over there?  He’s better at inhaling and exhaling than anyone else in this place!”   The bar isn’t exactly set at Mensa levels.  I have yet to watch a Republican debate (or the current president, for that matter) and think, “Wow! That guy is really smart.”  (Or woman, as I don’t want to leave out Michele Bachmann . . . bless her heart)  And before you assume that I set unrealistic expectations for the intelligence level that I seek in our leader, please know that I find many people brilliant . . . I am thinking of some of them right now.  I’m not setting a standard that can’t be reached.  I’m just more convinced than ever that the great minds simply aren’t interested in politics these days.

The problem I have with Newt is with his character.  And, I’m not referring to his impressive ability to line up his next ex-wife while still married to the woman who will be an ex-wife before her.   I certainly don’t find the multiple marriages and divorces endearing. However, there are some men and women around the world who have been great leaders but to whom it would be horrible to be married because they can’t quite figure out how to be a good husband or wife (and probably father or mother as well).  He’s an adulterer and a man who did not live up to his convenant between the women in his life and God three times.  (I say three because he was showing no honor to his current bride by dating her while still married to wife number two.)  But, if I must, I can get past that part.

My problem with Newt Gingrich’s character is his arrogance.  Yes, I know that politicians tend to have more than their needed dose of ego.  It’s part of the personality type that would find such a career appealing.  However, I think there must be several small towns in Georgia in which not a single person has any ego whatsoever because Gingrich took it all for himself.  And, I know I’m not alone in thinking this is a problem.

He has taken credit for helping to end the Cold War.  He has called himself “an enduring celebrity.”  He has asserted that he will be the Republican nominee–and, not in a self-assured way, but in a cocky SOB kind of way.  I wouldn’t be surprised if at private dinner parties he exclaims that he is cuter than Justin Bieber and that he gave Bill Gates the idea for the iPhone.

When I think about the qualities I want in a president, I want him to be intelligent but I also want him to be aware of the fact that he doesn’t know everything.  A strong leader will look for others more knowledgeable than himself and use their expertise to build good policy.  He needs to be able to analyze the perspectives brought before him and then synthesize them in a thoughtful manner.  I have a hard time imagining Gingrinch ever admitting that he doesn’t know something.  That’s dangerous.  And it’s immature.  You can’t be that bullheaded when the very safety of the planet and the prosperity of our nation depends on your respect for allies and ability to get others to want to be on your team.  Would you want to be on Gingrich’s team when you know the entire time he is thinking about how much smarter he is than you and he is just tolerating you for the sake of appearances?

Looking at how he handled his time as Speaker is a troublesome indication of the ego he would bring to the White House.  He was accused of dozens of ethics charges but never took responsibility for clearly shady behavior.  He threw a little hissy fit when he thought that being asked to use the rear exit of Air Force One was beneath him.  And, in a show of complete arrogance and seemingly a belief that what is wrong for one person is completely cool when you’re Newt, he blasted President Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky affair at the exact same time that he was having sex with a House staffer more than two decades his junior while still married to his second wife.

Newt Gingrich thinks that he is always right and he thinks that you should feel that way, too.  That means if he becomes president, he will think the government has the answer to everything because HE will be the government.  Make no mistake — Newt is not a limited government conservative.  He just wants to limit government to control by his breathtaking intellect alone. 

I know I have other options.  I could vote for the guy who doesn’t know the voting age in this country.  Or, the guy whose most notable characteristic is that he is not afraid to wear ties in a rainbow of colors.  Or, the guy whose obnoxious supporters make me want to go running in another direction.  In comparison, I’m afraid the man with the huge ego might have the most to offer.  Is it 2016 yet?

I preface this post by stating that I am frustrated.  I am frustrated because our current president has shown a clear inability to lead, has political advocates on both the right and the left unhappy with him, and seems to be more overwhelmed and lost in the office all the time.  Next year’s election offers an amazing chance for a true conservative/libertarian to earn a seat in the Oval Office and make some important changes for our country . . . and we’ve got nothing.

***************************************

We can be done with this cute little crush that so many people have had on Herman Cain now, right?  Seriously.  How can anyone have watched the debate this week and still think he has the poise and the experience needed to lead this country?   I’m sure he is a great guy and I can tell he loves our country, but he is far from ready for prime time.

There were two moments in particular that stood out as cringe-worthy, although almost nothing about what he said made me hear faint whispers of “Hail to the Chief” in my mind.  The first came when Cain was challenged on his 9-9-9 plan, specifically the sales tax portion.  When asked to confirm that Americans would be paying both the 9% federal sales tax and their state’s and locality’s sales taxes (meaning that those of us in Nashville would be paying more than 18% on every purchase), Cain said this was comparing apples to oranges.  To quote the man directly, “This is an example of mixing apples and oranges. The state tax is an apple. We are replacing the current tax code with oranges. So it’s not correct to mix apples and oranges.”

Mr. Cain, it’s comparing taxes to taxes.  Two applied percentages of the same beast, not two distinct fruits.  Just be forthright about it.  Maybe people won’t mind paying a crazy high sales tax in return for a greatly lowered income tax, but don’t pretend like that’s not the inevitable result of your plan.

The self-proclaimed lifelong problem solver didn’t do much better during the last debate when confronted with studies that show his plan would fall way short of needed revenue.  He just replied, “That analysis is wrong.”  Oh, well, OK then!  No need to debate this any further!  Come on.  That’s about as convincing of a response as, “I know you are but what am I.”  Cain can’t defend his tax proposal, and not necessarily because it’s a bad plan, but because I simply don’t think he is able to communicate its merits and effectively strike back at its critics.  He is not the best advocate for the one idea that is serving as the cornerstone of his campaign. 

The most embarrassing moment of the night for Cain, however, was when he was asked about negotiating for American hostages.  For those who missed the problematic moment, here it is:

Herman Cain, let me ask this to you. A few hours ago you were asked by Wolf Blitzer, if al Qaeda had an American soldier in captivity, and they demanded the release of everyone at Guantanamo Bay, would you release them? And you said, quote: “I can see myself authorizing that kind of a transfer.” Can you explain?

CAIN: The rest of the statement was quite simply, you would have to consider the entire situation. But let me say this first, I would have a policy that we do not negotiate with terrorists. We have to lay that principle down first.

Now being that you have to look at each individual situation and consider all the facts. The point that I made about this particular situation is that I’m sure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had to consider a lot of things before he made that.

So on the surface, I don’t think we can say he did the right thing or not. A responsible decision-maker would have considered everything.

The Cain apologists tried to explain this away for him on the local radio talk shows (Doug Urbanski called Cain “dazzling” and “unruffled” and Phil Valentine has come out as a “Cainiac” . . . only Michael Delgiorno, who wants to pretend he saw Cain’s unraveling coming and sound more prophetic than he actually is, criticized Cain after fawning over him for weeks), but there is no getting around the fact that this was an awful exchange. 

“I will not negotiate with terrorists” (which you must say because it sounds good and strong) coupled with “I can see myself authorizing [a transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees]” and “You would have to consider the entire situation” makes it sound like he is just spinning in circles and has no clear idea of what he would do. 

And, as a side note, he would negotiate for the release of suspected terrorists in Guanatanamo but wouldn’t appoint Muslims to his cabinet?  Free the probable bad guys who use Islam to commit violence but don’t let the guy who lives in the suburbs of Ohio give you his opinion on agriculture because he prays eastward five times a day.  Makes sense.  Yes, I know he realized that was a “foot in mouth” moment and he changed his position to say that he wouldn’t allow Muslim extremists into his official circle of advisors.  Duh.  I don’t think the top dudes in al Qaeda were really thinking they had a shot at Secretary of Education.  Even if he since modified his position, you just can’t stay inflammatory and ridiculous stuff like that . . . especially when it was intended as red meat to rile up the faction of your base that has a hypersensitity about any Muslim influence in our nation at all.  You can’t just exclaim that you will deny an entire religion access to your administration and then backpedal later.  Amateur move.

OK, I’ll move on . . .

If the recent debate performance was just one foreign policy gaffe, then I guess you could chalk it up to a poor debate performance.  But, Mr. Cain has repeatedly, in debates and television interviews, demonstrated a complete lack of mastery of international issues and strategy.  Check out discussions with Chris Wallace and Christine Amanpour as two painful examplse.  We cannot afford that.

I know that conversatives want someone from outside of the political establishment, with business experience, and who believes in the uniqueness and greatness of America.  I get that and I’m with you.  But, that’s not enough.  Herman Cain is not able to convey his domestic agenda in a way that can be consumed and understood by the general public and has repeatedly shown a shallow level of knowledge of, and lack of critical insight into, issues beyond our borders.  He should not be our next president.

I decided to try something out at church this morning. I wanted to make sure that we didn’t have a bunch of sinners hanging out in our building, so I became a Baptist bouncer of sorts.

I stood at the front steps next to a scale.  I made everyone who approached step on it. If they were above the normal range on the BMI scale, I told them to go home.  We don’t want any overweight people coming into our building.  (“and put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony” – Proverbs 23:2).

Then, I stopped the men and women who I knew to be divorced and told them they weren’t welcome in our sanctuary. (“I hate divorce,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “because the man who divorces his wife covers his garment with violence” — Malachi 2:16)

And, if any of those divorced people had remarried, I told them to run, not walk, back to their cars. (“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” — Mark 10:11-12)

I also asked people, “Have you said anything unkind about another person this week?  Have you spread gossip?  Have you dropped a few choice words on the person next to you on I-40?”  If they could answer “yes” in any instance, I sent them away. (“Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” — Eph 4:29)

There were a few people who had posted some pictures on Facebook after having a good time at the honky tonks the night before.  I gave them a disapproving look and told them their kind was not welcome here. (“Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.” — Eph 5:18)

Then, as if I hadn’t sent enough people away already, a few people approached me while smoking cigarettes.  Ummm . . . I don’t think so.  Not at my church.  Go away! Our bodies are supposed to be temples, not nasty nicotine chimneys!!  (“Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.”– Romans 12:1)

Some young unmarried couples walked up the stairs.  I asked if they had had sex, because that’s my business, of course.  They wouldn’t give me a straight answer, but I could tell from their expressions that they totally had.  Out!  (“Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” — Hebrews 13:4)

I could have kept going, but I was getting tired of standing there and, to be honest, I had run pretty much everyone off.  I then had to send myself home, as I was guilty of a couple of the offenses listed above, and I patted myself on the back for a successful Sunday morning.

This brilliant scheme came to me after listening to “One Nation Under God” on 99.7 this morning, which I often do when I’m in the mood to get irritated and yell at the radio.  The hosts were beginning a three-part series on homosexuality.  They brought out the handful of verses that deal with gays in the Bible and proclaimed that as Christians we have tolerated the gay agenda long enough.  We could not allow them to continue coming to church or claiming to be Christians without apology.  They needed to find Michele Bachmann ASAP and get fixed at one of her husband’s camps!  Preach on, brothers!  That’s the Christian thing to do — take all who you consider to be sinners and ostracize them.  Yep, I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what Jesus did.

I turned off my radio filled with resolve to take the message of these insightful radio hosts even further.  If they were going to select a few verses to shun thousands of people in our community, then why couldn’t I do the same?  You can’t claim not to want gay people worshiping with you and not feel the same way about overweight people, divorced people, and those who spoke ill about others, right?  I’m excited to call into the show next week and let them know about my little project.  They’ll be so proud!!!

Or, maybe instead I will offer those guys a couple of verses in return.  Like these:

“Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.” — I John 4:7

“For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” — Gal 5:14

That’s it.  We are called to love . . . EVERYONE, and to be of service in love.  We are not to decide who is fit enough to worship with us or to judge others or to be cruel to others because we are scared to look at our own behaviors and choices.  I’m glad that I do attend a church that LOVES people and would never tolerate my efforts to stand on the front steps in judgment.  If we really did that, every church would be empty.

I’m a fan of the First Amendment.  It’s one of my favorite 25 amendments (I’ve never cared too much for the 16th or 18th Amendments).  I love the fact that people have a right to gather in our country and speak out against anything or anyone they choose.  Unless, as everyone learns in high school government class, they want to speak out loudly against “Fire!” while in the middle of a crowd.  That can be dangerous. 

Americans can gather on the footsteps of a government building wearing three-cornered hats and get all jazzed up about tea and liberty.  They can gather to march as a united voice to keep abortion legal, with a few people carrying seemingly unrelated signs to Free Palestine, because there is no march for a liberal cause worth its salt without a few Palestinian flags thrown in for good measure.  And, yes, the men, women, and children of our great land can gather to “occupy” Wall Street or downtown San Diego or the big hole at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.  They can bring out their drums and their cardboard signs and the suburban kids who want to look hardcore for the cause can wear those paisley handkerchiefs around their mouth and nose because that is apparently the thing to do.

I participated in a couple of marches when I was younger.  I marched through the streets of D.C. when I was sixteen as part of a “Stop the KKK” rally.  I ducked into the Air and Space Museum when the bricks started flying.  And, I walked through those same streets of D.C. once for a “Stop AIDS” rally during college.  (Wasn’t much resistance or violence this time around, as there weren’t people along the side of the road with bricks who wanted to “start” AIDS.)  But now, I mostly choose to watch the marches on C-Span as sport.  I score the participants on details such as; most effective alternative to clapping (I’ve always been partial to the overhead shaking of hands, although I could be swayed to give points to an emphatic head roll or jig), most creative chant (with extra points given if those who manage to rhyme “fascist” in both an entertaining and informative manner), and most creative costume mocking “the man.”

Despite my careful observations of the Occupy gatherings, including video footage, still photography, and articles, I cannot figure out what they want. 

I will say that some of my favorite signs include “Cops are getting paid to be here.  Why not pay us?”  (Ummm . . . why?), “There’s enough to go around” (socialism encapsulated in a single effective phrase) and “Hey, Wall Street, suck my debt.”  This last one is classy and refined, yet powerful and demanding at the same time.

I get that they think they hate corporations and the “corporate media,” which I think is so silly and simplistic.  I am willing to bet that every person there uses the products of corporations somehow everyday.  How many in attendance used an iPhone (probably bought for them by their parents) to send out a ”Tweet” inviting others to join them?  Hmmm . . . I think Apple is kind of a big corporation.  Maybe the fight isn’t with corporations in general, but the exaggerated influence they supposedly hold in our government.  I am pretty sure that if corporations made all of the decisions in this country, Barack Obama would not be our president right now.  To say that 99% of the people in this country have no power is a cop out and a convenient way to play victim.

Capitalism is also a subject of ire for the occupiers.  Boo to uneven distribution of wealth!  People who work 60 hours a week shouldn’t make any more money than those who are spending their days camped out on Wall Street accepting free pizza and coffee (don’t get me wrong, I’m never one to turn down free pizza).  Yes, I know the job market is rough right now.  Maybe you need to get a couple of jobs that alone don’t pay that great but together will cover your bills.  If you put as much time and creativity into thinking of ways to earn income as you do drawing zombie faces on your fellow protesters,  you might be surprised at how much money you can bring in a month.  And, if you were a purist in your anti-capitalism rant, why not boycott Facebook instead of using it to advertise your gatherings?  I don’t remember the billionaire Mark Zuckerberg offering to make sure all of his employees make the same salary as him.  Fascist pig. 

So, beyond these vague cries against capitlalism and corporations, what do the occupiers want?  According to their website, Occupy Wall Street is a “horizontally organized resistance movement employing the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to restore democracy in America” and an assembly to “fight back against social injustice.”  Great.  Those are really cool terms to make spoiled 20-somethings and those who have made a life’s work out of protesting something to get charged up about.  But, what’s the substance behind the hip sound bites?

What does a “restored democracy” look like to them?  What is the desired outcome?  If it’s to equalize the profit and income landscape, then that’s antithetical to the foundations of America.  If it’s to give everyone a job or just to give money to people who don’t have a job, I’m not sure how that fits with our valued freedoms. 

It seems to me that the desired effect of the occupiers is to take Americans from being the presumed slaves to corporations to being the slaves of the state through universal government entitlements and redistribution efforts.  Is that really what they are fighting for?  Slavery?  Maybe I need to dust off my old marching shoes and make a “Stop Slavery!” sign.  I think I’ve got one more good protest walk left in me.