Democratic Unity in New Hampshire?

Once bitter rivals for the Democratic nomination just a few weeks ago, now in a political marriage of convenience? Senators Clinton and Obama in Unity, New Hampshire on Friday, 27 June.

Is the kiss genuine, or will it be like Judas' kiss of Jesus? Time will tell.

On Friday evening, I was surprised to see on the evening news that Senator Hillary Clinton had finally joined Senator Barack Obama on stage in the obviously chosen site of Unity, New Hampshire for their public coming out party, to show supporters and skeptics alike that the feud in the Democratic house is over. The candidates have kissed and made up. Hillary is now fully on board to help Obama win the presidency in November. They even coordinated outfits (Obama's tie matching Clinton's pantsuit) like some married couple.

I hate to be cynical, but the Clintons inspire that in me. I keep thinking that the Clintons are plotting something, because they just don't give up power that easily. Hillary has long dreamed of becoming the first female president, yet here she is, giving her full public support for Obama. Pundits have pointed out that in previous races, it took a longer time for the runners-up to fully embrace the nominee, and none of them came as close as Hillary did to winning the nomination. There had to be certain deals made behind the scenes, and I'm not talking about the paying off of Hillary's campaign debts.

But about that debt...I think it's outrageous that she spent a lot of money on high priced lobbyists to help run her campaign. Some have reported that she paid one person over $7 million, which, if true, is absurd. Why would anyone deserve that much money? Even a salary of $200,000 would be too much for a campaign. It's the reason why I don't donate money to presidential campaigns. They are just boondoggles for corporate lobbyists who don't want to give up their high salaries on K Street to run someone's campaign unless they get paid the same wages. I say, give the campaign staff jobs to people who don't require that outrageous salary. People like me who live and breathe politics and would gladly work for $30,000 a year during the course of a campaign. So, I'm of the view that Hillary should pay off her campaign debts, not Obama or his supporters. If she couldn't afford to compete against Obama and ran up huge debts, it's her fault for overpaying high priced consultants and basing her support on low wage income earners who can't afford to give money to her campaign.

Whatever deal they came up with, I hope that it's not the Vice Presidency or any cabinet level appointment. Hillary said in 2006 that she loves being a Senator and gave no thought to a presidential campaign in 2008, so she should be made to live by those words. We'll see if she's truly happy in the Senate when Obama is president. Will she run for reelection in 2012 or will she run for president again (if McCain is president)? This all remains to be seen.

For now, we'll have to take this rally at face value. Perhaps she made peace with the fate the Democratic primary voters gave her. Maybe she's far more graceful than pundits make her out to be. Whatever she truly feels, we'll see if she's serious in the months ahead. I'll be watching body language, because it betrays whatever image she wishes to present to the world (see photo of Gore with Obama from an earlier post...it looks like Gore is thinking that maybe he should've run for president after all, for Obama is smiling like usual while Gore looks serious and lost in thought).

I'm just extremely happy for Obama and this moment, the "fierce urgency of now." I truly hope the Hillary supporters who intend to vote for McCain really question themselves why they'd do that. What possible motive would they have for doing such a thing? If they're thinking that making Obama lose to McCain will guarantee another Hillary campaign in 2012, they better think real carefully on that one for a few reasons: (1) Hillary might face stiff competition with Governor Kathleen Sebelius, who has executive experience and knows how to win in a "Red State"; (2) Obama might run again; (3) McCain might be the one to appoint the Supreme Court Justice to replace one of the ailing liberal ones (Souter or Ginsberg), thus putting an end to Roe v. Wade; (4) Hell, Gore might run again and win the nomination; or (5) sabotaging Obama this year might result in a lot of angry Obama voters who want payback in 2012. So, it's not a good scenario to play like spoiled children who don't get their way. Suck it up and vote for the party. I did in 2004 when I wasn't happy with Kerry's nomination. I voted for him anyway because the alternative was worse.

Besides, when the choice comes down to adding one more white male president to the list of 42 white males who served as president, why vote against a truly historic figure whose election would signal to the world that the America they once loved is back, and back with a global superstar that we haven't seen since Mandela was president of South Africa? When the choice is between change versus more of the same, why would any Democratic Hillary supporter choose an unofficial third Bush term? Something's screwy in their logic and they ought to examine their true motives for why they'd vote for McCain over Obama if they claim to be true progressives. They need to come to terms that they backed a seriously flawed candidate who ran a lousy campaign. On top of all that, this election proves that Americans just want to move beyond the Bush-Clinton-Bush years. Two families should not control the White House for more than a quarter of a century.

We will have a female president someday...but her name will not be Hillary.

The Golden Rule in Foreign Relations

I'm going to do something different for today's post because I didn't realize until recently that someone had posted a comment on a post I wrote months ago about the CIA and how it violates the Golden Rule and other spiritual laws, even as it tries to fool people who visit its headquarters in Langley, Virginia that the organization lives "Biblical principles" (quoting the Bible does not make a person authentically religious, as Jesus often pointed out that the most sanctimonious religious people often pointed out Torah versus to prove themselves, while violating the spirit of the law).

Here's what a person named "DonQuixote" wrote in response to my post:

i don't know, i'm not cia, but i don't see how there is necessarily a contradiction for one to be a cia officer and not be able to follow the golden rule. take your example--iran--for example. what is wrong with trying to overthrow a fascist regime which is on record of favoring the eradication of a certain people? the average iranian--the iranian in the street,if you will--would be better off (in my view) with a less fanatical regime, which itself was dedicated to the golden rule. What's anti-golden rule about tryig to better the plight of the average iranian, while, one hopes, reducing the amount of blind prejudicial hatred in the world, i wonder?

Do you even know what the Golden Rule, Karma, and even the warnings of our Founding Fathers mean in its application?!?

Here's a refresher...

In our sacred Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that it is up to a people to decide the form of government they wants for themselves, NOT a foreign occupying power to decide for them. How on earth can Americans even pretend to know what the Iranian people want? We don't even know what the Iraqi people want. History has a consistent track record where empires who impose a foreign governmental presence on a subjected people have all resulted in dismal failure eventually. The reason is simple...people would rather live under a homegrown despotic regime than under a foreign occupying power.

The reason why Iraq hasn't been secured after all these years is because we're still there. Americans have to decide if the continual occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are worth the blood and treasure our country is spending to maintain control of both places. We might be there for ten years, twenty-five years, or a hundred years, but at some point, the occupied people are going to evict us once and for all and we'll be left debating whether it was worth the lives and resources squandered. With our country crumbling from within (shoddy infrastructure, dismal education, real estate market that went bust, credit crisis, companies in bankruptcy, etc), it appears like our efforts to control another country only hastens our own demise. Perhaps that's a spiritual law at work: whenever you violate such a spiritual law, the boomerang of karma hits back hard. Payback, as they say, is a bitch.

My question to that person's comment is: "How do we know what's best for the Iranian people?"

Here's a history of Iran that got us into trouble a half-century later:

Back in the 1950s, the Iranians had a popularly elected leader named Mossadeg. The UK and the US did not like him because he wanted to nationalize their oil, which was under control of foreign corporations. That's wasn't considered good for the British and American oil companies, so they had a coup to oust Mossadeg and install the Shah. The Shah ruled with an iron fist and grew increasingly unpopular with Iranians, who turned to fundamentalist Muslim clerics, headed by the Ayatollah Khomeini. The anti-Western message resonated with a large swath of the population, which led to the revolution in 1979 that ousted the Shah from power when he came to America for a medical operation. Despots leaving the country run the risk of becoming permanent exiles, because that's when coups seem the most successful.

Because we supported the unpopular Shah, Iranians turned to anyone who was anti-American and the Ayatollah Khomeini was the perfect adversary. However, the Iranians didn't count on a repressive religious regime that restricted their freedoms even more than the Shah did. By the 1990s, the mullahs who ran Iran were unpopular and a reformer (Khatami) was elected. In 1998, the most popular movie in Iran was "Titanic" and Brad Pitt was a popular actor. American pop culture was making serious inroads with the under 30 age group (which represented a huge portion of the population).

So, the question is, why is it our responsibility to bring regime change to Iran? When the American colonists had enough of British rule and the increasing taxes imposed by King George III, it was Americans who rose up to declare independence and enlist the aid of France to help in the war effort. That's how to create lasting government. It always has to come from within. It is the people of a culture or country who have to rise up and overthrow their own government. The only thing foreign powers should do is to intervene only when genocide occurs. If the Iranians truly want a new government, they must rise up and remove the mullahs from power. It was the young generation that rose up in 1978-1979 to revolutionize the country from the Shah. They've proven that they are capable of changing governments, so if life is truly bad in Iran, that's what they'll need to do.

When the people rose up against oppressive governments in Eastern Europe in 1989, America did not intervene. In the 1990s, our country was invited by the democratically elected governments in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland to help out their military (with their desire to join NATO). That's the way to nation build. It's world's away from what we did in Iraq. "Blowback" is the CIA-term for karma. It's the same principle. For every action, there are possible unintended consequences that could make things worse. Looking at our history in Iran, just think how different the world would look if we never removed Mossadeg from power. There would not have been a Shah, a Khomeini, the 444-day hostage crisis, the Iran-Contra scandal, and the arms-for-hostages deals of the Reagan years. If you think about the number of lives lost, billions of dollars misspent, and the complete destruction of Beirut (the Paris of the Middle East), was it truly worth it to have a puppet regime to keep oil in the hands of western corporations for twenty years (the 1950s-1979)? It seems like a huge price to pay just to gas up our large American vehicles.

Here's a map of Iran's ethnic groups. Americans have no clue about how other countries are organized or how they work. It's absurd to think that we can just invade a country and create a government that we think is best, when it hasn't worked in Iraq. Iran is even more diverse with a larger population and territory. If we can't control Iraq outside of the Green Zone, how the hell are we going to control a country as large as Iran?

The Shah, the perfect puppet for western oil companies.

Who's crazier? Both Bush and Ahmedinejad (sp?) are of extremist religious views, each believing that God speaks directly to him. I remember reading an article in college that claimed that the U.S. actually has more in common with Iran than it does with Western European countries. That's pretty scary when you think about it, but the point of the article was that in both countries, too many citizens are easily manipulated by religious leaders who have a nationalistic political agenda that is prone to war instead of diplomacy. Europe is war-averse and prefers diplomacy above all. Oh, and Europe is very secular, pretty much having given up on religion as a legitimate belief system for the modern age. Not that that's a good thing or a bad thing, just that they've seen the destruction religious wars have done to our planet with little benefit and they've moved on towards transnational cooperation and interdependence.

Finally, if you truly don't understand the Golden Rule (do unto others what you would want them to do unto you), then the best way to understand it is to flip the scenario a little bit. If you think invading Iran and bringing democracy to the people there is "the Golden Rule in action", then how about this scenario?

Imagine a country like China wants to colonize America for our assets. The best way to do this, they believe, is not a military confrontation, but to buy a politician and rig an election. Let's say that they find the perfect candidate in Hillary Clinton, so they help behind the scenes to see that she wins. But someone else wins. They decide that's no good, so they invade and install her as president. Then as president, she makes decisions that most Americans find unpopular but are beneficial to China. Would we Americans stand for such foreign meddling in our politics? I don't know a single American who would stand for it. So, if we Americans don't like foreigners deciding who's going to be our president, then why do we do that to other countries? That's what it means to live by the Golden Rule. So that's why invading Iran and creating a government for them is a violation of the Golden Rule. If you can't understand this, then you don't understand the Golden Rule or karma. If you understand it, then you know why such actions are destined to fail.

Our Founding Fathers knew this. That's why Washington warned us to stay out of foreign entanglements. That's why Jefferson wrote that it is the right of people to establish their own form of government. Our Declaration says nothing about establishing a government for other people, where we don't know the language, culture, and history.

Put me down as one who supports a more respectful foreign policy, in which we no longer attempt to influence the political affairs of another nation, either covertly or through invasions. If we're truly "the greatest Christian nation on earth" (I, of course, don't believe we are nor should we be), then let's be a bit more Christ-like in our foreign policy, shall we? Nothing is worse than a hypocrite, which our country has been for a long time. We need to be greater than that and live true to our founding aspirations.

The John Adams Miniseries

I finally watched all of the excellent "John Adams" miniseries on DVD. This was one television event that I was looking forward to for a few years when I heard that my favourite actor Tom Hanks had bought the rights to David McCullough's bestselling biography on one of the most neglected Founding Fathers. Because of that critically-acclaimed biography, Adams had seen his historical rank rise a little bit. Before, he was mostly known as the first one-term president who established the Alien and Sedition Act (a forerunner to today's equally un-Constitutional USA PATRIOT Act). The biography gave Adams a fuller picture and what's more, it shows how remarkable his relationship was with Abigail. Would he have been as successful without such a strongly opinionated wife?

It is my hope that Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney will win Emmy Awards for their excellent portrayal of John and Abigail Adams. Paul, especially, did an outstanding job. He truly did embody how I envisioned Adams to look and behave. He was passed over for an Oscar nomination in the film "Sideways" (a slight I never understood, for he made that movie what it was), so if he doesn't get an Emmy nomination for this role, something is seriously amiss.

Laura Linney has been one of my favourite actresses since I first saw her in the film "Congo." She has what I consider to be an excellent track record for choosing film projects that I'm interested in seeing and each role has never disappointed me yet. I love her portrayal of Abigail, a remarkable woman living in a time when women were considered second class citizens and expected to keep her opinions to herself when the men are talking. It's nice to see that even back then, during those times, a man like John is not threatened by the opinions of a lady and has no problem following her advice.

Here's a scene of Adams with Benjamin Franklin in Paris. The two episodes in Paris vaguely reminded me of the film "Jefferson in Paris." They even have the same opera and music in one scene. It's amusing to watch the level of discomfort Adams (like Jefferson in that previously mentioned film) has when talking to the somewhat obscene French. You can see the clash of cultures just in the dinner scene. Franklin was quite popular in Paris because he had no problems with the sexual decadence of the upper classes in aristocratic France.

Stephen Dillane plays the best Jefferson I've seen yet! Forget Nick Nolte or Sam Neill as the firebrand liberal. Dillane plays him EXACTLY as I envision Jefferson in my head as I read his books or books about him. Since Jefferson is my favourite president, I wanted to see more of him. I think he comes across well in the miniseries, which is surprising because I had heard that McCullough is no fan of Jefferson at all.

After seeing the show in its entirety, I'm really glad they made it into a miniseries rather than a two or three hour movie. They are able to do much more with the longer running time and we get a richer experience for it. Granted, I could've done without the gross stuff (the smallpox, the leg amputation, and the breast cancer surgery), but those are minor complaints. I'm just completely blown away by how good this miniseries is and I want to see more! Every Founding Father should have one of their own. Jefferson, especially, should have a miniseries of his own. To me, this is what makes me feel patriotic. It's witnessing our history come alive on screen and getting a better idea of the times our Founding Fathers lived in.

Definitely worth owning and watching every year. I'll have to add it to my wish list.

Flashback Friday: On the Fritz

I've decided to do something new for Fridays. In the past, I've had "Fun Friday" posts where I post a survey, questionnaire, or some other list of favourites type of thing. I'll continue doing that, but I also wanted to add "Flashback Fridays" where I review an old album or movie or book that I love. Something you might not have ever heard before or seen, but something that has really made an impression on me in the 1980s and 1990s. So, for my first "Flashback Friday", I wanted to review my all-time favourite Christian rock CD: "On the Fritz" by Steve Taylor.

Here's a little backstory. Back in 1986, when my family lived in Germany, our church met in a town that was too far to attend every week, so we only went a few times a year. However, my dad wanted my brother and I to have a Christian grounding, so he made us attend the local protestant youth group on the Army base we lived on. I hated it with a passion and didn't want to go. But my dad showed me what was more important to me when he gave me a choice: either I go to these youth group meetings every Sunday afternoon or I forfeit that week's allowance. So, I went and hated the hour or two I was there. I hated their propaganda and their hypocrisy. Most of all, I hated their constant challenge to us to give up secular music and listen only to Christian rock/pop. Back in the mid-1980s, Christian rock music actually sucked for the most part. It didn't really come into its own until the 1990s. At the time, I disagreed quite passionately about their view of secular music being evil or of the devil. And besides, there was no way that I'd give up my music. I loved 80s pop music (and still do!). If my love of 80s pop music was going to send me to hell, then by God...send me to freakin' hell!

On top of this, my parents made me attend Christian rock concerts with them. Once, we went to see Sandi Patti in concert. I admit that I actually liked her songs...but I was a teenager who didn't want to go to her concert, so I probably pouted a lot and tried to make things as miserable for my parents as possible for forcing me to go. At the concert, there was a table full of a variety of cassette tapes and CDs of various Christian singers. One of them captured my attention and I asked my dad if I could buy it. He actually said yes. I had no idea who this singer was, but I loved his cassette cover (see the photo above). It just stood out from the rest and I hoped that I chose wisely.

When I listened to it on my Walkman later on, I was impressed. I didn't think a Christian album could be so cool. With song titles like "This Disco Used to be a Cute Cathedral," "You've Been Bought", and "I Manipulate", how can you go wrong?

One song on that album was "Lifeboat", which was hilarious and cool. It's about the idea of who would you save on a lifeboat if you had to judge which people board and which to be thrown overboard. It reminded me of a discussion we had for a class at RLDS Church camp in Guthrie Grove, Iowa in the summer of 1985. Steve Taylor shows his sense of humor in that song and it packs a powerful message. I was absolutely impressed.

The song, "Drive, He Said" is about a road trip in which the driver finds the devil in the back seat. It's one of my favourites and one I'd love to "act out" as a skit while it plays in the background.

My two favourite songs on the album are "To Forgive" and "I Just Wanna Know." The first one is about suicide and the second one has an important line: "if there be any wicked way in me, then pull me to the rock that is higher than I" (a kind of anti-hypocrisy song, if there ever was one). I also love it's opening line: "Life's too short for small talk, so don't be talkin' trivia now." I used both songs as part of my sermons that I gave at the Orem Utah congregation in 1998 and 1999. They had a good impact on the people who were there.

What I most like about Steve Taylor is that he uses humour and irony to get his point across. He's not afraid to knock the sanctimonious attitudes some Christians have about faith and those who don't have it. He is the kind of Christian that I wish there were more of. Most of all, he proved that it was possible for Christian pop music NOT to suck. Later songs that show his provocative use of titles and lyrics include "I Blew Up the Clinic Real Good" and "Jesus is For Losers." Those songs are not what you might think they'd be about, proving that you don't judge a song by its title.

The unfortunate thing is that his albums are quite hard to find on CD. I have a worn out tape of "On the Fritz" and some of the better songs of that album are on the greatest hits CD I have, but that's no good, because I love all of the songs on that album. "On the Fritz" is the rare album in which I love every song. So, I made the right choice...and all because I liked his cover art. It stood out. However, I never had the opportunity to attend his concert, which was something that I had hoped to do, but he never made a tour that I was aware of. I did like the fact that the follow-up CD was titled "I Predict 1990" because that was the year I graduated high school, but the CD came out in 1987 or 1988.

If you've never heard of him, please seek out a copy of his "On the Fritz" album and give it a listen. Let me know what you think. I think you'll be quite impressed. So many songs are worthy of a discussion, if you lead a youth or young adult group. I certainly would like to use his song "Lifeboat" as a lead-in to a discussion about that idea.

I don't know what he has been doing since 1994 (when his last album came out), but I think he was involved as a producer with the Christian rock band "The Newsboys" (which does carry on his style of songwriting and melodies). That's another Christian band that I dig for their catchy music and provocative/ironic lyrics. Simply put, there is no one quite like Steve Taylor, and unfortunately, I know so little about him. His music had a big impact on my life and to this day, I can't regret going to those protestant youth group meetings or concerts, because I never would have been exposed to Taylor's genius. All I ask about music is to be catchy, provocative, powerful, and cool. It doesn't matter to me if it's secular, Christian, Hindi, African, or whatever else. I just love good music. No one can ever make me restrict the music I listen to, because I know which ones to avoid (never liked the heavy metal, angry punk, and that hardcore type). It pays to be open-minded, so I can discover artists like Steve Taylor and lose myself in his music with clever lyrics.

Congratulations to Charles and Sarah Lewis!

Just found out yesterday that Sarah Lewis gave birth on Friday, June 20th (the actual due date!) to 7 lbs 3 oz Coakley Anna Lewis at 5:41 pm. I want to extend my congratulations to the happy couple on their first child.

Hopefully, little Coakley won't be a huge distraction as her daddy, Charles Lewis, runs his campaign for City Council. It means we'll just have to work that much harder for him while he enjoys his new role of fatherhood as much as he can between now and November.

These are exciting times...

The Problem with Fundamentalist Christians

I was actually at a loss for what to write about for today's post (if you can believe that!). Nothing much of interest has captured my fancy until I came across an article that Dr. James Dobson was now criticizing Senator Obama for comments that he made about religion that the demented doctor claims to misrepresent Christianity. This, of course, piqued my interest. When I read the article, I couldn't believe the latest manufactured controversy. I couldn't find any fault in what Obama said. No surprise. I have a long bad history with fundamentalist Christians and have never found anything they had to say as being credible or even all that interesting. Too many are dogmatic, ideologically blind, and completely free of logic. I have no use for a belief system that encourages blind obedience to authority figures, antiquated "traditions", and general lack of personal freedom.

So, what bug got up Dobson's ass this time?

Here are some interesting bits of what Obama said:

"Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" Obama also said that "folks haven't been reading their Bibles. " He cited examples from the book of Leviticus where slavery is okay but eating shellfish is an abomination in God's eyes. Even more impressive, Obama said that Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."

Wow! That's what I'm talking about! Finally, a politician who gets the absurdities of religion and how it's distorted by other politicians and charlatans like Dobson, Robertson and the late Falwell. Dobson was so offended by what Obama said that he accused the Senator of "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter." Most audacious of all, Dobson said: "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology."

Wow, he actually said that?!? Does the man even look at himself in the mirror? People like him (and Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, Erik Prince, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Fred Phelps and their ilk) have used their religion to serve a corporate and conservative agenda that hardly reflects Christ. So, why is Dobson pointing out the splinter in another's eye when his own has a huge beam in his own? His support of right-wing economic, corporate, and military power, is hardly the stuff Jesus would endorse. Anyone who thinks so is clearly deluded and will have to show me specific examples from the Bible where Jesus promoted a culture of greed, deceit, violence, and materialism. In one passage, a rich young man asked Jesus what more he could do to live a righteous life. Jesus' response was: "Give everything you have to the poor and follow me", NOT "invest in the stock market and buy an SUV."

So, where does Dr. Dobson get off on condemning a political candidate who has merely pointed out the obvious that previous politicians avoid because they worship at the altar of mammon, not God. It's shameless, but I don't expect anything less. I've never liked Dobson. It saddens me that there are people in my church whom I love, who think Dobson is a truly great spiritual leader and they follow his every utterance like it was gospel.

Here's my experience with the Dobson propaganda...

When I was a Junior or Senior, my home congregation (Atlanta North RLDS Church) used Dr. James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" materials for the Senior High Sunday school class. We didn't really question it until one issue completely knocked "Empire Strikes Back" as an example of Hollywood's sneaky attempt to influence impressionable minds with Buddhist ideas. As every fundamentalist Christian knows, Buddhism is synonymous with Satanism. In our church, no one I knew had a problem with "Star Wars" at all. This was the first time I heard of a Christian finding offense in that film series. I also had no idea that Yoda's ideas were taken from a lot of Buddhist concepts. So, I give credit to Dr. James Dobson for pointing it out. Up until that time, I had not explored Buddhism because of my being indoctrinated with Christian propaganda (from the protestant youth groups my dad made me attend when we lived in Germany) that Buddhism was satanic. If Yoda's views were Buddhist, then it only made me want to learn more about this belief system because I loved the ideas that Yoda presented to Luke Skywalker.

Thanks, Dr. Dobson! Your narrow-minded ignorance helped me to break out of the Christian propaganda and begin my long journey to learn more about this mysterious religion that predates Christianity by a half-millennium. To this day, I cannot find anything in Buddhism that would violate what Jesus taught. I consider Jesus and the Buddha to be spiritual brothers. One founded an extroverted religion, the other founded an introverted religion. Studying and integrating both belief systems can really give you a huge spiritual boost. And I know that from personal experience.

The second and final straw Dr. Dobson's propaganda presented us with was a series on religious cults. Of course, he put the Mormon church in that category. Because he was criticizing our religious "cousins", we had an interesting discussion in Sunday School about what he said and decided to drop his materials from our Sunday School class. While we obviously have our own issues with the Mormon church and numerous differences between our two churches, we understood that Dobson would most likely consider our church a cult as well. Why support his curriculum if he was going to attack any spiritual ideas that he doesn't agree with? Our church has materials we could use.

I was glad to be rid of Dobson's propaganda from our Sunday School. To this day, I have no qualms to say bluntly that I do not like fundamentalist Christians at all. I haven't met a smart one yet. So many of them seem proud of their ignorance. Knowledge is scary to them and they take a silly offense for God, thinking that by bashing anyone who views religious beliefs from a standpoint of logic and history as being corrupted by their own arrogant thirst for knowledge. However, let's get real here. No matter how much we learn, we will never know all the knowledge that God has, yet to remain willfully ignorant in the face of new ideas is self-sabotage. Why remain ignorant?

Here's a bit of history that these types don't like to think about. Our country was settled in part by Pilgrims who escaped religious persecution in Europe. What did they do when they set up a colony in present day Massachusetts? They created the first theocratic police state on the continent. They chased away dissenters. They burned "witches" (most of whom were the foremothers to today's feminists). They couldn't see the hypocrisy in themselves, doing to others what others had done to them. It's an interesting twist of fate that Massachusetts has become perhaps the most liberal state in the union. And like Scientology is to California, the Mormons to Utah, the Unitarian-Universalists have churches everywhere you look in Massachusetts. The most liberal of Christian churches has taken hold in this state that was founded by the most rigid and hypocritical of religious puritans. How does history twist that way?

My wish for those who prefer to remain in the dark cave of fundamentalist Christianity should follow the lead of the Amish or the Jehovah's Witnesses. Don't participate in the political process. We have a democracy where all religious views are tolerated, so long as they don't violate the law. We'll never have a theocratic police state like some of these people desire. You have to wonder why they are so threatened by freedom that they want to deny it to others, even as they proudly claim to live in the most free country on earth. Don't they see the disconnect? Wanting freedom for yourself but denying it to those who don't share your views is not what freedom is about. If you want to remain ignorant, give your money to Dobson, watch the 700 Club all day, and listen to Haggard's homophobic remarks without thinking that he might be getting some in a dark closet somewhere, go ahead. Be my guest. You can have those intolerant religions. Just let those who have no problems with diversity live in peace.

I once asked a person who was quite conservative in his views (to the point of being fundamentalist), yet had a pretty wild past why he felt the need to control other people's behaviour. I notice this trait a lot. Introduce me to a fundamentalist, and I will discover their wild past everytime. That they can't see the glaring contradiction is fascinating to me. Anyhow, this guy told me that what most appealed to him about fundamentalism is that it has helped control his addictive personality. He couldn't imagine living life without some sort of control over his behaviour. He didn't want to hit rock bottom again. That's understandable. I countered his example with one of my own. Because I've never been a wild person and I've been in situations as a young teenager and as an older teenager where people were doing things that I strongly disagreed with, but I never needed someone to make me live a moral life. I trusted myself that I was strong enough to stand up to peer pressure, and I was. So, it's interesting to me that the people who fall easily into addictions need fundamentalist religion to keep them living right while a person like me belongs in a church that allows me complete freedom and doesn't try to control me. That's why I love our church. Though there are fundamentalist types within our church, the leadership of the church itself has never been about making morality statements to members all the time. It truly does allow members complete freedom of conscience without fear that they'll be disfellowshipped or excommunicated (unless it's something really bad, like murder or trying to operate a personal cult on church property).

That's what the different religions are for. Obama is smart enough to see that. Why fundamentalists can't appreciate our democracy for allowing them to live in ignorance is amazing to me. Because they have major control issues to work out, I'm of the view that we should not allow anyone of a fundamentalist mindset to ever hold political office or have power over policies that affect the diversity of a community, state or entire nation. We have Bush as a perfect example of rigid belief systems rendering him incapable of changing course in the midst of disaster. He's another fundamentalist type with a wild past who desires to control others, even if those who've never had a wild rebellion are quite capable of living well without his intolerant religious beliefs.

Finally, to Dr. Dobson, I'd have to say..."Read the Bible and get a clue. You won't find the Christ you claim to worship in Bush's underwear. Stop conning the masses with your mammon lies. You're nothing but a stooge for godless capitalism and Ayn Rand-greed."

Obama is proving himself to be the opposite of John Kerry, which I'm glad. Anyone who picks a battle with the religious reich is a hero of mine. It's time that America really gets serious about religion and stop our blasphemous posturing that we're God's favourite country. Until we truly learn what Jesus was really about, we'll always be suckered by the phony puppet prophets that are merely marionettes dancing to the hand movements of the neo-conservative kleptomaniacs.

If You Want God to Laugh...

...Make Plans!!!

Okay, so I was a complete idiot in deciding to have a nice, quiet, solitary retreat in Coeur d'Alene WITHOUT checking to see if anything was happening there this past weekend.

I learned too late that this past weekend is one of the biggest event weekends Coeur d'Alene has all year: the annual Ironman competition, with nearly 3,000 super-competitive athletes streaming into town to prove their physical endurance in this grueling competition (2.4 mile swim; 112 mile bike ride; and a full marathon--26.2 miles!). Yikes!

It was exciting to watch and see all the people, but nice and quiet was not going to be part of my weekend plans with all this craziness going on. I did walk around Tubb's Hill a couple times (once on the lower path; once to the top of the hill for a good view) and got some ideas regarding my future goals. I also went for a couple drives, particularly the one that matters most: driving east of Coeur d'Alene and turning around at the edge of the lake. The reason for this is because it was my roadtrip in 1999 (from Provo UT to Bremerton WA) on this stretch of I-90 coming into the Coeur d'Alene area that hit me as being "the most beautiful place" my eyes had ever seen on earth. I had to know if the same feeling would hold nearly a decade later. Sure enough, it did. Once again, my breath was taken away at the gorgeous sight of the lake as the Interstate curves around at a high elevation and descends into the town of Coeur d'Alene. It was that scene which made me fall in love with this place and I can't believe I got to visit it twice in six months after dreaming about it since 1999.

On Sunday, before returning to Spokane to catch my flight back to Portland, I took a drive up to Sandpoint to see what that area looks like. I didn't stop, just drove up to Sandpoint, around the downtown and back down to Coeur d'Alene. My mind recorded as much beauty as my eyes could take in. I have this compulsive need to SEE as much of our world as possible, because it's all these scenes of incredible beauty that helps me to endure the bland days of a mundane job. If I ever get stressed, all I have to do is call up an image of a beautiful scenery I've seen and I'm centered and calm and able to endure the most menial of tasks. This is probably why I love traveling so much. Back in January, when I did a road trip with a lady who used to live in Spokane, we discovered a difference in how we view the journey. She just wants to get there and would teleport herself if she could. I've always preferred the journey...the longer the better. When I've done solo road trips in the past, I've had the most profound spiritual experiences as I view the landscape while I drive. No offense to those who just want to get to where they're going, but I much prefer my view of enjoying the journey on the way to the destination.

The ultimate question for the weekend is...did I get an answer that I was searching for?

I think so, with a mystery attached that I won't go into but will investigate further.

What truly surprised me about Coeur d'Alene is that I saw a building that advertised itself as a "Human Rights" educational center. In Coeur d'Alene?!? For those who know me well, in college, human rights was the focus of my International Politics major. Being a human rights activist is one of my top three dream career scenarios. Why would Coeur d'Alene have such an organization? The town is approaching 40,000 residents, and while I've been searching for such an organization in Portland (larger and more cosmopolitan), I haven't found one yet to send my resume to. So, this intrigued me and merits further investigation. Who knows?

I suppose if you listen really closely, you can hear the sound of distant laughter. It's cruel in a way. Everything about who I am as a person needs to be in a career that is globally focused and matches my talents, passion, knowledge, and interests. How I ended up so far from my college goals is the continuing mystery of my life. But it's a mystery that I want solved as soon as possible. An eight year detour from my dream life is simply too long with no hope in sight. I know from experience that turnarounds could be just as dramatic and exciting, but the ultimate question I face is what I need to do to put my career into turnaround?

As much as I love Coeur d'Alene, I think that it will remain a place to vacation for me, but not to actually live there. When I got back to Portland, all that I love about this city bubbled up in me. When I lived in Atlanta and traveled to cool destinations, I always felt repulsed when returning to Atlanta. I had a feeling of "ug!" Not so with Portland. The diversity (yes, even though it has a reputation for being one of the "whitest cities in America", I like the progressive and artistic vibe of the city.), the neighborhoods, the politics, the passion for all things environmental and sustainable, the location, and even the size (just small enough to have a feel of a town, but enough excitement and activities of a major city to never get bored). I believe this is where I'm meant to be and perhaps someday, I can spend my summers in Coeur d'Alene, writing novels in solitude as I take in the gorgeous scenery, and then when it's done, I return to Portland for the rest of the seasons to continue my social life of being actively involved in the lifeblood of a great city.

That's the feeling I returned from my retreat with. I have enough beautiful images in mind to carry me through the rest of the year. But I belong here.

Rendition and Redacted

In the past few weeks, I watched two more Iraq War/War on Terror related films. It's interesting that most Americans, who supported these wars at first, avoid seeing any movie related to current events in our foreign policy...while me, who was always against the war can't get enough of these films. I want to see them all. The documentaries, the movies, whatever, just bring it on! I guess I'm the oddity, as I can't turn my eyes away from the current mess. But, in reality, I guess I'm just not dysfunctional. A sure sign of dysfunction is when no one wants to mention the elephant in the room that you know everyone notices but pretends doesn't exist. I've always been the one who likes to give voice to the thoughts people have, and in many cases, I've gotten flack for it, but I stand my ground. I hate dysfunction and I hate avoidance. I want elevated dialogue and clash of philosophies. Let's have a debate. Let's address the issue, shall we?

First, "Rendition." Now, if you thought Meryl Streep played the boss from hell in "the Devil Wears Prada", her role in this film makes Miranda Priestly look like Julie Andrews in "the Sound of Music"! Her role as a CIA operative who authorizes rendition and torture will give you chills because she apparently has no trouble sleeping at night.

This film covers the concept of disappearing suspects and sending them to other countries to be tortured (in other words, think "outsourcing" at its most extreme). Reece Witherspoon plays a pregnant wife with a young son who starts her own investigation when her husband doesn't show up at the airport after a business trip to Cape Town, South Africa. Oh, but he did! She has proof of his boarding the flight in South Africa, so he had to have exited the plane in Chicago, even if the computers had already deleted his name from the flight list. That's because he was already taken into custody on the flimsiest of excuses. His cell phone records included calls from a phone number known to be of a certain terrorist.

So, we get to see the process of interrogation and even waterboarding (so that's what it is!), on his end. From his wife's perspective, we see her seek answers from an old college friend who works for a Senator in D.C. Her main demand is to know what her husband is accused of doing and where he is being held. Meryl Streep's CIA agent prefers to pretend that she doesn't know who Reece is talking about, and makes veiled threats to the Senator, who has a bill he desperately wants to pass.

The film plays with your sense of time with the central plot device. It's well done and portrays all sides of the issue quite fairly. In the end, you end up thinking about the use of torture to gain information. I know some "Christians" who aren't troubled by our government using it (because they're just "terrorists" after all), but that view shocks me because many of these people who are blase about it tend to be the same ones who are fanatical about ramming Jesus down everyone's throat because "he DIED for your sins!!!" So, torturing Jesus is bad, torturing terrorists is good. Moral ambiguity from people who claim to have Christian values. Yeah, right. Whatever.

Also in "Rendition" is actor Jake Gyllenhaal as a newbie CIA agent who oversees the torture of Reece's husband and how he comes to terms with it. The other final storyline concerns the daughter of the man who tortures suspects for the CIA, and her love for a troubled young man who is ripe for recruitment by jihadis. By having all these diverse characters interract, we see the complexity of this issue regarding rendition and torture. It helped me to understand the mindset that always baffled me....those Nazi death camp workers who pushed the button that released the gas that killed Jews by the thousands. Many were married with children, so what is it about the human disconnect that would allow a person to live a normal life when his job encourages monsterous brutality? What's even more alarming is that I see this tendency in a lot of my fellow Americans who claim to love and worship Christ while being completely okay with what our government is doing in Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Air Base, and Abu Ghraib Prison.

The other film I watched recently is Brian De Palma's "Redacted." As I watched it, I couldn't believe that he was ripping off his own film, "Casualties of War." There were at least three scenes that were nearly identical or even had a word for word plagiarism of his earlier film. I suppose that's okay if he's cannibalizing his own work, but I don't think it worked so well. The reason is because "Casualties of War" is the most powerful film I had ever seen. The film had such a profound impact on me that it ranks in my top four all-time favourites list. It is the film that I often cite to people as an example of true nonconformity (portrayed by Michael J. Fox's character). Even though the film is 19 years old, I still can't watch it very often because it packs a huge emotional punch. I always have to prepare myself mentally when I want to watch it, then I have to do a post-viewing ritual to shake my nerves. It's that powerful to me. Every time I see it, there are a few scenes that never fails to cause me to cry buckets. So, why watch it, you ask? Because it's a reminder of how difficult it is to stand up for what's right. You will face ridicule, threats of violence, and whatever else. Standing up for something is not comforting and this film, more than any other, is brilliant at making you feel very uncomfortable.

So why De Palma wanted to revisit the intense subject matter (American G.I.s taking it upon themselves to rape and murder a local girl in the midst of a warzone) is somewhat baffling to me. Especially since this film lacks the emotional punch that his brilliant "Casualties of War" did. It was a pale imitation. On the DVD is a short interview that he gave, in which he called it a companion piece to his "Casualties of War." So, the similarities between the two films were intentional.

This one has no known actors, which gives it a very real feeling to it. He also uses handheld cameras and edits it in such a way that the film does feel like a documentary, using soldiers actual video blogs, YouTube like videos (the hilarious one being an angry leftist chick who wants to allow the Iraqis to have their way against the G.I.s who raped a girl and murdered her family), and even a foreign journalist type documentary (in French). It's interesting to watch, but after it's over, you have to wonder what the whole point was. De Palma did it so much better with "Casualties of War." You know something is a classic when it transcends time, thus making an update or a reinterpretation or a companion film unnecessary.

That won't stop me from seeing any others that come out. Like I said, I'm all about seeing everything regarding our war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and against terror. There's a lot of ways of looking at these issues and it's a shame that Americans shun these films. What are my fellow countrymen and women afraid of? How can we hope to change our government policy if Americans prefer to remain blissfully ignorant about the wars that they signed off on (while portraying those of us who questioned the necessity of launching a war in the first place as unpatriotic traitors)? It's just interesting to me that a person who was against the Bush presidency and his desires for endless war can't get enough of these films, while practically everyone else I know (especially the pro-war folks back in 2003-2004) ignore these films in favour of films like the "Saw" series or crappy Jack Black/Mike Myers/Adam Sandler comedies.

Can we get some depth, please?!?

Soul Retreat in Coeur d'Alene

I have this on a timer, to post while I'm secretly on a personal retreat in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Even though I cancelled the Memorial Day retreat, I've been feeling a need to go there for my own purpose. I had wanted to walk Tubb's Hill (seen below) back in January but it started snowing and I didn't want to get lost. I had planned to have a morning meditative walk at this hill during the Sunday morning of the retreat. My goal is to walk with an intention in mind with the hope that I will receive a clear answer by the end of my walk. The purpose of this retreat is to determine my future goals. I'm so far off track from where I want to be, that I need to do something to find myself back on the path that leads to my destiny.

Does Coeur d'Alene represent my future life? I've dreamed about living there since I first drove through in 1999 and was struck by how beautiful it was. But my living there is dependent on my finding a job there or (ideally) being established in a writing career. We'll see how this weekend plays out when I get back and post my report.

Scenes from Sunny San Diego

As promised, here are some photos from my visit with the Hagmans in San Diego over Memorial Day weekend. Above is a family picture of Lisa, Nathan, and little Ean. I'm not sure what that line is above Nathan's head. It wasn't there when I took the picture, so I'll be doing some "spiritual research" to see if there is an other-worldly explanation to it (like a flattened orb, an odd aura or something).

Here's Nathan in his backyard, playing with Chelsea (the German Shepherd) and Myra (the Komondor). One thing I loved about Myra is seeing her run because her dredlocks look really cool when she's running. She's very rastafarian, I think. And adoreable. Having a dog like her is guaranteed to get a lot of attention. I noticed that when Nathan and I took her to the vet and watched people stare.

Ean at the beach in La Jolla.

I hope this is not a foretelling of a future career! Ean loved being behind bars! I like how the light seems to shine down on him, like he's being blessed by God's favour. I told Nathan that I hope Ean will be president someday.

Nathan, Ean, and I at the LDS Temple grounds in La Jolla. I'm hoping that in a few years, Ean will serve as the ring-bearer at my wedding. But, I have a feeling that's still about three years away. First to find a better paying job before I re-enter the dating pool.

This is probably my favourite LDS temple. It has a unique and very cool design. Of course, we couldn't go in, being the heathen renegades that we are!

A building at Balboa Park. I thought it looked cool and I liked the angle of the sun.

A Comedy of Errors

Having a blog is interesting. But even more than that is having a tracker/counter to check daily who's reading my blog, how they found it, which blog posts prove more popular (currently in the lead is my post on the International Women that I admire--feminists watch out!), and most of all, where these blogreaders live. Only a few times did I see ones that only mention a country and not a city. But on Wednesday, I was shocked when I saw a hit from an unknown computer with no details given as to where in the world they were accessing my blog from. Even more alarming, they looked at only one post...the one on Blackwater...and spent an hour and sixteen minutes! Could it be secret government agents or Blackwater execs?

Anyhow, that was the thought in my head when my cell phone rang while at work. I looked at it and saw a 202 area code. Had it been anywhere else, I would've let it go to voicemail, but it was Washington, D.C. calling! My first thought was that some government official was going to offer me a job or tell me about a career opportunity. I was excited, so I answered it, expecting great news.

What I got was a rambling telemarketer who spoke with a sense of urgency and told me that because Hollywood is producing a lot of "filth" and making even PG-13 movies more offensive, he wanted to let me know about a new opportunity with Deseret Books, where I can join the DVD club and get a wholesome, family (and Mormon) film that won't offend anyone!

Excuse me?!? I told him that I was a single guy and hadn't paid any attention to the rating system since I turned 17. Why should I? As a teenager, I was always disappointed when a film was Rated R because it meant that I couldn't see it and my parents wouldn't allow me to see it. Once I turned 17, I could see them without supervision or permission, so it's become the thing I pay attention to the least when I'm wanting to see a movie. The rating system is a guideline for parents, but this sanctimonious Mormon telemarketer made it sound like it was a moral guide direct from God.

Anyhow, it became obvious that he was following a script because everything I said in response to his questions was flatly ignored. He kept trying to sell me on to this. When I asked for examples of movies that they send, he mentioned a few Mormon movies that I already own as well as some really bad Mormon movies I'd never want to own.

No matter what I said, this guy wouldn't let go. He kept coming up with new angles to sell his movie club plan, and my co-worker (the one I have had ongoing personality problems with) was filing paperwork behind me and was eavesdropping (of course). She kept saying, "just hang up!" I was laughing at the whole ordeal...with my being suckered into answering my cell phone just because it had a Washington, D.C. area code, and my personal feeling that hanging up someone is extremely rude. But my co-worker kept shouting, "just hang up on the telemarketer because you have work to do!"

I eventually interrupted the spiel to announce that I had to get back to work, but the telemarketer just kept going without missing a beat. So, I finally had enough and said, "Listen, I really do have to get back to work now and I'm not interested."

Sheesh!

After I hung up, my co-worker had some words (and even told my supervisor about it). She's often rude to people on the phone, so I pay her no mind. All I told her was, "Hanging up on people is just plain rude and I won't do it." She said, "but it's a telemarketer!" And I said, "Telemarketers are people, too."

Anyhow, what this incident really brings up with me is what I hated most at BYU. I heard too many sanctimonious Mormons claim a sort of "moral superiority" because they'd never watch an R-rated movie. I had debates with quite a few people over the rating system. They see it as a "Ten Commandments" kind of thing, I see it as a guideline that doesn't affect our salvation. There are plenty of great R-rated films that are not appropriate for children to watch until they reach a level of maturity (such as "Schindler's List" and "Casualties of War"). But to put a moral judgment on a film just because it's rated R?

Once, at BYU, I was at a party where one guy announced to the group with an excited tone that he had an edited version of a movie (I forget the movie, but it was something tame like "Forrest Gump") and everyone "ooohed" and "ahhhed" like it was a hard to find and coveted item. I remember thinking at the time, "what universe am I on?" It was an odd experience for me. That's not the only oddity I saw or heard while at BYU. One co-worker of mine had told me that she was offended by the film "Annie" because Carol Burnett was a drunken and sleezy character! You know someone is a bit too innocent for our world if a film like "Annie" is offensive!!!

It's no surprise that the Mormons I got along with the best were ones who had no hang-ups about R-rated films. I mean, let's get real. I see movies as a way to experience something or to learn something. Sure, I prefer films that inspire ("Forrest Gump", "Field of Dreams", "Dead Poets Society"), but I also like films that raises awareness, shows complex situations, or asks provocative questions ("Blood Diamond", "Syriana", "Munich"). Besides, I also like seeing historical events on screen, to better understand human nature. What's wrong with that?

At the time I had some of these debates with Mormons who refused to see R rated films, the film "Saving Private Ryan" was in theaters. My Great Uncle Jim fought as a paratrooper during the D-Day invasion. He rarely talked about it in details. He only focused on some of the humourous aspects (like one buddy who landed in a pasture and spooked a cow). By seeing this R-rated film, I felt like I partially experienced what he did a half century ago, though I experienced it from the safety of an air-conditioned theater. The violence was too intense for me that I almost passed out, but I endured. That film had a profound effect on me.

I've seen plenty of PG and G-rated fair that don't do much for me. A lot of them are crappy films. I need to be engaged mentally, and it's no shock but the best movies tend to be rated R. There's a difference between going to see an R-rated film like the "Saw" movies (I see no point in their making it) and a film like "Saving Private Ryan" or "Casualties of War" or "Schindler's List." So, I wish people would just stop thinking of our rating system as a moral guide that we must abide by if we hope for salvation. It's useful for parents determining if their children should watch the film, but for adults making choices about what they want to see, the rating system is irrelevant.

Warning to future telemarketers who don't know when a person is not interested:

I will sic our president on you!!!

Enlisting in the Navy

Eighteen years ago on this day was my day long ordeal at Military Enlistment Processing Station Atlanta. In a personal journal I kept at the time, I spent an unprecedented thirty pages writing about the experience. It was pretty serious stuff back then. My first decision as an adult. In fact, at the time, I was still thinking like a dependent teenager.

After passing all of the physical tests (except that I had to get a waiver because I weighed in at 103 pounds...and I had to weigh at least 110), selecting my rating specialty (Yeoman), and signing all the paperwork, I was ready to be sworn in with all the other enlistees. The constant that day was "hurry up and wait." We spent most of the day waiting and signing paperwork, but when they were ready to process us during various tests, we had to move quickly. All day it went like this. During the final waiting period before the swearing in ceremony, I decided to call my parents for permission to join the Navy. Here I was an 18 year old, just graduated from high school two weeks earlier, and I was still used to asking my parents permission! They weren't home and when we were told to head into the ceremonial room for the swearing in, I hesitated. A part of me still thought, "but I don't have my parents permission, yet."

I then realized that it was my life's decision, so I followed the herd into the room, raised my right arm, repeated the oath, and the deed was done. I was officially enlisted in the Navy, in the delayed entry program. I wouldn't head off to Basic Training until May 1991, the latest I could go. I selected that far in advance because I wanted time to prepare mentally and physically, which I did. I started a fitness routine and I read books written about soldiers in Vietnam ("Letters home from Vietnam"), about life aboard an aircraft carrier ("Supercarrier"), and watched "Biloxi Blues" (the best film I've seen about Basic Training).

While on vacation in Florida with my family, Saddam Hussein decided to invade Kuwait (August 2, 1990) and a part of me was worried. I signed up for the peacetime military. I had no desire to be in a war. But my journals at the time reflected a kind of pro-war viewpoint (or probably more accurately, a very strong anti-Saddam sentiment). I even went as far as buying a Saddam Hussein voodoo doll and stuck it with a pin so many times, hoping that he felt every prick. My parents were alarmed by my hatred of Saddam. Their cool response was, "what did he ever do to you?"

As Desert Shield grew with talk of war looming early in the new year, I thought of moving up my date to go off to basic training. In January 1991, I made my first solo trip (on Grayhound) to visit my best friend Nicholas Smith in Omaha (who was a freshman at Creighton University) and my grandparents in Atchison, Kansas. War began while I was on that vacation and when I returned home, I went to MEPS to move up my basic training date. March was the earliest I could go without losing my Yeoman "A" School assignment, but that was perfect for me.

When President Bush (the first one) announced an end to the land invasion after a mere 100 hours, I was very disappointed. The war was over before I'd have my chance (I had wanted to be on an aircraft carrier in the Gulf) to go over there.

Basic Training ended up to be the greatest experience of my life (which still holds to this day) for reasons that don't seem to make a lot of sense to most people. But, for the first time in my life, I was known simply for me. I was not thought of as "Chris' brother". Growing up, I felt like I was raised as a Siamese twin and being the staunch individualist that I am, I hated it. Boot Camp was liberation. I finally got to be known for myself. I also loved the marching and cadence. Being in a company of 78 men was like a fraternity and we bonded, especially when our company won the Cheerio flag (during the athletic competition with other companies in our training group). Most surprising of all, however, was that I expected the Company Commanders to be more intense than they actually were. There were amusing moments when the ladies who measured our uniforms would chide the company commanders for yelling at us. I remember one in particular. She told a mean company commander: "You don't have to yell at these boys so much! They're missing their mommas and you're not helping." Even more startling, the company commander actually listened and backed off! I never expected that at all. I had spent months preparing for the mental game of having someone yell in my face after eating an onion.

I can't believe it all began 18 years ago. What a long, strange trip it's been. Would I do it again? Well, not right now, but if I had a chance to go back and change my life at that point, I wouldn't. How could I? With Basic Training still the greatest experience of my life, it's just one of those things that I look back fondly and find deep satisfaction with. It's one memory that I hope to live in full detail over and over again in the heavenly realm. I guess you could say that it was the closest thing to a male rite of passage.

(By the way, the photo above was taken off a Google image search, so don't go looking for me in the photo. Most of my Navy photos are not digitized yet and unfortunately locked away in storage where I can't get to it).

Blackwater versus Whitewater

Sunday night, I went to Powell's Bookstore for another packed audience, this time to see Jeremy Scahill promote the paperback edition of his New York Times bestseller about the notorious Blackwater corporation.

He didn't read any excerpts from the book, for which I'm glad because I hate it when authors do that. I prefer the lecture format followed by Q & A. Jeremy began by talking about the incident that put Blackwater under the microscope, when some trigger-happy Blackwater employees shot up a bunch of innocent Iraqis in a traffic circle. To these employees (many of them former Navy SEALS, Green Berets, Special Forces types), Baghdad is like living in the old west, where the law doesn't apply and they are free to be cowboys bringing justice to an untamed land.

Jeremy spent a lot of time going into detail about this incident, which is something that I'd prefer to read about. I wanted to hear more about the organization itself and when Jeremy finally spoke about it, that's when the lecture really got good. He got laughs when he compared Erik Prince (the founder and CEO of Blackwater) to Batman/Bruce Wayne, even implying that Erik Prince thinks himself that way. Jeremy also criticized the U.S. Congress for bowing to White House wishes in not asking tough questions of Erik Prince last fall. I remember reading the fawning stories about him in news magazines, which complimented him on his good looks and mentioned his evangelical Christian faith.

Excuse me?!? Christian?!? Erik Prince (pictured above) is a Christian?!? More like ANTI-Christian. It's no secret that he's a major financial supporter of President Bush and the current administration. In fact, the Bush years have been very good for Blackwater. Their profits soared since the invasion of Iraq.

What is most chilling about what Jeremy said is that corporations like Blackwater (and Halliburton, KBR, DynCorps, to name a few) actually profit from an escalation of violence, so it's in their economic interests to encourage nations going to war instead of diplomacy. Does that sound Christian to you? Forget Prince of Peace...it's more like Prince of Pieces! The fact that Erik Prince thinks he's a Christian should alarm anyone who cares about authentic spirituality. By his very actions, he shows that he knows nothing about what Jesus was all about. Nope, Prince is yet another misguided soul who has mistaken Capitalism for Christianity and the Almighty Dollar for the one we call God. Delusional people like him should not have access to any wealth or power. He belongs in an asylum with all the other neo-conservative crazies. He may have an "all-American boyish face" that the superficial media drools all over, but beneath that plastic exterior lies the heart of a demonic soul.

Is Blackwater a bad thing? They have a reputation that is impressive on the face of it. The main mission of the company is to provide security to VIPs in a dangerous place like Baghdad and they have not lost a single VIP yet. It's a record that they are quite obviously proud of.

However, they are expanding operations. There were reports (confirmed by Jeremy who was there) that Blackwater moved into New Orleans just before Katrina hit (without any directives from the government) to provide security in case havoc unleashed. They seem to operate in a James Bond world with a license to kill first, without having to ask questions later. They operate outside the law. It should alarm anyone that Blackwater is moving in a domestic direction. It's the job of the National Guard to be deployed during times of emergency to keep the peace. But the military operates by rules and tradition, whereas Blackwater does not. It's a trend that we've seen in too many chilling sci-fi films about the future being nothing but police states where people are monitored and controlled. We're heading in that direction. If Blackwater is allowed to operate outside the law, and sees nothing wrong killing people over private property issues, what does that say about our country?

Again, I fail to see any "Christian mission" in Blackwater. Would Jesus really have us KILL people who were trying to steal our property? Are we willing to say that a material object is worth more than a human life? I know some already think so, evidenced by insurance companies that have hired private security guards to protect expensive mansions in California during the fires last year. We've seen it in New Orleans, when African Americans were called looters for taking food from flooded stores (is it truly humane to allow food go bad because people won't pay for it?). Blackwater's solution is to kill anyone who disturbs the peace and security of whatever area they happen to be in. And in Iraq, they operate with no threat of ever being punished by the law.


I had wanted to write about Blackwater last year when it was in the news as Erik Prince testified in Congress. It was one of those blog topics that got lost in the deluge of topics at the time. What truly fascinates me about the whole "Blackwater" versus "Whitewater" controversies is that I hear very little outrage from conservatives over Blackwater, yet all throughout the 1990s, they pounded a constant drumbeat over Whitewater, the land deal in which the Clinton's had LOST money. It was the ongoing and open investigation of Whitewater that ultimately led to Clinton's impeachment over lying about an affair (which had nothing to do with Whitewater).

To me, it's proof that the conservative sense of outrage is very misplaced. An opponent that they hate with a passion lost money in a land deal gone bad and that warrants a ten-year, $70 million investigation. On the otherhand, Blackwater has seen its profits skyrocket in the past ten years and employees have killed innocent people in a war zone, but that doesn't register any moral outrage from the "Christian" and conservative right! So, losing money and failed land deals are scandals worth investigating, profiting on death and war as well as killing innocent people gets a pass?

For me, it's just one more example of the huge moral disconnect that conservative views have from the values they claim to own. It's all a lie and I hope more and more people will wake up to the fact that you simply cannot trust these conservative-financed and backed corporations that view themselves as above the law.

Gorbama!

The nomination that could've been yours, Gore!

Finally...after a long primary season, former Vice President Gore makes a public endorsement when it's safe to do so. I have my theories on why he was more cautious this time around, and I don't fault him at all. He was smart about it, unlike in 2003. That's because after he endorsed Howard Dean for president in December, many pundits think that high-profile endorsement was what started Dean's fall from front-runner status. Suddenly, the knives were out on Dean as Kerry and Gephardt attacked him for this or that. Also at the time, the media still portrayed Gore as a loser who didn't know how to pick a winner. So, after getting so publically burned, why risk it once again?

I had a sneaking hunch that Gore has always been in Obama's camp. It's no secret that he and Hillary aren't the closest of friends (they were conflicted over the amount of influence each would have as a "co-president" during the Clinton Administration). But, I also believe that it was Hillary's ambition to run for president that kept Gore out of the 2008 race. Had she not run, I'm pretty certain that he most likely would have. So, if we lose in November because of racist voters and dirty tricks, we can all blame Hillary. Gore would've been a sure bet to win the presidency this year because of America's seeming desire to set things right over the disaster Bush has become for our country and world. It's the reason Republicans picked McCain this time, after passing him over in 2000. America wants redemption from the mistake of 2000 and Gore opted out of that chance.

Even though I had long dreamed of working as a political aide in the Gore Administration, I was actually relieved when he decided not to run because like Gore, I've lost my taste for national politics. I made the decision in 2006 to move to Portland, Oregon because out of all the regions of the country I've been to, the Pacific Northwest is the most beautiful to me and where I want to settle and start a family of my own. I have no desire to return to the east coast to live, as much as I love Washington, D.C. and Boston. Hopefully, I'll be able to visit frequently my favourite spots on the east coast, but I intend to stay on the west coast.

My disenchantment with national politics has been a boon to my increasing passion for local/city politics. Portland is a progressive city with a lot of innovative ideas (I think it's the only city or one of the few that has Voter Owned Elections for local races to limit big money candidates bought by corporations seeking influence in City Hall) and I want to be a part of it.

Now that it's safe for Gore to endorse Obama with enthusiasm, I hope that a President Obama will utilize Gore in some way in his administration. I doubt that Gore would want to serve as a Cabinet secretary, though. There's a lot he can do as a private citizen and even if he's just one of Obama's advisors on environmental policy, that's a good step up from what we have now (oil company execs writing Bush's environmental policies).

I'm sorry that I missed the entire speech and had to settle for clips, but I'm happy to see this endorsement, finally. I only wish that he had made it sooner so he wouldn't look like he was jumping on the bandwagon when it's safe to do so. The Clintons actions helped cost Gore a clear victory in 2000, so why he remains loyal to them can only be seen as a sign of his integrity, even though the Clintons don't deserve it. Gore stepped out of the way of Hillary's ambition and now the moment belongs to Obama. I can't help but wonder if what's going on in Gore's mind right now is "that could've been me!" Hillary wasn't the sure bet after all.

What an amazing year so far! Who would've thought?!?

Across the Boomer Universe

A month or so ago, I finally watched the film "Across the Universe." I remember seeing the trailer for it back at the midnight screening of "Spider-man 3" last year and when the lead actor sang "nothing's gonna change my world," someone in the audience made fun of him by singing something back, which made quite a few people laugh. At the time, I thought it was kind of rude. But in retrospect, I can totally understand. Boomers are so in love with their generation and it's history that they continue to come out with movies about their experience. The younger generation is, frankly, tired of it.

That was the feeling I had when I watched "Across the Universe." It's all been done before...BETTER. No other movie captures the Baby Boomer experience as well as "Forrest Gump." And like "Forrest Gump", "Across the Universe" has the standard cliches of starting at innocence then protesting the war, with some being drafted while others protest and fall into the hippie culture. I mean, this is "Hair" redux, with Beatles tunes.

I admit that it's a highly creative, visually stunning film, and quite ambitious (to form a story/plot around Beatles songs!). There are some scenes that work remarkably well (my favourites include the scenes when "With A Little Help From My Friends" is sung; when they are at the bowling alley; and most especially the creative "I Want You/She's So Heavy", where they do a brilliant choreagraphy about being inducted into military service--it kind of reminded me of my MEPS experience in 1990), but the movie runs a bit long. Perhaps as much as 40 minutes too long. The movie started losing me when they do the whole psychedelic bus trip. It really didn't add to the movie, only made it a cliche. Even Bono (channeling Ringo channeling Tim O'Leary) couldn't save this part of the movie. He might be a walrus ("coo-coo coo chew!"), but I was bored. The film tries to put too much of the Boomer experience into a story and it doesn't work as well as it did in "Forrest Gump."

It wasn't surprising that the film bombed at the box office. The Beatles and the Boomers are too over-exposed and they need to get out of the way for the next generation. This movie is meant to be a love letter to the Beatles and the Boomers, but I get the sense that Boomers weren't interested in watching a movie like it was a bad acid flashback (it'll only remind them how much they've betrayed their youthful idealism...by sending our generation off to two catastrophic wars and by over-medicating their own children because they don't want to deal with ADHD or whatever else).

Message to Hollywood...NO MORE BOOMER MOVIES!!! The 60s are overdone. There's really nothing new you can add, even if you dress it up in kaleidoscope colours and feature the music of what many consider to be the world's greatest rock band. How about movies about Generations X/Y's experience? You know...how Boomers betrayed their youthful idealism and ruined the world for the succeeding generations to inherit. Simply put, President Bush is the perfect personification of the self-indulgent Boomer generation. Learn nothing from the Vietnam War experience and send the next generation to fight in TWO quagmires (with threats of a possible third one before he leaves office).

So, skip "Across the Universe" and get ready for the "Battle in Seattle" (about the 1999 WTO riots)!

Come On Up for the Uprising

On Friday night, I went to Powell's Bookstore to attend a lecture by David Sirota (another member of my generation). It was one of the larger crowds I had seen at a Powells lecture. Unlike other lectures I've gone to, Sirota had a cool powerpoint presentation complete with video clips and cool special effects to illustrate data points more dramatically (such as showing the sea-change between the 1928 election when Herbert Hoover won a majority of the states to 1932 when FDR did a complete landslide over Hoover). On the scale of literary lectures I've been to, I rate this one high on the awesome scale.

I overheard someone remark that David Sirota kind of resembles John Stewart. I would say that yes, they could probably pass for brothers. I had seen him on either "Nightline" or "Charlie Rose" recently but was only half-paying attention to it. I'm glad that I went to this lecture because it contained a lot of statistics and data that a wonky guy like me could spend hours staring at and interpreting what they mean (oh, to find such a job!).

Sirota's main thesis is that America is ripe for a major uprising like we haven't seen in a long time. He pointed to past uprisings that have brought one party or the other to power. In our lifetime, unfortunately, conservatives have had the upper hand, with the election of Nixon in 1968 in a backlash against liberalism's excesses and the war in Vietnam; then again with Ronald Reagan in 1980, followed by the Gingrich Revolution in 1994. But signs are such that things don't look well for Republicans anymore. Bush truly broke the bank with his brazen incompetence and massive giveaways to corporations, Wall Street, Enron, foreigners like Saudi Arabia, etc.

There is concern that the average American can be duped into once again voting against their self-interest, especially in regards to race and the persistent fear many have that Obama is a secret Muslim agent who will make everyone convert to Islam. I'm actually shocked that so many people believe that crap, including people in my own church. It just amazes me how people prefer to live and vote in ignorance and get angry when I point out the facts to them. I guess I just don't understand the mindset of a person who prefers to believe lies over truth. I never though Americans would ever desire that for themselves. We've seen how believing lies over the truth led to the downfall of the Soviet Union (because communist leaders really wanted to believe that having five and ten year plans for the economy was doing fine keeping up with capitalism, which left them far in the dust).

However, Sirota also claims to be the eternal optimist and thinks that the Democrats are going to win big this time. He made a few caveats, such as his insistence that he's a progressive rather than a liberal. I agree with his assessments on history. Mainly that Washington, D.C. is the last place to affect change in our country. To really change our country, we have to do it locally. I learned this lesson late. After my disgust over the stolen election of 2000, and seeing our national government do things I never thought I'd ever see it do (authorizing torture, detaining people without charge, violating the U.S. Constitution, lie us into another war, even concocting the most traumatizing scheme on the American people: 9/11). I moved to Portland in part because it's a progressive city that I want to be a part of. Thus why for the first time in my life this year, I've actually been more excited about the local races than the presidential one. I'm volunteering on a city council race now that Sam Adams was elected mayor (to be sworn in at midnight on January 1st). Portland is an exciting place to get involved in politics at the local level.

One thing I heard a pundit mention recently is that there might be a repeat of 2000 in which Obama wins the popular vote while McCain wins the electoral vote. I'm telling you if that happens, Democrats should not allow the Republicans to once again take office that way. It should be fought against, perhaps even with a threat that the Blue states will not abide by that result and refuse to participate at the electoral college election. You might have seen on the side bar the "Republic of Cascadia" flag that I have. As much as I love America and want it to remain unified, I also believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence that it is our right as a people to dissolve a government that no longer represents our interests. If McCain gets the presidency through fraud or similar to how Bush came into office, we as progressive Americans should not allow it to happen. I'd be fully in favour of Washington, Oregon, and California forming a new union, the Republic of Cascadia. I fear further calamities for our country if we continue down this path of environmental destruction, violations of human rights, illegal war and spying, etc. Remember, the president we elect in November will be the president when December 21, 2012 comes into the present. From what I've read about that mysterious date, the choices we are making now determines the kind of future our planet will have the day after that date comes to past.

As Dr. Martin Luther King so eloquently put it: "Where do we go from here? Chaos or community?"

I choose community. I hope you will too.

Happy (Burn a) Flag Day

Today is Flag Day, in case you weren't aware. Usually, as is tradition, a motion is made in Congress around this time each year (particularly in election years), some conservative politician brings up a bill to ban flag burning. It never passes (thank God!) and sometimes you wonder if it ever will. I remember hearing the debate in 2000 and Senator Russ Feingold (always one of my favourites) made a speech stating the absurdities of having such a law. He used as an example a restaurant menu that had an American flag on it (though I've never seen a restaurant menu that had one on there) and accidentally catching fire by a table candle. Would that person be arrested? Or how about Boy Scouts, who burn flags when they get ratty and worn. That is the only proper way to retire a flag. Are we going to arrest them?

I suspect that the reason why there hasn't been talk of such a bill (if one is even in motion again) is because there are more serious matters at stake in our country. If impeachment doesn't merit enough time for our members of Congress to investigate and vote, then you know flag burning is way down on the list of priorities, which is a good thing. Considering all that's going on in our world.

It seems like we are in the age of environmental catastrophe. Smug fundamentalists types see this as "proof" that the Book of Revelations in the Bible is true. They eat this stuff up when Pat Robertson gives it to them. There are groups that have an Apocalypse clock and who knows where they put the time (seven minutes before midnight?) as we are living it now.

For some time now, I have been wanting to comment on the strange timing of the two disasters that befell both Burma and China. First a typhoon hit Burma and the regime was so paranoid that they preferred to allow tens of thousands of their citizens to die rather than allow foreigners in to help with humanitarian aid. A week or so later, an earthquake hit China, which resulted in disaster when people realized that China's building boom does not utilize earthquake-proof technology and design. What struck me about the two disasters is that BOTH countries cracked down hard on the Buddhists in the past year. It almost appears like karmic retribution, though it's hard to say that considering that it's the poorest who suffer in disaster the most. But perhaps like Hurricane Katrina, these disasterous natural occurrences are meant to wake people up to the incompetence of their government. Maybe these events are spiritually designed to be a wake up call. People have gotten complacent in prosperity (or hopeless in abject poverty as is the case in Burma). Now, there is an outrage brewing as people realize that their government has failed in the most important task required for its very existence: protection of the people.

A note about Katrina...Bush's approval ratings have never recovered from the moment that storm pulverized New Orleans. He sank below the 40% rating and now seems to hover around 30%. I have my theory on why this is the case. I believe that Katrina completely unmasked him for the fraud that he is. His response was identical to the frozen in fear response he gave on 9/11 when Andrew Card whispered in his ear that America was under attack. After sitting there for 7 minutes while the teacher continued to read "My Pet Goat" to the elementary school kids, he got on Air Force One and headed to Offutt AFB, Nebraska with a stop here or there. What does that tell you? He didn't appear in New York until three days later or so. Four years later, when Katrina made landfall, he was playing a guitar for John McCain at a birthday bash. He didn't go to New Orleans until three days later or so, and even then it was a fly-over on Air Force One to survey the damage. In fact, he was so blissfully ignorant of the disaster that a staff member had to put together a DVD and force him to watch it. Now, it's absolutely incredible that the president of the United States of America PREFERRED to remain ignorant of one of the largest natural disasters ever to befall our country and a lowly staff assistant had to put together a DVD and FORCE him to watch it! What, he doesn't get FOX News Channel on Air Force One? Or maybe they were too busy talking about the Natalee Holloway disappearance to focus on Katrina.

I consider Katrina to be the stripping away of Bush's false facade. No wonder why he's never recovered in the polls. Only the truly ideologically blind are still with him to the end because for egotistical reasons, they can't face the facts and admit that they had made a mistake supporting him in the first place. They are all too willing to go down with him like the lemmings they are.

The above picture is a scene from downtown Cedar Rapids, Iowa which is currently flooded. Also in the past few days, a freak tornado ripped through a Boy Scout camp and took the lives of four Boy Scouts. I was shocked. I had gone to that camp when I was in the Boy Scouts and what I most remember about it was that some kid had started a fire that burned a huge area and our weekend campout turned out to be helping put out the fire.

Speaking of fire, California's fire season has officially started (it seems early this year). Atlanta is still in a drought. These odd weather patterns should alarm anyone. To me, it's a sign that climate change is reality and it is imperative that we fix it. For fundamentalist types, they see it as a sign that Biblical prophecy is true and thus they want to do nothing about it but hope it continues to increase until Jesus returns.

I've never understood that mentality. It's the same mentality as those who believe in burning a village to save it. It's absurdity in the extreme. But then again, my belief system is so much different. I believe that we are called by God to take care of the planet. It's part of our responsibility. Think of it like a parent who entrusts his or her teenager with the house while they go on vacation somewhere. What does the responsible teenager do? Check the mail, water the plants, cut the grass, do the dishes, vacuum the living room, etc. What does the reckless teenager do? Throw a party inviting all his or her friends, who all get happy to wreck havoc on someone else's house and leave when the party's over without offering to clean up. Mom and dad come home and what do they find?

So, why would the people who claim to be followers of God and of Jesus do such a horrible thing to God's planet? What gives them the right to claim that they are more righteous than those who might be agnostic but strong environmentalists?

I'm telling you, it's a crazy world. No wonder why Jesus said that the first will be last and the last first. What that tells me is that people who think they are righteous but do unrighteous things will receive a shock on the day of judgment. We are all meant to be caretakers of God's earth. If we want this planet to be around for future generations, we have to help solve the planetary crisis.

The Ongoing Gender Wars

Continuing a post from Monday, there were some more things I wanted to write about the firestorm of controversy. On Thursday, I snuck a peek at the Cybercommunity webboard when someone sent me a private message. I read the responses to my last post, but didn't respond and won't. Interesting that at least one snuck a peek at my blog and objected to my use of the term "feminazi" (no surprise, actually). The irony escaped her, however, because she had no qualms calling me a misogynist (labeling me) while hating being labeled herself. That told me everything I needed to know, but I knew that already because they often accused conservatives of falsely labeling people to silence them and here they are doing the same thing to a fellow liberal. I love exposing hypocrites by giving them a taste of their own medicine because they are blind to their own sins while they stone others.

People on the webboard know that I'm not perfect and because I'm honest about my flaws and defend my positions, it probably drives them crazy because they put on a false facade of perfection and don't like anyone cracking chips in it. For me honest dialogue is controversial because people will reveal what they really believe and if we don't like what they say, the more sensitive among us get offended and want to silence the offending person. I'm completely the opposite. I want the ugly truth over the flattering lie. I want to know what people REALLY think. I don't get that impression from these radical feminists. They live in a fantasy world where sexism is everywhere, where men who tell them things they want to hear is always speaking the truth (or if a man doesn't argue back, it means he agrees with their opinion when in reality, maybe he just doesn't feel like arguing). Because I share personal experiences of what I've seen, they don't like it because it doesn't fit their fantasy world where women are always the innocent victims of misogynistic men who don't want to give up their power.

So, they attack me viciously. Interestingly, a Mormon male who lives in the UK was the only one who defended me and his views were criticized, just because he wrote about his observations on the gender differences. What is it with these radical feminists, anyway?!? Why are they so threatened by the idea that physical and psychological (biological) differences exist between men and women? I thought the whole point of feminism was to gain greater equality in the workplace. Here I am, a male, getting paid low wages in an office predominantly made up of females. I have a female supervisor. One of my critics makes way more money than me, but she's in info technology and most of her co-workers are male. Another of my critics chose to live in the most macho of American states (Texas). So, it's laughable in a tragic way that they've made me the scapegoat for whatever anger they harbor towards the men they work with or live among. I'm not the one keeping them down. I have no power to influence anything in my workplace. I'm just a drone, seeking a more fulfilling career elsewhere.

I did a Google search on feminism and came across this list of "Myths of Feminism" which I thought was interesting:

Myth #1:

The traditional role of a woman is less significant than the traditional role of a man.

Myth #2:

Equality is achieved when you cannot distinguish the role of a woman from the role of a man.

Myth #3:

Marriage is legalized rape & slavery.

Myth #4:

Husbands & Fathers are disposable.

Myth #5:

You don't need a man to be happy.

Myth #6:

All men are untrustworthy idiots.

Myth #7:

Anything a man can do, a woman can do better.

Myth #8:

Never submit to a man; they are the source of all suffering.

Myth #9:

The purpose of femininity is to get a man to do whatever you want.

Myth #10:

The right to an abortion is sacred.

The reason I bold "Myth # 9" is because that is my deepest impression of what feminism has become today. Radical feminists aren't happy unless they can CONTROL the thoughts men have. Any views, experiences, observations, and opinions they find offensive, they want to censor and pretend doesn't exist. Yet, go to any bookstore and look at books on human relationships (besides those "Mars and Venus" books that were the rage in the 1990s) or about the crisis boys are supposedly having in schools. They cite numerous examples of the way men and women think and we need a translator, it seems, to understand one another.

I'm all for the idea that women can become doctors and men become nurses (both my dad and one of my uncles are nurses), or that they can be pilots while men are flight attendants. I support equal opportunity regardless of gender or race. So why the controversy?

I also read the dictionary definition of the following words:

sexism

1. The belief that one sex (usually the male) is naturally superior to the other and should dominate most important areas of political, economic, and social life. Sexist discrimination in the United States in the past has denied opportunities to women in many spheres of activity. Many allege that it still does.

2. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.

3. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

mi·sog·y·nist

One who hates women.

Of or characterized by a hatred of women.


When have I been either of those things? I want to see more females in public office and corporations. I believe that the inherent values they bring (being quality focused rather than quantity focused as men tend to be) will truly transform our world. Back in 1991, I believed Anita Hill over Clarence Thomas. And I was outraged over the harassment that took place at the Tailhook Convention in Las Vegas the same year. When Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Pat Murray, and Carole Moseley Braun won seats to the U.S. Senate in 1992, I was thrilled. I had hoped that Feinstein would've won the governorship of California in 1990 when she ran, but a Senate seat is just as good.

Even though we're bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm fully on board and willing to serve if Bush decided to invade Burma to restore the National League for Democracy to rightful power (as mandated by the overwhelming majority of the Burmese people in 1990's election), making Aung San Suu Kyi the president to lead them into a new era.

As a teenager, when my church finally allowed women to serve in priesthood roles, I didn't see what the big deal was. I thought it was long overdue. In fact, when pondering who to ask to give my Evangelist Blessing (a church ordinance that my Mormon friends know as a "Patriarchal Blessing"), I decided that I wanted a woman to give mine, partly because if anyone ever said to me that women holding priesthood offices is wrong or offensive to God, then I'd have proof that God does indeed work through women. And let me tell you, my Evangelist Blessing was so right on target. I read it again a few months ago and even though it was 9 years ago when I received it, it's still as relevant today as it was back then.

My first crush in elementary school was a neighborhood girl I used to walk home with. I remember one day, we talked about what we learned in class about strangers and I had made a comment that all strangers were bad. She corrected me by using an example of a person she knew who was a stranger to me, yet he was not a bad person. I remember being struck by her intelligence and appreciated the insight she gave me. To this day, the women that have most attracted me or impressed me are the ones who appealed to my intellect. I totally view women as my equals in every way, so it is deeply hurtful that these radical feminists who should see me as an ally continue to view me as a villain and the source of all the pains in their lives (probably inflicted by Alpha Male types). All this over disagreements regarding gender differences.

I think I know what it is, though. In the fall of 1999, I had the fortunate luck of having two prospects to date. One was a feminist lady who belonged to the same church as me. As I got to know her, I was actually turned off by her political correctness and obsession with gender politics (including using the term "Creator Goddess" in a prayer). Once, when she heard the song "Mambo #5" by Lou Bega (you know the one..."a little Monica in my life, a little Susan on the side, little Mary next to me..." type of lyrics), she just went off on how offensive it was.

By contrast, for months, I had gotten to know a Mormon lady from the Dominican Republic (who also served a mission). She was easy to talk to, intelligent, classy, with a great sense of humour. Whenever I asked what her plans were for the weekend, for the summer, or for after graduation, she'd always tell me: "Get drunk and have lots of sex." Each time she said it, I'd just start cracking up. Well, it's a bit unusual for a Mormon lady to joke like that, so after she kept on saying it, I asked her why. Her response was: "I just like seeing you laugh and you always laugh no matter how many times I say it." Wow. That was probably one of the sweetest things anyone has ever said to me. What's more is that she loved the song "Mambo #5". She thought it was hilarious, as I did. Most telling of all, when the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal hit, I was so angry that I thought Clinton should resign and she said that he shouldn't. We disagreed on it and had an interesting discussion. In the end, she was right and I was wrong.

My point in bringing up these examples is that one lady is so obviously comfortable around men to joke like that, a song doesn't offend her, and she even saw a president's sexual problems in a relevant light (that it didn't warrant a resignation). Her ambition was to be a lawyer in Miami. I don't know what happened to her, but I wish I could meet more women like her. She was so easy to get along with because she wasn't always trying to censor thoughts and ideas, she had a sense of humor about things, and she could hold her own against anyone. The other lady was obsessed with political correctness, gender politics, and found things to be offended about everywhere she looked. Now, when you're given a choice between two people like that, isn't it generally the case that most people prefer to be around the one with a great sense of humour and doesn't get offended easily?

What these radical feminists are blind to is that their obsessions with the complete end of any gender differences has created a backlash among conservatives. That backlash comes in many forms, but the most famous is "Promise Keepers." While "feminists" have put an ideological spin on the word "feminine" (any time you add -ism to a word, you are an ideologue), no word like "Masculinist" exists. Why?

So, Promise Keepers is that back to the 1950s mentality of the nuclear family (or some might say back to the cro-magnon mentality) where men are the head of household and women play a subservient role. What do feminists have to say about this movement? I have some ideas, but I haven't read any feminist essays on the topic. However, I think it's interesting in recent light of the controversies my honesty has provoked in the radical feminists, they demonize me and label me...when I'm nothing like a Promise Keeper at all. I'd actually feel uncomfortable at a Promise Keepers rally. I guess in my personal philosophy, I generally follow the Buddhist advice of seeking the middle way in all things. Feminism is extreme on one side while Promise Keepers represents the extreme on the other side.

Besides that, I'm also an advocate of Hegel's Dialectic. The basic summary is: "Thesis, antithesis, synthesis." What that means is that you take any idea you're presented with and then you read the opposing idea, then you try to find a common ground between the two ideas. Thus you come up with a new idea. Both feminism and Promise Keepers want a society that I don't agree with and wouldn't want to live in. There has to be balance between the two. Equal opportunity, equal pay -- yes. Allowing natural gender differences to exist without demonizing people for being who they are -- yes. Feminizing men -- no. Making women subservient to their husbands -- no.

When I attended the Atlanta Community of Christ congregation, they started up a men's group that I was invited to participate in. When I saw that the reading materials they were using were from the Promise Keepers organization, I flat out refused and told one of the associate pastors my reasonings why. For me, I have a strong sense of identity and can see the dangers in churches signing off on things they have no deeper clue about. It was a little disheartening to see my congregation continue with the program (I think it eventually fizzled out, though) after I raised my concerns, but I made a choice not to participate.

Do the radical feminists give me credit at all? No! They lump me into this category of the kind of men I've never agreed with. I am a liberated male, as many in our generation are. When I see my married friends at home, they do a kind of chore sharing and equal partnership that many of our parents generation did not do. So, I'm thinking that radical feminism needs to find new enemies all the time to make itself relevant because equality is here. If they truly want to find sexism, they should join the Republican party. Accusing Obama and his supporters of it is beyond the pale. As I said before...when you make your allies into enemies because you disagree on something as trifling as "biology versus culture" in regards to gender differences, your list of allies will shrink until you're left with nobody.

Rest assured, I don't intend to post any more on this topic. I've said all that I've needed to say about the recent controversy. All in all, they lost an ally and a friend. Now when I meet people who complain about that webboard or about radical feminists, I can share with them my own experiences of being burned by the fury of these radicals who care more about ideology than human relationships and honest dialogue. It was kind of funny when the board hardly inspires a dialogue (as often happens when you only have like-minded individuals posting), some would complain that no one was posting anything. Maybe someday, no one will post but the blame is entirely theirs. Honest dialogue only gets you grief, so I'm moving on to people who can talk with each other without applying labels or throwing stones. We can all learn from one another's experiences, even if we don't agree with how they view it. But it's in the understanding of how another views his or her experiences that helps you grow into a fully realized person.

The Democratic Veepstakes

Now on to the Democratic Veepstakes! This one is a lot trickier because of the fanatical Hillary supporters who threaten mutiny and sabotage if their beloved candidate isn't respected and treated appropriately. Though she's not the nominee, they'll settle for the Vice Presidency...for now. But if anyone ever watched that short-lived TV show, "Commander-in-Chief", the female Vice President (played by Geena Davis) became president when the male president died. Not to sound too cynical, but the number of Clinton associates who died in the 1990s is something to consider. With Hillary alluding to RFK's assassination, it only makes you wonder what's happening behind the scenes, what might be concocted in some clandestine meeting somewhere in Northern Idaho or Western Montana. I am a little worried about Denver this summer when the Convention happens. I can't help it when Hillary looked a little too happy and all too willing to raise the spectre of RFK's tragic end when he won a huge victory. With Obama being the perfect political offspring of MLK and RFK, you have to take that into consideration.

So, no, I would strongly urge Obama not to select Hillary as a running mate. He needs someone who won't attempt to steal the limelight nor one who might be too happy if Obama meets the same fate as the two heroes of the 1960s. With this being another 8 year (why does turmoil seem to strike most in the eighth year of a decade?), the risk is too great. Plus there are better candidates to select from.

He could go with Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, who knows what it takes to win in a red state. She's on her second term and quite popular. However, it could also be seen as an insult to Hillary supporters, since Hillary went through all the troubles in an attempt to win the nomination while Obama thinks he can placate her supporters by offering another female in Hillary's place. So, based on that reason, I don't think he will choose a female running mate if it won't be Hillary. Kathleen will probably end up in a Cabinet position at some point or (depending on how young she is) even running in 2012 or 2016. She's definitely a politician to watch for in the next decade.

Governor Mark Warner of Virginia was rumoured to begin running for president when he left office a few years ago. When he didn't announce a campaign, it came as kind of a shock. Why wouldn't he run? There were very few Governors running this time and that has been the preferred stepping stone to the presidency in recent years. Plus, he's from a red state. That makes him a good prospect for Vice President. However, I don't know much about his background and if he has critical foreign policy experience. That's what Obama truly needs in a running mate.

If Obama wanted to shake up the political system a bit, he could cross the aisle and select Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, who has indicated recently that he might vote for Obama for president. What I like about Hagel is that he's a typical Midwesterner (from the great state of Nebraska) in that he's moderate and no fan of religious extremism that seems to have taken over the Republican party. He has a military background with solid foreign policy credentials and with his being a Republican, it would send a message of unity in the post-Bush era. What better than to have a government of national unity as some had proposed when John Kerry supposedly had asked McCain to be his running mate in 2004?

John Edwards has indicated that he does not want to be asked, let alone selected as the Vice Presidential candidate. I have a good hunch why. He wants to be Obama's Attorney General and I think he would make the best one since Robert F. Kennedy held that position from 1961 through 1964.

Senator Joe Biden has nothing but love for Obama, as you might recall when his honesty got him into some trouble (because he had the audacity to mention that Obama had the looks, charisma, and talent to succeed where a Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and others did not). Though his second campaign for president hardly made an impact (his first campaign in 1988 blew up over allegations of plagiarism), he does have the most foreign policy experience and knowledge of anyone who ran on the Democratic side this cycle. He is exactly the kind of Vice President needed to give balance to a relatively inexperienced Obama. And with his political views, we can rest assured that he's no nefarious Rasputin like Dick-less Cheney.

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana endorsed Hillary, but selecting him would bring executive experience (he served two terms as governor in the 1990s) and the possibility of putting Indiana in the Democratic column for the first time since ???? Other than that (and a potential swoon factor among some women), he's kind of a lightweight. In 2000, I had hoped that Gore would've selected him as a running mate because he's in the DLC-wing of the party that seemed to be the path towards victory then, but after he voted for the USA PATRIOT Act and the War in Iraq, I kind of lost an interest in his career. There was talk since the 1990s that he had presidential aspirations, but didn't run in 2004 (possibly because he was up for re-election in the Senate that year as well) and in 2007 announced that he wasn't running this time either. I think he saw the writing on the wall...the DLC days are over. The progressives have the upper hand now.

Though Senator James Webb recently won a seat to Congress in 2006 (thanks in small part to Senator George Allen's "macaca" comment that exploded big on the new force in politics: YouTube), he served as Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration, has written some military novels (which I still hope to get around reading someday), and has a son serving in Iraq (unlike most Republican politicians). He is the one I'd like to see as Obama's running mate the most, but the problem is that Virginia has another Senate race this year and if Obama wins and Webb is the Vice President, they'll have to select another Senator and who's to say that George Allen might not want his seat back? Plus, Senator Webb has the potential to be a very influential Senator, so it's probably best if Obama does not pick him.

I've heard other names mentioned...Bill Richardson (though he's most likely going to be Obama's Secretary of State), Sam Nunn (too far off the political scene, though he's now actively involved in helping to secure Russia's loosely guarded nuclear materials), and Tim Kane (current governor of Virginia, who will remain as such).

It's a tough choice, that's for sure. There's no other shining stars out there currently, who serve as Governors in critical swing states, so if Obama is looking at the electoral map, my guess is that he might choose Evan Bayh, but if foreign policy is important, then Joe Biden is a good choice. If it were up to me, I'd go ahead and select James Webb as the vice president and let the chips fall where they may. I'll be very interested to see who Obama ends up picking because it will show a little bit more about his thought processes. When Clinton picked Gore in 2000, I was in disbelief because it defied conventional thinking at the time. It showed me what a sharp thinker Clinton was and made me more comfortable in voting for him (my biggest worry in 1992 was that there were more Gennifer Flowers waiting out there to bring him down, which is why I hated the events of 1998 when my fears became reality).

I don't know when the choice will be made, but I expect some time after the Fourth of July weekend. If I remember correctly, in 2004, John Kerry announced his choice before the holiday because I was visiting a friend in Iowa at the time and we were relieved when he did not pick Hillary as a running mate.

Anyone want to make an office pool bet on the Veeps for both parties?

My predictions are: Christine Todd Whitman for the Republicans; Mark Warner for the Democrats.

The Republican Veepstakes

With the nominees in both parties pretty much secured, now the pundit class has taken to it's favourite parlour game: the Veepstakes! It's a guessing game that everyone loves to play and speculate on, including yours truly.

For today's post, I'll speculate on the other side of the political aisle. McCain is a Maverick politician, so it's anyone's guess who he'll pick as a running mate. I've heard speculations ranging from Mitt Romney (who is supposedly courting quite heavily for the pick), Huckabee, and even crossing the aisle to pick Senator Joseph Lieberman.

However, my gut instinct tells me that McCain might be bold enough to pick a female candidate. It would be a wise move on his part and kind of a slap at the Democrats. And it may be the kind of choice that guarantees that Hillary supporters will vote for McCain in November. However, it's risky because Republicans have this reputation for being a party of macho white alpha males and frat boys. If anyone is sexist and misogynistic, it's a stereotypical, gun-totin', Promise Keepin' Republican man. Would they vote for McCain if he had a female running mate? That's the big unanswered question.

If McCain does go for the surprisingly good choice, he can do no better than to select Christine Todd Whitman, who was a popular governor of New Jersey in the 1990s and had served in the first Bush term as head of the Environmental Protection Agency until her falling out with the way they do business (denial about facts). She is one of the few Republicans I like and I think McCain has a serious chance of winning if he dared to pick her as a running mate, especially since New Jersey tends to vote Democratic but is considered a pivotal swing state.

Kay Bailey Hutchison is shining star in the Republican party, as a Senator from the most macho of American states: Texas. I don't know that much about her, but that's what Wikipedia is for. If men have qualms about women being tough enough to be president or vice president, I think Hutchison is plenty tough and would serve a McCain presidency quite well.

Elizabeth Dole. What can I say about this Senator from North Carolina? She has a great resume, dating back to her days as the Secretary of Transportation in the Reagan Administration. Actually, she had prior experience before that. She was a "Johnson girl" who became a Republican (which I remember reading about in 1996 because it contrasted with Hillary's "Goldwater girl" who became Democratic) and served in the Nixon Administration. She also served in the first Bush administration. Her notable achievement was the creation of a third brake light that is standard in all cars since the 1990s. She headed the American Red Cross in the 1990s and in 1996, her husband Bob Dole ran for president. Remember speculation at the time on how they should've held a debate between the spouses? Hillary versus Elizabeth would've been an interesting debate. In 2000, she had attempted to run for president but couldn't find enough financial backers to support her campaign (Dan Quayle had the same problem, thanks to everyone viewing Bush as the saviour of their party...God, don't you just love the whole irony of it all?). In 2002, she won a seat in the U.S. Senate to represent her home state of North Carolina.

In every election since 1952 with the exception of 1964, there has always been a Nixon, Dole, or Bush on the Republican ballot for president/vice president. Will McCain keep this streak going by selecting Elizabeth as his running mate?

Finally, who can forget Condoleezza Rice? By picking her, McCain would be bitchslapping the Democrats with the ultimate insult. Many Democrats seemed to hate the fact that we had to choose between two historical candidates which one to be president first. Condoleezza solves that problem...why not both? She also brings an interesting resume to the job...from Provost of Stanford University, to National Security Advisor, to Secretary of State. Jefferson served as Secretary of State under Washington and Vice President under Adams, so maybe it's time for an African American to follow suit (as the soul of Jefferson might be intrigued by such a possibility). Selecting her would also provide some continuity between the outgoing Bush Administration and an incoming McCain Administration.

However, I think while this choice would represent the boldest of all choices, we are talking about the Republican Party after all. Too many of their core voters wouldn't vote for a woman or an African American and with her on the ticket, it might lead to a huge surge for the Libertarian Party (headed by former Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia) or else staying home on election day.

And who can forget Rice's testimony to the 9/11 Commission when she didn't want to reveal the title of the presidential daily briefing and stammered until finally muttering, "I believe it was titled, 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.'" If anything should ever doom her from holding political office, it is those words. Even Scott McClelland has some rather unflattering things to say about her in his recent book.

Nope...as sexy as she is, when the Bush term is up, I hope she'll join the cast of "Sex and the City" for a sequel. She can continue to shop for her beloved Manolo Blahniks, as she was reported to have done while New Orleans was being ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. See, France, even America has its own Marie Antoinette!

Out of those choices, I'm predicting that John McCain will ask Christine Todd Whitman to be his running mate. Of course, I have no idea if they even get along, which is probably the biggest requirement, so take my prediction for the armchair novice that I am. If I'm right, even I'll be shocked...but if he's going to choose a female running mate, she is the best one, in my opinion. If he chooses a male running mate, it proves to me that he's a typical Republican who doesn't have an eye on history and prefers to keep power among the minority class of white males for yet another term.

Stay tuned for tomorrow's post, when I'll write my predictions for the Democratic Veepstakes.

My Political History

I've been wanting to do this for some time...writing about how I became such a political person. Everyone who knows me seems to know this about me, even if we've just met (I suspect that others clued them in before meeting me). For me, politics has always been my passion and my sport (unlike most guys, I don't watch sports on a regular basis. I only watch special sporting events like the Olympics, Superbowl, and maybe the World Series). Though it shouldn't be treated as a game, politics in this country (especially presidential politics) is presented like a sporting contest (with each state worth certain points). The last two and a half years have been a godsend for me, first with my hope that the Democrats would be able to take back Congress when sex scandal after sex scandal plagued the moralist Repugnant-cans. Then Nancy Pelosi made history as the first female Speaker of the House. Then the focus turned to the 2008 election with Hillary and Obama announcing their campaigns. What an amazing two and a half years, what can I say.

The picture of me above was taken in 1995 at a private school in Middletown, Delaware (or is it Middleton?). I had wanted to make my pilgrimage there for a few years and when I lived in Norfolk and a co-worker of mine wanted to visit his girlfriend who lived in Newark, Delaware, we went on a roadtrip. What is so significant about that private school? Well, if the courtyard and arch look vaguely familiar, then you've most likely seen one of my all-time favourite films: "Dead Poets Society." I was re-enacting a scene from the movie when one of the students leaned against the support and told the teacher Mr. Keating (Robin Williams' best role) that he was exercising the right not to walk, thereby proving Keating's point about nonconformity. One of the reasons I loved that movie so much is that it came out in the summer before my senior year, but I didn't see it until it came to the dollar theater during my senior year. By that point, I had a great teacher I admired (Thomas Malone, who taught U.S. Government) who was in many ways exactly like the teacher Robin Williams played.

However, I should go back further. For me, one of my earliest memories was my mom taking me into a voting booth which had a curtain. I remember thinking what an interesting idea it was. I'm pretty certain that was during the 1976 election, which President Carter won. The only thing I remember about the Carter years, however, was that they had a young daughter in the White House. I remember hearing my parents or someone talking about government, so I asked my dad who government was. When he tried to explain, it only confused me further. I thought government was a person. I must've been 6 or 7 years old. What I remember about it is that government sounded very interesting to me. I wanted to learn more about it.

In 1980, my brother and I were in the Cub Scouts in Utah (my dad was stationed at Hill Air Force Base). At a Blue and Gold Banquet, everyone had to bring a cake to auction off. The cake had to be on a political theme. My dad showed his creative side and asked what we wanted on each of our cakes. For mine, I had an actual race for the White House. We had three metal cars (a cheap knock-off of Matchbox or Hot Wheels), with photos of Reagan, Carter, and Anderson attached. At the center of the cake was a White House made out of sugar cubes (with white birthday cake candles for the pillars). Of course, the cake showed our bias, as we had President Carter in the lead car, with Reagan in distant second.

My brother's cake featured cartoon pictures of Reagan and Carter in a boxing match referred by Uncle Sam. That was a cool looking cake. Much better than mine. We didn't win any prizes, from what I recall, which was a disappointment, because every other cake we saw had red, white, and blue frosting or other patriotic images. Nothing creative like ours were.

When Reagan got elected, I remember hating it. I didn't like the guy, even though I was too young to know better. Even my parents were surprised by my intense dislike of him. My dislike only grew the older I got. Perhaps it's my political instincts. I was a born Democrat. My parents won't claim to be members, even if they tended to vote Democratic since 1980; while I'm an actively participating member of the Party.

Pictured above is Bob Kerrey of Nebraska. We had moved to Omaha, Nebraska in 1982. I remember liking him when I saw campaign commercials on TV that fall. He was a Vietnam War veteran, and at the time, I thought it was unusual for a military veteran to be a Democrat. I don't know how I knew that military people tended to be Republican at that young age, but that's what stood out for me about Kerrey. I asked my dad to vote for him for Governor, although I don't think my parents were registered to vote in Nebraska (having maintained Kansas ties). Kerrey won and became a popular governor who brought some attention to the state when he started dating actress Debrah Winger. In an aside, Debrah Winger is currently married to Arliss Howard, who was raised in the RLDS Church in Tucker, Georgia (where his parents lived when I was a teenager in Georgia). I don't know if still a member though.

Anyhow, even when my family moved away from Nebraska in 1985, I still remained loyal to Bob Kerrey and kept track of him when he became a Senator, and voted for him in the 1992 Democratic primary for President (he was my choice in 1992). It was interesting to see a flare up happen between the Gore and Kerrey camps in 2000 when some overzealous Gore aides dissed Bill Bradley for being a "quitter" (when he decided not to run for reelection to the Senate due to what he said was bad politics on the part of Republicans who held the majority at that time). Kerrey was a Bradley supporter in 2000 and I hated the personal attacks between the two camps because I liked and admired Gore, Kerrey, and Bradley. Kerrey left the Senate for a post where he runs some school in New York, if I remember correctly. Also, I think he was on the 9/11 Commission as well, so he got to hear exactly what Bush and Cheney said in their un-recorded joint interview session that was not under oath. I wish I could know what Kerrey knows about that!

In 1990, Andrew Young ran for the Democratic nomination for Governor in Georgia. I think my family was on vacation during the primary, so I couldn't vote for him like I wanted to. It was the first time I was eligible to vote. His campaign was one that I was excited about and had he won the nomination, his campaign most likely would've been the first one I volunteered to work on. But that wasn't the case. Race was still an issue in Georgia (it was only two years earlier that my favourite teacher, Thomas Malone, was attacked along with a busload of African Americans when they went to Forsyth County to protest its "white residents only" policy. This was 1988 we're talking about, not 1968!). Voters chose the bubba Zell Miller over Andrew Young, and we all know what happened to Zell when he ranted like a rabid man at the 2004 Republican National Convention. Zell was a Democrat who enthusiastically endorsed Clinton in 1992 and 1996, as well as Gore in 2000, but something snapped in him on 9/11. He wasn't the same since that tragic day, when his first response to the event was that he wanted to go over there and kill those who did it. In November 1990, I wrote in Andrew Young's name on the ballot because I couldn't stomach voting for Zell. It's another case where my first impression of a candidate turned out to vindicate me later on. Zell is cuckoo like Coca-Puffs.

Here's a couple personal anecdotes about Andrew Young...in 1994, after I was robbed in South Africa, an African lawyer helped me fill out a police report and drove me back to my hotel. When he learned that I was from Atlanta, he said that he knew Andrew Young. So, we talked a little bit about Andrew Young and how I had voted for him to be Governor (Young served as a UN Ambassador in the Carter Administration until he was forced to resign for comments he made showing support for the Palestinian cause; he eventually became Mayor of Atlanta in the 1980s and was instrumental in helping Atlanta win the right to host the 1996 Olympic Games. He's also known for being one of Martin Luther King's "young lieutenants" in the Civil Rights movement). In 1996, I met Andrew Young at a booksigning and asked him if he knew Patrice Motsepe (the South African lawyer) and he did. We had a great conversation about South Africa.

Though I admire Andrew Young, I'm baffled as to why he endorsed Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. I simply don't understand the rationale, but I've read that some speculate that his being on the board of Walmart has made him a bit too corporate these days and we all know that Hillary also has ties to the board of Walmart. But it could also be that they just share a longer personal history that his loyalty was to her and not someone he might not have met.

In 1996, I volunteered on my first campaign. Comer Yates (pictured above) reminded me a lot of my former Government teacher (Thomas Malone, whom I had often wished would run for political office despite his local reputation as an atheist troublemaker in the religious South). What they have in common is that both are liberal, white males in a conservative South, both taught government to high school students. In 1989, Malone had contemplating leaving teaching to go to Law School (had he done so, I never would have been his student). Comer Yates did leave teaching and became a lawyer. Besides having a law practice with a partner, he taught Ethics at Emory University School of Law. He ran for Congress in 1994 (how I first heard about him) against a Republican opponent who accused him of being to liberal to represent the good people of the 4th Congressional District (where my parents live). In retrospect, 1994 was a difficult year for any Democrat to win thanks to the "Gingrich Revolution" that brought the Republicans back into legislative power for the first time in forty years.

When the Georgia Supreme Court threw out the gerrymandered districts in Georgia (one of them stretching like a snake from the eastern Atlanta suburbs down to Savannah on the coast, several hundred miles away) and reconfigured the new districts, Comer Yates decided to run again. So did two other white men and the notorious Cynthia McKinney. I've written about this and her before, so I won't repeat myself here, other than to say that she played nasty with accusations of racism that to this day have left a bad taste in my mouth that I can't take an interest or support Cynthia in anything she does (including her quixotic run for president as the Green Party's nominee). She managed to beat Yates with a clear 50% +1 to avoid a run-off, thereby ending the campaign in July 1996. I was so disgusted with politics that I didn't bother to volunteer on another campaign. I knew Clinton had an easy reelection so I didn't feel a need to to volunteer with them.

Then came the moment I had waited for since 1993...the moment when Vice President Gore would run for President. He was the #1 reason why I voted for Clinton in 1992 instead of Ross Perot (and I even considered voting for Bush for a brief moment or two, if you can believe that). I've always been a Gore man more than a Clinton man. The universe seemed to recognize this as well, because when I applied to for a White House internship in 1999, I didn't know where I would be assigned. We had four choices and I was advised by a former intern to put two offices (I don't have my paperwork handy at the moment to check which offices I put at #1 and 2) at the top over my preferred "Office of the Vice President." So, I dropped the OVP down to #3. On the first day of the internship in 2000, we received our assignments and when I saw my name listed under "Office of the Vice President," I was ecstatic. I think there were something like 13 different offices to intern in and I had gotten the one I wanted the most. That semester, I was fortunate enough to see Gore more than any of the other OVP interns except the one assigned to his actual office (there were 15 interns assigned to OVP out of about 170 White House interns that semester).

The election of 2000 was very painful for me, as I had a personal stake in it. I wanted to work in his administration since 1993. It was a goal I had worked towards. It was also during this difficult time when I could no longer stand going to church because everyone I knew were Bush supporters and to see them happy about a stolen election was too much to take. I almost left the church in 2001 because of the painful experience. It galled me that none of them had a personal stake in the election. None of them had ambitions to work in a presidential administration like I did, so it kind of felt like they were happy that I didn't get my dream job. And their ignorance about who Gore truly was (versus the caricature created by the media) also hit a nerve. None of them had met him. Not even Gore giving the 1999 commencement address at our church-sponsored college (Graceland College, Lamoni, Iowa) could persuade these fellow church members. How our humble little church managed such a big name commencement speaker should have impressed church members, but nope. They hated Gore because they hated Clinton, without realizing that Gore is a far more decent man than Clinton. He's faithful to his wife, he's less divisive, and even George Herbert Walker Bush was known to have praised Gore as a model son to Bush junior's annoyance (back in the late 1980s). Has their beloved Bush ever given a commencement address at Graceland? Nope. What's surprising to me is that now, a lot of those early Bush supporters are not too fond of him now. Once again, my political instincts vindicate me as to who is the better man.

I only began to get over the loss of 2000 when I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006 and then the clincher was seeing him awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year. He has proven that you can move on towards a larger greatness, even if you don't quite achieve your childhood ambition to be president. I'm in a place now where I can watch a movie like HBO's "Recount" and not be pained by the events of 2000. Of course, part of that has to do with Obama, because let's face it...would we even have an Obama campaign if not for Bush? He came out of nowhere and tapped into something Americans have been hungry for ever since Bush's brand of cynical politics took hold of our country.

In 2004, I worked as a volunteer on the Georgia for Dean group. It was mostly through Meetups and we got the word out without any directives from the actual campaign. It was great. I also got to meet Howard Dean twice, including the day he came to Plains, Georgia to attend church with the Carters (which I had always wanted to do and Dean gave me the perfect opportunity to do so). That remains as one of the best days of my life.

Unfortunately, it was all over a few days later. At a party the Georgia for Dean group held at a local Gordon Biersch restaurant, the reaction was anger and disappointment over what transpired in Iowa, especially the way the media misrepresented his speech and played an endless loop to make him look like a crazed lunatic. It was another painful loss. However, the Georgia for Dean group did manage to hold a celebration party when he became the new Democratic National Committee chair. In many ways, he laid the groundwork for Obama to pick up and run with. As DNC Chair, he also put into place the idea that Democrats should compete for elections everywhere, red districts and red states, not just the DLC strategy of blue-leaning districts and states. His vision helped seal Hillary and her DLC-backers fate that the Gore and Kerry model of campaigning no longer works.

Finally, Barack Obama. While I support his campaign and would like to volunteer on some level, I'm actually more interested in local campaigns and the possibility of Jeff Merkley defeating Senator Gordon Smith in November. I can't help being drawn into local races because for the longest time, my interest focused on the presidential races and I've often been disappointed (in 1984, I supported Gary Hart; in 1988, I didn't even pay attention to the campaigns until Dukakis sealed the deal and he, of course, got my vote in the mock election at my high school. In that mock election, he only won the Class of 1990 and the teachers; Bush won the other classes).

When all is said and done, 2008 will go down as the best election season of my entire life. With so many good candidates to support (Sam Adams for Mayor, Charles Lewis for City Council, Barack Obama for President, Jeff Merkley for U.S. Senate, John Kroger for Attorney General), it was hard to choose. But if every presidential election year is like the Superbowl of American politics, then 2008 would be more like the Summer Olympics. And dang, we get to watch that this summer too.

So, that's me in a nutshell. A political animal like Aristotle said. I live, breathe, sleep, eat politics. It's my passion, it's where I belong, now will someone please hire me to be your wonky aide? You can see from this post who I've supported in the past, who I gave my volunteer energies to, and the basic underlying commonality that runs through it all. I'm part of what the late, great Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota said: "the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party." I'm a loyal progressive and a fighter. It's time to put the Repugs out to pasture for at least a half century.

And in case you're wondering, here's a list of my five favourite U.S. Senators:

1) Senator Barbara Boxer of California

2) Senator James Webb of Virginia

3) Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin

4) Senator Barack Obama of Illinois

5) Senator Dianne Feinstein of California

The Firestorm of Feminism

It is with sad regret that I have to report that I've lost faith in the people who post on the Cybercommunity webboard (which started by dissenters who disliked the censorship that occurred on the Community of Christ webboard in 2000-2002). For months, I've heard people tell me their dissatisfaction with the regular posters on the Cybercommunity board because they've chased away the diversity. Conservatives used to post. Now it's pretty much become a stale place where anyone who writes about an experience or has an opinion that three individuals in particular (whom I'll refer to as "the Feminazi Triumverate") disagree with, they label you with a derogatory title to dismiss anything you have to share. This is something that they have long accused conservatives of doing, whether regarding church politics or national politics. Now, their hypocrisy and ideological blindness is exposed. Groupthink is the perfect term for it.

What happened, you're wondering?

Let me tell you what happened!

It all started because the Hillary supporters just can't give up the idea that Hillary LOST because of her pathetic campaign operation as a whole and who she is as a person. No, these women want to go on believing that it's age-old sexism that has prevented their darling Hillary from being coronated as she had expected to be all throughout 2007.

When I post that it wasn't sexism that doomed her campaign, they wouldn't hear of it. Because of previous bad history in which they never liked anything I've had to say about gender differences, they find it convenient to label me sexist and a misogynist without even knowing my entire history and philosophy. They are nasty about it too. In their minds, men are always wrong and should just shut up and accept that the women are always going to be right. To me, I don't play that game. I'm interested in ideas, no matter how controversial they might be. When I lived in the South, I got tired of people always pointing to race as an issue for every problem they saw. Maybe it's race, maybe it's not. Let's look at it rationally, shall we, without emotional biases.

Nope. With these Hillary fanatics, sexism is the only logical explanation for her failure to achieve the nomination. Hmmmm....Hillary got 18 million votes, many of them working class males in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia and Ohio. That's obvious sexism there, isn't it? How about "Time" magazine reporting that Obama won by overwhelming margins women under age 30. Hmm...can a woman be sexist against her own gender? How about in 2000, when Elizabeth Dole announced she was running for the Republican nomination for president but later had to shut down her campaign when she couldn't find financial backers and supporters? She's more of a "victim" of sexism than Hillary and her 18 million votes and over $100 million contribution raised.

Let's get real here! The Feminazi Triumverate just always had it in for me and don't like my views because I'm an intelligent, liberal guy who doesn't share their opinion that gender differences are cultural. I believe gender differences are biological, and that's what rubs them the wrong way. They want everyone to be genderless androgynous clones of one another. They want us to believe that if you give a four year old boy a Ken Doll at his birthday party in front of all his friends, that he'll not be embarrassed.

Here are some examples from my life that have bugged these women when I mentioned them in the past:

When I was a boy, I remember seeing my sister always whispering into my parents ear all the time. When I asked my mom why she did that, my mom said, "she's just being a girl." As a boy, it never occurred to me to ever whisper in anyone's ear. As my mom explained it, girls tend to like telling people secrets. My mom is from Thailand, and my sister has never been to Thailand. Is this trait universal or cultural?

When I was a boy, I loved playing with toy cars, "Star Wars" action figures, and water/dart/sparkler guns. So did my friends. In elementary school, I remember other boys hating it when a girl pulled them away from the boys to play house.

In the Navy, I heard co-workers say one thing in the presence of other men, while saying the complete opposite in front of their wives. When were they telling the truth and when were they telling something that someone else wanted to hear?

In 2000, I read a book called "Next of Kin" by Roger Fouts, who taught chimpanzees to sign language. He wrote that the female chimpanzees loved to put on make-up and had crushes on human male handlers. If gender differences exist in chimpanzees, then how can it be "cultural"?

On the board, I also pointed out that in the Navy, there are two physical readiness test standards: one for males and one for females. Also, the military has a policy that allows women who are pregnant to get out of sea duty and even out of the Navy altogether. Men don't have this option if they wanted to get out of a military contract. Now, if we truly want gender equality, does that mean equality in terms of physical fitness tests and policies regarding exemption from sea duty or early discharges? If you continue with two standards, are feminists truly okay with it, and if they are, how does that square against their demands for true equality across the board? It appears to me that feminists want it both ways. They want equality when it benefits them and they also want special exemptions when it benefits them. Double standards only create hypocrisy and leads to resentment. I personally know of several cases where an unmarried woman used pregnancy as a way of getting out of sea duty or out of her enlistment contract.

Pointing out facts and asking questions about those facts appears to be too much for these radical feminists to deal with. Instead of addressing the issues, they have made me out to be the villain. I've gotten to the point where I'm tired of their groupthink political correctness. I'm an honest person and value honesty more than any ideology. Politically, I'm a pragmatist who only cares about how things work. I have no use for blind obedience to any "ism."

I know the term "feminazi" is kind of a loaded term. I used to hate it myself. But I think it's an appropriate word to use on anyone who wants to shut down opinions and views they don't agree with because of their ideological blindness to the cause of feminism. It's easy to accuse a man of sexism or of misogyny...but there are man-hating women out there. Putting down men because we share a different perspective isn't the way to a meaningful dialogue and understanding on the role of gender in our society. That's what bothers me the most. These women who run the Cybercommunity webboard have more in common with the fascists who stifle dissent than they care to admit.

It's sad, but funny that they so easily try to put that label on me without knowing my history. But, I don't care because they aren't the true Christians I thought they were. They are bitter extremists who can't stand to be wrong and see that their beloved and perfect candidate didn't win the nomination.

Here's some things about me you should know:

When I was in the Navy, I almost filed a sexual harassment charge against a woman who had a reputation for manipulating men with sexual innuendos and I didn't find that professional when she tried it with me.

Again when I was in the Navy, a buddy of mine was planning to vacation in Thailand for the sole purpose of a "sex holiday." I pleaded with him not to, telling him horror stories of village girls sold into sexual slavery and how he'd be supporting that awful practice.

On CNN as a young man, I saw a documentary on Female Genital Mutilation that deeply offended me that I was happy that a classmate in college (Mandy George) actually wrote about the practice. It was nice to see that other people are equally outraged by it.

At BYU, my New Testament professor (Camille Fronk) was somewhat of a feminist and she chided the Returned Missionaries in the class who wrote papers criticizing the role of women in ancient Palestine. Even more than that, she pointed out my paper as an example of the kind of views she agreed with (I had an ulterior motive in writing my paper the way I did, as I wanted to show that women had every right to be called to the priesthood because Jesus was comfortable around women, but the times Jesus lived in didn't allow it).

There are more examples...such as my being attracted mostly to intelligent women first (physical attraction is second). These feminazis have no clue the heartbreak I've endured over losing the women I fell for because they had an inexplicable attraction towards bad boys who mistreated them.

I know that there are some who take objection to my fondness for Obama Girl videos or my "Santa Babe", but don't stone me because I'm a red-blooded male. Anyhow, when hoards of females went to see "Sex and the City" together last weekend, what does that say about us? Why is it threatening for a man to take an interest in females like Obama Girl but okay for women to openly drool over a shirtless Matthew McConaghey in his dreadful romantic comedies? It's that whole double-standard thing. Just to let you know, I value women's opinions and intellect. I'm most attracted to a woman when she engages my mind, even if I don't find a physical attraction at first. One of the people I admire the most is Aung San Suu Kyi. Her life is an example to me on how to live life. So, it's completely baffling to me that liberal feminist women make me out to be a villain in the mode of a Rush Limbaugh (who obviously does have major issues with women). When you make enemies of your allies, you'll end up like Bush. Alone and unpopular. Let's embrace our differences and not try to turn men into women or women into men. There's room for biological differences and the psychology that goes along with it. Demonizing people who take the biological view rather than the cultural view of gender differences is not the way to ensure a greater equality for all. It's something I thought they'd be smart enough to figure out, but they're more interested in ideology than allies.

So, I'm taking the advice of some friends who have urged me to give the official church webboard a try. I'm tired of the CyberCommunity. They claim diversity, but the only opinion that matters is the ones that the Feminazi Triumverate approve of. Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini would all be proud. It only proves my belief that ideological blindness can happen to anyone, liberal or conservative. I'm deeply saddened that the liberals on that board can't see it. Maybe it's because they are too busy looking for examples of rampant sexism that they can't see the intolerance in themselves. Tragedy. I'm done with them. I hate to admit it, but the conservative detractors of the CyberCommunity were right about them. They pretend to tolerance but only tolerate views that are the same as theirs. If you fail to see sexism everywhere, you're an enemy. I guess that's how it's gonna be. No big loss. Blogging is way more fun anyway.

An Historical Nomination (At Last!)

I've wanted to post on this for awhile, but the past week has been one full of important anniversary dates that I wanted to comment on, so I'm just getting around to posting my thoughts on this amazing moment for our country.

Last week, when Hillary won the Puerto Rico primary by a huge margin (over 36 points), I couldn't believe she'd make a big deal about it. Doesn't it strike anyone else as odd that Puerto Rico can vote in the Democratic primary but NOT in the general election? So that makes Puerto Rico's vote kind of irrelevant. That's the quirks about their limbo state of being a U.S. territory and not an actual state. But Hillary will take victories wherever she can get 'em.

With Obama finally clinching the magic number of delegates to be the Democratic nominee, I was relieved to see this moment come at last. It's hard to believe that five months earlier (to the day), he shocked the political world by winning the Iowa Caucus. He didn't implode like Howard Dean did four years earlier. In a way, I saw his Iowa victory as Iowa's way of apologizing for backing the lame John Kerry over Howard Dean. In the months since that day in Iowa, including at the rally he spoke to in Portland in May, I heard him use the same language that Dean used in 2003 and 2004. This nomination represents a victory for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The wing represented by Senators Feingold and Boxer; the late, great Senator Wellstone, and DNC Chair Howard Dean. It represents a defeat of the DLC-wing of the party represented by the Clintons and the lobbyists of K Street.

How did we get here?

For some inexplicable reason, Democrats have been deathly afraid of the 49-state landslide victory of Nixon over George McGovern in 1972. Ever since then, Democrats thought the way to win was to be Republican-lite. They thought it was McGovern's liberalism that did him in. The problem was, they let the Republicans frame the 1972 election that way. Instead, the 1972 election should be seen as a short-term defeat of a candidate who was actually vindicated when Nixon resigned in disgrace. The election of 1972 shouldn't be one that Democrats run from, but to embrace as an example of what happens when a cynical president is able to con Americans into voting for the wrong candidate. Democrats should learn from the conservative example. Republicans were routed in 1964 when Goldwater lost to Johnson by a landslide. Instead, they came back and won in 1968 and built on Goldwater's conservativism with the Reagan Revolution in 1980. Now, here we are forty years later and conservative policies have truly led America to the brink of ruin. Americans would be fools to vote for McCain while expecting change. Why trust a party that continually abuses its trust? They should be forced to be in the political wilderness for decades, if not forever. The party that gave us Nixon, Reagan, and Bush should not be awarded another presidential term of office.

Back to Obama. His nomination as the Democratic candidate for president reminds me again why I'm a loyal Democrat. We are the party that values diversity, that seems to have more young and inspiring leaders. Papers around the world have printed glowing reports and editorials about America's amazing ability to reinvent itself. I'm telling you, the election of Barack Obama to the presidency will be such an inspiring act that the world will be ready to embrace us again back into the family of nations (provided that we close Guantanamo Bay, make torture illegal, sign on with the International Criminal Court, agree to the demands of the Kyoto Treaty and a whole host of other problems that haven't been addressed in some time). The ascension of Barack Obama to the Democratic nomination in four years (when no one heard of him until the Democratic Convention) is an inspiring and proud moment for us all. Should he become our next president, it truly will be one of the greatest days in our nation's history. I'd love to see how the world would react to that. It is a person like Obama that amazes the rest of the world over America's unique standing. While Bush is the most hated leader on the world stage these days, Obama will be our Nelson Mandela. America has forgotten what it's like to inspire people. We've been conned into thinking that our military might is powerful enough to go it alone in tackling some major problems in the world, but it hasn't solved the crisis of poverty, climate change, the food prices, the energy crunch and a whole host of other issues.

So, with this nomination, I'm thrilled to see Obama finally sealing the deal. It was what I hoped for, even though I was cautiously optimistic. His nomination is a great vindication for the progressive wing of the party that had to endure the bland campaigns of the past (Kerry and Mondale, anyone?). This is only the beginning. May the phenomenon only continue to grow.

Hillary started her "conversation" with the American people in January 2007. Amazing to see what happened in the time since. Her nomination seemed inevitable, but from what I gather, three things did her in: (1) her vote for the Iraq War resolution in 2002 (she was smart enough to know that the vote was a cynical move by Bush to implicate Democrats in his war or to accuse them of being unpatriotic if they voted against); (2) her use of the race card in a desperate attempt to win the South Carolina primary, which backfired in a big way; and (3) her betting on the Tsunami Tuesday primary that she'd seal the deal. Her campaign didn't plan for a long season and she ran out of money because of an over-reliance on big-time donors who couldn't contribute more than the legal limit. On top of all that was a rather disorganized campaign that changed its message as it saw fit and a serious lack of discipline. She claimed to be ready to lead on Day 1...but how is that possible when her campaign didn't have a clue?

My impression is that Obama followed in the footprints of Howard Dean, but was smart enough to avoid the kind of mistakes Dean made. The biggest difference, though, is that Dean's young supporters did not turn out to vote on Caucus night in Iowa, whereas Obama's did. Obama's victory is one for any Dean supporter to savor. Finally! We did it! Now it's on to victory in November.

I kind of feel bad for Hillary as I know that it was her dream to be the first woman president. But as a Gore supporter who believes that he was robbed of his rightful place as the 43rd president, the pain of such a loss is hard to get over, but eventually you do. Things don't always go as planned. We never count on the fact that there's always someone new on the horizon who could be more inspiring and have more of what people are looking for in a president. Being cautious, waiting one's turn doesn't always work to your advantage. Fate has an interesting way of playing "kingmaker." The honest truth is, this was Obama's year. He tapped into something that has been building since 2000, when African Americans in Florida were harassed or denied a right to vote in some precincts. I also think there's a residual anger over the way our current administration left poor black people to drown in New Orleans after Katrina hit. And of course, there's still a lingering guilt over slavery and segregation. Rightfully or wrongly, Obama is seen as someone who can possibly redeem our nation in the eyes of the world. We've lived in the shame of the Bush era for so long that we needed a new kind of leader to inspire us to our better selves again.

Obama played the hope card, Hillary the cynical card. If she truly was visionary, perhaps she should've ran in 2004 like many supporters wanted her to. Some think she's hoping that Obama will lose to McCain in November and thus she'll be the natural front-runner in 2012. However, as we should learn from Obama, we never know what new politician will rise to the national scene in the next four years. She might have to contend with Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas (who knows what it takes to win a Red State and has executive experience).

Best wishes to you, Hillary. In 2006, you told reporters that you weren't thinking about the 2008 presidential election, that you loved being in the Senate representing the good people of New York. I hope that's true. Chances are, the Senate is where you'll remain for the rest of your career. Is being the Senate Majority Leader under a President Obama such a bad thing? If you still feel bad about not becoming president, commiserate with Al Gore. After all, it was your husband's indiscretion that cost Gore what should've been an easy win. He wanted to be president since he was a kid, but he has the decency to accept the hand fate gave him and rise to even greater heights. That's the mark of a true statesman.

Still Flying High at 55

Today, Johnny Clegg turns 55! Who's Johnny Clegg, you ask? Who's Johnny Clegg?!? Only the most spectacular musical artist I've ever come across! For those who've known me since the 1990s, I'm sure you heard me talk endlessly of Johnny Clegg and even heard their music because I played it often. If I had to limit myself to the three most influential people (non-relative) in my life, he would certainly rank in the top three (behind my favourite teacher, Thomas Malone and ahead of Vice President Al Gore). You have no idea what Clegg's music has meant to me and my life over the years. You have no idea, thus why I'm taking this occasion to tell you all about it.

I'm actually surprised that in my year and a half of keeping a blog, with over 300 posts, that this is truly the first time I am mentioning Johnny Clegg. Had I started this blog in the 1990s (if blogging had existed back then), it would most likely be dominated by posts on Johnny Clegg and his music, because I couldn't get enough of his music. In fact, I've never taken drugs in my life and part of it might have had something to do with the fact that Johnny's music acts much better than any drug can ever do. I get all the benefits (ecstatic bliss) with no negative side effects. In fact, yesterday, I was kind of feeling down about my work situation and a certain co-worker who is one of the most unpleasant personalities you'd ever have the misfortune to meet, but I decided to put on Clegg's "Crocodile Love" cd that I haven't listened to in months. Man, what a tonic! It didn't take long for the good vibes to kick in. Who needs an expensive mojito when I have Clegg?

Anyhow, here's how I came to know the music of Johnny Clegg...

I lived in Germany in 1985 through 1988. As a teenager, I'd buy German music magazines (Bravo) and French ones whenever we happened to visit France. In 1988, my dad took me on a trip to Paris (our second time there). I bought a French music magazine that happened to have Johnny Clegg on the cover. I thought he was French. I could only read a little bit of French, so I didn't know what was entirely written by him. The magazine had lots of photos of various artists who were popular at the time and even contained a top 20 singles and album charts (my obsession as a teenager...who made the music charts every week and guessing which song would make it to #1 and for how long). In the #1 and #2 positions were two Johnny Clegg and Savuka albums: "Shadow Man" and "Third World Child."

We returned stateside in the fall of 1988 and stayed in temporary military quarters while waiting on a house. By fortunate luck, the temporary quarters had cable TV and I often fought with my brother and sister over control of the remote (my sister wanted to watch Nickelodeon, my brother wanted to watch a cartoon channel, I wanted my MTV or VH1). It was on MTV or VH1 or both that I saw Johnny Clegg's "Take My Heart Away" video. The song didn't really capture me, though. Not enough to buy their album anyway.

In 1990, the day after I graduated high school (which would be 18 years ago today, as a matter of fact), I went to a music store to spend some of my graduation money. On a special display was the cassette tape of Johnny Clegg and Savuka's newest album, "Cruel, Crazy Beautiful World" at a low price of $5.99! They had a money back guarantee that if you bought it, listened to it, but didn't like it, you could return it for your money back. Wow, what a deal. So, I took the risk and plunked down my money. From first listen, my world completely changed!

I had heard nothing like it before in my life. From the opening song "One (Hu) Man One Vote", with it's zulu chants through the somber song about friendship, betrayal and forgiveness ("Warsaw 1943") at the end, it was a musical journey I had never experienced before in my life. I was hooked. Up until that time, Huey Lewis and the News were my favourite rock band. Now they were knocked off that perch as I sought out other Johnny Clegg albums, buying "Third World Child" and "Shadow Man" within a week of my first purchase.

I learned that his music catalog went even further back, with a different band, named Juluka. So I sought out old Juluka albums, finding only "Scatterlings" and "The Best of Juluka." I discovered that I liked his Juluka music even better than his Savuka music. What's the difference you ask? Savuka has a more western pop sound while Juluka contains more traditional African rhythms and lyrics in Zulu.

In the Navy, whenever my ship went to France, I'd search music stores for old Juluka cds. He was quite popular in France, especially in 1988 when he even outsold Michael Jackson. One CD that I really love is "Work For All." When I played it at work, I was shocked when an officer or a Chief Petty Officer heard the song and called it "communist." The lyrics are great...basically about the dangers to a government that doesn't provide jobs for all...that there's a jobless army on the streets. Why is the thought of having a job for everyone considered a communist ideal? Then again, people in the Navy weren't as enlightened and international as I am. Many sailors who heard my music thought it was odd that I'd even listen to music that contained foreign words and phrases. They all claimed that he could be singing anti-American stuff and I wouldn't even know. That was the paranoia I lived and worked in at the time.

In 1994, when I went to South Africa, I happened to have the chance to meet Johnny Clegg when he performed at a mall the same Saturday I happened to be in country. It was an amazing coincidence that I got to meet him (as I hoped I would when I traveled to South Africa). Even today, when I think about the odds of that happening, I realize that it must've been divinely orchestrated. Not only did that happen once, but it happened THREE TIMES. The two other times I met him was in 1996 during the Olympics in Atlanta (where I was able to give him one of my old Virginia license plates that was personalized with SAVUKA) and in 2004 when he again performed in Atlanta (I got backstage and gave him one of my Utah license plates that was personalized with SAVUKA, which prompted him to mention that I was the guy who gave him the Virginia one eight years earlier).

Above is the album that had the biggest influence on my life, "Cruel Crazy Beautiful World." Not only is it my favourite CD of ALL TIME, but it's also my favourite album cover. I love the way the colored streamers look across the rocky landscape. Every song on there has touched me in a way that most music does not. It reaches me at the deepest level of my soul. Even today, I can't listen to it without being transported back to that day after my high school graduation when I listened for the first time. Out of all the songs on there, my personal favourite is "Woman Be My Country" and there's a line in there that I decided to use for my (still unsold, unagented) novel "Seasons of Silent War." The song pretty much sums up for me everything I'm about. It is my personal anthem.

This album, "One Life" is Johnny Clegg's latest one (released in 2006). It's one of his better ones (after introducing a new sound with 2002's "New World Survivor", which hasn't aged well nor was it a fan favourite among other Scatterlings, as discussed on a fan mailing list). Unfortunately, since 1994's greatest hits cd, he hasn't released the last three albums in the United States. I'm not sure what the deal is, but I'm glad I belong to a fan mailing list so I can hear about his albums and buy through the group. "One Life" is kind of a back to basics album, which included more Zulu lyrics and rhythms, which is what his fans want. Any move away from the hard guitar sound of 1993's "Heat Dust and Dreams" is a good thing, in my opinion. But no matter what the overall sound of each album he puts out, there are always plenty of songs on each that satisfy me. My only frustration is that I'd love to have a new Clegg cd every two years or so (just like how I want my Crichton novels...not too frequently, but at regular intervals like two years or even three max). In the past ten years, we've gotten three, but "One Life" is still on heavy enough rotation that I'm still not tired of it.

Finally, I wanted to mention this single in particular, because my friend Janell had written in the BYU Washington Seminar Memory Book that I put together that she'd always remember me because of my "Crocodile Love." The song and the album came out in 1997, which I only discovered because I happened to be in Germany for my two week Naval Reserve duty that summer. All around town were ads about the new Juluka cd. I shocked my fellow Naval Reservists when I tore off a wall one of the advertisements (which I later framed). I'm a fan, what can I say? But that CD was a major breath of fresh air at the time.

Back in 1993, I remember reading a small blurb in "Entertainment Weekly" about Clegg's "Heat Dust and Dreams" album. The reviewer called it corporate rock, which I thought was unfair and wrote to them to dispute that. While it did have a harder rock sound than his previous albums, it still had the classic Clegg "hum-oh-hum" sound to it. The last song in particular ("Your Time Will Come") contains a beautiful Zulu chorus that still moves me to this day. However, when I met Clegg for the first time in 1994, I told him that I love his old Juluka songs and wanted to hear more Zulu chants in his music. With "Crocodile Love", I got my wish. Even eleven years later, that CD still gets me, as I discovered again yesterday.

So, if you haven't listened to his music yet, what are you waiting for? Anyone who knows me (or cares to) can attest to you that they associate Johnny Clegg's music with me. The best way to understand my ideas and who I am as a person is to listen to the music of Johnny Clegg. No other musician (and there are many that I love--particularly U2 in this decade) comes close to the same influence and impact that Johnny's music has had on me.

With that, I hope he has a great 55th birthday. Celebrate in style!

Getting Lost on the Road to Success

Today is always a kind of somber day for me. I can't help but reflect on my life because 18 years ago on this day, I graduated from high school (pictured above, Clarkston High School, Clarkston, Georgia, Class of 1990). Just think, had I gotten some girl pregnant that summer, my kid would be graduating high school this year! That's scary to think about. Others have done it and managed.

But that's not what I wanted to write about. Each year, this anniversary date becomes more and more complicated, as it induces a growing sense of failure over what my life has become. In a memory book I put together in the spring of 1990, there was a place to write where I saw myself in five years (1995) and in ten years (2000). My prediction for my life was that I'd be married with two children, working in a successful writing career, and living in Oceanside, California. I'm far from that goal, but not achieving it didn't give me such heartache in 2000.

In 2000, on the tenth anniversary of my graduation, I had no complaints. I had just completed a White House internship, working for Vice President Gore, as I had dreamed that I would since 1993. I had no complaints about life at my ten year mark because as I looked back, I experienced a Navy enlistment and college. I met my two goals before I'd even begin to think about marriage. On the tenth anniversary, I made a special trip to the gravesite of Robert F. Kennedy at Arlington National Cemetary in Virginia and had a "conversation" (or prayer if you will). Kennedy is my political hero. I've been waiting years to work for a person of his quality. I regret passing the opportunity to send my resume in to Obama's campaign in January 2007. At the time, I wasn't ready to leave Portland had I gotten a job offer on his campaign. I love Portland (and still do). I thought I'd find a better job by August 2007, but I'm still here...and the despair grows deeper.

In all honesty, I'm in the biggest crisis of my life. My best friend thought it was funny that I called it my "mid-life crisis" and in a way, it's not an accurate term. Mid-life crisis happens to men in middle age (40s and 50s) after they have achieved success in their careers, have been married with children who are either teenagers or college students, and are facing reminders of their mortality when their parents face physical decline or pass away. The cliche is that these men fight the natural order of things by trading in the nagging wife for a younger model, buy a sports car or convertable, or change careers.

But what about a person who hasn't "arrived" in life yet? Who has struggled in nothing but low wage jobs since high school graduation? Who thought an investment in a college education would lead to more job opportunity and a better paying career? Instead, a college degree has gotten me nothing but debt and a job paying less than what I made without one. The quality of my life was better when I didn't have a degree, because I was completely debt free, owned a car, and had a job that paid the same as what I make now. But that was eleven years ago and we've all seen prices rise faster than wages have kept pace with.

Thus, I'm in the deepest despair of my life over my failure to find a better paying job. Had I known that a college degree wouldn't lead me to the promise land of a livable wage career, I probably would not have left the Navy. I endured living on borrowed money, the GI Bill, and a part time job during my college years for the hope of something better. Each year that passes reminds me only of what I've failed to find in the years since. Honestly, even my faith in God has suffered lately because my prayers aren't answered, I get no response in job after job that I apply for, and I see friends I've met when none of us had money find success in career and family and what do I have to show for my life? Not a damn thing but self indulgence. Sure, I've traveled all over the planet and met a lot of great people. When I see the way the world is, I want to use my International Politics degree by making a difference in a career that matters. Why I'm stuck in a job that doesn't match my talents and passion, getting paid poverty wages is the biggest mystery of my life. Something needs to change soon because my patience has long run out.

My class motto was "If we can't find the road to success, we'll build one." I thought it was lame, but now I can't help but to ponder it. I haven't found the road to success and I don't know how to build one. All my hopes and dreams keep failing. All I'm left with is heartbroken failure. If things don't change soon, I don't know what'll happen. I've been in this job too long. I knew it was a dead end when I accepted it, but I thought it was a temporary thing I'd easily get out of after I settled into a life and routine in Portland. August will be two years and that's another anniversary I dread. Truth is, finding a government job in Afghanistan is the only thing that excites me these days. It's looking to be more of an option for me as I fail to find another job in Portland. It'll bring me closer to my dream of an international career. All I'm waiting on is for the next president to be inaugurated. I guess I'm still holding out hope that Portland will deliver me a dream job in the months remaining of the Bush era. A part of me believes that Bush is the accidental president, that Gore was meant to be president and that's why I haven't found success, because I was meant to be an aide in the Gore Administration. Since that didn't happen, my life has been a nightmare these past seven years as I face the failure that my life has become.

Sorry this post is such a downer, but that's where I am today as I face an important anniversary date in my life. Every year, I go through this and I can definitely feel a creeping sense that my life has been a complete failure to meet the objectives I had set for myself at 18. I know that nothing is permanent and that change can happen instantaneously that will completely alter your life in ways you can't imagine. But when nothing has changed for the better in 20 months, you have to wonder if it ever will. The eternal optimist in me has faith that it will, but that faith is dying a slow death as the months trickle by and nothing changes. I don't know how much longer I can endure this crisis of despair. I have much to offer this world, if only to find the organizations that value what my experience and knowledge would bring. That's the only thing that keeps me going, a hope for something better, but the time for deliverance is N O W!

Remembering Robert F. Kennedy

Forty years ago today, tragedy struck again. On April 4, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated and Robert Kennedy was in Indiana for a political rally in which he had to break the news to the African American audience. Its considered to be one of the finest moments of his life, because he was the perfect messenger as one who had experienced the painful assassination of his brother in 1963. This speech probably sealed the deal with African Americans that Robert Kennedy was the candidate who understood their concerns the best.

On June 5, 1968, he won the California primary (after losing the Oregon primary). His victory party was held at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles (which I saw by pure happenstance when a friend of mine was giving me a driving tour of L.A. in 1998). After giving a victory speech, when people felt that he was on his way to becoming the Democratic nomination (over Vice President Hubert Humphrey and Senator Eugene McCarthy). As fate would have it, Kennedy walked through the kitchen where he met an assassin's bullet. The person who supposedly did the deed was named Sirhan Sirhan and his motive was supposedly over something regarding Palestine. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but then again, I don't believe we've been told the whole truth. It just seems a bit convenient that the two people who most spoke against the war in Vietnam (MLK and RFK) while also having the largest mass of followers during a very tumultuous time period...it just seems quite convenient for a government entrenched in war that two of its most outspoken and listened to critics were disposed of. Since the time of Jesus and perhaps even earlier, anyone who opposes government and has a popular following seems ripe for assassination.

You can kill the dreamers, but the dream endures!

I didn't know a whole lot about Robert F. Kennedy until I read a lot of biographies on him starting in 1996 (an ongoing). What really started this interest (besides my lifelong love of the Kennedy family since elementary school--which probably had a lot to do with my starting Kingergarten at John F. Kennedy Elementary School in Lawrence, Kansas) was an interesting experience I had in Nice, France in 1993. I went with a tour group made up of about 20 or so American sailors. We went on a special tour over a holiday weekend in January or February. When checking into a hotel, the French hotel clerk started talking to me. In a group of twenty or so Americans, I was singled out for a conversation! And what did he start talking to me about?

He was reading a biography on Robert F. Kennedy and wanted to know what I thought about him. When I perked up at the mention of the Kennedy family, we started a conversation involving politics. In the years since that time, I'm often amazed that out of a group of that many Americans, why did I stand out as the one to talk to? The hotel clerk made the right choice because based on what little I knew about the other people in my group, they had no interest in politics and had less knowledge than I did. Also, my experiences in France have often been where I experience something most Americans do not. Americans love to gripe about "French rudeness" but in my 12 visits to France, not once have I ever experienced such rudeness. The French have been great to me and perhaps they can sense a true Francophile in a roomful of Francophobes.

This is one of my favourite pictures of the Kennedy brothers. Out of the two, I have the most in common with Robert Kennedy. It's nice to see that they were so close, especially if you read the history and realize that John didn't think so highly of his brother as they were growing up. Only when Robert became his Attorney General and during the Cuban Missile Crisis did their close bond truly form. But his appointment also caused an anti-nepotism law, which has probably saved our country from having Bush appoint his brother Jeb in some role in his administration. Jeb is no Bobby, that's for sure.

Here's another photo that I love of the two great men who both lost their lives forty years ago during the turmoil of another disasterous foreign war. Where would our country be today if these men had lived? A lot better off, I imagine. The assassination of these two seemed to have ended the age of optimism and idealism, and ushered in the age of Nixonian cynicism.

When I was on vacation, I found out that Hillary Clinton made an off-handed comment that she later backtracked on. To me it revealed just how cynical and manipulative she really is. What did she say? It was about why she continued to stay in the race. She said: "We all remember that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June." Later, she claimed that she had meant to remind people that Kennedy won the California primary in June and he wasn't a sure bet either. But that's not what she said. Had she mentioned only his win and left out the assassination part, it would've been excuseable and less controversial. But she mentioned the assassination and it was not accidental or misinterpreted as she said. She knew what image she wanted to send out to people. She wanted to raise the spectre of the two assassinations and because Obama is like the perfect blend of Kennedy and King, the message cannot be mistaken. It almost seems like a secret wish of Hillary that Obama will follow the same fate as Kennedy and King, thus leaving her the nomination.

If anything should befall Obama between now and Inauguration Day, I hope Americans won't stand for it and accept the patsy scenarios that were given in 1968. Too much is at stake this time around. Our nation has been in the wilderness for forty years. It is time to bring politics back to the idealistic dreams and optimistic possibilities that King and Kennedy inspired us to. Let's reject the cynicism and assassination dreams of war mongering politicians and their mediocre enablers.

Madonna Got Bounce

I've been meaning to write a review of Madonna's latest CD, but part of the hestitation was over the fact that out of all of the posts I've written on this blog, the post I did for Madonna's 49th birthday last year consistently gets the most hits from blogreaders worldwide. Imagine that! I dedicate my blog to mostly spiritual and political topics, keeping pop culture to a minimum, but its a post on Madonna that has proven the most popular. Why?

Well, here it goes...

I was a little hesitant to buy Madonna's new CD for a couple reasons. ONE -- I really hate her album cover. The woman turns 50 years old in August and she's a mother to two young children (now a third one as a Malawi court finally approved of her adoption of an African boy). The album cover is in bad taste, something that I thought she got out of her system with the dreadful "Erotica" album. Haven't we tread down this path before? Too many times, I recall.

TWO -- It would be hard to top her last CD, 2005's "Confessions on a Dance Floor." I've posted below a copy of a review I wrote on Amazon.com. When I first bought that CD in 2005, all the music reviews gave it high marks, so I had high expectations. Unlike music critics, I actually liked 2003's "American Life." That one was hard to beat, so on first few listens, I didn't like "Confessions." There were a few songs I liked, but I thought the lyrics were kind of cliche on many songs. Plus, I didn't get her faux Farrah Faucett channeling Jane Fonda's workout garb look. She was supposedly influenced by ABBA and a seventies vibe.

What changed my mind? When that CD still had heavy rotation on my CD player in 2007 (two years later), there was no denying its staying power. It was a CD I often put on to lose myself in a music meditative state. Songs like "Jump", "Get Together", and "Forbidden Love" were irresistable and it was impossible to NOT move while listening to it. For me, it proved one thing...Madonna's music post-Evita has been getting better and better. I simply cannot get enough of her new sound, which started with 1998's "Ray of Light." Each CD has been progressively better, so that's a hard hurdle to overcome.

However, after many listens to her new CD, all I can say is that Madonna GOT BOUNCE! She manages to stay fresh and current with the music vibe (unlike Michael Jackson, whose last CD in 2001 recycled the same sound, dance moves, and look of his very dated "Bad" days). For her new CD, she recruited talents like Timbaland, Justin Timberlake, and Kanye West and once again, it is very difficult to listen to this CD and remain sitting still. She knows how to get your body to move! One thing I love is a great sound and how she manages to keep coming up with fresh new sounds in album after album and not bore me yet is sheer genius. And to think that a Rolling Stone critic back in the early 1980s said that between Madonna and Cyndi Lauper, Madonna would fade quickly while Cyndi would have a long career. Oops.

On her new CD, my favourite songs are: "Dance 2night", "Miles Away","Heartbeat", "She's Not Me", "Incredible", and "Beat Goes On." Just try to sit still when "Dance 2night" is playing! On "She's Not Me", Madonna shows her sense of humour (much like she did in 1994's "Human Nature") as she criticizes a wannabe trying to take her place at her man's side. I don't know if it's autobiographical. At first, I thought she was knocking Britney Spears with this song, but after a few listens, I just think its her sense of humour coming through. The song that has me wondering about the state of her marriage to film director Guy Ritchie is "Miles Away." In the song, she complains that he's most thoughtful of her when he's miles away. In the album's liner notes, she cryptically writes to Guy: "be careful what you wish for." Yikes. "4 Minutes" is her lead single and it's merely okay. Then again, I didn't like her lead singles to three previous albums either ("Hung Up" from "Confessions...", "American Life" from...you guessed it, "American Life", and "Frozen" from "Ray of Light").

Someday, I hope that Madonna will do an album incorporating the musical styles of Bollywood and Rai (North African rock that was brilliantly incorporated into Sting's excellent "Desert Rose" single). She seems to be a woman who seeks out innovative producers to help create irresistable sounds that keep her fresh on the music scene. Out of all the 1980s music stars I listened to, it's actually not surprising that Madonna has outlasted them all. She has drive, she has talent, she has intellect, but most of all, Madonna got bounce.

My Amazon.com review from 2005:

Check expiration date--this one has a short shelf life!, November 17, 2005

I was intrigued by all the good reviews this album has gotten lately and being a fan of her music, I have all of her albums. The good reviews made me even more excited about her new album, but after a couple listens, I think this one will wear out its welcome really fast. Yes, it has irresistable beats guaranteed to move bodies on a dance floor. Yes, it recalls her earlier days when her music seemed pointless fun. Yes, it infuses her new sound (of her post-Evita albums) in an interesting mix between the new and retro.

Unfortunately, despite those elements, the cliched lyrics wear down the artistic aspect of this album. She rhymes "New York" with "dork", which is something you expect to find in high school poetry, not an artist of her calibre. She also says things like "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt" and "the devil you know..." Couldn't she come up with something more clever? After all, she made fun of Kevin Costner ("Truth or Dare") when he called her 1990 Blonde Ambition Tour "neat". Now she's getting lazy in her choice of words. Despite its underselling performance, I loved her last album "American Life" (except for the bland title song with some bad raps about "soy lattes, pilates, and a roomful of hotties"). It was a musical journey with many single-worthy songs. Even two years later, I still listen to it in awe and never tire of its sounds. However, with her new album, it will probably grow on me but I seriously don't think it will become a classic in her musical canon. It may sell well through the end of the year, but will fade away into discoesque oblivion(much like U2's much maligned "Pop" album and "Discotheque" cheesiness).

My favorite song on this one is "Isaac", the one that garnered controversy among her Kabbalah church community. She infuses rhythms from the middle east and India into a very spiritual dance song as only Madonna can do. If this album had more of that on there, I would rate it much higher. But as of now, I still think "American Life" and "Music" are better albums. This one is about equal to "Ray of Light". Good for a musical journey that your ears can feast on while the feet keep moving...but if you want profound lyrics, you're thinking too much. Madonna has nothing new to say. Maybe writing children's books have sapped her ability to be delightfully ironic/iconic. Despite my disappointments, however, I always appreciate Madonna's growth as an artist and her ability to reinvent herself. While other 80s icons are stuck in their "Thriller/Bad" days or in abusive marriages (Whitney Houston, anyone?), Madonna continues to evolve in interesting ways. Artists like Britney Spears needs to take note so she can get out of her artistic slump.

Tale of Two Films Based on Mormon History

Saturday, I made the trek outside the city limits of Portland by bus just to see the movie "Emma Smith: My Story" that was playing at a suburban multiplex for a one week limited engagment. My Mormon friends laugh at my fondness for "cheesy Mormon movies" and I've probably seen more of them than all of my Mormon friends have COMBINED!

The ones I've seen, the ones based on history ("The Work and the Glory" trilogy) and the ones about Mormon Missionaries ("The Best Two Years", "Gods Army", "States of Grace" , "Return With Honor", and "The Other Side of Heaven") are the best ones. The cheesy comedies by Hale-Storm Entertainment tend to be bad and unfunny.

But who can resist a film about Emma Smith..."the Elect Lady" as she was dubbed by early church members. As a member of the Community of Christ, which owes its very existence to her strong dislike and distrust of Brigham Young, I had a special interest in seeing this film and if they'd by chance be so charitable as to show the reason why she didn't follow Brigham Young west.

No such luck! The film had three instances of a Mormon bias: a scene where Joseph and Emma were sealed in the Nauvoo Temple for all time and eternity (I'll have to check the history books on that one); a voice-over that mentioned how Emma's bad experience in Independence, MO with the anti-Mormon mobs had made her never want to cross the Mississippi again once she moved with the saints to Nauvoo, Illinois (it wasn't fear of the anti-Mormon mob that kept her from moving to Utah...it was her strong distrust of Brigham Young); and finally, the most controversial of all...Julia (Emma's adopted daughter) asks her about her silence on the plural marriage question. The elderly Emma responds, admitting that it was a painful commandment of God that nearly did in her marriage, that both she and Joseph were deeply pained by the revelation.

To that, I say BALONEY! Even when I was at BYU, I took an LDS History course (through 1844 only) by the respectful and honest Alex Baugh. While I remember being very annoyed during the class period when polygamy was discussed, I remember that he also said that Emma had told her son Joseph Smith III (who became prophet of the Reorganized church in 1860) that his father had never practiced polygamy. Was she in denial? Did she outright lie to her son? Or was polygamy a secret that Joseph kept from Emma? Or even, was polygamy merely done by proxy in order to make it seem like Joseph originated the concept? I don't think there's conclusive evidence to prove that Joseph Smith actually took on multiple wives with Emma's approval. It is my understanding that she believed Brigham Young to be the corrupting influence who brought up polygamy and later claimed that Joseph engaged in it. There was the practice of sealing women to the prophet after they die, but that doesn't indicate that any adultery or physical polygamous marriages happened while Joseph Smith was alive.

Besides those pesky details, the movie was pretty good and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in the history of our churches (whichever branch they might be members of today). One other point that I have a small beef with is the over-dependence on voice over narration, which is simply a lazy way to move a story along. It's a step up from the "docudrama" type of film (actors performing roles while an unseen narrator speaks), but it could've been better executed.

What I most loved about the film is the actress who plays Emma Smith. She looks and acts exactly the way I had pictured Emma Smith to look and act like when I read about our history. I also like that she was a major hottie in her day. Joseph has good tastes. I had more problems with the actor who played Joseph because he lacks the charisma to play the prophet. While he does kind of resemble pictures of the prophet, I wanted to see a more charismatic actor play the role because it's no secret that Joseph Smith had plenty of charisma, which is almost required for any new enterprise that requires people to trust and follow.

Another Mormon film I saw a month or so ago was not so good. Actually, it was made by people who aren't Mormons, but it's about an event that happened in a place called Mountain Meadows, Utah. It's one of the dark stains in Mormon history, when a group of emigrants from Arkansas were on their way to California (kind of the 19th century's "Grapes of Wrath"). They camped out in Utah to rest their horses and cattle, and to re-supply the wagon train. According to one version of the event, Brigham Young, the prophet and the governor of Utah territory, ordered the complete slaughter of every man, woman, and child in that wagon train. Some overzealous Mormons, thinking they were avenging the death of the prophet Joseph Smith, massacred everyone (save for a few children who survived the ordeal). Brigham Young claimed no knowledge of the event and was absolved of any responsibility. Was it overzealous Mormons acting in what they thought was sanctioned by their prophet, or were they following direct orders from the prophet himself?

The reason I didn't like the film is because it had a lot of "filler". In order to make it more dramatic, they made a love story out of it, in which one of the Mormons falls in love with a girl who was part of the wagon train. This put a kind of "Romeo and Juliet" spin on the story. The event itself probably didn't merit a movie, and it was obvious when they had to add more to the story than history leaves us with.

Terence Stamp ("General Zod" of "Superman II") plays Brigham Young with bone-chilling psychosis. Even I got nightmares about it! And the scene where young Mormon men chant "blood atonement! blood atonement!" gave me a serious case of the heebie jeebies (as well as a flashback to my experience at BYU when I had a mentally unstable roommate who totally believed in blood atonement and once said that he couldn't wait to be a god of his own world so he could make the people on his planet practice polygamy or else he'd kill them!).

Overall, the film was rather boring and not something I'd see again. The fact that they had to make a love story to increase the dramatic tension of the massacre only proved to me that there wasn't much material to make a film in the first place. While I agree that it's scandalous and a dark stain on Mormon history, the events simply don't merit a film of this kind.

One of the oddest scenes in this film is a flashback sequence of Joseph Smith's assassination in Carthage Jail, IL. Unbelievably, they tapped Dean Cain ("Lois and Clark") to play the martyred prophet in a cameo performance. What were they thinking? Though this one isn't as bad as other anti-Mormon films ("Latter Days" and "Orgazmo"), I don't recommend this film unless you're a die hard Mormon history aficianado.

Happy Anniversary to the Bodi Smiths

I lifted this photo of Nicholas and Jennifer Bodi Smith from Nick's website. It was taken during the Cherry Blossoms in Washington, D.C.

A year ago today, I attended the wedding of Nicholas and Jennifer in Red Bud IL. On their first anniversary, I want to publically acknowledge the day and wish them well as they enter year two of marital bliss. Happy Anniversary!

Visiting the Hagmans

Lisa, Nathan, and Ean Hagman with (I'm assuming) Nathan's grandmother sometime in 2007
Baby Ean with Myra, a Komondor (very Rastafarian!) in 2007

Unfortunately, I won't be able to get my photos back in an hour to be able to post this, but I wanted to write about my visit with the Hagmans last week (over Memorial Day weekend).

First, some background info. I met Nathan in 1994 when he was 20 years old and I was 22. On the first Sunday we met at the Chesapeake VA RLDS Congregation, we went out to lunch after church and then he brought me back to my ship, where I gave him a tour. In the course of talking, we discovered that he and his family came over to my family's house for dinner back in 1984. Though I don't remember it, Nathan described the house we lived in, so I knew he wasn't conning me. I asked my dad about it later and he said that he remembered the Hagmans coming over after church one day. For me, this was a significant coincidence...especially since in my three years in Italy, I had prayed to meet a good friend in the Navy. It was hard to find a true friend who shares your values. When I met Nathan, I felt an immediate sense of trust and he was like the brother I had always wanted. Before my sister was born, my parents had picked out a name in each gender for the baby. She would've been "Nathaniel Jackson Carroll" had she been born male. So, it shows to me that I might've had a brother named Nathan, and once I met Nathan, considering our strong bonds with church, the Navy, and music, he truly is my brother and my best friend.

In 1999, when stationed in Bremerton WA, he met a lady at work whom he started dating and quickly became serious. I met her when I came up to celebrate Nathan's "quarter century birthday." She and I didn't hit it off so well. Though I liked her, she didn't seem to like me very much. Our personalities were incompatable and I struggled to see what Nathan saw in her. She didn't fit the kind of woman Nathan had described being attracted to. But things moved along, he proposed and when he told me about his engagement, he simply said: "will you be my best man?" I was shocked and honoured, for I expected his brother Andrew to fill that role. Nathan gave Andrew the role of officiating minister.

So, eight summers ago, in Williamsport PA, I took a break from my desperate job search in D.C. to fulfill my obligations as Best Man. I held a "Bachelor's Dinner" at a pub in downtown Williamsport, followed by a night of putt-putt golf with his brothers and a few buddies. On Wedding day, I kept him on task when he wanted to see a movie ("Chicken Run") which would've cut close to the time we needed to be at the wedding site. I also decorated their car in European style (with a floral bouquet on the hood of the car). No toilet paper, shaving cream, or tin cans. I also made a "Just Married" collage sign for their back window (laminated, with pictures). The Wedding went well and I gave my Best Man speech, which many people complimented me afterwards.

That was then, this is now. I can't believe eight years have passed since I last saw Lisa. I've seen Nathan only twice in the years in between (in 2004 and 2007 when he came to Portland to visit me). This time, he introduced me to his son (20 months old) as "Nick." Right away, Ean started calling me "Nicky" and he said it over and over (reminding me of E.T. when he started speaking). Little Ean will be my ring-bearer some day and the good news is that Nathan and Lisa are expecting a girl in September, who will be my flower girl when that day comes.

It was interesting to see Ean and what interests him. He loves watching airplanes on YouTube (his dad prefers Obama girl). Nathan said that Ean loves to sing the song "I'm Going Down" by Bruce Springsteen, but the times he played it, Ean didn't respond to it. I would've loved to have seen that. Ean calls any food he likes "cookie." So when we ate rice with sugar and coconut milk in it, Ean quickly called it "cookie rice." To get him to try chicken, Nathan told Ean, "try some cookie chicken!"

Though Ean was entering his "terrible twos", I wasn't annoyed by his fussy crankiness or temper tantums. I guess I can easily tune that stuff out. Most telling was when we were at the LDS Temple in La Jolla and getting back into the car to head to the beach. Ean didn't want to get into his car seat and he threw a fit. He just kept on crying and crying until suddenly getting quiet a few minutes later when the temple was no longer in sight. I told Nathan that in 16 years, Ean might rebel against his parents by joining the Mormon church just because they wouldn't let him stay a little bit longer at the temple grounds.

On the beach at La Jolla, Ean was fascinated by kites and even went up to a group sitting on a blanket (two ladies and one guy) to start talking with them. I told Nathan that Ean seems to be extroverted like Nathan, which is a good thing. Actually, a great thing. What I love most about Nathan is his personality. He's extroverted, funny, intelligent, and personable. Able to talk to anyone about anything. With his natural born gifts, he'd make a great politician, but he has no ambitions in that area, unfortunately. Whenever we walk anywhere, I feel like I'm walking with a celebrity because I notice other people noticing him. He is probably my most "celebrity-like" friend, even though he has the good sense not to desire such a shallow lifestyle. His dog Myra also gets plenty of attention (because she looks like a walking mop with her white dreadlocks).

Nathan and Lisa are not as fond of California as I am. The Navy stationed them in San Diego and they intend to move elsewhere when the time comes. It's interesting to hear that Nathan still dreams of having his own business, which I believe he will be quite successful at. He envisions having a kind of business (bike shop/cafe) that focuses on relationship with customers and employees. He wants it to not feel like a job you go to, but that you're working with and for friends. I'm all for that, as I grow tired of "numbers obsessed" businesses and non-profits. I've always been a quality guy and it's good to hear that he is as well. But I think it's also our generation, as I see more and more examples that we are not like our parents generation and that's a good thing.

The trip was a much needed boost for my personal morale. It's great to get away from the stress and pettiness of work to be among a true friend who knows me better than anyone else. It's refreshing to know that some things never change. It only gets better. When I left on Tuesday morning, I was impressed by how much better of a person (less selfish) Nathan has become since he married Lisa. And Lisa impressed me as a mother and a wife. He definitely made the right choice in marrying her and she helped him become an even better person.