On Bigotry

[Bell ringing] Hurry up, class. Take your seats. Today, we’re going to have a discussion on the word “bigotry.” The Merriam-Webster online dictionary (because, really, who has “books” anymore?) defines it as such: “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”

Just to avoid any confusion, going further, let’s go ahead and lay out the definition of “intolerance,” from the same online dictionary: : “the quality or state of being intolerant.” Shit. That didn’t help much, did it?

Here we go:
INTOLERANT.
1: unable or unwilling to endure
2a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted.

Now. Are we understanding this, so far? Good.

So, as “intolerance” is an integral component of the definition of “bigotry,” it is important to work through that word to have a more complete grasp on the concept of “bigotry,” in the modern cultural context. Indeed, our language can be confusing to those who originated in other countries – and those born here who made the unfortunate choice to listen to pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, et al. Perhaps some examples might be in order.

1. If you hate all liberals, because they are liberal, are you a bigot? (A: yes)
2. If you hate all conservatives because they are conservative, are you a bigot? (A: yes)
3. If you hate religious people, because they are religious, are you a bigot? (A: yes)
4. If you hate atheists, because they are atheists, are you a bigot? (A: yes)

Why? Because you are “intolerant” of their political and/or religious rights to have different opinions than your own about such matters; and unwilling to grant or share those rights. So, in America, we can safely say that, according to the dictionary definition, virtually everybody is a bigot – save the few blissful souls who have no political or religious affiliations of their own. . . wherever that guy might be.

5. If you hate people because they are black, are you a bigot? (A: yes)
6. If you refuse to listen to someone’s opinion because they are Iranian, are you a bigot? (A: yes)

Why? Because you are one who : “regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.”

7. If you say “I think we should send all the black people (using a more colloquial term to identify them) back to Africa,” (identifying yourself as a bigot), and I vociferously disagree, does that make me a bigot? (A: oddly, yes)

Why? Because I am “unwilling to grant (you) equal freedom of expression.”

The definition gets a little milky here, doesn’t it?

Now, it gets more complicated. Suppose you call me a murderer, when, in fact, I know I haven’t participated in any acts of murder. You have a “right” to say what you believe, but I am unwilling to grant or share that right (which makes me intolerant). I am obstinately or intolerantly devoted to my own opinions and prejudices about you, going forward. In fact, I think you are a complete asshole. When I express to you my extreme intolerance to your statement, am I a “bigot” for doing so?

By definition, I would have to conclude that, yes, I am. But you’re still an asshole. And, using the same criteria, you are also a bigot on one matter or another, even if I cannot presently identify it.

Is there some kind of “double negative” rule that applies to this definition, which is implied, but not expressed? Is it OK to be intolerant of one who is intolerant? If we deny (or simply don’t subscribe to) the “rights” of those like Hitler and Timothy McVeigh and Westboro Baptist Church and the 911 bombers, are we, by definition, bigots? Yes. Yes, we are; but they’re all still assholes.

Why then, do we give the word “bigot” any credence at all? Everybody qualifies on one issue or another. Going forward, my suggestion is that the word be dropped from our vocabulary and replaced with words that are easier to comprehend. “Dipshit,” for example.

Class dismissed.


©2015 Rick Baber

The Religious Conviction

OK. The de jour news (that’s French) seems to be all about the marriage license lady in Kentucky, or some backwoods place – so the Huckster grabs hold of it, trying to boost his income … I mean ratings with the religious right conservatives who look under every rock for proof that they are being persecuted … like, you know, Jesus.  Because they can’t ACT like Jesus, so this is a way for them to feel close to him. 

I’m sure she’s a very nice lady; and I’m sure her supporters (other than Huckabee, of course) are all very nice people.  And if the evil federal government was trying to force her to marry a woman (which is obviously not her preference, given all her marriages to men and babydaddies) then, you know what (?), I’d be right there in her corner – maybe even wearing some Amish-looking clothing, myself.  But nobody is trying to force her to marry a woman. And nobody is putting her in jail for not marrying a woman. They’re putting her in jail for violating federal law, which dictates that she can’t refuse marriage licenses to same-sex couples – regardless of what her “religious convictions” dictate.

Say, for a moment, that any employer gave a flying shit about what your religious convictions are when you’re performing your job. How is this lady signing these licenses any different from any other damn thing she might be doing there, in regards to those convictions? Does she refuse to grant marriage licenses to adulterers? Hasn’t it been made clear that she is an adulterer, herself?  Let’s leave Muslims out of the argument, because that’s too easy. Let’s talk about Jews. They don’t care. They’re cool. What if the head of your local health department refused to grant a license to a BBQ restaurant, simply because they were planning on serving pork?  Ain’t that the same thing?  I mean, that person doesn’t have to eat there; and he/she isn’t eating there and breaking his/her religious rules – but to go so far as to keep other people from enjoying a tastee pulled pork sandwich … that’s a little much, don’t you think? Stop. Re-read that. Where the hell is the difference?

WHAT IF whoever is in charge of granting licenses to a grocery store was … say … a Mormon? Would it be within that person’s religious rights to refuse to grant that store a license because it was going to sell beer and cigarettes and tea? Again, where the hell is the difference?

This lady’s motives are clear enough. She’s just looking for her 15 minutes. Who can blame her? And the Huckster – he’s always looking for another 15 minutes, and a way to generate donations. Always about the money with him. Big boy’s gotta eat. Who can blame him?  No, it’s the supporters of this woman and her cause and their refusal, or inability, to think this thing through that is most troubling.

(c) Rick Baber, 2015

We Get What We Want

    Your buddy, Dale, would make a better president than anybody who is currently running for that office. He doesn’t toe anybody’s party line. He looks at each issue on its own merits; uses logic and common sense to make his own decisions on those issues. He thinks, rather than simply putting the pegs into the holes where he is instructed to place them. This is why Dale would make a better president; and this is why he will never hold that office.

    Who can trust a guy like that? Who can afford to lay out all that money, just on the off-chance that every decision he makes will coincide with their financial interests? Purchasing the office of President – or any national office, really – is expensive business. Any potential contender who doesn’t have virtually unlimited cash behind him/her doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning.  With the restrictions on campaign contributions all but gone, it’s not the people of this country – you or Dale – who decide who’ll be at the helm, it’s the money. The money tells the minions what to think, and for whom they should vote. And the minions believe them – because what choice do they have? And when somebody gives you lots of money, they’re going to expect something in return. No. Not something. Everything.

    Corporations are people.  Young people – since their inclusion into that category only came about with Citizens United in 2010 – but people, just the same. So says the Supreme Court. These young people are very rich, which makes them very powerful in our current political system.  They pick candidates who can (and promise) do the most for them, and pour their money in behind those candidates.  It’s a bit of a gamble. If their guy wins, they’ll get their cash back, many times over.  If their guy loses, it’s not really a big deal because somebody else with money had to have made that happen. That other young person’s financial interests couldn’t be that much different.  Money wins.  Money makes more money.  Everybody’s happy. Well, except maybe the little guy, who aligned himself with one of these young citizens; fought in the trenches for them; gave them his vote, his blood, thinking, somehow, his life would be better for the effort. It rarely is.  So, not knowing what else to do, the little guy licks his wounds and tries to survive until the next election, when he will have an opportunity to make a better choice. He rarely does.

    Here’s where it gets complicated.  There are a whole damn lot more little guys than there are big corporations.  If all of the little guys banded together to watch out for their own interests, like the corporations do, their collective voice could be even louder.  But it’s hard being a little guy.  Somehow, somewhere up the food chain, practically all little guys are tantamount to servants of the corporations.  Little guy is afraid to step out of line for fear of retribution from his master.  He doesn’t have a golden parachute to break his fall, so he abides.  And the cycle continues.  And the rich get richer.  And the little guy ultimately accepts his role on the chess board and surrenders.

    Big money has many faces: business, religion, the war machine, to name a few. But, make no mistake, all of them are big money – the kings and queens and the bishops and knights who serve them directly – expecting, demanding, that you little guys get out in front of them and clear the way. When you fall, there will always be more little guys to take your place when the next battle commences. Even though you’re laying off the board in a little pile on the table, you get about a 50/50 shot at saying your side won. So, you’ve got that going for you. 

    There is no such thing as a democracy, in the context of world governments. We used to consider our form of government as a “representative democracy.” For quite a while, the United States has actually worked in what can best be described as a “constitutional republic.” The tint of that republic changes from election to election, as various faces of big money persuades the pawns to vote for big money’s benefit.  In the last few decades, we have moved closer to what could only be described as an “oligarchy” – where, in essence, a few (big money) govern over many (the little guy). Some big money is more transparent than others.  If Trump, or Walker (aka Koch Brothers) – the business face of big money - should win the next election, the republic will temporarily take a giant step toward a “plutocracy.”  This is a government controlled by a few wealthy people, and many will argue that we are already there. But with these guys, the mask is off, and we can quit pretending to be anything else.

    Huckabee and Cruz rely on another face of big money. Their election would undoubtedly move us toward a “theocracy.”  This is a government by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided – meaning the Church (the Christian Church and nothing but the Church) would essentially be making our governmental decisions. After all, it would take a divine miracle for either of them to get elected. The question then would become which branch of the business of Christianity would make the calls. The answer would be Southern Baptist.

    Bernie Sanders is a self-described Democratic Socialist. That term scares the hell out of a whole lot of people in the United States who only hear the “socialist” part, bringing to mind the evil empires of Russia and China we all grew up learning to hate and fear.  Here’s the actual definition:  Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership of the means of production. Sometimes used synonymously with "socialism", the adjective "democratic" is added to denote a system of political democracy similar to that found in existing Western societies.

    Take that as you will, but it means Bernie would move the country, if even slightly, toward that socialist boogeyman.

    Frustrated that nothing we’ve tried before has actually given us the government we think we should have, no matter which side we sit on, judging from the polls, Americans are faunching at the bits for some kind of dramatic change in our particular directions.  The right wants to go way to the right (Donald Trump, Scott Walker). The left wants to go way to the left (Bernie Sanders). Everybody pretty much assumes that the election of Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush would just keep us in more or less the same place we are now.  The truth is, no matter which direction we go, we’ll come back toward the middle the next time, and we’ll remain a Plutocracy, ruled by one face or the other of big money.   This is, until the little guys rise up and demand that we reform our political system back to exclude big money; where each flesh & blood human’s vote actually matters and we’re not all bombarded by dollars on the airwaves and the newsprint and the internet telling us how to vote.

    Until then, we get what we vote for. Meaning we get what we want. What do you want? You’re not as radical as you’ve been told you should be.

        ©2015   Rick Baber

SQUARE ONE

    Nothing’s really easy. There’s a revelation!

    Lots of people who read my first novel, Purity, told me they thought it should be made into a movie – because they “watched” it as a movie as they read it.  This, of course, pleased me, because I saw it as a movie as I wrote it. Truth is, I don’t read all that much for entertainment, but I do watch a lot of movies.

    The comments from readers started me thinking about who would play the role of the protagonist if Purity actually was a movie. I, certainly, would be perfect for the role, if only I could get past a couple of barriers. I look like a fat Skeletor on camera. I can’t act.

    Who then? 

    It was (Famous Actor) I kept seeing wiggling out of difficult situations as the hero, Jeff Davis, even as I wrote many of them.  He could do it.  How hard would it possibly be to get the script to him? He’s an Arkansas boy, after all.  The script is set in Arkansas. I know lots of people in Arkansas, and each of them knows somebody in Arkansas that I don’t. My mind was made up. (Famous) was going to make my movie.  Done deal.

    I put the word out.  Astonishingly, I was contacted by a sweet lady from Batesville who actually knew (Famous’) lawyer.  I won’t give her name here, because I haven’t asked her for permission, but she knows who she is (insert heart icon here). She gave me the Los Angeles lawyer’s contact information and I sent him an email, dropping her name.  It worked!  He got right back to me. He read the book. He liked it a lot, and asked me if I could adapt it to a screenplay.  “Sure!” I told him, “No problemo!”  Then, I frantically searched the internet to see what a screenplay looked like; downloaded some for reference; bought the appropriate software; and figured out how to write a script.

    Meantime, the lawyer tells me (Famous) is tied up with several projects, and he thinks another one of his clients might be able to do something much sooner with my story.  I jumped on that opportunity and worked with that Executive Producer, over a period of about 1 ½ years, using his notes to tweak the script into a pilot for a TV series. Dude kept telling me “The wheels of Hollywood move very slowly,” but he had me convinced that, eventually, we’d have the script packaged with “talent” and a director, then he would pitch it to one of the major studios.  We had numerous conversations about me writing the TV scripts once that became a reality – a gig that pays about half my yearly wages, per week!

    Well, now, I’m practically a bigshot. I ask Lawyer Dude if he thinks I need to get an agent. He says to me, “You’re already talking to me. Why would you need an agent?”  That made sense. I never even looked for an agent, considering that I was higher up on the food chain than some struggling writer looking for somebody to read his script.

    Time passes. I’m all hoity-toity, Mister soon-to-be Screenwriter, wondering if I should invite J.J. Abrams to my next party. He seems cool enough to hang out with me. EP Dude calls, periodically, discussing our options.  (Famous Actor) is apparently out.  Who could star in the lead?  Jeff Daniels took a gig with “The Newsroom,” so he’s out. What about Kevin Costner?  Jeff Bridges?  Jeff Bridges! Are you kidding me? The Big Lebowski playing the lead role in MY movie?  I’d sell previously-valued body parts to make that happen. Well, that’s just like, your opinion, man.

    These guys I was dealing with weren’t some jackleg shysters looking for some rube from Arkansas they could swindle money out of. They never asked me for a dime. They were the real deal with impressive credits to their names.  The deal was, we would all be Executive Producers, attempting to “package” the product (the script), and then pitch it to the money guys – the studios. If that never came to fruition, we’d all just walk away and no harm would be done.

    No harm done.

    About a year and a half into working with EP Dude, he calls me one late summer day and tells me that he is not having any luck getting those Hollywood wheels to turn.  The industry, it seems, isn’t interested in pursuing original material at the moment. They’re sticking with tried-&-true themes: Re-makes of previous hit movies; Sequels of previous hit movies; Comic book movies.  He has now teamed up with a very famous producer and a very famous actor to do just that – make a comic book movie – and he’s not going to have the time to continue to try to package my script. He wishes me luck. He’s walking away.  No harm done.

    So … it’s over? Nothing is over until I say it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!  (If you’re a reader and not a movie-goer, you won’t get that. Just trust me with the quote.) We’ll endeavor to persevere, back at Square One, sending PMs to people I know on Facebook – and people I don’t - who might have a connection to the big leagues; posting my scripts online for anybody to read with the click of a mouse. Scratching. Clawing. Going the extra … uh … sorry. Lost my train of thought.

    Nothing’s really easy.

    

    ©2015   Rick Baber

America Has Gone Nuts

    After typing the title, I simply sat and stared at it for a while, hands on the keyboard, waiting for the next thought to come to mind.  What else is necessary? That pretty much sums it up. 

    Perhaps, I thought, some examples. But there are so many. Where does one start? How ‘bout an analogy?  It’s like it’s 1968 again, and I’m fighting over space in the back seat of my dad’s Mercury Montego with my younger sister and brother – all the way to grandma’s house.

    “He’s touching me!”

    “Move over then!”

    “They’re making me sit in the floorboard!”

    “I said ‘Shuttup!’ I’ll turn this damn car around right now!”

    “Aaughhhh! He just put his toe in my mouth!”

    “No, she bit my toe!”

    “Put your shoes on, your feet stink!”

    “Your face stinks.”

    “Mom!”

    “Honey, can you stick your feet out the window?”

    “Ri…Rob…Ran…. I’ll put you all in the trunk and you can fight it out in there!”

    “I’ll just ride up here in the back glass.”

    “No! It’s MY turn!”

     This is America today.  Whining and moaning and crying and being offended and needing to offend and struggling to appease is the rule of the day. On one end of the spectrum, we have people resigning from their jobs rather than continuing to work for a company, or a government, that condones same-sex marriage.  Like, no matter what that company or government did in the past, it’s this that’s bringing the downfall – the end of times, as many have actually called it.  Or, could it be that they were dissatisfied with their employment all along and just recognized the opportunity to get out seeming honorable?  Call me cynical, but I think God’s probably got better things to do than worry about the design of the icing you squirt on some cake or who you issue marriage licenses to in your Podunk little town. If you’re a dude that doesn’t want to marry another dude then … don’t. Nobody is making you.  Requiring you to register your gun doesn’t equate to having your doors kicked down by storm troopers and being drug away to a concentration camp. Allowing your employees to have birth control paid by their insurance doesn’t tell Jesus that you’re condoning abortion.  And removing the flag of an old, supposedly-gone domestic enemy of the United States from government properties isn’t tantamount to erasing your proud regional heritage. Get over it, you hyperbolic infants.

    On the other end of the spectrum – we skip to there, because there is no middle – are the do-gooders and guilt-ridden and wanna-be saints who can never seem to do enough to make amends and fix all that is wrong with people and society and manufacture peace and harmony and the holding of the hands, sitting ‘round the campfire… No. Not a campfire, because that causes pollutants.  Sitting ‘round the solar-powered campfire hologram singing old Coca Cola commercials.  They monitor your spoken and written words, and would monitor your thoughts, if possible, to make sure there is nothing in there anywhere that could be construed as offensive to any human being, animal, plant or sub-atomic particle.  Some are genuinely intent on this pursuit. Others, just wanting to be accepted into the group, don’t exactly know what they should do … but they try so hard.  One report shows that a TV network is pulling episodes of “The Dukes of Hazzard,” because a central “character” in the old series is a car, called The General Lee, that has a Confederate flag emblem, aka stars & bars, painted on the roof.  This idiotic action, in itself, will surely eliminate all racial strife in America.  Who the hell cares what two fictional rednecks from 1980s Georgia had painted on their car, or what they named it? The only reason anybody ever watched that show was to eagerly await any appearance by Daisy Duke, in those cut-off jeans.  Oh, I’m sorry. That was sexist and surely offended somebody. Well, get over it, Alice, facts is facts.

    America has gone nuts.  Problem is: where are we gonna go? This is the bed we have made for ourselves. Neither side is going to prevail.  There will be giving and taking and taking and giving, and, hopefully, we can ride this out without killing each other. It's too late to turn the car around.
All we can do at this point is wait and see what happens; rub our eyes; groan. Stuff like that. 

    That’s all for now. If I keep going, I might offend somebody.

   

    ©2015   Rick Baber

Forward, Into the Past

    Take a stroll with me, if you will, back in time; back to a magical moment in the history of the great state of Arkansas: September, 1957.  It’s front page news. Nine young people, who had the audacity to be born black, carrying their books, heads down in fear, bravely walking to the steps that led up to Central High School, surrounded by raging, screaming white people who didn’t want them going in there.  Here’s a quote from Elizabeth Eckford, who was 15 years old at the time.  “They moved closer and closer … somebody started yelling… I tried to see a friendly face somewhere in the crowd – someone who maybe could help. I looked into the face of an old woman and it seemed like a kind face, but when I looked at her again, she spat on me.”

    She spat on her.

    It’s not like the nine were going to get inside on September 4. Southern Democrat (yes, Democrat) Governor Orval Faubus had National Guard Troops there – to make sure they didn’t. 

    Five days later, September 9, the Little Rock School District condemned the governor’s deployment of troops. On September 24, Ike, the Republican (yes, Republican) President of the United States, sent the 101^st Airborne, federalized the Arkansas National Guard, and guess who was going to Central before October.

    Whew! That was tense. 

    Now, for today’s young people, some clarification of the labels. A brief history lesson, if you will.  It was Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, who freed the slaves. Orval Faubus, a Democrat, who blocked the Little Rock Nine.  Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, who backed Faubus down.  Those labels – Democrat & Republican – are today synonymous with “Liberal” and “Conservative,” respectively.  People who are ignorant of history argue that it was conservatives who championed the advances of African Americans in our society, based upon the fact that they were Republicans.  But, you see, that is not true.

   “Liberal” means, at its core, “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.”  “Conservative” means, at its core, “holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.” (Google).  Look it up.

    When the Emancipation Proclamation (one of those Executive Orders some folks are so convinced is tyranny today) was delivered by Honest Abe on January 1, 1863, the ownership of black people by white people was considered, at least by the southern states, a “traditional attitude and value.” The Confederate States were “cautious about change or innovation.”  The two sides fought this big war over that little dispute, and a combined total of 620,000 soldiers died in the process. In the end, Lincoln’s liberal agenda prevailed.

    The Southern Democrats, beginning in the 1850s, remained after the war, and didn’t get along well with the Republican black folk.  In 1933, there came a new Democrat president from New York named Franklin Roosevelt, who introduced a series of domestic programs known as “The New Deal.”   From that moment on, the Democrats, as a party, began to move to the left – aka liberalism.  Consequently, the Republicans moved to the right – aka conservatism.  “By 1936 the term ‘liberal’ was typically used for supporters of the New Deal, and ‘conservative’ for its opponents.” (Wikipedia – look it up.)  But the Southern Democrats, like Faubus, remained stuck in the old ways, until the Little Rock Nine put one of the final nails into their political coffins. 

  So, here we are now. Conservatives, on the right, Republicans; Liberals, on the left, Democrats.  OK?

    November, 2014. Conservative Republicans take over the Arkansas state government, duly elected by the good people of the state.  March, 2015, Arkansas lawmakers introduce the “Religious Freedom Bill” – a law specifically designed to give business owners and employers a legal defense to discrimination claims when they refuse to do business with people because they have religious objections to said people’s lifestyles or actions.  That’s my understanding, anyway.  It’s a thinly veiled effort to circumvent the federal anti-discrimination laws that have been brought about by “liberals” since 620,000 men died fighting over “civil rights” 150 years ago; and many more in the interim.

    Indisputably, these laws, being enacted by other states as well, are aimed at the LGBT community.  Some people just don’t want to have to do business with “the gays.”  You may be one of those people.  But consider that this same law could possibly be construed to allow somebody who doesn’t condone your actions or lifestyle, on religious principle, to discriminate against you or your family members at some point in the future.  It could happen. Do you drink? Smoke dope? Have “relations” with people outside of wedlock?  Do you work on Sunday? Do you eat pork?

    The Arkansas Legislature is doing its level best to take us back to those steps at Central High in 1957 – shining the world spotlight on us once again – leading us boldly forward into the 20^th century.

    How proud we all must be.   

 

© 2015, Rick Baber

http://www.rickbaber.com

IDIOCRACY

SCOTUS RULING

For all the times I have argued with people (and, yes, I have done some of that) about … issues, I don’t recall a single time when somebody with an opposing viewpoint stopped and said “Yes. I see what you mean. Now that you’ve explained it, I agree.” This means either that I’m a total failure at making my point, or that people are simply too hard-headed to admit that they’re wrong. Maybe it’s a little of both.

And yet, I am compelled to persevere with this futile endeavor.

My extreme displeasure with the recent Hobby Lobby ruling by the Supreme Court may be the hardest point I’ve tried to make in a long time. Everybody’s arguing about it – but from where I sit, they’re all arguing over the wrong points. The “right” frames their argument by saying “Why should I have to pay for objectionable types of reproductive care for women I don’t even know?” Sure, I have answers for that; but, to me, that has very little to do with the implications of the Court’s decision, and I’m not going to let somebody opening with that line drag me off into what I consider is a completely different argument.

Similarly, the “left” says, “Well, I support women’s reproductive rights!” Cool. Good for you. Now you can go fight with that guy who doesn’t want to pay for what you support, if you want; but, again, your point is only germane to this ruling if you want to look at it in a vacuum.

Laws don’t stay in vacuums. And, given the opportunity, SCOTUS could have made the same ruling about pretty much anything being paid for within the Affordable Care Act that had nothing at all to do with reproduction, or sex, or any of those other nasty things that people get all riled up about. Like…say... X-rays. I don’t know whether or not X-rays are covered, so, please, don’t call me out on that. It’s just an example.

Let’s say, somewhere, there’s a religion that doesn’t believe in them, and your employer subscribes to that religion. Does he have to pay the employer share of your healthcare insurance premium that pays for X-rays? To go further, let’s say your employer is a Christian Scientist. Does he/she have to pay for any part of your insurance premium, which was mandated by law, prior to this Court decision?

To go further still, let’s just take ObamaCare out of the equation completely. Everybody on both sides of the issue knows that this was nothing more than a political slap in the face delivered to Obama by the right-leaning court. Good for them. They have more guys on their team, so it’s only right that they should win some of these fights. But it’s just politics. Let’s not get all tied up in the façade put up by both political parties. It’s not about women’s rights, or healthcare, or even religion. It’s about winning one for the team. So, in essence, it’s not real. But the decision is real; and binding.

So what could go wrong?

Well, a law has been circumvented under the guise of religion. This is of no benefit to law or religion; and it’s going to open up a Pandora’s Box that we won’t likely see shut in our lifetimes. In the words of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.”

It may come as a surprise to some that Christianity isn’t the only religion represented in the United States. There are many. It may come as even more of a surprise to some that anybody can claim to be of any religion they can dream up, and there is no litmus test to prove whether or not they actually believe what they say they believe; or even whether or not such a religion even exists. If a “believer” can opt out of all, or any part of, a law concerning healthcare regulations, why then can’t that same person opt out of any other law that is found objectionable by their religion? Speeding. Paying taxes. Sex with children.

Here may be the reason that I don’t win these disagreements with people. I have enough faith left in humanity to believe that this is all self-explanatory; and fully understanding it myself, I sometimes fail to dig down deep to make all the little points that make up the big picture. If you don’t understand by now, I don’t know what I can do or say to help bring you to the light. But, again, I keep trying.

If you are sitting back saying “Nobody would ever attempt to make such a ridiculous argument; and if they did, they would be laughed out of court,” then I have two questions for you:

Did you hear about the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court ruling?

Have you ever met a lawyer?


©2014 Rick Baber

Destination - Batesville

We decided to go for a drive last Friday. Ended up in Vicksburg, Mississippi, after a one night layover at Tunica. We thought we might motor on down to Biloxi, but reality kept hinting that we’re not up those long drives like we used to be. Things on our bodies were hurting and making noises. So, after another losing casino night in Vicksburg, we decided to just head back up to Batesville (Arkansas – not that other one down there).

During the obligatory drive down Main Street, upon our arrival, we noticed the changes that have been mentioned on social media. Sort of an obstacle course. At first we weren’t too crazy about the thing, but then, thinking about it, and having the concept explained by Chief Gleghorn, it did all seem to make sense. Count me ‘n momma as supporters of the street changes (for whatever that’s worth), and anything else that can be done that might bring downtown Batesville back to life. I just hope it’s not too late.

Before leaving, Tuesday, we did have the pleasure of having lunch at “Big’s,” on Main Street. Great food, reasonable prices, and what may be the most friendly and conscientious staff of anyplace I have eaten in a long time. Even the cook came out to ask us if everything was to our satisfaction – and, of course, it was. This, I thought, is exactly the kind of place that could help bring downtown Batesville back from the abyss. When added to the likes of the Landers Theater renovation, Elizabeth’s, and the Simply Southern Playhouse (based on reports from friends, as I still haven’t had the opportunity to get there during our all-too-short visits) it’s a very good start. But the lack of growth problem with a town like Batesville can’t be solved by simply making it a cool place for the people who live there. Growth depends on money coming in from outside the community, itself. Commerce. Tourism. Either one can attract the other.

Batesville is certainly one of the most beautiful towns in Arkansas. I fell in love with the place the first time my dad drug us, kicking and screaming, there with him for work, around 1965. I think we stayed there two weeks, in the Powell Motel, and I didn’t want to leave when he was done. Even being a young kid, with friends in school, I was thrilled when he told us a couple of years later we were moving there. But even scenic beauty, it seems, isn’t enough to keep a city alive in this tough economy. Batesville isn’t on the way to anywhere. It’s not like people are going to stop off for a day or two during their vacations and spend money in hotels and restaurants and shops. It has to become a destination.

The new sports complex could surely help – hosting tournaments, etc. – but, again, not enough. Main Street needs to be totally renovated, and I do believe that has begun. But, allow me to offer up some suggestions regarding what I think could be major “selling points” that most other cities don’t have to start with.

Number One is, of course, the White River. The park there is great, and getting better. Josie’s was one of the best things to come along in decades. Why can’t other businesses build along the river? Think Little Rock’s “River Walk.” San Antonio. People dig water. If you build it, they will come.

Speaking of water, you may think Number Two (especially if you’re a resident) is a little crazy – but what about the bayou? There it sits, right behind Main Street, surrounded by thick woods and decaying buildings, breeding mosquitos. Bear with me.
WHAT IF the bayou was cleaned up? By that, I mean taking out all that brush and making a nice park all along both sides behind lower Main Street. Line each side with blocks, making it look more like a canal. Put some fountains out there in the water, ala Siloam Springs, Arkansas. Then, those old buildings across the tracks could add back patios and decks overlooking this beautiful park, and suddenly, they are desirable real estate again. Further, this could spark a rebirth in West Side – where a rebirth is desperately needed.

Third – and I’ll shut up after this one – this “dry county” thing has got to come to an end. I know many, including some of my own family, will disagree. The tax from alcohol sales, they’ll say, won’t be enough to make any difference. That is probably true, but it misses the point. You could tax the population of Batesville at 100 percent and never obtain the money needed to bring the city back to the status it deserves. It’s the money and taxes that could come in from other places that matters; the jobs created by new people, with new money, putting new businesses in this tourist attraction. Sure, it would probably hinder the meth business around town, but somebody has to suffer for the greater good.

Forget the Newport comparison. That’s just lame. Newport has nowhere near the scenic beauty of Batesville. It’s just a bad argument. Apples and turnips. Think about the places you take your families on vacations and getaways: Branson, Eureka Springs, Orlando, Florida. Bars, clubs, liquor stores everywhere. If you don’t drink, you don’t go in those places. But it is those places that help make possible the places you do go. There may be some, but I can’t think of a single tourist destination that is “dry.”

Once the tourist industry is healthy, other business will follow: services businesses to keep the hotels and restaurants running, and so on. More people. More jobs. A larger tax base.

Now, you’re going to ask “Where does the city get the money to do all this?”

I dunno. I’m just an idea man. A foundation, perhaps? Ask the Waltons?

But, thinking back on it, I’d say reverse the order of the three things I listed. Start with getting rid of the alcohol prohibition; then clean up the bayou and see what blooms.

©2014 Rick Baber

Meet the Flintstones, Part Deaux

 

    “Jesus wept,” came the dramatic response from the right reverend Mike Huckabee: swiftly, decisively…almost as if it had been rehearsed. Or pre-written.  Or pre-ordained.

    Surely, something horrible had happened in the world.What was it?  Another slaughtering of innocent school children?  Genocide in Rwanda?  Could it have been that Huckabee finally realized that there are almost 50 million Americans living in poverty?  Kids going to bed hungry every night…people choosing between food and healthcare?  Did the prayers of half a million homeless people reach him in a dream? Did somebody slip him the information that there are 218,171 people in prison in the U.S., with 47.1% of those being for “drug offenses”?  Maybe it hit him that the divorce rate in America (because, let’s face it, Jesus, being the blue-eyed, fair-haired Anglo-Saxon we’ve all seen actual photographs of, cares only about what happens in the US of A) is at 50 percent.  That’s half of all the blessed unions between one man and one woman – right down the old porcelain throne.  Surely, some of those things might cause Jesus to be a little sad.  Maybe shed a tear or two…

    Seems not.  Here’s the Huckster’s entire quote: “My thought on the SCOTUS ruling that determined that same sex marriage is okay: ‘Jesus wept.’”

    Oh.

    So, according to Huck, the Prince of Peace; the Lamb of God; that blue-eyed, fair-haired prophet who said “Do unto others whatever you would like them to do to you,” is sobbing now because my nephew is one step closer to being able share the same rights under the law as I have.  What a travesty.  What a horrible thing to happen.

    What’s next? Black folk and women being allowed to vote?

    Can somebody ‘splain to me in simple terms (because I am a simple man) exactly why there are so many heterosexuals so remarkably outraged about this?  How does it affect those of us who have a more “traditional” marriage?  Because, truthfully, I don’t see how it has any bearing on me – not in the least.  Now, it would be easy to understand the outrage if I had been born more partial to boys; lived my whole life pretending I liked girls; married one, just to be accepted as “normal.”  I might then feel some jealousy for being cheated out of the life I wanted – the life that others of the same persuasion will soon get to have.  But, again, speaking for myself, I’ve always been completely comfortable with the boy/girl thing.  So…no outrage.

    Some might cite the tax and insurance implications as a problem.  But, “Jesus?” Really?  If He is going to weep, does anybody really think it’s going to be over some same-sex couples in the United States of America getting the same tax benefits and insurance coverage as the rest of us?  Do we really want to take the stroll down the very long list of things this country does with its money, just to see how many of those things might give him better reason to cry?  No. I didn’t think so.

    Now, for mocking Governor Huckabee for his frivolous tweet (Doesn’t that sound like an insult? “You frivolous tweet!”), I have been accused by some of mocking Jesus.  Anybody who knows me knows I’m not easily offended – but I find that accusation repulsive.  For that to be true, Huckabee would have to actually be speaking FOR Jesus.- and I don’t think that’s the case.  So…

    Thanks for the two words, Mike.  I’ve got two words for you, but, unfortunately, they would only let me print one of them here.   

Meet the Flintstones

Can we get serious here for a minute?


I really didn’t want to get into this whole “gay marriage”
thing, because, frankly, it doesn’t have any direct effect on
me. But everybody else is expressing their viewpoint on
it, so, why not? My position on the subject isn’t going to
win me any friends here in the sunny south, but, when has
that shut me up? And I’ve learned over the years that if you
see an injustice occurring, whether or not it has any direct
impact on you, and you don’t speak out against it, then you’re as guilty as the people who are committing the injustice. In the 60s, during the Civil Rights Movement, I never said much, and I regret that. Of course, I was just a kid who didn’t have to sit in the balcony, or wait outside for one of my white friends to bring me a burger.

The most prolific argument against same-sex marriage is on principle, primarily from people who loudly proclaim that they are “Christians.”

Stop there.

Before you go hollering that I’m saying all Christians are against “gay marriage,” re-read it. I’m just saying that most of the people who are against it call themselves Christians, and insist that God is the one who defined marriage: One Man, One Woman. Cool. And it’s short and sweet and it fits well on a bumper sticker, or a Facebook post.

But it ain’t exactly true, is it? I mean, at least there’s a point of contention. Lots of those guys in the instruction book (aka The Bible) had more than one wife – even though each of them was only one man. Abraham, David, Solomon, Jacob, Abijah.

Deuteronomy 21 gives instructions regarding how a man should disperse his inheritance in the event that he dies and has sons by both a beloved wife and a hated wife. Of course, that same chapter goes on to say that if one of those sons is rebellious, mom and daddy should take him into town and have him stoned to death by the elders, so…

Anyway, I’m no Bible scholar, but I think that shoots down the “one woman” part of the bumper sticker equation.

All that aside, The Bible is full of all kinds of stuff we’re not supposed to do, much of which is not included in legislation regarding how the country works. The country, for those who don’t understand, is something different from religion, and it really creates problems when those two things are confused. The Bible and The Constitution are two entirely separate documents; and a marriage contract is another thing altogether.

From Wikipedia: “Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that establishes rights and obligations between spouses…” Also, this: “A marriage is a contract. You can write that contract yourself (in which case it’s called a ‘premarital agreement’), or you can accept the default contract written by your state legislators.”

So, what we’re dealing with here really has nothing to do with your religious beliefs, unless it is you that is contemplating gay marriage. As far as the government is concerned, it’s not that different from buying a house or a car or going to work for some corporation that requires a contract spelling out obligations between you and your employer. Sure, there are things in other contracts between people that you might consider unethical or immoral – but since those contracts don’t have your name on them, you generally don’t go ‘round protesting them, do you? That’s because the terms of that contract, unless it’s the “special” kind with some guy name Guido, taking out a “hit” on you, aren’t really any of your business. Why then, should a marriage contract between two consenting adults be any of your business?

Perhaps the misunderstanding exists that if same-sex marriage contracts are codified, or accepted as legal and binding by the government, dudes will have to divorce their wives and marry other dudes; and the same for women. Let me assure you, to the best of my knowledge, that is not the case. It simply allows people of the same sex to enter into marriage contracts, if they so desire. So rest easy. Joe and Marge are safe, unless one of them decides to take off with the pool boy or the maid – and that could happen anyway.

It seems that many folks are only concerned about the word, “marriage,” being used to identify unions between same-sex couples. But we don’t get to own words. You can call me a “queer-lover,” and I can call you a “bigot,” but that doesn’t stop everybody else from using those same words as they see fit. Let those two ladies call their union a marriage. You can call it what you want.

Newsflash: homosexuality exists, and there are no (enforceable) laws against being a homosexual. It has been around since way before any books were written, and unless some bright do-gooder invents a “cure” and slips it into the world’s water supply, gaydom will continue to exist. People are people, and people should be able to enter into contracts with each other. If a marriage contract between two homosexuals is not considered valid, then why should we consider an installment loan contract between those same two to be valid? Highlight that last sentence, will you? Because I think it’s profound.

© 2013, Rick Baber

http://www.rickbaber.com

Yonder Are the Hessians; Chapter 1 (unedited)

(Note: This blog entry doesn't incorporate the book's format.)

A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That’s it – all the words and punctuation used in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of what is known as The Bill of Rights.

Now, I haven’t asked her, but I assume my editor would have some problems with the placement of those commas. There really are too many of them for that sentence to make any sense, as structured. If you use the standard rule to read and understand the sentence, removing the parts between the commas, you can make that mean all kinds of things.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.” That makes sense. That would mean that nobody should infringe or prohibit the formation of a well regulated Militia.

“A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This is a little different. As read, it would mean a well regulated Militia is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” with the commas being there for emphasis.

But if we are to leave all the words in there, and arrive at the meaning that most people understand this thing to carry (apologies to Mr. Madison), it should probably go more like this:

A well- regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Just one comma. See? That means because a well-regulated militia is necessary to keep your country free, nobody should jack with the people’s right to keep and carry weapons. That’s what we think the amendment was trying to say. But now that we understand that, we have to consider the broader implications.

Forgive me. I know this is taking more time than you wanted it to, but it’s vitally important. So important, as a matter of fact, that there are people willing to kill and die over it. So the least you can do is read a little more in an effort to understand it - especially if you are one of those people. Let’s dissect the sentence, shall we? We’ll also do that without all the improper caps.

A well-regulated militia... Should we consider what “well regulated” means? It’s not spelled out anywhere in the Bill of Rights. We pretty much know what it means to regulate something; and we therefore pretty much know what it would mean to do that well. But in order for somebody to regulate something, there really has to be a regulator, doesn’t there? So, who, or what, is to be the regulator of the militia?

Because the document is designed to enumerate some rights of United States citizens and limit the government’s power in judicial and other proceedings (That’s what most people understand the purpose to be.); and because of the previous language in the Constitution to which it is an addendum, stating in Article. I. Section. 1. (more unnecessary punctuation and improper caps, but get used to it): “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives,” we have to assume the Congress is the regulator. No?

So, it is Congress that regulates the militia. It isn’t the members or the officers or the Board of Directors of the militia that regulate it. It is Congress. And we all know what Congress is. No, I mean we all know what Congress was, as referenced in the Constitution.

Given that, the next thing to do is to define “militia,” because as simple as it seems, there is a great deal of contention on this point.

Per the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition:

1. a: a part of the organized armed forces of
a country liable to call only in an emergency.

b: a body of citizens organized for military service.

2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

Isn’t it quite interesting that, even in 2013, that definition is specific to males? But, so be it.

We have to recognize, however, that when James Madison wrote this in 1789 there wasn’t a Merriam – Webster online dictionary. Even if there would have been one, nobody could have found it, because Al Gore had not yet invented the internet. So, we have to take a look back to see if we can determine what might have been the definition of “militia” in those days.

During Virginia’s ratification convention in 1788, George Mason, who we consider to be one of the founders of this country and along with Madison, “the father of the Bill of Rights,” said this:

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole
people except for a few public officials. To
disarm the people is the best and most
effectual way to enslave them.”

Given his credentials, I’d say that definition would be pretty accurate for the day. But, just to be clear, here’s another one – from the “Initiator of the Declaration of Independence,” Richard Henry Lee:

“A militia when properly formed are
in fact the people themselves…
and include all men capable of bearing
arms…To preserve liberty it is essential
that the whole body of people always
possess arms and be taught alike,
especially when young, how to use them…”

Even Madison, who penned the amendment, had more to say about it:

“…A well regulated militia, composed of the
body of the people, trained to arms, is the best
and most natural defense of a free country…”

That’s enough. Pull the plug. A militia, as defined
by the guys who should know, is pretty much all able bodied citizens, armed and ready to defend their country. But from what?

The first hint, although even harder to read than some of my own scribblings, is this (my favorite) from Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Papers:

“There is something so far-fetched and so
extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty
from the militia that one is at a loss whether
to treat it with gravity or with raillery;
whether to consider it as a mere trial of
skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians;
as a disingenuous artifice to instill prejudices
at any price; or as the serious offspring of
political fanaticism. Where in the name of
common sense are our fears to end if we may
not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors,
our fellow citizens? What shadow of danger
can there be from men who are daily mingling
with the rest of their countrymen and who
participate with them in the same feelings,
sentiments, habits, and interests?”

Gawd, I wish I could write like that. I mean, it’s beautiful, isn’t it? Even if you don’t know what the hell it means, it’s just beautiful. But, in case you don’t (know what it means), it means there’s no reason for any of us to be afraid of the militia, because the militia is us – our sons, brothers, and neighbors. Of course that was written quite a while before our Civil War, which literally pitted brother against brother, but it’s a sweet thought, just the same. Still, who is the militia protecting us from?

Well, here it comes, from Noah Webster in An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787:

“Before a standing army can rule, the people
must be disarmed; as they are in almost every
kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in
America cannot enforce unjust laws by sword;
because the whole body of the people are armed,
and constitute a force superior to any bands
of regular troops that can be, on any pretense,
raised in the United States.”

We might recognize Webster as the guy whose name appears on the dictionary referenced earlier in this chapter. He obviously knew a lot about words and their meanings, and we would have to consider that he was pretty well-versed in the concepts of the day as well. And what he is saying here is that this militia everybody thought was so important – made up of the people – should not only be armed, but better armed than the army! This, just in case the leaders of the country tried to impose their will on the people when the people didn’t want that.

Now, this gets a little trickier. If the leaders of the country are the elected representatives (Congress), and Congress is charged with regulating the militia (made up of the people), and the militia feels the need to use their arms against the leaders (Congress), then would it be…prudent…for Congress to regulate the militia so extremely that it would not be possible for them to prevail? Just asking. Surely, those guys don’t want to lose their jobs. Or their heads.

Thus far, it is pretty easy to understand the mindset of the gun-toting pseudo Rambos who swear that the government can take their weapons when they pry them from their cold dead hands. No matter why your average run-of-the-mill citizen thinks the 2nd Amendment was penned, a brief study of history makes it pretty clear that it wasn’t for hunting, or even protecting family, home or property from bad guys. It was so that the citizenry would be more powerful than the government and capable of fighting and defeating them if the need to do so ever came up. It was, just as the “gun nuts” say: to defend us from tyrants.

But, who is to decide who is a tyrant? The people. And who are the elected representatives of the people? Congress. And who, again, regulates the militia? Congress. And who also regulates the enforcement agency of the United States of America, aka the military? Congress. So, who would the militia be fighting should they take up arms against the government? The military. And who makes up the military? The people. And who are the people? The sons and brothers and neighbors and fellow citizens of the other people, the militia. So, who’s on third base? What’s that spell? What’s that spell? What’s that spell? Civil War!

Shot at Redemption

The consensus among 2nd Amendment screamers seems to be, in their rampaging defense of so-called “assault rifles,” that the framers didn’t put that amendment in there so good ol’ boy Americans could protect their homes and property from the occasional bad guy, breaking in to steal a TV or some Sudafed. It’s there so they can protect their homes and property from Uncle Sam – should he decide to become tyrannical and oppressive. I mean, even more than usual. After all, it did happen once before, and lots of folk in the south are still pretty ticked off about their “property” just being set free like that. The gub’ment had ‘em some nerve back then.

Things were a little different back in 1787, when those long-haired founders penned the Constitution, and then a couple of years later when they added The Bill of Rights – which includes the “right to bear arms,” only after what they must have considered the most important amendment, the first one, which says this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Then came what I suppose was the next most important thing on their minds: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note, that doesn’t say anything about what kind of arms the people should have the right to keep. Muskets were a pretty big deal back then. And since then, there has been some difference in opinion regarding the meaning of this document between Joe Bumpersticker and Uncle Sam. The language of the amendment seems to indicate that such a right is there so the people can band together into a “militia,” if necessary, to hold off foreign invaders. But Joe Sixpack seems to think it’s there in case our own government gets a little too big for its britches and needs to be booted out. Like, for example, when their guy isn’t elected president. Enter the long clip semi-automatic rifle.

They’re not really necessary for scaring some meth head away from your door – or even shooting one if he doesn’t take the hint. Any pistol is good enough for that job. No, these beauties are just in case “Red Dawn” comes from our own military and we’ve got to mount up on our trusty nags and four-wheelers and head for the hills where we can hide out and make nightly raids on the United States Military (an organization that everybody seems to be pretty fond of, for now) and take our country back! Because the movie, you see, makes us believe that is possible. But since they’ve already made it very difficult for us to own truly automatic weapons, and tanks and stuff like that, this is the next best thing. It’ll just have to do.

Of course, these things also make it remarkably convenient for nutbags to stroll into a theater or a school and gun down a bunch of people if they take such a notion. But that real threat sure shouldn’t influence anybody on how we choose to deal with our fantasy threat. These things look cool. They make our gun cabinets and our jeans look fuller. And, by God, we want to keep them.

So, we’ve got us a gun culture, and there ought to be a way for folks other than the weapons manufacturers and the NRA to profit from it. I’m envisioning a day, very soon, when there will be a big 2nd Amendment Rally, like Woodstock…only, not… probably in the middle of Texas. Maybe they’ll call it “Gunstock.” All the bullet-belted, trigger-happy Rambos will load up in their pickup trucks and head out there, proudly displaying their armament and their rebel flags. There’ll be some whiskey drinkin’ and performances from a handful of real cowboy recording artists who support the cause; and campfire dancing by many wobbly-legged and heavily tattooed women. They’ll break up into smaller groups and have philosophical discussions about the Bible supporting their cause and what kind of weapon Jesus would carry, assuming he’s not actually in attendance. Maybe they’ll burn some effigies of Barack Obama and Piers Morgan and discuss the resurrection of the Confederacy, and fiery speakers will get them all worked up into a frothy mixture of patriotism and inebriation. A swell time will be had by all.

Then, on the last night of the festival, somebody’s big ol’ mudder pickup will backfire when they start into town to get some more ice and set off the biggest massacre in American history. Some bright entrepreneur will make a fortune gathering up and selling all those spent cartridges – and I plan to be that guy.

Meantime, I’m gonna jaunt off to the local armory and pick me up a couple of these little beauties, just in case the Decepticons decide to take over Northwest Arkansas. You think I’m joking? This ain’t no cartoon. It could happen! I don’t want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard.

© 2013, Rick Baber
http://www.rickbaber.com

The End?

    For whatever it’s worth to you folks, I am 92.4% certain
that the world will not end on December 21. This, in contrast to the 96.8% certainty it won’t happen today. These beliefs are based upon the fact that I have not won the lottery to this point, and the numbers will go way down if and when that ever occurs.
    This being stated, I’d like to take this opportunity to squeeze in one last column before the solstice, just in case.
    First of all, I’d like to say that it has been a pleasure knowing most of you. Others, not so much. And it has been a pleasure being allowed by this fine newspaper to share my aimless ramblings with you for all these years. I was looking back through some of the archives I have managed to hang onto, and I believe that the first Into Focus column I wrote was a piece about the Cuban Missile Crisis, entitled “Armageddon on Hold.” With it being at least one of my first column pieces, I cut it out, framed it, and hung it on my wall. Thing is, I didn’t save the part of the paper that had the date on it, so I’m not sure when it was written. Best guess is around 2002. I’m thinking, if this is the end, wouldn’t it be sort of ironic that I’m looking at that dust-covered thing on the wall as I write this one?
    Next, let me make a pleading to you all that, sometime between now and the 21st, you don’t go all ape-crazy and decide to jump out your windows like those “War of the Worlds” people did in 1938. Remember that you live in Arkansas, and most of the houses here are no higher than two stories. If you jump, chances are you’ll just break your legs or something and you’ll be all gimped up if and when the big day gets here. If you do it sooner than later, you’ll have a bunch of extra medical bills and you might not be in any shape to get yourself over close to the window to watch.
    That’s what I’ll be doing – watching. I’ve got a cooler and a bunch of folding canvas chairs out there in the garage, just waiting for the shindig. There’ll be a few of us sitting out in the yard, probably at my brother’s house, trying (not too hard) to stay sober…and awake. An event like this doesn’t happen every day. My only dilemma at this juncture is whether or not to bother with bringing my camera. I mean, the possibility of some awesome photo opportunities is something to consider; but I don’t know if I’ll have time to look at them before…you know. At least we’ve reached the age of digital photography and I don’t have to drop the film off somewhere and wait an hour to see what I shot. So, I’ve got that going for me…which is nice.
    Regrets? I’ve had a few. But, then again, too few to mention. One thing I can think of is never taking the time to look up a little toad who once set me up to fire me from a job that wasn’t so great to begin with…to properly “thank” him. On the other hand, had I done that, I would probably be in jail and they wouldn’t let me have internet service so I could ask all you nice people to not use whatever time you may have left to enact revenge on somebody, like some idiot mall shooter. If we’re going out, let’s go out with some dignity, shall we?
    If there is a December 22, that day will be longer than the one before it. The next day, longer than that one; and so on until the next solstice. That will be June 21, as I recall. It should be warm then; t-shirt weather. And my hope is that millions of people will drag their coolers and lawn chairs back out into their yards on that longest day of the year to gaze once again into the sky – and that every one of them are wearing the shirts I manufactured, saying “I survived the Apocalypse and all I got was this lousy t-shirt!” They’ll be reasonably priced. Get your orders in before it’s too late.
    In the next installment of Into Focus, I’ll reveal to you all how to turn lead into gold and run your cars on a mixture of water and Johnson grass. Maybe. That’s scheduled for December 31. Stick around.

© 2012, Rick Baber
http://www.rickbaber.com

The Eye of a Needle

You know me, I don’t like to get political, but once every
blue moon something comes up that I find hard to ignore.
This presidential election thing seems to have sparked a
whole conversation having to do with whether it’s better for
us, as a society, to cater to the rich people or to the poor
people…and it’s got to be one or the other. Half of us
contend that the rich guy’s in pretty good shape to take care
of himself, and the other half has come up with this mantra:

“Did you ever get a job from a poor man?”

The thought process behind that profound question is, I guess, that if government (which they say we don’t really need at all, but since it exists…) would protect the financial interests of those folks who have money, then they will, in turn, unselfishly provide for the needs of the rest of us. It’s a beautiful concept, really, that incorporates some basic principles of capitalism: Treat your workers well; pay them enough to survive and remain healthy, and reproduce so they can manufacture children to work for your children – but not so much that they can become independent from you. That way the cycle continues and everybody is happy.

One problem with that, as I see it, is that there are so few really rich folk, and so many people in the “working class” that the rich have lost interest in the well-being of the workers. They can always get more. I mean, that’s a problem for the lower end of the equation. Not so much for the other. When this is combined with the other problem – greed – the whole principle appears to collapse under its own weight, and we start seeing something more akin to serfdom than capitalism.

The question, “Did you ever get a job from a poor man?” carries the subtle implication that rich people are more important to our existence than working people…better than working people. I disagree.

Whenever I’m pondering one of these questions, I take things to their extremes, just to make it easier for my little brain to figure it out. So, imagine two new worlds, born from this one. The first one has only rich people, who acquired their fortunes paying others to farm their fields, produce their goods and build their spectacular homes. The second has only the working folk who were previously hired to do all those things for the rich. Which of these worlds would survive? I have an opinion on that. Of course, it’s just theory.

Ironically, while writing this, being a terrible speller, I Googled “subtle implication.” Here’s the very first hit: “Do not be overawed when others grow rich, when the splendor of their houses increases; for they will take nothing with them when they die, their splendor will not descend with them.” – Psalms 49:16,7.

Now, I’m not a particularly religious person, in the classical sense, but I find the operative word in that scripture to be “descend,” rather than “ascend.” Just an observation.

Invariably, the debate over the rich/poor issue leads to discussion of “unions.” The folks who support the rich (oddly, most of them are not rich, themselves) demonize unions to the point that they should be abolished completely; that they are the primary reason for the state of our near-crippled economy. What makes those have-nots think they own any right to assemble against our beloved corporate moguls and hold them hostage to their silly desires for more money and better working conditions? If they want nice things, they should be rich, themselves, right? Everybody knows that as wages and employee expense go up, the price of the fruits of their labor goes up accordingly. After all, the businesses paying these workers aren’t going to take that increased cost out of their pockets. They’re not going to sacrifice their yachts and their summer homes just to make lives better for a bunch of ungrateful employees. If they did that, then what would be the point of wealth? Besides, it’s just not fair to gang up on somebody like that. It’s cheating. It’s “gang mentality” and it shouldn’t be tolerated in a decent, God-fearing society like the US of A. Again, one of the two major political parties agrees with and advances this philosophy while the other supports the concept of collective bargaining. Who’s right?

Back up and take a look from the outside. “Political party.” What is that, if not an assemblage of people, brought together to use their collective power to advance their common agenda? A union? A union that expends a great deal of effort trying to convince the people that unions are a terrible idea? Interesting.

I don’t really have a dog in this fight. I’m not poor, and certainly not rich. I don’t have any particular skills that would enable me to contribute to either of the two fictional worlds. Just an observer, a simple writer, outside, looking in, pondering things that most people probably never give a second thought. Trying to figure people out is tough. Like trying to pass through the eye of a needle.

NEW WORLD FORGOTTEN

Monday, October 8, 2012. I got up at the regular time
(no need for you to know what that is); stumbled across
the hall to my office, and opened up the computer to begin
another fun-filled exciting day of dealing with crashed cars,
mangled people, and all that entails.

About 2:30 the phone quit ringing for a while, so I
thought I’d take the opportunity to run (no, not literally)
over to the post office, mail some correspondence, and pay
that box rent fee that I neglected to pay at the end of last month – ending up with me getting evicted. Happens every time. They give me the notice at the first of the month for rent due at the end. By the time the end of the month gets here, I’ve forgotten about it completely. Thankfully, they always lock me out of the box within a couple of days, and that reminds me that I need to pay the rent. They’re helpful like that.

But, today, the windows are closed off with that sliding barricade, like they have in the mall. Nobody’s there, save a nice Hispanic lady who’s coming in as I’m standing in the air lock, looking for some sign, or something, explaining why they’re shut down. At first, I thought maybe it was still Sunday and I’d just lost track of time. I do that a lot. Then, I wondered if maybe they’d closed up in celebration of my daughter-in-law’s birthday. The lady could tell that I was confused. She said to me, in broken English, “I think it is Columbus Day.”

“Well…yes,” I replied, “That’s important! Thank you. Thank you very much.”

Imagine, if you will, my total shame and humiliation. Here am I – a natural-born, 100% red-blooded American man, and I had forgotten this most holy of holidays! Worse yet, I had to be reminded by an immigrant. It must be true what they say about them having a better grasp of our blessings than we do ourselves. Oh, the shame!

Now, with only a small portion of the day remaining, what was I to do about celebrating it? My Italian sailor suit had never been picked up from the cleaners after last year’s blow-out celebration. There were no ingredients in the house to prepare our traditional Columbus Day meal of pepperoni lasagna and that dark oily sauce that nobody knows the name of, to dip the bread in. Not a single bottle of Limoncello to be found. And the giant blow-up Santa Maria yard ornament was still buried up there in the attic, under all the Canadian Boxing Day stuff. I’d never get to it in time. I could rush off to Wal-Mart to buy the Nina and Pinta to complete the set (about time!), but what would be the use? This late, I was sure, they would be completely sold out.

In my mind’s eye, I could see those post office employees – the ones who weren’t there to unlock my box – gathered with their families, wearing their funny hats, drinking Amaretto and eating pizza, singing “Albachiara” (I guess), giving thanks that the world didn’t turn out to be flat, and telling tales of the sea. Pinching each other’s bottoms – all in good fun. But, not me. No! I am a pagan whose only thoughts on this special day involved getting my work done. My precious work.

I can see it all clearly now. At the end of our lives, none of us look back and say “I wish I would have spent more time at work.” But there will be those of us who do look back, regretfully, and proclaim that, if we had it all to do over again, we would have spent more Columbus Days in joyous celebration, like our brothers and sisters in the US Postal Service. I know that now. I won’t be caught off guard this time next year.

Sail on, my friends. Sail on!

© 2012, Rick Baber
http://www.rickbaber.com

Moralitical Dilemma

My wife has been wrestling tonight with whether or not it is morally…and … American-ly… correct to oppose Mitt Romney on the grounds that he is of a religion with some pretty “unusual” beliefs and practices.

I tell her “If that doesn’t feel right to you, then don’t oppose him on those grounds. There are plenty of other
grounds on which you can oppose Mitt Romney.”

For one, he is a gazillionaire who has never in his life had to struggle for financial security. This, it would seem, would put him out of touch with about 99% of the population who have had to face financial difficulties in their lives. Further, much of that money he made, since leaving his wealthy parents’ nest, was from off-shoring and outsourcing jobs and putting Americans out of work – in the name of profit for the few at the top of those companies…and, of course, for Romney. Seems like kind of an Anti-American thing to do.

Then, there’s the concept that he refuses to release his tax returns, so that prospective voters can see for themselves how much money he actually made and how he made it, and what kind of “write offs” he used to protect it…how much of it was invested outside the United States, thereby contributing to the economy of those other countries, instead of the one he says he wants to lead.

One could conceivably oppose him on the grounds that he is the ultimate flip-flopper. He rails against so-called “Obamacare,” which was modeled after the plan he pioneered as the governor of Massachusetts. A plan, which by the way, has been enormously successful, boasting a 98% success rate in the number of Massachusetts citizens who are now insured. Contrast that to about 84% of Americans, in general.

Romney seems to embrace whichever of his successes that are beneficial to him at a given time; and then ignore them when they’re not helpful to his immediate agenda. Right now, his agenda is getting himself elected President, within a party whose platform is pretty much built on tearing down President Obama’s crowning achievement – watered down as it was by the Republican congress. He doesn’t like being reminded what a success the “trial” program for Obamacare was…when and where he was governor.

He could be opposed on his selection of a man for his VP who, if one didn’t know better, might be confused for one of his sons. Or, perhaps, a younger clone. There’s not even a veiled attempt there at diversity in any sense of the word; sort of shouting to the American voter “Here I am. Take me or leave me.”

It would be understandable if somebody opposed Romney on the basis that even his own party, who made no bones about disliking him during the primary, just felt compelled to place him as a candidate because he was “next in line” – excluding, of course, John McCain, who proved last time that senility has no respect for even those seeking the top job.

Then, of course, I tell her that she could oppose him on that feeling she has deep down in her gut that Romney will live up to his look and be simply a lackey for the other CEOs of corporations, and one more step toward the eventual oligarchy that science fiction writers have been warning us about for years. Followed by his number two, who was voted “Biggest Suckup” by his high school classmates – and not that long ago.

But, I tell her, if you can’t oppose The Mitt on any of those grounds, and feel “clean” doing it…well, then, you should vote for him.

© 2012, Rick Baber