Extremism is the Enemy – Not God

On a recent edition of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” Chris Matthews asked Republican strategist Ron Christie; “How are you standing on evolution these days?”... “Do you believe in it?”  Christie responded by saying: “I believe God is our creator.”   Matthews visibly upset tried to humiliate Christie before moving on. 

Five minutes later and without provocation, Matthews blurted out: “… I thought you (Christie) were a moderate Republican.  No Seriously, I’m amazed that you don’t believe in evolution and mankind’s effect on climate change.  I thought those were established scientific facts.”  From this point forward any attempt by Christie to respond to any question was met with shout downs, and incessant interruptions.   This rudeness, disrespect and intolerance were insufferable. 

In recent years there has been a concerted effort by many anti-god extremists to remove all mention of God from our culture and society and political discourse.  This movement in large part has been inspired by an intense distaste for the emergence of extreme, fanatical religious precepts influencing Republican Party doctrine. 

We now see these ant-God zealots behaving in exactly the same manner. The only difference between them is that the anti-God movement it is not being done in the name of a political ideology or political party but in the name of science.  

Scientific evidence is constantly being challenged by scientists.  They are the first to concede that it is ever changing thus needs constant scrutiny.  It aids in our understanding and in many cases – but not all - has proven to be generally accurate.   Therefore, the study and debates surrounding both evolution and manmade global warming should continue as they may yet reveal evidence that either supports or contradicts what is currently on record as being accurate. 

The bigger question and concern here is the anger and resentment expressed over a belief that is harmless.  Mr. Matthews acted as if Mr. Christie had given a strong endorsement to the Ku Klux Klan or the Third Reich.  Who or what does a belief in God as one’s creator hurt?   What most importantly should demand our consideration is the obvious refusal or ignorance as to the contributions people who hold to such a belief have provided to mankind. 

Could Mr. Matthews have forgotten or did he choose to ignore the Declaration of Independence? 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” 

Mr. Matthews frequently evokes Dr. Martin Luther King Junior.  Clearly Dr. King was one of the greatest men to ever walk among us.  Curiosity begs the question as to whether Mr. Matthews has also forgotten that Dr. King was a reverend - a Baptist preacher who clearly believed in divine creation.

Mr. Matthews also takes every opportunity to enrich himself through the use of President Kennedy.  Could it be possibly that President John Kennedy’s attending Mass every Sunday to give thanks, praise and adoration to a God he obviously believed was his Creator has escaped Mr. Mathews? 

And then there is Mother Teresa of Calcutta. 

We need to be mindful that the compassionate and humane philosophies that acted as the very foundation and fabric of what once made America the greatest country on earth is indeed embedded in Judeo-Christian teachings and beliefs. 

The same rights under the precious precepts of our First Amendment are granted and protected for both Mr. Christie and Mr. Mathews even if one chooses to reject science and the other chooses to reject the founding fathers, Reverend King, President Kennedy and Mother Teresa. Regardless of our belief, we must remain committed to die for those rights even if the beliefs are held by radical extremists.  What isn’t a right and needs to be distained are strong armed tactics to belittle those who believe or think differently than we do.   That in essence is spitting on the first Amendment. 

Ron Christie is to be admired for maintaining his composure and courage of conviction while under assault in a very public medium.  Mr. Mathews owes Mr. Christie an apology.  He also owes an apology to every decent, respectable, mainstream Christian.  

Celebrating Early Rock

“Rock ‘N’ Roll will stand, man!”  ~ Wolfman Jack ~     

 January 23 – Million $ Ballroom-Milwaukee, WI
January 24 – Eagles Ballroom-Kenosha, WI
January 25 – Kato Ballroom-Mankato, MN
January 26 – Fourniers-Eau Claire, WI
January 27 – Fiesta Ballroom-Montevideo, MN
January 28 – Prom Ballroom-St. Paul, MN
January 29 – Capitol Theater-Davenport, IA
January 30 – Laramar Ballroom-Ft. Dodge, IA
January 31 –  The Armory-Duluth, MN
February 1 –  Riverside Ballroom-Green Bay,WI
February 2 –  Surf Ballroom-Clear Lake, IA

"We did a show one time in Florida.  The PTA or YMCA or somebody thought I was – Somethin’ else.  So they came out and filmed the show.  The only thing I could move all night long was my little finger."   ~ Elvis ~

              

A plane crashed on February 3, 1959 in a desolate farm field on the outskirts of Mason City, Iowa.  The crash killed “Rock ‘N’ Rollers” Buddy Holly, Richie Valens and J.P. “The Big Bopper” Richardson. Every February since 1979, the tragic day has been memorialized in a musical celebration at the Surf Ballroom in Clear Lake, Iowa.

For 34 years this unique phenomenon has drawn worldwide early rock fans to this small Iowa town in the dead of winter.  Reliving “The Winter Dance Party” tour provides a wonderfully rare opportunity.  It recaptures a special era by celebrating and enjoying the music that so defined that era.  But it is more than that.  For this yearly celebration also serves to remind us of the historical and cultural significance of early rock. 

It began on July 11, 1951 at WJW in Cleveland Ohio.  Alan Freed aired the first musical program strictly devoted to rhythm and blues (R & B).   Freed later coined the moniker “Rock ‘N’ Roll.” 

Freed, along with the determination and commitment of Sam Phillips, the founder of Sun Records, in Memphis, Tennessee and the incredible, mesmerizing talent of Elvis Presley, brought “Rock ‘N’ Roll” to fruition.  

By 1956, Elvis, Chuck Berry, Fats Domino and Little Richard started a movement that could not be halted.  Their creativity and vitality gave rise to a second wave of “Rock N’ Rollers;” Carl Perkins, the Everly Brothers, Jerry Lee Lewis, Dion and the Belmonts, Richie Valens, J.P. “The Big Bopper” Richardson and Buddy Holly.   

But there would be a price to pay for all that creativity and vitality. 

From its inception early rock was targeted for destruction.  Racial hatred ran rampant in America in the 1950’s.  The racists along with many mainstream Americas were horrified that this previously banned black music had successfully found its way into mainstream America.  J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the FBI, stated publicly that next to Communism early rock was the single biggest threat to America.  They were determined to club it to death.  1959 had become the pivotal year for their assault. 

Elvis was tucked neatly away in Germany serving Uncle Sam.  Little Richard had dedicated his life to the Lord and was absent from the music scene.  Chuck Berry’s credibility took serious hits when he was tagged with a jail bird image; Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin; Carl Perkins was recovering from an auto accident and a plane carrying Richie Valens, “The Big Bopper” and Buddy Holly crashed killing them all. 

In addition, by 1959 an onslaught of demolition charges designed to disgrace the music and everyone involved with it had been strategically placed.   All that was needed was a push on the plunger of the detonator.  That came in the form of a racially motivated payola scandal spearheaded by the federal government.

Payola, up to this point, was like jay walking.  It was prevalent but of no real concern.  As Mel Karmazin, the former head of Infinity Broadcasting and CBS noted, “every radio comes equipped with an on/off switch.”  Nobody in their right mind was going to play a lame record just because they were paid.

Nevertheless, Alan Freed was arrested, pleaded guilty, was blacklisted from broadcasting and died broke in 1965.  In Chicago Phil Lind received death threats and needed police protection.  Les Paul and Bobby Darin had to defend themselves against baseless charges.  Dick Clark barely avoided prosecution by demonstrating that every song he played was based on popularity while divesting himself of interests in various record companies.  Many other disc jockeys were fired while others quit before the long arm of racism could reach them.

Gradually and thoroughly the passion and raw sound, the hard edges, the strong regional accents that defined early rock were clubbed into submission.  By the early sixties the music had died.

Don McLean’s 1972 hit recording “American Pie” laments not just the loss of the rock stars, but the loss of the music.  McLean longs for the happiness and security of those sweet, humble days of our youth.  It is a simple melancholy, a lament, that the “music wouldn't play” anymore.

While the vitality and creativity of early rock were short-lived, its impact has endured.  Early rock continues to inspire musicians and composers while leaving an indelible mark on our culture and society.  For early rock’s true legacy extends way beyond the music.  It is a legacy of commitment fueled by courage and character that aided in a cultural awakening – an awakening that provided greater access for blacks into mainstream American society. 

Clear Lake, in its truest essence, represents this legacy…a legacy that should be forever celebrated and for which we should be eternally grateful.

                    Hosted a call-in and request oldies radio show.

                         During those years this was, by far and 

                               away, the most requested song.

American Pie Saga Told Through Pictures from the Era
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhX3b1h7GQw&feature=youtube 

“Refrigerator Poor”

There are those among us who believe that poverty in America is basically nonexistent.   Their argument is that those in need do not meet the true threshold of poverty because they have access to a refrigerator.  Their concept is simple. No community support for sustenance should be granted if the needy possess any convenience or comfort.  They are quick to point out that programs to help the “refrigerator poor” do more harm than good because they stifle initiative by encouraging further dependence.  They also argue that those in need would find a way to survive without government programs, although they cannot provide specific information as to how this would be accomplished.  They argue that this increased level of pain and suffering would lead to stronger more independent individuals and a stronger America.

Their collective wisdom always comes equipped with the support of world and historical references.  They point out that real poverty exists in Haiti and Africa.  This narrow focus is designed to support their contention that there is no real cause for concern in America.  They always return to the assertion that someone, somewhere, is always more needy, i.e.; nineteenth century England would make the starvation in Africa look like a horn of plenty.  As a result the definition of poverty is continuously modified to correspond with their preconceived notions rather than dealing with the realties.  It therefore becomes impossible to clearly establish an accurate definition applicable to the American experience.   Without this definition an intelligent discussion becomes futile.   

So how do we establish poverty in America?  

Michael Harrington’s 1962 definition of poverty is yet the most apropos for America.  In his milestone book “The Other America,” he defines it as; “That dream (the American dream) has never been just about income, of course, but about self-determination.”  As Harrington observed; “poverty is more than lacking minimum standards of health care, housing, food and education. “Poverty,” he wrote, “should be defined psychologically in terms of those whose place in the society is such that they are internal exiles who, almost inevitably, develop attitudes of defeat and pessimism and who are therefore excluded from taking advantage of new opportunities.”    

At the heart of Harrington’s work is the realization that the American poor suffer through greater levels of despair than experienced elsewhere in the world.  Their frustration is compounded because of their American experience.  The American fabric encourages dreams and ingrains a sense of pride for excellence in achievement and standards of living.  This leads to increased humiliation through their loss of dignity and respect.  Meanwhile, their frustration is dramatically exacerbated as they struggle to reconcile their loss of liberty in the richest country in the world – the one that guarantees and most cherishes freedom.  

Amartya Sen, who was awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, argued that economists should think of poverty as that which deprives people of the opportunity to develop and use their capabilities – a further validation of Harrington’s thesis some 36 years later.

The “Refrigerator Poor” scholars refuse to accept that American standards of living and the deprivation of the American Dream have any validity in solving the poverty problem in America.   They are perfectly comfortable not only dismissing Harrington and Sen, but in dismissing the fact that these were the very same concerns that propelled the labor movement.  That movement was never about starvation but quality of life and standard of living.

 

There is no rational that can effectively dispute the fact that an affluent middle class was the most significant factor in making America the greatest country the world had ever known.  As the poverty levels defined by Harrington continue to escalate and the middle class continues its erosion into the working poor, a strong viable America will evaporate.  Poverty by American standards has nothing to do with Haiti, Africa or South America.  The American experience, by its very nature, has always demanded a far more humane and committed approach to standards of living.  

Any definition void of despair and the decaying expectations for achieving the American Dream will only proliferate the ugliness.  Any intelligent solution to the crippling malaise of poverty – any effort to resuscitate the American dream for the nation’s poor - will never be accomplished in any discussion that includes refrigerators.

Candles in Windows

During the Second World War the whole country was invested.  We willingly sacrificed much for the war effort - rubber, fuel, scrap metal, our time and most of our resources.  Our commitment and determination were unmatched.  We also sacrificed hundreds of thousands of lives.  A candle would burn in the windows of the homes where loved ones were lost in combat.  There were constant reminders of the awful inhumanity of the enterprise.   No such reminders or commitment exists today. 

While Americans are still fighting and dying on foreign soil, the wars we fight today are very different.  They are far more complex.  The enemy is not primarily a soldier carrying a weapon but an ideology born of hundreds of years of hatred and conflict.  There are no enemy lines.  We can no longer measure success by the amount of land we occupy.  These are conflicts that seemingly will have no end.  There will be no armistice, no accords, no unconditional surrender, no peace treaties signed, hence, no formal end to hostilities.  Those days are gone. 

What remains is the same the mindset required by our troops seventy years ago.  Without this mindset there would be little chance of surviving this living hell.  Our literature, documentaries, news programs, and even our entertainment have addressed it on countless occasions.

This attitude was most accurately and dramatically depicted in the opening monologue of the movie “Patton.”  “The Nazis are the enemy.  Wade into them.  Spill their blood.  Shoot them in the belly.  When you put your hand into a bunch of goo that was a moment before your best friends face – you’ll know what to do.”  It is a mindset that is the complete opposite of the one demanded when living in civilized society.  There is no room for dignity, compassion or humanity.  This mentality is fueled by hatred - a hatred of those who would kill you, your comrades and your family.  Without this mindset a soldier knows he is destined not just to lose the battle but ultimately, to lose his life.

 For those who may have been reluctant to adopt this mindset the harsh reality of its importance was best validated by the most powerful scenes ever filmed – the taking of Omaha Beach in Steven Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan.”  The aftermath of hatred produced by that carnage led to our soldiers killing German soldiers who had surrendered.  In civilized society, those Germans would have been classified as cold-blooded murder victims.  In war, they are classified as casualties.

Hitler committed suicide and ordered his body burned to prevent the Russians from torturing and publicly defiling him.  That’s war.

 America dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima killing between 90,000 to 166,000 and on Nagasaki killing another 60,000 to 80,000.  That’s war.

 In light of recent developments, it would appear these realities have been apparently dismissed.

 The news has reached us that three American Marines urinated on Taliban corpses.  Outrage has been expressed to the point of demanding the three soldiers be dismissed from the corps.  What is striking is that we now live in a time when such a suggestion is viewed as being humanitarian in nature.  War does NOT have a humanitarian Nature.  Before we send these Marines packing maybe we should ask the families of the 4,500 Americans killed in Iraq how they view the actions of these three Marines.  No such question would have even been posed during the fighting of our World Wars. 

 This whole episode further validates how today’s lack of involvement distorts thinking.  We no longer have a draft so most Americans are no longer invested in our bloodbaths.  We want no part of it and because those candles no longer burn in windows, we are comfortable with election campaigns that primarily focus on our pocketbooks rather than American body bags. We give a lot of lip service supporting our troops.  This lip service has been hollow and hypocritical.  If we truly cared for their well-being and the well-being of their families, we would demand they be brought home.  Anything else fails to evoke any sincere admiration or respect, or any deeply held understanding, as to the true nature of their suffering and sacrifices.  

 Those of us who find all of this disturbing have come to know this great inhumanity to man as evil.  But make no mistake, this; “Wade into them - Spill their blood - Shoot them in the belly” mindset must flourish and be instilled if we are to ask our sons and daughters to fight and die.  To punish them and attempt to publicly humiliate them for adopting and developing this survival mentality is counterproductive and dangerous. 

 Like it or not, there will never be a humane war.   Any such humanity, absent any candles in windows, will, for the most part, have to be exclusively borne by the mothers left to bury their sons and our soldiers. 

Reagan Conservativism

In 1964 the most lauded pollical voice of conservatism was that of Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater.  Goldwater opposed Medicare, Medicaid and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  By 1980 it was recognized how terribly shortsighted that thinking was and a new national voice for conservatism emerged – one that should have never been silenced. 

Enter Ronald Reagan.

In President Reagan’s first inaugural address on January 20, 1981 he uttered one of his most quoted pronouncements; “…government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

 Those who evoke the quote attempt to manipulate, through deceit, that Reagan actually said our government is NEVER the solution: government is ALWAYS the problem.   It is also noteworthy that they never provide the complete quote, which was; “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”  “In this present crisis” was directed specifically and ONLY at the inflationary economic struggles of the time. It was never meant as a universal indictment against all government programs.

To believe in the NEVER and ALWAYS misconception one would have to believe that President Reagan opposed clean water, clean air, safe food, public safety.  That he opposed Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.  That he opposed the post office, public libraries, public parks, public transportation, public education, student loans.  That he opposed unemployment insurance, food assistance programs, energy assistance programs, federally insured savings accounts, home loan assistance and a whole host of other programs that were badly needed and quelled much pain and suffering nationwide. 

This suggestion leads to a strong inclination to explore the record. 

Let’s begin with another quote from that inaugural address:  “Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it’s not my intention to do away with government.”  With regards this pronouncement he did not falter.

 The anticipated conservative assault on entitlement and benefit programs never materialized under President Reagan.  In some cases, Reagan strengthened programs and in other cases he saved programs.

In 1983 Social Security faced insolvency.  Reagan saved it through a $165 billion bailout by employing an agenda that totally contradicted Goldwater conservativism and which lends no support to today’s Fox News brand of radical conservatism.  He taxed Social Security benefits for the first time.  The tax extended to only upper-income recipients.  Additionally, the tax wasn't indexed to include inflation, which led to a gradual increase in the number of people who paid it.

One of Reagan’s single biggest contributions was his success in reducing poverty.  The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a wage subsidy for the working poor, was established in 1975.  By 1986 the program had dwindled to insignificance.  Reagan revitalized and expanded the program by including it as part of 1986 Tax Reform Act.  One of the most startling and progressive revisions in the measure exempted millions of low-income earners from paying any income taxes.  By the late 1990s, the 1986 initiatives resulted in helping some four million people escape poverty every year. 

President Reagan raised gasoline taxes in 1983 and 1984.  He raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same five-year period.  His three-year, $100 billion tax hike was the largest post World War II tax increase.

While Reagan managed to moderately slow the rate of government growth, the size of government grew under the Reagan Administration.  The number of workers on the federal payroll rose by 61,000 and the national debt rose from $700 billion to $3 trillion.

Former Reagan financial advisor, David Stockman explains that; “The 1981 tax cut blew a much bigger hole in the federal budget than expected. So, over the next few years, Reagan agreed to raise taxes again and again, ultimately undoing about half the savings of the '81 cut.”   Reagan raised taxes four times between 1982 and 1984 and raised taxes a total of eleven times as president. 

While the 1981 tax cuts caused enormous deficit headaches for President Reagan it did act as a legitimate stimulus within a business community that was far more patriotic and responsible than the one we are burdened with today. 

It was a difficult balancing act.   While Reagan desired to cut the size of government and balance the budget, he refused to do it at the expense of the poor and middle class.  President Reagan’s record is commendable especially when we consider that none of this is even considered, let alone, achievable by today’s “So-Called” conservatives.   

President Reagan understood the proper role of government.   It was reflected in the single most important passage - the one that should be the most quoted - from that 1981 inaugural address.

“We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of your make-up. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen -- and loving them reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they’re sick, and provide opportunity to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?”

This undeniable reality and legacy have been ignored.  It is the responsibility of those who wished to be viewed as conservative to resurrected and promoted this legacy.  For President Reagan’s greatest achievements were reached through his compassion and knowledge that government programs, through taxation, provide for the greatest common good which had nothing to do with NEVER and ALWAYS. 

Abortion In America – Political Football

In Jimmy Carter’s book “Our Endangered Values” abortion is addressed.  He thoughtfully and thoroughly approaches what is still one of the most divisive issues in America.  He addresses it from the religious perspective, the moral perspective, the legal perspective and the political perspective.  He is certainly imminently qualified to do so.  He has firsthand knowledge surrounding every facet of the issue.   

 President Carter has demonstrated time and time again that he is foremost a humanitarian.  He is a deeply religious man who believes strongly in his Christian faith which is clearly where pro-life exposure would have been the dominate philosophy.   The political party he represented, and worked so hard to elect him president, strongly supported a pro-choice philosophy on abortion.  As president he was keenly aware of all the laws and legal ramifications of Roe v. Wade.  He has personally experienced all the prevailing passions that fuel the debate and, under enormous pressure, had to carefully weigh and navigate all these passions in his attempt to govern properly.  It is absolutely the best analysis on the issue I have come across. 

 

The only thing to have changed since President Carter wrote his book is that we now have a much clearer political perspective on the issue. 

 

The Republicans are the party that embraces the notion that life begins at conception.  With help from a fiercely loyal pro-life constituency the Republicans have controlled the white house for 20 of the last 31 years.  They have also periodically controlled both houses of congress during the same period of time.  These opportunities resulted in no significant modifications to the current abortion laws. 

It has become abundantly clear that should Roe v. Wade actually be repealed or dramatically altered it would potentially jeopardize that pro-life voting bloc and thus jeopardize Republican power and influence.  The Republicans are not about to engage in such destructive behavior.  It is undoubtedly their desire, and to their advantage, to maintain the status quo. 

 

The Democrats know this and they feed off of it.  They are quick to tell their fiercely loyal pro-choice constituency that the repeal of Roe v. Wade is only, and always, just one more Republican victory away.

Certainly, an issue this contentious cannot be ignored.  Passions run high so it is an unreasonable expectation that it will simply fade into oblivion.   As a result, it must be addressed.  In doing so it is necessary to begin with a clear understanding that if Americans want something badly enough, they will find a way to secure it whether it is legal or illegal. 

 

Legal gambling nationwide is estimated to generate some $637 billion annually.  Pornography has grown to a $14 billon dollar industry with roughly 400 web sites.  Legal prostitution in Nevada alone generates on average about $50 million a year.  The DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) budget has swollen to $2.4 billion.  And yes, there was that grand American experiment called prohibition. 

Meanwhile abortion rates peaked at 1.6 million in 1990 and have steadily fallen to an annual average of about 1.2 million.  It is estimated that since 1973 some 53 million abortions have been performed in America. 

 

While all of this was developing, church populations dwindled and social stigmas lost their sting as a motivational tool within our culture.   One would need to light a cigarette to encounter outrage over behavior today. 

 

President Carter’s treatise needs to be read and embraced.  It is also time for us to begin to realize that abortion is not a political issue.  Abortion is a political football which precludes any political resolutions from occurring.  Voting Republican does not assure an aggressive posture toward promoting pro-life values any more than voting Democratic solidifies a pro-choice culture.  In the final analysis we must begin to deal with abortion honestly.  It is a moral issue and like all moral issues its acceptance or rejection will be determined by “we the people” in our collective wisdom and actions.   

 

In an address at Western Michigan University on December 18, 1963 the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated that while laws can alter certain behavior they cannot create or impose morality.   As King observed; “The law can't make my brother love me, but it can keep him from lynching me.”   King emphasized that changing the morality of a nation requires changing the heart.  The figures indicate there is much, much work to be done on that front and recent history clearly indicates that none of it will be done by our politicians.