There's No Stifling Archie Bunker

Like lots of other folks, I’ve tried my best to understand the rise of Donald Trump and his rhetoric-inflected political style. A number of sources have been offered – variously blaming different stripes of liberalism (“political correctness”) or conservatism (“Fox News.”) I suppose you can pick your poison.

World leaders like der Führer (Adolf Hitler) and Il Duce (Benito Mussolini) have come to the minds of many with long-enough memories to pull up WWII. As a child of the 1970’s, a more populist (if no less strident) personality has risen from the bell-bottomed well of my mind: Archie Bunker. Yes, he of All in the Family fame.

Controversial and extremely popular, the 1970's sitcom was written and produced by Norman Lear – one of the media/elite/liberals of the day. Archie, as the lead character, was lifted up and lambasted as a racially-insensitive, popular-culture-bashing, equal opportunity bigot. It was obvious, from the context of the show, that Archie was wrong on so many fronts: his opinions of women, his prejudices against every race but his own (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, of course,) his definite distrust of big government, and his especially-escalated disdain for “fruitcakes” – a leading light opposing homosexuality, if you will.

Yet, Archie loved America and, in truth, his family – so all was forgiven in the end. 

He was a lovable lout of a very different sort than had ever been seen on American television. (On a side note, I remember my pastor lamenting from the pulpit: “This new show called All in the Family sure seems to be awfully popular. Well, I’ll tell you – it’s not all in my family!” He was not a fan.)

Fast forward 40+ years, and Archie Bunker has hit the big time. Rather, Donald Trump has struck a chord with heir-apparent Archie Bunkers all over America. What was once intended as an epic parody of an untenable worldview has now become a whole other sort of fashionable.

Nowhere is the mindset on clearer display than the lyrics to the show’s theme song, Those Were the Days, written for the producers by Lee Adams and Charles Strouse.

Boy, the way Glen Miller played. Songs that made the hit parade.
Guys like us, we had it made. Those were the days.
And you knew who you were then, girls were girls and men were men.
Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.
Didn't need no welfare state. Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee, our old LaSalle ran great. Those were the days.

Nostalgia is a powerful force, whether it is for a past that is based in reality and truth – or, whether it is a hopeful vision of “what should have been.” Everybody who tuned in from 1971-1976 (when All in the Family was the #1 show in America) knew that Archie’s barbed witticisms and slanted perceptions were based on the latter. Nobody really wanted Herbert Hoover for president again. (Hoover’s policies were widely seen as aggravating what came to be known as The Great Depression, 1929-40.)

But now, it seems, Archie’s opinions – once the domain of satire – have come full circle and risen to the level of a movement -- all in the name of “making America great again” – supposedly by restoring a set of lost values that are difficult to pin down in actuality. But, Trump promises that he can somehow make them happen.

The appeal of his message is visceral; rationality and feasibility do not matter. Trump has managed to hit all the right notes in capturing the essence of the All in the Family closing theme (from a rarely heard second verse of the show’s song):

People seemed to be content. Fifty dollars paid the rent.
Freaks were in a circus tent. Those were the days….

I don't know just what went wrong. [But] those were the days.

Archie’s long-suffering wife, Edith, was often commanded by Archie, upon offering her own (often contrary) opinion: “Stifle yourself, Edith!”

Hmmmm. Sounds familiar. 

The Lost Art of Controversy

On the one hand, it seems that there is no shortage of controversy in the world in which we live. One might well posit that "people argue all the time."

But, on the other hand (as it were) -- there is a tremendous dearth of what was once a treasured and well-practiced art known as "controversy." By this, I mean a "dispute, argument, or debate, especially one concerning a matter about which there is strong disagreement and especially one carried on in public or in the press." (Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003)

Alas, there was a time when arguments could be conducted in both a passionate AND a rational manner. Those "arguments" were seen as a valid part of societal discourse. To be biblical about it, as Proverbs 27:17 says: "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another."

The purpose of a controversy was to allow both sides of a point under discussion to be heard in fairness, openness, and with a basic respect for differing opinions. The root meaning of the word is "to turn to the opposite." 

I have my say, then we turn and listen while you have your say, and vice versa until we have finished. And then people make up their minds and we go on about cobbling a common life together. Controversy was not a bad thing -- it was an expected and valued part of social discourse.

But it seems that a funny thing happened on the way to the 21st century: we lost our ability to have a good argument.

Now, most social issues are projected in terms of merely who is "right" and who is "wrong," with neither side willing to give the other a respectful hearing. We live in an era when discourse has given way to boycotts, petitions, demonstrations and shouting matches.

Would the oft-cited (but rarely listened-to) "founding fathers" of our great nation even recognize us?

Men (and, yes, it was the men in those days) like Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, and others hammered out the great documents of American freedom in vivid controversies where every point mattered, every viewpoint was heard, and consensus was won by the sweat of honest disputation and discussion.

I daresay there wasn't a "sound bite" or a "talking point" to be heard in Independence Hall in 1776. Have our attention spans become so short that our politicians truly believe that our votes can be earned on the basis of phrases such as "You didn't build that..." or "He's not the solution, he's the problem?"

God help us all if that is true! With public discussions like that, we are bound to continue getting what we deserve in our nation's capital and our 50 statehouses.

I for one am determined to find men and women of good will and differing opinions with whom I can engage in a good, old-fashioned "controversy" -- (not to be confused with a good old-fashioned piano party, by the way!)

Believe what you choose to believe -- stand up for your beliefs -- do not be afraid to challenge others whose beliefs are different from your own.

But, please...please...please...be thoughtful in what you say, and respectful in the way that you listen.

We'll all be better off for it.

A Game of Chicken

That Dan Cathy sure can make a chicken sandwich.

Well, I doubt that Dan has actually put a piece of poultry between two buns in quite a while, but the heir to the chicken restaurant empire founded by his father, Truett Cathy, has been much in the news lately over his spicy comments defending his understanding of traditional marriage.

Claiming that he is "guilty as charged" when asked about supporting "the traditional family," Cathy has gone on to use ever more blatant language about just what -- in his mind (I started to say "bird brain," but thought better of it) -- traditional family and its concomitant, "biblical marriage,"  actually means.

To be precise, Mr. Cathy had this to say in a widely-quoted radio interview:

I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say 'we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.

He was speaking, of course, in reference to those who support or are in favor of allowing "gay marriage."

The former Baptist-preacher-turned-governor-turned-radio-host-turned-TV-celebrity-turned-perennial-presidential-hopeful Mike Huckabee wasted no time in entering the ensuing political-cultural fray, admonishing thousands (or perhaps millions?) of his fellow conservatives to support Chick-Fil-A, the restaurant whose profits allow Mr. Cathy access to such a public venue for his opinions. Grabbing a quick chick has now become a political statement.

(Ya' ever notice how many run-of-the-mill guys and gals have similar, if not stronger, sentiments -- but nobody ever pays any attention to them because they don't donate millions to political causes?)


Of course, boycotts from the other side of the fence have been proposed, as well, with many other thousands (or perhaps millions?) vowing never to eat another "Chik'n" sandwich at the six-day-a-week restaurants -- ever.

And, even though it mixes the metaphors horrendously to say so -- ain't this a fine kettle of fish?

Now we have thousands upon thousands (or perhaps millions upon millions?) of people shouting at one another across yet another cultural divide in America -- this one brought on by a supposed debate over what's in the Bible and what's not.

And that's where we get to the interesting thing, at least for me, as a relatively serious Bible student for the last 40 years or so. Go to any Bible concordance or biblical internet search engine and look up the word, "marriage," and you'll get a fairly mind-blowing array of biblical verses that mention the subject in some way. (There are approximately 47 of them, depending on the translation that you prefer to read.)

Included in these various "biblical definitions" of marriage are these ideas:

• If you are a young man in love with a girl who has an older sister, you have to marry the older sister first -- THEN, you can marry your true love. (Genesis Genesis 29:25-27)
• If you have married a wife and, after you have slept with her, you "dislike" her (these rules were a long time before Facebook, by the way!) -- you can call a town meeting, accuse her of whoredom, put her on trial and -- if you are able to prove your case -- ditch her to try another wife that might suit you better. (Deuteronomy 22:13 ff)
• Brides were sometimes won in battle -- sort of a recruiting prize for keeping the enrollment up (so to speak) in the all-volunteer army. (Joshua 15:15-17)
• In one of the more bizarre "biblical marriages" on record, the great King David of Israel was compelled by his would-be father-in-law, Saul, to kill 200 enemy soldiers and cut off their foreskins as a "bridal price." Ouch!
• There were the escapades of Jacob, whose name was changed by God to Israel, who had multiple wives (and unmarried consorts, known as "concubines") in order to produce the gaggle of 12 sons that became known as "the children of Israel." (Genesis 29:13ff)
• And, of course, most famously for Christians -- we have the story of Joseph and Mary, who were the parents of Jesus -- who was actually conceived by Mary before she was married and had fulfilled her marital duties with Joseph. (Can't you just see Dana Carvey's "Church Lady" pursing her lips over that one?) (Matthew 1:24-25)

Now, I would kind of like for Mr. Cathy -- and Gov. Huckabee, or Tony Perkins, or any of the other voices crying in the societal wilderness -- to tell me just exactly WHICH "biblical definition" of marriage they are defending.

Mr. Cathy claims that God has clearly designed marriage and given it to us as a human institution, devoid of cultural customs and in a supposed now-and-forever format that should not -- indeed, can not -- ever be changed by mere "laws."

I've performed scores of weddings -- all of them between one man and one woman, all of them "sanctioned" by both the church and society. But I am quite confused by all the talk of THE "biblical definition" of marriage and the manner in which it, supposedly, bestows the right of some segments of society to infringe upon the rights of other segments of society.

I completely respect the right of Dan Cathy to spout whatever belief or moral imperative that he wishes to spout; I do not have a problem with the number of millions of dollars he wishes to give to political organizations, public foundations, charities or churches of his choice. The more the better.

But I wish he'd back off a bit on the "biblical" rhetoric and be a little more God-fearing himself when it comes to speaking definitively for the Almighty. Some things just aren't as clear-cut as we might like to make them.

Fries with that, anyone?

Elegy for a Lost Breed

They always say (whoever "they" are) that if you want to solve a mystery, follow the money.

Like many other fans of intercollegiate athletics, I have for some time pondered the uncomfortable mystery of the effects of big-time money on the big-time (and not-so-big) sports programs that I love to follow. To wit, the report in today's (05/15/2012) USA Today comparing life at the "elite" Division 1 programs like the Universities of Texas, Florida, Alabama, Oregon -- and even my beloved Tennessee -- with the "bottom feeders" at schools like Mississippi Valley State, North Carolina-Asheville, and Maryland-Eastern Shores.

We have become inured -- other than the occasional pretend "gripe" about ticket prices-- to the big budgets and big payments (most of them legal) at the really big schools and their sports programs. As the crack staff at USAT remind us, multi-million dollar contracts for the head coaches of revenue-producing sports (read football, in most instances) are a matter of fact.

 Mack Brown, coach of the Longhorns at UT (the school with the really ugly orange uniforms) and the current king of the contracts amongst Division 1 coaches, earns $5,000,000 each year -- win, lose, or draw. As Coach Brown was quoted as saying, "I think that when we make it, we have a right to spend it. That's the way America is."

Indeed.

But, that horse has done left the barn, as we say, and my issue is not really with the Mack Browns, the Nick Sabans, and the Urban Meyers of the intercollegiate world. What really struck me was just how pervasive the attitude of entitlement has become throughout the coaching ranks these days.

Witness the comments of Sean Woods, former head coach at the aforementioned Mississippi Valley State University. (Coach Woods just accepted a new job at Morehead State University -- whose athletic budget is twice the size of MVSU's -- as is, presumably, the coach's contract.)

Discussing the challenges of coaching at the "bottom levels" of the the NCAA, the coach cited the difficulty he had of having to deal with "kids' scholarship information, dorms, food, anything you can think of." Okay, a secretarial staff is one thing; certainly, it would be nice to have a little more assistance. But, then came the clincher:

"My assistants have to teach to supplement their income."

Excuse me? Are we not referring to higher education here? What do you mean your assistants have to teach?

I was immediately reminded of the college coaches I knew when I was growing up -- next door to one of those "bottom rung" schools, the University of Tennessee at Martin.

My best friends were the sons of head basketball coach Floyd Burdette; I lived across the backyard from baseball coach Vincent Vaughn; I regularly encountered (through their children, my classmates -- and in the community) football coaches Robert Carroll, Grover Page, Ross (Buster) Elder, and Jack Beeler. I even got to spend some time with Nadine Gearin, the coach and mentor of the winningest collegiate basketball coach of all time, Pat Head Summit.

To my knowledge, every single one of these men and women taught regular academic loads in the classroom every single semester. It was part of the job...and they were happy and proud to do it!

After moving to Gainesville, Florida, I met Coach Dave Fuller (who was a member of the congregation that I serve as pastor.) Coach Fuller passed away a couple of years ago -- as have most of those on this list -- and I had the chance to learn a few things about him preparing for his funeral service.

Hired to coach baseball and teach physical education at the University of Florida, Coach Fuller also did a couple of other things to "supplement" his income. He cleaned up the gymnasium after hours, where he was given permission to allow his children to shower so they could save money at home. He helped the football program as a part-time recruiter, once signing an underweight defensive end named Jack Youngblood who went on to become an All-American and NFL Hall of Famer.

Oh, and besides carrying his full-time load in the classroom, he also became the all-time winningest coach in the history of the Gator baseball program.

Perhaps Coach Woods can be forgiven; after all, he came through as a fairly pampered player in a big-time basketball program. (Perhaps you've heard of them: The University of Kentucky Wildcats.) He probably thinks that the atmosphere in Rupp Arena is "normal."

But I can't help but wonder if the true coaching greats -- like those mentioned above -- aren't shaking their collective heads at a game -- and a system -- gone awry. It used to be about men and women who were teachers first, instructing boys and girls who were students first, in games that simulated the larger and more important game of life.

Coaches, thanks; we were happy that we knew ye when.

Hosanna-Tabor, Viagra, and A Woman's Right to Choose

 A GENTLE WARNING: This discussion contains ideas and issues that some of my tender readers might find objectionable. I'd probably have to rate it PG-13. Just so you know... :)

So, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently ruled that a small Lutheran school in Michigan has the right to discriminate against its disabled employees, as long as they can be classified as "ministers" (wink-wink.) If you haven't heard of Hosanna-Tabor, you can catch up here.

The case is being widely hailed as a victory for "religious freedom" and the First Amendment. Methinks the celebration is both premature and ill-advised.

Oddly, just days after the SCOTUS decision, the news has turned to a decision by President Obama's administration to deny exemptions from federal law for religiously-affiliated institutions (such as universities and hospitals) whose practice it is to deny employees prescription drug coverage that includes contraceptives for women.

Kathleen Sibelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, has clarified that churches and other places of worship would continue to be exempt from having to cover contraception for their employees if they morally object to the practice. (see article here)

But the "connection" of churches and houses of worship to the institutions that they help to sponsor (like the Hosanna-Tabor school, for instance,) does not qualify them to withhold the coverage from their more "secular" employees.

Of course, all manner of hell is breaking loose in the dioceses and other seats of ecclesiastical power across America. We can be sure that challenges are forthcoming, particularly given the SCOTUS ruling with regard to Hosanna-Tabor.

The thing that strikes me as particularly vexing with this whole situation is the fact that these same potentates of priestly piety most likely would NEVER think of excluding coverage for a man's Viagra® prescription on moral grounds. That would violate some sort of right to access, I suppose, and would just be a real downer for the dudes!

So a man can be reimbursed to get it up and impregnate the companion of his choice -- but that same companion cannot be reimbursed in order to exercise control over her own body and prevent conception against her will.

What's wrong with this picture, people?

Brother, Can You Spare a ... Diploma?

"Those wascally Wepublicans," as Elmer Fudd might intone.

On Tuesday, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed HR 3630, a bill extending President Barack Obama's 2 percent payroll tax cut. The tax cut, which was set to expire on January 1, will save the average American family an estimated $1,000 next year. Good news in a continuing economically difficult climate, right?

Not so fast, my paycheck-challenged little friend!

Apparently, the wise men and women on Capitol Hill also want to help reduce the number of unemployed Americans with a couple of other choice tidbits included in the bill: unemployment insurance benefits, which currently provide for up to 99 weeks of support, will be slashed by about 40% . After all, they don't want you laying around, slacking on the job search thing.

And, since you must be ignorant if you don't have a job, you will also now be required to have a high school diploma or a GED in order to get the cash. So if you're a credit or two short, better enroll in some night school courses while you have no way to support your family!

Oh, and one more thing -- you'll need to find time to pee in a cup in between job interviews and Algebra One; there will be mandatory drug testing to be sure "that people who are receiving these unemployment benefits are not using those resources to purchase drugs." (A quote from House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, R-Calif. -- I promise, I'm not making this up!)

Many Republicans -- and a few Democrats seeking to pander to the more conservative elements of that party -- are fond of platitudes like "we believe a paycheck is better than an unemployment check." Another quote, this one from House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.)

Okay, most of us are with you on that one, Dave. But take a minute and just do the math (I'm assuming here that the Congressmen have at least a GED.)

As another Republican, Mark Zandi -- an economic adviser to John McCain in his 2008 presidential campaign -- has estimated, each dollar spent on extending unemployment benefits generates $1.61 in economic growth. Meanwhile, according to an analysis from the National Employment Law Project (NELP), the Republicans' bill would result in $22 billion in lost economic growth and cost at least 140,000 jobs next year.

Americans are not -- by and large -- stupid, shiftless and just waiting for the check in the mail so they can get stoned. The most recent data from the Bureau on Labor Statistics shows 6.9 million people receiving unemployment insurance (out of a total 14 million without work) versus 3.4 million job openings in September.

To borrow a line from another famous cartoon character, James Carville: It's the jobs, stupid!

Ideological idiocy aside, how do you people sleep at night offering stuff like this in the name of helping hard-hit Americans through these tough economic times?

A couple of helpful articles (and sources for the above stats and quotes):  Mother Jones and The Hill

D is for Democrat...and Disappointed

As my childhood hero, Popeye, used to say: "That's all I can stands, I can't stands no more!"

I suppose that, with the looming advent of 2012 -- and not much actual faith in the December 21 Mayan deadline for the ending of the age -- I'm going to have to make a decision about the presidential election.

Along with many other Democrats in America, you can color me "depressed, disappointed and disillusioned." Whatever euphoria may have briefly arisen in 2008 seems to have dissipated like so much swamp gas in the bayou. (Along with, evidently, any hope that BP and the Feds were actually going to do anything to "make things right" along the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of the Deep Throat...I mean,  Deepwater oil disaster.)

Actually, I am not registered with any political party here in my "home" state of Florida. I am staunchly and fiercely independent in my political views. The son of a fervent Goldwater Republican, it is sad to see what the GOP of my father's generation has become. Their agenda seems to me to be anything but Grand these days.

Lacking any true option for a viable independent candidate, that leaves the Democrats. I'll go ahead and confess, I voted for William Jefferson Clinton -- and I thought Slick Willy did a pretty decent job. Will he have a place in the pantheon of "great presidents" in US history? Doubt it. But judging by the quality of his successors, he sure looks better all the time!

I read a nice little opinion piece today by Canadian journalist Bogdan Kipling, who writes about America's political scene from no less a lofty peak than our nation's capital. (Reminds me of a popular bumper sticker from my youth, seen plastered on a toilet tank: "Flush Twice -- It's a Long Way to Washington!")

In his essay, Run, Hillary, Run, Mr. Kipling was addressing the perplexing dilemma facing many Democrats for 2012...should the donkeys run somebody besides President Obama -- most likely Hillary Clinton -- if they hope to derail whichever Republican candidate emerges from the goof-fest that is their primary season?

Mr. Kipling writes:

Increasingly the question of whether President Obama should be challenged for the 2012 nomination is surfacing among disgruntled Democrats worried about a solid Republican victory next fall. They’re right to be concerned: the crises facing the United States and the world deserve better than Obama’s permanent floating re-election campaign....

Obama’s priorities seem to be governed more by his re-election timetable than the demands of the national interest and reflective responses to the galloping changes in the global order. Contrary to mainstream opinion, Obama is a mediocre politician. Were it not so, surely he would have known that people get wise to polished repetitive, but empty speeches — and know the difference between bread and butter now and pie in the sky later.  (full article text here)

I'm no Obama-hater; I have plenty of friends who can fulfill that role for me. I begrudgingly granted him my vote after his emergence in the 2008 campaign; I did (fleetingly) dare to hope for a change in the way Washington was working. I've tried to be supportive of the office, the man and the policies the current administration has enacted.

But I think I'm with Mr. Kipling on this one: "the Democratic Party should bite the bullet and jettison the nation’s one-term Senate orator and try to elect the nation’s first woman president."

I'm pretty sure he ain't talking about Michele Bachmann, by the way.