I'm now writing for The Western Journal

The Western Journal is a Christian news and commentary website that I've respected for a number of years now.  And I am very honored that they have published my first article for it.  Hopefully, one of many more to come.

The article is in regard to a VERY ridiculous lawsuit that fast-food giant McDonald's has been hit with, for $10 billion in damages.  Seems that the owner of The Weather Channel is honked off that Mickey-D's won't run much advertising aimed at minorities on his channels.  So first it was restaurants like McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken which were blasted for targeting minorities with commercials for unhealthy food.  Now McDonald's is getting hauled to court for not targeting minorities hard enough.

Well, you can read the full article here.  And I can't thank The Western Journal nearly enough for taking me aboard :-)

Read More

On race and human nature

Several years ago I went to hear James Earl Jones give a lecture. He said something I will never forget. "Who am I? Obviously, I am partly African descent." But then he added "I am also part Cherokee. And also part Irish. Who am I?" Jones elaborated that he was a person of many ethnic backgrounds, and that "it is not right to call me an African-American." It was more important to be simply an American, with all of the nuances that come with that.

I think of my own racial background. I am part English, part Scotch, part Irish... and also 1/16 part Cherokee. My great great grandfather and his two brothers walked all the way from Oklahoma Territory to Patrick Springs, Virginia. Several years later my maternal grandmother was born. I'll always find that fascinating (and who knows, maybe Jones and I are distant relatives!).

But those things don't really define who I am today, any more than Jones said that he felt obligated to be black, or Irish, or native American.

Last night I remarked to a friend (and I hope she and I can always be friends regardless of our differences): human weaknesses doesn't "pick and choose" who is like this, and who is like that. No matter our ethnicities, we are ALL beholden to human nature. And human nature is ubiquitous: none of us are exempt or immune to it.

I believe there is such a thing as racism. But it is extremely wrong to ascribe racism - or any other weakness of character - to one "race" or another and no other. I have seen racism across the board, coming from practically every ethnic group I have encountered. I have seen white racism against black, black racism against white, white and black each harboring prejudice against Asian descent, one Asian culture prejudiced against another. I have even seen black against black racism...

Get the picture?

Human nature. It's not determined by skin color. One way or another we each have stock in it. And it really ISN'T about color of skin, or creed, or anything else. It's about how each of us, as individuals, CHOOSE to respond to that nature. And also how we choose to respond when others allow their own natures to overwhelm reason.

Don't let a weak and petty thing like "race" be a rationale to excuse yourself from human nature. We are all in this together, without favor.

And you never know: you might be a lot less "white" or "black" than you've come to realize. Heck, you and I may be relatives from somewhere up the line. Although whether you want to admit that I'm in your genealogy should probably be better left an exercise for the reader :-)

Read More

On race, history, honor, and statues

This might upset some people. I can understand. Bear with me here though...

In 1828 the United States Congress passed what came to be called "the Tariff of Abominations". It was meant to protect northern industry. Instead it inflicted enormous harm on southern manufacturing and agriculture, especially the cotton industry. And no place was more hit by the consequences of the tariff than South Carolina.

This led to the Nullification Crisis of 1832. South Carolina declared that the Tariff of 1828 did not apply to within its borders. It effectively set the state of South Carolina against the United States of America. Fortunately cooler heads eventually prevailed, a new tariff was approved to South Carolina's satisfaction, and everyone was happy.

But think about it: the American Civil War could well have broken out thirty years earlier.
I believe that civil war was going to happen regardless. It was inevitable. In fact, it was practically guaranteed when the Founders approved the 3/5th compromise that counted black slaves as "three fifths of a free white person". The Founders may have been the greatest collection of minds in modern history. But they were not infallible. Whether they understood the consequences of their actions or not they had set in stone regional differences and rivalries that would explode into open conflict nearly eighty years later.

It was just a matter of when. It was also just a matter of who it would be who fate decided would be the ones who fought in that war. And no matter which side it was - be it Union or Confederate - those men were faced with the hardest decision of their lives. It certainly weighed on Robert E. Lee, who had to choose between the country his grandfather had helped to found and the people of Virginia: the ones he considered his countrymen.

The best that could have happened for the Civil War was that it would be led by good men, whose wisdom had failed to avoid the conflict, but nonetheless trusted in higher Providence to establish a final justice. And I believe that's what happened at Appomattox Court House. When Robert E. Lee - still resplendent in his officer's gray - surrendered to the ruffian-looking Ulysses S. Grant.

Grant said something that day. He told it to his fellow officers and to the men under him: "they are our countrymen again". Indeed, they were. The great controversy had drawn to a close. It had cost each side dearly. It no doubt hung on their consciences for all the rest of their lives. But that was the die that had been cast and they could not have avoided it.

And over the ensuing decades, they WERE countrymen. Fellows who had shared a common bond. Together again. With no animosity among them. One of the most beautiful photos I've ever seen is circa 1910, depicting two then-elderly former opponents embracing as brothers. And why shouldn't they be?

I believe that no matter which side of the conflict, they found with as much honor as was afforded them. We may not agree with who fought on what side, but that's really not for us to judge. Those men (and women) did the best they could do with what was given them.

Let me be blunt: they all fought with honor.

And I do believe, with utmost sincerity, that we can honor them all.

My heart has been breaking to see the statues of so many fine and honorable and decent men being torn down, by people who have no grasp of real history whatsoever. They certainly are not people of honor. And now they are venting wrath against the statues of individuals who had no part whatsoever to play in the Civil War. Last night it was a statue of Francis Scott Key that was toppled and vandalized. A rational person must ask: "Why?"

I have a private ritual, every January. I've honored it for a long time now. I remember the lives of two great Americans, whose birthdays are very close together. They are Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert E. Lee. I can't see how they are all that mutually exclusive. Why? Because each was a Christian man of deep faith, who was a person of his time. And he did the best with the hand dealt. Indeed, I can't but believe that on some level they were as kindred spirits. What a meeting that would be!

What am I trying to say with all of this?

There is a rage loose upon this land that is NOT representative of who we are called to be not just as Americans, but as friends and neighbors. As family. This isn't what we're supposed to be at all. It's not just the statues. I'm seeing worse than that between people who just weeks ago lived in contentment with one another. What happened? A very terrible turn of events was exploited, by people who devote their lives to exploiting, and it set off a powder keg that didn't have to be there to begin with.

Am I arguing that the status quo should have been maintained? Certainly not. I don't believe in a "status quo". I believe that there is always going to be room for improvement. I believe that ours is a family that can strive together to find ever more who we are supposed to be. We've come a long way already toward that. It would be a tragedy if that was undone now.

But that is what I am seeing happen now. All the progress that we have made, together, is being torn apart.

We have had people of honor, throughout and across the entire spectrum of American history, whose examples we are meant to heed. We stand on the shoulders of giants, no matter their skin color or creed or whatever. Not perfect people... but then again, who has ever been perfect? Only One who I know of, and He lived two thousand years ago. We have squabbled over what it is to follow His example ever since. But for all of our failings, we still have that sense of common decency and respect for one another.

It would be an enormous crime against our ancestors, if we continue to destroy their legacy.
I will not, in the demanded context, agree that "... lives matter" except to say that "all lives matter". And they DO. But I choose to go deeper: "All INDIVIDUALS matter". And isn't that what has come before has been all about? That we are not judged by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character. A great man said that. I prefer to believe that he was correct.

We are better than this. It's not too late to pull back from the present madness.

It's not too late to be countrymen again.

And it shouldn't take someone like me to be saying all of this.

Just my .02

Read More

Regarding "racial justice"

A thought that occurred tonight:

The notion of "racial justice" is a wrong one.  The problem is that to have any kind of justice at all there must be a baseline standard against which to compare and contrast and ultimately judge.  "Racial justice" does not really possess that.  Which race is the standard?  Black, white, Hispanic, Polynesian, Brazilian... what?

I will posit that "racial justice" introduces far more problems than it solves.  It elicits and encourages envy and anger.  Sometimes wildly misplaced envy and anger.  And we are seeing the fruit of that anger right now.

Yet obviously there is an issue.  There has been one and always will be so long as human nature endures.

If "racial justice" is the wrong idea to pursue, then I would suggest "racial neutrality".  Which is much more open ended and challenging.  Racial neutrality emphasizes that all races are equal across the board, without respect or condescension toward anyone.  It is not just an outward goal to strive for, but an inward reflection of how one perceives and interacts with all people.

Personally, I would rather have racial neutrality than have racial justice.

Then again, all my life I've seen all people as equal anyway.  I have never understood racism during that time and I can't understand it now, however form it takes.  So what do I know?

Read More

A troubling trend in News & Record journalism

The News & Record in Greensboro - the region's largest newspaper - has a story on the front page of today's edition about last night's resolution by the Rockingham County Board of Commissioners to restore the Confederate Soldiers Monument in downtown Reidsville (see earlier post here).

For some reason or another Joe Gamm - the reporter who wrote the story - chose to include the following in his article...

"After a court approved replacing the monument, vandals spray-painted the words 'Monument is coming back' on an auto body shop run by an African American businessman who outspokenly opposed returning the statue to its original spot."

Could somebody please explain to me: What does the above reference by Mr. Gamm have anything... anything at all... to do with what happened to the Confederate monument from the time of the accident in 2011 up 'til today?

Because I can't find any legitimate reason whatsoever.

What I do see however see is a not-so-subtle attempt to inject an inflammatory issue into the matter at hand, when said issue is NOT germane to the discussion at all.

"Objective journalism"? Hardly. It's not the first time I've seen such writing employed by the News & Record lately either. Earlier this month Alamance County Sheriff Terry Johnson suffered a heart attack. The News & Record article made a teeny mention of that significant fact, choosing instead to harp on the lawsuit that Johnson is facing from the United States Department of Justice in regard to alleged racial profiling.

Nothing personal against Mr. Gamm. But I expect better out of the News & Record and every one of its writers (many of whom I have come to know and respect over the years). Unfortunately there is an appearance of considerable bias in what is otherwise a well-written story. However one such aside as this - when its sole seeming purpose is to inject overtones of racism into a matter demanding sobriety of senses - throws everything about it into question and doubt.

And that isn't meant to suggest any disparagement or diminishing the grievousness of the vandalism done to Ernie Pinnix's property. Vandalism is a severe crime regardless of the motive. It should be prosecuted because it is a crime, regardless of why the perpetrator did it. But that incident was, or at least should be, a completely separate matter from the Confederate monument.

Mr. Gamm, News & Record editors: this isn't proper journalism, and we all know it.

Again, do better.

Read More

Look: A real X-rated movie! (more about DJANGO UNCHAINED)

Yes, I realize that this post might bother some people. But I'm going to say it anyway...

A few minutes ago I published my review of Django Unchained. A movie that some have condemned as being "insensitive", "racist", "offensive", and too many other epithets that are wildly, wildly wrong.

I will not only stand by what I've written about Django Unchained - that it's not a film about slavery or even race at all but instead an epic quest to find one's lost love - but I dare say that those who want to be upset about this movie... well, they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

I thought we as a people were beyond this already. Apparently not and Django Unchained is proving it. That there are some who apparently can't be happy unless they've something to unfairly harp-on about being "racist" or whatever. Spike Lee comes to mind (he said he'd never watch Django Unchained because of how he claims it portrays people of African descent).

These are the kind of people that Booker T. Washington, that venerable educator and orator, wrote about...

"There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well."

I'll eagerly contend that Quentin Tarantino has produced the most poignant, the most endearing and the most accurate film portraying slavery in the South in an unwholesomely long time. Heck, I could even see this movie shown in high school history classes.

This is a movie that is NOT defined along racial lines. It is a film that defies those. And I absolutely believe that this is at the heart of why some people want to be offended by it.

You wanna know how a movie about slavery can truly be disturbing, even downright sickening to watch? Because what you're about to see (if you've the patience and the stomach for the next two hours) makes Django Unchained seem downright puny so far as human bondage goes. I've been thinking about Goodbye Uncle Tom since coming out of seeing Django Unchained and what have I realized from the juxtaposition?

Again: that those condemning Django Unchained don't know what the hell they're talking about.

So here it is, from 1971, a movie that I first saw at Butt-Numb-A-Thon 9 a little over five years ago. The movie that to date is still the only X-rated film that I've watched in my entire life: Goodbye Uncle Tom...

Read More

Southern Poverty Law Center, or: How NOT to respect a news outlet!

I've a number of criteria for judging whether a news agency is reputable or not. Usually it's a long-term process of determination but lately it's become much, much easier for me.

Wanna know why?

It's real simple: any news outlet that cites the Southern Poverty Law Center as a reputable source of information, gets a honkin' HUGE demerit and damn near an unforgivable one.

I first heard of ethnic warfare whore Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center fifteen years ago, in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. Dees was pimpin' himself on most of the news channels, claiming his Southern Poverty Law Center was warning the feds way in advance about "the militias movement". 'Twas enough to make me wonder who this twit was. Since then I've discovered that he's not much more than the worst sort of perpetual pest: the kind that demands everyone see a "crisis" to justify his own pathetic self-imposed purpose. In the case of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center this entails claiming that everyone who is against their wacko socialist agenda is automatically a racist on par with Hitler himself.

So it is that I have also come to sincerely believe that any so-called "journalist" who even remotely considers Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center to be creditable, should be fired automatically if not outright dragged out into the town square and locked up in the pillory for a well-earned mocking.

But don't take my word for it, dear readers! The Southern Poverty Law Center has just published a "hit list" of forty "patriots" that the organization has deemed to be a threat to American society. On the list are columnist Chuck Baldwin (he ranked #1, and that's his response at the link), Representative Ron Paul of Texas, Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, and Glenn Beck (somebody that I have never listened to and have no plans to, but to the very best of my knowledge has done nothing inordinately wrong). There are also a number of outspoken critics of the federal government, and especially of the income tax and the IRS.

Curiously, there is not one person on the list who could be considered an avowed "liberal". Every person denounced by the Southern Poverty Law Center is regarded by conventional wisdom as being a "conservative" or a "libertarian".

Darn. I wish that I could be on that list! Guess I'm not a big-league enough blogger yet.

Maybe if I pointed out that Morris Dees is a sexual pervert and child molester who was once caught exploiting his step-daughter, and that his Southern "Poverty" Law Center has by many accounts raked in more than a hundred million dollars by scaring the gullible with rumors of the Third Reich rising again, that maybe he would put me on his enemies list?

Or maybe putting it in larger font would mark me as a worthy adversary...

MORRIS DEES
OF THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER

IS A SEXUAL PERVERT, CHILD MOLESTER,

ETHNIC WARFARE WHORE,

PIMP OF THE PERPETUAL CRISIS,

AND MONEY-GRABBING HUCKSTER

OF THE UTMOST DEGREE!!!

Dear Lord, I hope that will do the trick.

Read More