Share Button

A Categorical Post

Everyone’s denying stuff categorically. “I categorically deny….”

I confess: I’m a wordsmith, but I have no idea what that means. What kind of categories are they talking about? How is “I deny it” different from “I categorically deny it”?

I realize I can Google it. Some of you are rushing to do that right now, so you can post a definition in a comment as if you’ve always known what “categorically” means. Don’t do it. I don’t want to know. I am boycotting this useless knowledge. “Categorically” is some kind of elitist, high-falutin, fancy-schmancy, snooty-nosed word that pompous people trot out to sound impressive.

“I deny it.”

“I don’t believe you.”

“I CATEGORICALLY deny it.”

“Oh, in that case, I believe you.”

That may work with some folks, but not me. Every time I hear the word “categorically”–and we’ll be hearing it many times in the coming days–I will not only roll my eyes, but will categorically roll my eyes.

Peter may have denied that he knew Jesus, but to his credit, he did not “categorically” deny knowing Jesus, because that would have been really bad.

Share Button
Comments Off on A Categorical Post

Lowering the Blood Alcohol Level for Drunk Driving

Should we lower the blood alcohol level for driving? Interesting piece about that by Marcus Kowal, a mixed martial arts fighter whose infant son was killed by a drunk driver (a 72-year-old woman, in the middle of the day, hit the baby’s stroller in crosswalk). He advocates lowering the threshold.

In every state, the “legally drunk” blood alcohol level is .08. A few decades ago, the standard was .1. Lowering it reduced the alcohol-related fatality rate by 10%. Kowals argues for lowering it to .05, the standard in several European countries, including Germany and the Netherlands–where, though people drink more alcohol per capita than Americans, the traffic fatality is much lower.

He says many studies show that lowering the threshold would deter many people from driving while intoxicated. Utah and Washington states have considered lowering it to .05, but lobbyists for the beverage and hospitality industries swung into action. I don’t know if this is a Democrat or Republican issue. I suppose one or the other sides with the lobbyists.

Kowal mentions his home country, Sweden, where the limit is .02. DUIs bring harsh punishments. However, he said, drunk driving carries a strong stigma in Sweden–it’s not socially acceptable. He compared it to waving a loaded firearm in a grocery store–just not something you do. He said Americans are far too tolerant of drunk driving, sometimes treating it almost as a right of passage (think of the numerous celebrities who have DUIs, but have faced almost no consequences). How do we create a culture where DUIs are not socially acceptable?

Kowal also said the average person drives drunk 80 times before their first crash or arrest. That seems high, and I don’t know how such a number is determined. But if the number was just 10 times, that would still be very disturbing.

The victims of drunk driving are always innocent–persons driving to the store, cruising on a highway, walking along a street…or a baby in a stroller. Just as it bothers me that untrained people are walking around in public with loaded firearms, it bothers me to know that I drive the same roads with people who are legally impaired. I’d be in favor of lowering the threshold.

Share Button
Comments Off on Lowering the Blood Alcohol Level for Drunk Driving

Reporters vs. Pundits

I’m a fan of reporters. Of those dogged men and women who spend hours poring through documents, making phone calls, interviewing people, filing Freedom of Information Act requests. Who chase down numerous dead-ends until they find the right trail. Who shed light on what some want to keep secret, and who risk their lives and sometimes die on battlefields to help us understand foreign conflicts. I’m a fan of those people.

Last year, I remember watching a Rachel Maddow program in which she built this devastating case against the Trump administration regarding a foreign policy situation. She pulled together pieces of reporting from various credible news sources to paint a picture of Administration deception and corruption. It was very convincing.

A couple days later, I read a Washington Post article which dismantled her argument. She had taken many pieces of real information found by real reporters, and assembled it in a dishonest way to make the Trump administration look vile. The WaPo article set the record straight. It was good reporting.

I’m not a fan of talking-head pundits on TV and radio. Maddow, Hannity, Limbaugh, Carlson, O’Donnell, and Ingraham all do much the same thing–take the hard work of reporters, cherry-pick what they want, and slant it to fit their agenda. I don’t respect such persons, and I rarely listen to them.

Their’s is a lazy job. They don’t dig for news. You can bet they subscribe to the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and other major news sources to learn what reporters have uncovered. Then they talk about it, twisting it to their liking and omitting what doesn’t fit their bias. If they are conservative pundits, they convince their listeners that none of these news sources–which they personally rely on every day–can be trusted.

As much as possible, I go to the source–the reporters who dug out the information and wrote it up. I was trained in their craft, I understand it, and I respect it. It’s a craft in which you inevitably make mistakes, and in which some people get sloppy and cut corners. But I much prefer them to the cannibalistic pundits.

Share Button
Comments Off on Reporters vs. Pundits

Diversity: Who Needs It?

Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson, the ideological chameleon formerly of CNN and MSNBC, doesn’t see the value of diversity. He hits this theme often on his primetime FoxNews show. Most recently, he ridiculed diversity on Friday night for his three million viewers. Some, I’m guessing, are now questioning why they ever thought diversity was a good thing. Thank you, Tucker, for bringing enlightenment.

Carlson told his viewers: “How, precisely, is diversity our strength?…Can you think, for example, of other institutions, such as, I don’t know, marriage or military units, in which the less people have in common the more cohesive they are?…Do you get along better with your neighbors or your co-workers if you can’t understand each other or share no common values?”

He’s right, you know. Think about the church, as one “other” institution. Wouldn’t you enjoy church more if everybody was just like you? Carlson is Episcopalian, so I imagine he has found a parish where everyone is a white upper-class college-educated straight English-speaking conservative. In such a church, you can preach to the choir AND the “choir.”

Consider Anchor. We’re a diverse church, with blacks, hispanics, and whites. With people who didn’t graduate from high school, and others who hold graduate degrees. With old and young. With poor and not so poor. With ex-cons and good-goodies like me. With people who sport lots of tattoos, and with people like…well, me again. With conservatives and liberals and everywhere in between. In Tucker’s world, we’re a recipe for disaster.

Why would anybody think such diversity is a good thing? Wouldn’t Pam and I enjoy church much, much more if everybody was white, middle-class, college-educated, and without kids? Isn’t that the way God designed the world–for everyone to stick with “their kind” and not mix things up? Shouldn’t we go back to having separate churches for each race–white, black, etc? Wouldn’t that please Jesus?

There was a guy back in the 1930s who had philosophical problems with diversity. Even wrote a best-selling book. Unfortunately, he died tragically in 1945 before his ideas gained widespread acceptance. But perhaps Tucker Carlson can spark a revival. I’m sure he’d like to. And while we’re at it, let’s get rid of that silly motto adopted in 1782 by what was obviously a liberal Congress, “E Pluribus Unum”–out of many, one.

Meanwhile, I must rethink my backwards ideas about church. Does anyone know of a church in Fort Wayne that consists only of white politically-nebulous Communications majors? Where everyone has cats, but no kids? Because dog people can be SO tiresome.

Thank you, Tucker, for teaching Americans that diversity is a silly, impractical concept. Everybody needs to embrace your ideas. The President thanks you. David Duke thanks you. Ann Coulter thanks you. White nationalists everywhere thank you.

Share Button
Comments Off on Diversity: Who Needs It?

The Garden of Jesus

In her book “The Story of a Soul,” St. Therese of Lisieux wrote, “He does not call those who are worthy, but those He chooses.” Let me explain why that hit me.

I’ve spent my career, 40 years, working around “called” people–persons called by God to be pastors, and called by God to be missionaries. I’ve seen people with a similar sense of calling to roles we don’t normally associate with “the call to ministry.” That would include people at Huntington University, in church support staff roles…and myself (the IRS usually doesn’t recognize our call). I remember Dad’s struggle with the relentless call to become a pastor, and have heard similar stories from others. God’s call is a real thing.

Among United Brethren ministers, the “called by God” come in all forms. In earlier, immature years (or at least more immature than I am now), I tended to evaluate ministers on giftedness and their ability to grow a church–”ranchers,” church growth gurus sometimes call them. But in the process, I downplayed the shepherds, who were no less called by God, and who spent their careers faithfully serving small congregations and keeping them pointed toward God. We can be so shallow in how we view persons who are hand-picked by God.

I was convicted of this back in the 1980s. There was a minister, long gone from our ranks, who was very quirky and odd. I made some kind of sarcastic remark about him. Bishop Clarence Kopp, a man of grace and compassion who believed the best of everyone, let my words hang in the air for a few seconds, and it seemed like some mistiness came to his eyes. Then he told me, “I would have him as my pastor.” It stabbed me through the heart.

God calls all types of people. St. Therese talked about “the world of souls, which is the garden of Jesus,” and described herself as a “little flower” in that garden.

She wrote, “The splendour of the rose and the whiteness of the lily do not rob the little violet of its scent nor the daisy of its simple charm. I realized that if every tiny flower wanted to be a rose, spring would lose its loveliness and there would be no wild flowers to make the meadows gay….He has created the great saints who are like the lilies and the roses, but he has also created much lesser saints, and they must be content to be the daisies or the violets which rejoice His eyes whenever He glances down.”

Bishop Kopp had sat under the teaching of the loveliest roses, but found just as much beauty–probably more, actually–in the daisies. It’s an attitude I’m still working on.

Share Button
Comments Off on The Garden of Jesus

Great Awakening 2.0

God decides when there will be an outpouring of his Holy Spirit. Nobody “schedules” the Holy Spirit. Nobody scheduled Pentecost, or the Great Awakening of the 1700s, or the Jesus People Movement. Nevertheless, world revival has been scheduled for tomorrow night, August 30.

Michael W. Smith feels God has called him to spearhead the next Great Awakening, and he found an available date. What form will it take? It’ll be “a massive concert in Nashville, Tennessee, which he believes will be the beginning of the next great awakening throughout the U.S. and the world,” according to the Christian Post.

That concert will be held tomorrow night, August 30, at Bridgestone Arena in Nashville. Smith points out that the name “Bridgestone” is significant, since both “bridge” and “stone” are “instrumental” in the Bible. Plus, there’s a big antenna atop the arena. “Is that coincidence?” he says. Sounds like a foolproof fleece to me.

Smith has partnered with TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) to bring to us, in living color, the next Great Awakening. It, obviously, must occur in the United States and be sponsored by Caucasians, like Jesus was. Legitimate revivals don’t occur in countries which aren’t Blessed by Gaaawd.

Says Smith, “Other than Jerusalem, I think there’s something very strategic about Nashville.” It’s unclear if the Holy Spirit was given any other venue options for this “next great move of God.” If Jerusalem is Number 1 on the list, why settle for second best?

Sorry, but you can’t experience revival live. This is a tape-delay revival.

The concert will be taped and then aired sometime during the fall by TBN. So if the Holy Spirit descends on that gathering tomorrow night, I’m not sure what’s supposed to happen–bottle him up until the fall broadcast date? Digitally record the Holy Spirit onto a DVD? I’m sure the technicians at TBN have it all figured out, and will remaster the Holy Spirit’s Outpouring in a cutting-edge way. I assume you’ll be able to buy the Great Awakening on DVD.

Silliness aside, you can’t schedule a Great Awakening. You can’t even schedule Woodstock, not with the magic. You can only schedule a bunch of recording artists for a Thursday night gig. But I’m sure it’ll be a very worshipful event with a lot of good music, and somebody will make some money.

As for me and Pam: we’ll be in Shipshewana at a Three Dog Night concert. With Jeremiah singin’ Joy to the World.

Share Button
Comments Off on Great Awakening 2.0

“Remembrances” of Pearl Harbor

“I remember Pearl Harbor,” President Trump told Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe in June.

There are two things that intrigue me about that.

1. Trump knew he had no actual memory of Pearl Harbor, so he was intentionally lying. Why did he feel the need to lie?

2. Trump apparently thought it was a PLAUSIBLE lie–that he could have actually remembered Pearl Harbor. Which confirms what many others have said–that he has no real sense of history. He doesn’t read, so he’s got some huge information holes.

I don’t know which part intrigues me the most–telling an intentional lie, or nor realizing his lie was totally implausible. I guess the second part.

I’m sure Abe went back to Japan and got a lot of good laughs telling the story.

Share Button
Comments Off on “Remembrances” of Pearl Harbor

John McCain Deserves Better from the President

President Trump’s disdain for John McCain is well-known.

On August 13, when President Trump signed the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act, he talked for 28 minutes without ever mentioning the senator’s name.

John McCain is a national hero. Say his name. He earned it.

That night at a rally, President Trump criticized McCain’s vote on the Affordable Care Act–again, not mentioning his name, but everyone knew who he was talking about. The crowd booed McCain. Think about that. As John McCain lay dying of brain cancer, the President of the United States was prompting thousands of Americans to boo an American war hero.

Trump has been doing this schtick at rallies and other events for most of a year, going back to a rally in Alabama on September 22, 2017. At his prompting, thousands upon thousands of Trump supporters have publicly jeered John McCain.

I would not dirty my shoes going to a rally where people booed a dying war hero. It stuns me. Infuriates me. And yet, I realize I have Facebook friends who will follow wherever the President leads.

At a rally three days before McCain’s death, the President didn’t say anything about the senator. When medical treatment was discontinued, numerous politicians put out statements of support for McCain and the family. President Trump said nothing.

Anticipating John McCain’s death, White House staffers drafted a statement honoring his life and legacy. President Trump nixed it. John Kelly, Sarah Sanders, and other staff reportedly urged the President to release the statement, but the President said no. Instead, he put out a tweet–that’s all John McCain merited, a tweet of 21 words–expressing condolences to the family.

Brit Hume of FoxNews quickly responded to the tweet, “Still not a kind word about McCain himself.” Nothing about his lifetime of service to the country as a soldier and senator.

How did we get to this point? What happened to the Republican Party I grew up with?

The White House will probably put out a full statement later today, and KellyAnn Conway will provide a tidy rationale for the delay. But there should have been no delay, no allowance for the President to nurse petty grievances.

I realize John McCain has been a harsh critic of Donald Trump. He was also, frequently, a thorn in the side to Presidents Obama, Bush, and Clinton. He put principle above party. It’s part of McCain’s greatness. And Presidents need to rise above.

Being a war hero doesn’t make politicians infallible or above criticism over day-to-day statements and policy decisions. But at the end of the man’s life, you honor him.

Share Button
Comments Off on John McCain Deserves Better from the President

Who’s Next?

The first two Republicans who endorsed Donald Trump from the House of Representatives have now been indicted. That raises the question: who was the third?

That would be Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee, who appears to be criminally clean. However, in 2014 it came out that he urged a mistress and his ex-wife to have abortions. Pro-life people call that murder, but it may be okay since he’s a Republican; he won re-election in 2016 by 30 points. Republican lobbyist Elliott Broidy paid a former Playboy Playmate to keep quiet about their affair and her subsequent abortion, and Republicans don’t seem upset about that “murder” either.

Fourth? Tom Marino of Pennsylvania. Trump nominated him to be the US drug czar, but Marino withdrew his name after it was learned that he sponsored legislation that made it harder for the Drug Enforcement Agency to battle the opioid epidemic, and also took $100,000 from the pharmaceutical lobby. He’s still in Congress.

Fifth? Tom Reed of New York, who seems to be keeping his nose clean.

Jeff Sessions, of course, was the first Senator to endorse candidate Trump. He has diligently avoided being involved in obstructing justice. However, that has made Donald Trump and his base very upset with Sessions.

Share Button
Comments Off on Who’s Next?

Enemy of the People?

Katy Tur was an NBC reporter based in London when she was asked to abruptly leave everything and come follow the Trump presidential campaign. She was a highly experienced reporter, yet unknown. She wrote about the campaign in her 2017 book, “Unbelievable.” For me, it was a very fun read.

But there were disturbing parts. During rallies, with reporters confined to a “press cage” of bicycle fences and surrounded by thousands of Trump supporters, Trump would rain down condemnation on the press. “Little Katy” Tur was a favorite target. He would call her out by name, point to her, and call her a liar and a “third rate reporter.” People en masse would turn to her and shout their insults and curses.

She was a young, single woman being targeted amidst a very hostile crowd. “Inside, I’m terrified,” she wrote. “Men are standing on their chairs to get a look at me. They want to see me as they jeer.”

Her Mom sent frantic texts, fearing for her safety. Trump staffers, recognizing the danger Trump had put her in, asked Secret Service agents to escort Katy and her crew to their vehicles. This is what Katy and other reporters, just doing their job, endured every day. And it happened only because of Donald Trump. Nothing like this had ever happened before.

The abuse continued online, from both Trump and his supporters. Tur, a definite target, wrote, “They call me ugly and dumb. They accuse me of sleeping my way to my job. They go after my family, and especially my father, who is transgender. They call me a c**t. They threaten my life. The longer this campaign goes on, the more I expect them to take their online rage into the real world.” One time, in front of Trump Tower, a Trump supporter screamed abuse at her and then spit in her face.

The crowd behavior kept growing uglier, the yelling more abusive. One time, the crowd chanted, “Drop dead, media! Drop dead, media!” For much of the campaign, NBC provided armed protection to all of its employees covering the Trump campaign, both at the rallies and outside of them. This had never been needed in a presidential campaign.

Trump continued calling out Katy Tur by name. One time, security had to stop people trying to get to her. Another time, a CNN reporter sent a picture of a creepy bald man who wouldn’t stop saying her name, and told her to watch out for him.

Trump staffers assured Katy that Trump actually respected her work. One time, before the Access Hollywood tape surfaced, Trump entered a TV studio, walked right up to her, put his hands on her shoulders, and kissed her on the cheek (much to her anger). But for him, criticizing the press was a game, a crowd-pleaser. He got too much mileage out of it. But Katy Tur and others always feared that one crazy fan who didn’t realize it was just a schtick.

The targeting of Katy Tur continues. A couple weeks ago, she said the boos and taunts at rallies are only part of it. “What you do not see are the nasty letters or packages or emails, the threats of physical violence. ‘I hope you get raped and killed,’ one person wrote to me just this week. Not just me, but a couple of my female colleagues as well.”

This is happening only because President Trump continually incites it. More recently, he has amped it up with denunciations of the press as “the enemy of the people.” For the media targets, it’s not a game.

Share Button
Comments Off on Enemy of the People?

Receive Posts by Email

If you subscribe to my Feedburner feed, you'll automatically receive new posts by email. Very convenient.

Categories

Facebook

Monthly Archives