If I Were King

Today is Coming Out Day, an occasion for showing support for civil rights of the LGBT community. I’m straight, and I support human rights for humans and civil rights for those who are civil (and for some who aren’t, actually), without consideration of race, creed, age, sex, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. (Is “confused” a sexual orientation? Seems that fits a lot of folks.)

But Van, you’re a Christian, isn’t homosexuality against your religion? Short answer: No. The longer answer? Christ loves every one in every situation, and if you happen to be a lesbian that detail is hardly enough to make a god of love back off, or even hesitate. God is love. “And they’ll know we are Christians by our love,” as we sang back in the ‘sixties.

But Van, doesn’t the Bible clearly say that homosexuality is wrong? Short answer: No. The longer answer? For good and valid historical reasons, the Torah is reproduced in the Bible. Specifically, the book of Leviticus is included. Leviticus has two parts, the Jewish Holiness Code and the Jewish High Priestly Code. I’m not a Jew, and I’ll never be eligible to serve as high priest (because I’m not Jewish and because my name is not Cohen or one of the acceptable variations thereon, both absolute barriers), even if the temple were rebuilt in my lifetime. I’m a Christian, and Christians are not called to follow Jewish law.

But Van, it’s in the Bible. Doesn’t that make it true? Sure it’s true, it’s part of the history of the Children of Israel. They were actually given all these laws over three thousand years ago. And there are even those who follow those rules today, observant Orthodox Jews. They keep two complete sets of pots, pans, plates, and silverware. I appreciate the dedication to tradition that this entails, but I do not follow them, for a number of reasons. I appreciate the fact that Jesus specifically swept the old laws away (story is found in Matthew, “It is not what goes into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but what comes out.”) But even if he hadn’t, there are plenty of good reasons to live by the law of my time instead of the laws of Canaan circa 1425 BC: Lobster. McDonald’s Quarter Pounder with Cheese. Clams. Ham. Every sandwich I make. Bratwurst.

Scholars have proposed reasons for different parts of the Holiness Code, but we can’t really know what they were. But we can be confident that all the rules regarding sacrifices, the separation of dairy and meat, the absolute prohibition on meat from animals with cloven hoofs (i.e., the glorious pig), the prohibition on any seafood that doesn’t have scales, all these things may have had a reason at a certain point in Israel’s past but are not normative for life in the United States today.

And the God I worship would not smile to learn that I was taking a minor point of ancient law, out of context, and using it to be hurtful to my fellow creatures. Sex is a good and wonderful thing. Marriage is a good and wonderful thing. It is unacceptable for a Christian, gay or straight, to forbid these things to anyone old enough to consent intelligently.

Being a Christian is not a logical decision. We specifically believe that you cannot come to faith in Jesus Christ of your own will, that such a faith comes from a call issued by the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the choice to enter ordained ministry, with all the requisite preparation, is subject to call as well, first a call from God and then a call from a congregation. If homosexuality were wrong, there is no way that an omniscient God (who would know who was straight and who was not) would continue to call homosexuals to faith and to ministry, yet he does. Logic says that if a call is necessary for faith, and there are homosexuals in the pews, then God loves them and wants them to be part of his church. There is no escaping that argument.

If I Were King I would still be Christian, I would still be straight, and you would absolutely be treated the same whether you shared my religion or my sexual orientation or not.

Back in January the Supremes handed down a decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, ruling that corporate funding of political advertising was protected by the First Amendment. Many commentators were horrified at what that would mean for the democratic process, and now that the elections are in full swing we are seeing the results. (See Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post for just one of many.) At the time, although I didn’t blog about it, I felt that it was the only legal decision possible. On the other hand, I felt, and feel, that the money behind political advocacy needs to be limited somehow, and must be identified. I presumed, vainly as it turns out, that campaign finance rules requiring publication of these contributions, would be in effect by the time the floodgates opened.

At the time, the biggest objection to the Citizens United ruling seemed to center on expanding the rights to free speech to corporate persons. Many were outraged that all “persons” would have the rights of natural persons, and others were offended that foreigners could contribute to campaigns as well. Neither of these bothered me at all. As long as the public disclosure rules were enforced.

At the same time, I also floated another idea, and as the scope of political speech unleashed by the decision expands, I continue to think it merits some thought. I have always been uneasy about the idea that there could be any limits on political speech. On the other hand, the idea of foreigners with no legitimate involvement in a campaign, other than the profits they might extract, contributing mountains of cash seems problematic. The most obvious example of this came last year when Mormons in Utah contributed a large part of the funding for the nasty Proposition 8 campaign in California, the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. (To me, there is absolutely no logical difference between Germans or Russians influencing national decisions and Utah churches or California movie stars influencing state or local decisions outside their own communities.)

So here’s my more complete opinion: If I Were King, anyone would be able to contribute any amount to any political campaign as long as two simple requirements were met: 1) All political contributions over $25.00 would be subject to public disclosure. 2) Political contributions in an amount over $25 could be made only by persons registered to vote in the jurisdiction affected. Partnerships, associations, corporations, churches, and labor unions would be left out. Hollywood stars would be unable to send large checks to influence campaigns in Colorado, unless they established their primary residence there, although they could buy a T-shirt or attend a $20 fund-raising potluck.

Yes, I would regret the loss of revenue for the media, but I don’t think overwhelming the voters with paid messages is the best way to save the newspapers.

Today’s Quotes of the Day were on the theme of “Birth” because this is the anniversary of the birth of Chester A. Arthur. During the 1880 presidential campaign, in which he ran as vice president with James Garfield, it was charged that he was not born at Fairfield, Vermont but rather in Canada. Some said he had been born in Ireland. In his case, there were no written records of his birth at all.

It turned out he was a pretty fair president after Garfield died, so he only served part of one term. He recognized the problems of the “spoils system” then in place, a system that he had benefited from and in which his backers thrived, and created what we now know as the Civil Service System. His administration was probably not absolutely devoid of corruption, but it was dramatically better than any in the decades before him.  Even Mark Twain, who had little use for any officeholder, approved: “It would be hard indeed to better President Arthur’s administration.”.

In the course of my introduction to the quotes I characterized the birthers of our day as “halfwits”. As I mentioned back in April, I encountered my first birther in a public place, having previously not really believed that such persons existed. To my surprise, there actually were a few who were subscribers and they took offense. They basically said that I was the halfwit if I believed that Obama actually had a “birth certificate” that showed him to be a US citizen.

Oh, puhleeze! No, there is no document that says “birth certificate”. I don’t have one either, mine says “Certification of Birth”. Obama’s says “Certificate of Live Birth”, presumably because the state of Hawaii has enough sensitivity not to issue birth certificates to parents who have gone through the ordeal of a stillbirth. What we refer to as a birth certificate is any document issued by a government or agency thereof that attests to the birth of a child. It lists the name, the place, the date, and the names of the parents. There is no verification that I’m aware of, although if the child is born in a hospital it’s a pretty safe bet that the place, date, and mother’s name will all be accurate. Somebody fills in a form, the form is sent to the appropriate registry, the information is entered in some sort of register or database, and certificates are issued as required by law.

In the case of my daughter, a nurse asked me to go to the hospital office and fill out a form, on which I wrote in my name as father and probably signed it. That was it. No DNA test to prove that I actually was the father. For that matter, there was no test to ensure that the mother wasn’t a surrogate renting out her womb for the occasion. And though I think the resulting “birth certificate” actually used those words, it was small plastic rectangle with embossed lettering – a credit card with no charge privileges.

The birthers are halfwits if they think the current president is ineligible for office based on the fact that his birth certificate doesn’t have the exact wording they prefer. More likely they are looking for anything to beat on the president with, know there is no basis for it, and just don’t mind looking stupid while they beat on a dead horse. I’m not wild about there being a president, as long as there is I can’t be king. But I’m intelligent enough to see that there isn’t any issue here.

If I Were King it would be all the same: There would still be halfwits, cretins, morons, and imbeciles willing to cherish the absurd and consider it as truth.

Yesterday the Star Tribune ran “Schools struggle with gay policies,” an article of some concern that shows that, for all our recent progress, we still have a long way to go in dealing with sexuality. Given four suicides in the past year by GLBT students in or connected with the Anoka-Hennepin School District, it isn’t a minor issue.

The district has adopted a policy of neutrality, sexual orientation simply isn’t part of the curriculum. That’s fine, but that doesn’t mean — it cannot mean — adopting a policy of neutrality toward harassment and bullying.

In the story, Minnesota Family Council President Tom Prichard is quoted as saying, “I don’t think parents want their kids indoctrinated in homosexuality,” and that teachers shouldn’t be saying that homosexuality is acceptable. Codswollop. Or to quote a great litigator of the past, “irrelevant and immaterial”. Schools don’t teach that gravity is acceptable, but they still teach that it exists, and that it has to be respected.

According to an article in The Minnesota Independent, there is a secretive group calling themselves Parents Action League that is campaigning to make sure the problem is made worse. They claim to support the district’s neutrality while campaigning to bring the “The Day of Truth” program to district schools, a program that teaches that homosexuality is a sin, that Christian students should be outspoken in condemnation of it, and that gays can be “cured” through prayer. In other words, a program that claims to be Christian but is completely uninformed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The school doesn’t need to teach anything about homosexuality at all, I’m sure the curriculum has sufficient goals to keep everyone busy. This isn’t about teaching. This is about maintaining an environment in which it is possible to teach math and language and other subjects, it’s about maintaining an environment in which everyone can learn.

If I Were King, I’d still be straight, but education is simply too important to let bigots interfere with the process. I’d still be Christian, but possibly even less tolerant of those who call themselves Christian yet support vicious programs with proof-texting from parts of the Old Testament that they don’t follow in their own lives.

Last week (20 September) the New York Times reported that GMAC was suspending foreclosure actions after it was revealed that those responsible for preparing affidavits for the court filings had been signing affidavits at a rate incompatible with a review any more detailed than making sure there was an amount due and a borrower’s name on them. Actually, they announced that they would be suspending foreclosures in the 23 states in which foreclosures take place in a courtroom. That seemed odd.

Yesterday the Times reported that JPMorgan Chase was following suit. Strangely enough, Morgan unit is also only suspending foreclosures in 23 states. This is wrong. Given that it is almost certain that it is in those 23 states, where defendants and their counsel have a venue for challenging the lenders’ paperwork, that the problems were the fewest, smallest, and most subject to being found out.

Two national lenders have now both decided to carry on with their suspect actions against homeowners in the states where they have the best chance of getting away with it, and taking a second look at the paperwork in the states where they might get caught at something underhanded. If I Were King, or a governor of one of the other 27 states, I would order that all foreclosures be vacated that had not yet led to new owners paying for the repossessed properties, and that no new filings would be allowed from these vendors until they had submitted plans for preventing recurrence. I would also instruct my investigators to survey the courts to see if other banks that have not yet admitted to the problem needed to be dealt with in the same way.

When anyone speaks to the press, it’s a good idea for that person, or any spokesman for an organization or another person, to actually think about what they’re saying. I understand that there may be some pressure to say something ‘right now’ rather than think about it, which means you’d better think about the questions before you get the call. I came across a stunning example of this last week in Sides Form Over Threat to Saturday Mail Service by Yeganeh June Torbati (New York Times, 5 July 2010).

There is some weakness in the article in that, as far as we can divine from the text, the “sides” aren’t balanced. Against the change are postal employees wanting to preserve current work schedules, credit card issuers and insurance companies not wanting to miss a single opportunity to send you a bill, and health care networks hoping to reduce costs by mailing prescriptions. On the other side, nameless businesses that have kept some national organizations from coming down solidly against the change with no reasons given and Netflix preferring the cut to even the smallest of rate increases. Come on, shouldn’t the writer have done a little more to flesh this out? And aren’t we all pretty used to the occasional rate increases for what is, in daily use, an excellent service?

The article quotes Andy Rendich of Netflix (Chief Service and DVD Fulfillment Officer) in support: “Big rate increases will absolutely squash business and will absolutely slow growth for a company like Netflix.” The article did make fairly clear the interests of those opposed to the cut, but let Netflix completely off the hook. A journalist has some obligation to make the issues clear: Had I been writing this piece, I would have called bullshit. (In a most dignified and regal way, of course.) Netflix’s motivation is the same as a landlord campaigning for a switch to thirteen months from twelve in the year. Their costs are absolutely tied to the number of days their shipping facilities are open, their income is absolutely tied to the passage of months. On average, this cut will reduce every operating expense the company incurs by at least 15%: wages, DVD purchases, and postage. It won’t have any affect on executive salaries or rent, but everything else is driven by the number of mail days. Are they ready to lower their subscription rates by 15%? I doubt it.

There has been a case of landlord’s benefiting from a reduction in the length of a month, but it was a one-time gain in every country when it switched from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar. Netflix would make out like bandits every month. Until their subscribers woke up and noticed they were getting screwed.

In terms of public relations, perhaps Netflix should be all in favor of this change, being careful never to let a soul know about it. In actuality, Netflix is a major part of keeping the postal service afloat, along with eBay, as most correspondence moves to e-mail. The six-days-per-week delivery of DVDs is their primary competitive advantage over their competition. If they think that moving from physical delivery of DVDs to streaming the same content over the internet is to their advantage, I wish they’d share what they’re smoking. Their only advantage in the online-delivery arena is their pool of dedicated subscribers. Crap on those subscribers, which their support of dropping Saturday delivery does, and their days are numbered.

The Times should have done a better job of laying this out, Netflix should have been more intelligent about revealing their motivations, and Netflix really needs to think about where their interest lies. The Empress Larkin and I are satisfied Netflix patrons (standard two DVD plan), but we’re not likely to ignore changes that run counter to the royal viewing needs.

President Obama has cashiered General Stanley McChrystal because of comments made by him and his staff while Michael Hastings was “embedded” with them for a Rolling Stone store run in the 8 July 2010 issue: The Runaway General. Obama blew it.

The story is a detailed account of the operation of McChrystal’s command but focuses on their personalities and styles. Hastings would certainly not have been allowed to print a story detailing battle plans, and this glimpse into the characters that are leading the war in Afghanistan is rather more helpful to the American polity anyway. These men are tough, experienced fighters, trained to kill and inured to the risk of being killed, and they sound very real. At the same time they clearly accept the mission that has been handed to them by their civilian leaders, they just don’t always admire the individuals involved.

I had a lot of problems with that growing up. I felt respect was something that was earned, my mother insisted that it was something that was owed to people based on their position and age. In this era of transparency, it should come as no surprise that working soldiers don’t treat with respect those that haven’t earned their respect, even in a culture where crisp salutes for superiors is the normal rule. In barracks, or in a bar, soldiers respect the leaders that lead well. Period. Welcome to the meritocracy of today’s Army.

Tom Lehrer introduced one of his great songs with this: “One of the many fine things one has to admire is the way the Army has carried the American democratic ideal to its logical conclusion, in the sense that not only do they prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, creed, and color, but also on the grounds of ability.” That seems to have changed. Even in this testosterone-laden environment, McChrystal’s staff respects a woman as Secretary of State, appreciates the contributions of the pencil-necked geek sitting in a corner in front of a dozen screens, and has no use at all for Karl Eikenberry, a former general that used to be McChrystal’s boss and apparently can’t deal with his erstwhile subordinate’s rise. This team judges the players based on whether or not they are contributing to the common goal, and apparently a good number of the civilians involved aren’t.

I assume that McChrystal can live comfortably on his pension, although I worry a little that someone that operates at his level of energy is going to have serious issues adjusting to the pace of retired civilian life. I’m not convinced that Obama’s course in Afghanistan is the right one. However, if this is the path that Obama and Congress want to follow, it’s hard to imagine a better leader on the ground to implement it.

The problem lies in the conflicting and conflicted civilian management. Yes, McChrystal has said things in public that might seem to undermine some of the players, but Eikenberry’s critical memo, attacking McChrystal’s strategy and Afghan president Karzai, shouldn’t have been leaked to the press if Eikenberry wants all this to be kept under wraps. McChrystal, his staff, and the president seem to be in synch, it’s the rest of the civilian team that needs work. Joe Biden’s a big boy, he can get over the occasional barb. Eikenberry, apparently, can’t.

This is not Big Mac refusing to accept Truman’s strategy in Korea, this is a strong military leader doing exactly what he has been instructed to do, loyally doing the right thing if occasionally grumbling about the details. If I Were King, I’d stick with McChrystal and find a civilian team worthy of the roles they have to play.

On Wednesday night, as the whole world knows by now, Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga pitched a perfect game against the Cleveland Indians, which is a rare accomplishment. Alas, first-base umpire Jim Joyce blew a call at first base, turning the rare no-hitter into a pedestrian one-hit win. Despite the fact that just about everyone who has watched the replay agrees that the runner, Jason Donald, was out, commissioner Bud Selig allowed the ruling to stand. The principals all handled the kerfuffle with remarkable grace, and there was never any doubt that Galarraga and Detroit won the game. It gives the baseball fans something to talk about for a few days.

On Thursday, America’s largest auto maker grabbed the chance to make a grand gesture. They drove a brand new shiny cherry-red Corvette onto the field and handed Galarraga the keys just before the game. Smooth move, GM is getting ink and pixels from coast to coast.

Today, the New York Times’ Nick Bunkley tells us that the move had detractors. (G.M.’s Gift of a Luxury Car Stuns a Few) The story names a Republican congresscriter from California with the bad form to challenge G.M.’s largesse on the grounds that as long as the American taxpayer is stuck owning the company, they shouldn’t do anything other than work to cash out the government investment. First, of course, either Galarraga will be paying a hefty bit of income tax on the car or GM will be paying a gift tax, so the Treasury sees some immediate return. But mostly, assuming they paid a few thousand bucks for miscellaneous costs in making the presentation, they’re getting a huge return in positive attention and good will for peanuts. You have to promote your brand to sell products. In fact, given the high cost of television and magazine advertising, it would have been a criminal offense against the public to not take advantage of this event. No, they shouldn’t do it every day, there would be no media interest and no reward. But it was the right thing to do, from every vantage point, in this case. If I Were King, you would quickly see one of the many advantages of a monarchy: no Congress, and no morons elected to sit there.

It generally falls to the Empress Larkin to select video entertainment here. Someone suggested to her that the Showtime series Dexter would be of interest to us, so she put the first season on the Netflix queue. As it turned out, when the first disk arrived she was out of town, so I watched it. It’s an interesting concept, to say the least, in which a police “blood-splatter analyst” turns out to be a serial killer on his own time, and the audience is expected to approve. Given that Dexter is a vigilante out to eliminate some of the most dangerous and vicious criminals that have somehow eluded the criminal justice system, it’s quite possible. Popular response, as gauged by Nielsen, says they pulled it off. However, I decided that this was not something we wanted to add to our regular viewing.

One of the well-understood issues in writing fiction is maintaining the reader’s, or viewer’s, “willing suspension of disbelief”. We read The Count of Monte Cristo and happily go along with Edmond Dantes finding a staggering treasure, then returning first to Marseilles and then Paris, living his grand life while only one of those who knew him as a poor sailor recognize him. Or we watch Burn Notice, knowing that you can’t actually wreak such havoc with a few household chemicals and an endless supply of cheap cell phones. (We know this because in real life, even well-planned terrorist attacks seem to rarely work as well as if Michael and Fiona were behind them.) The opposite problem is true with Dexter. It’s way too easy to believe that the quiet neighbor across the street, the one that seems to rarely be at home, is calmly eliminating unwanted members of the community.

As is my wont after seeing something new, I went straight to Wikipedia’s coverage. I was annoyed to learn that Parents Television Council protested the decision by CBS to air the first season during the writers’ strike, on the grounds that a show that aroused empathy for a killer would lead to additional violence in society. Well, that’s nonsense, the media doesn’t have that kind of impact. Television is full of comedy, yet our society is hardly mirthful and more little boys want to grow up to be firemen than comics. Radio is full of pop music, which is rife with “Silly Love Songs” as Sir Paul sang. We would be facing incredible population growth if radio guided life, everyone would be making babies at a rate not seen in history.

The next night I watched a movie that I had been meaning to see for a long time: Silkwood. Yes, Meryl Streep is great. The issue of violence in the media suddenly made sense. Here’s a movie that does inspire violence. You see how Kerr-McGee, the corporation that Karen Silkwood worked for, was probably responsible for killing and silencing her. It makes you want to get back at them, but it was long ago and far away so you can’t. But you can watch an episode of Burn Notice and see Fiona detonating bad guys, or get out an old episode of Walker: Texas Ranger and watch Cordell kick some bad guys until they stay down. (Bad guys on that show stupidly kept getting up to get whacked again.) Or reread Dumas and vicariously participate in Edmond’s revenge. Or, if you aren’t troubled by nightmares, you can watch Dexter.  Violence on screen, or in a book, does not drive us to acting out violently in real life. Quite the opposite, it satisfies our need for a dramatic response to the frustration we encounter.

If I Were King, Parents Television Council would still be able to petition networks to change their schedules. I’m fundamentally against limiting free speech and morons have rights.

The Empress Larkin is an accomplished and internationally-known art quilter, and by extension a teacher. (Pretty much all of the great art quilters work at it full time, and in order to do that most of them have to teach.) I’m not a quilter, but I’m pretty connected in the quilt world. Today I heard from an art quilter and teacher, also of great renown, a woman that both Larkin and I respect and admire. She related that she was recently en route to teach a class and was stopped at the border. It happens that this particular art quilter resides north of the old 49th and was teaching to the south, as opposed to Larkin who resides south and is delighted when she has the chance to teach north. Apparently the “logic” involved was that the Canadian teacher was taking work away from American citizens.

Yeah, right. First of all, students respond better if the teacher comes from far away. Quilters in Esquimault or Alberni or even White Rock respond more eagerly if they know the teacher is coming in from “the states”, and the reverse is true as well. This isn’t a recent development, Jesus commented on the phenomenon in the first century. As long as teachers from both sides of the line are allowed to teach on both sides of the line, nobody loses.

In fact, everybody gains. American quilters are in international competition, up against the best Kiwi quilters, the best from Oz, the best from Israel, the best from France, and for those readers that aren’t up on the realm of art quilts, that’s serious competition. If the goons on America’s border are keeping out the best foreign teachers, it’s American artists that lose. Sure, they could travel north for classes, but in these times it’s imperative that we conserve resources: Which makes more sense, for twenty Yanks to drive north to take a class or for one Canuck to drive south to teach it?

It’s not like internationally-known teachers are going to come to the US and become a drain on our schools and health care facilities; unless they’re from Somalia they have better health care waiting for them at home. They just want to share their ideas and get a check big enough to go home and get back to their art. In a country where upwards of 99% of the shoes are imported, to suddenly become protectionist in response to a handful of teachers is moronic. I don’t know the answers to the immigration question, but If I Were King the borders would absolutely be open to the best ideas from the rest of the world.