Hate Crimes Bill

Why are so many "religious" people upset about the hate crimes bill? Do they really think it's "free speech" to be allowed to assault someone based on their gender or sexual orientation?

More likely, it's just out of ignorance of the facts. One article that was linked from FaceBook began by saying, "A 'hate crimes' bill opponents claim will be used to crack down on Christian speech, even the reading of the Bible, was signed into law today by President Obama." (WorldNetDaily)

But the article's only basis for this statement was what "opponents claim" would happen. A little research would show that it is not the case. In actuality, the bill has nothing to do with speech, but is directed against ACTS OF VIOLENCE. The following is from CNN:

Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate-crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality.

But Attorney General Eric Holder has said that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, as opposed to the prosecution of speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs.

Another argument that keeps getting made is that the victims of hate crimes would be getting "special treatment" and that we already have laws on the books about violent assaults.

I used to buy into the argument that said, "All crimes are hate crimes; nobody that commits a crime is walking in love." But the fact is, while most crimes are motivated by greed or jealousy, not all of them are specifically motivated by hate for a particular group of people. That is what defines a hate crime.

And yes, we do have laws in place, even about hate crimes. The new bill simply expands the 1969 federal hate-crimes law to add sexual orientation and a few other things to the definition. Again, it is not in any way inhibiting free speech.

The hate-crimes amendment expands the 1969 federal hate-crimes law to include sexual orientation, gender identity, gender and mental or physical disability; provide funding to local and state agencies to investigate hate crimes; remove the current stipulation that offenses must be committed while a victim is engaging in a federally protected activity; and provide the Justice Department greater jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute hate crimes. (Philadelphia Gay News)

The House voted Thursday to expand the definition of violent federal hate crimes to cover those committed because of a victim’s gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability...

The hate crimes legislation allocates $5 million per year to the Justice Department to provide assistance to local communities in investigating such crimes, a process that can sometimes strain local police resources. It allows the Justice Department to assist in the inquiry and prosecution of such crimes if requested by local authorities.

"The problem of crimes motivated by bias is sufficiently serious, widespread and interstate in nature as to warrant federal assistance to states, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes," the measure says. (The Caucus, the Politics and Government Blog of the NY Times)

Normally I don't get involved with political issues, but when people who claim to be Christians go out of their way to protest things like this, I want to respond by saying, "Get the facts straight." Don't go for the knee-jerk reaction of some conservatives in the media. The quotes above were found by simply googling "hate crimes bill." It's not difficult, and it prevents Christians from looking foolish and giving more fuel to those who believe that all Christians are ignorant and bigoted.

Where Am I Now That I Need Me?

Looking over my blog entries I realize it's been almost two months since I posted one brief paragraph about my brother, ending with "To be continued." It's been that long since I've talked to my family too, even though I'd promised to keep in touch more often. And I don't remember the last time I talked to any friends, even thought they've tried calling and have left voice mails. About the only communication I've done with anyone has been in writing on line.

Many things have happened to me over the past few years that have put me in this frame of mind. (See previous blogs, from May and July of last year, and January of this year.) I had been pretty out of it before, but then when my brother died in a senseless accident, it really impressed upon me how insane life is. I cling tenuously to my belief that somehow God will make sense of it, but I haven't been feeling sociable.

As it turns out, tendency towards depression runs in my family. In addition to that though, I long ago got into a habit of trying to escape from life by living in my head. Fantasies can be a pleasant diversion from time to time, but it seems as if I have a hard time grasping the reality of some things these days. Sometimes I try running the words "Bud is dead" through my head and it just doesn't compute. But other times I am overwhelmed with emotions - not only about him but about my mother, and about my life in general.

When life gets too painful (which is most of the time nowadays) I can't bear it and so I have to focus my mind on other things that don't hurt. Sometimes those other things involve music or TV or movies, other times it involves fantasies, other times it involves Bible reading and studying. But the way my mind works, things of God and the Bible seem like just another fantasy to me. It's hard to tell what's real any more.

In addition, fleeting thoughts of "I should do such and such" are often brushed aside, only to be remembered again after much time has passed. I used to do this when Mom was alive, but not as bad. I'd think I should call her, and then space on it. Then I'd think, I need to call her but I have to say something about why I haven't called. Then the longer I put it off, the worse it gets and the more of an explanation I feel I have to come up with. My sick mind at work. As I say, I did this before but I find I do it even more now, and much time passes in a fog.

I know this is something I need help with, and I am in the process of trying to find the right source of help. This is complicated by the fact that my wife and I are also in the process of changing doctors and health insurance. But I am hoping and praying that it all gets worked out soon. In the meantime, if anyone reads this and feels inspired to pray for me, please do. And for those who haven't heard from me in a while, please bear with me.

Bud

My brother Bud has been active and healthy for many years, and was an inspiration to us in that area. Today he was riding his bike and a deer jumped in front of him, and he was killed. That is so mindbogglingly bizarre I can barely put it into words. My sister kept saying, “How can a loving God allow that?” And frankly I had no answer. I used to think I did, but none of the packaged answers I learned over the years come close to being helpful or comforting at a time like this.

I'm still processing. To be continued...

Craig Ferguson Has Figured It Out

Craig Ferguson has figured out why everything sucks. It has to do with the shift from respect for elders to deification of youth. This clip is from his show on July 21. He's funny but he actually makes a lot of sense. OMG! Comedy that makes you think? On CBS??!!!

Change - But How?

I recently received a link to a video in which a "Reverend" spouted off about how evil President Obama is, and saying that "white folks are going to rise up" the way black folks did in reaction to the Rodney King incident - and this was from a black minister. Moreover, this man practically foamed at the mouth with his hatred for Obama, repeatedly calling him a "long-legged Mac-daddy" (whatever that means) and worse. No matter what you may think of the president's politics and policies, we are told to honor and pray for our governmental leaders, not spout off such strife-gendering rhetoric.

That doesn't mean we just sit back and "do nothing" as pacifists and apoliticals are accused of. There is a very real and powerful stance we are supposed to take, and it's more powerful than any riot, rally or demonstration. The following article by Pastor Chuck Jones is from the June 2009 issue of Focus on the Kingdom. See if you don't agree with the Biblical view presented.

Change — but How?
By Pastor Chuck Jones

I believe that the only weapon we have is the Word of God. There is power there. The word is the Gospel. But it's not meant to beat people into submission. I advocate what Paul said in Romans 14:4-5: "Who are you who judge the servant of another? To his own lord he stands or falls. Yes, he will be made to stand, for God has power to make him stand. One man esteems one day above another. Another esteems every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind." We are all answerable in the end to Jesus as head of the Church. Yet unity is something to be sought and treasured.

So with that said, here's my point of view. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, my subjects would fight." Fighting as the world fights, boycotts, petitions, lobbying and so on, isn't in Jesus' arsenal of weapons. Nor Christians killing Christians in war. If we learn to fight with the world's tactics, then who are we learning from (or disciples of)? That's one of the dangers I see.

It's been said by some, "The early church, rather than being on the outside, did all they could to get into it, effect change and improve the system." This brings up some questions. One is this: when the Apostle James was killed by Herod, where do we read about "improving the system"? Were there protests or riots? God's justice was that "Herod was eaten by worms." Acts 12 gives a good example of prayer rather than protest. Protest would not have been tolerated at all, but prayer can't be stopped. Indeed the disciples were driven out of Jerusalem because of persecution. Peter wrote about how to handle this in his first epistle. He didn't talk about getting involved with the government. Can your child not pray silently in school?

I hold the view that the weapons we are to use are not according to the world's way. That is to say we don't need to pick up this world's weapons in order to bring about change. "For though we walk in the flesh, we don't wage war according to the flesh; for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the throwing down of strongholds, throwing down imaginations and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:3-5). I don't think that political action is preaching the Gospel. Did Jesus overthrow Rome or try to?

I will admit that I could be wrong, but I'm convinced of this: This nation isn't the Kingdom of God. Preaching the Gospel is our only tool to make any change, and it is one person (of 6 billion) at a time. This is the only way people are brought to repentance and born again to a living hope (Mark 1:14-15).

I am gaining an aversion to "pressuring people" to do anything I think they should. Part of it is in the first paragraph; another point is in 1 Corinthians 6:10. I'll only highlight one group, the extortioners. These are those who use undue force or legal power or ingenuity to force people to do what they don't want to. Those who practice extortion will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

There was an incident in Grand Rapids, Michigan a couple of decades ago concerning an adult XXX theater. Some believers decided to picket the place with the desire to shut it down. I learned something from the owner. In an interview he said he was glad for the publicity. If he had no customers he couldn't stay open.

The lesson is: it's the individual heart that needs to be changed. That change turns this man's customers into non-customers, and he's out of business. This is what Paul the Apostle ran into in Acts 16. I do not read about protests, letters, lobbying or any pressure put on the government to "change." But I do read about deliverance through Yahweh's intervention. I would also assert that in Acts 17 Paul again ran into trouble because he was preaching the Gospel against man's idea of what is right. It is silly to conclude that the Gospel won't have any effect but man's methods will!

Letterman Lunacy

I am amazed at the power and influence this blog wields. No sooner had I written about Talk Show Memories in my previous blog entry than this controversy about David Letterman makes headlines. :)

The thing that sticks out in my mind is, why have so many people turned it into a political issue? I read through several blogs and comments about it, and was amazed at how many people - both liberal and conservative - have referred to one or the other as "typical" of their "side" of the political road. Dave Letterman has been called perverted, and a vile, narcissistic fool "like most leftists." Sarah Palin has been called opportunistic and hypocritical, "like most rightists." But wait, didn't she already lose the election?

For anybody that hasn't followed the brouhaha (Brouhaha? Ha ha ha!) let me recap. It all started with three admittedly (by Letterman) tasteless jokes. Here is TV Guide's summary:

On Monday's Palin-themed Top Ten list, Letterman joked that the governor went to Bloomingdales' to buy makeup to "update her 'slutty flight attendant' look." Then, on Tuesday, he joked about the Palins keeping their daughter away from Eliot Spitzer. And then there was this, about the family's visit to a Yankees game: "There was one awkward moment during the seventh-inning stretch when her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez," he said.

The biggest reason for the uproar was that it was actually Sarah Palin's 14-year-old daughter, Willow, who had attended the game, not 18-year-old Bristol. However, many people who heard the jokes understood them to be references to Bristol, who was in the news during the campaign precisely because she was an unwed pregnant teenager. But if you look at it, the jokes were more about Spitzer's and Rodriguez's reputations than they were about Bristol (or Willow) Palin.

Sarah and Todd Palin both issued statements:

From Todd Palin: "Any 'jokes' about raping my 14-year-old are despicable. Alaskans know it and I believe the rest of the world knows it, too."

From Gov. Sarah Palin: "Concerning Letterman's comments about my young daughter (and I doubt he'd ever dare make such comments about anyone else's daughter): 'Laughter incited by sexually perverted comments made by a 62-year-old male celebrity aimed at a 14-year-old girl is not only disgusting, but it reminds us some Hollywood/NY entertainers have a long way to go in understanding what the rest of America understands — that acceptance of inappropriate sexual comments about an underage girl, who could be anyone's daughter, contributes to the atrociously high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others.'"

Letterman read these statements on the air, and responded that the jokes were not intended to refer to 14-year-old daughter Willow, as the above statements seemed to indicate, but rather to 18-year-old Bristol, who, as Letterman pointed out, "was knocked up." Apparently his source had not made it clear which Palin daughter had attended the game with her mother. Still, Letterman admitted that the jokes themselves could not be defended.

"Were the jokes in question in questionable taste? Of course they were," Letterman said. "Would I do anything to advocate or contribute to underage sexual abuse or misconduct? Absolutely not, not in a thousand years."

Of course there are those who claim that the age difference doesn't matter, the jokes were still in poor taste. Letterman admitted they were. There are also those who have said, "He never would have made such remarks about the Obamas' daughters." That's quite true. Because the Obamas' daughters were not presented onstage with the announcement of their unwed pregnancy.

I'm not passing judgment on Bristol for that, but at the time the Palins defended her by saying that everybody makes mistakes. Has Sarah similarly allowed Dave to "make mistakes" in judgment about his material? Not at first. After his on-air clarification, Dave invited her to come on his show and talk it out. She issued the following statement through her spokeswoman, Meg Stapleton:

"The Palins have no intention of providing a ratings boost for David Letterman by appearing on his show. Plus, it would be wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman."

Afterward, Sarah herself was interviewed by Matt Lauer on The Today Show, who gave her the chance to clarify the statement.

Lauer: I'd like you to explain what that meant. Are you suggesting that David Letterman can't be trusted around a 14-year old girl?

Palin: Hey, take it however you want to take it.

Of course, Letterman has since offered a complete and unmitigated apology, which Palin has accepted. But has she offered an apology for her not-so-veiled implication that he was a pedophile?

But the stupidest part of the matter is the sheep on both sides of the political fence who have turned the issue into a political arena. Rightists act like Letterman is a political figure who speaks for The Left and represents All That is Wrong With Our Country Today, while leftists use it as another excuse to portray anyone who says they have values as a hypocrite. Granted the timing of this mess does seem like a rather convenient opportunity for Sarah Palin to get back in the spotlight, especially since many more similar jokes (and worse) were made about Bristol during the campaign, without comment or response. Why make such a fuss now? Then again, it may turn out to be good for Letterman's ratings too, so it's kind of a win-win situation.

Nevertheless, there are leftists questioning whether Sarah Palin is qualified for public office, and rightists clamoring for David Letterman to be fired, if not burned in effigy. (This is another reason why I am staunchly apolitical.) If it were a matter of national policy or anything relating to political issues, I could perhaps understand the outrage. After all, politics and talk shows make strange bedfellows. But for goodness sake, it was a few lousy jokes out of thousands of lousy jokes (in his own estimation) that he has told over the years. Let it go, people. Have you nothing better to argue about? I'm sure you could come up with something if you tried!

Talk Show Memories

With the recent passing of the Tonight Show torch from Jay Leno to Conan O'Brien, I have been thinking about talk shows in general, especially those I grew up with. For years Leno and Letterman have been running pretty much neck and neck, and I liked both. But there will never be another Johnny Carson. Nor will there be another Steve Allen.

Johnny Carson did it for thirty years and was the undisputed king of late night. Several contenders tried to compete but ended up falling by the wayside (I did enjoy Dick Cavett at times though). Not only was he the best at what he did, but the caliber of celebrities from those days is a thing of the past. I was recently watching old episodes and clips from those days on YouTube, and enjoyed nostalgic reminders of the old greats like Jack Benny, George Burns, Bob Hope, Dean Martin, George Gobel, Don Rickles, Rodney Dangerfield, and so many others. They just don't make them like that any more.

In addition to the guests, I liked his style of humor, as seen in sketches like the Tea Time Movie with Art Fern, and Carnac the Magnificent. He had a playful style and a mischievous streak that allowed him to get away with comments like when he told Dolly Parton, "I have certain guidelines, but I would give about a year's pay to peek under there." But he also was a great host, and knew how to put his guests at ease and allowed them to shine without needing to top them. Many current big names got their start on his show.

Before Carson inherited it, the Tonight Show was created by Steve Allen. Most of the usual trappings that are associated with talk shows were invented by him, such as the opening monologue, interviews at the desk, banter with the band leader, audience participation segments, and so forth. Even bits where they take the camera outside and interact with people on the street, that David Letterman does so well now, were first done by Steve Allen way back then.

I was only a year old when Steve Allen quit the Tonight Show so I never saw it, but I do remember him well from a daytime talk show he did in the late '60s. It was that show that first introduced me to him, and I credit it with having a permanent influence on my own style of humor. His quips and ad lib responses to ordinary questions still reside in my memory and I find his unique style of word play leaping out unexpectedly on numerous occasions. To this day I still use his classic responses: "Good to see you!" - "Thank you, it's good to be seen." Or, "Great having you here" - "Thanks, it's great being had here."

A psychologist on his show once said that the only two fears a child is naturally born with are fear of loud noises and fear of falling. Steve quipped, "I've always been afraid of making a loud noise while falling."

It wasn't until years later that I learned how much influence he had on the whole genre of TV talk shows. Nearly everything that they do today was done by him originally. He even had a character called The Question Man, who gave the answer to a question first and then the question, which Carson adapted in his Carnac routine. And he was innovative and original, never satisfied with doing the same thing over and over.

Many people have commented that David Letterman's show was the closest in style to Steve Allen's old show (at least back when he was on NBC), and Letterman himself has credited Allen with being a big influence. His older "stunt" oriented bits (like the Velcro suit and the Alka-Seltzer suit) and things like Stupid Pet Tricks and its spin-off, Stupid Human Tricks, hearkened back to the old Steve Allen shows. In addition, Johnny Carson made it known that Letterman would have been his choice to replace him, despite NBC's choice of Leno. He drove that point home by making a couple of brief appearances on Letterman after his retirement, but none on Leno.

Jay Leno is a good stand up comic, and I've enjoyed both him and Letterman off and on over the years. But both of them have seemed more "conventional" in recent years. Conan O'Brien took some getting used to at first, but he is more apt to break with convention, and I find him quite funny now. Nevertheless, I don't know how well he'll do against Letterman.

Craig Ferguson, who comes on after Letterman, is probably the most innovative of the current bunch. He's dispensed with many of the formulaic aspects - no "banter" with announcer or bandleader (in fact, no band), and his monologue is more improvised, going beyond the "what's in the news" formula that all the others use. And it's not limited to just the first segment of the show, either. He seems to enjoy tweaking the usual format, such as having a cold opening segment followed by a commercial break and then the opening titles. His humor is totally off the wall too, and I love his Scottish accent.

I almost feel sorry for Jimmy Fallon, who's opposite Craig Ferguson, in Conan's old slot. Although he's a likeable enough guy, he seems nervous and not well suited to monologues or interviewing. But he's had some good guests and may grow into it. Conan was very awkward at first, too.

But fortunately these days I can catch all the shows on line, so I don't really have to choose. And that's good because it's silly to say, "unless we're number one there's no point in doing it at all." Where does it say there can only be one late night talk show?

In the grand scheme of things it makes no difference at all, of course. They're just TV shows. But I do have many fond memories of Allen and Carson, and I hope their memories are preserved and their standards upheld in whatever shows continue to be broadcast.