The Acceptability of Violence

There are two inherent fallacies in western society. The first and most important is that violence is to be abhorred. On the six o’clock news every single day in any city anywhere in this country you’ll see a leading headline about violence between people whether it’s an assault and battery, a murder, rape, or any number of crimes that one person can commit on another. There is idiom in the modern news media which says “If it bleeds, it leads,” meaning that that violence is exactly what the people are looking for.

This idea that violence is to be abhorred relies on a set of false assumptions. First: that people actually do abhor violence. This is obviously untrue. If we did abhor violence we would not want to see this kind of news on the television, hear it on the radio, search it out online, or play the games on our consoles and computers; but the media produce these news programs because we DO want it. The media, like everything else, is produced in a market-based economy. Everything, including news and entertainment, is a product to be bought and sold. If a station wants to lead in the ratings they need to give the people what the people want. No one will watch otherwise. So that's exactly what the media does: they give the people crime, violence, and bloodshed; and the people just soak it up like a sponge.

This leads to the second lie, that we are an unsafe society. There is an assumption that no matter where or who you are, you are not safe. The news sells a story that you are unsafe in your homes and neighborhoods and that there is violence everywhere. Why would they want us in such a constant state of fear? While it is true that the “conveniences” of modern life has inexorably led to a society that allows for more random acts of violence. For example, when I was growing up, every kid in the neighborhood knew not to go to certain houses or play in certain yards. The owners were strange and had an unexplainable, fro our perspective, desire to meet and talk to children. If someone were to go missing, this person would immediately be suspect number one. With the expansion of social media and a transient society, we are far less likely to know our neighbors. We don't know anything about the new people moving in down the street so we are suspicious of everyone. Moreover, children can now invite complete strangers into their home through facebook friendship and instagram follows. This false familiarity can lead children to take themselves directly to their would-be abusers. Delivering themselves as if they were under the spell of some Pied Piper of 0's and 1's. Finally, as the end of the 20^th century (and the rise of the serial killer showed us) no where in the country is out of reach by car, a criminal from another neighborhood, city, or state could drive some distance to commit their crime and then return home without suspicion. Although there are “boogey-men” out there, the media seems to hype these stories beyond the pale. Why? The reason is two-fold. First, the media has become the 4^th Estate. They are controlled by the same money and forces that control the government and they can control what people are talking about. The second reason is to reinforce the idea that the government is the answer to questions of safety.

The United States was changed more by one invention than by many others combined. As cars arrived on the scene in the United States in the middle of the 20^th century, the ability of the drivers to get what they might usually get at home (food, sleep, etc.) grew as an option. The fabric of society changed as the concept of a mobile society developed. This change created “needs” from whole cloth. For example, at a restaurant in the Midwest, someone had the idea that a driver should be able to stop at a restaurant to get food, but not go inside. Thus, the drive-thru was born: a driver would stay in their car, order from the car, get their food in the car, to eat in the car or take home for consumption there.. There was no previous market demand for this service, obviously a world without cars would not have even made it available,but a market was created once it was available. Essentially, now that people could have it, they want it. That is why you can find a drive thru at any stop on any highway in America.

In the same way, the news creates a need. People have an innate, natural need to feel safe. What we hear about from everyone around us, what we see from the world around us, and our natural predilections towards the world create a feeling of being unsafe. In the modern era, television and internet news has fueled these naturally occurring fear sources. Thus, a problem is created. But the problem is bigger than the individual; its a systematic problem- its wide spread. We need someone to solve that problem for us. Just in the nick of time comes government in its many forms; whether it is the local jurisdictions, the county jurisdictions, the state or the federal government. At all levels, they provide, amongst other things, an answer to the problem of safety. Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying “Anyone who would give up any liberty for any safety deserves none of either.” Yet, our American society has developed in a way that encourages the people to embrace that very concept. We are willing to give up seemingly any amounts of liberty for even a brief feeling, or illusion, of safety.

As to the first fallacy, an abhorrence of violence certainly has its place. No one would wish to return to Aristotle’s natural state of man. Aristotle said “man is brutish and crude and violent.” Without an agreement amongst people as to what protections will be provided, society will degrade in a way that can’t be controlled. (This is the inherent flaw in anarchism.) There must be a check and balance between human beings. But the people themselves are not able to enforce the checks. There must be an intercessory there to protect us from each other, and if you ask some, from ourselves; this is especially true of those who do not agree with the social contract we have created. It is these few who create the sense of fear in all of us.

The truth is that violence in certain circumstances is abhorred. The rules of our social contract say- if a one man guns down another in the street, its first degree murder and it’s a crime; as has become a point of contention of late, if a police officer shoots an innocent man grabbing his wallet, not a weapon, and the act is taken in the line of duty it is necessary and justifiable. Violence in the form of crime is to be abhorred; but those who are placed in the position to protect us are exceptions to that rule. Violence on their part is not to be abhorred. The irony is that the circumstances remain exactly the same: one person armed, one person not armed, no truly justifiable reason for the act (e.g. self-preservation) but the action is taken. In one case the shooter may spend the rest of his life in prison, if not worse depending on the particular State. In the other, a commendation is given; the news reads a report about a brave police officer. This, in a nutshell, is the base of the problem. In order to move forward, we must embrace and address this fallacy that violence is to be totally abhorred, except when ordered or sanctioned by the government or a governing body. As a general construct we must admit that some violence should be accepted. We cannot make a bold, black line statement that when the government does it, its okay; but when any other party does it, it’s not. That will be the first issue to address.

Second on the agenda we must address the idea that the government’s goal is solely your protection. A government is made up of men. While, ideally, the men we elect serve us solely; we know that this is not the truth in practice. They are only men themselves. The idea that these men are not, and could not be, self-serving is an obvious untruth. We live in a country where, once elected, there is a 98% return rate. (In the mid-term 2014 elections, that fell to approximately 96% but before the election the governing body had an approval rate of 11%) This means that once a candidate wins his first election (statistics show that the first re-election campaign is the most uncertain, but no latter than the second election) he is almost guaranteed to retain that position. The concern for our politicians is the 2% (or in 2014- 4%) risk of not being returned. They don’t want to be voted out of office. So they take actions that will retain their positions (ignoring for the moment the importance of campaign finance/raising money which certainly creates other problems). One they address frequently is the public’s concern about safety; but, they are not looking to make the people more safe. The truth is they want to increase the appearance of safety in order to impress, but not address the real problems so that they can continue to run on a campaign of creating safety. Its really a self-serving concern. The problem is not just about safety, or reelection, it’s about the consolidation of power. The desire to stay in power leads ordinary men, placed in extraordinary positions, to take every actions they can to secure that position. Essentially, the entire governing system wants to survive in its current form. In its current form, it benefits the people who are in power. While this may be a rotating list of names, it is the same class of people. It is the same group of people that remain in power, and who are benefited by that power, no matter what the individual name of the elected official may be.

We must now move on to the crux of the matter, and identify a further fallacy. If it is true that some violence is acceptable and that the government is not solely interested in our protections, the inevitable question is do these two paths intertwine? As this is written, the city of Ferguson, MO is being turned upside down. (For posterity, a local police officer named Darren Wilson shot an unarmed teenager named Michael Brown. His case was taken to a grand jury who decided not to issue a True Bill for Ofc. Wilson. In response, the city was rocked by protest and violence) However, while so much focus is being placed on what is happening directly in Ferguson, those activities are just a symptom and not the disease. Metaphorically, a patch of red bumps on your skin could merely be irritation or eczema; or it could be a symptom of Lupus. Mainstream media and the government are trying to focus the attention of the nature on the isolated incidents occurring in Ferguson and ignoring the systematic problems that have led to it.

There are three divisions amongst the group of participants in the mass action in Ferguson. First are those that invoke the names of Ghandi and MLK and preach non-violence in their demonstrations. This group marches, waives signs, and utilizes the media coverage to convey a message of the need for systematic change in our country. The second are those that 'simply want to see the world burn.' They have used the opportunity of the Ferguson protests to loot and burn in a expression of frustration with their current socio-economic position (or perhaps just to act with impunity). The final group are those that are utilizing violence as a form of protest. They are directly confronting the police, the agents of the oppressors, and returning in kind the violence that they are receiving. This third group is the focus of this writing.

Much hay has been made, by politicians and the media, about the violence in Ferguson; however, careful study of the violence clearly shows the difference between the two groups who are utilizing it. Just so it is clear, violence in the form of crime (looting, assault on other civilians, arson, and the like) is UNACCEPTABLE. Some in Ferguson have equated the situation to the movie series “The Purge” as the police, fire, and EMS are not responding to calls. While it is true that some have utilized the situation as such, these should be chastised by both groups who are seeking redress of their grievances and they should be dealt with harshly. It is something entirely different to confront violence with violence.

Under the 1033 Program, which is a part of the Disposition Services of the United States Government's Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), “excess” military hardware is made available for lease or purchase by local police departments around the nation. Rand Paul said of the program that the American government "has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts and helped municipal governments build what are essentially small armies.” With access to these materials, it seems that local governments have looked for excuses to use them. SWAT teams, once the purview of only large cities, sprung up around the country. Warrant enforcement teams, drug task forces, and riot units are common place amongst even small town law enforcement. Of late, these militaristic police agencies have turned small towns into war zones. It is estimated that upwards of 1,000 American citizens are murdered by the police who have sworn to protect and serve them.

So what can be done? It is interesting that many voices, in an academic setting, question how is it that totalitarian governments rise (think USSR, Germany, Haiti, Yugoslavia, etc). Where are the people to take a stand against the oppressors? These same voices now decry the use of violence in resisting the rising oppression of the American police state. Ironically, they stress nonviolence and protesting as a means to effect change and redress their grievances. They, with a complete ignorance of the subject, stress how history is replete with examples of nonviolence defeating the strongest enemy; ignoring the fact that it is only movements who have actors that embrace change by any means necessary that have accomplished the change they seek.

To summarize, it is simply this. We must break ourselves of the belief that violence is never the answer. We must break ourselves of the diametrically opposed idea that when a government actor uses violence it is always acceptable. Further, we must break ourselves of the idea that the government's only goal is to protect and serve us. We must recognize that they have all of the power and have no regard for our lives, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. We must also recognize that while nonviolent protesting has its place and role, we must not be afraid to meet violence with violence with the goal of freedom from oppression.

To all of the patriots in Ferguson, those joining them spirit in cities across the nation and the world, and to the legions of Anonymous online: keep fighting the good fight. You are not alone. To those especially on the ground, face to face with the police and national guard take heed the call: Give them no quarter. Meet force with force, shield with shield, baton with baton, gas with gas, and bullet with bullet. We are all with you.

Join The Movement. Find out more here.

Orbital Science, Antares, and NASA - The future of human space exploration after the loss at Wallops Island.

With the loss of the Oribital Sciences Corporation Antares rocket, and the Cygnus CRS-3 payload, at Wallops Island Flight Facility last evening, questions will again begin erupting about the viability and need for NASA. The loss of the spacecraft, the ~$250 million price tag, the 5,050 pounds of supplies, and more will all create an uproar about the wasted money and resources. If you want to know what a quarter billion dollar explosion looks like, here you go:

The official story is that, at T+6 seconds, the second first-stage engine failed before the entire airframe fell back onto the launch pad. Fortunately, there were no causalities. FYI, this is what the launch should look like:

(And if you are interested- this is the typical full mission profile for the Antares/Cygnus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU-XS8pX77k )

Forgetting the above, NASA has had a slew of failures over the past decade or more. Let's see how many you remember:

• The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) Satellite
• Demonstration for Autonomous Rendezvous Technology (DART) Spacecraft
• NASA Helios
• Genesis
• Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS)
• The Mars Polar Lander (MPL)
• Deep Space 2
• The Mars Climate Orbiter (MCO)
• NOAA-19
• Columbia

Odds are, most people will remember the MCO, MPL, and Deep Space 2 (the MPL and MCO were in the same flight and all three were doing the 'smaller, faster, cheaper' policy time at NASA) and we all remember the Columbia disaster, but you probably wouldn't remember any others.

But what about NASA's successes? Do you remember any of those? How about this list:

• Man in Space
• Man oribits Earth
• Space walk
• Man on Moon
• Voyager explores the Solar System and now interstellar space
• Mars Rovers
• Redeavous with comet
• Mission to Pluto
• Rendeavous with Astroid
• SETI
• Numerous Earth mapping, scientific, and communication missions

Wow. That's quite a list too. But is the juice worth the squeeze?

NASA asks and answers the big questions of humanity. Space is truly the final frontier. Although some argue that we have not completely investigated the depths of Earth's oceans or its core, Space is literally infinite and we have only scratched the surface of what there is to learn. Space exploration also asks 'who are we?', 'where do we come from?', 'what's out there?', and 'are we alone?' Are there bigger questions mankind can ask themselves? Inherent in those four questions are everything we have ever learned about ourselves and all the questions that develop every time we chip away at the darkness. The answers to those questions are out there somewhere. Not to mention, the impact that those answers may have on our understanding of ourselves, our religions, and how we relate to the universe around us. Out there may even be the answer to who, what, or even is there a, God? Unless we keep looking, those questions may go unanswered.

BUT, its not just about the existential, there are other important reasons to continue space exploration. The most basic of which, is to encourage our future here on Earth. Space exploration requires people with the knowledge and skills to maintain our programs. During the boom of the late 50s and 60s, students began going into Math and Science programs. Although not all of them ended up at NASA, they helped to power and run the greatest period of economic growth in American history. Couldn't we use that again? And once we get out there, everyone can agree that there are untold riches in natural resources found in limited supply on earth but abundant in our local solar system. We just have to get to them!

There is a middle ground between the existential and material as well. There is one simple truth summed up by this picture:

Isn't that telling? Human beings, all of mankind, trillions and trillions of people, have all lived and died clinging briefly to the surface of this single blue marble in space. Only 12 men in history, over two and a half years, have left this planet and touched down on another heavenly body. Human kind is one asteroid, comet, pandemic,or other ELE from being wiped off the Universe's white board. All that would remain of humankind is a few trillion dollars of junk liberally distributed on and around the inner planets of the Sol (the name of our Sun) Star System. Every step we take out into the cosmos puts human survival, as a species, a little closer to a reality.

With all of this at stake, why WOULDN'T we continue with NASA's mission? There are really only two strong arguments. The first is, that we have enough problems down here on Earth. The US is facing a 17 trillion dollar debt. We need every dollar we can spare to address the issues we have in our nation here. Eisenhower, who once vetoed Apollo reminded Americans that "every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." After all, isn't NASA costing us far too much money? Well... not so much. Critics argue that funding human space exploration siphons money from other programs such as helping the nation's poor. They say that NASA is a machine for spending money. They point to the missions above as proof of the waste of money (The missions above totaled about $2 billion- certainly nothing to sneeze at.) But, its important to keep a little perspective.

NASA has a budget of about $20 billion dollars a year. With that budget, NASA runs facilitties like Canaveral, Houston, Glenn Center, Ames, White Sands, JPL, Johnson, Langley, the IV and V Center, Plum Brook, their headquarters in DC, and the Wallops Facility where the accident recently occurred. They also fund the Shuttle replacedment program, the planetary missions, the ISS, their interactions with universities and schools, the telescopes, the communication, weather, and other satellites, as well as a host of other things. How to compare that? If you took the yearly budget for the Department of Defense and split it into 365 equal daily payments, NASA's $20 billion is about five days' worth of that a year. Here are some visuals:

Just so its clear, we put a man on the moon when NASA was given just over 5% of the entire Federal budget.

And one of my personal favorites:

When considering all other factors, $20 billion seems like a drop in the bucket of a trillion dollar budget expenditure.

But the infographics above beg an interesting question: if we had maintained that 60s spending on human space exploration, or if we had merely kept up with inflation where would we be?

The second question that critics make to funding NASA is: where are the results? What does our $20 billion per year get us? Well, a lot actually. NASA has given us billions of dollars in expenditure on stuff we either don’t know or care about- but that do exist. NASA technology helps my cell phone work, helps me text my friends and family, makes me able to access the internet from anywhere, let's me watch Video on Demand, helps me find my way when I'm lost and check the weather where I am and where I wish I was. That's not to mention that the miniaturized electronics developed because of the Apollo Program make all of that technology fit in the palm of my hand and in my pocket. And that's just technology, not to mention the hundreds of other advancements NASA has given us.

As a side note, they have also made us safer. We have made incredible advances in identifying and tracking Near Earth Objects- the type of objects that could impact earth can cause the extinction of mankind.

It's important, here again, to keep some perspective. Humans have always been about exploring. Monarchs of Europe put up money for voyages of discovery since the beginning of time. It’s how the New World was 'discovered' and explored; and it enabled the Westward expansion of the United States. However, while scientists tagged along on many of the gigs, but governments were foremost interested in making money. That continued in this country's history. President Jefferson sent Lewis & Clark into the wilderness to find a waterway to ship goods. Eisenhower’s national highway system made possible everything from transporting fresh produce to the social mobility of suburban living. The Defense Department gave us what would become the Internet. The same can be said about Space exploration. But its more than just about profit. When Charles Lindbergh was asked why he crossed the Atlantic, he never once answered that he wanted to win the $25,000 that Raymond Orteig offered for the first nonstop aircraft flight between New York and Paris. Burt Rutan and his backer, Paul Allen, certainly didn’t develop a private spacecraft to win the Ansari X-Prize for the $10 million in prize money. They spent twice as much as they made. Sergei Korolev and the team that launched Sputnik were not tasked by their government to be the first to launch an artificial satellite; they had to fight for the honor and the resources to do it. It's human nature to push back the darkness and see what lies beneath. For NASA, its bigger. Its the American way. “Go West young man,” has become go out there young people. People still strive to accomplish such things. They do so for reasons that are intuitive and compelling to all of us but that are not necessarily logical. They’re exactly the opposite of acceptable reasons, which are eminently logical but neither intuitive nor emotionally compelling.

But things do need to change. NASA needs to realize that its not just about doing it because its there to do, nor is it just about profit. Its also about image. NASA has to stop talking to itself. They have become the Microsoft of exploration, and it’s time for it to start thinking like Apple: declare big, high/risk and high/reward goals like explorers did. And don't do it quietly, shout it from the roof tops. Did you know that NASA has announced, and started to accomplish, these big goals? Landing spacecraft on asteroids, figure out how send humans to Mars, send rovers there to troll for the best real estate, and unveiling a new heavy-lift rocket design to get people out there. But once again, they failed in the image department (thinking like Microsoft instead of Apple) and named it the SLS. Not Andromeda, New Hope, or whatever; they named it the Space Launch System. NASA gives its rockets acronym names like they’re line items in a budget, which of course they are. We need NASA to become the engine for getting thousands of other companies, institutions, and individuals involved in space exploration and development. Well, to be fair, we need them to be vocal about the fact that they already are:

Today, NASA trudges along in their mission statement. From the NASA website:
NASA Today

NASA conducts its work in four principal organizations, called mission directorates:

• Aeronautics: manages research focused on meeting global demand for air mobility in ways that are more environmentally friendly and sustainable, while also embracing revolutionary technology from outside aviation.
• Human Exploration and Operations: focuses on International Space Station operations, development of commercial spaceflight capabilities and human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit.
• Science: explores the Earth, solar system and universe beyond; charts the best route of discovery; and reaps the benefits of Earth and space exploration for society.
• Space Technology: rapidly develops, innovates, demonstrates, and infuses revolutionary, high-payoff technologies that enable NASA's future missions while providing economic benefit to the nation.

The Future

Even with the retirement of the agency's space shuttles in 2011, NASA has a robust program of exploration, technology development and scientific research that will last for years to come. Here is what's next for NASA:

• NASA is designing and building the capabilities to send humans to explore beyond Earth orbit, including the development of the Orion spacecraft and Space Launch System rocket, working toward a goal of sending astronauts to an asteroid in the coming decade and then to Mars by the 2030s.
• The International Space Station is fully staffed with a crew of six, and American astronauts will continue to live and work there in space 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Part of the U.S. portion of the station has been designated as a national laboratory, and NASA is committed to using this unique resource for wide-ranging scientific research
• U.S. commercial companies have begun delivering cargo to the space station, and commercial industry partners are working with NASA to develop new spacecraft and rockets to transport astronauts to and from low-Earth orbit, allowing NASA to focus its attention on the next steps into our solar system.
• NASA is researching ways to design and build aircraft that are safer, more fuel-efficient, quieter, and environmentally responsible. NASA also is part of the government team that is working to develop the Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen, to be in place by the year 2025.
• NASA is conducting an unprecedented array of science missions that will seek new knowledge and understanding of Earth, the solar system and the universe.

So where does that leave us? Well its a decision for all of us, isn't it. If you ask me, there is no question. When I look up at the night sky full of stars, I feel small ( and it takes a lot to make me feel that way). I am forced to ask big questions, questions I don't know the answer to (another thing I don't like). I feel the yearning to go out there and explore. To find those answers that escape me. That's the existential side of me. The logical side of me, however, has the same answer, because all my concerns have been addressed. Where do you fall?

©Robert Cheek, 2014

Detroit: The Heartbeat of America

And How Baltimore Bandwagoners broke my heart

The victim is on the table and she's bleeding out. It seems that her very life is leaking from her body like a sieve. Like Julius Caesar, she's been set on by those she trusted, those she held in high esteem, those who she thought she could depend on; close friends and advisers.

The EKG is closer to plains than mountains. It seems like everyone has given up. 

The victim's name is America, and we're losing her.

Created with flickr slideshow.

I recently had the pleasure of visiting the great city of Detroit, MI. I was struck by my visit there- but maybe not for the reasons you would think. 

I was told once that Detroit was the heart of America. Within a few miles of downtown, one could find examples of each type of industry that was helping America lead the world's industry. Detroit was, of course, the home of the automobile. But one could find steel, oil, and manufacturing of every variety in close proximity as well.

Now, Detroit is the anchor of the Rust Belt. It's downtown skyscrapers, built by the wealth of the 20th century, now sit vacant in the 21st. Its population, drawn by plentiful work since the industrial age began, has now evaporated away: less than 10% remain from its height. But there's one thing that hasn't changed: the heart of the people.

I was in town for a baseball game. In a town that takes sports very seriously (when there is little else, we cling to those things familiar to us), I was the enemy. It was the American League Division Series. My beloved Orioles were making their second trip to the playoffs in 3 years, but only the third in 17 years. We had taken Games 1 and 2 at home (in Baltimore) and on a lark, the posse drove 22 hours (in a 30 hour period) to see our team play Game 3 away. It was a serious venture. Game 3 of a 5 game series means 'win or go home.' (or in this case 'win or stay home') so there was a lot on the line. The atmosphere was so thick you could cut it with a knife. And here we were, the four of us, deep behind enemy lines.

 

When we first arrived in Detroit, we took a driving tour of the city. Cory had been there the year previous on his way to California, so he directed us through the beauty and the horror that is Detroit. Even the cursory drive that we took showed a city ravaged by economic downturn. Three things came to mind. The first was images of Sarajevo in the early to mid 1990s. When I was in school, the Balkan conflict was on-going and fresh. I remember seeing images of the 1984 Olympic Games held in that city. The pride of the World was on display. Just a decade later, the Olympic village would house the forces of Oppression and genocide.  The entire city was bombed out and in ruins. In Detroit, there had been no war, no genocide; but there was Oppression. Unfortunately, there was also Depression.

Created with flickr slideshow.

The second image that came to mind was untitled pictures of some sub-Saharan capital city: Kinshasa, Mogadishu, Nairobi, Kigali, Dar es Salaam- the jewels of previous empires now laid waste by war and economic downturns. After World War 2, when the British, German, French and other European powers waned and independence movements sprung up, a continent of new nations was born. Whether it was a civil war that sprang from independence, a struggle for power between warlords, or an economy that was laid to waste by the previous two or the disconnect from the greater empire markets; all of these capitals now laid vacant and falling in on themselves. Perhaps Detroit has more in common with this example. Laid waste by abusive warlord Mayors who acted with contempt to the people and a desire only for their own wealth; and a disconnect from the economic power of the American empire that waned in the latter quarter of the 20th century. 

The final image that came to mind was New York City in the fall of 2001: a city that had suffered the worst that could be imagined but had retained its soul and its will to survive. The unseen enemies had taken their best shot, but it wasn't enough. Even though the physical had been laid to waste, you couldn't crush their spirit. In NYC, it was 20 acres; for Detroit, it was 20 miles; but the sentiment was the same. Once we left the car, all of those things feelings were confirmed.

Our first stop was old Tiger's Stadium, i.e. Navin Field or Briggs Stadium. Although the stadium itself is gone, the historic field remains. The posse played catch on the same grass where Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and every important player in baseball history played. But it was more than just the field that made this stop special, it was the people.

Created with flickr slideshow.

We had the opportunity to speak to one of the members of the Navin Field Grounds Crew. This is one of those groups that I can't help but smile when I talk about. They are a group of baseball aficionados, Tigers fan, and historians that got tired of the eyesore at the corner of Michigan and Trumball Ave. At first, they were chased off by police, but now, they are thanked for their hard work in maintaining the old field (work that cost the city of Detroit $4mil a year between 2000 and 2006). 

This guy was the greatest. He knew all of the history of the field, the neighborhood and the city. He had his opinions, he told jokes, he let us in on 'inside secrets'; you could not have asked for a better guide. I said after we departed, Detroit should have a toll booth before you enter the city where you spend 5 minutes talking to this guy. If they did, no one would leave Detroit with a negative experience. But we talked about more than baseball, we talked about the city itself.

I knew a little bit about the history of Detroit and its relationship with the state government in Lansing; but it was so interesting to get a locals perspective. The abusive, warlord-like activities of the mayors (gaining personal wealth, insider contracts, and pay-offs were common); the state involvement which made things worse instead of better; and the economic downturn he had seen in his life. The city he painted from his memory was a dream; what we saw around us a nightmare. It was his final comments that struck me though (and forgive me, I'm going to paraphrase him).

'That's Detroit though. We take a licking and keep on ticking. Yea, the jobs are gone, the buildings are empty, the people left- but you can't kill Detroit. We're going to be here forever. We've recovered time and time again, and we'll get past this. You won't recognize this city in 20 years, I bet you.'

Wow. I was stunned. What a sentiment. Like a heavyweight boxer, deep in the 12th round, getting up from a staggering combination that landed him on his back. But, with a smile on his face, he gestures towards his combatant beckoning him to take another swing. 'C'mon! Let's go!' Bruised and bloodied but not beaten.  I looked around at the city and I'm not sure I could express the same. Seeing Detroit in that condition and hearing how it 'used to be', I may have been one of those that left for greener pastures. (That being said, knowing how I love Baltimore, I'd be in til the death too.)

We left Navin field, after parking in the old employee lot at the invitation of our guide, and headed across Trumbull Ave to McShanes and from there on to the game. For 4 hours, we mixed it up with the Tigers fans. They gave us a healthy amount of shit and we were respectful when the Orioles won (eliminating the Tigers). After the bus ride back to the car, I was stopped by a few Tigers fans in the street. They congratulated me on the win and encouraged us to do well in the ALCS. With a handshake and a slap on the back, we were on our way back to the car, and shortly thereafter, on our way back to Baltimore. Before we left, EP spotted what we thought was a ticket on the windshield. I couldn't help but laugh- karmic exchange for an ALDS win? I'll take it. But it wasn't. It was a karmic pay-off for being respectful human beings.

What a great feeling to head back home with. My faith in so much was rejuvenated that weekend. Not many people know, but I have this habit (hobby?) of writing speeches that I want to give someday. I have one that always pops into my mind called 'The Grinder'. Giving the speech to former maufacuring workers, most likely union guys, who have seen their jobs be outsourced over seas; the crescendo goes something like this: 

So take out those Grinders [Detroit](enter city name here), because were going to take them to this old Rust Belt and give it a new shine. New manufacturing jobs! A stronger economy through modern manufacturing. Send me to Washington, and I'll send those back here to you! (hold for applause)

I wanted to do that for Detroit now. I wanted to reward every single person that stayed and endured. I took that sentiment back to Maryland. It inspired me to restart my writing here and my fiction writing as well. In the end, I want to do that for the entire country. I see my city, my state, my nation suffering and I want to help. I think I have some good answers for the questions and solutions for the problems (or maybe I'm just too narcissistic to see them for the bullshit they really are) but in any event, I want to lend my voice to the conversation. 

postscript

The subtitle to this post came from my experience at my home stadium at Game 1 of the ALCS. Imagine that my last baseball experience had been 800 miles from home in a 'dangerous' city where my team eliminated the other team; but I was greeted with respectful prodding and in the end left with a positive impression of the whole trip.

Then Game 1 at Oriole Park came. The Royals were in town, and as luck would have it, I struck up a conversation with some Royals fans and we had that give and take that I had experienced in Detroit- except now I get to be the awesome home team. (I would like to give a shout to Ryan W., David O., and Caroline N. who I COMPLETELY forgot during the podcast but I tried to make up for that otherwise.)

Then, the bandwagonners had to join the conversation. This guy- wearing no Orioles gear, who knew none of the chants or cheers, and misidentified some of the players (i.e. a 'new', bandwagon fan)- who was clearly moody because of the light rain falling, chose to get very disrespectful to the Royals fans. It was begun by some general comments when the Royals went up at the top of the inning, and that's to be expected. We were all disappointed. But they took it too far.

Created with flickr slideshow.

I'm a traveling fan. I've seen the Orioles play in several major league stadiums in difference cities. I've seen other games for other teams in other stadiums (wearing my O's gear of course). I like to think that, much like happened in Detroit, I am given respect because of the respect other fans get in Baltimore (and my attitude at those games). 

Baltimore has, by far, the best fans in baseball; maybe the best fans in all sports (in which we participate). Unless you're a Yankees fan at a weekend game or going to a college night game (where the drinking gets the best of everyone) you can expect to get some playful jeering but for the most part a respectful, good time. I pride myself on that. We are a self-policing group and if someone gets out of hand, the crowd is usually the one to handle it. We don't stand for anyone's shit.

That's what I was doing at Game 1. I let it go for a bit, until it was clear that the Royals fans were getting uncomfortable. So I spoke up. I called the guy out on being a bandwagoner. I called him out on not knowing players, chants, or having any gear. I told him it wasn't those fans fault that our guys couldn't produce runs or get outs; that they were being respectful; and to shut his mouth and watch the game.

That, at least, turned his ire towards me; rather than at those fans. He and his group of friends kept saying things to me, of course, but eventually, the other O's fans shut them down and they left. 

I tell that story to say this. To the bandwagon fans- relax, seriously. To Oriole fans, let's do a little more policing for Games 6 and 7 please. To Royals fans, thank you for being great fans and respectful to our stadium and city.

One final note: I appreciate baseball for what it is. Its a game, yes, and its a pasttime. It's something we do that brings us together and distracts us from everyday life. There are a lot of problems in the world and more specifically our country today. Let's remember that it is just a game and let it relax us but not blind us to everything else going on that we need to address. In Detroit and in Baltimore during these playoffs, I have seen fans of all types stand at attention and sing the National Anthem at the beginning of a game and sing God Bless America at the 7th inning stretch. Every time I hear it, I'm reminded why I keep fighting and keep educating. This is a great nation full of amazing people.

Like the citizens in the city of Detroit, we believe in this country, we'll never give up, and we'll always fight. 

Robert Cheek ©2014 

7 October 2014 - The Day

7 October 2014.

 That was the day.

 I've been called a lot of things. Most of those things aren't fit to repeat even here. There are two that really bother me.

The first- inconsequential (or its synonyms). There is no bigger insult than to be told you don't matter. Whether its in my professional career, my other work, my personal life, or the big gray area that's forming in the gaps, I just want to know that I matter- that I'm making a difference.

 The second- coffee shop revolutionary. This I've heard since the first time I made the “Reformation” argument. I heard it in high school. I heard it when I started my first draft of “Founding the Future”. I heard it when I worked for campaigns, when I managed campaigns, and especially when I ran for office. I heard it when I started the blog, the website, and just about every effort I've made.

What is a coffee shop revolutionary? Urban Dictionary defines it as “An individual (coffee shop revolutionary) or group of individuals (revolutionaries) who speculate on the utopia that "could be" following radical societal, governmental, and cultural change without actually taking action to do initiate it. The prefixes of "Coffee Shop-" or "Armchair-" imply that the individual or individuals who desire reform or change lack the interest in making the sacrifices to take part in it. They are also the people who have the luxury of playing the all-knowing spectator to an event or social situation. (Definition) Coffee shop revolutionary has a very negative connotation. Immortal Technique (who by the way will provide the soundtrack to the revolution) has some unique thoughts on it.




In a way, those two insulting terms, used in conjunction, is maddening.

 That brings me back to 7 October 2014. That was the day that I had enough. So what happened to bring me to that point? Let's review. First, this was my reaction:

>@MDSP you should prob educate the Trooper who just left the @AccessDNR facility in Queen Anne about using excessive speed on 404 w/out his-
— Rob Cheek (@robertncheek) October 7, 2014

...emergency lights; using his bullhorn at highway speed; and that the law still applies to him despite the symbol on his car and... @MDSP
— Rob Cheek (@robertncheek) October 7, 2014

...the badge on his chest. Next time I'll publicly tweet his car number. #classactionlawsuit #highwaypirates @MDSP @AccessDNR
— Rob Cheek (@robertncheek) October 7, 2014

This is what I, surprisingly, received back:

I'm surprised I heard back, tho I'm sure nothing will come of it except a ticket for me. #justified #highwaypirates

— Rob Cheek (@robertncheek) October 8, 2014

This is what lead to it:

 The vehicle I encountered was one of 4 that I identified leaving the Department of Natural Resources facility yesterday evening. (The facility is here: Map  ) (The Maryland State Police use the gun range there) The first I encountered heading Northbound (I was heading Southbound) just North of the intersection of Damsontown Road and 309. (This intersection: Map ) This vehicle was traveling at an obvious high rate of speed but I was traveling parallel and opposite of it. It was followed by two more marked MSP vehicles, also heading northbound, one I encountered at the intersection mentioned above and one just south of that intersection. The third vehicle left the northbound travel lane and entered the southbound travel lane a few hundred yards in front of me as it failed to fully negotiate the right hand curve. 

When I passed the DNR facility, I saw a fourth marked MSP vehicle, which seemed to be the last one leaving the facility. It turned in behind me and waited at the light at the intersection of 404 and 309 in Queen Anne. While we waited, I saw no other vehicles leave the facility. After the light changed, we proceeded through the intersection and the vehicle remained behind me, turning into the sole Eastbound lane on 404. The vehicle remained in what I would consider an unsafe following distance from the intersection, through the construction zone, and up the rise opposite the Choptank River bridge, as we both followed a commercial van gaining speed at a much slower rate.  

Once Eastbound 404 divided into a four lane highway, the vehicle moved quickly into Lane 1, coming far too close to my rear bumper for comfort and I remained behind the van in Lane 2. He quickly gained speed as we traveled down Eastbound 404. I moved into Lane 1 and pursued the vehicle. It passed no less than four vehicles in Lane 2 and slowed only to allow a slower vehicle in Lane 1 to move into Lane 2 just before 404 becomes a two lane highway again. The vehicle did not activate its emergency lights nor its sirens at this point, or for the entirety of the incident. As the vehicle was forced to slow, I was able to make contact again and join traffic behind the vehicle just after the intersection of 404 with 480/Ridgely Rd. 

Once traffic was single file, the vehicle accelerated again, reaching speeds in excess of 70 miles an hour and pulling away from traffic. I kept the vehicle in sight and paced it using roadside signs to maintain distance and speed. As I could identify my speed and the vehicle moved away from me swiftly, I could estimate the velocity. At times, the vehicle traveled above 80 mph. After the first intersection of Saathoff Rd with 404 and before the second, the vehicle slammed on its brakes and executed an emergency stop, leaving the travel lane and coming to rest on the shoulder. I proceeded past the now stopped vehicle which then accelerated to catch up with me. 

As we proceeded Eastbound, the vehicle followed me, at the posted speed limit, but at times so closely that the headlights of the vehicle could not be seen as they were blocked from view by my rear bumper/trunk. The vehicle was close enough that I could clearly see the Trooper behind the wheel. As we traveled Eastbound, the vehicle alternated traveling inside 1 car length behind me and backing off several car lengths. As we approached Eastbound 404 and Holly road, the Trooper once again quickly closed the distance and followed me within 1 car length. 

As the road divided, the vehicle moved into Lane 1 and I remained in Lane 2. I heard the sound of the bullhorn through my window, it was clearly not the siren which had still not been activated nor had the emergency lights. Unfortunately, I was unable to hear the substance of what was announced over the wind noise. The vehicle then proceeded at a high rate of speed down Eastbound 404 in Lane 1. I did not pursue, because at that point I feared, based on the behavior, what might occur should a stop be executed. 

I would estimate that the vehicle traveled again near 100mph away from me and down Eastbound 404. Another vehicle further down the road was forced from Lane 1 to Lane 2 with the oncoming Trooper behind him. I exited Eastbound 404 at Business 404 but the vehicle had already proceeded out of sight in the direction of the intersection of 404 and River Road/Matthewstown Road.

 I included, in my contact with the MSP, the description above along with this: This is not the first occasion I have had to see a MSP vehicle, marked or otherwise, violating the very traffic laws to which I, and everyone else, am regularly held accountable. I don't believe this Trooper was on duty, but I have witnessed both on-duty and off-duty vehicles operated in the same manner. I appreciate you contacting me, but I am under no false belief that anything will actually be addressed. I am sure that, likely, nothing will occur and it is only my life which will be impacted negatively, both personally and professionally. Just the same, I'm fed up, and I will be using what little soapbox I have to hold both the MSP and local police and sheriff's departments accountable for their actions. However, I will share your quick response to my passive aggressive social media complaint.

When I got home, I was so mad I was shaking. I spend a lot of time trying to separate my professional duty and my relationship with the police from my personal feelings about the abuses I see around me. I spend even more time parsing out the good cop/bad cop dynamic.

I'm tired. The whole thing has exhausted me. So I'm done.

This is my declaration of intent. From here on out, I will be doing everything I can to bring some semblance of equality to the system; to bring justice where it needs to be but isn't found. That was my moment. What's yours?

Have you found the thing, person, or event that pushed you over the tipping point? If not, what would it take? What will get you off the couch, out of the coffee shop, and into the battle?

© Robert Cheek, 2014

Book Review: In the Jaws of the Dragon

            It’s not very often that a book opens my eyes to a problem. That’s why I was so excited to read In the Jaws of the Dragon by Eamonn Fingleton.

            Fingleton outlines the popular wisdom that opening Chinese (and other Asian) markets to American products, and also opening American markets reciprocally to Chinese markets in free trade was good for both countries, as well as a way to promote democracy and capitalism in Communist China. However, as In the Jaws of the Dragon makes perfectly clear neither of these facts is true.

            The fact is, instead of American values and markets changing China, the Chinese have changed America. Using what Fingleton calls the “Confucian truth ethic’, the Chinese have convinced American leaders, corporate CEOs, globalists, free traders, and the entire American public of the positives of this arrangement; while they swept the truth under the rug. The truth is American businesses have sent jobs overseas, have sent American capital overseas, caused a surge in the black market of American goods.

            Fingleton points to the rising piracy of American intellectual property and copyright as well as recent concessions to Beijing by Internet companies like Yahoo! and Google as the reverse convergence of Chinese values by American companies. Not only are our business interests being subjugated, but also our national security interests are at stake.

            In the Jaws of the Dragon is the result of 20 years of study and research, and the facts discovered cannot be contained. Fingleton reveals the secrets behind the Chinese phenomenal savings rate and economic growth; and the reasons that American products are not embraced in Chinese markets. This system is at odds with our Western market ideals, but the Chinese have sold a bill of goods that Americans have taken hook, line, and sinker.

            Globalists and free traders point to China as a success story. In four decades, a market of over a billion people has been opened and capitalism is affecting the Chinese economy; proof of which is a rising Chinese affluence. Fingleton shoots down these arguments with conclusive proof.

            As In the Jaws of the Dragon points out, access to Chinese markets is a good thing, as is free trade with such a large population. However, we must be assured that ‘free trade’ is also ‘fair trade’. Fingleton outlines changes we, as a country, can make in our foreign trade policy to erase trade deficits and take advantage of the system, the way the Chinese have for decades, equalizing relations.

            If you want an eye-opening read on China (and other Asian markets) read in the Jaws of the Dragon. I guarantee it will change your perspectives on the issue.

            © Robert Cheek, 2011, 2013

Equal Rights and Religion in America

"[T]here remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government & Religion neither can be duly supported... the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against.

Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance... [R]eligion & Govt. will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together...

We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without then with the aid of Govt."
- James Madison, July 10, 1822, Letter to Edward Livingston

This post may be my most controversial yet, but I think my position is well known. Let's start, as it were, at the beginning. 

The United State's was not founded as a Christian nation. That idea is utterly false and is not supported by any of the historical data. Yes, the colonies enjoyed far greater religious freedom than other parts of the empire, BUT it was by no means a strong hold for Christianity. Many people point to the Pilgrims emigration to Massachusetts as a sign of this "religious founding" but we too often forget one important fact: Massachusetts was not the first colony. Nor were the Pilgrims who came the only inhabitants of Massachusetts. 

The first colony in the New World was Virginia. There, the idea that religion was any fort of factor in colonization is laughable. Colonists came to Virginia (and Roanoke before that) for one simple reason: Money.  The almighty dollar (or pound sterling I suppose) was the god of that colony. The British sought to colonize North America in order to make a profit off its natural bounty. Like spices from Indonesia, tea from China, and silks from India- North America offered its own resources that could be exploited: Timber (which was harder to find in the United Kingdom), Fish, game, and, according to legend, gold. Once colonists were here, they learned about Potatoes, Tobacco, Maize, and other crops which could be sold for a profit back in the old Country. The slave trade from Africa developed in response to this craving for more goods. Money and manufactured goods went to Africa to purchase slaves, which were in turn taken to the Americas as cheap labor, which produced the raw materials and food stuffs, which were in turn taken to Europe for manufacturing and distribution. Notice, not once in that description did you hear about God.

Now, as we all know, the Puritans had fallen out of favor in England. Granted the opportunity, they made their way to the New World, far from the eyes of the King and the Anglican church. While they were the first, they were not the last. Jews, Quakers, Methodists, Baptists, and other religious groups which opposed the Catholic or Anglican church also migrated to the New World for the same reason. The puritans were outsiders. With their strict adherence to dogma and refusal to bow to Rome or to the Anglican Church, they were  ostracized from the rest of society. Think of their dress- this was not a fashion statement. When you think of the Puritans, especially their dress, think of strict Mulsims who wear Burqas. They took their religion seriously, so much so that even in today's society, they would likely STILL be ostracized. 

One hundred and fifty years later, the colonial period had come to an end and North America was in the throes of decolonizatievolution or reformation: we'll cover this in a later post). On the other side of the violence a discussion began about the country. Those who we look to for guidance, even today, stood up and began a debate about what the country should look like.

Vincent Phillip Muñoz, PhD, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Tufts University, wrote in his paper "Religious Liberty and the American Founding" published in the Spring/Summer 2003 issue of Intercollegiate Review:

"...Although the founders agreed on the legitimate ends of government, they disagreed about the means the state could use to secure those ends. Specifically, the founders disagreed on whether the government legitimately could employ religion as a means to secure republican liberty. Two general positions existed. On one side stood the libertarians, who emphasized the need to limit government in order to protect civil and religious liberty. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson most clearly represent this position. On the other side were those of a more conservative disposition, who believed religion supported the good order of society and thus that government should endorse and encourage religion. George Washington most clearly represents this position."

Charles L. Cohen, PhD, Director of the Lubar Institute for the Study of the Abrahamic Religions wrote:

"The Framers did consider religion an important source of social morality - but they also knew that religious broils could destabilize governments, and, more than almost anything else, many of them feared denominational conflict."

These two quotes outline my general point. Yes, during the Constitutional Convention, there was much discussion about what role religion should play in the new country. However, their overarching concerns were a government religion, government interference in religion, and the conflicts of different religions or different sects of a particular religion. Notice, not once did I say Christian above- merely religion. 

At this point, we could have a debate nunc pro tunc of the different quotes of the Founding Fathers, but instead, I will summarize thusly: Most of the founders were religions men. Most of them would identify with the Christian religion (although most were Deists which have a particular flavor of Christianity) however, they took clear steps to assure that the government they created was separate from the religious sects in the nation: for the mutual benefit of both. I think this can be summarized by a single, rather famous, quote from Thomas Jefferson: 
 

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Jan. 1, 1802, Letter to the Connecticut Danbury Baptist Association

So how does this call in to question the issue of equal rights. This, too, should be clear. There are many social issues in America that have a religious overtone or require religion to be part of the conversation. at some point we will address them all, but obviously abortion is a big one. The other one is what I have called equal right, but could just as easily be called civil rights. More aptly, its the treatment of homosexuals by society as a whole. 

I want to go on a brief tangent here to address why this is even a controversial issue. By all accounts, it shouldn't be. However, after the Republicans suffered huge losses in the wake of Watergate and Jimmy Carter won the White House in 1976, the republicans were looking for an in with the voting public. It had been about 15 years since the "Great Switch" when the two major parties had in great part exchanged their electorates, and in many parts of the country, that move hadn't been completed. It was at that point when the Moral Majority reached out to the republican elite and a partnership was formed. The republicans- who at that point were representing the wealthy whites of the Old South and Mid-west realized that they were on the verge of becoming the party of the minority. So, in a miraculous reformation, they became the party of God as well. Ronald Reagan was elected, and they began to make in-roads in Congress and in the local elections as well. Finally, in 1994, for the first time since WWII, Republicans won control of both Houses of Congress. A war of attrition began which reached its pinnacle in the 2000 election and has plateaued since then: the parties swapping control of one house or another, and eventually the White House as well. 

However, you don't win votes by professing religion, loosening corporate restraint and keeping taxes low on the ultra-rich. That doesn't win you votes anywhere, let alone in 'fly-over country'. So they took another route- a deviously smart one. "Keep taxes low on everyone!" They said, "Keep the government out of your pockets!" What they should have said was, we won't raise taxes on you, but inflation and our economic policies will keep you poor and make you poorer. "Keep government small!" they said, but what they didn't say was we don't want the government watching our friends poison you, the environment, and making things unsafe but more profitable. The most devious though, was they said- social issues are the most important thing! Don't worry about the jobs going overseas, don't worry about the crappy economy, don't worry about the trillions we are spending on overseas wars, don't look at how horrible the school system here, or how your dollar buys less and less everyday! NO! There are women making the decision to terminate pregnancies! They are taking God out of schools! The Ten Commandments can't go outside a public building! (and for our purposes here) The gays want to be equal! God says that's a sin and they want to be just like us!

Here's the point: I am, and we all should be, sick of people wrapping hate and fear in the pages of a holy book. More importantly, we should be tired of our politicians telling us that these issues are more important than one's that may affect the survival of the republic. Here's something not everyone knows about me: I am a pastors son. I was once very involved in the church. Given that, I have extensively read the Bible. However, I also know my heart. I have to balance what I know to be right and what my beliefs tell me. For my own knowledge, I have also done historical studies of the bible and every other holy book.

What people so quickly forget is that, neither I nor the state care about your religion. You can worship God any way you see fit- as long as it doesn't affect others. There is even a Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But my view on religion is just like my view on the other parts of the Bill of Rights: that document gives you the right to do anything that you want, right up to the end of your nose, your fingers and your toes. The moment that any right bestowed upon us interferes on a right of another person, our rights need to give way insomuch as they have minimal effect on others.

This argument of religion against civil rights is not a new one. In the middle years of the 19th century, those around the country who supported the continued state of men as property often used the Old Testament to justify that argument. All throughout the Old Testament, there are mentions of the Israelites taking and keeping slaves- the strict rule being that they must be slaves from other lands. Well black africans were certainly from another land. They were just above beasts but much easier to train. Fifty years later, women were moving towards suffrage. White men looked to the Bible to show that women should be subservient and generally they were below men. They shouldn't be equals- an argument they would echo a generation later when feminism and equality in the workplace arose. Another fifty years down the line, the same biblical, religious arguments were used against interracial marriage and voting rights. Now, they are going back to the well, using religious arguments against homosexual equality- more specifically marriage equality. 

When it comes to religion, I have found my own path. Although at some point I wandered away, I never ran from God, I embrace the True God: The God of forgiveness and acceptance. The God whose son didn't judge, and accepted everyone. The Son who would not look at someone and say "I love you, but I can't accept you." Rather, Jesus told them to come unto him and break bread and live as one. It is said that the Bible being a book for yesterday, today, and tomorrow- and they are right about that. Much like Aesop's Tales, it is a book of morality and conduct- using parable to teach lessons, and should not be taken literally. That that is what people do- they point out this verse and that one and use them to justify withholding rights from people. 

I want to be clear- you are entitled to your opinions and beliefs up and until they require that someone else change theirs or that it affects them. When your opinions and beliefs mean that my friends have to fight for years for something that I can drunkenly do as a joke in Vegas and annul the next day. If you ask me, and any logical person, no one has the right to that opinion.

A message that has been popularized in recent week's by the Duck Dynasty debacle is no less harmful. That is the message that "I love them and I accept them- but I don't condone the lifestyle." In and of itself, that argument is not horrible. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I would never ask someone to support something they didn't believe in. BUT- once again, when you use that argument as a reason to deny someone their rights, it is unacceptable.

By taking the "I accept it but I don't condone it" perspective, you are making it socially acceptable for other people, more vocal and active ones, to do just that. To abuse people, to hold up signs saying "God Hates Fags" and to drag people who are just living the way God made them 14 miles behind their truck before tying them to a fence and leaving them for dead. And years from now, no matter how small the impact of what you say is- they will feel the way that so many did from the 50s when they said- "I don't condone black integration, but I accept that there are black people and I can't stop them from having lunch here." Its shameful, whether you take part in it directly or indirectly.

Finally, I'd like to leave you with a metaphor:

I like blue shirts. I like blue shirts so much that no one else should be able to wear blue shirts unless they wear the blue shirt I like, in the way I like it. So I'm going to go every where I can and rail about how you shouldn't be able to wear a blue shirt. I'll see you in a blue shirt and I'll scream in your face and turn my children away. I accept that I can't stop you from wearing a blue shirt- but I can do everything I can to make your life hell for wearing it.

THATS this argument! And, decades in the future, once again this country will be left with shameful period where people had to fight for rights given so casually to others. It should be embarrassing for us all and it will be stain that won't wash away easily.

    © Robert Cheek, 2013