Update from the
Heartland
No.753
16.5.16 – 22.5.16
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Saturday
evening, our local family gathered at West Elk High School in Howard, Kansas,
to witness Granddaughter Tylyn’s graduation from high school. She graduated with honors and a GPA of
3.89. Well done, Tylyn! We are very proud of her
accomplishments. She will begin
her college education at MidAmerica Nazarene University in Olathe, Kansas. Tylyn’s family offered a delightful
buffet reception afterward. We all
had a great time. Congratulations,
Tylyn.
In
Tuesday’s Wichita Eagle, this
editorial caught my attention:
“Allow gender change on birth certificate”
Editorial
Wichita Eagle
Published: MAY 17, 2016 12:06 AM
I immediately wrote a short letter to the editor.
All
of my life I have stood for the fundamental and unalienable rights of every
citizen to their choices in “Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.” I served 25 years in the U.S. Marine
Corps, defending those rights for every citizen, not just the chosen. I am a supporter of and advocate for
transgender citizens. How they see
themselves and choose to identify themselves is their private choice entirely,
full stop. I laud your support of
transgender citizens in opposition to the archaic notions espoused by the
Brownback administration. What the
state government is attempting to do, as is being done in other states, is
wrong on many levels and contrary to the founding principles of this Grand
Republic.
Yet,
I am deeply troubled by your editorial.
A birth certificate is an historic document; it is not a matter of
gender identity; it is a simple, direct, snapshot of a moment in time, like a
photograph. It represents the
judgment of a medical doctor at the time of birth based on her/is highly
educated observation of genitalia at the moment of birth – anatomy and biology,
not gender identity. Allowing
retrospective alteration of that historic document is NOT the way to solve our
current political debate.
We
are all embarrassed by Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S.
Constitution. Fortunately, that
shortsighted, compromise provision was superseded by the 13th
Amendment, but it was constitutional law for the first 77 years of this Grand
Republic – that is history. We
cannot and should not attempt to alter history.
I
strongly urge you to focus the ire of your pen on the root cause, not the
symptoms in this question. There
remains a significant and influential minority (perhaps even majority,
depending upon perspective), including our current governor, who feel it is
their right, their obligation, their duty, to impose their beliefs on every
resident of the Great State of Kansas.
It is that antiquated, ill-informed, intellectually unsound attitude
that is the root cause here. Gender
identity is NOT the problem.
Although
I doubt anyone reading this edition of the Update is unaware of the
disappearance of Egypt Air Flight 804 (MS804), I feel compelled to note that
far too many people from political presidential candidates to technical
analysts (who should know better) have jumped far too quickly to terrorism as
the cause. While I understand and
appreciate the urge, in the troubled times in which we live, the available
public evidence does not justify such presumptive statements that are not
helpful for the truth. The search
units have recovered surface debris from the flight. I suspect they will locate and recover the Flight Data
Recorder (FDR) and Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) in comparatively short order.
A
few reminders might be useful . . . Egypt Air Flight 990 (MS990) [31.10.1999]
could have easily been classified as terrorism, and yet more likely it was
suicide with company, like GermanWings Flight 9525 (4U9525) [693, 694; 24.3.2015]. Unfortunately,
we are likely to never know why the MS990 crashed. Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (MH370) [638, 691, 711, 716; 8.3.2014] disappeared; it may well have been terrorism, but it
could also quite plausibly be another suicide with company, e.g., 4U9525. My message here . . . let us focus on
the facts, however long it takes those facts to emerge, and not jump to
emotional conclusions.
I usually do not pass along the doomsday crap I read nearly
every day. Yet, occasionally
something sparks my attention. Here
is an exception:
“Enjoy your transgender bathrooms. We just lost America.”
by Kyle S. Reyes
New Boston Post
Published: MAY 17, 2016
This one caught my attention, largely because of the
title. OK . . . call me
shallow! Guilty! Reyes last two sentences seem the most relevant
to me. “It’s time we start having
some very difficult and very real conversations. I hope this helps start that.” Agreed. That has been the underlying purpose of this humble forum
for more than a decade and remains my primary motivation to continue spending
the time to collect, digest and reflect the information. Fortunately, for all of us, enough
readers choose to contribute their opinions to further the objective of this
humble forum. Thank you all.
For
those who are concerned or worried about this whole transgender matter, I have
just one question. What do you
think has been going on for the last . . . oh say . . . 50 millennia? Non-heterosexual people, including
gender-ambiguous folks, have been part of humanity since human ancestors walked
upright. Have gender-ambiguous
people been holding their urine in some miraculous manner? Laws discriminating against
non-heterosexual or gender-ambiguous citizens are wrong, ill-informed and
otherwise really bad at the most basic level. Are we really going to inspect genitalia or birth
certificates before anyone can use the restroom? Really? Is this
really what we have become?
Creating a boogie-man for ignorant citizens to fear is hardly unique or
even new.
Just
an odd thought that came to me this week . . .
Regardless
of the religious beliefs of any of us, or whether any of us believes in an
after-life of any form, the notion of an after-life has profound wisdom on many
levels for me. Since my religious
faith is predominately Christian, I shall use the word ‘heaven’ to represent
the concept of an after-life.
The
introduction of the concept of heaven into the teachings of the revealed
religions strikes me as one of, if not the, most profound elements of religious
faith, in that our actions in our lives of the flesh will be judged for
eternity for their worthiness.
This to me is the essence of conscience, morality and respect for other
life-travelers around us. Without
that sense of post-life judgment, peaceful co-existence would be much more
difficult to achieve. Morality is
what we do when no one is watching – the rules of conduct that guide our
behavior. Thus, the thought that
God is watching and our actions will be judged is a civilizing concept that has
made us all better, regardless of our belief systems.
An
interesting opinion:
'God is Being Eroded, Eclipsed, Liquidated' in the United
States, Cardinal Says – Robert Sarah warned against a 'demonic' threat to
American society and encouraged prayer.”
by Rachel Dicker | Associate Editor, Social Media
U.S. News & World
Report
Published: May 18, 2016, at 1:31 p.m.
I shall respectfully and emphatically disagree with Cardinal
Robert Sarah. His cited reasons
are private matters, just as an individual’s relationship with God (and her/is
choice of religion) is a private matter.
I will continue to argue with the likes of Cardinal Sarah. We must
mature for secular society to recognize the equality of every human being, and
the fundamental right of every citizen to freedom of choice. He is not the arbiter of right and
wrong, good and bad. He seeks to
shame people into conformance with his beliefs, his notion of worthiness. My faith in God is far stronger than he
believes and it cannot be eroded, eclipsed or liquated by anyone.
An
article that instigated a thread of exchange:
“Can White Kids Grow Up To Be Black? Some Preschoolers Think
So”
CBS Detroit
Published: May 19, 2016; 8:32 AM
Contributor comment:
“Very true. Our
nation is rapidly going down the shiter, as the masses turn into those low IQ
folks in Idiocracy, or those with higher IQ but no real way of using
discernment.”
. . . to which
I replied:
I respectfully and adamantly disagree, my friend. We have survived far, FAR worse. We shall overcome.
. . . the
follow-up comment:
“Thank you for the respect and I understand those that are
not concerned about our trend-vector, at least from some the perspective of
Americans. I think the resistance
many of us have whether this subject email's news item or let's say the one hot
in the press now, the transgender bathroom debate, is many of us believe the
GOV and liberal if not socialist news media (and Hollywood, and the music industry)
are acting as change agents, not for the good of the ones they say they are
protecting, but to gain more power and contain our free thought and speech, if not
even locus of control.”
. . . to which
I replied:
We are only controlled if we allow them to control us. I see the issue you illuminate in an
entirely different light. The
Press is no different from society at large. Democracy depends upon diversity of opinion, vigorous public
debate, disagreement, arguments and sufficient citizens who seek
solutions. A lame attempt to
maintain the status quo ante on some
idealized "good old days" is simply resisting change, maturation and
attempting to stop the tides.
Whether the Press is intentionally or unintentionally trying to affect
change is really irrelevant. In a
viable democracy, we are and should be exposed to a very broad spectrum of
opinions. We filter, digest,
absorb and eventually adopt a perspective on any particular issue. My concern in the transgender issue is
the right of every citizen to dignity, respect and equality under the law. Gender identity, sexual orientation,
sexual conduct itself, are private matters and should be beyond the domain of
government or other citizens for that matter. Passing laws about imaginary boogie-men and discriminating
against a very small segment of our citizenry is wrong in the worst possible
way. So, I say and suggest . . .
we do our job as citizens . . . listen, argue, decide.
Comments and contributions from Update no.751:
“First of all, congratulations to your daughter. I wish her the best.
“Now, what caught my eye this week was the following:
“Brownback claimed the success of the Republican front-runner in
the primary season is directly attributable to President Obama. The really sad reality in all this,
Republicans appear even more pathetic when they blame everything, including
their own primary results, on President Obama – the boogie-man did it. Really? What are We, the People, supposed to think of this juvenile
nonsense? The anger that the Republican front-runner managed to tap
into is much larger than President Obama and the desperation that has led so
many to grasp at the closest life-ring they can see.
“Specifically, Brownback says: ‘The really sad reality in all
this, Republicans appear even more pathetic when they blame everything,
including their own primary results, on President Obama – the bogeyman did it. Really? What are We, the People, supposed to think of this juvenile
nonsense?’ How conveniently he
forgets eight years ago when the democrats blamed everything on President
Bush. What did We, the People, think then? Well, I’ll tell you what
We, the People thought. We were
schmoozed by a smooth-talking community organizer from Chicago, and you know
the rest of the story. We are now
paying for it. We’re trying to dig ourselves out of a severe decline in
National leadership and eight years of societal degradation as a result.”
My response:
Re:
“How conveniently he forgets eight years ago when the democrats
blamed everything on President Bush.” I have mentioned this observation many times in my
writing. I did not appreciate the
mindless negativism of the opposition during the Bush (43) administration, just
as I do not appreciate the exact same mindless negativism of the opposition
during the Obama administration.
That said, I do not agree with “a severe
decline in National leadership.”
Re:
“eight years of societal degradation as a result.” What exactly are you referring to
hear? Yes, our society has its
very real and serious problems, but our problems today pale in comparison to
what we faced in the 60’s & 70’s as our society was being literally torn
apart at the seams.
I
understand and accept that some folks do not appreciate what President Obama
has done, yet to portray his performance in totally negative terms does not recognize
reality. He has accomplished a
great deal. He is certainly not stood
up to my expectations, but total failure, I cannot find justification for such
a conclusion.
. . . follow-up comment:
“When I try to weigh in on your posts I am generally referring to
the here and now as I was with the most recent post regarding the present
abysmal administration and the to be abysmal administration, not the 60s and
70s. You forget that we are not
that far apart in age. I was there during those times. Mindless negativism or not, aren’t there
facts to be taken into account? When I speak of a severe decline in
leadership, I am speaking of over extending authority on using Executive
Privilege, enlisting the likes of Al Sharpton as an advisor,
facilitating/allowing the IRS to target conservative organizations,
facilitating/allowing the EPA to do the same, instigating social outrage by
weighing in on situations that he should have stayed out of (Travon Martin),
treating the military with disdain, apologizing for America, facilitating the
Benghazi cover up, exerting control over the Justice Department so as to
prevent them from doing their job, i.e., taking the justice out of Justice
Department, and not holding those under his domain, or himself,
responsible for their/his actions, and for making a secret deal with Iran
that may not be in the best interest of America or the world, and for
promoting/feeding the entitlement base in order to garner votes. All of
this sets the tone for contemporary societal degradation, not degradation in
the 60s or 70s. Aren’t the
generally history-ignorant populace looking up to contemporary leadership for
direction, not leaders of the past as you or I might, or as some intellectually
savvy minds might? And then I get
home from work yesterday to find that our arrogant leader hijacked the
commencement exercise at Rutgers to further his own and his party’s agenda. On a positive note, Obama securely took
the mantle of worst president of all time away from Jimmy Carter. Okay, my rant is over. My fear in trying to provide you
adequate rebuttal is coming off like Alan Combs or Juan Williams or Valerie
Jarrett or Jehmu Greene who hem and haw and deflect, and evasively seldom
provide any answers of substance when asked simple questions. I wish I
had the time to debate you on your level, and for not being able to do so, I
apologize.
. . . my follow-up response:
My
reference to the past is for point of comparison, nothing more.
The
long and short of this . . . you are entitled to express your opinion, as am I,
and I will always listen. So, we
shall respectfully disagree.
Re:
executive orders. I find it rather
baffling that critics of President Obama seem to believe President Obama’s use
of executive orders is somehow excessive compared to other presidents. I think the evidence will show every
president from Franklin Roosevelt and subsequent used executive orders in ways
that can easily be argued as excessive.
I am not aware of any executive order issued by President Obama that is
out of the ordinary when compared to his predecessors.
Re:
Al Sharpton. Come now, every
president should listen to a full range of voices. I am not a fan of Sharpton for a host of reasons, but in
some circumstances, I would like to hear his opinion. Surely, we are not suggesting the president should only
listen to people we approve of in society?
Re:
IRS. I have written before, every
administration has abused the IRS, including Bush (43) and Reagan.
Re:
EPA. Now, there is a worthy
topic. Some of the EPA’s most
recent decisions exceeded their authority, appear to be driven by a political
agenda, and those decisions have been more impactful on society. Just like the IRS, the EPA is NOT a
political instrument. Again, the
Obama administration is not the first to use federal agencies for political
purposes; this observation does not excuse such conduct; violators should be
prosecuted, but they have not been in this administration or previous
administrations.
Re:
social outrage. This is an
arguable point. Again, I look to
history. President Truman took on
racial discrimination as a virtual singular voice back in his day; he
unilaterally banned racial discrimination in federal employment and military
service by issuing Executive Orders 9980 & 9981 [26.7.1948]. Some members of Congress wanted to
impeach him for that action alone, and Truman alone had many others.
I
should continue my observations of your points, but this should suffice. So much of our assessment of any
individual’s performance, opinions, or positions depends upon perspective,
e.g., the glass half full metaphor.
You
are doing quite well with your rebuttals.
I believe I clearly appreciate your opinions regarding President
Obama. We simply do not
agree. I am not an unseeing,
unthinking supporter of President Obama; I only seek a balanced
assessment. I simply believe
President Obama’s performance is as negative as your portray.
. . . Round three:
“Ah, there is finally a glimmer of hope in my Sisyphean rebuttals.
We agree that neither of us is a
fan of Al Sharpton. However,
unlike you, it would please me to no end to never hear another peep from him.”
. . . my response to round three:
Wow! Oh my, I had to resort to the big boy’s
dictionary for that one – “Sisyphean” – wow!
I
choose to hear all voices . . . well, within reason. I read Mein Kampf, because I wanted to know
how or why he thought the way he did and acted out the way he did, not because
I had some yearning to be a National Socialist. Voices we don’t like are important, perhaps more important
than voices we like – peaks need the valleys to be peaks.
There
is always hope.
Another contribution:
“Thank you. I've done many same-sex weddings in the
limousines, mostly females. Never had any issues and they always handle
themselves well, respect the cabin and myself, and usually tip well. I've
actually made friends with one of the couples, the more husband kinda role one,
she served in military and I've actually driven her son's graduation from HS
celebration. It's been a
word-of-mouth thing where in their community they tell others about our company
and my service, and specifically request me. I treat 'em all like I treat
anyone else--well and with respect (I hope). I may not like what Target is doing, or Obama, on this
transgender restroom/locker room issue, but I do try not to judge those in the
LGBT community, as I am not above them or any better. If there is
judgment, I let God do that or the laws of karma. There are many-many worse things than those who are wanting
to marry as same-sex couples. Just
wanted to state my position on that matter sir.”
My reply:
Thank
you for your generous words and observations.
I
did not convey the joyous news in our family to seek approval, or to impose my
beliefs on anyone else. As always,
my words are only my opinion, my perspective, nothing more. I am proud of our daughter and our
daughter-in-law. They are good
people, good citizens, who simply are working on their pursuit of Happiness, as
each of us has an inalienable right to do in life. Let’s allow them that without condemnation.
No
one is asking for acceptance, only respect . . . for their choices (for
anyone’s choices), as all of us would expect for our choices.
Denying
transgender citizens the restroom of their choice is judging them and not
showing them respect for their personal identity. Who are we to judge?
Target is trying to respect the rights of all citizens, including
transgender citizens. Let us deal
with criminal conduct when it occurs, not our perception to other folk’s
private lives.
A different
contribution:
“First of all, hurray for committed loving relationships!
Thank you for sharing your joy, something with which I have had
experience because of similar unions of folks I love. Too bad that our government from the earliest colonial days
made marriage a legal issue rather than leaving it up to non-governmental religious
or other rule makers. All my adult
life I have believed, and occasionally been criticized for it, that it was
unconstitutional for government to favor or disfavor marriage in any way
whatsoever, all the while hypocritically taking advantage of any tax breaks my
marital state afforded. Our country's mistake of having made laws
defining, controlling, favoring, disfavoring, forbidding, rewarding (etc.) has
cost us dearly, when the answer has always been to leave marriage to be
defined, favored, disfavored, etc, (see above) by non-governmental forces.
Now we are obliged to take sides as some folks who disagree cite
legalities to bolster their views and others cite religious freedom. That
being said, I am saddened by the widespread nationwide condemnation of and use
of inflammatory exaggerations to predict ill effects of Mississippi's statute
to protect citizens with sincerely held religious beliefs from governmental
prosecution. Unlike most
commentators, I have read the law and know the motivations of those who have
championed its plain purpose. Of course, no amount of defense will
diminish the din of outrage flooding the media. Again, too bad as a nation we made the mistake long ago of
setting ourselves up for this tragic war among citizens, most of whom really
are willing to live and let live so long as their beliefs are not run over
roughshod in a shouting match.
“Second, IMHO you gave your blogger friend responding to 751 way,
way far, far too much space. His
or her views, some of which are at least interesting and tempted me to comment,
were well acknowledged and appropriately countered by your own. No need for more than one round with
that blogger... Whew!”
My response:
Thank
you for your kind words.
Re:
marriage. Interesting
observations. I would have no
problem with anything you suggest as long as everyone’s freedom of choice is
respected and treated equally under the law. Discrimination in the matter of public policy and conduct for
any reason that does not respect every citizen’s inalienable right to “Life,
Liberty and pursuit of Happiness” is simply not acceptable in a free society
and especially within the example this Grand Republic represents.
“Sincerely held religious beliefs” do NOT enable, allow or
rationalize discrimination in public conduct, period. I truly respect the religious beliefs of each and every
citizen, as long as those citizens respect my rights and the rights of other
citizens. Who an individual
chooses to associate with, accept, condone, whatever in private matters is the
right of every individual, but there is a huge difference between the private
and public domains. The issue here
is public conduct. Restroom access
is a public matter. The operation
of a business is a public matter.
Respect under the law is a public matter.
Difference
of opinion and a vigorous public debate are essential to any democracy. We must disagree and challenge
ideas. It has always been my
purpose to give voice to dissent, to contrarian views, and to other
perspectives. I will continue to
make every effort to give as much space as I am able to further public debate.
My
very best wishes to all. Take care
of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
The flap over transgender people using restrooms is pointless nonsense as a national issue, and it illustrates the depths to which the two major parties have fallen. The Republicans benefit from this because it's still more red meat for the "moral values" voters and perhaps rouses fear in a few of their truly paranoid followers that are not burned out on this stuff. What do the Democrats get from keeping this going? They get to claim they are defending the downtrodden and it makes a distraction from the fact that they are not defending anyone from Wall Street or their other major donors. That roster resembles the Republicans' major donor list more than either party wants voters to realize. We need to quit wasting airtime, money, and energy on this. Americans have more important issues.
Your first linked article this week ("We Just Lost America") lacks quality in both thought and writing. Mr Reyes basically lists the many issues on which the writer feels everyone else should just shut up and then spends a couple of sentences talking about "unity." I see the Constitution and the history of the United States as illustrations of "unity in diversity," and I do not see disagreement short of violence as a threat to our nation. He's just whining because his side is losing so many arguments. The same applies to Cardinal Sarah.
The only real thing wrong with with the CBS report on young children's perception of race is the headline, and that's not so bad. The notion that a report on children's intellectual development via perception of race somehow implies some disaster is beyond me. The report simply identifies the age at which children realize that race cannot change, typically somewhere between the ages of 6 and 9. The only "problem" I can even imagine with that is that it means children are not born racists, which is negative only to racists.
Calvin,
Re: flap. Agreed. Quite so. That was my point precisely. Transgender citizens have been using restrooms as long as there have been such facilities available to the public. This was a terribly cynical, bogus issue, and to think state legislators and the governor wasted their time and capacity passing such a foolish law, making a problem out of a non-problem, and then making it illegal. Yes, indeed, we have far more important topics to discuss and debate.
Re: “unity of diversity.” Spot on, my brother. My resistance to the morality laws rests predominately upon my objection to other people or the State entering the private domain. Morality is a private matter between the individual and God, and it is taught by their parents from infancy with most of it set by five years old.
Re: “children are not born racists.” Amen, brother. They are taught racism by their parents and those around them, as they are taught whatever morality they group up with in childhood.
“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment