Half-hearted about half-mast

The Governor has ordered flags around that state to be lowered to half-mast on Friday in honor of Reverend Billy Graham whose funeral is that day. I have debated if my neighbors will notice if I don’t participate and leave my flag all the way up. I’m debating it for two reasons:

  1. Billy Graham doesn’t fit the guidelines of who we are supposed to honor with half-staff. Then again, a lot of people don’t. I think we are getting a bit too liberal with the half-staff. I’m all for recognizing national tragedies and the passing of major elected officials. I feel like Billy Graham’s death is less of a national tragedy and more of the death of that old awkward uncle that everybody is secretly thankful they won’t hear from anymore.
  2. You’ve probably figured out already that I’m not a big fan of Billy Graham. It’s not just a a theological difference. It is a moral and civil rights difference. The guy openly and actively opposed same-sex marriage. He believes his religion dictates women should be homemakers. Graham denied his daughters a college education because they might turn into “career women.”

I googled and checked to see if Democratic governors had issued calls to half-staff their flags. The couple I checked had done it as well. So it isn’t just a Republican thing.

I think Friday, my flag will staff at full-staff in my own quiet little act of defiance. Even if my neighbors don’t notice.

Open letter to the NRA

Dear NRA,

I am a former NRA member. I am a gun owner. I have grown up on households with guns. They were used for sport and for varmint removal. I was given my first gun when I was a young boy. I don’t own nor need an assault rifle or a handgun. They stay securely locked up in my house. I know literally see that they are locked up, every day. If I had reason to worry about the safety of someone in my house including my kids, I would not hesitate to give them to a family member to hold on to.

What I’m writing you about today is the writing on the wall. I don’t know if you have noticed but there is an entire generation of young people, mostly still in high school, who are opposed to your political stances. Within a couple years, those young people will be voters. And within the next ten years there will be more of them voting than NRA members.

Now I get that your power doesn’t come from voters. It comes from money you wield in campaigns. Money from gun manufacturers, gun industry, and high end financial donors. You actually don’t have much voting influence you just have financial control over candidates. But here is the rub. In ten years, that won’t matter anymore. In ten years, you will be hiding who you give money and support to otherwise they will be voted out of office by this young generation. You are on the cusp of fading.

Now, you don’t have to go quietly. You can literally hold onto your guns until they are pried from your cold dead hand. There is also another option. Rather than letting the government set up databases for tracking and deciding what laws to put in place, maybe you could step up and be a part of that? Maybe you could help be the future of a safer America with reasonable gun laws?

I realize that means back pedaling a bit. In corporate terms they call it a “pivot” now days. Some things I’m thinking you could do….

  • encourage good mental health habits among your members and their families
  • develop a system for reporting NRA members to resources if you have concerns about them
  • develop a system for a fellow NRA member to “hold” firearms of another member if there are concerns about that member
  • develop a system for reporting stolen or missing firearms
  • develop education programs that encourages people not to leave firearms, particularly handguns in unsecured locations (ex. glove box of unlocked cars)
  • develop a system for training and vetting people who want to purchase assault rifles that isn’t just “Bubba says he’s an okay guy”
  • be a partner with law enforcement in helping determine who should and shouldn’t have access to firearms
  • stop playing the victim
  • start playing the responsible citizen

These are just a few ideas. I’m sure there are other people with more. But your decision point is now. Do you want to pivot and be relevant in 20 years or do you want to got for Plan A the “cold dead fingers” option?

Sincerely,

Paul

 

My problem with pronouns

There is a trend in certain liberal circles right now to put “your preferred pronouns” on your email, on your business cards, on your name tag at conferences, etc. I don’t do it. Yet, I live in fear of being challenged for not doing it, in part because I’m a cisgender hetero white male who  runs in multiple liberal circles. And I’m sure I get perceived as being a “cranky old white dude” not willing to give up power. But I actually have two other reasons that I don’t do it.

First: Privilege. Note that the only place you see this trend is among educated elite and like-minded groups of liberals. You don’t see the cashier at Taco Bell or the grocery store worker doing this. You don’t see this trend with school custodian or manufacturing workers. And if Taco Bell did allow this, could the staff get mad at customers and correct them when they didn’t use the right pronoun? I mean Starbucks can’t get some people’s names right but I have to get their pronouns right? The reality is that advertising how they want people to interpret their gender isn’t a luxury they have. I’m not claiming to be one of them. In fact, the opposite. As a privileged straight white male, I’m not going to use my power and privilege to further dictate to people what they call me. I feel like dictating what pronouns you use to describe me is like the professor who insists you call them doctor or professor. As if you need to constantly remind them of their special place in society. Telling people to refer to me as “he” is just saying “remind yourself of my privilege.” Even the military gets tired of using ranks with people you work with all the time. On this note, I’ve noticed that it is largely women and non-gender binary folks who participate in this trend which makes me wonder how many other white males feel this way.

Second: It doesn’t function in practice. At a conference, I had a speaker pass out pronoun stickers and tell everyone to put it on their name tag. Then during her session, two minutes later, she started repeatedly said “I can’t see your name tag from up here, so I’m going to assume you use _____” from the front of the room. Not only is this the case at conferences, but we also don’t walk around with our email signatures pasted to us every day. If you really want to be inclusive in your language, don’t modify it for each person – practice saying “they” and using people’s names all the time, not just at conferences and on email. I feel bad for non-gender binary folks who have a preferred pronoun but often find people using the other one. I just don’t think telling people what pronouns you prefer is the answer to changing several thousand years of language programming. Encouraging society to adopt a single non-gender specific pronoun for every single person seems the better linguistic and practical route.

Welcome to the Party! [No moderates allowed.]

Just a short note to compare two different stories.

In Vincennes, Indiana, Major General Rick Stevens (Army, retired) tried to register as a Democratic candidate for a state legislature position. The Chair of the Knox County Democratic Party won’t approve his application. While he was in the military Stevens identified as Independent. Since he didn’t vote in the last election (he was on an assignment in Washington DC), supports the military, the second amendment,and is a moderate on immigration the chair isn’t convinced he is really a Democrat. There is apparently a strong stance against moderate Democrats in Knox County. Only far-far left are allowed. For more, check out: Potential candidate, party chair at odds over application

Meanwhile, the Republicans in a “here, hold my beer” sort of way have said “We’ll take it to the other extreme and let anyone be a Republican!”

Arthur J. Jones will be running for a seat in the Illinois legislature. The Chicago area Republican party apparently has no concerns about his Republican-ness. Jones has been involved in anti-Semitic and racial issues for years. He’s marched in full Nazi uniform, billed himself as “the White People’s candidate” and called the Holocaust, “the biggest, blackest lie in history.” He is also against interracial marriage and school integration. At this point, he is the only Republican on the ticket, which recognizes the Republican’s commitment to only far-far right candidates and certainly no moderate Republicans. For more check out: Holocaust denier likely to appear on ballot for GOP for Chicago-area congressional seatl

In a world without moderates, we only get what we have now…….a dysfunctional congress subject to temper tantrums and publicity and leaders who are more concerned with grandstanding and being on the news than actually doing their job.