Tiring of the racism accusations...

There's an interesting thread at IdahoFallsToday.com about the local opposition to President Obama's schoolroom speech earlier this month. The author of the post asked a genuinely good question about the outrage over what turned out to be a pretty innocuous speech about working hard and staying in school.

The comments by readers, however, immediately accused those of us (I was one) who opposed having the President's speech aired to America's classrooms of being racist. A discussion about race ensued, many of the commenters talking about how we're racist here in Idaho and we don't even know it, because we've had a sheltered life, and we're a bunch of ignorant prejudiced Mormons, blah, blah, blah.

I have no doubt there are some who are indeed racist, and include skin color in their grievances against the President. In all the look-what-Obama-is-doing-to-America discussions I've had with friends -- and I've had many a discussion -- there's never been a mention of his race. For me and those with whom I associate the only reason we're are aware of his dark skin is because the false accusers of racism keep bringing it up.

I do oppose Obama. But it's because he's deceptive, utopian, leftist, and he surrounds himself with scary radicals. His vision and dogged pursuit of that vision fuels plenty of opposition. I'd oppose a scary leftist utopian Swede, and I'm a Swede. The fact he has African blood is irrelevant.

I think what's happening here is that there are a few who cannot fathom why anyone would be against Obama's vision. So grounded in and blinded by a defective ideology, they can't see any reason why anyone would choose a different path.

It used to be that a charge of racism would ruin a person's reputation. Now, I believe that we're more sophisticated on the issue. Since the R-word is thrown out like candy at a parade now, people have become more discerning. We find it just as offensive to give people a pass because of their minority status as we do denying them opportunity for the same reason. In both instances racism breeds division, the former robbing a person the dignity of really earning something, and the latter depriving them of an equal opportunity to succeed on their own.

False accusations of racism are, actually, the real racism. The latest example is Jimmy Carter:



Anyone who exploits race for political advantage ought to be shouted down, opposed, and put in their place. We're all grownups here... let's move beyond race and discuss issues on their substance, without polluting the dialogue by injecting a poisonous and false accusation about somebody's skin color or blood line.

Charlize Theron

So Charlize Theron was on The View yesterday, and was applauded by audience and hosts when she declared that she refused to get married until her gay friends could do the same.



I'm trying to figure out if this is a... threat? Promise? What? What sort of response was I supposed to have? Run out and suddenly support gay marriage, so Charlize and Stuart Townsend can finally get married, because our lives cannot be complete until they exchange their vows?

I chuckle inside thinking that Charlize Theron speaks as though she and her Hollywood ilk have any moral authority to speak on and defend the institution of marriage. I'm already thinking of writing a spoof book and call it "Hollywood's guide to a happy marriage". Ha!

Hollywood doesn't wait to start having sex until marriage. They don't wait to have kids until after a nuptial commitment. And it's clear that once they do tie the knot it's a pretty loose knot, easily untied. So at the end of the day, what is marriage to them beyond a nice white dress, tux, pretty music, fancy food, and a few friends and acquaintances?

Hollywood doesn't often have what it takes to even be married. It's a bunch of self-absorbed, me-centered, all-important pretty people who have no real connection with how real people live.

Charlize, one last jab... If you are so self-absorbed to think anyone cares that you refuse to be married until gays can be married, you're probably not equipped to engage in the selfless and sacrificial practice.

Beefy needs to die

On Wednesday's Neal Larson Show I conducted perhaps my most irreverent and blunt FlashPoll ever. A vicious Bull Mastiff named "Beefy" keeps attacking kids in one Idaho Falls neighborhood, and the owners seem reluctant to put the dog down. I asked my listeners "Should Beefy Die?" Overwhelmingly listeners responded that, yes, Beefy indeed should go to Dog Heaven, Dog Purgatory, or Dog Hell, wherever his hereafter fate may take him.

One participant in my rapid fire phone-in poll agreed that Beefy should be put down, but she was highly offended at the flippant tone both callers and host were treating the solemn subject of canine euthenasia. Instinctively I asked her if she had dogs. Her response, as my radio host intuition predicted, was "several." I feel for the dog people.

Don't get me wrong, I like dogs. I grew up with them. We have a beautiful growing energetic black lab puppy. But I'm not so far gone that I can't distinguish between Roxy and my own children. I have and will never subscribe to the "Dogs are people too" mindset. And I even cried watching "Marley & Me". I still can't see or read "Where the Red Fern Grows" without some water works. My childood dogs -- Peppy, Pops, and Sting -- were all good friends, but they were dogs. And when they died -- from old age, getting hit by a passing car, and another lapping up anti-freeze (we didn't have control over it, before you go off) -- I was sad, but I knew that dogs have their place, and for my family, it's not inside the house, and it's not wearing clothes, and if they get terribly injured, you shoot them, or take them to the vet.

If this sounds harsh, don't blame me. It's how I was raised, and I see nothing convincing that I'm wrong.

Now to this Bull Mastiff, "Beefy". These owners should face some kind of jail time. Beefy needs to be put down so the neighborhood can get back to normal. We should have zero tolerance for vicious animals.

We have dominion over the animal kingdom, and not the other way around.

Obama: Anti-Christ Superstar

Since a short video clip arrived in my inbox a few days ago, I've been intrigued by both the contents of the video and the response people have when they watch it. It's been as much a mini-lesson in sociology as anything. You can watch the video below, but the gist is this: In the Gospel of Luke Christ is recorded as saying he saw Satan as lightning falling from heaven. Using ancient Aramaic words, "lightning from heaven" could be tranlated as "Baraq O Baw-maw".

The video is a joke. Everyone knows the Anti-Christ is Nancy Pelosi.

Actually, from what my limited research revealed, those ancient aramaic words exist and they mean what the video says they mean.

So -- me being the "throw caution to the wind" sort of person I am - I knew the video would generate a reaction from anyone who sees it. So I posted it to my Facebook profile. Any serious implication that the President is the much-discussed and ominous-sounding Antichrist from the Bible is going to do something emotionally to those who hear it. Here it is:



To those who support the President, they found the video offensive and disgusting. Others, who aren't exactly in Obama's camp thought the video was loony. Others simply observed it as "interesting." The reactions were mixed.

I was a little hesitant in posting it, because I didn't want people making judgements about me, even though they know I'm not an Obama fan. I was more interested in the reaction than I was in spreading anti-Obama sensationalism.

As for what I think (as though that matters in this morass of speculation)? I have no clue. The Internet tells us that Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Saddam Hussein, and many others were the anti-Christ. Bottom line, from a scriptural standpoint, is that it doesn't really matter. The AC is or will be the AC. I know where I stand, and where I teach my family to stand, and I think it's less important who it is than what he/she is trying to do.

Asking for some psychotherapy...

For the last few years when September 11th rolls around, I have an emotional reaction. Most of us do. But I'm in the unique position of overseeing a media outlet and deciding what level of attention the radio stations I program will give to this momentous day, so I suppose my reaction affects others in some way.

Candidly, I feel a sense of wanting to avoid talking about it. And I don't know why. It's not born of wanting to stick my head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen and that everything is ok. I know things are not ok, and I feel as though I'm keenly aware of the threat of Islamic terrorism in the world, though we've done a remarkable job of keeping it outside our shores and borders the past eight years.

But as I prepare for the Neal Larson Show today, I frankly don't want to spend a whole hour on it. Part of it is because so much of our national programming will focus on it. But a deeper part of this avoidance is because I don't have an appetite to keep talking about it. I don't want to see any more "burning WTC" images. I don't want to hear politicians make their remarks. I don't care to hear bagpipes or tearful rememberances. The yearly ritual of having ceremonies seems intrusive to me. I crave normalcy, and 9/11 is an affront to normalcy.

And I feel guilty about that, because 3,000 people died that day, and hundreds more have died making sure it doesn't happen again. September 12th always seems now like a nice relaxing breather.

I remember 9/11 as though it happened yesterday. I remember where I was, who I was with, what we said, and how we reacted. I also remember the subsequent months of not quite feeling like the world was ever going to be the same, ever. Nine eleven put me out of sorts for quite a while. Whatever became normal after that, was a new normal, and a less desirable normal.

While today marks an important day -- it's Patriot Day for heaven's sake -- I'll, perhaps sadly, be spending most of my day looking forward to tomorrow's sunrise.

Teacher Sex Scandal

By now you've probably heard about the arrest of Kari Atkinson, the Sandcreek Middle School P.E. teacher who now faces five lewd conduct charges. She's accused of having a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old boy.

I've been watching the scores of comments roll in at Local News 8's website, and I'll save you the time and trouble of reading them.

On one side, the viable argument is made that the arrest and multiple charges wouldn't have happened without some pretty good evidence.

On the other side, many of her students and colleagues -- those closest to her -- are commenting that she would never do this and isn't capable.

And of course there are a few idiots making this into a religious issue. Their comments reveal nothing, except their sad obsession.

We all would like to know what really happened, but until we know more, it's just speculation. Two families, and two circles of friends, are in shock right now, so let's just hold off on the declarations. Just pray for both families.

In the meantime, let's talk about the double standard. I'll be the first to plead guilty to this. My reaction when I see an attractive woman accused of this is far different than seeing a man accused of the same crime.

It's wired in men to be protective of women, especially pretty ones. My reaction isn't so much a conclusion about her guilt, but a sense of compassion if she is guilty. I can't explain what deep hidden instinctual forces lead me to feel like this is less perverse than a 28 year old man preying on a 14 year old girl. I'm far more willing to reserve judgement on Kari Atkinson than in other cases where I've been ready to convict a similarly-charged male suspect.

A study on prison sentence length for child sex offenders based on gender would be interesting. I'm willing to bet women have lighter sentences than men.

Please don't misconstrue my thoughts as dismissive. If she had a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old boy, she must be punished without consideration of her gender. But recognizing this is a process of reason, rather than instinct.

Maybe I'm the weird one. I'm sure you'll all let me know if I am...

I pledge to oppose propagandist crap

Watch this video:


It doesn't start getting too creepy until about three minutes in.

Particularly disturbing is the pledge to be a "servant to our President..."

Some of the conspicuously absent pledges:
To be self-sufficient
To America
To the Flag
To support our troops
etc...

This is hollywood propaganda at its finest.

Rex ought to surprise us all

Last week Rex Rammell's mouth delivered yet another controversy. In responding to a lousy attempt at humor by a Rammell rally attendee, Rex made an even dumber follow-up joke about buying an "Obama tag" and hunting the President of the United States.

Rex, Rex, Rex.

There are a TON of worthwhile jokes that could be made about our President. Shooting him isn't among them. Idaho's Congressional delegation -- all four of them -- and our governor publicly condemned Rex and told him he ought to apologize. Ya, like that's going to happen.

So this week, Rex is holding a couple of press conferences to talk about the issue. I don't know for sure, but I think he's going to tell some people they can "go to hell." I'm just guessing, because I know Rex.

I like Rex, don't get me wrong. In fact, he called me Monday, and he'll be on the show Wednesday to talk about it. We have a good working relationship. He trusts me to tell him the truth, and I trust him to frequently give me the opportunity to have to. I'm just sayin'.

Anyway -- Rex should have apologized. Not just because it's the right thing to do, morally speaking, but it would have been the right move strategically. Oddly enough, in Rex's case, an apology would have surprised more people - and pleasantly so - than him making a joke about shooting the President of the United States. Sometimes I think if you say something terrible, and then make an unanticipated apology, you can get further ahead than you were before you said something terrible.

I've been married for almost fifteen years and I've become very well acquainted with the saying-something-stupid cycle. I never pre-meditate the process, but if I say something foolish and stupid, and then really, sincerely, truly apologize -- my wife can't keep her hands off of me. Like I said, I've never pre-meditated the process, but I can't say I've never thought about it. Just sayin'.

So, Rex, for the good of your campaign, my friend, you ought to apologize.