Hamilton, Response to Asbury Park Press Editorial

November 23, 2016



My response to the Asbury Park Editorial, " 'Hamilton' shot itself in the foot"
(The online version of this editorial was titled, "Poor Staging by 'Hamilton.' ")


I am not an emotional person so I was surprised by my reaction to an editorial I found in the Asbury Park Press today.  It takes a great deal to tick me off, but for many reasons this editorial raised my hackles. The online version can be found at:
http://www.app.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/11/22/hamilton-mike-pence-trump/94294264/

The editorial appeared to have been written by an elderly dowager who was offended by a wrongly perceived lack of civility rather than by the editorial staff of a newspaper.  Considering everything that has been said and done during this election cycle I was astonished at the attitude and tone,

I felt that I had to respond.  At this point, I don't know if they will publish my letter or not.  They limit submissions to 250 characters, but the editor has the discretion to make exemptions.  I submitted two letters.  The first was around 450 characters.  I deleted the first and next to the last paragraph and submitted a second version.  The following is the first version in its entirety:

Re: Your November 23, 2016 editorial, ‘Hamilton’ shot itself in the foot

There was a letter to the editor the day this editorial ran.  In it, the author called those who did not support President-elect Trump as “educated elites.”  I found it ironic, because your editorial, “ ‘Hamilton’ shot itself in the foot,” came across stuffy, self-righteous and elitist.

The editorial stated that the message delivered by cast member, Victor Dixon, was a “major turn off” and that it was perceived as “inappropriate and disrespectful.”  President-elect Trump doesn’t know the meaning of either word.  He mocked John McCain’s service.  He ridiculed a handicapped reporter.  His comments about women, Muslims, Mexicans and Jews have been beyond the pale, yet we should be offended by a few actors expressing their concerns over their place in his presidency?

Yes, Pence took the high road in his response to their plea, but his political stances on women’s reproductive rights and his antagonistic history with the LGBT community are cause for trepidation.  This man supports gay conversion therapy and people aren’t supposed to speak out about that?

African-Americans are afraid of being stopped for traffic violations.  Muslims are afraid of having to register.  The members of the LGBT community are afraid of losing their rights.  People are genuinely frightened by Trump’s rhetoric and Pence’s positions. By speaking out, the cast didn’t just express their fears, but the fears of many Americans.

People were horrified by what happened in Ferguson, yet are offended by the cast welcoming Pence and asking for his help?  The purpose of protest is to garner attention for a cause.  Protest isn’t supposed to be pretty.  It is supposed to make you uncomfortable.  You can’t tie it up in a pretty bow to make it palatable or wish it away.  Gandhi showed us that you can protest peacefully which is exactly what the cast did.  So what this boils down to is that some members of the audience were offended by their approach? 

The editorial stated that, “ ‘Hamilton’ ” shot itself in the foot,” the implication being that by speaking out the cast did themselves harm in some way.  I saw no evidence of this on social media.  The majority of posts on Facebook and Twitter were supportive.  Thousands offered to buy tickets from anyone who was offended.  The show is sold out for over a year so financially there will be no impact from those who called for a boycott. 

We are fortunate to live in a country where we can speak our minds.  This isn’t about rudeness, but is about fighting racism and bigotry.  When given the opportunity, I will choose the latter every time.

_______________________________________________________________________________

 

WHEN NOT TO VOTE

October 22, 2016

I take my right to vote very seriously.  Your one vote not only affects your life, but the lives of millions.  So you might be surprised when I suggest that there are times when it is appropriate to exercise your right to not vote.

I have taken a great deal of heat for this statement in the past.  People drag out the cliché, “If you don’t vote, you don’t have the right to complain!”  I call BS.  If the two parties in this country cannot come up with one viable candidate that I can in good conscience vote for, then I have every right to complain and to complain LOUDLY!

Others are offended, “Men and women have died for your right to vote!”  I agree, but they also died for my right to protest. 

We live in a country where we have the right to not vote.  There are twenty countries in the world where voting is compulsory. The repercussions for not voting vary.  In Australia, you receive a letter demanding to know why you didn’t vote.  If you don’t give the electoral commission a satisfactory answer, you can be fined A$20.  In others, you could lose your passport or your driver’s license.  (Check out: http://www.citizencapitalism.com/2011/04/06/it%e2%80%99s-illegal-not-to-vote/ or http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-10 to learn more.)

This election cycle has been heated and divisive.  We are weeks away from the election and there are still undecided voters.  Many are so disgusted by the vitriol that they will choose to either not vote or vote for a third party candidate.

I understand how they feel.  This election the majority of us will not be voting for a candidate, but against one.  We will be voting for the person we perceive as the one who will do the least amount of damage or is the lesser of two evils.  There are those who in good conscience cannot bring themselves to vote for either the Democratic or Republican candidate.  So what should be their course of action?

In the past a protest vote has had little or no impact.  I have voted for a third party candidate in the past and I have not voted.  I am a passionate political animal.  I truly want my choice to win when I pull that lever.  So although it has only happened a few times, I have made the decision to reject the main stream candidates.

At the time, I knew that I was throwing away my vote and that my action would have no impact on that election.  This one is different.  Not voting or choosing a third party candidate will have an impact.

I would rather see an uninformed voter not vote than one who votes for the sake of voting.  I applaud an informed voter who cannot vote in good conscience for either candidate.  I have no problem with someone choosing to vote for a third party candidate.  That is their choice.

However, as I said, this election is different.  I am asking that if you vote for a third party candidate, please be informed about the candidate you choose.  Don’t vote for them, because you feel you have to vote, but because you genuinely believe that they are the best person for the job.

Third party candidates have very little chance of winning an election.  However, this year, the margin between the two candidates could shrink dramatically.  A large third party vote could determine which candidate wins.  Please take that into consideration when you head to the polls.

Keep in mind that not voting has the same effect, but don’t beat yourself up if you choose to do so.  It is your right.  However, if you still feel you have to vote and can’t make up your mind, try this.  Throw a coin up into the air; heads for Clinton, tails for Trump.  Your reaction to the result is your answer.

Why not share the pumps?

May 19, 2015

The Asbury Park Press featured an editorial on May 19, 2015 titled, "Don’t eliminate full-service gas."  (http://www.app.com/story/opinion/editorials/2015/05/18/editorial-scrap-full-service-gas-stations/27547727/)  My response is as follows:

Why not share the pumps?

To the editor of the Asbury Park Press

(Assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon, R-Monmouth has introduced a bill that would allow New Jerseyeans to pump their own gas without legal repercussions.  It would allow gas stations to have self-service islands.  New Jersey and Oregon are the only states in the country that do not give drivers this right.  Oregon is also considering a similar bill.)

I am amazed at the response this issue receives every time it is brought up.  One would think that Assemblyman O’Scanlan was proposing to introduce Ebola into the state’s water supply rather than allowing customers to have the option of pumping their own gas.

Your headline, “Don’t eliminate full-service gas,” was misleading.  The proposal does not take away full-service pumps, rather (as stated in your article) gas stations would be required to operate at least one full service pump for three years.  CBS New York stated “O’Scanlan said he is not trying to eliminate jobs,” and … “full service will still be offered if there is demand for it.”  That means a service station may have more than one full-service pump and that self-service pumps are not going away.  Attendants will still be required to handle the full service islands.  They will need to monitor the self-service pumps, as well. 

I don’t understand the rationale behind fighting this.  If a station has self-service as well as full-service pumps it will make the lines shorter for those in the full-service lines.  Another complaint is that drivers will be forced to stand out in the rain or cold while pumping their gas.  This is ridiculous.  They still have the choice of going to a full-service pump. 

The editorial states that if waits at the pump are a problem, the solution is simple: take your business to a service station where you don’t have to wait.  There is a flipside to this train of thought.  If this law goes into effect and you don’t like self-service, you can choose to go to a station that offers more full-service pumps. There is obviously a demand for full-service.  Station owners are not going to completely eliminate it if it would mean they would lose customers.

I rarely see every pump in use when I am filling up.  Often it is because there is no demand for them or they do not have enough attendants to cover.  Why can’t these pumps be self-service?  Why does this have to be an all or nothing situation?

The editorial’s author states, “Convenience to motorists is the main reason the law should not be changed,” but also says that full-service should be maintained for the convenience of Garden State motorists.  The author is contradicting himself.  The current law is being maintained for the convenience of some, not all.  Why not free up a few pumps and let those of us who wish to pump our own gas do so?

The Second Greatest Commandment (My Response to Indiana's Religious Freedom Bill)

March 29, 2015

Matthew 22:36-40 New International Version (NIV)

³⁶ “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

³⁷ Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’^[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’^[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22:36-40)

Last week, the governor of Indiana, Mike Pence, signed “The Religious Freedom Bill.” 

“Senate Bill 101 prohibits state or local governments from substantially burdening a person's ability to exercise their religion — unless the government can show that it has a compelling interest and that the action is the least-restrictive means of achieving it. It takes effect July 1.” (http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/25/gov-mike-pence-sign-religious-freedom-bill-thursday/70448858/)

The proponents of the bill felt that its implementation was necessary in order to protect religious rights; opponents feel that the bill promotes discrimination. 

Twenty other states have similar laws, but none are as broad as Indiana’s.  CNN did an excellent job of explaining the bill: (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/indiana-religous-freedom-explainer/index.html)  Yahoo did a great job explaining why this bill is so different than the others.
(https://www.yahoo.com/politics/what-makes-indianas-religious-freedom-law-115030098311.html?soc_src=unv-sh&soc_trk=fb&fb_ref=Default).

From the very beginning, people have come to this country in search of religious freedom.  It has become increasingly clear that some people feel that religious freedom means that they have the right to impose their beliefs on others.

Proponents of this bill will tell you that they are tired of the government restricting their religious rights.  For example, the Catholic Church and some Protestant denominations object to Obamacare, because it requires an organization’s health care coverage to include birth control.  I don’t understand the problem.  No one is forcing any member of these faiths to use birth control.  The government is not using health care laws to promote it.  It is a woman’s health issue.  If a woman wants or needs birth control, the government feels she has the right to have the option available to her. 

I feel that the implementation of this law and laws like it is the result of the legalization of gay marriage.  “Social conservatives have pushed hard for such measures across the country following recent federal court rulings that legalized same-sex marriage in Indiana and other states.” (http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/25/gov-mike-pence-sign-religious-freedom-bill-thursday/70448858/)  The Indianapolis Star is putting it mildly.  They were furious. 

Social conservatives want the right to refuse to do business with people or groups whose actions (in their opinion) are adverse to their religious beliefs.  The bakery discrimination case is a prime example of this thinking: (http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/)  A bakery would not provide a wedding cake for a gay couple.  The bakery was a public business and Colorado ruled that it had discriminated against the couple.  This is what the Indiana ruling eliminates.  It allows the right to for a business to pick and choose who they do business with based on the owner’s religious beliefs.  It is discrimination, pure and simple.

These are public business transactions.  If you deal with the public, you are going to meet a variety of people who have different belief systems.  You can’t pick and choose your customers.

I must admit I don’t get this.  Whether you believe in gay marriage or not, gays are your neighbors.  To quote Jesus Christ again, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  I’m not seeing the love here.  He didn’t say love only some of your neighbors.  These laws are not brought out of love, but out of fear and hate.

Why is gay marriage so threatening?  It is about validation, power and control.  If a faith is valid, then gay marriage shouldn’t be a threat to it.  A gay person’s orientation becomes none of your business.  It has no impact on you or your beliefs.  However, if you are insecure in your faith, anyone who does not believe the way you do is a threat to it.  This insecurity triggers controlling behaviors, because the controller sees nonbelievers as invalidating the controller’s beliefs.  They need validation or their belief system breaks down.

I am not a fan of the way some businesses spend their profits.  A large number donate their proceeds to some questionable charities, but it doesn’t stop me from interacting with their establishments.  Their beliefs are their business as long as they do not break the law.  For me, it is a business transaction, nothing more.  Making a wedding cake for a gay couple is purely a business transaction, as well.  It does not mean that you approve of gay marriage.  It means someone is paying you to bake a cake.

It will be interesting to see how this will play out.  I wonder if these same businesses will start refusing Muslim, Jewish, or Atheist customers.  I would think that denying Jesus Christ as God and Savior is a much bigger deal than two people of the same sex wanting to get married.

What the social conservatives haven’t considered is that there is a flip side to this.  If you can discriminate, then so can anyone.  How would they feel if they entered a bakery to purchase a christening cake and were told that the owner wouldn’t sell them one because of their religious beliefs?  Or that their bakery is being boycotted for the same reason?

Governor Mike Pence stated that he will not amend the law to add protections based on sex discrimination (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/29/politics/mike-pence-indiana-anti-lgbt-religious-freedom-law/index.html).  Indiana is experiencing a significant backlash as a result.  Major companies have expressed their disapproval and plan to take their business elsewhere.  You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Matthew 7:1 states “Don’t judge or you too will be judged.”  Remember the second greatest commandment.  There is way too little love in this world.  Don’t judge someone based on whom they choose to love. 

_________________________________________________________________________________

Update:

Both Indiana and Arkansas are revisiting their laws and amending them so that the LGBT community is not subjected to discrimination. 

Boko Haram

Boko Haram

I haven’t written a blog in some time.  Sometimes life gets in the way, but often I find that I need to be passionate about an issue before I can write about it.  I have never been more passionate than I am now.

The militant group, Boko Haram, is responsible for kidnapping hundreds of Nigerian girls, because they dared to go to school.  Boko Haram is against Western education as it feels it is corrupting.  The following link is for an excellent article on the history of the organization: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13809501). 

Boko Haram now claims that it has converted these young women to Islam.  Originally, they planned to sell the girls, but stated in a recent video that they would be willing to trade them for captured members of their group who are being held in prison.  I doubt seriously that they would release all of them if anyone agreed to a prisoner exchange.  This is all about power and they see themselves as having the upper hand.

There has been a great deal of discussion regarding why there has been a rise of these militant extremist groups.  There are a multitude of reasons such as poverty and disenfranchisement.  These issues need to be addressed, but our first priority must be the return of these girls to their families.

The U.S. and a number of countries are actively involved, but the rest of the world should rise up, as well.  Members of the Muslim community have come forward and stated that Boko Haram does not represent their faith.  If they are truly appalled at the actions of these men, then they need to do something about it.

Jon Stewart’s take on this atrocity was excellent (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/fck-you-rush-stewart-tears-into-limbaugh-boko-haram/).  He said that the girls are the real “bad asses” as they went to school every day, knowing that this could happen.  He went on to call Boko Haram a “bunch of little girls.”  His conclusion said it all, “But, you know what? You don’t deserve that compliment.”  I agree.  These men want to keep women ignorant, because they are afraid of them. #BringBackOurGirls

Is Tough Love Appropriate?

February 5, 2014

Is Tough Love Appropriate?

Yesterday, Sheryl Underwood of “The Talk,” spoke of her struggles with tough love.  She had lost her husband to addiction and detailed their attempts to overcome his dependency.  Her emotionally charged conversation with her fellow hosts moved us all.  She felt that you shouldn’t abandon a person in crisis. 

Philip Seymour Hoffman’s girlfriend, Mimi O’Donnell, had separated from him before his death, taking their children with her.  Ms. O’Donnell made the appropriate decision for her and her children for a number of reasons.  First, you simply can’t have children in an environment where there is drug paraphernalia about.  Second, Hoffman was purchasing illegal substances from dealers.  These people aren’t choir boys.  They are dangerous.  Third, by leaving she set boundaries.  Hoffman had to know that there were consequences for his actions.  Her leaving should have been a wakeup call.  Fourth, addicts often drag down their loved ones with them.  O’Donnell had to put her own well-being and that of her children’s first.  The environment was unhealthy.  Finally, the children shouldn’t have to witness the self-destruction of their father.  Thank God, they weren’t the ones to find him.  Ms. O’Donnell was the one person who truly knew how bad it was.  Only she could decide the appropriate course of action.

I sympathize with Sheryl.  You don’t stop loving someone when they are in the throes of addiction and you shouldn’t.  However, if the desire for change doesn’t come from within individual, there are steps that must be taken.  Tough love is one of them.

Intervention is one of the steps.  Family members confront the individual in an attempt to make them understand the affect their addiction is having on themselves and others.  When this doesn’t work, the person has to understand that there are consequences for his actions, that although you love them and support them in their attempts to become clean and sober, you won’t be an accomplice.  You won’t stand by and watch them kill themselves.

Sheryl did the best she could under the circumstances.  She deserves our love and support.  So does Mimi O’Donnell and her children.  No one should experience the tragic losses that they did.  Both women have my sympathy.

Philip Seymour Hoffman

February 4, 2014

Philip Seymour Hoffman

Philip Seymour Hoffman was an incredible actor.  He was well respected and never made the tabloids.   So his death came as a shock.  The circumstances of his death are fairly obvious.  He was discovered with a needle in his arm.  Forty-nine bags of heroin, plus prescription drugs were found in his home.

His death made the headlines, because he is a celebrity.  Heroin abuse is rampant in this country and heroin related deaths are stacking up like cord wood.  A friend lost a nephew to a heroin overdose.  His death didn't make the news, but is just as tragic.  The collateral damage is extensive.  We are all affected by it.

Celebrity deaths bring attention to the problem, but then it is quickly forgotten.  At what point do we say, “No more?”

The war on drugs has been a colossal failure.  So what is the solution?  I don’t have the answers.  It is obvious no one else does either.  We feel helpless.  We are frustrated.  We are angry. We demand action and nothing happens.

Perhaps we shouldn’t focus on the drugs and their availability, but on why people are using them.  People self-medicate.  They may use alcohol or recreational drugs to relieve emotional issues, unaware they have a problem.  Drug deaths, school shootings and the widespread violence we see every day illustrates that this country has serious mental health issues. 

Why?  It is possible that the technological age we live in has something to do with it.  We don’t interact with each other anymore; people may feel lost and disconnected as a result.  The mentally ill might not recognize they have a problem or they may fear stigmatization.  As a society, we need to reach out to them and provide them with a safe environment where they can receive help.  The financial cost is prohibitive, but the cost of not doing anything is far higher.

Don’t misunderstand me; we still need to go after the drug pushers and their suppliers.  The problem is multifold and as such, should be approached from many directions. 

Philip Seymour Hoffman’s family and friends have my sympathy.  So does everyone that has been touched by this epidemic.  I am praying his death brings about change.