Short version: Being gay and proud ≠ Proud of being gay

Pride — As Pride Month drags to a close (sorry, couldn’t resist) and SCOTUS offers a “Get Out of Jail Free” card to discriminatory businesses (although, tbh, I do not think I would WANT to patronize any business that marginalized me or my friends, and there are too many options of providers who are either friendly or neutral; for me it’s like flying a Confederate (or Trump) flag on your business property, a guarantee that you won’t be getting any of MY money), I want to visit the bigger picture surrounding the word, Pride.
Because I’ve stopped following most Neanderthals and the proudly “unwoke,” I saw only a few anti-Pride, “Straight Pride” memes. I am proud of my success in achieving my goal of no longer tilting at the Windmills of Ignorance without compensation, so I didn’t respond, thus neither “wasting my time nor annoying the pig.”*
Still, there’s a bigger point that needs to be made, and it’s not one that I have seen anywhere else, so I’ll offer my take (it or leave it).
The word “PRIDE” has more nuance than some understand (nuance, like empathy, seems increasingly endangered). Of course there’s the initial thought, having PRIDE in some accomplishment, skill, developed character trait, action, etc. Something deliberate and/or mindful. None of my gay (or Black or….) friends tout their identities a source of pride, however, because identity is intrinsic, not a choice, certainly not an achievement. That’s NOT what the marches, t-shirts, buttons, posts, etc. are about.
For full understanding of a word, we need to know its antonym. The antonym for PRIDE is SHAME; marginalized groups have long been expected to be (or least act) ashamed of their innate identities, that they are somehow unworthy of love or respect. Pride means refusing to accept the shame, refusing to remain out of sight, invisible. “In the closet,” if you will. Pride is about sharing the courage, opening the doors of acceptance, demonstrating, “You are not alone.” 
Pride movements are people demanding to be seen, refusing to be disrespected, cancelled, marginalized, or viewed as somehow “less” than the majority (read “in power”) group. Having once seen a friend, neighbor, or relative proudly display their authentic identity forces people to confront the discomfiting realization that maybe someone they love might belong to that group they hate, dislike, discount, or marginalize. Unless they’ve embraced the blinders of prejudice and bigotry, they can never unsee that person’s authenticity. The courage of PRIDE movement pioneers sends exactly that message, and the spread of that message is why society is slowly, grudgingly proffering acceptance, despite backlash and obstruction from those who fear change, who fear those who are different. That is the beauty and value of Pride movements, validating the right to be proud of who you are, no matter who approves or disapproves.
If you read the comments supporting the anti-LBGTQ+ legislation (both passed and proposed), the sub-text (and occasionally, in a burst of accidental honesty, literal text) is: “You are not welcome here. If you insist on staying (or, heaven {their version only, of course} forbid, advocating for your rights to be seen and treated like everyone else), you’re not going to like the atmosphere.” 
Ameristan, Love It or Leave It. PRIDE offers another, wider, more inclusive, path.

*Don’t try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

One of These Things is Not Like the Others

Memes, almost by  definition, are simplistic and misleading.

In the wake of a restaurant’s request to Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders that she leave, (false) comparative memes have popped up: the (CO) baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding or the (WA) florist who refused another couple flowers; even more of a stretch, the refusal of restaurants to serve blacks prior to passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Here’s the difference. Refusing to serve or do business with any individual is always that business owner’s right (it must be nice to be able to turn away business). But to do it based on the accident of a person’s birth, by virtue of race or sexual orientation, is discrimination by definition because it is not a decision about an individual, but a group, and not based on the actions (or even attitudes) of a particular person.

Ms. Sanders chooses to work for an administration that many people find abhorrent. This is her choice, as is the business owner’s (and its employees) to protest the policies of the Trump White House, a White House of which she is the face (at least as much as President Trump is willing to share the limelight for anything). That choice triggered the business owner’s choice.

Whether that turns out to be a sound economic decision or not remains to be seen. This particular protest, and others it may inspire, strike me as meaningless challenges that will accomplish nothing except to further fuel the outrage and divisions that are already growing the chasm between citizens. Unless the energy of outrage can be channeled into organized action, it is really little more than self-gratification. So feel free to vent your own outrage with prank calls, fake reviews, etc. if you have nothing better to do with your time. For me, I have now spent more time on this event than it probably deserves.

As counterproductive as the owner’s action may turn out to be, it does not compare to a civil rights violation, as were the segregation laws and policies and discrimination against gays. Business owners can refuse service to any individual for virtually any reason (including “You were mean to me in high school!”), but only as long as it is not based on that individual’s membership in a protected class of people. By the way, except for the District of Columbia, party affiliation is not protected.*

* I do not dispute for a minute that similar outrage (and quite possibly charges of racism) would have been generated in the opposite direction had a member of President Obama’s staff been treated in like manner. That, too, would have been counterproductive. Hypocrisy is a two-way street with both red and blue cars in more or less equal numbers. Secretary Sanders deserves credit for handling herself with grace and class under the circumstances. More than can be said about her boss's tweet rant reaction.

Shit Holes and Shit Heads

Disclaimer: I generally work to avoid this kind of language in my writing (if we're having a conversation, well, fair warming, that might be a different story and I make no promises), but in the spirit of the current occupant of the White House, "He started it. Nyah, Nyah, Nyah."

I have been fortunate to travel a lot since my retirement, including to some “shit holes,” as well as some places that apparently are more worthy to send us their citizens. Like there’s a lot of Norwegians who would give up their universal health care for our crap shoot system.*

It doesn’t take much, if any — what do call that process of investigating for facts to back up an opinion? Oh, yeah, research — research to compile a list of successful people from the so-called “shit holes” who have enriched our lives, country, and culture. One of the great things about the USA is that we never know when or where those contributors will emerge, (immigrant or not) or what their back story will be. It’s impossible to predict. 

Recent case in point: Two weeks ago a 26-year old soldier raced repeatedly into a burning Bronx apartment building, saving four people before he died in the flames. His name was Pvt. Emmanuel Mensah and he immigrated from Ghana, a country Donald Trump apparently thinks produces very subpar immigrants. (source: neo-conservative Bill Kristol – editor of The Weekly Standard)

That’s the danger of stereotyping and over-generalizing: it is not a reliable predictor of, well, anything for any individual. Pretending some level of superiority based on birthplace (and I’m not even specifically referring to country of origin, here; it could be a municipality or even a neighborhood) is incredibly arrogant, as well as wrong-headed and unrealistic. And probably, in many but not all cases, racist.

 It truly irks me when President Trump and the other drum-beaters for “American Exceptionalism” fail to realize that most people, or at least those with a sense of country, believe that their country, too, is exceptional. Those same, exceptionally loud, voices are also critical of the trend to eliminate winners and losers, the trophies for all attitude. “We can’t all be winners.” That may be true, but in the drive to make this world a better place for all of us and our children, we can’t afford losers. We do, in fact, need to find a way for everyone to, if not be a winner, have a fair chance at winning at some point.

Comparing my country to yours isn’t even a good parlor game, and what rules there may be come from those who want to stack the deck so that their homeland becomes the winner.  (The winner of what, exactly?) National pride can’t only be good when it’s ours. Who is to say that we’re better than anyone else? If we cannot have a sense of national pride without it involving crushing others, then I would suggest such pride will definitely “goeth before the fall.” (Proverbs 16:18; you might make note of a blog post from me that cites both the Bible and a pre-eminent neo-con. Time to start prepping for the apocalypse!)

I’d suggest we’d be better off with an attitude toward our country like most of us have toward golf (or any other solo activity), and working on just being the best that we can, knowing there is always room for improvement, without the need to “beat” some other country or person. In the unlikely event that I could beat you (or anyone) in a golf match, it still wouldn’t mean I was any good.

Being better than the competition doesn’t mean you’re good. Being louder than the other side doesn’t mean you’re right. Bob Dylan long ago (1965) got it right when he said, “Not to climb up any higher but rather drag you down the hole that he’s in.” (Restoring order to the universe: It’s Alright Ma, I’m Only Bleeding) We should be cheering (and helping, when possible) these countries as they work to develop their economies, education, social services, etc., even if not always by the methods we would prefer. Instead, American Exceptionalists seem to want to put a ceiling on others’ ambition so that we can continue to wave our flags and foam fingers and shout, “We’re #1!” to justify any action we take. Let’s at least not be offended or surprised when we get a different finger in return. Your foam finger doesn’t make some other country a “shit hole,” but it kind of does make YOU a shit head.

* Apparently, despite the fact that most young Norwegians speak English and virtually no young Americans speak Norwegian, there is a net migration imbalance TO Norway from the USA; in other words, more Americans move to Norway than vice versa.

Tributes to Traitors, Terrorists and Treason

To Say Nothing of Slavery and Racism

Because getting bent out of shape has become a national pasttime to which so many are addicted, I find lots of people complaining about the removal of symbols giving tribute to traitors and treason.

Yes, monuments to the Confederacy are, at a minimum, exactly that. The CSA was created to preserve the enslavement of human beings for the benefit of the landed aristocracy in the South. Armed insurrection against their country followed, creating a war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and ripped our nation apart. Even sewn back together, the divide remained and the traitors, years later, erected monuments to honor their treason (plus honoring those who terrorized the new black citizens) and attempting to reshape the narrative. That revisionist history of the “Lost Cause” conveniently discounted slavery and attempted to transform sedition to nobility.

Monuments and flag worship have been part and parcel of that public relations coup. The virulent racism that continued and even grew in the post-war years exemplifies the statement, “The North Won the War but the South won the Peace.” Don’t believe me? Do some basic research about the corrupt deal settling the election of 1876 and preserving the presidency for the Republican Party. (Note: neither the Republican nor Democrat parties of 1876 are the parties of today.)

Does dismantling a monument or lowering a flag solve any of the pressing problems facing our nation? Of course not. Do those actions deserve the seemingly high priority assigned to them? Seems doubtful. But make no mistake, maintaining those artifacts of racism carries a price tag, both in terms of state and municipal treasuries but also in reminding those (or their ancestors) who were victims of that attitude that many people, and their state and local governments, considered them inferior, even subhuman. You need no more than a hint of empathy to understand how that feels, how that discounts the value of a significant number of Americans. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: Just because it’s not YOUR problem doesn’t mean it’s not A problem.

All that being said, I could never support the destruction of art (including today’s destruction of a 10 Commandments monument in Little Rock by a nut job with a history of such actions), no matter how offensive it might be to some people. (Not surprisingly, what offends me might not offend you, and vice versa.) I’m not suggesting we try some Orwellian erasure of history; it must be preserved (and analyzed and evaluated and debated). But such art (or history) needs to be displayed and maintained in museums or by privately funded entities. That apparently will be the case with the St. Louis monument to the Confederacy (created in 1914, long after the Civil War, but during the hey day of Jim Crow), as it is now in the custody of the Civil War Museum.

So if you want to get upset, you can add this piece to the list of things about which to fret. Or you might invest your energy in working to discover common ground and find solutions to problems that affect us all.

R•E•S•P•E•C•T

Donald J. Trump is now President of the United States. Once again our country has navigated a peaceful transition of power (despite dire predictions to the contrary by some who were certain, without evidence other than their own, dislike may be too mild a word, that President Obama and his “libtard” minions would somehow try to subvert the process). Please note, I am referring only to the official transition, not the actions of anarchists.

I have tried to be respectful, really I have. I know that I honestly do respect any number of individuals who voted for Mr. Trump because I respect their life accomplishments. I even understand, at least on an intellectual level, the frustrations that led to their decisions. Still, perhaps I did fail in that regard. Some have at least implied that. Some obviously took personally my expressed doubts about the new president and his fitness for the office he now occupies and translated that into personal disrespect. I must also admit, however, that perhaps my attempts at respect were superficial, masking my inability to understand with words, but no sincere feelings or empathy. I also admit I was often gritting my teeth as I typed and perhaps that came through.

It’s a conundrum. I respect the Office of the President of the U.S and will continue to do so. I will, I keep telling myself, give the office far more respect than so many people gave it during the Obama years. (I certainly won’t shout out “Liar” during a speech or make “ape” or other subtext racist references about the President or First Lady. I won’t criticize his appearance, his wife, or his children.) I will reserve my criticism for actions with which I disagree and not descend into personal attacks. The former is my right (and duty) as a citizen; the latter makes me no better than those who were so viciously partisan and personally despicable for the last eight years.

But I do not respect the man; I do not respect Donald J. Trump. It’s not about his beliefs (even if I could figure out what he really believes), nor is it about his plans for the country (whatever they are this week). I might disagree with those, but they don’t create any problems in terms of respect. I do not respect Donald Trump, the man, because he is not a good person. There is no evidence that he possesses any personal character traits that are admirable or that fit my core values of honesty, loyalty, integrity, respect or kindness. I have no respect for bullies. I find it ironic that the “party of personal responsibility” is being led by a man who never taken any personal responsibility for anything, who has never made a mistake, never apologized, never been at fault for any failure. I do not understand how any woman can be an ardent supporter (not the same as voting for him as the “lesser of two evils”). His demonstrated attitude toward women precludes any personal respect from me.

Nevertheless, it is now up to me to somehow navigate that narrow path between respect for the office vs. respect for the man. I am skeptical, but perhaps the office will (magically) imbue Mr. Trump with some new admirable personal traits that have been previously camouflaged or suppressed. I would love for that to be true and will try to stay alert to the possibility (however remote) that he will grow in office. I am more inclined, however, to adapt a golf adage, “The office doesn’t grow character, it reveals it.” But maybe I’ll be wrong and, if so, I am hopeful that I’ll be honest enough with myself to admit it if it happens. I truly do hope so.

Good luck President Trump. We will see what the future holds. May you truly inspire greatness for all our citizens.

Please note. My concerns are not for myself, not personal. They are for the country. As an affluent white male, I have no personal worries. In fact, I am more likely to personally benefit economically than so many who actually voted for him. Unless the entire country goes to hell (Trump haters’ concerns that we’re there already are overstated in my view), my family and I will be fine, no matter what kind of president he turns out to be.