Say It Ain't So, Tom

Tom Hanks, who is currently making a fair bit of money from producing a television show about an offshoot of the Mormon religion, fails to see the irony when he criticizes the church about their stance on California's Prop 8:

“The truth is this takes place in Utah, the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. “There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them. I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here's what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed, and people can see who's responsible, and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting Constitution, and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards. So let's have faith in not only the American, but Californian, constitutional process.”

I'll grant it's one of the more calm and moderate criticisms I've heard, and I hope what we should read between the lines is a call for more dialogue and understanding on both sides rather than intimidation and violence. But still, the gist of his criticism is that donating money to unpopular causes is "un-American."

What, exactly, is un-American about backing unpopular causes? Gay rights was, at one point, extremely unpopular and considered by the mainstream to be immoral. So were the people who backed the cause then un-American? Were the Founding Fathers, who undoubtedly opposed "buggery" as it was known then, un-American? Bill McKeever of the Mormonism Research Ministry puts it best:

"Personally, I find it un-American to tell people that they shouldn’t vote their conscience. Hanks said he doesn’t 'like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper.' Considering that just about every law discriminates in some form or another, makes this comment ridiculous. Hanks’ comment shows that he very much believes in discriminating against people with whom he disagrees. I may not agree with Mormon theology, but I certainly defend their right to express their opinion."

One look at the Mormon Research Ministry's website will confirm that McKeever is not a fan of the church.

So meanwhile, I have this to say to Mr. Hanks. I've appreciated your work. You've brought a lot of enjoyment into my life. I doubt I'm going to stop watching your movies just because of this. But I do have to say that it's rather hypocritical of you advocate denying Mormons of the right to political expression while simultaneously profiting from a TV show about Mormon splinter groups.

With the support of people like you, Mr. Hanks, how long will it be before Hollywood forms their own "Un-American Activities Committee" to snuff out dissent from people whose political opinions disagree with your own? And by the way? Where is your criticism of the also-un-American black and Muslim communities? Or does your courage not extend to criticizing those minorities?

But I will give you points for at least taking a more moderate line. When Hollywood is on a pogrom against anyone who would dare support Prop 8, being moderate is as close to dissent as some people can dare come.

From The Diversity Files

I'm not a minority--at least not in the standard political definition. Let's just say that nothing I'm a minority in is likely to gain me any special protections.

But I try to be sensitive enough to realize that my perspective on race relations in America could use some expansion. It's just that (and perhaps this is wrong of me) I don't like having to take personal responsibility for the entire scope of American history.

I'm willing to take responsibility for whatever prejudices my parents may have passed along that I may not have questioned yet. I'm willing to accept that my nervousness about some people may run deeper than my own personal insecurity with any stranger, and with the lifestyles certain clothing choices communicate.

I try not to be prejudiced, but let's face it. We all make choices about people and our reactions to them based on appearance. And when people dress in a specific way because it advertises a specific lifestyle they can't really hold people responsible for judging them based on that. In short, if you're going to dress like a gang-banger or rapper, it's not unduly prejudiced of me to suspect that you're going to be angry with me for being white--and as a result be nervous about you or even try to avoid you.

It would be unduly prejudiced of me to be nervous about or seek to avoid a black person who dresses within the realm of socially acceptable norms. I believe that is the key. If someone chooses to dress or act in an intimidating manner they should not expect people to react positively or even neutrally to them. I have as much right to be nervous about someone dressed like a gang-banger as I do a white person with disheveled hair and clothing walking down the street muttering to themselves and gesticulating wildly. It's simply, like the old Far Side cartoon, nature's way of saying "Do not touch".

Anyway, what I started out to say is that I do appreciate efforts by minorities to politely give the rest of us insights as to what their world is like for them. One such example is an article by John McWhorter in Forbes. This article makes it clearer that blacks in America are not unified in how they see themselves, but just as it appears more and more whites are moving past their historical prejudices, so are blacks.

If Obama's election does nothing else than open the way for people to have polite, respectful conversations about race he will have done this country a great service. I look forward to the conversation. I have much to learn.

Good Luck, Sirs!

I didn't vote for him. So what? Today he takes office, and I wish him well. I hope he is successful. I hope he does what is right for our country. I hope before his four years are up I find myself wishing I could say I voted for him.

Most indications suggest he's not going to live up to my fears. That's a good start. Much of the changes of direction he's made since the election would have made my choice much, much harder. There are strong indications he might even "out-centrist" McCain. If so, I'll be glad.

As for me, I'm going to learn from the horrible example of our national celebrities (Hat Tip Dr. Helen). I am NOT going to start bad-mouthing my country just because I may not like the man in charge. I am NOT going to start sucking up to ever evil dictator in the world who embodies and embraces the worst (erroneous) accusations I fling at my president. I will not look down my nose at the very people who made me the filthy rich in the first place. Not that the latter one is even an option, mind you.

In short, you will not find in me any justification for how those on the other side have been treating Bush all these years.

And speaking of Bush, I wish him all the best. Thank you, sir, for doing your best for this country, even if it was unpopular and even if I didn't always agree with you on what was best. Thank you for having the guts to do what was right in spite of the disapproving glare of Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore. It is unfortunate that your predecessor will get much of the credit for your successes while continuing your policies, but that is the nature of a true leader. I do hope that history judges you more kindly than your rabid, loud enemies.

We Shall Make No Policy Until Its Time

Michael Totten defends Barack Obama over his silence regarding the Gaza crisis:

If Obama opposes Israel’s use of force to defend itself from missile attack, he deserves credit for keeping his opinion to himself while he is not actually president. As he has stated on several occasions: the United States only has one president at a time. “We can’t have two administrations running foreign policy at the same time,” he says. “We simply can’t do it.” He could try to undermine the current President Bush, but he’s right that it wouldn’t be proper.

On the other hand, perhaps he silently supports Israel’s short operation in Gaza against a terrorist army with whom he himself repeatedly said he would refuse to negotiate. If he said so out loud, though, his global “hope and change” honeymoon would be over before it even began. It’s not in his interest to hobble himself from the start, nor is it in America’s interest or Israel’s.

I have to agree. While I'm still in wait-and-see mode over many things Obama, I appreciate his respect in not undermining the current president, however unpopular. While it could just be that he really doesn't want to have to take the job any sooner than necessary (and who could blame him), evidence suggests otherwise.

He's NOT silent on the economy. He's saying plenty there, and it's a good thing. Right now the economy is as much a matter of perception as a matter of substance. The Democratic Congress wants to get to work fixing things, and if Obama doesn't want to lose control of the helm there he needs to be involved. Even though it may be weeks before anything gets through congress, it's important to be seen doing something.

Foreign policy, on the other hand, is NOT Congress' arena. It's important there be one and only one Voice of the US. Congress has passed resolutions supporting Bush's position on Gaza, however, and that is entirely appropriate. Obama seems to know that on matters of foreign policy he needs to keep quiet until it's his turn.

He'll get his turn soon enough. For many reasons, most of which could be simultaneously true, he is smart to wait.

Get Satan A Cardigan

It's a little scary, but Harry Reid is starting to sound almost...sensible these days:

“Even though we’re one short of 60 [senators in the Democratic Conference], I don’t want to ever have to depend on cloture,” Reid said. “We may have to do that, but it will be with the support of a few Republicans.”

Reid, who lambasted the GOP-led Congress for being a rubber stamp for President Bush, indicated that he will not bow to the Obama administration.

Reid stated, “I don't believe in the executive power trumping everything... I believe in our Constitution, three separate but equal branches of government.”

“If Obama steps over the bounds, I will tell him. … I do not work for Barack Obama. I work with him,” he said.

Burris Under The Saddle

It appears that the Democratic Majority has a bit of a backbone after all and has refused senate-appointee Burris admission to the Senate. I'm not impressed, though, as the Democrats are the only ones who could get away with it--not to mention they put themselves in this position in the first place.

It was a rather cynical play in the first place to insist that the real reason Burris might not be admitted is because of race. It was mean-spirited and cynical for Gov. Blagojevich to make the appointment in the first place. It does little to dispell the media image of him to lash out like this and try to take everyone down with him.

To be honest, I don't know if Burris is a good choice or not. It sounds like he's at least not a bad one. He's certainly more experienced than Caroline Kennedy. And this is most certainly not about race. To not seat a black man in the Senate to replace another black man who was just elected president should render that accusation dead on arrival.

No, this is about the fact that the governor who made the appointment is currently under indictment for trying to sell that senate seat for personal gain. That places anyone so appointed under a cloud of suspicion from the very start.

It's unfortunate that Harry Reid and the Democrats were not stronger in stating that they would refuse to seat anyone nominated by Blagojevich under any circumstances. But at least they had the basic sense to cut this off before it gets any worse.

I hope that--sooner rather than later--they can resolve this. As others have suggested, the best way would be to impeach Blagojevich and then let the Lt. Governor re-appoint Burris.

But in the mean time, I think we should all remain calm and not turn this into Cirque de Invective.

As Accurate As Truthiness

I read this interesting article today:

(AP) Tel Aviv - The Israeli government today indicated they would bow to international pressure and moderate their attacks on Hamas in Gaza to a more "proportionate response."

"Starting today," said spokesman David Ben-Gasser, "we will withdraw all troops and cease all air operations. Instead we will begin firing between 100 and 1000 rockets per month into the Gaza settlements. We will also reopen all border checkpoints, but will be directing rocket fire at these points as well. We are also recruiting for suicide bombers to send into Gaza marketplaces and schools. In lieu of this--Israeli youth being shamelessly less willing to throw away their lives--we may be forced to place suicide vests on mannequins and drop them by air into these locations. It is regrettable, but demonstrates our commitment to a proportional response.

"We are also, in a proportionate response, ending our disproportionate commitment to establishing peace between Israelis and Palestinians and will instead adopt the Hamas-inspired policy of seeking the eradication of every last Palestinian in the world."

Ben-Gasser then added, "We thank the world for their input on how to secure our population. We appreciate the feedback we have received that has basically told us we've been going about this all wrong. We hope that by adopting Hamas' tactics and policies we will succeed in gaining the good will of the international community. As soon as we have eliminated every last Palestinian in the world I'm certain much of the trouble in the Middle-East will disappear."

Okay, I didn't read this anywhere, but it would serve the world right if this were Israel's response. They are fighting an enemy with the stated goal of eliminating all Jews. This same enemy completely disregards all internationally-accepted rules of warfare. This same enemy deliberately targets civilians and uses their own for shields and camoflage. This same enemy hides behind international agencies.

This call for a "proportionate response" is poppycock. Russia used the U.S. invasion of Iraq to justify their own invasion of Georgia. Well, I say Israel should be able to use Russia's invasion of Georgia to justify their invasion of Gaza. It is time that Hamas be eliminated. Unfortunately that means that some innocent Palestinians will be killed. Perhaps they should remember that next time they elect a terrorist group into power.

Hamas doesn't care one whit for the people they supposedly represent. Palestinians are just chips in the big game. Their primary use is as body count for news stories. So next time you Palestinians decide you don't like Israeli tanks firing at you, why don't you just turn around and beat the crap out of the Hamas militant hiding behind you to attack the Israelis? I'll bet you find the Israelis stop firing at you.