Parkland and the Pigg-let - Some Perspectives

This weekend, some things have been troubling me about the recent Parkland shootings in Florida, in particular regarding this kid, David Hogg (whom I will be referring to as the Pigg-let), and his arrogant, nasty, and disrespectful demeanor.   I was also able to read up on some things about the shooter, Nikolas Cruz, and much about what I have seen is revealing.  But, before I get into all of that, I want to just share a little bit of my own experience when I was in middle school.

Honestly, my 7th and 8th-grade years were one of the most hellish experiences I believe I have had to ever experience, and I literally hated that time in my life.  Although things would dramatically turn around for the better by the time I got into my freshman year of high school, middle school is a part of my life at times I just want to forget.   Kids who are in their early teens tend to be cliquish, and they also tend to be some of the cruelest and hateful individuals in general that walk the earth - many of you know exactly what I am talking about.  For some, that continues into high school.  In my case, I went to middle school in the mid-1980's, and at that time there was a very identifiable materialistic attitude among most of American society, but middle-school kids often took that to extremes.  Let me tell you a little of what I was like at that awkward time between the ages of 13 and 15.  I was from what is often called "the wrong side of the tracks," in that I was from a broken home (my parents divorced when I was very young) and my mother, who raised me, also was not what you'd call a model parent - we were poor, she had a serious drinking problem, and she was often detached from me when I was a kid.   This happened when I was in elementary school, but it became more pronounced as I got older and I was often forced to sort of fend for myself a lot of times because my mother was not all that involved in my life unless she had to be.  We were also extremely poor - at that time, our household subsisted on food stamps and about $100 in child support per month we got from Dad.   This meant that I didn't get my clothes from trendy stores either.  Most of what I wore was purchased from the local second-hand store, and at times the sizes were disproportionate and they wore out quickly - I went to school a lot with missing buttons and well-concealed holes in my pants.  That fact alone set me up to basically be singled out for derision by classmates.  Also, I had my own unique interests and personality traits that didn't exactly mirror my classmates then either - for instance, whereas many of my classmates in those years listened to Michael Jackson or Madonna, I was collecting and listening to Guy Lombardo, Glenn Miller, and Lawrence Welk.  I also didn't wear jeans (still don't) or tennis shoes, or any other faddish clothing of the time.  Naturally, all of this together got me singled out and slapped with the reputation of a "geek," and that too often invited persecution from others, the more popular kids.  Let me elaborate on that a moment.

For those who lived through the experience of middle school, you know often that if a kid is made fun of for being "different" or a "geek," there are two ways this happens.  First is outright bullying - the "tough" kids will often do vulgar things, or they will even get abusive - they pick on those they see as weaker than they are based on their own insecurities a lot of times but also because they know they can.  And, in the mid-1980's, the emphasis on preventing bullying didn't exist, and I have actually witnessed even teachers allowing it to happen and laughing at kids who were being treated in such a way.  The other way this happens is from the other extreme - the "popular" kids will do this sort of patronizing snobbery of kids that don't "make the cut," and although they are not physically abusive (in most cases anyway), they get a sadistic joy in belittling and acting condescendingly of those they feel are "geeks" or just not as "popular" as they are.  These "popular" kids are the ones who sport their designer clothes, have the latest this or that, and they are often the ones who are the big shots in sports or student organizations - your star football players, head cheerleaders, and the like.  Also, the mid-1980's were a time when this "political correctness" we see so prominently today didn't exist, and these two groups (the "toughs" and the "popular kids") would often employ pejorative terminology to label and deride those of their classmates they thought of as "undesirable" - terms such as "retard," or even pejorative homosexual references, were common.  Any way you look at it, the "popular kids" and the "toughs" were both bullies.   I witnessed a lot of this behavior in my junior high years, and was also on the receiving end of way too much of it, and therefore today it is more important than ever that kids be taught how bad and destructive such behavior is, and looking at the Parkland tragedy and other issues, bullying can lead to this easily.

Bullying of any sort is something that those who are on the receiving end of it can find it difficult to deal.  And, despite a greater awareness of the negativity of bullying as well as the proliferation of "political correctness," not much has changed since the mid-1980's when I was in middle school.  When a kid is subjected to this type of treatment by his or her classmates, it is important to understand how that kid feels sometimes.  If you are in that position, you want to escape it fairly quickly, so you are going to try to keep a low profile to avoid attracting unwanted attention.  However, kids can be cruel, and they will often hone in on one of their own like buzzards on a gut wagon and then they pick, and pick, and pick - emotionally, it causes a lot of difficulty for the one on the receiving end of this treatment, and that person wants to just be left alone.  This happens at lunch, often during classes, and then if that isn't enough, they are subjected to it on the ride home on a bus, sometimes for over an hour at a time.  The kid's home and the solitude of his room is his only sanctuary, and at least he can have some respite until the next day.  However, in this day and age of technological convenience, now there are "smart phones," social media, and computer access 24/7, and as if getting bullied in person is not enough, now such a person is subject to being trolled, bullied, and slandered on social media too.   There are limitations to the human experience, and there is a point where a person breaks from all this abuse and mistreatment, and if pushed far enough, when that breaking point comes it can be tragic not only for the kid subjected to such treatment, but also to society as whole.  And, that brings me to Parkland.

The young man who was implicated in the Parkland shootings was a 19-year-old former student of the school by the name of Nikolas Cruz.  I was able to read up a little about his life, and as it turns out he didn't have it too easy at all.  He was adopted at a young age, and also had a form of autism, and he was a loner.  Although he seemed to excel in his studies (he was a B-average student by some accounts and also in the JROTC program), he was nonetheless treated as a social pariah by his peers, who would often make fun of him and cause him problems.  This type of treatment led him to also become very racist, as minority students were some of the perpetrators of his bullying, and his interest in firearms also added to this volatile mix.  It is my guess that after a while Cruz just snapped - he got to a breaking point where he couldn't handle all this nonsense anymore, and given his own state of mind (a developing racism, interest in firearms, and his emotional/psychological condition) it was going to lead to some action on his part.  And, he did act on all that by shooting up a school of innocent kids.   This in no way excuses what Cruz did - this is a heinous act regardless, and he does need to account for that.  But, it leads to some other questions too.  Here we enter "Mr. Activist" himself, David Hogg, the Pigg-let.

I was able to read up a little on the Pigg-let too, and as it turns out he was originally from California, where his parents worked with both the FBI (his father) and CNN (his mother) - his mother was directly tied to the whole Podesta incident too.  For those unfamiliar, the Podesta incident entailed a lobbying scheme around 2009 where extravagant amounts of money were received and thus aroused suspicion, leading to investigations that are currently being conducted.  Podesta is a lobbying and public affairs firm based in DC, and is reported to have close ties to the Democratic Party and the Obama administration ("Podesta Group," at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podesta_Group, last edited 1/5/2018 - Accessed 3/26/2018).  By all accounts, the Pigg-let was the popular kid in school, and his apparent arrogance he displays when he is on TV indicates he had the potential for bullying people himself.  In monitoring the Facebook discussions about this on various pages, some people have even insinuated that the Pigg-let and Cruz knew each other, and they were not the best of friends.  It was even insinuated by some that the Pigg-let may have been directly responsible for the emotional breakdown Cruz had that caused him to shoot up the Parkland school, but this is all speculation although not outside the realmrea; of possibility.  One person on one of the pages actually brought up a profound point in relation to this - if the Pigg-let perhaps knew Cruz, why didn't he reach out to him and at least try to befriend him, or was he too busy making Cruz's life hell?  Many, many questions, in other words.  The bottom line is though that Cruz did snap, shot up a school, and now is in custody probably for the rest of his life, while the Pigg-let is enjoying seeing his name in lights and 15 minutes of fame demonizing innocent members of the NRA, who had absolutely nothing to do with the incident.  Many have rightly discerned that an agenda is afoot, and the Pigg-let, as the newest "golden boy" of the political Left, is playing his role well.   But, those questions lead to some closing observations.

Cruz did a very heinous and evil thing, but let's look at this from the whole panoramic view, shall we?  The cops refused to act when Cruz went on his rampage - maybe lives could have been saved had the cops did their job and neutralized the threat.  But, that leads to another issue, and that road leads right back to Ferguson, MO.  Cops are often so demonized in the media that it could be that many of them feel it is not worth the effort to do their job just to lose it, so in essence the cops may have had some justification - however, it doesn't excuse their lack of action.  Then, let's look at "instant activist" Pigg-let and his role in this, as well as those popular cliques of kids in many schools who often ostracize and ridicule mercilessly other kids they classify as "geeks."  What was true in the mid-1980's when I was in school is still true now, but maybe even worse today - popular kids and strong-arm bullies still like to prey on other kids who don't fit into their definition of "cool" or "popular," and while there is a greater awareness of bullying, often that emphasis is driven by ulterior motives - it is often used as a tool of the "gay agenda" or those who cowtow to Islamism rather than helping real victims of bullying, such as the poor kid who maybe has the alcoholic mother or the kid with a learning disability who has a hard time in English class.  Those types of kids are still marginalized and bullied by the supposed "inclusive" and "politically correct" elite.  And, as we know, kids can be very cruel, as their natural immaturity doesn't often realize the negative long-term consequences of their actions.  However, that bullying, marginalization, and cruelty on the part of "jocks" and "popular kids" can have catastrophic consequences, as the kid they are picking on may be the next Nikolas Cruz or Columbine shooter.  This means that a "popular kid" like David Hogg the Pigg-let may be ultimately as culpable for the Parkland tragedy as is Nikolas Cruz.  That is something the so-called "mainstream media" won't tell you, because they themselves often act like the popular kids in a middle school when it comes to pushing agendas, and thus it makes the environment they generated as big of a factor as anything.  In other words, look at the underlying cause of what made Cruz snap, as there is enough culpability to go around.  That being said, I will add further that the NRA, President Trump, and conservatives in general have little to do with it - they are now the ones being bullied by the "popular kids" of the liberal/progressive establishment.

I could say more, but I think for now this warrants enough.  People will disagree for sure - go right ahead, but if you do, I want to just say "wait and see," and when the real truth comes out, many of you who are detractors have a big "I told you so" coming your way!   The root cause of all of this ultimately is an imperfect society - the more we shut out God and traditional values, the more corrupt and dangerous society gets.  That should be sobering food for thought as well.  Have a good week everyone. 

Perspectives on Dance Bands - the Ethnic Melting-Pot

The idea of America as a "melting pot" is often expressed in two areas - music and cuisine.   Cuisine is a whole different area of discussion, because we want to discuss music, in particular our ongoing discussion of big dance bands.  In the earliest years of the recording industry, it was not coincidental that one of the greatest waves of immigration also happened.  A lot of the traffic that came through Ellis Island would in time end up on an Edison disc, and so it was in the case of some of America's most successful popular music for 50 years.

One of the greatest contributors by far to American entertainment was the Jewish community - whether in vaudeville, music, movie production, etc., the Jewish contributions were epic.  The majority of the composers of the "Great American Songbook," for instance, were all of Jewish heritage (Gershwin, Kern, Berlin, etc.).  Also, the earliest movie production companies were all the brainchildren of Jewish entrepreneurs (MGM comes to mind in particular).   Music, likewise, was a great center of Jewish culture, and the dance bands were definitely well-represented when it came to Jewish maestros in the early days - pioneering bandleaders such as Ted Lewis, Sam Lanin, Ben Selvin, Boyd Senter, and later younger talents such as Benny Goodman, Artie Shaw, Irving Fazola, and Mel Torme (among MANY others!) were all of Jewish heritage.  For Jewish musicians, dance orchestras were a natural transition, as many of them came from generations of musicians called klezmorim, and represented a great Jewish music tradition called klezmer.  The klezmer contribution to American big bands cannot be underestimated as well, and it even shows up in popular songs of the 1930's such as "Bei Mir Bist Du Schoen" and "And the Angels Sing" (the later was an adaptation of a klezmer dance called the freilach, and made jazz history around 1937 when a young Jewish-American trumpeter with Benny Goodman's orchestra, Ziggy Elman, made it famous and a standard).  It is at this point I want to discuss klezmer in particular and go into some history.

Seth Rogovoy points out in his book, The Essential Klezmer (Chapel Hill, NC:  Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, 2000), that contemporary klezmer as we know it today originated with 19th-century Jewish (and Gypsy - more on that momentarily) musicians from Eastern Europe.  These musicians played all sorts of dances, weddings, and other functions, and when they came to the US, they also adopted popular styles of the time (jazz and ragtime) to their repertoire, and that is also how so many of them ended up integrating into the early jazz and dance band culture in the US.  Klezmer's tradition goes back as far as the 14th century with the Jewish Diaspora, and these musicians formed active guilds of musicians as far back as the 16th century (Rogovoy, p. 23).   What is really interesting is that the standard instrumentation one sees in dance bands and jazz groups of the 1920's through the 1940's was already utilized by klezmorim in Europe centuries earlier, which indicates a proto-dance band tradition being in existence well before the era of recorded sound.  I mentioned Gypsies, and indeed, Gypsies were often employed for their own musical talent in klezmer ensembles, and some of them rose in prominence on their own, notably Russian Gypsy accordionist Mishka Ziganoff (1889-1967).  Gypsies would later make a huge impact of their own on jazz and big band music when Django Reinhardt would pioneer the genre known as "Gypsy jazz," but that merits a story of its own.  For now, the contribution of Gypsies to klezmer (and subsequently, dance bands) is what is pivotal at this stage.

Russian Gypsy klezmer accordionist Mishka Ziganoff

An early klezmer orchestra

In time, klezmer and big band musicians really began to overlap, and from the jazz end was Ziggy Elman (1914-1968), who turned the klezmer dance into a jazz standard with a 1937 recording by Benny Goodman's orchestra of the pop standard "And the Angels Sing."  The subtitle of this was interesting enough "Freilach in Swing," and was also based on a much earlier klezmer recording called "Der Shteiller Bulgar" by pioneering American klezmer recording artist and bandleader Abe Schwartz in 1918.  Other klezmer techniques - notably Boyd Senter's "laughing clarinet," which was also noted on Sydney Bechet recordings as well - began to find their way into jazz and big band arrangements, and a musical legacy was born.  

Noted big band and jazz trumpeter Harry "Ziggy" Elman

Another personality worth discussing here is a more purely klezmer figure named Dave Tarras (1895-1989).   Tarras was a Russian-born Jewish immigrant who personified American klezmer, but he also integrated the best of American popular music into his own repertoire.  Tarras played with many pioneering klezmer orchestras, and even led for a short time a klezmer big band in the early 1940's  that played some fairly good swing arrangements as well.  In the mid-1950's, Tarras teamed up with his son-in-law Sam Musiker (a jazz/klezmer clarinetist who was also a sideman with Gene Krupa's orchestra in the 1940's) to produce a phenomenal LP for Columbia called Tanz!  Any discussion of klezmer must essentially reference Tarras at some juncture, as his legacy is extremely important to the genre as a whole. 

Klezmer clarinet legend Dave Tarras

In addition to klezmer, it is also important to mention another genre of music which impacted the big bands that also came from Eastern Europe.  In this case though, the custodians of the music were ethnic Slavs instead of Jewish musicians, and the music we speak of is polka.  Polka is much-aligned in American society, often being dismissed as "corny" and such, but in reality it had a tremendous impact on American popular music.   Perhaps the greatest polka musician who also made a mark on the big bands is Lawrence Welk (1902-1992), whose famous TV program was on for over 30 years,  although Welk himself had been leading orchestras since 1927.  Welk, however, was not a polka purist, as that designation would go to one of his older contemporaries, the late "Whoopie John" Wilfahrt (1893-1961) of Minnesota.  "Whoopie John" was the earliest person we could safely call a "Polka King," and his Swiss/German roots are also reflected in the "Dutchman-style" polkas he recorded that are characteristic of the upper Midwest.  However, much like Dave Tarras, "Whoopie John" was not afraid of incorporating popular music of the day into his repertoire, and this resulted in a prolific catalog of recordings beginning in the 1920's and continuing well until his death.  Although "Whoopie John" could be said to be the most popular of polka bands of his time, polka itself also dates back many centuries.

Polka legend and bandleader "Whoopie John" Wilfahrt

Polka's influence on popular music is often overlooked, but it is still integral in particular to dance bands, but in one unlikely area - Western Swing.  Western Swing was a style of music that had its origins in an adaptation of jazz technique into the traditional cowboy string band music of the Southwest.  What is less-known though about that development is that in the late 1800's. Texas became the focus of a great immigration of Czech and German immigrants, particularly in the south-central "Hill Country" area adjacent to San Antonio (Victor Green, A Passion for Polka. Berkeley:  University of California Press, 1992. p. 23).  Many of the immigrants assimilated into Texas culture, and their native polkas and waltzes also influenced the local music.  We see that in the fact that many of the best-known Western Swing bands of the 1930's through the 1950's - Adolph Hofner, Milton Bruner, Hank Thompson, and Pee Wee King - were led by guys who were of either German or Slavic heritage.  Even country legend Willie Nelson cut his professional teeth in one of those Tex-Czech polka bands then.  Even today, central Texas remains a cultural hub for polka music as a result. 

The other area of influence regarding polka music came from its beginnings.  Polka is primarily a dance music, and it was played originally in the Old Country by orchestras that were remarkably similar in instrumentation to jazz and dance bands in the US.  Also, many Jewish klezmorim in the Old Country also incorporated polkas as part of their catalog of arrangements.  The first polka bands to record in the US were largely local, from areas such as around Denver (the Volga German "Dutch Hop" style), Chicago (the more "Honkey" Polish small-band style), New England (the Polish big-band style), and Cleveland (small-group Slovenian polkas).  A more Russian/Eastern European polka tradition also sprung up in Canada's Great Plains, where a large population of Ukrainians settled.  There were also some overseas polka pioneers, namely Will Glahe (1902-1989), who actually started in the 1930's with a society-style tipica orchestra similar to the Argentine and Uruguayan tango orchestras (this is also why Mantovani, who is noted more for light classical "elevator music," is included as part of the dance band legacy, as he too had a similar tipica orchestra at around the same time).  Glahe later recorded more polkas, and is considered today to be a polka legend.  Other than perhaps Bernie Witkowski, an early polka pioneer in New England, and the Baca family in Texas, there is little information about these early polka bands that precede 1920, but they do have recordings that can be found if one knows where to look.  In time, with Dick Rodgers, Larry Chesky, and Jimmy Sturr, the polka would be fully integrated into the big band format.  

There are other ethnic influences that could be noted as well - the Cuban danzon orquestras, Argentine tango orchestras, and others.  Also, individuals who played a role should be noted, in particular Russian-Jewish mandolinist Dave Apollon (1898-1972) as well as Italian-American accordionist Charles Magnante (1905-1986), both of whom made an amazing impact on popular music for decades to come.  As I conclude this overview, it is important to know that the American dance band tradition exemplifies the "melting pot" in the truest sense - it represents a lot of ethnic contributions to what would be a uniquely American art form.  And, this also establishes as well that it was not only Blacks who helped create jazz, but a number of cultures made their contribution.  Hopefully, those reading this will gain a greater appreciation for the dance bands of the 1920's-1950's, and will see that they didn't just appear out of a vacuum.  So long until next time. 

Perspectives on the Oscars

I really wasn't even going to bother discussing the Oscars this year - to be honest, I could care less, especially considering what a political soapbox opportunity for the Left that such things have become in recent years.  I view the Oscars in much the same way in recent years that I view the Olympics, the Super Bowl, and the Macy's Thanksgiving Parade - simply put, they are all a waste of time that can be spent doing something more constructive with one's life.  Unfortunately however, the Oscars are an unpleasant reality, and their existence does compel conversation in daily life at some point, so here we go.

Another inspiration for sort of tackling this was from a History professor at my alma mater, Southeastern University.  Dr. Alan Snyder has written some insightful commentary over the years on his "Pondering Principles" blog, and although I don't always see eye-to-eye on every issue with him, I do have an interest in what he says.  Dr. Snyder countered much of the hoopla over the Oscars with his own recommendations of movies over the years, and I think that is a brilliant idea.  So, I am going to do that here myself.

I mentioned The Promise first because it was a movie that came out in theatres last year, and it was especially significant to me because its story line deals with an issue that is very much a part of me - the Armenian Genocide of 1915.  Although the main actor (Oscar Isaac) was Hispanic, he played an excellent role as the main protagonist of the film, a young Armenian doctor who, when the Genocide happens, takes refuge in a remote Armenian village.  He witnesses the atrocities of the Turks, and eventually escapes with his French-born Armenian love interest, a philanthropy worker, and an American journalist (played by actor Christian Bale).  Veteran actor James Cromwell also does a magnificent job playing Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, who was the American diplomat who blew the whistle on the atrocities committed against the Armenians at the time.  It definitely should have won an award honestly, but I have my suspicions as to why it didn't - the Turkish government still to this day denies that the Genocide ever happened, and it has invested a lot of resources into debunking the facts of this horrific event.  Fortunately, many Hollywood celebrities have stepped up and did the right thing, and they span the political spectrum - Left-leaning actors such as George Clooney have joined forces with more conservative actors such as Dean Cain to advocate for Genocide recognition, and their efforts are to be commended.  The Armenian Genocide is one of the few issues, as a matter of fact, that many on the Left side of the political spectrum actually do agree with conservatives like myself on, and it is my hope that someday soon the US will formally recognize and commemorate the victims of the Armenian Genocide - Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, and so many others. 

Another excellent film that came out last year which was totally ignored by the Oscars primarily because it was a Netflix release was a picture called The Fundamentals of Caring.  The main protagonist in the film (played by actor Paul Rudd) is an out-of-work writer who is down on his luck and needs to make some cash fast, so he takes a course and signs up as a caregiver.   The assignment he is given is working for a single British ex-pat mother whose teenage son Ben is paraplegic and is bound to a wheelchair due to Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.  In time, the guy and the kid form a bond, and the story is actually very inspiring.  Two things really stood out though.  For one, a caution - the language in this film is not exactly PG in content, as the "f-bomb" is dropped several times by all the main characters.  The second is the role that Selena Gomez plays in the film - she is totally different in this character than her bubble-gum Disney Channel persona, that is for sure (maybe she did it as an emotional release from hanging around with that Bieber twirp perhaps?).  In the film, she plays a runaway hitchhiker named Dot, and to be honest, she is appealing - she looks cute, but also is very rough and street-savvy in this role. She develops an interest in Ben (the crippled kid who is the star of the movie) and he initially is infatuated with her - they end up more or less dating at the end of the film.  Once you get past some of the "f-bombs" and raw humor in the film, it is actually an endearing story and I believe should have been Oscar-worthy.  And, by the end of the movie, you are hoping Dot and Ben get together, and they actually do.  It is a movie I would recommend strongly, albeit I would also attach a disclaimer for some of the language.

I am not going into a lot of the others of last year's movies, although my wife did enjoy the new Guardians of the Galaxy sequel that premiered (she likes that endearing little tree creature, Groot).  Bottom line is that some movies which should have received recognition didn't at the Oscars, and many of the ones that did were pure crap.  Again, though, I view the Oscars kind of like I view Yahoo news feeds, Rotten Tomatoes reviews, and most contestants on "American Idol" - totally irrelevant to me personally, and honestly I have better things to do with my time such as watching good movies.  It has been interesting over the years that many good movies that should have gotten some recognition are just passed over, ignored, or relegated to cult followings - one of those was the 1998 film Smoke Signals, which I have seen dozens of times now and is one of the best movies from an American Indian perspective I have seen.  I also add to that category 1994's Swing Kids, which featured some great music and also shed light on another aspect of Nazi cruelty at the time, the persecution of a counter-culture of German kids who liked big band music and Western fashions.  The third film of interest for me as a history buff is 2008's Valkyrie, which had as its storyline a failed but courageous 1944 plot by Colonel Klaus von Stauffenberg to assassinate Hitler - despite his standing as a Scientologist flunkie, Tom Cruise did a great job portraying Stauffenberg in the film, and even looked like him!  Another film that I felt should have gotten more recognition than it did was 1985's Cotton Club, which centered on the gangster culture of 1920's Harlem in New York City.  Cotton Club also featured a fantastic soundtrack - Lonnette McKee's touching rendition of the 1930's classic "Ill Wind" is one of my favorite musical moments from that film.  One thing though about Cotton Club to recall though is that it can also be a racy film to watch too, as it does have some very R-rated scenes that I would caution against regarding younger audience viewing.  There are others I could mention, but we'll stop there for time's sake.  Bottom line, the Oscars often do not truly reflect good taste in film, nor do they really reflect what the viewing public likes.  In recent years, the Oscars are more of a political rally than an awards show anyway, and thus they lose credibility in that not everything receiving what used to be a prestigious award necessarily deserves it (same could also be said these days of the Nobel Peace Prize - talk about a stupid joke in many cases!).

I am thinking about maybe doing my own little synopsis each year of things I think should win awards but often get passed over, and in doing so I wonder who would see it the same way?  It is just a thought I may or may not pursue, but definitely worth thinking about.  Thanks again for allowing me to share.

Liberal/Progressive/Secularist Double Standards And Other Thoughts This Week

Last week, one of the most iconic religious figures in American history, Rev. Billy Graham, passed on to his eternal reward.  Rev. Graham was a beloved figure for many, and he also introduced many people to the Christian faith in his great crusades.  Although he was by no means perfect - to be honest, his books were rather dry that he authored, and on occasion, he espoused some things I would differ with considerably - there is no doubt that he was a powerful figure and deserved the honors he received at his passing.  And, with Graham's passing, a generation of influential American Christian leaders is pretty much gone, as there are few of that era left.  I preface this story with Graham's repose because I want to talk about another very influential Evangelical Christian leader that I greatly respected for many years for his stand on social and moral issues, and the person I speak of is Dr. D. James Kennedy.

Dr. D. James Kennedy (1930-2007)

Georgia-born D. James Kennedy was a former minister in the conservative Presbyterian Church of America who for many years pastored the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, FL.  He was noted for his television outreach, as well as for his Evangelism Explosion program that many Evangelical churches used in the 1970's and 1980's as an evangelistic tool.   One thing that always impressed me personally about Dr. Kennedy's ministry was his demeanor - he was a brilliant theologian, pastor, and activist for decades, and I also liked watching his program that broadcast from the Coral Ridge Church for many years for the music - Diane Bish's playing of that magnificent and beautiful Ruffatti pipe organ was enough to make anyone feel like they have been to the throne of God and back.  One thing more importantly that Kennedy impacted me with was a social conscience - as a teenager, I had thought it was "sophisticated" to flirt with progressive politics, and without knowing what it was I identified with it even for a few years after my own conversion.  Dr. Kennedy's messages enlightened me a lot on what the "progressive agenda" was really about, and thanks to his insights over the years, I have solidified and developed a more consistent Judeo-Christian worldview as well as becoming an unapologetic traditionalist.  In a sense, Dr. Kennedy "mentored" me in a number of ways, and although I disagreed with his theological positions on occasion (Kennedy, as a conservative Presbyterian, was a staunch Calvinist as well, which differed significantly with my own theological convictions) as far as social and moral issues I considered it an honor to stand in agreement with him.  Although he passed away in 2007, his ministry still continues today as led by Dr. Frank Wright and Kennedy's daughter, Jennifer Kennedy-Cassidy.  It was a recent issue involving Kennedy's ministry which prompted this article, and I will go into that now.

The interior of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Ft. Lauderdale, with the prominent Rufatti organ.

A few years back, a number of Christian businesses were targeted by the "gay agenda" for their refusal to bake "wedding cakes" for lesbian and gay couples, and some of those people have been harassed and litigated out of business.  Many of the progressive/liberals who targeted these businesses said that they were "hateful" in that they "discriminated" against the LGBT community, which in reality was not true at all.  When I have touched on this issue before, I emphasized that patronage of the business was not the real issue - I don't think any of these Christian business owners would have any issue whatsoever selling a dozen cupcakes, cookies, or doughnuts to a gay person, and they probably have in years past.  There is no moral constraint against cookies, doughnuts, or cupcakes, and therefore no problem in selling such items or consuming them.  However, a wedding cake is a symbol of something - for the Christian, it means a sacred covenantal bond between one man and one woman that was established as God's natural order for the family unit and thus the procreation of the human race, and therefore it is not something that a civil government can legislate, define, or enforce.  Marriage is the sole sacramental jurisdiction of the Church, and 2,000 years of Christian faith and doctrine have defined exactly what it is.  So, when a gay couple decides to participate in what they define as a "marriage," it is disordered and not something that a person of devout Christian faith can participate in or endorse with business or anything else.  Quite honestly - and I may catch flak for saying this, but I don't care - a so-called "gay marriage" is nothing more than a sham, a deception, and it goes against both divine decree and natural law.  Now, for those who want to engage in that deception, they have the free will to choose to do so; however, the Christian baker or any other businessman also has the free will to refuse to participate in anything that is in opposition to their convictions as well.  After all, the Christian owns the business, and it is ultimately his or her hard work and investment that went into its construction, so they have a natural right to say "no" if they cannot in good conscience engage in something.   Of course, the secular "lamestream" media was all over this, calling the Christian bakers "haters" and of course crying for their blood, yet when it comes to recent incidents, their true colors (not the "rainbow" on their "gay flags" either!) began to show.  And, one of those things centers around Kennedy's organization.

In the wake of the Charlottesville tragedy last year, the always opportunistic and self-serving leadership of America's #1 progressive "hate group," the Southern Poverty Law Center, ramped up its ferreting out what it perceived as "hate groups," and it began to target Evangelical ministries.  One of those targets was D. James Kennedy Ministries, which was listed on the SPLC's infamous (and bogus) "Hate Map."  In response to that, some major corporations such as Amazon revoked Kennedy Ministries' donor status, and as a result it had a negative financial impact on the ministry.  The leadership of D. James Kennedy Ministries rightly launched a discrimination suit against Amazon, in addition to seeking reparations for defamation damages caused by the SPLC's slander, and they recruited David Gibbs, a prominent Christian attorney from FL, to represent them.  As of this date, the suit is still active, as Amazon and SPLC have tried to get the case dismissed (which thankfully Kennedy Ministries and Gibbs are refusing to do) based on the grounds that as a private corporation, Amazon has the right to discriminate essentially.  And, as of yet, the outcome has yet to be seen although I do pray that Kennedy's legacy is given true justice and wins this case, as a win for them is a win for all of us.  This now leads me to a few comments on the situation.

When the Christian baker aforementioned tried to assert the same right to refuse business that Amazon did against D. James Kennedy Ministries, the baker lost the case.  Let me ask this - is it fair that a big mega-corporation like Amazon can discriminate but a mom-and-pop Christian bakery cannot?  I have done a lot of business with Amazon over the years - you can pretty much get anything you are looking for on there, and the ease of buying is a major reason for its success.  But, when Amazon does dumb things like this, is it a moral imperitive to boycott them?  I have not had the conviction to do so yet, as for me personally I have worked with Amazon for about 12 years or more with no issues, and I have benefitted much from buying off their site.  Yet, Amazon does discriminate against a Christian ministry while more than likely many of its leadership would be dancing in the streets over the closure of a poor Christian baker who refused to bake a "wedding cake" for two lesbos.  It is no doubt that Amazon needs to be taught a lesson, but how does one do that?  That perhaps needs to be explored further. 

Other recent "right to refuse" incidents of large corporations - Dick's Sporting Goods, Delta, etc. - refusing the National Rifle Association business based on what happened recently at Parkland in Florida.  What is weird about this whole thing is that the NRA had absolutely nothing to do with those tragic shootings, and no NRA members were even involved in the whole thing, yet innocent members of the organization are being punished despite the fact they are law-abiding citizens with legal firearms permits.  Many of the same people denying the NRA patronage would also be dancing in the streets if a Christian baker were shut down for refusing to bake a "wedding cake" for two faeries.  If we really wanted to point out something here on that, Dick's Sporting Goods, in particular, should be an object of boycott by religious people just for its name - I mean, for a store who (facetiously or not) advertises "get your balls at Dick's" this creates a serious moral dilemma!  And, since in this day and age it pays to get "offended," perhaps I can be offended at potential advertising campaigns for Dick's because they sound obscene and offend my moral sensitivities - how about that?  I know Dick's is not intentionally pornographic, but they need to be fair and also understand that NRA members are not all psycho killers because they have permits to pack a pistol.  Plus, the potential for off-color jokes that could offend people with strong moral or religious convictions should maybe force Dick's to rethink its name, right?   Just sayin'!  As for Delta, here is the inconsistency with that - it seems as if it is OK for an illegal terrorist to fly their planes because they purchased a ticket, but not an NRA member who is a law-abiding citizen?  I mean, look at whose flights crashed on 9-11 - does not the same type of plane have the same potential to do damage?  Maybe a complaint should be filed against Delta for the type of planes it flies - if they have been identified as being used in terrorist attacks, why should passengers feel safe on them?  Again, some food for thought for the "political correct" crowd.

These inconsistencies - both against the NRA and against D. James Kennedy Ministries - are not about discrimination or anything valid.  They represent an agenda - for the Progressive/Socialist, certain types of discrimination (which may actually be really bad) are OK as long as they do it, but when someone who disagrees with them makes a similar judgment, then the goal is eradication of dissent against the "political correct" orthodoxy of the secularist by feigning "hate" and "discrimination."  It has been done before too, and to be honest it is time that people with more common sense stand up and say "NO!!!!" to these liberal/progressive/secularist bullies and for us all to stand up and reclaim our rights to conscience.  Until we do so, the liberal agenda will continue to harass, bully, and intimidate those they disagree with until they eradicate such people from the face of society.  And, that simply cannot be allowed to happen.  Information is the key to change in a positive way, and exposing inconsistencies and hypocrisy serves to empower the powerless against the "establishment" that seeks to oppress and repress them.  Hopefully that is some food for thought until next visit.  

Israel Issues and Contemplation

Over the past couple of weeks, I have been observing with interest some news stories involving Israel and certain of its policies.  Two, in particular, stand out - one has to do with the verbiage of "Polish death camps," which has created some tensions with Poland, and the other is a rather odd taxation of Christian properties by the Israeli government that Jewish and Islamic counterparts seem to be exempt from.  Both of these compelled me to share a few thoughts on the subject this week.

Let me say from the outset that I have always been a firm supporter of the state of Israel and its right to exist, both on political as well as religious/theological grounds.  The modern state of Israel sits where historically a Jewish homeland existed, and therefore there is a definite birthright for the Jewish people there to have their own nation on land that history verifies belongs to them.  I am also of Hebraic heritage myself, having Anusim/Converso heritage, and therefore I have a personal interest in Israel's existence. That being said, over the years I have had some real challenges trying to reconcile those convictions with my adopted Catholic faith, and at times it has been a bit much to handle, but I have learned to do so.  There is therefore no conflict now between my love and support for Israel as a nation and my faith as a Catholic Christian. 

Now that we have stated that, there is another issue that lies dear to my heart, and that has been my long-standing support of the self-determination of indigenous Middle Eastern Christian communities, in particular the Copts, Assyrians, and Armenians, among others.  There is a personal investment in that conviction as well, as I am a blood descendant of two Armenian aristocratic families and am very blessed by that.  Middle Eastern Christians have, like Israel, a birthright to their territories as well, and they deserve to have the right to self-rule without the coercion and persecution of Islamic regimes.  Shortly, I will show how this relates to my support of Israel as well.

Being a convert to the Catholic Church from an Evangelical/Pentecostal background, support for the nation of Israel was always seen as a prophetically significant mandate, in that the Jews regaining their rightful home was an eschatological sign.  Many American Evangelicals - more so 30 years ago than today - once took that as basically endowing perfection on everything Israel does as perfect.  This creates some serious theological problems which warrant a whole study of their own, but sufficive to say the reality of the concupiscence of human nature affirms that no human person, institution, or political entity is perfect, and Israel is no exception.  Despite Israel's birthright, its people have been known to do some dumb things, even in antiquity - read the Old Testament, for crying out loud!  Although God loves the Jews, and did choose them for a purpose, this doesn't bestow any sort of attribute of perfection upon them.  Indeed, it is unfortunate that in the past several centuries, often it has been people of Jewish background who have been the most virulent enemies of the Church and of Western civilization - note in particular Marx, Freud, Spinoza, and in recent times people such as Bernie Sanders and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  To be fair, none of these individuals were what you would call religious or observant Jews, and indeed, more often than not they were hostile toward their own heritage as much as they were toward Christianity.  What is true of these individual Jews is also true of the modern state of Israel as well - Israel was founded by secularists who had Jewish heritage, and indeed in the earliest days of the Zionist cause devoutly religious Jews were against the idea.  And, while the modern nation of Israel has its positives, it has not been a perfect society, which now brings us to the current issues.

Beginning in February 2018, a statement issued by a major Holocaust remembrance organization made a statement referring to "Polish death camps" in reference to places such as Auschwitz and Treblinka, and this triggered indignation from the Polish government after Israel affirmed the statement.  The Poles asserted (correctly, I believe) that the camps were built and operated by the Nazis, and that to call them "Polish death camps" was implicating the Poles as collaborators in the Holocaust.  It has been a major source of contention, and what I fear will happen is that anti-Semitic backlash, due to careless wording by some Jewish groups, will be incited among the Poles, and that would be tragic.  Neither Poland nor Israel need this right now, and it is distressing to me personally that this issue even was brought up.  The perpetrators of the Holocaust were not Poles, and they weren't even the Germans per se - the Holocaust was the action of the Nazis, plain and simple.  In contesting the wording "Polish death camps," the Polish authorities are not in any way denying the reality that the Holocaust happened, but they want misunderstandings cleared up that the Polish people were not the perpetrators.  If anything, many Poles also suffered in the death camps, including notably St. Maximilian Kolbe, who was martyred.  And, the Poles have rightly said that many Jews who died in the camps who were Polish by birth were also Polish martyrs who were killed for being both Polish and Jewish.  This I definitely agree with.  Were there Polish collaborators in the atrocities?  No doubt - many nations (Ukrainians, Croatians, and even some Jews themselves) collaborated with the Nazis initially, and without sounding offensive I cite fictional character Beryl Jastrow's comments from Herman Wouk's epic The Winds of War when he said, "There is good Polak, and there is bad Polak..."  Indeed, ethnic slur aside in this, there was enough collaborative blame to go around to many people.  However, the ultimate responsibility for the atrocities of the Holocaust rest solely on an ideology and its fanatical disciples, namely Nazis.  As for collaborators, if you really study history, the Nazis used them only as a means unto an end - if Hitler would have been able to fully carry out his demonic vision, many of those collaborators would have met their own deaths in a gruesome way as the Nazis saw them as "inferior" as well.  This is one of those situations that before we start throwing around accusations of "racism" and enforcing political correctness on an issue, it is best we examine the full picture first.  If Netanyahu has any scruples about this, hopefully he will do just that - see the whole picture and not focus on perjorative language that could piss off a potential ally for Israel in the "Culture Wars," and Poland, with its great proportion of devoutly and traditionalist Catholic population who stand for traditional values and against Islamization and secularism, would be a valuable ally for Israel, who is also threatened by the same forces.  Israel, honestly, needs to refine the discernment of who its true friends are, and that leads me to the second issue.

Recently, the municipal authorities of Jerusalem got themselves into some hot water when they started sending collection notices and threats to seize properties to various Christian communities in the area (Armenian, Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic), one of them being the famed Church of the Holy Sepulcher.  Fortunately, Netanyahu stepped in and brought some resolution to the issue, and many of the Church leaders were actually quite thankful he did so.  In reading up on this issue, it was not so much Israel itself as it was the city of Jerusalem that got itself into this mess, as its mayor, Nir Barkat, instigated this stupid move in order to increase the city coffers.  Officially, the houses of worship would not be taxed themselves, but any properties associated with these Churches utilized for commercial purposes (hostels, business offices, shops, etc.) would be subject to the tax.  According to the authorities in Jerusalem, the collective "tax debt" of the Churches involved would be equivalent to $188 million.  This entailed over 800 properties, and is seen rightly by some as a tactic to increase the city's budget at the Christian community's expense.  In a quick impulse of "damage control," Israeli lawmaker Rachel Azaria, who implemented these measures, is attempting to reword the law to reflect that Christian religious institutions are to be exempt from taxation like other religious communities are.  She also rightly criticized Barkat's actions as "creating an unnecessary diplomatic crisis."  As a result of these measures, in protest Church authorities actually closed down the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, only reopening it after Netanyahu stepped in and assured Church leaders that these implementations would be amended (Ruth English, "Sacred Jerusalem Church to Reopen After Israel Backtracks on Taxing Properties," 2/27/2018 at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israel-backtracks-on-plan-to-tax-church-properties/2018/02/27/3c2ccdaa-1bce-11e8-98f5-ceecfa8741b6_story.html?utm_term=.e66fc4049cd5 - Accessed 3/1/2018).  Now, I want to share a few reflections on this if I may.

The tensions between Israel and indigenous Middle Eastern Christians have been evident since Israel was established in 1948.  In my conversations with many native Christians of the region - Armenians, Palestinian Arabs, Greeks, and others - I have heard accounts of rabbis and radical Hasidim spitting on Christian clergy, and of Christian houses being vandalized by Jewish vigilante groups.  At times, Israel's attempts to stem Palestinian terrorism has unfortunately caught native Christian communities in its crosshairs, and this has led to a polarization among Christians in the region against Israel.  It is really unfortunate that Israelis are behaving that disrespectfully toward Christians in the region, particularly since for the most part Christian communities generally are peaceful and just want to mind their own business and live their lives in peace.  By all logic, the state of Israel and the indigenous Christians of the region should be natural allies - they face many of the same enemies for one thing, and they also share a lot in common with having a more Western-influenced cultural outlook (the Christians and Jews of the region tend to be more better-educated than the majority of Muslims, and thus they have both been targeted for "jihad" by Islamists over several generations).  Also, many of the Christians are rightful heirs to the lands of the region, having been displaced by Islamic aggression.   If Israel is to succeed as a nation, it needs a coalition of allies in the region, and the natural choice for such allies are the indigenous Christians.  Problem is, Israel often has ignored that fact, and for one example there is its alliance with the Turks.  The Turks have an atrocious record when it comes to persecution and genocide of indigenous Christians, and what they have done to Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians - not to mention Maronites and even some Western Christians who were there for other purposes - is nothing short of horrific.  Yet, Israel continues to skirt recognizing the Armenian Genocide happened in fear of pissing off its Turkish "allies," who in the past several years have had a souring relationship with Israel largely due to the megalomaniacal and increasingly Islamist attitude of Tacip Erdogan.  Armenian communities in Israel have also tended to side with the Palestinian cause as a result (despite the fact that due to being Christian the Armenians have a bulls-eye on their backs that the more radical Palestinian elements would not hesitate to take aim at either), and this is a serious problem.  As Turkey becomes more aggressive, and dictators such as Saddam Hussein are out of the picture who were anti-Israel, thankfully I see more indigenous Christians supporting Israel (especially among Assyrians, many of whom see their Jewish cousins as close kinsmen), but there is still much to be done.  And, a lot of damage control is needed by Israel, as at times Israel has burned some valuable bridges it could have used.  And, that leads to another relevant observation in regard to this issue.

There is no question that Israel has a strong base of support among Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians, particularly in the US.  This in itself is not a problem, but it does create an issue for Evangelicals in the US when it comes to indigenous Christians.  Many Evangelical pastors - one that comes to mind is that fat, loud-mouthed, and somewhat ignorant John Hagee from Texas - have gotten so caught up in the phenomenon of "Christian Zionism" that it has led them to be dangerously close to embracing heretical beliefs.  Many of these people have adopted a quasi-universalist Calvinism that asserts that because one is born a Jew, they are automatically chosen for salvation and somehow the Cross is not necessary for their conversion.  And, these same people have a deluded sense of Israel as a utopian society that is perfect in all aspects, save for those "heathen Arabs" that keep causing their perfect people trouble.  The glaring problem with this mindset is that Hagee and those like him set themselves up as "arbiters of salvation," in that Jewish blood merits salvation somehow (isn't that a "salvation by works" scenario?) and thus is exempt from believing in Jesus and accepting His atonement for our sins.  If that were the case, here are the implications - it means that Bernie Sanders, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Marc Potok, Steve Cohen, and other very liberal and even anti-Christian politicians and activists, many of whom are so ambivalent against Christianity (as well as even their own Jewish roots ironically) that they ooze demonic essence, yet in Hagee's mind because these people are Jewish by blood, they are somehow exempt from moral law and "chosen" for salvation.  The hypocrisy in this is how Hagee and others view Catholic Christians over the centuries - for Hagee, St. John Chrysostom is an "anti-Semitic voice of hell," and many Middle Eastern Christians who are slaughtered by Islam or are caught in the crosshairs of the Israel-Palestine conflict are somehow merely "collateral damage" and cannot be taken seriously because they are not "real Christians" in the sense of Hagee - they need a conversion experience apparently, but the secularist anti-Christian activist like Mark Potok (director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, of Jewish background himself, and who ironically labeled Hagee's organization a "hate group") doesn't.  This appalling attitude among American Evangelicals has not gone unnoticed by Middle Eastern Christians, and it shocks them that those who call themselves "brothers in Christ" would condemn them and dismiss them as nothing.  It is frankly depersonalizing, and many American Evangelicals will have to give an account for that one day, I guarantee.  Let me give my own example here of what really changed my attitude many years ago on this issue.

Around about 2003 or so, my wife and I began visiting St. Nicholas Orthodox Church in Pinellas Park, FL, a parish of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America.  Although, like many Orthodox parishes, this one had seen a wave of enthusiastic converts, its core membership remained consisting of Orthodox Christians from Lebanon, Israel, Syria, and adjacent areas of the Middle East.  One of the people I remember well from there was a subdeacon named Najib Jacob.  Subdeacon Najib was originally from the West Bank in Israel I believe, and he is a Palestinian Arab Christian.   At the time, Subdeacon Najib was in his 70's (he is almost 90 now, given he is still with us), but one thing that always characterized him was the Christlikeness he displayed in his life - he was one of the most humble, godly, and sincere individuals I have ever had the privelege of knowing, and to this day I still have such a high regard for him.  When I look at the rude, loudmouthed, and crass attitudes of so-called "Christian Zionists" such as John Hagee, and then contrast that with the humble Christlike demeanor of someone like Subdeacon Najib, I know instinctively who the real Christian is, and the fat guy on TV ain't it, sorry!  Sometimes a quiet witness speaks volumes, and I challenge anyone reading this to encounter a godly man like Najib Jacob and then try to say he is not a "real Christian" - if I hear you do it, you may get your ears boxed, honestly.  It is time that American Christians stop acting stupid, get a clue, and understand who our real brothers in faith are - until we do, we rob ourselves.

My dear friend, Subdeacon Najib Jacob, a Palestinian Arab Christian

I have went on as much as I can with this today, but want to leave with some concluding thoughts.  First, make no mistake about it, I am also pro-Israel - I do see Israel as a fulfillment of prophetic destiny, and believe God has allowed it to exist for such a time as this.  Also, both as a descendant of Anusim/Conversos myself as well as just having common sense, I deplore anti-semitism and will not tolerate it.  That being said however, disagreeing with certain things Israel does is not necessarily anti-semitism; Israel makes mistakes just like all humanity does, and Jews are in need of Christ's saving Blood just like any other people.  One thing I do disagree with Israel on is its failure to foster relationships with oppressed Christian communities in the region, and this is something that should be remedied.  Also, in dealing with other nations (Poland in this context) Israel needs to be more judicious in its language - Poland didn't build Auschwitz, but the Nazis did, and by trying to condemn all Poles for the atrocities of Auschwitz, it causes unnecessary friction and could cause a real anti-semitic backlash all in the name of "political correctness."  The final point is this, and it is theological and religious - just because a people is chosen doesn't mean they have automatic salvation or an exemption from what other people need to receive redemption.  Chosen people can screw up, they also can be nasty, and in many cases if they continue in such behavior without a real transformation of life, they will condemn themselves and forfeit their status as being chosen.  This doesn't apply to all of Israel or the entire Jewish people as a group, but rather to certain individuals among them who have appointed themselves enemies of Christ and His Church, as well as violating the dignity of personhood that God gave every human being.  It is time for a more balanced approach to be taken in regard to these issues, and hopefully I can be a voice of reason in all this.  Thank you for allowing me to pontificate, and for your patience in hearing me out.