Book Reviewed: The Golden 13

 Prior to World War II the Navy’s record when it came to race relations was…well…dismal. Opportunities for blacks within the service were very limited in part due to a major written report that warned of what might happen if African-Americans were allowed to serve onboard a Navy vessel alongside a white crew. These attitudes were a reflection of what was going on in the nation outside of the service. So as the nation fought for freedom overseas, blacks were not afforded the same here at home.

The Golden 13 describes a major change within the Navy. Under pressure to change, this branch of the military would create a test program in which 13 men would become the Navy’s first black officers. Based in part on personal interviews, this book tells why these men joined the service in the first place and describes what they faced as they worked their way up the ranks. Dan C. Goldberg gives us a good mix of historical background along with the personal stories of these men, leaving the reader with a view of what was at stake and why these men were the right group to face the challenge.

The Golden 13 is well written and fun to read. The writing is unbiased, a simple telling of a story that should not be forgotten. The narrative covers a topic that must be acknowledged as we cannot run away from the fact that racism is a part of our history and in some areas is still an issue today. But in acknowledging the problem we must also acknowledge situations where people of both races worked towards change. This book is a record of just such a situation, revealing a major step towards this nation fulfilling its promise.

I give The Golden 13 two thumbs up, recommending it to anyone who enjoys history and to those who are interested in learning about where the United States used to be and how we got to where we are today.

The Golden 13: How Black Men Won The Right to Wear Navy Gold by Dan C. Goldberg. Published by Beacon Press Books.

Will The Church Be A Source of Hope?

Back in 2020 I wrote a post asking “Is The Church Still A Source of Hope?” Today I find myself once again thinking about this question, wondering if the church will be a source of hope if Roe v. Wade is overturned. For the record, this is not a post about the Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice debate nor will I comment on the leaked Supreme Court Document and its implications. My intention with this post is to get you to think about how you will respond to women in need if abortion is no longer an option in your state. Will you (and your church) be a source of hope?

Since news broke of the leaked document I’ve heard a lot about what women will lose if the court votes as indicated. The picture painted by the Pro-Choice side is that the court is planning to take away a source of hope for women and perhaps in the future more minority groups will lose the hope given them by various court rulings. There seems to be a lot of fear of what might happen and of what the path we seem to be on will mean for our future.

As I pointed out in 2020, God’s church is called to be the salt of the earth. Jesus expects us to touch the community around us, making situations more palatable by showing others the hope that is only available from God. I believe that means rising above political debate in order to help those who are in need. In this case that means helping women see that nine months of pregnancy does not mean the end of life. We must be willing now to roll up our sleeves in order to offer hope and to show that in Christ the future is bright.

Some would say that if the court votes as indicated in the leaked document, the church has won a victory. Will the church respond by being poor winners or will we continue (or perhaps once again become) the source of hope that God intends for us to be?

Honor MLK By Voting

MLK Day! I remember the battle leading up to 1983 when Congress passed the legislation that made the third Monday of January a federal holiday recognizing the life and contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. You may be surprised to find out that back then I was not 100% on board with the move to make this a holiday. I was young and impressionable, buying into something someone said about Dr. King not wanting a holiday because it would mean a day when young children of color were missing out on their education. I’ve changed my mind since then, recognizing that it’s not about if he would want a holiday. It’s about him deserving a holiday and deserving the recognition and honor he earned as one of the leaders of the civil rights movement.

Since January 20, 1986, the very first MLK national holiday, the third Monday in January has become known in many parts of the country as a day of service. It is a day when communities can come together and when the individual can serve his/her neighbor: a day when we hopefully make our towns a little bit better. I think this is something that would make Dr. King smile. However, after the day of service I believe there is something else each of us needs to do: become an informed voter and then cast your ballot.

When watching the news I keep hearing about laws that have passed and attempts to pass other laws which in one way shape or form are designed to control how we each cast our ballots in future elections. I’m not here to take sides or to judge these various laws. I am here to say get out and vote no matter what. Make up your mind right now that no restriction will keep you from voting. No matter your race or your political leanings, become informed about the candidates and the issues. Then, go out and exercise your Constitutional right. When you do so you will help make this a better nation and you will honor MLK by making sure that his work, when it comes to the right to vote, was not done in vain.

Lines That Should Not Be Crossed

I used to post to a blog with a different name. Back then I spent way too much time focusing on my stats, riding a rollercoaster that climbed and dropped with my daily reader count. With each post I learned a bit more about my core audience, my stats telling me what they would read and what they would recommend to their followers. Armed with this knowledge I would dive into my next posts both on my blogs and on my other social media channels. Over time I found that I could, with the right set of words, draw attention from many people including some who were much more famous than I. But as my stats improved, I noticed something I didn’t like. I noticed that I was bending over backwards, compromising what I truly believed in order to make my audience happy.

One event in particular served as an eye opener that forced me to change course. My audience was abuzz about a teenager who ran away from home out of fear for her life. This young woman received Jesus as her Lord and Savior, a decision that put her at odds with her family. Forced to leave home for her own safety, she found a group of Christians in a different state who received her with open arms. But eventually, the authorities caught up with her and the courts ordered that she be returned to her family. With help from her new found brothers and sisters in Christ she was able to appeal this decision and I learned about her while she was waiting for her appeal to be heard.

Many in my online group spoke out against the court decision, encouraging the family hiding the young woman to defy the court order. I found myself wondering if in fact this was the right way to proceed. Yes, I understood why the young woman felt that her home was no longer safe but at the same time I feared the possibility of setting a precedent where children could be hidden from their families simply because of a difference in opinion over religious belief. I was torn between my belief that we all should do our best to follow the law and those online voices telling me that the law was wrong.

And so I started asking questions, hoping my audience would enlighten me. Instead I was treated as if I had lost my mind. My audience wondered how I could even begin to question other Christians who were simply trying to protect the life of a child. I pointed out that God could protect her whether or not she went home. To this I was challenged to read the pages of another religion’s book in order to understand the real danger this young woman was in. Back then, and still today, I wondered why I needed to read a book from another religion when my Bible told me all I needed to know.

There, on the pages of the Bible, I find God. The Bible tells me that God is more than up to the task of protecting His children. With no compromise, my Bible told me not to give into fear but instead to trust in God. This seemed to contradict my audience who seemed to fear the power of another religion and its followers. I knew at that point that I had to make a choice. Either I stood in confidence in what God could do, even if I lost my audience, or I could stand in fear with my audience knowing that my stats would continue to grow even if my relationship with the Almighty did not.

For the record, the young woman had a birthday while waiting for her appeal to be heard. At that point she was able to legally choose for herself where she wanted to live, disappearing from the headlines as she went on with her life. Wherever she is, I pray she continues with the Lord, standing as a witness of how He can and does protect His children. As for my old blog, well it became harder and harder to write knowing what I would have to do to hold onto my audience. Eventually I took a break from blogging. Then I decided to let that old blog disappear, starting fresh here with these posts.

I thought about that old blog following the events of January 6, 2021. I thought about the mob and the riot, wondering how many were pulled along in the river of emotion that welled up at that moment. I suspect the large majority are normally law abiding citizens but on that day they got caught up in all of the excitement. In the heat of the moment they committed crimes against the very nation they claim to love. They crossed a line that just should not be crossed as they tried to win favor with those around them and with the world leader they came to support.

I recognized when it was time to draw a line: time to walk away from my old blog and the audience that followed. It was time to stop bending over backwards at the expense of what I truly believed and so I moved on. I hope that those who took part in the riots on January 6 recognize that they crossed a line they shouldn’t while bending over backwards for their audience of one. I also hope that our former president learned that there are lines that should not be crossed, especially when doing so means attacking that which you are called to defend.

Random Thoughts January 15, 2019

We are in the middle of a record breaking government shutdown here in the United States. The sticking point is money ($5.7 billion at last check) requested by President Trump to build a wall between us and Mexico. Last week the president took his case to the public speaking from the Oval Office. In an unusual move Democratic leaders asked for time to respond with speeches of their own. Both sides gave their spin on the matter. Neither said what I wanted to hear.

President Trump started by speaking of the humanitarian crises playing out on our southern border where we have children being held. Meanwhile we try to solve the problem of how to handle what is going on. Both sides recognize the problem. The president's answer is money for immigration judges and equipment designed to help enforce our immigration laws. President Trump also wants His wall. What I didn't hear is why this wall is the most cost effective approach. And while Democrats label the wall as immoral and obsolete I hear little of their plan and why it is better than a good old fashioned wall. Both sides are speaking but neither is giving any real or new information.

Meanwhile thousands if government employees missed their paychecks last Friday. I have a tough time embracing the idea that a great country asks its civil servants to go without pay while politicians waste time trying to see who will blink first. Certainly I want a secure border but not at the expense of those hard working men and women whose paychecks are drawn from the U.S. Treasury. Give these families a break. Open the government. A great country does not use its own people as political pawns.

One sign that we are a nation of great people is how average citizens are reaching out to government employees. A number of restaurants are offering free food to government employees. I've heard of at least one situation where government employees were offered free rent and utilities. A guard at a federal prison was offered cash support when his story ran on the news. This is the spirit of America where we help our neighbors. This is one of the things that makes this nation great and it's found in our people not bestowed by our government.

At first I was concerned when I read about VW investing millions in China for development of electric cars. This left me wondering if the U. S. will fall behind when it comes to automotive technology. Automakers are investing in response to China's policy which is steering the country towards cars that use something other than internal combustion. A handful of other countries have similar policies. But then I read a couple of articles about U.S. automakers investing in electric cars in response to market forces. Hopefully we will see the U.S. take the lead in bringing us some really cool cars.

Taking A Knee, Losing The Message: Why the NFL Should Stop Kneeling

It started with Colin Kaepernick who lost his job while kneeling against social injustice. From there it
became an Oval Office issue with the President of the United States calling for more players to lose their jobs. Football players kneeling during our National Anthem has become one of the top sports and political news stories of the year. But now it is time for this form of protest to come to an end as, thanks to the White House, the message has been lost.

The goal of these protests is to give voice to the perception that blacks are not always treated equally under the law. Kaepernick's original protest came after a number of shootings where police and neighborhood watch members fired upon unarmed black men. In each case the debate over "justified" and "self defense" exposed the racial divide which has long been a defining characteristic of our nation. But with Kaepernick out of the league these somewhat sporadic displays had become less and less newsworthy. If not for President Trump, kneeling during the anthem would likely have remained a minor nuisance, spoken of occasionally when some sideline reporter had no other interesting angle to a game. Instead the president has put this issue back on the front page, dividing fans and a nation.

When President Trump shared his belief that kneeling football players should be fired, the protests took on new life and a new direction. The debate is no longer about the treatment of blacks at the hands of a small number of police officers. Now the debate is about disrespect for our country and disregard for our flag. The conversation now involves protesting against sponsors, using economic leverage to stifle freedom of expression. The president gave voice to a faction that had nothing to lose in the original debate: one that will gain little in winning our new nation wide shout down.

For the record, I will always stand for our National Anthem. I will also stand for my neighbor's right to not stand. That being said, I hope players and owners decide to move on, ending this floundering protest. The message has been lost, hijacked and discarded in order to score political points. I hope we can find a way back to the original focus and away from the negative connotation imposed upon those who wish to stand up (or kneel) for what's right. It is time for kneeling to go away so we can focus on what's really important. It's time to find a way to take back the message from the one who took it hostage.

At What Cost a Good Deed?

He just wanted to help but the cost of being a good Samaritan was very, very high.

By Blogtrepreneur (Legal Gavel) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

While visiting friends in Florida a man noticed a toddler who seemed lost. Out of concern for the child the Samaritan began searching for the child's parents, asking her if she could point them out. At one point he made the mistake of picking the little girl up (something I strongly advise against when dealing with other people's children, unless you know them and know it’s ok with their parents). Unfortunately, as the Samaritan was looking for the girl's parents, her father was looking for his daughter's kidnapper.

The toddler's father became angry when told that someone was trying to kidnap his daughter. With the help of three of his friends the father confronted and attacked the Samaritan leaving him battered and bruised. While unfortunate, the dad's reaction is understandable. Hopefully every man would stand up in defense of his family, although the use of violence should be limited to when necessary. The real injustice was not in how the dad reacted but in the reaction of the internet as word of the confrontation spread.

The internet quickly labeled the Samaritan a kidnapper. Without waiting to hear all of the evidence the man's Facebook page and business website fell victim to a modern day witch hunt. Facing threats the man and his family were forced to leave town, further adding insult to injury. In the end the Samaritan was a victim of our anonymous knee jerk reaction culture. And while he will carry the scars of the price paid while doing a good deed, it is our nation which must try to recover from a much greater injury.

We pride ourselves in being a country that stands for its principles. Yet when, without due process, our electronic jury attacked a man who likely was only trying to help, we lost one of those principles that supposedly makes this nation great: the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

What Happened? My Take on the 2016 Election

One campaign gave us a political slogan. The other sold us a brand.

Pictue from Seattle Municipal Archives from Seattle, WA - Voting machine, 1971, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=36833119

My office companion is an old Panasonic Radio turned to our local public radio station. Over the last couple of months this companion has, for the most part, talked about the 2016 election. Each day the inner sanctum of my office was invaded by talking heads giving their analysis of the campaigns and predictions about the outcome. With each conversation came the results of one poll or another, each telling me about Clinton's lead. And then came the day after the election when my tabletop friend changed its tune. Instead of telling me that Clinton would win my daytime companion kept asking, "How did she lose?"

There are a number of explanations for the end result of the 2016 election. Most likely the real answer is a combination of factors, including the misreading of the electorate by both the Clinton campaign and the mainstream media. If I may add my two cents, I suspect one of the biggest reasons for the outcome is the fact that one campaign was just that, a campaign. The other was something very different, based on doing what the candidate does best: selling a brand.

"Make America Great Again"

The Trump campaign made a promise to the nation in the embodiment of their campaign slogan. "Make America Great Again," was a promise to do something positive, even though I doubt anyone can actually define what that promise really means. But with polls showing large numbers of voters expressing a feeling that the nation is on the wrong path, the promise to do something likely resonated with a large voting block. As it did so the Trump campaign turned that slogan into a national brand. They sold that brand, clobbering their opponents with it one insult at a time.

On the other side of the aisle we had "Together," and "I'm With Her!" One presented a positive message of inclusiveness. The other seemed to express a commitment to a candidate without a commitment to the country. Both were decent political slogans but neither matched the promise implied by #MAGA. The Clinton slogans did what they were designed to do but they never became a brand.

One campaign gave us a political slogan. The other sold us a brand. Implied in that brand was a promise but it’s the packaging that drew in the voters. Are you surprised? You should not be. After all Trump makes a good amount of money selling his brand. He ran his campaign his way, a master pitchman selling his services to America. And whereas a Trump Steak costs a good chunk of change, buying into the #MAGA brand costs only the time to go to the polls.

In the end the political machine was no match for the branding machine. As a result, come January Trump supporters (and detractors) get to take the packaging off of what we have just been sold. Trump pulled off a major upset. As he sits for the next four years as the most powerful man in the world, we will see if this steak is more than just sizzle.