web analytics

Archive for the ‘F & L in the News’ Category

[199] Subtle Politics

Much of the ruckus over Colin Kaepernick’s not being on an NFL roster is not about football.  First, a fact needs to be stated.  There are roughly 100 quarterbacks on NFL teams.  Kaepernick, a Super Bowl quarterback but a few years back, is easily better than half of them.  Hence, the logic is that he is not in the league because owners do not want the baggage of a player who very publically refused to stand for the National Anthem last season.

No matter that Kaepernick has stated he will not persist in this practice.  He is damaged goods in the economy of the NFL.  No team has signed him in a league with many teams in need of insurance at the critically important quarterback position.

Note well that the public clamor over this omission of Kaepernick is not, however, focused on some football injustice, or some attempt by owners to protect their brand against a potentially objecting fandom—the millions who did not approve of Kaepernick’s symbolic protest.  It is focused on race.  And it is more than a scattered group of activists who point to racism as the underlying motive of the owners.  It is an organized attempt by the political left—those who embrace identity politics—to make this about race.  They are “racializing” the matter to advance the identity politics cause.

In the larger scheme of things, the plight of an unsigned multi-millionaire quarterback is not of much consequence in the context of North Korea, Charlottesville, and a health care crisis.  And that is why that narrower matter—football–is not the subject of this blog.  The point here is that those who are committed to identity politics will use very subtle means to make their case.  If they can shift the paradigm from simple alleged unfairness to racism they can turn Kaepernick’s circumstance into one of racism—the unfair treatment of one who identifies as an African-American—a headline grabber, given the unhappy history of race relations in the US.  And that shifts the goal of politics from one of advancing the national welfare to one that promotes the interests of individual subgroups, as they vie with other groups for power.

It is hard to make a case for identity politics from a faith-and-learning perspective, because it is an offshoot of postmodernism—the notion that there is no truth, just personal and cultural perspectives of subjective reality.  More important perhaps, is the need for vigilance; to “see” the subtle workings of ideologies as they visit everything, even football.  DC

[198] Jessica Mendoza

What is Jessica Mendoza doing analyzing major league baseball games? She has no business in the booth. She has never played baseball. She has never coached baseball. She has never managed a baseball team, and she has never been an administrator in baseball.

Jessica Mendoza is a softball player—a very good one—but she has no meaningful background in baseball.

What Ms. Mendoza is, however, is very attractive, classy, charming, Hispanic, and female. And like so many of the foxy newscasters that populate virtually every channel, that seems to be quite sufficient to be passed off as an expert.

If MLB wants a female, it might want to look at the front offices. Commissioner Selig’s daughter, Wendy Selig-Prieb, was in charge of the Brewers. There must be other women with some valuable front office experience out there.

If this is read as an attempt to denigrate Ms. Mendoza, I am not making myself clear. The offender here is ESPN and MLB, in their desire to serve up the viewer with a plateful of identity politics and diversity rather than incisive baseball analysis.  In an oh-so-subtle fashion, matters like these remind us that the secular culture continues to pour itself into a politically correct mold, one that all but silences any contrary voices.  In the big scheme of things, baseball is rather innocuous, but as we regularly discuss here it is but an ornament on a much larger cultural tree.


[197] Open Borders

Scarcely a week goes by before we hear of another terrorist event somewhere in the world. For many, it begs the question of why there is so much political energy in support of open borders. Almost none of Trump’s policies provoke more rage and resistance than his pronouncements involving keeping certain people (illegals, those from terrorist-compromised countries, etc.) out of the US.


Because such policies collide head-on with identity politics. The latter sees the nation, not through the lens of shared common values, but as a collection of interest groups—gender, nationality, income, legal/illegal, etc., all of whose worldviews are to be equally respected. To slam the door in the face of any of these interest groups is viewed as a form of disrespect for the rights and wellbeing of that group, and hence, all the other groups.

Identity politics is dangerous, as it has a postmodern streak to it, one that rejects uniformly accepted values and laws. It removes the adhesive that binds a nation together, particularly one as diverse as ours. In many instances the goals of one group openly conflict with that of another. Therefore there needs to be legal context in which interactions take place, and those laws have to be respected, not because they are divinely inspired or emanate from Moses, but because without them there is no nation at all. DC

[196] Narcissism

I was expecting more from Hillary Clinton than narcissism. But that is what we are getting. Whether in an interview, a commencement speech, or virtually any other venue, Hillary continues to talk about how the election was taken from her—by James Comey to the Trump-colluding Russians and everything in between.

Clinton regularly professes she entered politics for the public good. The key word in that sentence is public. Her sour grapes spitting rhetoric does not align with that profession of intent. It suggests a self-centered, I-can’t-believe-I-lost mindset. Worse, she seems constitutionally unable to see her defeat in the context of her own failings. I am not going to recite those. The right wingers never tire of doing that. But what is of concern is that she seems to be engaging in narcissistic self-protection rather than sober introspection. As Fox’s Greg Gutfeld stated, she and Bill have become the acid reflux of the Democratic Party. It is time for both to go away—at least for awhile. It may be healthy for them to do so. It will certainly be in the public good for now. DC

[195] DC Shooting

See if I have this straight. The now late James Hodgkinson decided to shoot Rep. Steve Scalise because he did not agree with the Republican agenda.

No. Because he found the Republican agenda evil. Immoral.

And therein lies the problem.

When people make a political agenda into what amounts to the equivalent of a catechism, a setting out of the basic truths and ethics of the universe, no one is safe. That is not to say that there are not religious worldviews that inform people’s assessment of a political party’s stance. There are profound, religiously-driven differences over matters like abortion, capital punishment, and similar issues. It is to say that making a political agenda—and labeling all those well-meaning people who support it–as essentially evil, turns a civil nation into a vigilante culture.

And that is what we in the nation now. Trump is not someone with whom many disagree. He is regarded by millions as an evil man, worthy of being beheaded. It is not much better on the other side. I suspect there are more than a few on the right who harbor homicidal thoughts about Sen. Schumer and Rep. Pelosi. Not because they do not agree with these people, but because they see them as essential immoral—evil.

We are in dangerous times, especially when so few respect a catechism with two Great Commandments, given by the Prince of Peace. DC

[194] Bill Cosby

Irrespective the impending judicial verdict, it seems Bill Cosby’s sin has found him out. A lot of others have found out about him as well.

I was first suspicious of Cosby about 50 years ago. It was when he was a comedic rage, not to mention a star on “I Spy,” a very popular TV show in which he co-starred with Robert Culp. I noticed that Cosby was making Hugh Hefner’s Playboy mansion his natural habitat. You do not need an IQ as high as the speed of a major league fastball to realize what was going on. People do not go to places like these to discuss the great books, or even comedy routines. They go to indulge their sensual natures to their outer limit in an environment that is as safe (meaning private) as any such environment can be.

For the married-with-children Cosby, this meant a rather obvious double life. A double life can take time to emerge and enter the public view. Often silence is bought, and some secrets never get revealed. But when people are reckless, the facts often do surface.

So it is with Cosby. We can hate him. We can condemn him. Or we can pray for him. He does not have much time left before he will be in a place where there are no silence-buying options, and all secrets will be revealed.  DC

[193] Would They Die?

With Memorial Day just passed, a few questions entered my mind.

I wonder how many of the legions of brave souls who—for over hundreds of years–not only interrupted their lives, but actually gave their lives for this country, would be willing to give their lives for our country as it is today.

Would they be willing to die for a nation that aggressively attempts to separate God from its national identity rather than just the church from the state?

Would they be willing to die for a country that does not wish to extend its First Amendment rights to those who take politically incorrect stances?

Would they be willing to die for a country that—in the spirit of Kathy Griffin–openly disrespects its major institutions and leaders simply because they do not agree with them?

Would they die for a nation like this?


[192] Banned

Remember when the Bible was highly revered, even by non-believers? It was spoken about with reverence, called the “good book.” Not so any longer. The American Library Association fields challenges—objections–to materials in schools and libraries. By 2015, the Bible made the Top Ten.

The usual basis for this attempt to ban the Bible is the tired old separation of church and state argument.

The Qur’an was challenged less than the Bible.

This is not to be alarmist, to say the Bible will no longer be in public schools. The First Amendment is hanging around somewhere. It is to say that the forces of secularism are fearless, and by increments continue to drive religious elements of any kind out of the culture.

Few Christians seem to “get” that. Secularists are not about guarding the nation from becoming a theocracy. No chance of that, anyway. They are about making sure people do not hear about God other than in specifically religious institutions and entities. That means not on mainstream radio, television, school, and government.


And that nicely insures that children who do not come from Christian homes are unlikely ever to hear about Christ. It is all quite systematic, with the aim being an eventual culture that is wholly non-religious. The most important governmental institution may well be the Supreme Court, and few Christian organizations may well be more important than those legal ones that oppose this systematic secular march.


[191] Kathy Griffin

Kathy Griffin has gained more fame in her recent “15 minutes” than in her decades of effort to cut it as a successful comedian.

No need to comment on her action. It is hard to add to what has already been said. What is of particular concern to me is that even Griffin—one who does not strike me as among the most rational of citizens–thought her action would “fly.”

I seriously doubt that even five years ago any person of remotely sound mind would have considered pulling such a caper. Not now.

And the reason is context. We are living in a context of hate, and yes, even murder, as Griffin’s action indicates.

Griffin will be gone. Probably rather soon. The context, however, shows no sign of moving out. DC

[190] Unpatriotic

It is not irrelevant what any of us may think of Trump. He is—like it or not–the President of the United States. Any unwillingness to accept that is wrong.

The strategy of his opponents is based on their unwillingness to accept this basic fact. The enzyme behind the investigation of alleged Russian electoral collusion is the desire to invalidate Trump’s claim to the presidency. If he cheated his way to the White House, then he doesn’t belong, and if the likes of Maxine Waters has her way, he can be tossed overboard wrapped in articles of impeachment. So the argument goes.

That thinking does not pass a freshman course in logic. It is widely accepted that JFK made his way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the help of some extra-legal shenanigans in Daley the elder’s Chicago and LBJ’s Texas. Clinton simply lied his way through the campaign, while in 2000, Bush won by, well, a hanging chad. It can be argued that Trump has a more valid claim to the presidency than any of these people. And as for any collusion noise, he remains innocent until proven guilty.

To refuse to accept Trump is president is wrong. Don’t tell me you pledge allegiance sincerely, stand and sing the National Anthem with enthusiasm, and support our troops, if you will not accept the occupant of the Oval Office as our President.

It is unpatriotic. DC

Subscribe to this site
Get new Faith and Learning posts sent to you by email: