• JOIN US!
• Search for:

• Blogroll

  • BUY STEVE’S BOOKS
  • KING 5 TV INTERVIEW

• Categories

  • Just Stuff
  • Libertarian
  • police
  • The Writing Life
  • Uncategorized

• Pages

  • Bio
  • Books
  • Contact
  • E-BOOK
  • Free!
  • Goal
  • Shorts
  • Wayne Kelly

• Recent Posts

  • Conservatives, going along to get along (with liberals), no longer.
  • Perfect!
  • I Could have Done it Better; Not!
  • Learn from History–warts and all–or Repeat it.
  • The Literary Agent-Bomb

• Recent Comments

  • Steve on Seattle: “Teen” punched for felony assault on police officer, not jaywalking.
  • Randi Tessler on Seattle: “Teen” punched for felony assault on police officer, not jaywalking.
  • America : the Story of Us . Outstanding! Even Leftists Engage in … at astronomersdoitinclusters on AMERICA: The Story of Us. Outstanding! Even Leftists Engage in Patriotic Swoon..
  • Mr. Kim R. Turner on President Obama vs. the American People
  • Sexist Stay-at-home Father on Does Private Property Exist in American anymore?

• Archives

  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • December 2007

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org
  • SimpleScripts

There’s this strange situation, or perhaps it’s a condition, where reasonable, polite, want-to-get-along, conservatives, independents, and libertarians, Tea Partiers, sometimes hold back in expressing their enthusiasm for various conservative-libertarian causes or personalities.

When this happens it proves that the left is successful in demonizing any thing and any one it opposes. But there’s an antidote to this tactic: showing full on enthusiasm. This is how it goes: you positively mention Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin—you get the point—and your liberal friend says to you, “You actually like him, or her?”

At this point some strange sensation wells where you feel you want to be viewed as a “reasonable,” person politically. You know what these conservatives and libertarians truly stand for, but you also know what the liberal media says, and therefore what your liberal friend thinks about them—perhaps what they might think about you if you state your position honestly.

So, you’re tempted to mitigate your enthusiasm for conservatism or libertarianism, or for its spokespeople. You say, “Well, I like some of what they say, but I agree that sometimes they go overboard,” or some similar vacillation. You don’t really believe this, but, again, for some reason you want to be viewed as reasonable. Balderdash! Instead, be bold, be excited, express your patriotism, state your position strongly and why you hold it. You’ll never convince others if you’re not positively passionate about the message yourself.

This doesn’t mean you have to be obnoxious about it. Gauge your audience first; there are some folks, too ideological, not worth wasting your breath on. Don’t get mired in the minutia when talking to potential neophytes to political activity. Auditing the Fed, Obama’s birth certificate, the Interstate Commerce Clause, etc. should probably be avoided. Stick to reduced spending, reducing taxes, limited constitutional government and individual liberty arguments and you can’t go wrong.

The upcoming elections are going to be the most important in a long, long time, certainly in our lifetime, and perhaps the most important since the Revolution, the Civil War, the New Deal, or most certainly since the Great Society. This may sound like hyperbole, but there’s an electricity in the air that people are acknowledging they’ve never experienced before.

Will America continue as intended: as a land of limited government, individual liberty, and free market capitalism, or will it be replaced with collectivism, European Democratic Socialism, including an increasing fascist collaboration between the federal government and big business.

Throughout the years phrases, affectations, fads come and go, but the strangest ones are, oh what would you call them, key words, that pop up as common affectations. I’ve noticed a new one that’s been around for, I’d say, the past year anyway. It’s the word: Perfect.

I started noticing it, oddly enough, when I found myself using it. It made me self-conscious, so I started listening for it in others. I suppose it’s a sort of societal osmosis that I picked up this odd affectation.

I ordered a cup of coffee at Starbuck’s the other day. “A half-decaf, with-room, americano, please.” The barista smiled and said, “Perfect!”

Wow! I think I overshot a bit; I was simply aiming for getting my order correct, which I almost always do. But not only was I right on with my order, I’d gotten it perfect. I was on top of the world. How many people can boast of getting anything perfect in life?

And then I made a deposit at the bank. The teller said, “Perfect!” My terryaki order? Once again, perfect. I seem to be hitting the mark each and every time I do anything these days.

And then I became melancholy; if I’m so perfect at everything, what do I have to shoot for? If I’m pumping gas, getting coffee, shopping for groceries, and ordering my meals so perfectly, what other than a future of perfection do I have to look forward to? Nothing to improve upon.

And then I got home. Asked my wife if she’d like a latte’. She said, “Yes,” and I said, “Perfect!”

I brought her her cup, having taken particular care in preparing the foam. I asked her what she thought.

She said, without the slightest hesitation, “Not bad.”

Hallelujah! Now I have something to strive for again. Thanks, Babe.

I heard someone talking about how they could have made a better movie than…. I can’t remember the flick, but it got me to thinking, as a writer—a creator—about all those people out there who think it’s so easy to write, to create something worthwhile.

I think many of them forget that when they say they could have done better, they’re talking about making something that already exists better. Maybe they could; making something better is usually easier than making something in the first place, but that’s not the point. While they’d begin with an existing piece of art, writing, painting, movie, whatever, the artist, writer, film maker, starts with this: ___________, a giant blank. A blank page, canvas, block of clay, or whatever.

The act of creating something out of nothing, which emanates from within ones own mind is magical. The act of editing, rewriting, assessing, critiquing, is important, but it’s almost always technical, and it’s certainly not normally creative.

So, the next time you’re about to let the world know, you could’ve done better, go out and try creating something out of nothing. Only then you might have standing to utter those words.

We often talk about the differences between the political right and left in America, and those differences are often glaring. One of those differences is an interest in American history—good and bad. Once one reads history, one realizes why the left is so resistant to it, or we find how often they’ve changed or obscured it when they had the chance.

Have you ever read a book and then felt ripped off by your school system, exclaiming: Why the hell didn’t I know this? I have, and continue to every day I read history. The thing is, the left will defend their “history” by saying each side is presenting their point of view, but this is crap. There is too much out there, for those willing to look, that comes from original sources. For example, don’t only read what others wrote about Thomas Jefferson, read what Thomas Jefferson wrote about Thomas Jefferson.

Another example: Why is it that we aren’t taught more about true black history in American schools? Why is it that black history is limited to a few notable figures, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas, Martin Luther King? Not that these weren’t great people, but there were so many more.

Is it because the left, the progressives, feel if black kids learned in school that they really do have a stake in America, with a real “official” (non-slave) contributive history in earlier times, it would be harder for the left to instill that sense of victimhood in this portion of our society?

While of course the repugnant crime and sin of slavery must be taught, and mustn’t be forgotten, the fact a black man was elected to public office, by his mostly white community, back before America was even an independent republic, should be known too. Warts and all should be our goal with teaching American history. After all, if we don’t teach it all, kids grow up thinking every white person was a bullwhip wielding slave owner and every black person was a beaten person nursing a flesh torn back.

How about the black slave owners? How much do we know about them? What about that ugliness? Does that detract from the suffering of the black masses? No, of course not. But it’s one of the warts we should all know about. Teach history—teach it all.

After the Civil War—after a Republican president had emancipated them—blacks filled the ranks of the South’s state legislatures. That is until Democrats, many in the form of the Ku Klux Klan, used political dirty tricks and outright violence to force these black legislators from office, not to return in significant numbers for more than a century.

The 14^th Amendment was needed because Democrats in the South refused to recognize the rights God granted to people, enshrined within the Constitution, now also rightly applied to freed slaves.

This is just one example of how history can teach us what we need to know about our national story, warts and all, in order to continue creating that more perfect union. Don’t take my word for it; do your own searches, discover our history on your own, and as often as possible use original sources. You’ll be amazed at what you discover.

Can you imagine what our nation would be like today if the southern Democrats hadn’t forced those black legislators from their rightful positions? The turmoil and heartache, and sometimes savagery, rendered over the next century might have been at least mitigated, and the crime of slavery better atoned for on a national scale.

This is not simply a diatribe against Democrats; this is an appeal to them to explore not only the warts of America in general, or Republicans in particular, which they seem to have no problems doing, but the significant warts in their own party’s history.

It’s funny how, as a writer, you can wait, and wait, and wait…what was I saying? Oh, yeah, and wait, for a break—little or big. However, while waiting in this biz is unavoidable, overt effort is often necessary.

When I got my first agent, I’d just engaged in, to paraphrase recent political parlance, an agent-bomb; frustrated with the one-at-a-time deal advocated by, of course, agents, I sent queries to about thirty. I heard back from about six, considered four, and signed with the one who contacted me within fifteen minutes of my query. She sold my book within six weeks. (Which lead to two other books).

The other day, prompted by similar frustration, I did a similar “bomb,” but didn’t go nearly as “nuclear,” and sent queries out to four agents. I’ve heard back from two, one within a day requesting I send the entire manuscript, and the other within three days requesting she might represent me if I tweak a few minor things in the book’s construction.

So, don’t sit back waiting for something to happen; go out and make it happen. The worst that will happen is they’ll say, “No!” Oh, and they will say, “No! No! No!” But every once in a while they’ll surprise you with that, oh-so-sweet, “Yes!”

In Danny Westnead’s contentious column, ‘Self-made’ myth divides us (Seattle Times, July 26^th, 2010), he seems to come to his keyboard with some mighty preconceived and insulting assumptions about Eastern Washington farmers.

Westnead summarizes Senate candidate Clint Didier’s reason for running for congress as, “…to preserve the America of ‘rugged individualism’ from socialism’s creep.” I don’t see a problem with this, however I do believe creep should be plural, unless Westnead’s referring to the President. If he is, I’m not sure he should be referring to our nation’s leader as a creep, but I didn’t say it, he did.

Satire aside, Westnead seems to intentionally, perhaps subconsciously, wander into the shadowy crevices of conflation. Because libertarians, conservatives, and many independents fight against big government, Westnead infers this exhibits a dislike, or even abhorrence, of all government. Similarly, Westnead seems to think being self-made means having to achieve without any help from anyone—ever—or you’re disqualified from the title.

Be serious. If this were the case, then yes, the rugged, “self-made,” individualist would be a myth. But achieving as an individualist, but with the occasional help from your neighbors, and while helping your neighbors, is not mutually exclusive.

He also taints Didier for his association with the NFL, as if getting drafted by the league as a player somehow makes him responsible for all of the shenanigans engaged in between the NFL and the government. Didier put forth his effort as an exceptional professional athlete and was rewarded for his efforts according to his contract.

Last I heard the NFL is a private organization, not the government; if it chooses to operate in a less than libertarian fashion, they have the liberty to do that. If the government grants the league special privileges by the government, then if Clint Didier wins the election, he owes it to us to fight to eliminate all “corporate welfare,” not just the NFL.

That FDR’s welfare state explosion, the WPA, and federal power grab in general forced certain “communal” resources on farmers, and forced farmers to destroy crops and to leave fields unplanted in an attempt to centrally control the nation’s food production, which, incidentally, led to those long food lines you see in those old black and white news footage reels, is not the farmers fault, and does not take away from just how difficult farming is.

Any farmer who willingly works toward increasing the subsidy (welfare) system should rightly be criticized, however, the murky situation of those stuck within a broken system, who’ve inherited subsidies from their fathers and grandfathers, should be recognized. However, they should be emulating limited-government folks like Clint Didier, not criticizing him, and work with him toward ending the subsidy system and returning farming to the free market.

Today I quit wondering why the President still enjoys remarkably high poll numbers (actually they are freakishly low after only eighteen months, but still relatively high), considering the damage he and his progressive party have done, and continue to do, to our country, ramming their progressive agenda down American’s throats, as we gasp for a breath of free air.

With the revelation of the Journo list group by www.thedailycaller.com, we are privileged to witness a classic display of the left-wing media choosing the, political ends justifying the journalistic means over journalistic integrity.

To bring up to speed those of you who depend on the so-called mainstream media for your news, the Journo list is an online group of some 400 columnists and journalists from around the nation who, during the last presidential elections, apparently utilized their list for the express purpose of aiding in the election of Barack Obama to the U.S. Presidency, by influencing how news stories were covered.

One of the explicit things the Journo list group did was to discuss ways to shield the then Senator/candidate Obama from the fallout of a brewing Rev. Jeremiah Wright scandal. Discussed were tactics such as skewing the story or burying the story in various ways.

Another member, remarkably, and ironically, a journalist ostensibly charged with fairly covering conservatives during the election, suggested a different tack: Accuse some prominent Republican of racism for opposing a “black” candidate—and I suppose, a “black” reverend too. Two conservatives specifically mentioned were Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard and Karl Rove, President G.W. Bush’ former chief of staff. Although the “journalist” did add that he really didn’t care which prominent Republican they accused.

This isn’t simply hardcore politics; this is diabolical, especially since this wasn’t emanating from some Democratic Party group, it was oozing out of a group of ostensibly mainstream media folks. So, if you ever wonder why some folks are still supporting the President and the Democrats despite their abysmal performance; you can relax now–the cat’s out of the bag.

The intricacies of race relations can be difficult to discuss, but it must be addressed, if for nothing else, intellectually honest and self-reflection, on both sides. In this instance I refer to the paramount racial intensity in our society, which exists, much of it unnecessarily, between blacks and whites, fostered by the race crisis entrepreneurs.

I have a very good friend who recently demonstrated my point: We received a police call and when we arrived I knocked on the door and addressed the complainant. This was a cantankerous old coot as if he’d been trained to it from birth. He aimed his tirade at me and stepped out into the driveway, ignoring my partner, and with a sweep of his hand while moving backward almost collided with him. The man paid little attention to my partner during the five-minute interaction.

As we were leaving my partner who is black said, “Well, he sure didn’t want to talk to the brother [me].”

I found this reaction intriguing, and while I’ve seen it before, I haven’t given it much thought for some time. When someone disrespects, or out rightly expresses an obvious dislike for us, how do we perceive their motivations?

From my perspective, I’d initiated contact with the “gentleman,” so it seemed only logical he would direct his attention, and in this case animus toward me, while he chose to ignore my friend, probably because the old man was simply a socially retarded boor.

From my partner’s perspective it was immediately a racial incident. And let me interject here that I’ve known my partner/friend for more than a decade and a half, and he’s one of the nicest and most easygoing people I know. I’ve seen him treat everyone regardless of race appropriately on every occasion.

This incident made me think of the disservice done by leftwing civil rights activists and other progressive organizations that try to paint every interaction between black and white people as racially based. There are people who’ve grown up all their lives being told white people don’t like them, have little respect for them, and will mistreat them if given the chance, so now it seems the reaction becomes instinctive.

As I wrote in one of the vignettes in my book, Is There a Problem, Officer? (The Lyons Press, 2007), an officer was dealing with an irate, disrespectful, and loud woman, he’d stopped for a traffic violation. The woman looked at me and said about the officer, “He doesn’t like me because I’m black.” I studied her for a moment, considered how belligerent she’d been with the officer, and returned, “Why do you think that’s [your race] why he doesn’t like you?”

My implication being, she could get away with acting the perfect fool, and then simply write off the officer’s doing his job to his being racist, and thus harassing her because she’s black. This is of course ridiculous, but as I saw with my partner, whose general demeanor is the polar opposite of this woman; both apparently maintain a similar core race-based outlook, as to the motivations of any white people with whom they have a confrontational interaction.

While there are of course racists, from all races, and there probably always will be, the overt racism of the past, especially institutional, has decreased significantly. Only the pushing of affirmative action and other quota programs seems to be interfering with race relations, and fostering racial resentment.

Consider the formal and informal polls that ask if a person has experienced racism in their lives. The respondents answering yes are always very high, but how much of what they thought was racism, was actually for other reasons? The black person who thinks the store clerk is being unfriendly because of his race, when the clerk is a militant atheist and dislikes the black person because she’d just seen him come out of the Catholic church across the street. While religious discrimination is no better, it just illustrates there are lots of reasons folks treat each other the way they do, and they’re not all related to race.

I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve been called a racist while performing my duties: I didn’t stop the guy because he almost ran over the lady in the crosswalk; no, I stopped him because he was black. God forbid the lady in the crosswalk is white. After all, I wake up in the morning already planning how I can ruin some black person’s day. Give me a break!

My wife experienced this phenomenon, but with regard to gender, and in reverse, as she’d benefitted from a perceived “discrimination.” In becoming a firefighter, because of the hoopla over affirmative action, no matter how well she did by objective standards—her test did not lower standards for gender—she was always fighting the insipid thought she’d received special treatment due to gender. This is the damage affirmative action-type programs cause in our society. Good, qualified candidates will always wonder, and their colleagues may too.

The more we view, or are told to view, society through a racial lens, the more discontent we’ll breed toward each other. Our society has come a long way from our segregated past, and by denying, or discounting this progress we disrespect all of the sacrifice all those freedom fighters—black and white—contributed to Dr. King’s admonition that we judge all people not by the color of their skin, text of their creed, or their gender, but by the content of their character.

As a police officer it’s maddening when people, from the most casual observer to the sharpest political pundit, gets it completely wrong. Now, I know we all get things wrong at times, but when we get those things wrong, and worse, in a very confident or even arrogant manner, but our error is based in ignorance, the issue demands edification.

I’m referring to when a law enforcement officer becomes embroiled in some political hailstorm based upon his or her actions, often including the use of force, but which originates from some “minor” violation.

Such ignorance has been loud and clear, recently, regarding the infamous Seattle “Jaywalking” Incident, with statements similar to: “The officer who punched a teenaged girl in the face for jaywalking obviously used excessive force,” and, “While the girl was wrong; the officer was wrong too.” What’s wrong, are those types of statements.

Some suggested the officer lose his job, and others even wanted the City to charge him criminally. We even have some of our own leaders, some who’ve never been cops and couldn’t make a split-second decision at Starbuck’s and others who haven’t pounded a beat in years, calling perfectly acceptable actions, in which officers are specifically, and currently, trained, into question. This is not fair to all officers who can’t help but second-guess their actions in future similar situations.

So, it doesn’t look good when a man punches a woman, especially a “teenager,” in the face for whatever reason…Duh! Of course it looks bad; uses of force rarely look good, but that’s not the point; the point is, a surrounded, lone officer, whose mind is racing a million miles an hour, needs to act as trained and within seconds. Having been through 18 years of police training sessions, I can tell you the officer used tactics as he was specifically trained. We don’t train for the specific person we’re dealing with, we train for the circumstances as a whole; isn’t that the point?

That the use of force didn’t look good, no kidding; that the use of force is called into question, absolutely not, and shame on those who should know better.

This criticism is seriously ignorant, but not entirely the civilian critic’s fault; the police are horrible at educating the public in police procedures. How the critics can speak so forcefully on something about which they understand so little is beyond me. Even people who purport to normally support the police sound like dunces to cops when they criticize, in a knee-jerk way, police practices they don’t understand, but think they do.

There is one preeminent issue, which deserves dissection. Listen carefully: The girl was not punched for jaywalking; the girl—the suspect—was punched after assaulting a police officer, while interfering with his attempt to make an arrest, and then charging back at the officer.

This is not a matter of semantics; this is a critical distinction. There is a transition that occurs during incidents such as this where, by the violator’s actions, the suspect elevates the encounter from, in the case of jaywalking, an infraction—the most minor level of law violations, to, in the case of assaulting a police officer, a felony—the most serious level of law violations.

We see this especially when folks in categories outside those whom society feels may be, punched in the face, tased, or baton-whacked, without much public consternation. The categories include, women, children, the elderly, and the physically and mentally challenged. So, in this case we have a two-fer: a teenaged female.

Regarding the female aspect, the young woman may have been seventeen, and though irrelevant, the officer obviously couldn’t know this, and again irrelevant, she appeared at least the same age as the other female, nineteen, and actually relevant, she was about the same physical size as the officer she’d assaulted.

Now, regarding those folks who believe this was some arrogant, badge-heavy officer out looking to “harass” kids, proactively hiding and waiting to pounce on jaywalkers, think again. According to neighborhood comments, people described the officer as kind and fair, and more likely to give a warning than a ticket for such offenses.

Also add to this that it was the school administration that specifically requested increased pedestrian “jaywalking” violation enforcement at the intersection. (Incidentally, there is also an alternate pedestrian overpass at this location, so pedestrians don’t have to cross the busy intersection). This is why the officer took the action he did—he was doing his job. All the “teenager” had to do was apologize for her infraction, and then accept the consequences of her actions in either a verbal warning or an infraction, like 99% of the world does.

It should also be noted that, with the assistance of local minority groups, the “teenager” apologized to the officer—in person, and the officer accepted that apology. Neither the group, nor the “teenager” solicited an apology from the officer, which is appropriate, since he did nothing wrong.

Please keep the bottom line in mind: The officer didn’t use force against the “teenager” for jaywalking; the officer used force against the “teenager” for assaulting a police officer and interfering with him conducting his legal duties.

Sometimes we have to distill a message to really “get” it, but it’s best distilled only after getting as much information as possible about it. The more I read and study American history the more I’m convinced that my position is a correct one, and since it’s the position of Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, I feel I’m on firm ground.

The entire current, and preeminent American issue truly comes down to the simple question of whether you believe the individual is sovereign, with the right to make peaceful choices for himself, or the government is sovereign and had the right to make decisions for the individual.

This is a truly strange proposition when you consider that many on the left who believe in big government, also ostensibly believe in “choice,” but apparently only when it comes to smoking dope or aborting a potential human being.

“That government is best which governs least.” Thomas Paine

keep looking »