Miscellaneous Rants

Keepin' it real...

Frequently, I receive e-mails from people who have aspirations of winning the World Championship of Public Speaking.  That's the big speech contest put on by Toastmasters International that I won back in 2003.  Given my success in the contests (I also was the runner-up in both 2001 and 2002), I suppose I've learned a thing or two on what it takes to have success, and people area interested in gaining that knowledge.

Every now and then, I'll get one on which the sender has put something like the following as their signature block on the e-mail (with the year they include being the next contest year):

John Doe
2010 Champion of Public Speaking

I get why they do that; I do.  It is a statement of confidence and self-motivation.  When I was competing I did the same thing, except that I only sent e-mails with those signature blocks to myself.  I wanted to see how they looked and how it might feel if I achieved it, but I chose to not send them to anyone else, lest it be interpreted as arrogant and presumptive.  Whenever I get a note with these types of signature blocks, I tell the sender...in the kindest and most diplomatic way I know...that it is okay to send those e-mails to oneself, but "don't use the title until you've earned it".  That title is one that I had to work very hard achieve; it is important to me that it only be used by those who have truly earned it.  Simply, I strongly believe in "keepin' it real".

 

Yeah, I know that's somewhat of an over-used term with its origins in hip-hop, and I'm not the stereotype of a hip-hop person (though my broad musical tastes tend to surprise).  Still, my sentiment remains; when you've legitimately earned a title, then AND ONLY then should you use it.

 

Sadly, I've witnessed members of another group of people use titles that they have not earned as if they had.  In so doing, they create and forward a false impression of what they have achieved.  That group can be described by the following:  preachers...ministers...men (or women) of the cloth, clergy.

 

Lest you think I am going to take a blanket swipe at all preachers/ministers, let me share my vantage point.  I am the son of a preacher.  I am a "PK" as we call ourselves; a preacher's kid.  I had front row, courtside seats, to the real deal.  My Mom and Dad were authentic.  They always pastored churches in small towns across Arkansas and Louisiana.  It was not their 'job'; it was their 'calling', and there is a HUGE difference between the two.  They weren't in the ministry for money, ego, or fame [point of clarification...for pastors of small churches, there usually isn't much money or fame]; they were in it for the right reasons.  The way they poured themselves into the lives of their congregations, giving much of their time, attention, and energy to their people, should be a lesson to all who intend to minister.

I obviously have not lived in my parents' household for quite some time, but because they lived that high standard in front of me, I find myself holding other ministers to that standard.  Sometimes, what I see doesn't measure up.  Over the years, there have been several "celebrity" (nationally known ) ministers involved in sex or money-related scandals.  My parent's example steadied my trust in ministers as a whole during that time.  It has done the same when I've seen less-visible examples where clergy couldn't be bothered to take the time to actually minister to the needs of their congregants, instead always delegating that to the members of their staff.  (I understand the concept of sharing that workload and allowing others to minister, but there comes a point when the lead pastor should show up.)

What I have been unable to get past, and what chaps me even to this day, are cases where a minister will stand before the congregation, as the pious pinnacle of morality, and preach "there is no such thing as a little sin; there is not such thing as a little white lie.  A lie is a lie.  Sin is sin."...but then they allow people to believe complimentary things about them that are not true.  They even either allow or direct people on their staff to propagate that lie.

To be more specific, I am aware of several ministers who have been given honorary doctorate degrees who put "Dr." in front of their names.  I'm not an expert on protocol, so I did a little bit of research.  Here are a couple of passages I found on earned vs. honorary degrees:

In Emily Post’s Etiquette, it says, ““An earned title, indicating that a man or a woman has received a doctorate in history, philosophy, literature, etc., is generally used professionally, although it varies according to the feeling of the owner of the degree and the customs of his or her particular institution or academic field.” .

In contrast, it has been noted by Who's Who publishers A & C Black that "honorary doctorates are not used in circumstances where they might be taken to imply an academic qualification."  They also advise following the holder's preference when determining whether to address an ‘honorary’ doctor as ‘Dr’.

I'm not quite so sure about that last sentence of the 2nd example.  It is my belief that one with an honorary degree should not include "Dr." in their title, because it is cannot be distinguished from the title of someone who has earned it.  The implication is that they have fulfilled the requirements to earn a degree.  A person might be a significant contributor to (either in terms of money or doing work for) a specific cause, an institution, or society-at-large, and that contribution might justify the conferring of on honorary degree.  But I believe that if you have not earned a degree, it is wrong to use the title as if you have.  Furthermore, when a minister knowingly does it as a means of promoting their own distinguished image and distinction - especially when he/she knows that it damages the trust and faith of a congregant - he/she is unworthy of my trust.  It matters not to me if the minister in question is the pastor of a small country church, the pastor of a large mega-church (or anywhere in between), or even among the top leadership of a world-wide denomination.  Knowingly allowing people to believe something about you that is not true is the same as telling a lie.

I recognize that this may be more of a hot-button issue for me than for others, but I don't have an ax to grind with all ministers.  I believe that most of them have the proper motivations and drives, and their ministry is the answer to their calling.  I even know ministers who have an earned doctorate, but they ordinarily don't use the title "Dr." even though you could argue that they are entitled to do so.  (My best friend is one.)

At least I am consistent.  I believe that nobody should use a title they have not earned.  Whether that title is "Dr." or "World Champion of Public Speaking", you've got to do like my Mom & Dad exemplified...and keep it real.

And they wonder why...

For more years than I can remember, my daughter has taken dance lessons.  By my best guess, it's been around 10 years.  During that time, I can't even begin to remember how many dance recitals I've attended.  To say that I enjoy dance recitals would be incorrect.  I definitely enjoy the times when my daughter is on the stage, but those times are a decided minority.   When she isn't on the stage, the dance recital is NOT the place I would prefer to be.

I noticed a disturbing trend early in her dance career that has, unfortunately, continued.  The trend is for very young girls to include moves in their routines that are, in this father's opinion, inappropriate.  To be frank, those moves are sexually suggestive.  I'm not a prude, by any stretch of the imagination. But I know that girls grow into their mature sexuality over time, and I cannot imagine anything good that comes from having a group of 6 and 8-year olds doing a 'hoochie' dance.

What is equally disturbing is the 'hooting and hollering' that comes from the audience when they do.  It's just downright creepy, if you ask me.  How any adult can participate in that without feeling wrong escapes me.  It sends a message that we (the adults) are celebrating their suggestive and provocative dance moves.

I first saw this type of thing at my daughter's very first recital, many years ago.  I remember telling her mom, "the first time I see Veronica dancing like that will be her last day of dance classes".  Maybe that was the overprotective father in me speaking, but I didn't see any possible positive outcome.

Entirely too often, I read news reports of sexual predators that prey upon children.  I believe that they are monsters who deserve the very harshest of penalties.  But...parents have a responsibility to not over-sexualize their children or have them participate in what has the potential to be "pedophile peep-show".  We should also make it hard for them to know our children's identities.  (That's a note to all of the parents who put stickers on their cars, telling all of the prowlers their child's name, soccer team they play for, and their jersey number.)

Far too many parents are abdicating that responsibility, and even enabling and encouraging their little girls to take part.  And they wonder why their little girls have to deal with so many unnecessary and avoidable problems as they grow up.

[NOTE TO PARENTS:]
I do not need to see your young daughter shaking her butt towards the audience or doing pelvic thrust moves.  It is irresponsible of the dance instructors to teach those moves to the very young girls, but it is ultimately your job to safeguard your child. 

And another thing...I also don't need to see your 6 or 8-year old daughter wearing pants with the words "Juicy", "Hot Stuff", etc.  emblazoned across her behind.  And I don't care whether she pitches a hissy-fit because all her friends get to wear them.  Be the adult; have the guts to say 'no', for the right reasons.   Think about it...it invites all passers-by, including those with devious intentions, to... look... at... your... daughter's... butt.  Idiots.  (Too harsh?  Well, doesn't someone just about have to be dumber than a box of dirt to not see that?)

Need another reason?  How about this...both the too-young 'hoochie' dancing and the word-butt-pants teach your daughter something.  At a very young age, it teaches her that it's okay for her to simply be sexually objectified; that she's not much more than a piece of meat.  How do you think that will serve her as she moves towards womanhood?

After all...the behavior your daughter exhibits and the attitudes she has as she progresses along that journey, especially those regarding her sexuality and her value as an individual, will likely be a magnification of the ones you allow or encourage when she is young.
[/End of NOTE TO PARENTS]

The bottom line to me is that there is nothing positive that can come from young children dancing in such a provocative manner.  It sends the wrong message to adults, and it sends the wrong message to the kids.  And more parents and dance school instructors should have the courage to say so.

My anthem opinion...

Maybe I’m an odd bird, but I have an appreciation for a very wide range of styles of music.  Good old rock is my favorite, but I also like pop, country, jazz, blues, R&B, and even hip-hop.  AC/DC, Michael Buble, House of Pain, Big and Rich, Young MC, and The Eagles are all on my iPod.  Go figure.

HOWEVER…that doesn’t mean that I like everything in each of those categories.  “Scream-singing, speed metal” rock…not my bag.  “Whiny country” that bemoans – in order of increasing importance to the singer, the wife leaving, the dog dying, the truck breaking down, and running out of beer – give me a break.  Gangsta rap full of the N-word, over the top obscenity (m.f.’ing bitches & ho’s, etc.), I definitely don’t dig.  Especially when it’s coming out of the car of a 125-pound, spoon-chested white guy wearing a wife-beater T-shirt and a baseball cap sitting all “whickety-whack” on the side of his head.  Yeah Scooter, you’ve got some real street cred, yo. <sigh>

I think that the reason I can appreciate many aspects so many types of music is that I’m a bit musically inclined.  God saw fit to put me in a family with a Mom who played piano and sang, Dad sang, and each of my sisters both sing and play an instrument or two.  I took piano lessons when I was a kid, and continue to play the bass guitar and drums (both self-taught), and I sing fairly well.  Other than my childhood piano lessons, I don’t have any formalized musical training.  (Woe is me!)  I just have a good musical “ear”.

Lack of training notwithstanding, I definitely have my pet peeves when it comes to singing.  For instance, I hate it when someone is singing a song that has the word “I”, and they breath-heave it out as “Hi”.  I’ve heard that one from unknowns and the likes of Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears…people who can afford vocal coaches who would train them otherwise.  (Wow….I just put the names Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears in a post on my blog.   That just may be one of the signs of the apocalypse.)

One of my other peeves is when people do all sorts of vocal gyrations all around the note that should be sung.  Oh, they do hit the right note, but their voice flails all around it like a spastic hamster on crack.

I remember seeing an interview with the late great Luther Vandross years ago which included him saying “I am more impressed by tonal quality than by vocal gymnastics.”  Amen, Luther.  Amen.  That’s pretty much how I feel.  All of those unnecessary vocal gyrations are all geared to try to impress the listener by demonstrating how oh-so-skilled the singer is.

Which leads me to the peeve that makes my head explode.  It is when someone is invited to sing the national anthem at a sporting event, and they choose to use their performance as a moment to demonstrate their unbelievably impressive vocal chops, or just put the awesomeness of their personality and remarkable sexiness on display.  <Sigh> We are so lucky that they share themselves with us…mere mortals.  <eye rolling>

There have been a number of examples of things going badly.  I’m sure that if you search YouTube for anthem renditions by Carl Lewis or Roseanne Barr, you’ll be able to find prime examples.  Even artists that you would expect to do a good job can derail the anthem.  That is especially true when they start off too high, and you just know that the cresendo note will be out of their range.

I recently saw another one.  It was on Thanksgiving Day before the football game between the Philadelphia Eagles and the Arizona Cardinals.  The “artist”…and I use that phrase very loosely…was Mario.  Yeah...just "Mario".  Apparently he is so well known (at least in his own mind) that he is recognizable by a singular name.  You know, like Madonna…Shaq…Jesus.  That big.

For starters, home dawg didn’t even get the words right.  The last time I checked, “for the land of the free” is not in the anthem.  In his version, it was there…multiple times.  And what self-respecting vocalist would resist the urge to add in those universally-adored vocal gymnastics.  Mario certainly couldn't resist, but the piece' de resistance was at the very end when he followed:  “For the land of the free….” with a long pause as he turned in a complete circle pointing and acknowledging the crowd with a self-satisfied grin and expression that said “aw yeah, boy.  Can y’all feel me?  Can y’all feel me?  Aw yeah…”.  And then he finished the song.  At least he got "and the home of the brave" right.

Buy a clue, Mario…you little twit.  The anthem IS NOT ABOUT YOU.  Yes, you’re a big star. Whoop-t-do, and good for you.  The anthem is about calling attention to the greatness of our country, what our flag symbolizes, and some of the circumstances that occurred surrounding the founding of our nation.  Not you, you little self-absorbed idiot.

I love the national anthem.  I love it when it is done well.  For me, the high-water mark was when Whitney Houston performed it prior to Super Bowl in 1991.  A close second was when Beyonce revived Whitney’s exact arrangement in 2004.  If you want to watch Whitney’s version, a quick YouTube search will yield several versions.  Here’s one that I just re-watched:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1QmeEdFOSc

I still am stirred and get goosebumps and a sense of swelling pride in my country when I hear it.   And THAT (take notes Mario, and all other it’s-all-about-me wannabes) is what it is truly all about.

"Happy Holidays" is for the birds

I love my home country;  I truly do.  I love the beauty of it’s geography and the generosity of it’s people.  There are countless good things about it.

But…I hate the fact that we’ve become so obsessed with making sure that we don’t offend anyone, that we take the best things about the diversity of our culture and homogenize it down to blech.

The specific thing I’m grinding about at the moment is the whole movement to say “Happy Holidays”.  Yes, I know that there people who don’t recognize it as a Christian holiday.  Yes, I know that there are people who aren’t Christians.  Yes, I realize that there are people who are Jewish, or some other religion.  I don’t begrudge people of other beliefs their customs and traditions.

But at what point did the great “melting pot” that our country is supposed to be become more about “blanding” rather than “blending”?

Imagine if I asked my sweet Mom to make my all-time favorite cake (strawberry cake…mmm) or my dear Mother-in-law to make one of her remarkable grilled ham-and-cheese sandwiches (the kind that will change your life), but then I said “Oh, and could you go ahead and remove all of the taste/flavor from it?”  How stupid would that be?

Well…that’s what we do when we refuse to say “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Channukah” or “Happy <specific holiday name>” for fear that someone…heaven help us…might get offended.  The cake and the sandwich aren’t for everyone (diabetics would be best to stay away from the cake, and folks who get ill from eating dairy would avoid the sandwich), but they are fine for ME!!!  By the same token, “Merry Christmas” is for ME.

When we make it a big production to make everything generic, we loose the specialness, the essence of what makes the event special.  Moreover, when we refuse to acknowledge whatever December holiday another person observes, we are saying "I refuse to recognize that part of your humanity".

One of my favorite comedians, Jeff Dunham, is a ventriloquist brings several wildly-popular characters to life.  One of them is an cranky old man named Walter.  Walter can find a reason to get ticked at just about anything.  The beauty of the character is that Dunham can say anything through Walter and get away with it.    Walter is my hero, and in his most recent video (go figure, a Christmas special) I absolutely LOVE Walter’s reaction when Dunham give him a namby-pamby “Happy Holidays”.  Love it!!

So to the people who I know are of certain beliefs/observances, I will make it my practice to say the following:

• …to my Jewish friends:   Happy Channukah
  
• …to my black friends (or anybody else) who observe it:  Happy Kwanza
  
• …to my Muslim friends:  Honest confession...I’m not all that familiar with what you observe so just let me know and I’ll be happy to sincerely wish you the best in that observance
  
• …and to those who observe it, whether the religious or secular version (and this is my default, if I don't know what you observe):   Merry Christmas!!!

….and to those politically correct lemmings who still think we should never utter the dreaded "C-word" lest somebody get their drawers in a bunch...   ...well, you can just Bite Me!

Here we go...

For well over a year, I have maintained a one primary blog.  In that blog, I have chronicled every day occurrences, milestones in life, and various experiences I've had.  And I've occasionally put some opinions on it that have not gone over so well with people.  (Yeah...I've actually received complaints from the offended parties.)

Since...on a very small and limited scale...I am a little bit of a public figure, I've tried not to put many things there which would rankle too many people.  Call it a bit of discretionary self-censoring.  Call it stifling.  Call it...I want/need to be able to express myself more freely on more topics.  One of my favorite quotations from Martin Luther King, Jr. nails it:  Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.  (That's right folks; MLK had more words worth remembering besides just "I Have A Dream".)

There is a sports talk radio station here in the DFW area that coined the phrase "hot sports opinion" a few years back that they would quote whenever someone uttered a startling opinion/assertion about something sports-related.  Over time, it has boiled down to "HSO", but it is no longer exclusive to sports.  Any startling opinion is now dubbed "the HSO".

Well...anyone who knows me can tell you that I am not at a loss of an HSO on any number of topics.  News, culture, politics, religion, sex...I've got opinions.  (Those who know me well just sarcastically gasped in faux-disbelief.)   When I feel strongly enough about something and get the urge to opine, I'll unleash my rant on that topic here.

Chances are that you may not agree with my opinions.  That's okay...I don't want to only have discourse with like-minded people.  That would be downright boring.  I respect every differing opinion, and expect the same for mine.  Every one has be right to be wrong (and to believe that it is the other person.)

If you have a thin skin and you can't accept that people have differing opinions...don't read my rants.  Instead, listen to some soothing music, get a hobby, or otherwise take a chill pill.

On the other hand, if you check in on my HSOs, rants, and soapbox moments...you will never be bored.  Just click on, strap in, and get ready for a guaranteed good ride.  Here we go...