My wife, step-son Joe, and I were talking movies tonight, and I mentioned two that neither had seen. You probably haven’t either: Trent Harris’s Reuben and Ed and John Candy and Eugene Levy’s little mocumentary gem, The Last Polka.
A spoof of The Band’s rock documentary, The Last Waltz, The Last Polka tells the tale of the Schmenges, Polish brothers who become famous for their polka music. Told with a very straight face, the film includes interviews with 60 and 70-something fans camped out on city sidewalks, hoping to score tickets to the Schmenges’ last polka performance. Catherine and Mary Margaret O’Hara also star, along with Rick Moranis.
Reuben and Ed is harder to describe. The cast includes Howard Hesseman, Karen Black, and Crispin Glover at his weirdest. In an effort to save his marriage to Black, Hesseman has signed up in a multi-level sales company and is desperate to find people for his down line. Crispin Glover agrees to become his first, but only after they bury his dead cat that has laid frozen in his freezer since its death. Once you’ve watched the movie, you’ll never forget the multi-level’s mantra: Power through Positive Real Estate. And you’ll laugh every time you think of the scene in the desert with Hesseman, Glover, the dead cat, and a cooler.
When I was a kid, my neighbor friends and I formed a kind of mounted police to patrol our little domain on the west side of little Powell, Wyoming. We set up a medium-sized canvass tent on my lawn next to the street to act the part of the police station. It had a window on the side facing the street. Our dispatcher sat in the tent and, speaking through the window, gave us assignments when we drove up on our bicycles to ask for instructions.
We had attached long dowels to the back axels on our bikes–think antenna. I can’t remember for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we wore some sort of uniform or badge, or something besides the dowels that would tell the people of our neighborhood to be careful because we were watching.
I remember driving down Carey Street on my bike that day and noticing some branches lying in the street. A man was walking on the sidewalk nearby. I must have assumed that he had left the branches there because I ordered him to pick them up. No, he didn’t obey my command. Being a good cop, I picked them up and reported my good deed–and he man’s disobedience–to the dispatcher.
I thought of this experience as I read this story today.
Kids do and say the darndest things all too often. And then there are the times they do great things. This story is about one of those times. The two 15 year olds deserve a medal and then some–though the hugs Temar Boggs (and I assume Chris Garcia) received for his efforts are worth quite a bit.
I was proof reading my most recent post and began to wonder if I was using and capitalizing race and ethnic terminology appropriately. For example, I had written the term “black” in lowercase but the term “White-Hispanic” in uppercase. Hey, I thought, I should check The Associated Press Stylebookto see what’s appropriate in the world of journalism. Unfortunately, I only have the 2004 edition, so things may have changed, but here’s what I found (all bolding, italics, and capitalization is original).
African-American The preferred term is black. Use African-American only in quotations or the names of organizations or if individuals describe themselves so. See black.
Arab [No entry.]
Asian, Asiatic Use Asian or Asians when referring to people. Some Asians regard Asiatic as offensive when applied to people.
black Preferred usage for those of the Negroid or black race. Use Negro only in names of organizations or in quotations. Do not use colored as a synonym. See colored entry.
Caucasian [This is the entire entry for this term.]
Hispanic The preferred term for those whose ethnic origin is in a Spanish-speaking. Latino is acceptable for Hispanics who prefer that term. (The feminine form is Latina.) Use a more specific identification when possible, such as Cuban, Puerto Rican or Mexican-American or the name of an indigenous group in a Latin American country. Avoid Chicano as a synonym for Mexican-American. Refer to people of Brazilian and Portuguese origin as such, not as Hispanic.
IndiansAmerican Indian is the preferred term for those in the United States. Where possible, be precise and use the name of the tribe: He is a Navajo commissioner. Native American is acceptable in quotations and names of organizations. In news stories about American Indians, such words as wampum, warpath, powwow, tepee, brave, squaw, etc., can be disparaging and offensive. Be careful and certain of their usage.
Jew Use for men and women. Do not use Jewess.
Muslims The preferred term to describe adherents of Islam. A Black Muslim is a member of a predominately black Islamic sect in the United States. However,the term is considered derogatory by members of the sect, who call themselves Muslims.
Polynesian [No entry.]
White [No entry.]
White-Hispanic [No entry.]
If I’ve excluded any race, ethnicity, or religion, I mean no ill will. The terms I covered seem to be the ones I and (I assume) most others have difficulty with. And I stress again: this is from the 2004 edition of the stylebook. Things may have changed.
Update: I’ve seen the links to the following story floating around the Internet, but until now, I had not followed them. What is apparent, however, is that this TV station in San Francisco did not have a copy of The Associated Press Stylebook handy, nor had they played Clue lately.
What if NBC had not doctored the recording of George Zimmerman’s telephone conversation with the police, you know, to make it sound like Zimmerman had told the police–unsolicited–that Trayvon Martin was black, which gave the impression that he was racially profiling Martin?
What if the public the media is supposed to serve, particularly that part of the public that is so outraged by the Zimmerman verdict, had actually followed the case in detail and actually had some idea of what the real case was really about?
Was Zimmerman justified in shooting Martin? The actual evidence seems to back up his version of events, but in the end, I don’t know, and neither do you.
Would the outcome have been different had their roles been reversed? Assuming Martin had had similar legal counsel working with the same evidence, I’d say yes. But I don’t know, and neither do you. If, in my hypothetical, Martin had been saddled with an overworked and underfunded public defender, then the outcome very well could have been different. But again, I don’t know, and neither do you.
Would this case have attracted the attention it has, had the media done its job, had the race hustlers remained stage right (or left, I don’t care), I think the answer would be no.
Look, the African-American community is justifiably outraged about the short straw it too often draws in our justice system. And I can understand the outpouring of sympathy and concern for Trayvon Martin’s family. His death was a tragedy. But to use George Zimmerman as a tool to root out injustice, to destroy his life in a different, but very real way in order to advance that cause is another unnecessary tragedy–or a travesty, as Zimmerman’s attorney characterizes it.
Finally, I don’t want to make this about guns. Yes, a gun was involved. A legally acquired, legally carried gun. But for a moment, let’s forget that. Let’s suppose that Zimmerman’s version of events is accurate. Let’s suppose that Trayvon was the aggressor, that he sucker punched Zimmerman, that the punch laid Zimmerman out on the ground, that Martin straddled Zimmerman’s body, pummeled him MMA style, bashed his head against solid concrete. (All this, by the way, is a reasonable inference from the actual evidence rather than from speculation.) Let’s assume that Zimmerman did indeed think his life was in danger. And let’s assume that Martin didn’t stop, and Zimmerman couldn’t stop him. Under those assumptions, Zimmerman likely could have died an equally violent death.
In other words, assuming Zimmerman’s version of events is accurate, because he had a gun, someone died. It just wasn’t him.
This sad case was not about guns. It was about self defense.
Update: I just discovered TalkLeft, a blog written, in part, by a Denver criminal defense attorney. Her post on this case is worth reading.
Another two thumbs up for Robert Caro’s book The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. It easily ranks among the top 5 books I’ve ever read, a mesmerizing study of power in the hands of one man, the New York state and City parks commissioner. A parks commissioner!
This passage caught my attention today:
If a commissioner [of another department resisted his attempts to circumvent the law], Moses used the public rather than the private smear. “Mr. Moses told me . . . that he was able to control the press of New York City, so as to hold me up to such obloquy that I would not be able to stand it,” W. Kingsland Macy had testified a decade before. The smear technique that had been used then was used now–frequently.
In the hands of a man for whom the press acted as a gigantic sounding board, repeating and amplifying his words, the smear was a terrible weapon–particularly when those words were as caustic and cutting as Moses’. . . . (469)
How bad was it? How deep in Moses’ pocket were the press? This deep:
Mrs. Sulzberger [daughter of the founder of the New York Times, wife of the publisher in the 1930s] believed that Moses came “close to our ideal of what a Park Commissioner should be”; the Times evidently believed so, too. Its reporters and editors may never have been directly ordered to give Moses special treatment but, during the Thirties as during the Twenties, they were not so insensitive as not to know what was expected of them. Moses’ press releases were treated with respect, being given prominent treatment and often being printed in full. There were no investigating of the “facts” presented in those press releases, no attempt at detailed analysis of his theories of recreation and transportation, no probing of the assumption on which the city was building and maintaining recreational facilities and roads. The Times ran more than one hundred editorials on Moses and his programs during the twelve-year La Guardia administration–overwhelmingly favorable editorials. (461)
The more I read about Calvin Coolidge, the more I like him. Next on my reading list is Amity Shlaes’s biography, Coolidge. But for good reading on this special day, his speech commemorating the 150th anniversary of The Declaration of Independence is worthy of your time and thought, especially this paragraph.
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.
The Obama administration announced on Tuesday that it would delay for a year, until 2015, the Affordable Care Act mandate that employers provide coverage for their workers or pay penalties, responding to business complaints and postponing the effective date beyond next year’s midterm elections.
Update:
I had not been to Drudge when I linked to The New York Times above. I’ll save you the trip:
Music appropriate to commemorate this day, 169 years ago, June 27, 1844.
Lyrics
1. Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!
Jesus anointed that Prophet and Seer.
Blessed to open the last dispensation,
Kings shall extol him, and nations revere.
(Chorus]
Hail to the Prophet, ascended to heaven!
Traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain.
Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren;
Death cannot conquer the hero again.
2. Praise to his mem’ry, he died as a martyr;
Honored and blest be his ever great name!
Long shall his blood, which was shed by assassins,
Plead unto heav’n while the earth lauds his fame.
3. Great is his glory and endless his priesthood.
Ever and ever the keys he will hold.
Faithful and true, he will enter his kingdom,
Crowned in the midst of the prophets of old.
4. Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of heaven;
Earth must atone for the blood of that man.
Wake up the world for the conflict of justice.
Millions shall know “Brother Joseph” again.
Text: William W. Phelps, 1792-1872
Music: Scottish folk song
I’m of so many minds on immigration that I wouldn’t know where to start if I had to explain my position to you. I am clear on one thing however: As with the vote on Obamacare, no lasting good and lots of trouble will come from rushing the current incarnation of immigration reform through the halls and chambers on Capitol Hill. In case you’ve not read the latest, here’s quick update. Though the Corker-Hoeven amendment to the so-called Gang of Eight bill only amounts to about 112 pages, those “pages” are interspersed throughout the existing 1,000 page plus bill, making it an essentially new, 1,200 page bill. The amendment was added to the bill late Friday.
As I said, I’ve always opposed rushing these monstrosities–speaking of size rather than content–through the legislative process. They need to be read and understood first or bad things will almost certainly happen later. My feelings about this issue have increased 10 fold as I read–make that listened to–Robert Caro’s 1975 Pulitzer Prize-winning masterpiece, The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York, a page-turner about the man behind New York state’s parks and parkways system. (For the uninitiated, New York parkways are essentially well-groomed freeways.) Trust me, this is easily one of the most interesting books you’ll ever read. I can’t recommend it highly enough.
Moses grew up an idealist to become a man of great vision. He truly worked wonders throughout New York state from the early 1920s till the 1960s. That said, he did it all by chucking his idealism in favor or raw, virtually unchecked power. He decided that to get things done, he first needed to accumulate power or make friends with those who already had it. He learned the tricks of what would become his trade at the feet of New York governor Al Smith and Belle Moskowitz, Smith’s right hand woman. And one of those tricks was taking advantage of the bill drafting process–advantage, that is, of the fact that most legislators don’t read what they vote on.
With that background, let me quote from Chapter 10: The Best Bill Drafter in Albany.
Once, no reformer, no idealist, had believed more sincerely than [Moses] in free and open discussion. No reformer, no idealist, had argued more vigorously that legislative bills should be fairly debated, and that the debates should be published so that the citizenry could be informed on the issues.
But free and open debate had not made his dreams come true. Instead, politicians had crushed them. And now he was going to make sure that, with the exception of Al Smith and Belle Moskowitz, no one–not citizenry, not press, not Legislature–was going to know what was in the bills dealing with parks that the Legislature was going to pass. The best bill drafter in Albany set to work.
First and foremost, parks were land, and land was generally acquired by government through condemnation. But condemnation in 1924 was a slow process, since the state could not take title to property until a condemnation commission set its value. And since the property’s owner could appeal to the courts if not satisfied with the commission’s evaluation, he could delay the state further. He [the property owner] therefore possessed in his opposition to the state a weapon, even if it was a small one–and in the hands of the barons of Long Island, small weapons could become large.
So one clause within Chapter 122 of the Laws of 1924, “AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR the location, creation, acquisition and improvement by the state of parks, parkways and boulevards in the counties of Nassau and Suffolk,” a clause buried deep within the act, empowered the Long Island State Park Commission to acquire land by condemnation and appropriation “in the manner provided by section fifty-nine of the conservation law.” (173-174, emphasis in original)
And what was so bad about that you ask, apart from burying the clause “deep within the act”? Well, how he defined “appropriation” within the act, for one. Moses’s bill defined “appropriation” not as “allocating funds to such and such a project” much like any legislator would have understood the term then and now. No, Moses defined appropriation “in the manner provided by section fifty-nine of the conservation law,” a law passed by the New York legislature in 1884 for a very specific purpose and used little since and then only in remote forests to preserve them. And under that 1884 law, appropriation was a procedure, according to Caro,
. . . in which a state official could take possession of the land by simply walking on it and telling the owner he no longer owned it–and that if he wanted compensation, he would have to apply to the condemnation commission himself. (174)
Caro also says that the appropriation “method had never ben used anywhere for more than 30 years because of doubts about its constitutionality. But the Legislature had never gotten around to repealing section fifty-nine” (174).
Moses didn’t stop there. In section eight of the bill, he wrote that the parks commission “had the right to operate parks.” He waited until section nine to tell anybody that read that far that “the term . . . parks as used in this act . . . shall be deemed to include . . . parkways . . . boulevards and also entrances and approaches thereto, docks and piers, and bridges . . . and such other appurtenances as the . . . commission shall utilize . . . ”
Section eight also gave the parks commission the right to “acquire . . . real estate.” The wary legislator had to read section ten to learn that “the term real estate as used in this act shall be construed to embrace all uplands, lands under water . . . and all real estate heretofore or hereafter acquired or used for railroad, street railroad, telephone, telegraph, or other public purposes . . .” As Caro points out, the words “lands underwater” were significant because they effectively undercut any claims a group of his biggest opponents, the “baymen,” had to their “‘sacred’ bay bottoms.”
There’s more to the story. As Caro captures it, “almost every clause in the act contained a sleeper” (175). And each of those sleepers and later ones like them in other bills, ordinances, charters, etc. helped Moses reign over parks and parkways and baseball parks, etc. etc. etc. in New York state well into the 1960s.
For me–and for you, I hope–the lesson is clear: bill drafting is a pathway to power. The drafting of and amendments to bills that are then rushed through Congress without time for interested parties to read and digest what’s in them is a ticket to greater power for some and a recipe for disaster for the rest of us. Be wary. Be very wary of the current immigration bill–unless and until we and our elected representatives have had time to read it.
Fantasia on Early Latter-day Saint Hymns is one of my favorite choir pieces. Arranged and directed by Mack Wilberg and performed by BYU’s Concert Choir, it tells the story of the Mormon gathering to Zion, or the story of our journey from the pre-existence to life on earth and back to our Father’s presence, or _______ (insert your own interpretation). Unfortunately, I can’t find a YouTube video of the performance, so you’ll have to just listen. Here are the words:
Fantasia on Early Latter-day Saint Hymns (“Yes, My Native Land” “Redeemer of Israel” “The Glorious Day Is Rolling On”)
Yes, my native land I love thee.
All thy scenes I love them well.
Friends, connections happy country!
Can I bid you all farewell?
Can I leave thee, Can I leave thee,
Far in distant lands to dwell?
Can I leave thee, Can I leave thee,
Far in distant lands to dwell?
Holy Scenes of joy and gladness,
Ev’ry fond emotion swell.
Can I banish heartfelt sadness,
While I bid my home farewell?
Can I leave thee, Can I leave thee,
Far in distant lands to dwell?
Can I leave thee, Can I leave thee,
Far in distant lands to dwell?
Bear me on, thou restless ocean:
Let the winds my canvas swell.
Heaves my heart with warm emotion,
While I go far hence to dwell.
Glad I bid thee, Glad I bid thee,
Native land farewell, farewell.
Glad I bid thee, Glad I bid thee,
Native land farewell, farewell.
______
Redeemer of Israel, Our only delight,
Oh whom for a blessing we call,
Our shadow by day and our pillar by night,
Our king, our deliv’rer our all!
How long we have wandered
as strangers in sin,
And Cried in the desert for thee!
Our foes have rejoiced when
our sorrows they’ve seen,
But Israel will shortly be free.
______
The glorious day is rolling on, All glory to the Lord!
When fair as at creation’s dawn the earth will be restored.
A perfect harvest then will crown the renovated soil,
And rich abundance drop around without corroding toil.
For in its own primeval bloom, Will nature smile again:
And blossoms streaming with perfume, Adorn the verdant plain.
The saints will then, with pure delight, Possess the holy land:
And walk with Jesus Christ in white, And in His presence stand.
Then while the pow’rs of darkness rage, With glory in our view,
In Jesus’ strength let us engage, To press to Zion, too.
For Zion will like Eden bloom: And Jesus come to reign,
The saints immortal from the tomb, With angels meet again.
_______
Words by Samuel Francis Smith, William W. Phelps, and Eliza R. Snow. Hymn tunes by Jacques Rousseau, Freeman Lewis, and anonymous. Musical setting by Mack Wilberg. From “All Creatures of Our God and King: Hymns of Faith and Praise,” by the Brigham Young University Concert Choir, Mack Wilberg, Conductor. Tantara Records
Comments (0) 
to see what’s appropriate in the world of journalism. Unfortunately, I only have the 2004 edition, so things may have changed, but here’s what I found (all bolding, italics, and capitalization is original).
lately.
But for good reading on this special day, his speech commemorating the 150th anniversary of The Declaration of Independence is worthy of your time and thought, especially this paragraph.
, a page-turner about the man behind New York state’s parks and parkways system. (For the uninitiated, New York parkways are essentially well-groomed freeways.) Trust me, this is easily one of the most interesting books you’ll ever read. I can’t recommend it highly enough.
Themocracy