Something on my Mind: The Spirit of Lawlessness

I suppose there is only one thing worse that a police state, and that would be a no-police state. Lawfulness or lawlessness? If we had no other options, I'd chose the former.

If you're like me, you've heard of a growing police state—especially in America (my main source for news). Either that, or we're being fed a pile of [#@!%&] from the press. I would think the truth is somewhere in the middle, namely, there has been an extra dose of unnecessary intrusion and excessive force in recent months, but it may not be as bad as it sounds. I don't know for sure, but, then, neither do you.

So let's discuss here what is rarely being discussed elsewhere, unless you wisely get your news from Glenn Beck or Ezra Levant. In other words, I'm not really commenting on the apparent growing police state, as much as I am on the over-the-top protests and their coverage.

While none of us were at the recent events (in Ferguson and NYC, for example), the professional protesters and liberal media were. That tells me right there that some reporting was skewered, biased, and dangerous.

There appears to be a groundswell movement to attack, malign, and even kill cops these days. I'm choosing my generalization carefully, so you'll need to read between the lines on this one. I see too many people with too much time and too few brains out there, ready and eager for a fight in the name of justice.

"The name of justice" would be an interesting way to put it. I suggest that it's a call for justice alright, but in name only. To demand justice through insurrection is an oxymoron. In my opinion, it's nothing more than a front for lawlessness and anarchy. These justice-demanders appear to hide behind the colour, age, gender, and victimization complex. That strikes me as hypocritical, inconsistent, and frightening.

There are some issues I can't quite grasp: Why did we watch the extensive coverage of the anarchists in Ferguson, night after night, while there was limited coverage of the assassination of two innocent cops in New York City? (Add the death of a Florida cop while you're at it.)

In fact, there wasn't much of any protest, so far as I could tell.

And race seems to be the underlying issue here, or at least that's what we're told. Again, scant coverage when the roles are reversed. That's where the hypocrisy and inconsistency comes in.

Here's what's reported: a black victim killed by a white villain. Here's what not reported: a white victim killed by a black villain. Or the bigger issue, namely, black young men killing other black young men.

On the other hand, do we ever read anything about the significant acts of kindness cops have done and are doing all over the States on a daily basis? Where's the coverage of the overwhelming random acts of kindness provided by white cops to black citizens? Nary a word.

Are cops perfect? Are you kidding me? They're humans just like the rest of us. They are just as prone to lose it like anyone else—be it a rancher, trucker, or contractor. But you never read of those types being vilified the way cops are.

I even read of an accident in Abbotsford, BC, the other day, where an "of-duty cop" struck a pedestrian. I have never read of a off-duty doctor or teacher being identified the same way, so why a cop? Why the slanted reporting?

No, the spirit of lawlessness is a far more scary matter than the spirit of a police state.

When it's open season on cops, and race is in the mix, we're in serious trouble. When the law fails us, lowbrows, deadbeats, and professional anarchists are a deadly alternative.

You don't like cops? Fine: Next time you're in trouble, call a professional protester. They've got the time and the energy. Just make sure you fit the requirements for their selective justice.

Something on my Mind: Auld Lang Syne

I have a little idea (but very little) what the title of this column means. I should; after all, I chose it.

If my facts are right, and my source is something other than Wicked-pedia, it was someone called Burns from Scotland, who wrote it in the mid-1700's.

It's something we say to each other when the clock strikes midnight on New Year's Eve, if we're still awake at this point. I'd even recognize the tune if you hummed it to me as I write this.

However, I'm listening to Celtic Woman right now, so please don't bother me.

I will spend the next few hundred words trying to decipher, interpret, and apply those three words for you. I'm going to do it by looking back into 2014. As they say, you will not know where you're going unless you know where you've come from.

Here goes an Alberta translation of a Scottish title:

Auld. Looks and sound like it's one of those puffin-type birds that live on the rugged coast of some man-forsaken Atlantic Ocean island. No, that would be “auk”--and this would be an “auk-word” moment for me.

It is, in fact, a corruption of the word “old,” as in auld (old) man, auld (old) socks, or auld (old) news. Yes, something old is about to be replaced with something new: An old year has almost slinked away, and we are facing a new one. Here's hoping 2015 will be a better year for you here and you over there—and everyone of you all over the world. Surely, it can't be any worse than 2014.

Well, actually, sorry to say, it can.

Lang. If the writer meant “land,” the least he could do was spell it right. Maybe he was doing headstands when he wrote it and got his letters upside down. It looks like it could be a corruption of “long,” as in the “old long year that just passed,” and the “a” should have been an “o.” “Long” it is.

If that's the case, then the next word that should should be something like “year” or “time,” as in “past long year” or “old last year” or something brilliantly Canadian like that.

But Syne? Seriously, that doesn't look like “year” or “past” to me. It looks like it could be “sin” or maybe even “sing.” “Sing about the past year?” That's a stretch, but you know how these Scots spell. After all, any guy who wears a skirt and eats sheep guts is, well--maybe we'll leave it right there.

It is actually related to “since,” and they're just missing a “c.” After all, we've already had an “a” that should be an “o” (twice). So our phrase could come to be a very clumsy translation of “old long since,” or “that which is past.” Today, we might say idiomatically, “long, long ago”-- like a fairy tale.

But, friends, 2014 was no fairy tale.

There are too many stories to draw from as we look back. Here are a couple: We learned of the horror of the initials “ISIS” that we never knew before. And had you ever heard of Ferguson, Missouri, before you turned purple with rage when a black kid named Brown was shot by a white cop? Didn't think so.

If you're like me, you'd like to hit the rewind button on your DVD called, “2014: The Year That Was,” and start all over. While you wouldn't want to whitewash the news (we'll leave that up to the social and network media types), I personally would like to hear last year's news from a different angle.

But we can't do that; that is, we can't change the past (events or reporting). But what we can do is bring in a new year, with a fresh perspective, fresh resolve, and fresh integrity. And the news starts with you and yours, and works out from there.

You see, there's not a lot you can do about Muslims killing Muslims and blacks killing blacks—which, by the way, goes unreported and unresolved on a daily basis. No place for smugness here, of course. Death and mayhem are still death and mayhem, no matter what the religion or skin colour is.

So 2014, as some toddler might say, was a “yucky” year. While I can't be responsible for what happens in the Iraq-Syria-Turkey Triangle or in Ferguson, Missouri, for that matter, I can be responsible what happens in my little world. And if a enough of us are serious about change, who knows where our efforts could lead to?

I resolve, therefore, to neither rob, vandalize, or kill, nor turn my gracious faith into brutal beliefs.

Now, let me turn “Celtic Woman” down, and with one accord, let us all sing “Awed Lined Song”...”Old Lake Swan”...”Odd Leaning Swing”...

Something on my Mind: Who Stole Christmas? (Part Two)

Not sure how many ordinary thinking people I “converted” last week with my call to consider the reason for the season. That reason is to celebrate the coming of the Christ-child over 2,000 years ago.

And I'm not too hung up as to how exactly you choose to celebrate it. That's really none of my business, nor should the way I celebrate it be yours—and therein lies the catch. If I want to say “Merry Christmas,” have a nativity scene on my front lawn, and take time out to read the historical account of the greatest birth ever (my words, I agree), why can't I? Why should I fear the PCG (politically-correct gestapo) shutting me and my celebration down?

In all fairness, I see those who embrace a traditional view of Christmas are very much on the rational side of this discussion.

I want to be fair to the readers: Many of you may not be familiar with the biblical account, or worse, have only a slight grasp of some version of it. Thus, I will set the Scriptures aside and look at history itself. No fear from here with that approach. Believers love the way history and geography, biology and chemistry—for starters—support a biblical worldview. (“Nough already...)

There may be holes in your history and gaps in your geography, so let's take a reasonable, rational look at the matter. And I promise that the text book(s) we could draw from will have no religious overtones to them.

Outside sources tell us of a special birth in a not-so special place, near the one of two towns in Israel called Bethlehem—a real, geographical place on a map. It deals with people whose names you may or may not know, namely, Caesar Augustus, Quirinius (a regional, elected Roman official), and, nearly two years later, Herod the Great—three historical people in a real world context.

We wouldn't dream of erasing them from our history books, would we? That's unthinkable. So why are we so quick to throw Jesus under the proverbial bus? He's mentioned in the same record as the other two; selective history is very dangerous thing, you know.

Our second history and geography lesson likewise tells us of an entourage—call it a caravan, if you will—of astronomer-kings who saw something unique in the sky and in the extant Hebrew writings. I suggest their entourage was very large (forget the false notion of three wisemen): scores of servants, support staff, and soldiers, plus many other sky-gazers themselves. A long journey demands a lot clothes, food, gifts, and protection.

They, from their home land that we now call Iraq (the most prevalent country in the Bible, next to Israel), had enough information and insight to travel hundreds of kilometres for months on end, as they followed that unique star. Why would they ever make such a (bizarre) trip if the young child was not significant? What did those readers of the sky and holy writings know that we don't seem to know?

Do we disregard their record, too? Do we re-write that chapter of history, just to suit ourselves? Hardly. So again, why are we selective with Jesus' birth and early years? We really need to let go of emotions and fears when it comes to Christmas, you know.

We should be consistent in our assessment of Christmas here: Give it the season the credibility it deserves. If there was no authentic historical birth of the “Christ” of Christmas, why celebrate in half-measures?

Can we talk about chronology, while we're at it? Every time you fill in a cheque, flip a calendar, or have a birthday, you are giving token acknowledgement to the fact that time, schedules, even currency is based on that special birth.

We speak of BC (“before Christ”) and AD (Anno Domini, “the year of our Lord”), corresponding roughly to before His birth and after His death—emphasis on the word “roughly.” So that means you actually acknowledge that special birth every time you write the year down.

However, even that is changing, as we get more and more “liberated” from the so-called bondage of religion, we refer to events in terms of [B]CE ([Before]Common Era).

Be that as it may, I suggest to you that we must wake up to the fact that—even without religion, Bible, tradition, and faith—there was a special birth, of a special person, with a special (and timeless) message, that we should take time out to celebrate.

You want a tree, go ahead. You want to put lights on your house, fine with me. You want to take time out from the demands of life and celebrate the season with family and friends, please ask me over—I love a good mug of egg nog and I play a mean game of Boggle (something I said the same thing last year).

Just don't ignore the reason for the season. You might say that it's either Christmas or Christ-miss, right?

Something on my Mind: Who Stole Christmas? (Part One)

I don't think one has to be a wild-eyed, drooling, right-wing fundamentalist, young-earth creationist, pro-life human to recognize the demise of Christmas as we once knew it. (In fact, I'm not sure if any of those creatures actually exists, or even ever existed.) That's really an unfair portrayal of those of us who hold to a literal, historical, and traditional view the great day that we all enjoy.

No, “Who stole Christmas?” is just a question that simple, rational, and breathing individuals ask when he or she assesses the holiday season we once called Christmas.

Add anyone who chooses to be untouched by materialism, uncluttered by Hollywood, and unmoved by status quo, while you're at it, and you've likely got the same people asking the same question.

While you may not be one of those in my first line, you still may hold to a conservative (and therefore reasonable) view of life and death, history and geography, finances and morals, faith and fact. If you do, I feel better already. You likely share the same concern that I'm going to develop in this column.

Even selecting my target audience makes me sad: You see, one of the marks of the demise of Christmas is that people—which would include yours truly—who place a value on the origin and meaning of Christmas, are seen as wild-eyed, drooling, right-wing...(oops, used that line already).

It's a very sad day in a once-strong society that there is so little tolerance for certain marginalized folk. And people who place a value on faith and facts are getting more and more marginalized.

It is rather ironic, then, that those who have been demonized as intolerant are no longer tolerated by the so-called tolerant. Go figure.

When it comes to celebrating Christmas, there are two extremes today (and I suggest that the truth lies somewhere in the middle): those who believe nothing significant happened 2,000 years ago and those who believe nothing significant happened 2,000 years ago.

No, that was not a miss-print, but a witty commentary on how the two polar opposite opinions are, in fact, actually quite similar. Let me explain.

On the one hand, there are people who have set convictions when it comes to Christmas. They believe in the birth of the Christ-child 2,000+ years ago; they believe it was a significant birth, yet wrapped in insignificant surroundings; and though they recognize it all happened back then, they believe that the celebration today should not be marked by lights, trees, cards, presents, or other forms of hollow joy.

You may not be surprised that I agree more or less with many of their assertions.

The other extreme is the godless greed and confused consumerism that marks many people's version of Christmas. There is no need for a manger, because there is no room for the Christ-child anymore: back then, in the inn; and now, in the hearts of mankind. The light (aka the star) that led the magi to the house where the young child lay has been replaced by gaudy Christmas displays—lights replacing light, if you will, colourful but overdone.

You may not be surprised at how much I disagree with that position.

Surely you're aware that the word “Christmas” is being de-emphasized, even deleted these days, replaced with something generic like “Winterfest,” or “Holiday Joy.” The usual rationale is about being sensitive to the needs and differing views of others--unless you hold to a traditional view, of course.

That's both lame and inconsistent, of course, as there appears to be no sensitivity to the needs and differing views of the generations of families that have cherished the facts of a historical Christmas.

By the way, “Winterfest” and “Holiday Joy,” in and of themselves, are certainly acceptable terms; the rationale behind using them, though, is sad.

And to be shoved aside, then ostracized, because one sees things differently, is a very sad commentary on the state of our society today. Whatever happened to “goodwill toward all men”? Oh right, it got thrown out with the Babe in Bethlehem.

For that matter, don't think one has to be a wild-eyed, drooling, right-wing fundamentalist, young-earth creationist, pro-life human to embrace the true meaning of Christmas. Just a simple, rational, and breathing human being would do just fine.