No Doubt I'll Fit Right In

I’ve been absent from my blog lately because of my focus on the paper I’ll be presenting at an Oxford University Roundtable October 22-23. The task was even more demanding than I had originally imagined. I leave for England this weekend.

                The roundtable consists of 13 presenters, 12 of whom (guess who 13 is) are college professors. The topic we’re addressing is “For-Profit Education” and the challenge it presents to contemporary higher education.

                For the past nine months I’ve been preoccupied with researching and writing about a topic I had scant knowledge of this time last year. The university wanted an “outside” opinion, and hence my invitation to attend. So I’ll be standing among Oxford Ph. Ds armed with my diplomas (I may take them with me) from LaSalle and Rider colleges.

                Hopefully, I’ll be seated close enough to King Arthur at the roundtable to ask him some questions that have obsessed me since my youth:

                • Where did you really get Excalibur?

                • Were you offended by the Press referring to the Kennedy administration as “Camelot?”

                • Was Merlin as good as David Copperfield, Doug Henning, or Penn & Teller?

                • What the hell’s a ‘grail’ anyway?

                I don’t want to stick out like an onion ring in a bag of fish and chips, so I’ve begun to (over) use some British terminology in an effort to blend in among the U.K. crowd. I spend as much time as I can in the loo; I’ve packed my bags in the boot of my car; I’ve watched as much British telly as I can, and I now keep my ale in the warming tray of the stove (oh, excuse me, I mean cooker).

                I have a good feeling about this trip. With all this preparation, I think I’m going to fit right in.

Does She Chew Slippers Too?

I like dogs.

I've had seven over the course of my lifetime—two as a kid and five as an adult—two German Sheppards, two Dachshunds, Irish Setter, Beagle, Cocker Spaniel.

I trained (or attempted to) all the dogs I had as an adult. For more than 30 years now, I've chosen to live without pets. I have neither the wherewithal, the time, nor the inclination to have a dog in my home. Those days are over, much the same as my days of owning a motorcycle (I've only had six of those).

Dogs are wonderful animals, and I heartily believe they have earned their sobriquet as “Man’s Best Friend.” They are loyal, funny, interesting, protective, and often looked upon as a part of your family. That seems reasonable, since it’s widely believed that dogs look at humans as…well, just another dog!

As much as I like our canine friends, there is a noted separation in the acceptable behavior for each of our respective species.

• Humans eat (predominantly) at a table, and more often than not we use utensils (even while enjoying a hoagie, I usually use a knife to plunge the contents down into the roll).

•Dogs eat and drink by plunging their faces into a bowl.

• Humans relieve themselves (again, predominantly) in private at appliances made specifically for that function.

• Dogs let it fly in public.

• Humans share intimacy (porn stars and Hollywood pigs notwithstanding) with the one they love—in private.

• Dogs will fornicate on the municipal common and hump any available human leg when the mood strikes.

None of these activities are to dogs' detriment; they are not human, and hence do not have our powers of judgment, nor our sense of propriety. We appreciate them, respect them for what they are, and our affection for them is renowned.

We do think it’s funny though, how they so often act like people, almost mimicking us as they join us in the family car, saunter down the sidewalk with us, whimper when they want something, or lean against us with a sad face when they know we are feeling blue.

It’s outright charming when a dog acts like a human. It’s what endears them to us.

The converse however, is untrue. It’s outright nauseating when a human acts like a dog.

So I actually felt a little diseased when I saw Miley Cyrus doing her dog act at the August 25^th Video Music Awards. Now I realize this kid is trying anything she can get away with to resuscitate or prolong her showbiz career. But true talent doesn't need a gimmick.

And talent precludes the need to act inhuman (like a dog) in front of literally millions of fellow human beings.

I don’t know if Cyrus’s bestiality will benefit her career. Heaven knows, stranger things have happened within the entertainment industry. But I’m certainly not going to ever invite her over for dinner at our home.

As I mentioned, it’s been more than 30 years since I owned a dog, and I got rid of all my dog bowls.

P.S. Nominate someone to be a Champion of Adult Literacy by going to www.delcoliteracy.org for the Nomination Form or by calling 610-876-5411 for more information. Deadline to receive nominations is Wednesday, September 18, 2013.

The Real Country Showed Up on the Fourth

Although I've been a journalist for more than 20 years, I am in no way a “news junkie.” I seldom watch TV news, nor do I listen to news on the radio (except the traffic report when I’m in the car). I read newspapers sparingly—that is to say, selectively. And of course, I have been trained to pick out the bias in all reporting (yes, it’s there; believe me, some more so than others!).

Most who do watch, read, and listen to mainstream news (and entertainment) media will no doubt tell you that the tendencies in today’s culture are to tolerate everyone’s point of view, celebrate (whatever the hell that means) everyone’s lifestyle, and crusade for what you believe in—i.e. speak your mind.

Undeniably you’ll travel a smoother road as long as your point of view, your crusade, and your speech tows that cultural line: The one painted so stealthily through our social conscience by the media.

So you should join the overwhelming majority (if media tendentiousness is to be believed) of Americans who:

• Tolerate casual sex, infanticide, and animal worship.

• Celebrate homosexuality, bisexuality, and nature worship.

• Speak out against all outdated ideals, such as theism and patriotism.

Then you’d be well on your way to conforming to the contemporary norm. You’d be solidly in line to becoming a secular humanist. (Sounds great doesn't it—Secular humanist? It’s one of those hip phrases that pretty much means whatever the hell you want it to mean. Stalin and Hitler would both have loved it!)

Not that I was ever seriously tempted to trust media predisposition to their vision of the new American society, but I had my faith physically and spiritually reinforced this Independence Day at the parade in Pitman, New Jersey.

As a Christian, I've always been taught that Faith, Hope, and Charity are the three cardinal virtues upon which true humanism, if you will, is based. Those three facets of our uniquely human nature were obvious the morning of July 4^th all along Broadway in Pitman.

What we celebrated that day stood out as contingent after contingent passed in review:

• Diverse church groups professing their faith—most musically—without demeaning those whose point of view may differ from that of their own.

• Diverse patriotic groups—military units past and present, Boy, Girl and Cub scouts, Masonic lodge, First Responders, and elected officials from the state and locals levels.

• Community service organizations who crusade all through the year for their particular cause to benefit their fellow human.

And all along the route that hot and humid day, families, couples, teens, preteens, old soldiers, young parents, and plain ol’, everyday Americans, smiled, applauded, and enjoyed their country as it passed in review.

I realized that morning that this was the real America—the one I lived in. The one that the entertainment industry ceaselessly tells us is no longer relevant. The one that the media tells us has gone the way of the dinosaur. The one that academia tells us is corrupt and in need of replacement.

We’re still here. We’re still the bedrock. We still serve. We still have faith. We still hope. We still espouse charity.

We tolerate those who don’t share our point of view, and ask only for reciprocation.

We celebrate our heritage and worship as per our constitutionally mandated choice.

And we speak our minds, so thank you for listening.

The Gloucester County Community Church was just one of the symbols of true American Independence that marched in Pitman, New Jersey on the 4th of July.

One-for-Four Equals Legitimacy

In my opinion, most sane, mature Americans would not abolish the Constitution. Most certainly they would not fool around with the Bill of Rights—those first 10 precious guarantees of individual freedom.

There are of course attempts to attack one or the other sections of the Bill—most notably the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right of citizens to arm themselves, and the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly…

Minutes after some madman uses a firearm illegally in this country, there is normally a well-organized chorus assembled to sing out the evils of the tool he misused, while excusing his temperament, demeanor, or lack of basic humanity.

And should we ban (or even condemn) a religious movement because of its dogmatically-held beliefs—beliefs that may run counter to pop culture or the trending political bias?

My answer would be to judge the person for his action, regardless of the tool being used or the doctrine espoused. Indeed, Article Three of the Constitution establishes our judiciary and levies the authority to apply the law and to issue punishment.

Seems simple: The courts decide what (if any) crime has been committed and what price must be paid by whom. The government attorney states their case and the accused’s attorney states theirs. Beneath it all is a battle for rights—rights of the accused, rights of the public to be safe in their homes, rights of the individual to hold onto and profess solemnly-held spiritual beliefs.

Thank God (and our Founding Fathers) for that Bill of Rights. And here’s more good news…the expense of hiring a judge, jury, attorneys—that can be paid for from our taxes. Even the accused can be represented by government-funded counsel.

And if all else fails, there’s always the ACLU. How they work can be illustrated by two recent examples.

The ACLU defended religious freedom when they joined with the Council on American-Islamic Relations in 2011 to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.

So the Administration (our Administration) excludes mosques from being monitored for terrorist support and encouragement. But they keep a close eye on those fanatical Christians, even though, according to Investor’s Business Daily, independent surveys of American mosques reveal about 80 percent preach violent jihad or pass out violent literature to worshippers. Perhaps the ACLU believes that literature is not quite as violent as the Sermon on the Mount.

The ACLU also is considering defending the right to assemble (I guess) by instituting litigation against the City of Wildwood, New Jersey, which recently passed an ordinance that would ban what they see as indecent dress on their boardwalk—clothing that is worn so loose that undergarments or even bare bottoms are displayed.

It’s comforting to know that the ACLU uses its donations to defend our rights, especially the right to preach violence against innocent law-abiding citizens, and the right to walk about in public with your gochies (or more) exposed.

Does it make anyone else wonder what the hell this outfit thinks is important? I’ve always found the ACLU downright silly (undies exposure) or dangerous (terrorist cultivation) in what they choose to defend. To my way of thinking, they assault the Constitution more so than shield it.

Consequently, I’ve always considered their acronym rather oxymoronic: American Civil Liberties Union—I find them neither American, nor civil, nor guardians of our liberties.

They are, however, a union, so I assume by their way of thinking, a one-out-of-four ratio for truthfulness is enough to keep them legit, and to keep those donations flowing in.

When Did We Become British?

I have great admiration for our British cousins, so I was sincerely flattered when asked to speak at Oxford University. I of course accepted, and look forward with great anticipation to this fall, when I’ll visit England for the first time.

The seminar will concentrate on higher education and how it is evolving, but I’ll also be interested in doing a little snooping while I’m over there.

I’m going to see if I can find some clues as to why we here in America seem to be reverting to being a part of Britain once again.

Perhaps I’m overreacting, but notice, if you will, that at Wal-Mart stores (at least the ones around south Jersey) you are directed to enter and exit to your left, sort of like driving on the left side of the road as they do in England. But we keep to the right in this country and pass on the left. Don’t we?

I’m starting to notice this tendency in many other places, particularly at Wawa and my local post office, where people increasingly enter and exit using the left side of the double-door. It’s even happening in my church, where the right hand door is often left closed—that is, until I reach the exit. That’s when I go through the right side, which, in this country, is the right side.

I’ve even had (many) people hold the left hand door open for me as I enter a Wawa. Imagine how disappointed they are when I ignore their misguided courtesy and pull the right-hand door open for myself. (Well, somebody’s got to take a stand for American Independence!)

This disturbing, bogus/foreign trend has now reached the entertainment and news media—the two wannabe national style-setters. Movie and television scripts are now peppered with the British police phrases, “He went missing,” or “The child has gone missing.”

As a long-time devotee of British TV, I’m familiar with this syntax. As a long-time American police officer, I can tell you indisputably that that phraseology was never used in Philadelphia.

When I mentioned this to someone whom I heard use the phrase, “The child has gone missing,” she asked me incredulously, “Well, what did you say?”

I told her we said, “The child is missing.” And of course, the more sensible way of asking, “When did the child go missing?” would simply be, “When was the child last seen?”

The respect I have for our British forebears is second to none; I credit our American work ethic and civility to our English roots. In many ways, it’s sad to see both evaporating as our culture becomes more forcibly diversified.

We fought a successful war about 230 years ago to throw off the English yoke of foreign government, while keeping the basics of English common law and English manners. And of course, American English is not vastly different from the Queen’s English. I believe these things have been significant to our prominence in this world.

But our sense of propriety and decorum seems to be eroding. It’s going…going…and may soon be gone. And I’ll hate to see it go. When it does, it will not have gone missing, it will simply be missing from our social structure.

Now, I’d like to wrap this up, because I’m going to visit the loo.

Guns and the Man in the Middle

When it comes to “Gun Control,” I think I’m somewhat of a centrist. I like the feel of a gun in my hand. And I have owned many.

I’ve been firing guns since I was 17; that’s when I entered the military. After four years in the Air Force and 22 in the Philadelphia Police Department, I have had ample training with handguns, rifles, and shotguns.

When I therefore go to a gun dealer in my (now) home state of New Jersey, one would expect that I could legally purchase a single handgun for private use with some semblance of efficiency, given my background.

So why the devil does it take three months for me to be “approved” for a handgun purchase? Now I’m not talking about approval for carrying  a handgun. Federal law already dictates that I can legally carry a handgun in any state, by virtue of my honorable retirement as an American law enforcement officer.

It seems paradoxical that federal law permits me to carry a firearm, but the Peoples’ Republic of New Jersey wants me to wait three months before they give me “permission” to buy one.

But I chose to live here, so I abide by Jersey’s law—foolish and excessive though I believe it to be. Personally, I want only those legally fit to operate a firearm to be able to legally own one. Does that mean I’m a gun control advocate? Or does my affinity for guns make me a gun nut?

Doesn’t the answer depend on what exactly is meant by those very broad and over-generalized terms? Some activists called Charlton Heston a gun nut, while other advocates looked at Adolf Hitler as a gun control fanatic.

Ask any sane individual (whose job does not depend on votes), and likely they’ll say that, yes, they do believe in some kind of firearms’ control. Indeed; how could any reasonable adult declare that guns should be made as available as loaves of bread?

But what I mean by gun control can be vastly different from my neighbor’s definition of those two words.

I have no difficulty with my state of residence checking backgrounds to insure that a potential purchaser of a gun is not someone who is likely to use a firearm for an illegal purpose. And in today’s culture of immediate communication, the three-month New Jersey wait is unjustifiable for any law-abiding American, whether a law enforcement officer or a hairdresser. (Active New Jersey cops must also go through this process if they wish to buy a gun. Absurd, isn’t it?)

There are those, however, whose idea of gun control is to make guns illegal—illegal to own, to transport, to manufacture. Furthermore, some even argue that any gun—legal or not—removed from the street, is a step in the right direction; ergo police should not even be armed.

The trouble with that assertion is simple: It doesn’t remove the illegal user. And wouldn’t drug dealers, thugs, gang members, and organized crime support that idea of gun control!

Sensible control of firearms lies somewhere between New Jersey’s indefensible quarter-year waiting period and a casual exchange of guns like buying cans of soup from a Wal-Mart.

I’ve been investigated and fingerprinted so frequently (military service, police department work, teacher’s certification), that I have no problem with anyone checking my background, and I’m inherently suspicious of anyone who rants against such investigations.

As a retired law enforcement officer, I have to be certified annually to maintain my right to carry a firearm. That means a trip to an approved firing range and evaluation by a licensed firearms trainer as I fire dozens of rounds from various positions. I believe I’d be a fool to object to that.

Can someone explain why I should not object to a similar precondition for any potential gun owner? Especially since most are neither as proficient nor as experienced a shooter as I. If you want to own a gun, don’t you also want to be schooled in the legality and proficiency of its use?

In my opinion, if you can handle the background check, and then a certified trainer declares that you can safely handle a gun, I believe the Constitution mandates that you have a right to legally acquire a firearm.

Perhaps the more accurate way to say it is that the Constitution mandates that our elected officials have no right to restrain you from legally acquiring a firearm.

So…am I a gun nut, or a gun control advocate?

Give Those Mighty MACs a Hand

Embattled Rutgers Basketball coach Mike Rice is embattled no more. He’s been fired for hitting, shoving and rebuking his players with homosexual slurs. Now certain members of the Rutgers faculty are delivering an ultimatum to university President Robert Barchi, insisting that he resign over his first response to Rice’s behavior.

Barchi leveled a stiff fine ($75,000) on Rice, suspended him, and made him attend anger-management counseling. Losing about 12 percent of his salary and attending behavior-modification classes may seem like a realistic punitive reaction to Rice’s conduct—and it apparently was five months ago when all this took place last fall—but then something was added to the equation.

The media got hold of a video tape showing Rice carrying on at a 2012 practice, and…well, you know what happens next. Call it media overkill, call it airing dirty laundry in public, call it letting the cat out of the bag, call it whistleblowing, call it, “Uh-oh; I thought I took care of all this!”

Whatever tag you put on this issue, one factor becomes increasingly clear: Many, if not most private decisions at this level eventually become public. You would think President Barchi had to realize that, especially since another nearby university president (Penn State’s Graham Spanier) found himself attired in similar dirty laundry just a few short (by news media standards) years ago.

During my last three years as a Philadelphia Police supervisor, one of my prime responsibilities was to train all of our command staff—more than 200 senior officers—in media relations. Every month we would put about a dozen commanders through an intensive two-day course concerning the “Do’s  & Don’t’s”  of dealing with print and electronic media.

And one of the platitudes that I would (try to) hammer home was, “Assume the media is eventually going to find out; so disclose sooner rather than later. Get it out, and get it over-with!” Or, as the IHM nuns taught us back in St. Dominic School, “Whatever you do in private, if you act as though you’re doing it in the presence of Jesus, you can’t go wrong.”

Or something like that.

It’s sort of like ripping a bandage from a wound—Do it quickly and get the discomfort out of the way.

Too many high-powered individuals in high-profile positions never seem to take that dictum seriously. They instead seem to adopt the, “It won’t happen to me” attitude: Richard Nixon…Graham Spanier…Hillary Clinton…Robert Barchi…

Who will be next? And you can be sure; there will be a next time.

Contemporary media is everywhere. With cell phones, iPads, and PCs, every boorish busybody is an instant worldwide reporter. Not as omnipresent as Jesus, of course, but close enough to give us pause when considering how we will be held accountable for our actions.

Those nuns were really ahead of their time, weren’t they!