Blog Archives

157 Formula One, My Kind of Racing

8/28/2019

I suspect that few readers of this, or anybody, except my wife, really, knows that I am a bit of a Formula One fanatic.  It’s not something that I talk about a lot, and I do have to say that it’s not as though I can’t live without it, I just get considerable pleasure from watching that form of automobile racing.  Now, some folks would argue that Formula One “cars” aren’t really “automobiles.” After all, they don’t look like something you could legally drive on the street, and it’s true that they aren’t.  Of course, although NASCAR’s “stock” cars may look a lot like something you could go to a dealer and buy, there’s a line from Days of Thunder that goes something like, “There’s nothing stock about a stock car.”  And there isn’t.  Indycar “cars” look a fair amount like Formula One’s, but the differences are noticeable, and a lot of Indycar races are still on, essentially, oval tracks, although more are on road courses today than used to be the case.

In any event, I like watching these open-wheeled creations driving on “road” courses, some of which are largely made up of actual roads.  This is really the only type of racing I have found that I really enjoy all that much. I just haven’t found the other types all that interesting, although that might be because I don’t enjoy the TV coverage, which seems to me to emphasize “excitement” of crashes, rather than skill and strategy.  And, I don’t find oval tracks exciting (although they probably are for the drivers).

Perhaps it’s the international aspect of Formula One, as only rarely is there more than one race in a given country, which creates some types of challenges.  Or, maybe it’s because of the great variation of tracks from the streets of Monaco and Singapore, to the forests of Belgium, to the hills of Texas.  I really can’t pin it down, I just find it exciting to watch the teams deal with changing weather conditions (they do race in the rain, as well as the dry), a variety of times of day (the Singapore race, for example, is run at night), the skill and strategy of dealing with pit stops where the car is stopped for only a couple of seconds (Yes, that’s literally true!), or the need to choose when to use a different grades of tires (and using more than one grade of tire is required in each race).

I know some folks find Formula One boring because there are relatively few crashes and there isn’t always a lot of passing, at least at the front.  Still, I enjoy watching the excitement of the fans present at the races, the skill of the entire team, the strategy involved, the excitement of the in-car camera shots which put one right in the car with the driver and the passing which does occur in most races, even if it isn’t for the lead.  In one recent race, the driver who started dead last finished in second! That required some great driving. Of course, I could be prejudiced because that driver was Sebastian Vettel, driving for Ferrari.

It also may be, in part, because each team enters two cars and, while the individual driver’s championship is important, the team championship, based on the season-wide success of both of the team’s cars, is probably more important to the team. This means that one could imagine a situation where a driver wins the driving championship, but his team doesn’t win the team one.  In any event, I like watching it all; practice sessions, qualifying and, obviously, the races, themselves.

The F1 season begins about the middle of March and lasts until late November or early December with a race, roughly, every two weeks, although some of the European races are only a week apart.  This year there are twenty-one races, each in a separate country.  So far, twelve have been run and we are now in the August break where there are four weeks between races, which may account for this post, as I am in withdrawal.  This means that the races are often at odd times (for me locally) so I am very glad to be able to DVR them so I can watch at a time when I am awake.  That has not always been the case which has required some late nights and early mornings in the past.

Anyway, it’s almost time for the mid-season break to end, and I’m excited!  The Belgian Grand Prix at the legendary CIRCUIT DE SPA-FRANCORCHAMPS will be run this weekend (based on my planned posting date).  The last race was the Hungarian GP, which was run on August 4 at the Hungaroring.

Like most fans, I get some of my pleasure from rooting for a specific team (and some, specific drivers). I my case, I am a fan of Ferrari, what they call a “tifosi.”  That’s an Italian term which literally means “those infected by typhus,” in the sense of someone acting in a fevered manner, but it has become common to use the word “Tifosi” to refer to the supporters of Scuderia Ferrari, which is the official name of the team from Ferrari.  It would translate to “Stable of Ferrari,” or something like that in English.  There are other teams which I don’t object to seeing win, but Ferrari is my team. Here’s a not very good “selfie” of me as a tifosi.

Note the “Prancing Horse” (the Ferrari logo) on the cap which Bonnie got for me at a Formula One fan store in Bloomington, IN when she was there having a reunion with a couple of her sorority sisters in 2015.

I confess that I also have favorite drivers. That really began while Michael Schumacher was driving for Benneton and continued after he joined Ferrari. Michael retired from Ferrari in 2006, but returned to driving with Mercedes in 2010, when that team reentered F1 after a fifty-five-year hiatus. He retired from driving for good in 2012. Unfortunately, he suffered a serious head injury in a skiing accident in 2013 and has withdrawn from public view, although he is not forgotten.

Anyway, the Belgian Grand Prix will soon be upon us on the Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps (pictured below:

I really like this track, which is just over 7 km (4.35 mi) long and, obviously, has the twenty turns indicated.  I particularly enjoy watching shots of cars running the section from Turn 1 (La Source, a tight, slow speed hairpin), then downhill to the Eau Rouge complex (Turns 3, 4, & 5), then quite steeply up the mountain to Turn 7 (the start of the Les Combs complex).  As you can see it is long and is taken at the highest possible speed (about 310 kph or 200 mph).  Turns 3, 4, 5 & 6 don’t look like much on the map; but watching this from the driver’s perspective (from an in-car camera) it is about as exciting as anything I’ve seen on TV.

To my disappointment, Mercedes has been fairly dominant for the last, roughly, five years, with Lewis Hamilton as the leading driver (Driver’s Champion for four of those years), which isn’t terrible as he is a really great driver, but I still, mostly, root for Ferrari (Maybe next year?).  My only real complaint is that when any one team becomes too dominant, the races are a bit less exciting.  Still, some interesting “battles” can develop behind the leader which can be quite enjoyable to watch as people “fight” for other places.  As I said before, In this year’s Grand Prix in Germany, Sebastian Vettel, driving for Ferrari, started dead last (due to mechanical problems during Qualifying) and ended up placing SECOND!  That was exciting to watch.  With nine races yet to go, there are still possibilities for some interesting viewing.

At the moment, Mercedes has a good lead in the Manufacturer’s race, but Ferrari and Red Bull, at least, are still in the hunt.  For the drivers, Lewis Hamilton (Mercedes) has the lead, but Valtteri Bottas (his Mercedes co-driver), Sebastian Vettel and Charles Leclerc, the Ferrari drivers and Max Verstappen, of Red Bull, are still in a position to challenge.

Well, I’ve probably dragged this out too long, but I would encourage anyone to give F1 a try.  The US, Mexican and Brazilian GPs are all coming up this fall and will be at times when you won’t have to record them to watch at a decent hour.  F1 coverage is usually on ESPN2, although it COULD be on other ABC-owned channels since they are (relatively) local.  You just might enjoy them.

If I’ve interested you, I recently learned about a ten-part documentary series on NETFLIX called Formula 1: Drive to Survive, which covers some of the events of the 2018 F1 season.  It may be focused too much on details of the business of F1 for many, but I’m enjoying it.  And, while at this  point I haven’t seen all of it, it is helping me survive the summer break.

I’ll be back in a couple of weeks.

LLAP

0 Comments

156 Some Thoughts on Culture and Conduct

8/16/2019

0 Comments

As some may know, I am a bit of a “Sherlockian.”  That is, I know the “canon” reasonably well and am a fairly active participant at the monthly meetings of the Omaha Sherlockian Society, a recognized scion society of The Baker Street Irregulars, the first Sherlockian society in the world, formed in 1934.  Not long ago, while looking for something to read, I noticed my copy of The West End Horror by John H Watson, MD, As Edited by Nicholas Meyer on my shelf.  So, after several years, I reread it.  In it, we find references to a number of the major theatrical personalities of the London stage about 1895.  I think any theatre person who enjoys a mystery would enjoy it, but that’s not my point.

At one point in the story, however, Holmes is quoted as saying: “The theatre is a singular calling.  A noble art but a dreary profession and one that reveres that which the rest of society condemns.  Deception.  The ability to dissemble and deceive, to pass for what you are not.  You will find it better expressed in Plato.  These, however, are the actor’s stock in trade.” The Platonic reference, of course, comes from Plato’s disapproval of theatre (and other arts) as “imitations,” meaning that they are not Truth.  This philosophical disapproval of the theatre has lasted down to the present day, although it has ameliorated to some extent.  This may be due, at least in part, to the fact that the Church used theatrical performance from the later Middle Ages until the earliest stages of the Renaissance as a device for teaching Christianity to a largely illiterate population.  It all began, I would argue, with the Quem Quaeritis (which was strictly religious) and continued through the Cycle/Pageant plays when the trade guilds were involved. By the end of this time, the theatre was becoming both a fashionable interest for the elite, as well as a profession for those engaged in its production.

Still, persecution of theatre practitioners remained common for a very long time.  And it may not be all that surprising.  It is quite easy to demonstrate that the history of the theatre, and playwriting, is filled with persons who deviated from “the usual norms of social behavior,” even if they were highly praised for the quality of their work.  The history of theatre and dramatic literature is filled with drunks, lechers, sexual deviates (at least for their historical period), drug addicts, murderers, practitioners of all forms of sexual promiscuity, religious heretics, spouse beaters, etc.  I could name names, but I won’t bother.  However, examples can be dated back to the classical Greek and Roman eras and down to the present.

Post-Platonic religious objections developed after the Church lost control of theatre, so Moliere was buried in “unhallowed” ground in Paris because he was an actor/manager/playwright.  On the other hand, Shakespeare, who held, roughly, the same positions at almost the same time, was buried in Holy Trinity Church in Stratford-Upon-Avon.  However, I suspect, knowing the religious pressures of the time, that that was only possible because he had, basically, left the theatre, had acquired money and was a member of the “landed gentry.” That is, he owned significant property in the area and was entitled to refer to himself as a “Gentleman,” as his family had acquired a coat of arms, although that was not without controversy, since he was an actor.  That could partially explain why he sought a coat of arms for his father. This allowed Will to inherit it, since an actor would not have been considered a “Gentleman” without other over-riding credentials, at least until MUCH later.  It should also be noted, however, that the discriminations against theatre people were NOT solely against men.

In fact, women had it worse, if anything.  There is some belief that women may have appeared in some Medieval Pageants on the continent, but I’ve not encountered any evidence of that in England.  Certainly, women DID appear on the stage in Italy and France long before that was legal in England.  Even so, women who hung around theatres were always suspect pretty much everywhere for a long time, as it was a fact that the early commercial theatres were one of the places where prostitutes sought clients and/or practiced their trade.  But, once they were allowed to appear on the stage, itself, their reputations went into even further decline, if possible, not always without cause.  Nell Gwyn (Gwynne) has been quoted as telling the crowd pushing around her carriage in the mistaken belief that she was the Catholic mistress of Charles II that they were incorrect in their belief by saying, “Pray good people be civil, I am the Protestant whore.”  Nell was, of course, well known as one of Charles’ mistresses, but that was after Charles introduced actresses to the English stage after the Restoration. Actresses, especially, remained “questionable,” at best, however, even as they rose to considerable fame as we approached the present.

The reality was that musicians, composers, sculptors, painters and many other artists, in addition to theatrical people, have also engaged in behaviors which would be considered sexually deviate (promiscuity of both a homo and heterosexual nature) are pretty much accepted as common throughout much of artistic history.  This, probably, became more “normal” during the Romantic period when the idea was established that the “Artist-genius” should not be bound by the “artificial” norms of society.

Anyway, a few weeks ago, I ran across this article from The Wrap online somewhere.  I confess that I’m not sure exactly how it came to my attention, but it got me to thinking about the seeming demand for what one might call “purity tests” for figures in the public eye today.

Here is the article which started my thinking.

I think it’s important to note, as the article’s author did, that Dame Judi did NOT defend Weinstein or Spacey.  She did, at least in my opinion, however, defend their work.  I think that difference is of considerable importance.  One is an evaluation of personal behavior, the other is an evaluation of the merits of professional accomplishments.

So, what’s my point here?  Like Ms. Dench, I have no desire to defend behavior on the part of artists which is offensive.  However, I think that we, as a society, should be very careful to separate an individual’s work from their personal behavior.  If an individual’s behavior is not acceptable, they should be condemned for their misdeeds.  However, that behavior does NOT diminish the artistic value of their creations.  Does the widely-held belief that Shakespeare may have engaged in homosexual relations with the “Fair Youth” and broken his marriage vows with the “Dark Lady” diminish the artistic quality of his Sonnets?  If we believe that he was both “gay” and a heterosexual adulterer, should we condemn his plays and poems as “inappropriate” or “unacceptable” if we disapprove of homosexuality or adultery?

Please note that we have NO proof of his guilt of such acts, only assertions that he engaged in such behavior based on individual interpretations of his works.  On that basis, all works of literature MUST be assumed to be based on actual behavior. That would mean that The Hobbit, LOTR, Harry Potter, and Asimov’s Foundation series, etc. must be assumed to be based on fact (since we have disallowed imagination as being possible).  And, Dr. John H, Watson really MUST have run around late 19th and early 20th century England with Sherlock Holmes, and Arthur Conan Doyle really was just his “literary agent.”  That notion may be fun as “The Great Game,” but I hope no one really takes it seriously. No, I firmly believe that imagination is real and can account for much in the way of fantasy and fiction.  In fact, I’d go so far as to suggest that imagination can, and has, contributed a great deal to the creation of much in the way of many sorts of artistic works, in spite of the fact that not all artistic creators are, necessarily, the kind of people one might choose as one’s most steadfast friends or favorite people.

I must ask, does an individual’s undesirable personal behavior mean that we are supposed to reject his/her artistic talents?  I don’t think so.  I believe that artistic work should be allowed to stand on its own. That does not mean that “artistic works” which “advocate” socially unacceptable behaviors must be promoted, but that they should be evaluated on the basis of their artistic merit.

Huckleberry Finn is often challenged in libraries and schools because the “N” word is used in it.  Of course, when Twain wrote the book about 1894, he was writing about a period roughly forty years earlier in a story told by the, roughly thirteen-year-old, not well-educated son of the town drunk.  We may not approve of Huck's language today, but it always struck me as a reasonable representation of the sort of language such a character in that time would probably use.  AND, the book is considered quite an important work of fiction.  It also might be worth noting that Huck behaves very well toward Jim, in spite of the fact that he refers to him by what has become a socially unacceptable word.

As another example from literature, Ibsen’s play, Ghosts, is considered a rather important play in spite of the fact that it deals with religious hypocrisy, venereal disease, incest, and euthanasia, making it quite controversial at the time.  Many of Ibsen’s other plays deal with controversial subject matter, but I don’t believe that one can pretend to be dramatically literate without some exposure to Ibsen’s works.

Picasso had mistresses in addition to his wives and was a member of the French Communist Party.  I still think some of his works are wonderful and, more importantly, perhaps, his influence on 20th Century art is incalculable.  Wagner was a political revolutionary and led a complicated personal life, filled with affairs, debt, etc.  Still, his music and, in particular, his “music-drama” had a significant effect on both music and modern theatre.

I think the idea of suppressing ideas, or language, is extremely dangerous.  The same is true of artistic works of all sorts.  Individuals MUST have the right to determine for themselves what works (or ideas) have merit on the basis of the works, themselves.  I don’t believe that the work IS the author. (Or the composer, sculptor, painter, etc.) If the creator is a jerk, that doesn’t mean that his/her work is valueless, any more than the creator being heroic makes her/his work of higher quality.  It may enhance our desire to experience a work, if we find its creator admirable, but that doesn’t make the work better.  I suspect that if we were to suppress (remove from circulation/availability) all of the works of all creators who there is/was some reason to find less than totally admirable, we would lose much of Western culture.  That seems counterproductive, at least to me!

The term, “casting couch,” referring to the trading of sexual favors for acting roles, etc., goes back at least as far as the early days of silent movies, but the idea can, in all likelihood, be traced back considerably further.  And, it seems probable that it was not always against the wishes of the job seeker (male or female).  AND, it would almost certainly be a mistake to limit the idea of such practices to the theatrical/movie/tv industry.  I can’t prove it, but I suspect that sexual “favors” have influenced hiring practices, promotions, academic grades, many sorts of things for a long time.  If it’s been used in the arts or education, I find it especially reprehensible (as I consider myself to have been a part of that community).  But, even if it has, that really has little bearing on making any final work product created better, or worse.  That product is what it is; and that work should be evaluated on the basis of its perceived merit.

Also, it’s August again, and I am, again, reminded of the fact that Martha Carrier, my ancestor, was hanged as a witch in Salem three hundred and twenty-seven years ago because a bunch of hysterics decided that she was practicing witchcraft and Cotton Mather, the prominent minister, described her as “a rampant hag” who had been promised by Satan that she would be “the Queen of Hell.”  (I confess to always wondering how he “knew” that, since he stated it as a fact.)  I find it revealing (and amusing) that her response was, “It is false and a shame for you to mind what these say, that are out of their wits!”

Common sense and sanity suggest that we don’t have to admire the messenger to acknowledge that the message may be of value.  When we pay more attention to the messenger, rather than considering the real value of the message, however, the “Witch Hunt” truly lives again.

I don’t much like “witch hunters.”  I think their work is unlikely to serve any useful purpose.  An honest evaluation of any work is always worth some attention, as people of many races, religions, sexual preferences, political parties, etc. all have produced works worthy of consideration.  As the old saying goes; “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”  To that statement I would add; "and my decision of its validity and importance will be based on the logic and sense of what you say, not whether I “like” you, or not."

I hope you agree.

LLAP

0 Comments

155 Signs Seen Along the Way 3

8/3/2019

0 Comments

I really wasn’t planning to put up two posts this week, but I was so frustrated by the current state of politics, that I had to get some thoughts off of my chest, or I think I might have exploded.  This is the post I was planning to put up.  So, after relieving some of my mental/emotional pressure, I decided to go ahead and put it up anyway.  I feel that I should probably say that I do NOT plan to resort to political commentary as a regular feature of these postings. However, even I have limits and can be pushed too far.  Then it becomes necessary to alter my usual non-political stance and say something. Anyway, with that said, I return to my more usual realm of discussion.

As I’ve commented before, when I get the chance, I like to “collect” signs, etc. which I see as I go about my daily business.  These can be road signs, signs on (or in) businesses, decals on cars, license plates, buttons which people are wearing (or have stuck up somewhere), just about anything posted anywhere which strikes me as amusing, unusual, or interesting.  I’ve written about them before (see posts #134 & #141 in the Archives).  At the moment, however, I am recovering from a frantic few days (Bonnie’s were even more frantic than mine) when our older daughter, Kate, and our granddaughter, Mira, were visiting us.  This also meant a lot of time with Maggi, our younger daughter and her fiancé, Brian.  The “girls” indulged in LOTS of shopping, of course, but there was also a certain amount of sight-seeing, a good deal of eating out or bigger-than-usual family meals, and general noise, mayhem and busyness.  And, LOTS of loud chatter, suitable for family gets-together.

Anyway, things have quieted down a lot since they left in the MUCH too-early in the morning a few days ago.  This has given me the time to consider this post but left me lacking my usual amount of energy to devote to working on it.  Yes, strange as it may seem, I really do spend a good deal of time thinking about, drafting and rewriting these musings.  That may be hard to believe, but it is true.  Given the current deficit of even the limited brain-power I usually have, I did notice that I’ve acquired a few more signs which seemed worthy of comment, so I thought it might be time for round #3 of this every-so-often series.  Perhaps others will find them good for a smile, or two; perhaps even a moment of pondering.

In my last post I discussed some Harry Potter-related thoughts.  Not long ago, as I was driving across town, I saw the following sign posted in the window of a car I was stopped behind at a stoplight.  It said:

(No, it was NOT on either my wife’s car, nor Maggi’s, but I think they would have appreciated it) Actually, it’s entirely possible that it was the precipitating inspiration for my post # 153, as I was touched by the notion that Bonnie and I are, apparently, not the only “adults” who have found the HP stories of interest and value. It would appear that there is at least one other Omaha driver who enjoys being a part of “the Wizarding World.”

It’s also a fact that, Maggi, the younger daughter, has been much enamored of the musical, Wicked, for quite a while and enough of it has spilled off onto Bonnie and me, that we have been to see it on twice on its tours through Omaha. I may be jumping to conclusions a bit, but I assume that the license plate shown below is a reference to Elphaba. I could be wrong in that, but I suspect not.

I’ve seen this next sign in a number of places, mostly truck stop convenience store/tourist traps, but I still think it’s amusing. This is actually a picture of the one my brother-in-law has put up in his kitchen, so I am, evidently, not the only one who finds it amusing.

Still, it’s better than the sign I used to see on Swannanoa River Rd. along the river in Asheville where there used to be a trucking company headquarters (or two, maybe?). In any event, there was a little café which had a sign identifying it as “The Terminal Restaurant,” which always made me wonder how many people (even truckers) really wanted to eat at a place with such a name.

Restaurants can be good places for funny signs. I have “borrowed a lot of jokes and pictures from a weekly ad sent out by an Omaha local seafood store (mongery?), which also operates three seafood restaurants, a breakfast/lunch place, and a local pub, which I’m going to have to get to one of these days. The pub is particularly known for its “wall of Scotch” with over 700 varieties of single-malt whiskey and its beers, with fourteen different choices on tap and several hundred in bottles. Anyway, this sign is NOT from them, but I liked it anyway.

I don’t remember where I got this sign from, but I thought it was far too clever (and appropriate) to ignore, so I took a picture of it. I think it may have been from a store of some sort, but I won’t swear to that. It applies to SO many sorts of places.

When I saw the sign below, in a Hallmark®️ store I think, my “educator” self just about screamed, “You HAVE to get a picture of that!” so I did, and here it is:

Yes, I do use the much-maligned Wikipedia, but I do use other sources, as well.

Still, road signs MAY be the best, especially when they were obviously NOT intended to be amusing, but simply informative. This is an actual road sign for a real road located in Sterling, VA, not too far from where Kate and Ty and the grandkids live. The first time I saw it, I was glad not to be driving as I might have had trouble keeping the car on the road. Enjoy!

Somehow, this seems the appropriate moment to say:
LLAP 🖖🏻

0 Comments

#154 A Special Posting on Racism (Political)

8/1/2019

0 Comments

Anyone who has followed my postings to this “blog” knows that for a fairly long time I have made a fairly serious effort to avoid topics which might be considered “Political.” That is, to be honest, more for my own sake than that of my readers (if any) because I’m too old not to consider that such topics tend to get me “riled up” a good deal, which isn’t good for my blood pressure, etc. So, the vast majority of the time, I try to find topics which I hope may be of some interest, but are not specifically political.

In the past few weeks, however, the subject of “racism” has inserted its ugly presence into our national life in a big way. Now, according to the 2019 Merriam-Webster Dictionary App on my computer, “Racism” is defined thusly:

I think it’s worth noting that the definition states that it is “…a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”  That is, as I see it, a belief that traits and capacities of people are determined by their race.  The operative word here is RACE, although other factors have been used many times for similar purposes.

This, seemingly quite logically, leads to the notion that there may be other, similarly determining characteristics, say, for example sexuality, gender, religion, etc. One does not need to be a very serious scholar of American history to know that race has not been the only criteria for determining who we want in OUR country.  In fact, one only has to look at the extremely shabby treatment we gave to the people who were present on this land mass BEFORE WE WERE to understand the we, “Americans” are in no position to cast stones; although we did do so at people of Italian, Irish, German, Greek, all sorts of Asian, and other nationalities, as well as Catholics, Jews, and Protestants (of “unapproved” denominations), long before we started going after Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Shinto, etc., to say nothing of LGBTQ folks in all of these groups.  Of course, people of “color” have long been easy to pick out, so they have been an obvious target since before we became a nation in any respect.  And, by the way, that included the Native peoples we found here when “us God-fearing, civilized, white folk ‘discovered’ this land.”  We, Americans, have a long, long history of being VERY “equal opportunity” in terms of our excuses for discrimination.  I think the correct, generic, term for this type of behavior is “bigotry.”

Now I am not going to pretend that I have never had a discriminatory thought, although I have tried to suppress any such.  I do think I have managed to avoid ACTING on any biases I may have in both my personal and my professional life.  I realize now that I was raised in an environment which was probably racially biased, although I don’t remember ever talking, or thinking, about it.  I went to the local elementary school because everyone in my neighborhood did.  I think my elementary school (attendance was based on where we lived) may well have been all-white.  The Junior High I went to was integrated, however, so I had classes with African-American and Jewish kids, whom I don’t remember being present in my elementary school. High School was, obviously, integrated as there was only one high school in the district.  As far as I know, that system, based on housing patterns, was in place long before Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954.  It certainly wasn’t particularly controversial, except, of course, there was some concern when a swimming pool was built at the high school, but, as I remember it, that controversy was shut down pretty quickly.

By the time I hit Junior High, I discovered that there were some kids from other backgrounds whom I liked and some I didn’t much care for.  I think this was based more on common interests and values, than on the sort of criteria indicated above.  I believe that this carried over into my college years and on into my professional career.  It wasn’t my job to be “friends” with my students, although I tried to be “friendly.”  It WAS my job to be fair and honest with them (ALL) in terms of assigning grades and evaluating work.  Yes, I did get “closer” to some than others.  Those who worked with me in the scene shop or were involved as cast or staff of the productions I directed became somewhat “special” to me, although I don’t think they would say that I “cut them any slack” when it came to evaluating their work.  I’d like to think that was the case, in any event.

So, acknowledging that I am capable of having prejudiced thoughts, be they based on religion, race, gender, nationality, sexuality (try being bigoted about that in a theatre program, I dare you), I make no pretext of being perfect.  I’d like to think I’d be graded pretty high on attempting to not let prejudice influence my actions, however.  Then, a couple of days ago, I ran across a reference to a piece written by the senior staff of the Washington National Cathedral.  This cathedral is the home of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington.  In discussing the WNC, however, Wikipedia says,

…from its earliest days, the cathedral has been promoted as more than
simply an Episcopal cathedral.  Planners hoped it would play a role similar
to England's Westminster Abbey.  They wanted it to be a national shrine
and a venue for great services.  For much of the cathedral's history, this
was captured in the phrase "a house of prayer for all people."  In more
recent times the phrases "national house of prayer" and "spiritual home
for the nation" have been used.  The cathedral has achieved this status
simply by offering itself and being accepted by religious and political leaders
as playing this role.

This article (quoted in its entirety below from the Cathedral web site, www.cathedral.org) stimulated me to consider going outside of my usual “comfort “zone and writing about this issue which seems to be consuming our nation.  As Dylan said, “… how many times must a man turn his head, pretending he just doesn’t see?”  I think I’ve reached my limit of those times….  “The answer, my friends, is blowing in the wind….”

Have We No Decency? A Response to President Trump -Washington National Cathedral

July 30, 2019

The escalation of racialized rhetoric from the President of the United States has evoked responses from all sides of the political spectrum. On one side, African American leaders have led the way in rightfully expressing outrage. On the other, those aligned with the President seek to downplay the racial overtones of his attacks, or, remain silent.

As faith leaders who serve at Washington National Cathedral – the sacred space where America gathers at moments of national significance – we feel compelled to ask: After two years of President Trump’s words and actions, when will Americans have enough?

As Americans, we have had such moments before, and as a people we have acted. Events of the last week call to mind a similarly dark period in our history:

“Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. … You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?”

That was U.S. Army attorney Joseph Welch on June 9, 1954, when he confronted Senator Joseph McCarthy before a live television audience, effectively ending McCarthy’s notorious hold on the nation. Until then, under the guise of ridding the country of Communist infiltration, McCarthy had free rein to say and do whatever he wished. With unbridled speech, he stoked the fears of an anxious nation with lies; destroyed the careers of countless Americans; and bullied into submissive silence anyone who dared criticize him.

In retrospect, it’s clear that Welch’s question was directed less toward McCarthy and more to the nation as a whole. Had Americans had enough? Where was our sense of decency?

We have come to accept a level of insult and abuse in political discourse that violates each person’s sacred identity as a child of God. We have come to accept as normal a steady stream of language and accusations coming from the highest office in the land that plays to racist elements in society.

This week, President Trump crossed another threshold. Not only did he insult a leader in the fight for racial justice and equality for all persons; not only did he savage the nations from which immigrants to this country have come; but now he has condemned the residents of an entire American city. Where will he go from here?

Make no mistake about it, words matter. And, Mr. Trump’s words are dangerous.

These words are more than a “dog-whistle.” When such violent dehumanizing words come from the President of the United States, they are a clarion call, and give cover, to white supremacists who consider people of color a sub-human “infestation” in America.They serve as a call to action from those people to keep America great by ridding it of such infestation. Violent words lead to violent actions.

When does silence become complicity? What will it take for us all to say, with one voice, that we have had enough? The question is less about the president’s sense of decency, but of ours.

As leaders of faith who believe in the sacredness of every single human being, the time for silence is over. We must boldly stand witness against the bigotry, hatred, intolerance, and xenophobia that is hurled at us, especially when it comes from the highest offices of this nation. We must say that this will not be tolerated. To stay silent in the face of such rhetoric is for us to tacitly condone the violence of these words. We are compelled to take every opportunity to oppose the indecency and dehumanization that is racism, whether it comes to us through words or actions.

There is another moment in our history worth recalling. On January 21, 2017, Washington National Cathedral hosted an interfaith national prayer service, a sacred tradition to honor the peaceful transfer of political power. We prayed for the President and his young Administration to have “wisdom and grace in the exercise of their duties that they may serve all people of this nation and promote the dignity and freedom of every person.”

That remains our prayer today for us all.

The Right Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington
The Very Rev. Randolph Marshall Hollerith, Dean of Washington National Cathedral
The Rev. Canon Kelly Brown Douglas, Canon Theologian of Washington National Cathedral

Personally, I think that the above message should be taken more generally and applied to all forms of bigotry. However, this is a worthwhile first step and it is with great humility that I append my name with that of the individuals above.

Richard S. Beam, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Theatre, School of Stage and Screen, Western Carolina University (Retired), Former Chair of the Faculty

LLAP

0 Comments

157 Formula One, My Kind of Racing

156 Some Thoughts on Culture and Conduct

155 Signs Seen Along the Way 3

#154 A Special Posting on Racism (Political)

Archives

Categories