Grow Up!
Citizen D
Ginger's Lines
                             

10/11/04  Do you have a place where you can't compromise?

Sunday's Dallas Managed News  has two interesting columns on mainstream Protestant churches becoming anti-Israel:

A Jewish-Christian rift? Liberal churches have become irrationally hostile to Israel; Liberal churches have become irrationally hostile to Israel October 9, 2004 Rod Dreher / The Dallas Morning News

Recently in New York, representatives of leading Jewish organizations met with officials of the liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) to discuss a widening rift between Jews and the mainline Protestant church, sparked particularly by the church's decision this summer to consider divestment of companies doing business with Israel ? as if the Jewish state were the moral equivalent of apartheid South Africa. ...

Liberals don't like to be judgmental except when they are dealing with individuals or organizations or even nations who have firm convictions about right and wrong, good and bad and staying the course.  Then, liberals are quick to be judgmental and name-calling.

Liberals like to find a common area of agreement, which means the strong side gives up something they've won and the weak side gets something they did not earn.

A Jewish-Christian rift? Mainline Protestants have become more supportive of Israel; Mainline Protestants have become more supportive of Israel October 9, 2004 William McKenzie / The Dallas Morning News

Anti-Semitic? Presbyterians?    I don't buy it, but that's what some wonder now that the Presbyterian Church (USA) decided this summer to consider divesting its holdings in companies that do business in Israel. The speculation also stems from a study the Institute of Religion and Democracy recently released. It claims mainline churches, like the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the United Methodist Church, place excessive attention on Israel's human rights situation. ...

Having never been a Presbyterian, I can't speak to their position, but until a couple of years ago I considered myself a Methodist for over 15 years (after giving up on the Southern Baptist Convention).  McKenzie's phrase "excessive  attention on Israel's human rights situation" is exactly on point. 

I'm not going to go any further with the Presbyterians vs. Israel thing other than to point out the danger of disloyalty and incremental slips toward chaos and anarchy and why we need lines in the sand.

The men at the Alamo drew a line in the sand.  They lost their lives, but won the war for other Texicans.

Last year, a school board trustee sent out a mailer against me in the District 6 council race.  The content of the mailer was not as important as the fact that an elected official, well-versed in election law brazenly ignored the rules.  An individual can only contribute $1000 per campaign (and a second $1000 in a runoff).  That's the rule! 

Some people follow election rules, but more and more -- many do not.  Public officials who are supposed to enforce election rules, do not.  People who run their campaigns according to the rules are tying one hand behind their back, while the crooks are free to do as they please.  So, there's a line that some cross and others do not.  What would you do?

		Would you follow the restrictions of non-enforced rules and give your opponent an advantage?
		Would you take the low road and cross over to the dark side?
		Would you call attention to the wrong-doing and lack of enforcement by public officials and face ridicule and retaliation?

You know what I did and am doing -- because that's what I do.  Being one of those judgmental Neanderthals, I have learned it's easier to live life coloring inside the lines than to waste time inventing new rules or figuring out ways to evade or stretch or even violate old rules.

Not being judgmental and law-abiding is eventually as hard to sustain as lying.  After you tell a bunch of lies, you forget to whom you told which lie.  Once you get into a pattern of violating a rule here and there, you forget why you bother to follow any rules.  Worse, when someone does something more serious than your minor infractions, you are not in a position to call their hand -- assuming you would be willing to draw a line in the sand after all your excursions into the mud zone.

I am no fan of Michael Savage, but he was a TV cable station discussing Howard Stern (no fan of his either) leaving free radio for the non-censored world of satellite radio.  The interviewer was surprised when Savage was not supportive of Stern's so-called strike against censorship. 

Savage said "Whenever I drive my car, I have to stay inside the lines."  

It was one of those moments where you think -- "well, yes." 

That's what I've been trying to verbalize, that's just a simple truth. 

In a civilized world, we must have lines.  When 2 people hang out together, they work out a set of rules for their relationship or they stop hanging out together.  They don't necessarily set out a tablet of rules, but they figure out the boundaries of the friendship or whatever relationship they have. 

When couples marry, few think of sharing their spouse with a third party after the wedding.  Our restrictive, judgmental society views marriage as TWO not THREE people.  That's our rule and our law, and those are the lines in which we expect married people to live. 

Rules and laws can change, but the rule or law should be CHANGED not VIOLATED.

Same thing with friendships.  The longer the friendship, the more clear are the lines of the relationship.  You have common areas where you are in sync and other areas, less important to either of you where you have different opinions.  The more passionate you are about certain positions, the less likely you can forgive the friend for differing or crossing your line, particularly when they knew how you feel before they crossed the line.

It's like topless bars and massage parlors.  If you think prostitution is OK, you are not likely to be a friend of mine and you probably are OK with topless bars and massage parlors -- unless they are near your home or business or some other property you own.  In that case, your opposition will not be based on a question of right or wrong, but on economic impact on your personal holdings.  You can be as adamant as the person opposing prostitution from a morality plank, and you have drawn a line in the sand. 

It may make you uncomfortable having a position on anything significant, but you will be officially out of the gray area (the mud zone) when you take a stand.

Gary Turner's Crime and Politics (Vol 6 Issue 3), Special Edition, has an article by Charles Brown, who asks:

If you live in some area where you have one or two hooker haunts, you might find a route to and from your home to avoid them.  We are not so lucky in NW Dallas.  They are everywhere, even near our homes.  We live with the impact of sex businesses and the hookers who work in them, as well as the perverts who frequent them.

Bathhouses are more blatant about their services than topless clubs, but it's all the same.  Lowlifes who frequent topless bars are the same losers who need the services of bathhouses.  Any grown man who would associate with any female who works in a topless bar or bathhouse is a fool, insecure about women or doesn't really like women in the first place.

Check out these come-ons that Crime and Politics lists for the three typical bathhouses:

Ruby Spa (Walnut Hill) - with a nude Asian hooker posing with her g-string outstretched, "Beautiful International Girls Working, Sauna, Jacuzzi, Majic Oil Touch, Body Rubs"

Spring Shower (Walnut Hill) - with an Hispanic-looking hooker (full figure) with the top of her dress pulled down and her fingers over her boobs, "Beautiful Asian & Latin Girls, Luxurious Private Rooms, Clean Showers, Discreet Parking"

Julia Body Sense (Denton Drive) - with a mostly nude Asian hooker (squares over strategics) with her finger in her mouth (Lolita style), "Body Shampoo, Sauna, VIP Room, Jacuzzi".

There's a massage parlor in the same scummy NW Hwy strip center that houses Platinum.  Isn't there a 1000 ft separation between sex clubs?  Another city ordinance that no one enforces?  This makes it very convenient for the pervert who can't afford a topless hooker to do him to pop into the massage parlor for a rubdown by a naked hooker.  But, it's not prostitution.  Right!

Terrible Bolton put an unqualified female as Deputy Chief over NW Station who was so incompetent that even a scum bag like him had to replace her.  That same unqualified woman (promoted from Sgt to Deputy Chief) told some business owners on Royal Lane that "it's better for the girls to be working in the bathhouses than on the streets -- we've always had prostitution ...".  Having a friend like her as the Deputy Chief over the NW Substation is how many houses of prostitution got a pass.

Still, you and I are responsible for this mess.  We are afraid to take a stand that might hurt someone's feelings even when that same person is not afraid of hurting our feelings by doing what they do. 

I live between the lines of I-35 and Webb Chapel, one block South of Walnut Hill.  The lines I live between are full of sex clubs and the perverts who frequent them and the hookers who service the perverts.  

I've got options.  I can raise cane and demand our public officials do as little as enforce our zoning laws.  I can move.  I can do nothing and watch things deteriorate further.

As I said, you and I are responsible for this mess because we are afraid of being judgmental. 

		We are afraid to say it's not OK to lump massage parlors and bathhouses into the same class as barber shops, hair salons and manicure salons.
		We are afraid to say it's not OK to operate a house of prostitution and call it a massage parlor.
		We are afraid to call the employees of topless bars and bathhouses the hookers and pimps that they are.
		We are afraid to condemn people we know who associate with the hookers in topless bars and bathhouses.

We have a City Attorney who is unwilling to step out of the gray and actually do her job to enforce our city ordinances, very black and white rules.  She's a part of the problem.

A bigger part of our problem are those who think everything is open to interpretation, discussion or rationalization.  They will not draw a line between the truth and a lie.  They will not decide what is right or wrong, because that would be judgmental.  

If you are locked in the gray zone and are blind to black and white, you are the problem.  You are the base for the bad guys to do their wrong stuff.  You give them the OK to behave badly.  You give public officials the authority to not do their job because you are not demanding they do what we pay them to do.  You give young people the impression that there are no rights or wrong, which is probably worse than anything else your acquiescence causes.

Are you comfortable in the mud of the gray zone or can you draw a line in the sand and stand fast against the bad guys, big and small?

sb