Cold Weather Fashion

It’s cold in New York today. Women have been seen wearing pants that aren’t ripped.

Choices

We don’t always make the best choices 

They’re not always thoughtful or kind 

Driving those daily decisions 

Are the haunts of our hearts and our minds 

But it’s the right of the living to make them 

Good, indifferent, or bad 

For when we are gone, dead and buried, 

There’s not one more choice to be had 

Copyright © 2019 Daniel R. South 

All Rights Reserved

Where Do We Draw The Line?

Where do we draw the line?

Was it acceptable for Yul Brynner, an actor of Russian descent, to play the role of the King of Siam?

Was it acceptable for Elizabeth Taylor to play Cleopatra?

Was it acceptable for Charlotte Heston, who was not Jewish, to play Moses and Judah Ben-Hur?

Is it acceptable for a British actor to play the role of Hamlet, a Danish prince?

Is it acceptable for English actors to portray Italian lovers Romeo and Juliet, or Julius Caesar?

Is it acceptable for any European actor to play Jesus of Nazareth?

Who gets to decide what is and isn’t acceptable? Is this something that can be determined rationally, or is it based on the whims of society at the time? In Shakespeare’s England, women were not permitted on stage. Female roles were played by young or effeminate men. Would that be acceptable today?

I understand that some cross-racial portrayals are clearly offensive. ‘Charlie Chan’ movies starring English and American actors in the title role were awkwardly stereotypical. Far and away, the most offensive performance that I have ever seen is Jerry Lewis’s horrifyingly insensitive Asian caricature in ‘The Nutty Professor’. Lewis should have been banned from the movie industry after that disaster. That said, when Eddie Murphy reprised the Nutty Professor role, he did it in a fat suit. Was his pretend obesity offensive to people who have trouble losing weight?

Make Believe

There idea of dressing up to pretend that we are someone other than who we are is not unusual, nor is it scandalous. Actors spend their lives pretending to be someone other than who they really are, an athlete, a criminal, a billionaire, a historical figure, a superhero, a computer genius. 

Those of us who aren’t actors have fewer opportunities to pretend that we are someone else, but opportunities do occur: Halloween, Madrid Gras, carnival-themed holidays, parades, costume parties, even sporting events. (Any Raiders fans out there?)

I don’t recall there ever being standards about what types of costumes were appropriate and what would be deemed offensive. As long as it’s even moderately tasteful, people do pretty much what they want to do. In fact, the more creative and outlandish the costume, the more attention it will receive. 

Standards have a way of going over a slippery slope of oppression and control. Do we want parents to discourage their daughters from dressing up as doctors and encouraging them to dress as nurses instead? That would be tragic.

Blackface 

You saw that coming, didn’t you? Dressing in blackface has become one of the most unforgivable sins in our politically correctness society. Political careers are hanging by a thread because of blackface costumes that were worn decades ago. 

I understand the sensitivity. The United States has deep, unresolved wounds from a history of racially-based suppression, a history that continues in the present day. There is still discrimination against people of color in the United States. It’s not always legal, but it happens. Police brutality, voter suppression, and legal jeopardy disproportionately impact communities of color. Despite increased awareness, there’s no relief in sight for these intractable problems.

On the other hand, while dressing up in an insensitive costume shows poor taste and a lack of judgment, it’s far from the worst behavior that a human being can demonstrate. It’s not a physical assault. It’s not sexual harassment. It’s not false accusation. It doesn’t put others in danger or take away anyone’s rights. The only person who is likely to be harmed by an offensive costume is the individual who decided to wear it; their reputation is likely to sustain serious damage.

Dressing in blackface in this day and age, and even in the past, shows insensitivity and poor judgment, but I don’t believe that it should end someone’s career. 

And if dressing up like Michael Jackson is deemed offensive, then wouldn’t Elvis impersonations also be offensive? I see at least one person in a Michael Jackson costume every Halloween; I never cared about the race of the person wearing the costume. People dress as MJ as an expression of admiration, not racial intolerance.

I think that we as a society need to worry less about a costume that someone wore to a party decades ago and start focusing our energies on resolving the serious issues that we face as a nation and a planet.

The Rules Of American Politics

The Rules Of American Politics

Once dressed in a racially insensitive costume: Unacceptable. Resign immediately.

Cheated on three wives, paid hush money to porn stars and playmates, ran businesses that methodically discriminated against people of color, bragged to a TV reporter about physically abusing women, defrauded investors, refused to pay suppliers and contractors, hired illegal aliens, and appealed to a hostile foreign power for help in getting elected: No worries. You can keep your job.

The Complex History Of The United States Of America

The United States, a country founded on the stated principle that all men are created equal, has a long, tragic, violent history of racial inequity.

The United States also has the foremost entertainment industry in the world, an industry that has profited enormously from the direct and indirect contributions of African Americans. Travel around the world, and you will see American movies in theaters, and you will hear American music played everywhere. 

In light of those facts, consider that the very first “talking” motion picture ever made (ending the silent film era), featured a Jewish man singing jazz in blackface.

Climbing Out Of A Hole

When you want to climb out of a hole, the first step is to stop digging.

Vietnam Trip

Trump is finally going to Vietnam. They should give him John McCain’s old room.

Heaven and Hell

Hell is longing for what you can’t have. Heaven is cherishing what you have now.

Mistakes And Their Consequences

When someone admits to making a mistake, or when it’s discovered that they have made mistakes in the past, several responses are possible. We can disregard the mistake or forgive it outright. This allows everyone to move forward, but it does nothing to hold the person accountable for their actions or reinforce a sense of responsibility. That can be counterproductive in the long run.

We can ostracize the person who made the mistake. We can demand that they resign from their job or be removed from a position that they hold. We can humiliate them publicly. This may be the right way to handle a serious mistake, but could be overkill for a lesser infraction. Unfortunately, this is often the first reaction of well-meaning observers.

The third option is to start a conversation in order to analyze what happened thoughtfully. What was the nature and seriousness of the mistake? Did it do lasting harm to someone? Did the person who made the mistake attempt to make amends? Have they learned from the experience? Are they a better person today than they were when they made the mistake? Can they be trusted? Such reflection gives us the chance to take action in accord with the severity of the infraction, the quality of the person and their value to our community. The punishment can still be severe if necessary, but by avoiding a rush to judgment, it’s more likely to be appropriate.

In recent days, it discovered that a prominent politician had a racially insensitive photo posted on his medical school yearbook page. I question the integrity of an institution that would permit this, but I digress. Many people called for his resignation immediately upon hearing the news, even though it has not been determined whether or not he was actually in the photograph.

A famous actor admitted in an interview that he once, for a short time, felt animosity toward members of a certain race. This came after learning that a friend had been raped. People immediately demanded a boycott of the actor’s movies. 

Note the following. Both of these situations happened decades ago. Both men say that they learned from their experiences and that these actions do not reflect who they are as people today. And in neither case was any person directly harmed.

Contrast these with the case of a judge who was recently nominated to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. It was alleged by a credible witness that the judge had also made a mistake decades ago. He, too, claims that the alleged action (to which he did not admit) is not a reflection of who he really is as a person. The difference is that the judge’s mistake, an attempted rape, did a lifetime of damage to the victim. That judge was confirmed by the US Senate and sits on the Supreme Court today.

And let’s consider the peculiar case of another man, the man who occupies the White House, a person who, by all accounts, has made and admitted to a wide range of mistakes and unseemly, unethical, and even criminal behaviors over the years, some of which have done real harm to people, including but not limited to the man’s own wives. The man has never claimed responsibility for any of his past transgressions, and yet, he continues to serve in his elected capacity.

As a society, we need a more even-tempered way of handling revelations of past transgressions. If we simply overlook someone’s mistakes, no one will take responsibility for their actions. But if our first instinct is to call for the ruination of a person’s career at the mere mention of alleged misbehavior, that swings too far in the other direction, pushing us toward an Orwellian dystopia where one need only think bad thoughts in order to be deemed worthy of extreme punishment.

Let’s all take the opportunity to learn from these recent incidents. We could all use a bit of empathy and thoughtful reflection in our lives.

The NFL Has Bigger Problems Than A Boring Super Bowl

Ah, what an exciting Super Bowl it might have been! It’s fun to imagine a high-scoring shootout between the resurgent New Orleans Saints and the Kansas City Chiefs, led by nice-guy coach Andy Reid and rookie quarterback sensations and NFL MVP, Patrick Mahomes. What an amazing contest that might have been!

But it was not to be. Instead, we were forced to sit through a low-scoring stalemate between the Los Angeles Rams, who looked unprepared and outclassed, and a team that has made nine trips to the Super Bowl, the New England Patriots. Yes, the Tuck Rule Patriots. The Spygate Patriots. The Deflategate Patriots. Back again.

How this thoroughly unsatisfying matchup came about is indicative of the NFL’s current state of operational dysfunction. The AFC Championship game was a close contest. The Patriots benefitted from a late fourth quarter “roughing the passer” call against a Chiefs player who, upon review, did not even touch Tom Brady. Despite this setback, the Chiefs had a chance to seal the win when they intercepted Brady, only to have the interception nullified by a neutral zone infraction for which they have only themselves to blame.

What happened to the Saints was ludicrous. As a Saints receiver approached the end zone, a Rams defender interfered with him in a blatant and brutal way. Everybody knew that it was pass interference, there was no question about it. But because the foul wasn’t called on the field in real time, it didn’t matter. NFL officiating rules dictate that pass interference can’t be called based on what the referees see on replay. Replay can only be used to overturn calls that were called on the field. This egregious foul, where the receiver was lucky to come away with his head attached, was not called on the field. Maybe the referees were too busy trying to figure out what counts as a catch in today’s league to pay attention to actual plays.

And so, the world was left to watch the Rams and the Patriots give a clinic on unentertaining football. One opinion writer called it the worst Super Bowl ever. He was being kind.

If these comments come across as annoyance over the fact that the Patriots have dominated the league in recent years, let me say that their success is well deserved. Tom Brady is untouchable as a quarterback, literally and figuratively. The Patriots’ offensive line is so solid, so impenetrable, year after year, that Brady is rarely knocked down, let alone sacked. Other teams have had plenty of time to study their tactics, but the best defenses in the league have been powerless to stop the man who is unquestionably the greatest passer of all time. Even the Patriots’ most passionate critics have to face that fact.

But the six-time champion Patriots have a dark side, as well, and that, too, has to be acknowledged. The team has a long history of scandals and legal action. An assistant equipment manager faced criminal charges for lying to investigators during the Deflategate scandal.

Consider the Patriots’ head coach, an undeniably brilliant football tactician whose win-at-all-costs philosophy once earned him an unprecedented one million dollar fine for cheating. That wasn’t the team’s fine; the organization paid a half a million bucks for their role in the Spygate scandal. The big fine was levied against the coach, himself, a man so unconcerned with doing the right thing that he once publicly accepted the head coaching job at one team only to quit the next day and sign on with the team that he really wanted to work for. The Patriots are champions - they have the rings and the records to prove it - but it would be difficult to argue that they exemplify good sportsmanship.

The NFL is in a sad state. The league is plagued with public relations issues, from domestic abuse to substance abuse to on-field protests and care for ex-players with CTE. Athletes put their health and well-being on the line, week after week, in contests that are too often spoiled by laughably inept officiating complicated by increasingly inscrutable rules changes. In this chaotic environment, over the past seventeen seasons, over a third of the championships have gone to one of the most unethical teams ever to step on a gridiron. (The Oakland Raiders of the 1970’s might give them a run for their money.)

It shouldn’t be like this, but it is, and I’m getting tired of watching it.