Soccer Mom: Unplugged

The Dixie Chicks are at it again. 

I've made a point of being understanding about Natalie Maines' comments about the President even though I hate it when celebs are given special treatment for having an opinion.  She's allowed to disrespect the President. That is not only allowable under the law but it's a freedom that I believe is God-given.  The right to public dissent is the keystone of a free society.

Throughout American history, during times of war, sedition acts have made such public speech illegal.  The President that Maines berates has not called for such legislation, though there is clearly historical precedent to justify it. 

What really annoys me about the Chicks latest round of political tirades is the following comment by group member Martie Maguire. 

"I'd rather have a small following of really cool people who get it, who will grow with us as we grow and are fans for life, than people that have us in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith," Maguire said. "We don't want those kinds of fans. They limit what you can do."

From those words, I'm not sure if these gals want fans or a cult of personality.  Apparently, we are to infer that "really cool people who get it" don't listen to Toby Keith or Reba McEntire.  "Really cool people" clearly respect the rights of the Chicks to be blowhards but don't respect the rights of other celebrities who may disagree with the Natalie Maines school of political thought. Huh?!?  Sounds really cool to me...not.

Furthermore, if you have a five-disc changer and a playlist that the Chicks didn't handpick for you, they don't want you to be a fan.  According to Martie, people who like their music limit them?  Like how would that be?  People who like their music and have filled their bank accounts limit what?  Their ability to buy property in Guyana and pass out Kool-Aid? 

I'm trying really hard to figure this out because I can't for the life of me see how my $17.99 (for a CD that's selling for less than a dollar in China) is imposing artistic limits on the girl band - They didn't consult me before they made the last 4 CDs and I still forked over my cash.  They weren't complaining then...

It's clear that the girls are concerned about the bucks they know they're likely to lose on this CD and they are making comments before the release and the flurry of news reports about lackluster sales.  Ironically, this sort of a "preemptive strike".  And it is definitely, sour grapes.

Some of the President's ideas on the border issue were:

1.  Put up fences and barriers, stand up technological impediments to border crossing and send in the National Guard

2.  Stop catch and release by expanding detention centers so that no one is left loose on American soil awaiting a court date for deportation

3.  Increased funding for local law enforcement who participate in targeted border missions

4.  Guest worker program to allow workers in and keep track of them - criminal background checks and biometric ID cards

5.  Financial penalty for illegals already in country and the opportunity to get in line for citizenship - stiff penalities for employers who hire illegals

Okay here's the question I have.  How do you compel the 12 to 20 million illegals already here to come forward?   They're already here and reaping the benefits of the US economy without getting caught.  Why would they come forward and volunteer to pay a fine and start paying taxes?  Sure, many would because they want citizenship but what about the others?  You've got to turn off the tax-payer funded tap by requiring paperwork for school enrollment and for eligibility for ANY kind of government benefit.  There has to be a tangible and painful consequence for not coming "out of the shadows".  Incentives to stay illegal must go in order to push people toward legitimacy.  

There need to be harsh disincentives for hiding out in America - not as a punishment - but as a driving force toward assimilation.

Henry G. Brinton, pastor and author merited nearly all of page 13A today with his op-ed Finding spiritual world's middle ground.  He makes some interesting points about American politics and redefines the national political spectrum in a very American, and very spiritual way.  Instead of conservatives and liberals,  he renames the polar ends obligation-keepers and liberation-seekers. 

He links his definitions to Biblical examples in a fascinating and yet faulty manner, even offering modern examples of each category.

"President Bush is a classic obligation-keeper - pro-life and pro-traditional family, with a strong focus on moral clarity.  His approach to strong focus goes back to God's original covenant with Abraham, whom God promised to make fruitful if he will walk before God and be blameless...

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, is a liberation-seeker - determined to help people in need and protect freedoms such as gay rights and abortion rights.  His style of religion can be traced back to Moses and the exodus from Egypt, in which God liberates his people from the oppression of pharoah."

If you've ever actually read the Bible, you know exactly where this analogy breaks down.  Moses did not simply liberate people unconditionally.  He liberated the people who had covenanted with God.  Obedience to specific laws were exacted in order to gain liberation - remember that bit about lamb's blood over the door as an outward display of the convenant.  Obedience to that divine mandate spared the lives of the promise keepers.  Let's not forget that freedom was a benefit of compliance to the covenants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  It was not arbitrary - it was a direct response to keeping "obligations".  Further more,  Moses was the prophet of the Law.  It was he who came down from Mt. Sinai with commandments in hand.

Brinton makes the point that conservatives and liberals often change from obligation-keepers to liberation-seekers and vice versa depending on the political issue and therein lies room for much compromise and understanding.  This is about the closest his assessment comes to making sense.  No group is as homogenous as it seems at first glance - only those who view political issues and people through the short-sighted lens of a camera see things so naively.  These are people who let newspaper headlines and 30 second CNN reports govern their political thought.  The reality of the human condition is infinitely more complex.

As far as the whole idea of obligation-keeper and liberation-seeker goes, these spiritual themes are not extremes on a spectrum of modern American thought.  They are more like polar ends of the same stick.   You cannot have one without the other.  Take for example the analogy of two children taking piano lessons.  There is the one child whose parents demand attentive practice  and there is the other whose parents allow him the freedom to choose whether or not he will dedicate time to his talent.  Both boys hate practicing.  Their liberty is infringed upon by the daily half hour sessions spent plunking out notes and studying melodies.  And yet, in later years, when called upon to demonstrate his skill only one of the boys enjoys the freedom to play.  The child who never practiced, who did not keep up his obligation,  ultimately lost his freedom.  When asked, "Will you play the piano?"  He was left only one response.  The diligent boy, on the other hand had the freedom to respond by either declining or accepting the invitation.  He is now free to choose.

The same principle holds true with every decision we make as individuals and as a society of the free.  We often choose to give up some liberties for the greater good.  We choose to inhibit the freedom of our children,  forcing them (as they often see it) like cruel taskmasters to endure 8 hours of schooling daily.  We exhibit cultural self-abnegation in a myriad of ways, and do so willingly and frequently when we consider the ultimate freedoms guaranteed through a little give and take.  We give up income so that our tax dollars can buy us the greater freedom of a standing military and freedom from criminals and social ills.  We have nationally chosen to be obligation-keepers in countless ways because we realize that keeping obligations allows us to ultimately enjoy greater liberty.  Obligation and libertarianism are not and either-or proposition but and if-then construct. 

Most of the social degradation, corruption and lack of personal morality that afflicts our nation right now is directly caused by the desire to offer liberty without obligation.  The removal of allegiance to social and moral covenants has resulted in a complete absolution of accountability and when we refuse to hold up our obligations,  we find ourselves like the Israelites Moses was sent to liberate.  Enslaved.