Gay people read the bible too…

There is a picture currently running around Facebook and other social sites and blogs that is being cheered as a “gays fight back” moment.  The problem is… it isn’t correct.  Here’s the picture.

 At first, I found the sign amusing and clever.  And it sure is getting passed around as people share it.  The only problem is, the sign isn’t actually correct.

The problem is that the sign maker took some verses out of context… and drew conclusions without the benefit of the context (both historical and biblical).  Now don’t get me wrong, the anti-gay’s do this all the time.  But just because one side cheats doesn’t mean the other should.

At no point in the passage referenced by the sign does the bible say “A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin.” It does however say that “If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed” but that is taken completely out of context.  (Not that killing women looks all that better in context.)

Here is the text quoted on the sign:

¹³ Suppose a man marries a young woman and later he decides he doesn’t want her.¹⁴ So he makes up false charges against her, accusing her of not being a virgin when they got married.

¹⁵ If this happens, the young woman’s parents are to take the blood-stained wedding sheet that proves she was a virgin, and they are to show it in court to the town leaders.¹⁶ Her father will say to them,
I gave my daughter to this man in marriage, and now he doesn’t want her.¹⁷ He has made false charges against her, saying that she was not a virgin when he married her. But here is the proof that my daughter was a virgin; look at the bloodstains on the wedding sheet!

¹⁸ Then the town leaders are to take the husband and beat him.¹⁹ They are also to fine him a hundred pieces of silver and give the money to the young woman’s father, because the man has brought disgrace on an Israelite woman. Moreover, she will continue to be his wife, and he can never divorce her as long as he lives.

²⁰ But if the charge is true and there is no proof that she was a virgin,²¹ then they are to take her out to the entrance of her father’s house, where the men of her city are to stone her to death. She has done a shameful thing among our people by having intercourse before she was married, while she was still living in her father’s house. In this way you will get rid of this evil.

Deuteronomy 22:13-12
Good News Translation

Now go back and read that again.  At no point is the marriage considered invalid.  Now you might be able to read, without any other context, that a wife must be a virgin at the time of the marriage.  But that’s not true.  If we go forward a mere two chapters, there are some verses concerning divorce and remarriage.

¹ Suppose a man marries a woman and later decides that he doesn’t want her, because he finds something about her that he doesn’t like.^[a] So he writes out divorce papers, gives them to her, and sends her away from his home.² Then suppose she marries another man,³ and he also decides that he doesn’t want her, so he also writes out divorce papers, gives them to her, and sends her away from his home. Or suppose her second husband dies.⁴ In either case, her first husband is not to marry her again; he is to consider her defiled. If he married her again, it would be offensive to the Lord. You are not to commit such a terrible sin in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4
Good News Translation

I’m not arguing here that women are treated fairly in the laws of Moses. That’s a whole other issue. However there is nothing in this text that would indicate that a woman must be a virgin at marriage. In fact, there is no problem with a woman having a second husband, just that she can’t remarry her first after being divorced or widowed.

So what’s going on in Deuteronomy 22? Simple. Women didn’t have the right to pick who they would marry. Their father or brothers did. It was a contractual arrangement often with money or land or livestock changing hands over the deal. A larger bride price was gathered for a virgin bride. So this is less about the virginity of the bride and more about how the family needs to ensure that they have the correct proof of virginity so they can back up their end of the contract.

So the sign is wrong. A marriage can and was valid even if the wife wasn’t a virgin.  And there was only one situation where the wife not being a virgin could end with her death. However that punishment wasn’t because she wasn’t a virgin, but because she and/or her family lied about it.

Now if you want to use the bible to support gay rights, that’s quite possible. Starting with the fact that it takes the same kind of out of context usage of bible verses to find the where the bible condemns homosexuality in the first place. At least that’s how I see it.  Your milage may vary.

Freedom of the Pulpit

Ever since I was a child, there has been a belief instilled in me about what is and what is not appropriate from the pulpit. Some it what I learned was cultural. My spiritual background is in a very scholarly and thoughtful church so we weren’t often told what to think as much as convinced or given the tools to discover on our own. Part of the belief was gastrointestinal. The sermon had to be over in time to beat the other churches to the buffet at Ryan’s. But under it all there was a deep and abiding respect for the separation of church and state and therefor what came from the pulpit was rarely political.

I grew up my entire life under the “Johnson Amendment.” That’s a small bit of the tax code that is in the language concerning 501(c)3 tax exempt organizations. It was passed in 1954 after being offered from the floor by Senator Lyndon B. Johnson. Yes, the same LBJ that later became Vice President under Kennedy and then President after the JFK’s assassination. In part it states that churches “not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”

On the face, that doesn’t seem that bad. Yes, I’m well aware that historically pulpits have been used to push congregations to vote for a candidate. I think, personally, that’s abusive and I wouldn’t want to be a part of a church that did so, but I’m not sure I think churches should be banned from doing it.

And if that bit of tax code meant the only thing a pastor couldn’t do from the pulpit was say “vote for X” or “don’t vote for Y” then I’d probably be okay with it. But that’s not what reality is.

I happen to think that the idea of marriage being between one man and one woman is a legitimate religious perspective. I think it’s not biblical or even christian, but a nevertheless a legit religious issue. Now if a candidate was pro gay marriage and a pastor preaches against it… Is that political or religious?

And frankly, who gets to decide? The IRS? Do we really want a bunch of bean counters telling pastors what is and is not appropriate?

It was decided long ago that churches were exempt from taxation.  It is part of the canon of seperation of church and state.  The government is not to interfere with religion.  We don’t pray before high school football games.  Yet this seems to smack entirely to much of censorship from the federal government.

The IRS now has an “education campaign” where they send letters to churches reminding them that they can not preach politics from the pulpit.  I find this amusing and tad bit frightening.  I don’t see how this can be viewed as anything but government censorship of the pulpit.

This Sunday is Pulpit Freedom day.  I’m trying to decide how I feel about it.  The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group, has set up Pulpit Freedom Day as a day for pastors to participate in a nationwide day of civil disobedience. The ADF asks that pastors who have signed up use this Sunday to preach a sermon in direct violation of the tax code’s Johnson Amendment while offering legal help to any pastor or church that gets in trouble with the IRS.

I have a problem with a group of lawyers attempting to get potential clients to break the law, and that’s exactly what is going on here.  However, there is a certain justice to it as well.  In most circumstances, if a law is passed or enforced in such a way that it interrupts the rights of an individual, that individual can seek injunctive relief from the law… basically asking the courts to not allow the law to be enforced.  That’s exactly what happened with Alabama’s new Immigration Law.  Before it even went into effect, lawyers were seeking an injunction to prevent it.  But when it comes to tax law and the IRS, you can’t do that.  Congress, wisely I might add, saw that the filing of pre-enforcement injunctions against the IRS would result in chaos has made it illegal to as for such injunctions.  So in order to challenge the Johnson Amendment, the IRS has to actually take a church to court.

Surprisingly, that hasn’t happened yet.  To date, when the IRS makes a ruling that a church has violated the Johnson Amendment, either the church involved or the IRS blinks and backs down prior to going to court.  So the Johnson Amendment is completely untested when it comes to churches.  (It has been tested, successfully, when it comes to non-religious 501(c)3 organizations) No court has yet had a chance to weigh the first amendment right to free exercise of religion against the right of the IRS to tell churches they can’t preach “political” sermons.

I don’t want to live in a world where mega-churches swing elections.  I also don’t want to live in a world where it’s okay for a government to tell churches what they can preach.  It seems those are the alleged choices.  And honestly, I don’t know which choice I prefer.

Ten years

I was in the shower. I’d spent an early morning cleaning my mom’s house getting it ready to sell. My aunt and uncle where there, working to close out mom’s estate.

The phone rang, and I ignored it. I mean I was in the shower. But it rang again. And again. So I wrapped a towel around me and with soapy hair I answered the phone.

It was my aunt. “Turn on your TV” is all she said before she clicked off.

I did. Information was confusing. Seemed a plane has crashed into the World Trade Center. It was sad, but I didn’t get it yet.

I remember watching one of the morning shows. They were outside and the backdrop was the towers. I called work to say I’d be even later. They said everyone was watching the news. My boss made a joke about drunk pilots.

Then it happened. Some people knew already, but in that moment we all knew. The second plane hit.

Live, on TV.

Boom.

We were under attack.

As the morning unfolded, the rest of the story came out. Pentagon. Pennsylvania. I drove in to work scared.

Once there I found every TV on the news. We couldn’t believe it. We were shocked. People were scared. A few were crying.

We watched, and we all saw people jump from the top of the towers to escape the flames. Horrible.

Then the day that couldn’t get worse, did. The tower fell.

Crying was the norm now. What could be worse than that? We found out a little later when the last tower came tumbling down.

All broadcast live.

I’m not naive. We all have our 9/11 story. It is our moment, a shared experience. No other event in my lifetime has both unified and divided us the way this did.

As you remember 9/11, I won’t ask that you remember the first responders, or the fallen. You’ll get asked that enough. I’ll ask that you remember housewives and working Joes. Remember yourself. And that shared day of terror and sadness.

Dr. Wardynski… What would you do?

I have to ask Dr. Wardynski a question.  I’d really like to know what he would do.

See, I’ve an employee who was hired in for some specific duties, but they don’t seem to want to do them.  And when they are asked direct questions, they deflect the questions with an outright lie.  So I really wonder what Dr. Wardynski would do.

This is the deal.  I hired in a new executive who was to help get my business back on track.  He slashed budgets everywhere (except his office) and lowered salaries everywhere he could.  He instituted a new “minimum” standard for hiring in the people who do the work were the rubber meets the road, but continues to hire his personal staff at “competitive” wages.  And when asked about when he will be reducing the staffing of his office, he deflected with a lie and still didn’t answer the question.

So I’m really curious what Dr. Wardynski would do with an employee like that.

Because here is the deal, Dr. Wardynski. Teachers all over this city could really use the quarter of a million dollars you’ve spent increasing the central office in the two months you’ve been there.  Do you have any idea how much ink, ink many teachers in this community pay for with their own money, that quarter of a million in new hires could pay for?  Or paper?  Or any of the other things that teachers pay for out of their own pockets?

Do you know how many aides that quarter of a million could hire to help, you know… kids?  The reason you’re in the position you’re in, after all. Oh the politicians can talk about how you’re supposed to reduce the deficit or improve standardized testing, but that’s all political hogwash.  You’re there to make sure the kids of Huntsville get the best education possible, and frankly from talking to teachers all over the city, I don’t see that you’re helping.  In fact, you seem to be getting in the way of teaching far more than helping.  You’ve got teachers everywhere continuing to purchase basic supplies out of their own pocket, all with the threat of meet the benchmark… or else.  And that benchmark doesn’t take into account what the teacher faced that year, that week or that day.

So really, Dr. Wardynski… what would you do if you had an employee just like you?

I’m calling Racial Bullsh*t.

I’ve got to call this one.

It’s rare that I see racism in my community, but I’m afraid I’ve found a fine example of it. It actually makes me sad.

See, I love my community, and I nearly cried when a friend and fellow blogger (if someone as haphazard as I can be considered a blogger) praised and defended our little community of diversity. But I’ve found a nasty underbelly of racism that I just can’t leave alone.

It involves the past HCS Superintendent and the new HCS Superintendent.

The previous Superintendent was a black woman. Dr. Moore was many things other than that simple label, but one of the things I didn’t think she ever could be considered was a “good” superintendent. After all, under her watch we became the school system in Alabama with the single largest debt. Not that she worked in a vacuum, but the fact is, by any outside objective method, HCS had plenty of unaddressed problems under her administration.

The new Superintendent is a white man. Again, Dr. Wardynski is so much more than that simple label. I am beginning to believe that he is going to share many things with Dr. Moore, including being a poor Superintendent. But Dr. Moore’s and Dr. Wardynski’s ability (or lack thereof) to lead HCS is not why I’m writing this post.

One of the many complaints that I heard over and over again about Dr. Moore is how bloated the central office became under her tenure. Usually, but not always, this included a reference to her filling it with her own “cronies.” Yet one of the things that Dr. Wardynski shares with Dr. Moore is that he is planning (or already has started) to further increase the size of the central office, hiring even more people… and guess what… they are also his “cronies.”

Yet when Dr. Moore did this, it was bad. Now some of the same people are saying that what Dr. Wardynski is doing is good. And yet, the only difference is that one is a black woman doing it, and the other is a white man doing it.

That, my friends, is racist bullsh*t. And I’m calling people on it from now on.

Not every household in Huntsville has internet service. (via Merts Center Monitor)

This is a really powerful statement of how HCS is saving money in one place at the expense of children and parents. Thanks, Merts Center Monitor.

There was something nagging at me about my previous post on children being left unattended at closed schools, and finally I figured out what it was. Kyle Koski told the Board that parents should know when to pick up their kids who ride the bus as majority-minority transfers or to attend magnets because the schools have posted the information on their websites. As someone who obviously spends a good deal of her day online, I reacted as if there wa … Read More

via Merts Center Monitor

The Joy of a Well Used Tool

I like tools.

I like tools quite a bit.

I can’t imagine life without tools.

Of course, it is our tools that separate us from mere animals, or so my anthropologist minded friends tell me. I’m not sure that true, but I’ll give them their little fantasy.

The only thing I like better than tools would have to be watching people that use them well.

Watching Mike Roberts play a guitar is pure joy. The way he effortlessly manipulates the strings on the neck to produce music as sweet as any you’ve ever heard is amazing. I can think of five people off the top of my head that can do the same thing with a piano. Eddie Russell and a bass, snare and a couple of cymbals is pure magic.

My friend Brandon can do things with a chop saw that I’d swear was impossible. I’ve seen him cut a complex angle freehand using nothing but his eye and his skill.

Eddi Smith can do things with a video camera that makes me jealous. Jeff White doesn’t look like he’s trying and produces some of the most amazing photographs I’ve ever seen. David Hatch make a computer produce the most amazing images while Kim Parker is insane with a paintbrush.

I like tools and I like people who use them well.

So what promoted this? As I’ve been writing this I’ve been watching three guys from Joe Webster Tree Service take down a massive storm damaged tree. Parts had fallen on fences and buildings. It was between two houses and a basket ball goal. These three hard working fellows who know their trade used their tools like masters. No part of the tree was ever out of their control. The one on the chain saw was surgical and precise, cutting logs under intense pressure with skill. The one on the crane kept trunks under control and put the cut logs into their truck, moving past obstacles with the grace of a dancer. The foreman kept watch and unloaded the crane, offering advice and his skill where needed (if not always appreciated).

There used to be a song for guys and gals like these I’ve mentioned. Next time your about to partake of your favorite adult beverage, hoist it high, think of all the people who are damn good with tools, and repeat after me.

This one’s for you!

Is everyone entitled to an education?

Lately I’ve been vocal about the poor financial leadership, and poor leadership in general, of the Huntsville City School System.  From their inept handling of the special needs children to the selection of a new leader while paying off the old, Huntsville City Schools has been a rich target of ridicule and disdain.  Add to the mix the recent escapades at Grissom concerning the senior prank and the head football coach along with the system losing two children in two days on the reduced and doubled up bus routes, and the system really does seem to be falling apart.  To the tune of $19 million.

Missing in the mix is an examination of what it means to have an education.  Who needs to be educated and why.  I don’t expect to alter anyone’s view with this post, nor do I expect any earth shattering revelations.  Instead, this is more of a mental exercise in looking at the concept of the “Right to an Education.”

The concept of a right to education really took root in the 1960s.  While we in America had been providing some level of free, compulsary education for quite a few decades before, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the International Convenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on December 16, 1966.  A part of that Covenant was the decleration of education as an unalienable right of all people.  As such, every person on the planet is deserving of free and compulsaery primary and secondary education.

Nobel concept.

But what is an unalienable right? This is a right that exists because people exist, not because governments exist.  They are self-evident and universal.  Life.  Liberty.  Persuit of happiness. And, apparently to some, education.

I frankly have a problem with that.

Education can not exist without the structure of government or society. Education was not included in the Bill of Rights or even mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.  I have read quite a bit lately on the right to an education, and I’ve yet to hear a single convincing argument that it is an unalienable right.

The United States, that strange and marvolous experiment, had a problem.  A large country with a small population, we need workers who knew how to get things done.  We saw the value of education early on in our short history and, over time, came to recognize the dire need each of us has for an education.  It started as a church/village/parent responsibility but for many reasons, some valid and some not, it moved over to a state function.  Today, no one can imagine an America without a public school component.

Throughout the history of American education, certain types of people have been excluded from the process. At first, it was based on your religion. Catholics didn’t go to a prodestant school. Jews didn’t go to a baptist school.  Or based on your family.  My mom had enough educating my five siblings, she didn’t have time to educate your five siblings too.  Even after it moved to a state function, some groups of people were still left out. Various minorities (Blacks, Asians, and Natives quickly jump to mind, but also in various parts of the country, Irish, Germans and Jews) were denied a state education for various reasons.

It may take a while, but one thing our country is very good at is making sure the laws apply to everyone, and today (at least in theory) everyone in America can receive a free secondary education and most a free primary education.  But is that the best use of our recources? Are there “classes” of people who we shouldn’t educate?

Let me be perfectly clear.  In asking that question, I am not suggesting that there is any class of people which should never receive education. Instead, I am asking if there are people who shouldn’t receive the compulsary, free primary and secondary education provided by the state.

Because here is the truth of the situation.  Education costs money, and the government taxes you and I in order to pay for it.  As such, it should be both frugal and wise with the expenditure of our education dollars in maintaining the highest quality of education possible for the most people.  As such, I can envision a group of people could exist to whom it does not make economic or social justice sense to educate anymore.  But can we classify people into groups that are not deserving of education?

One of the most obvious classifications would be ethnic, but like almost all other cases of ethnic classification it isn’t very clean or very useful.  Racism aside, there is nothing inherent in any ethnic division that I can find to give credence to the idea that a group of people based on ethnicity does not need to be educated.  I am willing to accept that I may be too Eurocentric to recognize that there could exist a culture of people who do not need education and I’ll try to dispassionately listen to such an argument, but my gut feeling is that there is no ethnic group that needs not be educated.

Another obvious classification would be gender, and again I am not sure that is a useful classification when it comes to determining who gets educated and who does not.  It would seem to me that any attempt to deny education based on gender is less about justice and more about discrimination… in a much clearer case in my mind that ethnicity.  Again, my Eurocentric nature may be exerting itself.

Combining gender and ethnicity and you can start to come across a few arguments that may have some merit, although I personally consider the merits very weak and not worthy of consideration in my view of America.  I have heard it argued that in certain cultures certain genders have specific roles and that state education does not serve them well.  However, since I don’t believe that people are entirely defined by the culture they are born into, I don’t by that it is a strong argument.  If your culture is based on inequalities like that, I’m not really sure the government needs to be in the business of accepting and recognizing it.

The last simple category I can come up with is economic class.  I’ve heard discussions that children from a certain economic background should not receive public education because of the drain on the recourses.  I’ve heard it argued that the very rich should pay for their own education.  I’ve also heard that the very poor, who generally do the worst on standardized testing, should not be allowed to lower the standards of our schools and should therefore be denied access.  I find both of those arguments repugnant. For one, I do not think segregating the rich from the poor helps either group, and can seriously hinder both groups as well.  Rich kids might grow up to be rich adults, but they will have to interact with people from various backgrounds their entire life.  The bubble we live in as children shrinks rapidly as we become adults.  And I can’t see how we help poor kids by keeping them out of the eyes of rich ones.

We might try intelligence.  In China, if you took the top ten percent of their students, you’d have a group of people that outnumbers every man, woman and child in America.  The top one percent outnumbers every student in America. The brain power in China is immense, and that is who our children will be competing with on the global market. Does it not make sense to concentrate our efforts on the brightest of students?

I’d say no.  It is often not the brightest of students that bring forth the brightest of ideas.  Far to often, bright ideas emerge from less bright minds.  So ignoring those considered less than bright is to throw away a massive resource.  Ingenuity is often developed among those that have to try harder, and I believe ingenuity is needed more than brilliance in the emerging world economy.  So if we are going to educated on intelligence, we’d best not set our sites too high.

But what about too low?  Are there people so far down the intelligence ladder that we shouldn’t bother educating them at all? Autistic, Downs, mental defects… are there people who are even now being given an education that perhaps shouldn’t?

I would argue against it.  Modern medicine is allowing people to live longer and longer.  And many of these people are going to be eating up our resources for a long time.  Shouldn’t they be educated as far as we can manage so that there resource need is as low as possible? Some may never be truly independent, but by making the as independent as we possibly can we ensure that they do not take up more resources than they really need.

If you’ve read this far, you might start thinking that I couldn’t come up with a group of people who shouldn’t be educated.  I’ll admit that my gut tells me that there must be, but my sense of equity tells me that there isn’t.

Then it hit me.  Wait… while I don’t agree with the concept that education is an unalienable right, but I’m in the minority. So education is a right not derived by government but granted by the very existence of the individual.  And if we accept this concept, then it is the government’s duty to the people to protect the individual’s right to that education.  And like other unalienable rights, when one individual infringes on the rights of another, then the government should step in and protect the infringed, even at the expense of a right of the offender.

We have no problem with this in other aspects of our rights.  If someone infringes upon our right to freedom, through a kidnapping or other crime, we have no problem as a society of punishing that person by taking away their right to freedom, i.e. prison.  We will even take away a persons right to life under specific situations.  So it seems to make sense that while everyone is, indeed, entitled to an education, they can lose that right if they infringe on the right to education of someone else.

This gets into a tricky and slippery slope, without a doubt.  We would need the same level of safeguards and protections in place for other rights and crimes for what is going in education.  Taking away someone’s right is a serious business and should be done with care and scrutiny.

But there are those who are so selfish, so into their own wants and needs that they do take away other peoples right to an education.  And that’s where the government should step in.  If we are going to enshrine education as an unalienable right, then it does need to be protected.  Students (and sometimes parents) that are so disruptive that other students are unable to learn need to be dealt with.

In the case of special needs, it may mean a aide.  Since the current administration in HCS has FOUR aides, making sure each special needs child as an aide or two doesn’t seem excessive. In the case of legitimate behavior problems, since the purpose of education is to make more productive citizens, it doesn’t seem to make sense to throw them out and make the rest of society end up dealing with it poorly. Think it won’t go poorly? Check out how society dealt with the closing of mental institutions in the 60′s.

But where the focus should be placed is squarely on those disruptive students who have no legal excuse.  Those of an age to know better, or focus on the parents who do not help the school. I know of plenty of parents who’s children should be in some form of special needs, usually because of behavior problems. These kids need help, but because of the stigma parents seem to have they refuse to let their child get the help they need. In those cases, the parents should be punished, most likely financially, for the disruption of their children.

In the middle school grades, it should most likely be a joint action. Parents are still held responsible, but so are the kids to a lesser degree.  By high school, the focus and responsibility should go primarily to the student.  They are, after all, in the last stage of preparation for society.

But it doesn’t matter if you agree with me or not. It has become quite clear that our current governments place such a little value on education that the existence of schools have become a irritation. While society may accept that education is a right, government has accepted that education is a chore. School has turned into a test mill where students are taught a test instead of taught to think. And as a result, teacher cheating on standardized tests has increased. While I abhore the practice, I can understand it. Testing is everything in today’s education culture. Big money rests on the results.

So while I think that there may be people who SHOULD be denied access to education, I think there are far bigger problems inside education that need addressing. This is one more of the should be that has to go to the bottom of the pile behind much more pressing things.

Men Who Are My Heroes

I’ve been thinking about this topic a great deal lately. Heroes. People we hold in the highest esteem. Who are they? What makes them heroes? And I’ve come to some surprising realizations.

Heroes. According to the dictionary a Hero is:

he·ro
[heer-oh]
- noun, plural-roes 1. man admired for brave deeds, noble qualities, etc. 2. the main male character in a story, play, etc.

Often a hero is thought of as larger than life. But as I’ve gotten older, that view has changed. I’m so much more a pragmatist about who I view as a hero today.

There’s the man I know who was in a serious relationship. The relationship was winding down and he was fretting how to end it gracefully. That alone is fairly heroic to me. Even though he wanted out of the relationship, he wanted to do it as politely and as friendly as possible. Then he finds out she’s pregnant.

I’ve known plenty of men who run at this point. Others who “man up” and provide financial support. But this guy? He fights, tooth and nail to be a part of this baby’s life. He gets joint custody, puts his new business on the back burner, takes crappy jobs, and anything else he can do to be a dad. That was heroic. He is one of my heroes.

Another is a father of a special needs child. The devotion and absence of self with which this man gives of himself to that child is heroic. He is a hero.

And the Dad who wears neon pink to coach my daughter’s t-ball team. Go Pink Babydolls. That’s self sacrifice.

But as much as I admire these three men and their heroism, these are men that society already recognizes as “good men” and few people would be surprised at the level of esteem I hold them. What may surprise them is the heroes that come from “bad men.”

Like the fellow who would be best described as a womanizer, scoundrel and a mooch. And barely old enough to be considered a man. But he endured seven hours of pain to have the poem he read at his best friend’s funeral be tattooed on his back.

Or the guy who busted a beer bottle over the head of another man. Not that violence is heroic, and taken out of context this might be viewed as a “bad man” situation. With all the information, it was his ex-wife’s new boyfriend. The victim had also beaten the bottle swinger’s four year old son so sever his ear swelled and was black. Perhaps not the best way to deal with the situation, but heroic nonetheless. How many good men dream of doing something similar?

And these are the people I know. There are also those I don’t, but am honored to see their heroic deeds anyway. The burly biker with prison tattoos being ever so gentle in dealing with the twelve year old who’s body is so wrecked with sickness he couldn’t lift his head. Buddy, you made my night at the Stars game.

The thing is, I think there is something heroic in all of us. That moment of compassion when we are more than just ourselves. And I’m less convinced today that the world can be divided into good men and bad men.

Instead there are men. Sometimes they are good, sometimes they are bad, and all the time they are human.

What I’ve learned from riding a motorcycle

For the past month and at least till the end of this month, I’ve had a motorcycle. I’m not sure about a lot of things about motorcycles, but will tell you cruising down a road on a cool evening is great fun. Here is a list of the few things I’ve learned.

1) Drivers in Huntsville are comprised of mostly idiots. The best advice I ever got about driving a bike is “drive like you are invisible” and it has probably saved my life. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen shock on other drivers faces when they finally see me. Or the number of times someone has cut me off. Or the sheer agressiveness of Huntsville drivers. Hey people, enjoy the ride!

Also of note, the stretch of Memorial Parkway from University to Governors scares me in a car. I won’t ride it on a bike.

2) Bikers are friendly. Any time I pass another rider, they wave. I guess we all recognize each other and the difficulties of being invisible, so there is a “biker wave” we share as we pass. Next time you are following a bike and see another coming from the opposite direction, watch for it. It is easy to miss, but the left hand leaves the handlebar and opens just beneath the handle. It is subtle (for safety reasons) but while riding it is unmistakable.

3) Everyone else wants a bike. Okay, not everyone, but lots. The bike I ride is pretty, so I get a lot of comments when I get on or off of it. Today an older gentleman stopped me to talk and told me how, in his younger days, he bought a bike in San Antonio and rode it to Key West. Great story, and if I hadn’t been on a bike he would never have spoken to me.

4) There is a hierarchy of bikes, but it is very muddy and indistinct. All bikers agree that riding on two wheels is better than four, but after that it gets shady. In general, American iron is better than everything else. But not always. Harley Davidson rules the American bikes, unless it is custom. Ricers (Japanese bikes) suck, but if you ride “Nice Rice” you are high on the scale. What makes it nice is up for debate. Honda Gold Wing fits in there somewhere. To some, as primo and to others as wannabe. Rice Rockets have a whole seperate system that I don’t understand. With them, you’ve got to figure out what to do with a Ducati, which is Italian. No one seems sure where to put the German BMW bikes. I like them, but are they street bikes or rockets? Dirt bikes are for posers. Scooters are too. But any bike is better than no bike, although I doubt I’ll ever see a hard core Harley rider be happy on a Vespa.

For the record, I currently ride a Ridely. It is American (raising me up the scale), but also an automatic (lowering me down) and therefor unusual (raising me back up).

5) Riding alone is fun, but like many solo activities, riding with others is more fun.

6) Loud pipes save lives. I fully believe both American and Japanese bikes could be built to be quieter. In fact, several companies make an electric bike, mostly in scooter styles, that are practically silent. Yet until the general population of drivers become significantly more aware of bikes on the road, I won’t ride one. My bike is LOUD. That has gotten a driver’s attention more than once. A silent bike would almost truly be invisible.

7) Leather has a purpose. I knew this before, but let me say it again. Leather riding gear is less about cool and more about safety. Leather is the “seat belt” of the bike world. Riding leathers are “cool” because bikes are “cool,” and not the other way around. Leather does everything from crash protection to flying debris protection. And wind protection. I got hit in the chest by a rock today and in the face by a bug. Both hurt. A simple leather vest would have gone a long way with the rock.

8) Helmet laws are stupid. Not wearing a helmet is insane, but forcing them onto bikers has resulted in lots of ways around the law. Every day I see bikers wearing Helmets that have absolutely no safety benefits at all. Bike shops sell “novelty” helmets every day that offer no protection. I wear a DOT certified helmet, because not doing so doesn’t make sense to me.

9) Bikers are conforming nonconformist. In a sense, bikers conform to a group dynamic like any other group. Clubs even have uniforms along with rules about what you can wear. But individuality rules the roost. Bikers, even club bikers, find ways to express that. Anyone who knows me and my love of Halloween will not be surprised to learn my helmet has a skull on it. Or that most of my other riding gear has other similar themes.

10) Outlaw bikers are not the norm. Despite what you might get from the media, the vast majority of bikers are good, friendly, law abiding people. Even in the clubs. While we watch out for each other and have each others backs (I’m shocked at how much expensive stuff is left on parked bikes… Helmets, ipods, and more all because we trust other bikers and count on the mystic of the brotherhood to keep theives at bay) I know more lawyer, banker, accountant, doctor, military, teacher, professional bikers than I know outlaws.

One last note. There is a code of honor among bikers, and don’t think there isn’t. I don’t fully understand the code, but it is there.