As I watched some of the Bernie Sanders supporters at the Monday night session of the Democratic National Convention, I couldn’t help but think of the 1992 baseball film, A League of Their Own. Tom Hanks is the manager of a World War II era women’s barnstorming baseball team. At one point, he become befuddled by one of his player’s despair and he says, “There’s no crying in baseball.” You can see the great scene at the bottom of this post.

During the primary season, I preferred Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. I liked Bernie because I thought that for a time period (up until the week preceding the New York primary), he was about as good as we could get. I loved his progressive ideas coupled with his ability to usually keep his ego in check. I didn’t consider him to be perfect, largely because he is a human being and none of us reach that level, or even come close. I respected him, but I didn’t worship him.

I had to wonder about some of Bernie’s supporters. The tenacity with which they stuck with fine gentleman on Monday night became scary to me. What made it particularly difficult to handle was the notion that if they really trusted him to a level that brought them to tears, why didn’t they trust him enough to follow his suggestion that they now turn their support to Hillary Clinton. This, for no other reason than to prevent Donald Trump from becoming our Supreme Leader.

The words and actions of many Bernie supporters on Monday night reminded me of people who are extremely religious and profess to the Bible. Strict religious constructionists see the Bible as the “Word of Truth.”

But frequently they get stumped and insist that there are exceptions to the literal interpretation of the gospel. For example, Leviticus18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

Yet Christians who accept gay rights must sacrifice their absolute fealty to the Bible in order to make sense of the world. Let’s face it, the Bible does not form a close union with the way in which the world actually operates on a day-to-day basis.

There are tears at political convention, but they are usually drowned out by yelling and screaming. It’s odd, delegates at the convention are engaged in perhaps the most important collective decision-making that Americans have to make. Who do we want as our leaders?

Yet there is virtually no rational discussion, no cost-benefit analysis, no timeouts for walks in the park to try to straighten things out. Rather the happenings at a convention are similar to college fans at a sporting event. There is cheering and jeering; booing and mocking. It seems that no one is right except the team (candidate) that one is supporting.

While there can be inspiring words from the podium as well as words of reason, many delegates remain steadfast in their blind loyalty to the candidate of their choice. But it is a meeting of delegates to make a decision as to who will represent their political party in the presidential race. If it works well (and it doesn’t always), there will be a democratic decision as to who the nominee will be. If it doesn’t work well, then the fault is not just “the other candidate,” but also a terribly flawed system that requires the highest level of rational thinking to repair.

Comedienne Sarah Silverman told the “Bernie or bust” delegates that they were being ridiculous. I agree with her sentiments, although I would have preferred a less absolute description of what they were doing. The bottom line is that a political convention does not have to resemble a religious revival or a college football game. As all cases when decisions are being made, it is important for us to express our emotions, but to also know how to keep them in check.

I commend Bernie Sanders and his supporters for moving Hillary Clinton into a far more progressive position than she was when the campaign began. She can run on a platform that is as progressive as Bernie.

The progressive movement does not end with Bernie. There is much to be done and opportunities are probably better than any time since Lyndon Johnson launched the Great Society and before he got us to deeply mired in the Vietnam War. LBJ said, “let us reason together.” That should be the fundamental difference between the progressives of the left and the conservatives of the right.
Embed:

The post There’s no crying in baseball, or politics appeared first on Occasional Planet.

How often do you step outside of your comfort zone? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that if you’re like most people, not very often. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s ingrained within our minds to be creatures of habit, to take the path of least resistance. Routine is a staple of human nature. For example, instead of exploring local radio stations I pick a few songs I like and let Pandora find more of the same for me. It’s not that I’m opposed to new music, but 90s alternative happens to be my comfort zone. Think of the slew of blogs, tv stations, and periodicals that only broadcast to certain interests or viewpoints. Yes, they can help someone expand their knowledge on a given subject, but more often than not they’re used to just reaffirm what the person already knew or were thinking. By staying in our respective comfort zones, we’re not pushed to think about other issues or ideas. We tend to lump people who don’t agree or care for what we like in stereotypes and dismiss them. Which is one of the reasons I’m going to a gun show.

A few months ago I wrote a piece about open carry laws in my neighborhood. In it, I acknowledged the fact that I’m not comfortable around guns. Guns are weapons and in a civilized society I find little place for them. Add to the point that wearing a weapon out in public is intimidating for those of us without them, that I feel safe enough in the city with the second highest crime rate in America to not carry anything but a cell phone, and you can come to the conclusion I’m just not a big fan of firearms.

Other than pushing myself out of my comfort zone, why else would I go to a gun show? For starters, I’m not going alone. My friend is taking me there. (He has a few guns and we’ve had some interesting conversations on gun control before.) Part of my reason for attending is to break out of the notion that all people who like guns are gun nuts. (I maintain that there is a difference between someone who knows about an issue and someone who is fanatical about it. Fanatics of anything are scary; be it sports, tv shows, nations, religions, or weapons.) I want to learn more about what kind of person owns multiple guns but doesn’t hunt. And what kind of booth will the NRA have, if any? Will there be other liberals there? I’m not going to lie, I’m also hoping to break some of the stereotypes I have about gun owners. (The two times I’ve been in a gun store the clientele/employees were mostly white middle-aged men.) Most importantly, I’m not going to prove a point, I’m going out of curiosity. I have no clue what goes on at a gun show. At the very least it should be a fun fish out of water experience.

Besides, what could possibly be more all-American than going to a gun show on September 11?

The post Hunting for a good time at a gun show appeared first on Occasional Planet.