Nazis/Racists/Homophobes - Different Degrees, Similar Backdrop

Suzy and I just finished watching one of my favorite movies growing up as a teenager, "Swing Kids." Although not quite as cheesy as "Newsies," it is also probably not best picture material.  Either way, if you have never ever seen the film, it's still probably worth your time (even if Roger Ebert rated it ONE star...). 

The film's setting is 1930's Germany during Hitler's rise to power.  The film tells the story of some young men and women (but mostly men) who become involved in an underground dance movement.  This movement was proscribed by the contemporary leadership because it embraced American swing dancing.  You know, "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing," right?  Truth be told, there is not really a lot of swing dancing portrayed in the movie.  Rather, the movie follows the conflict that exists between and within these young men as they contemplate how to look at and respond to the rise of Nazism in their mother country.  A key element of the tale is when the two main characters, Peter (played by Robert Sean Leonard) and Thomas (Christian Bale), both join the Hitler youth.  As the movie progresses, Thomas becomes entirely taken with Nazi ideology, while Peter is still very opposed to supporting the Nazis.  Peter's father also opposed Hitler's rise, and as a result, was taken by the Nazis, and nearly killed, when Peter was just a small boy.  Since Peter and his younger brother were essentially raised without a father, their mother naturally feels tremendous fear toward the German government. 

As the narrative unfolds, the friendship between Peter and Thomas is shaken because Thomas begins to openly support Nazi goals, while Peter cannot come to grips with what is becoming of Germany.  In a final act of rebellion, Peter returns to a swing club one last time, and dances his heart out until the club is invaded by Nazi soldiers.  The soldiers apprehend Peter, along with many others, and load him in a truck to presumably be shuttled to some sort of concentration camp. 

One scene that stood out to me is when Peter, Willi (Pete's younger brother), and the boys' mother Frau are sitting at the dinner table with one of the more prominent Nazi leaders, Herr Knopp.  While there is still a bit of awkwardness in the atmosphere, here is a family eating mouth-watering food, and drinking fine wine.  When Peter shows visible signs of displeasure at the presence of Knopp, and what Knopp stands for, Peter's mother clearly becomes upset, because this is as good as they have had it in a long time.  Why mess with what's comfortable anyway, right?

Whenever I watch a film portraying uncomfortable historical realities, I naturally consider the implications for questions of cultural and social institutions we have in place today.  Today, Naziism, and antisemitism are repugnant to 99% of us.   Similarly, nearly everyone you meet deplores modern and historical racism, in all its disgusting manifestations.

Yet I can't help but think that in the 1930's and 40's many Germans (and Americans for that matter) aided and abetted in the rise of Hitler.  And even after revelations emerged about the reality of the millions who were brutally murdered in the Nazi's wake, many people justified looking the other way, either out of fear, or just plain denial.  The character Thomas in "Swing Kids," as well as Peter's mother Frau, embody the conflict between knowing something is immoral, but also fearing the ramifications of actually standing up for what is really right.  

If you have seen "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner," "Remember the Titans," "Amazing Grace," or the more recent movies "The Help," or "The Butler," you can see examples of a similar trend in American culture.  As civil rights came more and more to the forefront, many prominent individuals and institutions not only continued to shrug at the old ways of thinking, but they also railed against things like interracial marriage and integration in schools, because of the fear of what these changes might lead to in the future.  And just as with the examples portrayed in Swing Kids, you have many, many Americans unable to stand for what is right because of the fear of how they will be seen by others, be it friends, family, religious peers, or employers.  


The civil rights issue of our time is homosexuality and gay marriage.  Even though apparently a majority of Americans now support gay marriage, many institutions, especially religious organizations, are trying to hold back the tide.  They have their various pet arguments, and they cling to biblical scripture to justify their position. 

Yet I cannot help but look backward (and then forward).  Am I equating Nazis = racists = homophobes, or that someone who opposes gay marriage is a gay-hater?  Not exactly.  But it's hard not to imagine a time somewhere down the road where we will look back at gays and gay marriage, and we will think, "wow, I can't believe people believed THAT or said THIS about gays."  Isn't that how we look back at World War II and the civil rights era?  How could anyone think those awful things about Jews?  How could people believe that embarrassing stuff about blacks (Chinese/Japanese/Irish/Hispanics...)? 

I can't help but assume that most of the individuals and institutions that oppose gay marriage today would be the ones opposing fair treatment of Jews in the early 20th century, and equal rights for blacks in the mid 1900's.  It's easy to oppose those positions today.  When you agree with 99% of society, you really have nothing to lose.  But today, now, when things are still much more divided, is the test of what a person really values.  Loyalty to traditional institutions, or love toward oppressed individuals seems to be the common choice one may have to face.  And while "homophobic' is a label many will not appreciate, racism did not become racism only after the vast majority of people decided blacks weren't inferior to whites.

I don't want to look back and know that I was one of those people.  The one who decides to go along once it's obvious what the correct way to act is, because nearly everyone has finally jumped on the bandwagon.  If we study history, I don't think any of us have a legitimate excuse to be "that" person. 

Disempowering Our Youth

This week I spent a fair amount of time spectating as folks on the Internet reacted to a viral blog from an innocent lady writing to girls that post pijama pictures on Facebook.  Dozens and dozens of other blogs reacted.  Hundreds and thousands of people had to share their opinions.  Modesty (re: Miley Cirus) seems to be the most controversial subject on the Internet in past months/years.  Not starvation.  Not unemployment.  Not child abuse.  Not war with Syria.  

So my gut inclination is to ignore the topic, because God knows we don't need one more opinion on the subject.  But among the pages/opinions I have read, I still haven't seen this simple critique - in response to those who feel that once a young man has seen a girl who is scantily clad, that he cannot "unsee" it, or cannot then see the girl as anything but a sexual object. 

All I have to say is, the best way to make sure your son can't "unsee" an inappropriate image or movie scene is to teach him that he can't.  Once a young man has internalized this mentality, then the power images have over him is more about the erroneous idea that he is powerless to change his thoughts than it is about the images themselves. 

Stop disempowering your youth.  Your son (and your daughter) has the ability to change his (her) thoughts.  There is a lot of crap on the Internet. You clicked on this link, didn't you?  And yet, I bet you will forget about having read this in about 30 more seconds.... unless I tell you you will not be able to forget, ever... hmmm....

Karin and Steve's Wedding Video

P90X Works

April 4, 2011

About a year ago, my wife Suzy decided she wanted to purchase the P90X workout program for her birthday. At the time, I thought, of all the things you could get foryour birthday.... why this? After all, I had heard how extreme the program actually was, and I figured she would just be throwing her money awayfor a bunch of DVDs that she would only use for a few w

eeks before giving up. Not that I didn't have faith in her, but I just figured it was a program with constant Saturday morning infomercials showing people experiencing unbelievable results was just what you would predict - too good to be true.

But she bought the DVDs, the pull up bar, the bands, and the dumbbells, and she did the program for about 6 weeks. We took pictures and measurements. The results were actually pretty noticeable for only a month and a half. I was impressed. But for whatever reason, she stopped working out, and nothing happened for awhile. Then, in September, I decided I would try the workout with her. We lasted 3 weeks, and I enjoyed the workouts,

but sickness preempted week 4, and we never got back in the groove.

For the new year, Suzy made a resolution that she wanted to complete the full 90 days before her 30th birthday. At the same time, some members of my extended family suggeste

d we do a "Biggest Loser" contest for 12 weeks for anyone who wanted to compete. These two goals combined helped us to become re-motivated, and this time we weren't going to quit part of the way through.

What can I say about P90X? It is extreme. But I have to think that most people could do it if they just consistently would continue to work at it. Sometimes you don't think you're getting the results that you want, but you just have to be patient. The part that may be even more difficult than actually doing the workouts is showing up to work out. In our

case, we usually had to wake up between 4:30-5 a.m. so we could get in a workout before our kids started getting out of bed. The program is very time consuming. You have to plan on an hour to 1.5 hours a day, six days a week.

One other misconception I had about the program is that I would be sore for a week or two, but then my muscles would be used to the rigor of the routine. However, P90X is based on the principle of "muscle confusion," which means you can plan on being sore probably some if not most of the whole program. After awhile, you start to get used to it, and feeling sore makes you feel like you worked hard enough. The thing I liked best about doing the work

outs is the variety (there are 12 DVDs total), and the fact that I pretty much felt like Superman once I had act

ually finished. Doing it first thing in the morning, I felt like I had finished something significant before my real day had even started.

The best part of the program? It works with minimal investment in equipment (although as I got stronger, I had to sink a little more money into heavier weights), and you can get great results right in your basement. No travel time to and from the gym, and no membership fees.

My results? I did not take all my measurements, but I think the outcome is pretty visible. I dropped 10 pounds, from 176 to 166, which is about what I weighed

way back in

my high school days. My jeans, which used to fit just right on my waist, are now hanging at least two or three inches loose.

I don't think I will be winning the biggest loser event, but I think the accomplishment of finishing such an intense workout regimen speaks for itself. I figure if I can do it, anyone can. Now it's time for Insanity!!

Here's a few pics:

Day 1 - Day 30

Day 60-Day90





















Day 1 - Day 90

Day 1 - Day 90

I Want Nothing but the Truth....but.....

January 5, 2011

A few weeks ago one of the parents of a boy that comes to daycare every day gifted us some different spoils from a recent hunting excursion - jerky, sausage, ground meat, etc. Usually his gifts are savory and mouth-watering. However, this batch of jerky did not impress me, nor did it impress my wife. Before we even consumed half the bag, we threw the rest away.

Flash forward to yesterday, and a scene that is familiar to just about anyone comes into play - this same parent asking my wife and I, "did you eat the jerky? Did you like it?"

I am a person who really hates to be disingenuous, and yet in situations like these, I know what my response is going to be.... "Yeah, it was great!"

Growing up, especially in the LDS church, I was taught very well that lying was wrong, and that there is no gray area between right and wrong. Thus, in my very literalistic, unexperienced way of viewing things, I understood this as meaning "never lie for any reason, ever!" Of course, as I continued to gain experience and knowledge, I realized that this black and white thinking didn't really apply in all circumstances.

However, I would have thought it would apply in God's one and only true church. How could a lie (or the corollary, not telling a lie but just not telling the truth either) ever serve the members of the church? But it seems that even for God, telling the truth can have undesired consequences.

I am reading a biography of Spencer W. Kimball by his son Edward, and while the book can often times be interpreted as potentially faith-promoting, Ed Kimball tries to just tell things the way they are. Thus, you can find quotes like this one from Dallin H. Oaks (p. 190), "Even though something is true, we are not necessarily justified in communicating it."

To further illustrate this point, Edward points out disagreements various leaders had over the publishing of certain church histories by the LDS Historical Department, such as The Story of the Latter-Day Saints. Apostles Ezra Taft Benson, Boyd K. Packer, and Delbert L. Stapley objected to including things like how Brigham Young chewed tobacco (to deaden the pain of bad teeth), or how the Word of Wisdom came about at a time in the nineteenth century when other people were also adopting similar health guidelines.

I guess even though I have tried to form a more nuanced view of the world, it is easy for me to hold the church up to what I consider a higher standard. If the church is going to go around saying it is the only place where people can find all the truth, then they had better tell the truth, and/or not cover it up.

I have read all sorts of materials and books that would probably be considered "anti-mormon" by your average member of the church. At first it was a little disconcerting, but I just could not turn away. While my views of the church have changed rather significantly over the past several years, I don't think anything I could read could be as trying to my faith in the hierarchy as knowing they try to cover things up ostensibly to promote faith and protect testimonies. Knowing that this happens throws everything else up into the air.

But maybe the church just sees itself as an extension of myself - not wanting to admit that the jerky stinks, to save face, or to preserve a healthy reputation. But we are not just talking about lying to someone who wants to know if you liked their jerky. These are questions about who will or won't be saved, or whether or not there is even a life after this one. That's why I think the church has to be held to the highest standard possible. But one still has to wonder, is it always better to tell the truth? Are we, as well as the church, ever justified in telling a lie, or not telling the whole truth? I was always good at asking questions that have no definite answers...

P.S. I am not trying to say I think the church is not true (as nebulous as the term 'true' can be for me most of the time). I am only trying to point out that even with questions of belief, there may not always be one right and one wrong answer. I think the leaders recognize this, but don't want to admit it openly, probably for the same reasons they don't admit a lot of things.