“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”

Those words of civil rights activist Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., speak proficiently about people who talk the talk and walk the walk; ideally his words would also motivate closet activist, people who hesitate to speak up or take action at the opportune time.  We all know someone who loud-talks up a storm behind the scenes, complaining about what “somebody” should or should not say or do to get something done, but when the occasion arises for the whiner to speak publicly about the issue, his or her jaws lock tighter than a hard shell clam.

I believe that some people are born activists, while others grow into those shoes. It doesn’t matter how they arrive at being a crusader, what is significant is that at some point they learn the importance of speaking out and championing their cause, whether it is a global effort like Going Green or working to eliminate homelessness in their community.  Activists are generally mindful of their Ps and Qs – they prepare, participate, and when necessary, they question. Then, they pursue a course to affect the cause that they are championing – whether it means joining their colleagues in a public protest, taking part in a fact finding survey, or casting a vote.

On the other hand closet activists avoid publicly stating their opinion, preferring to cower in the shadows and grumble instead of taking a stand.  No one is right or wrong all of the time.  Sometimes we make good choices, other times bad.  But regardless, the point is — express yourself.  Whether you support a cause or totally disagree with it.  Man or woman up!  Let your position be known. 

People who have the opportunity to speak up and refuse, basically deserve whatever they get from the outcome of a decision by the majority.  Life is a crapshoot, a gamble.  Each one of us – from the President of the United States to the homeless person on the street – has only limited control over some things and absolutely no control over other things.  It is liberating to be able to state a position.  You may change your mind later on, you may even regret a decision, but you can feel pleased that you at least had enough backbone to assert yourself.   Any coward can opt out. In the words of Malcolm X, “If you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything.”

During a town hall meeting on September 20, Velma Hart, a former CFO of AmVets, told President Obama that she was “exhausted” from defending him.  That media finger-snap-of-fate brought her national exposure.  Any open-minded viewer, who saw the newscast, could see that Ms. Hart was not Obama-bashing during her 15 minutes of fame.  She politely, professionally, and articulately voiced her opinion.  In a CNN interview which aired on the day following the brouhaha, a poised Ms. Hart said, “I still believe in him.” 

Nevertheless, just weeks after that town meeting, she lost her job and joins 15 million other Americans on the human scrapheap of unemployment.  While AmVets claims that Ms. Hart’s layoff was an economic decision, and the White House at the time of this posting is mum on the subject, inquiring minds are speculating about the reason she was let go.

Among the lot of the recession-era unemployed, the majority were likely efficient and dedicated employees, who actually were dismissed due to recessionary budget cuts.  Some within the multitude fell beneath the axe of shrewd employers with a personal vendetta (don’t pretend that it doesn’t happen), who seized the opportunity to fallaciously blame the job cuts of those whom they axed on the economy.  And a number of people on the unemployment roster were ousted for miscellaneous reasons.  The result is still the same.  The unemployment list keeps growing.

So, in this climate of Big Brother muscle flexing, whether it pertains to surveillance cameras, free speech censoring, or pat-down groping, the question that begs an answer is – was Ms. Hart released from her job because of the current economic slump as was stated, or because she publicly criticized the president?  If the latter is the case then working Tea Party members should be wallowing in a witch’s brew of anxiety, because Obama-bashing is their forte.  If, to the contrary, some influential figures felt that Ms. Hart was too amicable to the Commander-in-Chief, then score one for the conservatives.

 The matter of Hart is just one more issue that makes some arm-chair quarterbacks who are watching the political games place an index finger on the side of their head and say, “Ummm?”