Book Review: Walk to Beautiful

(I've been writing book reviews...and scheduling them for the day the book is scheduled to reach a bookstore near you...and remembering, belatedly, to pop an older book review out of the can...)

Title: Walk to Beautiful

Author: Jimmy Wayne (Barber)

Date: 2014

Publisher: W / Thoams Nelson

ISBN: 978-0-8499-2210-7

Length: 280 pages

Illustrations: color photo insert

Quote: “We moved a lot when I was a little boy...every time Mama ran out of rent money.”

Jimmy Wayne Barber’s father disappeared when he was born. His mother was one of those lovable but badly drug-damaged hippie chicks; she let her homes fill up with freeloading “friends” who usually ate up most of the food Mama used her monthly handouts to buy, and let her children try to make it through the rest of the month on a box of cereal and a box of powdered milk apiece. Mama Barber tried to give her children a home, as she drifted from party to party, slum to slum, man to man, and in and out of the institutions social workers undoubtedly thought might have helped her, but it was just too difficult. Once she started to take little Jimmy with her; but then, when he and her boyfriend of the season didn’t get along, she set him out at a bus station.

So he learned about the foster care system and, as a rebellious teenager, about the juvenile correctional system. Being unable to afford a lot of drugs might have been good for Jimmy Wayne, on the whole, because he was sober enough of the time to remember his adolescence as being worse than average. He describes his early adventures rolling and selling marijuana cigarettes with just a few real marijuana seeds rolled up in tomato leaves. The primary effects of marijuana are psychological so his mother’s hippie friends paid for the “high” they got from much less marijuana than they were paying for, and little Jimmy felt good about being a fake drug dealer because he sent some of the money to Mama in the mental hospital. You might suspect that this early success as a fake drug dealer inspired Jimmy to try to make even more money as a real one, but he doesn’t describe doing that, if he ever did.

Foster parents, and state institutions for children in between foster parents, did not provide the sort of supportive adult young Jimmy knew he wanted. As a teenager looking for odd jobs he found a pair of supportive adults, Bea and Russell Costner. Disqualified by age and self-employment from being official foster parents, they’d been unofficial foster parents to many children. Jimmy was the last. He came to identify the word “beautiful” with the name “Bea,” idealizing this foster mother who was probably older than his real grandmothers.

He sang in a rock band. Then he studied law enforcement and worked as a prison guard. Then he had some success as a country musician, but--...

Y’know, although I think it makes this “celebrity memoir” an awkward read, I can relate to Jimmy Wayne’s level of musical talent and success. Musicians who are described as “great” are usually obsessed with music by or before age four. Then there are those of us who can carry a tune, can learn to play instruments and harmonize and even perform classical pieces competently, but for whom music is just one of several things we enjoy...who are usually advised not to try making music our primary source of income. We may be competent musicians but we’re not obsessive enough to make music a career; we want normal lives too. We’re good enough to be in backup bands, may even sell a few recordings; as long as we perform cheap or free, at churches, hospitals, prisons, or at local events, we have enough fans to justify recordings. If the lyrics are timely or clever, or the video is brilliant, we might even monetize a YouTube post now and then. We’re not magical musicians, though, and most of us are likely to be better rated at the other jobs we also do competently and enjoy doing.

It’s not painful to be the kind of musician Jimmy Wayne describes himself as being in this memoir. He was in this band, they recorded an album and sold five-dollar cassette versions to all their friends, they broke up. He performed in contests and usually didn’t win. He auditioned for this and that industry mogul, most of them said “Don’t call me, I’ll call you,” but some of them tried marketing his records. It’s not bad to be that kind of musician. It’s not even uncool to write about it, later—if the memoir is about how you then moved on to your real career, or how music remained part of your life along with your real career. I think it’s extremely cool to be a good music-store manager, or writer, or bus driver or whatever else, who has sold a few records and still sings on weekends. Most of my school friends are in that category; many of my favorite writers are, and The Rock Bottom Remainders are an excellent idea and a decent, if self-parodic, band. But it is pitiful to be that kind of musician, not know it, and package your memoir as a celebrity musician’s memoir, at an age when you’re too young to write a memoir as such, in any case. In this book Jimmy Wayne never seems actually to come to terms with the fact that he’s neither Elvis Presley nor Shel Silverstein.

This makes the packaging of Walk to Beautiful as a musician’s memoir a source of pain. That’s a pity because Jimmy Wayne does have something worthwhile to say, and in this book he says it well; it’s just a disappointment for those who like to read the memoirs of celebrities who moved quickly through that garage-band stage into long, glamorous careers. As the musician’s memoir the professional writer Ken Abraham tried to make Walk to Beautiful, it’s pathetic. As a fundraiser for a cause—the cause of helping foster children become independent adults—it’s excellent.

One of the things that put people off Jimmy Wayne’s songs is their emotionality. Emotionality worked against him as a prison guard too; nobody is paying those men to befriend convicts, as Jimmy Wayne wanted to do. When you realize that this book is really about how awkward and difficult it is for 19-year-olds without money or connections to start functioning as adults, that emotionality is appropriate. He makes a strong case that 19-year-old boys, not all of whom have even reached their full height, have a hard time acting like men when they don’t have a living, supportive father to guide them, by presenting his life as the way such boys’ lives can go if they’re very lucky. He gives mostly statistics, and not enough to make a chart, about the ones who are not lucky.

The dramatic climax of his story so far is thus his pledge to walk “halfway across America,” from Nashville to Phoenix, as a fundraising demonstration. He walked 1700 miles in seven months—all well publicized, with some sort of “support vehicle” and often an entourage of fans bollowing. During the last month his heel bone cracked so he walked on an increasingly swollen and painful foot. He limped into Phoenix in a padded support boot, with two sticks, doped to the gills on heavy-duty painkillers. He sang for his fans that night. Then he was flown back to Nashville and rolled off the plane in a wheelchair. Then he lobbied in the Tennessee legislature and got the legislation he wanted in his own state, at least.

Was it good legislation? Do nineteen-year-olds want to be wards of the state, of their schools, or of their parents? Given the inadequacy of state foster care to connect Jimmy Wayne to the Costners before he was seventeen, how helpful to the young Jimmy Wayne would it have been if the state had retained custody of him for another eight years? Is it healthier, generally, to classify nineteen-year-olds as normally independent adults, some of whom may revert to dependency due to temporary disabling conditions? We need to talk about these things. Fiscal conservatives’ opposition to the idea that foster children should be dependent till they’re 25 is not merely a matter of not wanting to disburse the money. Fiscal conservatives, who tend to be sturdy, resilient, cheerful souls and expect everyone to loathe anything that sounds like “Oh you poor little helpless useless thing, of course you can’t be expected to take care of yourself!”, often feel genuine concern about social workers who try to “rescue” children from things like growing up in conservative families—and sometimes succeed, often by aggravating devoted, hardworking parents’ financial problems. This is a serious concern for some people who have been foster parents or foster children. I share the concern. I think that, as always, flexibility, with all final decisions left to the individual of principal concern (in this case the foster child over age ten), is the central rule to which any satisfactory solution must adhere.

It won’t hurt the fiscal conservatives, though, to read Walk to Beautiful. Jimmy Wayne missed so much school, due to family and welfare-system drama, that at eighteen he’d only just moved in with the Costners—one of whom died later that year—in order to be able to attend eleventh grade classes. He was almost twenty when he finished high school, not quite twenty-two when he earned a two-year degree in “criminal justice,” basically a trade school course for prison guards. He’d been working—doing yard work and other legitimate odd jobs, as well as selling fake marijuana cigarettes—for years before he struck it lucky, getting the Costners as yard work clients. He had not been able to earn enough, from honest work, to have much chance at a decent adult life if he hadn’t stumbled into the Costner home just before the Costners died.

Such stories aren’t typical, but what is typical for foster children as a group? If we know one foster child, we know one foster child. Jimmy Wayne offers fiscal conservatives much to think about. 

Morgan Griffith on the Neglect of Immigrant Children

From U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith; editorial comment below...

"

Office of Refugee Resettlement

In a March hearing, I asked U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra to come before my Oversight and Investigations (O&I) Subcommittee to discuss the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). I recently chaired said hearing.

ORR, an agency within HHS, is responsible for the care and placement of unaccompanied children who cross our borders.

During my opening statement, I thanked him for testifying and said even though he and I don’t agree on the Biden policies that brought these children to our border, once we have taken on the responsibility for them, we must properly care for them.

During the Biden Administration, ORR has faced an unprecedented surge in the number of unaccompanied minors referred to its custody.

For reference, from fiscal years (FY) 2018 through 2020, ORR averaged around 44,500 referrals per year. As of March 31, 2023, the agency had received almost 60,000 referrals in FY2023. This puts the agency on pace for over 120,000 referrals for the third year in a row.

Evidence from whistleblowers, Inspector General reports, and news reports demonstrate a failure by ORR to competently manage the surge. This surge has led to increased exploitation and trafficking of unaccompanied minors.

During the questioning portion of the hearing, I asked Secretary Becerra about a few specific concerns I have with ORR.

First were comments that Secretary Becerra himself made. In a leaked audio recording, the Secretary was heard saying, in reference to the processing of unaccompanied minors:

“If Henry Ford had seen this in his plants, he would have never become famous and rich. This is not the way you do an assembly line.”

These comments are alarming! In April, the New York Times reported that instead of taking the necessary time and effort to properly vet the people the children were being placed with, ORR fast tracked children through their system. This has led to reports of children being forced to illegally work in dangerous and inappropriate jobs instead of being enrolled in school.

ORR does not even notify the local school system that the children have been placed in their jurisdiction.

While Secretary Becerra’s comments seem to suggest that moving children out of ORR facilities quickly is more important than protecting them, the Secretary claimed that was not the case and his comments were more about overall ORR efficiency.

I also questioned the Secretary about ORR’s unacceptable vetting practices of family members and sponsors.

In regard to establishing claimed familial relationships between an adult and an unaccompanied minor, I asked if the agency does DNA testing. Secretary Becerra said that the agency verifies the identity of the family member mainly through documents, like birth certificates.

This is not enough. Documents like birth certificates or passports can be forged!

DNA testing is the only way to be completely sure there actually is a family connection.*

Additionally, I questioned Secretary Becerra about ORR continuing to waive background checks not only for people claiming to be family members, but also for unrelated adults who live in the house where a child is being placed – practices that were approved by the Secretary in ORR Field Guidance 10 and 11.

Further, ORR does not generally conduct FBI background checks of sponsors. 

The Secretary’s responses to my questions about ORR’s vetting process were far from satisfactory. I was hoping to hear that ORR would start doing FBI background checks on sponsors and DNA tests on those claiming to be family. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

These issues with ORR have been ongoing since the start of the Biden Administration.

In 2021, I visited the Emergency Intake operation at Fort Bliss, Texas, and was shocked by what I learned. There was no collaboration with law enforcement for background checks when vetting sponsors and the “background check” or “public records check” they were using were merely widely available internet search engines.

In my opening, I placed into the record a report by a statewide grand jury in Florida, charged with investigating ORR. It said:

“If any resident of Florida exposed U.S. born children to this process, they would be justifiably arrested for child neglect or worse. We do not think children should be less-protected simply because they were born outside our borders and brought here by a government agency.” 

I agree. In my view, as a former domestic relations attorney in Virginia, ORR’s practices and actions are tantamount to child neglect. A child’s legal status is irrelevant, ORR must do better.

If you have questions, concerns, or comments, feel free to contact my office. You can call my Abingdon office at 276-525-1405 or my Christiansburg office at 540-381-5671. To reach my office via email, please visit my website at www.morgangriffith.house.gov.

"

Comment:  This can't go on. People think that instead of sending their children to school, they can just ship the kids to the United States and the children will be taken care of. But who's volunteering to take care of them?

DNA tests prove nothing. They suggest that a lot of people are not the sons or daughters of their mothers' husbands. Why hurt the feelings of mothers' husbands who are willing to act like fathers? A mother's husband's second cousin may be an ideal foster parent. A biological parent or grandparent may be a drug addict who can't take responsibility even for perself, There's no way a huge government policy can be tweaked to protect children who are sent to a foreign country on their own. 

Even with our own children, adolescence is always a difficult time as hormone surges make even the best situations feel intolerable to teenagers, decisions have to be made about an unknown future, and emotional compatibility between parents or guardians, teachers, and teenagers becomes crucial--and hard to guarantee. A school, home, foster family, or job that seems wonderful for one teenager seems abusive for another teenager. One child perceives a distant, "hands off" approach to teaching, parenting, or supervision as respect, and uses it as a base for prodigious achievements; another child perceives the same approach as "not caring" and uses it as an excuse to accomplish nothing, run away, and become a teenaged drug prostitute. There are no guarantees with or for teenagers. Most adults prefer just to avoid teenagers, even their own offspring, so that we won't be blamed when something goes wrong! 

It would be better to tell parents who are considering shipping their children off to the United States, "Don't do it. We can take no responsibility for your children. 

We can prosecute the life out of anyone we catch prostituting any child, put such creatures in prison and instruct the guards not to interfere if the murderers want to improvise a play about wine making and cast the child traffickers as grapes--but that's about all. 

We can make it hard for children to get legitimate, age-appropriate jobs--but a primary effect of that will be to put some children into illegitimate, inappropriate jobs. 

We can mandate that all children spend some time in some sort of school--but that's no guarantee that they will actually learn anything or that they'll be safe, even on the most basic physical level, from beatings, rape, or even murder. 

Every year we automate more entry-level jobs, so there is less opportunity for a teenager to get a nice wholesome part-time job stocking shelves or washing dishes, and so there's more opportunity for him and his guardians to be desperate enough that he ends up working in a coal mine. 

We can't promise to connect unaccompanied children with relatives who live here--the only way you can know with whom your children might live is to bring them here, yourselves, and make sure you know the alleged relatives who may turn up to claim them. We can't promise them homes, education, or medical care. Americans are like the rest of the world in that some of us love all children and wish we could adopt more of them, and some of us are selfish pieces of garbage who will exploit and abuse anybody in any way we can. If you send children here as unaccompanied refugees, you need to know that every year we have less room even for genuine refugees from natural disasters and wars, and it is entirely a matter of luck whether those children live or die. 

So don't send them here. If you want to see your children grow up, then KEEP THEM AT HOME."

Morgan Griffith on a Parents' Bill of Rights

From U.S. Representative Morgan Griffith, R-VA-9:

"

Parents’ Bill of Rights

Over the past few years, there has an alarming trend of parents being forcibly shut out of their children’s education by certain school districts. 

I’ve recognized the urgency of correcting this issue.

Parents are the people primarily responsible for directing their children’s education and they have rights.

That’s why I voted in favor of H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act, which passed the House of Representatives in a 213-208 vote. The legislation makes clear the rights of parents!

It also makes clear to schools their duty to parents and the limits to their authority when parents are making decisions for their children.

This legislation is critical for our families.

There has been a rise in divisive ideology, like critical race theory, and sexually explicit information being taught in our schools, many times without the approval of parents.

While it may take a village to give a child a well-rounded raising, it does not give the village a right to inculcate children with a world view in opposition to parental wishes.

One democratic lawmaker recently said that if parents haven’t completed their own high school education, they are unqualified to make education decisions for their children.

What an alarming, inappropriate, and classist sentiment. Parents have every right to decide if controversial information is to be taught to their children and at what age. Parents and/or legal guardians make medical decisions for their children every day without formal medical training, obviously they can make decisions on their children’s education.

Speaking of medical decisions, some schools have even gone so far as to shut parents out of decisions relating to their children’s health care and safety, ones that have life-long consequences. This is unacceptable.

Further, following the outbreak of COVID-19, school administrators made the decision to close many of our country’s schools, moving them online. These school closures dragged on and parents objected. It was to the detriment of our children.

According to the Institute of Education Sciences, roughly half of America’s students began the 2022 school year behind in at least one subject, 13% higher than the national average in a typical year prior to COVID-19.

There has also been a sharp rise in depression and anxiety in children from extended lockdowns and forced remote learning. In 2021 and 2022, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the Children’s Hospital Association, declared a “national state of emergency” in response to this troubling trend.

Many parents have understandably become upset by the way certain school systems have handled these issues, voicing their concerns at school board meetings.

Even this has been met with resistance.

In October 2021, the National School Boards Association called on President Joe Biden to use federal agencies to stop “threats and acts of violence” on school officials during school board meetings. Accordingly, Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland instructed to the FBI to investigate. Following, the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division created a “threat tag,” equating concerned parents to domestic terrorists. Outrageous!

Congress needed to act.

H.R. 5 recognizes and restores parents’ rights through five pillars: the right to know what’s being taught in schools and to see reading material; the right to be heard; the right to see school budget and spending; the right to protect their child’s privacy; and the right to be updated on any violent activity at school.

During the consideration of H.R. 5, I voted for an amendment for a Sense of Congress that the U.S. Department of Education eventually should be eliminated.

I believe taxpayer money is mostly wasted on bureaucrats in the Department of Education. In FY 2021 alone, they spent over $2.4 Billion on “salaries and expenses.” This money should be redirected to local schools.

In eliminating the Department, we can put in place protections to ensure existing education funding is dispersed appropriately around the country, through the states, while also maintaining protections for students.

Among these protections is ensuring that Title I funding remains, which provides critical funding for economically disadvantaged students, and for programs like free lunch and reduced lunch at schools.

Additionally, we must maintain protections for our physically and mentally impaired children under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

These changes, and this bill, will create better options for students and parents.

If you have questions, concerns, or comments, feel free to contact my office. You can call my Abingdon office at 276-525-1405 or my Christiansburg office at 540-381-5671. To reach my office via email, please visit my website at www.morgangriffith.house.gov. On my website is the latest material from my office, including information on votes recently taken on the floor of the House of Representatives.

"