Why We Take It Out On the Schools

The search is on in Cincinnati to explain why eight of the ten local area school levies failed last week. Some are claiming the schools are spending unwisely, others say they have enough money already. But I would argue that there is another factor at work – one that has its roots in consumer behavior.

A recent book entitled Trading Up explains seemingly contradictory spending patterns that have given rise to the success of retailers as varied as Wal-Mart and Williams-Sonoma. At first glance, logic would assume that one caters to lower-income people, while the other to the better off. But that’s not necessarily the case.

The authors point out that one complements the other. People of all demographics have traded down in some areas, choosing to buy low-cost staples at discount stores, in order to reward themselves with selected luxury items from higher-end retailers.

It’s really quite simple. They save money where they can so they can spend more where they want.

That, I believe, is what is going on with the school levy defeats. Consumers, a.k.a. taxpayers, are choosing to save money on taxes so they can spend their money elsewhere. Rarely do they get a chance to vote directly on taxes, but when they do, they are increasingly saying no. Unfortunately, it’s our schools that take the hit, since they’re the ones who have to go directly to the taxpayer.

It’s not that voters are opposed to schools, but they are opposed to taxes. Which is why I argue so often that every government must remember they do not operate in a vacuum. Any dollar they spend is a dollar taken from somewhere else.

And it’s not just taken from one department and given to another. It crosses jurisdictional lines, both public and private. That’s because government is competing with everyone else for the public’s money.

So when the state, county, city or township spends a dollar on roads or police or parks, that is a dollar not available to be spent on schools or libraries or cars or clothes or travel or whatever else the taxpayer might have chosen to spend it on. And once the consumer feels their budget line-item marked “taxes” has reached its limit, they’ll simply shut off the spigot when given the chance – no matter what the money would go for.

That’s why I believe if government officials at every level – local, county, state and federal – truly cared about education, they would be ever so judicious in spending the public’s tax dollars.

It may not be right, but the voter will look at wasteful spending – say an expensive new state government office building – and lash out by saying no to the schools. Politicians can argue that’s irrational, but then again, Philadelphia fans once booed Santa Claus at halftime because the Eagles were playing badly. Likewise, voters take out their frustrations on whatever target is available.

They have plenty of reasons to feel frustrated. We have the federal government running record deficits, the state of Ohio raised the sales tax by 20 percent last year and local governments are spending revenue raised through creative financing schemes. The taxpayer is not amused. So they trade down the only chance they get – when the schools ask for money. And the real spenders continue happily on their way, oblivious to the carnage they leave in their wake.

A Mother's Lesson: Joanne L. Szydlowski, July 30, 1932 - December 18, 2002

Please excuse my self-indulgence, but I think there’s a nice lesson here.

It begins with a story my mom often tried to tell, but couldn’t because she’d choke up in laughter. It was about the time she swore she saw a UFO around 2 a.m. then decided she had to call the newspaper and break the news. Calling the number in her Rolodex for the Detroit Free Press, she breathlessly told her story, only to be rebuffed by a grumpy voice on the other end.

“Gee, lady, that’s great.” Click. End of conversation.

She couldn’t understand the paper’s utter disinterest until my dad checked the number. “Honey,” he said grinning, “you just woke up the paperboy.”

That was my mom, always finding herself in some sort of Lucy Ricardo-style misadventure. And laughing uncontrollably about it afterward. No matter how bad the situation, she always figured it would make a good story someday. Which was fortunate, because life gave her lots of opportunities for good stories.

As the youngest of five from a broken home, she was shuffled from one Detroit foster home to another during the Great Depression. Along the way, she witnessed the death of a crying infant at the hands of one physically abusive foster mother, was sent packing by a second foster family when, despite her prayers, they chose to adopt another child instead of her and spent one winter making the long, cold walk across the Ambassador Bridge from Canada to Detroit to get to school. This all before she finished second grade.

Eventually, she was hired out as a live-in mother’s helper for another family. Her first Christmas there she got up excitedly in the middle of the night to look at the presents under the tree. Discovering that none were for her, she quietly opened and looked at each gift, then carefully rewrapped them and went back to bed. She was ten years-old.

But she never complained. Instead she found the humor. Car troubles, sledding mishaps, ill-advised K-Mart Blue Light Special purchases – all brought on tear-inducing laughter. Ask anyone who knew her and they’ll remember two things – her ready willingness to laugh at herself and her ability to make anyone and everyone feel special.

It was a wonderful gift all too rare in this age of talk show psychotherapy, where every childhood slight is an excuse for adult angst. And it was a gift she readily shared.

We buried my mom two years ago today. Among the hundreds of friends and family at the funeral was one quiet young man no one had seen before. He was keeping to himself at the luncheon following the service. Curious, my dad asked him what had brought him there.

It turned out that mom had spotted him sitting alone at another church function several years earlier. She had come over and spent about an hour chatting and laughing. In that short time, she had made him feel so welcome that when he heard she had died, he just had to pay his last respects.

As my dad related this to us, choking up he said, “That was your mom.”

Yes it was. A simple woman with a simple gift, doing her small part to spread joy and goodwill. And the lesson? Life really is what you choose to make it. Choose well.

The Myth of Pat Tilman

George Washington chopped down his father’s cherry tree, then fessed up – fact or myth?

Babe Ruth “called his shot” for a sick child – fact or myth?

The North fought the Civil War to free the slaves – fact or myth?

All these truths from our childhood are now in question, and so is a more recent icon of American folklore. Reports surfaced last week that former NFL star Pat Tilman did not die under quite the heroic circumstances as first reported. Apparently the squad he was leading wasn’t as large as we were led to believe, while botched communications and bad decisions had much to do with the deadly friendly-fire incident that cost him his life in Afghanistan.

But does this news diminish in any way the sacrifice that Pat Tilman made in service to his country? Absolutely not. Here was a man who turned down a multi-million dollar NFL contract so he could join the Army in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Less than three years later he was killed during combat in Afghanistan. The circumstances of his death, murky as they may be, should not detract from his heroism.

Yet the media reports it as though it should. It’s as though they relish depriving us of our heroes and legends. They do so under the guise of truth, but in the process they deprive us of our heart and soul.

The real truth is that whether any of these tales are fact or “myth” is not as important as the values those tales support – that George Washington was a man of honor, that ending slavery was a principle this country was willing to fight for, that defending freedom is more important than football glory. All draw upon events from our past to create stories that reinforce that which we want to believe about ourselves.

That we choose to perpetuate myths that demonstrate the best in human nature is healthy. It is the sign of a vibrant, optimistic society. Let the historians and scholars argue the facts. But let us enjoy our belief in all that is good and right in our world. There is no harm in that.

For proof, watch over the next week as newspapers across the country reprint the famed New York Sun editorial, “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus.” Arguably the best-known editorial in American history, it achieved that status despite the fact that it argued a point we know to be patently false. It didn’t even aim to change a single mind, save for perhaps a few barely old enough to read it.

Yet it resonates to this day – not for the myth it perpetuated, but for the values underpinning that myth. The Sun understood what much of today’s media does not – that the spirit of a legend often holds more truth than the hard facts might reveal.

We need to believe that certain ideals still exist in our hearts. Pat Tilman and the countless others who have died in service to our nation show that they do. How or where or under what circumstances they died is not important. It is in the spirit of their sacrifice that we find true meaning. And if we can avoid what the Sun called the “skepticism of a skeptical age,” their stories will become part of American folklore and thus inspire the best in all of us.

Sorry, ESPN, A Real Man Would Have Walked Away

I would have laughed, had I not been so irritated listening to the ESPN commentators wondering how the ugly scene that took place between fans and the Indiana Pacers at an NBA game in Detroit could have been prevented. Laughed, because the answer was so obvious. Irritated, because the same men asking the question were condoning the behavior responsible.

In case you missed it – I’m not sure how you could have – a brawl involving players and fans broke out when Indiana’s Ron Artest attacked a fan after being hit with a beverage thrown from the stands. Now, certainly the fan who threw the cup initiated the brouhaha. But it was Ron Artest’s response that escalated it into perhaps the ugliest scene in sports memory.

In sorting it out afterward, the ESPN crew – John Saunders, Greg Anthony, Stephen A. Smith and Tim Legler – to a man defended Artest’s decision to go into the stands, saying that anyone would have done the same thing under the circumstances. John Saunders went so far as to say a similar response would be justified if it took place in Times Square.

That’s when I got irritated. The underlying theme was a testosterone-driven attitude that no self-respecting man would ever walk away from a challenge to their honor. I am sorry, but they have it 180 degrees wrong.

A self-respecting man does not feel the need to defend his honor at the drop of a hat. A self-respecting man doesn’t care about the slights of others. And a self-respecting man doesn’t care if others view him as weak for walking away from a fight, because he knows in his own heart that the real sign of strength is in the ability to walk away.

Too bad the ESPN crew didn’t see it that way. They missed a golden opportunity to convey to a largely male audience that there is no dishonor in walking away. Instead, they fell into the same misguided mindset that caused Artest to retaliate. And in the process gave an excuse to the next clown who overreacts.

Think I’m wrong, and the ESPN guys were right? Well, let’s look at it. What if, instead of running wildly into the stands, Artest had simply walked to the center of the court and took a few deep breaths. Instead of being viewed today as the troubled problem child of the NBA, he’d have been heralded for his maturity and restraint.

It’s ironic that some would view the need to retaliate as a matter of self-respect, when that behavior is both a manifestation and a cause of low self-esteem. Yet the news is constantly filled with stories of altercations that arise because one party feels disrespected. In just the past month, we’ve had the NBA brawl, another between the Clemson and South Carolina football teams and one at the Vibe Awards show in Santa Monica, not to mention the six killed in Wisconsin in a dispute over a deer stand. Over and over we hear how one party "dissed" another.

So what do we do about it? Well, no public policy can instill self-respect. Instead, we as a society need to value restraint. We need to applaud those who walk away from the fray, letting it be known that doing nothing is not a sign of weakness, but of strength. Too bad our friends at ESPN missed their chance to do just that.

A Sucker's Bet

I had to laugh when I read that Las Vegas tycoon Steve Wynn plans to build a $2.4 billion mega-resort on the site of the recently imploded Desert Inn. Laugh, because the resort isn’t being built by Steve Wynn, it’s being built by losers.

Let’s face it, all that glitz and glamour we see in Las Vegas and other gambling destinations around the country isn’t paid for with the profits from cheesy entertainment and early-bird prime rib specials. If it were, I’d open a Karaoke Cafeteria. But it’s not. Those glistening neon nightmares are built upon a sucker's bet.

Unfortunately, gamblers aren’t the only ones to fall for the seductive lure of a quick and easy buck. Local governments are just as gullible. The City of Monroe is the latest to fall under the spell of easy gambling money, as they consider a casino proposed by the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma in an effort to dig the city out of a state declared fiscal emergency.

Let’s hope they don’t fall for it. While the increased tax revenues, promised development and new jobs are all enticing, they do not come without a price. For a city like Monroe, which is geographically primed for development as growth travels north on I-75, that price is not one worth paying.

To be sure, for most people gambling is little more than another entertainment option. We can choose to blow fifty or a hundred bucks on dinner and a movie or a night at the ballpark, and come home with nothing more to show for it than the memory of a night out. Or we can blow that money at a casino. No big deal.

On the other hand, how often do you hear of people spending their rent money on a ticket to see the Reds? Or the grocery money to see a movie? Perhaps never. But we see it with casinos more often than the gaming industry would like to admit. Do we really need a local gambling fix so badly that we’re willing to risk ruining lives in order to fill government coffers?

The worst thing about it is that gambling is hardest on those who can least afford it. Far too often low-income gamblers are not playing for fun, but to change their lives. Yet lives rarely change for the better in a casino, no matter what the ads may say. I find it ironic that so many are willing to embrace what essentially amounts to taxing the poor so a few might become wealthy.

The biggest challenge facing those who live in poverty is understanding that escaping it is a long-term prospect. It takes time, effort and discipline. Gambling’s promise of a quick fix undermines that premise. So not only does it make the personal financial situation worse, it also destroys the values that would make a better life possible. Is this really the way Monroe wants to fix its own financial mess?

Monroe is the next exit up I-75 from the booming West Chester/Liberty Township area. A little patience and they’ll begin to reap the same financial rewards as their neighbors to the south. But jump on the gambling bandwagon and suddenly Exit 29 becomes the vice-and-crime gateway, what with Bristol’s, Hustler, a casino and a prison all within sight of each other. That may be a full house, but it’s hardly a winning hand.

Society's Role In Changing Undesirable Behavior

Now that the election’s over, it’s time to get back to the fun stuff. My recent piece on the two women who worked for me drew quite a response. The negative focused primarily on two matters. Namely, who are we to judge the misfortune of the unwed mother, and how can we possibly blame government for her predicament?

I’ll start with the second complaint because it provides the foundation for the answer to the first.

Let me clarify that I do not believe that people have babies just to get more government assistance. But I do believe that the availability of a safety net leads to riskier behavior. It is the Catch-22 of social programs. Assistance to ease the burden of difficult situations, by design, makes such situations less painful. As a result, there is less incentive to avoid those circumstances.

This is known in economic circles as Risk Compensation. As the cost of a particular action decreases, the frequency of that action increases. This was first demonstrated in the early 1970’s by University of Chicago economics professor Sam Peltzman, who found that the advent of seatbelts as required standard equipment in automobiles did not reduce the number of deaths per mile driven. While accidents were less likely to be fatal, there were far more accidents, with the result that fatalities stayed almost identical. In this case, when the cost of reckless driving decreased, the frequency of reckless driving increased.

Regarding government assistance, we see this in the person who chooses not to save for retirement in the belief social security will provide for them. For the young woman whose biggest fear of an unwanted child is the financial burden, the availability of government assistance just might be enough to subconsciously eliminate that concern from the equation.

So why doesn’t everyone behave recklessly? Dr. Gerald Wilde, psychology professor at Canada’s Queens University provides an answer. He argues that we each tolerate a unique level of risk, and we tailor our behavior accordingly. When risk declines, we compensate by taking riskier actions. The only way to prevent an increase in undesirable behavior when risk is reduced is to change the individual's target risk level, which requires a fundamental change in personal values.

This is where society’s judgment has its place. For it’s not only economic or physical costs that impact behavior. Dr. Wilde points out that social costs also play a role. For example, peer pressure can convince a teenager not to wear a seatbelt for fear of being considered a wimp. But peer pressure can also work to reduce undesirable behavior, as can be seen by the decline in cigarette smoking among teens. While education programs may have provided the initial spark, it is the social ostracization that now often accompanies smoking that is driving the real change.

We pride ourselves on our society’s tolerance. Yet, in being non-judgmental we make a value statement that certain behavior is acceptable. Moreover, government programs often codify that acceptance. But we pay a price for our tolerance because we remove a powerful cost that would deter the behavior.

Fortunately, many of our children are instilled with values that make having babies out-of-wedlock undesirable. But far too many are not. We are now into second and third generations of children who have never been part of traditional family units. These kids – both boys and girls – are far less likely to learn the values to break this cycle in the home. If not at home, then where?

From us. Passing judgment is society’s way of expressing its values. If we increase the social cost of unwanted pregnancies so that it outweighs other considerations, we can begin to break the cycle of poverty that has entrapped far too many people.

=========

Follow up:

A 2022 New York Times story on dramatic declines in teen births suggested the following reasons:

"The reasons teen births have fallen are only partly understood. Contraceptive use has grown and shifted to more reliable methods, and adolescent sex has declined. Civic campaigns, welfare restrictions and messaging from popular culture may have played roles."

Democrats Are Victims of Their Own Success

I’m going to suggest a reason for the Democratic Party’s fall from grace that I have yet to see mentioned and that a great many people won’t want to admit. Namely, that they are a victim of their own success.

The Democratic party of the twentieth century was one built upon movements – labor, civil rights, feminism, the environment, the war on poverty. Each of those battles brought to the party a sizable and passionate constituency that propelled it to political dominance for nearly sixty years.

Today, however, an ever-increasing number of voters view many of those battles as fought and won.

Consider that little more than a generation ago blacks were prohibited from using the same drinking fountains as whites and polluted rivers were catching fire. Such atrocities were rallying points that spurred the nation to action. That action brought real change.

But today, when the heads of American Express, Time Warner, Pontiac/GMC and other large corporations are African-American, when our lawyers, doctors, professors, senior government officials and most importantly, our friends and neighbors are often black, it is difficult to rally people to the cause of racial fairness.

The same with the environment. A generation ago eagles were dying and our rivers were burning. Today, with deer running through our yards, bald eagles no longer endangered and Great Lakes boaters able to see the bottom in twenty feet of crystal clear water, environmentalists lack the powerful symbolic images necessary to spur real movement on the environment.

Thus Democrats find themselves catering to an ever-shrinking coalition of activists and followers whose causes lack the emotional wallop of days gone by. And hence the rise in the importance of undefined “moral values”, which exit polls showed to be voters’ number one issue. With the declining urgency of traditional Democratic causes, values rise in relation to them. It’s like rehabbing a house – once you’ve repaired the roof and broken windows, the squeaky hinge becomes priority number one. It does so only because the bigger problems aren’t as urgent.

But that doesn’t mean it will remain priority number one. Therein lies a lesson the Republicans would be wise to learn.

For the Republicans are now on a path similar to the one the Democrats followed to political dominance. Their coalition is even more diverse - divided would be a better term - than the Democrats. You’ve got limited-government libertarians who want government out of their life consorting with the religious right, who don’t mind government as long as it’s keeping others from doing things they don’t like. It’s a coalition that often has only one goal in common – to elect Republicans to office.

If the Republicans move too far in any one direction, they risk alienating key parts of their constituency. And if they do not act decisively and successfully on a few key issues, especially healthcare, the deficit and social security, they’ll find themselves up against an inflamed electorate that the Democrats will be only too happy to oblige.

Movements occur when a critical mass is reached in the number of people willing to fight for a cause. If Republicans control the cost of healthcare, reduce the number of uninsured, restrain spending and successfully reform social security, they will ensure their continued political dominance by preventing that critical mass from moving in the Democrats’ direction.

But if they fail, “moral values” won’t mean a thing. And the pundits will be searching for answers to the end of Republican dominance. Unlike the Democrats, however, it will not be due to their success, but their failure.

Random Thoughts on the '04 Election

Democrats and Religion

In the wake of polling data showing that white evangelical Christians favored George Bush over John Kerry nearly four-to-one, the Democrats have decided that they need to get religion. Watching them wrestle with that just might be more fun than watching the president wrestle with the English language.

That’s because the Democrats cannot appeal to the core values of those who vote their religion without alienating the party’s already shrinking base. To appeal to the religious right, Democrats would have to become pro-life, anti-gay and pro-prayer in public schools. There goes the feminist, homosexual and ACLU vote. I’m not sure they can afford that trade.

The problem they face is that it’s not enough to quote the bible and talk about days spent as an altar boy. You’re expected to live the creed you profess. For some time now, the left has struggled to justify the conflicts between their faith and their actions. To many of the deeply religious, faith means following the teachings of one’s church however difficult that may be. It’s not a matter of picking and choosing those teachings one wishes to obey. Until the Democrats understand that, or at least nominate someone who does, they’ll continue to lose the evangelical vote.

The Electoral College

Dick Cheney’s last minute trip to Hawaii is the best evidence yet of why we should embrace the electoral college. There is no way he’d have traveled to Hawaii if we elected the president by popular vote. The potential to swing a few votes in a direct election would not justify a trip to Hawaii, but the chance to swing a few to win the state and earn four electoral votes did.

That same dynamic holds true in the everyday governing of the country. Without the electoral college, our politics would be driven even more than they already are by special interests, with politicians pandering to those groups that could deliver the most votes. But the electoral college adds a geographic variable to the equation that forces attention on voters who would otherwise be ignored. That is a very good thing.

Red State / Blue State

The pundits once again had a field day with the electoral map, pointing out the division in the country through the use of colorful graphics. And once again, there was an elitist air to their musings. Time and again I heard of George Bush’s ability, or John Kerry’s inability, to connect with middle America. Too often it was said as though we in the red states are all a bunch of Bud-drinking, NASCAR-loving, Toby Keith fans.

In reality, there’s not that big a gulf between the red and blue states. In the states the president won, his margin was about 57 to 43 percent. John Kerry’s margin in the blue states was 55 to 45 percent. That represents a switch of little more than one vote in ten. It’s enough to decide an election, but it’s not enough to paint the electorate with the broad brush strokes those colorful maps suggest.

A truly accurate map would show subtle shades of purple, much more representative of the melting pot we’ve always so proudly claimed to be.

My Choice For President '04

I’ve been surprisingly ambivalent about the upcoming presidential election. It’s been hard to get excited about either candidate, but the third and final debate really highlighted the stark differences between George Bush and John Kerry.

What follows are nothing more than a few basic questions I have regarding the major issues as I see them and how each candidate approaches them. How others answer the questions will depend on how they view the issues.

First off, let’s get Iraq out of the way. We can argue whether we should be there or not. But the fact is, we’re there and we had better win or we’ll be in a world of hurt.

So who has the better plan? Both say they’ll stay the course. John Kerry says he’ll bring more nations on board. The question is, can he? France, Germany and Russia are adamant about staying out, as is Canada. Japan hasn’t had a military adventure since WWII. That pretty much eliminates the major western powers.

Like it or not, it looks like we’ll have to win this on our own. That means sticking it out when things get tough. One candidate believes in what we’re doing, one doesn’t. Who do I believe is most likely to see it through? Advantage Bush.

Regarding the budget deficit, neither candidate is talking about the impact their proposals will have on it. But the nonpartisan Concord Coalition is. This budget watchdog group has found that both will widen the deficit by about $1.3 trillion over the next ten years.

The difference lies in how they arrive at those numbers. Nearly all of President Bush’s deficit is due to tax cuts already enacted. A mere $82 billion arises from new spending. On the other hand, more than sixty percent, around $771 billion, of Senator Kerry’s deficit is due to increased government spending. That means a government that is 33% bigger than it is today. Or closer to home, one that will cost the average family of four about an extra $10,000 to support.

So basically it comes down to whether I prefer smaller or larger government. If there is going to be a deficit, would I prefer it’s because the government is taking less in taxes or because it is spending more on programs? Advantage Bush.

On the economy, GDP is up 4.8 percent in the last year. Unemployment is down, inflation is tame despite rising oil prices, while investment in technology and capital goods, imports and exports are all showing double digit gains.

George Bush inherited an economy that looked eerily similar to the one Herbert Hoover inherited in 1929 – an overheated economy that doubled in the prior decade and an irrational stock market that had quadrupled during that time. But whereas Hoover’s response to a crashing stock market and slowing economy threw us into the Great Depression, with 25 percent unemployment, under Bush we experienced the mildest recession on record (some economists even question whether we’ve had a recession).

What did Hoover do differently that led to the Great Depression? Unlike Bush, who cut taxes, Hoover raised taxes to offset declining government revenues and maintain surpluses, while enacting protectionist measures to save American jobs from overseas competition. What has John Kerry proposed? Higher taxes to offset declining government revenues and protectionist measures to save American jobs from overseas competition. They say those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Fortunately, the man currently in the White House learned from history. Apparently his opponent hasn’t. Advantage Bush.

On healthcare, both candidates admit that costs are soaring. Neither importing drugs from Canada nor limiting lawsuits address the fundamental problem, namely that we are getting older and refuse to accept anything less than Cadillac care. John Kerry’s approach includes a number of new spending initiatives to cover more people. George Bush wants to involve the patient in purchasing decisions through health savings accounts in the hope that increased awareness of the true cost will force prices down. Furthermore, he wants to make it easier for small businesses and individuals to form groups so they can enjoy the risk-sharing that large corporations do.

Bottom line is that we already spend forty-two percent more per person on healthcare than any other nation. Spending even more is not the answer. If anything, it merely adds fuel to the fire since the simple law of supply and demand states that as more dollars are made available, prices goes up.

Therefore, the question becomes what is the better course of action – spending more or lowering costs? No doubt, it’s lowering costs. Whose policies are more likely to achieve that end? Advantage Bush.

On social security, Kerry has suggested a wait-and-see approach, while the president prefers acting now by giving workers control over a portion of their contributions. Here, it’s a matter of whether I trust government or myself with my future and whether I think we can afford to wait. With the first of the baby-boomers turning sixty next year, waiting is not an option. Advantage Bush.

On education, Kerry says we’re not spending enough, Bush says we’re not expecting enough. So, do I believe higher spending or higher expectations will get more immediate results? I’ve seen time and again the power of expectations. People consistently rise to meet them. Advantage Bush.

In the end, the differences are pretty clear. In Iraq, it’s a question of who’s most likely to see it through. At home, it’s a choice between big or small government, more spending or lower taxes. John Kerry has made some very tantalizing promises. It’s easy to look at them on the surface and say, boy that sure sounds good. But as with everything, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. It’s like the difference between parents and grandparents – grandparents promise you what you want, parents give you what you need.

So which is more important – being promised what we want, or getting what we need? Advantage Bush.

An Endorsement For Low Voter Turnout

Thanksgiving Day, 1980. The Chicago Bears are marching down the field late in the fourth quarter against my hometown Detroit Lions. Our defense is helpless to stop them. Suddenly, my Aunt Sue – my grandmother’s sister – yells out “Why don’t they put in Billy Sims!?!”

Well, Aunt Sue, Billy Sims is a running back. He doesn’t play defense.

Clearly, no one would ever want my Aunt Sue calling plays for the Lions – or any team for that matter. But just twenty-three days earlier she cast her vote in that year’s presidential election. Unfortunately, her knowledge of the issues was comparable to what she knew about football. But whereas her involvement in choosing plays from the sideline would be seen as a disaster, somehow her vote is seen as a triumph of democracy.

I don’t get that. It’s never bothered me that nearly fifty percent of our eligible voters neglect to turn up at the polls. They just might vote for Billy Sims.

Don’t get me wrong, every adult citizen of the United States should be entitled and encouraged to participate in our democratic process. I’m quite sure I’ll choke up standing in line to vote next Tuesday. There is something special about a presidential election, as our diverse electorate – young and old, black and white, rich and poor, professional and working class – go about the business of choosing who will hold the most powerful position on this planet.

It is the elegant irony of democracy. You and I – everyday people in everyday lives, so often made to feel so powerless – hold the reins to the presidency in our hands. Yet, part of the elegance lies in the fact that while one may vote, one doesn’t have to. That fact serves democracy well, for it weeds out those who either do not understand or do not care enough to cast an informed vote.

An uninformed or ill-informed vote serves no one. At best, it’s based upon sound bite advertising. At worst, it’s a game of eenie-meenie-miney-moe. I’m sorry, but I want a little more thought behind the selection of the leader of the free world.

In an election as close as this year’s promises to be, however, it will likely be those “close-your-eyes-and-punch-a-chad” votes that will make the difference. Should that make us feel better about democracy? Probably not. In fact, it’s probably going to land us back in court again this year.

Parenthetically, that leads to my one prediction for the upcoming election – thanks to the almost inevitable litigation we can expect, come the morning of Wednesday, November 3rd we will not know who the next president will be. But I digress.

There are lots of reasons people choose not to vote. Some don’t believe their vote will make a difference. If the last election did not dispel that notion, nothing will. They should vote. Some find it hard for various reasons – illness, mobility, transportation, etc. – to get to the polls. We rightfully make it easier for them to vote. But some just don’t care. Let them stay home.

I’ve often joked that it’s no problem that fifty percent of the population stays home on election day because half the population are clueless. We just have to hope the right half stays home. Ok, so it’s not the world’s greatest joke, but then again, fifty percent turnout isn’t the world’s greatest problem.

[Footnote: We did not know who had won the presidency when we woke up on November 3, 2004. It took a while for Ohio to sort out its own mess.]

There Ain't Gonna Be No Draft

Is there a draft in here? One would think so with all the rumor and speculation flying around talk radio and the internet that the federal government is ready to begin a military draft shortly after the election.

The rumors are based upon several developments – two bills in Congress to reinstate the draft, reports that the Selective Service System is advertising for people to serve on local draft boards, the president’s $26 million budget request for the SSS and the belief that our military is stretched too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Take heart, people. A military draft taking place anytime soon is about as likely as Michael Moore voting for George Bush.

First, nothing would hamstring our military options in the war on terror – or any necessary military action – more than a universal draft. There is a huge psychological difference between sending professional, volunteer soldiers into combat and sending the nineteen year-old kid next door against his wishes. Public pressure to avoid any and all conflict would rise exponentially if we started drafting our sons and daughters.

That alone makes a draft untenable. If the president and the Pentagon think public support for our engagement in the Middle East is shaky now, a draft would send it into the dumper. Public fear and outrage would accompany any military move. And our leaders and our enemies both know that. We’d be doing ourselves no favor in limiting our options that way.

As for the bills in Congress, the Senate and House versions were introduced by Ernest Hollings and Charles Rangel, respectively. Both are Democrats. How convenient that they are now cited as evidence that the president is secretly planning to start the draft immediately after the election. It’s a political ploy so blatant that it’s almost laughable. Tellingly, Rangel voted against his own bill when the House killed it last week in a 402—2 vote.

Regarding the call for draft board volunteers, the boards were set up during the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979, with terms of twenty years. Those positions began to go vacant as the terms expired and the Selective Service System has been working to fill them ever since.

Finally, while it’s true that President Bush asked for $26 million for the Selective Service in 2005, it is the same amount he asked for in 2003 and 2004. In fact, it represents the entire budget for the Selective Service. Furthermore, the Office of Management and Budget is projecting a three-percent cut in staffing for the SSS next year. That would hardly indicate a draft is imminent.

Bottom line, it’s election time. Operatives on both sides will gladly disseminate what could charitably called misinformation to obscure reality and sway public opinion. The best defense against such tactics is to become as well informed as possible. But in a world where large numbers of voters get their political news from Jay Leno and Saturday Night Live, that may be asking a bit much.

On the bright side, the same forces that make spreading such rumors so inviting are the same ones that make them ever becoming reality so unlikely. Opponents of the war know a draft would be highly unpopular. But then, so do the people in charge. To start a draft would be political suicide. Therein, at least, democracy still works. A draft ain’t gonna happen.

Sink or swim, It's Your Choice

This is the tale of two young women and personal responsibility. Both came to work for me not long out of high school. Both had diplomas from the same school, both were single, childless and white. I make that point only to demonstrate that their circumstances at that moment in time were about as identical as could be.

One sorted clothes, the other scrubbed shirt collars. Neither job took much skill, and their pay of six dollars an hour reflected that. Both did their jobs well and both were pleasant enough. It would be tempting to say they were in the same boat, but in reality they were on different tracks that would take them in completely opposite directions.

One – the collar scrubber – decided early on not to have kids until she was ready, if ever. She set goals for her career, her finances and her life. And she wrote them down. One – to skydive by the age of twenty-five – resulted in the dumbest incentive plan ever devised. But that’s a story for another time.

When she sought more of a challenge, I readily offered to make her my bookkeeper – despite the fact that she didn’t know a debit from a credit or a computer mouse from Mickey Mouse. She had desire and attitude, which is really all one ever needs to succeed.

And succeed she did. Her pay more than tripled in eight years. Not only did she learn computing and accounting, she went on to get her associates degree, focusing on business, finance and computers. She maxed out her Roth IRA contributions from the start. When we offered a retirement plan, she maxed her contributions there, too. Having started saving at age twenty, she was on track to have over $3 million by the age of sixty-five.

Last December she told me this would be her last year because she planned to start her own business (another goal she had set). Though ready to leave in July, she committed to stay through the year because she had promised to do so. There is only one word to describe such a person – winner.

Contrast that with the other woman. When offered more responsibility, she declined. She went on to have a baby, father unknown. Two years later, she was pregnant again, still no husband. Though we were offering health insurance by then, she never signed up because the twelve dollar-a-week contribution was too expensive for her.

She quit before the baby came so that Medicaid would pay for her delivery. I’ve neither seen nor heard from her in five years, but word is that she now has at least three kids. Though she wasn’t on our payroll, I suspect that we’ve all helped to pay her bills through our taxes.

There are those who would look at the struggling mother and argue that we need to show compassion. We need to provide food, shelter and healthcare to one who is so down on their luck. And in a vacuum, it would be tough to disagree. But one has to wonder at what point our benevolence might become counter-productive, thereby enabling such self-destructive choices.

Bob Seger once sang that "life is like a big river – sink or swim depends on you." So true. Where some see victims and survivors, others see winners and losers. More often than not, it’s a result of personal choices. It’s a lesson I plan to teach my kids. And this tale of two women is certain to be part of the curriculum.

=============
Note: This piece generated a lot of feedback, both pro and con. I addressed the negative response in the piece that can be read here.

Who Cares Where Bush & Kerry Were During the War

Is there anyone else out there who thinks all this yammering about our presidential candidates’ whereabouts during the Vietnam War is rather pointless? We’ve got people arguing over whether John Kerry was in Vietnam or Cambodia on Christmas Eve of 1968, while others are asking where George W. Bush was, period.

I find it particularly humorous because the same arguments were made during the 1992 election between Bill Clinton and W’s father. Clinton was defending his deferments and contacts with military officers in an attempt to avoid going to war, while George Sr. was fighting accusations that his WWII service might not have been as heroic as it was made out to be.

The lesson we should have learned in ’92 is that how one did or did not serve when they were eighteen or twenty years old is not going to make much difference in the way people see them as candidates.

Oh, sure, lots of people will beg to differ. Unfortunately, they are largely the people who already have their minds made up about the two. The same people who were defending Bill Clinton’s deferments are the ones asking where George W. was during Vietnam, while those who saw the senior Bush as a hero are painting John Kerry as a traitor.

In other words, how one views their service depends upon how one views their candidacy. How one views their candidacy does not depend upon how one views their service.

Personally, I don’t know where John Kerry was or what the circumstances were regarding the war wounds that he suffered while he was in Vietnam. But I do know that he was there. For that, I salute him. Anyone who serves during a time of war has earned my undying respect.

On the other hand, that doesn’t automatically qualify him to become Commander-In-Chief. Heck, my cousin Alan served in Vietnam. He’s a great guy, a hard-working family man with a Purple Heart to show for his time in country. I’ll drink a beer with him anytime, but he is better suited for pursuits that do not require leading the free world.

As for W, well, I’d drink a beer with him, too – if he were still drinking. He was no Vietnam hero, but serving in the National Guard does not make him a coward or a slacker. And it certainly doesn’t disqualify him to be president.

The fact is that Vietnam – and the entire decade of the sixties – was a trying and traumatic time for the U.S. The rules were such that a great many people never had to serve, and those who did had to under the most difficult of circumstances. It is folly to try and judge a person today based upon their actions back then.

There are far more pressing issues facing us today than what took place nearly forty years ago. Rather than look back, we’d be better served by looking forward. What to do about Iraq, the economy, the deficit, the looming retirement of the baby boom generation and exploding healthcare costs are the things we should be discussing. But they are being drowned out by a tit-for-tat exchange that ultimately will have little bearing on how either of these men will lead this country.

Progress is all about where we’re going, not where we’ve been. But rather than peer ahead, we’ve chosen to fix our gaze squarely on the rearview mirror

Two Americas? Whose Fault is That?

If the Kerry/Edwards ticket thinks it sees two Americas, they should take a look at my house. I’m sure they’d see two families – the Haves and the Have-nots. Two little people who have no money to buy anything, and two adults who – at least in our kids’ eyes – have all the money in the world.

But what I see are the I Want Its and the I Have To Pay For Its. There is nothing our kids won’t ask for. But then, it’s not their money. They may as well ask since it’s not going to cost them a dime. And when we greedy parents tell them they can’t have it, they whine about how mean we are.

I see the same thing happening in our society, and pushing more of the tax burden on the wealthy will only make it worse. But that is precisely what John Kerry and John Edwards are proposing with their promise to raise taxes on the well-off in order to give tax breaks to the poor and middle class.

As enticing as their argument for tax "fairness" sounds, it is a dangerous path.

I’ll stay away from the standard conservative argument that the top five or ten percent of wage-earners already pay more than their fair share of taxes. The threat to our economic well-being goes much deeper than who pays what.

The danger lies in that as we shift the tax burden further up the income ladder, fewer and fewer people at the bottom pay anything. On the surface, that sounds like a wonderful turn of events. But in essence, we are creating an ever larger and ever more powerful voting bloc of people who have no economic stake in controlling government spending.

That’s because, just like my kids, it costs them nothing. So every program, every benefit, comes at the expense of someone else. Who cares how much it costs, we’ll get those people with all the money to pay for it.

That’s a recipe for social and economic disaster. A social disaster because it worsens the sense of entitlement that is already becoming too ingrained in our collective psyche. We feel we should have everything – good roads, good schools, good healthcare – and someone else should pay for it.

Can’t afford daycare – let’s tax the rich. Can’t get health insurance – let’s tax the rich. Budget deficit is exploding – let’s tax the rich.

Never mind that there just aren’t enough rich people. We could tax 100 percent of the income from people making more than $200,000 a year, and we’d still be half a trillion (yes, trillion) short of paying for health insurance for all.

Far worse is the lack of responsibility such policies engender.

My dad told me when I was sixteen that if I wanted a car that I’d have to pay for it. Not because he couldn’t afford it, but because he knew that I would take much better care of it if I were the one paying the bills. That same premise holds true for us as a society. We are much better stewards when it’s coming out of our own pocket.

The Democrats may fear that we are becoming two Americas, but it’s not without their help. That’s because nothing will split us faster than the two separate classes we are slowly creating – those who want and those who pay.

Prediction for 2008

Right after the Republicans took over congress in 1994, when Bill Clinton was at the depths of despair regarding his popularity, I predicted to a friend that he would win re-election in ’96. I based it solely on the roster of potential Republican candidates, not believing that any of them would be able to beat the master politician.

Now that friend wants me to predict this year’s race. I’m sorry, but I just can’t do it. That’s because this year’s race looks like it’s going to come down to the decisions of a handful of undecided voters, and neither candidate appears to have the political charm to win over a sizable chunk of those voters who often go on gut feel.

But I am willing to make a few predictions about the future.

If Bush wins, the Democrats will gain seats in Congress in 2006, then will run Hillary Clinton against heaven knows who in the 2008 presidential election. But if Kerry wins, the Republicans will further strengthen their hold on Congress in 2006, then will take on a largely ineffective John Kerry in 2008.

That means that a Bush win this year could lead to a Hilary Clinton presidency with a Democratic Congress. A Kerry win, likely means a Republican sweep in 2008.

Here’s my reasoning.

First, I believe that the last two off-year elections, in which the sitting president’s party gained seats, were aberrations. In 1998, Bill Clinton effectively campaigned against a Republican congress that he argued was on a partisan witch hunt regarding the Monica Lewinsky affair. In 2002, George Bush was still basking in the glow of goodwill he earned following the attacks on September 11, 2001.

I believe that in 2006, we’ll return to the normal pattern where the sitting president’s party loses seats. That means that if John Kerry wins, the Republicans gain seats in 2006. If Bush wins, it will be the Democrats who gain.

But here is where it gets interesting. I think this next term is going to be one of those place-holder presidencies. Pressure will be building to do something about energy costs, health care and Social Security, but not enough pressure to actually force anyone into action. And heaven knows what the Middle East will have in store for us. So the electorate is going to be looking for change.

Therefore, no matter who wins, I think we’ll see a new president in 2008. Bush won’t be able to run and Kerry will be a weak incumbent who will lose the general election.

So, what do you want in 2008 – President Hillary and a Democratic Congress, or a fresh Republican face with a Republican Congress? I believe that choice will be made on November 2, 2004.

Treating Oil Like a 19th Century Buffalo Herd

Are we acting like the old buffalo hunters in the late nineteenth century? I once heard it said that as the bison disappeared, hunters had three options – they could find better ways to hunt the remaining buffalo, they could find ways to nurture the herd back to health, or they could find things to hunt besides buffalo. What they could not do, but sadly chose to, was sit in saloons drinking while waiting for the herds to return.

Now it looks as though we are following the hunters’ path with regard to oil reserves. It’s as though we figure we can continue to party on in our Suburbans, Expeditions and Hummers while we wait for oil supplies to build back up and prices to come back down.

It could be a long wait.

That’s because our current oil prices are not so much a result of supply problems as they are of demand. We like to think that the war in Iraq has disrupted oil production, leading to higher prices, but that’s not the case. The real culprit lies in exploding demand in developing nations, particularly China. Save for a collapse of the Chinese economy, that dynamic is only going to get worse.

So what are our options? Let’s consider the buffalo hunters.

We can look for new sources of petroleum. That seems to be the primary answer sought by the Bush administration. While they have made some cursory comments regarding alternative solutions such as hydrogen-based fuel cells, their foremost strategy is to drill more wells.

That is a short-term solution at best. The fact is that petroleum is a finite resource. What we have is what we get. It took millions of years for plants and dinosaurs to decay and become liquid oil. In little more than a century, we’ve gone a long way toward depleting that supply. It may last a few more decades or a century at best, but then what? The time to act is before it’s gone.

That leads to solution number two. We can nurture the resource. That means conservation. Despite arguments that this is no more than a touchy-feely solution with little real value, it must be our first step. Conservation buys us time. Were it not for improvements in energy efficiency over the past thirty years, we’d currently be consuming as much as forty percent more oil than we are today.

I find it strange that we have stricter controls on how much water we can flush down a toilet than on how much gas our cars can burn. That must change – water simply goes back into the environment. Oil disappears forever.

The real answer, however, lies in solution number three – finding alternative energy sources. There is no shortage of energy, only petroleum. Of the options, hydrogen fuel cell technology is among the most intriguing. But we must consider all our energy options, including wind, water, solar, geothermal, and yes, nuclear.

The handwriting is on the wall. Or should I say it is on the pylon sign in front of the filling station. Those prices are rising because we are squeezing a precious, limited resource. They are not a sign of impending disaster, but of the need for aggressive out-of-the-box thinking. The time to act is now, lest we finish off the last of our oil like the delusional buffalo hunter down to his last drop of whiskey.

Let Kids Be Kids

Growing up, there were these three solitary trees that loomed far in the distance from my house. They always seemed to be calling us – come climb our branches, sit in our shade, jump in our leaves. I can remember as a kid asking for permission to go down to the Three Trees (yes, the name was capitalized, since in my mind it was a proper noun just as much as Cincinnati or Omaha).

So, with mom’s blessing – and perhaps a sack lunch – we’d hike off across the fields that led from our house to a day of adventure.

I was reminded of those trees by two recent conversations. One was with my neighbor, who was reminiscing about the days spent fishing at local ponds when he was a kid. Like us, he and his friends would disappear for a day of seclusion, where fun was limited only by the imagination – and where there wasn’t a parent or adult in sight.

The other was with a mom worried about what our kids would do during the summer in the event we do not build a local $34 million community center.

Wow, has life really changed that much? Is the world that much smaller, that there are no adventures for kids to find on their own? Or has it become so dangerous that the only places we feel they can be safe are within our view or the confines of a controlled structure or activity?

I worry about today’s kids, whose lives seem to be planned out days, months and years in advance. I recently read of a ten year-old who played more than 100 baseball games last year. No big deal, we played that many and more every summer when I was growing up.

The difference is that we played four or five a side – sometimes even one-on-one – with no umpires, no uniforms and with scrap plywood for bases. This kid travels hundreds of miles with select teams, in the hope that someday he might get a shot at the major leagues. But is he having fun?

Because that is what childhood should be about. Fun, adventure, learning. With no coaches or umpires we had to pick teams (tossed bats and "bottle caps"), make up ground rules (a ball under the bushes is a double) and argue over hits, runs and outs. Along the way we not only learned baseball, but also leadership, compromise and conflict resolution. And we had a blast doing it.

Today, kids’ schedules are so packed with soccer practice, piano lessons and dance recitals that I fear they are missing out on developing some of those intangible skills that are just as important, if not more so, than the nuts-and-bolt talents their structured pursuits require.

I’ve always chuckled when I read how poorly U.S. students stack up academically with those from other nations. If we lag so far behind, why is it that we seem to run everything? From mass-produced automobiles to fast food, from music to the internet, we have led the way in just about every industrial, technical and cultural innovation.

I would argue that it’s because we have always valued creativity over conformity. Yet in a world where twelve year-olds now carry Day-Timers and Palm Pilots, I fear that they are going straight from cradle to cubicle.

I think we’d all be better off if they spent a little more time down at the Three Trees.

One Step to Fix the Health Insurance Problem

What difference can one person make? A lot when it comes to health insurance. My company recently hired one person with a pre-existing health condition in the family. The change in health premiums? More than $24,000 a year. That’s a 42% increase in our annual premiums due to one health issue.

And that’s why we have nearly 44 million uninsured people in this country. Neither employers nor individuals in low-wage industries can afford the cost of insurance when a serious health issue is involved. And the way group health insurance works in the U.S. makes it almost impossible to work around it.

Take my situation, for example. Due to the nature of the work, our average wage is right around ten dollars an hour. Economics keep us from paying any more than that. Yet the one employee above requires health insurance that costs more than $11.50 an hour, which is on top of her normal wage. That alone makes the employee uneconomical. He or she will not be able to generate enough profit to cover the cost of insurance.

So I have three options (keeping in mind that I can neither legally nor ethically fire the person). I can eat the cost myself, which I cannot afford. I can pass the cost on to my employees, which they cannot afford. Or I can drop coverage altogether, in which case we’ll have twenty more families without health insurance.

If I pass the costs on to the employees, it can be expected that a number of them will drop the coverage. If we lose any more participants, we will drop below the 50% participation threshold insurers require to provide group coverage. That requirement exists so that carriers don’t find themselves covering just the sick.

But that’s precisely what happens. I already have healthy, young employees who have found individual coverage that costs far less than it does to participate in our plan. The only ones who remain are those with health issues.

One thing that would help would be the ability to join a larger group so that risk gets spread around, but the way it works now – well, it just doesn’t work.

That’s because even when part of a group – say the chamber of commerce, for example – each employer is still considered a separate group within the combine. So risk is not spread and small employers still bear the brunt of high-risk workers.

Even when groups treat all employers as one large risk pool, when high risk members join, the group’s premiums increase. Insurers then come in and cherry-pick the low risk employers with promises of lower premiums. The program eventually crumbles under oppressive premiums as only the highest risk employers remain.

So what’s needed is to find a large group that small businesses can join which will spread the risk, without fear that the larger group will bolt the program.

One such group exists – federal government employees. They have negotiated benefits administered through private insurers. It is not government health insurance. But it consists of a large, diverse group that would spread the risk far and wide. But more important, federal employees would not be able to flee the group in a way that now leaves small employers in the lurch.

Let small employers buy into that plan and they might no longer face premium increases of 42% because of one unfortunate health situation. And we might actually see a few of the 44 million uninsured finally get coverage.

Teaching Kids the Joy of Accomplishment

Most people are shocked to learn that I wrote my newspaper column for a year before the idea of getting paid for it even came up. But you know what? I love writing it – so much so that I would do it for free. And I did.

Everyone should be so lucky to find things to do in life that they enjoy so much that they would do them without pay. Obviously, that’s not realistic, but I am a firm believer that true success is measured by the joy and satisfaction that comes the endeavor, rather than by financial reward it brings.

This is a lesson I am trying to teach my kids – that money does not buy happiness. It’s walking a fine line trying to teach them the value of money, without making them money-obsessed. At the same time, I want them to appreciate the satisfaction that comes from a job well done, without them feeling that they should get paid for everything they do.

So how to teach them the value of money and the joy of work? This is just my two cents worth, but the bast way is to keep the two – the value of money and the joy of work – separate.

First, I do not believe in paying kids – especially young ones – for doing the things around the house that they should be doing, like cleaning their rooms, picking up toys or helping me sweep the garage. Instead, I want to reward them with thanks, a game of monkey-in-the-middle or just standing back and pointing out how good things look. I want them to feel the satisfaction that comes from a job well done.

Second, I say no. A lot. There’s not a time that we walk past a candy aisle or a toy display or a gumball machine that the kids don’t ask if they can have something. A trip through Walmart is a trip through the gates of parental hell. Can I get this? No. Can I have that? No. How about this? No.

Why not? Because it costs money, and we can’t spend it on everything you see. We need to save it for the things we really want. Now, obviously a quarter for a gumball is not going to prevent me from paying for the groceries, but they don’t need to know that.

Third, I do believe in giving them a small weekly allowance that they can spend on a small toy, or save for a while if they want to buy something bigger. Then when they ask for something, I can tell them to save their money. Nothing places a value on cash as quickly as telling them the thing they want is ten bucks, when they’ve only got six.

The time will come when they’ll realize that they can jumpstart their financial independence by doing things of value for others. Then they can get paid for working. But hopefully by then, they will have developed an appreciation for a job well done. Getting paid will be icing on the cake.

I’m no parenting guru and I do not claim to have all the answers – not by a long shot. But if I can get my kids to take satisfaction from their efforts, regardless of the financial rewards, then I’ll feel that I’ve been successful. More important, they’ll feel successful in ways that money could never buy.

The Medical-Industrial Complex: Today's New Threat

I use MSN.com as my internet home page and I’ve noticed that they seem to have quite a fixation on GERD. It seems that just about every other day, they have some link to a story about GERD – you can fight GERD, pregnancy and GERD, how to sleep with GERD.

What the heck is GERD? And why would I want to fight it and sleep with it? Is this some kind of new-age approach to marital problems?

Well, I finally clicked on one of those links and found that GERD stands for gastro-esophageal reflux disease. I think it used to be called heartburn. Apparently, it must be the primary health threat facing America, given MSN’s urgency in helping us in our war on this old ailment with the new name.

But then I noticed that every one of the articles on GERD was framed in a pretty, light purple color. A purple that is identical to the color of the little purple pill called Nexium, a product of the pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca. It turns out that they are the primary, if not only, sponsor of the pages with these articles on GERD. And what, pray tell, is Nexium prescribed for? Can you spell G-E-R-D?

Now I remember the days when you spelled relief R-O-L-A-I-D-S. But in today’s world, why spend a buck on a pack of Rolaids, when you can spend $120 for a vial of Nexium?

The answer is both simple and complex. Simple, because we want more effective treatments for that which ails us. Complex, because the healthcare industry is all-too-eager to squeeze more and more dollars out of our pockets.

It’s common in every industry – from McDonald’s asking if we want to super-size our order, to the car dealer suggesting that we test drive the car with leather seats. But the healthcare industry is taking it to new and dangerous heights, and if we’re not careful, we’ll end up bankrupting ourselves and our economy.

It’s a new variation on Dwight Eisenhower’s warning about the threat of the military-industrial complex. But instead of playing on our fears of death at the hands of the Soviets to create a military behemoth, we have the medical-industrial complex playing on our fear of death and disease in order to satisfy shareholders’ demands for greater profits.

Certainly, the profit motive has served us well in bringing new medical breakthroughs to the market. Without it, we’d have no MRI’s, no anti-AIDS treatments, no new cancer breakthroughs. But where does it stop?

There is a frightening synergy to MSN’s mix of news and commerce. Microsoft posts headlines about GERD as news items, then links them to pages paid for by Nexium. Those who suffer then seek (or is it demand) a Nexium prescription from their doctor.

I won't argue that publicly traded companies don't have a responsibility to increase shareholder value, but at some point, shareholder gains must be balanced with the public’s resources. We risk reaching a day when our economy is so centered around health care that it starves resources for other endeavors - and due to its immensity, believed too important to the economy and too influential to be reined in.

For example, Pfizer had U.S. sales of about $26 billion last year. To achieve a sales increase of ten percent this year, they would need to sell nearly ten dollars of additional product to every man, woman and child in the U.S. That’s just one company – and we have to wonder if hitting their target will be in our best interest or just theirs.

There was a time when we would treat gangrene with a shot of whiskey and a hacksaw. Today, it’s with antibiotic IV drips and microsurgery. Thank heaven for that, but if we’re not careful, we may find that whiskey is our only refuge from the financial pain.

Opposite Approaches to Crime and Violence

Paul’s note: The subject is a local Cincinnati issue, but with global implications.

Ten years ago I had an opportunity to expand my business when a competitor went up for sale on Second Street in Hamilton, Ohio. It was a perfect match, but the deal fell apart when I asked the owner his hours of operation. He told me they stayed open until 7:30 p.m. during the summer, but closed at 5:30 during the winter. His explanation was that it wasn’t safe to leave after dark.

Now I’m in business to earn a living and provide for my family. Money is nice, but it’s not so important that I’m willing to risk my safety for it. So I passed on the opportunity. Less than a year later the business I was looking at shut down, taking all the jobs they offered with it.

There is a lesson there for anyone who wants to provide jobs for troubled urban areas. Provide a safe environment and the jobs will come.

It’s always been a chicken-and-egg debate. One side argues that crime flourishes because there are no jobs, while the other says that jobs are scarce because crime scares them away.

Well, it appears that two Cincinnati politicians want to find out which is the chicken and which is the egg.

Alicia Reece, the young vice mayor, coordinated a "Day Of Peace" this past Father’s Day. Ministers and community leaders spoke of the need for individuals to each do their part to put an end to the violence that has swept the city. Business owners, including Ms. Reece’s father, preached a message of hope by speaking to city youth about the power to become successful entrepreneurs and the opportunities available to anyone.

Normally I am not a big fan of symbolic rallies, but in this case the message being sent is precisely what Cincinnati’s young people need to hear – namely, that the answer to violence lies within themselves. If we can transform the attitude from one where guns mean power to one where education and responsibility mean power, we’ll see crime drop and jobs flow back into the city.

But while this was going on, State Representative Tyrone Yates was warning the Ohio legislature that unless the state provided $4 million for a summer jobs program, we could expect violence and bloodshed in the streets of Cincinnati. Now, he wasn't calling for violence, but he sends the message that if the state doesn't pony up, we shouldn't be surprised when the street erupts. Sadly, his warning could lead to precisely the type of violence that sends businesses and jobs packing. He's not marshalling the forces, but there are certainly those who will take it as a license to disrupt. And if the street does erupt, the groundwork has been laid to blame the disturbance not on the perpetrators, but on society.

It is ironic that while Alicia Reece’s effort was aimed at curbing violence, its end result will be more jobs and opportunities. Meanwhile, Tyrone Yates effort to create jobs is likely to have the opposite effect as violence is excused and jobs become more scarce.

Worse, Tyrone Yates perpetuates the myth that things can’t get better unless someone else does something about it. Alicia Reece is saying that the answer is lying there right inside each of us. One says we can’t do it ourselves, the other says yes we can. I’ll take can over can’t any day.

Ronald Reagan's Greatest Legacy

Ronald Reagan’s passing made me think of two girls that I dated during Reagan’s second term in office. Both had lost their fathers when they were twelve years old. Both had graduated from state universities – one from Ohio State, the other from Penn State. Both had taken good jobs with Fortune 500 firms upon graduating.

One adored Ronald Reagan, the other loathed him.

For you see, both women had their college education paid in part by the survivor benefits due them from Social Security. Both had seen that benefit reduced under Reagan as part of an effort to preserve Social Security. Yet, while one was grateful to graduate from college, the other was bitter that she didn’t get everything she felt she was entitled to. I’ll let you guess which one despised Reagan.

Yet their reaction to the man and his policies highlight what Reagan meant when he said that he wanted to appeal to our best hopes. Though they both faced hardships – and reacted differently to the benefit cuts – they both earned their degrees. And while it might not have been as easy without the aid, they – and the nation – are better off for having had to rely upon their own grit and determination.

That encapsulates Reagan’s greatest gift to America. More important than his tax cuts, more important than his sunny optimism, was the fact that he got us up off our collective duffs.

For more than a generation, beginning with the end of WWII, everything had gone America’s way. As the only economy to come out of the war unscathed, we built everything. But then came the Arab oil embargo in 1973. Suddenly, we were buying small Japanese cars – and finding they were pretty darn good.

We were no longer the only game in town. But we Americans were not ready to give up the good life. Like a spoiled trust-fund baby, we expected the perks and benefits to keep on coming. Automatic cost-of-living allowances, restrictive union workplace rules and ever-expanding government assistance all served to blind us to the harsh new economic reality.

But when economic reality hit on top of the humiliations of Vietnam, Watergate and the Iranian hostage crisis, a woe-is-me attitude settled in.

Enter Ronald Reagan. He refused to let us give in to the malaise that Jimmy Carter spoke of with such resignation. Like John Belushi’s character in the movie Animal House, who convinced his fraternity brothers that the day of their expulsion could become the best of their lives, Reagan convinced us when we were down that America’s best days still lay ahead. In the process, he knocked complacency on its ear.

He sent notice to the unions that it was no longer business-as-usual when he fired the striking air traffic controllers. He began trimming social benefits. Where some saw a safety net, he saw a blanket that was suffocating the American spirit.

Some feared we wouldn’t survive his policies. But rather than wither and die, we instead responded like a once overprotected child who thrives when finally removed from the withering care of mother, father and Big Brother.

Ronald Reagan had faith in the American people. He had faith that when left to our own devices, we would flourish like never before. And like my old girlfriends, we rose to his challenge and proved that faith well-founded.

Bill Cosby's Message of Empowerment

I am guessing that most everyone is familiar with the serenity prayer - grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Bill Cosby seemed to be invoking that prayer at an event celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision. In his remarks, he criticized the poor English used by so many in the black community and refused to view African-American criminals as victims.

Referring to incarcerated black males, he stated, "These are not political criminals. These are people going around stealing Coca-Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake and then we run out and we are outraged, [saying] 'The cops shouldn't have shot him.' What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand?"

While many conservatives jumped on these remarks as a finger-pointing "I told you so" opportunity to say that racism is not the problem, others saw them as an unnecessarily negative attack on the black community. Such responses miss the deeper context of his comments.

Rather than being a negative slam, his remarks were all about empowerment. The power to make personal choices that can have a marked impact on one’s own life. One can choose to make good decisions and one can choose to make bad decisions. While he focused on the negative choices that he feels are made too frequently, the underlying truth is that there is a choice.

So often, self-destructive behavior is the result of hopelessness. One gets laid off and has trouble finding a job. Frustration sets in and is taken out on those around us. Families break up, relationships are lost. Sorrows are drowned in alcohol and drugs. Self worth plummets. A vicious cycle sets in where our negative outlook only serves to reinforce and justify our self-destructive behavior.

It can happen to anyone, be they black, white, green or blue. Add the deleterious effects of racism, and that hopelessness can become overwhelming.

But there is hope. Sure, life is hard and often unfair. And while we may not have control over the external events in our lives, we have complete control in how we react to them. We can choose to get up in the morning. We can choose to believe in ourselves, no matter what anyone else says. We can choose to do the right thing. External factors can encourage us to do the wrong thing, but they cannot force us to do so. We as individuals have complete power over our conduct.

Making the right choices gives us the peace of mind that comes from knowing that no matter what life has thrown our way, we have made the most of our opportunities. To paraphrase, we have been granted the wisdom to accept the things we cannot change, the power to change those we can and the serenity that comes from knowing the difference.

That is what I get from Bill Cosby’s remarks. Make the right choices, do what you can do as an individual to better yourself and disregard those things that are beyond your control. Do not accept obstacles as excuses to fail but as challenges to rise above. Therein lies the wisdom.

What If Our Team Lost the War, Dad

The question came from my five year-old son sitting in the backseat of the car.

"Dad, what would happen if our team lost at war?"

After I did my double-take – our team, what, lost, war, uh, well, hmmm – I realized it was not a question I had really thought about.

Now, I understand that he was probably looking for some reassurance that we would be okay. That life would continue to be filled with school, baseball, fishing, bike-riding and all the other things that constitute life to a five year-old kid. But, darn if it wasn’t a good question. What would happen if we lost the war? And for that matter, what would happen if we won?

I first tried to tell him we don’t have to worry about losing because we have the best army.

"But dad, sometimes the best baseball team loses."

You’re not going to make this easy on me, are you son.

So I gave him the simple answer. "Well, if we win, the country we are fighting will be run by people who like us. And if we lose, it will be run by people who don’t."

But it’s not that simple, because defining victory isn’t that simple. We’ll have won when Iraq becomes a free and open democracy. When a thriving economy provides jobs for today and hope for the future. When investment in educational opportunities enlightens the citizenry and brings their society into the twenty-first century.

We’ll have won when people in neighboring countries witness the transformation in Iraq and demand reform in their own nations, leading to peaceful overthrow of tyrannical regimes and the establishment of democracy throughout the region. We’ll have won when a voice at the ballot box eliminates the need to make oneself heard through suicide bombings and terrorist attacks.

That’s when we will have won.

Anything short of that will be defeat. After all, this is a war on terror. If we do not eliminate tyranny, hatred and despair throughout the entire region, then the Middle East will remain a festering pool of warring factions, religious zealots and desperate fanatics bent on gaining the upper-hand at home and causing pain and destruction abroad.

So it begs the question, if those are our goals, if that is what constitutes victory, are we going about it the right way? Is victory even possible? There are no easy answers. In fact, there only seem to be more questions.

Have we simply taken the lid off centuries of hatred between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds in Iraq? Will that hatred manifest itself as a bloody civil war? What if anarchy in Iraq spills over to its neighbors and we see turmoil topple autocratic, but relatively stable regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria and elsewhere? What if radical Islamic fundamentalists bent on destroying western society gain control of the bulk of the region’s oil fields?

If any or all of those things happen, are we prepared to stick it out in the Middle East? Are we willing to put even more American lives at risk? Is putting more lives at risk the answer? How many lives?

So many questions, no easy answers. But they are questions we need to ask and answer. Otherwise, we’ll learn the answer to my son’s question. What if our team loses? It’s not one I wish to learn.

Don't Fall For Sound Bite Economics

My grandmother once told me the reason she was a Democrat was because FDR ended the Great Depression. I pointed out that it wasn’t FDR, but World War II that brought an end to the Great Depression. Since we had Adolph Hitler to thank for that, by her reasoning she should have become a Nazi. She laughed and said, "Oh, you sound just like your daddy."

Such exchanges between grandmother and grandson might be rare, but unfortunately, strongly held positions based upon such faulty assumptions are not. Too often, people latch onto an idea and hold it as gospel without even allowing for the possibility that the entire premise for their argument might be wrong.

Take the recent uproar over the job market. If you were to believe the news or the political ads, you would assume that our manufacturing sector is in the toilet, all the jobs are being shipped to China and as a result the economy is worse off than it ever was under Bill Clinton.

Well, guess what. You would be wrong, wrong and wrong.

Here are the facts. According to a report from the National Center for Policy Analysis, the U.S. output of real goods as a percent of GDP is higher today than in any decade since the 1930’s. As for jobs being shipped to China, would you believe that China has fewer manufacturing jobs today than it did just a few years ago? That’s according to BusinessWeek Magazine. And here’s the real kicker – the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average unemployment rate during George Bush’s first three years in office was lower than it was during the same period under Bill Clinton (5.5% versus 6.0%).

So why all this talk about job losses? Well, part of the reason is a change in the way jobs are classified. In the past most companies handled all aspects of their business, from accounting to janitorial services. Regardless of the job description, if the company was a manufacturer, all its’ jobs were considered manufacturing jobs.

Today, many companies contract out tasks like payroll, accounting, programming and maintenance. Those employees now work for service providers and are classified as such. The jobs haven’t disappeared, they’ve just been reclassified.

Another reason for concern comes from dramatic improvements in productivity. In the short term, this causes dislocations among workers, but it eventually leads to an improved standard of living for everyone. If you don’t believe that, look back to Henry Ford’s revolutionary five dollar day. It almost single-handedly created the American middle class. But it came two years after Ford had devised the moving assembly line, which reduced the number of workers needed to assemble a car by eighty-six percent. The five dollar day would have been impossible without that improvement in productivity.

But the biggest reason that we believe the job market is in the tank comes from partisan politicians who hope that if they repeat a claim often enough, it will become ingrained as truth among voters. The danger in creating phony problems is that it opens the door to phony prescriptions that have nothing to do with solving the problem, but everything to do with fulfilling personal political agendas.

We can accept what others want us to believe, or we can choose to learn the facts for ourselves. Democracy demands that we do the latter.

You Can't See Bias Through Biased Eyes

I once watched an episode of ER where a small child had been shot while playing with his mother’s gun. At the end of the episode, the child’s mother tells the doctor that she doesn’t know how to thank him for saving her son. He replies, "Get rid of the gun."

My thoughts exactly. An obvious bit of commonsense for anyone with young children. But the next day, a talk radio caller complained about the anti-gun message being pushed on ER the night before. And it suddenly hit me as to why some people see media bias so clearly where others see none.

One person’s truth is another person’s slant. To someone like me, who has no agenda whatsoever where guns are concerned, the doctor’s prescription was as innocuous as suggesting a couple of aspirin. But to someone who holds their second amendment rights dear, the advice was another example of media bias against guns.

I saw another example recently on Fox’s The O.C.. Set in California’s ritzy, Republican enclave of Orange County, everyone is rich, conniving and self-absorbed. Except for the Cohen’s, who are rich, thoughtful and benevolent. And the show’s writers have seen to it that we know that they are Democrats.

Now to those on the left, that may not appear to be bias. They have one common stereotype of the wealthy – that unless they are liberal, they must have made their fortune by lying, cheating and stealing at the expense of the little guy. To them, portraying the wealthy that way isn’t bias, it’s reality. Unfortunately, those images have been reinforced so endlessly in the movies and on TV, that they have become the conventional wisdom among much of the general public.

That is a shame, because in my experience I have yet to meet a wealthy scoundrel. Almost without exception, every successful person I know has gotten there through honest, hard work – with equal emphasis on honest and hard. Nothing more and nothing less. But you’d never know it from the movies.

Still, bias isn’t always the result of the writer or producer’s unknowing world view. Oftentimes, especially in the news media, the reasons are a bit more calculated.

TV news is especially suspect. While they claim impartiality, like everyone else they live and die with ratings. Therefore, anytime they can tell a story from an underdog’s point of view, they will.

Take the reporting on the silicone breast implant issue a few years ago. No major study was able to definitively link implants to any of the diseases women were suffering. And the media knew it.
Yet, rather than reporting the facts as they were, they chose to play up the suffering women, who were a far more compelling story. They would have them tell their tearful stories, interspersed with shots of the huge corporate complex and middle-aged executives denying responsibility. An incredibly damaging juxtaposition. No matter that Dow Corning was unjustifiably forced into bankruptcy, costing people jobs and investors billions. The women made for good TV.

So when someone says there is no bias in the media, they are wrong. It exists in both news and entertainment. If we can’t see it, it’s because we are viewing it from our own biased perspective. Just as you can’t see the color red through rose-colored glasses, you can’t see bias through biased eyes.

What's a Billion Dollars to You?

What’s a billion dollars? Well, for most of us it’s a whole bunch of money. For others, like congressmen and senators, it’s a scrap that they treat like the loose change rattling around in my sofa. They talk about a billion for this program, ten billion for that, as if they are doling out quarters to the kids for the gumball machine.

Well, here’s another way to think of a billion dollars – it’s the equivalent of about $3.50 for every man, woman and child in the United States. Or fourteen dollars for a family of four (you can do the math – a billion divided by 280 million people). All of a sudden, a billion here, ten billion there means $14 here, $140 there for good old mom and dad. Pretty soon, you’re talking about real money. Our money.

So that means that the typical family of four will pay $5,586 this year to support our military. The House version of the proposed highway spending bill will cost about $875 annually. And we’ll pay $805 for the U.S. Department of Education.

Now that last one’s a real kicker when put into perspective. With a combined population of 78,000, West Chester and Liberty townships will send about $16 million to Washington to fund the Department of Education, but will only get back a little more than $1 million for Lakota Schools. We could have foregone the entire levy mess had we simply kept that money at home. But heaven forbid anyone suggest cutting out the Department of Education.

But if you really want a shock, look at healthcare. This year we’ll spend almost $1.7 trillion – that’s trillion with a ‘t’ – as a nation on everything from aspirin to Zoloft. That works out to a little more than $6,000 per person each year. And you wonder why health insurance costs are going up?

We’ve got a drug for everything. High cholesterol? There’s Lipitor. Heartburn? How about some Nexium? Heck, we’ll spend nearly a billion and a half dollars, or about five dollars per person, just on Viagra this year. Combined, these three drugs will cost the average American about forty dollars, or $160 per family, this year alone. And not one of them existed ten years ago.

Now I can already hear some of you saying, "But I don’t take Viagra." It doesn’t matter. We all pay one way or another through higher insurance premiums.

And the same holds true for government expenditures. We may like to think that corporations and the wealthy pay a heftier portion of taxes than we do, but trust me, we all pay. When corporate taxes or gasoline taxes or user fees go up, those costs are passed on to us in the form of higher prices, lower wages or lost jobs.

When the wealthy get taxed we lose out on their investment in the economy, which leaves us all poorer, despite what some would have us believe.

So what can we do? Well, healthcare deserves more space than I can give it here. But when it comes to government spending we must educate ourselves about how our money is being used and how much it costs us personally. And then never let Washington forget that it is our money they are spending, a billion dollars at a time.

Consider The Social Security Opportunity

Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan started a firestorm last week when he warned that we face financial and economic calamity lest we cut future benefits for Social Security and Medicare. Immediately, politicians – especially from the left – began referring to the suggestion as outrageous, or worse.

Therein lies the reason that anyone under the age of forty-five who expects to see any type of Social Security payment is nuts. For there are three things certain regarding Social Security – we need to take drastic action to save it, we need to start taking that action now, and the politicians in charge will do neither.

But before we crucify Greenspan and anyone else who seems remotely intrigued by his suggestion, let’s look at the situation for the challenge and opportunity it is.

First, we know that the baby boomers – the oldest of whom are nearing sixty – will soon become a huge liability on the Social Security books. We also know that there are countless deficit demagogues who decry the fact that we are financing our lifestyle today by mortgaging our children’s future.

But that is precisely how Social Security was designed. It’s a pay-as-you go system that promises that if we pay for today’s retirees, then our children will pay for us when our time comes. The only problem is that the boomers will be passing through the system like a rodent passes through a snake – one big mass, with little following behind.

In other words, there will be more people collecting and fewer people paying. So the only solutions are to cut benefits, raise taxes or both. Those on the receiving end don’t want benefits cut because they feel entitled to them since they paid into the system their entire lives. But taxing the next generation isn’t fair either. It’s not their fault that their grandparents chose to have lots of kids, and their parents chose not to.

But this is where the opportunity comes in. With a little leadership, sacrifice and compromise we might not only save Social Security, but positively transform our society for generations to come.

Suppose we apply the concept of privatized Social Security accounts as a supplement to, rather than as a replacement for, our current system. Maintain current benefits and taxes, but require every worker to put a fixed amount, say three percent of their pay, into an untouchable personal retirement account.

Then when the person begins receiving Social Security, their SS benefit is reduced by an amount determined by the annual return on their personal investment account, say by fifty cents for every dollar the private account earns in a given year. Since the size and earnings of these accounts would be larger the longer people are paying into them, the amount of savings to the system will grow the further into the program we get.

Think of all the benefits – we start to pay for our own retirement now rather than leaving it up to our children, we reduce the burden on the system as we retire, we maintain a basic floor of benefits at the current level and we create an entire society that has an ownership stake in our nation’s economy.

Yes, we’ll have more taken out of our paychecks, but it will remain our money. And if we leave less of a burden for our children, won’t that be the best benefit of all?

Defense of Marriage Act Does No Such Thing

[Note: A 2021 op-ed piece looks back at the country's attitude towards gay marriage at the time this was written.]

Remember when the federal government added a luxury tax on yachts in an effort to make the wealthy pay for their success? Instead of soaking the rich, blue-collar workers felt the sting of public policy as yacht sales fell and layoffs exploded. That is known as the law of unintended consequences – a law that government seems to have an innate ability to put in motion.

Now we are likely to see it in action again as we rush to protect the institution of marriage through the Defense of Marriage Act. This law, which provides no incentive to get or stay married, is somehow supposed to strengthen marriage. Ironically, it is likely to have the opposite effect as corporations work around the ban on same-sex marriages by offering domestic partner benefits, which have become quite common as companies work to recruit and retain homosexual employees. Under such programs, the live-in partner receives the same health insurance, pension and other benefits traditionally offered only to spouses. Many of Ohio’s largest employers already have such programs in place.

However, in an effort to avoid discrimination, many of these programs include both homosexual and heterosexual couples since employers do not want to be in the business of asking about sexual orientation. Thus, a man and a woman no longer need to commit to marriage in order to receive the benefits previously available only to legally-recognized spouses.

Suddenly, shacking up brings all the benefits of marriage without its legal pitfalls. Couples can live together, sleep together and share in the company retirement plan without worrying about divorce, alimony or the spouse’s credit card debts. Under such no-lose circumstances, why not simply live together for benefit purposes, even if you’re not sure you really want to commit for a lifetime. If it falls apart in a year or two, no harm done.

That is a recipe for disaster. Eventually, marriage risks becoming a quaint custom like formal business attire – sure it looks good, but a little too restricting. And just like our wardrobes, our relationships become a casual matter of convenience.

None of this would be an issue if homosexuals were allowed to formalize their relationships with the same legal commitments as heterosexuals. We would reduce both gay and straight partnerships of convenience, which is certainly in society’s long-term interest. But in our headlong rush to sweep homosexuality under the rug, we are willing to undermine the very thing we seek to protect.

Of course, permitting same-sex marriages will not strengthen our current institution of marriage. But outlawing it risks weakening it. As much as some may decry it, we live in changing times. Homosexuality is becoming much more ingrained in our culture. We can choose to invite gays to share in the customs and institutions that have served our society well for hundreds of years. Or we can shut them out and allow an alternate culture to develop where commitment is but a fleeting concept. That is a culture war we should avoid at all cost.