2/18/2005

Media Bias Strikes Again

Sometimes you can see bias coming a mile away. The circumstances are so clear and the party so bigoted that you know what’s going to happen long before it does. At least that’s the case when it comes to Hollywood. Funny how the clearest examples of prejudice seem to come from our open-minded friends on the left coast.

The most recent example comes courtesy of ER. Now I have to admit that this show often does an excellent job of making viewers consider difficult medical ethics issues. But that didn’t stop them from propagating one of Hollywood’s favorite stereotypes.

For those who don’t watch the show, there is a doctor named Kerry Weaver who happens to be gay. So far, the story line regarding her personal life has involved the death of her life partner, and the custody battle – a losing one – over their adopted child.

Dr. Weaver’s story took a turn, however, when she met her own birth mother who had given her up for adoption shortly after birth. There were the expected uncomfortable moments between a mother who had given up her baby and an adult child unsure how she was supposed to feel about her new-found mom. Nothing out of the ordinary.

But then Dr. Weaver went to watch her mom in rehearsal – for the church choir. Uh, oh. You could see it coming. Sure enough, her mom went into a dissertation on how Jesus had changed her life. And you just knew how this was going to turn out. Mom was going to be horrified that her daughter was gay. That it was a sin against God and humanity. You could have turned the TV off right then and written the rest of the script yourself.

What’s ironic about this whole thing is that just four days earlier I had been involved in a discussion about homosexuality with a few people from my church. It was an informal discussion in an informal setting. And it lasted about two minutes, with the basic consensus that it’s no big deal. Then it was back to talking football.

But that’s not Hollywood’s take. Unless it’s Touched By An Angel or some other show targeted at a spiritual demographic – even Hollywood will put it’s bias aside if there’s a dollar to be made – you can bet that anyone who holds God in high regard is going to be depicted as (choose all that apply) intolerant / unstable / pedophilic / homophobic / homicidal / suicidal / weird.

Which is why I think our cultural elite haven’t figured out how to connect with the “values” crowd. They just don’t understand them. And anything they don’t understand must be intolerant, ignorant, unstable – well, you get the idea.

The fact is that most of the church-going people I know are like everyone else. Because they are everyone else. They get up and go to work. Their kids play soccer and baseball. They eat at McDonalds, Olive Garden and TGI Friday’s. Some drink beer, some drink wine. Like every other human that has walked this earth, they’re not without sin. And for the most part, they are too concerned with their own lives to take the time to sit in judgment of others.

Of course, Hollywood sees it differently. But then, you always see things differently when your eyes and mind are closed.

2/11/2005

Money Won't Solve Every Problem

I was once approached by a panhandler while walking along Court Street in downtown Cincinnati. I was feeling generous that day, so I gave the guy a twenty. He was appropriately grateful, and I continued on my way, smugly content with my good deed.

But as I walked on, I started to think. What impact was that twenty going to have on that guy’s life? What would he do with it? Could twenty dollars possibly be enough to make a difference?

Maybe I should have given him fifty dollars. Or perhaps a hundred. Wouldn’t that buy him a few more days of food or a place to sleep? Couldn’t he use it to clean up and find a job? Or would he just waste it on drugs or booze? In any case, a hundred bucks probably wasn’t going to change much of anything.

So what if I had given him a thousand or ten thousand or fifty thousand? Would that make a difference? For a while, absolutely. But we hear stories all the time of people who win millions in the lottery, then wind up broke a short time later because they lack both the discipline and training to use the money wisely. Would this guy have been any different? I have no idea.

The reason there is no way of knowing is because money is a tool, not an answer. How that tool is used depends upon how prepared the person is to handle it. Give a hammer to a skilled tradesman and he can build a home. Give it to an untrained child and he can destroy one. The same is true of money. Give it to one who knows how to use it and they’ll build a future. Give it to one who doesn’t and too often they’ll dig a hole.

But we so want to believe that money is the answer that we continue to hand it out, whether as cash to a person on the street or as a check from the U.S. government. We use it as a way to keep score on our compassion. No doubt it is a measure of our generosity. In that regard, we are a compassionate people. But is money the best tool at our disposal, or simply the most convenient to dispense? Isn’t there something even more precious that we could offer?

I’m talking about time. What if instead of twenty dollars, I had given the panhandler twenty minutes of my time, just to learn about his circumstances, to see how I might help? Maybe it would have been fruitless, but what if I gave him twenty minutes every week? Simply acting as a mentor, guidance counselor or friend. I have little doubt that it would have been far more effective than my throwaway twenty.

Twenty minutes a week works out to 17 hours a year. If just one in five adult Americans made that commitment, it would be the equivalent of putting 275,000 people to work full-time with the sole purpose of giving people the tools they need to move forward in life. Imagine the difference we could make.

It’s so simple. But not as simple as handing a guy a twenty. Which is why we so often find ourselves throwing money at problems that don’t go away. But if more of us threw ourselves into solving them, perhaps they would. All it takes is time.

2/04/2005

Iraqis On A Familiar Path to Democracy

When Washington made his legendary Christmas night crossing of the Delaware, his troops were ill-prepared for combat and uncertain regarding the future of their cause. They were fighting a war that would require assistance from France, one of the world’s great powers. They were fighting for a nation which had been denied representative government and had only recently shed the rule of an unbalanced tyrant. Moreover, it was less a nation than a confederation of separate states often split by social, geographical and religious differences – free and slave, north and south, Anglicans, Quakers, Deist and more.

The Delaware crossing took place nearly six months after the signing of the Declaration of Independence and a full year before the miserable winter at Valley Forge. In fact, it would be nearly five more years before England would surrender and the independence of the former colonies would be guaranteed.

Imagine the pundits of the day had there been a full-blown 24-hour news cycle that reported on every challenge and setback. They would have argued over the justification for the war – was it to end taxation without representation, a fight for independence from England or to establish democracy? Or were those simply smokescreens to cover up a more sinister cause – to protect the moneyed interests who wanted England out of their hair for financial reasons?

They would have claimed that trying to defeat England was futile. That there was no end in sight, and that the war would only serve to split the colonies into fragmented, warring factions which would bring nothing but conflict and bloodshed between them for years to come.

And they would have argued that this concept called democracy was unworkable in a land where few were educated, many couldn’t read and where tyranny had ruled.

It would have sounded a lot like what’s been said about Iraq for the past two years.

Granted, there are differences. Among them that we, rather than the Iraqi’s, started the fight and the enemy is a nameless band of insurgents rather than a sovereign state. But if there was a take-home lesson from last week’s vote, it was that the Iraqi people are hungry for democracy. So much so that 8 million were willing to risk life and limb in order to exercise their right to vote.

There have been naysayers from the start, arguing that democracy is incompatible with the culture of the Middle East. But events in the past six months should put that notion to rest. We’ve had meaningful elections among Afghanis, Palestinians and Iraqis. Iran will elect a new president in a few months, and though conservative mullahs hope to suppress the reformist movement that began with the 2000 elections, an undercurrent of pro-Western sentiment continues to grow among the Iranian people.

I’m not sure why some are so ready to dismiss the universal appeal of democracy. Yes, it faces challenges in the Middle East, not the least of which is that there are enemies who are deathly afraid of its establishment in the region. But the mere depth of their fear is a testament to democracy’s power and appeal.

Each person that votes is one more devotee to the elegant concept of self-governance. Last week, 8 million more joined the list of converts. More of that and democracy will become the rule rather than the exception in a place where it was once thought impossible.

2/02/2005

Here's Hoping Court Gets It Right on Eminent Domain

Owning one’s own home is at the heart of the American dream – and has been since the framers of the Constitution wrote protections against government seizure of private property for public use into the Fifth Amendment. But rampant abuse of eminent domain, made possible by a liberal interpretation of the public use standard has put that dream at risk. Now the Supreme Court is considering a Connecticut case that may put the power back in the hands of the people.

Let us hope they do.

Eminent domain has long been a tool of government in taking private property, but at some point the standard of public "use" became one of public "good". That is a critical distinction, and hopefully one that the Court sees fit to reverse.

Public use conjures images of highways, dams, airports and other public facilities owned, operated or managed by a government entity. Public good is a much broader definition, opening the door to the use of eminent domain to grab property for such nebulous purposes as spurring economic growth, or worse, expanding the tax base.

Such a basis for eminent domain puts virtually any property not maximizing its tax revenue potential at risk of government seizure. All it takes is someone who can promise a higher tax revenue stream from the property. Suddenly, owners of homes, farms, forests and fields are little more than caretakers waiting for someone with a better (meaning higher tax generating) plan to come along.

And provisions limiting seizure to blighted areas provide little protection. In California, for example, undeveloped desert land was designated "urbanized and blighted" so it could be seized for a Hyundai test track. It’s hard to see how God could be accused of blighting the wilderness, but since the track promised millions in tax dollars, who are we to argue?

Public good is far too broad a test for violating a principle as sacred as property rights.

We can hope that the Supreme Court will shift the balance of power back in our direction. But if they fail, a simple Constitutional amendment could do the trick: Government shall not seize private property for the purpose of giving, leasing or selling it wholly or in part to another private citizen or entity. Twenty-five words that would stop the land grab by government for the benefit of those who care not about the public good, but of personal profit.