It’s the holiday season. Time for traditions of tacky decorations, crowded stores and arguing over the proper way to greet each other during this time of goodwill. We are told we must be sensitive to others who may not share our customs or culture, and so, should rely upon generic terms like “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greeting.”
But now it’s going a step further. The chorus is growing louder, as evidenced by an editorial in the Cincinnati Enquirer, that we end the holiday greetings war by taking the time to inquire about the cultural preferences of those to whom we plan to offer seasonal wishes. Impracticality aside - do we really want every convenience store clerk, postal worker and passerby to ask about our cultural background before offering a greeting? - don’t such suggestions made in the name of tolerance actually pander to perhaps the most harmful form of verbal intolerance?
For isn’t it intolerant to refuse the good wishes of others simply because they weren’t worded precisely the way we would have preferred? And doesn’t that lead us all down a path where we parse our words so carefully for fear of offending that we no longer say what we really mean? And once our words no longer match our thoughts, how can there be any trust?
This issue goes far beyond how we greet each other between Thanksgiving and December 25th. We need candor and honesty if we hope to address the real and perceived issues that exist among the different segments of our society. If we enter that dialogue with our tongues tied, we’ll succeed in nothing but sweeping those differences under the rug, where they’ll remain to bite us another day.
The old adage about sticks and stones was predicated upon the belief that words meant to harm could really do no damage. Today, even words meant with the best of intentions are seen as offensive and harmful. It’s time that we return to that childhood lesson and realize that words can only hurt us if we let them.
So let us simply accept a "Merry Christmas", "Happy Hanukkah" or "Happy Kwanzaa" as the kind blessing of another, whether we celebrate that holiday or not. And perhaps, if we can stop taking offense when someone harmlessly says the wrong thing, we can start to discuss the real issues that separate us. In the end, that seems to be the real path to tolerance, and ultimately, peace on earth, goodwill toward men.
12/21/2005
12/11/2005
Tookie Wilson Should Live
Tookie Wilson should live. Not because he’s a “good person.” Not because he's written children's books. Not because he might be innocent (there's no evidence to support that claim, whatsoever). And certainly not because Snoop Dog or Ed Asner say he should.
In fact, all the effort to make him seem like a good person, or somehow more deserving of commutation than other death row inmates, is counterproductive as far as I'm concerned because it detracts from the real reason he and all his death row comrades should be allowed to live. Namely, that the death penalty confers far too much power to the state. Once that power is conferred, then the justification is simply a matter of degree (one prosecutor tried to get the death penalty for a DUI conviction a few years ago).
As a limited-government advocate, I do not believe anyone, especially an entity as unaccountable as the "state", should have the power to determine who lives and who dies. That decision should be God’s and God’s alone.
In fact, all the effort to make him seem like a good person, or somehow more deserving of commutation than other death row inmates, is counterproductive as far as I'm concerned because it detracts from the real reason he and all his death row comrades should be allowed to live. Namely, that the death penalty confers far too much power to the state. Once that power is conferred, then the justification is simply a matter of degree (one prosecutor tried to get the death penalty for a DUI conviction a few years ago).
As a limited-government advocate, I do not believe anyone, especially an entity as unaccountable as the "state", should have the power to determine who lives and who dies. That decision should be God’s and God’s alone.
12/06/2005
Homeowner Associations Make for Bad Neighbors
Whoever said it was a free country?
A multi-cultural nativity scene is under attack in one Novi, Michigan subdivision, but the owner said she isn't removing the display from her front yard. The nativity sits among other statuettes like Minnie Mouse and Santa Claus, but the fuss is over the nativity scene and one family's personal tradition is turning into a public debate. Nativity Scene Causes Stir In Novi Neighborhood
At first glance this appears to be just another example of what's quickly becoming a holiday tradition - the fight to keep church and state separate by prohibiting religious holiday displays. But it's not.
That's because this isn't about a public display, but a private one. And because it's not the city or county enforcing the rule. Instead this order came from the local homeowners association.
This is just one more example of homeowners associations (HOA) gone bad. These quasi-governmental groups are becoming the neo-fascists of suburbia. And it's gone way beyond telling us the colors we can paint our house. For example:
- An Ocala, Florida HOA warned residents that taking in families displaced by hurricanes would violate association rules.
- A Congers, NY condo association is fighting to restrict a blind woman and her seeing eye dog to her apartment and a single parking space (apparently the right to a doggie-do free complex supercedes the right of a disabled person to move about freely).
- A Naples, FL condo association fought to preserve rules that limited grandchildren visits.
These are the work of control freaks. Which should come as no surprise - homeowner associations are magnets for nitpickers, busybodies and do-gooders. Those of us with real things to do have neither the time nor inclination to get involved in telling our neighbors how to live. So HOA's too often end up dominated by people whose mission in life appears to be trying to get others to live as they see fit.
These boards are worse than local government because they are largely unbound by minor inconveniences such as our constitutionally guaranteed rights. We agree to their rules when we buy our homes, so if they want to limit free speech or religious expression, they are largely free to do so.
Then why are they so popular? Well, we believe they are protectors of our personal sensibilities and, by proxy, our property values. They give us a way of complaining about our neighbor without having to complain to our neighbor. They create a buffer between ourselves and the targets of our pet peeves. It's an extension of our contentious and litigious society that seeks formal validation and enforcement of our every whim.
It wasn't always like this. There was a time when disputes were worked out one-to-one. And if you didn't like what your neighbor was doing, a few well-placed trees and shrubs could provide all the buffer necessary. But not anymore. In fact, you probably can't plant those trees without prior HOA approval.
We've come a long way since Patrick Henry said give me liberty or give me death. Today it's give me liberty unless it hurts my property value. It seems we may have come a bit too far.
12/05/2005
Gender Inequities in Education
For thirty-three years - since the adoption of Title IX - we have tried to eliminate alleged gender inequities in education. By now it should be apparent that we've not just closed the gap, but reversed it. The Washington Post just ran a report on the disappearance of men from college campuses. No, it's not about some gender-reverse Ted Bundy-type serial abductor, but the worrisome decline in male college enrollment compared to women, with men making up only 43% of the student population on U.S. college campuses. That continues a trend that began in the late 70's when women first passed men in college enrollment. Washington Post story
First, let's clarify that though the writer implies that fewer men are now attending college, that’s not the case. In reality, the number of men attending college has increased since 1990, both in raw numbers and as a percentage of high school graduates. A 2003 study by Andrew Summ, Neeta Fogg, et al. shows that the percentage of male high school graduates going on to college rose by two percentage points from 1990 to 2001. (Study link)
Still, a woman is far more likely to go on to college than is a man. Not only that, she's also more likely to finish high school since males are more likely to drop out before graduating. (Chart) So, why in this era when knowledge is king, are there such gender discrepancies in both college enrollments and high school dropout rates? I believe there are three basic explanations.
The first is differing perspectives of career prospects among men and women. While more women have come to see a college education as their best hope for a good job, many men still cling to the notion that they'll be able to get high-paying, low-skill jobs in manufacturing and elsewhere.
A second, more insidious reason, is the changing educational approach in our primary and secondary schools arising from attempts to satisfy the requirements of Title IX. When first enacted, women were more likely than men to drop out of high school and less likely to attend college. Four years later, men were dropping out of school at higher rates than women. Just two years after that, men became the minority on college campuses. Despite this reality, nearly all the focus on gender inequities in education remained skewed toward alleged hardships faced by girls. Complaints that our schools favored boys with regard to teacher attention, science, math and computer instruction, athletics and more still drove much of the debate in academic circles.
Yet it was the boys who were dropping out and not going on to college. Gender activists claiming to seek gender equity, instead enforced a new gender inequity. We ignored our struggling boys, while continuing reforms that favored girls. Verbal skills were emphasized, while instruction in areas where boys performed well like math and science, was made more girl friendly. Couple this with misguided attempts to improve students' so-called self-esteem, and it's no wonder our boys feel lost. Boys tend to feel good about themselves through restless, competitive, hands-on achievement. But in our efforts to make sure little Johnny's (or Janey's) feelings weren't hurt, we removed opportunities for competitive comparisons. Schools have eliminated everything from letter grades to dodgeball. Lo and behold, we find that boys don't feel at home in school.
This demographic shift in higher education is a harbinger of bad tidings. Lesser education means lesser career prospects. Mismatched academic achievement means mismatched relationships. Underemployed at work and overmatched at home, too many men risk becoming marginalized members of society. The self-esteem we've worked so hard to instill in girls has been at the expense of the self-esteem of our boys - boys who tend more toward crime, violence, substance abuse and unemployment than do women. Directionless men seeking purpose too easily and too often find it in less than ideal groups, as can be seen from the gangs in our inner cities to the terrorist groups of the Middle East. The risk will only worsen as fewer boys grow up with worthy role models.
And therein lies the third reason for college enrollment gender inequities: we’re now into the second and third generation of poorly educated men. While previous generations may have grown up in homes headed by fathers without degrees or diplomas, it was not because the father failed to value education. Today, it is – if there is a father at all.
Yes, gender inequities remain. But now it's our boys’ turn to suffer. If we do not address the issue quickly and effectively, they won’t suffer alone.
First, let's clarify that though the writer implies that fewer men are now attending college, that’s not the case. In reality, the number of men attending college has increased since 1990, both in raw numbers and as a percentage of high school graduates. A 2003 study by Andrew Summ, Neeta Fogg, et al. shows that the percentage of male high school graduates going on to college rose by two percentage points from 1990 to 2001. (Study link)
Still, a woman is far more likely to go on to college than is a man. Not only that, she's also more likely to finish high school since males are more likely to drop out before graduating. (Chart) So, why in this era when knowledge is king, are there such gender discrepancies in both college enrollments and high school dropout rates? I believe there are three basic explanations.
The first is differing perspectives of career prospects among men and women. While more women have come to see a college education as their best hope for a good job, many men still cling to the notion that they'll be able to get high-paying, low-skill jobs in manufacturing and elsewhere.
A second, more insidious reason, is the changing educational approach in our primary and secondary schools arising from attempts to satisfy the requirements of Title IX. When first enacted, women were more likely than men to drop out of high school and less likely to attend college. Four years later, men were dropping out of school at higher rates than women. Just two years after that, men became the minority on college campuses. Despite this reality, nearly all the focus on gender inequities in education remained skewed toward alleged hardships faced by girls. Complaints that our schools favored boys with regard to teacher attention, science, math and computer instruction, athletics and more still drove much of the debate in academic circles.
Yet it was the boys who were dropping out and not going on to college. Gender activists claiming to seek gender equity, instead enforced a new gender inequity. We ignored our struggling boys, while continuing reforms that favored girls. Verbal skills were emphasized, while instruction in areas where boys performed well like math and science, was made more girl friendly. Couple this with misguided attempts to improve students' so-called self-esteem, and it's no wonder our boys feel lost. Boys tend to feel good about themselves through restless, competitive, hands-on achievement. But in our efforts to make sure little Johnny's (or Janey's) feelings weren't hurt, we removed opportunities for competitive comparisons. Schools have eliminated everything from letter grades to dodgeball. Lo and behold, we find that boys don't feel at home in school.
This demographic shift in higher education is a harbinger of bad tidings. Lesser education means lesser career prospects. Mismatched academic achievement means mismatched relationships. Underemployed at work and overmatched at home, too many men risk becoming marginalized members of society. The self-esteem we've worked so hard to instill in girls has been at the expense of the self-esteem of our boys - boys who tend more toward crime, violence, substance abuse and unemployment than do women. Directionless men seeking purpose too easily and too often find it in less than ideal groups, as can be seen from the gangs in our inner cities to the terrorist groups of the Middle East. The risk will only worsen as fewer boys grow up with worthy role models.
And therein lies the third reason for college enrollment gender inequities: we’re now into the second and third generation of poorly educated men. While previous generations may have grown up in homes headed by fathers without degrees or diplomas, it was not because the father failed to value education. Today, it is – if there is a father at all.
Yes, gender inequities remain. But now it's our boys’ turn to suffer. If we do not address the issue quickly and effectively, they won’t suffer alone.
[Footnotes: The NY Times ran this David Brooks column in 2022 that amplifies the issues in this piece.
The intro to Ezra Klein's March 10, 2023 podcast began with a line quite similar to the opener of this 2005 piece: "In 1972, when Congress passed Title IX to tackle gender equity in education, men were 13 percentage points more likely to hold bachelor’s degrees than women; today women are 15 points more likely to do so than men."
12/03/2005
Congress Butting In Where it Doesn't Belong
Glad to see Congress sticking to the things that matter:
Lawmaker Calls Hearing on 'Flawed' BCS
By JIM VERTUNO
AP Sports Writer
HOUSTON (AP) -- Calling the Bowl Championship Series "deeply flawed," the chairman of a congressional committee has called a hearing on the controversial system used to determine college football's national champion.
A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, charged with regulating America's sports industry, announced Friday it will conduct a hearing on the BCS next week, after this season's bowl matchups are determined.
Read entire story here
According to committee Chairman Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, "Too often college football ends in sniping and controversy, rather than winners and losers. The current system of determining who's No. 1 appears deeply flawed."
So what. That's the NCAA's problem, not yours.
And then there's this:
Senator Suggests Hearing on Terrell Owens Matter
PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Sen. Arlen Specter accused the National Football League and the Philadelphia Eagles of treating Terrell Owens unfairly and said he might refer the matter to the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he chairs.
Specter said at a news conference Monday in Harrisburg it was "vindictive and inappropriate" for the league and the Eagles to forbid the all-pro wide receiver from playing and prevent other teams from talking to him.
Read entire story here
There are 280 million people in the United States. I'm guessing that at least one or two have been the victims of "vindictive and inapproriate" treatment from an employer. Are you going to call hearings on their cases, Senator?
Come on guys, this is not your business. Stay out of it.
Lawmaker Calls Hearing on 'Flawed' BCS
By JIM VERTUNO
AP Sports Writer
HOUSTON (AP) -- Calling the Bowl Championship Series "deeply flawed," the chairman of a congressional committee has called a hearing on the controversial system used to determine college football's national champion.
A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, charged with regulating America's sports industry, announced Friday it will conduct a hearing on the BCS next week, after this season's bowl matchups are determined.
Read entire story here
According to committee Chairman Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, "Too often college football ends in sniping and controversy, rather than winners and losers. The current system of determining who's No. 1 appears deeply flawed."
So what. That's the NCAA's problem, not yours.
And then there's this:
Senator Suggests Hearing on Terrell Owens Matter
PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Sen. Arlen Specter accused the National Football League and the Philadelphia Eagles of treating Terrell Owens unfairly and said he might refer the matter to the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he chairs.
Specter said at a news conference Monday in Harrisburg it was "vindictive and inappropriate" for the league and the Eagles to forbid the all-pro wide receiver from playing and prevent other teams from talking to him.
Read entire story here
There are 280 million people in the United States. I'm guessing that at least one or two have been the victims of "vindictive and inapproriate" treatment from an employer. Are you going to call hearings on their cases, Senator?
Come on guys, this is not your business. Stay out of it.
12/02/2005
Quick Thoughts: Supreme Court
Does the U.S. Supreme Court have any role other than to consider Roe v. Wade? It would appear not, given the scrutiny that is given to each court nominee's views on that particular issue. I just wonder how much we shortchange ourselves by maintaining such a narrow focus. Wouldn' it be interesting if we found that Roe v. Wade turned out to be the Trojan Horse that was used to slide nominees who have different, but no less troubling, agendas onto the court?
12/01/2005
Quick Thoughts: Immigration Policy
It seems to me that our immigration policy has it completely backwards: We're incapable of preventing the flow of cheap, unskilled laborers willing to take jobs Americans don't want, but quite effective at keeping out educated immigrants who can fill jobs for which too many Americans are unqualified.
This is a result of crackdowns in the wake of 9/11 designed to keep suspected terrorists out of the country. Yet a terrorist could enter the country just as easily as a Mexican migrant worker, while an Asian engineer or Indian computer programmer faces a bureaucratic maze when trying to enter the country.
Part of our historical competitive advantage vis-a-vis the rest of the world has been our ability to attract the earth's best and brightest. I'm afraid our loss will be our competitors' gain.
This is a result of crackdowns in the wake of 9/11 designed to keep suspected terrorists out of the country. Yet a terrorist could enter the country just as easily as a Mexican migrant worker, while an Asian engineer or Indian computer programmer faces a bureaucratic maze when trying to enter the country.
Part of our historical competitive advantage vis-a-vis the rest of the world has been our ability to attract the earth's best and brightest. I'm afraid our loss will be our competitors' gain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)