Hate Crimes

It's interesting, if I'm walking in the park with my wife and someone makes an unwanted advance at my wife and I deck him, I get charged with assault. If he makes an advance on me and I deck him, I get charged with a hate crime. Same offense, same outcome, different charge. 

Therein lies the problem with hate crimes legislation. It forces us to get 'inside the head' of the perpetrator, which is a very dangerous place to tread. 

We have to ask what the objective of a suggested hate crimes bill is. Is it to increase the punishment for a hate crime? Or is it to make us feel better that we are doing something' to stop something despicable? The way I see it, the type of small-minded idiot who would commit a hate crime isn't going to be dissuaded by a law that makes it illegal. If the simple fact that it is illegal were a deterrent, the laws against murder and assault would have prevented the crime in the first place. 

I understand that we want to demonstrate our concern by passing a law, but at what cost. As I said, hate crime laws require us to get 'inside the head' of the criminal. I'm not sure that a bigot's head is worth getting into. Why create martyrs for the other idiots to rally around. 

We need to enforce the laws we have equally, no matter who the victim or the criminal. I will not argue that frequently the laws are not enforced equally, particularly with regard to minorities. Rather than enacting new laws, however, lets ensure that everyone gets equal protection under the laws we now have. In the long run it will go much further in promoting trust and more importantly, justice for all. 

Letter to the NY Times: Bill Clinton

As stated in your lead editorial today (12/20/98) regarding the issues now in front of the U.S. Senate,  ...they and the country face the problem of dealing with a battered President whose calculated strategy of lying over the airways and under oath has prolonged this crisis...".Therein lies the real dilemma.  We have to ask, are we better off with a senate trial and conviction, a meaningful censure that diminishes the President, or a resignation.  Those are our options and none are pretty.

It is unfortunate, but Mr. Clinton has permanently lost credibility with a large portion of the American public, including many who would like to see him continue as President.  We can hope that no serious crisis arises during the next two years to test his ability to lead, but that may be dangerous wishful thinking.  Is it really in our best interest to see Mr. Clinton finish out his term, or are we simply blinded by our desire to deny his opponents the satisfaction of his removal?  They are separate questions and we must decide the former without regard to the latter, difficult as that may be.

The Global Implications of Bill Clinton's Character

Bill Clinton’s presidency is being rocked by scandal that should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed his history of twisting the truth and denial of wrong-doing (can anyone name one instance in which he was forthright in admitting any failing on his part?).  While it may appear that the substance of this scandal (an alleged illicit affair with a White House intern and subsequent attempts at cover-up) is trivial, the underlying moral vacuum that gave rise to such a situation has vast policy and national security implications.

The nation and the world currently face a major geopolitical threat in Saddam Hussein and his apparent stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.  Facing down this threat will require a leader with the moral authority to act from a position of strength, a position that our president cannot claim at this moment, and probably never could.

Some (though surprisingly few) will argue that this crisis is the result of George Bush’s decision not to pursue Saddam at the end of the gulf war, thereby letting him off the hook.  Upon closer evaluation, however, one can see that the decision to end the war when we did was our only realistic option.

We must remember that the coalition that fought the gulf war was a fragile one at best.  It required skillful diplomacy to gain support not only from our closest allies (Great Britain, Germany, France, Canada, etc.) but also from traditional opponents of U.S. policy including Syria, Iran and the Soviet Union (let us not forget that the Soviet Union was still in existence at that time).  Incredibly, we also secured Israel’s neutrality despite their historic hatred and distrust of Iraq.  Gaining this commitment required an incredible amount of trust in our word – both in assuring Israel that we would defend them and that we would not over-reach on our objectives, which would have caused untold outcry in the Arab world.

This coalition was built upon a series of commitments made by the United States, and enacted through the United Nations, that the ultimate objective of any military action taken in the gulf would be solely to force Iraq out of Kuwait.  While it is entirely likely that we could have easily driven into Baghdad, successfully removing Saddam was more problematic, and even then was more likely to create havoc than avoid it.

Consider the implications had we gone beyond the original intent of the war.  Simply going into Iraq would have violated the UN resolutions and called into question our credibility.  Given the widespread animosity toward the U.S. in that part of the world (particularly the view that we are an imperialist nation intent on domination), there can be little doubt that the support from the region’s nations would have evaporated quickly.  At that point all bets are off and we are no longer the leader of a moral and universally accepted action, but instead a reckless and untrusted intruder in the region.

Even if the coalition did miraculously hold together, removing Saddam was not a simple matter of finding and eliminating him.  There is no way that we could just go in, get him and get out without leaving a power vacuum in one of the most volatile (and economically desirable) nations on earth.  We would have found ourselves in the unenviable position of either 1)  trying to install a new regime whose legitimacy would have been under immediate suspicion, or 2)  finding ourselves in the role of occupying conqueror in one of the most hostile places on earth. 

Neither of these outcomes are either desirable or workable.  Consider our effort at installing democracy in Haiti.  This is a nation so weak that our first attempt at landing Marines there was met with a rag-tag group of inhabitants wielding sticks and machetes.  Yet it was just last month, nearly three years after being virtually welcomed in, that we were finally able to withdraw the last of our troops.  Compare that to what we would have encountered had we tried to impose a new government in Iraq.  The quagmire could have made Vietnam look like a mere blip by comparison.

Of more concern than trying to rule an unruly nation, however, would be the damage done to our credibility among all nations.  Why would anyone ever trust our word again in any conflict in which we sought to take the leading role.  It is a position we simply could not afford to find ourselves in.

As a result, we stood by our word and decided to use the coalition to force Saddam into compliance with terms of surrender through use of embargoes and inspections.  For eighteen months the coalition held firm and progress was made.  However, there was a change in leadership in the U.S. and the coalition has steadily broken down.  Today, not only are Syria and Iran no longer reliable supporters of inspection efforts, but neither are such expected allies as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or even France.  Part of this is due to economic pressures arising from desire for Iraqi oil, but mostly it is due to the lack of leadership from the United States.

Unlike politics in the U.S., where we are easily swayed by style and sound bites, in the world of diplomacy only two things matter – the strength of your convictions and the trustworthiness of your word.  Unfortunately we have a president who possesses neither.  While it was popular during the 1992 election to dismiss Bill Clinton’s prevarications as insignificant, demanding instead that we  “stick to the issues”, his character did matter and today we are paying the price – not for a silly sexual dalliance in the White House, but for a lack of power and prestige arising entirely from the character flaws we so cavalierly disregarded six years ago.

Open Minded?

On more than one occasion I have heard a person of liberal persuasion consider themselves open minded due simply to the fact that they are liberal.  Their argument is flawed however, in that they believe the substance of their opinions, in and of themselves, demonstrate open mindedness, when in reality it is how one arrives at those opinions that is the determinant of whether one is open minded.

The ironic part of all this is that liberal opinions generally arise from emotional rather than intellectual considerations and therefore have little to do at all with “mindedness” of any sort.  This fact also helps to explain why liberal concepts are easier to sell in sound bites and general mass media.

Emotional appeals demand only a passive response; intellectual appeals demand an active response.  Emotional appeals make you feel good, happy, sad, angry or any other of a host of “emotions”, requiring no effort or action on the part of the individual.  The response is natural and immediate.  On the other hand, intellectual appeals require effort on the part of the person the appeal is directed toward.  They require one to think, consider, evaluate and extrapolate data, ideas and concepts to come to a reasonable conclusion.  This demands an active response, which is more than many people are willing to do.

Henry Ford once said, “Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably why so few people engage in it.”  Hence, the majority of people are unwilling to invest the time or effort needed to consider intellectual appeals and are instead content to react emotionally.  The emotions that conservative principles are most successful at generating are ones of anger – at welfare recipients, beneficiaries of affirmative action policies, over-reaching unions, bloated government etc.   If one does not like being angry – and most people don’t – they are likely to be repulsed by such appeals.  Yet if one makes the effort to consider the appeal intellectually – that welfare recipients will be better off and happier if they look to themselves rather than government for improvement in their lives; that we can never be a truly color-blind nation until we stop classifying and dividing ourselves by race, gender and ethnicity; that unions who strive to preserve jobs made unnecessary by technological improvements are holding wages down for everyone; that a government that cannot end the subsidy of mohair farmers (a remnant of our need for mohair during World War I) should not be allowed to decide which new technologies should be supported today – then they may come to very different conclusions about conservative appeals.

Democracy requires an active and knowledgeable electorate.  Unfortunately, we are negligent in our responsibility to learn and think.

It is wonderful to be open-hearted.  It is vital that we be open-minded as well.  We just must be willing to make the effort.

What I Believe

I believe...

1. That people must look to themselves to better their lives.  
2. The problem with thinking that government can improve your life is that you come to expect government to improve your life.  
3. We get more of what we subsidize, less of what we tax.  
4. We tax income and subisidize unemployment.  
5. That equality and liberty are diametrically opposed principles.  
6. It is easier to lose than gain new freedoms.  
7. That government has an insatiable appetite for power and control.  
8. We must fight diligently to retain our freedoms from subtle as well as blatant encroachment.  
9. The wealth of the nation consists of the sum of its' goods and services.  
10. Money is worth only what it can purchase.  
11. The forced transfer of a dollar from producer to non-producer dilutes the value of that dollar.  
12. The dilution in value of a dollar due to forced transfer increases proportionally with the percentage of total dollars transferred.  
13. We could double the number of dollars in circulation without increasing the wealth of the nation one bit.  
14. Families must provide sustenance, discipline and love to raise healthy, productive children.  
15. Government can provide sustenance and punishment (an inefficient form of discipline due to its reactive rather than proactive nature), but certainly not love.  
16. I believe you can legislate equality but not respect.  
17. I believe respect must be earned.  
18. We will not have racial harmony until there is mutual respect among the races.  
19. I believe that sometimes less is more.  
20. Statistics can lie.  
21. If people stop working, the unemployment rate goes up.  
22. If people stop looking for work, the unemployment rate goes down.  
23. If people start looking for work, the unemployment rate goes up.  
24. If people find work, the unemployment rate goes down.  
25. I believe that unemployment statistics can be twisted to mean anything.  
26. I believe that policies based upon incorrect assumptions are worse than no policy at all.  
27. I believe there were no homeless before Ronald Reagan became president.  
28. I believe there were bag ladies and bums before Ronald Reagan became president (this film clip is from 1979, a year before Reagan was elected).  
29. Drug use is at the root of most of our problems.  
30. Reducing demand for drugs will be more effective than trying to reduce supply.  
31. I believe that the death penalty for drug kingpins is not a deterrent because they have endured greater threats to their security in achieving the status of "kingpin".  
32. If we wish to penalize suppliers, we should reserve our harshest penalties for the frontline pushers in order to make the risk/reward relationship undesirable.  
33. I believe the private sector is more efficient at creating jobs than the government.  
34. Government investment should be limited to projects that are necessary for the national good.  
35. I believe that the military, courts, highway and transportation systems, the post office, law enforcement, basic scientific research and education are for the national good.  
36. I believe we need to distinguish between nice-to-have and need-to-have programs.  
37. The space station, the super-collider, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and public television are nice to have.

In Support of Two Lakota High Schools

I would like to express my support for building at least one additional high school to complement the one we already have. As a local business owner who employs a fair number of Lakota High School students, I have both a personal interest in, and first hand insight into the quality of local education.

Most of those opposed to the multiple school approach cite incremental costs and fear of "splitting" the community as their primary objections to multiple schools.  I firmly believe that the benefits of multiple schools will more than offset these potential drawbacks for several reasons.

First, the costs of operating a single mega school will most likely end up higher than estimated due to the expense of responding to the greater social ills that can come about in a large high school.  Already I hear stories of students cutting classes without fear of being caught, not to mention drug use and the presence of weapons on school property. These problems can be controlled much more easily in smaller school settings.

Second, the quality of education will be naturally improved within a smaller school setting, since fewer students will be allowed, or even tempted, to fall through the cracks. This will happen naturally as students are known on a personal level throughout the student body, faculty and administration.  Problem students thrive on anonymity, a phenomenon that increases proportionally to the size of any institution.

Third, the chance to participate in sports and extracurricular activities will increase dramatically, increasing opportunities not only for students today, but for them later in life as they move onto college and the working world.  The discipline and drive required to participate successfully in outside activities are important indicators of a student's ability.  And as much as we might wish to deny it, recruiters look more favorably upon certain extracurricular activities than others.  We should try to maximize these opportunities for our children.

Last, the fear of splitting the community is exaggerated. Yes, allegiances will be divided, especially for sports.  But dedication to the overall education system will be enhanced as our children receive top-notch educations in safe neighborhood schools, where they retain their personal identity rather than becoming numbers and statistics. I grew up in a community (Utica, Michigan) that was very similar to West Chester today.  Between 1960 and 1975 our district, covering two cities and two townships, grew from one to four high schools.  Today, as in 1960, one will find Realtors listing "Utica Schools" as a selling point.  Despite the growth and additional schools, the district  never became split, approving every levy between 1960 and 1983 when I moved away.  Athletics and academics have thrived, as have friendly rivalries.

We would all love to offer our children the best education at the lowest cost, but no option is perfect or cost-free.  Even a voucher system would simply result in public funds being used to build and staff private schools.  In the end, it is imperative that we provide our children the best education possible, for they truly are our future.  I firmly believe that minimizing the size of the school and the distance traveled to get there is the best means to that end.  To do otherwise would be shortsighted and selfish.

When 1 + 1 is Less Than Two

On July 20, Labor Secretary Robert Reich raised a question about the cause of rising employment but sinking wages in the United States.  Katha Pollitt may have answered it in her piece on July 22.  In her closing paragraph she argues that to succeed, single women need only paid parental leave, day care, flexible schedules, child support and pediatricians with evening hours.  Dual income families need many of these same services.  Each of these bear a cost that must be paid, either by the family unit or society.  In either case, purchasing power is reduced because funds must be spent to provide services traditionally provided by the family.

Is it possible that part of the reason for rising employment with overall lower average wages is at least partly due to the rise in dual income and single parent families?  The lack of a domestic worker, whose duties were once performed by the "housewife", increases the need to subcontract such functions as cooking, cleaning, and child care to non-family members.  This not only dilutes the purchasing power of the family, but also creates demand for lower wage jobs such as food servers, house cleaners, day care attendants and the like.

In no way does this suggest that women should give up their careers to assume their former roles.  It is simply to suggest that as long as there are families without a full-time parent at home, there will be demand for someone to perform the duties that were traditionally performed by moms.  Economics will not allow these to be high wage jobs, for this would strain family budgets even more.  Improved training and education may help to improve our nation's productivity, helping wages to outstrip inflation.  Yet the old adage that "two can live as cheaply as one" does not apply when the two must pay for a third.

An Open Letter to WLW's Matt Reese

Listening to your argument today with John Philips on WLW regarding the need for higher taxes, I became confused by your belief that higher taxes in the name of fairness are good, especially if they help the poor.  While I understand your desire to help the less fortunate, your approach is misguided for several reasons, which I will explain.

First, creating tax law in order to acheive "fairness" is dangerous because it tends to favor emotional choices over logical ones.  I think we would both agree that some taxes must be collected in order for the government to function. With the need for taxes a given, we must then determine how much revenue is needed, and where it should be gotten.  Would you agree that it would be best to create a tax law that obtains the maximum amount of revenue with the least harm done to the economy?  This would allow the government to operate, while providing the most opportunity to ALL Americans.

The key is to look at taxes logically, approaching it as a business would.  When choosing between investment options, a business will always try to invest where it believes it will get the greatest return for its money.  The government should do the same, though with taxes, it operates in reverse.  They should try to leave as much money as possible where it is likely to do the most good.

Now consider who creates jobs.  It is business.  You may argue that people create demand for goods which drives the job creation, but you must keep in mind the law of supply and demand.  If there is more money in the hands of consumers, yet business has been prevented from investing in plant and labor due to higher taxes, then you have higher demand, lower supply and higher prices.  On the other hand, if business has invested in producing new wealth, higher supply leads to lower prices, not to mention the jobs created in order to produce the new goods.

One of the arguments raised today regarded the luxury tax on boats, automobiles, furs, etc.  Taxes were raised on these items in the name of fairness, though virtually everyone on both sides of the political spectrum now see the gross error that was made.  Today you argued that it might have helped because the people that would have bought a Jaguar might now buy a Lincoln. However, you are missing the basic problem with the tax. While anyone purchasing these items would probably be considered wealthy, most still must budget for such a purchase.  For example, suppose someone could afford to spend $100,000 on a new boat.  Before the tax, all $100,000 would go to the boating industry.  After the tax, the same person still spends $100,000 but only 90,900 goes to the boating industry, while $9,100 goes to the government.  In effect you have instantly cut the boating industries revenues by nearly 10 percent.

Whenever industry revenues are down this much, wage cuts or layoffs almost always follow.  This hurts not the boat buyers, but the boat builders.  Making matters worse is that the laid-off workers no longer pay income taxes, wiping out the government's gain from the luxury tax.  Unemployment claims from these workers drive up the deficit further. Add in the ripple effect as these laid-off workers put off purchasing new cars, appliances, etc., and it's not long before the entire economy is in a recession.  This is exactly what happened in 1990, all in the name of fairness.

You mentioned that you would favor a flat tax, where everyone pays the same percentage, yet at the same time you favor higher taxes on the rich.  The rich now pay a higher percentage than lesser paid people.  A flat tax rate would require a tax cut for the wealthy rather than a tax increase. I would like to know how you reconcile such diametrically opposed concepts.

Another thing you said that confused me was that you believe government can invest (spend) money more wisely than private investors, yet at the same time you explain wasteful pork spending as the result of politicians making the spending decisions.  You sounded as though you could not trust congressman with handling our money wisely because their decisions are based upon political rather than economic factors.  This being the way you believe, how can you think that government can make wise spending decisions. You seemed to think that congressional spending is separate from government spending.  I would like to hear your clarification of this as well.

I know you get irritated with people who write to you rather than call, but I rarely have the time to call you.  However, I would love to discuss this issue with you.  I would ask that you consider what I have outlined and develop your own coherent response, at which point I will be more than happy to call you.  I look forward to speaking.

Bill Clinton's Free-Market Revulsion

Every time positive news about the economy has been reported since his election last November, Bill Clinton has tried to downplay the numbers as meaningless, I suppose in an effort to downplay the appropriateness of his predecessors policies or justify the need for his own. 

In either case, he appears to be trying to deny that free market policies, combined with a positive economic outlook among the public can be the most powerful source of economic growth.  Instead, he is in fact spreading gloom so that he may impose his will upon the economy. 

This is a double whammy, because it first inspires despair, then weighs the economy down with government bloat, bureaucracy and intervention.  This is like the coach whose team is on a winning streak, but makes a blockbuster trade because he feels he must contribute something to the team's success.  The result is often a downward slide in the standings for the team and a place in the unemployment line for the coach.

Bill Clinton's Cynical Welfare Reform

"Welfare Reform" is a term bandied about as though it is the answer to all our problems.  In reality, it is a term used mostly by liberal politicians as a placebo to placate (note the common root for placebo and placate) the general public that something will be done to get people off welfare and into the workforce. 

This concept was used to great effect by Bill Clinton during his presidential campaign to win support from moderate swing voters.  He liked to quote the fact that as Governor of Arkansas, he had moved 17,000 people off the welfare rolls. What he failed to mention was that during that same period over 80,000 people were added to the welfare rolls.  Does this indicate an effective program that should be duplicated at the national level.  Hardly.  In fact, Arkansas performed well below the national average during the 1980's, meaning that Bill Clinton was worse at creating jobs than Ronald Reagan, whom he has lambasted for his pathetic performance with the economy. 

Eliminating welfare dependency will be a long and painstaking project.  It will take the coordinated efforts of government leaders AND advocates for the poor and minorities to make it reality.  It is easy for comfortable, middle-class people to claim that eliminating the subsidies for non-work will solve the problem.  Such an approach can help with the physical addiction to welfare.  However, without leaders of the underprivileged encouraging self-sufficiency for those they purport to help, then we will never end the psychological addiction that the poor have developed, seeing that government assistance as their birthright. 

Until we reach that time that it becomes universally expected that each person must take responsibility for their own lives, we will always have a significant portion of our population that believe that society owes them something, when actually it is the other way around, for all of us.