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.

[Addendum: In a July 13, 2025 NY Times piece, some 21 years after this was written, conservative Christian columnist David French wrote "The G.O.P. coalition contains pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine factions, internationalists and isolationists, normie Republicans and wild conspiracy theorists." As I said above, the GOP coalition is even more diverse than the Democrats - a real irony in an era where the GOP is trying to kill DEI initiatives.]

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.