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.
2/18/2005
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.
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.
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.
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.
1/26/2005
Social Security Sleight of Hand
It’s been said that there are two sides to every story. Nowhere is that more true than when trying to determine the future of Social Security. One side says Social Security is in pretty solid shape. And they’re right. The other side says Social Security is in tremendous peril. And they, too, are right.
Is it any wonder we can’t agree on what to do about it?
Understanding Social Security itself is pretty straightforward. Today’s workers pay for today’s benefits. What’s left over – and today there’s lots left over - goes into the Social Security Trust Fund, which is like a savings account that can be drawn upon when the day comes that there aren’t enough workers to pay for that day’s benefits. Simple enough.
What happens with that trust fund is where the problems arise. That’s because the trust fund isn’t put into a bank. Instead, it’s loaned to the federal government, which uses it to pay the current bills. In other words, we are spending tomorrow’s Social Security benefits to fund today’s military, highways, welfare and such.
Now, those who say Social Security is on solid ground point out that the trust fund is invested in U.S. Treasury notes and bonds, among the most secure investments around. True enough. And as long as the government makes good on it’s debts, which it always has, Social Security can probably survive another seventy-five years with just some minor tinkering. But that’s a mighty big if.
That’s because come 2018 – a mere thirteen years from now – we’ll need to start drawing from that trust fund to pay social security benefits. At that point, the federal government won’t have the trust fund to borrow from anymore. Instead, they’ll have to start paying it back. And with our government currently spending fifty percent more than it takes in, that’s like expecting a drunken sailor to pay back the twenty bucks you lent him just before shore leave.
Which begs the question – is it Social Security that needs fixing, or the federal government? Seems pretty obvious that it’s not Social Security that’s acting like the drunken sailor. So why are we focusing on it as the culprit, feeling an immediate need to partially privatize it?
For one, it’s the old sleight-of-hand trick, where the magician diverts attention elsewhere so no one notices what’s going on under the audience’s nose. In this case, they want us looking at Social Security so we don’t focus on the fiscal irresponsibility going on today.
For another, it’s like the family that keeps borrowing from their 401k to fund today’s expenses. Instead of fixing today’s budget that makes such borrowing necessary, they seek higher returns on what remains in the 401k to make up the difference. But as any investment professional will tell you, higher returns always come with higher risk.
None of this means that there isn’t a place for private investment as a component of the Social Security program. Yet as I’ve argued before, it should be as a supplement to, not a replacement for, today’s program. Such an approach will create the ownership society that the president envisions, while reducing our reliance upon Social Security.
But for now, we must be ready to bite the bullet in order to get our fiscal house in order. After all, it’s government of the people, by the people, and therefore, it’s time that we the people take responsibility for the mess we’ve allowed on our watch.
Is it any wonder we can’t agree on what to do about it?
Understanding Social Security itself is pretty straightforward. Today’s workers pay for today’s benefits. What’s left over – and today there’s lots left over - goes into the Social Security Trust Fund, which is like a savings account that can be drawn upon when the day comes that there aren’t enough workers to pay for that day’s benefits. Simple enough.
What happens with that trust fund is where the problems arise. That’s because the trust fund isn’t put into a bank. Instead, it’s loaned to the federal government, which uses it to pay the current bills. In other words, we are spending tomorrow’s Social Security benefits to fund today’s military, highways, welfare and such.
Now, those who say Social Security is on solid ground point out that the trust fund is invested in U.S. Treasury notes and bonds, among the most secure investments around. True enough. And as long as the government makes good on it’s debts, which it always has, Social Security can probably survive another seventy-five years with just some minor tinkering. But that’s a mighty big if.
That’s because come 2018 – a mere thirteen years from now – we’ll need to start drawing from that trust fund to pay social security benefits. At that point, the federal government won’t have the trust fund to borrow from anymore. Instead, they’ll have to start paying it back. And with our government currently spending fifty percent more than it takes in, that’s like expecting a drunken sailor to pay back the twenty bucks you lent him just before shore leave.
Which begs the question – is it Social Security that needs fixing, or the federal government? Seems pretty obvious that it’s not Social Security that’s acting like the drunken sailor. So why are we focusing on it as the culprit, feeling an immediate need to partially privatize it?
For one, it’s the old sleight-of-hand trick, where the magician diverts attention elsewhere so no one notices what’s going on under the audience’s nose. In this case, they want us looking at Social Security so we don’t focus on the fiscal irresponsibility going on today.
For another, it’s like the family that keeps borrowing from their 401k to fund today’s expenses. Instead of fixing today’s budget that makes such borrowing necessary, they seek higher returns on what remains in the 401k to make up the difference. But as any investment professional will tell you, higher returns always come with higher risk.
None of this means that there isn’t a place for private investment as a component of the Social Security program. Yet as I’ve argued before, it should be as a supplement to, not a replacement for, today’s program. Such an approach will create the ownership society that the president envisions, while reducing our reliance upon Social Security.
But for now, we must be ready to bite the bullet in order to get our fiscal house in order. After all, it’s government of the people, by the people, and therefore, it’s time that we the people take responsibility for the mess we’ve allowed on our watch.
1/20/2005
Kelly's Choice
Kelly O. must make a decision every morning about how to get to school. As a student within Lakota’s new “no bus zone,” she can opt for the longer mile-plus walk along busy side streets, dodging the early-morning commuters preoccupied with radios, cell phones, coffee and makeup. Or she can take the shorter, quieter route past the home of a registered sex offender.
Kelly is six.
A first-grader with big blue eyes, Kelly doesn’t understand why the bus doesn’t take her to school anymore. She doesn’t know why the grown-ups around her believe they have better things to spend their money on. I wish I could explain what is so important that we make her walk that road.
Kelly is an innocent victim of an electorate understandably tired of higher taxes, but one that is lashing out at the wrong target. Unfortunately, she and all the district’s other children get caught in the crosshairs as voters take aim at schools they see as wasteful.
It’s too bad, because Lakota has been extremely responsible with their finances (and anyone who reads this column knows I’d be the first to holler if I thought otherwise). But don’t take my word for it, consider the facts.
For one, Lakota’s cost per student is well below the state average. For all the talk of overpaid administrators, Lakota not only has fewer administrators per student, but pays them less on average than comparably-sized districts. The same holds true for teachers. Yet it consistently receives an “Excellent” rating from the state for it’s educational performance. That’s not wasteful, that’s called getting your money’s worth.
Regarding schools that have been called too extravagant, the newest ones – VanGorden Elementary and Lakota Plains Junior – were built for twenty-five and thirty-five percent less per student respectively than the state average. The cost per square foot – which is the best way to gauge wasteful spending – was a combined twenty-two percent below average. That’s performance to be applauded, not derided.
And for those who think the district should downsize just as a business would, they already have. Long before the first levy failure, they approved more than $3 million in cuts when they froze hiring and administrative pay, reduced overtime and outsourced services. Then came the levy defeats and another $4 million in cuts. Cuts that go to the heart of our school system – reduced bus service, fewer advanced placement courses, increased class sizes, reductions in textbook purchases.
But there is a limit to how much the schools can follow a business restructuring model since schools struggle due to growing enrollment rather than a declining customer base. Whereas struggling businesses can close unneeded plants and cut excess capacity, struggling schools must instead add capacity.
This is not a game of chicken, where we wait for one side to blink. The need is real. Each month, nearly two classrooms worth of students are added to our already overcrowded schools. We cannot wait for a state that is $4 billion in the red to come to our rescue. Instead, we must take responsibility ourselves.
I hate taxes. But this levy will cost me about a dollar a day. If that’s what I have to sacrifice to put Kelly and her classmates back on the bus, I can find the money. For we’ll not only put them back on the bus, but on the road to a brighter future.
Kelly is six.
A first-grader with big blue eyes, Kelly doesn’t understand why the bus doesn’t take her to school anymore. She doesn’t know why the grown-ups around her believe they have better things to spend their money on. I wish I could explain what is so important that we make her walk that road.
Kelly is an innocent victim of an electorate understandably tired of higher taxes, but one that is lashing out at the wrong target. Unfortunately, she and all the district’s other children get caught in the crosshairs as voters take aim at schools they see as wasteful.
It’s too bad, because Lakota has been extremely responsible with their finances (and anyone who reads this column knows I’d be the first to holler if I thought otherwise). But don’t take my word for it, consider the facts.
For one, Lakota’s cost per student is well below the state average. For all the talk of overpaid administrators, Lakota not only has fewer administrators per student, but pays them less on average than comparably-sized districts. The same holds true for teachers. Yet it consistently receives an “Excellent” rating from the state for it’s educational performance. That’s not wasteful, that’s called getting your money’s worth.
Regarding schools that have been called too extravagant, the newest ones – VanGorden Elementary and Lakota Plains Junior – were built for twenty-five and thirty-five percent less per student respectively than the state average. The cost per square foot – which is the best way to gauge wasteful spending – was a combined twenty-two percent below average. That’s performance to be applauded, not derided.
And for those who think the district should downsize just as a business would, they already have. Long before the first levy failure, they approved more than $3 million in cuts when they froze hiring and administrative pay, reduced overtime and outsourced services. Then came the levy defeats and another $4 million in cuts. Cuts that go to the heart of our school system – reduced bus service, fewer advanced placement courses, increased class sizes, reductions in textbook purchases.
But there is a limit to how much the schools can follow a business restructuring model since schools struggle due to growing enrollment rather than a declining customer base. Whereas struggling businesses can close unneeded plants and cut excess capacity, struggling schools must instead add capacity.
This is not a game of chicken, where we wait for one side to blink. The need is real. Each month, nearly two classrooms worth of students are added to our already overcrowded schools. We cannot wait for a state that is $4 billion in the red to come to our rescue. Instead, we must take responsibility ourselves.
I hate taxes. But this levy will cost me about a dollar a day. If that’s what I have to sacrifice to put Kelly and her classmates back on the bus, I can find the money. For we’ll not only put them back on the bus, but on the road to a brighter future.
12/29/2004
Why We Take It Out On the Schools
The search is on in Cincinnati to explain why eight of the ten local area school levies failed last week. Some are claiming the schools are spending unwisely, others say they have enough money already. But I would argue that there is another factor at work – one that has its roots in consumer behavior.
A recent book entitled Trading Up explains seemingly contradictory spending patterns that have given rise to the success of retailers as varied as Wal-Mart and Williams-Sonoma. At first glance, logic would assume that one caters to lower-income people, while the other to the better off. But that’s not necessarily the case.
The authors point out that one complements the other. People of all demographics have traded down in some areas, choosing to buy low-cost staples at discount stores, in order to reward themselves with selected luxury items from higher-end retailers.
It’s really quite simple. They save money where they can so they can spend more where they want.
That, I believe, is what is going on with the school levy defeats. Consumers, a.k.a. taxpayers, are choosing to save money on taxes so they can spend their money elsewhere. Rarely do they get a chance to vote directly on taxes, but when they do, they are increasingly saying no. Unfortunately, it’s our schools that take the hit, since they’re the ones who have to go directly to the taxpayer.
It’s not that voters are opposed to schools, but they are opposed to taxes. Which is why I argue so often that every government must remember they do not operate in a vacuum. Any dollar they spend is a dollar taken from somewhere else.
And it’s not just taken from one department and given to another. It crosses jurisdictional lines, both public and private. That’s because government is competing with everyone else for the public’s money.
So when the state, county, city or township spends a dollar on roads or police or parks, that is a dollar not available to be spent on schools or libraries or cars or clothes or travel or whatever else the taxpayer might have chosen to spend it on. And once the consumer feels their budget line-item marked “taxes” has reached its limit, they’ll simply shut off the spigot when given the chance – no matter what the money would go for.
That’s why I believe if government officials at every level – local, county, state and federal – truly cared about education, they would be ever so judicious in spending the public’s tax dollars.
It may not be right, but the voter will look at wasteful spending – say an expensive new state government office building – and lash out by saying no to the schools. Politicians can argue that’s irrational, but then again, Philadelphia fans once booed Santa Claus at halftime because the Eagles were playing badly. Likewise, voters take out their frustrations on whatever target is available.
They have plenty of reasons to feel frustrated. We have the federal government running record deficits, the state of Ohio raised the sales tax by 20 percent last year and local governments are spending revenue raised through creative financing schemes. The taxpayer is not amused. So they trade down the only chance they get – when the schools ask for money. And the real spenders continue happily on their way, oblivious to the carnage they leave in their wake.
A recent book entitled Trading Up explains seemingly contradictory spending patterns that have given rise to the success of retailers as varied as Wal-Mart and Williams-Sonoma. At first glance, logic would assume that one caters to lower-income people, while the other to the better off. But that’s not necessarily the case.
The authors point out that one complements the other. People of all demographics have traded down in some areas, choosing to buy low-cost staples at discount stores, in order to reward themselves with selected luxury items from higher-end retailers.
It’s really quite simple. They save money where they can so they can spend more where they want.
That, I believe, is what is going on with the school levy defeats. Consumers, a.k.a. taxpayers, are choosing to save money on taxes so they can spend their money elsewhere. Rarely do they get a chance to vote directly on taxes, but when they do, they are increasingly saying no. Unfortunately, it’s our schools that take the hit, since they’re the ones who have to go directly to the taxpayer.
It’s not that voters are opposed to schools, but they are opposed to taxes. Which is why I argue so often that every government must remember they do not operate in a vacuum. Any dollar they spend is a dollar taken from somewhere else.
And it’s not just taken from one department and given to another. It crosses jurisdictional lines, both public and private. That’s because government is competing with everyone else for the public’s money.
So when the state, county, city or township spends a dollar on roads or police or parks, that is a dollar not available to be spent on schools or libraries or cars or clothes or travel or whatever else the taxpayer might have chosen to spend it on. And once the consumer feels their budget line-item marked “taxes” has reached its limit, they’ll simply shut off the spigot when given the chance – no matter what the money would go for.
That’s why I believe if government officials at every level – local, county, state and federal – truly cared about education, they would be ever so judicious in spending the public’s tax dollars.
It may not be right, but the voter will look at wasteful spending – say an expensive new state government office building – and lash out by saying no to the schools. Politicians can argue that’s irrational, but then again, Philadelphia fans once booed Santa Claus at halftime because the Eagles were playing badly. Likewise, voters take out their frustrations on whatever target is available.
They have plenty of reasons to feel frustrated. We have the federal government running record deficits, the state of Ohio raised the sales tax by 20 percent last year and local governments are spending revenue raised through creative financing schemes. The taxpayer is not amused. So they trade down the only chance they get – when the schools ask for money. And the real spenders continue happily on their way, oblivious to the carnage they leave in their wake.
12/22/2004
A Mother's Lesson: Joanne L. Szydlowski, July 30, 1932 - December 18, 2002
Please excuse my self-indulgence, but I think there’s a nice lesson here.
It begins with a story my mom often tried to tell, but couldn’t because she’d choke up in laughter. It was about the time she swore she saw a UFO around 2 a.m. then decided she had to call the newspaper and break the news. Calling the number in her Rolodex for the Detroit Free Press, she breathlessly told her story, only to be rebuffed by a grumpy voice on the other end.
“Gee, lady, that’s great.” Click. End of conversation.
She couldn’t understand the paper’s utter disinterest until my dad checked the number. “Honey,” he said grinning, “you just woke up the paperboy.”
That was my mom, always finding herself in some sort of Lucy Ricardo-style misadventure. And laughing uncontrollably about it afterward. No matter how bad the situation, she always figured it would make a good story someday. Which was fortunate, because life gave her lots of opportunities for good stories.
As the youngest of five from a broken home, she was shuffled from one Detroit foster home to another during the Great Depression. Along the way, she witnessed the death of a crying infant at the hands of one physically abusive foster mother, was sent packing by a second foster family when, despite her prayers, they chose to adopt another child instead of her and spent one winter making the long, cold walk across the Ambassador Bridge from Canada to Detroit to get to school. This all before she finished second grade.
Eventually, she was hired out as a live-in mother’s helper for another family. Her first Christmas there she got up excitedly in the middle of the night to look at the presents under the tree. Discovering that none were for her, she quietly opened and looked at each gift, then carefully rewrapped them and went back to bed. She was ten years-old.
But she never complained. Instead she found the humor. Car troubles, sledding mishaps, ill-advised K-Mart Blue Light Special purchases – all brought on tear-inducing laughter. Ask anyone who knew her and they’ll remember two things – her ready willingness to laugh at herself and her ability to make anyone and everyone feel special.
It was a wonderful gift all too rare in this age of talk show psychotherapy, where every childhood slight is an excuse for adult angst. And it was a gift she readily shared.
We buried my mom two years ago today. Among the hundreds of friends and family at the funeral was one quiet young man no one had seen before. He was keeping to himself at the luncheon following the service. Curious, my dad asked him what had brought him there.
It turned out that mom had spotted him sitting alone at another church function several years earlier. She had come over and spent about an hour chatting and laughing. In that short time, she had made him feel so welcome that when he heard she had died, he just had to pay his last respects.
As my dad related this to us, choking up he said, “That was your mom.”
Yes it was. A simple woman with a simple gift, doing her small part to spread joy and goodwill. And the lesson? Life really is what you choose to make it. Choose well.
It begins with a story my mom often tried to tell, but couldn’t because she’d choke up in laughter. It was about the time she swore she saw a UFO around 2 a.m. then decided she had to call the newspaper and break the news. Calling the number in her Rolodex for the Detroit Free Press, she breathlessly told her story, only to be rebuffed by a grumpy voice on the other end.
“Gee, lady, that’s great.” Click. End of conversation.
She couldn’t understand the paper’s utter disinterest until my dad checked the number. “Honey,” he said grinning, “you just woke up the paperboy.”
That was my mom, always finding herself in some sort of Lucy Ricardo-style misadventure. And laughing uncontrollably about it afterward. No matter how bad the situation, she always figured it would make a good story someday. Which was fortunate, because life gave her lots of opportunities for good stories.
As the youngest of five from a broken home, she was shuffled from one Detroit foster home to another during the Great Depression. Along the way, she witnessed the death of a crying infant at the hands of one physically abusive foster mother, was sent packing by a second foster family when, despite her prayers, they chose to adopt another child instead of her and spent one winter making the long, cold walk across the Ambassador Bridge from Canada to Detroit to get to school. This all before she finished second grade.
Eventually, she was hired out as a live-in mother’s helper for another family. Her first Christmas there she got up excitedly in the middle of the night to look at the presents under the tree. Discovering that none were for her, she quietly opened and looked at each gift, then carefully rewrapped them and went back to bed. She was ten years-old.
But she never complained. Instead she found the humor. Car troubles, sledding mishaps, ill-advised K-Mart Blue Light Special purchases – all brought on tear-inducing laughter. Ask anyone who knew her and they’ll remember two things – her ready willingness to laugh at herself and her ability to make anyone and everyone feel special.
It was a wonderful gift all too rare in this age of talk show psychotherapy, where every childhood slight is an excuse for adult angst. And it was a gift she readily shared.
We buried my mom two years ago today. Among the hundreds of friends and family at the funeral was one quiet young man no one had seen before. He was keeping to himself at the luncheon following the service. Curious, my dad asked him what had brought him there.
It turned out that mom had spotted him sitting alone at another church function several years earlier. She had come over and spent about an hour chatting and laughing. In that short time, she had made him feel so welcome that when he heard she had died, he just had to pay his last respects.
As my dad related this to us, choking up he said, “That was your mom.”
Yes it was. A simple woman with a simple gift, doing her small part to spread joy and goodwill. And the lesson? Life really is what you choose to make it. Choose well.
12/10/2004
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.
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.
12/01/2004
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)