My grandmother once told me the reason she was a Democrat was because FDR ended the Great Depression. I pointed out that it wasn’t FDR, but World War II that brought an end to the Great Depression. Since we had Adolph Hitler to thank for that, by her reasoning she should have become a Nazi. She laughed and said, "Oh, you sound just like your daddy."
Such exchanges between grandmother and grandson might be rare, but unfortunately, strongly held positions based upon such faulty assumptions are not. Too often, people latch onto an idea and hold it as gospel without even allowing for the possibility that the entire premise for their argument might be wrong.
Take the recent uproar over the job market. If you were to believe the news or the political ads, you would assume that our manufacturing sector is in the toilet, all the jobs are being shipped to China and as a result the economy is worse off than it ever was under Bill Clinton.
Well, guess what. You would be wrong, wrong and wrong.
Here are the facts. According to a report from the National Center for Policy Analysis, the U.S. output of real goods as a percent of GDP is higher today than in any decade since the 1930’s. As for jobs being shipped to China, would you believe that China has fewer manufacturing jobs today than it did just a few years ago? That’s according to BusinessWeek Magazine. And here’s the real kicker – the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average unemployment rate during George Bush’s first three years in office was lower than it was during the same period under Bill Clinton (5.5% versus 6.0%).
So why all this talk about job losses? Well, part of the reason is a change in the way jobs are classified. In the past most companies handled all aspects of their business, from accounting to janitorial services. Regardless of the job description, if the company was a manufacturer, all its’ jobs were considered manufacturing jobs.
Today, many companies contract out tasks like payroll, accounting, programming and maintenance. Those employees now work for service providers and are classified as such. The jobs haven’t disappeared, they’ve just been reclassified.
Another reason for concern comes from dramatic improvements in productivity. In the short term, this causes dislocations among workers, but it eventually leads to an improved standard of living for everyone. If you don’t believe that, look back to Henry Ford’s revolutionary five dollar day. It almost single-handedly created the American middle class. But it came two years after Ford had devised the moving assembly line, which reduced the number of workers needed to assemble a car by eighty-six percent. The five dollar day would have been impossible without that improvement in productivity.
But the biggest reason that we believe the job market is in the tank comes from partisan politicians who hope that if they repeat a claim often enough, it will become ingrained as truth among voters. The danger in creating phony problems is that it opens the door to phony prescriptions that have nothing to do with solving the problem, but everything to do with fulfilling personal political agendas.
We can accept what others want us to believe, or we can choose to learn the facts for ourselves. Democracy demands that we do the latter.
3/26/2004
You Can't See Bias Through Biased Eyes
I once watched an episode of ER where a small child had been shot while playing with his mother’s gun. At the end of the episode, the child’s mother tells the doctor that she doesn’t know how to thank him for saving her son. He replies, "Get rid of the gun."
My thoughts exactly. An obvious bit of commonsense for anyone with young children. But the next day, a talk radio caller complained about the anti-gun message being pushed on ER the night before. And it suddenly hit me as to why some people see media bias so clearly where others see none.
One person’s truth is another person’s slant. To someone like me, who has no agenda whatsoever where guns are concerned, the doctor’s prescription was as innocuous as suggesting a couple of aspirin. But to someone who holds their second amendment rights dear, the advice was another example of media bias against guns.
I saw another example recently on Fox’s The O.C.. Set in California’s ritzy, Republican enclave of Orange County, everyone is rich, conniving and self-absorbed. Except for the Cohen’s, who are rich, thoughtful and benevolent. And the show’s writers have seen to it that we know that they are Democrats.
Now to those on the left, that may not appear to be bias. They have one common stereotype of the wealthy – that unless they are liberal, they must have made their fortune by lying, cheating and stealing at the expense of the little guy. To them, portraying the wealthy that way isn’t bias, it’s reality. Unfortunately, those images have been reinforced so endlessly in the movies and on TV, that they have become the conventional wisdom among much of the general public.
That is a shame, because in my experience I have yet to meet a wealthy scoundrel. Almost without exception, every successful person I know has gotten there through honest, hard work – with equal emphasis on honest and hard. Nothing more and nothing less. But you’d never know it from the movies.
Still, bias isn’t always the result of the writer or producer’s unknowing world view. Oftentimes, especially in the news media, the reasons are a bit more calculated.
TV news is especially suspect. While they claim impartiality, like everyone else they live and die with ratings. Therefore, anytime they can tell a story from an underdog’s point of view, they will.
Take the reporting on the silicone breast implant issue a few years ago. No major study was able to definitively link implants to any of the diseases women were suffering. And the media knew it.
Yet, rather than reporting the facts as they were, they chose to play up the suffering women, who were a far more compelling story. They would have them tell their tearful stories, interspersed with shots of the huge corporate complex and middle-aged executives denying responsibility. An incredibly damaging juxtaposition. No matter that Dow Corning was unjustifiably forced into bankruptcy, costing people jobs and investors billions. The women made for good TV.
So when someone says there is no bias in the media, they are wrong. It exists in both news and entertainment. If we can’t see it, it’s because we are viewing it from our own biased perspective. Just as you can’t see the color red through rose-colored glasses, you can’t see bias through biased eyes.
My thoughts exactly. An obvious bit of commonsense for anyone with young children. But the next day, a talk radio caller complained about the anti-gun message being pushed on ER the night before. And it suddenly hit me as to why some people see media bias so clearly where others see none.
One person’s truth is another person’s slant. To someone like me, who has no agenda whatsoever where guns are concerned, the doctor’s prescription was as innocuous as suggesting a couple of aspirin. But to someone who holds their second amendment rights dear, the advice was another example of media bias against guns.
I saw another example recently on Fox’s The O.C.. Set in California’s ritzy, Republican enclave of Orange County, everyone is rich, conniving and self-absorbed. Except for the Cohen’s, who are rich, thoughtful and benevolent. And the show’s writers have seen to it that we know that they are Democrats.
Now to those on the left, that may not appear to be bias. They have one common stereotype of the wealthy – that unless they are liberal, they must have made their fortune by lying, cheating and stealing at the expense of the little guy. To them, portraying the wealthy that way isn’t bias, it’s reality. Unfortunately, those images have been reinforced so endlessly in the movies and on TV, that they have become the conventional wisdom among much of the general public.
That is a shame, because in my experience I have yet to meet a wealthy scoundrel. Almost without exception, every successful person I know has gotten there through honest, hard work – with equal emphasis on honest and hard. Nothing more and nothing less. But you’d never know it from the movies.
Still, bias isn’t always the result of the writer or producer’s unknowing world view. Oftentimes, especially in the news media, the reasons are a bit more calculated.
TV news is especially suspect. While they claim impartiality, like everyone else they live and die with ratings. Therefore, anytime they can tell a story from an underdog’s point of view, they will.
Take the reporting on the silicone breast implant issue a few years ago. No major study was able to definitively link implants to any of the diseases women were suffering. And the media knew it.
Yet, rather than reporting the facts as they were, they chose to play up the suffering women, who were a far more compelling story. They would have them tell their tearful stories, interspersed with shots of the huge corporate complex and middle-aged executives denying responsibility. An incredibly damaging juxtaposition. No matter that Dow Corning was unjustifiably forced into bankruptcy, costing people jobs and investors billions. The women made for good TV.
So when someone says there is no bias in the media, they are wrong. It exists in both news and entertainment. If we can’t see it, it’s because we are viewing it from our own biased perspective. Just as you can’t see the color red through rose-colored glasses, you can’t see bias through biased eyes.
3/12/2004
What's a Billion Dollars to You?
What’s a billion dollars? Well, for most of us it’s a whole bunch of money. For others, like congressmen and senators, it’s a scrap that they treat like the loose change rattling around in my sofa. They talk about a billion for this program, ten billion for that, as if they are doling out quarters to the kids for the gumball machine.
Well, here’s another way to think of a billion dollars – it’s the equivalent of about $3.50 for every man, woman and child in the United States. Or fourteen dollars for a family of four (you can do the math – a billion divided by 280 million people). All of a sudden, a billion here, ten billion there means $14 here, $140 there for good old mom and dad. Pretty soon, you’re talking about real money. Our money.
So that means that the typical family of four will pay $5,586 this year to support our military. The House version of the proposed highway spending bill will cost about $875 annually. And we’ll pay $805 for the U.S. Department of Education.
Now that last one’s a real kicker when put into perspective. With a combined population of 78,000, West Chester and Liberty townships will send about $16 million to Washington to fund the Department of Education, but will only get back a little more than $1 million for Lakota Schools. We could have foregone the entire levy mess had we simply kept that money at home. But heaven forbid anyone suggest cutting out the Department of Education.
But if you really want a shock, look at healthcare. This year we’ll spend almost $1.7 trillion – that’s trillion with a ‘t’ – as a nation on everything from aspirin to Zoloft. That works out to a little more than $6,000 per person each year. And you wonder why health insurance costs are going up?
We’ve got a drug for everything. High cholesterol? There’s Lipitor. Heartburn? How about some Nexium? Heck, we’ll spend nearly a billion and a half dollars, or about five dollars per person, just on Viagra this year. Combined, these three drugs will cost the average American about forty dollars, or $160 per family, this year alone. And not one of them existed ten years ago.
Now I can already hear some of you saying, "But I don’t take Viagra." It doesn’t matter. We all pay one way or another through higher insurance premiums.
And the same holds true for government expenditures. We may like to think that corporations and the wealthy pay a heftier portion of taxes than we do, but trust me, we all pay. When corporate taxes or gasoline taxes or user fees go up, those costs are passed on to us in the form of higher prices, lower wages or lost jobs.
When the wealthy get taxed we lose out on their investment in the economy, which leaves us all poorer, despite what some would have us believe.
So what can we do? Well, healthcare deserves more space than I can give it here. But when it comes to government spending we must educate ourselves about how our money is being used and how much it costs us personally. And then never let Washington forget that it is our money they are spending, a billion dollars at a time.
Well, here’s another way to think of a billion dollars – it’s the equivalent of about $3.50 for every man, woman and child in the United States. Or fourteen dollars for a family of four (you can do the math – a billion divided by 280 million people). All of a sudden, a billion here, ten billion there means $14 here, $140 there for good old mom and dad. Pretty soon, you’re talking about real money. Our money.
So that means that the typical family of four will pay $5,586 this year to support our military. The House version of the proposed highway spending bill will cost about $875 annually. And we’ll pay $805 for the U.S. Department of Education.
Now that last one’s a real kicker when put into perspective. With a combined population of 78,000, West Chester and Liberty townships will send about $16 million to Washington to fund the Department of Education, but will only get back a little more than $1 million for Lakota Schools. We could have foregone the entire levy mess had we simply kept that money at home. But heaven forbid anyone suggest cutting out the Department of Education.
But if you really want a shock, look at healthcare. This year we’ll spend almost $1.7 trillion – that’s trillion with a ‘t’ – as a nation on everything from aspirin to Zoloft. That works out to a little more than $6,000 per person each year. And you wonder why health insurance costs are going up?
We’ve got a drug for everything. High cholesterol? There’s Lipitor. Heartburn? How about some Nexium? Heck, we’ll spend nearly a billion and a half dollars, or about five dollars per person, just on Viagra this year. Combined, these three drugs will cost the average American about forty dollars, or $160 per family, this year alone. And not one of them existed ten years ago.
Now I can already hear some of you saying, "But I don’t take Viagra." It doesn’t matter. We all pay one way or another through higher insurance premiums.
And the same holds true for government expenditures. We may like to think that corporations and the wealthy pay a heftier portion of taxes than we do, but trust me, we all pay. When corporate taxes or gasoline taxes or user fees go up, those costs are passed on to us in the form of higher prices, lower wages or lost jobs.
When the wealthy get taxed we lose out on their investment in the economy, which leaves us all poorer, despite what some would have us believe.
So what can we do? Well, healthcare deserves more space than I can give it here. But when it comes to government spending we must educate ourselves about how our money is being used and how much it costs us personally. And then never let Washington forget that it is our money they are spending, a billion dollars at a time.
3/01/2004
Consider The Social Security Opportunity
Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan started a firestorm last week when he warned that we face financial and economic calamity lest we cut future benefits for Social Security and Medicare. Immediately, politicians – especially from the left – began referring to the suggestion as outrageous, or worse.
Therein lies the reason that anyone under the age of forty-five who expects to see any type of Social Security payment is nuts. For there are three things certain regarding Social Security – we need to take drastic action to save it, we need to start taking that action now, and the politicians in charge will do neither.
But before we crucify Greenspan and anyone else who seems remotely intrigued by his suggestion, let’s look at the situation for the challenge and opportunity it is.
First, we know that the baby boomers – the oldest of whom are nearing sixty – will soon become a huge liability on the Social Security books. We also know that there are countless deficit demagogues who decry the fact that we are financing our lifestyle today by mortgaging our children’s future.
But that is precisely how Social Security was designed. It’s a pay-as-you go system that promises that if we pay for today’s retirees, then our children will pay for us when our time comes. The only problem is that the boomers will be passing through the system like a rodent passes through a snake – one big mass, with little following behind.
In other words, there will be more people collecting and fewer people paying. So the only solutions are to cut benefits, raise taxes or both. Those on the receiving end don’t want benefits cut because they feel entitled to them since they paid into the system their entire lives. But taxing the next generation isn’t fair either. It’s not their fault that their grandparents chose to have lots of kids, and their parents chose not to.
But this is where the opportunity comes in. With a little leadership, sacrifice and compromise we might not only save Social Security, but positively transform our society for generations to come.
Suppose we apply the concept of privatized Social Security accounts as a supplement to, rather than as a replacement for, our current system. Maintain current benefits and taxes, but require every worker to put a fixed amount, say three percent of their pay, into an untouchable personal retirement account.
Then when the person begins receiving Social Security, their SS benefit is reduced by an amount determined by the annual return on their personal investment account, say by fifty cents for every dollar the private account earns in a given year. Since the size and earnings of these accounts would be larger the longer people are paying into them, the amount of savings to the system will grow the further into the program we get.
Think of all the benefits – we start to pay for our own retirement now rather than leaving it up to our children, we reduce the burden on the system as we retire, we maintain a basic floor of benefits at the current level and we create an entire society that has an ownership stake in our nation’s economy.
Yes, we’ll have more taken out of our paychecks, but it will remain our money. And if we leave less of a burden for our children, won’t that be the best benefit of all?
Therein lies the reason that anyone under the age of forty-five who expects to see any type of Social Security payment is nuts. For there are three things certain regarding Social Security – we need to take drastic action to save it, we need to start taking that action now, and the politicians in charge will do neither.
But before we crucify Greenspan and anyone else who seems remotely intrigued by his suggestion, let’s look at the situation for the challenge and opportunity it is.
First, we know that the baby boomers – the oldest of whom are nearing sixty – will soon become a huge liability on the Social Security books. We also know that there are countless deficit demagogues who decry the fact that we are financing our lifestyle today by mortgaging our children’s future.
But that is precisely how Social Security was designed. It’s a pay-as-you go system that promises that if we pay for today’s retirees, then our children will pay for us when our time comes. The only problem is that the boomers will be passing through the system like a rodent passes through a snake – one big mass, with little following behind.
In other words, there will be more people collecting and fewer people paying. So the only solutions are to cut benefits, raise taxes or both. Those on the receiving end don’t want benefits cut because they feel entitled to them since they paid into the system their entire lives. But taxing the next generation isn’t fair either. It’s not their fault that their grandparents chose to have lots of kids, and their parents chose not to.
But this is where the opportunity comes in. With a little leadership, sacrifice and compromise we might not only save Social Security, but positively transform our society for generations to come.
Suppose we apply the concept of privatized Social Security accounts as a supplement to, rather than as a replacement for, our current system. Maintain current benefits and taxes, but require every worker to put a fixed amount, say three percent of their pay, into an untouchable personal retirement account.
Then when the person begins receiving Social Security, their SS benefit is reduced by an amount determined by the annual return on their personal investment account, say by fifty cents for every dollar the private account earns in a given year. Since the size and earnings of these accounts would be larger the longer people are paying into them, the amount of savings to the system will grow the further into the program we get.
Think of all the benefits – we start to pay for our own retirement now rather than leaving it up to our children, we reduce the burden on the system as we retire, we maintain a basic floor of benefits at the current level and we create an entire society that has an ownership stake in our nation’s economy.
Yes, we’ll have more taken out of our paychecks, but it will remain our money. And if we leave less of a burden for our children, won’t that be the best benefit of all?
2/06/2004
Defense of Marriage Act Does No Such Thing
[Note: A 2021 op-ed piece looks back at the country's attitude towards gay marriage at the time this was written.]
Remember when the federal government added a luxury tax on yachts in an effort to make the wealthy pay for their success? Instead of soaking the rich, blue-collar workers felt the sting of public policy as yacht sales fell and layoffs exploded. That is known as the law of unintended consequences – a law that government seems to have an innate ability to put in motion.
Remember when the federal government added a luxury tax on yachts in an effort to make the wealthy pay for their success? Instead of soaking the rich, blue-collar workers felt the sting of public policy as yacht sales fell and layoffs exploded. That is known as the law of unintended consequences – a law that government seems to have an innate ability to put in motion.
Now we are likely to see it in action again as we rush to protect the institution of marriage through the Defense of Marriage Act. This law, which provides no incentive to get or stay married, is somehow supposed to strengthen marriage. Ironically, it is likely to have the opposite effect as corporations work around the ban on same-sex marriages by offering domestic partner benefits, which have become quite common as companies work to recruit and retain homosexual employees. Under such programs, the live-in partner receives the same health insurance, pension and other benefits traditionally offered only to spouses. Many of Ohio’s largest employers already have such programs in place.
However, in an effort to avoid discrimination, many of these programs include both homosexual and heterosexual couples since employers do not want to be in the business of asking about sexual orientation. Thus, a man and a woman no longer need to commit to marriage in order to receive the benefits previously available only to legally-recognized spouses.
Suddenly, shacking up brings all the benefits of marriage without its legal pitfalls. Couples can live together, sleep together and share in the company retirement plan without worrying about divorce, alimony or the spouse’s credit card debts. Under such no-lose circumstances, why not simply live together for benefit purposes, even if you’re not sure you really want to commit for a lifetime. If it falls apart in a year or two, no harm done.
That is a recipe for disaster. Eventually, marriage risks becoming a quaint custom like formal business attire – sure it looks good, but a little too restricting. And just like our wardrobes, our relationships become a casual matter of convenience.
None of this would be an issue if homosexuals were allowed to formalize their relationships with the same legal commitments as heterosexuals. We would reduce both gay and straight partnerships of convenience, which is certainly in society’s long-term interest. But in our headlong rush to sweep homosexuality under the rug, we are willing to undermine the very thing we seek to protect.
Of course, permitting same-sex marriages will not strengthen our current institution of marriage. But outlawing it risks weakening it. As much as some may decry it, we live in changing times. Homosexuality is becoming much more ingrained in our culture. We can choose to invite gays to share in the customs and institutions that have served our society well for hundreds of years. Or we can shut them out and allow an alternate culture to develop where commitment is but a fleeting concept. That is a culture war we should avoid at all cost.
1/16/2004
Do We Have the Right to Take a Life?
Well, Lewis Williams is dead. He was executed recently for the 1983 murder of an elderly Cleveland woman. I guess I should feel better now. But for some reason, I don’t. Instead I feel sorrow.
It’s not because he didn’t deserve to be punished for his crime. It’s not because it took more than twenty years for the sentence to be carried out. And it’s not because he went into the death chamber kicking and screaming.
In fact, my sorrow isn’t for Lewis Williams. It is for us as a society. It concerns me that we not only feel the need to knowingly and deliberately take the life of another human being, but that we also feel we have the right to do so.
Now don’t get me wrong. These are not the thoughts of some sentimental bleeding-heart who is blind to the evil inherent in some people. I have watched trials of child killers and various other heinous criminals and found myself quietly hoping they receive the death penalty. That raw emotional desire for vengeance is a part of human nature.
But that and all the other valid arguments in support of capital punishment – deterrence, punishment, economics, closure – don’t make it right. And here’s why.
We must view human life as sacred, not because religion tells us to, but because a civilized society demands it. I do not believe that anyone has the right to determine – certainly not in a premeditated way – that another human being deserves to die. Capital punishment does precisely that.
We need not respect the individual, but we must respect the life of the individual. To do otherwise lessens the value that society places on all human life. That we would spare someone, no matter how vile they may be, is the greatest testament to the value we place on life.
I have heard the argument that we are better than “them” (the criminals), but capital punishment is not what makes us better. If anything, it lowers us a little closer to the criminal’s level. It makes a judgment that certain lives are less precious than others. As hard as it may be for us to accept, I do not believe that is our judgment to make. That decision should be left to God, and God alone.
It is based upon this belief that the argument for capital punishment on economic grounds - the “why should we pay to keep them alive” argument - is so troubling. It is precisely because we value life and are willing to bear that cost that makes us “better”. If we begin with the assumption that respect for life is paramount, then all the other arguments regarding punishment and deterrence become moot. But that is a big if. We may talk the talk, but it is another thing entirely to walk the walk.
I’m not sure I could do it. If anything were to happen to someone dear to me, I’d probably be leading the charge for vengeance. But I would hope that society would be there to restrain, rather than inflame, the animal instinct.
In the end, it is not cost, nor vengeance, nor deterrence that should guide us on this. It is respect for human life and the understanding that when it comes to ending it, we, as imperfect human beings, are not the ones to make that judgment.
It’s not because he didn’t deserve to be punished for his crime. It’s not because it took more than twenty years for the sentence to be carried out. And it’s not because he went into the death chamber kicking and screaming.
In fact, my sorrow isn’t for Lewis Williams. It is for us as a society. It concerns me that we not only feel the need to knowingly and deliberately take the life of another human being, but that we also feel we have the right to do so.
Now don’t get me wrong. These are not the thoughts of some sentimental bleeding-heart who is blind to the evil inherent in some people. I have watched trials of child killers and various other heinous criminals and found myself quietly hoping they receive the death penalty. That raw emotional desire for vengeance is a part of human nature.
But that and all the other valid arguments in support of capital punishment – deterrence, punishment, economics, closure – don’t make it right. And here’s why.
We must view human life as sacred, not because religion tells us to, but because a civilized society demands it. I do not believe that anyone has the right to determine – certainly not in a premeditated way – that another human being deserves to die. Capital punishment does precisely that.
We need not respect the individual, but we must respect the life of the individual. To do otherwise lessens the value that society places on all human life. That we would spare someone, no matter how vile they may be, is the greatest testament to the value we place on life.
I have heard the argument that we are better than “them” (the criminals), but capital punishment is not what makes us better. If anything, it lowers us a little closer to the criminal’s level. It makes a judgment that certain lives are less precious than others. As hard as it may be for us to accept, I do not believe that is our judgment to make. That decision should be left to God, and God alone.
It is based upon this belief that the argument for capital punishment on economic grounds - the “why should we pay to keep them alive” argument - is so troubling. It is precisely because we value life and are willing to bear that cost that makes us “better”. If we begin with the assumption that respect for life is paramount, then all the other arguments regarding punishment and deterrence become moot. But that is a big if. We may talk the talk, but it is another thing entirely to walk the walk.
I’m not sure I could do it. If anything were to happen to someone dear to me, I’d probably be leading the charge for vengeance. But I would hope that society would be there to restrain, rather than inflame, the animal instinct.
In the end, it is not cost, nor vengeance, nor deterrence that should guide us on this. It is respect for human life and the understanding that when it comes to ending it, we, as imperfect human beings, are not the ones to make that judgment.
12/10/2003
Campaign Finance Reform and Free Speech
Originally appeared in the Cincinnati Enquirer, December, 2003
If they ever exhume the body of Thomas Jefferson and find him laying face down, there is a good chance that he assumed that posture on December 10, 2003. That is the date that the U.S. Supreme Court drove a stake through the heart of the First Amendment by upholding a key provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that bans special interest groups from running issue ads just before an election. Old Mr. Jefferson surely rolled over in his grave.
In one fell swoop, the court sharply curtailed the meaning of free speech, as well as the right to peaceably assemble and to petition government for a redress of grievances. For what is a special interest group if not an assembly of citizens with a common cause, brought together to petition our leaders. These are basic rights that are central to a free society.
Some may argue that the attack ads that have become so commonplace are not what our founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights, but in today’s electronic age, TV and radio have replaced the town square as the primary meeting place where ideas and issues are discussed. The Court’s ruling that the Constitution does not guarantee us a place in this marketplace of opinion marks a dark day for liberty.
In a society as large and dispersed as ours, the individual voice is lost among the barrage of messages coming from all directions. But just as a chant at a crowded sporting event gives a unified voice to the masses, so does a special interest group give a voice to us as individuals. Whatever our pet cause, be it pro-life, pro-choice, the environment or social security, we multiply our impact when we come together as one. That is just as the founding fathers intended when they granted us the right to peaceably assemble and voice our opinions freely.
We have no one to blame but ourselves as we watch our liberty stripped away from us. Those that are rejoicing that special interests have had their comeuppance need to realize that the political parties and the politicians themselves still have access to vast sums of cash that they can use to fill the airwaves. That they can speak, but we are forbidden to do so, smacks of an almost Orwellian system. We risk becoming a society with a ruling class free to say whatever they want the people to hear, while we the people are excluded from the debate.
What can be done? Well, in the good old days, like-minded freedom-loving people could have united to air ads that point out the politicians who are working to dismantle our freedoms. But today, we will just have to hope our leaders have our best interests at heart. I wouldn’t count on it.
If they ever exhume the body of Thomas Jefferson and find him laying face down, there is a good chance that he assumed that posture on December 10, 2003. That is the date that the U.S. Supreme Court drove a stake through the heart of the First Amendment by upholding a key provision of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that bans special interest groups from running issue ads just before an election. Old Mr. Jefferson surely rolled over in his grave.
In one fell swoop, the court sharply curtailed the meaning of free speech, as well as the right to peaceably assemble and to petition government for a redress of grievances. For what is a special interest group if not an assembly of citizens with a common cause, brought together to petition our leaders. These are basic rights that are central to a free society.
Some may argue that the attack ads that have become so commonplace are not what our founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights, but in today’s electronic age, TV and radio have replaced the town square as the primary meeting place where ideas and issues are discussed. The Court’s ruling that the Constitution does not guarantee us a place in this marketplace of opinion marks a dark day for liberty.
In a society as large and dispersed as ours, the individual voice is lost among the barrage of messages coming from all directions. But just as a chant at a crowded sporting event gives a unified voice to the masses, so does a special interest group give a voice to us as individuals. Whatever our pet cause, be it pro-life, pro-choice, the environment or social security, we multiply our impact when we come together as one. That is just as the founding fathers intended when they granted us the right to peaceably assemble and voice our opinions freely.
We have no one to blame but ourselves as we watch our liberty stripped away from us. Those that are rejoicing that special interests have had their comeuppance need to realize that the political parties and the politicians themselves still have access to vast sums of cash that they can use to fill the airwaves. That they can speak, but we are forbidden to do so, smacks of an almost Orwellian system. We risk becoming a society with a ruling class free to say whatever they want the people to hear, while we the people are excluded from the debate.
What can be done? Well, in the good old days, like-minded freedom-loving people could have united to air ads that point out the politicians who are working to dismantle our freedoms. But today, we will just have to hope our leaders have our best interests at heart. I wouldn’t count on it.
12/05/2003
But Ain't That America
I always get a kick out of watching the opening ceremonies at the Olympics. Without knowing which nation you are watching, you can almost always guess what part of the globe they are from by their athletes' similarities in appearance. Not the United States. We are recognizable not by our similarities, but by our diversity. That subtle reminder of the success of our nation's founding creed that all men are created equal never fails to bring a lump in the throat and tears to the eyes.
Well that feeling pales in comparison to the emotions I felt when I had the privilege of attending my neighbor’s American citizenship swearing-in ceremony. If you ever need a booster-shot of national pride, I strongly suggest you attend one of these ceremonies. It is a microcosm of all that is right with America.
There were sixty-seven people, from thirty-four nations, speaking in unison as they swore allegiance to the United States. While each spoke with their own native accent, together they blended into one voice that was uniquely American. It was a voice made up of people from Canada and Mexico, China and the Ukraine, New Zealand and Cameroon. That is the true voice – and the clarion call – that is America.
For centuries, wave upon wave of immigrants have come to America seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Each new group, be they the Catholics of Ireland, the Jews of Eastern Europe or the Chinese of Asia have faced resistance and resentment. Yet each has forged ahead to build not only a better life, but a better America.
While some may decry the fact that today’s immigrants are not as European or as Christian as those in days gone by, they are just as American as their predecessors. Their energy, traditions and experiences only add spice to the American stew. And unlike those of us who are American by birth, these people are American by choice. There is a lot to be said for that.
Watch an old World War II movie sometime. Invariably, each outfit seemed to have an Italian, a Jew, an Irishman and a Pole. This was a pretty accurate reflection of our fighting forces at the time. Then consider that each of these kids was probably the son of someone not born in America. Those immigrants came here looking for a better life, then were willing to sacrifice their most precious gifts – their children – in defense of their adopted home. What more could we ask of our newest citizens?
That tradition continues. Among the new citizens at the ceremony that day were two people in uniform for the U.S. military. Here were two people already prepared to defend the liberty they had yet to fully experience.
And that brings us to the final reason people long to come to the United States. We take our freedom for granted, but for many immigrants it is a foreign concept in the truest sense. As the presiding judge pointed out, while some may have been forcibly precluded from participating in the public discourse in their former lands, here they are not only permitted, but expected to take an active role in shaping their government. I bet they will.
The ceremony closed with the judge leading everyone in the singing of God Bless America. It was only fitting. After all, this most American of songs was written by a Jewish Russian immigrant. Only in America.
Well that feeling pales in comparison to the emotions I felt when I had the privilege of attending my neighbor’s American citizenship swearing-in ceremony. If you ever need a booster-shot of national pride, I strongly suggest you attend one of these ceremonies. It is a microcosm of all that is right with America.
There were sixty-seven people, from thirty-four nations, speaking in unison as they swore allegiance to the United States. While each spoke with their own native accent, together they blended into one voice that was uniquely American. It was a voice made up of people from Canada and Mexico, China and the Ukraine, New Zealand and Cameroon. That is the true voice – and the clarion call – that is America.
For centuries, wave upon wave of immigrants have come to America seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Each new group, be they the Catholics of Ireland, the Jews of Eastern Europe or the Chinese of Asia have faced resistance and resentment. Yet each has forged ahead to build not only a better life, but a better America.
While some may decry the fact that today’s immigrants are not as European or as Christian as those in days gone by, they are just as American as their predecessors. Their energy, traditions and experiences only add spice to the American stew. And unlike those of us who are American by birth, these people are American by choice. There is a lot to be said for that.
Watch an old World War II movie sometime. Invariably, each outfit seemed to have an Italian, a Jew, an Irishman and a Pole. This was a pretty accurate reflection of our fighting forces at the time. Then consider that each of these kids was probably the son of someone not born in America. Those immigrants came here looking for a better life, then were willing to sacrifice their most precious gifts – their children – in defense of their adopted home. What more could we ask of our newest citizens?
That tradition continues. Among the new citizens at the ceremony that day were two people in uniform for the U.S. military. Here were two people already prepared to defend the liberty they had yet to fully experience.
And that brings us to the final reason people long to come to the United States. We take our freedom for granted, but for many immigrants it is a foreign concept in the truest sense. As the presiding judge pointed out, while some may have been forcibly precluded from participating in the public discourse in their former lands, here they are not only permitted, but expected to take an active role in shaping their government. I bet they will.
The ceremony closed with the judge leading everyone in the singing of God Bless America. It was only fitting. After all, this most American of songs was written by a Jewish Russian immigrant. Only in America.
11/13/2003
It's Not Always What We Think It Is
During a discussion on heredity in the eighth grade, a teacher commented that one might have a large nose if their father had one, too. A classmate turned and looked at me. Why are you looking at me, I thought. Do I have a big nose? It was a life-changing moment for a thirteen year-old kid.
Overnight, I saw myself differently, and was convinced everyone else did as well. Especially when it came to girls. I blamed every rejection, every hint of indifference on my nose. Surely, I’d be the most popular guy in school, if only I had a properly sized snout. It never crossed my mind that perhaps it was my personality or my ratty flannel shirts or a hundred other imperfections that might have made me less than the ideal catch. No, it had to be my nose.
I was reminded of this personal obsession when I read about the flap regarding the dance team at a local West Chester school. It seems that a girl was not chosen for the team, despite being considered an excellent dancer by those who know her. So the search for an explanation of this rejection began. It didn’t go on for long, because the girl in question just happens to be African-American. Naturally, the reason had to be racism.
Now don’t get me wrong. Racism most certainly exists today. I am constantly shocked by the generalizations and stereotyping that I hear from supposedly educated people. It turns my stomach and lowers my level of respect for people when I hear such talk. So I don’t deny that it exists. We are fooling ourselves if we try to state otherwise.
Still, that does not mean that every snub is due to racism. There are countless factors that go into any decision-making process, from athletics to employment. It is always very subjective. A dropped pass during tryouts, arriving two minutes late to an interview, messy hair – all can be just enough to cause someone to miss the cut.
Jumping to conclusions does no one any good. The first thing to do when life seems unfair is to look inside one’s self. Was there something I could have done differently? Did I make a mistake? If we never examine ourselves critically, we miss the opportunity to improve. Automatically placing the blame elsewhere makes us victims, rather than controllers of our own destiny.
But sometimes, life is just unfair. People make bad decisions that seem to make no sense. Heck, Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team. All he did was go out and prove his coach to be one of the biggest fools of all time. That can be the sweetest revenge.
My kids will never know the pain of racism, but they will face injustices just the same. Rather than teach them to look for someone to blame, rather than look for someone to sue, I want to teach them to pick themselves up and move on.
I have no idea if racism played any part in the decision to cut this girl from the dance team. There is no doubt that we must fight racism wherever we find it. But that does not mean that we will find it everyplace we look. And the fact that it does not exist everywhere is a very good thing.
Overnight, I saw myself differently, and was convinced everyone else did as well. Especially when it came to girls. I blamed every rejection, every hint of indifference on my nose. Surely, I’d be the most popular guy in school, if only I had a properly sized snout. It never crossed my mind that perhaps it was my personality or my ratty flannel shirts or a hundred other imperfections that might have made me less than the ideal catch. No, it had to be my nose.
I was reminded of this personal obsession when I read about the flap regarding the dance team at a local West Chester school. It seems that a girl was not chosen for the team, despite being considered an excellent dancer by those who know her. So the search for an explanation of this rejection began. It didn’t go on for long, because the girl in question just happens to be African-American. Naturally, the reason had to be racism.
Now don’t get me wrong. Racism most certainly exists today. I am constantly shocked by the generalizations and stereotyping that I hear from supposedly educated people. It turns my stomach and lowers my level of respect for people when I hear such talk. So I don’t deny that it exists. We are fooling ourselves if we try to state otherwise.
Still, that does not mean that every snub is due to racism. There are countless factors that go into any decision-making process, from athletics to employment. It is always very subjective. A dropped pass during tryouts, arriving two minutes late to an interview, messy hair – all can be just enough to cause someone to miss the cut.
Jumping to conclusions does no one any good. The first thing to do when life seems unfair is to look inside one’s self. Was there something I could have done differently? Did I make a mistake? If we never examine ourselves critically, we miss the opportunity to improve. Automatically placing the blame elsewhere makes us victims, rather than controllers of our own destiny.
But sometimes, life is just unfair. People make bad decisions that seem to make no sense. Heck, Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team. All he did was go out and prove his coach to be one of the biggest fools of all time. That can be the sweetest revenge.
My kids will never know the pain of racism, but they will face injustices just the same. Rather than teach them to look for someone to blame, rather than look for someone to sue, I want to teach them to pick themselves up and move on.
I have no idea if racism played any part in the decision to cut this girl from the dance team. There is no doubt that we must fight racism wherever we find it. But that does not mean that we will find it everyplace we look. And the fact that it does not exist everywhere is a very good thing.
10/16/2003
Hey Kobe, No Means No
I just got back from a long drive up to northern Michigan, which gave me the opportunity to listen to a lot of talk radio, where the subject of the day was the Kobe Bryant rape case. What struck me was the dichotomy between the views of male and female callers. Women, by and large, are ready to lock him up and throw away the key, while the men seem willing to give Kobe a pass because the victim should not have put herself in such a position by going to his room after giving him a tour of the hotel.
Let me say this as clearly as possible. If what has been reported is true, the women are right and the men are wrong. Certainly, Kobe Bryant is entitled to a fair trial before we convict him of anything. But in no way does a woman’s flirtatious actions open the door for any man to impose himself upon her against her will. I don’t care if the woman was doing naked handstands on the bed, if she said no to sexual intercourse, then Bryant was obligated to accept that, plain and simple.
As long as the advance is unwanted, the actions of the victim should have no bearing on the criminality of the act. It is no different than leaving your house unlocked while you are away. Perhaps it’s not something you should do, but if someone walks in and steals your TV, they are no less guilty of a crime than if they had sawed through barred windows to gain entry.
With the focus on date rape in recent years, an argument has been made that sometimes "no" means "maybe". Untrue. No means no, and men – no matter how tempted, intoxicated or enticed – need to understand and live by that. And anyone who argues otherwise is little more than an accessory after the fact, helping a criminal to escape prosecution. Not only that, but they are opening the door for future acts of violence against women by offering the potential rapist a justification for the act, when in fact, he should know beforehand that it is wrong and criminal.
To those who argue that men are somehow hormonally impaired when it comes to controlling their desires under such circumstances, I say baloney. "Not tonight, honey, I have a headache" didn’t become a running gag by accident. There are plenty of men who get into bed with their wives hoping for a little intimacy, only to be left wanting. They and the vast majority of men are more than able to control their libidos. It’s not always easy, but they respect their partners wishes.
Therein lies the crux of the matter – respect. Not only for women, but for ourselves. By respecting our ability to control our own actions, we can avoid circumstances such as in the Bryant case.
Women should not have to fear for their safety whenever they are friendly or flirtatious, nor should criminal behavior be shrugged off with a cavalier "what do you expect, boys will be boys" excuse.
I believe the men I heard calling in are in a very small minority, but they are the ones making all the noise. We need those who think otherwise to speak up and let it be known that such attitudes and behavior are unacceptable and intolerable.
Let me say this as clearly as possible. If what has been reported is true, the women are right and the men are wrong. Certainly, Kobe Bryant is entitled to a fair trial before we convict him of anything. But in no way does a woman’s flirtatious actions open the door for any man to impose himself upon her against her will. I don’t care if the woman was doing naked handstands on the bed, if she said no to sexual intercourse, then Bryant was obligated to accept that, plain and simple.
As long as the advance is unwanted, the actions of the victim should have no bearing on the criminality of the act. It is no different than leaving your house unlocked while you are away. Perhaps it’s not something you should do, but if someone walks in and steals your TV, they are no less guilty of a crime than if they had sawed through barred windows to gain entry.
With the focus on date rape in recent years, an argument has been made that sometimes "no" means "maybe". Untrue. No means no, and men – no matter how tempted, intoxicated or enticed – need to understand and live by that. And anyone who argues otherwise is little more than an accessory after the fact, helping a criminal to escape prosecution. Not only that, but they are opening the door for future acts of violence against women by offering the potential rapist a justification for the act, when in fact, he should know beforehand that it is wrong and criminal.
To those who argue that men are somehow hormonally impaired when it comes to controlling their desires under such circumstances, I say baloney. "Not tonight, honey, I have a headache" didn’t become a running gag by accident. There are plenty of men who get into bed with their wives hoping for a little intimacy, only to be left wanting. They and the vast majority of men are more than able to control their libidos. It’s not always easy, but they respect their partners wishes.
Therein lies the crux of the matter – respect. Not only for women, but for ourselves. By respecting our ability to control our own actions, we can avoid circumstances such as in the Bryant case.
Women should not have to fear for their safety whenever they are friendly or flirtatious, nor should criminal behavior be shrugged off with a cavalier "what do you expect, boys will be boys" excuse.
I believe the men I heard calling in are in a very small minority, but they are the ones making all the noise. We need those who think otherwise to speak up and let it be known that such attitudes and behavior are unacceptable and intolerable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)