Amidst the din of debate over the use of religious imagery in public "Holiday" (shall we change this word since it originally meant "holy-day"?) celebrations, a simple idea can escape our attention. This virtue is so powerful, it can change a person overnight and our world in a generation.
In historical order, every tradtion affirms this virtue.
In 164 BC, a rag-tag group of Jewish insugents defeated the larger armies of the Empire and restored pure worship in the Jerusalem Temple. The Menorah keep burning for eight days in spite of being empty of oil. The miracle of Channukah lives on in millions of Jewish homes.
A Child is born in barn, adored by lowly shepherds, heralded by angels and nurtured by a teenage Mother astounded by her role. Our very notion of history changes and billions affirm "peace on earth" every year.
Kwanza is a recent invention of African-Americans, but it does reach back to traditional celebrations of harvest and gratitude. Farmers of every culture and geography know that their labor can only do so much - they depend upon the right mix of rain and sun to bring bounty to the community.
What is this universal virtue? What is this radical idea that will change the world? It is humility, the simple reality that we are not the measure of all things and must bow to the One from whom our very breath comes as a gift.
Humility is the pathway to honor. When we consider others' needs before our own, we discover inner joy and we receive far more in return. Humility points us to a hope that reaches beyond our immediate gratification. Humility esteems other perspectives and persons without unhealthy self-abnegation. New insights and strategies on any number of issues are possible when our egos are in check.
Imagine a world with just a bit more humility. Families will argue less because children and spouses do not have to be "right" to be accepted and loved. Political demagoguery is abated as the issues are examined with a view to the long-term and not just the next election. Developers and environmentalists might realize that ecology and economics are rooted in the same word for stewardship of our planet.
Let's allow Christmas to be a public word, along with the Menorah and any other symbols that point our human family to humility and hope.
For myself, I will continue to chime, "Merry Christmas" to all I meet. If I find our someone who does not share my religious joy, I will find another way to be inclusive. Let's not muzzle the delight of this Season with fears that are more rigid than the ideas we are afraid of!
May this Advent Season be the dawn of a new humility in all your hearts!
PS - My new book, The Power of Faithful Focus, makes a great gift and affirms this pathway of humble hope.
Friday, December 03, 2004
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Real Integrity is Hard to Find
The war of words regarding "values" will continue for months and years ahead as crackpots, pundits, and serious thinkers ponder the 2004 election.
The Bush victory was not a mandate for "Jesusland" and America is far more complex than "Red" vs. "Blue".
The word integrity is used so often that it has been stripped of its original power. Integrity is linked with integration. Integration is a state in which all the parts of a system work together. Sometimes words like "synergy" or "synchronicity" are used as comparisons.
Over time the term integrity has come to mean wholeness of character, a union of motive and action, word and deed that deems an individual to be trustworthy and deserving of respect.
I want to bring these two concepts together and suggest that both conservatives and liberals have much to consider if they are going to be individuals and/or movements with integrity.
Integrity means that the head, heart and hands are united in pursuit of good that goes beyond immediate hedonism or political advantage.
My liberal friends, if you want to claim integrity, you must...
Realize that people are complex creatures and most of them believe in God and moral absolutes, even if they do not always practice what they preach.
The resources you want to allocate to social programs come from hard-working people who merit an accounting for how they are spent. The fact that a large percentage of welfare dollars support middle-class, college-educated government officials grates on the nerves of business leaders.
Understand that America will never be fully loved or trusted by nations and groups that simultaneously envy, hate and seek to undermine her role in the world. Decisions can not be based on the self-interests of nations that despise us!
Recognize that most people are uncomfortable with abortion-as-birth-control and homosexual relationships that want to be called marriages. This is not intolerance and homophobia; it is part of the transcendent morality that goes back 3000 years.
OK, time for conservatives to...
Stop gloating and continuing in the self-deception that 2004 is a mandate to turn to the right on all issues.
Articulate a compassionate conservativism that offers opportunity for the poor to get the help they need to become self-reliant instead of being condescended to by government plutocrats or media demagogues.
Craft policies that allow for less-than-perfect world while recognizing permanent values. Allowing state-by-state civil unions is one such step. Allowing abortion to save the mother's physical life is another.
Get real about the immigration and security challenges we face and work with the other side to solve the "illegals" problem. Are you willing to accept short-term sacrifice of profits from illegal labor in order to establish the rule of law and new worker's visas?
Stop the budgetary chaos and REALLY curb spending, including overbloated defense programs.
There is more both sides need to think about, but integrity does not come pre-packaged and microwavable...it is carefully pursued and has to simmer for a long time. But the flavor of the final product is worth the time!
The Bush victory was not a mandate for "Jesusland" and America is far more complex than "Red" vs. "Blue".
The word integrity is used so often that it has been stripped of its original power. Integrity is linked with integration. Integration is a state in which all the parts of a system work together. Sometimes words like "synergy" or "synchronicity" are used as comparisons.
Over time the term integrity has come to mean wholeness of character, a union of motive and action, word and deed that deems an individual to be trustworthy and deserving of respect.
I want to bring these two concepts together and suggest that both conservatives and liberals have much to consider if they are going to be individuals and/or movements with integrity.
Integrity means that the head, heart and hands are united in pursuit of good that goes beyond immediate hedonism or political advantage.
My liberal friends, if you want to claim integrity, you must...
Realize that people are complex creatures and most of them believe in God and moral absolutes, even if they do not always practice what they preach.
The resources you want to allocate to social programs come from hard-working people who merit an accounting for how they are spent. The fact that a large percentage of welfare dollars support middle-class, college-educated government officials grates on the nerves of business leaders.
Understand that America will never be fully loved or trusted by nations and groups that simultaneously envy, hate and seek to undermine her role in the world. Decisions can not be based on the self-interests of nations that despise us!
Recognize that most people are uncomfortable with abortion-as-birth-control and homosexual relationships that want to be called marriages. This is not intolerance and homophobia; it is part of the transcendent morality that goes back 3000 years.
OK, time for conservatives to...
Stop gloating and continuing in the self-deception that 2004 is a mandate to turn to the right on all issues.
Articulate a compassionate conservativism that offers opportunity for the poor to get the help they need to become self-reliant instead of being condescended to by government plutocrats or media demagogues.
Craft policies that allow for less-than-perfect world while recognizing permanent values. Allowing state-by-state civil unions is one such step. Allowing abortion to save the mother's physical life is another.
Get real about the immigration and security challenges we face and work with the other side to solve the "illegals" problem. Are you willing to accept short-term sacrifice of profits from illegal labor in order to establish the rule of law and new worker's visas?
Stop the budgetary chaos and REALLY curb spending, including overbloated defense programs.
There is more both sides need to think about, but integrity does not come pre-packaged and microwavable...it is carefully pursued and has to simmer for a long time. But the flavor of the final product is worth the time!
Thursday, November 11, 2004
No Mourning Here
Yassar Arafat is dead. This is a tragedy only for his immediate family. For the Palestinians, trapped in a prison of hatred and poverty, this is good news. Arafat was the leading terrorist of the second half of the 20th century and the major obstacle to peace with Israel. He missed every opportunity offered to create an independent Palestine.
In 1978, 1992 and as late as 2000 their were occasions for hope - and each was sabotaged by Arafat's unwillingness to compromise even one scintilla.
The problem in the Middle East is not right-wing paranoia in Israel or a lack of creativity from the USA. The real issue is that Arafat could never univocally support Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation side-by-side with a Palestinian state.
Few in the intelligensia want to hear the truth about Arafat's Nazi-inspired upbringing, the creation of the Palestinian "national" myth and Arafat's refusal to consider seriously living at peace with Israel.
Arafat deserves a place of torment next to Hitler, Satlin, Mao, Pol Pot, assorted Eastern European Communist leaders, and living tyrants such as Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
Arafat and his willing Arab accomplices are to blame for the seething cauldron that is Gaza and the West Bank. The truth is that most of Arab states do not want a peaceful resolution with Israel. They need an enemy such as the Jews. The Arab refugee camps are a safety valve for the radicalism that threatens there own autocracies!
I will not mourn this death. As a man of faith I can pray that Arafat realized his depravity and made peace with his Maker before he breathed his last.
I will not celebrate his death - there are too many dead Israelis and Palestinian Arabs that deserve my tears.
There is no mourning here today, but there is a flicker of hope in my geopolitical soul. After the next few weeks of infighting, we can hope for a voice of reason to emerge from the chaos and willingly sit down and negotiate in good faith.
This new voice will need a powerful shield. The moment any Arab talks real peace with Israel, the assassins are not far behind.
Let's can the rhetoric of U.N. resolutions and "Zionizt racism"(That is an oxymoron, since Israelis hail from scores of countries and ethnicities.) What we need is a statesman willing to renounce terrorism, accept Israel's rightful place and commit to a democratic Palestine. A tall order, but not impossible. The EU and USA would offer massive support and even Israel would breathe easier. More importantly, millions in poverty and hopelessness can have a future.
No mourning here - just a prayer for hope.
In 1978, 1992 and as late as 2000 their were occasions for hope - and each was sabotaged by Arafat's unwillingness to compromise even one scintilla.
The problem in the Middle East is not right-wing paranoia in Israel or a lack of creativity from the USA. The real issue is that Arafat could never univocally support Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation side-by-side with a Palestinian state.
Few in the intelligensia want to hear the truth about Arafat's Nazi-inspired upbringing, the creation of the Palestinian "national" myth and Arafat's refusal to consider seriously living at peace with Israel.
Arafat deserves a place of torment next to Hitler, Satlin, Mao, Pol Pot, assorted Eastern European Communist leaders, and living tyrants such as Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
Arafat and his willing Arab accomplices are to blame for the seething cauldron that is Gaza and the West Bank. The truth is that most of Arab states do not want a peaceful resolution with Israel. They need an enemy such as the Jews. The Arab refugee camps are a safety valve for the radicalism that threatens there own autocracies!
I will not mourn this death. As a man of faith I can pray that Arafat realized his depravity and made peace with his Maker before he breathed his last.
I will not celebrate his death - there are too many dead Israelis and Palestinian Arabs that deserve my tears.
There is no mourning here today, but there is a flicker of hope in my geopolitical soul. After the next few weeks of infighting, we can hope for a voice of reason to emerge from the chaos and willingly sit down and negotiate in good faith.
This new voice will need a powerful shield. The moment any Arab talks real peace with Israel, the assassins are not far behind.
Let's can the rhetoric of U.N. resolutions and "Zionizt racism"(That is an oxymoron, since Israelis hail from scores of countries and ethnicities.) What we need is a statesman willing to renounce terrorism, accept Israel's rightful place and commit to a democratic Palestine. A tall order, but not impossible. The EU and USA would offer massive support and even Israel would breathe easier. More importantly, millions in poverty and hopelessness can have a future.
No mourning here - just a prayer for hope.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
A Mandate for Sanity
The 2004 election is over. As pundits reflect, candidates relax and a weary electorate wonders who will leave the island on "Survivor", it is a good moment to consider what the results mean.
We are a polyglot nation, not a deeply divided citizenry. As a people we do not like to be shoved into neat little categories and voting blocks.
We voted for security and intuitive values, while remaining distressed over Iraq and our economic future.
We upheld the sacredness of marriage but (I think ignorantly) funded embryonic stem cell mythology.
We stuck out out tongues at the media elite of two coasts while going to their movies and downloading their music in large numbers.
In the end, it came down to a gut-check and most Americans went with what they thought was a safer choice.
President Bush does not have a mandate to push a rightist social agenda or expand international militarism. He DOES have the nation's blessing to bring Iraq to reasonable stability, pursue terrorists abroad and help stabilize our economy and social programs without increasing government intrusion or largesse.
On a lighter note, Middle America did not want a loose cannon like Teresa Heinz-Kerry in the White House.
We are a polyglot nation, not a deeply divided citizenry. As a people we do not like to be shoved into neat little categories and voting blocks.
We voted for security and intuitive values, while remaining distressed over Iraq and our economic future.
We upheld the sacredness of marriage but (I think ignorantly) funded embryonic stem cell mythology.
We stuck out out tongues at the media elite of two coasts while going to their movies and downloading their music in large numbers.
In the end, it came down to a gut-check and most Americans went with what they thought was a safer choice.
President Bush does not have a mandate to push a rightist social agenda or expand international militarism. He DOES have the nation's blessing to bring Iraq to reasonable stability, pursue terrorists abroad and help stabilize our economy and social programs without increasing government intrusion or largesse.
On a lighter note, Middle America did not want a loose cannon like Teresa Heinz-Kerry in the White House.
Friday, October 22, 2004
The War Within Ourselves
As I ponder the paucity of intellectual rigor in the public square and the manifold degrees of separation between media reality and the unvarnished truth, I come to a startling conclusion.
The conflict in our nation is not between Democrat and Republican, Conservative and Liberal or even Progressive and Traditional franchises. All of these parties have legitimate points of debate and genuine issues that must be addressed.
The real issue is the war within the American soul - and even more pointedly, in the soul of each American.
Are we listening to the deep, reasonate voice of conscience and making decisions for the greater good of our community and future, or are we merely going with today's hedonistic flow of "feel good now" and shun the consequences?
Are we ready to consider new ways of resolving real issues in a considerate and deliberate manner, or do we simply dismiss any contrary opinion and research as invalid because it is contrary to our ideology?
Do we have an appreciation for our history and the hope it can engender, or do we dismiss the past and randomly amble to an uncertain future?
Parents, is the character and integrity of your children of paramount importance, or do your egos demand so much stroking that you work impossible hours?
Adult children, are you going to remain a victim of your parent's inadequacies or decide to be people of faith, focus and follow-through, choosing a better future and forgiving your parents' past errors?
Please vote! Please keep (with civility) arguing your politcal agendas...but take a moment and ponder the war within and consider the higher ideals, the "First Things" that have always renewed the human spirit.
America's soul is found in the soul of each American - it is our choice...
The conflict in our nation is not between Democrat and Republican, Conservative and Liberal or even Progressive and Traditional franchises. All of these parties have legitimate points of debate and genuine issues that must be addressed.
The real issue is the war within the American soul - and even more pointedly, in the soul of each American.
Are we listening to the deep, reasonate voice of conscience and making decisions for the greater good of our community and future, or are we merely going with today's hedonistic flow of "feel good now" and shun the consequences?
Are we ready to consider new ways of resolving real issues in a considerate and deliberate manner, or do we simply dismiss any contrary opinion and research as invalid because it is contrary to our ideology?
Do we have an appreciation for our history and the hope it can engender, or do we dismiss the past and randomly amble to an uncertain future?
Parents, is the character and integrity of your children of paramount importance, or do your egos demand so much stroking that you work impossible hours?
Adult children, are you going to remain a victim of your parent's inadequacies or decide to be people of faith, focus and follow-through, choosing a better future and forgiving your parents' past errors?
Please vote! Please keep (with civility) arguing your politcal agendas...but take a moment and ponder the war within and consider the higher ideals, the "First Things" that have always renewed the human spirit.
America's soul is found in the soul of each American - it is our choice...
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Hippocrates and Elections
In the old Hippocratic Oath, one of the key lines is, "First, do no harm." As a thoughtful voter, it is increasingly difficult to get excited about the B-grade drama being played out on all levels.
Do I vote for a veteran I do not trust who champions freedom to destroy embryonic life or a silver spoon scion who refuses to protect our borders?
Do I help place in the White House a husband and wife who "think globally" at the expense of national interests or someone mismanaging our war on terror?
Do I elect someone ready to tax me for increased government inefficiency or a man beholden to large economic interests?
The list could go on...
I will remeber Hippocrates and choose life and vote for the incumbent and pray that he will actually do something to correct our terrible economic and immigration imbalances. The alternative is a brave new world I find even more discouraging.
I promise to be more cheerful next time!
My new book is out: The Power of Faithful Focus
Do I vote for a veteran I do not trust who champions freedom to destroy embryonic life or a silver spoon scion who refuses to protect our borders?
Do I help place in the White House a husband and wife who "think globally" at the expense of national interests or someone mismanaging our war on terror?
Do I elect someone ready to tax me for increased government inefficiency or a man beholden to large economic interests?
The list could go on...
I will remeber Hippocrates and choose life and vote for the incumbent and pray that he will actually do something to correct our terrible economic and immigration imbalances. The alternative is a brave new world I find even more discouraging.
I promise to be more cheerful next time!
My new book is out: The Power of Faithful Focus
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Questions for a Hot August Night
The current election season is in full swing and the "spin doctors" are hard at work explaining the explanations of their candidates.
As a historian (who is allowed to dwell in any century at any time!), I know that there are no "good ol' days." I do long, however, for the spirit of Harry Truman to alight on our politicians so that we can at least enjoy some honest, plain-spoken words.
What was Senator Kerry's real record in Vietnam? Do we invalidate the word of over 200 soldiers close to the scene?
What are the oil interests close to Dick Cheney? And why is the Bush administration so hesitant to confront the Saudis about their support of terrorism?
Why is Bill Cosby vilified for criticizing bad parenting among African Americans? What happened to the ethics of Booker T. Washington and Dr. Martin Luther King?
Why are so many of the vocal advocates of "traditional values"living a lie with their personal affairs?
How can the United Nations condemn Israel for a protective fence while they turn a blind eye to Islamofascist terrorism and Sudanese enslavement of non-Muslims?
Why do we condone total disrespect for the rule of law and allow unfettered illegal immigation from Mexico and keep honest applicants from other nations waiting years for a visa?
Why do we promote gas-guzzling SUV's and offer a pittance of support for fuel-cell and other alternatives to auto fuel?
These are some questions for a hot August night - and for our local and national leaders to consider!
As a historian (who is allowed to dwell in any century at any time!), I know that there are no "good ol' days." I do long, however, for the spirit of Harry Truman to alight on our politicians so that we can at least enjoy some honest, plain-spoken words.
What was Senator Kerry's real record in Vietnam? Do we invalidate the word of over 200 soldiers close to the scene?
What are the oil interests close to Dick Cheney? And why is the Bush administration so hesitant to confront the Saudis about their support of terrorism?
Why is Bill Cosby vilified for criticizing bad parenting among African Americans? What happened to the ethics of Booker T. Washington and Dr. Martin Luther King?
Why are so many of the vocal advocates of "traditional values"living a lie with their personal affairs?
How can the United Nations condemn Israel for a protective fence while they turn a blind eye to Islamofascist terrorism and Sudanese enslavement of non-Muslims?
Why do we condone total disrespect for the rule of law and allow unfettered illegal immigation from Mexico and keep honest applicants from other nations waiting years for a visa?
Why do we promote gas-guzzling SUV's and offer a pittance of support for fuel-cell and other alternatives to auto fuel?
These are some questions for a hot August night - and for our local and national leaders to consider!
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
California Dreaming
Once again our Golden State will have a budget that ignores both economic sense and the desires of the electorate. Our new govenor has failed at every level to foster systemic change in a process that has taken the wealthiest state and made her a greator debtor than most nations of the world.
Whether Democrat or Republican, the lust for power once again overcomes all sound principles. Long-term fiscal and social health are not going to come through pork-barrel policies or sound-bites, but real reformers willing to look at all facets of our state priorities and make hard choices.
We are truly in "la-la land" if we think "business as usual" will keep businesses from fleeing the state and overtaxed citizens from frustration.
The question for our leaders in Sacramento is simple: does anyone have the courage to transform policy or are we going to be at the mercy of every fresh-faced demagogue?
Whether Democrat or Republican, the lust for power once again overcomes all sound principles. Long-term fiscal and social health are not going to come through pork-barrel policies or sound-bites, but real reformers willing to look at all facets of our state priorities and make hard choices.
We are truly in "la-la land" if we think "business as usual" will keep businesses from fleeing the state and overtaxed citizens from frustration.
The question for our leaders in Sacramento is simple: does anyone have the courage to transform policy or are we going to be at the mercy of every fresh-faced demagogue?
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
We Can Not Have It All
We are in the midst of a decisive debate on the values and vision that will determine the direction of our culture and society for years to come.
We are not in a simplistic war between good and evil, right and left, or even traditional versus modern.
We live in an age of contradictions. The Right advocates freedom while often ignoring the systemic evils of global business.
The Left speaks of tolerance while vilifying anyone who espouses long-standing moral precepts.
Minority communities continue to agitate for "justice" while excoriating internal critics who call for self-examination.
Virtue gurus call for heroism and self-reliance, yet find themselves unable to master addictions.
How do we navigate forward in an era fraught with peril and potential?
We must reassert that true freedom depends upon explicit and implicit adherence to moral principles and personal responsibility. Our culture of victimhood must yield to an ethos of mutual respect and community sacrifice.
We must learn to live with our deepest differences without being forced to affirm what is reprehensible to us. Toleration is not approval; moral and spiritual universes are different.
Let's raise the level of our debate beyond sound bites and personal posturing to a new plane of serious reflection. Only then will we have the fortitude to face the future.
We are not in a simplistic war between good and evil, right and left, or even traditional versus modern.
We live in an age of contradictions. The Right advocates freedom while often ignoring the systemic evils of global business.
The Left speaks of tolerance while vilifying anyone who espouses long-standing moral precepts.
Minority communities continue to agitate for "justice" while excoriating internal critics who call for self-examination.
Virtue gurus call for heroism and self-reliance, yet find themselves unable to master addictions.
How do we navigate forward in an era fraught with peril and potential?
We must reassert that true freedom depends upon explicit and implicit adherence to moral principles and personal responsibility. Our culture of victimhood must yield to an ethos of mutual respect and community sacrifice.
We must learn to live with our deepest differences without being forced to affirm what is reprehensible to us. Toleration is not approval; moral and spiritual universes are different.
Let's raise the level of our debate beyond sound bites and personal posturing to a new plane of serious reflection. Only then will we have the fortitude to face the future.
Thursday, May 06, 2004
Self-Examination, Not Self-Destruction
As I write these words, President Bush is issuing multiple apologies for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers. The outrage is understandable, and once again the U.S. is held to standards of conduct found in few places on our small globe.
My advice to our President and our nation is this: Apologize, punish the offenders, and MOVE ON.
To spend much more time in hand-wringing invites derision from the enemies of our values and weakens our position of strength against the perpetrators of terror who have no compunction about killing anyone who is not an Islamofascist.
Our situtation is much like the 1930s, where Britain, France and the USA refused to respond to any of the Nazi provocations until it was too late to avoid a major war. Western moral and military weakness condemned the world to a war costing over 50 million lives.
The USA and her allies must regain the moral high ground, operate the military effectively, and emphasize the values that have sustained freedom. This includes being self-critical, but not self-destructive.
Wallowing in self-immolation instead of working for self-improvement will place our planet in danger of a new Dark Ages of bigotry and intolerance.
It is time to move on. We must recognize the problem, repent of the violations, provide restitution to victims, and resolve to do better. Self-denial is good and leads to service for humanity. Self-destruction opens the door to totalitarianism. The choice is ours.
My advice to our President and our nation is this: Apologize, punish the offenders, and MOVE ON.
To spend much more time in hand-wringing invites derision from the enemies of our values and weakens our position of strength against the perpetrators of terror who have no compunction about killing anyone who is not an Islamofascist.
Our situtation is much like the 1930s, where Britain, France and the USA refused to respond to any of the Nazi provocations until it was too late to avoid a major war. Western moral and military weakness condemned the world to a war costing over 50 million lives.
The USA and her allies must regain the moral high ground, operate the military effectively, and emphasize the values that have sustained freedom. This includes being self-critical, but not self-destructive.
Wallowing in self-immolation instead of working for self-improvement will place our planet in danger of a new Dark Ages of bigotry and intolerance.
It is time to move on. We must recognize the problem, repent of the violations, provide restitution to victims, and resolve to do better. Self-denial is good and leads to service for humanity. Self-destruction opens the door to totalitarianism. The choice is ours.
Thursday, April 01, 2004
Life, Liberty and Property
One of the foundations of modern civilization and the American Experiment is the ability and opportunity to own private property.
John Locke, the 17th century philosopher who inspired the Founders of our nation, asserted that the best government is that which preserves "life, liberty and property." He understood that citizenship and the "commonweal" of a healthy socieity were best ensured through personal responsibility for one's own domains.
From ancient Jewish writings we learn the same truth. The Book of Nehemiah details the urban renewal of Jerusalem. Each family was called upon to take care of their property and help rebuild the common walls and gates. Even though it was a community project, Nehemiah's appeals included personal stewardship of family-owned property.
History is the long, slow process of human liberation from ancient patterns of oppression and limited ownership of land. From the Magna Charta in 1215 that granted nobles some rights vis a vis the English monarchy to the US Consitution's protection from unlawful search and seizure, we have seen - at least in the West - an increase in the percentage of people able to own land. This percentage growth is concomitant with political freedom.
The 1620 Pilgrims briefly flirted with communal living, but quickly moved toward personal ownership, knowing that it led to the best care for the land and the community.
For over a century and a half, Marxism in all its nefarious forms has sought to change this arrangement under the guise of "the people" owning all land and the means of production. Marx and Engels rightly excoriated industrial and social abuses, but their cures have proven worse than the disease!
Fast forward to 2004. Under the guise of "Greenbelts" and "Eminent Domain" activists in multitudes of communities are literally robbing families of their legacies and livelihoods. The true stories I have heard just this week are the fodder for a dozen movies. The evil character in these scripts is not the cattle baron or the railroad magnate, but local and regional board members and government officials bent on fulfilling a chilling agenda.
There are two levels to this agenda. The public one is ecological balance and the preservation of open space in the midst of suburban sprawl. Sounds great...until you find out the unethical tactics and deeper plots. Families who have lovingly farmed and ranched land for generations are being forced to sell at fire sale prices or actually evicted for unproven minor infractions. One woman I spoke with has lost two properties due to new environmental regulations that turned a few puddles of water into a protected wetland! Of course, there is no compensation for her inability to develop her land.
The hidden agendas are frightful. One facet of the long-term plan is less private ownership and more government regulation and redistribution of wealth - socialism in any other terms. The other aspect of the deeper plot is the strategic aim of neo-pagan "deep ecologists" who want to untimately reduce the human population by half and restore Mother Earth to her pristine, pre-human condition.
These goals are self-destructive to our present freedom and future survival. Nearly two centuries of "enlightened" experiments have shown that socialism ultimately results in either bloated government agencies at best and totalitarianism at worst.
Who are the ones who decide what is best for us?
John Locke, the 17th century philosopher who inspired the Founders of our nation, asserted that the best government is that which preserves "life, liberty and property." He understood that citizenship and the "commonweal" of a healthy socieity were best ensured through personal responsibility for one's own domains.
From ancient Jewish writings we learn the same truth. The Book of Nehemiah details the urban renewal of Jerusalem. Each family was called upon to take care of their property and help rebuild the common walls and gates. Even though it was a community project, Nehemiah's appeals included personal stewardship of family-owned property.
History is the long, slow process of human liberation from ancient patterns of oppression and limited ownership of land. From the Magna Charta in 1215 that granted nobles some rights vis a vis the English monarchy to the US Consitution's protection from unlawful search and seizure, we have seen - at least in the West - an increase in the percentage of people able to own land. This percentage growth is concomitant with political freedom.
The 1620 Pilgrims briefly flirted with communal living, but quickly moved toward personal ownership, knowing that it led to the best care for the land and the community.
For over a century and a half, Marxism in all its nefarious forms has sought to change this arrangement under the guise of "the people" owning all land and the means of production. Marx and Engels rightly excoriated industrial and social abuses, but their cures have proven worse than the disease!
Fast forward to 2004. Under the guise of "Greenbelts" and "Eminent Domain" activists in multitudes of communities are literally robbing families of their legacies and livelihoods. The true stories I have heard just this week are the fodder for a dozen movies. The evil character in these scripts is not the cattle baron or the railroad magnate, but local and regional board members and government officials bent on fulfilling a chilling agenda.
There are two levels to this agenda. The public one is ecological balance and the preservation of open space in the midst of suburban sprawl. Sounds great...until you find out the unethical tactics and deeper plots. Families who have lovingly farmed and ranched land for generations are being forced to sell at fire sale prices or actually evicted for unproven minor infractions. One woman I spoke with has lost two properties due to new environmental regulations that turned a few puddles of water into a protected wetland! Of course, there is no compensation for her inability to develop her land.
The hidden agendas are frightful. One facet of the long-term plan is less private ownership and more government regulation and redistribution of wealth - socialism in any other terms. The other aspect of the deeper plot is the strategic aim of neo-pagan "deep ecologists" who want to untimately reduce the human population by half and restore Mother Earth to her pristine, pre-human condition.
These goals are self-destructive to our present freedom and future survival. Nearly two centuries of "enlightened" experiments have shown that socialism ultimately results in either bloated government agencies at best and totalitarianism at worst.
Who are the ones who decide what is best for us?
Life, Liberty and Property
One of the foundations of modern civilization and the American Experiment is the ability and opportunity to own private property.
John Locke, the 17th century philosopher who inspired the Founders of our nation, asserted that the best government is that which preserves "life, liberty and property." He understood that citizenship and the "commonweal" of a healthy socieity were best ensured through personal responsibility for one's own domains.
From ancient Jewish writings we learn the same truth. The Book of Nehemiah details the urban renewal of Jerusalem. Each family was called upon to take care of their property and help rebuild the common walls and gates. Even though it was a community project, Nehemiah's appeals included personal stewardship of family-owned property.
History is the long, slow process of human liberation from ancient patterns of oppression and limited ownership of land. From the Magna Charta in 1215 that granted nobles some rights vis a vis the English monarchy to the US Constitution's protection from unlawful search and seizure, we have seen - at least in the West - an increase in the percentage of people able to own land. This percentage growth is concomitant with political freedom.
The 1620 Pilgrims briefly flirted with communal living, but quickly moved toward personal ownership, knowing that it led to the best care for the land and the community.
For over a century and a half, Marxism in all its nefarious forms has sought to change this arrangement under the guise of "the people" owning all land and the means of production. Marx and Engels rightly excoriated industrial and social abuses, but their cures have proven worse than the disease!
Fast forward to 2004. Under the guise of "Greenbelts" and "Eminent Domain" activists in multitudes of communities are literally robbing families of their legacies and livelihoods. The true stories I have heard just this week are the fodder for a dozen movies. The evil character in these scripts is not the cattle baron or the railroad magnate, but local and regional board members and government officials bent on fulfilling a chilling agenda.
There are two levels to this agenda. The public one is ecological balance and the preservation of open space in the midst of suburban sprawl. Sounds great...until you find out the unethical tactics and deeper plots. Families who have lovingly farmed and ranched land for generations are being forced to sell at fire sale prices or actually evicted for unproven minor infractions. One woman I spoke with has lost two properties due to new environmental regulations that turned a few puddles of water into a protected wetland! Of course, there is no compensation for her inability to develop her land.
The hidden agendas are frightful. One facet of the long-term plan is less private ownership and more government regulation and redistribution of wealth - socialism in any other terms. The other aspect of the deeper plot is the strategic aim of neo-pagan "deep ecologists" who want to untimately reduce the human population by half and restore Mother Earth to her pristine, pre-human condition.
These goals are self-destructive to our present freedom and future survival. Nearly two centuries of "enlightened" experiments have shown that socialism ultimately results in either bloated government agencies at best and totalitarianism at worst.
Who are the ones who decide what is best for us?
John Locke, the 17th century philosopher who inspired the Founders of our nation, asserted that the best government is that which preserves "life, liberty and property." He understood that citizenship and the "commonweal" of a healthy socieity were best ensured through personal responsibility for one's own domains.
From ancient Jewish writings we learn the same truth. The Book of Nehemiah details the urban renewal of Jerusalem. Each family was called upon to take care of their property and help rebuild the common walls and gates. Even though it was a community project, Nehemiah's appeals included personal stewardship of family-owned property.
History is the long, slow process of human liberation from ancient patterns of oppression and limited ownership of land. From the Magna Charta in 1215 that granted nobles some rights vis a vis the English monarchy to the US Constitution's protection from unlawful search and seizure, we have seen - at least in the West - an increase in the percentage of people able to own land. This percentage growth is concomitant with political freedom.
The 1620 Pilgrims briefly flirted with communal living, but quickly moved toward personal ownership, knowing that it led to the best care for the land and the community.
For over a century and a half, Marxism in all its nefarious forms has sought to change this arrangement under the guise of "the people" owning all land and the means of production. Marx and Engels rightly excoriated industrial and social abuses, but their cures have proven worse than the disease!
Fast forward to 2004. Under the guise of "Greenbelts" and "Eminent Domain" activists in multitudes of communities are literally robbing families of their legacies and livelihoods. The true stories I have heard just this week are the fodder for a dozen movies. The evil character in these scripts is not the cattle baron or the railroad magnate, but local and regional board members and government officials bent on fulfilling a chilling agenda.
There are two levels to this agenda. The public one is ecological balance and the preservation of open space in the midst of suburban sprawl. Sounds great...until you find out the unethical tactics and deeper plots. Families who have lovingly farmed and ranched land for generations are being forced to sell at fire sale prices or actually evicted for unproven minor infractions. One woman I spoke with has lost two properties due to new environmental regulations that turned a few puddles of water into a protected wetland! Of course, there is no compensation for her inability to develop her land.
The hidden agendas are frightful. One facet of the long-term plan is less private ownership and more government regulation and redistribution of wealth - socialism in any other terms. The other aspect of the deeper plot is the strategic aim of neo-pagan "deep ecologists" who want to untimately reduce the human population by half and restore Mother Earth to her pristine, pre-human condition.
These goals are self-destructive to our present freedom and future survival. Nearly two centuries of "enlightened" experiments have shown that socialism ultimately results in either bloated government agencies at best and totalitarianism at worst.
Who are the ones who decide what is best for us?
Thursday, March 25, 2004
The End of the American Experiment
I am deeply concerned about two issues in the public eye. At first they may appear to be unrelated, but they both point toward disaster for the future of the United States.
The first issue is gay marriage. For millions who adhere to the three major monotheistic religions, the phrase "gay marriage" is an oxymoron at best and an immoral union at worst. Without commenting on the nature or morality of private sexual activity between consenting adults, what is lost is this debate is the fundamental definition of family and what kind of "unit" is essential to a free society.
The American Experiment in representative democracy depends upon conscious and unconscious adherence to basic moral values. Our founders assumed that American citizens would be hard-working, honest, law-abiding, and loyal to family, clan and community. Marital fidelity and sexual discipline were critical virtues that unleashed the energy and inventiveness that formed the greatest nation in the history.
When Martin Luther King marched for Civil and Voting Rights for millions of disenfranchised people, he did so with a call to faith, moral rectitude, and a renewal of ideals held by all Americans. He and his colleagues took for granted the nuclear and extended family that included lifetime loyalty of husband and wife.
No civilization in history has ever questioned the primacy of the husband-wife relationship, even those cultures that wink at homosexual activity or other departures from "the norm."
The present call to equalize gay unions with heterosexual ones ignores biology, family psychology (ideally, Johnny needs a Mommy and a Daddy), history and sociology. Please notice that I have deliberately left out religious opinions, because they are so divisive. I think the great religions deserve consideration, for it is Monotheism that gace birth to morality and the legal traditions that uphold order.
The second issue is abortion. "Not another column on abortion!" you may cry. Recent attempts to have an unborn child considered a person in the case of a pregnant woman's murder have exposed the anti-child lobbies for who they really are. Several states will charge a person with double murder if an expectant mother is killed. Pro-choice advocates are so afraid of any opening that might restrict a woman's right to destroy her unborn, being-born or just-born child that they will not grant personhood to the tiniest victims of violence.
How are these issues related? Gay marriage and refusing to accept the personhood of the unborn are the twin sides of a chilling plot to undermine our very notions of life, morality and responsibility. Gay marriages can not naturally yield the next generation or unveil the male/female balance essential to emotional health. Refusing to see the unborn as persons makes all babies expendable. We are living in the first generation that realizes they were (and are?) expendable if they get in the way of the selfish needs of parents.
Gay marriage and abortion are, at their roots, a repudiation of life and the ultimate enthronement of the human ego as the only sovereign in life.
Without the value of life and the priority of family structures to gurantee our future, we sacrifice humankind's long-term health on an altar of self-destructive hedonism.
The American Experiment will end if we do not reaffirm first principles that value all life and ensure our future as a nation, even as a species.
The first issue is gay marriage. For millions who adhere to the three major monotheistic religions, the phrase "gay marriage" is an oxymoron at best and an immoral union at worst. Without commenting on the nature or morality of private sexual activity between consenting adults, what is lost is this debate is the fundamental definition of family and what kind of "unit" is essential to a free society.
The American Experiment in representative democracy depends upon conscious and unconscious adherence to basic moral values. Our founders assumed that American citizens would be hard-working, honest, law-abiding, and loyal to family, clan and community. Marital fidelity and sexual discipline were critical virtues that unleashed the energy and inventiveness that formed the greatest nation in the history.
When Martin Luther King marched for Civil and Voting Rights for millions of disenfranchised people, he did so with a call to faith, moral rectitude, and a renewal of ideals held by all Americans. He and his colleagues took for granted the nuclear and extended family that included lifetime loyalty of husband and wife.
No civilization in history has ever questioned the primacy of the husband-wife relationship, even those cultures that wink at homosexual activity or other departures from "the norm."
The present call to equalize gay unions with heterosexual ones ignores biology, family psychology (ideally, Johnny needs a Mommy and a Daddy), history and sociology. Please notice that I have deliberately left out religious opinions, because they are so divisive. I think the great religions deserve consideration, for it is Monotheism that gace birth to morality and the legal traditions that uphold order.
The second issue is abortion. "Not another column on abortion!" you may cry. Recent attempts to have an unborn child considered a person in the case of a pregnant woman's murder have exposed the anti-child lobbies for who they really are. Several states will charge a person with double murder if an expectant mother is killed. Pro-choice advocates are so afraid of any opening that might restrict a woman's right to destroy her unborn, being-born or just-born child that they will not grant personhood to the tiniest victims of violence.
How are these issues related? Gay marriage and refusing to accept the personhood of the unborn are the twin sides of a chilling plot to undermine our very notions of life, morality and responsibility. Gay marriages can not naturally yield the next generation or unveil the male/female balance essential to emotional health. Refusing to see the unborn as persons makes all babies expendable. We are living in the first generation that realizes they were (and are?) expendable if they get in the way of the selfish needs of parents.
Gay marriage and abortion are, at their roots, a repudiation of life and the ultimate enthronement of the human ego as the only sovereign in life.
Without the value of life and the priority of family structures to gurantee our future, we sacrifice humankind's long-term health on an altar of self-destructive hedonism.
The American Experiment will end if we do not reaffirm first principles that value all life and ensure our future as a nation, even as a species.
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Worlds Collide
Years ago James Sire wrote a book called "The Universe Next Door" that evaluates the vastly different world-views people hold in their heads and hearts. When we consider America's war with the world of terrorism and our apparent isolation from the UN, we need to remember that there are radically different views of reality at work. In short, we are seeing worlds collide and compete for mastery of the human family.
Within the US, we are witnessing worlds clash as up to five generations try to understand each other. The Greatest Generation is worried that their sacrifices of the 1930's and 1940's will be dissipated by our present lifestyles and relegated to the ashbin of history. The "I like Ike" community is still wondering why their vision of stability was totally rejected by the Boomers. The Boomers are now in power and discovering that "Question Authority", "Free Love" and other chic 60's and 70's phrases are not enough to hold a Republic together. Gen X and Gen Y are trying to find solace in ever-increasing pleasure or pain. The Millennials are looking for roots and wondering if their parents have left much to work with.
On the world scene, we see a contest for global hegemony between a USA in search of herself, a post-Christian European Community, new superpowers India and China and a resurgent Islamic radicalism determined to bring the world under Shari'a Law.
Historians of the 22nd century will be evaluating the winners and losers of the current global game - if we do not have an apocalypse.
My point in this essay is that simplistic answers to complex issues within the US and around the world must factor in the different "universes" of the parties involved.
What will be the moral underpinnings of the American Republic and the global coalitions in the next generations? Are there any principles that can non-coercively unite our nation and inspire the world?
Let me know what you think - email me at drcharlieself@yahoo.com and we will add your ideas to our community discussion.
Next time: There IS a simple answer to one problem we face
Within the US, we are witnessing worlds clash as up to five generations try to understand each other. The Greatest Generation is worried that their sacrifices of the 1930's and 1940's will be dissipated by our present lifestyles and relegated to the ashbin of history. The "I like Ike" community is still wondering why their vision of stability was totally rejected by the Boomers. The Boomers are now in power and discovering that "Question Authority", "Free Love" and other chic 60's and 70's phrases are not enough to hold a Republic together. Gen X and Gen Y are trying to find solace in ever-increasing pleasure or pain. The Millennials are looking for roots and wondering if their parents have left much to work with.
On the world scene, we see a contest for global hegemony between a USA in search of herself, a post-Christian European Community, new superpowers India and China and a resurgent Islamic radicalism determined to bring the world under Shari'a Law.
Historians of the 22nd century will be evaluating the winners and losers of the current global game - if we do not have an apocalypse.
My point in this essay is that simplistic answers to complex issues within the US and around the world must factor in the different "universes" of the parties involved.
What will be the moral underpinnings of the American Republic and the global coalitions in the next generations? Are there any principles that can non-coercively unite our nation and inspire the world?
Let me know what you think - email me at drcharlieself@yahoo.com and we will add your ideas to our community discussion.
Next time: There IS a simple answer to one problem we face
Monday, January 26, 2004
Public Religion
Americans are funny people about religion. In spite of 50+ years of secularization in the public square, we are still deeply interested in spirituality. Among Western nations the percentage of people participating in religious communities is quite high. We want to hear "God Bless America" sung in public and we do not mind politicians saying "God bless you" and "God bless America". Too much detail about the religious beliefs of candidates, however, makes us uncomfortable, especially if those beliefs are anything close to historic Christianity or Judaism.
Some of our ambivalence serves the public interest well. The first sixteen words of the First Amendment are still a beacon of light to the world. We enjoy complete freedom of conscience and religion without government interference.
Keeping government out of the religion business is good - good for freedom and, paradoxically, good for the religious communities themselves. Without subsidies and taxes, the faith communities must rely on the volunteer spirit of their members, which only enhances loyalty and effectiveness.
"Separation of church and state" is an interpretation of Jefferson's "wall of separation" rhetoric referring to the Virginia's constituional relationship with the Episcopal (Anglican before 1776) Church. Neither Jefferson or any of the Founders envisioned today's ACLU-inspired political correctness that removes Judeo-Christian symbols from the public square.
All the Founders recognized that religious values were critical to the moral and social fabric of a free society. They wanted complete freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, including religious speech. If public officials want to express personal religious opinions, they should not be vilified. If the electorate does not appreciate them, it has the power to elect someone else.
I am old enough to remember the controversy regarding JFK, our first Roman Catholic President. Even in 2000, some were worried about Senator Joseph Lieberman's Judaism and its effects on his policies. in both cases, all fears were (and are) unfounded. Agree or diagree with their policies, both men are Americans serving as well as they know how.
Our current President has a deep religious faith that has sustained him through life's turmoils and provided solace in the midst of political battles. I see no evidence of religious coercion. Having strong moral and religious convictions is an American birthright. Respecting the differing views of others is the other side of the same coin. I do not like many of our President's current policies, for a variety of reasons. But I respect his right to have and express his deepest ideals.
It is interesting that so many who seek a separation of religion and the public square seem to tap dance around the issue of Islamic ideology and its social implications. Politicians fall all over each other assuring the world that Al Queda, Hezbollah and The Islamic Jihad are a tiny fraction of the Muslim world.
It is true that most Muslims are not terrorists. So what? The statement is a non-starter, utterly irrelevant to the current debate on public religion. It is like saying that a particular TV evangelist speaks for all Christians. Are we going to tell American Muslims to abandon their conviction that America would be a better land under Islamic Law? Why do we insist that American school children spend weeks each year studying Islam while the Jewish and Christian roots of the West are ignored or even put down?
Our problem stems from the Baby Boomer's (those now 45-65) generational rejection of its image of America's past, religion and all. The Boomers forgot Martin Luther King's deep spirituality. They conveniently ignore The Greatest Generation's (those who survived the Depression and fought in WWII) deep piety. The Boomer's ideology is a pseudo-Marxist, New Age ethos that is best captured by John Lennon's 1970 anthem, "Imagine". Lennon's nasal vision of a world without borders, possessions or religion sounds wonderful until you realize its subversion of our deepest national values.
Where do we go from here? How about back to the future again? Let's stop muzzling religious expression and allow citizens freedom, in public, to express their deepest passions with civility and mutual respect.
Next time: Worlds Collide
Some of our ambivalence serves the public interest well. The first sixteen words of the First Amendment are still a beacon of light to the world. We enjoy complete freedom of conscience and religion without government interference.
Keeping government out of the religion business is good - good for freedom and, paradoxically, good for the religious communities themselves. Without subsidies and taxes, the faith communities must rely on the volunteer spirit of their members, which only enhances loyalty and effectiveness.
"Separation of church and state" is an interpretation of Jefferson's "wall of separation" rhetoric referring to the Virginia's constituional relationship with the Episcopal (Anglican before 1776) Church. Neither Jefferson or any of the Founders envisioned today's ACLU-inspired political correctness that removes Judeo-Christian symbols from the public square.
All the Founders recognized that religious values were critical to the moral and social fabric of a free society. They wanted complete freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, including religious speech. If public officials want to express personal religious opinions, they should not be vilified. If the electorate does not appreciate them, it has the power to elect someone else.
I am old enough to remember the controversy regarding JFK, our first Roman Catholic President. Even in 2000, some were worried about Senator Joseph Lieberman's Judaism and its effects on his policies. in both cases, all fears were (and are) unfounded. Agree or diagree with their policies, both men are Americans serving as well as they know how.
Our current President has a deep religious faith that has sustained him through life's turmoils and provided solace in the midst of political battles. I see no evidence of religious coercion. Having strong moral and religious convictions is an American birthright. Respecting the differing views of others is the other side of the same coin. I do not like many of our President's current policies, for a variety of reasons. But I respect his right to have and express his deepest ideals.
It is interesting that so many who seek a separation of religion and the public square seem to tap dance around the issue of Islamic ideology and its social implications. Politicians fall all over each other assuring the world that Al Queda, Hezbollah and The Islamic Jihad are a tiny fraction of the Muslim world.
It is true that most Muslims are not terrorists. So what? The statement is a non-starter, utterly irrelevant to the current debate on public religion. It is like saying that a particular TV evangelist speaks for all Christians. Are we going to tell American Muslims to abandon their conviction that America would be a better land under Islamic Law? Why do we insist that American school children spend weeks each year studying Islam while the Jewish and Christian roots of the West are ignored or even put down?
Our problem stems from the Baby Boomer's (those now 45-65) generational rejection of its image of America's past, religion and all. The Boomers forgot Martin Luther King's deep spirituality. They conveniently ignore The Greatest Generation's (those who survived the Depression and fought in WWII) deep piety. The Boomer's ideology is a pseudo-Marxist, New Age ethos that is best captured by John Lennon's 1970 anthem, "Imagine". Lennon's nasal vision of a world without borders, possessions or religion sounds wonderful until you realize its subversion of our deepest national values.
Where do we go from here? How about back to the future again? Let's stop muzzling religious expression and allow citizens freedom, in public, to express their deepest passions with civility and mutual respect.
Next time: Worlds Collide
Monday, January 19, 2004
Fiscal Fracas - Making Sense of (Your) Public Money
As we debate political policies and principles and begin a (too) long Election Year, there is one clear fact that must not be ignored by the electorate (that's us!) or the politicos (candidates and their spinmeisters). What is this fact? Here it is...brace yourself for an illumination: "government money" and "government programs" are using YOUR money.
This assertion is not the thesis of a right-wing diatribe against all government spending. After all, conservatives benefit from government just as much or more than liberals do. For every welfare program the Right criticizes, there are subsidies and tax breaks for the middle-class and wealthy. All of these programs should be evaluated; however, my purpose in this brief essay is to move us beyond facile generalizations to a very important personal decision we all must make if we want to have any influence on the future of our community and nation.
We must all realize that our elected officials are put is office by US and are fundamentally accountable to US for what they do with OUR resources we have given them to manage. We get angry at foolish laws and bad fiscal managment - but what are we doing to influence the process? We complain about special interests...unless they are ours, then they are lobbying for righteous causes!
We need an intelligent debate about how we want to use the limited resources that available. How do we balance free markets with environmental concerns? How do we care for the truly needy without subsidizing illegal or irresponsible behavior? What are the most important priorities for our educational dollars? Before the Right cries, "Cut administration costs!" they must define what such cuts involve. Before the Left says "more money for kids", they must explain who gets the money. It is dishonest for the Left to accuse the Right of "hurting children" when they do not advocate increases in social spending. It is also bad faith for the Right to advocate more for the military without streamlining the procurement process that wastes billions.
Will we rise above simplistic ideology and look for values to guide the 21st century commonweal we call America? Our future needs to rest on moral clarity and a mature social vision, not narrow interests or angry sound bites.
Next time: Public Religion
This assertion is not the thesis of a right-wing diatribe against all government spending. After all, conservatives benefit from government just as much or more than liberals do. For every welfare program the Right criticizes, there are subsidies and tax breaks for the middle-class and wealthy. All of these programs should be evaluated; however, my purpose in this brief essay is to move us beyond facile generalizations to a very important personal decision we all must make if we want to have any influence on the future of our community and nation.
We must all realize that our elected officials are put is office by US and are fundamentally accountable to US for what they do with OUR resources we have given them to manage. We get angry at foolish laws and bad fiscal managment - but what are we doing to influence the process? We complain about special interests...unless they are ours, then they are lobbying for righteous causes!
We need an intelligent debate about how we want to use the limited resources that available. How do we balance free markets with environmental concerns? How do we care for the truly needy without subsidizing illegal or irresponsible behavior? What are the most important priorities for our educational dollars? Before the Right cries, "Cut administration costs!" they must define what such cuts involve. Before the Left says "more money for kids", they must explain who gets the money. It is dishonest for the Left to accuse the Right of "hurting children" when they do not advocate increases in social spending. It is also bad faith for the Right to advocate more for the military without streamlining the procurement process that wastes billions.
Will we rise above simplistic ideology and look for values to guide the 21st century commonweal we call America? Our future needs to rest on moral clarity and a mature social vision, not narrow interests or angry sound bites.
Next time: Public Religion
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
Thursday, January 08, 2004
Immigration Insanity
The recent proposal of our President to normalize the status of millions of "undocumented workers" is neither the end of the world nor a wise policy. On one level it normalizes the present state of affairs, catering to certain business interests and select political lobbies. At the same time, Bush's proposal undermines our nation's present need for sanity and security in light of 9-11.
When there is a shortage of labor, technical innovation - in agriculture and manufacturing - is accelerated. When labor is cheap and plentiful, old, lazy methods can continue as long as the bottom-line results are favorable.
Some type of guest worker program does make sense. But it is a misnomer to say that illegal immigrants are only taking jobs that Americans are unwilling to perform. In logical terms, this is asserting the conclusion as the premise. If millions of immigrants were suddenly removed from the workforce, there would be serious short-term consequences. But the long-term benefits might actually result is a healthier, full-employment world for citizens and legal immigrants.
Education and medical costs would be drastically reduced, ameliorating budget crises in several locations. Able-bodied welfare recipients would have more options. The way would still be open for legal applicants.
The present policy is morally bankrupt, politically expedient and economically short-sighted, not to mention injurious to long-term national sovereignty.
President Bush, we can do better!
Next time: Fiscal Fracas - Making Sense of Your (Public) Money
When there is a shortage of labor, technical innovation - in agriculture and manufacturing - is accelerated. When labor is cheap and plentiful, old, lazy methods can continue as long as the bottom-line results are favorable.
Some type of guest worker program does make sense. But it is a misnomer to say that illegal immigrants are only taking jobs that Americans are unwilling to perform. In logical terms, this is asserting the conclusion as the premise. If millions of immigrants were suddenly removed from the workforce, there would be serious short-term consequences. But the long-term benefits might actually result is a healthier, full-employment world for citizens and legal immigrants.
Education and medical costs would be drastically reduced, ameliorating budget crises in several locations. Able-bodied welfare recipients would have more options. The way would still be open for legal applicants.
The present policy is morally bankrupt, politically expedient and economically short-sighted, not to mention injurious to long-term national sovereignty.
President Bush, we can do better!
Next time: Fiscal Fracas - Making Sense of Your (Public) Money
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
