To The Greatest Generation - We Need You Again

My father is a WWII veteran. Although he was drafted too late to see any combat, he served from 1945 through 1948, during the state of emergency. He shared the mindset of all those who went to fight overseas - including, especially, five of his older brothers, and numerous friends and neighbors.

I consider myself very fortunate to have grown up as a child of a WWII vet. I especially feel fortunate to be on the tail end off the baby boomer generation. I had the grounded principles of my parents’ generation to guide me, without the distractions of the sixties to derail me. I still look to my father for advice. He is not perfect and I don’t always agree, but he is wise, intelligent, witty, compassionate and honorable. He is the best man I know.

While I was growing up, I remember my father writing many letters - some of them quite exceptional. He would write letters to newspaper editors, senators, representatives and presidents. He also read a lot, and listened a lot and thought a lot. My father did not see politics as tiresome or distracting. He enjoyed the debate and felt it is every citizen’s responsibility to be involved in the running of our democracy. As I grew up, I respected his views and opinions and followed him onto his conservative soapbox.

Times moved on, kids grew, married and moved out, grandchildren arrived, his wife passed away, but still he stayed interested. His involvement, however, steadily dropped off and he stopped writing. Maybe he felt he had made his contribution. Maybe he felt no one was listening. Maybe he felt he could no longer make a difference. Well, he is not alone, and I am not surprised.

Today's society is riddled with self-assured arrogance - most of it from the middle to upper end of my generation. Whether the topic is political, social, environmental, technological or economic, it’s very disheartening that fanatical voices get all the press. I don't suppose it would matter if someone else did speak. The squeaky wheels out there have had the floor for so long now; they don't feel obliged to listen.

Well, they should listen...to their parents. They should listen to the people who sacrificed more for this country in six years than any generation before or since. They should watch how these people conducted their lives, and learn from their examples. They should question the people who taught them to question, and explore their views through the eyes of familiar wisdom. And they should do it fast, because they won't be around forever.

But it isn't a one-way street. The Greatest Generation needs to speak up. They gave us a great gift six decades ago, but they fail their children if they don't continue to provide us council in how to wisely use that gift. Our society doesn't lack only moral leadership; we lack a certain amount of maturity.

The excesses of the sixties are primarily to blame. The idea that questioning authority is an obligation rather than a privilege is one example. Another is that "because I could" has become an acceptable excuse for doing the wrong thing. No one is perfect, not me, not you. But we no longer have perfection as a target, unreachable though it may be. Maybe our parents could help put us back on track.

So, let's reopen the dialogue. I charge those out there from the Greatest Generation with the task to start writing letters again. I challenge those from my generation, and others, to lay down your stubbornness and listen. The greatest gift my parents’ generation gave us was the continuation of our freedom. The greatest gift they can give us now, is their collected wisdom. The greatest gift we can give our children is to pay attention.

Freedom of - not from - Religion

I have a new name for the ACLU: the American Civil Litigation Union. Well let's face it, that's all they seem to do these days. If you offend someone, and by someone I mean a minority or liberal, or both, they will sue you until you either submit, apologize, resign, pay up, or any combination thereof. It seems that their goal is social engineering via intimidation. One of their most recent crusades has been to completely remove from our government and society any references whatsoever to God or religion.

To effect this extrication of the deity, the ACLU has attacked our currency, the Pledge of Allegiance, public religious displays by any level of government, and now The Declaration of Independence. They contend that even referring to or mentioning God publicly is offensive to some. When done by an elected official or in any "official" capacity, the ACLU says it violates the separation of church and state clause of the US Constitution. The funny thing is, the Constitution has no separation of church and state clause. There is only the First Amendment, the first part of which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof...

It all sounds pretty straight-forward, but, maybe I've missed something in those sixteen words. I guess I better go through them bit by bit, just to be certain.

CONGRESS:
The legislative branch of our government. It is comprised of the 535 elected members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Congress does not include the President, Supreme Court, members of any federal, state or lower courts, governors, mayors, state legislators, local councilmen, businesses, etc.

SHALL MAKE NO LAW:
It means CONGRESS is prohibited from drafting, constructing, passing or even considering a specific law.

RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION:
If we take ESTABLISHMENT to be a verb, then it refers to the setting up or imposing of a national religion. If we take ESTABLISHMENT as a noun, then it refers to a specific religious group.

OR PROHIBITING:
Or making illegal, implicitly or otherwise

THE FREE PRACTICE THEREOF:
A citizens right to freely practice his/her freely chosen religion.

Although written 217 years ago, the language still seems pretty clear, even when scrutinized under the microscope of today's legalese. In short, the US Congress is expressly prohibited from legislating a specific religion upon the citizenry, legislating about a specific religion, and interfering with citizens' rights to practice whatever religions they chose.

It does not, anywhere in those sixteen words, prohibit the US Congress from REGOGNIZING that religion exists or that people are religious by nature. Congress is also not barred from recognizing that God exists, from mentioning God, or from allowing or even participating in religious activities. All that may be drawn from the clause in the Constitution is that Congress may not favor one faith over another.

It may be argued from this that neither Christmas nor any religious occasion should be a national holiday. Given how advertisers and the media have absconded with Christmas and turned it into a secular, materialistic free for all, I'm not sure that would be a bad thing. However, it would still not preclude a national Christmas tree at the White House, or for that fact, a national Menorah in the Capitol Rotunda. All these and more should be welcomed and respected.

According to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, 80.2% of Americans identified themselves as belonging to some faith. It's time for us Americans to make it known that as the clear majority, we will not allow our children to forget the reason why the original settlers came to these shores almost 400 years ago. We must not allow the few who complain to push the rest of us into belittling the beliefs of the founding fathers. As forward-thinking as those men were, they still placed a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence It is time for the non-religious, secularist minority to add another adjective their title...SILENT.

Though you may live in a technically "secular" nation, it it only so out of fairness to all religions. Never forget it was founded on Judeo-Christian principles by pious men and is populated with religious citizens who want to practice their faiths unhindered by the few who, by rights, may chose not to participate. In short, grow up, stop whining and learn to deal with it. After all, there are four of us for every one of you. Finally, it is time for the ACLU to realize that the civil rights and freedoms it claims to hold dear and champion apply to everyone, including the majority.

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. In fact, quite the opposite. It means that we may cherish our individual faiths, and still respect the faiths of others. I would be as proud to see a Nativity on my town green as I would a Crescent and Star, or any other symbol of faith. These are clear expressions of the freedom we all have a right to expect. It is abhorrent for anyone to feel they must hide their religious expression for fear of offending someone else. It is inexcusable for any government - local, state or federal - to validate such intolerance and oppression by catering to it.

A version of the above article was published in the Waterbury Republican-American, January 2005. It is based on a previously published letter to the editor of the Hartford Courant, January 2002.

Political Cartoonist Whining

By now, I should be used to the particular brand of editorial tripe published on a daily basis by the Hartford Courant, but today, they have actually surprised me. This morning's cartoon by Bob Englehart's depicted Bush Advisor Karl Rove reading a newspaper story about the poisoning of the Ukraine's opposing presidential candidate and musing "Why didn't I think of that?"

Just when I think the fanatical left has gone as low as they can, they prove me wrong and sink one step lower. To call it tasteless is an understatement. Reprehensible isn't even strong enough. I think my first reaction may been on the money:

"WAH WAH WAH...my candidate lost!
WAH WAH WAH...it's a right-wing conspiracy!
WAH WAH WAH...the Republicans are all a bunch of big meanies!
WAH WAH WAH!"

Oh, grow up already! Rank and file Republicans are shaking their heads. Rank and file Democrats are probably embarrassed. Mr. Englehart and the Courant's editorial board should be hanging their heads and apologizing. To actually believe that this is the way rational people think - whether on the political right OR left - is laughable. To have actually printed it - is sad.

If you really WANT to create broad-spectrum inter-party hatred, you are on the right path. But I ask you, after all the people you have turned against one another in order to elevate sales have finally killed eachother off...how will you stay in business? I mean, puppies need someone to buy your paper and lay it on the floor so its true usefulness can be realized.

What Have You Done For Me Lately?

The modern Democratic Party claims it will fight for minorities. Well, it sure seems that way. Democrats never miss a photo-op or sound bite, and they make a lot of promises, and they take every opportunity to attack Republicans for their record on civil rights. Although Democrats talk a great game, when was the last time you actually heard of them doing anything for minorities? Let’s review some history.

The Democratic Party evolved from the Federalists of the late 18^th century. The Federalists were the group at the Constitutional Convention who were vocally in favor of a strong central government, and rights only for the landed gentry.

Although they supported the basic tenets of personal liberty as did the Anti-federalists - the Jeffersonians - they actually opposed adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.

Two hundred years ago, Southern Democrats supported the institution of slavery and vehemently opposed any attempts to regulate or weaken it. At the 1840 Amistad trial, then Democratic president, Martin van Buren, forced the case to the U.S. Supreme Court in the hopes the mutineers would not be freed. It was a proto-Republican ex-president, John Quincy Adams, who successfully argued in their defense.

Republican Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves in 1863 by executive order and made possible the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th amendments to the constitution that guaranteed the freed slaves equal rights under the law. During the ensuing Reconstruction era, however, Southern Democrats did all they could to slow the amendments’ implementation. That didn’t stop the first African American governor, P.B.S. Pinchback, a Republican, from being elected in 1872.

The Republican Party began its public support for woman’s suffrage in 1896, and backed the first woman successfully elected to Congress in 1917, Rep. Jeanette Rankin of Montana, three years before she could even vote.

In 1957, President Eisenhower ordered troops into Little Rock, Ark, to enforce desegregation of public schools. In 1972, President Nixon promoted and later signed Affirmative Action into law. In 1981, President Reagan appointed the first woman to the US Supreme Court and in 1983, he signed the bill creating the Martin Luther King Day holiday. President Bush appointed African Americans to two of this country’s highest-ranking positions, Secretary of State, and National Security Advisor. He also nominated several minority judges to federal benches, but curiously, Senate and House Democrats blocked these nominations by filibuster.

This is certainly not an indictment of Democrats in general or even all elected Democrats, but rather of the party hierarchy and its policy machine. For example, Harry Truman began the integration of the US Armed Forces in 1948. John F. Kennedy put teeth behind many existing civil-rights laws during his administration, and Lyndon Johnson nominated the first African American to the U.S. Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall. These acts were all commendable, but sadly, were decades ago and historically isolated. The fact is that Republicans have been far more consistent in their support for minorities. Were Truman and Kennedy alive today, some argue they might even be Republicans instead.

Despite its outward appearance of inclusion, the modern Democratic message to minorities is one of fear, separation and exclusion. It is mass population control in order to gain and maintain a political power base. What the Democrats are really saying to minorities is: “You are incapable of doing for yourselves or standing on your own. Your differences have put you on the outside of society looking in. Stay with us, we’ll protect you and give you what you, otherwise, couldn’t possibly get for yourselves.� By taking this position, the Democrats have, for political reasons, pushed the minorities to the sidelines, and want to keep them there.

Minorities deserve better than condescension...they need action. Instead of doing for minorities, Republicans want to remove obstacles and allow minorities to do for themselves. Instead of giving special treatment, Republicans want to eliminate entitlements that ultimately erode self-respect. Republicans prefer a full-immersion, color-blind society where each person achieves and receives according to their ability to contribute and willingness to participate. The Democrats fear this because with every advance in civil rights they lose something that they can blame on Republicans and use to frighten potential voters.

The modern Democratic Party claims it will fight for minorities. In truth, it seems all they really want to fight for are minority votes. When it comes to actually working for minorities and their best interests, history shows Democrats leave that to the Republicans. When deciding how to cast their votes, minorities would do well to ask not what the Republicans have done for them lately, but ask what the Democrats have really done for them ever!

A version of this article was previously published in the Waterbury (CT) Republican-American, June 2004.

Righteous Indignation

President Bush could learn something from my father about how to deal with hypocrites. After all, he has to deal with so many in Congress, the media and around the world. A little help might be useful, right? My father has a great tactic he likes to use with such people...he confronts them with their contradictions head on.

When I was 7, I was playing ball with the other kids in my neighborhood. I was playing centerfield and a pop-up came my way. I raised my mitt, but caught the ball on the tip of my right middle finger, instead. Well, It hurt and in my pain, I let fly a certain four-letter expletive. (No, not that one, the other one. After all, it was only my first time.) Anyway, when the other kids heard what I had said, they grabbed me by the arm and took me down the street to tell my father.

Of course, I was scared. My father had rules and I was sure I was in big trouble. When he came out, the oldest boy in the group, Kenny, thrust me forward and told my father what I said. My father looked at the group for a moment, then down at me. "Francis, go inside and I'll talk to you in a minute." I went in, but waited inside the door where I could still see and hear.

Dad looked at the group of ten or so kids, then chuckled and folded his arms. Then he did something surprising. He got mad at them. "You bunch of little hypocrites! Who are you to criticize anyone's language? I've heard you all say things that would make sailors blush. I don't need a bunch of "Dead End Kids" telling me how to raise my son. His punishment is none of your business, now go home before I call your parents and tell them about your filthy little mouths!"

I remember the sound of feet running fast off the driveway. I quickly ran from the door and went to sit in the den, awaiting my punishment. When Dad came in, he was mad, maybe more at the other kids than at me, but I was still scared. He sat down and asked me what happened and I told him, with tears in my eyes. He gave me a lecture, and said, "OK, go to your room until dinner. No playing and don't do it again!" I also lost one week's allowance.

Now, pay attention to the lesson. My father didn't punish me because a group of neighborhood miscreants told on his son and he had to save face. Neither did he punish me because he was afraid of what the other parents on the block would think. He truly didn't care. He punished me because I knew better, and I broke a rule that was based on my father's own personal barometer of right and wrong for a 7-year old.

The incidents at Abu-Ghraib prison were wrong and the soldiers who committed them should be punished. But, we shouldn't do it out of a sense of embarrassment or shame, neither should we do it because the world is watching. France, Germany and Russia, and many other nations have enough blood on their hands and should see to their own offenses. We also shouldn’t punish the soldiers because the terrorists are upset. We, in America, have a national barometer for right and wrong, based on laws. Those soldiers violated it...end of discussion.

The lesson is that it's OK to call a hypocrite one to his face. It's OK to get mad. It's also OK to express it. With all due respect, it's time for a little righteous indignation form the president. After all, the 9-11 terrorists didn't walk into the world trade center, put hoods on 3,000 innocent civilians and parade them around naked, now did they?

This article was previously published in the Waterbury (CT) Republican-American, June 2004.

Why Ignorance May Truly Be Bliss

Periodiclly, I go through times of deep introspection. Lately, I have been focusing on my fundamental principles and belief systems. As a result, I have reached an epiphany. I have decided I no longer want to "tolerate" other ethnicities, religions, races, genders, or lifestyles. Here's why.

Check any thesaurus and you will find some or all of the following synonyms for tolerate:

stand, bear, abide, put up with, endure, stomach, stand for, allow

One thesaurus actually defines tolerance as "the capacity to bear something unpleasant, painful or difficult." Clearly, according to these synonyms, that which is being tolerated has a negative connotation.

The problem with the politically correct concept of tolerance is its inherent misuse of the word. When did tolerate become synonymous with "treat fairly or equally?" The more I thought about his, the more confused I became. This spin violates the meaning of the word as I always understood it and just does not make sense. One can tolerate alcohol, or the cold or heat, or even an obnoxious person. However, it hardly seems right or fair to tolerate someone for just being different.

Instead, it sounds a lot like prejudice.

So, no, I do not want to be tolerant. I think I would rather be ignorant. That may sound odd at first, but think about it. The same thesaurus lists synonyms for ignorant as unaware or uninformed. If our true objective is that all people should be treated equally, ignorance makes more sense than tolerance.

Openness is a wonderful concept. However, we pay too high a price when it comes at the expense of courtesy, discretion, modesty, or privacy. In truth, I do not care, or need, to know the personal or intimate details of most people's lives. I certainly do not want them thrown in my face to advance media ratings or political motives. Like most people, I judge others as individuals, not as representatives of a specific group. The differences I am expected to tolerate play no part in how I treat someone. Although I may recognize the differences, I seldom focus on them.

Putting word games aside, the answer is simple. We must abolish the "us" and "them" mentality and focus on similarities. After all, when people first meet, they hardly stare each other up and down pointing out differences. Instead, they look for common ground, a shared friend, or interest...something on which to form a connection. We should be building our future as a society and a nation in the same way.

Today, however, we are so focused on differences that it is all we ever talk about anymore. I have heard it referred to as diversity sensitivity. The expectation is that by emphasizing differences, people will get along better. Unfortunately, this is seldom the case. History shows that prejudice, hate, and violence thrive in environments that are difference-centered. Today's headlines are full of examples: Arab and Jew; Protestant and Catholic; black and white; Serb and Croat; gay and straight; the list goes on.

It amazes me that many of those with influence in our country cannot see this simple and obvious truth. Sadly, because of short sightedness, personal agendas, or plain ignorance, they continue to make things worse. Our nation's founders knew better. They chose our first motto with great foresight and purpose: "E pluribus, Unum," "Out of many, one."

We may quibble over methods, but if we look at it objectively, our similarities far outweigh our differences. Essentially, our goals and desires are all the same. More than 100 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt rightly spoke out against what he called "hyphenated-Americans." The only ones who stand to gain from dividing people into opposing groups are those making up the categories. The rest of us suffer from their lack of vision.

If our differences are not important enough to be criteria for fair treatment, then they are not important enough to mention all the time. While they enrich our culture and can provide unique perspectives to help solve some problems, we need to be careful how much attention we pay them. Only by taking full advantage of our many similarities, can our nation and our society grow, prosper, and finally achieve the stability it needs to endure.

I only hope the PC crowd can learn to tolerate my ignorance.

A version of this article was published in the Waterbury (CT) Republican-American, October, 2003.

One Nation, Indivisible

Ok, the election is over, so why all the whining? I hear Jessie Jackson is now convening a public meeting of ministers in Columbus, Ohio to call for an investigation into election improprieties. Not the recent elections in Ukraine, or Afghanistan, but here. Excuse me? Reverend Jackson, this is not some third world country, struggling to grasp the workings of a democracy. This is the United States. We hold elections, someone wins, someone loses, and life goes on. But, if you ask Mr. Jackson and his like, they will tell you we live in a divided country.

Well, I don't see this. I'm sure there are some people who do, and some who want to perpetuate the myth for political reasons, but it just isn't true. Politicians may squabble and pundits may bicker, but nobody I have met, whether right, left, middle or indifferent, feels this way. No Democrats I know wanted to leave just because George Bush won. And neither I, nor any Republicans I know, would have left had John Kerry won. Why? Because rational people don't think this way. There are 545 primary members of our government...not just one. Thankfully, most people know this.

Our nation works for many reasons. We place our faith in the system and it's ability to self-right itself. We believe in the offices of government more than the individuals who hold them. But the one reason I believe to be most important is that the government isn't more important than the people or than real life.

So, to all those Democrats who really want to leave, please do. To all those Republicans who feel the same way had Kerry won, please join them. If I could afford to pay all your passages, I would. America doesn't need fair-weather citizens. So, don't stay on our account. The sooner you go, the sooner the rest of us can get back to work...together.