Page-Ten News

Last week, the Connecticut Senate approved civil unions for homosexual couples. The House is expected to vote on it soon, and I've heard predictions in both directions. A lot of energy and publicity has been expended on this issue from both sides. If you ask me, it all seems like way too much for something that should be a page-ten story.

People's positions on civil unions vary. If asked where a person stands, he or she may give answers based on religious, social, political or financial reasons. I have tried hard to come up with an opinion on this issue, but I just do not have one. In spite of all the coverage telling me I should be for or against it...I realized I just do not care. I have heard all the arguments, and from where I sit, it does not affect me. My life will not change for the better or worse with the outcome.

The sanctity of my relationship with my wife has nothing to do with another couple's relationship, be they same sex or not. Similarly, I do not feel that my country will be committing a great social injustice if civil unions do not exist - I will not feel some great sense of indignation or lacking. Let homosexuals marry...don't let them marry...either way...I truly believe my life will remain unchanged. I see neither harm nor benefit to society or myself. Therefore, I will not endorse the cause, nor join the battle against it. I will just sit back and watch.

I do, however, reserve the right to comment.

This whole issue has been handled very badly by those in favor of civil unions and/or gay marriage. In their desire to bring their cause to fruition, homosexuals (with the all to willing help of the MSM) have actually done themselves a very large disservice. They would have been much better off if this whole issue had remained page-ten news. I firmly believe that if civil unions had stayed well off of the front page, they might very well already exist. At the core, it comes back to one of my favorite topics: ignorance over tolerance. In spite of their beliefs, homosexuals need to accept that they are greatly in the minority. As such, they must remember that not everyone agrees with them. Also, right or wrong, not everything is equal by default - and there's a better way to ask for something.

Whether or not they have an opinion, most heterosexuals I have spoken with are just plain tired of hearing and reading about this issue. I believe most heterosexuals don't care if someone is gay because they don't think about it. Why? Because thinking about it forces them to confront what "gay" means and that makes them feel uncomfortable. Now for a newsflash - that's OK. Nowhere is it written that people must be comfortable with everyone else's lifestyle. In fact, it's human nature that we won't be.

By the same token, most heterosexuals are also uncomfortable being confronted by the particulars of another heterosexual's sex life. As Americans, like it or not, we have socially inherited certain Puritanical tendencies. One is that sex is private, and not a subject for public discussion or consumption. Another is conformity - or at least the appearance of it. Today's society is certainly more open and everything from our advertising to our jokes can have sexual influences. But if you actually start to talk openly and honestly about your sex life, you'll find that you can clear a room pretty damn quick.

In short, most heterosexuals just don't want to hear about it. Hell, we don't even want to know or think about it. And since most people are heterosexuals, that means most PEOPLE don't want to know or think about it. So, I have a word of advice to the vocal minority (and I believe they are a minority) among homosexuals. It's OK to be true to yourself, but have some respect for the sensitivities of the rest of the country. Keep it discreet, don't shove it in people's faces and don't play the poor martyrs. And if you win this fight, accept it gracefully, with quiet dignity and don't rub people's noses in it. Since I don't believe civil unions are a God-given or constitutional right, but rather a social concession, a sincere "thank you" might go a long way.

To the MSM...grow up! Even if no one else is on to you, I am. You don't care any more for this cause than I do. You only want to stir the pot and sell papers or get ratings. If you really did believe in it, you wouldn't endanger it by making it a lead story. At the very least, can't you can find something else to talk about, already? Please?

Kudos to the NFL - Were you watching MLB?

Well done, NFL. I'm not a big football fan, but since it's the Patriots are playing, I had to watch. And more importantly, kids could watch, too. Not only was the half time show exciting, and rated G, but, and this is the part I would like Bud Selig to remember, the game started and ended at a reasonable time!

Sports are a part of American culture. So is capitalism. Wouldn't it be nice if they could always play nice together? It's bad enough that our kids are increasingly assaulted with commercialism. But when one aspect of our culture denies our children the opportunity to enjoy another, it's just wrong.

Major sporting events like this should be timed so they finish well before the end of the day on which they started, regardless of on which coast they are played.

Have I made myself clear, Mr. Selig????

I Remember Reagan

I remember January 20, 1981 like it was yesterday. I was fifteen, sitting in Geometry class in 10th grade. It was right after lunch and an announcement came over the school intercom: “Ronald Reagan was just sworn in as the 40th president of the United States and the hostages have just taken off from Tehran!�

In one breath, the tone for the next eight years was set. Because of him, the world took the United States seriously again. I was glad that Ronald Reagan was my president. Even with no end to the cold war in sight and terrorism on the rise, I felt safe. Someone was really looking out for our best interests. I was proud that my first presidential vote went to him in 1984.

Some people say there will never be another president like Ronald Reagan, that he was one of a kind. I hope they are wrong. I would like to see politics full of people like Ronald Reagan, whether I agree with them or not. It would be refreshing to hear intelligent debates about important issues and ideas instead of the the usual political sniping.

People of Reagan's character are not as rare as people think. But, the path to politics leaves a trail of battered bodies. The media is quick to elevate people and relentless in its desire to tear them back down. As a result, those most qualified rarely seek office. The best way to honor Reagan's legacy is to attract people to politics who can restore its honor and integrity. We the citizens can help in that effort by insisting upon a responsible and accountable media.

Happy Birthday Mr. President!

Action Figure Abducted in Iraq

Can you believe this one? It appears the terrorists in Iraq are actually holding an action figure hostage, and threatening to behead it. Admittedly, it is good news that it's not a real soldier in this photo. But some poor child, somewhere in the Middle East, is probably crying and wondering what happened to his/her action figure. The best comment I heard on this was from a co-worker:

"I think Barbie should hop in the Corvette and mount a rescue mission. Ken probably wouldn't be much help, though"

I'm waiting for them to claim they shot down an aircraft, only to have it turn out to be a plastic model (the raised letters and flashing will probably still be visible).

Too much...

Iraqi Elections

At last report, approximately 8 million Iraqis chose to stare fear and intimidation directly in the face. In doing so, they took the first collective step towards taking control of the country, and their lives. The world was busy listening to biased news reports, fanatical insurgents and doubting governments. The cynics were expecting, even hoping for failure. But they forgot about the Iraqis.

The people of Iraq proved that the promise of freedom is stronger than the threat of violence. In numbers that surpassed most people's expectations, they came out to vote, proudly displaying blue index fingers. Their goals are admirable. Their courage is inspiring. Their actions are impressive. Those of us watching must respect what we have witnessed, and not fail to support them on their road to a better future.

I really hope Saddam had a TV in his cell this weekend.

Random Ramblings

So many thoughts...so little time. I frequently get writer's block, which explains my infrequent postings, but seldom do I get thinker's block. I finally decided to put these ideas down and maybe they'll spur some comments - if anyone is reading, that is. Maybe I'll work some of these into full articles someday. If not, then at least I've purged my mind and made room for the next wave of mental fodder. Since I've never done a brain dump like this yet and some of the thoughts go way back...it's likely to be the longest. Here goes...

1: On Bill Clinton's Impeachment
I didn't really care when I heard about Clinton's dalliances in the Oval office with Monica Lewinsky. I sure wasn't surprised that he fooled around. And it seemed a little premature for people to call for his removal from office at the beginning. After all, the fact that he did it just confirms that he's a philanderer. When he lied about it to the American public, that just confirmed that he was a liar.

But when he lied under oath to a federal grand jury, he became a perjurer...and he violated his oath to "support and defend the Constitution." He may as well have handed the document to Miss Lewinsky to wipe up the mess given the appalling lack of respect he showed it.

At the end of it all, it was amazing to follow the Senate proceedings. Imagine Clinton's luck; he was impeached for perjury but tried for adultery.

I've been wanting to get that off my chest for a long time!

2: On Legislative Reform
I figured out how to stop congress from tacking pork onto important legislation - it's called a relevancy law. Congress needs to adopt regulations so amendments to pending legislation must actually have something to do with the parent bill. I'm sure the various committees are supposed to see to this, but as we all know, back room dealing keeps the barrels a-rolling along. This isn't a party issue - it's endemic to politics.

So, lets create, through constitutional amendment, a new check and balance. Since we know we can't expect congress to police themselves by mandating self imposed relevancy, give the President the line item veto for the purpose of assuring relevancy. If congress challenges any line item vetoes, give the Supreme Court the task to see if the President has used it appropriately.

3: On The Electoral College and Voting Reform
The Electoral College is broken and needs to be fixed. Not abandoned...but fixed. A friend of mine said we should have one vote per state. While this goes straight to the idea of a true republic of sovereign states, it abandons any popular representation. This was the whole argument that prompted the great compromise between Hamilton and Franklin. The founders recognized that the President heads a union of states, not the people directly. But they also realized that one vote per state would be a very tough sell to the larger states. The electoral college was a clever blending of the popular and equal representation.

The problem is that back when it was created, Virginia was our most populous state and had 12 electoral votes. Delaware was the least populated and had only three. The difference of only nine electoral votes assured that the small states had some say as to the election of the president. Today, California has 55 electoral votes but Delaware still has only three. This is a disparity the founding fathers certainly did not foresee.

Today, the smaller states have less influence on the destiny of their country than they did 200 years ago. Any idea of balance in favor of the smaller states is gone. We essentially have a popular vote. Add to this the candidates' habit of ignoring the smaller states altogether (understandable but annoying) and the need for a fix is obvious. In a perfect system candidates take the time to visit all the states, and every state's votes count, and everyone votes. Oh, and a nice to have is that the electoral votes can't be arbitrarily changed by the electors. Short of that, here's my idea.

Re-apportion the electoral college as follows. Abandon the current system where the number of electors for each state equals their number of representatives plus senators. Apportion the votes based on a weighting of the states' populations on a scale using only the even numbers from 2 through 10, and give Washington DC one vote. Using this system, there can never be a tie, and the equity is finally restored along the lines the founding fathers had originally intended.

As an example, in the 2000 election, George Bush had ~50+% (271) of the electoral votes to Al Gore's had 49% (266). Using this new system where all states have an even number of electoral votes between 2 and 10, and DC has one, the results are conclusive. George Bush would have had 78 electoral votes, or 56% and Al Gore would have received 61 electoral votes, or 44%. No contest there.

Since we are a union and not a single country (remember - state does not equal province) it is perfectly acceptable for the president to be elected without a majority of the popular votes, as long as he wins the majority of state votes. One more thing that would also help is to prohibit reporting of official election returns until after all polling stations in the country have closed. We can't stop private polls, but given their inaccuracy in the recent election, they shouldn't cause problems. This could go quite a way to increasing voter confidence and turnout.

4: On A National Language
This one is simple...and it has nothing to do with prejudice or fair play. It is purely economic. How much extra are we paying (wasting) in infrastructure in order to support more than one language. I'll bet if someone takes the time to add it up, it's $ignificant. Any takers? We must standardize on English since most people speak it anyway...and save money.

5: On Junk Science
What happens when incomplete research meets irresponsible journalism? You get the bane of modern technological progress (and a pet peeve of mine): Junk Science. Why is there so much of it around today? It exists for one reason only - because it sells papers. All you need is some scientific research taken out of context and inappropriately apply it to the latest social concerns, and you have everything you need to stir the masses and bring progress to a screeching halt. Making matters worse is the outright stubbornness of researchers who refuse to accept their initial theories or conclusions may be in error.

The first problem is that the general public does not understand science very well. Most advances, contrary to popular misconceptions, take years of slow, methodical progress. Each step along the way brings more questions to be answered. After a time, a refinement is discovered, or sometimes, a new method is developed altogether. Along the way, however, society usually benefits from the ongoing developments. I am an engineer. Technology is tough enough without the bureaucracies of corporate America and the US Government. Progress takes time.

To paraphrase the professor for my undergraduate Aircraft Design classes, "You can't push state of the art to fast without prohibitively raising costs." And as any good capitalist knows, if no one buys an electric car or solar cells because they are too expensive, what good are they?

6: On God Given Rights
I like how southerners’ unique way with words when making a point can very often make you think, and in doing so, teach, as well as persuade. One southerner who is very good at this is a friend of mine. He is about 20 years older than me, which puts him beyond the age giving a damn if something he says doesn’t meet with popular approval. He’s done a lot, and seen more. He is also a Libertarian so when it comes to things political, he makes no pretenses. To paraphrase: “The government is here to serve us, not manage us. Get off my back and get your hands out of my wallet! I’ll take care of myself, thank you.� Hmmm…something noble in that philosophy, I think.

One day at lunch, my friend was commenting about something in the news where some group or another was complaining about unfair treatment, and saying they were being denied their “God-given rights.� With a huff and growl, he said, “Aw shoot, they want their God given rights? Fine! I’ll strip ‘em nekkid and toss ‘em in the woods to fend for themselves. That’s their God given rights. Everything else is a privilege, paid for by the blood and sweat of someone who came before them.� How incredibly profound – and completely correct. We are not as much a free nation, as we are a privileged nation.

OK, that's enough for now...more later.

Condoleezza Rice Confirmed

Congratulations to Dr. Condoleezza Rice on her confirmation as our new Secretary of State.  Though the 13 "no" votes was one of the largest oppositions to any Secretary of State nomination, her final approval from 85 senators was overwhelmingly positive.  In the end, law makers on both sides of the aisle put her qualifications over party politics.

Dr. Rice will have to confront many issues at the beginning of her tenure: the election in Iraq, phasing out coalition involvement, rebuilding strained U.S. relations abroad.  I share the president's confidence that she is more than up to the task.  The issue the press may force her to address first, however, is the fact that she is the first  African American woman to hold the position.  In my opinion...who cares?  She's a great choice for the job...with a resume most people could only dream of.  End of discussion as far as I'm concerned.  But the media will describe her from that point of view for a while, just as they did for Colin Powell at the beginning.  Here's a sampling.

Associated Press: 5th Paragraph (used also by CNN, NY Post, MSNBC, ABC News, et al)

Fox News: 3rd Paragraph

Washington Times: 2nd Paragraph

BBC World News: 7th Paragraph
Interestingly enough, this appears under the interim heading "Ability and Experience"

Yes, it is meaningful and noteworthy because it is a social and cultural milestone.  And I'm sure that to some extent, private to her, she is rightfully proud of it.  But, I am willing to bet that Dr. Rice would much rather be remembered for doing a great job rather than for just the fact that she got the job.  I know it has been, and will continue to be, the same for other first time minority nominees to high profile positions.  It's just a shame, that's all.

Why can't the press say "She's a highly qualified person" without all the racial, religious or gender based descriptions.  It's as though the media feels minorities aren't qualified to be judged on the same scale as everyone else.  We spend way too much time in this country focusing on how we are different, and not enough time focusing on how we are the same.  Perhaps the words of USMC Aviator and Lieutenant General Frank Peterson best express my feelings:

"Achieving the first black/only black is a status, but is also
a double-edged sword. Because it says if this is still important,
we still have a long way to go."

No WMDs...So Why The War?

So, we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq. Well, I must say I'm surprised, but also relieved. Now, at least we have an answer. But, all this begs the question; Why did we go to war in Iraq?

We didn't go to war because we thought Iraq might have chemical weapons. Their existence is an historical fact, as is the use of those weapons.

We didn't go to war because we thought Iraq was developing nuclear and biological weapons. That fact was substantiated by Iraq's report to the UN. You can't destroy programs that never existed in the first place...can you?

We didn't go to war because we suspected a link with Al Queda. If there was no link, how could members of Iraq's government have met with Al Queda operatives in Sudan in the 90's?

We didn't go to war because Saddam Hussein had called for the assassination of former President Bush. President Clinton used a cruise missile to express our displeasure with that.

So...why? Why this war? Why now?

Because the United Nations, an organization of which both the United States and Iraq are members, called for Iraq to dismantle its WMDs and any programs it had to develop them.

In fact, the UN issued over a dozen resolutions to that end. The resolutions also called for verification. One even warned of serious consequences if the resolutions were not followed.

But, you say, Iraq issued a 12,000 (approx) page document listing all its weapons and programs and certified they had been destroyed, as ordered. Yes...yes they did.

But...they refused to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors who were sent to Iraq to verify that the weapons and programs had, in fact, been destroyed. Remember...the deal also called for proof. Mr. Hussien's say-so was not enough.

So, we didn't go to war because Iraq had WMDs or programs to develop them. We went to war because we could not verify that they had been destroyed. Well, since we couldn't find any, now we have our proof that, apparently, they were.

It seems that if Mr. Hussein had voluntarily given the UN's weapons inspectors 1/10th the access that our military took by force, he could have saved everyone a lot of trouble...and saved a lot of lives, also.

The world leader really to blame for this war and the deaths it has caused on both sides is the deposed one awaiting trial at an undisclosed location in Iraq.

Michelle Malkin Under Fire

Once again the very worst of liberal America has reared its ugly head. It seems that minorities are only supposed to be successful if they climb the liberal ladder; their voices should only be heard if they join the cry of oppression from "the man." How sad.

Congratulations to Michelle Malkin for having the courage and self confidence to publish a sampling of the hateful, prejudiced, and by the way, obscene, e-mails she has received. It is good to see that she can rise above this with her dignity and self respect in tact.

Why is it some people must stoop to being vulgar and base in order to express displeasure with someone else's political views? Don't they realize how infantile they sound (or read) when doing so? I only wish she had put their names there as well so these people's friends, families and neighbors could see the type of people with whom they associate.

Bigot, thy name is now liberal!

Keep on writing Michelle!

Read Michelle's Blog Here

The Tsunami - A Lesson In Human Nature

I have been watching and listening to the coverage of the tsunami and the ensuing relief efforts. Much has been written, as well, about this tragedy. My heart goes out to all the victims and their families. Nothing anyone can say can ease your pain...only the passage of time can do that...hopefully. What I want to say is that it is at times like this when certain aspects of humanity are revealed.

First, at difficult times like this, I am always pleasantly impressed by the generosity of my fellow human beings. Regardless of the who and where, people have been uncompromisingly generous. Money and support have been pouring in from around the world. It proves one thing I have always believed...people are essentially good, compassionate and just. We all have our personal faults and shortcomings, but as a species, we prove our mettle and our worth again and again.

Second, times like this also bring out the worst in some people. Unfortunately, I am not surprised by this truth of the world. I am saddened by the reports of those trying to turn a quick buck from this (or any) tragedy. I am also, in no uncertain terms, angered by those who would use this horrible event as an opportunity to divide people. Rather than gratitude, we hear accusations of stinginess. Instead of accepting the fact that nature understands our needs and fragility even less than we understand its, we get finger pointing and blame.

To suggest, even for a moment, that anyone but the most deranged and twisted mind would allow this to happen had they the power to warn or prevent is, in my mind, unconscionable. Not only does it defy my previously mentioned beliefs about the basic nature of humanity, it also defies logic. There is no rationale to support this point of view, or explain why someone would ascribe to it. Let's not increase the world's suffering by adding controversy and suspicion to misery.

Last...a lesson. I frequently quote from my dad, and to close this post, I will do so again: "It's a shame that we always make time to visit people when they have died, but never enough time to do it when they are alive." So go - make contact. Call or visit someone special in your life. Make it more than one person. Reach out, and even reach back, to those you haven't seen or spoken to in a while. And follow through - don't make it a one time deal. Keep in touch. If this past week and a half shows us anything, it is that life is precious and fleeting.

Make people a daily priority.

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.