MONKEYS, WATERMELONS & FREEDOM OF SPEECH

A recent front page cartoon published by the New York Post has much of the liberal world screaming for blood! The cartoon in question showed two police officers who had just shot and killed a monkey. One officer says, "They'll have to get someone else to write the next stimulus bill".

Liberals immediately screamed "racism" and the Post insisted it had nothing to do with Obama. Protests began outside the offices of the Post, eventually they issued a rather wishy-washy apology which only increased the intensity of the protests. Finally a new apology came direct from the top.

In another case, the mayor of a small California town, sent an e-mail with a picture showing the White House lawn filled with watermelons. The caption read, "No Easter Egg Hunt this year". A very predictable uproar began and the mayor has promised to resign because he believes the act has "compromised" his ability to lead effectively.

In both cases, the Right has called the reaction to these images an infringement on Freedom of Speech. "This is America and as Americans we have the right to express ourselves without constraint."

Whether these images are intentionally racist is debateable. The fact that they are perceived as racist by a large segment of the population is not! It is generally considered impolite to intentionally offend people with your speech...but it is still your right to do so. Polite people also hope that if you unintentionally offend people, you can learn from your mistake and not make the same mistake again. But there will always be those people who just don't care.

Rupert Murdoch (Owner of both Fox News & the New York Post) wrote,

"As the Chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me.

Last week, we made a mistake. We ran a cartoon that offended many people. Today I want to personally apologize to any reader who felt offended, and even insulted.

Over the past couple of days, I have spoken to a number of people and I now better understand the hurt this cartoon has caused. At the same time, I have had conversations with Post editors about the situation and I can assure you - without a doubt - that the only intent of that cartoon was to mock a badly written piece of legislation. It was not meant to be racist, but unfortunately, it was interpreted by many as such.

We all hold the readers of the New York Post in high regard and I promise you that we will seek to be more attuned to the sensitivities of our community."

The apology from the owner of the Post was unexpected. His analysis of problem was also extremely insightful. Even if you buy the fact that the slur was unintentional (which I don't), the images evoked for many an extremely upsetting storyline. It not only reminded us of the past when the monkey was a symbol for African Americans but it also seemed to suggest assasination of the President.

The cartoons, whether racist or not, are covered under Free Speech. But those on the right need to understand that Freedom of Speech is a two-edged sword. If Al Sharpton doesn't like what he reads in the Post, he too is free to exercise his option of speaking out against what he reads. If he wants to boycott the Post, he is free to do so and to convince as many people as he can to also exercise thier right to free speech.

That's what FREE SPEECH means! That's what makes America so great to live in!

FACES OF ENTITLEMENT

It is a sad reality that we rarely see the face of the average “entitlement” recipient. The media loves to show us the extreme example. After we become bored with the novelty of octuplets, media spends endless hours discussing the cost to the public of octuplets. Two million in medical costs, Mom takes out student loans to live on, food stamps and a home in foreclosure. Nadya Suleman: POSTER CHILD FOR THE EVILS OF ENTITLEMENT! These are your tax dollars at work. Redistribution of wealth at it’s finest.

Yesterday, I saw another side of “entitlements”. I stood in line at the grocery store muttering to myself about how slow the person ahead of me was. He had a case of soup-in-a-cup and the checker was ringing each cup up individually. It was taking forever and I was in a hurry! Then I listened to the conversation he was having with the checker and I realized why. It was the middle of the month and the man only had so much left in food stamps for the month. He worked nights and was raising his kids as a single parent. The soup was an easy and affordable meal that he didn’t need to be home to prepare. He bought as many as he could afford. The rest of his cart contained fresh vegetables, rice, milk and fruit rollups for the kids. No junk food, no soda, none of the items we are told by talk radio that welfare recipients waste OUR tax dollars on. Instead I saw a father working hard to make ends meet during bad economic times.

As a society, we don’t find any gratification in looking at the millions of Americans who survive because they accept food stamps, Medicare or Section 8 Housing. We show no interest in the numbers of people who have left the welfare system because the system worked for them. They accept help during a bad time and then use that help to get back on their feet. But they’re not interesting! Spend time talking about them and watch your news ratings drop.

There are a lot more people like that man on welfare today than there are Nadya Sulemans. They are good people with something to contribute to our society. Many of them will leave the rolls of welfare eventually. Some of these former entitlement recipients may be your friends. I know a woman who in the 70’s was an unmarried mother of two, who took food stamps, Section 8 housing and student loans. Thirty years later she has a degree and is part owner of a small business. Without government assistance she would never be where she is today. She (and all those like her) are the justification for why entitlements are necessary.

So the next time you want to complain about all those worthless people sucking up tax dollars, keep in mind that all you hear about are the losers. Often the system works and that too deserves recognition.

WE ARE THE ONES

Monday, January 19th is Martin Luther King Day. It was conceived as a day of public service to honor the memory of Dr. King. It is a day that we as Americans have been asked to find some way to contribute to our community. And all across the country people will take time out of their day to do "something". Hopefully you will be among them. It doesn't have to be much. Simply baking cookies for your local fire station or picking up other people's trash along the side of the road. Maybe you'll grab an extra bag of flour to drop off at a homeless shelter or church food pantry. But what ever you do, take time to reflect upon the possibilities of the future.

For years we have complained that the "younger generation" doesn't care. They are the product of broken homes, disfunctional schools and an economy that offers little hope of success to the graduate of a public school. We complain that pop culture belittles the importance of education. Video games and entertainment glorify crime and violence. We have called our children a "lost generation" with good reason. Because they were and still are.

Liberals say all we have to do is put money into education to fix the problem. Conservatives tell us that it's the fault of kids with no drive to succeed. And both sides are right. Without the support of families and a quality education, the chance of a child succeeding is slim. Without a drive to succeed and a belief that success is a possibility, the child has NO chance of succeeding. Government can fix the schools, provide housing, food and medical care for the child....but it cannot convince a child that success is more than just a dream. It takes people to do that.

But today we stand a chance to make a difference. All across this country there are children who have watched the election of Barack Obama and now BELIEVE that anything really is possible. You don't have to play ball like Micheal Jordan or play guitar like Slash to succeed. Dreams have grown into possibilities.

On election night, I watched the results at a party. One of the guests was a young man who is from a single parent home. He had worked for the Obama campaign after school. I watched the look in his eye when it was announced that Obama had won. And after Obama had spoke that evening, I caught him alone in another room standing in front of a mirror giving his own "acceptance speech". His view of the world and it's possibilities changed that night. You watch the news and see countless examples of children inspired by an Obama presidency. And this inspiration has given us as adults the chance to reclaim at least part of a lost generation.

But thier inspiration will be shortlived and of little use if we do not try to nurture it. Don't get me wrong. We won't save them all. But the ones we do are worth the effort. Much like fishermen, Americans tend to fall into two categories: Those that focus on the "many that got away" and those that focus on "the catch we landed". It's fun to complain about the ones that got away but practical people who focus on catching fish...get to eat.

And so this year on Martin Luther King Day, take time to reflect on what YOU can do throughout the year to change a generation ripe for that change. Join a mentoring program or Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Get involved in your church's youth group. Do something weird like joining the PTA. Because for the first time in years, our children are open to our help. Some of them believe in new possibilities for thier lives. We need to be there for them. It's not a question of liberal or conservative, Christian or Athiest, Black or white. It's about our future, their future and the future of our nation.

"We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. We are the hope of those boys who have little; who've been told that they cannot have what they dream; that they cannot be what they imagine. Yes they can."

Barack Obama, Super Tuesday, February 5, 2008

THE IDEALOGUE VS. THE PRAGMATIC

As we come down to the final days of the 2008 election cycle, perhaps we should make a close examation of why we choose to vote the way we do. Our country has managed to divide itself fairly equally between two different and vastly opposing ideologies. And as tends to be the case with extreme idealogues...the more committed they are, the more vocal and uncompromising they are. And this is NOT a good thing. No ideology whether liberal or conservative fits all situations all of the time. The result is a blind committment to what may be a good idea in theory but simply doesn't work in a pragmatic way.

The idealogue will follow the party line all the way....regardless of where it leads. The gay rights idealogue will insist that gay marriage is a right...and nothing less than legal marriage is acceptable. He will continue to insist on his right, even turning down the compromise of "domestic partnership". That means that when his partner lies near death in a hospital, that partner can be kept from the hospital bed by the partner's parents. The pragmatist says, "what's in a name"? Domestic partnership would give you the rights you deserve without incurring the anger and conflict that the term marriage will bring to the discussion.

The idealogue will insist that "gun ownership" should have NO limitations and that any law curtailing your right to a weapon is unconstitutional and must be fought! The pragmatist asks, "what happens when a 14 year old boy walks into your daughter's middle school with an automatic weapon and an attitude?"

The idealogue believes in "my way or the highway" while the pragmatist looks for the compromise solution.

One of the greatest complaints I hear about our government is the assertion that they don't get anything done. But that's to be expected. We vote our ideology. And as a nation we are pretty evenly split down the middle between conservative and liberal. We have reached a national road block with neither conservatives or liberals being enough of a majority to make any progress on real solutions to real problems. And that is why I am supporting Sen. Obama for President.

Two years ago I read both of the Senator's books and was especially impressed with THE AUDACITY OF HOPE. In it he discusses his political philosophy which is very dependent upon the belief that policy only works with a majority concensus. He wrote of two incidents that stuck in my mind that illustrate how a President Obama would approach policy. Both anecdotes involved "hot button" issues designed to upset both the right & the left. But the Senator's take on the Death Penalty and Separation of Church & State was what first led me to think that a President Obama might be a good idea.

While an Illinois State Senator, Obama worked on a bill concerning the death penalty. On a personal level, Senator Obama is against the death penalty in most cases. A liberal group had brought up the issue of Chicago cops who would allegedly beat a confession from a suspect and then have him charged with a death penalty crime based on that coerced confession. The liberal idealogue would insist on trying to ban the death penalty. Obama instead stated the obvious, most Americans support to one degree or another the death penalty. He sat down with representatives of the police and with those advocating the end of the death penalty. He then passed legislation that limited death penalty convictions to cases where the confession is video taped. If a confession was given without the videotape, then the man would only be sentenced to life imprisonment. He found a solution based on the limited common ground of the two sides. Neither was completely happy with it but both sides agreed that it worked better than the status quo.

He also addressed the issue of separation of church & state. As he put it, you can't let the government endorse a particular religion or religious belief. But the flip side is that those who watch that "line in the sand" need to be aware that the world does not stop is someone mentions "God" in public. There needs to be a balance that reflects the differing opinions of the public.

One of Obama's favorite sayings is, "I know you want to go to the moon, but we only have enough gas to get this far". He is pragmatic about what can and cannot be done. I would be willing to bet that all of the screams of outrage against his candidacy from the right will be nothing compared to the screams from the left when they realize that he listens to both sides before acting.

I would prefer to vote for the candidate who is going to realize that America is made up of many differing opinions. I will vote for the candidate who considers the middle ground when enacting policy. To be honest, I think McCain has many pragmatic traits about him. It was one of the things that attracted me to his candidacy in 2000, but he is definitely an idealogue on foreign policy. More importantly, he is an old man and his number two is an unprepared idealogue. And that a recipe for disaster!

DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THE PALIN WARDROBE FUND?

Just a quick question for donors to the Republican Party. It's been difficult economic times for everyone. Do you mind that the McCain Campaign spent $150,000 on a new wardrobe for Sarah Palin or would you like your money back?


Or as Mike Murphy (McCain's 2000 campaign manager) put it:

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PITBULL & A HOCKEY MOM?

YOU CAN FEED A PITBULL FOR 368 YEARS ON WHAT IT TAKES TO CLOTHE A HOCKEY MOM!

WHY I SUPPORT OBAMA: STEWARDSHIP

I have many reasons for supporting Sen. Obama's campaign. Some of those reasons are because I support specific policies that he has proposed. Some of the reasons are less distinct. An example of such is my belief that Sen. Obama would show the best stewardship of the country. Stewardship is defined as the act of caring for another's property or interests. It is an often neglected aspect of the job description of President. But ultimately the concept that the President is responsible for the wise use of the resources of government is one of the most important ideas to the running of good government.

Many people believe that the government should have NO influence over their lives. They have a "survival of the fittest" mentality which denies any need of government influence in thier lives. Other people strongly feel that the government should solve every problem for them. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. We may not want to be taxed: but without those taxes there is no revenue to run the country. Without those revenues bad things happen...bridges fall down, military endeavors fail and economic failings can leave society at a standstill.

So we need government and we need the administration of that government to be wise and responsible. The degree to which we need that government is and always will be an issue of contention among Americans. There are many who believe that Sen. Obama will tax and spend us all into poverty. And that is an issue that has been discussed on many blogs, talk shows and at every bar in the country. The degree to which government needs to be involved is a matter for argument, the need for responsible use of those resources is not.

Simply put, I believe that Sen. Obama will be the better steward of America's resources. You may disagree with how much to give him, but he is the one who will best administer what he is given to work with.

I believe strongly that people fall into two categories as they grow older. Some see the future as a fragile gift to our children and grandchildren. Others believe (regardless of what theology they profess) that when they die....the world for all practical purposes STOPS! I do not profess to know for sure how Sen. McCain sees the future, but I am certain that the father in Sen. Obama looks to the future legacy he leaves his children.

It's much like the Biblical proverb: One servant buried his master's money to make sure that it stayed safe and wasn't lost. He was rebuked for the waste of potential. The wise servant cared for the money as if it were his own. He used it responsibly and produced a profit for his master. He wanted something better for the future...not just to maintain the status quo.

Many have called Obama a socialist or suggested that in "re-distributing the wealth" he would take from the rich to give to the poor. In many cases, this is a thinly veiled assertion that Sen. Obama will "look after his own" and give your hard earned money to those "other black people." The labels & name calling are merely a way to form divisions among us. A way to keep us from examining the real issue: How do we use our resources to our best advantage?

The truth is that Sen. Obama feels ALL Americans are hurting now. And some are doing more than hurting. They make just enough to pay the rent and keep the lights turned on but there is no "extra" to be cut. Under an Obama plan, the ones who make a quarter of a million dollars or more per year will pay more money towards our national upkeep. Why? Because that extra payment will not result in their utilities being turned off. I once listened to a woman ahead of me at the bank who was complaining that the economy was so bad that she couldn't afford to go to Europe for vacation and would have to settle on Mexico this year. I hope you don't mind if I don't get all misty eyed over her loss.

We are a nation at war...on two fronts. We are a nation that has ignored it's infra-structure to the point that it is falling down around us. We are a nation facing a severe recession. We must increase our revenues and we must use those revenues wisely. Never has our nation staged a war paid for by credit and now we must pay the bill. The manner in which that bill is payed is of extreme importance to our future.

All sides, whether they support Obama's bid for presidency or not, have commented on the way his campaign has been run. There have been conservative Republicans who have publicly held the Obama Campaign as a shining example of executive management. The same cannot be said of the McCain campaign. When Obama was asked by the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, "why when you have no executive management experience, should we believe you can run America?" And Obama replied, "Watch how I run my campaign."

So on Nov. 4th, I will look to the future and cast my vote for Sen. Barack Obama. The Senator summed it up best today in a speech:

"We can choose hope over fear, unity over division, the promise of change over the power of the status quo...In one week, we can come together as one nation, and one people, and once more choose our better history. That's what's at stake."

"The change we need isn't just about new programs and policies...It's about a new attitude, it's about new politics _ a politics that calls on our better angels instead of encouraging our worst instincts."

NEW ENDORSEMENT FOR McCAIN

Sen. John McCain's presidential bid received a new endorsement today. Several bloggers on a web site called al-Hesba have endorsed Sen. McCain as the best choice for an American President to promote their agenda. Normally, the McCain campaign would be thrilled at a new endorsement....but this web site is a password protected site sponsored by Al-Qaeda!

They feel that a President McCain will continue to occupy American military resources in Iraq and that his "impetuous" character will lead him to make decisions that will increase the Anti-American sentiment that feeds Al Qaeda funding and recruitment.

It's very easy to make light of this "endorsement". Many on the left are having a field day with it. Look to see it as the "joke of the week" on any number of late night shows. But it alludes to an extremely serious issue that many would like to ignore. We still live in dangerous times! One of the many pro-McCain quotes also suggests that an attack before the election could swing the vote enough to allow McCain to win.

"If al-Qaida carries out a big operation against American interests," the message said, "this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it."

As a liberal, I am often accused of being blind to the dangers of the world we live in. That is simply not correct. Al-Qaida IS still a danger. But it is important to consider how the next President will react in a moment of crisis. Conventional wisdom suggests that the ex-military pilot would have a better grasp of what is necessary to combat the enemy. Unfortunately, all we have seen from Sen. McCain are knee-jerk reactions to events as opposed to a clear, concise response to a situation. (Look at the economic crisis.) When you examine the irratic manner in which he has managed his own campaign, it calls into question his judgment in managing a military operation. We should also keep in mind that our actions in Iraq have been one of the best recruitment tools Al-Qaeda has ever had.

You see, it is not enough for a President to only understand the military aspects of a conflict. He must be equally versed in the political ramifications of his actions. If you blow up a building to kill a terrorist, you will probably also kill civilians. That action may strengthen the resolve of the people to support the terrorists you are trying to defeat. The importance of the target may outweigh the political risk of killing civilians. That is a matter to be judged each time by the President. I have no doubt that McCain can blow up the building. I am no longer sure that he has the wisdom to see the end result of his actions or the political impact they will have on the situation. (Remember, McCain is one of those who insisted that we would be greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people.)

While it has been suggested that an Obama Presidency would be "tested" to see how he would react early in his term, it could also be suggested that the predictability of McCain's temperment is equally dangerous. The first rule of war is to understand your adversary's strengths & weaknesses in order to exploit them. McCain's predictability is very easily exploited.

There is danger in the world today. An "impetuous" president will NOT help us navigate the dangerous waters of the world we find ourselves living in! A new direction is needed!