Some Speech is More Equal Than Others

If you’re reading this commentary in your favorite publication, consider yourself fortunate, because it means that the resident Opinion Editor is one of just a very few fair-minded individuals willing to let all opinions be heard, even the ones that might be critical of the industry that provides them with their creature comforts.

That’s because it reveals a dirty little secret you might not otherwise realize: most media outlets have an agenda. Naturally most will deny it, claiming they are always fair and accurate, but that is very seldom the case, and has been for quite some time.

Here’s one example of many. Most newspaper folks and historians know about Harrison Gray Otis, the publisher and editor of the LA Times at the beginning of the 20th century. He and his son-in-law successor Harry Chandler invented stories of a drought to scare the voters of Los Angeles into passing a bond fund to build an aqueduct from which they and many of their cohorts benefited financially. The power of the media in this case was unmistakable, prompting Lord Acton’s astute observation, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely," to become part of the Western lexicon.

Since then, the media has learned even more about how to manipulate our interests and beliefs. With their constant polling, they can keep tabs on exactly what We the People are thinking, then cleverly present stories in such as way as to incrementally adjust that thinking until we finally come around to their point of view. Most of us are too busy to check numerous sources before we form an opinion about something, we just accept the first, or more accurately, most predominant thing that we see or hear.

That predominance is the key to another not-so-secret reality. Most media outlets, including broadcast, cable, radio, even internet, are owned by large conglomerates that have been gobbling up smaller independent outlets for the last few decades. That has resulted in a great deal of power and influence being in the hands of a very few. In addition, these media empires also own film studios, TV production companies and other fictionalizing media, allowing that agenda to infiltrate and influence us from every conceivable angle.

Clearly, just because our Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech to the people, and that same freedom to the press (and it’s conglomerates), it doesn’t guarantee that the people’s voice can be heard over the press’ voice. The best we people can hope for is to be a momentary blip on the radar that might generate some discussion among other people. Trying to engage in a direct dialogue with the press is almost impossible.

Even when we’re successful, it is well understood that the press will always, always, always get the last word. They merely have to stop printing your side of the story, and they’ve won. Which, again, is why you are so fortunate to be reading this article in the publication in your hands; because it means that THIS editor truly does believe in the freedom of speech for ALL the people.

What is Congress Thinking? Limbaugh is an Entertainer, Not an Elected Official

Politainment strikes again. Rush Limbaugh, the well-known conservative radio talk show jock, said something that offended some people the other day (is that surprising?). In response, the theoretically august body of the Congress (not the Democrat Party, mind you, but members of our duly elected Congress) offered up a demand for an apology from Limbaugh’s employer, Clear Channel Communications. Let’s say that again. The Congress of the United States wants an unelected (and unelectable) private citizen whose job it is to entertain people using whatever thought-provoking and often insensitive methods at his disposal to apologize for his "unconscionable" personal remarks on a political issue.

Let’s get this straight. People like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill Maher and Jon Stewart are professional entertainers. They worked hard and paid a lot of dues to earn an entertainment industry Union Card like SAG, AFTRA or Actors Equity. Just because they get most of their material from politics doesn’t make them political professionals, it’s just that politics is such a great target. They are highly visible espousers of our First Amendment right to free speech, but their opinions are their own, and if you don’t like them, you can change the channel or put down the book.

On the other hand, what our legislators say publicly, while also protected by the First Amendment, should NOT just reflect their personal opinions, as their importance has far-reaching effects that cannot be turned off or ignored. They are responsible for espousing the views of the country and their constituents, not just themselves or their party. To do less is a disservice to their jobs and responsibilities, not to mention being unprofessional.

When certain members of Congress stated publicly that the Iraq War was already lost, it had an understandably crushing effect on the morale of the troops and the country because legislators opinions are taken as policy by all Americans. Now those same members of Congress are demanding that Mr. Limbaugh, a professional entertainer who holds no elected leadership position and represents no one but himself and those who choose to listen to him, withdraw his statements because they are concerned it will have a negative effect on our troops and veterans. How ridiculous!

This trend is frightening. More and more people are beginning to believe that entertainment and politics are one and the same. It not only causes great concern that the average Joe might get confused by the merge (though manipulation of the voter in a variety of ways has always been an unfortunate reality in any democracy), that concern is geometrically increased when those within the two occupations themselves can’t seem to tell the difference anymore.

Just remember, if they have an entertainment Union Card, they are a professional entertainer. If they are a Presidential candidate, legislator, lobbyist or member of an activist organization, they will usually NOT have an entertainment Union card. In fact, there is no labor union for political professionals. Considering their habitual unprofessional behavior, is THAT surprising?

"Politainment" a Real Danger to the Future of our Nation

In this craze to get people "engaged" in politics, we have turned down the extraordinarily dangerous path of mixing politics and entertainment in ways we have never before witnessed and which can’t possibly benefit us in the end.

Watching Hillary Clinton interviewing with Dave Letterman Thursday night was the last straw, albeit just a precursor of the election year to come. Do we really want our political leaders to behave like stand up comedians? Must we insist the minds of our candidates be diverted away from their serious job of being a leader to the opposite job of keeping us entertained? Don’t we already have enough professional performers to do that? If the only way to compel the voting public to become involved with politics it to turn our candidates into amateur entertainers, it’s a pathetic prospect for the future of our nation.

The trouble began when political operatives misinterpreted a whole lot of signs and concluded that being liked was the key to winning votes. That is a wrong assumption. The key to winning votes is to have a leader we respect. Ronald Reagan didn’t earn the votes of the opposition party because they liked him, they voted for him because they respected him. The fact that he was an amiable man was just frosting on the cake.

President Bush is an unfortunate case in point. His handlers worked overtime during his campaigns to make him a likable guy, the sort of guy you could have a beer with, like the guy next door. The point that the politicos have missed is that we don’t want the guy next door as president, we want someone better than that. We want someone who looks and behaves like a president. We want someone who wears the mantle with confidence, and who represents us around the world as the epitome of what an American should be. We want someone that everyone will respect, even if we disagree with their views on certain issues. In that, George Bush has failed miserably.

The same trap awaits the stable of presidential candidates as they face the coming year. Those same politicos (or their progeny) still haven’t learned their lesson. They are still insisting their candidates be "down to earth" in order to be liked by the common man. Worse, they think the way to do that is to turn their candidates into amateur entertainers, to keep the audiences laughing, thus proving their candidate is liked.

We need to maintain the separation between entertainment and politics, and recognize the difference between the two, even if we happen to see them both on the same TV. Otherwise, one day we’re likely to look up and find ourselves with a President whose only skills are in entertaining, and not governing, and that would surely be the beginning of the end of us as a respectable nation.

Good News in Iraq is Bad News for Democrat Leaders

When two harsh critics of the Bush Administration’s handling of the war came back from an eight-day trip to Iraq and printed an op-ed article with the title "A War We Just Might Win" (NYTimes 7/30/07), most Americans cheered, grateful to see some progress, daring to dream that perhaps we could achieve some semblance of peace and cooperation in that worn-torn country.

But while most Americans embraced the good news, the Democrat leadership continued on it’s pessimistic path toward defeat. In fact, they have little choice. Since their head honcho Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared, repeatedly, that the war is already lost, he’s backed his Democrats into a corner that isn’t going to be easy to get out of. They’ve invested so much political capital in bringing the troops home regardless of the status of the job they are doing, to back down now would be a tacit admission that President Bush’s surge strategy might just have a chance of working. Since most of the Democrat’s overall political strategy relies on bashing the Republicans no matter what, they’re stuck treading water until there is more bad news in Iraq.

It’s a terrible thing to have to say, but the Democrats have to bank on things getting worse over there. They’ve leveraged their entire political futures on it. Yet in the long run, it could spell disaster for them on many levels. From congressional candidates to presidential hopefuls, Democrats who oppose a strategy that appears to have a chance of winning will only further distance them from the average American, who hates to see troops injured and dying overseas, but hates to lose a fight even more. Even as we embrace the good news and clamor for more, the Dems are forced to continue predicting gloom and doom.

Democrats are once again in danger of shooting themselves in the foot, a habit they seem to have every time they gain any momentum. If things get worse in Iraq (the fuel for the Democrat’s movement), you can count on them making as much hay out of it as possible, and the Bush-bashing becoming even more strident than ever.

On the other hand, if things get better, the Democrats will have to make a choice; to continue on the Reid-Pelosi-Schumer party line in their blind ambition to put a Democrat in the White House, or to try to figure out a way to distance themselves from their party in an effort to reconnect with the overwhelming number of Americans who will jump on the bandwagon of victory the moment it starts to look like it might be moving again.

Inevitably, this will weaken the Democrats, because, as President Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The same is true for our country, and the sooner more people start remembering that it is America at war, and not Republicans or Democrats, the stronger and greater our country will be.

Jihadist Doctors Just the Beginning of Future Terrorism

The recent failed attacks in Great Britain should be a stark realization of just how much patience and sacrifice our self-declared enemies are willing to practice in order to achieve their goal of a Muslim-dominated world, and it’s a lesson we had better take very seriously.

Contrary to the assumption that these perpetrators were medical professionals who were somehow recently converted to the jihadist way of thinking, Westerners must realize that, in fact, these were terrorists who deliberately set out to infiltrate our society by pursuing a vocation that would allow them complete freedom of travel to any nation in the world and an automatic benefit of the doubt by it’s welcoming citizens. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing, using one of the oldest tricks in the book.

The events in Britain revealed a chilling new strategy in the Islamist’s war against us, and for them, it’s a win-win scenario. Had the attack succeeded as planned, the jihadists would have celebrated another victory in their violent agenda against the West. Even in the face of operational failure, they still struck a blow to the ingrained trust we all have in the medical profession, succeeding in making us doubt the very caretakers we have been taught to believe in. When we begin to fear our own doctors and hospitals, we are the victims of a most inventive and insidious terrorism. It’s only a matter of time before we discover how many other professions of trust have been likewise infiltrated in order to be used against us.

In the face of such deliberate and visionary planning, what have we done in response? Our leaders have become paralyzed. They are so entrenched in satisfying their own immediate political needs that they are blind to the long-term consequences of their paralysis to the nation. They have failed to strengthen our border security, failed to impose the practical use of profiling for fear of hurting someone’s feelings, failed to keep track of immigrants who overstay their visas, failed to develop a practical strategy for facing this new tactic of terror, and even failed to recognize the potential threats that are seeping slowly but surely into our everyday lives. Even in the face of the numerous foiled terrorist attacks on our shores in recent months, they have done nothing for fear of losing political ground. It’s quite clear they will do nothing until another successful terrorist attack, when doing something will finally be to their personal advantage.

Some might say this "sky is falling" depiction of the future is an alarmist attitude. It’s easy to point up and say, "See it’s not falling," convinced that if it isn’t happening right now it never will. On the other hand, "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." Since doing nothing requires no political risk, action or forethought, this current crop of leaders will undoubtedly excel at it. The long-term consequences to our nation, however, are more grave than we can imagine.

Supreme Court Tolls Death Knell for Affirmative Action

From the steps of the Lincoln Memorial back in 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." It became the dream of every proud American too, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 soon followed. The nation breathed a collective sigh of relief, trusting that the injustices of the past would soon fade away, and a better, stronger nation would emerge.

Our hopes were dashed when President Lyndon Johnson decided to reinterpret Title VII of that Civil Rights Act. Though it specifically stated that none of its provisions should be interpreted as requiring "preferential treatment" for any individual or group because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (though obliquely did suggest that some form of "affirmative action" should be encouraged), Johnson decided to codify affirmative action remedies by issuing Executive Order #11246, which made it clear that set-asides, quotas and preferential treatment based on race should be used in order to accomplish his vision of "The Great Society."

In his Letter from the Birmingham Jail in 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Why it wasn’t patently obvious that Johnson’s order to institutionalize racial preference was just such an injustice, whatever the well-intended reason, is hard to understand. Perhaps it was the guilt many thoughtful Americans felt for those past injustices that made us accept it, believing that at some, undefined point in the future, these measures would no longer be necessary. The problem is, once a group enjoys privileges for any reason, they are not going to willingly give them up.

There are no doubt many who will label these views as racist, and will point out the ongoing racial problems that exist in this country. I submit that the reason there are still racial problems in this country is because we are required by law to practice racial discrimination. The fact is, the last two generations have grown up restrained by institutionalized racism. Those given preferential treatment based on race learned from affirmative action that they are recognized by government as "inferior", incapable of succeeding without the "leg up" the law provided. Those on the other end learned that the law created unfairness, that no matter how hard they tried, someone could pass them merely because of their "preferred" race.

As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion of this landmark case from Seattle and Louisville schools systems this week, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." It doesn’t get any plainer than that. We can only hope that this common sense attitude will spread across every walk of life, not just in school systems, and that soon, we will all be able to be "free at last" from the enslaving bonds of affirmative action.

"Immigrant Replacement Reform Bill" is the Answer

THE PROBLEM: Immigration Reform. When you listen to members of Congress, you’d think that absolutely nothing about the current immigration system is working and the whole thing needs to be trashed and started over. Yet when you ask any immigrant who came through that system, and you’ll learn just how effective our current laws are.

For example, we already have a "Guest Worker Program." It’s called a Work Visa, and must be applied for and granted before entering the U.S. The immigrant must have a job waiting for him or her and to have an employer as a sponsor, who must certify that there are no qualified Americans that can fill that job. It’s a strategy that has allowed the Immigration service to protect American jobs. For decades, it’s worked just fine. An immigrant can only stay in our country as long as they work for that one employer. They’re not allowed to change jobs, as that negates their Work Visa.


That’s often a high price to pay for some, but most do it gladly, because they know it’s worth it in the long run. After they make all the necessary effort and sacrifice to obtain a Green Card, they are then provided a long and arduous path to citizenship. It’s a difficult but hardly impossible journey through layers of laudably protective bureaucracy, and it’s another part of the immigration system that works just fine.

The problem isn’t the need to reform the immigration system. The system works fine when people use it. The main problem is the need to get more people into the system. So far, all of the approaches offered up by Congress rely on proven lawbreakers (crossing the border illegally is still a crime, no matter how regularly it may be done) being enticed with so many sweets that they’ll be compelled to come join the party (and, not surprisingly, 6 out of 7 will join the Democrat party, which explains a lot about the immigration debate).

SOLUTION: Quite simply, we make one major, temporary reform to the Immigration system, called the "Immigrant Replacement Reform Bill." For a two-year period, we offer amnesty (yes, amnesty) to American employers who have knowingly or unknowingly hired illegals. Each worker must provide immigration documentation, verified through the

Immigration Service, and be issued a new non-duplicatible biometrics identification card. At the same time, we temporarily open the floodgates to those immigrants who are first in line pursuing the system legally, allowing employers to sponsor as many workers as they need to replace those that turn out to be illegal. As soon as one employee is proven to be illegal, they are quickly replaced with one who has gone through the immigration process.

Granted, the process will likely have to be shortened to meet the immediate demand, but that works to our advantage; illegals will be forced to leave because their jobs are disappearing, those jobs can then be filled by either Americans or newly-legalized immigrants who we now have the means to track. Obviously, many of them will be the same people, but at least now we know who they are, which is the entire point of the current immigration reform debate.

At the end of two years, amnesty is lifted, employers will once again be held responsible for hiring illegals (with loss of their business licenses, the way it used to be), illegals will be prosecuted for merely coming over the border (the way it used to be), and a return to sanity, a sense of fairness, and the rule of law will prevail over the land.

Affirmative Action is Government-Sponsored Racism

Every American will wholeheartedly agree that one of our most basic and noblest beliefs is that all people are created equal, and should be allowed the benefit of beginning their pursuit of happiness on a playing field that is equal and level to every other American. In fact, that’s what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was all about, insuring that everyone, regardless of gender, race, religion or country of origin had equal opportunity to succeed (or fail) under the law. Yes, it would take time for some people to get used to the idea and change their biased ways (our history of inequality is long and shameful), but for the first time in our history, they would clearly be on the wrong side of the law.

Unfortunately, a level field wasn’t enough for some people. Under President Johnson’s Great Society ideals, the government became obliged to make up for "past injustices," thus the creation of Affirmative Action, a sweeping initiative that, with the stroke of a pen, declared everyone who was not of European Caucasian descent socially, morally and/or intellectually inferior, incapable of achieving wealth, health and happiness without the benevolent interference of our know-it-all government. Why would any group of people willingly admit to that?

Quite simply, it was because they astutely recognized how many special privileges such a demeaning label would reap them in the long run. For the price of being labeled inferior, they no longer had to begin at the starting gate, like every other young person in the country, they could start a hundred yards into the race, legally, sanctioned, even encouraged by the law. And the bar wasn’t just set with the legislation in 1968. As recently as 1989 new laws were added to insure that those wanting to secure government contracts had special advantages. The wording of the 8a designation, which grants greater consideration for such contracts, is "Black, Hispanic, Asian American and Native Americans are presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged."

"Presumed to be" is pretty powerful stuff. The daughters of Senator Barack Obama and his wife (both graduates of Ivy League Universities) are hardly "socially and economically disadvantaged," but the simple fact that they are three-quarters black means they automatically go to the front of the line in the pursuit of their education and vocation, according to the law. Is it any wonder that ordinary Americans feel put upon, fueling any dormant prejudices that may remain from the past, or worse, rekindling another generation of racists who inevitably recognize the unfairness of the deal their fathers and grandfathers made?
When will we realize that preference for one group inherently means repression of another?

Every loyal American would vehemently disagree that anyone should receive special privileges because of their race, yet we’ve been brainwashed to think that it’s okay to have a Black Caucus in Congress, but a White one would be racist. We’ve been trained to believe that a Black Miss America Pageant where no whites need apply is fine, but a White Miss America Pageant with the same restrictions against blacks would be outrageous. We insist that mortgage lending be equal under the law, but force people to indicate their race on their applications in order to make sure the lender is lending "equally." If the lenders don’t, they’re subject to sanctions, yet if they do "meet the numbers," we hypocritically say there’s no quota being forced.

The biggest problem with Affirmative Action is that it fails to provide a measure for when those original "injustices" are sufficiently remedied. How do we know when we’ve achieved equal opportunity for all? When we have Black, Hispanic, Asian American and Native Americans in Congress? Been there, done that. How about in the Cabinet? Been there, done that. Must we have one of each minority become President before we finally decide we’ve outgrown Affirmative Action?

The whole Affirmative Action movement is one big fat hoodwink, and it needs to be changed before we raise another generation of citizens who learn that some Americans are given preferential treatment by the government (again) because of their gender, race, and creed. As long as Affirmative Action is on the books, as long as certain groups are given a hundred-yard advantage, individual achievements will never earn the respect they deserve, because there will always be doubt whether that success was the result of unfair play. For generations, the defining cry "Only in America!" could be proclaimed by anyone who achieved success from humble beginnings, despite whatever obstacles of life were put in their way. Somehow, it doesn’t ring quite so true when the government, by law, removes some of those obstacles based on racist reasoning, further perpetuating our long shameful history of inequality.

Abortion Shouldn’t be a Presidential Issue

For decades now, pro-life and pro-choice forces have been trying to make abortion a key issue in Presidential elections. To date, there is no evidence that their posturing and vehemence has made any difference at all, either to the outcome of the election or the furthering of the issue. By wasting all their time, money and energy pinning all their hopes on a candidate that has little or no control over the debate (other than to appoint justices that never seem to vote the way they want anyway), both sides have missed many opportunities to progress this heated dialogue toward a practical and amenable solution.

The obvious yet unseen truth is that both the pro-life people and the pro-choice people want the same thing: for every pregnancy to be a planned and wanted one. But their horns have become so locked in anger, so inflamed at the insensitivity of the other side, that they are unable to step back and look at the big picture, and the many, many things they have in common, including the clear-cut steps necessary to achieve their mutual goal.

It is their stubbornness to see the other’s point of view that precludes them from coming together with solutions that would benefit everyone in a satisfactory way. By distracting themselves with the hunt for the perfect Presidential candidate to support their side, they have alleviated themselves from having to tackle the tough issues on the ground, where it counts. In the 1960’s vernacular, both sides have "copped out."

Yes, the arguments for pro-choice and pro-life are wide and deep. Yes, there are strong feelings on both sides. But the fact is, better solutions could be found, if only the leadership of the groups that hold this issue most dear would come together, rather than put all their eggs in an inconsequential presidential basket.

The fact is, abortion has been legal in this country for over thirty years now, and few people would want to give up a right they have had for more than a generation, any more than they would want to return to the days of Prohibition. For those of us who remember the reality of the pre-Roe v. Wade days, when abortion was as illegal as ultra-conservatives would like to make it again, women still had abortions, just as people still drank during Prohibition despite its illegality. The difference is that when you try to legislate behavior, rather than educate responsibility and accountability for that behavior, everyone, and our society as a whole, loses. We lose freedom, we lose rationality, we lose common sense.

Just as making alcohol illegal forced the making of moonshine and bathtub gin in unsanitary conditions the norm, thus posing a greater health risk to those who ingested it, women will once again be forced to give up the current safe and sanitary conditions with skilled medical personnel, and return to the days of sneaking into run-down flophouses, with abortions being performed by anyone with a coat-hanger and a modicum of greed, inviting infection and botched procedures that cost not just the lives of the embryo, but the lives of thousands of women as well. The Prohibition of abortion has never been successful, just as the Prohibition of alcohol, too, was a spectacular failure.

There is no question that a reversal of Roe v. Wade would force a return to that kind of butchery, because women in certain unfortunate circumstances have for millennia been making that choice, albeit a choice of last resort, and always will. These are lessons we Americans have already learned. Why must we have to learn them over and over again?

By the same token, the preservation of life is also an extremely important matter for all of us. Naturally we’d like every pregnancy to end in a healthy birth, every child born to grow up in a happy and well-balanced family, either natural or adopted, and to live up to his or her full potential as a benevolent human being. The problem is, reality gets in the way. Life has never been that easy, even under the best of circumstances, and never will be. Human nature, even with the best of intentions, won’t allow it.

Most importantly, it must be realized that the settlement of the pro-life v. pro-choice issue won’t come with either the repeal or the salvation of Roe v. Wade. Even were the decision to be overturned, the debate would continue. Solutions can only come when the two sides seek out and find their common ground, and settle it peacefully, and the sooner they stop wasting time and get on with it, the better. Unfortunately, that won’t happen as long as the issue erroneously remains a contentious presidential one to be fought over again and again every four years.

Pelosi’s Vigilante Diplomacy Should be Prosecuted

There is a myriad of long-standing laws on the books prohibiting American citizens and unauthorized officials from negotiating public agreements with other nations outside normal diplomatic channels. It is absolutely clear that House leader Nancy Pelosi’s recent trip to Syria violates those laws. She should therefore be prosecuted to their fullest extent, along with everyone else in her entourage.

Vigilante behavior, no matter how noble it’s goals may be perceived by some, is still rightly abhorred in this country. Reminiscent of discredited frontier justice in the old West and rampant lynch mobs in the Deep South, it is just as disgusting now as it ever was, and even more dangerous when it is carried out by highly placed officials who think themselves above the very laws they create yet expect the rest of us to abide.

The late president Lyndon Johnson once wrote, "I am a free man, an American, a United States Senator, and a Democrat, in that order," wise words too many politicos have forgotten. Fortunately, most of our citizenry still believes that’s the way things should be. We are still capable of lifting the fog of party affiliation and thinking like Americans, making it much easier for us to answer these next questions:

Is it right for any public official to flaunt America’s laws simply because they hold an elected office? Is it right for anyone to place themselves above the clear path of diplomacy our country has established and falsely take up the mantle of a completely different path without sanction by those whose responsibility it is? As Americans, a nation that depends on the adherence to laws, the answer can only be a resounding "No," which means that the Justice Department should immediately begin proceedings against those who recently traveled to the Mideast, as visibly and succinctly as possible. Failure to make an example of this outrage will only result in more criminal behavior, and even more dangerous disregard for the law by our officials.

Unfortunately, few people in Washington these days would embrace the sensible words of President Johnson and put their party affiliation on the back burner. Instead, we have a Democrat party that will likely reward their House Leader for her vigilante diplomacy, and a Justice Department too skittish to do the right thing for fear of creating further political strife for their Republican (rather than American) bosses. A public prosecution would no doubt simply provide more fodder for the already overworked Democrat strategy for Bush-bashing.

But once again, the Democrats have run the risk of overplaying their hand. It is clear to even the most detached observer that the Democrat’s entire agenda is simply to continue to undermine anything and everything the administration does. As long as they kept their vituperous rhetoric within our shores, it could be excused, even tolerated because of our faith in the First Amendment.

But now that the incessant Bush-bashing has traveled overseas in a quasi-official status by fellow Americans, the line has been crossed, and Pelosi and her "bi-partisan" cohorts must be punished, not because of their party affiliation, but because they are citizens who broke the laws of our nation. If we fail to prosecute them simply because of their official positions or political affiliations, it will truly be a clear sign that vigilantism has regained it’s former ill-gotten legitimacy, and our more civilized America has completely, and sadly, lost its way.

Where Have All the Leaders Gone?

During a press conference a few weeks ago, President Bush repeated a comment that was made to him by an unnamed Congressman, who told him that the President’s upcoming Iraq speech "had better be eloquent." Our President’s reply made it clear that he didn’t think he had to be eloquent, or even adequate, that all that mattered was what happened on the ground. There’s no question that Mr. Bush has been wrong on many things before, but on this point, he is so far off the mark that it’s absurd.

We’re the country of great orators, from Ronald Reagan to JFK to FDR to Abraham Lincoln to Thomas Jefferson and just about every last one of our founding fathers. People who could rouse the nation into positive action, inspire our citizens to sacrifice personal comforts for the good of the many, men who could put aside differences and show us all the beauty of their vision of a united country, the last, best hope of a violent and unjust world.

How did we ever get to this point? Is it because all our latest generation of campaign politicos have grown up with the idea that we need to make our leaders "down to earth", like the guy next door? Frankly, the guy next door isn’t good enough. We need someone better. We need someone we can look up to and admire, to emulate, to want to FOLLOW to a better life, for goodness’ sake!

Which is why it is beyond comprehension that two U.S. Senators, Charles (sorry, "Chuck") Shumer and Dick Durbin, both with their eye on the White House in 2008, would allow ABC World News to come into their "Animal House", a two bedroom townhouse near the Capitol that they share with two other Congressmen. While the rest of us decent people would have called a maid service or worked for days preparing our homes for a national TV appearance, these four clowns didn’t bother to pick up old beer bottles, pizza boxes or even their dirty underwear! And they want us to seriously consider them to be the next President of the United States? You have to be kidding!

Have we as a country entirely lost our way? Or is it simply that our "leaders" have completely forgotten what leadership looks like? Our president certainly doesn’t know what it looks like, or how to do it, or even realize how important it is. Now we’ve learned that Senators like Durbin and Shumer don’t understand it either, as they remain oblivious as to how many followers (i.e. votes) they lost because of their slovenliness AND the poor decision to allow cameras into that mess in the first place. Just because a camera CAN come into their private lives doesn’t mean it should. We deserve better than this!

Yet we all DO recognize a leader when we see one. He or she is always the one in charge, the one with the plan, the ideas, the inspirational presentation that gets people first to agree, then to get off their duffs and go out and help make it happen. We recognize leadership in those that always behave like a leader, even when they are mortally wounded; always the last one to surrender and the first one to get back up to fight again; always has answers that look to a positive future, even if the answer is just , "I don’t know, but I know we can find a way"; always the one to make sure the needs of the followers are met before satisfying his or her own needs.

Yet here we are, a country with 300 million people, with a President how doesn’t have the first idea that leadership is ALL about appearing like a leader, who instead stutters and ums and uhs his way indecisively through every press conference, convinced he has no need to look like a President or act like a President, because he already has claim to the position.

We have senior Senators who aspire to replace that President who don’t even know that inviting cameras into their grown-up(?) Frat houses diminishes them, because it not only makes them seem less like the austere, wise Senators we expect them to be, it actually makes them seem like less than men, mere boys who can’t run a household as well as the worst housewife. How could we have been so foolish as to charge them with the responsibility of running our country as Senators, much less consider them as a possible Presidential contender?

It’s a simple fact: when a leader appears vulnerable or incompetent in the eyes of his followers, that leader ceases to be a leader. Were it not for the Constitutionally-designated term of office for a President which we Americans all respect, that time would have already arrived in fact, as it already has in perception as well as reality. We are now simply waiting impatiently to see who his successor will be.

Selecting a new President during this very long 2008 political cycle will be easy, and we’ll see it coming from a long way off. That’s because the first candidate that looks like a President, behaves like a President, and talks to us like he or she is already President will win this election, period. If NO candidate is able to achieve the appearance of true leadership, as recent history suggests is quite possible and perhaps even likely, then it will be a long political season indeed.

State of the Union Long on Content, Short on Delivery

As usual, President Bush’s delivery of the State of the Union was less than inspiring, not because his script lacked what Americans needed to hear, but because he, once again, failed to grasp the simple concept that HOW he delivers his message is significantly more important to his viewers than WHAT that message is.

Bush is not alone in this lack of understanding. Political pundits who subsequently analyze his speech invariably gloss over his delivery with a few vague adjectives (strong, weak, tired, flat), then skip merrily along to tearing apart the content of the message, which is easy because no matter what it is, it could never make everyone happy no matter how well written it might be.
Most Americans, on the other hand, will form an opinion of his speech based on HOW he said it rather than WHAT he said. What most of us feel about the speech is primarily derived from how Mr. Bush MADE us feel about it, and that comes entirely through his delivery, not his words. When the president’s delivery is lackluster and uninspired, it’s impossible for his audience to feel anything more than that.

Let’s face it. We all instinctively know what characteristics we expect from a President of the United States. It is practically ingrained in us from birth. When someone says, "That person looks presidential," we know exactly what they mean. Whenever an actor portrays a president, he or she always know just what to do to look "presidential." That’s one reason why Ronald Reagan was dubbed the "Great Communicator," because he had acquired the tools he needed to be a good presenter during his early acting career, and continued to hone them throughout his life.

Yet these tools are hardly exclusive to professional performers. Bill Clinton was a very good presenter, too, as was John F. Kennedy and FDR. Unfortunately, most viewers, including the political pundits, believe that the ability to appear presidential, particularly in difficult times like these, is something innate, incomprehensible and immeasurable. They believe that a person either has been born with the ability to make an effective presentation, or he hasn’t, period.

Because of that errant assumption, many people don’t even try to seek out and acquire the tools that could be of such benefit to them. Such is the case with President Bush. Despite the fact that being able to make an effective presentation (which includes the tools necessary to look "presidential") is, or should be, Job One for a president, this president has capitulated that responsibility, surrendering in the face of ongoing criticism because he believes he’s doing the best he can. He hasn’t learned what every actor knows, that these skills need constant honing, and that with the right tools, he could learn to be better.

There’s still time for President Bush to regain some of his earlier power and popularity by improving his presentation skills. Just look at Al Gore. He’s gone from Mr. Stiff in 2000 to Academy Award nominated performer in 2006, just because he learned somewhere along the line how to make a better presentation. If Al Gore can do it, anybody can.

What To Look For in President Bush’s State of the Union Address

Most people will be looking for substantive content in President Bush’s State of the Union Address Tuesday night, but it is not his carefully crafted content that will sway the hearts and minds of Americans. It will be in the way the speech is delivered.

While political pundits will use vague adjectives to momentarily describe the president’s style (strong, weak, tired, flat) before quickly turning to the "meaning" of the content, most Americans will set an opinion of his speech based on HOW he said it rather than what he said. How we feel about the speech will be solely derived from how well Mr. Bush MAKES us feel about it through his delivery.

For the professional speech analyst, the elements that make a speech successful can be measured, counted and scored against specific criteria. For the average American (and political pundit), it simply registers as a gut feeling based on what we expect, and what is needed at that moment in time based on our own experience and desires.

We all instinctively know what characteristics we expect from a President of the United States, and it is only through his own personal presentation that we can know whether or not we are getting it. What is needed for the country at this time is for President Bush to take on a "Father Knows Best" posture. Kind, patient, wise, yet strong and sure of himself, the guidance of a teacher to help us understand more clearly why he’s been making the decisions he has, despite our inability to see those reasons clearly. This must be delivered in a way that is not condescending or defensive, or, as in the case of his Iraq speech earlier this month, overly contrite, so much so as to appear weak.

For the layman, the test is a simple one. When you listen to President Bush speak Tuesday night, ask yourself this. "Does he behave like a President having an important conversation (as opposed to ‘giving a speech’? Am I included in that conversation?" If the answer is "Yes," then the has succeeded in getting you on board, at least for the moment. If the answer is "No," expect the pundits to be vague in their comments about style and merciless in their criticism of his content, despite the fact that his content has almost nothing to do with it.

In the world of politics, where Americans have learned that no message remains constant, this is definitely a stellar case for the old adage, "It’s not WHAT you say, it’s HOW you say it."

Presentation is the Key to Presidential Legacies

When you look at the biographies of our founding fathers, almost all of them include remarks about how that person was "a great orator." How many presidents have earned that moniker since the advent of radio and TV in the last century? Three, maybe four in eighty years.
Consider the legacy of FDR. Though some of us might remember him for his massive social programs that helped us rise from the Depression, most of us remember his Fireside chats and his speech to Congress after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, that "date which will live on in infamy."

The next president we all remember as a good speaker is JFK. Though we will never forget his assassination in broad daylight and the aftermath that followed, we very often remember how he beat his opponent Richard Nixon in a debate because Nixon was shifty-eyed, sweating, and on the verge of a "makeup malfunction," while JFK appeared cool, calm and "presidential."

The next most remarkable president from a presentational standpoint, of course, is Ronald Reagan. As the first career actor to take the presidential podium, he grew up understanding and mastering the art of the electronic media, which is why he earned the coveted title, "The Great Communicator." In reality, his presidency succeeded because he knew precisely how to communicate with the people, even on unpopular issues, and to make us see the world as our world, together, for the first time in many decades.

His successor, George H.W. Bush is better known for his lack of ability to communicate. While he may have been a very effective and popular leader at the time for having fought and won a war on his watch, he was unable to effectively communicate "that vision thing" during his re-election campaign. The result was a resounding defeat by a practically unknown, backwoods Arkansan who had almost no name recognition at the time, but quickly made up for that by being able to make a great presentation. It’s a lesson astute contenders for the 2008 presidential election should take to heart.

What Bill Clinton did have (and still does), is an excellent understanding of the techniques necessary to make an effective presentation, regardless of the venue or the circumstances. Clinton has clearly mastered the art of talking his way into and out of just about anything. It takes years of training to master, in the same way it took years of studio training for President Reagan to master, but the results are well worth it.

Now, of course, we have President George W. Bush. What sort of presentational legacy will he leave? When he speaks before a friendly crowd using teleprompters, he can usually come across adequately, though not very inspiring, despite some very well written speeches, confirming that it’s less about what you say and more about how you say it.

When he has to answer questions, however, he fails miserably, for two main reasons. The first is his incessant use of "thinking words" like "um" and "uh," which makes it appear that he has no clue how to answer, or that he’s just making things up as he goes along. This terrible and counterproductive habit (and one that even many newscasters are now succumbing), can have no other effect on the listener than to force them to conclude the speaker has no idea what he or she is talking about. Obviously, this is not the kind of impression a leader should want to make.

The second major mistake he makes is with his defensive, even whiney tone of voice. Sounding like a whiner diminishes all remaining credibility. No one wants to follow a whiner. Imagine George Bush using that defensive tone of his for a line like, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Again, it’s less about what you say, and more about how you say it that wins the hearts and minds of the listener.

The United States has had many great leaders who were poor presenters. We’ve also had many great presenters who were poor leaders. Yet the only ones that seem to leave a legacy worth remembering are the few that manage to achieve both.

We are grateful that our Constitution and it’s First Amendment allow us to criticize our leaders like this without fear of prosecution, thus making this article possible. But the "right to free speech" is being underutilized when it doesn’t encourage the "right to great speech" as well. The next leader that is able to both lead and make a great speech might once again earn the legacy of "great orator." Heaven knows, we could use one.

Was our vote for the People, or the Party?

One of the many beauties of the American democratic system is that when we cast our vote on Nov. 7, we chose individuals, candidates who had his or her own line on the ballot. It wasn’t a vote for an institution or a political party (even if we voted a straight party line), our votes were for individuals. Whether we were voting for one person or against another doesn’t matter, only that we voted for individuals.

The reason we choose individuals is because people trust people, because our candidates can look us in the eye and we can judge their believability by the way they communicate with us on a one-on-one basis. We choose them because he or she has assured us more convincingly than their opponent throughout their campaign that they better understand us and our needs, and will go to Washington (or the state or local government) to help us have those needs satisfied. The problem is, once they win, they seem to disappear into some large, onerous and untouchable vacuum, never to seen or heard from again (until the next election).

Just look at what we’ve seen in the last week. We delivered our winners their victories, and they left Wednesday morning, poised and ready to satisfy our personal needs. Once the candidate wins, however, the party suddenly swoops in and takes credit for that victory and scores of others across the country, whether they deserve it or not. The party patently paints every winner with the same party brush. The party starts spewing it’s party line (which often contradicts what our candidate said during his campaign), and the individuals we voted for disappear behind a curtain of party politics, party ideals, and party obligations. We no longer have anyone to look in the eye and believe anymore. We individuals don’t trust institutions or parties, we only trust people.

Granted, we knew our candidates belonged to a party, but many of us don’t, or we vote across party lines in order to vote for an individual we like or respect. Once the election is over, however, suddenly that individual is gone, and only The Party remains. This is the mistake every political machine makes; they forget the individual. They forget that the candidate is an individual, and they forget the voters are individuals.

That’s the unseen uphill battle for every Party once they gain power, and the cycle seems unbreakable. First, Party leaders assume that because the voters elected enough individuals on one side of the "center" to give them power, they intentionally interpret that as a mandate to try to swing the entire country as far to that side as possible. The party loads all of its individual’s weight together, whether they agree with the party or not, and under that weight, the pendulum swings one way.

Once it goes too far (as it invariably and inevitably does), the voters stop the swing by voting for enough individuals on the other side of center to give the opposing party power, who then misinterprets that as a mandate, loads all of its individual winners together (whether they agree with their party or not), and try to swing the entire country as far as possible to their side. The pendulum swings the other way.

The problem is, there is no mandate, or more accurately, the only mandate is to stay in the middle. In the middle is where most of us individual Americans feel most comfortable, and that’s where we want to stay. We vote for an individual because we believe that individual is like us, and that he or she will go to Washington and address our personal needs. They’ve looked us in the eye and told us so.

Once they’ve won, however, and all we have to listen to are the spoutings of the Party leadership saying how much they’re going to move away from the center, we start to become confused, then angry. Having been flush with the exhilaration of going to the polls to participate in our great democracy despite the inconvenience of time and weather, within days our hopes are dashed as our candidate disappears into the sunset. Is it any wonder barely half of eligible voters bother?

The only solution is for the great monolithic political parties to recognize and remember the individual after the election. All these speeches about being "bi-partisan" only remind us that our individual candidates have disappeared behind the party curtain, and any hopes we had of staying in the middle are quickly becoming pipe dreams. We already see the two behemoths posturing, claiming they’ll all get along when we know that it is impossible for these two leopards to change their spots. It’s just a matter of time before someone takes the first shot and blames the other one for it. We individuals are already anticipating the time when we will have to go back the other way, to keep the pendulum as close to the middle as possible.

The first party that learns to effectively communicate that it is a party of individuals with individual ideas and individual responsibilities, rather than absorbing all of its candidates into its one-sided mindset that has little agenda other than to oppose the one-sided mindset of the other party, the party that appears to always put the needs of the individual voter first, before the needs of the party or its leadership, the party that recognizes that being in the middle is where the majority of Americans want to be, and that it is all the majority the party needs to win, will be the one who holds power the longest.

Whether the Democrats or the Republicans can let go of their decades of institutionalized political machinery in order to accomplish this, or whether some yet to be created Middle of the Road Party will need to be started in order to do so is anyone’s guess. What is certain is that when a need exists, somebody always comes along to satisfy it, and right now, this country needs leaders who can communicate to the individual effectively. Keep your eyes open, we need to find them before it’s too late.

The Epidemic of "Uh"

If you’re the kind of person who hates to get a song stuck in your head, you may not want to read any further, because if you do, you’ll never be able to watch TV news the same way ever again.

Not so very long ago, people who spoke in public were generally obliged to be articulate and well-spoken. That’s why they became our leaders, our news anchors, our experts and our noted storytellers, receiving accolades and admiration for their skill in using the tool of language.
Nowadays, the most common word (if you can call it that) you hear in almost any American public forum is "uh", along with it’s annoying cousins "umm" and "ya know". Turn on any 24-hour news channel or C-Span, and start counting the number of times you hear these noises. It can reach the hundreds in an hour. It’ll drive you crazy once you start to notice it.

Actually, in my old 1941 Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, uh and um aren’t even in it, though newer dictionaries errantly include them. They shouldn’t be there. Words, after all, are supposed to convey substantive meaning, a tangible object or an abstract idea. These syllables of noise do not. To say it is the sound of "thinking out loud" is just wrong. The only thing this cacophony of sounds indicates is that the speaker apparently has no idea what he or she is talking about, regardless of how many degrees, titles and credits they may have attached to their name.

Some might blame the advent of the 24-hour news stations for this epidemic, the talking heads who must interview anyone and everyone, regardless of broadcasting or speaking experience, simply to fill the airwaves with noise in order to prove they exist. That seems like the simple answer. Yet if that were the case, then why are so many so-called "professional" broadcasters some of the worst offenders? And how does that account for so many public and private leaders who are guilty of the same sad habits?

Let’s face it. Whenever you hear someone use a lot of "ums" and "ya knows" you cannot help but doubt their credibility. So why do they do it? Why don’t they realize just how much more intelligent they would sound if they simply replaced this obnoxious noise with what we in the listening public affectionately refer to as "a pause"?

Imagine, for a moment, what it would be like if the speaker was to eliminate these irritating and obnoxious sounds, and instead, you were treated to a grand moment of ..... silence. A beautiful, cool, clear breath of fresh air, allowing us, for an instant, to be drawn fully into the image the speaker is creating (or about to create) in our minds. Anyone who’s ever heard Paul Harvey on the radio knows exactly what I’m talking about.

Not only does a pause give us time to reflect on what the speaker is saying to us, it also makes it appear that the speaker is carefully sorting through reams of knowledge in order to find just the right words to share with us, thus creating the impression of both intelligence and concern for our understanding, the absolute antithesis of "uh". Now THAT is a speaker we can admire.
Trained professional speakers, broadcasters, experts and our leaders should already know this, and should have enough discipline to be able to use pauses effectively, yet most of the time, they don’t. Perhaps this phenomena is most aptly described by Dr. Temple Grandin as, "The bad has become normal." And it surely is bad these days.

Perhaps a bit of tough love is in order to raise the bar. Just imagine if Fox News or CNN were to begin to fine their anchors $10 for every "pause filling noise" they used instead of a pause. How long do you suppose it would take before we could eliminate this annoyance forever? (Though it might take big loss of pay before some of them can break the habit, it would be worth it!)

Another approach might be increased drug testing. You see, my husband has a theory (to which I originally guffawed, but now I’m having second thoughts), that the exponential growth in the use of these annoying "thinking" noises comes from the loss of short term memory caused by the smoking of too much marijuana. He thinks the more times they "um" and "er", then... well, you get the idea. Hmmm... suddenly it’s a lot more fun to watch the news...

Spanish Language National Anthem Inflammatory

In the heat of the debate over border security, immigration, and assimilation, the last thing this country needs is to have more fuel poured onto the fire by a British music producer releasing a Spanish language version of "The Star-Spangled Banner".

Those citizens of the United States who have been quietly standing by, waiting to see what side of these intertwined issues our legislators will fall, will no longer be able to stay out of the fray. Even the most uninvolved will likely become outraged at the whole idea of our national anthem being re-written to suit the desires of what is still a minority in this country. The path forward from here has become even more treacherous than before.

Yes, we are a country of immigrants. Yes, we are grateful our ancestors took the dangerous trip to get here. But by and large, when they got here, they checked in at Ellis Island or some other port of entry, were registered, checked for disease, had to prove they could support themselves and their families, and received papers that made them legal. Then they went on to do their best to assimilate to this country, and to make sure their children assimilated to this country. That began with learning English, the language of the land and of the opportunities that waited for them here.

Those members of the Hispanic community who have suffered that same struggle should be applauded and welcomed into our rich immigrant history. They should be congratulated for resisting temptation, and for abiding our laws to the letter. They should not be discriminated against because of their heritage, their looks, or their language. Unfortunately, they cannot help but be tainted by the brush of those who have cheated the system by slipping over the border in the dark of night, and who are forced remain in the shadows. Those illegals do themselves, the legal Hispanic community, and this country a huge disservice, and will undoubtedly be dealt with much more strongly than they have been in the recent past.

This is not a fight most of us wanted. As long as the illegals remained quiet it was easy to leave them alone, easy not to enforce the laws, easy to pay less at the grocery store as a result of their field labor. Now, however, as they increasingly flaunt our laws, behave as though the mere fact that they are here gives them the same rights as an American citizen, and now, to try to change our culture to suit them, rather than assimilate as our ancestors did, there’s no more standing at the sidelines.

Americans who didn’t have an opinion before will surely have one now, and the result won’t be pretty. When you wave a red flag at a quiet bull, what do you expect?

Muslims see our freedom as a chink in our armor

While many Muslims across the world continue to protest the publication of a cartoon depicting Muhammed, all of us in the Western World should be taking stock of the stark differences between our cultures, and considering very carefully our own reactions to it.

On one hand, it's easy to blame the press (once again) for irresponsibly throwing fuel onto an already smoldering fire. They are such a huge target they are bound to catch some of the flack. They are an easy, but incorrect, scapegoat.

On the other hand, and much more importantly, the truth behind these demonstrations is that these Muslims (not all Muslims to be sure, but these more radical Muslims, in apparently growing numbers) want to suppress freedom, especially freedom of the press, worldwide. They want to silence all those who do not share their culture. There can be no other interpretation for their actions. They wish to put their own beliefs above the beliefs of others, and behave violently when that wish is not honored.

In the United States these days, we have a long fuse when it comes to accommodating different cultures. Our history of being the world's melting pot is long and illustrious, albeit bumpy on occasion, yet our country is better off because of it. That is why when we hear conservatives defending the administration's war on terrorism with phrases that include "we must protect our way of life", it has, until recently, seemed too vague and general to be taken seriously.

With the spread of these recent demonstrations, however, we are beginning to understand that these radical Muslims really do want to suppress our most basic freedoms, rights we have enjoyed for less than a dozen generations and for which we have had to fight and die for throughout the life of this nation. We must not take them for granted. We must carefully reexamine our willingness to let our own "way of life" be suppressed in our desire to be tolerant of others. Somewhere, despite our strong desire to be painfully politically correct, as a freedom-loving people, we need to draw a line.

Regardless of whatever original reasons we occupied Iraq, we must see the larger picture that is developing. We must recognize that the success of a democracy in the heart of Islam may very well be our first line of defense. It is certainly the best way for the Muslims to learn the patience and tolerance that our democracies have taught us; that great social changes occur more effectively with free elections, rather than violence; that losing an election isn't the end of the process, it's simply part of the evolution of a nation; that it isn't necessary for all sides to have the same point of view or to even be in charge for everyone to have an equal chance at being a citizen of a vibrant community; and that a free press is critical to a transparent and accountable government.

With the success of a democracy in a predominantly Muslim country, it will soon be clear to every culture in the world that freedom is a strength, not a weakness, and that ALL people are better off WITH freedom than without it. Above all, it will be a victory for freedom-loving people everywhere, proving that it is "a way of life" worth fighting for, and those of us with the resources can and must protect it.

What a Difference a Hyphen Makes

The United States of America has always been considered the great melting pot. Nothing made an immigrant family more proud than to have their children and grandchildren be considered "true" Americans. My, how times have changed.

Now, of course, the immigrants and minorities have discovered the great value of the hyphen. By simply adding a hyphen to a physical or cultural characteristic, like African-American, Latino-American, Asian-American, you, by virtue of "equal opportunity" and "affirmative action" legislation, get special privileges. What started in 1964 as Equal Rights went haywire a few years later when certain classes of people were given a "leg up" instead of a level playing field. More and more classes of people, understandably, wanted in. Who wouldn’t want to be able to get government help to get something everyone outside the group had to work hard for? The number of groups with hyphens got longer.

What’s most difficult to understand is how any race or group of people would willingly allow any government, with the sweep of a pen, to declare they are incapable of success, that they do not have the mental or physical capacity to achieve their life’s goals without government assistance. "Affirmative action" states, without ambivalence, that certain people, by virtue of their race, color or creed, are destined to fail if they try to live their lives simply by doing what the rest of us unhyphenated Americans must do. It can only be that the perqs are just too good to pass up. Hmmm.

No doubt some people (most likely the ones who hyphen) will find this attitude racist or biased in some way (it is not). Fortunately, there also appears to be a growing trend of hyphenated people, led by the likes of Bill Cosby, that agrees that the government has no business telling a people they can’t succeed without handouts. They’ve realized that entitlements weaken a culture by lowering the expectations of those who are told they are incapable of handling everyday life without help. They’ve recognized that a soft underbelly on one group makes for a soft underbelly on the nation, and is dragging us all down.

Instead of the melting pot, the United States is becoming a ragged collection of separatist groups, each one trying to gain advantage over the other, the divisive example set by our government with affirmative action. What we should be striving for is a level playing field again.
There’s only one way out of this mess. We need to set a limit to the number of generations allowed to use a hyphen.

Naturally, the first generation that arrives here are welcome to distinguish themselves with a hyphen, just as the Chinese-Americans, the Irish-Americans, and the Polish-Americans did in the 19th and 20th centuries. Their children, too, should have that right if they wish, assuming both parents have the same origin. But by the time we get to the third generation? Drop it. You’re an American. You have every advantage being an American offers. It doesn’t guarantee wealth and success, only hard work can do that. But it does mean you are on a level playing field with the rest of us, who were thrilled to drop our hyphens, and thus any preconceptions or stereotypes about us, generations ago. Isn’t it time our government did the same?

Intolerance the Result of Political Correctness

It’s hard to imagine how something intended to create greater sensitivity and understanding among us all has actually accomplished exactly the opposite; the creation of complete intolerance. Like a piece of badly crafted legislation, the social movement of Political Correctness (PC for short) is having so many negative consequences that it is now to the point of absurdity. Yet anyone with half a brain could have (and should have) seen it coming.

It’s been going on for a couple of decades now, though it reached a tipping point in the last few years. It began as a truly noble goal; to eliminate Polish jokes, and black jokes, and retard jokes, and religious freak jokes and atheist jokes and jokes about every other group that has had the misfortune of being predictable enough to be stereotyped (regardless of whether the shoe fit).
Then it moved onto racial and ethnic slurs, condemning us for saying anything offensive, (deserved or not) within earshot of the victim of our saying the word (though out of earshot seemed to be okay for a while, but no more). Bear in mind, this is only for those outside the stereotype. Those within the group can call each other whatever they want, no matter how degrading, as long as they sufficiently fit the stereotype. One man’s offensive word is another man’s welcome. No wonder we started to get confused about what’s right and wrong in the social department.

Then, of course, religion got into the picture. At the risk of sounding like an old fogey, there was a time when anyone could practice just about anything, call it religion and be left alone. It was called tolerance. As long as people weren’t hurt and laws weren’t badly or habitually broken, it was tolerated. After all, we began as a country because others were intolerant to us and our religious beliefs. It’s why we moved here from England, risking life and limb on a rickety ship across the North Atlantic. Tolerance has always been a true part of our culture, and even though we may not always have demonstrated it to the best of our abilities as a nation, we have always believed it was something we should strive for. Until now.

Now, it seems, we’ve gotten to the point where intolerance is the accepted practice. The PC measure for sticking your nose into someone else’s business has evolved from imminent and harmful physical danger to the innocent, to the possible, perhaps, maybe fear of hurting someone’s feelings, or making them "uncomfortable". What a bunch of woosies!

We should have seen it coming. Now that it’s here, however, and we can all agree it’s not fun or funny, we have to figure out a way to get the pendulum to swing back again. Maybe we should just all go back to telling Pollack jokes. Now THOSE were funny.