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.
Friday, April 27, 2007
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.
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.
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."
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.
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 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...
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
