Why did Romney lose?

In the weeks following Election 2012, there has been a lot of complaining and gnashing of teeth from Republicans who were sure they were going to win, yet who came up short. In the "sour grapes" moment of the year, Mitt Romney has even said that Obama won because of the "gifts" he gave to some voters. Those comments from Romney are beneath a man of Romney's stature and obvious gifts, and they don't really answer the question of how Romney lost, especially with a weak economy and high unemployment that usually guarantees a Republican victory. So why did Romney lose Election 2012?
   1. Romney lost because the Democrats successfully painted him as rich, white and out of touch with average Americans: This is the same trick that both parties have been using on each other for years. In 2004, Republicans successfully used it against Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Because he is married to Theresa Heinz of the Heinz Ketchup fortune, Kerry was painted as an elitist blue-blood who couldn't relate to average "folks." Never mind that Kerry is a highly decorated Vietnam War hero. His campaign ads, in which he tried to show himself doing regular things such as hunting were tone-deaf and only made the situation worse. In the end, he lost handily to President George W. Bush.
   In 2012, it was Romney's turn to be tarred with the "elitist" brush. To be fair, Romney is, for all intents and purposes, a self-made man. He's made millions in business. He managed to get himself elected governor of Massachussets as a Republican, and he was a succesful governor. That's impressive, considering how "blue" a state Massachussets usually is. In a field of candidates trying to outdo themselves as being the most conservative in 2012, Romney was by far the most moderate. He looked and he sounded presidential.
    The problem was, Romney never figured out how to talk to average people, or to break down his grand ideas into bite-size, easily digestible pieces. Just like Al Gore in 2000, Romney came across as stiff when speaking and he looked uncomfortable in crowds. He came across as the businessman that he is. He wasn't the kind of guy you could sit and have a beer with in your local bar (a gift shared by both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton). Instead, he looked like the boss you would complain about over those beers.
2. Romney lost because voters couldn't figure out where he stood on the issues: Romney said all the right thngs. He spoke at length about repealing "Obamacare," even though he had fought for and passed a similar program in Massachussets. He criticized Obama about the weak economy and the high unemployment. The problem was, he didn't come across as a strong man of principle, as Ronald Reagan had.
   In fact, if you look at his record, Romney came across as quite the opposite. While governor of Massachussets, Romney said he was for gay marriage, or at least civil unions. In fact, he even instructed the county clerks in Massachussets to start issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples. When he began running for president, presto! He was strongly against gay marriage. At one time, Romney identified as pro-choice in the abortion debate. As a presidential candidate, he became strongly pro-life.
   To be clear, there's nothing wrong with people changing their minds on issues. At one time, I was firmly pro-death penalty. Now, I'm against it. The problem wasn't that Romney changed his mind. It was how he did it. He never came across as someone who had wrestled with the deep moral issues before changing his mind.  Instead, he came across as a slightly sleazy political opportunist who would tell voters exactly what they wanted to hear, as long as it won their vote. He came across as the "flip-flopper" that Republicans have detested for years. As a result, voters could never get a clear picture of where Romney stood on the issues, or what he would do if elected.
3. Romney lost because the our nation is changing, and Republicans haven't changed with it: If Election 2012 did anything, it should have showed the national GOP that the message they have relied on since the 1980s just isn't working anymore. In the early 1980s, the GOP hitched its wagon to the "Moral Majority" championed by Jerry Falwell, and later the "Christian Coalition" run by Ralph Reed. Instead of being just the pro-business party, the party of smaller government and lower taxes, Republicans became synonymous with moral issues and religion. They began waging fights against gay marriage and gay rights in general. They fought to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. And they have fought in recent years to stymie promising stem cell research. Over time, moderate and liberal Republicans were driven from the party in the name of ideological purity. Today, it is clearly the extreme wing of the party that is calling the shots.
   But guess what? America is not a nation of extremists. In fact, most voters sit somewhere in the middle on political and moral issues. Sure, the GOP enjoys strong support throughout the South and large swaths of the Midwest. But more and more, the polls are showing that increasing numbers of people are in favor of legalizing marijuana and are in favor of same-sex marriage, just to name a couple issues. Americans are becoming more open, while the GOP stubbornly clings to its traditional view on morality.
   America is also coming more diverse. Hispanics are growing in number and in political clout. It is estimated that by 2050, if not sooner, they will become the No. 1 ethnic group in America, supplanting whites. Yet, the Republicans continually come across as xenophobes and fearmongers with their push to fence off our southern border and deny the children of illegal aliens a chance at an education and a better life.
   Fair or not, that's what Romney represented to millions of people who voted on Nov. 6. Romney wasn't necessarily a terrible candidate (though there have certainly been better). He's a smart, successful man who I believe honestly loves his country. He simply represented a party that is increasingly out of touch with the mainstream.
   Hopefully, this Election has woken up the national GOP and given them a clear plan of what they need to do to remain relevant. . Until they abandon the fringe elements of their party and move toward the middle; and until they realize that they are badly out of tune with a rapidly changing America, their defeat in 2012 may be just the beginning of a long stretch in the political wilderness.

Some thoughts on Election 2012

   It's Wednesday morning, Nov. 7, 2012, not quite 24 hours after President Barack Obama secured reelection. Finally, we can breathe again. Finally, the endless campaign ads can stop. Finally, we have answered the questions of who will control Congress for the next two years and who will lead this nation for the next four. Now, life can return to normal, right? Not quite.
   If one thing became apparent last night, it's that the system that was brilliantly conceived by our Founders more than 200 years ago is no longer working as I think it was intended. Oh, we had a definitive winner at the end of last night, with Obama collecting 303 electoral votes to Mitt Romney's 206. And in that sense, the system worked perfectly. But if you looked at the map and saw how many states went to Republicans and how many went to Democrats, something is very wrong.
   Specifically, Romney carried the South and large parts of the middle of the country. Obama, as expected carried the coasts and the Industrial Northeast, with a few isolated blue specks in the middle. To look at the Electoral map, one would almost certainly conclude that our country was a strongly Republican nation. Yet, that's not what happened.
   Because a good portion of our population lives along the coasts -- in states like California, Washington, Oregon, New York, Pennsylvania and in the Northeast, Obama was able to collect the Electoral votes he needed while leaving the middle of the country largely to Romney, with the exception of a few battleground states such as Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin. While that strategy was good enough to win, is it really fair that the middle part of the country and the South went largely unrepresented last night? I don't think so.
   The Electoral College is an example of the many brilliant compromises our founding fathers made in creating our Constitution. Although many of the convention delegates originally favored the Virginia Plan, which would have weighted representation in Congress based on a state's population and had the president and vice president selected by Congress, many delegates from smaller states feared intrigue created by a small group of men gathering to select the nation's leaders. They also feared that the president's and vice president's independence would be compromised if they were selected by Congress. And they feared that larger, more populous states would carry disproportianate weight in selecting the president and vice president. And so, the Electoral College was born.
   Today, Americans elect the president and his vice president indirectly. When we cast our ballots for president, we are actually selecting a slate of Electors who are charged with voting for that  candidate, though they are under no legal obligation to do so. The number of Electoral votes assigned to each state is identical to that state's representation in Congress.
   The flaw in this system is obvious and fatal. Although the Electoral College was intended to even the playing field, to make sure that smaller states weren't dominated by larger states, we still have a system where the most populous states can determine an election's outcome. Worse yet, under the current system, a state's most populous cities -- such as Los Angeles and San Francisco in California  -- can actually swing a state in a candidate's favor. We saw this last night when California was given to Obama, even before all the votes were counted.
   At the end of last night, both Obama and Romney had collected 49 percent of the popular vote, with only a few thousand actual votes separating them. Yet, Obama was clearly ahead in the Electoral College. How is this fair, that the will of so many people was thwarted? And what can we do about it?
   One of the advantages of the current system is that it usually provides us with a definitive winner. Whichever candidate collects the most Electoral votes wins, no matter the popular tally. If we wanted to place more emphasis on the popular vote, one way would be to let popular vote determine the outcome. Keep the Electoral College, but only go to the Electoral votes in the case of a tie in the popular tally. In that case, whoever had the most Electoral votes would be declared the winner.
   Another idea is to divide each state into districts based on the number of that state's Electoral votes. Each district would get one Electoral vote, and they would be assigned according to how each district voted. The winner in each district would get that district's vote instead of the "winner take all" approach we currently have. This would likely increase the time it takes to declare a winner, but it would have the effect of making each vote mean something. And it would prevent a few population centers in each state from determining who won the state.
    Election 2012 is in the books, and while not everyone will be happy with the outcome, we should be thankful that we live in a country where we are free to elect our own leaders and where we continue to have peaceful elections. Our system has worked well, with only a few hiccups over the past 200+ years. That's remarkable, and it's something to be proud of. But that doesn't mean it can't be tweaked.
   My hope is that between now and the next election in 2016, we will seek to improve our system so that everyone's voice, not just a few, can be clearly heard and can help determine our nation's future.

What does the Second Amendment really mean?

   The other night, a close friend and I got into a discussion about gun ownership in America. This friend has long been a staunch advocate of guns and gun ownership, while I have slowly come around to the acceptance of people's right to bear arms, though I'm still in favor of common-sense gun control. This particular night, we were discussing the United Nations' stance on gun control, and their latest efforts, at least according to my friend, to take guns away from law-abiding Americans through the Arms Trade Treaty, which is currently in the discussion stages. According to my friend, if this treaty is ratified, it won't be long before we see government agents coming to your door to get your guns.
   Intrigued, I decided to do some research. What I found is that the truth had been twisted almost beyond recognition. The ATT says nothing about confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens. Nor does it say a word about national gun registration, as the Gunowners of America lobbying group claims. The ATT is simply designed to give some uniformity to the international laws governing the illegal trade and transport of weapons. It is designed to keep the guns out of the hands of terrorists and drug dealers, not to disarm Americans. In fact, even supporters of the treaty affirm that each country has the right to regulate guns as it sees fit. In other words, we have nothing to fear.
   The controversy over the ATT does raise an interesting question for those who care to ask: What exactly does the Second Amendment guarantee Americans? To paraphrase, the Second Amendment says that a well-regulated militia being necessary for the national defense, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But what exactly does that mean?
   Well, if you put it in the correct historical context, a militia at the time the Second Amendment was written was made up of every farmer with a pitchfork or a musket. In other words, the militia was the people, the regular citizens. And this is how gun advocates interpret it: That everyone who wants one should have the right to a weapon.
   An equally strong argument could be made that the Second Amendment should be interpreted using today's definition of militia. Under that definition, only trained police officers and members of the military would be allowed to be armed. While that argument makes sense on the surface, I see at least a couple of problems with it.
   First, as much as I hate to admit it, the gun advocates are right. If we take the guns out of the hands of responsible, law-abiding Americans, soon only the criminals will have guns.
   Second, if we take guns away from the people, it will, within a generation or two, create a citizenry that is terrified of firearms. If that happens, who, then, will serve in our military?
   I have come a long way since my early 20s, when I advocated confiscating guns and "making something useful out of them." Today, I would identify myself as an advocate for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.
   What that means is that while I acknowledge every American's right to own a firearm, I'm in favor of three-day waiting periods, background checks for prospective purchasers and closing the "gun show loophole." I believe that gun owners should be held responsible for the proper storage and maintaining of their guns. Whether that means a gun safe or a secure lock and key, if there are children in the house, guns should be securely stored out of sight, with the bullets stored separately. Period.
   I don't believe that gun manufacturers should be held liable for what irresponsible people do with their products.That would be like holding auto manufacturers responsible when drivers have accidents. But if a child steals his parent's gun, takes it to school and opens fire, that parent should be held liable for that child's actions, since the gun was obviously not secured.
   Gun ownership is one of those rights that makes us uniquely American, just as our rights to free speech and freedom of religion do. But the freedom to own a firearm doesn't mean we're free of responsibility. If we're going to allow an armed populace, then it's up to us to make sure that we're thoroughly educated in the proper and safe use of those weapons. It's up to us to make sure that weapons don't fall into the hands of criminals or the mentally unstable. And far from passing new gun control laws, it's up to us to make sure the existing laws are properly enforced. If we can do those things, there should be no need to worry about losing our right to gun ownership in America. 
  

Have we forgotten Sept. 11?

Today marks the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the crash of United Flight 93. Last year, during the landmark 10th anniversary, the event was widely covered, and there was talk for days, weeks, about "never forgetting the tragedy of Sept. 11." This year, the observance has been much more muted. Attendance at memorial events is down noticeably from last year, and there is talk that we have begun to forget the painful lessons learned that fateful Tuesday morning. Worse, there is talk that we have begun to forget those who died, and those heroes who fought to save others. So have we REALLY begun to forget 9/11? I don't think so.
   I agree with my friend, Jason Tippitt's theory. He believes that less mention of 9/11 this year isn't a sign of disrespect, but a sign of healing. According to his theory, we haven't forgotten those who died that day. Instead, we have simply begun to move on with our lives, something the heroes of 9/11 would have wanted. To remain in a perpetual state of grief and anger only keeps us stuck in that horrific moment and paralyzes us as a people. This, Tippitt says, would represent the ultimate victory for the hijackers. He's right.
   I don't think anyone who was alive and fully conscious on Sept. 11, 2001, could ever forget where they were or what they were doing when the first plane hit. As for me, I was walking to work after having breakfast with my best friend. Suddenly, I saw a co-worker come tearing around the corner. He told me what had happened, and I hurried on to work in stunned disbelief, arriving just after the second plane had hit. That's all I really remember until that evening. My boss was on vacation for two weeks, having signed up to do a "civilian ride along" with his son, who is in the Navy. Once I got there, I was thrown into a whirlwind of activity that didn't stop until I got home a little over 12 hours later. It was then, when I turned on the TV and started watching coverage, that I fully realized the horror of what had happened that day
   I believe anyone old enough to really remember 9/11 has a story similar to mine. We remember where we were and what we were doing when the attacks happened, just like our parents remember where they were when President Kennedy was assassinated, or where they were during the moon landing. Just like our grandparents remember where they were and what they were doing when World War II finally came to an end. Events like these leave an indelible impression on our national and our individual consciousness. They are not events that are easily, if ever forgotten.
   The question I think we should be asking ourselves today is whether we have forgotten the hard lessons learned as a result of the terrorist attacks. What are those lessons?
   1. We are not immune to terrorism: Growing up, and even into my early adulthood, I shared in the national delusion that America was somehow protected from terrorist attacks. Even in light of the first attempt to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993 and the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, I still thought of terrorism as something that happened in other parts of the world, to other people. "Surely no one would be dumb enough to attack us on our own soil," I thought. "It will never happen here. Not in my lifetime."
   With one, well-coordinated attack on Sept. 11, 2001, that illusion of safety was shattered forever. The truth is, no amount of distance or ocean can protect us from fanatics who are determined to get us. The truth is, it's not a matter of IF we'll be attacked again, but WHEN.
   2. We are not as beloved in the world as we like to think we are, and our actions have consequences: America's hubris is perhaps its greatest weakness. As Americans, we are raised to believe that we live in the greatest country in the world. We like to cast ourselves as the "white knight" on  the world stage, always riding to the rescue of some poor, downtrodden nation. We like to think that we will be greeted as heroes wherever we go, that we are universally beloved. Unfortunately, that's not even close to true. The truth is, our unabashed, unrelenting support of Israel has made us plenty of enemies in the Middle East. There, we're derided as "The Great Satan." And not every country we try to help is appreciative of that aid. Some look at it as interference. Some just want to be left alone to handle their own affairs.
 For our own safety, we need to learn that our foreign policy doesn't take place in a vacuum. Our actions will generate consequences. We need to learn that although it is OK to offer our help to another country, not everyone wants it. If that's the case, we should bow out quietly. We should, in short, learn to show other countries the very same respect that we demand.
   3. The "War on Terror" is an endless war that can never be won: Remember in the days following 9/11, when President George W. Bush spoke glowingly about waging "war on terror," and about making the world safe for democracy? It's a beautiful dream, but it's a goal that can never, ever be reached. That's because what Bush was talking about wasn't waging war against a country -- say Afghanistan or Iraq. This isn't a matter of flexing our military muscle and beating another country into submission. What Bush proposed was a war against a PHILOSOPHY, terrorism. He talked about defeating terrorism and making the world safe for freedom. Again, beautiful dream, but impossible to achieve.
 The reality is, no matter how many men we send to fight, no matter how much money we spend, we have no hope of winning against such a vague and shadowy enemy. We could kill terrorist leaders every day for the next 100 years, and there will always be someone waiting in the wings to replace them. We can torture suspected terrorists as much as we want for information, and all we'll accomplish is to create the next generation of terrorists who are willing to die to hurt us.
   Terrorism has been used  as a political tool since long before the United States was even though of, and it will continue to be around long after we're gone. If we are to have any hope of changing this, we need to look at ourselves first. We need to realize that we are at least partly responsible for the hatred other nations feel toward us. Our actions DO have consequences, and failure to change our thinking and our actions will only guarantee that we keep getting the same results.
 If we want to defeat terrorism, we need to start showing other countries the same respect we demand. We need to realize that the American style of democracy is unique to us. It can't be duplicated anywhere else with any success, so we should stop trying to force it on others. Not every democracy in the world is going to look like ours. Some countries are going to choose leaders we don't like, and who don't like us. Some countries are going to choose alternate forms of government we don't like (i.e., socialism).
   If we truly believe in freedom for the world, doesn't that mean people should be free to choose their own form of government and their own leaders, even if we don't like them? Doesn't it mean they should be free to worship as they choose, even if we don't agree with their chosen religion? Doesn't it mean that they are due our respect?
   The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were a national tragedy, no doubt. And it is right that we should pause each year to remember both the heroes and the victims of that day. But if we end our reflection just remembering the tragedy, it's victims and heroes; if we fail to remember the lessons their sacrifices should have taught us, then they will have died in vain.
  

Handicapping Election 2012

It's hard to believe, but in a little less than two months, we'll know the answer to the question of who will be president for the next four years. Will it be "golden boy" Mitt Romney, whose life has been a chain of largely uninterrupted successes? Or will Barack Obama, who shocked the world in 2008 by completing his meteoric rise from state senator from Illinois to the White House, be able to hold on to his job?
   Looking at this objectively, I'd say we have a fairly even race between two appealing, well-financed candidates. So who wins in November? That's the question I'm going to attempt to answer. Let's get started with the challenger.
   Mitt Romney: Romney would appear to have it all. He has the pedigree. His father, George, was the governor of Michigan in the 1960s, as well as a former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. He's been a successful businessman, with a current personal worth of almost $200 million. He helped turn around the ailing Salt Lake Winter Olympics in the 1990s (though some say the games weren't in as much trouble as he claimed.) And he managed the near impossible feat of being elected governor of Massachusetts as a Republican in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. From that position, he showed an ability to govern from the political middle. He even managed to pass health care reform similar to "Obamacare," which he now says he wants to repeal. In fact, the only glitches on his otherwise sterling resume are a failed U.S. Senate run against Ted Kennedy and a failed presidential bid four years ago.
   This year was ripe for a Romney run. In the early going, he stood out, head and shoulders above a field of glaringly weak candidates composed of no-names (Herman Cain, John Huntsman) and has-beens (Newt Gingrich). In the Republican debates earlier this year, Romney appeared the most presidential and the most prepared. He even managed to cast himself as the most moderate of the candidates.
   So could he beat Obama? Most definitely. Romney's biggest strengths are his business acumen, his ability to raise funds (he has often ranked among the leaders in fund-raising in other races) and his ability to appear moderate. In fact, he has shown he has the ability to govern as a moderate when called upon (or when he's forced to -- see Massachusetts). That ability to govern from the middle may represent the biggest threat to Obama, since it will certainly appeal to undecided and "swing" voters.
   But as much as Romney brings to this race, his weaknesses are just as glaring. Chief among these is his tendency to change his mind on positions important to the GOP. Romney was a pro-choice Republican until 2005, when he had a change of heart and became pro-life. While governor of Massachusetts, he declared that he was against gay marriage, but in favor of civil unions. In fact, he even ordered the county clerks of his state to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Now, he has cast himself as being against both gay marriage and civil unions. While I understand that people sometimes have changes of heart (it happens to us all), these "flip-flops" on important positions strike me as disingenuous at best, blatantly opportunistic at worst. Whether he intended it or not, Romney has made it appear as if he has no core convictions of his own, that he simply adopts the position that is most popular at the moment, and that will help him get ahead. That's slimy. And it makes it hard for voters to know what Romney will do if elected.
   Romney's other glaring weakness is his pick for vice president, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. As I've noted before, Ryan is an extremist of the worst kind. He has shown that he doesn't like women, having voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, declaring that he is against all abortions, even those that result from rape or incest, and wanting to deny over-the-counter status to emergency contraception. His forte is supposedly the budget, but his proposals would damage both Social Security and Medicare. Ryan's nomination will likely appeal to the most hardcore, radical parts of the Republican Party, but it will do nothing to burnish Romney's reputation as a moderate who can govern from the middle. When it comes to making that case, Ryan is a definite liability.
   Barack Obama: Obama's biggest strength is, ironically, also his biggest weakness. Obama is the incumbent, and historically, incumbents are extremely difficult to beat. Being the incumbent means that Obama has a built-in bully pulpit to get his message out to voters that Romney doesn't have. When Obama speaks, everyone stops and listens. But that is also his biggest weakness, since Obama now has a record he has to defend to voters.
  In grading Obama's first term, I think he deserves credit on two fronts. First, Obama has largely lived up to the promises he made to voters four years ago. Obama promised to put an end to the unpopular Iraq war, and he has done so. Although we still have troops in Afghanistan, we now have a timetable in place for bringing them home.
   Obama promised to put an end to the misguided "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays from serving openly in the military, and he did so.
   Obama promised to pass health care reform, and he did so, even though "Obamacare," as it is derisively called by Republicans, has now become a rallying point for the GOP in this election.
   Obama deserves credit for thinking outside the box. Whether you agree with his health care plan or not, and it is by no means perfect, it is at least something markedly different from the status quo, which has been proven not to work. And if the Republicans don't like it, where's their plan? It's not enough to just criticize Obama's plan to fix health care. If the GOP succeeds in repealing the Affordable Care Act, then what's their plan? To go back to the status quo? That's hardly progress, and it would be unacceptable.
   Obama's weakness, of course, is the economy. While the stock market has recovered nicely in the past four years (remember it was down below 10,000 when he took office), and while certain key indicators have bounced back, the truth is, unemployment has remained largely unchanged. There are still millions of people out of work, or who have just given up on even trying to gain employment. Voters tend to "vote their wallets," so if job growth remains stagnant, Obama could be in serious trouble. If, however, voters perceive that, though the economy isn't full recovered, it is headed in the right direction, they might be willing to give Obama four more years to see what happens.
   So to the big question: Who wins in November? For myself, I hope Obama gets another term. Sure, he hasn't done everything he promised. In some ways, he's been a disappointment to those of us who bought into "Hope and Change" and "Yes, we Can!" But I don't think he's done enough wrong to justify a change, even though he hasn't accomplished everything yet.
   Who do I think will actually win? At this point, I would give the slightest edge to Romney. I think people are angry. They're tired of government spending and deficits and debts. And they're worried about employment and the continuing lack of jobs. I think Romney will take advantage of that, just as Bill Clinton did in 1992, when "it's the economy, stupid" became his rally cry.
   If Romney manages to unseat Obama, he will face a stiff challenge that will require every bit of his business acumen and diplomacy. He has shown he has the ability to govern from the middle when he needs to. The question is, will he? Or will he kowtow to the most extreme elements of his party? I remain hopeful, but only time will tell.


  
  

Ryan pick could sink Romney's campaign

   On Aug. 11, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney unveiled Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as his pick for vice presidential running mate. While some have hailed the pick as "excellent," including the predictably conservative Wall Street Journal, the truth is, Ryan's positions make him wholly unsuitable for the job. In fact, I predict what seemed a safe pick at the time may ultimately sink Romney in the general election.
   Who is Paul Ryan? He's a seven-term Congressman from Wisconsin, first elected in 1998. At one time, he was a follower of the writings of Ayn Rand, even going so far as to give her books as Christmas presents, though he has since disavowed her influence. He has risen quickly through the Republican heirarchy, and currently serves as the chairman of the House Budget Committee. From that position, he has proposed several controversial budgets, which among other things, would partially privatize Social Security and would turn Medicaid into a block grant for the states. Ryan also wants to replace Medicare with a voucher program for seniors to allow them to purchase private insurance. The problem? The amount of the vouchers would be fixed, and would not increase as medical costs increased (as people age). That means eventually, seniors would end up at least partially uninsured.
   Ryan has made his name as the ultimate fiscal conservative. But look at his ideas, and you'll see that he's hardly in favor of helping the middle class or the poor. At the beginning of his tenure in Congress, he voted to extend unemployment benefits. He has not done so since 2009 (read, since Obama has been in the White House). Ryan voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for Women. He also voted against the Credit Card Consumer Bill of Rights and against the Frank-Dodd Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. As far as tax policy, he, among other things, favors the creation of an 8.5 percent "consumption tax." Often billed as the fairest form of taxation, since you essentially "pay as you go," this is, in reality, a regressive tax that hits the middle class and the poor the hardest, since it would take a bigger portion of these people's income to pay it.
   Ryan's fiscal ideas are scary. What's even scarier are his ideas on social policy.
   As a Republican, Ryan is virulently pro-life. That's no surprise. What's scary is the degree to which he takes this stance. Ryan opposes all abortions, even those being performed as a result of rape or incest. But he wants to give states the right to prosecute women who have abortions. He voted for the "Sanctity of Life" Act, which would have given personhood, as well as Constitutional rights and privileges, to fertilized eggs. He has consistently voted to cut funding for Planned Parenthood and Title X family planning programs. And he has resisted efforts to give over-the-counter status to emergency contraception. In short, in his pro-life stance alone, Paul Ryan seeks to set women back 100 years. He wants to bring women back to a time of being "barefoot and pregnant." He wants to deny them vital information which could help them make an informed choice about when or if to start a family. And he wants to deny them easy access to reliable contraception. That's scary.
   And then there's Ryan's apparent dislike of gays and transgender people. He voted against the Matthew Shepard Act, which extends the definition of "hate crime" to include crimes committed against people because of their  sexual orientation or sexual identity. He is opposed to same-sex marriage (he favors a constitutional ban), opposed the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and he is opposed to allowing gay couples to adopt.
   Finally, there's Ryan's questionable stance on free-speech issues. He favors cutting funding for National Public Radio and passing a Constitutional amendment banning flag burning. That issue was settled in 1989, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared it an act of free speech. So, the question is, does Ryan oppose free speech? Or does he only oppose speech that conflicts with his own, narrow view of the world?
   In some ways, Romney's choice of Ryan is smart, just like everything else he's done during this campaign. Ryan is young (he's 42). He's photogenic. He's certainly got the conservative "bonafides" to please just about everyone in his party. And his home state doesn't hurt matters, either. Wisconsin is a largely Democratic state. By picking Ryan, I'm sure Romney is hoping to make inroads there for the GOP.
   So why will Romney ultimately regret choosing Ryan? Because Ryan's views are far outside the mainstream of the vast majority of Americans, who tend to gravitate toward the political middle. Ryan's views appeal to the most hardcore segments of his party, the "Tea Party Republicans," is you will. But I don't think they represent the views of the vast majority of the electorate. I don't think they appeal even to the majority of his own party. And being such an extremist on so many issues will only serve to alienate the all-important "swing voter."
   Romney has spent a large portion of this election trying to paint himself as a more moderate Republican, someone who can govern successfully across party lines. Romney's record as governor of Massachussetts would seem to indicate that he's capable of governing from the middle.
    That's why the choice of Ryan is such a mystery. Paul Ryan is an extremist. No doubt about it. I would hesitate to put him one step away from the presidency. and I think (at least I hope) the majority of voters would feel the same way. I believe, in the end, that this might be a case of Mitt Romney, "the smart candidate," finally outsmarting himself.

What has happened to freedom of religion?

   Several news stories in the past few weeks have led me to wonder if we still cherish the idea of freedom of religion in this country. Do we still believe that every person, no matter where they come from, has a right to practice their religion as they see fit, as a matter of conscience (or to not practice religion at all)? Or have we bought into the false idea that America was founded as a "Christian nation," where only Christians are allowed to practice openly and freely?
   Of course, what started all this was the now-infamous interview with the Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-Fil-A, in which he dared to state that his company supported the "biblical view of marriage." (translation: His company is against gay marriage.) Faster than you could say "waffle fries," the interview had gone viral, thanks to social media, and had become a cause celebre for people on both sides, those who support gay rights, including the right to marry, and those who don't. Lost in all the shouting was what Cathy actually said.
   Cathy said his company supports the "biblical view" of marriage. He did not say that his company discriminates against employees because of their orientation. He did not say that he would fire an otherwise exemplary employee if he found out he or she was gay. Only that his company supported what is becoming an increasingly unpopular view. And really, is Chick-Fil-A's stance really that much of a shock to ANYONE? The company has always presented itself as being run according to Christian principles. They've always been closed on Sunday, in observation of the Sabbath, for instance. So why are people now outraged that they actually took a stand based on those principles?
   To be clear, I am a supporter of equality for gays, including the right to marry. I detest discrimination in any form. But as long as Chick-Fil-A isn't engaging in discrimination of any kind against gays or anyone else, they have a right to run their business as they see fit, and according to whatever principles they choose. Don't like it? You have the right not to go there.
   What I find even more disturbing than the overblown hype over Chick-Fil-A is the outright hypocrisy and false piety of its supporters. Thousands turned out for a recent "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" organized by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. But as someone rightly pointed out, where are these same people when volunteers are needed for the local soup kitchen or the homeless shelter? I'll tell you where. Safely tucked into their nice homes in their nice neighborhoods pretending the bad stuff doesn't exist. These "fair-weather" Christians don't actually want to get down in the trenches, as Jesus frequently did when he ate with sinners and tax collectors. They're happy to flaunt their faith when it's easiest, when all it takes is buying a chicken sandwich. Sad.
   Another story that makes me question our commitment to freedom of religion falls a little closer to home for me, since it takes place in Tennessee, just a couple of hours from my old hometown of Jackson.
   It was reported last week that Grace Baptist Church of Murfreesboro had erected a display of 13 white crosses in a field across from the church and next door to the new Islamic Center of Murfreesboro. Mack Richards, a member of Middle Tennessee Baptist Church who built the crosses for his friend, Bobby Francis, a member at Grace, said the display was conducted to "make a statement to the Muslims about how we felt about our religion, our Christianity."
   "We wanted them to see the crosses and know how we felt about things," Richards said.
   The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro has been beset by controversy since it was first proposed in 2010. Among other problems, the construction site has been vandalized several times, there was an arson attempt involving the construction equipment and it was the subject of a bomb threat called in on the anniversary of Sept. 11. It has also been embroiled in a court hearing in which opponents tried to claim that Islam wasn't a religion.
   Fortunately, the center is set to open some time this week pending final inspections and the issuing of a certificate of occupancy. But all the hullabaloo over the center only confirms for me what I have believed for years: Some Christians can be bullies. Some are downright scary.
   Americans like to brag that we are the most free nation on earth. That's a lie. The truth is, we want freedom only for ourselves and for those who think like us. The first time we encounter someone who challenges our nice, safe view of the world, whether they be gay, Muslim, whatever, we want to shut them down. We want to shut them up so they don't challenge our predetermined view of the world.
   This isn't how freedom is supposed to work. Freedom of speech doesn't just mean that we have a right to say what we please. Nor does freedom of speech mean only those who agree with us have a right to be heard. True freedom of speech means that everyone has a right to be heard, even those whose thoughts and opinions make our blood boil. You can react any way you want to those you disagree with (within the law). You can yell. You can argue. You can walk away. What you can't do under the First Amendment is shut them up.
   Likewise, freedom of religion doesn't just guarantee freedom for Christians. Freedom of religion means we have the right to worship any way we choose and in accordance with our own conscience. We can be Christian. We can be Muslim. We can be Jewish or pagan or Sikh. Heck, even Satanists are protected under freedom of religion. We even have the right to not believe or not worship at all, if that's what we choose.
   Opponents of the mosque say the cross display is meant to show their new Muslim neighbors "how we feel about our Christianity, how we feel about things." The irony of it all is that through their actions, they are showing that they have little, if any, understanding of what Jesus taught.
   Jesus didn't teach hate. He didn't teach intolerance. And he certainly didn't teach violence against others. Jesus preached love. He practiced forgiveness. Look at his actions, and you'll see that he spent most of his time communing with those others considered sinners and outcasts. Jesus didn't preach that he or his followers were above, or even any better than, others. Instead, he taught that to be first, you must be last. That to be great, you must serve others. I daresay if Jesus were here right now and saw what his "followers" in Murfreesboro were doing, he would be appalled, ashamed at how his message of love and forgiveness had been corrupted.
   Members of Grace Baptist won't voice it. But they've bought into the idea that all Muslims are extremists, that Islam is a religion of terrorists. What they're forgetting is that every religion has its extremists, even Christianity. Look at our history, and you'll see that Christianity has plenty of blood on its hands. From the Crusades to the Inquisition, from those who shoot abortion doctors to Westboro Baptist Church today, each of these is an example of Christian extremism. Most Christians would rightly argue that these examples are far removed from the norm, that they represent just a tiny portion of Christians today. They would rightly argue that it's unfair to judge an entire religion based on the acts of a few. Well, the same thing is true of Islam. The vast majority of Muslims today are peaceful people. They're not out to "kill the infidel," and those who are represent the tiniest possible portion of Islam's 1 billion followers worldwide. Yet, members of Grace Baptist stand ready to pass judgment on an entire faith based on the acts of a few? They want to judge Muslims in the harshest possible light, in a way they themselves would not want to be judged?
   This is wrong. It is bigotry based on misguided fear and ignorance. It goes against Jesus' teachings on "Loving thy neighbor." And it violates the spirit and the intent of the First Amendment's guarantee to freedom of religion. These people want to say they are standing up for their faith. The reality is, their actions show they are anything but Christian.

Court's ruling on Obamacare a surprise

   On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed President Barack Obama a major victory when it, in effect, validated the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare.
   In summary, the Court ruled by a narrow 5-4 margin that the centerpiece of the law, the "individual mandate" requiring every American to have health insurance by 2014, was constitutional as a tax, though it was not allowed under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The ruling has the effect of allowing the government to continue with the implementation of the law.
   As expected, reaction to the court's ruling was decidedly mixed. Democrats hailed the ruling as a victory for every American without health care. On the other side of the aisle, Republicans have made it a rallying point, and will try to use it to oust Obama in November.
   I must admit that I don't have all the facts about Obama's health care bill. Like most Americans, I have heard only snippets of what the legislation actually does. What I have heard, I like, specifically prohibiting insurance companies from denying consumers because of pre-existing conditions and allowing parents to keep their children on their policies longer. I like the fact that Obama had the courage to touch the proverbial "third rail" of health care. Whether you agree with his solution or not, at least he had the courage to think outside the box and try something different. The one thing I think we all can agree on is that the system, as it currently exists, isn't working.
   In light of the Court's ruling and the reaction to it, I believe the time is right to ask the question: What is the ultimate solution to our nation's health care woes?
   At one time, I thought universal (government-run) health care was the answer. I'm no longer so certain of that, but I do believe government DOES have a role to play. I'd like to see government set price caps on what it costs to go to the doctor. As it now stands, only those with a certain income, or those with damn good insurance, can afford to see their family physician regularly for so-called "preventive care." The end result, as we've seen, is people clogging emergency rooms so they can be seen for simple sinus infections. Or people who have become seriously ill because they have waited so long to seek help because they couldn't afford a doctor's visit. That's criminal.
   I'd also like to see government set some price caps on the cost of prescription drugs. Right now, it can cost hundreds of dollars a month for people to get needed medications for conditions such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or even birth control. While it might be argued that some are paying the price for years of bad life choices, it's also true that many of these conditions are genetic. And does it really matter why someone needs the medicine? Every American has a right to a decent quality of life. They shouldn't be denied that because the cost of their medication is out of their reach.
   Perhaps what I'd like to see most of all is the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution. It would read: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to each senator and representative in Congress." Then, use that new amendment to strip them of their "golden parachute" lifetime health care that is so much better than what is available to the average citizen. Use it to strip them of their lifetime pensions that are equal to their full salary when they left office.
   That's part of the problem on health care, and many other issues. Our elected representatives are so far removed from the realities faced by average Americans, they have no hope of understanding the problems created by the laws they've passed. Right now, they have no real incentive to pass meaningful health care reform. And why should they? They, and their families are provided for until they die.
   Now, imagine what would happen if they were forced to find health insurance on their own while still in office, without the "golden parachute," and without the promise of a cushy lifetime pension. I bet they would begin to see the problem pretty quickly. And I bet they would work hard to find a real, workable solution.
   I believe access to affordable health care is a constitutional right (We are guaranteed the rights to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness). And while it's true that the Affordable Health Care Act has some major problems, I believe it is a small step in the right direction. I can only hope that our lawmakers won't rest on their laurels or worse, restore the status quo. Obama has opened the door to a national dialogue on health care. It's a conversation that's long overdue.
  

A nation of bullies

   A couple of weeks ago, I saw something on YouTube that truly disturbed me. The video, titled "Making the bus monitor cry," showed a group of seventh-graders in Rochester, N.Y., verbally attacking the 68-year-old bus monitor on the last day of school.   What I saw went well beyond simple harassment or bullying. This group of kids called her fat. They called her poor, suggesting that she got her purse out of a Dumpster. They poked and prodded her. One bully even suggested that her children should kill themselves because she was so disgusting. This to a woman who had already lost one child to suicide. The whole thing made me angry. It made me sick.
   In response to the attack, a couple of the bullies have since written letters of apology. One parent apologized in person for his child's awful behavior. And thousands of Americans have donated money to help the bus monitor retire, or take a dream vacation. At last count, more than $650,000 had been raised. While these are nice gestures, I believe the incident raises some serious questions about what kind of nation we are becoming. Are we becoming a nation of bullies?
   I admit it. I was bullied as a kid. Being a kid with a disability (I have cerebral palsy), and being someone who always cared more about academics than partying or going out, I suppose it was inevitable. It was hard to endure the insults and the teasing. It was difficult to ignore the taunts and the attempts to lure me into fights. I felt powerless to stop it, and many afternoons I went home crying. But you know what? As bad as it was, I NEVER had someone threaten to stab me. I NEVER had anyone suggest that my parents should kill themselves because I was so disgusting. What happened to that bus monitor was borderline criminal. It went well beyond what can reasonably considered normal, even for immature seventh-graders.
   So what should we do about it? What should we do to make sure this never happens again? What should we do to ensure we aren't raising a generation of sociopaths?
   The first thing I would do is teach this, and future, generations that every action has a consequence. In this case, I would  make each of the bullies face the consequences of his actions head-on. It's nice that a couple of the kids wrote letters of apology. It's nice that one parent saw fit to apologize for his child's behavior. But it's not enough. Letters and third-party apologies allow the bullies to remain detached from the consequences of their actions. So have each child meet with the bus monitor alone. Have him apologize to her personally and offer an explanation for his behavior. Have him listen to his victim explain the impact his taunts had on her. And if she asks for any kind of restitution, make him give it, no questions asked.
      The second thing I would do is limit children's exposure to TV, movies,video games and the Internet. There have been studies for years that have shown consistently that exposing children to too much violence too early desensitizes them to that violence and makes them less compassionate. This incident would seem to bear that out. I'm not saying that children should be banned from these things altogether. But parents, at the very least, should pay close attention to the ratings on the TV shows and movies they allow their children to see and on the video games they buy for them. They should install Net Nanny software on every computer in the house and check browsing histories often. In short, parents need to be parents. Set limits on what is acceptable in your house, then stick to it.
As for what the school system should do, I believe the bullies should be suspended for a lengthy sentence at the beginning of the next school year, perhaps even expelled. School systems across the nation should have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to bullying, and these boys need to be made an example of.
     The sad truth is, it's probably too late for these boys to learn the compassion and the respect for others they so clearly lack. Those are lessons that should have been taught at their parents' knee from the time they could talk. The good news is, it's not too late to return to teaching those values. This video clearly shows what happens when we abandon them. The question is, are we smart enough to learn that lesson?

New La. law raises ethical question

For once, my old home state of Louisiana is about to be on the cutting edge of an issue. Who knew?
   In July, a new law will take effect that will require all registered sex offenders in the state to indicate their status on Facebook and other forms of social media. While this might sound draconian and unfair to civil libertarians, I believe the state is doing exactly the right thing to protect its children.
   This isn't an easy question to answer, whether sex offenders should be required to identify themselves on social media. A very strong argument could be made that the law is unconstitutional because it amounts to double jeopardy. Under this argument, once a sex offender pays his debt to society, he should be free to carry on with his life, not be continually penalized because of one past mistake. Under most circumstances, I would find myself firmly in this camp. I do believe criminals can be successfully rehabilitated, and I believe once most criminals are out of prison, they are entitled to a second chance to become a productive member of society. Not this time.
   The problem with sex offenders is that they don't get better. Sex crimes -- rape and pedophilia -- aren't like other crimes. They aren't motivated by financial gain. They aren't crimes of passion. Sex crimes are cold and calculating. They are motivated by one thing -- power. Pedophiles especially are mentally ill. Simply locking them away isn't enough. Without the proper intervention and intensive therapy, they are almost guaranteed to re-offend upon their release. Numerous studies have proven it.
   Requiring registered sex offenders to reveal themselves on social media might sound like unfair double jeopardy. It might seem like we're preventing the offender from being able to move forward with his life. But the fact is, lots of kids use Facebook every day (despite a prohibition against minors having accounts). Today's busy parents don't always have time to closely monitor their kids' online activity. So anything the state can do to make that important job easier is welcome.

And now, for something completely different

   This is usually a strictly political blog, about strictly political issues. Every once in awhile, though, I like to address topics that stray from that strict template, things that make me stop and think. This is one of those times.   This morning, I was on my friend Jason Tippitt's blog, "State of Formation," which addresses contemporary religious issues from a humanist perspective. On it, he asked the question, "If I could give my 12-year-old self advice based on what I've learned about life so far, what would I tell him?" That's an intriguing question, and one I thought I might attempt to answer. So what advice would I give my 12-year-old self if I had the chance?
   1. Life ISN'T fair: This is probably the single hardest lesson each of us has to learn for ourselves. I remember my father telling me as a child that if I worked hard and made good decisions, good things would come to me. He was right, to a point. Good things come to those who work hard and do the right things. But it's also true that bad things happen to good people, sometimes for no apparent reason. Our parents die unexpectedly. We're laid off from our job after years of loyal service with the same company. Our spouses and friends hurt us. Sometimes marriages end, despite our best efforts. Is any of this fair? No. But these things are part of life. The sooner we accept this basic truth, the sooner we can begin the healing process and move forward.
   When bad things happen, it's very easy to succumb to the temptation to curl up and pull the proverbial covers over our head. But the truth is, it's how we respond to life's road blocks that determines what kind of person we really are. Quitting never accomplishes anything. It doesn't solve the problem, and it only hurts us in the end. Life can be painful, but if we take it one minute, one second, at a time and stay focused on moving forward, we are almost guaranteed to find something better on the other side of the problem.
   2. When it comes to choosing a career, follow your dreams and do something that makes you happy: Your average working career is about 30 years, and it's getting longer every day. That's a long time to be doing something you hate. Never allow anyone to talk you out of your dream. When I graduated from high school, I wanted to major in music, with a concentration in vocal performance. Unfortunately, my father didn't like that choice, and he told me that he wouldn't pay for me to get my degree if I pursued that major. Lacking any other means for paying for college myself, I reluctantly chose something else. I love journalism, but I've always wondered what might have happened if I had pursued my first dream.
   When it comes to choosing a career, remember that money and position aren't everything. They're not even the most important thing. I've known too many people who have advanced in their careers to the point that they're not even doing the things they love most anymore, those things that made them want that career in the first place. Stick with doing those things you love, and you'll always find happiness.
   3. Choose your friends carefully: What is a friend? A friend is someone who loves you and accepts you for who YOU are, not who they wish you were. A friend is someone you can share with. Someone you can laugh with. Someone you can cry with. A friend is someone who is there for you, in good times and bad. A friend is someone who will tell you what you NEED  to hear, not just what you WANT to hear. A friend always has your best interest at heart.
   A friend will never try to change who you are to suit their own needs. A friend will never pressure you to do something dangerous, or something you know to be wrong. If you're friends with someone who does either of these things, guess what? They're not your friend.
   4. Don't be afraid to open yourself up to love: Love is truly a double-edged sword. As wonderful as it feels to be in love for the first time, it also can be devastating if the relationship doesn't work out. That kind of pain is just part of life. Don't give up on love after your first failure. As much as it hurts initially, it will get better if you just keep focused on the future. Remember that God never intended for us to be alone. He created someone for everyone, and you can find that person, if only you're patient. When you find that love, don't be afraid to love with your whole heart and soul. It's a huge risk making yourself vulnerable to someone like that. But the rewards are totally worth it.
   5. Don't judge someone based on their appearance. Judge them based on their actions: In other words, don't pass judgment on someone until you "walk a mile in their shoes," as the old saying goes. Keep an open mind and get to know someone before passing judgment. You'll often find friends in the most unlikely of places, and you might learn some things, to boot. Bottom line here is, "Treat others as you would like to be treated." If you keep this as your guiding principle, you can't go wrong.

A new take on an age-old issue

   Every so often, I like to do a Google check on myself to see what I can find. As a former journalist, it's always interesting to see where my old columns have ended up. Earlier this week, I did such a check, and discovered, much to my amusement and disgust, that at least one column, written in 2008, was picked up by a white-supremacist Web site.
   The column in question was in response to an attempted assassination plot against then-presidential candidate Barack Obama by two Neo-Nazi skinheads. One skinhead was from  Bells, Tenn., just one county over from my former hometown of Jackson. The other, from West Helena, Ark. At the time, I was attempting to discern what could cause two otherwise quiet, respectful youths (by all accounts from their friends and family) to develop such hate for other races. Like any good journalist, I was attempting to mine what lessons I could from the failed plot.
   It's been almost four years since that column first appeared in The Jackson Sun. And after re-reading it (along with the hilarious editorial comments added by the forum poster), I decided to revisit the issue of what exactly goes into creating a racist.
   I have always believed that humans are innately good. They aren't born evil. Evil and hatred are learned behaviors. So evil and hatred are taught at a parent's knee from a very early age. What a parent believes, a child is likely to reflect, to adopt as his or her own belief.
   Another reason people adopt racist philosophies is because of the very human need to belong. Many racists (but not all) come from broken homes. They're angry. They believe the world has turned its back on them and that they're being unfairly kept from succeeding. So, instead of picking themselves up and working hard to change their situation, they gravitate to other angry people who share their beliefs. They are seduced by people, and groups, that offer easy answers. "It's not your fault your life hasn't worked out the way your want it," they are told. "Blame the (insert racial or ethnic group here.) It's all THEIR fault." By joining with these people and groups, the nascent racist is able to relieve him or herself of any personal responsibility for the state of their life. They are able to feel a sense of belonging, a sense of family, they might otherwise be missing.
   Here's the thing, though. That sense of family and belonging is based on a lie. Groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Brotherhood and the Supreme White Alliance (the group our two skinheads belonged to) aren't based on love and acceptance (the two things our nascent racist is seeking). They are founded on the principles of hatred and exclusivity.
   These groups aren't Christian, no matter how they like to present themselves. Here's a dose of reality. Jesus was NOT white, blond-haired and blue-eyed. He was Middle-Eastern, meaning he was olive-skinned. In reality, he was closer to black than white.
   Jesus never preached hatred toward our fellow man. Read the Gospels, and you'll find that he often associated with, even ate with, sinners and social outcasts. He healed lepers. When he left the disciples to return to heaven, he told his followers to "Go ye therefore and make disciples of ALL men" (Matthew 28). How does any of that fit into the racist's view of a "white, Christian America?" It doesn't.
   The bottom line is, racists are created, not born. It's up to this generation to teach the next not to hate. Parents, teach your children to look at others with colorblind eyes. Teach them to judge others based not on their skin color or ethnicity, but on the "content of their character," to quote Dr. King. Teach your children to take responsibility for their own lives and their own successes or failures. Racism is the easy way out, the coward's way out. Life isn't easy or fair. The sooner we teach our children that simple fact and give them the tools to succeed, the sooner America can live up to its full potential and become what it was always meant to be: a land of opportunity for everyone who cares to dream and to work hard to achieve it.

A day we can't afford to forget

Today marks the 68th anniversary of the Allied invasion of Normandy during World War II. Commonly remembered as "D-Day," the Allied victory here spelled the beginning of the end for the Nazis. Less than a year later, on May 8, 1945, Germany surrendered, putting an end to the European portion of the war. Japan surrendered just three months later, following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
   In the decades following the end of World War II, certain dates have become famous. Each year, veterans from that war stop to remember Dec. 7, 1941, which marks the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, the singular event that finally brought America into the war. They also pause to remember today with great pomp and ceremony, and they call on this, and future, generations never to forget the importance of these increasingly distant anniversaries.
   The pleas to remember these days are much more than the simple reminisces of aging veterans from America's "Greatest Generation." These aging warriors are right that we shouldn't forget about these important days in our nation's history. We can't afford to.
   To forget about D-Day, to relegate it to just another footnote in our history, would be the ultimate slap in the face to those veterans who died in the invasion. And it would be a slap in the face to those who survived.
  D-Day was, and remains, the single largest amphibious invasion the world has ever seen. More than 160,000 Allied troops participated, and more than 10,000 died in the effort. What they accomplished with Operation Overlord changed the course of the war by breaking the back of the Nazi regime. Ultimately, what they accomplished changed the course of world history. That sacrifice, and that accomplishment, deserves to be remembered.
   Forgetting D-Day means forgetting those hard-fought lessons taught by the war. World War II let us see, perhaps for the first time in modern history, the face of pure evil in Adolph Hitler. It taught us that we cannot afford to simply turn away from that evil. No matter how heinous, it must be confronted and ultimately dealt with. And it illustrated, in horrific terms through Hitler's concentration camps, the ultimate result of bigotry and hatred when left unchecked.
   Thousands of Americans fought and died so that we might learn those harsh realities, and we shouldn't let that sacrifice be in vain. Today, we should stop and reflect on those lessons learned more than a half century ago. We should find a veteran (of any war) and say "thank you" for their willingness to sacrifice to keep our nation free. And we should take the time to begin teaching the next generation those important lessons that the "Greatest Generation" has taught us. 
 

Tennessee gets it wrong...Again

A few weeks ago, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam showed that despite a good education, unquestioned intelligence and coming from a wealthy family (his family founded the Pilot truck stop chain), he's as misguided as the rest of his party when it comes giving Tennessee's students a realistic view of sex education.
   Haslam signed into law perhaps the most benighted piece of legislation in Tennessee's history. The law is so vaguely worded that such innocent teenage behaviors as holding hands and kissing could be defined as "gateway sexual behavior." Teachers who discuss such deviant behavior -- or even guest speakers from organizations such as Planned Parenthood who dare mention the IDEA of birth control -- could be arrested and fined as much as $500. The end result of this awful piece of legislation is that the only idea that can now legally be discussed in the state's sex education classes is "abstinence only," the one approach to sex ed that has been proven NOT to work.
   Tennessee lawmakers -- and parents -- are fooling themselves if they think that simply telling students not to have sex is going to have any discernible impact on the state's teen pregnancy rate. Think about it. What's the first thing any child asks when told NOT to do something? Right. "Don't do what?" Followed quickly by "Where is it?" Every parent knows that to be true. It's been proven by years of studies, which have conclusively proven that the highest teen pregnancy rates are in states that emphasize "abstinence-only" sex education over a more realistic, common-sense approach.
   Let's be honest with ourselves. Teenagers are curious about sex. That curiosity is a normal part of growing up. And simply telling them not to have sex isn't going to stop them from experimenting. If anything, it will encourage them to experiment more. Without the proper education, they are less likely to use protection, and more likely to create an accidental pregnancy. That's a fact.
 Giving students information about birth control -- including how to use each method properly and their rates of effectiveness -- doesn't mean they will run out immediately and have sex. If anything,giving students the right information about things like birth control, sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and the psychological impact of sex -- that it irrevocably bonds you to your partner, whether or not a pregnancy or disease results -- will cause them to think twice before taking that step with someone.
   No approach to sex education is perfect. Some teens will continue to have sex, no matter what we tell them. It's a dangerous world out there, far different than the one faced by our parents and grandparents. Continuing to bury our heads in the sand by pretending that "abstinence only" works; continuing to deny our kids valuable, life-saving information in the face of very real danger; is dangerous. It's irresponsible. Our kids deserve better.

California death penalty ban long overdue

On Monday, a ballot initiative repealing the death penalty in California qualified for the November ballot. This is good news. If the ballot measure passes -- and there's no reason to think it won't, since even a growing number of conservatives have thrown their support behind it -- California will become the 18th state to ban the death penalty in recent years. I pray that this positive momentum continues. The death penalty is a barbaric practice that has no place in a truly civilized society.
    I have been against the death penalty for many years, but it wasn't always so. In my 20s, I bought into the old Republican/conservative argument that those on Death Row were there because they had earned their place among the condemned. I told anyone who would listen that I didn't want to pay to support these scumbags for the rest of their natural lives. Then I began to think.
   I have always considered myself pro-life. I'm against abortion in 90 percent of cases (though I'm still undecided on the "Big Three" exceptions.) But how can I call myself pro-life and condone the death penalty? If all life is valuable, what right do I have to decide that some life is more valuable than others? Could I really pull the switch, or put a needle in someone's arm and end their life? The answer to that last question is no. I realized, as a Christian, I could not, in good conscience, condone what is basically state-sanctioned murder.
   But my objection to the death penalty goes well beyond my personal morality. The death penalty is kind of like Communism. It looks good on paper and sounds good in theory, but in real-world conditions, it just doesn't work.
   The death penalty is supposed to be the ultimate deterrent. It's supposed to scare people enough that violent crime is reduced. It hasn't worked. America today is as violent and deadly as it has ever been.
   In reality, the death penalty is often imposed, but rarely carried out. In California, only 13 Death Row inmates have been executed in the past 23 years. In my old home state of Tennessee, there have been only two executions carried out since 1960. The truth is, Death Row inmates are more likely to die of old age before they ever see their sentences carried out
   There's the cost. In California, it costs the state an extra $180 million a year to maintain Death Row, as opposed to simply sentencing the inmates to life without parole.
   And there's always the possibility that someone is sitting on Death Row who truly is innocent. According to the Innocence Project (www.innocenceproject.org), there have been 289 post-conviction exonerations (covering all crimes) since 1989. There have been 222 exonerations since 2000 alone. Of those, 17 served time on Death Row. In my mind, if even one innocent person is wrongly executed, the whole system is bankrupt and should be scrapped.
   As a nation and as a society, America should be well past the need  for this "Wild West" justice. Apparently, more and more states are coming to that conclusion and scrapping this barbaric practice. It does my heart good to see that long-overdue reversal. It's about time.

Could Geraldo be right?

I saw a news story about the Trayvon Martin shooting over the weekend that gave me pause. In it, former talk show host, now Fox News contributor, Geraldo Rivera, claimed that the "hoodie" worn by Martin on the day of his death was somehow responsible for the shooting.
I have very little respect for Geraldo when it comes to being a legitimate journalist. Every time I see him, I automatically think of his network special in the 1980s about the contents of Al Capone's safe. As I recall, after an hour of hype, it was opened and found to be empty. When I see him, I can't help but think of his sleazy talk show from when I was growing up, in which he highlighted the very basest aspects of human nature, with shows featuring Nazi skinheads and the like. Geraldo was Jerry Springer before Jerry Springer. The fact that he now has reinvented himself as a legitimate journalist on a real news network is laughable, at best.
But you know what? As much as I hate to admit it, Geraldo actually made a legitimate point in his comments about the Martin shooting. In a nutshell, what he said was that Martin's hoodie played a role in his death because it has become associated with criminal activity. When people see someone wearing a hoodie, he said, they automatically assume the wearer is up to no good.
Do I think Martin's hoodie is solely responsible for his death? Of course not. Like the reformed talk show host he is, Geraldo has seized on one small aspect of this tragedy and exploited it for headlines. But he is correct that certain objects in our society carry certain meanings, right or wrong. A Confederate battle flag, for instance, is today widely viewed as a racist symbol because it has been appropriated as a banner by the Ku Klux Klan and other "white power" groups. But not everyone who flies the flag is a racist. Many Southerners fly it to legitimately pay homage to their ancestors. Today, youths who wear baggy pants, or who let them hang down below their hips, are often considered to be gang members. But not every youth who enjoys the fashion is in a gang. And not every person who wears a hoodie is a criminal.
I don't know if George Zimmerman, the accused shooter in this tragedy, is a racist. According to the account given by Martin's girlfriend -- that Martin was followed, then stopped and asked "what he was doing there," before being shot -- it would certainly seem so. But Zimmerman is claiming that he was attacked, that he acted in self-defense.
We may never know the truth about what happened that day. And barring the revelation of conclusive proof one way or the other, I am reluctant to call Zimmerman a crook. Still, I believe we can, and should, learn from this tragedy, lest Trayvon Martin die in vain.
We can start by examining our deepest held prejudices. I'm talking about prejudices so deep, we may not even know that we hold them: the belief that those who wear hoodies or baggy pants are criminals. The belief that those who fly the Confederate battle flag are automatically racist. The belief that young black men walking through gated communities, or driving a nice car, are automatically up to no good.
I don't have the answer to how we rid our society of such cancerous beliefs. What I do know is that holding these beliefs is not OK, even if we never act on them. If the death of Trayvon Martin has taught us anything, it's that we must bring our prejudices out into the open. We must work to obliterate them from this, and future generations. Failure to do so can have tragic results. In that sense, and ONLY in that sense, Geraldo was right.

Catching up on current events

It's been a busy news week on the political front, so I thought I would give my thoughts on several of the most interesting developments that caught my attention.
California court strikes down gay marriage ban: On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California's Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 2008 which banned gay marriage in the state. Overturning the ill-conceived and unfair ban was the right decision. Let's hope the full appeals court, and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court, leaves this decision alone.
Gay marriage is a sensitive issue for a lot of people. Frankly, I don't understand what all the complaining is about. Allowing gay couples to get married and recognizing them as actual "marriages" under the law does no harm to existing marriages. It does not, as opponents claim, do irreparable harm to the "institution of marriage." Half of marriages in the United States already end in divorce -- and that's among straight couples. On the other hand, many gay couples have relationships that last years -- even decades. It seems to me that allowing gay couples to get married would do no more harm to the "institution of marriage" than we straight folks are already doing to it ourselves.
The issue of gay marriage is not a civil rights issue, as some like to imagine it. This is a matter of simple fairness. Gay couples who are committed to each other should be allowed to leave their property to their partners. They should be treated as family during hospital stays. And they should be allowed to provide health insurance for each other. In short, they should enjoy every right that their heterosexual bretheren take for granted. To deny them those rights is simply bigotry. It has no place in a free society.
Newt Gingrich, closet racist?: Once again, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has shown that he is unfit to be the next president of the United States. In fact, his remarks in recent days have shown he is unfit to hold any elected office at all.
In recent debates and at campaign stops around the country, Gingrich has been deriding President Barack Obama as "the food stamp president." He claims that more Americans have been put on food stamps under Obama than any president in history. He's even applied the label to his chief rival, Mitt Romney, dubbing him "Little Food Stamp."
This latest tactic by Gingrich is as disgusting as it is factually wrong. Yes, the number of people eligible for food stamps has significantly expanded over the past decade. Today, about one of every seven Americans is eligible for food stamp assistance. But that expansion began during the administration of Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, a Republican. And although 14.2 million Americans have become eligible for food stamps under Obama, that's still nearly half a million less than those that became eligible under Baby Bush.
Some have labeled Gingrich's attacks as racist. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. What I do think, though, is that they show a lack of compassion that is common to a significant number in today's Republican Party.
Food stamps are not "wrong," as Gingrich seems to think. Millions of Americans count on them to provide food for themselves and their families every day. Without them, millions of Americans would go hungry every night. If we get rid of the program, as Gingrich seems to want to do, what would we replace it with to make sure people don't starve?
The same kind of questions can be asked about other "safety net" programs such as welfare and Social Security. These programs aren't perfect. And yes, in programs this large, there are always going to be cases of abuse. But they are a way of providing something for the poorest Americans who have become either too old or infirm to work. They are a way of helping those who, through no fault of their own, can no longer help themselves. And isn't that what the Constitution provides for, the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?
Obama and birth control: President Obama has come under fire this week for upholding a longstanding policy that requires employers (or at least those who employ more than 15 people) to offer coverage for birth control if they offer other prescription drug coverage. The policy was put in place in December 2000 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which ruled that to offer prescription coverage without covering birth control violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The policy remained unchanged throughout the administration of George W. Bush, yet now, it has become a source of great concern for Republicans desperate to win the White House in 2012.
Republicans are now decrying the policy as unnecessary government intrusion. They're casting this as a matter of religious freedom, saying that people and companies that are opposed to birth control on religious grounds shouldn't be forced to cover it in their insurance policies. As per usual, GOP critics have their facts only about half right.
The policy being supported by Obama already provides exemptions for those who object on religious grounds. And by the way, where were all these critics when Baby Bush was in the White House? This policy has been the law of the land for more than a decade and the Republicans said nothing. It's only now, when the White House is up for grabs, that they are making an issue of this? How hypocritical.
The issue here isn't really one of religious freedom at all. The issue here is whether companies should help their female employees pay for birth control. The issue is whether women should remain in control of when and if they become pregnant. The answer, of course, is "yes" on both counts.
Republican objections to this common-sense policy are opportunistic at best, backward and hypocritical at worst. Republicans are the ones who have been fighting to repeal Roe v. Wade for almost four decades. They drone on endlessly about "the sanctity of life." Isn't it better to allow women and families to decide for themselves when to become pregnant than to encourage abortion by making it harder to obtain birth control, so that unintended and unwanted pregnancy is the more likely result?
For the record, I believe that abortion used as a form of birth control is morally reprehensible. With all the effective forms of birth control out there -- and with all the young couples desperate to have children -- there really is no excuse for it. But I also believe that the choice to have a family -- or not to have one -- should be left up to each woman and each family, without the input of government. This rule has worked well for more than a decade. This is one time when our politicians should back off, take a deep breath and just leave well enough alone.

Goodbye Michele Bachmann, and good riddance

One of the best pieces of news I've heard since I started following the 2012 presidential race is that Michele Bachmann, the loudmouth, overambitious congresswoman from Minnesota, has dropped out of the race following a disappointing showing in the Iowa caucuses last week. Now, let me be very clear. I don't dislike Bachmann because she is a woman. And I have no problem with ambitious women. Heck, if Barack Obama hadn't been in the race four years ago, I would have been happy to vote for Hillary Clinton (if for no other reason than to get another Clinton in the White House and see how Bill would have performed as First Spouse). No, I didn't like Bachmann because I felt that she added nothing of substance to this race. And given the massive problems facing our nation and our world, this is hardly a time for candidates lacking substance.
The more I studied Bachmann, the less I saw to like. In every debate I've seen her in, she has struggled for the moderator's attention. And on the rare occasions when she was called on to answer a question, she struggled to do even that with any real clarity. I was left with the impression that she didn't have a real grasp on the issues. Worse, I was left with the impression that she was in this race to stroke her own ego, not to actually serve her country.
I guess I shouldn't really be surprised by her poor showing on the national stage. Bachmann is a relative newcomer to national politics, having only been in Congress for the past five years. And what has she accomplished during her time in Washington? Not much, unless you count helping to found the Tea Party Caucus and becoming its spokesperson. I can't think of a single bill that she has either co-sponsored or sponsored. And certainly nothing that she's passed. Again, it's all about ego with Bachmann.
The rise and swift fall of Bachmann is a great example of what's wrong with this nation's political system. Look at who we have left in the Republican field: Gingrich, Romney, Santorum, Perry, Paul and Huntsman. Of those, at least three can be written off as being in the race because they're addicted to the spotlight (Gingrich, Santorum and Perry). While Ron Paul actually makes sense on a number of issues and enjoys a solid base of support, his extreme positions make him virtually unelectable by a largely moderate electorate. And Jon Huntsman remains largely an enigma, since he has been largely absent in this race.
That leaves Romney as the only serious contender in the GOP field. And what kind of choice does that leave GOP voters really?
Our country is facing a series of very serious problems and a troubled future at best. And yet, the GOP field is littered with egomaniacs and people who don't stand a snowball's chance in Hades of ever seeing the White House. This is a time when we need serious candidates with real ideas and the ability to steer our country down the right path. In these troubled times, where have all the serious candidates gone?