Have we forgotten 9/11?

   Have we forgotten 9/11? That question occurred to me last night when I suddenly realized that the somber anniversary had sneaked up on me and I had barely given it a thought. That used to never happen. In the years immediately following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington D.C.,  it was an easy anniversary to remember. With the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan and the start of the Iraq War in 2003, it was on everyone's mind pretty much all the time. Now, most of the troops have come home. We haven't seen anything like 9/11 since that awful Tuesday morning. Osama bin Laden, the fanatical mastermind behind the attacks, has been dead since 2011. Is it any wonder, then, that most Americans have moved on?
   In some ways, our ability to move on from the 9/11 attacks is a positive sign of healing. It shows that we are a resilient people. But in some ways, it also is disturbing. We talk every year about how we should never forget 9/11 and those who died. We talk about how we should always remember the lessons we learned during that awful time. Then, when the anniversary is over, we blithely go on with our lives, never giving it a second thought until the next anniversary rolls around.
   We must do better than that. We owe it to the victims, and we owe it to future generations, never to forget the lessons we learned that day. And what were those lessons?
   First, that America is not an island, isolated and whole unto itself. We are not immune to the terrorist attacks that plague other parts of the world. It can happen here. It did happen here. And it could happen again.
   When I was growing up, I remember hearing about the wars and the tragedies that afflicted other parts of the world. Those "other places" seemed so distant to me. I felt safe, certain that such things could never happen here. After all, we were America, the most powerful nation in the world. No one would dare attack us, or so I thought. Unfortunately, that was a delusion shared by most Americans of my and earlier generations. It was that delusion, that sense of invulnerability, that innocence, that died that day. We cannot afford to ever be that innocent again.
   Second, we learned that our actions on the world stage do have consequences. On Monday, I sat for an hour or two and watched the rebroadcast of the "Today" show that aired on Sept. 11, 2001. Several times during that broadcast, we were reminded that America was widely hated in the Middle East at that time because of our unwavering support of Israel. It was suggested by the show's hosts that this might have been a motive for the attacks.
   As a loyal American, it's hard to hear that not everyone in the world is our friend. We like to think of ourselves as the world's police force, the "white knights," always ready to ride to the rescue of those in need. Above all, we see ourselves as "the good guys." The 9/11 attacks proved that not everyone  in the world see us that way. It also proved that our actions don't take place in a vacuum. Our foreign policy -- indeed every decision we make -- has very real consequences, both for Americans and for those in far-flung countries.
   Finally, the 9/11 attacks showed us the importance of safeguarding our freedoms. It showed us that, we, too, have a dark side, that when threatened, we are capable of doing some awful things.
   In the days immediately following the attacks, we were a nation in shock. We were angry and we were scared. It was that fear that caused us to condone the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, which gave our government unprecedented power. It was that fear which allowed us to look the other way while our government held hundreds of prisoners indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, engaged in torture in order to gain information, and even wiretap its own citizens.
   In some ways, the 9/11 attacks brought us together as only a national tragedy can. For a short while, at least, partisan divisions were forgotten and we all were just Americans. In some ways, it brought out the worst in us
   We have survived the dark times, and today, 13 years after the worst terrorist attack ever on U.S. soil, we are once again thriving. I can only hope that as the memory of those attacks continues to fade into the mists of history. we won't forget the lessons that thousands of innocent Americans died to teach us. If we simply go on, if we allow those lessons to be forgotten, then the blood of those innocents will have been spilled in vain. That can never be allowed to happen.

Supreme Court got it wrong on public prayer ruling

  The U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong on Monday when it ruled that government bodies may open their meetings with prayer. Unless such prayers are open to people of other faiths and a real effort is made to have people of other, non-Christian religions offer those prayers, it is a clear violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and an illegal endorsement of religion.

    In City of Greece, N.Y. v. Galloway, justices ruled 5-4 that offering sectarian prayers before meetings didn’t automatically violate the First Amendment. The key, justices said, is that these prayers don’t attempt to intimidate, coerce or convert non-believers. In a weak attempt to place some limits on this misguided ruling, justices also said that prayers that “denigrate non-believers or religious minorities, threaten damnation or preach conversion” might not pass constitutional muster.

I am a Christian. I believe in God. But when it comes to First Amendment issues – especially freedom of speech and freedom of religion -- I’m an absolutist. If a local government wants to put a copy of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, I have no issue with that – so long as people from other faiths have an opportunity to post Scripture from their holy books. That means everyone – Christians, Wiccans, Satanists, even atheists. Either everyone is given the same opportunity to post what they want, or to lead prayers before government meetings, or no one should be allowed to do so. It’s that simple.

   The problem with the Court’s ruling is that it is largely unenforceable. Justices said public prayers shouldn’t “attempt to intimidate, coerce or convert non-believers.” They said prayers that “denigrated non-believers or religious minorities, threatened damnation or preached conversion” could be ruled unconstitutional. But who now is to define what counts as intimidation or coercion? Who now is going to define what counts as “denigrating non-believers and religious minorities? With this ruling, the Court has effectively maintained the status quo. Justices have virtually guaranteed that things will remain unchanged, with religious minorities and non-believers being subjected to prayers that might make them uncomfortable. Only this time, those who are offended or made uncomfortable will have little legal recourse.

   With this ruling, justices have opened Pandora’s Box. How long do you think it will be before local governments nationwide use the ruling to begin posting copies of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, or even Bibles on the courthouse lawn? Does anyone think that members of religious minorities and non-believers will be afforded the same opportunity? Right. I wouldn’t hold my breath.
   It’s unfortunate that so many Americans are laboring under the illusion that the United States is a Christian nation that was founded on Christian principles. We are not. We never have been. Look at our early history. Our founders were largely Deists. They believed in God, but not much else. Thomas Jefferson even tore his Bible apart and removed all references to miracles and the supernatural, creating the so-called “Jefferson Bible.” At least two of the earliest states – Maryland and Rhode Island – were founded specifically to protect religious freedom – Maryland to protect Catholics and Rhode Island for Baptists.
   The point is, our founders never intended to create a strictly Christian nation. They understood the dangers of establishing a state religion. And they believed that one’s faith – or lack of faith – was a matter of conscience.
   Today, we are a nation that enjoys a greater degree of religious freedom than any other nation in the world. We may not always agree with each other, but unlike many other countries, we live and work peacefully beside each other.  Our freedom to choose – to believe or not to believe – has resulted in a breathtaking diversity of faiths. It’s that freedom of conscience and that diversity that this ruling is seeking to undermine, and it is that freedom that must be protected.

NBA's decision in Sterling scandal may have unintended consequences

   What I'm about to say may shock some people: I think the National Basketball Association went overboard in its punishment of embattled Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling. Let me be clear. I do not, in any way, condone the sentiments expressed by Sterling in the taped conversation leaked to gossip site TMZ. I find them offensive, ill-timed and out of touch. That being said, I think Sterling is being made an example of by new Commissioner Adam Silver, who is using the case to establish his no-nonsense image.
   On Tuesday, the NBA banned Sterling for life from the league and fined him $2.5 million, the maximum allowed under the players' constitution. Under the terms of the punishment, Sterling is forbidden to attend any future NBA games, or be involved in any way with running the team he purchased in 1981. In addition, he is banned from attending any future board of governors' meetings, and Silver urged the board to exercise its authority in forcing a sale of the team, something he said he would "do everything in my power to make sure it happens."
   Does Sterling deserve severe punishment? Of course he does. His remarks were grossly offensive and showed a man who was out of touch with reality -- especially considering that the league is made up of 80 percent black players. Even his own team has only a few white players on it. His head coach is black. Clearly, this is not an owner who is in touch with the makeup and day-to-day operation of the league.
   Silver is right that Sterling should no longer be an owner in the NBA. Now that his sentiments have become public, it would be impossible for him to run the team effectively. He has angered his own players, who staged a silent protest before a recent playoff game. He has angered his coach. And in the future, what player is going to want to play for an owner -- no matter what the salary -- who holds such repugnant views?
   But I also agree with NBA Hall of Famer Kareem Abdul Jabbar, who asked in an op-ed piece published in Time magazine: Why now? This isn't the first time Sterling has been in trouble for his views. In 2006, he was sued by the Justice Department for housing discrimination against blacks. Allegedly, he said then that black tenants "smell and attract vermin." In 2009, he paid almost $3 million in fines for discriminating against blacks, Hispanics and families with children. Sterling has owned the Clippers since 1981. So why wait until now to act when his racist views were already well-known?
   The problem I have with the NBA's action on Tuesday is two-fold. First, it was never confirmed publicly whether the tape at the center of this controversy was legitimate -- whether it was actually Sterling speaking. So we can only assume by the league's action that he's guilty. Second, I believe this punishment sets a dangerous precedent. With this punishment, it has now been established that if you say something that someone else doesn't like, you can lose everything. Ultimately, this will have a chilling effect on free speech in the league, as owners and players will now have to think twice about what they say -- both publicly and privately. That's not good for anyone.
   So how should Silver have dealt with Sterling? For guidance, I would have looked at how Major League Baseball handled former Cincinnati Reds owner Marge Schott. Schott was well-known for her anti-Semitic and generally racist worldview. In response, MLB banned her for a season, along with a hefty fine. When she came back, the other owners let it be known that they wanted nothing more to do with her and they, not the league, eventually forced her to sell the team. Problem solved.
   Similarly, I think the NBA should have suspended Sterling for next season, then let the free market take its course. With an openly racist owner, disgusted fans would likely have stayed away in droves, maybe even returned their season tickets. Prospective players, especially superstars, would have thought twice about coming to play for the Clippers. It would have taken longer, but eventually the team would have returned to its status as league also-rans instead of a team on the rise. Once team revenues fell, how long do you think it would have taken for Sterling to find a better investment? Not long. As a last resort, NBA owners could have done what their MLB brethren did two decades ago: Simply refuse to deal with him and force him to sell the team.
   Unfortunately, we'll never know what might have happened if the league had taken a more measured approach. Instead, a new commissioner, anxious to establish his reputation as a no-nonsense boss and a league that had turned a blind eye to Sterling's racism for years decided to make an example of him. They decided to throw him under the bus to stop any further damage to the league's reputation during playoff time. And in the process, I believe they have done lasting damage to the league's future.

Obama doing better than critics give him credit for

   It's still a year until the midterm elections, but I think with the new year upon us, it's as good a time as any to pause and take a look at how President Barack Obama is doing halfway through his second term.
   The president has received his share of criticism (mostly from Republicans, who wouldn't agree with him if he said the sky was blue), but that's nothing new. Every president has his share of critics. George W. Bush did (me among them). Bill Clinton certainly did. Even Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of modern conservatism, had his share of criticism, even scandal. Anyone remember Iran-Contra?
    Obama certainly hasn't been perfect during his five years in office. Like any president, he's made his share of mistakes. But for my money, he's certainly done better than his critics have given him credit for.
   Obama has faced harsh criticism from the moment he declared his intention to run for president in the 2008 election. His detractors criticized his relatively brief time in the U.S. Senate. They questioned his fitness to even run for the office by falsely claiming that he wasn't a natural-born U.S. citizen because he was supposedly born in Kenya. They have criticized him for his landmark achievement, the Affordable Care Act, claiming that it brought us one step closer to socialism. They have even implied that he is a liar and a murderer because of the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya.
   While some of the criticism is justified, most of it is just sour grapes from a party that has failed to beat him in the past two presidential elections. In fact, let's take a look at each of these criticisms and what he's actually accomplished.
   Brief U.S. Senate Service: This is really a non-issue. Critics would have us believe that Obama's relatively brief stay in the U.S. Senate somehow makes him inexperienced, and thus not qualified to be president. These folks forget that he also served two terms in the Illinois Senate before running for Congress. And even if his stay in Congress was brief, so what? Lots of former presidents have used the U.S. Senate as a launching pad to the White House. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson are just two that come to mind.
    And don't forget that his predecessor, George W. Bush, had NO federal government experience before winning the White House. He was only governor in a state that has a "weak governor" system, where the real power rests in the office of the lieutenant governor. Come to think of it, even Ronald Reagan had no federal government background before becoming president. And President Dwight Eisenhower? He had NO political experience at all before becoming president.
   The "Birther" debate: This is perhaps the longest running of the Obama conspiracies. "Birthers", as they've come to be known, believe the president is not a natural-born U.S . citizen as required by the Constitution, and therefore doesn't qualify to hold the office. This comes from the fact that his father was born in Kenya. Therefore, the logic goes, because his father wasn't born in this country, and because young Barack did spend some of his childhood in Indonesia, he's not a "natural-born" American.
    Hogwash. Here are the facts: Barack Hussein Obama was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Hawaii. His long-form birth certificate, which his critics demanded he release, proves it. Since Hawaii became a state in 1959, that makes Obama a U.S. citizen. Next?
   The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare): This is Obama's signature achievement. It is the first real, meaningful reform of our health care system in decades, and his critics hate it. They say that it will bankrupt the economy and the average citizen. They say it won't work. And worst of all, they say it represents a government takeover of the health care system and a move toward socialism.
   Newsflash for these folks: The government has been involved in health care since at least the mid-1960s. Remember Medicare? That system isn't perfect either, but it has provided vital health care to the elderly for decades, and generally works pretty well.
   It's too early yet to know just how well the Affordable Care Act will work. It's only been operational since October. Is it perfect? No. Were there mistakes made with the implementation of the federal Web site? Yes. Did Obama err when he told people that they could keep their existing plans and doctors if they preferred? Yes. Was it an intentional lie, or an attempt to mislead the American people? I don't know, though personally, I don't think so.
    What I do know is that with this legislation, people who have never had coverage have a chance to get insurance. Is it perfect? Hardly. But it is a real step forward in fixing a system that has been broken for decades. And if Republicans don't like it, I suggest they come up with an alternative plan instead of just complaining about Obama's solution.
   Benghazi: This is perhaps the most serious scandal of Obama's presidency. On Sept. 11, 2012, the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked, resulting in the death of four people, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. According to the Republican narrative, the attack was orchestrated by al-Qaida. Republicans believe Obama knew this from the beginning and chose to blame the attack on local militants who were upset about a video that was critical of Islam. Worse, they believe he refused to send help when asked, resulting in the four deaths.
   Sounds damning, right? Except a recent story by The New York Times backed the original version of events. According to the Times piece, the video WAS the initial spark that prompted the attack. Al-Qaida had nothing to do with the violence which was, in fact, perpetrated by local militants. And as for why no help came? Because they were prevented from helping by armed guards who turned rescuers away.
   Benghazi critics would have us believe that Obama knew the cause of the attacks from the attacks from the beginning and lied about it, that he callously chose to sacrifice four American lives for some unknown ulterior motive. But The Times story proves it is the GOP's version of events, not Obama's, that is fiction.
   So what has Obama accomplished during his five years in office? I think his legacy begins with the Affordable Care Act. Its passage was a monumental achievement, and its impact is yet to be determined. Apart from that, Obama can point to his decision to dismantle the ill-advised "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for military service members, the rescue of the auto industry through a massive government bailout and an economy that appears to be slowly righting itself after the 2008 recession, despite lingering joblessness. The move toward full equality with his declared support of same-sex marriage is another accomplishment he can be proud of. And let's not forget the winding down of our two front war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the recent deal to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. Taken altogether, it's not a bad job for someone critics said was too inexperienced to be president.
   Has Obama been perfect? Of course not. His declaration that "If you like your current prescription plan and your current doctor, you can keep it, period," was a huge misstep, though  I don't think it was an intentional lie. His efforts to raise up the middle class and the poor have often met with mixed success, though that is more the fault of an obstructionist Republican Party than anything Obama has done.
   Obama was elected on a promise of bringing "Hope and Change" to America, and to his credit, he's tried. Still, despite not getting everything he had hoped for, I think he deserves more credit and has done a better job than his critics are willing to give him.