Those pesky shareholders...why don't they leave us directors alone and let us play?

This is written in response to the article entitled Corporations Should Not Be Democracies written by Lynn A. Stout and published in the September 27, 2007 edition of the Wall Street Journal and can be found at http://www.law.ucla.edu/docs/stoutoped.pdf.

What Professor Stout fails to remember that being a shareholder entitles the shareholder to certain rights and that includes voting for directors and setting policy through shareholder initiatives. Being a shareholder mean being an owner with all the rights and responsibilities of ownership

It appears that what Professor Stout advocates is that all decision be left to the good judgment of the board of directors. We need only look at recent history to see how poorly many boards of directors do their jobs. The scandals at Enron, Tyco, and Hollinger International show how timely intervention by a vigilant board of directors could have averted tragedy.

Shareholder activism has always been with us in one form or another. Only recently has it become a major issue is because more and more large block holders of shares such as pension funds and private equity firms are starting to flex their muscles and are exercising the rights that have been theirs all along. It appears that Professor Stout is not comfortable with that.

There is an easy way to cure share hold activism and that is to not use the public equity markets for funding. If directors are so concerned about being able to develop and execute policy with the "interference" of stockholders, then they should simply use their own monies or offer debt in the public debt markets and buy up all the shares.

I am quite certain that the level of scrutiny that a board gives to corporate activities will rise in direct proportion to their own level of ownership.

Change of Control at Stroger Hospital

This is in response to the article written by Mike Colias entitled Panel Eyeing Hospital Shift: Durbin's Group Likely to Urge Taking Control From Stroger http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=26383 that appeared on page one of the September 17th, 2002 Crain's Chicago Business.

This article really brings home the point about how there is often nothing really new, just things that keep coming around. This is especially true about the idea proffered by a number of politicians that the Cook County Bureau of Health Services should be run by a commission and not by the County Board.

If you read the book The Old Lady on Harrison Street by Dr. John G. Raffesnperger, you will find out that the efforts to keep the county hospital system free of political patronage and interference are as old as the hospital itself. One may also learn that at one time in the not to distant past, the hospital was run by an independent board.

If this idea is to work two things must happen. First, leaders in government must learn from the mistakes of the past and understand what were the circumstances that cased the independent boards of the past to be disbanded and second, there must be airtight assurances of independence by the new governing body that all decisions, especially about hiring and contracts, will be free from political interference. The new board must be made up of dedicated health professionals who specialize in public health.

I was amazed when I read Dr. Raffesnperger's book how coveted was a place on the house staff of Cook County Hospital was or how keen the competition for a residency was. Can the same be said today under the leadership the county health services has had in recent years.

The Cook County Bureau of Health Services can become a model for health deliver services nationwide if only there is the political will to stop making the county health service (and all county government for that matter) a dumping ground for the politically connected to collect a paycheck.

The citizens of this county deserve nothing less than a world class health service and will be willing to pay for it if proper governance of it is in place.

Anti-Israel Lobby

This is in response to the article written by Mr. Jeff Robbins and entitled Anti-Semitism and the Anti-Israel Lobby published on 7 September 2007 in the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118912590978320145.html?mod=rss_opinion_main.

When will the people of this nation really understand what side of the bread is buttered when it comes to Middle East. I would submit this for your consideration: What nation has the closest thing to a fully functioning democracy in the Middle East? What nation in the Middle East has the greatest press and civil liberty freedoms? What nation has done what the US has asked more times than not, including exercising great restraint of its armed forced during the 1991 Gulf War. The answer to all these questions is Israel.

Israel is the best friend the US has in that region, but too many elitist pundits and policy wonks wish to continue to try and placate regimes that harbor terrorists, promote extremism and keep their populations under tight control. Maybe many people have forgotten but I haven’t forgotten the fact that the majority of the September 11 terrorists were of Saudi Arabian birth. In addition, too man US defense and industrial firms find they can get a bigger market for their wares in the Arab world than in Israel. That’s not the tune they piped a few years ago when the old Soviet Union supplied the Arab nations with all their weapons and the US supplied Israel.

The US has got to break away from dependence on a resource (oil) that is controlled by nations that wants the American people to think they are our friends but are simply looking out for their own interests and policy ends, which, in my opinion, includes the destruction of the state of Israel. Once we as a nation do that, then our relationship with the Arab world can take on a different hue in that we can speak truth to their power and not have to worry about the consequences in terms of their flow of oil to the US.

Special Education: Are We All Special Even if We Don't Earn It?

Below is a letter to the editor I submitted to the Wall Street Jounal on 22 August 2007

The article by John Hechinger and Daniel Golden entitled “When Special Education Goes Too Easy on Kids” and appearing in the 21 August 2007 Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118763976794303235.html again highlights how public education has failed the most vulnerable students through a conspiracy of low expectations.

I worked as a substitute teacher and one on one aide for a disabled student for an entire semester. I have seen instances time and again where assignments, tests and quizzes were re-worked. The most egregious example of low expectations and waste that often accompanies public education was the fact that in one math class, every Friday was “Movie Day”. Over the course of an entire semester, I sat through films like Supersize Me and The Italian Job (hardly fare that in any way related to the subject of math).

I proceeded to report this to the assistant principal. Whatever became of my report, I have no idea, but the fact remains that for entire semester, 1/5 of classroom time was wasted. Added to that was the fact there was no textbook used in the class.

It is the flagrant violation of parent’s and taxpayers trust by school administrators and teachers that continue hobble the United States’ public education systems. A wholesale reevaluation of the delivery of education in this country is needed. Fundamentals, such as the length of the school day and school year need reexamination in the light of a global economy. In addition, new school models such as the charter school and most importantly, providing parents with access to alternatives to the traditional public school need serious consideration. Finally, public school districts have to be willing to cut back on those programs that are not serving the student in the classroom; interscholastic sports might be a good start.

Taxpayers are getting fed up with a public education system that is getting more and more expensive and delivering less and less, especially in the areas of special education and education for gifted students.

The global economy requires a highly skilled workforce. If the United States is to maintain leadership in that economy, education must be the foundation of that strength. If we don’t we are only kidding ourselves and it will be only a matter of time until the United States is considered a second rate economic power.

Athletes and Bad Behavior

Below is a letter I submitted to the Chicago Sun Times. An edited version appeared in the August 4, 2007 edition.

Jay Mariotti's column published on July 27, 2007 and entitled Unworthy of any Trust is at best more hand wringing and at worst hypocritical.

Mr Mariotti seems shocked at all the bad behavior going on in sports. His reaction reminds me of the reaction of Captain Renault in the movie Casablanca when he says to Rick "I'm shock..shocked to find gambling going on" and then somebody hands him his winnings from the roulette table.

What does Mr. Mariotti and others expect of sports? Who said these sports figures should be looked up to?

More importantly, the press has to take some responsibility for this. They are constantly promoting various athletes and they are getting younger and younger and being eyed by more and more people who want to make money from their skills. Then, at the first possible minute, these young people turn pro and get lots of money and maybe a shoe deal and when they don't show the maturity or responsibility required to handle new found fame and fortune, people like Mr. Mariotti start making all manner of protests as if they have been personally insulted.

At least all of Mr. Mariotti's outrage looks good in print and sells more papers for the Chicago Sun Times.

Until enough people, from university presidents to the man in the street, stop investing their resources of time, money and interest in sports will things return to the normal order where sports will be treated as what they are - only a game for leisure - nothing will change

How to Avoid Mortgage Madness

Below is the text of a Letter to the Editor I submitted to the Wall Street Journal

I wish to comment on the article entitles Mortgage Madness which was published on Friday, August 3, 2007 in the Wall Street Journal and can be found at http://aei.org/publications/pubID.26602,filter.all/pub_detail.asp.

I question the wisdom of Mr. Lindsey's contention that "the key to getting America out of its current housing and mortgage market mess is to do everything possible to maximize the availability of credit". Isn't that how we got to this situation in the first place. Does Mr. Lindsey really think that it is good for the economy to have unsophisticated buyers (like me) to purchase exotic mortgages with adjustable rates, only to have many of those mortgages end up in foreclosure?

The solution does not lie with more regulation as Senator Schumer might advocate or maintaining the status quo as Mr. Lindsey. The key is to return to a fundamental understanding of what home ownership is. Home ownership is the key to upward social mobility and key to that mobility is stability and establishing roots in a community. Consequently, a home must be looked upon as a long term investment and only secondarily as a store of wealth or value.

In addition, education is key for consumers to make correct choices. Individuals must take responsibility for their own financial futures and understand all the risks involved with a particular mortgage instrument. My wife and I are fairly risk averse, so when it came time to refinance our home, we chose a basic 30 mortgage. We were lucky enough to find a very low rate and have been able to keep our home and accelerate the amortization of the loan even during periods of prolonged unemployment.

The old conventional wisdom of putting 30% down on house and having a fixed rate mortgage may not be the most glamorous way to purchase a house, but it can bring considerable peace of mind.

The Decline of Detroit - Maybe

Here is the text of a Letter to the Editor that I sent to the Wall Street Journal.

I wish to respectfully associate myself with the comments made by Mr. John Schnapp in his article entitled The Decline of Detroit and was published in the July 14-16 2007 Wall Street Journal and can be found at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118437946701766538-search.html?KEYWORDS=schnapp&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month.

Mr. Schnapp correctly points out a number of things that people who wish to continually bash the UAW seem to miss, namely that Detroit makes cars that many people do not want for various reasons.

I get so tired of hearing the over used statistic about $1500 per car goes to pay for retirees health costs. If Detroit made cars that people truly wanted, the $1500 would decrease or be eliminated due to volume.

I am also so tired of hearing the big three state that they produce cars that the market demand. Taking a "let's see what they want and we'll give it to them" approach versus being world class and designing and building cars and marketing cars that are innovative has made the Big Three move into second rate status as an industry.

We need leadership in Detroit that will not simply bend to whatever is popular. They need to innovate to create the next generation of cars that will create the demand that they so desperately need. They did it before with the SUV and the minivan, and they now need to do it again.

What About Muslim Moderates? - The British Have it Right

I wish to respectfully associate myself with the views put forth by Mr. R. James Woolsey and Ms Nina Shea in their article entitled What About Muslim Moderates that appeared on July 10, 2007 Wall Street Journal.

The American government and people have to become realistic as to who are friends are in the Middle East. It's all well and good for President Bush and his family to have a close personal tie to the House of Saud but it is that very relationship that keeps true voices of reform in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere from being heard. Mr. Woolsey and Ms Shea hit the nail right on the head when they state that certain Muslim groups are not supported because it might displease the House of Saud.

It is worth repeating that a majority of the September 11, 2001 terrorists were Saudis and it is the House of Saud that continues to propagate the Wahhabi form of Islam.

The only way this country is going to break the influence of the House of Saud is to break our dependence on their oil.

The British government has it right; they have made it a policy to work with those Muslim organization whose actions reflect their words. The United States would do well to imitate that example.

Our Own Worst Enemies - Maybe Not

I wish to comment on Alexander M. Haig's column entitled Our Own Worst Enemy that appeared in the July 10, 2007 Wall Street Journal.

It appears that Mr. Haig does not like other people's exercise of their right to vote for the politicians they want. He decries the policy of "elections at all costs". I would like to know what Mr. Haig would substitute. Would he return American policy to that sort seen in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's where United States government, either through covert or overt actions supports some strongman who will act as our proxy in whatever region the strongman is located in.

We have seen the results of policies like this all over Africa and South America. I would much rather sooner trust the peoples of the world to determine their own fate and United States government will have to adjust to meet the reality of new politics and politicians. True, there will be problems and conflicts with other governments and the United States people and its elected representatives must develop new and creative policies to engage constructively with them.

Wasn't it Barry Goldwater that said "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice". I guess Mr. Haig would modify that statemen to say "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice - except when it is inconvenient".

Letter to President Bush

Below is the text of a letter I sent to President Bush.

Dear President Bush:
I want to express my anger and disappointment at the commutation of the 30 month prison sentence of Mr. I. Lewis. Libby, Jr.

I am angered because it sends a message to the American people and our allies and more importantly, our enemies, that there are two classes of justice in this country; one for the privileged and powerful and another for those not of the political elite. This nation was founded on the concept of equality before the law. That means that anyone in jeopardy before the bar of justice should meet that jeopardy on an equal footing. If people, simply because of their status or influence, can expect different treatment, our system of justice will fall like a house of cards. Your actions have set a dangerous precedence that will create more problems for future presidents. Mr. Libby should have been forced to go through the appeals process like any other citizen.

I am disappointed because your actions have lowered our nation’s stature in the community of nations. I realize that the opinion of other nations has never been important to you or your administration but it is becoming ever more evident that we will have to work with other nations to address the great social, economic and environmental problems of our age. I am also disappointed because your actions focus more scorn and cynicism to the office of president. There was a time when young people aspired to the presidency of this great nation. Do you believe that your actions have helped or hindered those aspirations? Regardless of one’s political leanings, the office of president has been one that people respect. In the final analysis, only you can judge how you have been the steward of your high office. Have you enhanced it for future office holders or have you diminished it?

Having lived all my life in Chicago, I have become very adept at recognizing political hacks of all parties and positions. You are just the latest hack with an Ivy League veneer that has made his way into the White House. You are not the first fool to occupy your office and you won’t be the last.

Your actions in regard to Mr. Libby are indicative of your entire administration. Your administration has been a monument to cronyism, favoritism, incompetence and obfuscation towards the American people whom you claim to serve but really hold in utter contempt.

I have no illusions that this note and the sentiments expressed in it will ever cross your eyes. The sycophants and ticket punchers in your administration will not permit it. I have great hope in the sensibility of the American people and they will see what you administrations and its policies have wrought and I am glad that come November of 2008, we will have the power to send you and your minions to the dustbin of history. You deserve nothing less.

Sincerely yours,
Eugene M. Giudice

Who Gets the Benefits of the Law

Below is an email that I sent to four friends of mine who practice law. The hotlinks below lead to the Internet Movie Database (http://www.imdb.com) which is where I copied the quote from.

I came across this quote this weekend while I was watching A Man for All Seasons which is the story of Sir Thomas More's (later Saint Thomas More) conflict with Henry VIII of England. The dialog from the movie shown below takes place after More's family (including his future son in law William Roper) try to persuade More to arrest a young protégé of More's whom they suspect of spying on More and reporting back to King Henry. More refuses to arrest the former protégé because he has no evidence of a crime.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

I know there is a great debate in this nation on who should and should not get the protections of our laws and Constitution. Being scholars of the law yourselves, I offer this as simply some food for thought and a source for reflection on the great and noble profession the four of you pursue. It is my honor as a law librarian to off what small part I can in the work your profession does.

Immigrants must learn English

Below is an letter I submitted to the Chicago Tribune

I am writing to comment on the article written by Victor Davis Hanson and appearing in the Commentary Section of the Chicago Tribune on Friday, June 15, 2007. The article can be found at http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson061807.html or http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/premium/printedition/Friday/chi-oped0615hansonjun15,1,5887784.story?ctrack=1&cset=true.

Mr. Hanson strikes a rather sensitive nerve in his article, especially about the political and media elites who have been and will continue to be untouched by this nation's scandalous lack of a coherent immigration policy. The fundamental goal of new immigration policy must be based in building American citizens who will make a commitment to the future growth of this nation. We have to be realistic about what these immigrants want and they must have a clear, unambiguous message of what will be expected of them. We must know whether these newcomers are here to build a nation and plant roots or are the simply sojourners who plan to send whatever monies they make back to their home country?

One of the easiest ways to discern an immigrant's commitment to this land is the strict enforcement of English language requirements for all people looking for permanent residency status or citizenship. This nation is not going to be served by its Balkanization based on language. People must learn English to effectively navigate government and commerce in this land and any immigrants rights advocate worth their salt must admit this. Learning English can be the key for an immigrant that will allow him or her to emerge from an ethnic enclave to the seats of political and economic power in the nation.

This economic and political empowerment can be dangerous to so many so-called immigrants' rights advocates because as immigrants become empowered, they will rely less and less on these brokers and intermediaries and take their own future into their own hands. This is what every immigrant group has done since the founding of the nation but many now want to jump immediately to total political empowerment without the first important step of inculcation into the American culture and the fundamental step in that inculcation learning English.

Be Happy in Your Work?

Below is a letter I submitted to the Wall Street Journal.

I am writing to comment on the article "Happy for the Work" written by Professor Arthur C. Brooks and appearing in the June 20th, 2007 issue of the Wall Street Journal. The article can also be seen at the American Enterprise Institute's website at http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.26371,filter.all/pub_detail.asp.

I read with great interest Professor Brooks' article. The article reminded me of something attributed to Winston Churchill. He is reportedly said of Sir Joseph Chamberlain (father of future prime minister Neville Chamberlain) "Joe loved the working man, he loved to see him work". That is precisely the attitude I sensed in Professor Brook's writing.

The key fact that Professor Brooks' misses is that while a majority of people would continue to work even if they did not have to, the nature of that work would be radically different and probably more fulfilling. People, when given the flexibility of financial resources, can and do find greater meaning and satisfaction in their work because they have the ability to craft and shape the nature of work as well as the times and places it is done. Professor Brooks totally missed that point.

Professor Brooks would be well served by taking a deeper look at worker satisfaction under what circumstances people are truly fulfilled. I submit that the more people can be truly fulfilled at work the more the will be willing to produce for their respective companies. I am unsure that Professor Brooks has little meaningful contacts with workers, in his nice, ivory tower at Syracuse University nor would his masters at the American Enterprise Institute encourage such contact.

Corporate Entertaining or Corporate Whining?

Below is a letter I submitted to Crain's Chicago Business in response to a recent article. The article can be found at http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag/article.pl?article_id=27976

I am writing to comment on the story entitled Courting Clients Takes a Toll that appeared in the June 18 2007 issue of Crain's Chicago Business.

I must say that I absolutely pity the business people interviewed for this article. Life must be so rough for them; having to go to the best restaurants in Chicago, sit in the best seats at sporting and other stadium events, and all on somebody else's dime. Compared to them, my problems such as unemployment and underemployment, caring for an aging parent, and trying to prepare and plan for an uncertain future pale in comparison. I am so glad I don't have to deal with those problems.

I all seriousness, where do these people get off complaining about going to places that most of us cannot or probably will never be able to afford to go? Professional sporting event and headline concerts have become out of reach financially for most families in Chicago or any major market and fine dining has become the exclusive domain of the very rich and those on expense accounts.

I would make a challenge to any of the high priced whiners profiled in this article to swap places with me for one week. I would be very surprised if there were any takers among them.

A Pardon for Libby?

I saw this item on the Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-bauer/the-progressive-case-for-_b_51983.html and thought it would an interesting counterpoint in the Libby saga. Unfortunately, it is not.

What really did it for me is is Mr. Bauer's assertion that by pardoning Libby "Bush will step forward and take the lead role. He will have to explain himself; he will have to answer questions." What makes Mr. Bauer think he will answer questions? If a pardon does come, it will probably come at the 11th hour in his presidency, a new president will be sworn in and President Bush will be having a nice ride (his final one) on Air Force One back to Crawford, Texas. Once there, he won't have to answer to anyone. He'll travel the rubber chicken circuit, speaking at places like the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute and picking up nice speaker fees each time.

In a similar vein, this administration has taken secrecy and obfuscation to new heights. What makes Mr Bauer think it will change now?

Scooter Libby - Fallen Soldier?

I saw this item in the http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010185
in the Friday, June 8, 2007 issue of the Wall Street Journal. I would also like to call your attention to Eric Boehlert's comments at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/scooter-libby-and-the-chi_b_51541.html

Mr. Ajami continues to perpetuate the fallacy that the Libby trial was a trial on the Iraq war? What is his evidence for that? Is there anything in the indictment to that effect? Mr. Libby was put on trial for lying to the FBI and to the grand jury as part of an investigation, irregardless of the fact that the investigation or grand jury did not hand down any other indictments. I guess Mr. Ajami figures that if he keeps repeating this canard, people will start to believe it.

What is really galling about Mr. Ajami's article is his repeated comparison to Mr. Libby as a "soldier in your - our - war in Iraq". This is the greatest dishonor to the men and women of our armed forces. Was Mr. Libby ever in Iraq and in danger of death or injury? Did he have to deal with psychological impacts of fighting essentially an unconventional and civil war? Did Mr. Libby's family ever have to worry about him not returning home? I think Mr. Agami's comments and comparison of Mr. Libby to a fallen soldier is no less repulsive than some civilian who never heard a shot fired in anger wearing a Purple Heart as his own decoration. Mr. Libby is by no means of the imagination a "casualty" of this war. If Mr Ajami wants to see real casualties, he need go no further than Walter Reed or the nearest VA Hospital.

Mr. Libby was not and could never be considered a soldier. He was a political operative, nothing less. It would be an interesting study to find out how many "fallen comrades" Mr. Libby or Mr. Ajami have left in their wake in their own pursuits of political power. I also reject Mr. Ajami's assertion that Mr. Libby was in the "outer circle" while the war was being deliberated.

It bears noting that most of the current administration has no idea what it means to be in the service and subject to the risks and constraints of being in the service.

If we learn anything from this war is should be that American military might should be used with the utmost caution and deliberation and those in no way attached to the military should not be permitted to wrap themselves in the honor and dignity that are reserved for members of the armed forced.

Separation of Church and State - When Its Convenient

I saw this article in the Wall Street Journal on Friday, June 8 2007 and thought it was an extremely interesting piece.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010184

It's a sad commentary when the very same action can be lauded in one case and decried in another based soley on what is politically expedient.

There will always be people who malign the church because of its attempts to be faithful to the message of the gospel and not to the message of one political party or another. Maybe its a sign of the church's vitality that it can manage to "anger" both the politicians and the pundits on the left and the right.

Just some food for thought and grist for the mill

Barack Obama gives back contribution

In today's Chicago Tribune, there is a story about Senator Obama donating $16,500 to charity from his campaign because the money came from donors linked to Tony Rezko

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-obama_08jun08,1,6033901.story?track=rss&ctrack=2&cset=true

It's a nice gesture, but one that lacks substance given the amount of money his campaign is raking in. He'll make that money up in no time.

Pay any Price

This is the first time in a long time I have posted to my blog and the first time I have said something political. Below is a copy of an email letter to the editor I submitted to the Wall Street Journal earlier today.

I read with much interest the report by Bobby White on page B1 of the Marketplace section from the 6 June 2007 Wall Street Journal. At the end, I was very saddened by what I read.

I was saddened because of the attitude of Ms Shelly Valerio, who is opposed to the war in Iraq but want to prevent a neighbor from making a statement about the war on his own property because of the impact on her property values.

I was born in 1964 and when to Catholic grammar school. As anyone of a similar background can tell you, we were brought up on the words of President John Kennedy. Many people tend to focus on the "ask not what your country..." quotation from his first inaugural. My personal favorite from that speech has always been "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

What has happened to this country when people could be aroused by such words to the state we have now where people will support or oppose a particular cause so long as it really does not interfere with their lives. I could care less whether Ms Valerio supports or opposes the war in Iraq. My main issue with her is she is not willing to put any "skin in the game" for her views.

America is still the greatest country in the world, in spite of our mistakes and areas in which need to improve. This greatness will decline if the cynicism of its citizens is allowed to continue unchecked. Ms Valerio's attitude is only unique in that it is an extreme form of this cynicism

The cynicism of "I'll agree with you so long as I get mine" has got to stop. It has to stop in the home, in the workplace and in the corridors of power. It has got to stop because if it does not, this republic and the ideals for which so many have sacrificed so much will become nothing but a hollow promise that will be passed down future generations.