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.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
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?
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?
Monday, June 11, 2007
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.
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
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
Friday, June 08, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
