Below is a letter I drafted and mailed to both Senator McCain and Senator Obama.
Dear Senator McCain and Senator Obama:
I want to congratulate both of you on the nominations you received from your respective parties. My reason for writing to you is to give you some thoughts that I have had for some time on the nature of politics in this country. Please understand I am not writing to ask for anything or to request a specific action on any policy number. I would hope you would count this as one more voice in this campaign.
First, please let me tell you a little bit about who I am. I am a 44 year old Caucasian male. My wife and I live on the northwest side of Chicago. We have no children but we have been taking care of my wife’s mother in our home since December of 2002. We live in what could be classified as a middle or upper middle class community in Chicago. My wife and I have both experienced job loss. I was unemployed from August of 2002 and found full time work as a law librarian in April 2007. My wife was unemployed from April 2006 to September 2007. I took a pay cut of $20,000 to enter my new field of librarianship. During this time, we were able through God’s grace to keep our home and health insurance.
I want to let you know that for myself, I feel that neither political party has much to offer me, either economically or socially. The problem is the partisanship I see manifest in both parties and brought into sharp focus during this summer’s conventions. I realize that conventions are meant to rally the party faithful it should be no surprise that there are little signs of national unity at these conventions.
My alienation from the political process stems from the fact that many ideals that I hold are not honored or respected by one party or the other. Thus, I don’t feel I belong in either party. For example, I am person of deep and abiding faith. The Catholic faith was one of my bulwarks during my protracted unemployment and I don’t believe that a woman has the right to an abortion. This makes me suspect among many Democrats and progressives. I also try to hold a strong position on the church’s option for the poor and social justice. This makes me suspect among many Republicans who might think I have common cause with them on social issues. I believe in a strong commitment serving the nation, especially in the military. The profession of arms is not honored among many progressives. I see this attitude in the way military recruiters are often treated and the fact that ROTC program are not found in many universities. I grew up as a child of the labor movement and think that labor unions can have an important role in commerce. I am hearing more strident voices from Republicans on ways to thwart union organizing. I could go on and on with other examples.
The problem as I see is it is that both parties have allowed the more doctrinaire elements to set the tone of the discussion and have allowed the demonization of the opposition. I, like many Americans, question our role in the world and think that we should act in a more humble fashion. Many on the right often take this as America bashing or America hating and would question my patriotism. I also think that personal responsibility and initiative are the bedrock of which our nation’s economy is built. Many on the left would say that I want to continue to oppress those in our country and other nations to satisfy and sustain a capitalistic system.
I wish that both sides could treat each other with more civility and recognize the inherent goodness of the other. I saw no such civility or humility in both parties’ convention and that is shameful for such a great nation. As leaders in your party you must start to not only “distance” yourself from the more strident and radical elements of your party but to start pressuring these so called surrogates to tone down their rhetoric for the sake of moving our country forward.
I feel that harsh words towards the opposition and the ad hominine attacks are even more detrimental to the ability of the next president to govern because they are often wrapped up in the flag, a sense of patriotism or freedom for the economically or socially downtrodden.
Both of you have the power to fundamentally change the nature of political discourse in this nation. I have no illusions that often times, the loudest and most strident voices are the ones with the most to lose if public policy does not go that way. I also know that these voices are also the moneyed interests and that modern day politics run on money. It is real leadership that can tell these voices that their strident rhetoric is not helping the nation. The time is coming when it won’t matter who has the upper hand politically because neither side will be able to get anything done, and that is when our nation will begin its slow decline to irrelevancy. We may seeing the start of that irrelevancy, with a resurgent Russia, a China that has now taken its place on the world stage through its Olympic spectacle and the enrichment of oil rich countries of the Middle East through petro-dollars. The time for bold action is now, not at some future date when a “comfortable” majority is in place.
I have no illusions that there is very little chance of this letter ever crossing your eyes. I l don’t live in a battleground state and I don’t have the financial resources that would make you want to listen to me. All I can hope is that some junior staffer on your campaign may see this and become food for thought.
At one time, I had great hopes for the political process, but I grew up watching the Watergate hearings and since then, my confidence and connection in politics as they are done in this country has become more tenuous and irrelevant.
I’m hoping one of you can change that.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Friday, August 01, 2008
Should I trust Lanny Davis?
Lanny Davis’ article in the 31 July Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121745984626098717.html does more to convince me that Hillary Clinton should NOT be Barack Obama’s vice presidential running mate. The key issue for me is the ability to control Bill Clinton personally and to a lesser extent, the Clinton’s desire for power.
It was quite evident during the primary that Hillary could not control Bill. If she could not do it then, why should we trust Lanny Davis when he basically says that things would be different if we only knew them as Davis knows them?
I further believe that with Hillary in the vice president’s office, we would have a continued state of campaigning for the presidency, with her as the candidate. We have had had eight years of that with George W. Bush; we don’t need another four or eight years.
But the most important fact that leads me to believe that Hillary is not the right choice for vice president is the fact that she cannot keep her supporters in line. In other words, she cannot exert what used to be called “party discipline” on all these various supporters who have been very vocal (like Mr. Davis) of their unhappiness with the way the primary season ended. If Hillary cannot control these people, how in the world will she control Bill and his entourage? If all this vocal unhappiness is being done with her approval (albeit with enough plausible deniability), doesn’t that speak volumes to the idea that Hillary is no real change agent but somebody willing to continue with politics as usual?
It was quite evident during the primary that Hillary could not control Bill. If she could not do it then, why should we trust Lanny Davis when he basically says that things would be different if we only knew them as Davis knows them?
I further believe that with Hillary in the vice president’s office, we would have a continued state of campaigning for the presidency, with her as the candidate. We have had had eight years of that with George W. Bush; we don’t need another four or eight years.
But the most important fact that leads me to believe that Hillary is not the right choice for vice president is the fact that she cannot keep her supporters in line. In other words, she cannot exert what used to be called “party discipline” on all these various supporters who have been very vocal (like Mr. Davis) of their unhappiness with the way the primary season ended. If Hillary cannot control these people, how in the world will she control Bill and his entourage? If all this vocal unhappiness is being done with her approval (albeit with enough plausible deniability), doesn’t that speak volumes to the idea that Hillary is no real change agent but somebody willing to continue with politics as usual?
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Hillary Clinton and Her "Supporters"
Michael Kinsley's essay that appeared in the July 11th 2008 edition of Time magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1821662,00.html is right on target.
I am getting so tired of Hillary Clinton's supporters threatening to 1) stay home on election day 2) vote for John McCain 3) support some other third party candidate. I find it especially galling that they keep demanding that the 18 million voters who supported Mrs Clinton be heard. I'm not hearing that from John Edwards' supporters or Bill Richardson's' supporters or any of the other Democratic contenders.
What Mrs. Clinton's supporters must realize is the following 1) they lost because they had poor strategy and poor cohesion amongst the campaign leadership 2) they failed to keep Bill Clinton on a short leash 3) if they decide to pout and not support Barack Obama, do they think they will get a better deal in terms of moving a progressive agenda forward from John McCain? If they do, they are sadly mistaken and finally and most importantly, if Mr. Obama loses because of their lackluster or nonexistent support, it will come back to haunt them because many in the party will consider them and by extension Mrs. Clinton a pariah and not want to have anything to do with them because Mrs. Clinton could not exercise effective discipline over these so called "friends".
NB: Portions of this letter appeared in the August 4th Edition of Time magazine
I am getting so tired of Hillary Clinton's supporters threatening to 1) stay home on election day 2) vote for John McCain 3) support some other third party candidate. I find it especially galling that they keep demanding that the 18 million voters who supported Mrs Clinton be heard. I'm not hearing that from John Edwards' supporters or Bill Richardson's' supporters or any of the other Democratic contenders.
What Mrs. Clinton's supporters must realize is the following 1) they lost because they had poor strategy and poor cohesion amongst the campaign leadership 2) they failed to keep Bill Clinton on a short leash 3) if they decide to pout and not support Barack Obama, do they think they will get a better deal in terms of moving a progressive agenda forward from John McCain? If they do, they are sadly mistaken and finally and most importantly, if Mr. Obama loses because of their lackluster or nonexistent support, it will come back to haunt them because many in the party will consider them and by extension Mrs. Clinton a pariah and not want to have anything to do with them because Mrs. Clinton could not exercise effective discipline over these so called "friends".
NB: Portions of this letter appeared in the August 4th Edition of Time magazine
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
What is the REAL Price of Transporation
Dennis Byrne's column entitled "Not Quite A Fare Share" that appeared in the July 14th 2008 Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0714byrnejul14,0,648646.story was absolutely no help in the discussion of public transporation subsidies.
Mr. Byrne very conveniently forgets the millions of dollars that go in to road construction contracts that people like me never get value from because we use the public transportation system. I'm quite sure that the tolls paid for by drivers come nowhere near the real cost of road construction and maintenance.
I'll make a deal with Mr. Byrne. He can stop subsidising my train ride when I can stop subsidising his commute by auto.
Mr. Byrne has done one valuable service and that is to create another wedge issue that can divide the electorate and make it easier for the status quo to remain.
Mr. Byrne very conveniently forgets the millions of dollars that go in to road construction contracts that people like me never get value from because we use the public transportation system. I'm quite sure that the tolls paid for by drivers come nowhere near the real cost of road construction and maintenance.
I'll make a deal with Mr. Byrne. He can stop subsidising my train ride when I can stop subsidising his commute by auto.
Mr. Byrne has done one valuable service and that is to create another wedge issue that can divide the electorate and make it easier for the status quo to remain.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
In Defense of Lobbyists?
Below is a letter to the editer that I submitted to the Wall Street Journal.
I found the article entitled “In Defense of Lobbyists” written by Mr. Tom C. Korologos and published in the Wall Street Journal on Friday May 30, 2008 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121210874509231275.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries to be an extremely self serving article and does nothing to enhance the public perception of lobbyists.
First of all, Mr. Korologos is correct in stating that all lobbyists should not be tarred with the brush of Jack Abramoff but he also wants us to consider all lobbyists equal in that he equates the lobbyists hired by corporations and industry groups to be the same as those hired by unions and public policy organizations. I doubt that the lobbyists hired by unions and public policy organizations have the same cash resources as corporate and industry lobbyists.
This brings us to the second about the “coin of the realm” of the lobbyists being trust and respect. I would submit that Mr. Korologos is delusional if he thinks that the real coin of the realm of the lobbyist is indeed the money that they can control and generate for the ever growing, ever voracious appetites of political campaign. We need only to look at Tom Delay’s self styled “K Street Project” for evidence of this.
Thirdly, no one should be misled by Mr. Korologos in thinking that lobbyists are performing a public service strictly in the public interest. Organizations do not hire lobbyists to look out for the public’s welfare, whatever that might be. Lobbyists are hired to protect the interests of their respective clients and that should not be forgotten.
Mr. Korologos also equates lobbying with citizens petitioning government for redress. I would submit that lobbying as it is practiced in the United States is a far cry from what the Founding Fathers had intended.
As an experienced reference librarian, I categorically reject the notion that the lobbyist is the best place that legislators, their staffs and executive department agencies can get the information they to make policy. The United States government is the largest single source of information, much of it gathered by agencies such as the Congressional Research Service or agencies of the executive branch.
The real cure for lobbyist abuse is to make the legislature and executive branch agencies less dependent on them for information to assist them in promulgating public policy or the funds to run political campaigns.
I found the article entitled “In Defense of Lobbyists” written by Mr. Tom C. Korologos and published in the Wall Street Journal on Friday May 30, 2008 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121210874509231275.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries to be an extremely self serving article and does nothing to enhance the public perception of lobbyists.
First of all, Mr. Korologos is correct in stating that all lobbyists should not be tarred with the brush of Jack Abramoff but he also wants us to consider all lobbyists equal in that he equates the lobbyists hired by corporations and industry groups to be the same as those hired by unions and public policy organizations. I doubt that the lobbyists hired by unions and public policy organizations have the same cash resources as corporate and industry lobbyists.
This brings us to the second about the “coin of the realm” of the lobbyists being trust and respect. I would submit that Mr. Korologos is delusional if he thinks that the real coin of the realm of the lobbyist is indeed the money that they can control and generate for the ever growing, ever voracious appetites of political campaign. We need only to look at Tom Delay’s self styled “K Street Project” for evidence of this.
Thirdly, no one should be misled by Mr. Korologos in thinking that lobbyists are performing a public service strictly in the public interest. Organizations do not hire lobbyists to look out for the public’s welfare, whatever that might be. Lobbyists are hired to protect the interests of their respective clients and that should not be forgotten.
Mr. Korologos also equates lobbying with citizens petitioning government for redress. I would submit that lobbying as it is practiced in the United States is a far cry from what the Founding Fathers had intended.
As an experienced reference librarian, I categorically reject the notion that the lobbyist is the best place that legislators, their staffs and executive department agencies can get the information they to make policy. The United States government is the largest single source of information, much of it gathered by agencies such as the Congressional Research Service or agencies of the executive branch.
The real cure for lobbyist abuse is to make the legislature and executive branch agencies less dependent on them for information to assist them in promulgating public policy or the funds to run political campaigns.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Let The Trains Move!!
Below is a letter I submitted to the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times and Crain's Chicago Business regarding the proposed purchase of the Elgin, Joliet an Eastern Railways by the Canadian National Railroad.
I find the current uproar in certain northern suburbs by some politicians and residents regarding the proposed purchase of the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railways but the Canadian National Railroad to be short-sighted at best and a case of overblown self entitlement at worst. Add to these two possibilities a strong case of NIMBY (not in my back yard).
The reality of the situation is this: The faster goods can get to market, the lower prices can become. Anyone with a simple understanding of economics and accounting will tell you that goods in transit wind up as an asset on somebody’s balance sheet. Those assets, though, are not doing anyone any good. They are sitting in some boxcar on some railway siding somewhere in the Chicago metropolitan area. A reduction in the transit time for goods will be beneficial to all consumers. The residents of the northern suburbs who up to this point have enjoyed the benefits of an abundant supply of goods at fairly reasonable prices must now step up to the plate and take responsibility for helping to ensure the efficiency of the supply chain.
Having grown up in Melrose Park less than a mile from what was then the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad and now living less than two blocks from a Canadian National right of way, I understand the frustration of waiting for freight trains to pass but in my opinion, that is a small price to pay for the added economic vitality that railroads add to the entire region.
Finally, I would add that individuals who live close to the railroad who have expressed concerns about safety and property values should look at their own economic behavior. Chances are the railroad was there long before they moved into the area. They should have understood that trains run on those track and their strident outcry regarding property values and safety are extremely late in coming.
I find the current uproar in certain northern suburbs by some politicians and residents regarding the proposed purchase of the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railways but the Canadian National Railroad to be short-sighted at best and a case of overblown self entitlement at worst. Add to these two possibilities a strong case of NIMBY (not in my back yard).
The reality of the situation is this: The faster goods can get to market, the lower prices can become. Anyone with a simple understanding of economics and accounting will tell you that goods in transit wind up as an asset on somebody’s balance sheet. Those assets, though, are not doing anyone any good. They are sitting in some boxcar on some railway siding somewhere in the Chicago metropolitan area. A reduction in the transit time for goods will be beneficial to all consumers. The residents of the northern suburbs who up to this point have enjoyed the benefits of an abundant supply of goods at fairly reasonable prices must now step up to the plate and take responsibility for helping to ensure the efficiency of the supply chain.
Having grown up in Melrose Park less than a mile from what was then the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad and now living less than two blocks from a Canadian National right of way, I understand the frustration of waiting for freight trains to pass but in my opinion, that is a small price to pay for the added economic vitality that railroads add to the entire region.
Finally, I would add that individuals who live close to the railroad who have expressed concerns about safety and property values should look at their own economic behavior. Chances are the railroad was there long before they moved into the area. They should have understood that trains run on those track and their strident outcry regarding property values and safety are extremely late in coming.
Monday, May 26, 2008
What is Marriage
Eric Zorn is right on target with his column published on 22 May entitled "Let Churches Define What Marriage Is" http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/columnists/chi-zorn-22-may22,0,3266777.column.
My parents were married in Europe over 40 years ago and they had two steps. The first was a church ceremony and the second was registering at the marriage registrar's office. The marriage was not considered official until this second step was completed.
I think that gay marriage has become such a hot topic is because we have members of the clergy acting as functionaries of the state.
My marriage is not defined by some civil statute but how we live our marriage as our religion (we're active Roman Catholics) has taught us.
I believe that people in this country should be able to enter into any sort of contractual relationship they want. It should be fairly easy to change the "marriage law" so that any couple, be they heterosexual or homosexual could apply for a "civil union permit". Notice I did not call it a marriage license. That permit would be enough to guarantee all the benefits that married people now have. If people want to have their contract soleminized in some fashion by a clergyman or clergywoman, that would be up to the dictates of their conscience and the teachings of their chosen religion.
In a similar vein, I would call upon state legislatures to collaborate and draft a uniform civil union statute in the same fashion as we have the Uniform Commercial Code.
My parents were married in Europe over 40 years ago and they had two steps. The first was a church ceremony and the second was registering at the marriage registrar's office. The marriage was not considered official until this second step was completed.
I think that gay marriage has become such a hot topic is because we have members of the clergy acting as functionaries of the state.
My marriage is not defined by some civil statute but how we live our marriage as our religion (we're active Roman Catholics) has taught us.
I believe that people in this country should be able to enter into any sort of contractual relationship they want. It should be fairly easy to change the "marriage law" so that any couple, be they heterosexual or homosexual could apply for a "civil union permit". Notice I did not call it a marriage license. That permit would be enough to guarantee all the benefits that married people now have. If people want to have their contract soleminized in some fashion by a clergyman or clergywoman, that would be up to the dictates of their conscience and the teachings of their chosen religion.
In a similar vein, I would call upon state legislatures to collaborate and draft a uniform civil union statute in the same fashion as we have the Uniform Commercial Code.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, September 10, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, August 06, 2007
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
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.
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".
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".
Monday, July 09, 2007
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
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
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
