In a grotesque display of political pandering, Cliff Hite used the December 7 Republican luncheon to reveal the pretense of his purpose as our State Representative, raising money. The question each voter must ask themselves is how this perversion of our democratic vision results in representing people living in Alger, Dunkirk, Findlay, Kenton, New Knoxville, Ada, Fostoria, Forest and the many towns and villages between. It does not.
On the very same page that touted Hite’s rantings, The Courier reported that Ohio leads the nation in home foreclosures. Perhaps Mr. Hite believes it is appropriate to celebrate politics and fund raising while the Republican legislature buries its collective head from the results of its leadership.
Perhaps Mr. Hite could responsibly propose a plan where funds held for investment by the Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation and other Ohio state agencies – money from Ohio for Ohioans – is re-invested to support Ohio home ownership. If Ohio is to return to long term economic stability, that stability must start at the kitchen table for all Ohio citizens.
Perhaps Mr. Hite could evidence his leadership in efforts to reduce our taxes by proposing a reduction in state taxes added to each gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel. This may help families and fixed income seniors who save every penny to make ends meet to better make ends meet. It may also help family farmers, family farms and those engaged in trucking. In this way Mr. Hite could pay more attention to reducing taxes for living people rather than bantering about eliminating “the death tax.” It seems those living may appreciate the reduction more.
Through the vast reaches of his insightful leadership, perhaps Mr. Hite could team with U.S. Representative Jordan to spearhead a comprehensive plan spanning Wyandot, Hancock and Putnam Counties to control flooding of the Blanchard River. This would preserve the prospective investment of $90,000,000 in a new Findlay business sector. It might also spare the presently existing business district and those living in the flood zone from many more millions in property losses from another flood. Then again, it might be helpful if both representatives invested greater effort in pursuing funds to help people still trying to recover from the August flood and government red tape.
The fact there are so many possibilities that Mr. Hite cannot envision makes his pandering for money all the more disconcerting. Perhaps if he found a way to serve the needs of people living in the 76th District, his service alone would merit the financial reward he demands. For some, it may come down to money; for others, it matters more what can be done for people first.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Global Warming - with Stephen J. Kostyo
The fact the citizens of planet earth are emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere at an alarming rate are now beyond valid dispute. The Noble Prize awarded Al Gore and a group of highly respected scientists is considerate recognition that global warming is a planetary emergency that demands our attention and action. The continued burning of coal and natural gases contributes to global warming, depletes our natural recourses and results in the dependence of the United States on other nations for scarce energy resources. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make breathing harmful in big cities and will jeopardize our living environments to an even greater extent unless we immediately change our current energy dependent lifestyles.
The issues of reducing greenhouse gases and global climate change were the primary focus of The Kyoto Protocol. This is a treaty negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997. In form, it is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change where countries that ratify the protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emission of the gases. The treaty expires in 2012. Talks have begun on a future treaty to succeed it. Unfortunately, the United States has not ratified this treaty.
The primary reason the United States has failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol must be attributed to the well funded realm of junk science. Critically deficient pseudo-scientific garbage concocted by scientists for sale, the term “junk science” is used to describe the use of these sophistic “studies” that claim to challenge or obfuscate the facts and causes of global warming. It is well established that energy companies have invested millions of dollars in such studies with the singular purpose of confusing the general public. In ultimate terms, this investment sacrifices truth for short term gains recognized in reduced oversight and regulation. In other words, the public good is sacrificed for private gain.
The Kyoto Protocol accomplished the goal of pinpointing the threat of chlorofluorocarbon emissions around the world. It showed that when a global problem arises we can take care of it. Unfortunately, neoconservative political influences in the United States have prevented ratification and compliance with Kyoto’s caps on carbon dioxide emissions. Fortunately, many cities and states have implemented Kyoto’s standards and we are beginning to see uniform collaboration to address this crisis. An effective way to stop the increase of greenhouse gasses is to hold companies who emit the greenhouse gasses accountable. There are large public companies that have established policies to cutting emissions, lower waste and recycle materials while saving money in the process. Progressive energy saving and recycling plans as those employed in many states set the example for other states and companies to follow.
Some people may not conserve energy in small amounts because they do not believe their efforts are worthwhile. It must be recognized that every action makes a difference and there are plenty of opportunities. For example, I recently noticed there were no recycling containers in McDonalds’ restaurants, so I simply carried my recyclable trash back to my dorm where it could be recycled. Energy conservation is as easy as adjusting the thermostat up or down two degrees depending on the season. If this is done consistently, these small measures would save vast amounts of resources and energy. The great result about conserving resources is that nearly all the time simple conservations save money. In fact, almost every family could save money if they knew how to operate their homes more energy efficiently.
By purchasing slightly more expensive energy efficient light bulbs home owners may save money in the long run and reduce their harmful emissions. Stereotypically, we believe that big coal burning industries are the main contributors to global warming, when actually fluorescent light bulbs in homes combine to produce as many greenhouse gasses as factories. Imagine all the phone books, junk mail, credit reports, and other items that can accessed electronically without actually using paper and eliminated. As a public, we need to inform ourselves about these measures among others that they can implement in everyday life to make a significant difference. Conservation can be found in simple things like not letting the water facet run while brushing your teeth saving water now essential to parts of our country that never before had such concerns. It is a matter of recognition and effort.
The effects of global warming are more far reaching than extreme storms, loss of land, and loss of wildlife; the main concern is for our fellow human beings. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all people are created equal.” As a nation we must also evolve as a people who work to advance this concept. Conservation allows more people to enjoy the earth’s resources equally.
It is time we make the concerted effort. The world will not end in our lifetime even if we do not change the course of past actions. At the same time, we should take the responsibility to promote a better quality of life for one another. We cannot continue to ignore caring about the environment. There is too much progress that can be made and every little bit does count. We can start a new era where global warming refers to our hearts instead of our environment.
This week, try to organize more people to make small concerted efforts to improve the environment and conserve our resources. It may simply be taking a responsible role in recycling. It starts with your decision to save the essential resources for living so everyone will have the chance to live in a healthier world climate. The world is what you do.
The issues of reducing greenhouse gases and global climate change were the primary focus of The Kyoto Protocol. This is a treaty negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997. In form, it is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change where countries that ratify the protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emission of the gases. The treaty expires in 2012. Talks have begun on a future treaty to succeed it. Unfortunately, the United States has not ratified this treaty.
The primary reason the United States has failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol must be attributed to the well funded realm of junk science. Critically deficient pseudo-scientific garbage concocted by scientists for sale, the term “junk science” is used to describe the use of these sophistic “studies” that claim to challenge or obfuscate the facts and causes of global warming. It is well established that energy companies have invested millions of dollars in such studies with the singular purpose of confusing the general public. In ultimate terms, this investment sacrifices truth for short term gains recognized in reduced oversight and regulation. In other words, the public good is sacrificed for private gain.
The Kyoto Protocol accomplished the goal of pinpointing the threat of chlorofluorocarbon emissions around the world. It showed that when a global problem arises we can take care of it. Unfortunately, neoconservative political influences in the United States have prevented ratification and compliance with Kyoto’s caps on carbon dioxide emissions. Fortunately, many cities and states have implemented Kyoto’s standards and we are beginning to see uniform collaboration to address this crisis. An effective way to stop the increase of greenhouse gasses is to hold companies who emit the greenhouse gasses accountable. There are large public companies that have established policies to cutting emissions, lower waste and recycle materials while saving money in the process. Progressive energy saving and recycling plans as those employed in many states set the example for other states and companies to follow.
Some people may not conserve energy in small amounts because they do not believe their efforts are worthwhile. It must be recognized that every action makes a difference and there are plenty of opportunities. For example, I recently noticed there were no recycling containers in McDonalds’ restaurants, so I simply carried my recyclable trash back to my dorm where it could be recycled. Energy conservation is as easy as adjusting the thermostat up or down two degrees depending on the season. If this is done consistently, these small measures would save vast amounts of resources and energy. The great result about conserving resources is that nearly all the time simple conservations save money. In fact, almost every family could save money if they knew how to operate their homes more energy efficiently.
By purchasing slightly more expensive energy efficient light bulbs home owners may save money in the long run and reduce their harmful emissions. Stereotypically, we believe that big coal burning industries are the main contributors to global warming, when actually fluorescent light bulbs in homes combine to produce as many greenhouse gasses as factories. Imagine all the phone books, junk mail, credit reports, and other items that can accessed electronically without actually using paper and eliminated. As a public, we need to inform ourselves about these measures among others that they can implement in everyday life to make a significant difference. Conservation can be found in simple things like not letting the water facet run while brushing your teeth saving water now essential to parts of our country that never before had such concerns. It is a matter of recognition and effort.
The effects of global warming are more far reaching than extreme storms, loss of land, and loss of wildlife; the main concern is for our fellow human beings. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all people are created equal.” As a nation we must also evolve as a people who work to advance this concept. Conservation allows more people to enjoy the earth’s resources equally.
It is time we make the concerted effort. The world will not end in our lifetime even if we do not change the course of past actions. At the same time, we should take the responsibility to promote a better quality of life for one another. We cannot continue to ignore caring about the environment. There is too much progress that can be made and every little bit does count. We can start a new era where global warming refers to our hearts instead of our environment.
This week, try to organize more people to make small concerted efforts to improve the environment and conserve our resources. It may simply be taking a responsible role in recycling. It starts with your decision to save the essential resources for living so everyone will have the chance to live in a healthier world climate. The world is what you do.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
SCHIP - Caring for Others
The saying goes: “Be nice to your children because they will choose your rest home.” I suggest we should pay greater attention to the health care of our children because as a generation, our care will pass to them. Our care for others is not some postulated political equation. With parents caring for children, as with parents caring for parents, there is a deep and abiding moral value found in our consideration and care for others. I believe this is an American value.
When our care for others, particularly low-income children living in the United States without health coverage, is combined with the highly charged realm of political hyperbole we all too often end up focusing on the jargon. Of course, this refers to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Possibly, rather than continue its bantered politico jousting, Congress may find that by changing the underlying funding mechanism for the program, SCHIP may continue to serve its original purpose covering the health care costs for low-income children while addressing the vast increase in the number and needs of low-income children. Much to their detriment, low-income children have not learned the socio-philosophical economic restraints to government referenced health care. These children just need medical care.
In its original 1997 form, SCHIP was enacted as a block grant program with a fixed annual funding level. The purpose of SCHIP was to help states pay for health coverage for uninsured children in families whose income is above levels that would allow them to be eligible for the state’s Medicaid programs as of March 31, 1997.
SCHIP has been a success; however, as a block grant program, it fails by design to address the escalating costs and needs of eligible low-income children. Congress did not anticipate the dramatic increase in health care costs and children in need over the last decade. At some point, SCHIP must be considered in the larger answer that our country must find to address our health care systems.
Common sense might suggest that if we responsibly address the health needs of low-income children now, these children may become healthier adults costing our health care systems less. Then they may contribute to our economic system; and, pay the taxes necessary to fund the Bush Administration’s adventure in Iraq and immense increase in our debt to China.
When our care for others, particularly low-income children living in the United States without health coverage, is combined with the highly charged realm of political hyperbole we all too often end up focusing on the jargon. Of course, this refers to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Possibly, rather than continue its bantered politico jousting, Congress may find that by changing the underlying funding mechanism for the program, SCHIP may continue to serve its original purpose covering the health care costs for low-income children while addressing the vast increase in the number and needs of low-income children. Much to their detriment, low-income children have not learned the socio-philosophical economic restraints to government referenced health care. These children just need medical care.
In its original 1997 form, SCHIP was enacted as a block grant program with a fixed annual funding level. The purpose of SCHIP was to help states pay for health coverage for uninsured children in families whose income is above levels that would allow them to be eligible for the state’s Medicaid programs as of March 31, 1997.
SCHIP has been a success; however, as a block grant program, it fails by design to address the escalating costs and needs of eligible low-income children. Congress did not anticipate the dramatic increase in health care costs and children in need over the last decade. At some point, SCHIP must be considered in the larger answer that our country must find to address our health care systems.
Common sense might suggest that if we responsibly address the health needs of low-income children now, these children may become healthier adults costing our health care systems less. Then they may contribute to our economic system; and, pay the taxes necessary to fund the Bush Administration’s adventure in Iraq and immense increase in our debt to China.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
National Security at Home
Our “national security” is a critical part of our daily concerns. The words “national security” must be more than political jargon to solicit our patriotic consent to foreign military actions rather than address the actual security of American citizens living in the United States. It is simple foolishness to believe the security of our nation is singularly dependent on evasively defined military missions in Middle East countries. Our “national security” is compromised by the failure of Congress and the Administration to responsibly identify and address threats to our individual security within the United States or effectively enforce our immigration laws.
The question we must ask is whether our “security” focused leaders have taken sufficient steps to prevent 19 more terrorists from entering our country and engaging in another attack. The 19 al Qaeda operatives had passports, visas and at least two were traceable from State Department INS TIPOFF watch lists. Each of the 19 operatives violated immigration laws while in the United States. None of these 19 operatives were stopped.
Each day thousands of illegal aliens enter the United States from Mexico or Canada without passports or visas. An estimated 12 million or more illegal aliens now living and work in the United States. In this number there is a subtle source for terror. “Terror” as in the execution of three Newark college students, forced to kneel against a wall and shot at close range by Jose Carranza, an illegal alien from Peru. The three students were victimized by the failure of state and federal tracking even after Carranza was indicted twice this year on 31 counts surrounding the sexual assault of a child and a bar fight. In New Jersey local authorities are not required to check immigration status of upon criminal arrests. What happened to national security for these three students?
Within the past week, the United States opened its borders to allow Mexican-domiciled trucks full access to our national highways. We must wonder where the priority of our national security is found in this action. Is this simply a policy choice of cheap goods and labor over the security of United States citizens? With millions of illegal aliens violating our borders each year from Mexico, allowing Mexican-domiciled trucks within our borders will merely provide the prospective for more comfortable travel accommodations.
Without control of our borders, the concept of national security is a political illusion. Without strong and comprehensive programs to secure our national borders, engagements in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan will serve only as a distraction. It is unfortunate that our attention spans do not permit us to pay attention to illegal aliens within our country as potential terrorists.
The question we must ask is whether our “security” focused leaders have taken sufficient steps to prevent 19 more terrorists from entering our country and engaging in another attack. The 19 al Qaeda operatives had passports, visas and at least two were traceable from State Department INS TIPOFF watch lists. Each of the 19 operatives violated immigration laws while in the United States. None of these 19 operatives were stopped.
Each day thousands of illegal aliens enter the United States from Mexico or Canada without passports or visas. An estimated 12 million or more illegal aliens now living and work in the United States. In this number there is a subtle source for terror. “Terror” as in the execution of three Newark college students, forced to kneel against a wall and shot at close range by Jose Carranza, an illegal alien from Peru. The three students were victimized by the failure of state and federal tracking even after Carranza was indicted twice this year on 31 counts surrounding the sexual assault of a child and a bar fight. In New Jersey local authorities are not required to check immigration status of upon criminal arrests. What happened to national security for these three students?
Within the past week, the United States opened its borders to allow Mexican-domiciled trucks full access to our national highways. We must wonder where the priority of our national security is found in this action. Is this simply a policy choice of cheap goods and labor over the security of United States citizens? With millions of illegal aliens violating our borders each year from Mexico, allowing Mexican-domiciled trucks within our borders will merely provide the prospective for more comfortable travel accommodations.
Without control of our borders, the concept of national security is a political illusion. Without strong and comprehensive programs to secure our national borders, engagements in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan will serve only as a distraction. It is unfortunate that our attention spans do not permit us to pay attention to illegal aliens within our country as potential terrorists.
Friday, August 10, 2007
We the People . . .
With the prospect that the I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis will result in months of investigation and controversy, we are uncomfortably reminded that we live in a democratic republic. This means that there is an even more uncomfortable answer to the responsibility of possible design, inspection and repair failures in our aging national infrastructure of which the I-35 Bridge is a catastrophic example. The answer is not found in an individual politician or political party; worse, the answer is in the starting point of our democracy – “We the People."
In the Preamble of the United States Constitution are the words “We the People of the United States . . .” Through these simple words the purpose and parameters of our government are established in the Constitution. It is “We the People” who form our government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty. While politicos bask in the clouded realms of verbal sophistry, legislative tweaking and analytic obfuscation overshadowed by hours of commentary, pseudo-expert explanations, theorizations, debate and the morass of fault finding, “We the People” suffer the final consequence of representative failures. When any part of our representative government fails us, we fail ourselves. “We the People” are responsible for our democracy.
It is unfortunate that events as the I-35 bridge collapse blur among the many other concerns and failures to address critical issues such as the health care, education, economic and security interests of Americans. In a democratic republic, we trust that our values are invested to serve the needs of the people; however, when there is a failure to address the formative basis of our government, the failure is our own if we are to accept responsibility in our democracy. We must accept the responsible to preserve our democracy by engagement in the democratic process.
Our elected representatives are responsible to “We the People.” If the democracy we share does not match the democracy that serves us, we can only look to ourselves for the answer. “We the People” must come first in the thought of democratic government. For far too long our politics have been given priority over our interests, but then we are responsible for that as well.
In the Preamble of the United States Constitution are the words “We the People of the United States . . .” Through these simple words the purpose and parameters of our government are established in the Constitution. It is “We the People” who form our government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty. While politicos bask in the clouded realms of verbal sophistry, legislative tweaking and analytic obfuscation overshadowed by hours of commentary, pseudo-expert explanations, theorizations, debate and the morass of fault finding, “We the People” suffer the final consequence of representative failures. When any part of our representative government fails us, we fail ourselves. “We the People” are responsible for our democracy.
It is unfortunate that events as the I-35 bridge collapse blur among the many other concerns and failures to address critical issues such as the health care, education, economic and security interests of Americans. In a democratic republic, we trust that our values are invested to serve the needs of the people; however, when there is a failure to address the formative basis of our government, the failure is our own if we are to accept responsibility in our democracy. We must accept the responsible to preserve our democracy by engagement in the democratic process.
Our elected representatives are responsible to “We the People.” If the democracy we share does not match the democracy that serves us, we can only look to ourselves for the answer. “We the People” must come first in the thought of democratic government. For far too long our politics have been given priority over our interests, but then we are responsible for that as well.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
A Proper Dialogue
With election year 2008 ahead, it must be suggested politicos seek a level of dialogue based on verifiable facts and simple courtesy. On this basis we may be spared from irrationally flawed comparisons as drawn between political parties and heinous historic regimes. I believe it is appropriate to advance the concept that such speech no longer belongs in our language as Americans. The fact that such words appear at all is disconcerting unless noted for the viscerally prejudicial level of ignorance and bigotry entailed in their comparative use.
I fully believe in the highest level of political discourse and debate. It is in this manner only that our democratic republic is possible. I acknowledge that some historic events may be subject to question; however, there are fundamental differences between democratic beliefs and the totalitarian regime of Adolf Hitler. By “totalitarian regime” is referenced a national population mobilized to support state sponsored ideologies intolerant of opinions not directed toward state goals. It may be noted that such regimes were sustained by single party control, control of business, repression of labor unions, restrictions on education, religious beliefs, religious practices, free discussion and abusive privacy violations by state sponsored surveillance.
I suggest totalitarianism is inherently abhorrent to our beliefs as Americans. I am proud that Democratic ideals include recognizing the innate dignity of each person, efforts to care for the poor and sick, a respectful tolerance of considered opinions, support of business, labor unions, education for all, religious freedoms and the protection of individual privacy.
The use of abjectly prejudicial terms that entail disdainful historic references reveals a level of bigotry that should be as much a source for concern as Islamic terrorists. Perhaps the most important part of our dialogue as Americans is to begin with the very strongest presumption that each citizen of our country is a vital part of our society. We must be compelled to seek and reach the highest level of debate critical to our celebration of the freedoms we hold dear. We must start with the belief that each person, regardless of political party affiliation, if any, holds their individual freedoms and love of country at the very heart of their patriotic beliefs. On this basis, we can invite our American dialogue to begin again.
John F. Kostyo, Proud American and Democrat
I fully believe in the highest level of political discourse and debate. It is in this manner only that our democratic republic is possible. I acknowledge that some historic events may be subject to question; however, there are fundamental differences between democratic beliefs and the totalitarian regime of Adolf Hitler. By “totalitarian regime” is referenced a national population mobilized to support state sponsored ideologies intolerant of opinions not directed toward state goals. It may be noted that such regimes were sustained by single party control, control of business, repression of labor unions, restrictions on education, religious beliefs, religious practices, free discussion and abusive privacy violations by state sponsored surveillance.
I suggest totalitarianism is inherently abhorrent to our beliefs as Americans. I am proud that Democratic ideals include recognizing the innate dignity of each person, efforts to care for the poor and sick, a respectful tolerance of considered opinions, support of business, labor unions, education for all, religious freedoms and the protection of individual privacy.
The use of abjectly prejudicial terms that entail disdainful historic references reveals a level of bigotry that should be as much a source for concern as Islamic terrorists. Perhaps the most important part of our dialogue as Americans is to begin with the very strongest presumption that each citizen of our country is a vital part of our society. We must be compelled to seek and reach the highest level of debate critical to our celebration of the freedoms we hold dear. We must start with the belief that each person, regardless of political party affiliation, if any, holds their individual freedoms and love of country at the very heart of their patriotic beliefs. On this basis, we can invite our American dialogue to begin again.
John F. Kostyo, Proud American and Democrat
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Not Politically Correct - Damn
Thank God, with my apologies to the Almighty, that we have become “politically correct.” The term “politically correct” is defined as language or behavior intended to minimize offense while conforming to considerations of civility in debate on public policy and issues.
A day does not go by without a friend providing me with some statement, cartoon or story about political correctness. My Christmas and other holidays are enriched by emails about the use of acceptable terms when expressing seasonal greetings. I actually enjoy this whimsical consideration of my friends.
I have problems with political correctness. At home and elsewhere, rather than suggesting a news story is “pure unadulterated bull $#*!,” I am forced to suggest it merely “challenges credible truth.” Rather than state that brain matter has been substituted with other substances in the course of neurological surgery, I am forced to allow comments as an “alternate opinion.” Political correctness requires the diminution of other references to the extent that comments of sub-literate representatives are allowed to pass as credible sources for factual reference without review of actual facts.
At times, with particular reference to certain elected officials or issues, this ordeal reaches a crescendo of explicative statements with words deleted to such an extent that the result is all but unintelligible gibberish. Of course, my family and friends are spared from a barrage of words and the considerable risk that the Almighty may wish to end my comments with an independent intervening lightening bolt.
What is lost in political correctness is a tolerance that allows for factual inaccuracy and the absence of logical rigor. In exchange we are exposed to a level of sophistry that would challenge Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. When news sources are not held to account, political correctness allows editorialists and reporters to use questionable facts and assertions that blur news with opinion in a quagmire akin to animal waste storage ponds.
We should demand more. The question is whether our news sources could actually rise to that aspiration and whether we could decipher the difference. Perhaps political correctness does have a purpose other than civility.
A day does not go by without a friend providing me with some statement, cartoon or story about political correctness. My Christmas and other holidays are enriched by emails about the use of acceptable terms when expressing seasonal greetings. I actually enjoy this whimsical consideration of my friends.
I have problems with political correctness. At home and elsewhere, rather than suggesting a news story is “pure unadulterated bull $#*!,” I am forced to suggest it merely “challenges credible truth.” Rather than state that brain matter has been substituted with other substances in the course of neurological surgery, I am forced to allow comments as an “alternate opinion.” Political correctness requires the diminution of other references to the extent that comments of sub-literate representatives are allowed to pass as credible sources for factual reference without review of actual facts.
At times, with particular reference to certain elected officials or issues, this ordeal reaches a crescendo of explicative statements with words deleted to such an extent that the result is all but unintelligible gibberish. Of course, my family and friends are spared from a barrage of words and the considerable risk that the Almighty may wish to end my comments with an independent intervening lightening bolt.
What is lost in political correctness is a tolerance that allows for factual inaccuracy and the absence of logical rigor. In exchange we are exposed to a level of sophistry that would challenge Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. When news sources are not held to account, political correctness allows editorialists and reporters to use questionable facts and assertions that blur news with opinion in a quagmire akin to animal waste storage ponds.
We should demand more. The question is whether our news sources could actually rise to that aspiration and whether we could decipher the difference. Perhaps political correctness does have a purpose other than civility.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Historic References for the War Funding Debate
With April 2007 as one of the deadliest months for US Forces in Iraq after declaration that “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” (White House Press Release, May 1, 2003), perhaps it is time to get some concepts straight. Informed debate calls for some understanding about the roles of the President and Congress. I respectfully suggest that a view offered without understanding of our constitutional process is little more than gibberish.
First, I suggest full reading of The Spirit of Laws (Montesquieu, 1748); James Madison’s Essays No. 47 and 51 and Alexander Hamilton’s Essay No. 69 in The Federalist, and at last The United States Constitution (Debates at Convention are optional.) To address the balance of Executive and Legislative power without historic reference is disingenuous.
As a matter of substantive constitutional law, the President may not wage war without congressional approval. This has been the case since the very outset of our nation. Article 1, Section 8 (11) gives Congress the power to declare war. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall wrote in 1801: “The whole powers of war being, by the Constitution of the United States, vested in Congress. . .” Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cr. 1 (1801), cited as authority in Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U.S. 1304 (1973). In 1973, Mr. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in Talbot “In my judgment, nothing in the 172 years since those words were written alter[s] that fundamental constitutional postulate. . .”
In summary: The Civil War ended by Presidential Proclamation. WW I ended by Joint Declaration of Congress. WW II ended by German Instrument of Surrender, May 7, 1945/July 5, 1945 and The U.S. – Japan Peace Treaty of 1951, ratified by the U.S. Senate. The Korean war “ended” by armistice on July 27, 1953, with no peace treaty. Gerald Ford declared an end to the Vietnam War and termination of all U.S. aid on April 23, 1975. In each event, Congress was intricately involved in the “politics” to terminate the legal state of war. The United States Supreme Court stated that termination of a state of war “is a political act” in Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948).
Article I, section 9 of our Constitutional vests authority in Congress to provide for “the common defense and general welfare.” It is constitutionally appropriate for Congress determine how to fund a war. The President as Commander-in Chief directs the military while funding comes from Congress. Even George Washington understood this balance during the American Revolution. The conflict is inherent and necessary to preserve our constitutional balance. See Hamilton, Federalist No. 69.
Perhaps when we first seek to understand and respect the constitutional balance established by the Founders, the term “patriotism” undertakes a deeper meaning than sophistic posturing. Perhaps adding some historic and constitutional intelligence will result in a more considered view. Perhaps, not.
First, I suggest full reading of The Spirit of Laws (Montesquieu, 1748); James Madison’s Essays No. 47 and 51 and Alexander Hamilton’s Essay No. 69 in The Federalist, and at last The United States Constitution (Debates at Convention are optional.) To address the balance of Executive and Legislative power without historic reference is disingenuous.
As a matter of substantive constitutional law, the President may not wage war without congressional approval. This has been the case since the very outset of our nation. Article 1, Section 8 (11) gives Congress the power to declare war. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall wrote in 1801: “The whole powers of war being, by the Constitution of the United States, vested in Congress. . .” Talbot v. Seeman, 1 Cr. 1 (1801), cited as authority in Holtzman v. Schlesinger, 414 U.S. 1304 (1973). In 1973, Mr. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in Talbot “In my judgment, nothing in the 172 years since those words were written alter[s] that fundamental constitutional postulate. . .”
In summary: The Civil War ended by Presidential Proclamation. WW I ended by Joint Declaration of Congress. WW II ended by German Instrument of Surrender, May 7, 1945/July 5, 1945 and The U.S. – Japan Peace Treaty of 1951, ratified by the U.S. Senate. The Korean war “ended” by armistice on July 27, 1953, with no peace treaty. Gerald Ford declared an end to the Vietnam War and termination of all U.S. aid on April 23, 1975. In each event, Congress was intricately involved in the “politics” to terminate the legal state of war. The United States Supreme Court stated that termination of a state of war “is a political act” in Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948).
Article I, section 9 of our Constitutional vests authority in Congress to provide for “the common defense and general welfare.” It is constitutionally appropriate for Congress determine how to fund a war. The President as Commander-in Chief directs the military while funding comes from Congress. Even George Washington understood this balance during the American Revolution. The conflict is inherent and necessary to preserve our constitutional balance. See Hamilton, Federalist No. 69.
Perhaps when we first seek to understand and respect the constitutional balance established by the Founders, the term “patriotism” undertakes a deeper meaning than sophistic posturing. Perhaps adding some historic and constitutional intelligence will result in a more considered view. Perhaps, not.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The Importance of Being Imus
The words spoken by Don Imus in reference to the Rutgers University Women's Basketball Team were wrong. The words, the concepts communicated of women through the words are reprehensible. The words spoken by Imus have no place in the course of human speech. In a choice of words, each person who heard or hears words as these is violated. The words violate us - each of us as people. The violation is to our human identity, to who we are and who we must wish to be as living beings. In Don Imus's choice to say or use these words, we are violated and made less for the experience. In the repetition by news sources and others, we must make sure that reporting and over-reporting does not allow any acknowledgment of legitimacy. Perhaps even the culture of Rap Music that uses similar references may find some way to evolve beyond the use of such words.
In the wake of Don Imus's statements, each of us has a choice to say - never again. It is not a matter of forgiveness, that Don Imus can say "I'm sorry." We can say we are or were sorry. There is a permanence in what was said even if we forget exactly what was said. In this, we may not be able to purge the words that were said from our consciousness because words that violate cannot be purged. We can seek to raise ourselves above what was said, heal ourselves and seek healing of each person we meet within that space in which we live our lives. We can and must make a commitment to force words and concepts out or our vocabulary and life experience. There are words and concepts that are deserving of extinction - we must add these.
With great regret, perhaps we have some need for words and events like Don Imus that make it necessary for each of us to stop - in shock, in a sense of anger and astonishment, take a step closer to that creature we seek to become and who we may wish to recognize as a human being. If Imus has any importance, it must be as a reminder - it is not what was done or said, but what we chose to do now that will make the difference.
In the wake of Don Imus's statements, each of us has a choice to say - never again. It is not a matter of forgiveness, that Don Imus can say "I'm sorry." We can say we are or were sorry. There is a permanence in what was said even if we forget exactly what was said. In this, we may not be able to purge the words that were said from our consciousness because words that violate cannot be purged. We can seek to raise ourselves above what was said, heal ourselves and seek healing of each person we meet within that space in which we live our lives. We can and must make a commitment to force words and concepts out or our vocabulary and life experience. There are words and concepts that are deserving of extinction - we must add these.
With great regret, perhaps we have some need for words and events like Don Imus that make it necessary for each of us to stop - in shock, in a sense of anger and astonishment, take a step closer to that creature we seek to become and who we may wish to recognize as a human being. If Imus has any importance, it must be as a reminder - it is not what was done or said, but what we chose to do now that will make the difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
