The “M” Word

At the risk of being “politically incorrect” … yet again … I’m going to use the “m-word” in this article: 

“Mosque!” … “Mosque!” … "Mosque!" 

There … I said it! How’s that for exercising my First Amendment right to “freedom of speech?” I feel so relieved! Now, I won’t have to call Dr. Laura for any advice.

Speaking of the First Amendment, the proposed mosque in New York City that’s causing such a stir is really a “non-event.” The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” It seems pretty clear to me: people can build the church of their choice on private property anywhere. End of argument! It doesn’t require Presidential or news media endorsements; it’s simply the law. But apparently, a problem arises when people comment on the lack of sensitivity associated with constructing a mosque near what has been termed “Ground Zero” (the former site of the World Trade Center).

A terrible act of terrorism occurred on September 11, 2001, when Muslim extremists crashed planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field just outside of Shanksville, Pennsylvania … killing nearly 3,000 people of a wide variety of ages, races, sexes, and religions from nearly one-half of the countries in the world. The 19 hijackers were obviously “equal opportunity terrorists.” They also represented an extraordinarily small percentage of the nearly 1.6 billion followers of Islam who populate the world.

If the Constitution and our Bill of Rights are to mean anything, the law must apply equally to all … and that includes religions. Therefore, the right to build an Islamic mosque in New York City within two blocks of “Ground Zero” is an “absolute.” Timothy McVeigh was baptized Roman Catholic, but I don’t remember Oklahoma City trying to ban the construction of Catholic churches anywhere nearby. And while I’ll grant that Timothy McVeigh didn’t pretend to be acting on behalf of his religion (whether he even had one at the time), those who worship as Catholics were not automatically “stained” by his treachery.

The “rub” comes when one chooses to denounce the lack of sensitivity associated with constructing a mosque in the location that is being proposed (a building that was damaged by the fuselage of one of the commandeered jets). It probably didn’t help when it was announced that the target date for its opening would be September 11, 2011 … the tenth anniversary of the attack (time to fire the mosque’s PR firm). Of course, I wouldn’t take the date too seriously. The likelihood of being able to build a mosque, which is to be topped by a 13-story cultural center with a swimming pool, … in New York City … with union labor … in only one year … is a construction project that even “the Donald” might not have the ego to attempt.

So, let’s just say that you think that it might be just a little bit insensitive to build a 13-story mosque and cultural center in the proposed location. Does that make you a bigot, a racist, or any other term which stereotypes you as an unfair, biased “pig” of some kind? No, actually, it makes you an American. You see, the First Amendment goes on to say that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …” The last time I looked, that means that you have a right to express your disagreement with the choice of the location … or not to express it.

The President chose the latter. While he explicitly chose to reinforce the obvious (that the developer has the right to build the mosque on private property if it otherwise complies with local ordinances), he also chose not to comment on the site selection: "I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about."

In his position, one might wonder why the President felt the need to comment at all. He didn’t exactly jump into the fray when a group of Christian students was ordered to stop praying outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on May 5th (because the police officer thought it was illegal). He might want to take stock in the adage, “Silence is a virtue.” Besides, he has Vice President Biden to handle the Administration’s “foot-in-mouth” duties as well as Press Secretary “Glib” (who has recently gotten himself in trouble for telling the truth). Sometimes I think that the President succumbs to a self-imposed pressure he might feel to “step up” for groups with which he is perceived to be affiliated. That tendency usually winds up requiring an uncomfortable “clarification” or at least a Beer Summit in the Rose Garden. It also creates an embarrassing break within the Democratic ranks when “at risk” politicians like Harry Reid (speaking of racists) read the polls and quickly distance themselves from the President.

The media is a whole other issue. The banter between Liberal and Conservative media outlets is always entertaining. If a Conservative dares to suggest that the decision to build the mosque near “Ground Zero” might be inappropriate, the Liberal media immediately plays the “bigoted, racist pig” card … because, surely, no right-minded person (no pun intended) could possibly think that the selected site might offend anyone! In their view, Americans should look upon this as an opportunity to demonstrate our country’s “open-mindedness” to the world for the same reason so many predominantly Muslim nations proactively encourage synagogues to be built in their countries … preferably near locations of poignant national significance.

Luckily for the Liberals, there are a sufficient number of Conservatives who are stupid enough to assert that the developers don’t have a right to build the mosque … not that’s it’s just a really bad location from an emotional perspective … but that they don’t have a right … because of the whole “Muslim” thing, you know! So, for an extremely small subset of Conservatives (kind of like the terrorists among the Muslim population), the Liberal bantering may be appropriate. These people probably are “bigoted, racist pigs” … at least, to a degree. I might have to “give a pass” to those who lost a loved-one or friend on 9/11 and don’t care whether it’s legal to build a mosque there. You know how “bad feelings” can linger for awhile.

The interesting thing is that most pundits actually agree that the First Amendment applies and that the right to build the mosque definitely exists. Well … that’s almost the equivalent of bipartisan agreement!

What I find most interesting is the attempt by certain factions to “shut down” any expression of sentiment that the mosque shouldn’t be build near “Ground Zero.” I hate to bring up the First Amendment again, but doesn’t it also say, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech …” and isn’t that all that this opinion is … an expression of free speech? Where’s the ACLU when we need them? Why is it that the same people, who clamor for the removal of religious artifacts of any kind from public property and who defend the rights of individuals to burn flags as an expression of “freedom of speech,” are nowhere to be found on this subject? Shoot! We’ve got “freedom of religion” and “freedom of speech” all wrapped up in one. You’d think they’d be all over this. Where’s their sense of “political correctness?” Where’s the shock and horror of those zealots in defense of the families of the victims of 9/11. If you were ever going to jump on a bandwagon in support of a “victims’ rights” initiative, this would be the one.

You can’t claim to support one part of the First Amendment without the other. You can’t argue on behalf of “freedom of religion” while condemning those who are merely exercising their “freedom of speech” when they express their belief that the selection of sites is in extremely poor taste. If you do, you must be some sort of “bigoted, racist pig.” I’m just kidding with regard to the last assertion. I just wanted you to personally experience how it feels when you do it to others with whom you disagree. So ends today’s lesson.

And as a special shout out to Dr. Laura … Dear Dr. Laura: don’t you wish you would have gone with a word that started one letter sooner? In the mean time: you are your kid’s mom … and I am my country’s Common Sense Czar. Now, go have a good day!

*****

Copyright © 2010 Dr. T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

A Round of Gulf

Contrary to popular belief, I have not just returned from a luxurious ten-day vacation in the south of Spain. You must be confusing me with someone else. The reality is that I cannot afford to take a vacation like that … particularly in today’s economy. No, I just stayed at home and watched the Discovery Channel’s outstanding series, Shark Week.

If you’re not familiar with the annual series, it’s a week-long series of special programs that are completely dedicated to sharks. Its compelling content is both educational and frightening. Nothing has scared more people into abandoning any thought of entering our coastal waters … with the possible exception of BP.

Speaking of Bad Pumps … how about the leadership President Obama showed during the oil spill crisis? President Bush arrogantly suspended the Jones Act less than three days after Katrina struck New Orleans to allow foreign vessels to move about more freely in the Gulf of Mexico to assist us. With a far better plan, President Obama diplomatically declined 21 offers of aid from 17 different countries for more than two months from the date that the spill began. While some may question the logic of this bold and decisive action, it preserved jobs for the union members who were hired to assist with the clean-up (albeit without the state-of-the-art equipment that was being offered by the other countries). When the economy is suffering (clearly because of the ongoing impact of the Bush Administration), job preservation has to come first. That’s also why the President’s moratorium on drilling … that immediately cost 8,000 deep-water rig operators their jobs along with the 23,000 or so workers who support those rigs … was such a stroke of genius! Those people can immediately shift to “green” jobs that will lower America’s dependence on foreign oil … at least, theoretically.

You also to have to have been impressed with the President’s focus and sincerity:

• On May 27th, he said, "My job right now is just to make sure everybody in the Gulf understands: This is what I wake up to in the morning, and this is what I go to bed at night thinking about. The spill."

• Of course, on September 11, 2009, he said, “As President, my greatest responsibility is the security of the American people. It is the first thing I think about when I wake up in the morning. It’s the last thing I think about when I go to sleep at night.”

• And before that, on July 23, 2009, at a town hall meeting in Shaker Heights, Ohio he said, "I know that for the millions of Americans who are looking for work, and all those who are struggling in this economy, full recovery can't come soon enough. I hear from you at town hall meetings like this. I read your letters. These stories are the first thing I think about in the morning and the last thing I think about at night - and the focus of my attention every day."

But hey, this is politics. If you find a phrase that works, just stick with it until the public catches on!

Shortly thereafter, the President’s strength was again on display during his interview with Matt Lauer on the Today show when he said, "I was down there a month ago, before most of these talking heads were even paying attention to the Gulf. A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there, standing in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be. And I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar; we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick." Then, after Tony Hayward (then CEO of BP) said that the environmental impact would be "modest" and he wanted his "life back," the President said that Hayward "wouldn't be working for me after any of those statements." He was apparently so upset that he fired General Stanley McChrystal instead.

Then, the President flexed his political muscle … Chicago style … in a closed-door meeting with Tony Hayward during which he extracted a minimum of $20 billion dollars in reparations. Shortly thereafter, Hayward did the unthinkable; he attended a regatta with his teenage son in which his yacht was participating. What was he thinking … trying to spend a weekend with his teenage son after two months on the road? Needless to say, when the President received the news … sometime between the Major League Baseball game he attended on Friday and the round of golf he played with Vice President Biden on Saturday … he was upset.

And the spill was such a big news story that even the First Lady was called upon to lend her support. Of course, she’s “only a private citizen” … with a staff of 24 assistants for which we pay … but she was gracious enough to do a few public service announcements in an attempt to stimulate tourism in the Gulf coast … just before leaving for Europe with her youngest daughter and her entourage. Muy bueno!

While Michelle Obama was away, the President went on a campaign trip to rally some union workers at a few automobile plants, take advantage of a few photo-ops, blame the Bush Administration for pretty much everything, and then have dinner with Oprah on his birthday. After that grind and upon the First Lady’s return, it was time for some well-deserved time off. Estupendo!

The two of them and their youngest daughter boarded Air Force One and headed to Panama City, Florida … for a whole 27 hour vacation. The President got to spend some quality time alone with his daughter (and a few dozen reporters and camera crew members) swimming at Alligator Point in St. Andrew Bay, which is separated from the actual Gulf by barrier islands. The President himself declared, “the beaches all along the Gulf Coast are clean, safe and open for business.” I guess he saw them from the plane when they flew in. Extraordinariamente reconfortante!

By the way, I’m not exactly sure what the Spanish phrases mean, but it appears to be something that the First Lady and her daughter picked up this summer … probably through a Berlitz course.

I must admit, my favorite photo-opt of their extended Gulf Coast vacation was the one of the President eating some mint chocolate chip ice cream, with some Oreo ice cream for little Sasha, and a hot fudge sundae without whipped cream for Michelle. It was so real! They genuinely looked like a normal family having fun. Had it been politically staged, they would have been eating some sort of tofu since the First Lady’s major initiative is stamping out childhood obesity. Instead, they just had ice cream. How cool is that?

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that, buoyed by the First Lady’s campaign against childhood obesity, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), threatened to sue McDonald’s in June saying, "Using toys to lure small children into McDonald’s is unfair and deceptive marketing and is illegal under various state consumer protection laws.” And now, the city of San Francisco has jumped on board. Of course, San Francisco has already banned bottled water as well as regular Coke and Pepsi from government vending machines. So, why not just ban Happy Meals from the entire city?

Crazy, you say? You simply must remember that San Francisco is a “Sanctuary City.” It’s a “sanctuary” against common sense; otherwise, how would Nancy Pelosi keep getting re-elected. It’s also a “sanctuary” against the Constitution. Don’t like a Federal law (like immigration)? Just ignore it. No one will do anything about it. After all, you’re San Francisco!

If we don’t take this issue “off the menu” right now, what’s next … banning political ads that unfairly “lure” people to cast “unhealthy” votes? How would we survive? We might gain back all the pounds of freedom that these people have tried to help us shed. I guess we’ll just have to add a phrase to the First Amendment that the Framer’s apparently didn’t think would be necessary: “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to eat whatever they want.”

Me? I think the First Family got it right on this one! I’m just going to have a hot fudge sundae made with Oreo and mint chocolate chip ice cream and lots of whipped cream ... while I still can.

*****

Copyright © 2010 Dr. T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Return of the Czar

I apologize for my long absence, but popular demand required the development of a new blog just for “the Czar.” Also, due to the requests that I received from so many of you, I have spent the summer writing three new books:

The Left isn’t Right
The Right is Wrong
The National Platform of Common Sense

The Left isn’t Right and The Right is Wrong are satirical assessments of the National Platforms proffered by the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee, respectively, during the last Presidential campaign. And of course, The National Platform of Common Sense was required to fix the mess left behind by the other two Platforms. Here’s an excerpt from the Introduction to better explain the premise:

“I find that people are generally disenchanted with our politicians. However, it would be inappropriate to blame the inmates for the way they run the asylum. After all, they do warn us … particularly in Presidential election years when they author National Platforms that define their positions. Yet, few of us ever take the time to read those documents to truly understand each Party’s position … even though their positions and underlying beliefs will drive the decisions that dictate the direction in which our country will be headed … or should that be spelled “beheaded?” Shame on us!

“Instead, we tend to take the easy way out and just listen to their speeches and debates (at least as much as them as we can stand); we watch their negative ads (positive ones went away a generation ago); and we let politically jaded wolves, who like to parade around in the sheep’s clothing of “reporting the news” (once an honored profession), deliver thinly veiled versions of their personal opinions and beliefs. As the Common Sense Czar, I say we take a new approach: read the words the Parties have committed to writing and for which we can hold them accountable.

“Now, I know this is a challenging suggestion because Party Platforms are always filled with political platitudes to their own greatness, grossly exaggerated vilifications of the “Opposition,” and a tediously repetitive casting of the of the same old drivel in hopes of gaining a vote. Well, as the Common Sense Czar, I’ve decided to make the endeavor far more entertaining, informative and worthy of your time.

“In hopes of getting you to actually read what the two major Parties have written, I have “channeled” them (in two separate books) … not only providing you with the exact transcript of their Platforms (misspellings and grammatical errors included) … but my own satirical interpretation of what they were actually thinking at the time.”

This Nation’s political landscape has become quite polarized. For example: Liberals won’t read a book by a Conservative leader (e.g., Newt Gingrich), and Conservatives won’t read a book by a Liberal leader (e.g., Bill Clinton). As a result, there never is an effective exchange of ideas between the two major Parties. Cognitive dissonance precludes political zealots from entertaining the thought that their “opponent” might have a point.

It is my belief that humor can transcend the “intellectual wall” that both sides have been so fervently constructing. In addition, it can be seductive. While Conservatives are naturally drawn to books that eviscerate the Democratic Party and Liberals are naturally drawn to books that eviscerate the Republican Party, they can be enticed to experience new ideas if they are entertained along the way. Beyond that, in phenomenon akin to “not being able to divert your eyes when you pass a really bad automobile accident,” I believe that your curiosity will get the best of you and you will be compelled to read your own Party’s Platform … just to see the beating it takes!

A funny thing will happen along the way: perhaps for the first time in your life, you will have read the Platforms of both major Parties and be in a position to make a more informed decision with respect to your support or rejection of their ideals. Then, since many of you will be “disappointed” with the what these “brain trusts” have put together, you’ll be able to read The National Platform of Common Sense, which integrates a hopefully interesting historical primer with the Common Sense Czar’s own satirical assessment of what can be done to restore the Republic.

The manuscripts are complete and ready to go to press. The challenge now will be finding a publisher that’s not afraid to print the books and can get them into distribution in time to wreak havoc on the November elections. I’m hoping that capitalistic interests will overwhelm at least one major publisher and that it will recognize that, unlike traditionally-biased political offerings, the Common Sense Czar’s trilogy should appeal to the entire market (not just the Conservatives or the Liberals). With any luck, the lure of selling lots of books will appeal to them and they’ll jump through a few hoops that they would otherwise avoid.

If any of you have direct or indirect contacts with any book publisher(s), please let me know. There’s a complimentary, autographed copy of the trilogy waiting for you at the end of that rainbow! :O) In all seriousness, I will sincerely appreciate any introductions you can make that can shorten the cycle normally associated with getting a new book into circulation.

All my best,

The Common Sense Czar

Copyright © 2010 Dr. T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Political Correctness

I’ve tried to be good, but those of you who know me … know that it was only a matter of time. I know that it is “politically incorrect” to attack “political correctness,” but I find that I just can’t help myself. Someone has to address the issue … and because it requires common sense, I guess it’s my responsibility.

I’m not sure who started the whole concept, but I think it’s important to begin at the definitional level. According to Webster’s Dictionary, “correctness” is defined as “conforming to an approved or conventional standard,” or perhaps more accurately, “conforming to the strict requirements of a specific ideology or set of beliefs or values.” I think the second definition is the better fit, since I haven’t found any regulatory authority that would “approve” of what currently passes for “politically correct” nor does there appear to be any “conventional standard.” However, we seem to have an overabundance of “specific ideologies, beliefs and values” to which we are all expected to “strictly conform.”

Now, let’s add the magic word “political” to the phrase to see what happens. Webster’s tells us that “political” means “of, relating to, or involved in politics and especially political parties.” Are you beginning to get the picture? Just put the words together … “political correctness” … and think about the blended definition: “conforming to the strict requirements of a specific ideology or set of beliefs or values of, relating to, or involved in politics and especially political parties.” To play off of Verizon’s slogan: “Do you get it now?”

Webster’s simplifies the definition as follows: “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.” Let’s look at the word “conforming.” Wow! That just shouts “freedom” doesn’t it? And how about “belief,” which is defined as “a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.” Nothing says “independence” like blindly trusting what someone else defines as “offending political sensibilities” … a phrase that almost begs to be called an oxymoron.

So, what spawned the movement toward “political correctness?” Common sense tells me that politics were involved. We live in a society in which the government has become king (no pun intended). While the Framers began with the apparently misguided phrase “We the people” and the concept that the United States of America could offer a new and better alternative to the historically failed governmental models that vested power within the elite few, I am sure Press Secretary “Glib” would tell us that’s not what they really meant to do.

I can almost hear him now: “What the Framers meant to say was that ‘We the people’ are too dumb to manage our own affairs; that we need a strong, huge government to protect us from ourselves; from our insidious desire to work hard to achieve the American dream; from the ridiculous belief that our efforts should be rewarded based on merit; and from our senseless conviction to the premise that “legal” and “illegal” are not the same terms. And since the Framers were all from Europe, I’m sure they really wanted us to become more like Europe because they must have been homesick. I don’t even know why they left Europe in the first place, but I know the ships back then weren’t very good, so they probably just couldn’t get back home. Besides, if we apologize enough for our past successes and we model our economy after Greece’s, our health care after England’s, our military after Italy’s, our sense of loyalty after France’s, and our personal freedoms after China’s, North Korea’s or the Middle East country of your choice, the people of the world will stop hating us because we’ll be just like them, and they’ll have no reason to migrate to our country.” No one can clarify things quite like Press Secretary “Glib.”

So today, it’s "politically correct" to give passing grades and trophies to all the children so they don’t feel bad if someone else studied or practiced more than they did … or perhaps was just more naturally gifted. After all, they won’t have to face that type of competition during their adult lives.

Today, it’s "politically correct" to create a “Sanctuary City” that serves as a haven for illegal immigrants … but if you try to enforce federal law (with probable cause), you’re a Nazi-racist. Of course, it’s fairly easy to become a racist in our "politically correct" world. This could even re-launch Jeff Foxworthy’s career!

• If you think English should be a required language, you may be a racist.

• If you think that people who can’t afford a home should rent rather than be given loans upon which they almost assuredly will default, you may be a racist.

• If you think that building a Mosque near the site where the World Trade once stood and scheduling its proposed 2011opening on September 11th might be akin to opening a Ku Klux Klan Meeting Hall next to a memorial for Martin Luther King, Jr. on the national holiday named in his honor, you may be a racist.

• If you disagree with our President over anything, you may be a racist … or at least you may be half of the time. The other half, you’re probably guilty of sedition.

And forget the First Amendment. In the interest of “political correctness,” it’s basically been abolished … at least judgmentally. Freedom of religion has all but been eliminated (at least in terms of mainstream religions). Crosses, Stars of David, Christmas trees, the Ten Commandments, etc. seem to offend people if they’re displayed on public property … even though they apparently don’t have the same effect if they’re present on private property right next door. Personally, I think buildings without these artifacts express an implied endorsement of atheism and therefore violate the non-existent but often discussed “separation of church and state” clause. I just haven’t been successful in getting the ACLU to take up my cause … although I pray to God they will some day!

As for freedom of speech, it is apparently “politically incorrect” to express a dissenting opinion about abortion, affirmative action, bribing candidates not to run for public office, Cabinet Members who don’t pay their taxes, earmarks, endangered species, gay marriage, global warming, the qualifications of Supreme Court Justices, the redistribution of wealth, the right to bear arms, etc. So much for freedom of speech ... and the Second Amendment for that matter. Similarly, if you don’t follow the party line … freedom of the press disappears too, as you’ll just be deemed not to be “a real news network.”

And don’t even think about retaining the right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It just wouldn’t be “politically correct!” The Tea Party is a prime example. They’re just a mob of racist troglodytes who are being manipulated by right-wing extremists. I have it on good authority. A member of SEIU told me so while he was demonstrating on the doorstep of some bank official’s home, and an activist (and, no doubt, future community organizer) said the same thing as she hurled a rock through a window and a bottle at the police while trying to make a point outside the G7 Conference.

Who needs the First Amendment anyway? Besides, it was the FIRST Amendment. The Framers probably hadn’t even gotten the hang of it, if you know what I mean. (Forgive me. I’m still channeling Press Secretary “Glib.”) For that matter, I suppose “political correctness” has pretty much wiped out the rest of the Bill of Rights as well … but all for good cause.

Just remember the blended definition of the words “political” and “correctness:” “conforming to the strict requirements of a specific ideology or set of beliefs or values of, relating to, or involved in politics AND ESPECIALLY POLITICAL PARTIES.” You see, “political correctness” helps political parties segregate the population in a way that would otherwise be … well … “politically INCORRECT.”

Think of it this way, if our politicians didn’t create class distinctions, they couldn’t foster class warfare (i.e., rich versus poor). When our politicians finally realized there was even a greater number of citizens that identified themselves as middle class, the battleground shifted to the rich versus the middle class. Since our politicians defined “rich” to mean only the top 5% of the population, they automatically began to rally the 95% of voters they purported to “protect.”

What’s really cool about this strategy is that it’s extensible. For example: race warfare can be leveraged if you create a more fragment focus; making more individuals feel like they are part of an oppressed minority. That’s why politicians have had to expand race relations in the U.S. beyond Blacks and Whites. Now, the Hispanic race has become vogue because there’s a bigger voting block if you can add Hispanics as an oppressed minority to the traditional Black minority. Add religious warfare and other social differentiators to the mix and you have an endless realm of possibilities through which to manipulate voting blocks. I just can’t wait for the day when dwarf, Reformed Druid, sub-continental Asian transvestites are in play. I bet it will send a chill up the leg of the host of a then popular socio-political show called No Balls!

As long as we allow politicians to emasculate us through the guise of “political correctness” and we consent to “conform to the strict requirements of (their) specific ideology,” we can continue to surrender our freedoms without anyone getting injured … except for the generations to come whose quality of life will have been sacrificed by our lack of courage and moral conviction.

In the forum of the Common Sense Czar, you still have the right to express your opinion. Don’t worry about whether it’s “politically correct.” I promise not to castigate you for it, to classify you in a demeaning way, or to tax you for not agreeing with the majority. Just tell me what you think. It might be your last chance.

*****

© 2010 by Dr. Terry O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Political Optimism

Many of you may believe that pessimism abounds in our society today. I pity your poor, misguided perception. You see … optimism should be flourishing in your lives. Although, I must admit that I too was pessimistic for a little while. It was probably just “negative press” that was creating the illusion of difficult times: economic woes, puerile and benighted government officials, the rising of a social divide, etc. What was I thinking? These are the greatest times we have ever experienced. This is a time of “Change We Can Believe In” (or “in which we can believe” if you paid attention in English class … although that no longer appears to be a required course).

Let me explain why I’m so optimistic. In just a little over a year, I have seen great new opportunities arise for everyone; opportunities that never existed in the past. Who would have thought you could not only run for President … but actually win … without any real leadership experience. In the old days (i.e., two to three years ago), society expected you to have credentials for any position in life … other than Congress. Congressional positions were reserved for those who lacked any marketable skills … not the Presidency. Today, anyone can apparently be elected President regardless of whether they have any discernible record of leadership achievement. This is reinforced by the fact that Vice President Biden and Speaker Pelosi are next in line, respectively, according to the laws of succession.

I also learned that I could win the Nobel Peace Prize … not by doing anything … but by offering “promise.” How cool is that? (See my October 9, 2009, blog, I Almost Won The Nobel Peace Prize, to see how close I came.) If that isn’t inspirational, I don’t know what is!

But wait, there’s more! In the past, I always thought Cabinet positions were reserved for the intellectual giants of our society; people whose collective accomplishments carved a record of triumph that surpassed the norms of mortal man. Now, you can become Secretary of State if you pose a political threat to re-election. Even more encouraging, you can become Secretary of the Treasury even if you haven’t paid your taxes because you didn’t understand the Internal Revenue Code. As the saying goes: “Only in America!”

And just this week, we learned that out of all of the individuals who have dedicated their life to “the bench” or to litigating in Federal Court, you can qualify to become a Supreme Court Justice without any judicial experience. Think about it. This is a lifetime appointment. It’s a position vested with the responsibility to interpret our Constitution and preserve the integrity of our legal system. Yet, the best we can do … out of the tens of thousands of qualified judges and highly skilled, practicing attorneys … is to nominate a candidate with virtually no real world, legal experience: Elena Kagan. But, hey … she taught at Harvard!

Of course, Ms. Kagan (I won’t call her Justice Kagan until she’s confirmed) chose to ignore a Federal law which required universities that accept Federal funds to allow on-campus military recruiting. Harvard accepts about $400 million in Federal funding each year (don’t ask why it needs it), but Ms. Kagan banned military recruiters from the Harvard campus because she disagreed with the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy with respect to gays in the military. Ms. Kagan is openly gay, so she felt that her personal beliefs should trump Federal law … always a good position for a potential Supreme Court Justice to demonstrate early in their career. Why let the law get in the way when it’s at odds with your personal lifestyle choice?

To her credit, she did take the case all the way to the Supreme Court … so, at least, she knows where it is. She lost; probably because the conservative members of the Court felt that they had to obey their oath and interpret the law rather than make it. You see, in the old days, only Congress had the right to make laws; something about the separation of power among the three branches of Federal government. Today, this old fashion idea has been circumvented by a more streamlined approach by liberal judges who chose to change the law on the fly. Of course, this may cause a few problems for you and me since we’ll never really know what the law is until after a judge decides, but what the heck … it is eminently more entertaining.

I guess it’s not a big deal. Supreme Court decisions really don’t carry much weight any more. Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of permitting an eight-foot high cross that had been erected in the Mojave National Preserve 76 years ago by a group of World War I veterans to remain in place as a memorial to their fallen comrades. The cross was situated on a rock in the middle of the desert about 20 feet from a two-lane highway where approximately 10-20 cars pass each day. Evidently, this magnitude of visibility was just too much for some individuals to bear, so they stole the cross during the middle of the night. As a result, I’m even optimistic now. If you don’t like a law, you can just ignore it and take action into your own hands.

And speaking of the law, we are no longer subject to the old definitional constraint that “illegal” is the opposite of “legal.” Witness the immigration debate over the new Arizona law. While there may be a “legal” way to enter this country, there apparently is a perfectly acceptable “illegal” way to do it as well … at least, within the context that there no longer is any politically correct recourse to address one’s proactive choice to ignore the “legal” procedures that are in place. So, again, opportunity abounds! You can enter the United States “legally” … as my grandparents chose to do … but why bother? You can sneak into the United States and get health care, educational assistance, etc. without having to contribute to the cause. Heck, you don’t even need to learn how to speak English. And, God forbid (can I still say that?), don’t you dare ask me if I’m here “legally” if you have probable cause to believe I have otherwise violated the law, or I’ll feel “harassed.” Ah, yes … “America, the land of opportunity.”

Now, as the Common Sense Czar, I could just require one’s nationality to be confirmed and noted on a driver’s license and only allow such licenses to be issued to citizens and “legal” visitors (i.e., those with work visas, educational visas, etc.). Since no one seems to complain about being asked for his or her driver’s license when stopped by a law enforcement officer, that would solve the problem (at least with respect to those individuals who are 16 years or older). It would also be too easy to screen immigration through the distribution of any other social service (e.g., health care, education, etc.). Only legal residents could apply; all others would be deported. That would also eliminate the economic drain caused by funding programs that were never designed to reward illegal immigration. However, there’s a downside: we would lose one more “cause” to justify throwing bottles and rocks at law enforcement officers as a “peaceful” expression of our civil discontent … as compared to the non-violent protests associated with Tea-Party rallies that are often characterized by the media as demonstrations by angry mobs.

As the Common Sense Czar, I could also ordain that one had to be remotely qualified to be considered for a position … but that would be disruptive to our new social order. It would undoubtedly incite riots since it would infringe upon our inalienable right to remain unqualified; inherently creating a biased differentiation based upon effort and ability. We need to redistribute the opportunities; a passing grade for all and a trophy for everyone! That’s what has made America great. Qualifications should only enter into the equation if we can establish a few new governmental agencies to promulgate and enforce new regulations to protect us from ourselves.

No, I much prefer to remain overwhelmingly optimistic. I have so many more opportunities in my life than ever before. I can pick and choose among the laws I choose to obey; I can express myself violently as long as I attach my behavior to a social cause; and I can be President, a Nobel Peace Prize Winner, a member of the Cabinet, and even a Supreme Court Justice … all without having had to dedicate myself in any way or demonstrate any particular level of competence. However, I’m not totally naïve. I realize that I have to overcome being a white, heterosexual male who believes in God. While, realistically, those characteristics represent major obstacles to overcome in our politically correct world, I am still totally optimistic. At some point, people will run out of other “causes” and begin to petition on my behalf. I just can’t wait!

*****

© 2010 by Dr. T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

The National Day of Prayer

Well, it’s May 6th, 2010, and we have nothing better to do as a Nation than to challenge the appropriateness of The National Day of Prayer. Oh sure, Congressional spending is out of control, we’re teetering on the edge of an economic collapse, partisanship has overcome responsible service, and the safety of our citizens has become more a function of terrorists’ ineptitude than proactive engagement by our law enforcement officials … but we still have time to persecute people of faith because … well, they’re about the only definable group (other than “rich people”) that fall outside the protection of political correctness. To paraphrase the old television version of Superman: “this looks like a job for the Common Sense Czar!”

Let’s start with the First Amendment, which seems to be the basis for attacking anything that even tangentially references a belief in a Superior Being (other than political deities). It says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” If we parse out the relevant phrases that pertain to religion, we have: “Congress shall make no law,” which seems pretty clear to me … “respecting an establishment of religion” … you know, like The Church of England, which was headed by the King of England and enforced upon its citizens in colonial times … “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” which I interpret as giving us the freedom to choose whether we wish to believe in a religion … or not.

Hey, wait a minute! Where’s the famous “separation of church and State” language that precludes religious symbols from appearing on government property or prayer from being introduced into publicly funded forums such as schools? After a careful reading, it just doesn’t exist. Its genesis resides within the 1879 Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v. The United States, which relies upon the papers of Thomas Jefferson as being determinative. Interestingly enough, Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence … not the Bill of Rights. In fact, he was in France during the time that the First Amendment was drafted and proposed and the State ratification process began. Jefferson did, in fact, refer to “building a wall of separation between church and State” in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, but he did so in 1802; the Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791. But, let’s not allow facts to get in the way.

While we’re on the subject of Thomas Jefferson, he did write the Bill of Religious Freedom in 1779 that was enacted into law by the Virginia General Assembly in 1786. Its preamble begins: “Whereas, ALMIGHTY GOD hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the HOLY AUTHOR of our religion, who being LORD, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his ALMIGHTY power to do, that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time …” [emphasis added]. It sounds as though he believes in God, but doesn’t place quite as much trust in politicians

In relevant part, the Bill of religious Freedom goes on to say: “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.” Now, as I understand it, Jefferson was considered to be very careful in his choice of words. In that regard, “compelled” would seem to be an important and clear choice of verbs. Our National Day of Prayer doesn’t “compel” anyone to pray. It merely reminds and suggests one to consider it on that one day of the year. I think that falls within the “all men shall be free to profess” element of Jefferson’s thought.

And finally, his view of Supreme Court Justices is enlightening … although rarely cited by the courts: “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” This is just one more reason I like Thomas Jefferson.

So, in spite of the controversy, I find the National Day of Prayer to be no more inappropriately “compelling” than any other national holiday. If you choose not to reflect upon our fallen soldiers on Memorial Day, so be it. If you don’t choose to give thanks to someone or something on Thanksgiving, that’s your choice. If you don’t choose to decorate your home with a tree on Christmas, that is your right. Each of these holidays has either direct or indirect religious overtones.

What about non-religious holidays? Should Martin Luther King’s Birthday be stricken from the roster because it potentially has a racial overtone? Should President’s Day be eliminated because it elevates the Executive Branch of the government (and an individual) over the importance of the Legislative and Judicial Branches, which are to otherwise be deemed equal? Should the Fourth of July be canceled as a possible affront to our British allies? Should Labor Day be banned because it celebrates the American Worker and might offend those who choose to remain on welfare?

Maybe we should just ban all holidays! In fact, we should ban the word itself because it doesn’t create a pristine separation of church and State if our government is supporting an allusion to a word that is derived from “Holy Day.”

In the alternative, please bow you head and repeat after me:

Dear God,

I pray that we stop wasting time trying to be “politically correct” in all we do;

I pray that we can attract responsible leaders who put our best interests ahead of their own economic gain, desire for re-election, and need for Narcissistic fulfillment;

I pray that those who take an oath to support and defend our Constitution actually take the time to read it;

I pray that we demonstrate the ability to operate with integrity and fiscal responsibility in Congress before we self-righteously pretend to have the knowledge to control “free” enterprise;

I pray that we stop creating massive bills with irrelevant earmarks and instead address issues in a more systematic and focused manner;

I pray that we don’t continue to delude ourselves with the belief that multiple new agencies and programs are the solution to all problems;

I pray that, if we don’t learn how to do the some of these other things, we never run out of “rich people” to tax;

I pray that we have the courage to aggressively defend our Country and its citizens rather than relying upon failed plots that we discover after the fact;

I pray that Petty Officer 2nd Class Matthew McCabe be acquitted (as were the other two S.E.A.L.s) for allegedly punching Ahmed Hashim Abed, who masterminded the capture, torture, and killing of four U.S. citizens before dragging them through the streets, incinerating them and hanging their bodies from a bridge and that we never again waste so much time and money on such frivolous and disrespectful charges;

I pray that we allow Mother Nature to take some responsibility for the environment and the preservation of species (she’s been at the job a lot longer than Al Gore);

I pray that we learn to place our faith in individual rights;

I pray that we no longer tolerate the creation and maintenance of class distinctions to foster fear and anger in an effort to gain political support;

I pray that we learn the difference between the terms “legal” and “illegal” and that we do not selectively choose to enforce laws based upon political donations or potential votes;

I pray that we recognize that “equal rights” means equal rights as opposed to a preference for some … and a punishment for others;

I pray that we learn that the only “race” we should to acknowledge … is the human race;

And, I pray that, if we choose, we pray to God ... rather than pretend we are God.

Happy National Day of Prayer!

*****

© 2010 by Dr. T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Health Care Reform

Sorry that it’s taken so long to return to writing. I’ve been standing all alone in a field … trying to learn patience and how to suppress feelings of frustration when the world doesn’t seem to be listening. I figure these skills will become a virtue now that the Health Care Reform Bill has passed.

Speaking of which, I’m pretty excited. Health Care Reform is the most significant legislation of our time. I have it on good authority. Nancy Pelosi said so!

I do think it is a brilliantly crafted piece of legislation. Sure, some people may be concerned about a 2,700+ page bill that impacts one-sixth of our Nation’s economy, constructed by individuals who have little to no background in health care (other than having gone to the doctor on occasion), but I think I know why President Obama pushed so hard to accomplish this in his first year on the throne … uh … I mean, in office! In one single act, he affected a “course correction” for health care, Social Security, population control, the environment, economic recovery, unemployment, immigration, government reform, and the list goes on. Let me explain.

The impact on health care is obvious. We all know that fat-laden meats such as ham and bacon can promote arterial sclerosis and may also have carcinogenic components; and that heart disease and cancer are the top two causes of death in the United States. Well, the new Health Care Reform Bill has so much pork in it that we can assume that the supply available to the general public has been reduced significantly. Score one point for an almost immediate improvement in health. But wait, there’s more!

Now that everyone gets health insurance (or gets fined for not having it … or for having too much), we will have increased patient demand without having increased the supply of health care professionals. Okay, I know what you’re thinking: when demand exceeds supply, costs naturally rise. To overcome that, we’ll just have to pass legislation that caps medical fees. In turn, I’m sure that will encourage a greater number of individuals to invest twelve years of their lives to attend college and med school (plus residency) and sacrifice time with their families every year thereafter, so that they can become firmly entrenched in Middle America as their economic reward. Better yet, maybe we can restrict their incomes to a point where they need to accept welfare. This will make them better physicians as they will have more empathy for the plight of the poor. In the event this doesn’t work, we can all just learn to practice patience (remember me in the field?) as we wait inordinately long periods of time to see a physician or get treatment.

Even this latter scenario creates advantages. Without prompt treatment, a certain percentage of our senior citizens will die more prematurely than might otherwise be necessary. If the number is significant enough, Social Security may be saved since we won’t have as many old people collecting benefits. If this isn’t enough, our Congressional leaders can create the SGA (Soylent Green Agency) to decide how aggressively we should provide medical treatment for this segment of our population.

We can even work the other end by funding public abortions. No, I don’t mean Congress … I mean “public abortions” in the tradition sense! This will teach our young adults to further abandon any sense of responsibility for their actions which, in turn, will prepare them to lower their aspirations more in alignment with the long-term goal of establishing a society that rewards mediocrity (think “big labor” on a national scale). There’s even an environmental impact: the fewer the people … the lesser the carbon footprint. This is change that Al Gore can believe in.

Here’s another benefit. If you can’t afford health care or can’t seem to get it when you need it, you only have one alternative: take better care of yourself! Eat healthy and exercise regularly … it’s your only option. By reforming health care in a way that may render it non-functional, the President may have created the necessary incentive to recapture our health at the individual level. How cool is that?

The new Health Care Reform Bill is projected to cost less than $1 trillion dollars. Given the current Administration’s proclivity for spending, this is quite a deal. Even if this estimate is on the low side, it means approximately $1 trillion will be plowed back into the economy. That’s got to cause job creation which, in turn, will reduce unemployment. Why, this legislation alone creates 159 new government agencies that will have to be staffed by the proletariat. Sorry! I meant to say, the American Worker! Keep in mind that under the Obama Administration, government wages have soared to the point where government jobs now pay 45% more than their private sector equivalents. Luckily, this will help us as well as small businesses (which presently constitute 40-50% of our GDP) begin to fail. As their fat-cat owners return to middle-to-lower income strata, we’ll need the higher-paid government “bureaupaths” (my term for pathological bureaucrats) to pick up the tax burden as they become an increasing percentage of the dreaded class of the “wealthy.” Otherwise, how are we ever going to pay for the benefits of this great reform?

This brings us to immigration reform. How, you might ask, does the Health Care Reform Bill contribute to immigration reform? You are just so naïve. It’s simple really! Immigrants want to immigrate to a country that offers them a better life. These poor, misguided individuals chose to come to the United States because it was the “land of opportunity” (as both sets of my first-generation grandparents used to impress upon me during my formative years). Until recently, I believed this. I’ve now learned that the Eurasian model is far preferable to ours and that we need to emulate it in every way. The President told me so as did his Minister of Propaganda, Heir Glib. Oops! That should have been Press Secretary, Gibbs! I can see the logic. Initially, all the “freebies” will attract a surge in immigration. We’ll grant amnesty to those who enter illegally because it’s a “moral imperative.” It also creates a base of cheap labor. This is important because, as ambition erodes, these may be the only jobs that will be left (other than the high paying government positions we already discussed). Besides, these immigrants will be beholden to party in office, which means it can count on their votes. The longer they’re in office, the more they can increase taxes and socialize our country so we can become more “Eurasian.” The Eurasian-socialist model hasn’t attracted a great deal of immigration in the last few centuries, and the same could be said for South and Central America, which have followed similar paths. After a while, people aspiring for a better quality of life will look at their countries and ours and have a hard time distinguishing between them. As a result, they’ll just give up and stop immigrating to the United States. Immigration problem solved! And all because of Health Care Reform. Mexican companies will probably even begin setting up plants in the United States because of the cheap labor pool that will be available. After all these years, NAFTA will finally work in our favor!

The Health Care Reform Bill is also almost synonymous with government reform. We were promised “transparency,” and we finally got it. It is now “clear” that all new legislation will be created unilaterally and with utter disregard to public opinion. It is also now “clear” that “political favors” (in which massive sums of money are exchanged for votes) do not constitute bribes in the current Congressional lexicon. It is also “clear” that unqualified zealots, who behave as if they’ve finally won election to their junior high school student councils, may not measure up to the intellectual prowess and real-world experience of the Framers of the Constitution, but they make up for it in their juvenile enthusiasm for party politics.

President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid, et al. are true geniuses. While many of us may not have recognized the expansive impact of Health Care Reform, may we now be enlightened to the cataclysmic potential it offers to address such a wide bandwidth of social problems. All hail the King and his Court.

Yes, anyone who thinks that running the United States is more complicated than organizing a community obviously hasn’t planted an acorn in recent years … only to watch it rise into a mighty twig before someone runs over it with a lawnmower. Good news: there’s plenty of time between now and November to tune up your lawnmowers. Happy mowing everyone!

*****

© 2010 by Dr. T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

A Guideline for Congressional Change "We Can Believe In"

Oh, how I miss the days of the Kennedy Administration. Camelot was inspiring, and John F. Kennedy was truly an exceptional speaker … without the need to rely on the assistance of a TelePrompter to merit such praise.

Today, outside of John Edward’s unfortunate reenactment of a prominent Kennedy flaw (taken to a whole new level of complicity), there are only memories of the great leadership of that time. And even Edwards’ best effort doesn’t seem to measure up to Kennedy’s standards. “I knew Marilyn Monroe. She was a friend of mine. And you, Rielle Hunter, are NO Marilyn Monroe.” For that matter, Lisa Druck isn’t even Norma Jean Baker. Besides, camcorders didn’t even exist in the early sixties, so we have no documentary evidence to offer the Smithsonian, which I’m sure either Edwards or his sidekick, Andrew Young, will do at some time in the future. (As an aside, I don’t ask much of my Followers, but please do me this one favor: DO NOT BUY Andrew Young’s book, The Politician. If you’re even tempted … donate the money to charity instead. You have my deepest appreciation.)

Before the days of ceremonial coronations, President Kennedy gave an eloquent inaugural address; devoid of any blame of past Administrations and conciliatory in tone. “… We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom - symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning - signifying renewal, as well as change. The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebearers fought are still at issue around the globe - the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.” In retrospect, maybe it wasn’t such a great speech. I mean, he called for “change” but also celebrated prior accomplishments by acknowledging the importance of “renewal.” Then, he ostensibly stated that the “rights of man” come from God rather than the United States Congress. This flies in the face of the ACLU and possibly infringes upon the beliefs of the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House.

“Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans - born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage - and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.” Perhaps, we are too far removed from those times to appreciate what he said. Perhaps, we now take peace on a global scale for granted. Perhaps, our history is taught in such a politically correct way that we no longer feel the intense pride in our heritage that we once did. Perhaps, because the world at that time had come perilously close to experiencing what it was like to be governed by a mad man, there was a greater commitment to making sure that threat never arose again.

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge … and more.” I must say, that sounds a bit arrogant to me. It’s almost as if we saved the French from speaking German. Today, I’m sure we would just apologize for trashing their beach in Normandy. If FDR had the courtesy to announce a preordained date upon which time we would withdraw our troops from France, he may have had a shot at winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Kennedy went on to address our commitment to third world countries and South and Central America; to help their poor and protect them from aggression or subversion. He also went on to encourage a strengthening of the United Nations “to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective.” I guess he saw that one coming!

Thereafter, President Kennedy entered into a vision of how to improve the tenuous relationship that existed between the United States and the United Soviet Socialist Republic. For those of you who are too young to remember, the U.S.S.R. was a failed social experiment predicated upon a redistribution of wealth. Don’t worry ... no one would ever be naïve enough to try that again.

However, Kennedy’s proposed solution still has merit. It is a guideline that could be used to create “Change You Can Believe In” in Washington, D.C.

“So let us begin anew - remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

“Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

“Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals …

“Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

“Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah - to ‘undo the heavy burdens - and to let the oppressed go free.’

“And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.”

Close your eyes and try to imagine a United States Congress that operated under this guideline. What a glorious redirection it would be!

“In your hands, my fellow citizens … will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty … Now the trumpet summons us again - not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are - but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, ‘rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation’ - a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself … Will you join in that historic effort?”

And then, President Kennedy gave what very well may be the most magnificent advice ever offered in our Nation’s great history: “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.” It’s as if he was channeling Thomas Jefferson, who believed in “the People” rather than a monolithic government to provide for them.

Kennedy even had the audacity to extend the challenge to those with whom we share the planet: “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." In closing, he said, “Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.” With apologies to the ACLU, I think his ideas are still pretty compelling.

In his State of the Union speech, President Obama called upon our two major parties to end their “perpetual campaign(s).” While it might resonate more if he took the lead, at least his rhetoric is correct. Personally, I wish all the Democrats and Republicans in Washington, D.C. would take time to read and consider the wisdom contained in President Kennedy’s inaugural address. But then again, I’m a dreamer … because I also always wished that they would do the same thing with the United States Constitution!

*****

© 2010 by Dr. T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Random Thoughts

Just when you thought our politicians in Washington, D.C. were of no value, here’s a game I invented that you can play at home. The premise of the game is that all politicians’ names are actually acronyms. So first, write the names of our political leaders on slips of paper and throw them into a hat. Then, draw a single name from the hat and show it to all the players. You each have 15 seconds per letter to create an explanation for the acronym. For example:

OBAMA (1.25 min): Ordinary Background … Absent Much Achievement

PELOSI (1.50 min): Poorly Equipped Leader Of Socialist Idiots

REID (1.00 min): Really Egotistical Incumbent Democrat

BOEHNER (1.75 min): Better Off Eating Hotdogs … Not Educating Republicans

CANTOR: (1.50 min): Constantly Against Neutering The Other Republicans

LIEBERMAN (2.5 min): Likeable Independent Even Before Ever Running Mostly As Neutral

See how it works with either party? Try a few at home.

Then, vote for whose explanation best describes the politician. That’s what I call a lesson in democracy. If no one gets a two-thirds majority, you can either work to reach a compromise or filibuster to your heart’s desire.

The winner of each round receives $5 billion in stimulus money for each letter of the name they explained. The game isn’t over until $1 trillion dollars has been distributed. You won’t believe how long it will take you to complete the game.

*****

Speaking of the Poorly Equipped Leader of Socialist Idiots … oh, I’m sorry, I meant to say Nancy Pelosi … do you remember her pledge on October 5, 2006? She promised that if the American people would give the Democratic Party legislative majorities in Congress, the Democrats will, "turn the most closed and corrupt Congress into the most open and honest Congress.” Based upon what I’ve seen since the American people kept their end of the bargain, the Democratic Party is still trying hard to establish “the most closed and corrupt Congress;” witness all the backroom dealings surrounding healthcare reform this past year. The good Speaker went on to say, “The only way you can make the change that needs to be made for our country - a new direction where we're there for the many and not the few - is to drain the swamp." Since we followed her lead back in 2006, I think the least we can do is to “drain the swamp” for her in November. Massachusetts has already bailed the first bucket. Now, that’s what I call “Change We Can Believe In.”

*****

Nancy also led an impressive delegation from the United States to the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. The Speaker approved twenty other Congressmen (15 Democrats and 6 Republicans total) and 38 staff members to attend with her. I’m not sure why Congressmen need two staffers each to accompany them on a trip of this nature, but former Senator and Presidential candidate John Edwards assures me that it is standard procedure. Apparently, it has something to do with having one to hold the camera.

When you add the Senators and their staff that chose to attend, you pass the 100 mark. That doesn’t include spouses and family members who took advantage of the “free” trip as well. Initial estimates indicate that the “free” trip only cost taxpayers $1.1 million … not including the cost of President Obama and his entourage, who also visited the event.

Perhaps, the 100+ people in the delegation are the individuals the President was admonishing in his State of the Union speech when he said, “I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.” I mean, why else would all these people travel to Copenhagen for a Climate Change Conference other than to be educated on the issue. They certainly didn’t contribute in any meaningful way. The Conference itself has been described as a “disappointing failure.”

Clearly, most of these people must disagree with the premise that climate change is an issue. After all, it took three U.S. military jets, two 737s and Speaker Pelosi’s Gulfstream V to transport the bulk of the delegation to the Conference, while 59 individuals flew commercial. The President’s attendance means that Air Force One, a spare, identical plane and several cargo planes also made the trip. That means our delegation created a carbon footprint that would make Sasquatch feel inadequate.

Didn’t these people know that Al Gore had already spoken at the event during its first few days? Do we really need anything beyond the prognostications of the “Father of the Internet?” My goodness, he’s even got an Oscar! If that isn’t “overwhelming scientific evidence,” I don’t know what is. Big Al told the world that, “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.” Unfortunately, this apparently came as a surprise to Dr. Maslowski. On the bright side, maybe there’s another movie in this … perhaps a comedy!

*****

On May 25, 1961, I remember hearing President Kennedy say, “First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.” I also remember the disbelief with which that comment was met. At the time, I did not realize that the speech was unusual in that it was a mid-year State of the Union address; but Kennedy thought that the mission was of sufficient importance for a rare break from tradition.

Earlier in his speech, he recognized the magnitude of the challenge: “I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshaled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment.” Yet, he pulled Congressional leadership together to pursue the objective; not by upbraiding the opposition … but by moving all members toward a common goal.

On July 20, 1969, President Kennedy’s prediction became a reality when Neil Armstrong first set foot on the moon. I had the pleasure of meeting Neil Armstrong in 1971 when he joined the University of Cincinnati’s Aerospace Engineering faculty. He was quite an unassuming man for one who had traveled so far to ignite the excitement of a nation. I still remember how everyone was transfixed while watching that “one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind.”

I wonder if President Kennedy ever could have imagined that a young man, born just days after his inspiring speech, would someday become the 44th President of the United States … only to terminate the space program as we know it.

*****

Healthcare Reform pales by comparison to the technological challenge associated with landing someone on the moon when it was first proposed in 1961. One has to wonder how easy it would have been to pass good Healthcare Reform had it been the focus of an Administration that stimulated intellectual agreement and apolitical cooperation. Common sense tells us … it wouldn’t have taken very long.

*****

© 2010 by Dr. T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.