About that Supreme Court Decision
During the summer of 2009, some people kept asking of the Tea Party Movement, "Why are you shouting?".
Those asking never understood that we had repeatedly asked politely but were ignored. We wrote emails; we phoned; we attended meetings and raised our hands. No one was interested in answering our questions. Finally, we started shouting! It is simple. If your quiet voice is ignored, you are inclined to make it a little louder.
We are guaranteed, by the Bill of Rights, the right to speak out. Nothing is said about how quietly or how loudly we speak. The right to speak is guaranteed.
Now, suppose you shout as loudly as possible, and are still ignored. Is it okay to reach for a megaphone? Or, a bigger megaphone?
Suppose you and a group of like-minded individuals decide on a really, really big megaphone... you pool your resources, hire a firm of lobbyists and buy a series of TV and print ads touting your position? Is that okay? Nothing in the Constitution hints that it is not okay... but various politicians have decided to make that illegal. And, we were gifted with such legislation as McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.
They could not say it would be okay if only we hired a lesser lobbyist, or bought a few less ads. So they say, as an example, if your group is a corporation you are restricted in what you say, when and how loudly you may say it. After all, a corporation is something that almost all of us are decidedly not. And, the American Public has been taught that corporations are evil.
Those of us with empty pockets and small voices, may be upset when the views espoused by this or that group are contrary to our own. But, I ask, do you believe in the Constitution or do you not? Should we re-write the First Amendment to read "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech with which we agree - but damn well better shut up those other guys."?
I have heard a lot of speech with which I disagreed, speech supporting or condemning politics, religion, or social practices. But, always and always, I have sworn to uphold your right to make that speech, no matter how loudly you are able to make it.
Because, above all, I want to retain my right to speak my views, even in a small and mostly ignored voice.
I am so thankful to the Supreme Court of The United States for their recent decision in this matter.
Long live freedom of speech!
Friday, January 29, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The way it was - with Democrats.
About fifty years ago, I had a conversation with a close friend and business associate who was a devout Democrat. We were watching a construction project... a big building being built. Can't remember if the weather was very hot or very cold, but the weather caused my friend and I to express some sympathy for the workmen on the building.
I expressed this thought to my friend... "When this project is finished, someone will own a very valuable piece of real estate, but these guys who built it will own no part of it. I guess that is what troubles you Democrats."
He instantly corrected me: "Both these workmen and the people financing the job made a choice. The workmen wanted no risk. They wanted to do their job, get paid, and walk away whole. The people doing the financing wanted the risk. They invested the fruit of, perhaps, their lifetime of work in this project. If it succeeds, their payday will come. If it fails, they could lose everything. Our concern for the workmen is that they a get a good trade - labor for cash - and are treated fairly and honestly".
Yep. That is the way Democrats used to think. And my friend may have added that the workmen were perfectly happy with their deal. They were happy with their employer on this job. They appreciated their opportunity to participate in this building and were proud of their contribution. After this job, they would move to another construction project, enjoying their new home, their new truck or boat or whatever they bought with their pay. If this building was a financial failure, they would feel none of the pain.
Back in those days, Democrats and Republicans in government worked together to solve problems, get things done. And I, a Republican, was fully comfortable being in business with a guy who was a devout Democrat. There was a saying my late friend liked to quote: "There is no such thing as part-time honesty." Absolutely. His honesty was full time and never questioned. He would be saddened by many of today's Democrats
About fifty years ago, I had a conversation with a close friend and business associate who was a devout Democrat. We were watching a construction project... a big building being built. Can't remember if the weather was very hot or very cold, but the weather caused my friend and I to express some sympathy for the workmen on the building.
I expressed this thought to my friend... "When this project is finished, someone will own a very valuable piece of real estate, but these guys who built it will own no part of it. I guess that is what troubles you Democrats."
He instantly corrected me: "Both these workmen and the people financing the job made a choice. The workmen wanted no risk. They wanted to do their job, get paid, and walk away whole. The people doing the financing wanted the risk. They invested the fruit of, perhaps, their lifetime of work in this project. If it succeeds, their payday will come. If it fails, they could lose everything. Our concern for the workmen is that they a get a good trade - labor for cash - and are treated fairly and honestly".
Yep. That is the way Democrats used to think. And my friend may have added that the workmen were perfectly happy with their deal. They were happy with their employer on this job. They appreciated their opportunity to participate in this building and were proud of their contribution. After this job, they would move to another construction project, enjoying their new home, their new truck or boat or whatever they bought with their pay. If this building was a financial failure, they would feel none of the pain.
Back in those days, Democrats and Republicans in government worked together to solve problems, get things done. And I, a Republican, was fully comfortable being in business with a guy who was a devout Democrat. There was a saying my late friend liked to quote: "There is no such thing as part-time honesty." Absolutely. His honesty was full time and never questioned. He would be saddened by many of today's Democrats
Monday, January 18, 2010
Here I go again...
being an opinionated old man.
It was an interesting experiment, electing a well-educated young African-American to be president of the United States.
It was a given that he was not up to the job. It is sad that his mentors, his advisers, were all of the wrong ideology.
Can anyone be surprised that his presidency is a colossal failure?
Personally, I hope Americans continue to take chances on well-educated young men and women as elected officials - disregarding their ethnicity or nationality lineage.
There should be some litmus tests: They must be absolutely and unshakably honest. They must be fully dedicated to the truth. They must fully accept that in America, power is vested in the people and the job of government is to serve the people.
They should understand that if some day the people of the United States decide they want a radically transformed state, it should be the government that follows the will of the people, not vice-versa.
And they must be strong enough to stand up to their advisers and say "no", when those advisers waiver on these principles.
And, maybe, just maybe when we elect young, untested people, we should not try to start them out at the very top.
being an opinionated old man.
It was an interesting experiment, electing a well-educated young African-American to be president of the United States.
It was a given that he was not up to the job. It is sad that his mentors, his advisers, were all of the wrong ideology.
Can anyone be surprised that his presidency is a colossal failure?
Personally, I hope Americans continue to take chances on well-educated young men and women as elected officials - disregarding their ethnicity or nationality lineage.
There should be some litmus tests: They must be absolutely and unshakably honest. They must be fully dedicated to the truth. They must fully accept that in America, power is vested in the people and the job of government is to serve the people.
They should understand that if some day the people of the United States decide they want a radically transformed state, it should be the government that follows the will of the people, not vice-versa.
And they must be strong enough to stand up to their advisers and say "no", when those advisers waiver on these principles.
And, maybe, just maybe when we elect young, untested people, we should not try to start them out at the very top.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
More Random Memories
stirred up by Harry Reid.
We all tend to talk like the folk who were around when we were learning to talk. It's a hard habit to break.
Johnny Robinson, the great free safety of the Kansas City Chiefs back in the 1970s, once told me that some of his black teammates tried very hard to avoid using any speech habits of their youth. But in a sideline interview with a roving reporter they often, in the excitement of the game, let their guard down and spoke as they had spoken as a child. Later they would see a replay and beat their head against the wall.
I once had a business colleague, a bright, successful guy who, when relating an earlier incident, often said "we was...". That always shocked me a bit.
My son, a professor at a large Texas University is raising four small daughters. Though born in four different states, they are now all growing up to be - Surprise! Surprise! - Texans. On a recent visit, his six-year-old rushed in to say, "Dad... we were fixin' to...". Before I had time to recognize what she had said, her father interrupted, "Don't say fixin'!" In Texas, if you were or are planing to do something, it is quite normal to say fixin' to do it!
Reminds me of the time when my wife and I, seeking to escape from business pressures, moved to a small farm near a tiny Missouri town. After a few months in a small, country school, our oldest boy, then about eight, excitedly told us of something he brang home from school. Hey, Neil Diamond even used that term in the lyric of a song!
MIT professor, Steven Pinker, wrote words to the effect that "If I say something, and you clearly understand the meaning of what I said, our language is good... language czars notwithstanding." Dr. Pinker... I heartily agree.
Same goes for punctuation and sentence structure. In the mid 20th century, there was a radio personality named Arthur Godfrey. One of Godfrey's trademarks was singing original songs with outrageous or demeaning lyrics. Songs like "Slap 'er Down Again, Pa!" Or, "She's Too Fat For Me". Once I played one of his records on the air, then spent a moment making fun of his mispronunciations and poor choice of words. Next day I received a card from a listener, listing a lot of words I had mispronounced or improperly used that same day. I remembered each of them!
In writing copy to be read on the air, I formed the habit of inserting a comma in copy where I will want to take a breath, or shift emphasis. Today people scold me for my overuse of commas, and elipses.
This week there was criticism of a Massachusetts candidate for the U.S. Senate because the word Massachusetts was misspelled in a printed political ad. Big deal. Very near my home is a park dedicated to the memory of those men and women from this community who have served in the U.S. Military. On the street, approaching the park, is a city-erected sign pointing to Veteran's Park. That is singular possessive, but not surprising in a city where, for many people, English is a second language.
Once, in a Spanish class at New Mexico State University, the instructor told me I had misspelled the Spanish word for the number 10. I was sure I had not. He made me look it up. Good for him. I shall now always remember that the word is spelled diez, not dies!
When Dan Quayle was Vice President, he was once asked to moderate a spelling bee for young students. Quayle was given a stack of cards, each with one word, to test the students. The word potato came up. The student correctly spelled p-o-t-a-t-o. Quayle looked at his card, where the word was spelled p-o-t-a-t-o-e. In those circumstances, with TV lights and all, Quayle was certainly distracted from realizing that whomever had made the card had spelled the word incorrectly. Responding mechanically, as most of us would have, Quayle told the student he needed to add an "e". Following the recent comments on the misspelled word in the Massachusetts political ad, TV commentators. some two decades later, again ridiculed Dan Quayle.
By circumstance, not choice, I once found myself in partnership with people I didn't like very well. One of those new business partners was meticulous about his handwriting. When you saw something he had written (even though you were sure you were going to disagree with his premise), you were compelled to read every perfectly written word.
So, is careful handwriting, correct spelling, proper punctuation and clearly understood annunciation and pronunciation even important? Yes, of course. Clear and careful communication is a better assurance of clear understanding.
But Harry Reid's comment about "Negro dialect" is something else. The word negro, after all, is simply the word for the color black, in Latin based languages. Not all dark skinned persons have a regional accent or speech pattern. I remember my first trip to Bermuda when a black man addressed me in a crisp, British accent. But Reid lumped all dark skinned persons into one distinct group when he referred to Negro dialect. That lumping is the very essence of prejudice.
(I know that some learned person reading this post could, like my radio listener of six decades ago, point out a list of errors. But, as Dr. Pinker predicted, you did get my point, didn't you!)
stirred up by Harry Reid.
We all tend to talk like the folk who were around when we were learning to talk. It's a hard habit to break.
Johnny Robinson, the great free safety of the Kansas City Chiefs back in the 1970s, once told me that some of his black teammates tried very hard to avoid using any speech habits of their youth. But in a sideline interview with a roving reporter they often, in the excitement of the game, let their guard down and spoke as they had spoken as a child. Later they would see a replay and beat their head against the wall.
I once had a business colleague, a bright, successful guy who, when relating an earlier incident, often said "we was...". That always shocked me a bit.
My son, a professor at a large Texas University is raising four small daughters. Though born in four different states, they are now all growing up to be - Surprise! Surprise! - Texans. On a recent visit, his six-year-old rushed in to say, "Dad... we were fixin' to...". Before I had time to recognize what she had said, her father interrupted, "Don't say fixin'!" In Texas, if you were or are planing to do something, it is quite normal to say fixin' to do it!
Reminds me of the time when my wife and I, seeking to escape from business pressures, moved to a small farm near a tiny Missouri town. After a few months in a small, country school, our oldest boy, then about eight, excitedly told us of something he brang home from school. Hey, Neil Diamond even used that term in the lyric of a song!
MIT professor, Steven Pinker, wrote words to the effect that "If I say something, and you clearly understand the meaning of what I said, our language is good... language czars notwithstanding." Dr. Pinker... I heartily agree.
Same goes for punctuation and sentence structure. In the mid 20th century, there was a radio personality named Arthur Godfrey. One of Godfrey's trademarks was singing original songs with outrageous or demeaning lyrics. Songs like "Slap 'er Down Again, Pa!" Or, "She's Too Fat For Me". Once I played one of his records on the air, then spent a moment making fun of his mispronunciations and poor choice of words. Next day I received a card from a listener, listing a lot of words I had mispronounced or improperly used that same day. I remembered each of them!
In writing copy to be read on the air, I formed the habit of inserting a comma in copy where I will want to take a breath, or shift emphasis. Today people scold me for my overuse of commas, and elipses.
This week there was criticism of a Massachusetts candidate for the U.S. Senate because the word Massachusetts was misspelled in a printed political ad. Big deal. Very near my home is a park dedicated to the memory of those men and women from this community who have served in the U.S. Military. On the street, approaching the park, is a city-erected sign pointing to Veteran's Park. That is singular possessive, but not surprising in a city where, for many people, English is a second language.
Once, in a Spanish class at New Mexico State University, the instructor told me I had misspelled the Spanish word for the number 10. I was sure I had not. He made me look it up. Good for him. I shall now always remember that the word is spelled diez, not dies!
When Dan Quayle was Vice President, he was once asked to moderate a spelling bee for young students. Quayle was given a stack of cards, each with one word, to test the students. The word potato came up. The student correctly spelled p-o-t-a-t-o. Quayle looked at his card, where the word was spelled p-o-t-a-t-o-e. In those circumstances, with TV lights and all, Quayle was certainly distracted from realizing that whomever had made the card had spelled the word incorrectly. Responding mechanically, as most of us would have, Quayle told the student he needed to add an "e". Following the recent comments on the misspelled word in the Massachusetts political ad, TV commentators. some two decades later, again ridiculed Dan Quayle.
By circumstance, not choice, I once found myself in partnership with people I didn't like very well. One of those new business partners was meticulous about his handwriting. When you saw something he had written (even though you were sure you were going to disagree with his premise), you were compelled to read every perfectly written word.
So, is careful handwriting, correct spelling, proper punctuation and clearly understood annunciation and pronunciation even important? Yes, of course. Clear and careful communication is a better assurance of clear understanding.
But Harry Reid's comment about "Negro dialect" is something else. The word negro, after all, is simply the word for the color black, in Latin based languages. Not all dark skinned persons have a regional accent or speech pattern. I remember my first trip to Bermuda when a black man addressed me in a crisp, British accent. But Reid lumped all dark skinned persons into one distinct group when he referred to Negro dialect. That lumping is the very essence of prejudice.
(I know that some learned person reading this post could, like my radio listener of six decades ago, point out a list of errors. But, as Dr. Pinker predicted, you did get my point, didn't you!)
Monday, January 11, 2010
Getting old - and angry.
One good thing about getting old... you remember things. But, maybe that is not so good because it also means you are angry most of the time.
This past week it was revealed that Senate Majority leader Harry Reid had said during the 2008 campaign that Barack Obama might be an acceptable candidate because he was not too black and did not sound black when he talked. Disgusting!
This past week also included the birth date of Elvis Presley... January 8, which is also the birth date of my twin daughters. So Elvis was on my mind and Reid's remarks reminded me of a widely held opinion back in 1955. I was a disk jockey at radio station KUDL in Kansas City at the time. One day the head of the record department at a big Kansas City drug store chain called to tell me that a lot of teens were buying records by a guy named Elvis Presley. I had never heard the name and asked her to spell it.
In a big box of new records left at the station for me by promotion people from local record distributors, I found two records by said Elvis Presley. They had a little yellow label that said "Sun", and were titles I had never before seen, "Mystery Train", "I'm Left, You're Right, She's Gone", "Milk Cow Blues Boogie" and "That's All Right, Mama". I listened to the four songs.
At that time, my program was largely devoted to what we then called "Rhythm & Blues", music noted for a solid beat and often a soulful rendition of earthy, if whimsical, lyrics. Those characteristics made the music very popular with teens. The songs by this Presley guy fit perfectly and I immediately started playing all four songs on the air. All four became immensely popular.
Soon the word got around that Elvis' music was okay with the kids parents, too (at least until they saw his sexy moves on The Ed Sullivan Show), because Elvis was not black! In 1955, very few white parents would approve of their young daughters becoming adoring fans of a black man! Such were the attitudes of some in the mid 1950s.
But, 1955 was a long time ago. Barack Obama was not even born then. Could anyone still hold those views in 2008? Yes. A United States Senator from Nevada named Harry Reid. I was not at all surprised when many prominent people responded angrily to Reid's remarks... his attitude toward blacks: "may be okay if they don't look or sound black".
Now more anger. Reid's defenders immediately jumped on the memory of Trent Lott, the Mississippi Senator who was Senate Majority Leader when the Republicans were the majority. Smoke came out of my ears!
In 2002, at a ceremony celebrating the 100th birthday of South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond (who had been a candidate for president in 1948 - 54 years earlier) Trent Lott said we may all have been better off if Thurmond had won that election.
Strom Thurmond had been a avid segregationist. But remember, in the 1940s, even the U.S. Military was segregated. I was in the Army in 1946 and 1947, and black soldiers were not even permitted to eat at the same mess hall as white soldiers. Today it is hard to believe that bit of history and, in time, Strom Thurmond, like most of America, came to realize that racism is evil.
But, in 2002, the fact everyone remembered was Thurmond's earlier segregationist views. The fact few remembered was that Thurmond was also a avid supporter of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: State's Rights! Trent Lott was right... we may well have been better off with a president who supported the 10th Amendment. (Our current president certainly does not!)
But, the Democrats, eager to strike at Lott in every possible way, blew his remarks into a racial issue and destroyed his career.
So, what is now to happen to Harry Reid? If he is not replaced as Senate Majority Leader, it will prove to me, once and for all, that the Democrats are a despicable group. As I heard my father say, way back in the 1930s, the Democrats are nothing more than a bunch of crooks and thugs, interested only in their personal power.
One good thing about getting old... you remember things. But, maybe that is not so good because it also means you are angry most of the time.
This past week it was revealed that Senate Majority leader Harry Reid had said during the 2008 campaign that Barack Obama might be an acceptable candidate because he was not too black and did not sound black when he talked. Disgusting!
This past week also included the birth date of Elvis Presley... January 8, which is also the birth date of my twin daughters. So Elvis was on my mind and Reid's remarks reminded me of a widely held opinion back in 1955. I was a disk jockey at radio station KUDL in Kansas City at the time. One day the head of the record department at a big Kansas City drug store chain called to tell me that a lot of teens were buying records by a guy named Elvis Presley. I had never heard the name and asked her to spell it.
In a big box of new records left at the station for me by promotion people from local record distributors, I found two records by said Elvis Presley. They had a little yellow label that said "Sun", and were titles I had never before seen, "Mystery Train", "I'm Left, You're Right, She's Gone", "Milk Cow Blues Boogie" and "That's All Right, Mama". I listened to the four songs.
At that time, my program was largely devoted to what we then called "Rhythm & Blues", music noted for a solid beat and often a soulful rendition of earthy, if whimsical, lyrics. Those characteristics made the music very popular with teens. The songs by this Presley guy fit perfectly and I immediately started playing all four songs on the air. All four became immensely popular.
Soon the word got around that Elvis' music was okay with the kids parents, too (at least until they saw his sexy moves on The Ed Sullivan Show), because Elvis was not black! In 1955, very few white parents would approve of their young daughters becoming adoring fans of a black man! Such were the attitudes of some in the mid 1950s.
But, 1955 was a long time ago. Barack Obama was not even born then. Could anyone still hold those views in 2008? Yes. A United States Senator from Nevada named Harry Reid. I was not at all surprised when many prominent people responded angrily to Reid's remarks... his attitude toward blacks: "may be okay if they don't look or sound black".
Now more anger. Reid's defenders immediately jumped on the memory of Trent Lott, the Mississippi Senator who was Senate Majority Leader when the Republicans were the majority. Smoke came out of my ears!
In 2002, at a ceremony celebrating the 100th birthday of South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond (who had been a candidate for president in 1948 - 54 years earlier) Trent Lott said we may all have been better off if Thurmond had won that election.
Strom Thurmond had been a avid segregationist. But remember, in the 1940s, even the U.S. Military was segregated. I was in the Army in 1946 and 1947, and black soldiers were not even permitted to eat at the same mess hall as white soldiers. Today it is hard to believe that bit of history and, in time, Strom Thurmond, like most of America, came to realize that racism is evil.
But, in 2002, the fact everyone remembered was Thurmond's earlier segregationist views. The fact few remembered was that Thurmond was also a avid supporter of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: State's Rights! Trent Lott was right... we may well have been better off with a president who supported the 10th Amendment. (Our current president certainly does not!)
But, the Democrats, eager to strike at Lott in every possible way, blew his remarks into a racial issue and destroyed his career.
So, what is now to happen to Harry Reid? If he is not replaced as Senate Majority Leader, it will prove to me, once and for all, that the Democrats are a despicable group. As I heard my father say, way back in the 1930s, the Democrats are nothing more than a bunch of crooks and thugs, interested only in their personal power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)