Bedrock

Civilization is impossible without the “civil.” Civility is critical for a large number of people to live close together, especially today where fast, cheap travel and easy communication brings us even closer. Sadly, our shrinking world seems to be growing less civil. Intense rivalries, huge infusions of money, and perpetual competition have overshadowed sportsmanship, the civility that once ruled athletics. Biased media and an endless assortment of talk shows “amuse” us with angry guests and promote spite and vitriol among viewers and callers. Campaigning and party politics, never shy of distortion or untruth, once had a sense of “civil service,” well-mannered conduct among “respected colleagues” and statesmanship among those who at least called their rivals “the gentlemen (or women) across the aisle.” Today winning seems to be everything. Is it any wonder that civil discourse is becoming an increasing rarity today? What is causing this degeneration of civilized behavior? P

Imagine this: You have an opinion. Since we live in a land guaranteed freedom of speech, you express your opinion. Now a government agency comes along and says, “Wait, you may only express that opinion only if you arrange to have someone available to express the opposing point of view.” “Ridiculous,” you say, and you are certainly correct. We don't have our free speech rights threatened but not by that absurd arrangement, at least not yet! That only applies to radio, at least if some get their way. " 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 you don’t recognize them, those are the actual words of the First Amendment, the top of the original “top ten list” of the rights of citizens. In the intervening 217 years since they were ratifi

The roles of race and women have come to dominate this year’s Presidential election; as a result, many choose, thinking to advance the rights of the supposedly disadvantaged. Some support the first black nominee, primarily because of his color; Pat Buchanan has asked what will happen if he loses , in fact, suggesting a lose/lose scenario. Some for similar reasons favor one, who might have become the first woman nominee, for similar reasons, and their disappointment may be major factor in the outcome of this election. Hope, change, and leadership, often in very non-specific terms, are virtually meaningless bases for choosing a candidate, and many contrary contrary indications tend to make one wonder. The reality is that our country has been changing, in the areas of race and gender especially; unintended consequences provide a warning to us as we consider the future that any nominee or prospective representative proposes. Do they actually seek to lead us somewhere specific? We

Just before Memorial Day, my Guatemalan student asked why we had a holiday to remember dead people . It gave me a chance to explain that it was intended to remember specifically those who died defending our country and our freedom. I didn’t recall when the custom began, so I looked it up . It started during the American Civil, and in fact southern states didn’t follow the practice until World War I gave them common cause with the rest of the country. Of course, we never simply “remember dead people.” Those whose loved ones have died will never forget them, and a special holiday is unnecessary for them. The rest of us aren’t just remembering them; we are remembering their sacrifice, and not just of those who die but also of those who leave behind loved ones, careers, and safety at a cost of injury, lost opportunity, and missed time with family. As soldiers continue to risk everything in Afghanistan and Iraq, the idea of not forgetting their sacrifice is surely better than the

Most adults understand that life has few guarantees. How well folks see and accept this reality determines a great deal about how they operate in the world, including choices they make at the ballot box. What amazes me is that candidates make promises and people believe them. Politicians will say anything to gain support and thereby power. Politicians I can understand; they act in their own best interests, regardless of what they say. Those who believe them are harder to comprehend. Children usually trust what adults say, as long as they keep their word, but eventually we all learn that it's much easier to make a promise than to keep it. Even young adult voters should know this. Before I continue, permit me to add this. If we actually held candidates to their promises and their “feet to the fire” when they didn't, we have them making far fewer empty promises. As long as enough of us are gullible and let them off the hook when the truth comes out, they will keep ma

A “half truth” is an intentionally deceptive statement that contains some element of truth; a half truth is not truth. Such a statement is like a doctor saying, “Half of you doesn't have cancer; therefore you don't have cancer.  A half truth is half lie, and like water that is half sewage, it isn't fit for consumption. Politicians are masters of half truths; Barack Obama is no exception, but he is not alone. In my own personal life, I give people the benefit of the doubt.  In other words, I try to trust people and assume they are being honest with me. However, once a person lies or fails to keep his or her word, that person must then prove worthy of further trust. I can accept that people would want to trust Obama; he has created an image that invites trust, and he made promises that many found appealing, promises of hope and change (though rather vague promises at that). What I don't understand is how people, who desire something different and upbeat, can continue

Will Rogers said, “All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that's an alibi for my ignorance.” I wonder what he'd have to say now, nearly 75 years after his death? Certainly, a person can't expect anything remotely like simple, factual information in today's media, print or broadcast. What passes for news is heavily slanted opinion in most venues. Anything like objectivity is long gone. Forty-plus years ago, my school sent me to a summer workshop in journalism to prepare me to edit my small-town high school newspaper. I remember vividly the basic tenets of news writing. They taught us the 5 W's of reporting—who, where, what, when, and why. Then, the reporters job was only to present the facts. Opinions didn't belong in news but in features, editorials, and columns with a by-line to identify the person presenting an opinion. Teachers drilled objectivity and impartiality into us, again and again. Little did we realize that the day of such unbi

Another July 4 has passed, as usual with impressive displays of fireworks filling the sky with color and our ears with the sounds of battles. They offer an interesting irony, as does the day itself in this present age. One of my refugee students asked me to explain this holiday, reminding me that many of us call it “The 4 th of July,” “July 4 th ,” or just “The Fourth.” We have dropped the meaning from the day, just as many of us have dropped our appreciation for what the day should commemorate—freedom and the price in lives that it cost. Unlike nations with many centuries of history, the heritage of the United States is in the vision that created it, not in venerable age or a long-established culture. How strange it is that some of our own people want to return to the very places from which our ancestors came. What is it about the Continent that so captivates the imaginations of elitists here? If Europe is so great, how did the United States manage not only to become the wo

Have you noticed that the so-called progressives don't have a clue what progress is? For most of us, progress is advancement or getting ahead. Progress is making things better, but progressives seem determined to make things worse. Like an inept doctor, progressives have a cure that is worse than the disease; but like snake oil salesmen, they're pretty good at selling their hokum to gullible, unsuspecting people. Last week, I listened to a young man say that the thing to do about the energy crisis is to raise the price of gasoline, significantly. I was sitting outside at a coffee shop, and he and a young woman were carrying on an animated conversation that I couldn ’t help but overhear. I haven’t heard that suggestion, offered seriously, in a long time. Except for those with bizarre political views, those who see raising prices as a solution know very little about economics, science, or people. Where does such naiveté come from? I suspect is comes from the brainwashin

Citizen Action: A Bedrock Value As I read and listen to people discuss the current candidates for President and the prospects for a Democrat Party domination of Congress, one thing seems clear to me: the substance of the issues is probably well over the heads of many of our fellow citizens. I don’t say that to be insulting or condescending. As a pastor and preacher, I realized, many years ago, that educated people tend to express themselves in language often unfamiliar to everyone else. A person like Barach Obama plays to that; he uses positive sounding generalities that seem to make sense. In response or reaction, those who read past his rhetoric, disagree, and oppose him tend to use terms that many hear only as opposition. If Hannity says it, then it’s conservative, pro-Bush, and Right-wing; they never really hear the content of arguments he attempts to make. For some people, all the want to hear is Obama's promise to leave Iraq because that war was wrong or all war is