Category Menu

• Home
• Arts & Entertainment
• Education Issues
• Food & Drink
• Local Lore
• Miscellaneous
• Pol, Econ, & Religion
• Random Thoughts
• Comments Form
• Visitor Comments
• Writers Wanted

top of page

POLITICS, ECONOMICS and RELIGION: This is where it gets difficult and where moderation is required. If your views are to the extreme in either direction please go elsewhere. If, otherwise, your opinions lay somewhere in the realm of moderation have a seat. Here's a little test, If you cannot say the words Obama and/or Bush without wanting to spit, you're too radical for here.

Share this page with others.

---

Unintentional Racism

Years ago I read an article about unintentional racism. An example given in the article was that in the Katrina aftermath, when Barbara Bush and the former President toured the Astrodome, Mrs. Bush commented, "So many people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them."

The fact that those poor people had lost loved ones, homes, jobs, pets and possessions seemed lost on Mrs. Bush. I wondered aloud, "I wonder how she would have felt if she'd lost everything and was transported hundreds of miles away to sleep on a cot with no privacy?" The author of the article attributed her callous attitude to "unintentional racism" and concluded that she did not realize that her remarks were indeed racist, but showed her to be out-of-touch and unsympathetic. Recalling her remarks about Geraldine Ferraro, I was not inclined to be as tolerant.

One of my colleagues at Rockwell was a very well-spoken, educated, professional who happened to be African-American. One day, after seeing Bob and I having lunch together, another colleague commented, "He's the whitest black man I've ever seen." I called him out and told him that was offensive and racist and the guy was obviously surprised and said he'd meant it as a compliment! I said, "Then I'm supposed to infer that you think that only white people USUALLY have his attributes?" He said, "I didn't mean anything by it."

In stores, I oftentimes see store personnel who stop people to check their receipts. I have never been stopped, but I always have my receipt in my hand with my car keys. I always assumed people were stopped if there were unbagged items in the cart. Tonight, I was behind a couple in line who are black and I saw the man bagging the items. I had one item and as I followed behind the couple, they were stopped to show their receipt. I had my receipt ready and the store employee waved and said, "You're all right." I said, "I know that I am all right, but what was wrong with those folks ahead of me?" He said, "They had something that wasn't in a bag." I said, "That's NOT true; I was behind them in line and he bagged everything."

Tomorrow I will call the District Manager to inquire about the Company policy.

Sue Raypole, May 9, 2011: Submit Comments

Top of Page

 

Our Local Economy; A Few Thoughts

I came across an article in the NY Times regarding manufacturing in the United States. Essentially the author was saying that we need to give up dwelling on the loss of huge vertically integrated industries like steel and electronics. Instead we need to concentrate on smaller more flexible models that can focus their sales on local and regional markets.

The Times cited non-profit organizations in both San Francisco (www.sfmade.org) and New York City (www.madeinnyc.org) who try to encourage and assist local manufacturing. The emphasis is on selling directly to a local market that is encouraged to take pride and ownership in locally made products.

Anchor Steam beer was an example mentioned for San Francisco. The brand began as a local bar that began brewing its own suds. They developed a local clientele and as word spread they transformed into a company with national distribution. It remains, however, a favorite in Frisco because of its local heritage.

While Anchor Steam may be the exception SFMade represents a number of smaller businesses which have carved out an area niche and are creating jobs.

I'm not sure how this may apply to the Greenfield or Highland County communities but I think there is the germ of an idea here. The Highland County Chamber of Commerce is already working hard encouraging area residents to shop locally and support local retail businesses. But, I'm not aware of any local organization working to identify local manufacturers and helping to create a market for their products.

Our area doesn't have the population density of a San Francisco but we could create something unique to us and tweaked to our needs. I know of people who are artisans, crafts people, producers of homemade food stuffs, roasters of coffee, makers of wrought iron pieces, etc. Having been in several businesses over the years I know, like any businessman, that marketing is a major hurdle in selling a product successfully. One may have invented the perfect mouse trap but if you can't get the word out your business will die on the vine.

My daughter told me about a friend of hers who is a major pastel artist with a large studio in Cincinnati. This woman, along with a number of other artist were given (as in rent free) an empty store front right next to the Netherlands Hilton Hotel in downtown Cincinnati. They have stocked the place with samples of their creations and take turns manning the gallery. Their benefactor has provided the space for two reasons. First, they didn't want yet another empty store front in the city's center and secondly, they wanted to promote and support the artistic community of Cincinnati.

Greenfield or Highland County could do something similar but not just for artist. Someone owning an empty store front in Greenfield or Hillsboro could step forward and provide some free space while interested artist, crafts persons, artisans, manufacturers, cooks, bakers, candle stick makers, etc. could organize to both sell their creations and make people aware of their existence. A non-profit could become involved permitting the land lord to write off his rent free contribution.

I've been in a number of cities, and states, where similar things are in existence. Last year I was in Louisville for a couple of days and spent some time in the Kentucky Folk Art Gallery. The state of West Virginia has a facility along I-77 at Beckley that promotes WV artisans. In North Carolina I once stopped at a visitor center that had a huge display of products being manufactured in that state.

I am not the one to judge the viability of these ideas. Hopefully somebody will recognize the germ of something meaningful and run with it. If I had a spare storefront, however, I'd be more than willing to take a chance on the imagination, creativity, and work ethic of our neighbors.

Larry Chapman, March 29: Submit Comments

Top of Page

 

Stingy Children Do Grow Up

I've had a thought rumbling in my head for a while regarding people who are ultra conservative. It came together while reading an article about a “rock star, popular, young” minister named Rob Bell. Bell has authored a book that is causing many seismic events in the world of Christian theology. As I understand it, he is advocating a much more liberal view as to what Jesus is and how one gains entrance to heaven.

He says that God is love and God sent Christ to us as an example of that love. Love demands freedom so Christians should not make judgments about how others will get into heaven. He is permitting a lot of latitude regarding how one views scripture and many fundamental tenets of conservative, and even mainstream, Christianity.

A friend and reviewer of Bell says the argument is between, “generous orthodoxy and stingy orthodoxy. There are stingy people who just want to consign many others to hell and only a few to heaven and take delight in the idea. But Bell allows for a lot of mystery in how Jesus reaches people.” In other words, there is more than one Pearly Gate and no one religion owns any of the keys.

Here's how I relate this to ultra-conservatives. Remember all the kids you've known or observed who wouldn't share their toys with others? Well, my thesis is that many of these children mature into ultra-conservative adults, both politically and religiously.

When I occasionally watch Fox News a common characteristic I see in their on-air talent and more conservative guests is an unwillingness to share. They don't want America giving aid to other nations (except Israel), they are generally opposed to government programs that provide basic services to those in need, they are against the food stamp program, many would erase federal aid to education in its entirety, plus wipe out Medicaid in a sick person's heart beat. Their basic precept seems to be, “All the money I earn and wealth I amass is mine and you can't play with it.”

Within my thesis I would argue that the more conservative the more selfish one is regarding helping the less fortunate. This is magnified when increased wealth enters the scenario. The more wealthy, the more conservative, the more conservative, the more libertarian, the more libertarian the more opposed to government intervention in the free-market economy and all equating to stinginess.

This is also true about religion. Conservative persons tend to be religiously fundamental and in religion fundamentalism is the same as conservatism. Conservatives and fundamentals tend to have a strict or narrow view of what scripture, be it the Bible or the Constitution, permits. Jonah is not a parable. He really did endure the digestive juices of a whale's stomach. Jonah's story is true because the Bible said it and the Department of Education is not legal because the Constitution doesn't say the word school. The basic canon, only the literal need apply.

That brings us back to Bell. The stingy orthodoxy Bell addresses are the conservative fundamentalists who hold tight to a very strict interpretation of the Bible and a very narrow view of who and what Jesus represents and how one gains a ticket to ride into heaven. It is that strict or narrow interpretation of the Constitution that leads to their beliefs that it is not the role of the federal government to engage in anything that is not specifically or inherently spelled out in the document.

But, there is a paradox at work here. While conservative fundamentalists may be opposed to the government helping the poor they are not opposed to government giving aid to religion and corporate interests. While opposed to government foreign aid they will generously donate to fundamental religious missions that provide assistance in third world nations while at the same time spreading the word of a Christian God. They approve of federal foreign aid to Israel because it fulfills some Biblical imperative they sense.

So, maybe they are not absolutely stingy or selfish. They just want to dictate how, to whom, and under what circumstances they have to share their toys. And since they, in our current economic reality, possess the vast wealth of the toys, the pleasure of the majority, the working and middle classes, awaits their mood du jour.

Oh, just in case you think this is all bunk consider the ultra-left. They represent that rare child who willingly shares his toys and is even willing to give them away. The ultra-liberals are those who want to take the entire toy box and divide it up equally among all the kids at the party. That, by the way, is called communism. The ultra-right also has a name, fascism. Neither is healthy!

Larry Chapman, March 21, 2011: Submit Comments

Top of Page

 

Black History Month, get over it!

Let me state one absolute truth. If you were born a citizen, wealthy, white, Christian (especially Protestant), and male, your socioeconomic group has never been discriminated against. It doesn't matter where your white ancestors came from, it doesn't matter when they arrived on our shores, and it doesn't matter how hard they worked after they got here. All that is sure is that if anyone is getting dumped on, they're further down the rope than you.

Furthermore, the same is probably true if you are closer to middle-class rather than rich. Only the poorest whites in America can come close to understanding what true ethnic or racial minorities have experienced in America. And even the poorest of whites, for the most part, have never been legally considered chattel and the property of another. Nor have they ever been the target of a nationally endorsed program of systematic genocide.

Ironically, however, there is a strong sense among many whites that they are somehow the victims of discrimination. I imagine this is an outgrowth of the civil rights era when courts told white Americans they were wrong in their treatment of minorities and need to take actions to rectify some of the injustices of the past. How old were you when you first heard the phrase, reverse discrimination?

In 1926 a group of Black Americans decided their people needed to become more aware of their people's history and contributions to American History and culture. Until that time teaching anything other than European influences wasn't given much attention. About the only mention of blacks in the history textbooks of my youth concerned Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver. Carver was a man of science and mostly apolitical. He was therefore, safe. Washington was also safe because he encouraged blacks to slowly assimilate into white society in a non-threatening manner and be willing to accept lower paying semi-skilled jobs whites weren't as interested in.

So, what became Black History Month was begun and we've been setting aside the month of February for decades now. For many years I've tried to take part in some activity related to the occasion. And while a lot of good comes from this month it also gives reason for those who feel otherwise to utter thoughts that are insensitive at best and racially offensive at worse.

Invariably, someone spouts out, “Why don't white people have a history month” or “It's not fair that blacks have their own month.” There is also the misconception that somehow BHM is sponsored by the government and violates law.

Well look, every day, every week, and every month in America we honor or acknowledge a boundless cornucopia of special events and rarely is one sponsored by a government or involves tax money. For example, March 1 was designated as National Pancake Day and March 17 is Saint Patrick's Day, and April 1 for all the fools who think they are being discriminated against. They may (or may not) be officially endorsed but none carries the weight of law or involves tax payer dollars. And, none discriminates. Don't like pancakes, eat eggs, don't like green beer, have a coke, don't like fools, make sure your pants are zipped and your shoes ties.

Local mayors, legislative bodies, governors and even presidents have to allocate an inordinate amount of time signing resolutions showing their approval of all kinds of special days. These kinds of things are simple gestures that make people and constituents feel good or important. They're no different than walking the rope line and shaking hands or kissing babies.

So here's the deal. If a group of people who've been pretty much dumped on since they first arrived against their will in the early 1600s want to pat themselves on the back, let em'! If you want to get drunk on green dyed Corolla beer on Saint Paddy's Day because you're Irish-Mexican-American, do it! If you want to start a college scholarship to help men who are at least 25% Caucasian, as some people in Texas have just done, the Constitution of the United States gives you that right.

Just grow up and quit pouting because someone else is doing something to better themselves and you're still mired in the pool of mud you've built for yourself.

But, if you refuse to be receptive and still want to complain and feel discriminated against, well March is Women's History Month. So, please permit me to do it for you, “Why don't men have their own history month, it ain't fair.”

Larry Chapman, March 10, 2011: Submit Comments

Top of Page

 

Thank your favorite CEO!

It is past time to bury the subject of public sector earnings and allow it to rest in peace. Many are looking for an excuse to raise the collective blood pressures in the community by pointing fingers at those who make a little more and have benefits, yet most are unwilling to look into what these people actually do for this income. As was once stated to a high school graduate - public employee by a more affluent person with ties to an area publication - and I summarize - “It is not my fault I went to college and obtained a better education than you.”

The February 18, 2011 online edition of the Highland County Press column entitled “Many Public-Sector Earnings Don't Reflect County's Struggling Economy” does not reflect the fact that the responsibilities of those listed individuals go beyond the typical forty-hour workweek. Competent fulfillment of their obligations to the community require on call around the clock status or additional duties. Why not be fairly compensated? It is time to stop blaming public employees for the fiasco created by CEO’s and their companies. While your public employees are serving you, CEO’s are taking money from the pockets of both consumers and employees.

Research into a few sample companies having job sites in Highland County are listed in the following examples.

John Gerlach, CEO of Lancaster Colony, the company that owns Candle-Lite in Leesburg, received $1.16M last year.

Thomas Quinlan III, CEO of RR Donnelley in Greenfield was paid $2.5M.

David Speer, CEO of Illinois Tool Works (Hobart), was paid $2.36M.

Stephen Roell, CEO of Johnson Controls was paid $7.68M

Kevin T. Kabat, CEO of Fifth Third Bancorp was paid $2.11M

David B. Dillon, CEO of Kroger was paid $2.47M

How many of the companies mentioned above have furloughed employees? How many of those employees’ jobs could have been saved if the CEO’s gave up a portion of their pay for the company they represent? Why are these people more valuable than those who serve us on a daily basis? Perhaps it is better to direct the wrath at someone other than the area public employees. Really, though, it is a lot easier to point fingers at our neighbors, isn’t it? You know where they live.

Linda Fugate, March 9, 2011: Submit Comments

Top of Page

The Politics of Fear; Where are the Boogie Men?

Guns, gun control, 2nd Amendment rights, extended clips, etc. have much been in the news lately. Also, claims that those such as Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, and Michele Bachmann are not responsible for what occurred in Tucson. Well, I agree that Palin's cross hairs are not directly responsible and I certainly don't believe any of the above wished for this violent act to take place. But words, actions, and imagery do accrue and one never knows who is listening and taking such to heart.

Watching a recent Morning Joe with Joe Scarborough I overheard a guess say that the “left” was just as responsible as the “right.” My first reaction was to ask myself the question, why do people have to paint with such broad brush strokes. There are all sorts of degrees of left and right, liberal and conservative. Most of both the left and the right are actually pretty close to the center of political spectrum and are far from being extreme or radical. They are basically moderate and wish the extremes would just shut up for a while.

Secondly, I want to know specifically who these left-wing liberals are who we are supposed to be so fearful of. Two names came to mind, Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore. While I don't know if these are on anyone's list of dangerous liberals I'll venture that they are. I'm very familiar with each man and have never heard either talk in a way that a considerate person would take as being threatening or violent in nature.

I've heard Olbermann rant and rave and throw out some pretty harsh statements but I've never heard him call for violence. Olbermann has never, ever said anything approaching the "just reload" or “Second Amendment solutions” rhetoric of Palin or Angles. 

I just recently watched Moore's film Bowling for Columbine. I have now seen all of Moore's films except the one about capitalism. Frankly, I have to take him in small doses and I don't always like his approach to film making. But, that doesn't make him wrong in his message, just his delivery. Funny that many of the most vehement detractors of Moore admit they haven't seen any of his films.

Furthermore, in the four Moore films I've now seen I've never seen Michael Moore espouse anything suggesting of violence. In fact, his message has always been one of passiveness, peace and tolerance. 

After watching Morning Joe I watched a little of that evening's Rachel Maddow's show. Just so happened her guest was Michael Moore and the topic was guns in America and the nature of the American character. Why are we so violent? Why so many gun deaths in America? Why is America the world leader in gun violence?

All of this brought to mind an advertising poster for the Glenn Beck program that Jon Stewart featured several times on his The Daily Show. I couldn't find a copy of it but it featured Beck, ala James Bond, standing along the border, his leg up against the wall, and brandishing a semi-automatic pistol in one of his hands.

What I did find was the photo I've included in this piece showing Beck holding a semi-automatic pistol in each hand. I don't know if it is a legitimate photo or one that was digitally altered. Regardless, there does exist a legitimate photo of Beck posing as if he were having a love affair with his weapon and certainly carrying a not so subliminal message extolling the virtues of being heavily armed.

It isn't any single action or message that leads the demented to violence. Instead, it is the collective messages they are exposed to in a never ending loop of such messages. The constant references to gun solutions, issuing campaign materials that brandish weapons, placing targets on the backs or faces of political leaders, placing rifle sights on “targeted” Congressional districts, showing up armed to town meetings, are but a few examples we are all aware of. Again, while no singular example can be held responsible, we simply can't argue what the collective affect may be on some in our society. It is this which prompted Arizona Senator, John McCain, to comment, "Our political discourse should be more civil than it currently is, and we all, myself included, bear some responsibility for it not being so."

To me it is clear that in whatever discussions follow the events of Tucson, we all need to keep McCain's words in mind. We also need to keep in mind that a person such as Moore, who has done nothing to suggest violence as a solution, has been used as a target to focus the attention of the impressionable. Moore has been used by the far-right as a boogie man to be fearful of. Difficult for me to see how a man who espouses peace and tolerance could be someone to be feared and loathed.

I'm still waiting for that list of current left-wing radical liberals who are contributing to the call to arms in America.

PS: Just in case you want to see the Maddow interview with Moore, here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQTNWYwLHy0 

Larry Chapman, January 19, 2011: Submit Comments

Top of Page

Censoring Mark Twain

In 1907, Mark Twain wrote: "The truth is that when a library expels a book of mine and leaves an unexpurgated Bible lying around where unprotected children and age can get hold of it, the deep unconscious irony of it delights me and doesn't anger me." That's classic Twain!

I am opposed to censorship. How dare the current censoring or Bowdlerizing of Twain's masterpiece "Huckleberry Finn" be allowed! br class="style154" />
I have never used the "N" word in my life. Even as a child, reading "Huckleberry Finn", I knew that it wasn't "right" for me to use the word, but I was worldly enough to ask questions such as "WHY?" Why would Huck use those words? Why did he act the way he did? Clearly, the answers were that it was an accurate portrayal of life at that time and place. Even as a child, I was able to grasp that the author probably didn't approve of the words and actions of some of the characters.

Did I suddenly begin using the "N" word or the derogatory term for Native Americans? Of course not.

Twain wrote: "The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter." He knew he had to use the RIGHT word because, as he wrote, it's "the difference between the lightning bug and lightning."

As a child, I did not know that "Huckleberry Finn" was banned when it was first published because Jim was treated as a "human being". The fact that I, as a child, knew that Jim was a human being and deserved to be accorded fair treatment, and because Huck gradually rejected the values he was brought up with, especially the views on slavery, and the fact that I, as a child, comprehended that, is the ultimate triumph of Mark Twain! His ability to communicate to a child in rural Ohio in the 1950s just as he had communicated when the book was published in 1884 is a testament to his masterpiece. To quote Twain, I don't want his books to be among those "which people praise and don't read."

HHemingway was right when he wrote: "All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called "Huckleberry Finn"; it's the best book we've had. All American writing comes from that. There was nothing before. There has been nothing as good since."--from "The Green Hills Of Africa (1934)

Sue Raypole, January 10, 2011: Submit Comments/a>

Top of Page

Turn Your Radio Off and Look In the Mirror

So, I'm driving down I-75, someplace in Georgia, trying to find an NPR station on my radio. NPR stations come in two flavors; those airing a steady stream of classical music and those airing a variety of informational programming. I was looking for one of the latter but all I could dial in were conservative Christian broadcast stations. Maybe that's how one knows when they've crossed into the Bible Belt, the preponderance of everything between 87.0 and 92.0 MHz involves thumping the Bible.

On one of the religious stations there was an ongoing discussion regarding the future of America. Neither of the two persons speaking seemed to have any real idea of where our nation was heading but one couldn't get off the theme that we would someday, “Ally with the anti-Christian, godless nations of Europe.” They both rambled on about Biblical references that proclaim the superiority of conservative American thinking and lifestyle at the expense of most everyone else in the world. I couldn't make myself listen to much of this mindless dribble so within a few minutes I hit the off button and lost myself in reflections about our upcoming Caribbean cruise.

Several days into the cruise I decided I needed an afternoon nap. I tuned our cabin's TV to an on-board movie channel that was featuring the Richard Attenborough movie, Gandhi. I had seen this film when it was first released in 1982 and found it fascinating. Instead of falling asleep I became caught up in the story and laid there resting while one of the great sagas of history unfolded in front of me.

Afterward I got to wondering how accurate Attenborough had told the story of Gandhi. My background in history long ago taught me that the movies often take large liberties when spinning their versions of historical events and characters.

Each evening my wife and I dined in the formal dining room and at the table next to ours was seated an Indian family. After diner I engaged in conversation with one of the men sitting at the table and ask him about the authenticity of Gandhi. He was very familiar with the film and assured me that while Attenborough did “toss in a little spice” most of the film remained true to fact.

From the film our conversation expanded to the depth and breath of Indian history, culture and religion. The man, who is a naturalized American citizen, offered that he was Hindu but assured me that he was not proselytizing. He explained that in order to be Hindu one only had to accept the presence of a God and try to live a life of goodness. There was no such thing as conversion or baptism.

I explained to him that while I had been raised a Christian I found fault with the need many Christian sects feel to proselytize their faith. Also, the apparent need to insist that only their tenets or canon can lead to a fruitful and satisfying life. We both agreed that if only every person would simply commit themselves to one of the ten-commandments the world would be an immensely better place.

I have frequently had this conversation with Christians and have just as frequently been told that to lead a life in accordance with the basic principles of the Christian Bible, while not accepting the entirety of the book, was not an acceptable lifestyle and would surely lead to damnation and the eternal fires of hell.

The openness and acceptance of this Hindu man who now makes America his home suddenly brought back the conversation I had witnessed on my radio several days earlier. Why is it that he is able to simply judge the worth of people by their works while those folks on my radio viewed others who are somehow different as being an incarnation of evil?

I did a little research on Hinduism and concluded that overall I couldn't be one. But the basic tenets include non-violence, truthfulness, friendship, compassion, fortitude, self-control, purity and generosity. I can find nothing on this list I can't support and for most of my adult life I've tried to live a life that reflects these basic principles. But, in only a few minutes time on my radio I witnessed two self-professed Christians who repeatedly violated the spirit of several. Someone needs to take a look in the mirror.

Larry Chapman, January 5, 2011: Submit Comments

Top of Page

Covering America's Insanity

Yesterday, the latest issue of Newsweek arrived in our mailbox. The front cover said all that can be said about the state of political insanity in the United States. In 1960 author Theodore H. White wrote The Making of the President. The story of John Fitzgerald Kennedy's rise to the presidency. If White were alive today, possibly his latest book would be about President Obama and would be titled, The Smearing of a Human Being.

We The People, September 1, 2010: Submit Comments

Top of Page

The Passionately Blinded Masses

For a couple of weeks now the debate in America has focused too heavily on the building of a Muslim mosque in New York City. Those who are opposed quickly gave in to the freedom of religion issue and quickly retorted with the “ it's insensitive” and “too close to ground zero” arguments.

On Facebook I been involved in several threads of conversation in which I've strongly defended the people's right to deal with their privately owned property as they see fit as long as they are within local zoning law and building codes. This, if there ever was one, is purely a power reserved for state and local governments to decide.

The president was criticized because he gave his support to the right of people of religion to build their houses of worship where they pleased. In doing so, he did not interfere in the decision in NYC and he flatly stated that he would not endorse the decision made by the authorities in that city. However, since the existence of mosques, and the resistance to them, is a national reality, it is well within the president's obligations to speak to the issue. It is imperative he remind us all of what the United States Constitution requires of “We the people.” That being, true religious tolerance.

George W. Bush reminded us of the same in the days following September 11, 2001. He cautioned us to not hold Islam accountable for what had just occurred in America. The attacks were not the work of Islam, they were the actions of a radical group of people who have a long-running and deep-seated hated of America and other western nations.

My becoming engaged in these online discussions started when a former student ask me what I thought about Obama's remarks. I responded that the whole thing should have been a non-issue. In America, we are guaranteed freedom of religion and that should be the end of it. That an Islamic group wanted to start a Mosque two blocks from, or across the street from, ground zero should be irrelevant. And, if it had been the Southern Baptist Church who had purchased the old Burlington coat factory for use as a religious center, it would have been a non-issue.

The motivation behind this debate is rooted in a deep-seated ignorance and fear of Islam. It has been my experience that most Americans who claim to be religious know very little about the tenets of whatever faith they claim to adhere to. People commonly claim to be Christians while knowing almost nothing about what Christianity is. I've known many high school juniors and seniors who claimed to be Christians but couldn't define what it was. Not even as basic as, “...those who follow the teachings of Christ.” The consistent exceptions were Roman Catholics and Mormons who deeply school their children in the basics of those religions.

Regardless of what those oppose the building of a mosque near the site of the World Trade Towers claim, there is a strong intolerance of Islam here in America and it manifests itself in some very ugly ways. Just last week a Muslim cab driver was stabbed multiple times in NYC simply because he said “yes” when asked if he was a Muslim.

Yesterday, the site of a new mosque in Tennessee was vandalized and an earth moving machine set afire. In both California and Florida fundamental Christian churches have announced upcoming gatherings for the stated purpose of burning Korans.

Recognizing the fears, intolerance and suspicion many Americans have towards Islam, politicians on the right are fanning these flames for their own gains in the coming November elections. It's been long known that American voters respond to fear and too often vote out of fear.

I have claimed on several occasions that many members of the Tea Party, a movement rooted in many fears, are the pawns of the powerful and are being played like a good angler plays a large fish he's hooked.

Newsweek magazine just ran an article in which an investigative reporter traced down the major sources of money and leadership behind the Tea Party movement and the scent trail led directly to two radically conservative billionaire brothers, the Kochs, and Dick Armey, another wealthy and long-time supporter of right-wing causes. These individuals, along with others, are engaged in a war against President Obama and are willing to employ whatever means available in their pursuit to prevent change in America.

The thing I find most interesting in this debate is the affect Ron Paul's recent support of the ground zero mosque seems to have had. Paul, up to now a Tea Party favorite, is a well known libertarian and proponent of small government, state's rights, and other causes of the right. During the latter days of August he issued a lengthy statement denouncing those opposing the construction of the NYC mosque and totally agreeing with me in that the opponents were being led down a path by the powerful for their own personal gain.

The Facebook threads I mentioned earlier had been long and at times bloody. But, when Ron Paul issued his statement and I posted it on Facebook, the posting attracted only one response, and that being in support.

It is like someone put a muzzle on the issue. Where it had been the hurricane blip that ate Florida on the radar screen of Fox Views, it is now no larger than a flea on a dog's behind. I have to admire Ron Paul for his fearless speaking to the truth. Having done so may have sealed his political fate.

But, what I'll never understand is why a dozen Ron Pauls, a thousand Constitutional lawyers, and someone as knowledgeable as President Obama can't get those passionately blinded masses on the right to understand the truth that is being spoken to them.

Larry Chapman, August 31, 2010: Submit Comments

Top of Page

Tea Party Hypocrisy

Recently I was driving around the area checking out yard sales and came across someone who I've known for well over twenty years having a sale. So, I stopped, said hello, engaged in some idle chatter, didn't find anything to purchase and began to drive away.

Along his fence, though, I noticed a number of yard signs proclaiming his support for the troops, asking for God to bless us, and telling all who passed that he was a proud member of the Tea Party. The Tea Party sign firmly stated that he and his fellow baggers stood for limited government, fiscal restraint and free markets. As I drove away from this fellow's home I got to reviewing what I have come to know about both he and his wife over the years.

First of all, when I initially met him he was only working part time and complaining then about medical problems. His spouse was working as a clerk in a local shop and probably not earning much more than minimum wage.

Later on the spouse latched onto a government job and hung in there long enough to become vested in the State Employee's Retirement System. Before this took place, however, the husband had been successful in winning a full disability claim against Social Security. He is now “totally” disabled and receiving a monthly check from good old Uncle Sam along with some pretty expensive Medicare coverage.

Last time I saw the two of them they were in his and her electric scooters, possibly purchased from the Scooter Store at government expense, traveling the aisles of a Wal-Mart store. Seems that she too pulled all the strings and leaped all the hurdles needed to, “Get a check.”

To be fair, I have no idea concerning the actual medical conditions of these two people and they may certainly be major and genuine. But, it strikes me as being more than a little hypocritical to be living off the largesse of the US and Ohio governments while loudly decrying the size of those governments and demanding fiscal responsibility.

I also noticed the number of toys gracing their driveway and lawn. Amongst them I noticed an above ground swimming pool and a large and fairly new camping trailer. Possibly that's the free market they're supporting. The ability to somehow have your monthly government Social Security checks pay for your adult playthings.

I don't really know how one explains this blatant disparity in thinking versus reality. How can someone rail against the government and not realize that they are, at the same time, almost totally dependent on the government for their monthly income, medical care and possibly food stamps and more?

It's the same thing we heard time and again during the health care debate, “Keep government out of medical care but don't touch my Medicare.” The only explanation that comes to mind at the moment has to do with the cloistered lives many of these people seem to live.

They watch the same cable TV channels, they take their cues from the same talk radio personalities, they gather with like minded people in restaurants and coffee shops where they pat each other on the back while agreeing that they have a lock on truth, they are mostly Christian and attend similar churches where they hear conservative ministers preach to the choir, and their views, positions, and values rarely see the light of confrontation, contradiction or challenge.

In all the years I taught American Government one of my main objectives was to challenge the collective and common wisdom of my students. It didn't make any difference which side of an issue I took as long as there was a debate. It is through the process of debate that one's ideas get proven and hopefully modified if they can't stand up to the assault of others.

Years ago I had one of my principle's sons in class and we engaged in some pretty heated debates. Sometime afterward I was telling his father, my boss, about our classroom debates and he was just fine with it. It made him feel good that his son had strongly held values and was able to support them when confronted with other opposing points of view.

The Tea Party isn't wrong on several of their criticisms about government in America. Government is large, government is expensive, government is often wasteful, government is often slow in reacting to our needs, some politicians are blatantly corrupt while most others operate under something I'll call, legal corruption. They willingly and legally accept large amounts of money from supporters and too often allow those contributions to sway their decisions in ways that don't best represent, “We the People.”

Where the Tea Party, goes wrong is to not take a few steps back and view their reality from outside the cloister they exist in. Like the people I described earlier the Tea Party fails to see that they, just like us all, depend on government and our lives would be drastically lessened if government was to fail. They need to consider that weak government and fiscal restraint is their cake but they can't have their cake and their Medicare too.

To me the Tea Party appears to be fueled by anger. They need to channel some of that anger into understanding the reality of their lives and the part many of them play in fostering the very things they claim to be angry about.

Larry Chapman, July 7, 2010: Submit Comments

Top of Page

 

We Have Met the Flowers and They is Us!

For some reason this year I have been especially aware of all the wild flowers and weeds which adorn our area's roadways in the spring and early summer. There are many varieties, they are all in their own way, beautiful, they are perennial and extremely tenacious.

Tiger lilies, ditch daises, trumpet vine, corn flowers, brown-eyed Susans, wild phlox, Queen Ann's lace all add to the color of the season and remind us that life returns following the harshness of winter.

All these plants are found in the most severe of environments, the ditches and berms of our roads and highways. They are subject to poor soil, sparse nutrients, exposure to chemical sprays, road salt, and much more, but each year they come bouncing back and to regain their hold on what little space we humans have allowed them.

I've never heard of a fancy flower show given over to wild flowers and weeds. There are few, if any, books on the subject of propagating ditch daisies. To the contrary, however, roses are beloved, adored, admired, cited in untold poems and other pieces of literature, referred to in popular music, have a famous football game bearing their name, and the focus of a multimillion (maybe billion) dollar annual business.

Musing over this I've concluded that there is an analogy about human life to be found here. To me these wild flowers and weeds represent the staying power, ethic, and toughness of the average American working person.

They get up each morning, brush their teeth, grab a bite, kiss the wife , hug the kids, and try to hang on to what life has allotted them until the next morning when they do it all again. Through all life's ups and downs most of them never fail to find a way to keep on keepin' on.

On the other hand, the rose, to me represents the prima donna of the flower world. The high maintenance, most catered, most emulated, most nurtured, pruned, fertilized, spayed, watered, debugged of all the floral community. The rose is at the top of the floral chain and from its height it reigns supreme and looks down upon all those small, lesser floral imitators. /p>

The problem is, after generations of all this attention, care and adulation, the rose remains a thing of beauty while having lost it's wonderful fragrance. It has reached the point that, in human terms, it believes it's stuff doesn't smell and in fact, it doesn't.

I see in this parable of the human condition that most of us are hard working individuals trying to make a place and keep hold of what little we may have. All the time, though, a few are able to gain so much more and in their quest they begin to take advantage of all who lag behind.

To me the perfect examples are those Wall Street bankers whose greed drove the nation into bankruptcy. After destroying the savings and retirement accounts of millions of Americans they patted themselves on the back and began passing out billions in bonus checks to themselves and those who had lent a hand.

The worse thing, though, is that so many Americans seem to be okay with it. We gripe about bailing out the banks but when the President or Congress attempts to reign in and regulate the abusers these same people begin issuing complaints of too much government power, we're becoming too socialists, or other familiar platitudes.

Maybe everyday Americans don't want to de-thorn the mighty rose because someday they too dream of being odor free and having a bowl game named after them.

Larry Chapman, July 2, 2010: Submit Comments

Top of Page

"Obama Hasn't done Anything"

There is, and never has been, a shortage of those who spew forth political slogans, jargon, jingoism, and distributed talking points. Typically, those who engage in such are unable to discuss the complexities of the subject at issue beyond the aforementioned.

Such happened over the weekend when an acquaintance loudly proclaimed that, regarding the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, “Obama hasn't done anything.” This person didn't say it just once and let it ride, they restated it several times and accompanied each with a supporting statement that provided no real evidence that their claim was valid. Their supporting evidence was nothing more than a copied statement of some other clown saying the same thing.

While the facts regarding the immensity of the gulf spill and the response of both BP and the US Government may be in short supply, claims that the Obama Administration was slow to react or has “done nothing” simply can't be supported.

Don't forget that beyond the news regarding the loss of life, other details about the enormity of the spill either wasn't known or was downplayed by BP. After all, it was BP and not the government who owned and operated the well and it was they who were the holder of whatever truth was known. Those Coast Guard officials were just reporting the situation as related to them by BP.

This has, from day one, been an unfolding tragic saga and even today further truths will probably be revealed. Who knows when the whole story will or can be told. It certainly isn't over and the truth certainly hasn't been determined. A couple of simple truths do exists, however.

First, both BP and their partner in crime, the Mineral Management Service, are greatly at fault. You can place all this on whose shoulder you wish but it's obvious that both were complicit in the root causes of this disaster.

Secondly, the philosophy of government deregulation has been proven to be a disaster of its own. We merely need to look at what has happened in America's housing industry, its financial institutions, and the wild ride the stock market has taken us on. Couple that with the millions of barrels of “deregulated” oil fouling one of the nation's most beautiful and important shorelines and it becomes obvious that we need a return to making corporations responsible for taking the correct, rather than most profitable, actions.

Lastly, we the American energy consumer bare a big chunk of responsibility. It is our “addiction to oil” that is the driving motivation behind dangerously drilling in deep and dangerous waters. It is our lifestyle choice to insist on the private automobile rather than mass transportation that fuels the cry, “drill baby drill!” There are lots of places to point our finger but one of them is at the nose we see every time we look into the mirror.

Now, back to Obama doing nothing. Everything I have mentioned is subject to debate and difference of opinion. We can question whether the president should have played golf over the Memorial Day weekend. We can question how much the government relied on information from BP. You can disagree with Obama demanding BP create a $20 billion relief fund. There are tons of things you can discuss, debate, and disagree with.

But, only an idiot can say Obama is “doing nothing.” There are over twenty-five thousand federal employees working on the problem, thousands more Coast Guard members, thousands of state and private experts, and tens of thousands of oil industry workers both on land and at sea working to stop the leak and gather the spreading oil. Additionally, close to six thousand surface vessels are working the gulf in a capping or recovery role and the president has authorized the use of seventeen thousand National Guard troops if the states chose to use them. The president and his staff have also insisted, and successfully so far, that BP be held responsible for paying the entire cost of the recovery.

When the World Trade Centers were destroyed in 2001 the vast majority of Americans, regardless of party, ethnic background, religion, sexual preference, etc., rushed to the side of George Bush and gave him their support in this moment of tragedy. As 9/11 unfolded we began to debate how to deal with those responsible but most stood with the president. It was not until the invasion of Iraq that this support began to rapidly weaken.

It would certainly be refreshing to see the nation rally around President Obama as they did on 9/11. Unlike then, however, today there appears to be an unlimited supply of those whose motivations are driven by factors far removed from truth and reason. On the surface, the over riding slick seems to be a dislike of the man, that too often borders on hatred, regardless of his accomplishments and efforts. Too many Americans are driven by selfish desire fueled by ideological blindness.

Larry Chapman, June 23, 2010: Submit Comments

Share this page with others.

Top of Page

Deregulation; Bah Humbug!

Deregulation as we know it today began in the early 1980s with the election of Ronald Reagan. The philosophy though, is rooted in the fundamentals that divide the political left and right regarding how much control should government, especially the federal government, have over business.

Particularly since the Great Depression the Democrats have argued that big business cannot be trusted to make profit driven decisions that may adversely affect the people at large. Government has a fundamental role in seeing that profit doesn't get in the way of prudence. Government is the only institution in our society that has the power to be the umpire.

Contrary to this, the Republicans have argued that the free-market should make the decisions and the rules of market will dictate that big business make the correct decisions because to do otherwise would be counter to their interest. There is this huge, but oft proven incorrect, presumption that profit will somehow never get in the way of ethics and morality.

Republicans are basically distrusting of government's ability and for thirty-years now have strongly touted that government is a failure and is the root of most of our problems. Most are familiar with Reagan's famous statement, “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

Well, here we are, thirty-years later and during that time we have witnessed a great deal of deregulation. There is hardly an industry or economic institution in American that is not freer of government regulation than it was in 1980. The question is now, what has it gotten us?

To begin, it has gotten us even larger, wealthier and more powerful corporations that threaten to destroy the basic democratic principles we have enjoyed for over two-hundred years. Over a hundred-years ago it was decided that huge companies and monopolies were not in the people's interest. And, beginning with Theodore Roosevelt, the legislatures and courts began to regulate and control corporate growth and influence.

Competition is supposed to be a fundamental benefit of free-market economics. Free-markets are supposed to increase competition with the consumer being the beneficiary of better products at lower costs. To the contrary, unregulated markets have gotten us a concentration of manufacture along with huge centralization in the retail segment of the economy. The big box stores have driven mom and pop to their graves and while they fight each other for our dollar, their numbers continue to get smaller. For example, Best Buy no longer has to compete against Circuit City or CompUSA and Wal-Mart continues to do a number on K-Mart.

With the collapse of the stock market and banking system in the 1930s, government stepped in and created agencies, laws and regulations whose purpose was to either prevent or lessen the affects of future economic downturns.

Beginning with Reagan and continuing well into the G.W. Bush era these protections were either deemed null and void, no longer necessary, or simply ignored. Much of the financial collapse of the past few years is directly attributable to taking the reins of government control from the mouths of the horses of finance.

Early in the Reagan years the airline industry was deregulated and the air-traffic controller's union destroyed. The result, planes began falling from the skies. While planes are safer today and crashes less frequent, when they do occur it is too often because of the failure of the airline to put safety before profit.

I'm sure there are examples of good things coming from deregulation. Following the break up of Bell Telephone there occurred a revolutions in communication technology along with new options that the Bell monopoly didn't provide.

However, if one looks at the major disasters we Americans have had to face in the past several years, it is not difficult to see the unclenched hand of deregulation at work. The stock market, housing bubble, and bank bailout debacles are the direct consequence of government turning a blind eye toward the financial industry and permitting it to become as greedy as it wished.

The collapse of Enron is but another example of a huge corporation running under its own rules and in the end crash landing and wiping out the futures of a lot of innocent victims.

In the workplace the rising number of job related injuries is directly related to the decline of the budget and power of OSHA. The steadily diminishing wage average in America is in proportion to the continued failure of recent governments to enforce worker rights laws and give the National Labor Relations Board some true grit.

Regarding the workplace, Americans have witnessed a tremendous erosion of the number of jobs in the past thirty-years as corporations have shipped millions of jobs overseas. The treasury of the United States also loses approximately sixty-billion dollars each year in lost taxes because American companies are legally permitted to transfer their profits to offshore nations. Both realities are the consequence of deregulation and governmental policies that favor the maximization of corporate profits.

The fundamental mantra taught in American MBA programs is that the number one responsibility of corporate America is to its shareholders. Simply put that means that profit/dividends come before anything else. Unfortunately, that too often includes the safety and well being of the tax paying public.

The failure of the EPA and other government regulatory agencies has helped permit such things as lethal refinery fires in Texas, leaking pipelines in Alaska, coal mine explosions in West Virginia, a major coal ash disaster in Tennessee and now the horrible nightmare that is unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico.

I don't have enough time or energy to compile a list of disasters and other calamities that have befallen us in the past thirty-years. But, if I did my gut reaction is to believe that the majority of the really bad things that have happened would have as their root cause, deregulation. This isn't just “shit happening.” Most of these failures are man made because man has somehow decided that profit is a better indicator of reasonableness than reason is.

We need to hang up all this rhetorical nonsense about government regulation equaling socialism and come to realize that ours is, and always has bee, a mixed economy. One that includes both the tenets of capitalism while at the same time giving government the role of oversight. Ironically, another of Reagan's famous statements aptly fits here, “Trust, but verify.” I'm taking this to mean that we should permit free-market capitalism to have its way while at the same time insist that government keep a keen watch over its shoulder.

Larry Chapman, May 18, 2010: Submit Comments

Share this page with others.

Top of Page

The Economy; Try Gettin' Real!

Just a few thoughts about the economy in response to comments I read this morning on Facebook.

First of all, President Obama, nor anyone else, has ever said that the second most serious economic slump in American History was going to be easy or quick to recover from. Every time Obama has spoken about the issue he has tempered his remarks with a realistic caution that we aren't out of the woods yet.

Additionally, every economist worth his/her salt has stated that jobs are always the last thing to return following a recession. Given that, what are so many Americans so angry that jobs haven't miraculously reappeared overnight?

There doesn't seem to be any shortage of those who chose to ignore signs the stimulus bill is having a positive effect and recovery is occurring at a slow pace. While the naysayers on Facebook and cable commentary for entertainment value programs continue to rant about the evils of big government and financial bailout, recovery slowly marches on.

A friend who is familiar with Northern Ohio told me that GM Lordstown has added a new shift, there is a strong rumor that Johnson Controls is coming back to Greenfield and I spoke to a fellow coming out of Lowes' yesterday who was wearing a uniform from American Showa in Blanchester. He told me that their orders are up, they have added a new shift on a pump line, and are hiring new workers.

The nightly news tells me that the Dow-Jones is steadily getting higher, the number of new hires is increasing, temporary job agencies are getting orders, those seeking unemployment for the first time is decreasing, sales of existing housing is up along with new house starts.

Ford is rapidly becoming the leader in the automobile industry, GM has paid back, early and with interest, a substantial part of its debt to America, and those crooked bastards in the banking business have even paid back some of the TARP money that kept them afloat through the worst of it all.

Exports of American grain are increasing, orders for manufactured goods are up, major box stores are reporting increasing profits, the economic rate of expansion is way up compared to what it was 2 years ago, semi rigs that have set idle for months are back on the highways, American's have paid down their personal debt as well as returned to trying to save a little.

All these things and many more are plus signs that we are on the way back but Americans don't seem to be able to accept anything other than instant gratification. What we need to do is get real and pay some attention to what is slowly happening while ignoring all the bullshit that is thrown at us for political and ideological purposes on cable TV, and accept that it may never again be as good as it once was.

And, that isn't all bad. Maybe we need to all adjust our lifestyles in ways that don't make us a vulnerable as we became in the past three decades. American's were spending nearly 30% more than they made and saving next to nothing. For years we lived on the ragged edge of financial failure while being just a couple of pay checks away from ruin.

Possibly we would all be better off if we decided our children don't really need dance lessons, IPods, straight teeth and their own cell phones with unlimited texting plans. Maybe we could get along without $40,000 bass boats and $50,000 pick up trucks to haul them around with. It's just possible that we could live happy, productive and meaningful lives in 2,000 square foot homes instead of 6,000 square foot McMansions we'll never live long enough to pay off.

Instead of bitching about the realities we have chosen to ignore, we might possibly take a little time to consider or reflect on how we can prevent the same from taking place again. For all you who long for the "good old days" don't forget that those days were not the "live off a dozen credit cards days" that we have found ourselves today. In the "good old days" people lived within their means and socked some away for the rainy day they knew would surely arrive.

In my own case, I've honed down my absolute needs to just three things; my family, satellite TV with a DVR, and Mary Jane Parker's raisin pie once every couple of months.

Larry Chapman, May 14, 2010: Submit Comments

Share this page with others.

Top of Page

BP...Beyond Pissed

Back in the 70s I usually purchased my gasoline, etc. from Winston Price's Sohio Station. As you may know, Sohio was once John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company but was spun off when the giant monopolies were broken up in the early 20^th century.

We made most of our purchases using our Sohio credit card and when Sohio was bought out by British Petroleum (BP) our card was automatically converted to BP and we continued doing business with them.

All was well with the world until we had an infestation of fleas and my wife saw an advertisement that came in our BP bill for a flea trap. For $49 it promised to rid our home of these tiny little circus animals.

So, the purchase was made, the fleas trapped, and when the next credit card bill arrived from BP, the check was written and mailed.

Some time later, however, we received notice from BP that we hadn't paid for the trap. We promptly mailed them a copy of the canceled check and assumed that would be the end of it.

Not to be, these were the early days of doing business using computers and it seemed that once information had been fed into these giant machines it was impossible to change it. Either BP didn't know how to update the information on their IBM mainframe monster or nobody was willing to take the time.

Whichever, we continued to get letters from BP for months warning us about this debt and each time we would call their phone number and inform whoever answered that the bill had been paid and a copy of the canceled check had been submitted.

BP finally sold our account to a collection agency and literally for years we continued to get threatening letters and phone calls regarding this $49 debt owed. Long before this, however, we had shredded our credit cards and mailed the pieces to BP along with a blunt note containing instructions on what to do with the sharp edged little card shards.

For over thirty years now I have pretty much refused to walk into a BP station and would only do so for two reasons. First, I would have to be out of gasoline and they would have to be the only station within walking distance that was open. Secondly, I would have to urinate so bad it was my only option...and even then, I would not lift the seat lid and would aim for the floor.

The whole point of telling you this is to be able to say that in my eyes BP has done nothing to vindicate itself. To the contrary, over the years they have been responsible for a number of major oil spills, busted pipelines, refinery explosions, and drilling accidents.

BP is the world's fourth largest corporation but on two different occasions has been voted by Mother Jones Magazine to be among the world's top ten worst companies in regards to environmental and human rights records.

In 1991 the EPA cited BP as the most polluting company in America based on its release of toxic elements into the American environment. Thus, in the last twenty years, BP has paid tens of millions of dollars in fines. Many of these fines have been for “willful” violations of both state and federal laws. There is much evidence to justify the statement that BP's business policy includes the concept that it is cheaper to pay the fine then to obey the law.

So, this brings us to April 20, 2010 when a BP owned drilling rig blows up in the Gulf of Mexico and three weeks later we are witness to what is certainly to become the greatest environmental disaster in America's history, if not the world's.

Today, I pick up the paper and a leading headline reads, “Oil spill testimony to Congress: Not our fault.” There are essentially three companies involved in this calamity, BP (who owns the well), Transocean (who was hired to drill the well), and Halliburton (who encased the wellhead in concrete to secure it) and all are doing their best to deny fault.

To make things worse, in other offshore drilling areas of the world, such as the North Sea, oil companies are required to include “acoustic shutoff valves” that provide yet another layer of safety. These devices cost $500,000 but the Bush Administration decided to no longer require them on American wells. In the rush to deregulate the Bushites decided that BP would be its own best sheriff.

Well, voila fish 'n chips, here we are facing economic and environmental disaster for the savings of half a million dollars in costs. All at the same moment that BP just reported record first quarter profits running into the billions.

I wonder if I would be this pissed if we hadn't bought that damned flea trap thirty years ago?

Footnote: The executives mentioned above reminded me of a cartoon titled "Who" by the great political cartoonist Thomas Nast. I've add a copy of the drawing to this article.

Larry Chapman, May 11, 2010: Submit Comment

Share this page with others.

Top of Page

 

Immigration Reality; It's Economics Stupid!

There is nothing simple about immigration in America. We are certainly a "Nation of Immigrants" and we can all trace our ancestries back to someplace else. Even Native Americans immigrated here from Asia.

Historians, economists, and sociologist agree that our immigrant history has helped make us the strong nation we have become and most will agree that to stop immigration would be at our present and future detriment.

Ours is a "free market" economy and it is driven by the basic economic laws of supply and demand. If there is a need for cheap labor the supply will appear. If there is a hunger for drugs, drugs will appear.

Of course, both of these things exists, American businesses are addicted to cheap labor and Americans have a huge taste for drugs. The supply is being provided from south of our border and we have lost control of it.

Which brings me to the current law in Arizona. Those who support the law state that they were somehow forced into taking action because of the federal government's failure to pass a comprehensive immigration policy. And, they are correct...the feds have not picked up the ball on what is Constitutionally their responsibility.

However, what Arizona has done doesn't address the root causes of their problem and worse, it weakens the Constitutional rights of all those Latinos who are here legally and those who are legitimate citizens of the United States. I am a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights and agree with whatever Supreme Court Justice said it was better that a hundred guilty go free than one innocent go to prison.

It is claimed that the Arizona border region is fraught with crime and implied that most of the 400,000 plus illegals  in the state are criminals. Certainly there is drug related violence along the Arizona border but that doesn't involve most illegals. Most illegals are hard working honest people who are lured here by the promise of jobs and the need to feed their children.

If you want to do something about the criminal element you don't need to pass any legislation that attacks the rights of the people. All you need to do is provide the funding to enforce the laws that already exist.

If you want to slow down the rate of illegal migration into America require growers to pay wages and benefits substantial enough to attract regular old American citizens and then be willing to pay more for your next chef salad.

There are many examples in our nation's history that prove legislation isn't always the answer to problems associated with free market economic law. Changing the Constitution in the early 20th Century didn't stop people from drinking, creating a list of controlled substances hasn't done away with addiction, legislating against the use of marijuana hasn't reduced the number of pot heads in America, etc.

The problems associated with illegal immigration may only be solved when our society decides that our wage-benefits schedule should be high enough that Americans are willing to go into the fields and bend over at the waist. Financial incentive is also a part of Economics 101.

Larry Chapman, May 3, 2010: Submit Comments

Top of Page

 

Ain't it Ironic?

There is a series running on cable TV about the history of st1:country-region w:st="on">America/st1:place>. I believe it is on the History Channel and is titled America; the History of Us. This week, while watching the first episode about the Revolutionary War, I was reintroduced to the character Baron Friedrich von Steuben, a Prussian officer who made major contributions to the American cause.

While serving with Washington he was given the task of teaching the Continental Army basic military tactics and discipline during their encampment at Valley Forge. It was his training techniques that are credited with enabling the American forces to eventually win their victory over England. 

He played further roles as a leader of troops and was one of those responsible for the successful siege at Yorktown, VA which resulted in the surrender of Cornwallis and the defeat of the British.  

This guy played no small part in the birth of this nation and following the war he was awarded a land grant and a small pension. His name has become a part of America’s and Ohio’s geography with the naming of Steubenville, NY and Steubenville, OH, which began life as Fort Steuben.  

The baron came to America because of not being able to find a military position in the many armies of Europe. It was reputed that he had homosexual tendencies. Though this was never proven the rumor had tainted his reputation in Europe so he struck out for the “New World.” 

So, here sits America two and a quarter centuries later, the symbol of liberty and democracy in the eyes of us and much of the world, owing our gratitude to a man who even in today’s America, would be denied his basic Constitutional rights because of his alleged sexual preferences.  

How ironic and indefensible is that?

Larry Chapman, April 28, 2010: Submit Comments

Top of Page

John Stewart; In Dodd we Trust

There's been no shortage of explanations and blame pointing regarding our recent and current economic troubles. Few, if any, have been easy to understand. However, the best explanation I've observed thus far came from none other than John Stewart of The Daily Show.

What the pundits and economists haven't been able to explain in a manner that the general public can understand, the comedian has. In my opinion, after having watched this video clip, you can't understand how the people of America have been shafted by the Wall Street "fat cats" you have been spending too much time in Foxatopia. The URL is:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-16-2010/in-dodd-we-trust

  The Daily Show, March 16, 2010: Submit Comments

Top of Page

Medical Bills; I'll Bet You Have Experienced This!

For most of the past decade I’ve been sleeping with a CPAP machine to ward off the affects of sleep apnea. The machine was purchased from a supplier in Washington CH because of its proximity to where I reside. For several years obtaining replacement supplies was as simple as calling or dropping by their facility in WCH and getting what I needed. It was a good deal, quick service coupled with friendly faces that recognized yours and remembered what system you were using and what supplies you required.  

Later, that company was purchased by a larger company and a decision was made to stock all sleep apnea equipment at a central warehouse on the KY-TN border. Suddenly, I was being forced to communicate via telephone with people I didn’t know and who didn’t know me. It took several mistakes until I finally began receiving the correct replacement materials. CPAP equipment isn’t one size fits all and if you don’t have exactly what you need there isn’t much room for compromise.  

At first “sleep central” would call me every couple of months and ask what I was in need of. Then they unilaterally decided to periodically send me whatever my insurance company would cover, regardless of whether I needed it or not. So, about every three months I get a care package containing mostly things that don’t need being replaced. I have a drawer in my bedroom brimming over with unneeded nasal pillows, Velcro strips, filters, tubes, humidifier cartridges, etc.  

I’ve tried calling the company but only get synthesized voices telling me that all agents are busy and that my business is very important to them. Then, after listening to their message for several minutes I’m told I’m being transferred to an agent which turns out to be yet another non-human voice telling me to leave a message along with my phone number and someone will be in touch. I’m still waiting for that return call.  

Today, I get a bill for the last batch and my insurance company has refused to pay a large portion of it because the supplier is “out of network.” It is the same supplier but they are apparently now billing under the name of the parent company and that name is not on the “we like you” list.  

As I’m writing this I have been awake five hours and on the phone a significant portion of that time with various talking computers of the apnea supplier and my health insurance company and still haven’t spoken to that exact person who can resubmit the bill under the correct company name and get the insurance company to pay what is their responsibility.  

Like many of you, I don’t like this part of the world I now find myself living in. I want a place on Main Street called “Joe’s CPAP Supply and Hot Plate Shop” and having a motto that reads, “Meeting your exact breathing needs since God created oxygen.” I want to have had at least one of Joe’s children in class and to still remember how much I liked Joe’s granddad when I was a kid. And, I want Joe to recognize me when I walk through his door and know exactly what it is that I’ll be asking for.  

I also want to be able to charge to my insurance company only those items that I truly do require. I don’t want a bag of twelve nasal pillows when two would do just fine. And I don’t want my insurance company, my wife’s employer or my wife’s share of the premium paying for things that aren’t absolutely needed. 

One of the questions I had for our insurer was, “Can I purchase these supplies from a local pharmacy?” I figured I could get one of our local pharmacies to keep in stock a few of the items I typically need and it would be a win-win for everyone. Well, unlike the Wright brothers my little home-made airplane didn’t get off the ground. Both locally owned pharmacies are not in the network for providing such supplies. Thus, if I purchased outside the network, a different deductible would apply and my cost would be significantly higher. Instead I was told that they (the insurance company) prefer that I do business with a certain nation-wide company they have a contract with.  

Immediately the bias kicked in and I perceived this statement as meaning, “We do business with this big corporation, which we possibly own shares in, because they cut us a discount which reduces our cost and increases our bottom-line. No, we don’t pass along these savings to those who pay the premiums; we’re only interested in maximizing our profits.”  

This is the replacement nasal pillow my CPAP requires and they rarely wear out. They do require frequent cleaning and I usually pack a spare set incase something goes wrong while I'm away from home. Do these things look like they should cost $39.00? And, should my insurance company be paying for a couple dozen pair each year? I don't think so but it doesn't seem to bother the company.

There are several things here that anger me. First is the question, in how many ways is all of this contributing to the ever spiraling cost of health care in America/st1:place>? And secondly, by what percentage would the unemployment rate be reduced if we actually got to talk to real people rather than synthesized computer voices. Big is not always better, nor is technology always our friend.  

Is it just me? 

PS: As a postscript consider this. I did a little research regarding the price my insurance company was being billed and what these identical items could be purchased for online. Check this chart out and then try to convince me that insurance companies are being run efficiently and aren’t contributing to the rapid increase in the cost of medical care in America:& 

Item	Billed Cost	Online Cost
Paper air filter	6 pk. $40.33	6 pk. 13.95
Nasal pillows	1 pair $39.00	1 pair $19.95
6’ air hose	$49.22	$9.95

 

Larry Chapman/strong>, February 24, 2010: Submit Comments

Top of Page

Teenagers and Retires; What's in Their Futures?

Years ago I was reading a book on social history and discovered that the concept of teenage hood didn’t exist until sometime following World War One. Most people till then just acknowledged two kinds of people; children and adults.

The definition of adult was simply being big enough and strong enough to take on the chores and responsibility of those older than you. Boys became men when they could earn a living in the nation’s fields and factories. Girls became women when they reached puberty and were able to conceive.

That there should be a third phase of life didn’t come into existence until it was decided child labor laws were too lax and compulsory education was more important to the nation than leaving sixth grade for the assembly line. So, laws were passed, attitudes altered, schools built, and children entered into a new realm of existence, the teenage years.

Society created a new class of which little was expected other than going to school, worrying about acne, conforming to the demands of their peers, being overwrought with angst, and hopefully being someday able to achieve more in life then their parents had.

At the other end of the yard stick I recently read that the concept of retirement didn’t exist until the industrial revolution took hold in America. When most people were engaged in farming, small business or some skilled trade there was little need to consider not working. Even the oldest could be relied on to contribute something to the family’s well being. An old shoemaker may not be able to drive a nail but his head was full of enough knowledge to train an apprentice to keep him in business and able to support himself.

However, when people left the farm and went to the factory the new laws of mass production came into play. Mass producing goods required that quotas be both established and met. Older workers often found it difficult to maintain the pace of the assembly line and became an impediment to production. Thus, something had to be done with them.

That something, if the worker were lucky, was to “pension” them out. To retire them from working to live the remainder of their lives on a small “old age pension” check. It was kind of a win-win for the employer, they got rid of slower employees and because the typical retiree didn’t live too long after retirement, it didn’t cost that much. It also gave them the appearance of being socially responsible.

 Large numbers of older workers were just simply “let go” with little to no regard given to how they would make ends meet. It wasn’t until the advent of Social Security in the 1930s that working class Americans attained any degree of financial security when it was their time to be let go.

Over the past century our economy has been strong enough to permit the expansion of both the teenage and retiree classes. Mandatory education has been expanded to include the twelfth grade and ample opportunity exists for the teen years to flow into the twenties as more young people opt for a college education.

The concept of retirement has become universal in America and over the decades the age of retirement has generally come down. In the last thirty years increased numbers of Americans have retired early, cashed in their real estate, bought into retirement communities and, living off their 401k accounts, are enjoying very active lifestyles into very advances ages.

Today the question is can this be sustained? With the explosion of the housing bubble, the implosion of the economy, the outsourcing of jobs, the high degree of personal debt, the serious questions regarding the sustainability of Social Security and Medicare, where will today’s working age adults find themselves as the society and economy continues to evolve?

Larry Chapman, February 12, 2010, Submit a Comment

Top of Page

One More Plea for Health Care Rationality

For nearly a year now the debate over health care reform in America has raged. I can't recall another issue in my life that has resulted in so much emotional response coupled with so much vitriol. The president has been called everything from a Nazi to the reaper of death for America's elderly.

It seems that no degree of studied information seems to make any difference to those who have bought into the "don't touch my Medicare" arguments of the right.

However, I'm going to give it one more attempt. I just came across this chart from the latest edition of National Geographic Magazine dealing with the life expectancy of nations who have universal government health care systems vs. two of those who don't.

Please study the statistics and note that the US annually spends over $7,000 per capita and the life expectancy is 78. On the other hand, Mexico, who also does not have a universal public health care system, only spends a little over $800. Yet, the life expectancy in Mexico is only about three years less than America's.

You may also note that New Zealand, with its universal health care system only spends $2,500 per capita but ranks at the top in life expectancy, almost 83.

So, I'm left asking the same questions I've been asking during this "great debate." How is the American fee based system defensible? How can any American citizen who relies on insurance for health care argue that our system is the best? And, please bare in mind, we are not talking about the quality of care or degree of medical technology. We are talking about the cost of care and who can and cannot afford to obtain it.  

We may have the best doctors, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, etc. in the world but if you have large numbers of your citizens unable to obtain it, your life expectancy numbers head South!

Larry Chapman, February 8, 2010, Submit a Comment

Top of Page

Hershey Bars, Toilet Paper and Inflation

Years ago a teaching colleague, Travis Turvey, brought a box of frozen Hershey chocolate bars to school to use as a teaching tool in his consumer education class. What he wanted to demonstrate was how the purchasing power of our money changes with time and circumstance.  Turvey, for whatever reason, had purchased this box of candy a decade earlier and kept it in his freezer. Compared to the size of a contemporary Hershey bar these were huge. Not only were the newer bars much smaller, they also cost more.   It was a great presentation and one I could personally relate to. When I was a kid a Hershey bar cost a nickel and was large enough that eating two at the same time was certain to give you a stomach ache.   Of course, as we all know, Hershey bars cost more than a nickel today. In a typical convenience store you’d be lucky to find one for much less than a dollar and it would only contain enough chocolate delight to merely tickle your desire for another one.   As we have aged we all have experienced the ever increasing cost of what we consume and the ever decreasing quantity of what we receive in exchange for our dollar. If you’ve ever looked at the grocery ads in a thirty-year old newspaper these facts have slapped you in the face and caused one of those, “man, those were the days” moments.   Certainly manufacturers and food processors are aware of these realities and are just as aware that we too know and that we don’t like seeing it take place. So, they go to great lengths to hide or soften the blow, hoping we won’t notice.   Have you looked at a one-pound can of coffee in recent years? Well, “a pound is a pound the world around” no longer holds true. Today a pound of coffee is fourteen ounces. I recently noticed that a one-pound cup of margarine now contains fifteen ounces and if these trends continue it may one day be necessary to change the name of the Hostess Twinkie to the Hostess Shrinkie.   What brought this whole subject to mind was the recent realization that our toilet paper rolls no longer fit the spindle of our bathroom dispenser…they are too narrow. We haven’t changed brands and the price hasn’t come down. But, the damned roll has gotten skinny.   Those good folks at Quilted Northern Tissue have very subtly gotten into my wallet again. I say again because I’m sure that when they, several years ago, started labeling their product as a “double roll” we really received twice the cleansing power. Somewhere in the “newspeak” we got shafted.   If you’re not familiar with the term newspeak it is very apropos for this article. In George Orwell’s novel 1984 the government (Big Brother) spoke to the people in a jargon that was meant to convince them that big was small and black was white.   The most fitting example, to me, is the government’s statement regarding changes in the upcoming ration of chocolate. Working in Big Brother’s propaganda ministry it was the main character’s job to explain that the coming chocolate ration was going to be increased from 30% to 25%. Me thinks Big Brother just bit us on the behind! 

And now, for those of you who aren’t squeamish, here’s a little TP factorial information I came across on the Internet:   A random survey of 100 plus people yielded the following…The average tear is 5.90 sheets of TP. 44% wipe from front to back from behind their backs. 60% look at the paper after they wipe. 42% folds, 33% crumple, 8% do both fold and crumple, 6% wrap it around their hands. 50% say that they have wiped with leaves. 8% have wiped with their hands. 2% have wiped with money! 

Larry Chapman, December 21, 2009, Submit a Comment

Top of Page

  

A Brief, Yet Still Confusing, History of America's Political Parties

Originally published in January, 2006 in the Times-Gazette newspaper

Rory Ryan recently wrote that someone had told him he (Ryan) was the nearest to being a fascist he’d ever known. Personally, I would never say such a thing about Rory but I have, at times, thought his political views got real close to the right edge of what I’m sure he still believes to be a flat earth.  

When reading Ryan’s weekly columns I employ the “Ryan rule”. Assuming his typical column is a thousand words in length, I will read the first one hundred words. If, during that, he doesn’t step over the edge, I will finish the column whether I agree or not.  

Now, don’t get me wrong, most of the time I enjoy his columns and even sometimes agree with him. He, like the old Hog Farmer, ain’t always wrong!  

I recently received an email from a reader thanking me for my column on conservative-liberal points of view (December, 2004) and stating that it should be required reading in our schools. While I thank that person for the compliment I have to say that it is required reading. Those same ideas are found inside every mostly unopened American Government textbook that ever languished in a mold-infested high school senior’s locker. Apparently, too many students opt for an “F” on that test.  

This brings me back to one of Rory Ryan ’s recent columns. In the December 2, 2005 column Ryan spent a little time discoursing on the common background of the two major political parties and how each has it share of zealots. While I’ve already ranted enough in the past on extremists I would like to offer some additional information to what Rory said about party history.  

First of all, political parties weren’t supposed to happen. They are not mentioned in either the Articles of Confederation or the US Constitution. George Washington so disliked and feared the inception of political parties in America that he devoted up to two-thirds of his farewell address discussing domestic policies and the rise of political parties.  

Ironically, it was the debate over ratification of the Constitution that instigated the birth of parties. The question was, “What kind of a nation will America become and who will wield power?” Those who supported the Constitution, the Federalist, believed in a strong national government with centralized political authority. Those opposed, the Anti-Federalists, supported a weaker national government with political authority more in the hands of state and local government. Out of this initial division evolved today’s two-party system.  

What has happened in the two-hundred plus years since is that party names have changed, some basic ideas have flip-flopped, and the whole thing has gotten a little more than confusing.  

Today’s Democrats trace their founding back to Jefferson . However, Jefferson was a member of what, back then, was commonly referred to as the Republican Party. Jefferson and his crowd believed in a weak central government, state’s rights and faith in the common man (democracy).  

The Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, believed in a strong centralized national government and political power vested in the hands of a ruling class (aristocracy). What we know as today’s Republican Party didn’t exist yet. 

Jumping forward to the 1820s, several things had begun to change. First, the Federalist, as a party, disappeared and secondly, political thought evolved and realigned. Under Jackson the party of Jefferson became the Democrats and retained their belief of a limited federal government with increased inclusion of the common man. Jackson became famous for opening the doors of the White House to anyone to just walk on in.  

Today’s Republican Party evolved from a melding of the old Whig and Free-Soiler parties and believing that the government should permit free settlement of western lands and that slavery should be abolished. ByLincoln ’s time the Republicans had come to believe in federal supremacy over state’s rights while southern Democrats strongly preached state’s rights and nullification.  

Now, if you’re not totally confused yet, take no comfort, everything is about to flip. By the late 1800s the Republicans had become the darlings of the well-heeled, but they also worked to win Constitutional rights for former slaves and voting rights for women. If they had kept it up they might have even gone so far as to fight for gay rights and got an Equal Rights Amendment passed way back when!  

The Dems, in the meanwhile, were busy fightin’ for the rights of the common man, speakin’ out for state’s rights, and getting federal troops out of the South so white folks could do as they pleased!     

If the Ryan Rule didn’t kick in several thousand words ago you may have noticed that the two parties don’t, in several ways, fit the typical descriptions we are familiar with today. The Dems sound more like Pubs and the Pubs more like Dems. That’s because both parties have done some more flip-flopping since the late 1800s.  

Throughout the first seventy years of the twentieth century the Democrats continued to become more pro labor, pro farmer, pro working class and anti big business. It also flopped, beginning with F.D.R., and became the party of big government and strong centralized power. Since the 1930s it has become the party of social change and inclusion, as it reached out to blacks, immigrants, and the poor.  

The Republicans have remained the party of big business but they have abandoned the cause of social change in favor of preserving the status quo. Additionally, they lost the black vote after enlisting the Dixiecrats and embracing the white southern voter. They again flopped by adopting the old Democratic position of state’s rights and weaker central government.  

To many, the parties today are once again experiencing change. The Republicans are working hard to be more inclusive as they attempt reaching out to minority voters. Given the massive deficits of the Reagan and current Bush administrations they may also be evolving into the party of fiscal irresponsibility, a moniker the Democrats were long been branded with.  

By now I’m getting as tired of writing this column as you must be of reading it. So, permit me to abruptly finish by saying that I hope you have concluded that the important issues have remained pretty constant throughout our history and in vying for our votes the positions of the two major political parties is always shifting. What is considered liberal today may be seen as conservative tomorrow. Given that, my greatest fear is that I’ll live long enough that someday a reader will tell me that I’m the nearest thing to a fascist they’ve ever known. 

FOLLOWUP:  After rereading this column I had a couple thoughts.  

First, the Republican Party is imploding and appears to be suffering from a moderate and inclusive leadership vacuum. As to air filling a vacuum, the far right is grabbing control of what remains and taking the party further away from social reform and inclusiveness. The very loud and vocal mouthpieces of what remains of the GOP (recent polls indicate only 20% of registered voters claim membership in the party) have entrenched themselves behind the mantra of, "you're either with us or against us." How the continued evolution of political parties in America will unfold is very much cloudy at best.  

Secondly, I may have lived too long. Given the political rhetoric and insanity of the summer of 2009, according to Glen Beck and others, I as a Democrat, can now consider myself a fascist. Somehow it is now possible to be, at the same time and in the same brain, a liberal, a communist, a socialist, a fascist and a Nazi.  

All this has happened in the three short years since I originally wrote this column. The question now is, how long must I wait before I can be all the above plus also be labeled a conservative Republican?   

Larry Chapman, October 27, 2009, Submit a Comment 

Top of Page

 

Website designed by Fall Creek Communications

 

© Copyrighted content, all rights reserved, January 1, 2010