Just Consider

The Israeli/Hezbollah conundrum

2006-07-20T13:55:00.000-05:00

By Dick Tunison

I wrote a friend the other day saying I was becoming frustrated at my inability to get my arms around the expanding fighting along the Lebanese border. Reading the most recent series of seven Stratfor Intelligence Reports, I find that I’m not alone. Even the experts have to modify their assessments on a daily basis. The demonstrated aggressiveness of the Islamic fanatics in southern Lebanon has surprised many because of the understood strength of a well-equipped Israeli Army ready to defend its land.

Israel has had extended experience occupying southern Lebanon. Israeli forces moved into the territory in 1982 and stayed eighteen years in an attempt to maintain peace, but finally gave up in the year 2000. The Lebanese government has shown no more success in its own efforts to pacify its own land. The US also met with problems when terrorists bombed the Marine barracks in 1983 killing over two hundred of our own.

According to Wikipedia, the Internet fact and historical resource, “Hezbollah or Hizbollah/Hizbullah or Hezb'Allah (Arabic: حزب الله‎, meaning Party of God) is a governmental and military Lebanese Shia Islamic group, with a military arm and a civilian arm, founded in 1982 to fight the Israeli Defense Forces who occupied southern Lebanon until the year 2000. Its leader is Hassan Nasrallah.

“Hezbollah was inspired by the success of the Iranian Revolution and was formed primarily to combat Israeli occupation following the 1982 Lebanon War. The United States and Israel say that Hezbollah has received financial and political assistance, as well as weapons and training, from Iran and Syria. Syria says it supports Hezbollah, but denies supplying it with weapons. Along with the Amal movement, Hezbollah is the main political party and military organization representing the Shia community, Lebanon's largest religious bloc. Founded with the aid of Iran and funded by it, Hezbollah follows the distinct Shia Islamic ideology developed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, who saw his destiny as the elimination of Israel and the death of all infidels.”

At this point some observers are suggesting that it’s Syria, not Iran, that is pushing Hezbollah into action, but such thinking seems in the minority. Since Iran has served as the “patron saint” behind the movement since its inception in 1982, and it appears Iranian rockets have been used in this battle for the most part, I tend to think Iran is behind the action against Israel. There is a very logical reason for this. Iran has been in the international hot seat these past months because of her persistence in pursuing nuclear weapons. Fomenting a skirmish between Lebanese/Hezbollah and Israeli forces creates a marvelous distraction for the UN Security Council. Even matters concerning the nutty Kim Jung Il and North Korea have slipped off the radar screen as a result of this distraction.

It’s interesting to me that even the weak-kneed Europeans have had their concern level escalated by Hezbollah’s actions. Any suggestion that the initiation of hostilities lies at the feet of Israel seems without merit in light of the known facts. Never mind that Kofi Annan, from his headquarters high above Metropolis, wants to blame the Israelis for overreacting to a “minor threat.”

As things stand at this moment, it appears that everyone except the Hezbollah itself seems surprised at its strength and ability to utilize rocketry, let alone the idea that the group possesses thousands of such weapons, some quite old, dating back to the latter part of the Second World War, along with some capable of reaching far into Israel. The notion that attacks from the north might reach as far south as Haifa and Jerusalem seems not to have been considered. The result of this predicament is that responding to Hezbollah is trickier than anticipated.

There has been considerable talk about a cease fire and the intervention of foreign diplomats to help resolve the situation. Such an act alone is bound to fail because the current fighting is not the only problem. It’s the fact that Hezbollah may be a potent force far into the future despite the diplomacy of the day unless the force is successfully neutered.

The use of a strong incursion of Israeli ground forces to wipe out the Hezbollah fighters has also been advocated. But this proposal requires prior actions involving air attacks on strategic targets that so far have not been easily identified. Many of the Hezbollah installations are mobile and easily moved and are often mixed in with mosques, schools and hospitals in ways that preclude even the so-called surgical attacks from the air. The lack of Intel in southern Lebanon by interested parties such as the United States and Israel has made information on Hezbollah force distribution difficult to come by, and Israel has suffered as a result. There was a time when Israeli and American intelligence experts were able to remain disguised while doing their work north of the border, but that became more difficult as years passed to the point it’s virtually non-existent today. Intruding intelligence gatherers would be quickly discovered because of the integration of Hezbollah and ordinary Lebanese citizens who are now far more vigilant.

Again, some experts are calling for a UN resolution that will bind the northern aggressor. But Hezbollah has not paid any attention to earlier United Nations demands, so it’s hard to see why that should be any different. Even if the UN should send in a peacekeeping force with a tough mandate it would require a dedication to change from UN past practices of sleeping while the worm spins its yarn. Any required action on the part of peacekeepers would need to be immediate and strong, not timid and impotent. So, if and when the UN is called into play, things must be pretty much resolved, signed, sealed and delivered well in advance. There is no way we can rely on UN peacekeepers to operate with certitude in a difficult and challenging confrontation with an opposing military force.

I believe this engagement along the Lebanese/Israeli border is frightening and requires a lot of creative thought toward a concrete resolution before the world can once again settle down with a sense of peace. When we listen to the rhetoric coming from a large sector of the Muslim world and see the intensity of action now being taken against Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan who only want a chance to live safely as a sovereign nations, we should quickly come to the realization that the irrational Islamic threat to the rest of us cannot be ignored. Even though this may not be the third world war, as some pundits claim, it is certainly the pre-amble to it.

The United States has been mostly criticized by the Western World for taking action in Afghanistan and Iraq even though there have been clearly despotic governments threatening others and oppressing their people. The promise for better societies and peace in those two countries and among their neighbors as a result of President Bush’s insistence on intervention has not yet been shown to be off base. Maybe it’s time for the Europeans to start smelling reality rather than the flowers. The resolution we should all be seeking is one that will bring about the disarmament of Hezbollah for its penchant for disruptive and malicious behavior, the strengthening of the Lebanese government so it can control what’s going on within its own borders, recognition on the part of Syria that her playing with bad boys will not be tolerated by the major international powers, and that Israel must be accepted as a sovereign nation with all the rights it deserves.

This is no longer a game, but a real-life challenge. The radical Islamists are threatening our lives, security and very future. The hate among them aimed at our way of life is clear. Even the children – too young to understand – are being raised up in the ways of blind hate, death and destruction. How can we, at this point in time, not see the handwriting on the wall?

Those who prefer to downplay this reality and, like Neville Chamberlain, advocate restraint, useless diplomacy, more talk and “understanding,” in the face of great danger need be put in their place by the clearer thinkers among us before it’s too late.

A much needed election outcome - tight or not

2006-07-13T10:19:00.000-05:00

By Dick Tunison

Six or seven weeks ago I attempted to call to the attention of my readers the importance of the pending Mexican presidential election. Such events are usually well below our radar screens despite their importance.

Socialist candidate, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador was locked in a tight race with conservative candidate, Felipe Calderon, a member of outgoing President Vicente Fox’s party. There was a third party candidate, Robert Madrazo, but he trailed the two more prominent candidates by a mile.

From my perspective, this was an important election for several reasons and I hoped that Felipe Calderon would come out the winner. As president, Calderon would be more likely to follow Fox’s support of NAFTA, increased Mexican industrialization and support the growth of middle class – all to the benefit of our mutual national relationship.
Not so if Obrador were to be elected. He was the “representative” of the poor worker class that populates most of the southern part of Mexico. This is not to say that portion of the Mexican population should not have a strong spokesman, but one who adheres to the hard leftist line and unsuccessful land reform schemes is not in the best interest of a nation that sorely needs heavy business and industrial investment from home and abroad. One need only recognize how foreign investors have increased their distance from Venezuela and Bolivia since the leadership has changed there. Foreign investors are queasy about putting their money in projects that may be grabbed by a left leaning government interested in running everything. Mexico ventured down that road three-quarters of a century ago and eventually paid a heavy price for the mistake.

Mexico is a country of great natural resources and a ready workforce. It’s important that a new administration find ways to mate the two. Land reform that divvies up larger holdings for the purpose of placing puny parcels in the hands of ill-equipped peasants is not a system that provides much more than simple subsistence. The ability to feed one’s family is imperative, but simply feeding the family normally leaves little left over to improve living standards.

Rather, Mexico needs to turn toward more substantial industrialization. Felipe Calderon seems to me and many observers here, and south of the border, to be the man more likely to work in that direction.

The election is now over and the counts have been verified. Calderon has been declared the winner, but not without loud protestation from Obrador and his supporters. Last Sunday a reported crowd of a hundred thousand people gathered in Mexico City to show their disapproval of the results. Calderon’s margin had shrunk from the first count, but he was still considered the winner. Obrador threatens to sue in Federal Court, all this not unlike what Americans went through after the 2000 election here. One would hope such disputes could be laid to rest quickly, but we all know they endure a long death struggle that can impact a society for years. Sometimes they even turn into deep hatred that eventually sours the wine.

Not unlike this country’s social splits, Mexico has a significant congregation of people who depend on the government for nearly everything. Among the elements of largess sprinkled on the people over the years are the ever-present promises of more sop for the needy - more social security, more farmland, more lifelines, etc. at the general expense of taxpayers and always offered with the hope of keeping the poor quiet and dependent on the giver. Helping the poor actually move above their poverty level has been a failure in presidential regime after regime, but nonetheless the promise seems to always work as a clarion call for many in the lower class.

In the past I had associations with a few of Mexico’s business leaders, most of them American educated, who understood the need for lifting the lower class in ways different from those advocated by socialist leaders. Yes, lifting the lower class, not subjugating it as the anti-business rabble rousers claimed. These men understood that investments were needed in Mexico’s infrastructure, the people of the nation needed to see educational opportunities that would provide them technical and professional skills, and free trade should be mandated.

Lopez Obrador is not motivated by such goals. Rather, he is an advocate of pursuing failures of the past that should have been seen as lessons for the country’s future. For example, he campaigned on the promise of state pensions for all those over 70 years of age. The interesting thing is that the Yucatan, an area Obrador perceived to be part of his southern advantage, went for Felipe Calderon by a 200,000 vote margin which may indicate not all of the under class believes in the old pipe dream. According to John Fund, writing for the Wall Street Journal, “a top official in the outgoing government of President Vicente Fox had predicted that a Lopez Obrador victory would have tripled the immigration flow to the U.S. as economic uncertainty about the country’s future set in.” That’s a troubling thought.

It will be important for the Bush administration, and those administrations that follow, to see the need to support governments in Mexico that work to achieve both industrial and social progress. This kind of progress must be one that raises standards, expands opportunity in the job market, creates a profitable industrial complex and allows the nation to exploit its resources to the benefit of its people. The kind of socialist regime Obrador would have advanced is not in keeping with such objectives. Let us hope that Felipe Calderon can live up to the challenge. We need positive results from our neighbor to the south.

I’ve never known a Mexican who did not love his country. Perhaps he was disenchanted with conditions at home, but that disenchantment didn’t replace a love for the land. Those of us who worry about the hoards of immigrants who steal across our borders need to see beyond fences and barriers to ways we can encourage changes that will improve the conditions that tempt Mexicans to look north for relief.

* * *

Many of you have asked about the hiatus I’ve taken over the past several weeks. It resulted from a combination of moving into a new home to achieve some level of “downsizing” and a stack of health problems that wouldn’t let me go. I’m happy to report that almost all the boxes have been unpacked by my very industrious and hardworking wife, in whom I will always be indebted. She has quite successfully made our house a home without complaining the way I managed to do in my less than lively state. She’s the mark of what love is all about.

I also need to thank our kids for cheerfully joining in the task while I sat around and supervised in a very hesitant voice. Being unwell is no fun when one knows he is needed and expected to put his own weight to the oars. I’m hopeful that one day soon I’ll be able to return all these favors. In the meantime I’ll do my best to write my essays so that you’ll have something to “Just Consider.”

It’s not time for Johnnie to come marching home

2006-06-10T19:51:00.000-05:00

By Dick Tunison

There is a large group of Americans who continually call for bringing our troops from Iraq now. Perhaps some of them do not understand the significance of their demand. Others are moved by political persuasion. But in either case, the group tends to ignore the lessons of history and the reason certain decisions were made at the time. In a real sense there is no excuse for bringing our troops home prematurely other than that their being there is causing more harm than good. Truthful analysis of the situation in Iraq can only lead to the opposite conclusion. This past week’s killing of Al-Zarqawi is proof.

Although it would be incorrect to draw precise parallels between post-war Germany, Japan, South Korea and Iraq when discussing occupation, there are some factors that appear consistent. For one thing, there existed an ever present danger of uprisings in three of the occupied nations and the danger of outside influence in two. Second, Germany and Japan were industrialized countries with high technical know-how that gave them the capacity to rebuild and retool if the Allies were not vigilant and they chose to do so. Korea and Iraq did not fall into this category, bur were surrounded by hostile neighbors who might decide to take advantage of them if they wanted to be mischievous.

For these reasons, Allied forces remained in Germany for ten years after the war was over and in Japan for six years. That is to say, the presence of formal occupational forces was clear to any observer. However, we should be aware that the United States has continued to operate military bases in these countries even to this day, and still has a residual protective force in South Korea as a foil against the North Koreans. The question constantly being asked of the administration is “How soon will our troops come home from Iraq?” – as if there could be a precise answer given without the benefit of a crystal ball. The president’s answer has consistently been, “When the job in Iraq is finished.”

My older brother remained in Austria as part of the occupational force for nearly a year after the Axis Powers surrendered in 1945. I remember writing him with not a little bit of impatience asking him when he was coming home. But I was a kid of sixteen at the time with a rather limited understanding of why my brother was even there.

Just this past Thursday morning, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) linked the question of “when?” with the death of Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Queda in Iraq. Senator Kerry is a tad older than sixteen and one would expect he’d have a much clearer understanding than I did. In reality, he and others who make the same call likely do understand, but for political reasons choose to be contrarians.

Except for the disastrous end to the Vietnam War, America has not made a habit of cut and run. We have taken our responsibilities seriously by standing by as occupiers or defenders until the need was met, or as George Bush would say, “As long as necessary.”

It’s been interesting to see how the politicians, intellectuals and elite who oppose the war in Iraq have used the expurgation of Zarqawi as the magical checkered flag that, for them, signals the end of the race. House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi; Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid; Congressman John Murtha have recently been outspoken on the subject. California Congressman, Pete Stark went way over the top by accusing President Bush of fabricating the whole Zarqawi killing, suggesting the Iraqi Al Qaeda leader of either been killed long ago or still alive and in hiding.

Our experience in the Vietnamese War has left us scarred and for some people, mortally wounded. A surprising number of Americans have lost the fire in their belly that might assure that final victory. The Washington Post editorial in Friday’s paper reported that, “Officials from both countries (US and Iraq) were unanimous in predicting yesterday that the challenge from the insurgency will continue to be severe. Perhaps U.S. troops can be drawn down without worsening that threat; but it would be tragic if, after so much suffering, Iraq's first democratic government were denied the means to succeed.”

Like impatient teenagers, too many of us long for the easy way out. It was Patrick Henry speaking before the House of Burgesses, who so profoundly put the question to the weak-at- heart when he said to his fellow representatives, “Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Some readers will argue that Patrick Henry was referring to a war on our own soil and has little to do with our soldiers fighting in a foreign land thousands of miles away from home. I’m not sure that was Henry’s real challenge to his cohorts. Rather, it was a challenge to stand tall, with moral certitude, for principles worthy of our lives and our fortunes.

Zarqawi was the epitome of evil. Yes, he is dead. But the cause he fostered lives on and will continue to be an attraction for those who would forsake good for evil and freedom for domination. This is not the time to fold up our tents and come home. The battle has not yet been won. To suggest that Zarqawi’s death somehow signals the end of our need to remain engaged in Iraq, is fallacy. In all likelihood a successor will be found and, after a short period of adjustment, the insurgency will renew its efforts to intimidate Iraqis and play on the weakness in America’s resolve to win the peace.

The good news is that ferreting out Zarqawi was a combined effort of Iraqis, Jordanians and US Forces. Iraqis and Jordanians have finally stepped forward to help put a stop to the brutality that has even turned their heads. This is progress and to even consider walking away from the fray now should be expunged from our thought processes. As Patrick Henry extolled, this is a moment for all good men to stand together, with moral certitude, and do the right thing.

Two major factors induce immigration

2006-06-03T18:35:00.000-05:00

By Dick Tunison

Over the past few weeks I’ve written several essays concerning our immigrations problems, but always about the impact north of our Southern border and never addressing our partners to the South. The unfolding situation in Mexico, in particular is one that needs to be examined and better understood.

In just a month, Mexico will hold another presidential election. This one is predicted to be extremely close and will test the desire of the people to continue or turn away from the more centrist policies of the current president, Vicente Fox. Since Fox is prohibited from running for reelection, there are three candidates in the race to replace him, Felipe Calderon, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and Roberto Madrazo. Calderon alone is of the same political bent as the outgoing president and shows strong interest in expanding the market-oriented reforms initiated by Fox. He is seen to be slightly ahead of the other two candidates. The other two are throwbacks to the old PRI party (formerly the PRN) that ruled the country from the early 1930s until 1998.

The PRI was the tail of the revolutionary days dating back to the latter part of the 19th century. That period of more than a hundred years was fraught with turmoil and multiple changes in governmental direction, but most frequently in a leftward direction with dictatorial overtones. During this period, so called land reform took place in a broad way, but never resulted in the agrarian reforms hoped for. It was also a period of nationalization that pinched hard on international investors and drove many qualified companies out of the Mexican market place leaving major industries in the hands of government bureaucrats who were more interested in graft than industrial achievement. Pemex, the Mexican governmentally controlled oil company is a case in point.

Mexico is rich in natural resources. She has vast reserves of crude oil, gold silver and copper that represent a great source of potential income to the nation providing she develops them sharply and carefully. But Pemex does not meet those criteria. Instead, the giant government owned and operated oil company is an industrial quagmire that does almost everything poorly. Pemex is saddled with a heavy debt and an inability to exploit the nations resources effectively. But this is not unique to the national petroleum industry. Most other government run corporations are riddled with scam and payola.

The entrance of Vicente Fox to the political scene in 2000 was a terrific jolt for the Mexican people, but it showed an underlying desire to end graft, a dishonest military and police system and open the economy to new ideas and the chance to live their lives in comparative freedom. Since his election, the Mexican economy has indeed grown slightly stronger, but not all of Fox’s goals have been achieved. Graft, particularly among the police and military remain vexing. Although the current favorite to win in July is Mr. Calderon, he must win by a substantial margin to avoid what could be a nasty post election fight instigated by his two rivals. I believe it’s important that we remain aware of potential political changes south of the border and not sleep through it like we’ve done in South America. We don’t need another Castro-like administration just south of our border.

The frustrating immigration problems Americans face are only exacerbated by the intolerable economic conditions in Mexico. In a way, the US has created an attractive nuisance that has acted like a magnet pulling people out of Mexico. According to Joel Kurtsman and Glenn Yago, principals in the Milken Institute, “Mexico needs to create a million new jobs a year; currently, it creates half that amount. Similarly, its growth has been nonexistent since the year 2000.”

Realistically, if Mexico is to make up its half-million new job short-fall it will need giant infusions of investment money. But it has not yet rid itself of the presumed need to have the government run everything. Investors from out side the country, particularly American, are finding little inducement to put their money in a country that may some day decide foreign run businesses should be confiscated. After all, that’s happened before.

The only way to improve the employment situation inside Mexico and reduce the run north of the border is to change the foreign investment laws and regulations. When one remembers that foreigners are not allowed to own land within 30 miles of the border and seacoast, it’s clear that there is a gigantic stumbling block to any interest Americans may have in developing attractive communities that would create jobs for local workers and provide tax revenues to a needy government.

Another lingering problem that has been with Mexico for more than a hundred years is the vast difference between the personal resources of haves and the have-nots. As I wrote in an earlier essay, I served on the compensation committee of Mexico’s largest brass company. The corporation I represented had a minority financial interest in the Mexican company. The management people I dealt with were well educated (many Harvard graduates) well informed men of high caliber. However they were among the Mexican elite and had little intercourse with the poor. The chasm between their own lives and their understanding Mexico’s poor people was vast. This was based not so much intolerance or prejudice as it was simple ignorance. This must be changed, not by the redistribution of wealth that some will certainly call for if the leftists win the next election, but by constructive changes in the economic environment that will raise all boats.

If such changes could occur, many of the problems that encourage Mexicans to head north will disappear. However, should Mr. Calderon lose the race, we can expect to see Mexico move backward with major financial problems arising and institutions disintegrating. This will not bode well for American and her immigration difficulties.

Keep your ears open for the results of Mexico’s July 2 presidential election. We have important stakes in the result.

The air is thin where Congress roosts

2006-05-27T20:29:00.000-05:00

By Dick Tunison

It must be hard to serve in congress these days. The air is so thin up there; it’s surprising members aren’t wearing oxygen masks to keep themselves breathing. We commoners watch as our representatives bitterly complain about preserving their sacrocanctity as they do their best to ignore the misdoings of some of their fellow members.

This week, the big stew has been over invasive action by FBI agents to find and secure potential evidence in a long-going investigation of Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA). The FBI did its dastardly deed on a Saturday while congressmen were away dillying or dallying – whichever they do on their days off. Jefferson is accused of taking bribe money from Brett Pfeffer and Vernon L Jackson in connection with their interests in a Louisville-based technology company doing business in Nigeria. Both these men have pleaded guilty to bribing the congressman. The bribes may be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars range and intended to buy the congressman’s influence. Last summer investigators found $90,000 in a freezer at Jefferson’s home. The money was carefully wrapped in aluminum foil. That way, no one could accuse Jefferson of hoarding hot dough.

Before you think I’m making light of the matter, let me say I’m only exposing what I see as an ironic twist. Jefferson is an eighth-term representative of Louisiana’s 2nd District. He is a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the African Trade and investment Caucus, and the Congressional caucus on Brazil and Nigeria. So it’s not hard to see that enterprising lobbyists would look upon the man as having some stroke when it comes to Nigerian affairs. Yet congressional leaders are worrying more about the privacy of one of their members and the loftiness of the Rayburn Office building than about any crime that may have been committed. After all, the guy is vying for position among former congressional sleaze like Dan Rostenkowski, Randy Cunningham and too many others to name.

It’s also been alleged that Jefferson corralled the National Guard to help him remove personal items from his home near New Orleans five days after Katrina. This has been viewed as an abuse of power and a diversion of the National Guard from its official duties in a time of national disaster. Perhaps this may not stack up as a big deal in the total scheme of things, but it’s certainly an indication of the man’s judgment and sense of priorities.

What’s sticking in the craw of congressional leaders is the invasion by one of the other arms of the government in the House’s inner sanctum. Leaders Hastert and Pelosi are standing shoulder to shoulder in their outrage. They have both predicted a Constitutional showdown. They see a great separation of powers issue here. Rep John Boehner, the House majority leader has said, “I have to believe at the end of the day it is going to end up across the street (the Supreme Court).

But here’s the twist. Nancy Pelosi has asked Congressman Jefferson to step down from his seat on the Ways and Means Committee. Jefferson’s response has been, in the vernacular, “Nuts to you!” That’s the same kind of answer Jefferson has given the Justice Department this past year to its subpoena for access to Jefferson’s files and documents. It’s called non-cooperation. Justice wanted to be sure the files hadn’t been torched, so it acted peremptorily. When former President Nixon tried to thwart the Justice Department thirty years ago the Supremes told him to go pound sand. I would expect the same will happen again if this matter ever gets to “the other side of the street.”

Since calling for the step-down, Minority Leader Pelosi has found herself in deep goop with an outraged Congressional Black Caucus. The CBC had planned to blast Rep Pelosi with, reportedly, a scathing rebuke, but an emergency meeting with her apparently dissuaded the Caucus and the idea was dropped. But the CBC members were not mollified. According to The Hill, a non-partisan, non-ideological weekly newspaper, the staffer to one of the Caucus members said the group’s anger has become quite hot. The staffer asserted that “Pelosi, without any legal justification, has now created a new precedent for how members are going to be treated. Unfortunately, she’s chosen to single out an African-American for this honor.” But that wasn’t all. The staffer went on to say, “The African-American Community, which overwhelmingly backs the Democratic Party, will not take this lightly.”

So now, the race card has been tossed on the table. But it doesn’t seem to hold water, because it’s the truculence of Rep. Jefferson that’s so hard to understand. He’s making it especially difficult for Democrats to press the Republicans for wrongdoing like they want to when he refuses to head on to the sunset. After all, Republican senators and congressmen have stepped down from their posts for much more benign infractions. Names like Gingrich, Livingstone, Lott and Delay quickly come to mind.

In the final analysis, I can’t help but wonder what congress expected the Justice Department to do under the circumstances if not to break into Jefferson’s office and take the files. After all, it sought and received a search warrant from a District Judge. What if a murder had been committed in Jefferson’ office? Would congressional leaders have demanded the matter be run by a couple of committees before the FBI was allowed to peek behind closed doors?

From my perspective, this is silliness. Jefferson has been under serious investigation for a year. Ninety thousand dollars in cold, hard cash was found in the man’s freezer - bills whose serial numbers matched the sting money given to Jefferson by the undercover agent. He has been accused of wire fraud and misuse of government services. I hope congress gags on this one. They’ve tended to let Rep Cynthia McKinney off the hook which was another example of uppity misuse of official power. It’s time to pull the plug on self-pride and become real leaders and statesmen. Oh, dreamer, I.

Finally, a fresh look at immigration reforms

2006-05-20T21:16:00.000-05:00

By Dick Tunison

There is so much hot blood swirling around the idea of amnesty that it’s easy to overlook the meaning of the word. Actually, what the president is recommending for aliens is a far cry from typical presidential forays into end-of-the term pardons that we’ve recently observed. The matter of violations of the law is present in both circumstances. Illegal aliens are, by their very status, violators of the law just like tax evaders, commodity scammers and others who have crossed legal boundaries. The difference here is how the violators are finally dealt with. The president has proposed a redemption program for illegal aliens, not wholesale pardons. There is a clear distinction. His requirements demand corrective action. There is no provision for “olly, olly, oxen free.”

This past week congress has seemed to put its best foot forward in a new effort to create a bill that will address the manifold difficulties presented by an influx of up to twelve million illegals that have made their way over our southern borders. George Bush threw down the gauntlet Tuesday evening when he spoke to the nation about immigration problems and potential solutions.

Of course some politicians on both sides of the aisle have made their feelings clear as to where they think the president missed the boat, but the general public seemed to think otherwise. This is not to say the president’s proposals were perfect, but they certainly provided a thoughtful basis for lawmakers to begin to do their business.

I think we would all agree that if we had a broken water main flooding our home, the first order of business would be to shut off the flow. To my way of thinking, the first order of attention needs to be making our borders less permeable. An absolute seal is probably impossible and perhaps a misplacement of our efforts. A two thousand mile leak would require a lot of plumbing cement. But at the same time sending six thousand national guardsmen will not, by itself, do the job either. There needs to be some melding of the two that will create manageable check-points capable of being monitored.

Although the National Guard is well trained in many of the tasks required to help seal the border, using them for this purpose is only stop-gap and they will need to be replaced quickly with newly trained border patrol agents. The question is where we will find proper candidates for such jobs. Among other qualifications, a proper candidate should be conversant in Spanish. This will probably require a super recruiting effort among America’s Spanish speakers. But finding ten thousand candidates from among them seems doable.

So, if we can accomplish the first task we can then address the second aspect of the problem which is the magnet for illegals – open employment. Employers should be expected to hold up their end of the line by refusing to employ illegal workers. But with bogus papers, it’s hard for employers to verify legitimacy of a worker’s right to a job, and they are often allowed to slip into the workforce undetected or, or worse, knowingly. The truth is that it’s easier to hire an illegal worker with a wink and a hope than it is for the employer to follow the law. This needs to be rectified soon.

The other side of this issue is that various levels of law enforcement have not interfered while these things have happened. In fact some cities have passed ordinances prohibiting local law enforcement officers from engaging anyone who even appears to be here illegally. Additionally, Catholic Churches, particularly in Southern California, have become open refuges in defiance of the law. The argument used is that doing so is an act of Christian charity, but that can surely be debated.

All this needs to be remedied first by developing a foolproof identity card and second by creating a rapid response system of verification. Any law concerning the employment of non-citizens must possess an incentive to abide by it rather than simply contain threats of punitive actions against violators. Those who are sympathetic to the plight of the illegal immigrant must, in good conscience, revisit there own logic to determine if there are other means available for resolving the problem besides acting as scofflaws.

Next, we need to find a way to bring illegal immigrants to the surface so that they can properly enter the mainstream of America. Among other things, entering the mainstream means taking certain steps toward achieving legalization, such as completing registration papers, paying appropriate fines and back taxes, learning to read and write English and refraining from any further violations of the laws of the land. This is essentialy what the president is proposing that some critics want to call amnesty.

An underlying goal of such a program would be to facilitate assimilation as well as achieving citizenship. I suggest that one of the strong attractions for the illegal aliens to participate in this process is that they would no longer need to remain part of a sub-rosa element of our society, always on the lookout for the men in green. They would become legitimate, taxpaying contenders for citizenship. But they need to follow the rules to do so.

I don’t feel enacting such steps is tantamount to amnesty. This would not be at all similar to the president pardoning a lawbreaker before he leaves office in some final gesture of grace with no recompense required, but rather the demonstration of fulfilling an obligation to America. There is, after all, a feeling of pride that can come from knowing, “I am here honestly and openly, and not by subterfuge and cunning.”

There are some isolationists who have their reasons for wanting to eject all foreigners. As we know, those reasons range from those held by the super alien haters like the Neo-Nazi skinheads, to just plane old xenophobes. But I don’t believe most Americans view the influx of illegal aliens from such perspectives.

Where objections to immigration exist, we tend to hear the complaints directed toward the costs born by John Q. Taxpayer who feels the illegal is treated more generously in our social systems than the disadvantaged native-born American who struggles just as hard to get ahead and pays taxes along the way. Where there is a perspective of injustice we must remediate. There is probably no question that the sub-rosa society is causing an undue drain on social services and our school systems. A visit to many Emergency Hospitals reveals their inappropriate use as primary providers. When extended families of ten of twelve, living in low cost rental units send their children to public schools, who pays their way? These are serious matters that must be addressed as part of a new immigration program.

Yes, there are many aspects of the illegal immigration problem that vex us and are not easily resolved. It’s much more than building a fence or a concrete wall. It’s much more than who protects our borders. It’s much more than who stays and who goes. It’s much more than paying fines and learning the English language. That’s all part of it, but taking thoughtful first steps will help us see over the top of the seemingly insurmountable obstacles. We only need to be less political and a little more creative in our problem solving efforts.

Their noses grow longer as they cry for tax hikes

2006-05-13T20:04:00.000-05:00

By Dick Tunison

As I understand it, almost any complex accounting is fodder for debate. I am not much of an accountant myself, even though I had a couple of courses in college. But that mostly pertained to the ABC Dry Cleaning Co., an imaginary small business in some place like Mansfield, Ohio. It turned out to be kindergarten accounting compared to the real stuff.

Accounting for large corporations is difficult and subject to different opinions on how monies may be expressed. In fact, some large corporations have gone to the point of providing work space for IRS accountants so that they can maintain close communication with them concerning tax issues. One should not think this is a hand and glove relationship, but more of a collaborative one intended to settle problems as they are discovered.

The GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) is a set of generally accepted principles and not “rules” or “laws”. That’s one of the reasons so many corporations run crosswise with eager state’s Attorneys General who are as politically motivated as they are in search of truth. That’s not to say some companies and even accounting firms aren’t up to “cooking the books,” but often what appears to be fraudulent, amounts to a difference of opinion rather than an effort to obscure the truth about business operations. It often happens that accounting departments, and even CPA firms, struggle with the complexities of tax law.

This is no different from adversarial lawyers representing two clients. A lot of the disagreement arises from opposing viewpoints rather than true intent to circumvent the law. Seldom do we learn of a unanimous Supreme Court decision, and that’s because the justices view the law differently. We can find the same thing in the medical profession when one doctor makes a diagnosis that refutes the diagnosis of another doctor. Sometimes there’s more squish room in these matters than we as patients would like. But that’s not to say one of the doctor is lying.

The lead editorial in the May 10th Wall Street Journal makes a point of this by describing how the Federal accountants in the Congressional Budget Office have underestimated the government’s tax revenues. Many people in and out of government, political and technical, have predicted that cutting taxes would result in lower tax income for the Federal Government and the states. Intuitively, one would tend to agree. After all, if personal and corporate income taxes are lowered, why wouldn’t we expect to see a consequential decrease in tax revenues?

At least part of the answer is found in the fact that people react to incentives that are sometimes the unseen consequences of changing tax rules. Everyone who calculates his own personal income tax using one of the current software products on the market can watch the amount of taxes owed or to be refunded change with almost every entry. Our Federal Income Tax system is so complicated even accounting firms have fallen on computer applications to do the grunt work for them.

Although we may not fully understand the ins and outs of the Federal Income Tax system, we all know that when we have more of our own money to spend there is a resulting urge to buy things or make income producing investments. Lowering the amount we’re required to pay in taxes creates the incentive to spend. Concomitantly what we spend and invest is part of what expands the market and increases tax revenues for our governments. It’s a little like feeding the bread starter.

The Senate has just agreed to extend some of the lower tax rates until the year 2010. Actually, they would do the country a service by making major changes in the system and making them permanent. I hope this move is because they’re beginning to learn a bit of basic economics rather than relying so much on the Congressional Budget Office, or some other accounting arm of the government, to predict outcomes.

The Journal editorial points out that, “The latest evidence (of improved economic factors) is Treasury’s monthly budget report for May showing that tax receipts were up by $137 billion, or a remarkable 11.2%, for the first seven months of the fiscal year. That’s more than triple the inflation rate.” Individual Income Tax receipts were up by 10.2% and Corporate Income Tax receipts were up by 29.5%.

These results may not have much meaning to John Q average American, and that’s unfortunate, because they should be understood by everybody. But some politicians refute them because they clearly fly in the face of the dire predictions that cutting taxes would increase the deficit. It’s time for the negative chorus that wants to spend our money to admit it’s wrong about the benefits of tax reductions. Those politicians who hang their hats on the perceived need to increase taxes need to listen up. They keep telling us we will die of the grizzly deficit disease if we don’t raise taxes. If they persist in repeating misleading statements about taxes and tax revenues they are perpetrating a fraud on the American people and ought to be prosecuted along with other real scoundrels.

Let me say all of that again, in straight language. Those who tell us we need to raise taxes and tear away all the existing tax cuts in order to save our economic equilibrium are either ignorant or lying for political benefit. If the former is the case, they need to be educated immediately. If it’s the latter, they should be removed form office and “go straight to jail without stopping at go.” Is that straight enough?

The economic equilibrium I refer to is a point when spending does not exceed income and there is a slight reduction in the deficit. The solution will be found in government spending restraints and tax simplification and reductions, not in raising taxes to satiate an obscene appetite for spending taxpayer’s money.

They’re stealing our pride and moral authority

2006-05-06T21:19:00.000-05:00

By Dick Tunison

We’re between a rock and a hard place, and we’ve let ourselves, as an American culture, slip unto the crack without so much as a squeaky protest. Since the end of World War II there has been a growing trend toward making us the culprits of the world. It has caused a wearing away of our national pride and a loss of our moral authority.

Shelby Steel, research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University wrote a piercing column on the subject this past week for the Wall Street Journal. Steel’s piece was titled, White Guilt and the Western Past. He does a much better job of exploring the subject than I can, but he has certainly made me think. I couldn’t help reviewing, in my own mind, the effect the “Chinese Water Treatment” has gradually made on me. I remember when I loved the expression “My country right or wrong.” Now, I’m ashamed to say, I’m reluctant to use the phrase in public for fear someone will brand me as an uptight patriot. In my quieter moments I wonder what’s wrong with being a patriot. But one dare not repeat maudlin sayings in public without being bludgeoned by someone. Remember how Barry Goldwater was chastised for his line, “Extremism for the sake of liberty is no vice?”

I’m not sure when the downward slide began. I know self-criticism was alive and well in December 1964 when Mario Salvio led the Free Speech movement in Sproul Plaza at the University of California, Berkeley. I was there at the time on a recruiting mission for my company. The language used to describe almost everything I held dear, including my country, was either crude or searing to the ears. It was likely not the first time those bad actors belched their vitriol at nearly everything our society viewed with pride. But Salvio participated in the creation of a movement that has gained momentum and now seems unstoppable. As I suggest, he was not alone, of course. Some of my best liberal friends were adamant about our complicity in the assassination of Chile’s Communist president Salvador Allende in 1973, even though the facts are still unknown. We were prima facie, the evil doers.

As we look around and listen to some of the chatter that peppers us these days we can’t help realize that the chasm in our society is even more troublesome than before. If we appear to be conservative in our views we are portrayed by some of the liberal talkers as the haves who now want to prevent the have-nots from enjoying the fruits of their labors, even though the opportunities for them to labor at all are there because of our investments and entrepreneurship. There is such strong criticism toward those who believe in the sanctity of our borders they are frequently dubbed vigilantes, while at the same time illegal aliens are free from being branded as lawbreakers. When we speak about requiring non-citizens to abide by the rules in order to become citizens, we are accused of creating unrealistic barriers to prevent the continuing influx of people of color.

But it’s not just about patriotism and immigration, we are chastised with the claim our nation has gone to war to gain oil and exploit the resources of weaker nations that cannot defend themselves against our overwhelming power. We are told we are the neocolonialists who would subjugate the world and hammer it into our evil, immoral mold. Even our weak-kneed European friends have come to look upon us with suspicion, because our cause is only seen to be self-serving.

We are the squanders of the earth’s resources who consume one quarter of the world’s energy just to support our desire for the life of luxury. Never mind that we are, in truth, the feeders of the starving and the protectors of the downtrodden. While we are hated for our strength, we are expected to be the ones that step forward where others fear to insert even a toe. But we’re still accused of being racists who hate people of color and would rather kill their babies than to see them prosper.

It’s true, there are deficits on our ledger sheet, but the balance sheet shows America to be what it is. Despite the criticism and blame, it represents stability, compassion, generosity and the willingness to rescue the unsalvageable in ways the world has never known. We don’t make empty promises. This nation has given more of its wealth to others than all the nations combined. And yet even some of our own do nothing but find fault. Like Mario Salvio, they choke if pressed to say something good about America. In their negative pit they see little but darkness. How sad!

Let’s send the lousy ones packing

2006-04-29T15:34:00.000-05:00

By Dick Tunison

Having followed the national news this past week and focusing on statements and proposals coming from our senators and representatives, I do believe I’ve hit upon a solution to all our problems. Yes, it’s drastic and it’ll be hard to swallow for some, but I think it’s a brilliant idea. First, I need to give you a frame of reference.

Referring to the high gas prices, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) declared the need for a congressional investigation into oil industry price gouging. Never mind more than thirty such investigations have been conducted in the past with no evidence anybody in the industry is involved in gouging. What stupidity! Then on the same issue, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) made a similar proposal early this week. Not to be left out, the President joined the pack on Tuesday. It seems as if a whole slug of politicians is once again “stuck on stupid.”

Having some experience in the oil industry, I know that the “major” I worked for bent over backwards in its effort to play the game clean. Our Law Department constantly reminded us to avoid even the appearance of doing anything that was illegal or that might draw negative public scrutiny. Although there was no inhibition to taking strong competitive positions in the market place, that certainly wasn’t authorization to increase prices to the detriment of the consumers. Think about it, in a competitive market, who raises prices in order to compete?

If the idea of pursuing supposed price gouging doesn’t gain traction with the public, the alternative seems to be to attack the oil companies for exorbitant profit taking. The fact that ExxonMobil reported a profit in excess of $8 billion during the first quarter has other politicians and, I might add, John Q Public in a tailspin. Yes, that amount of profit is the greatest in history for a single company, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. Who was concerned about Big Oil six years ago when crude prices tanked? The fact that oil industry profit margins were exceeded by several industrial groups seems not to matter. After all, we’re not looking at the Financial Services sector or technologies as villains. Right now we all hate Big Oil.

Another wild eyed proposal is an excess profit tax in which case the Government would become the gougers by reaping the benefits of high dollar taxes. Such a move would put a damper on profit incentives and just might be passed along to consumers by the oil companies through an increase in the price of product. An excess profit tax is not a new idea, but our experience with it has apparently taught few lessons.

EPTs were established by congress during the First and Second World Wars and the Korean War for example. In some cases, taxes were levied against profits, over an established level, as high as 90%. This often meant that companies had insufficient profit margins to allow them to repair and replace equipment that was wearing out. One only needed to look at the post war burgeoning steel industries of Japan and Germany to see how those nations cleaned our clock with their new-technology replacement mills that were quickly put into competition with our own antiquated industry.

Another screwball proposal that just bubbled to the surface is that the government might give consumers $100 to compensate for higher gas prices. I haven’t heard who the beneficiaries would be, perhaps everyone with a car or truck, or $100 per family. But this is a wonderful proposal for the beer industry that would likely reap the greatest benefit from higher sales for at least a month or two.

Come on folks, let’s get real. A recent financial report published by ConnocoPhillips shows that third quarter 2005 earnings from its US refining and marketing operations amounted to 9 cents per gallon. I am quick to point out that the total federal, state and local taxes on that same gallon of gas amounted to about 42 cents per gallon across the nation. So who is the gouger?

The ConnocoPhillips report stated that 58% of the cost of a gallon of gas at the pump was due to the cost of the crude oil used to make the gasoline. We’ve been told that more than half of the crude oil necessary to sustain the American Market is imported. So we shouldn’t look to domestic oil companies as manipulators of the price of crude. If anything they are the followers rather than the leaders in the push to increase crude prices.

The industry is still prevented from drilling in ANWAR and along the coasts regardless of the fact Cuba has given permission to the Chinese and Canadians to do so in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. We’ve been put in a position of having our own resource base restricted while everyone complains about the price of gas. Most of the areas where expanded oil production could be expected are out of sight of the human eye. Yet the environmentalists and some of the screwier politicians froth at the mouth when opening ANWAR is proposed. They can’t even approve test drilling on a tiny area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge notwithstanding the fact that the US Geological Survey estimates the area contains enough oil to increase our nation’s proven reserves by 50%.

A viewer of the John Gibson Show on Fox News sent an email this week that asked why we were complaining about $3 per gallon gas when he was paying $7 per gallon in Turkey. That’s a good question. Our Politicians and special interest groups have had a role in this fiasco, and they find all sorts of reasons not to admit it.

A number of politicians are crying for more ethanol production, even though the mid-continent states are currently producing at a near maximum level. One reason is that politicians reap millions of dollars in “donations” from ethanol producers. This leverage money is seldom talked about, but it helps keep politicians and environmentalists from choking when they talk about the benefits of ethanol blended gasoline. Each gallon of ethanol contains about two-thirds as much energy as does gasoline, resulting in reduced fuel economy. One would expect vehicles using gasohol to show about a 3.3 percent reduction in miles per gallon since ethanol constitutes 10 percent of the ethanol-gasoline blend. In a recent report on the performance of alcohol-gasoline blends, the DOE concluded that gasohol-fueled vehicles averaged 4.7 percent fewer miles per gallon than gasoline-fueled vehicles in automobile fleets. I’ll bet you didn’t know that, did you?

Economics 101 has taught us that as demand increases so does price. So, if the demand for ethanol increases as a result of political interference, the price will go up as well. If that occurs, the increased demand for corn, the principle source of ethanol, will increase the cost of beef, pork and poultry products. And the subsidies will likely continue and the gratuities handed out to lawmakers will certainly be accepted gratefully.

I could go on about other foibles on the part of our politicians. Just consider some of the wasteful actions surrounding the Katrina clean-up, or congress’ continuing inability to unravel the immigration difficulties we face, even though they’ve had years to do the job. Remember the hullabaloo over “selling our ports” to foreign companies?

Well, finally, on to my great idea. We should require that all senators and congressmen go through a probationary period after they’re elected and before they’re fully ensconced in office. At the end of their first six months on the job we should take a confidence vote on their performance. If they flunk, they should be immediately relieved of all duties and powers of office. If they pass the test, they get six more months on probation before the final up or down vote is taken. If they pass muster the second time they can stay. If not, it’s back to the farm.

There are so many turncoats in Washington today it’s hard to know who the good guys are. We ought to have a way to sort them out before they ruin the country. Just think about it. Power to the people!

Little more than a breath in a windstorm

2006-04-22T16:58:00.000-05:00

By Dick Tunison

The running back was working desperately to keep his feet pumping as he forced himself over the line of scrimmage when two big arms encircled his ankles and pulled him to the ground. A defensive lineman was the first to pile on. Then it was a safety that leaped from his position and landed next. Within a nanosecond two-thirds of the opposing team was on the writhing stack of players. A cacophony of whistle blowing did little to calm things down.

Have you ever seen such a determined display of gotchya? Well, if you’ve been following the strenuous attempts of “the generals” to take down Donald Rumsfeld these past two weeks, you have some idea of what we might dub “the military pile-on,” except that Rumsfeld is not down. During this period, six or eight generals and admirals have jumped up from the retirement seats around the rim of the stadium to criticize the coach for blunders that could put the outcome of the game in jeopardy. Never mind that they are no longer active on the team and, like some alumni, prefer to belittle rather than contribute to the voices in the cheering section.

Some of the loudest grumps complain that in previous times their sage advice was not taken by the coach. It was as if they were not heard and the value of their suggestions was lost among ideas put forth by others. The anti-Rumsfeld generals certainly have a right to their opinions, but to suggest that they were not allowed to advance contrary ideas is not borne out by the recollections of others who were in attendance at countless strategy and planning meetings in the Pentagon. General Richard Myers, immediate past Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has described the meetings as “collaborative with a free-flow of information.”

The risk participants must take when they are in a collaborative environment is that their ideas will not always gain traction. Their ideas don’t always “click” with the boss. Some, like Gen Zinni, don’t support the president’s policies in the Middle East. Zinni has been opposed to Bush’s strategy for freedom from the very beginning, and he has frequently made his feelings known. Gen Wesley Clark is another who really opposes the president - so much so that he was a candidate for president in the 2004 democratic primaries. Their outcries represent political disputes as much as differences of opinion over strategic military planning.

The other aspect of today’s high-level military griping is based on the perceived need to protect one’s turf. Secretary Rumsfeld has made no bones about his views of the future of the military, and his views are often antithetical to those held by senior military officers. He has consistently advocated a smaller force with the capacity for surgical insertion rather than the use of hundreds of thousands of troops and a vast array of mechanized equipment.

These ideas have been a threat to concepts held dear by many military leaders. I subscribe to four military magazines – almost too much to read and digest - but I’m struck with the many articles that plead for the intervention of the readership. “Write your congressmen,” the authors will beg. “We must have a three-hundred ship naval force,” or a joint force fighter aircraft, or more infantry divisions. With this in mind, one can easily understand why general officers and admirals feel their interests are not being met by the Pentagon. The resulting anger brings out the voices of criticism.

Rumsfeld’s managerial style also seems to be in the mix. I had a coach once who made us run laps until we were blue in the face. We hated his guts. But he was right. We needed stamina to play well and the extra laps helped give us what we needed. Rumsfeld may be brusque and impatient with slow learners (a little like Louisiana’s Gen. Honore who advised we not get stuck on stupid) but some of corporate America’s most successful CEOs are the same way. They demand and expect excellence from their subordinates.

One wonders what our enemies think of this stink. I can’t help but believe it brings joy to their hearts and the hope that it foretells the beginning of disenchantment for the war among a small group of ex-military leaders and foes of Bush. The quickest way for us to fail in the Middle East is to get tired of the fight. Criticism that should be left to the historians is premature and gives support to the cries for us to “get out” coming from the left and the pacifists.

As long as the Secretary of Defense meets the expectations of the man who appointed him, the badmouthing of generals Zinni, Swannack, Eaton, Batiste and Clark is little more than a breath in a windstorm.

How might you fare as an immigrant in Mexico?

2006-04-15T18:15:00.000-05:00

By Dick Tunison

My last column on ignoring the law, and immigration laws in particular, brought more responses from readers than any column I’ve written. Comments ranged wide and far, and some proposed tentative solutions to our current immigration problems that have sent hundreds of thousands of Mexicans into the streets protesting the machinations of congress. Other comments have carped at me for my own views.

One reader sent extracts from the Mexican Constitution (1917 As Amended) to illustrate the constraints under which an American immigrant to Mexico would fare in that country. I found the email quite intriguing and decided to research the Mexican Constitution to verify the facts. It was an eye opening experience. You may check it out for yourself by accessing the full document on the internet by entering the following address: (www.ilstu.edu/class/hist263/docs/1917const.html)

Dr. J. Michael Waller, of the Center for Security Policy in Washington DC, has written a tight summary of salient points in his article titled, Mexico’s Glass House: How the Mexican constitution treats foreign residents, workers and naturalized citizens. He says, “In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that: Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse. Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights. Immigrants are denied equal employment rights, Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens. Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service. Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy. Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process."

Others accuse those of us who want a viable solution to the immigration problem as racists because of the current focus on Hispanic immigrants, fearing that a solution will be too exclusionary. To be sure, there are many isolationists in our society who harbor ill-feelings toward all foreigners. But I don’t believe they represent the masses of Americans who are just fed up with the social cost, complexity of the problem and our political leaders in congress who cannot come to an accommodation, mainly for selfish political reasons.

I read the other day that one in ten native-born Mexicans are now living in the United States. Although I can’t verify that number anywhere, it rings as quite likely. The best estimate is that there are 11 million Mexicans living in this country illegally. There are at least that many more living here legally. We know and understand the attraction. Although we have our own poor and disadvantaged citizens, poverty and the underclass in Mexico is beneath comparison. It is no wonder people who must live such meager lives want to follow their dreams. Yet, Mexicans and other Hispanics are not the poster children for the lowest rung of the world’s poverty ladder – one only need look at Central Africa, Myanmar or Bangladesh, whose per capita income is 1/17 that of Mexico, to find poverty. If it is simply compassion that drives us to open our gates to anybody who wants to come, we should look around for the genuinely disadvantaged.

The desire of foreigners to “become” Americans cannot be satisfied simply because they want what the rest of us have and are willing to undergo the dangers of tramping across the desert to get it. The world is full of people who would feel that motivation. Indeed, some poor souls cross oceans in the holds of stinking rust-buckets and cargo containers for that breath of freedom and opportunity. But we cannot be the benefactors of all in need. Compassion may be the outpouring of the heart, but sometimes there must be clear thinking from the brain.

Therefore, requirements for entering America must be fair and rigorously met, and a means of separating the worthy from the unworthy must be put in place. We should not forget the impact of the Mariel Boat Lift, in the spring of 1980 that allowed Cuban criminals to escape to Florida. After all, national security is a major factor to consider. It should not be too much to expect Hispanic immigrants who are demonstrating in our streets to follow new rules, even if that means starting a legitimate immigration process from scratch.

But there is something beyond that for every American to learn and digest. If the situation were reversed, an American in Mexico could not engage in political demonstrations or even express his contrary political opinions in public. An American in Mexico would be virtually unable to find employment because the preference would always be in favor of Mexicans. An American could not become a parish priest even though he spoke faultless Spanish. An American could not become Attorney General of Mexico. An American could not own a house along the Stand at Redondo Beach. An American could be expelled from Mexico for any reason, without due process.

To a large extent, this is a mess of our own doing. The growing magnitude of foreign immigration has been observable for years, and we have made only half-hearted attempts to remedy it. Now, one of the options talked about loudly is to build a seven hundred mile wall to keep aliens from crossing our southern border. Unless we dot it with observation towers, searchlights and soldiers with high powered rifles, people with the desire to get through will crawl over, dig under or cut the fences. Shades of the separation of East and West Germany! Some soft-minded Americans lean toward amnesty for all comers. To me, that’s rewarding the lawbreakers and presents a slippery slope. Another idea is to offer citizenship to an alien after exacting a heavy fine. Millions of American workers refuse to pay income taxes with impunity, why would this be any different? Another “brilliant” idea is to levy a $50,000 fine against an employer who hires an illegal alien. The government can’t even determine who the illegals are, how is the owner of the local muffler shop supposed to know?

Wending its way among these concerns is the matter of economic impact. I’ll attempt to review some of that in a future essay. I’m sure that part of the problem won’t go away soon, so stay tuned.

Why does abiding by the law seem so unimportant?

2006-04-08T18:10:00.000-05:00

By Dick Tunison

The young girl hung out of the school bus window holding a hand-drawn sign that read, “I am an immigrant, not a criminal.” She was one of the less boisterous teenagers who took part in demonstrations around the country this past week. While a few of the youngsters were interested in the political implications of the raging debates over the future of immigration in America, most of the others were more absorbed with skipping classes and getting away with it.

Wednesday evening I watched a TV report filmed along the Arizona-Mexican border. A Mexican boy and girl, who had been apprehended by the US Border Patrol, sat side-by-side on a log answering a reporter’s questions. “Where did you two come from?” the reported asked. “Ciudad Santa Ana,” the boy answered through an interpreter. “Do you know you’re breaking American law when you cross the border like this?” the reporter pressed. The boy just shrugged his shoulders and gave a knowing grin. “The Border Patrol will send you back home.” The boy nodded his understanding. “What will you do then?” the reporter asked. “I’ll cross over again as soon as I can,” came the unhesitating response.

There is an interesting dynamic in these two situations that seems to permeate a lot of the demonstrations going on in America these days. It’s the recognition that laws can be broken with impunity. Let’s start with the simple act of ditching school. When I was a kid the principal would have had the truant officer out after the violator. I never saw a truant officer, but I certainly had him well pictured in my mind’s eye – fearsome! He was a big-time deterrent to cutting school as I was growing up. Perhaps truant officers have gone the way of all flesh, because we don’t hear about them anymore, but it’s obvious the urge to be a truant is greater than ever.

It’s hard to justify cutting school these days as we see student performance levels sag below international norms. As taxpayers, we’re constantly being hit with demands for more money for schools, and as parents we feel the need to monitor our children’s performance like hawks. Under such circumstances, few of us would condone our kids’ running through the streets carrying placards promoting or refuting any cause, rather than fulfilling their scholarly duties. Yet this is exactly what is happening in some of our neediest communities. And to top it off, many school administrators are facilitating this malevolence.

The border runners who know they are breaking American laws when they steal across our borders have a far different agenda, but they still take law violation far too lightly. Even though their objective may be to flow quietly into the land of milk and honey to find much needed employment and a better way of life, they have no compunction about thumbing their noses at the laws of the land they wish to call home. It seems to me that’s a poor way to start a new life in a new country.

It’s estimated that there are about 11 million illegals in the United States right now. All of these people knew they would be violating the law even before they made the decision to come north. This knowledge made no difference as they made their choice between a legal and illegal entry process. Expediency was the overriding factor, even though there was a legal alternative available to them. Their eagerness was often heightened by the intolerable conditions in their home country they felt the need to leave behind.

To a large degree, this has been the motivation for countless immigrants who have chosen America as their home over the centuries. But as time went by, our people and our government have found it necessary to enact laws to control immigration at manageable levels. To be sure, some of the earlier restrictions had been racially motivated by the egregious attitudes of lawmakers and society in general, but most of the onerous laws have been corrected. Still, it takes time to immigrate legally, regardless of one’s country of origin. But the question remains, does all this justify lawlessness? I think we would agree the answer is an unequivocal, no.

Congress is struggling with a new formula designed to correct illegal entry problems. This past week the Senate agreed to a “step” program that would give incentives to illegal immigrants to conform to defined requirements in order to gain eventual citizenship. Of course this proposed legislation must pass muster with the House, which will likely add its own elements before passage can be achieved. Almost all members of congress are opposed to anything that smells of amnesty, particularly as it may apply to blatant violators of the law.

So what should be done with the people who are repeat offenders of the law? They should be denied citizenship. We have far too many scofflaws among us already, right down to school kids who think walking out of class to run through the streets is tantamount to exercising their civil rights. I’m not suggesting jail time for them, but a parental whupping might be worth trying.

It’s time to change attitudes about abiding by the law, and if we have common sense we’ll understand the change begins with each of us. That’s the kind of example we need to set for all immigrants. America is certainly a land of opportunity, but it’s also a land where citizens recognize the importance of respecting the law.

Park political bias and make immigration law right

2006-04-01T19:40:00.000-06:00

By Dick Tunison

“In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." From a letter written by Theodore Roosevelt to the president of the American Defense Society on January 3, 1919.

I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty upset about the demonstrations in Los Angeles, Denver, and a few other cities, this past week. The temerity of many of the hoard who carried Mexican flags in the streets of America for the purpose showing their real allegiance simply rubs me the wrong way. By what stretch of the imagination do these demonstrators feel the right to show their disdain in this way, while decrying the absolute right of the United States Congress to conduct its business? Although I may not agree with the direction Congress may be heading, these demonstrators, many of whom are in this country illegally, have no right to complain at all.

The whole matter of foreign immigration is a complicated one and must be resolved for our mutual benefit, but 500,000 people agitating in the streets of Los Angeles for special treatment is an affront. As a sovereign nation we have the duty to protect our borders from foreign invasion. Currently, it’s estimated that a half million people cross our southern borders annually, most of them from Latin American countries. When they cross into this country illegally, they are acting as invaders, even though their intent may be benign. And when they demonstrate in the streets for special consideration, they become part of the problem rather than the solution. There are ways to immigrate legally. There is honor in doing so. Even though the requirements may seem cumbersome and time consuming, millions of other immigrants are patiently standing in line to do what the law requires.

We all remember when kids cut into lines at school or ducked under the fence to avoid the cost of a football game ticket. Such acts never brought much favor. And in my mind letting immigrants do the same thing is neither a mark of Christian charity nor is it fair to all those who believe in taking their turns.

To be sure, there is a need for a workforce that will fill jobs vital to our economy despite what some isolationists may argue. Job opportunities are not limited to domestic services and agriculture, and the like; they include science and engineering as well. Candidates for the latter categories are generally the ones who are following the rules.

For some reason, we have cast the victim’s net of “social injustice” over those who would fill the more menial jobs. For that reason we are urged to view their needs in a more compassionate light that pushes our sense of reason off kilter. Although there is a well defined economic demand for workers who would fill lower level jobs, the gates cannot be so porous as to allow aliens to steal their way into this country with impunity. Violating the law cannot be excused simply because jobs my be waiting.

The social justice advocates complain about low wages and hard working conditions often found where the illegal immigrants are employed. In doing so they let their utopian views cloud their understanding of basic economics. There is a natural value scale attached to work and tinkering with it in order to create some level of contrived equality for all, is both misguided and futile. In an effort to remedy this perceived injustice, many liberals, union leaders and ACLU members label lower level jobs demeaning and discriminatory. To the contrary, lower level jobs are legitimate and worthy of our respect, but filling them with illegal workers does not legitimize those who fill them.

We’re in a tough spot. When we find foreign governments complicit in breaking our laws by making it easier for their own citizens to cross our borders in order to alleviate their own political and economic pressures, we see an uneven playing field in action. We are certainly faced with a problem of great complexity that needs to be resolved soon. It has grown to a near explosive point since Lyndon Johnson defrocked the bracerro program in 1967. All reasonable solutions should be examined at the same time political biases are parked at the door.

Waging war requires adapting to ever changing conditions

2006-03-25T21:25:00.000-06:00

By Dick Tunison

By 1926, General Billy Mitchell had lost his military career and was eventually court-martialed because he was convinced there was a better way to fight wars than the then current methods of the War Department. He was a gnarly general who wouldn’t give up his desire to change things he thought were wrong. What did he advocate that was so threatening to tradition? He claimed surface ships were obsolete and bombs dropped from low flying aircraft could sink battleships. The top brass couldn’t accept his theory and they deeply disliked his propensity to go against their orders, so they cashiered the futurist and the American Military suffered the consequences for nearly two decades.

Part of Mitchell’s prediction turned out to be correct. Thousands of ships were sunk during the next war, WWII, by aerial bombardment. What he misdiagnosed was the future need for big ships. Aircraft carriers provided the floating airfields for the planes that dropped the bombs that sank the ships and heavy-gunned cruisers and battleships that Mitchell would have discarded, softened up landing beaches before invasions.

The Mitchell case may have been one of the first examples of the battle to reexamine the basics of military science during the last century. Such disputes, as we have found in the Billy Mitchell story, were often based conflicting points of view, petty jealousies or misplaced loyalties, and in some cases the lack of an appropriate proving ground and the reluctance to test.

In many ways the Second World War was fought like the First War. Great masses of ground troops engaged one another. Defensive armies once again dug in – not in trenches as they had twenty years earlier, but in extensive tunnel systems and even tiny foxholes. Heavy armor was king. At the same time, new techniques and innovation allowed bombers to fly, not just a few miles to drop ten pound bombs on enemy trenches, but thousand-mile missions to drop seventeen thousand pound loads on ball bearing plants, shipyards and train yards that would have been unheard of before.

All wars are unpredictable and most commanders know the importance of flexibility in order to respond to the unanticipated twists and turns of their adversaries. But sometimes strategists and civilian planners are not so flexible. The Korean War reminds us that the entry of the Chinese came unexpectedly and our forces were ill prepared. The Chinese joined the North Koreans in astounding numbers, and literally threw their lives into a death mission to the astonishment of our war planners. Nonetheless, this war was a classical extension of what had taken place just five years before during the last days of the Battle in the Pacific when Japanese soldiers chose death over surrender. How could we not be prepared for it?

The Vietnamese War was originally based on new assumptions. After extended periods of hard-fought battles during WWII, there was an effort to keep the fighting contained with a low investment in manpower. But it soon became a battle of escalation. Initially, only training advisers were involved, but over the first several years it seemed to some observers that it was our unwillingness to invest troops in force that hampered our ability to suppress the invaders. So our military and civil leaders quickly reverted to full-force methodology but with unrealistic restraints imposed. That strategy eventually failed, and we entered into an ignominious withdrawal.

As a result, a new doctrine cobbled together in the 1980s by Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger and Joint Chief of Staff Colin Powell argued that the military should fight only wars in which it could apply overwhelming force to destroy the enemy. We saw this technique put to use during Desert Storm and the Second Gulf War. In both instances it was immensely successful. A new term, “shock and awe,” took on special meaning. The enemy was decimated before it could cock and aim.

But neither of these two wars ended in the typical way. In Desert Storm we essentially wrapped up our war machine and went home leaving the Iraqis, albeit with little ability left to wage war, with the same despot in power. The Second Gulf War began much the same way, but this time the enemy forces abandoned their posts, put on civilian clothes and disappeared into the sunset. This left a dangerous hidden threat that cleverly deprived our forces of the ability to identify it. We were then faced with the need for new tactics to neuter an invisible enemy. It had changed to a guerrilla war overnight.

According to an article by Wall Street Journal writer, Greg Jaffe, “A half dozen Vietnam histories – most of them highly critical of the US Military in Vietnam – are changing the military’s views on how to fight guerrilla wars.”

This is an important change that must be made if we are to be successful in the immediate future. Those who have advocated increasing the numbers of our forces in Iraq are erroneously falling back into the old mold that seems not to apply in today’s situation. “Shock and Awe” did its job, but now different techniques are called for. The new argument that the military must exercise restraint is a central element in the Army’s developing counterinsurgency doctrine. According to Jaffe, “it involves everything from strategy development to intelligence gathering.” We need to remind ourselves that wars are variable and tactics and strategies for winning them should not be written in indelible ink.

Only dedicated politicians can do the dance

2006-03-18T16:23:00.000-06:00

By Dick Tunison

I don’t dance. Stepping too close to a dance floor has been known to give me a severe nosebleed. That doesn’t mean I don’t like the idea of dancing. I’d just prefer to be an observer rather than a participant.

A couple of years ago, my wife and I attended a convention in Philadelphia. Each evening an orchestra played dance music after the dinner had been served. I watched my wife out of the corner of my eye and knew what was going in her head. She wanted me to take her hand and march her right out onto the dance floor and swing her around with the music. But Fred Astaire I am not and I have many blood stained shirts to prove it.

As I said, I don’t mind watching people dance when they really know what they’re doing. One evening after dinner the orchestra played line dance music and everybody but the two of us at our table ventured out onto the floor. It ranked among the most stupid dances I’d ever seen. The dancers stood in a straight line and first stepped out a couple of paces and then retreated. Then they did the same thing to the right and then the left. They never got anywhere! Not only that, the whole thing was graceless – nothing at all like the waltz, for instance.

If you’ve been watching and reading about the aftermath of the great “port sale of the century” as played out this past week you have observed what I’m dubbing “The Congressional Line Dance.” The only things dumber than the dance were the dancers who couldn’t figure out which way they were supposed to go next. First, they stepped toward national security. Then they retreated toward sticking it to the president. Next they moved toward expelling all foreigners from any American strategic business, and finally they expressed the sentiment that only congress had the wisdom to protect the critical interests of the country.

All the time they danced they sang lyrics written by some elitist for the consumption of the masses: Bush is selling our ports to the terrorists, tra-la. He’s in cahoots with the money changers, tra-la. The lyricist was always careful to say “ports” even though he knew the word should be “terminal.” It was always “sell” and never “lease.” It was always “control” the port and never did they say “operate” the terminal, and invariably, it was “take responsibility for security” rather than “guard the gate.”

Antics by the boot-stompers on both sides of the aisle have been an embarrassment. They have played deceitful politics to the hilt. The underlying game has been an effort on the part of far too many congressmen to expand their political importance. They want to investigate everything the administration does so they can second guess the president and criticize his decisions. In the process, many have resorted to fabrications and misstatements that served only to confuse an already uneducated public that is easily aroused.

With the incessant harping about the president’s “lies” concerning nearly everything he has attempted to accomplish, it’s easy to understand why a great number of Americans can be tempted to join the line dance. To argue that the United Arab Emirates do not now present a security risk somehow translates into a gigantic lie when we are reminded that it was through Dubai that funds and terrorist moved toward 9/11. But in creating doubts, we miss the point that Dubai is vital to our strategic military needs in the Middle East, and the UEA has worked hand in glove with us to foil terrorism in the area.

I have discussed the economics of our relationship with foreign countries in previous writings. Yet, our overly politicized congressmen and senators are overwhelmed with the opportunity to make hay at the expense of the realities of international finance and our need for the infusion of more than $3 billion dollars a day to maintain our fiscal integrity. They step forward and then they step backward seemingly unable to grasp the facts.

Although some of the readers of this essay will gnash their teeth at what I say, this week has been a sad week when we look at the performance of the line dancers in Washington. They could never seem to get their sense of direction because they’ve been blinded by political opportunity. Yes, it’s been a sad week.

My apologies to all my friends who really love to line dance. I know in their hearts they’d rather be dancing than have a seat in congress. As for myself, I don’t dance.

Addendum

While I’m in an apologetic mood, let me touch on a subject that some readers are sensitive about. I frequently refer to groups as if there are no exceptions to their composition. That is, I may write “Liberal thinkers suggest…” “Democrats oppose…” “Conservatives are advocating…” “Liberal theories are failing…”

I’ve had a number of liberal friends take issue with my seemingly all-inclusive statement, because it doesn’t reflect their personal view and they would prefer that I write, “some liberals” so that they could find themselves among the “not some liberals” group. I think I can understand not wanting to be counted as thinking in a particular way when I actually don’t agree with the stated concept. But that opens up a larger question: Are “some” liberals liberal in name only? Is it possible they are closet conservatives occasionally peeping through the crack? I have not had time to research this matter, but it does provide some intrigue.

Suppose a large proportion of liberals who live on the east and west coasts simply want their friends and neighbors to think they are left leaning. After all, in Hollywood that would sort of guarantee acceptance, wouldn’t it? Here in Oklahoma, where I live, it takes a very brave soul to proclaim one’s liberalism. Who do you think buys all the Kevlar vests – hunters heading for the quail pastures?

I would love to spend the evening with one of my (I quiver as I say it) liberal friends for the purpose of testing the depth of their convictions. I would bet a large percentage of them are really conservatives who have lost their way as a result of listening to CNN day and night.

Now comes my apology: I really don’t want to offend anybody with my essays, but I do want to get the “some liberals” to question the basis of their assumptions. So, I’ll keep trying until it works.

Aw gee, we were just having fun

2006-03-11T19:30:00.000-06:00

By Dick Tunison

What in the world is so special about a “hate crime?” When the ultimate result is a senseless transgression against all moral standards, why does hate need to be a factor? Does that aspect of evil rank higher than all others? The deed generally stands alone without any need for social fanning to make it egregious.

In our present culture we seem to want to make severe crimes against homosexuals, those of another race or creed and maybe even political opponents, appear worse than the murder of a family by an enraged father. Does it not require some level of hate to kill one’s own wife and children?

This week we were told that three of the perpetrators of a string of church fires in Alabama were arrested. But the authorities were quick to add these were not hate crimes, but in fact “joke crimes” based on the warped sense of humor of the college students who struck the matches. One can only suppose that if the motivation had something to do with animosity toward Baptists, the description might have teetered on “hate.” The end result of the crime would have been no different. It would have been much clearer had the perpetrators been members of some Baptist sect and the churches had, instead, been synagogues. Now that would have been a real hate crime according to our socially correct definitions.

A young man is beaten to a bloody pulp in an alley in Brownsville. He wore a red bandana and the gang that trounced him wore blue. His death is ruled a gang-motivated street crime. But a gay man is dragged behind a truck in rural Wyoming and nailed to a fence where he dies in agony. That’s a hate crime. Tell me what really distinguishes one from the other? Aren’t the end results of these two crimes equally ghastly and beneath our standards of civilization? Aren't the motives hate in both cases?

Many of us have watched the news of he church fires unfold in disbelief. I think we were all anxious to have the criminals found and brought to justice. But their justification for the crimes they committed is only incidental to the whole. Nine churches were razed or heavily damaged and the young men described their deed as “a joke that went too far.” Literally hundreds of church faithful gave of their time and resources to build these churches. They did it out of love, not as a joke and they see no “joke” in the destructive deed. Arms of the congregants would have been open wide to welcome any of these young men had they stepped through the doors of the churches in humility.

The buildings can be rebuilt – and likely will be. Insofar as we know, no one died as a result of the fires. After all, the faith of the church members was not destroyed along with the pews, hymnals and stained glass windows, so the loss was only material.

Local Alabama authorities think that the three young men will face sentences of up to five years in jail for their “funny crime” if found guilty. But because this was a white on white crime with no apparent evidence of religious prejudice and the congregations were not homosexual, it was just a little old joke of minor significance. You know, boys will be boys.

Police authorities say they see a difference between the looter who steals three loaves of bread and a carton of milk and the one who shoulders a TV set and makes his way out of the store. These are the easy crimes to define. But liberal thinkers have muddied the waters when it comes to the so called “hate” crime. They have created a category intended to rise above all others in order to emphasize their cause. To suggest that the brutal rape, strangulation and mutilation of a young woman falls somewhere below the seriousness of our currently defined “hate” crimes is a stretch of logic.

In my case in point, I guess one could argue the “joke crime” represents little more than youthful exuberance, because the perpetrators really didn’t hate anybody, they were just having fun. Of course motive is an important element in determining the severity of any punishment, but it doesn’t change the basic nature of the crime at all. It is for that the perpetrator needs to be held accountable. When we give up on the importance of personal accountability we give up a big piece of what we once called character.

Two for the price of one

2006-03-04T21:24:00.000-06:00

Ports addendum

By Dick Tunison

A number of readers have written to say how informative my blog about the Ports deal was. I’m glad, because my sole purpose in writing these essays is to encourage new thinking on a particular subject. The surprising thing to me has been the slowness with which the press put its arms around the real facts. Many reporters are still referring to “ports” rather than terminals and they insist on referring to the deal as a “sale” rather than the ordinary business process of taking over an existing lease.

Harking back to my oil company days I see a similarity to what goes on in the oil industry when companies bid on government land. The winning company never actually gets to own the land as a leading bidder, it gains a lease for the purpose of exploring and, hopefully, developing worthwhile production. At a later time, the operating company may decide it’s in its best interest to “sell” the lease to some other oil company. So it enters into negotiations with a suitor. If everything goes according to Hoyle the transfer takes place and the new operator takes over the lease.

A good example of this can be found on the North Slope of Alaska. One of the first lessees of the government land was Standard Oil Company of Ohio. Several years after the discovery of oil, SOHIO was bought by British Petroleum Company – a foreign firm. As a result of the purchase, BP gained the rights to the lease along with SOHIO’s other assets. Some years later, BP purchased AtlanticRichfield with similar results. So now BP operates several large leases on the North Slope.

As I attempted to explain in my last blog, that’s what happened in the port terminal matter. A British firm, P&O held leases on six port terminals along the Eastern and Gulf Coast. The company did not own the terminals; they were the property of the various states where the ports were located. P&O decided it was in its best interest to find a buyer for its US operations. Dubai Port World was the only viable party that showed interest in taking over these terminal facilities, and so the deal was done. But in this case, the US Government was required to review and approve the transaction because of the Foreign Investments Act.

Unfortunately the press seems incapable for explaining this business transaction without using inflammatory language. They continue the drumbeat of false implications.

Now the focus has moved almost entirely to the political stage. This will allow those strange actors to resume their mysterious roles as inquisitors of the heretics who obviously have no other reason in life than to subject the American people to security breaches and the evil deeds of would be terrorists.

I hope you have had the chance to watch a little of the hearings that were aired on CSPAN this week. One interesting aspect was the testimony of the DWP Chief Operating Officer, an American, along with several other company officials who made their allegiances quite clear. They took umbrage at any suggestion that they might be complicit in shenanigans not of the best interests of their country. Others, from various government departments and the Longshoreman’s Union made their support of the P&O/DWP deal quite clear, despite the inquisitor’s attempts to illicit the answers they were salivating for.

This issue has not been laid to bed despite the fact Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has announced new hearings mean nothing because his mind is made up. He won’t allow the deal to be consummated. We must now go through the reiteration of an analytical review by the CFIUS committee. I guess that’s OK, but it won’t change the mind of the most stubborn opponents.

There is one other matter that has not been given the light of day. It concerns the international financial ramifications of transactions such as these. The United States is a net payer nation. Simply stated, we owe more than we earn. The value of foreign imports exceeds the value of what we sell to others. High on the list of countries with which our balance of payments is askew are the major oil producers. When we find opportunities that attract these countries to invest in American businesses we need to be mindful of the importance of such moves. Opportunities like the port terminal businesses can generate millions of dollars of inbound cash flow for America without the need to sell off our real estate or other assets.

Why didn’t we open the deal to an American shipping operator? It was available to any qualified company but none was in a position to offer a bid. According to American business standards, a profit could not be made by an American company. That fact should give us pause.

But we must be aware there’s a lot to be said for the importance of foreign investments in the United States. Although some are fearful it could become the selling of America, it also helps keep the wheels going around. According to the Wall Street Journal, “at the end of 2004 foreigners held $1.9 trillion in US corporate stocks, $2.2 trillion in government securities, $2.1 trillion in private bonds and $2.9 trillion in debt owned to banks.” So there are a lot of eggs in those baskets that help American business grow, provide workers jobs and regular paychecks, and generally boost our economy.

Even when our balance of payments problem subsides, the advisability of foreign investments, in both directions, will remain important simply because we are now living in a global economy. Someone recently observed that a woman sitting on a dirt floor in Guatemala weaving native fabric for export was wearing western clothing. The observer asked why she didn’t wear indigenous clothes and she remarked they cost too much. It was a superior financial transaction to buy foreign readymade clothes and sell her handmade products to a French designer. Now that’s how Globalization changes our lives.

Please continue to ponder this matter, because the political paper mills are running at high speed and we should not allow ourselves to be caught up in the flow.

Just as an additional bonus for my faithful readers I’m offering, without any extra charge, a full view of my Op-Ed column published in the March 5 edition of the Edmond Sun newspaper. This will likely not happen often because most of my stuff is long and requires great concentration to grasp. But what the heck, let’s start out the month with a bang.

Dick

Don’t be stuck on stupid

By Dick Tunison

Taking a little liberty with what Dr. Samuel Johnson said about an acquaintance, “He is dull, naturally dull. But it must have taken him great pains to become as stupid as he appears.”

Rank stupidity came out in full force over the past several weeks at the University of Washington when members of the student government balked at a plan to erect a memorial to Colonel Gregory Boyington, one of the school’s most famous alumni. The resolution to construct the memorial was approved, but only after numerous attempts to scuttle the project.

Even some of my youngest readers will remember the TV series that celebrated the exploits of “Pappy Boyington” the leader of the Black Sheep Squadron during the Second World War. Actor Robert Conrad played the role of Boyington who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his heroism and the Navy Cross for shooting down 28 Japanese aircraft near the New Hebrides Islands in the South Pacific.

But Boyington was more than a Marine pilot and ace; he pulled together and inspired a fighter squadron when the Marine Corps need it most. The early war in the Pacific was in a defensive mode in 1943 when he persuaded his commanding officer to let him fill a gap by finding enough pilots to create the rag-tag VMF 214 Squadron.

Gregory Boyington graduated from the University of Washington in 1934 with a degree in aeronautical engineering. After a year at Boeing Aircraft, working as a draftsman, he joined the Marines and was assigned as a flight instructor until he volunteered to be a “Flying Tiger.” The 1930s were tough times for anyone wishing a college education. To pay his bills he worked summers in Idaho mining operations – no Pell Grants, scholarships or student stipends in those days.
Boyington was not a perfect man. He was often overtaken by alcoholism and he moved frequently from job to job in his later life in an endless attempt to “find” himself. In summary of his own life, he wrote, “If this story were to have a moral, then I would say, ‘Just name a hero and I’ll prove he’s a bum.’”

But we don’t designate heroes for what they are not, but what they are when the chips are down.

Now, the University of Washington is struggling with whether it should recognize one of its own in a lasting tribute or toss that man’s memory into the trash heap. The difficulty in making this choice is that some of the most vocal voices are being raised by students who have risen to new heights of stupidity.
Student Senator Jill Edwards said she “didn’t believe a member of the Marine Corps was an example of the sort of person UW wanted to produce.” Ashley Miller, another senator, argued “many monuments at UW already commemorate rich white men.” Senate member Karl Smith amended the resolution to eliminate a clause that credited Boyington for shooting down enemy aircraft, tying the record for the most aircraft destroyed by a pilot in American uniform, for which he was awarded the Navy Cross. Smith argued “the resolution should commend Colonel Boyington’s service, not his killing of others.”

Well, there is always room for input from those who object to war out of conscience. They have a moral position to express and sometimes that position can give balance when it is needed most. But there are also the jabberings of meatheads who want to speak with the authority of Moses but lack the wisdom of his wooden staff. Unfortunately, some college students believe that since they’ve mastered quantitative analysis they should be viewed as the new generation Linus Pauling. Acquiring knowledge is not the same as replacing stupidity.

It seems a shame to me that there are elements in our society that would destroy the long standing shibboleths defining who our heroes are and replace them with new standards that miss the point altogether. My heroes are still those whose courage took them to soaring heights while others stood quietly in the shadows. My heroes are still those who stepped forward with new ideas that flew in the face of erroneous notions.

If there were only a chance that Jill Edwards, Ashley Miller and Karl Smith could bring the renown to the University of Washington that Gregory “Pappy” Boyington has brought, there might be room to excuse their youthful stupidity. But as Louisiana National Guard General Honore commented about the situation in his state after Katrina, “Don’t be stuck on stupid.” I hope some of today’s college students hear those words.

The Great Seaport Snafu?

2006-02-25T11:14:00.000-06:00

Or, how to become convinced without the facts

By Dick Tunison

Well haven’t we been whipped into a frenzy over the intended sale of several American ports to the United Arab Emirates?

Most of what politicians on both sides of the aisle, a substantial part of the press and hoards of the public are so caught up in is an example of how little we understand about the matter rather than how thoughtfully we are analyzing it. I included myself among this reactive group of stunned folks – until I really got into the subject.

I started out the week in deep wonderment about the administration’s decision to approve the sale. On its surface it seemed counterintuitive to sell any port to an Arab nation that has a questionable past when it comes to terrorism. I wondered if the Bush administration had made a gigantic potential security blunder, or at least fomented a public relations tempest in a teacup. But then, I had to recognize I knew little about the rhyme or the reason.

I have a natural aversion to allowing foreign countries to own American businesses that are even remotely related to our national security. I was glad the proposed sale of UNOCAL to Cnooc, a Chinese petroleum company was jinxed last year. The idea that we might sell a port to some foreign country seemed to immediately fall into my “restricted category”. The United Arab Emirates is going to buy six American ports? Absurd!

That’s where my prejudice toward the sale began. But during the week I’ve tried to learn more about the details of the transaction. Let me share what I’ve learned - just for your consideration.

To begin with, there’s strong political noise banging behind the scenes. Some people don’t like anything Bush does, so to them this decision was faulty on its face. But why were so many Republicans lined up waving their arms about the deal? Ah, it’s election year and some Republican lawmakers see themselves as vulnerable. It’s not in their interest to stick their heads out too far on matters that might appear to weaken our national security. If the president’s decision to sell something to the UAE smells like a move that will put the country in greater danger, they’re going to keep their distance. In a nutshell, then, there’s a political aspect to the matter.

Another factor relates to how the transaction is described by the press.

Say something over and over again and people will begin to believe it. The first descriptive word repeated endlessly has been “sale,” as in “the United States is “selling” six US ports.” Well, we’re not selling anything, least of all six seaports.

“Port” is the second word that has been misused in all the reporting. Ports are comprised of various buildings, commercial facilities and staging areas in a harbor, among which are terminals. A terminal is a length of pier and ancillary structures that are typically leased by shipping companies that use them as trading hubs or transfer points. Cruise lines, for example, use passenger terminals. Other companies operate container terminals, petroleum terminals or bulk cargo terminals. A British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., whose history dates back to Queen Victoria’s England, has operated terminals along our coasts for many years. Currently these are used for loading and offloading sea/land containers.

So how is it we’re “selling” a “port?” The government is simply approving the transfer of ownership of a right to conduct business in several American ports. P&O, as the British company is called, is selling its American terminal operations to Dubai Ports World (DPW). Last fall DPW tendered an offer to purchase P&O’s American operations. Dubai Ports World is owned by Dubai, one of the seven emirates that comprise the United Arab Emirates. (Dubai, by the way, is the country Boeing contracted to sell aircraft to last year valued at $7 billion – with our government’s approval.)

A number of our seaport terminals are operated by foreign companies and governments. Six terminals in the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach are operated in this way. Among the “owner operators” are China, Japan, Taiwan, Denmark and Singapore. Most U.S. ports are state-owned landlord ports that lease space to shipping companies. The companies and states work together to manage traffic and employ the workers required to run the terminals. When things go right, port operations are financially important to the local community. Some local port departments are huge. An example is the New York Port Authority which operates bridges, tunnels, airports and subway systems as well as the ports themselves.

The issue of security has been raised by almost everyone who has doubts about the sale of the British company’s operations to the United Arab Emirates. The fact is that P&O, the current British operator, has nothing to do with port safety other than understanding and complying with the regulations. Security is the purview of the US Coast Guard, the US Customs Department, and local law enforcement. This will not change.

Some critics have suggested that the UAE could send in enemy agents to infiltrate terminal operations and learn security secrets. But enemy infiltration is possible all around us. Remember the flying schools where the 9/11 pilots learned to fly passenger jets? The answer here is increased diligence on our part.

According to Michael Moore, senior vice president of DPW, the great majority of employees who now manage and operate the P&O terminals will remain in their present positions after the transfer of operational ownership. There is no plan to displace them with foreigners unfamiliar with how the terminals operate.

Besides, we’re quick to forget that the infamous Richard Reid – the shoe bomber – was a British subject, so we do have enemies even among our friends. And as to the UAE, it has been very cooperative with our anti-terrorism actions since 9/11. In fact that government has been instrumental in the arrest of a high ranking al Qaeda official and a leader of the radical Islamic group Harhat-ul-Jihad-e-Islam. This kind of cooperation is imperative in our war on terrorism. Should the transfer agreement be scotched at this point we may end up losing an ally in exchange for the perception of greater safety.

The process that led to the recommendation that the president approve the terminal transaction is based on a procedure that resulted from the creation of the Committee on Foreign Investment in 1975. The review committee is comprised of officials from Defense, State, Commerce and Transportation Departments, along with the National Security Council and other agencies. The committee found no problems resulting from its review and passed the matter along to the president with its positive recommendation.

There is good reason to be concerned about the security of our seaports. A study completed last year by the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security identified 66 of the nation’s 350 ports as being especially vulnerable to terrorist attack. Unfortunately only $630 million of the $18 billion allocated for homeland security has been spent so far on port security. Security systems are so sparse in our seaports that it’s been estimated 11,000 truckers go in and out of the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach each day with only their drivers’ licenses as identification.

The fact is that only five to ten percent of the six million containers that arrive in this country every day are inspected. To ameliorate this difficult situation, many of the containers are inspected or verified at their ports of embarkation. According to government officials, the UAE has gone out of its way to be cooperative in this effort by allowing our own inspectors to participate at UAE wharfs on a continuing basis.

Before we allow our feet to be cemented in place regarding this very complicated matter, it behooves us to learn all we can about the details and facts. This means, most of all, avoiding the firebrands who talk a lot and think only a little. As the days go by we will hear more complete explanations of the inner workings of transactions between our government and foreign companies. We should open our thinking to the realization that the world economy is far more complicated than it used to be. With huge amounts of money represented in national debts and credits it’s necessary to find new ways to invest surplus funds and pay debts without tipping the scales of international finance. Foreign investments in our economy are vital to our balance of payments. The DPW deal will result in millions of dollars being pumped back into our economy that we have paid to purchase of foreign oil. Such exchanges will reduce some of our high national debt. And that’s not a bad thing either.

As I write this, the latest news is that DPW has offered to extend the closing date of the sale so that many of these concerns may be explored and better understood by Americans. That seems like a good thing to me. I’m convinced we may have built up objections to a reasonable transfer of operating rights out of fear rather than sound judgment.

The Press and the Quail Hunt

2006-02-16T16:48:00.000-06:00

By Dick Tunison

It’s patently obvious to some cranks that Vice President Dick Cheney peppered his friend Harry Whittington with birdshot to divert attention from the upcoming trial of Cheney’s former aide “Skooter” Libby. Of course Libby’s trial isn’t scheduled until early next year, so any thinking person would wonder why the vice president couldn’t wait awhile to do the deed. But then, the country is populated by fewer and fewer thinking people. At least that’s the conclusion I reached after seeing the churning that surrounded last Monday’s White House news conference.

The White House press corps once again distinguished itself by firing off salvo after salvo of stupid questions at poor old Scott McClellan. The reporters wanted to know how it could be that they weren’t notified about the hunting accident moments after the Veep’s shotgun was cased. Certainly we all know that these newsmen would search out every last morsel to find the real meat. Why were they denied all the details for a whole 36 hours? The more sinister questions flirted with the notion that Cheney might resign from office or be subject to criminal action for accidentally shooting his friend. One reporter actually asked, “Would this be much more serious if the man had died?”

There is something to be said for criticizing the manner by which the news was released to the press. To my mind, it was an unnecessary public relations screw-up for which the administration has often been criticized. Bright people working around teh White House know that when bad things occur giving quality news conferences quickly and telling the story straight is the best way to ward off suspicion and later criticism. In this case, it seemed like everybody was waiting for somebody else to step up to the microphone. But Cheney says it was his call, and that doesn’t mean a cover-up was being devised during the silence.

In Wednesday evening’s exclusive interview with Fox’s Brit Hume, Cheney took all responsibility for waiting for the Whittington’s family to be informed and more complete information on the victim’s condition before anyone went to the news media with the story. Cheney said Dan Bartlett and Scott McClellen urged otherwise, but it was his decision to manage the news in his way. He pointed out that early reports are often inaccurate and incomplete and he wanted that pitfall to be avoided.

Some critics are saying the vice president should have held a news conference. Well, knowing the press I don’t blame Cheney for wanting to bypass that experience. Can one imagine the range of questions? “Mr. Vice President, did Harry Whittington ever work for Halliburton?” “Mr. Vice President, were you hoping Skooter Libby would leak the story? Is that why you waited so long?” “Mr. Vice President, was Whittington ever a lobbyist for Save the American Anas platyrhynchos?” (That means the mallard duck for those who have forgotten their Latin lessons.)

The fact that reporters cannot accept the explanation that was eventually given is not a tribute to their superior cognitive reasoning but more to their desire to jab the administration whenever possible. After all, if the vice president had truly intended to do Whittington harm he could have selected a more brutish shotgun – say a 12 gauge rather than the much smaller 28 gauge that is generally used for bird hunting. The vice president and his two friends were hunting quail, after all. But that didn’t seem to matter to the heavy thinkers in the press. As usual, they wanted to know who knew and when they knew it!

Katherine Armstrong, the owner of the ranch where Cheney and his two companions hunted was a first hand observer of the accident. It was she who, at Cheney’s request, gave the initial report to the local press. She is not a novice in field hunting. The land has been in her family since the turn of the last century and the ranch is frequently used for bird hunting. Armstrong’s account was that Whittington “came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn’t signal them or announce himself.” Cheney didn’t realize that his long-time friend was in his line of fire until it was too late. Nevertheless, the vice president took full responsibility when he told Brit Hume the fault was his, because it was his “finger that pulled the trigger that shot my friend.”

Unfortunately hunting accidents do happen. The International Hunter Education Association tracks incident reports by state. The organization’s website indicates that although hunting accidents in the United States have declined over the past decade, in 2002, the most recent year for data collection, 89 fatal and 761 nonfatal accidents occurred. In 26 of the cases, the intended target was quail.

According to Shailagh Murray and Peter Baker, writing for the Washington Post, this wasn’t the first time Cheney has called attention to himself for foraging in the woods. “Two years ago, the vice president was criticized for going duck hunting with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.” It’s not clear whether the tut-tuts were generated because the Veep went out to shoot ducks or that it was improper for him to schmooze the Justice over a sumptuous meal of free-range pheasant after the hunt.

Perhaps the comments of PETA President Ingrid Newkirk explain everything. “Cheney needs to start setting a less violent example by switching to target practice and leaving animals and people in peace.” Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States agreed. “We’d advise him to pursue a less violent form of relaxation and get on with the important business of leading the country,” Pacelle said.

More good stuff came from the press as some of its more curious members gathered in front of the Corpus Christi hospital Tuesday morning. They were there to hear from a couple of specialists who had been charged with caring for Harry Whittington. The two doctors gave their description of the condition of the injured Whittington and then made the mistake of opening the conference to questions. The reporters zinged the poor doctors with a barrage of questions that was hair-curling. It was apparent the doctors were not accustomed the kind of third degree they faced for nearly a half hour.

It seemed every inquisitor had stopped at the local library to bone up on trauma, gunshot wounds and how aged men recovered from such experiences. But when one of the doctors informed the salivating group that Whittington had suffered a “silent heart attack” earlier that morning, the reporters went wild. A tiny shot had come close to the poor man’s heart and irritated the heart muscle to the point of fibrillation. This news presented a whole new range of questioning to the quasi medical students who stood by with spiral pads in hand. An impartial observer would have noted the degree of frustration that overcame the two doctors. They had just been exposed to the National Press Corp in all its glory.

When the likes of David Gregory and other self-approving members of the fourth estate ask their stupid questions I do have a tendency to cringe. Yet, sometimes it is their persistence that reveals the truths we need to know. In some ways it’s like fishing. The reporter needs to continue casting his questions on the water hopeful that sooner or later he’ll get a strike.

I read the Autobiography of Lincoln Steffens when I was a lad. Steffens was a muckraking reporter who dug deep into political and other failures of his times. The book made a lasting impression on me. It helps me see the stark differences between the free press we enjoy in America and the control of news exercised in most of the rest of the world. I’d rather allow newsmen to ask stupid questions and probe matters that are hard to believe than silence them and suffer the consequences. We can suffer fools more easily than we can suffer the absence of solid information.

But sometimes I think reporters could be just a tad more humble as they seek the story behind the story. Simple, honest questions can often bring far more light than accusatory jabs that only illicit defensiveness.

The cartoon that set the world upside down

2006-02-08T15:51:00.000-06:00

There is no room for humor

By Dick Tunison

Great masses of the Islamic world have gone nuts over a political cartoon published in a Danish newspaper last September that depicts The Prophet Mohammed. No matter how he’s depicted – in this case not favorably – some Islamists believe it’s sacrilegious to depict the father of their faith in any way, because it could be considered idolatrous. So, literally thousands of “offended” Muslims have taken to the streets in several European and Middle Eastern countries, overturned cars, smashed windows and burned Danish and Norwegian embassies.

The Stratfor Geopolitical Intelligence Report, published Tuesday, February 7, made an interesting observation. “There is something exceedingly odd in the notion that Denmark – which has made a national religion of not being offensive to anyone – could become the focal point of Muslim rage.” From a Muslim theological perspective, The Prophet Mohammed is not to be ridiculed or portrayed. But, curiously, violating the sensibilities of persons of other religious beliefs is not taboo to Muslims.

I watched a TV news broadcast the other night that showed several kids holding a hand-made poster with a Christian cross marked on it. A fourth person had set a match to the poster. I don’t know the location of the incident, but it was clearly somewhere in the Arab world. The kids seemed gleeful, but that was not true on the adults that crowded around them. Their faces were filled with rage.

All this has made me think about how different our culture is when compared to that of the Middle East. This is particularly so when we view our reactions to perceived religious slights and slurs in our own country and the way people in the Muslim World view similar situations.

Do you remember Salman Rushdie? He is the India-born English novelist who wrote The Satanic Verses in 1988. Salman Rushdie was condemned to death by the former Iranian spiritual leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini on February 14, 1989. Naguib Mahfouz, the winner of the 1988 Nobel Prize in Literature, criticized Khomeini for 'intellectual terrorism' but changed his view later and said that Rushdie did not have 'the right to insult anything, especially a prophet or anything considered holy.'

In America, turmoil surrounded the exhibition of photographer Andres Serrano’s depiction of a small plastic crucifix in a glass of the artist’s urine. Many people of the Christian faith found Serrano’s work offensive, while others, along with a few in Congress decried the use of public funds, through the National Endowment for the Arts, to underwrite the display of such works.

But in this case, no one took to the streets. The Brooklyn Museum of Art was not fire bombed, nor were riot police called to quell crowds of delirious protestors. Finally, the dispute shifted to a discussion over freedom of speech and artistic expression and eventually faded into the haze of the past.

This is not to say people of faith in America are not sensitive to religious affronts. They are quite cognizant of slights and slurs, perceived and real, that they note on television, in films and in the press, but the redress they seek comes in far more moderated ways than what we’re seeing among a substantial element of the Islamic culture.

Earlier this past week some Muslim rabble rousers in England wore fake bomb belts strapped around their middles to evoke the fear of terrorism. Damascus has gone wild – which is a mystery in itself, because nothing happens in Syria without being condoned by the secret police. Khaled Mash’al preached the following message at the Al Murabit Mosque in Damascus last Friday, “Today, the Arab and Islamic nation is rising and awakening, and it will reach its peak, Allah willing. It will be victorious. It will link the present to the past. It will open up the horizons of the future. It will regain the leadership of the world. Allah willing, the day is not far off.”

The Islamic Army in Iraq, a Sunni Arab insurgent group urged followers to “catch some Danish people and cut them into pieces.” Nine people have been killed in Afghanistan by rioters and trouble in the streets has extended all the way to Indonesia and New Zealand. How many of these people have even seen the cartoons in question?

This whole emotional uprising was fomented by a radical Muslim cleric who took his message of hate from his mosque in Denmark to Cairo, Egypt where he played his tune to receptive ears. Many of the local crowds in the Middle East knew nothing about the political cartoons until their ire was aroused by firebrand clerics who unleashed pent-up fury. The much maligned Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson or even militant Zionist Rabi Meir Kahane wouldn’t have that kind of clout in this society.

Supporting these religious protestations is a clever political ploy on the part of many secular Arab governments that need to show their people they are good Muslims. This is certainly true in Syria and Lebanon where strong Syrian influence is at play in both countries. This is intended to counteract the radical religious leaders’ call for a return to the golden days of Arabian prestige and the dominance of the Islamic faith. In the clerics’ view, Christianity and Judaism are what stand in their way. Little needling is required to bring restless people into the streets to protest almost anything, least of all a perceived attack on their religion.

But there is likely another twist to this fuss that has not yet shown itself in full bloom. The terrorist agitators working desperately throughout the Muslim World and in Europe couldn’t help but have their hand in the soup. It’s part of a vast attempt to create divides between peoples wherever such hegemony can be accomplished.

The Bush administration has attempted to make the point from the very beginning that the threat from Muslim extremists is not really a response to anything, but a constantly present danger that can be triggered by anything or nothing. Leaders of the European countries have had a hard time getting this notion through their heads. Like it or not, they are now seeing themselves hostage to Islamic perceptions. The cartoonists and the publishers are not the focus of Muslim anger. Whole nations are in the sights of the throngs. Now we see clearly the Europeans are neither in control nor are they immune from attack: train bombings in Spain and Great Britain, mass rioting in France, an assassination in the Netherlands.

Despite the continued division between America and Europe that has so frequently gotten in the way of our achieving goals perceived to be important, we may be at a turning point. If, indeed, Europe begins to see the radical Muslim offensive as indiscriminately applied against their own homelands and their people, they may be more willing to establish alliances with us. This, of course, would be at odds with the extremist Muslim purpose.

But there lies the big question: Are we unknowingly seeing the first stages of the “Clash of Civilizations”? Samuel P. Huntington, writing in his book (1996) on the same subject, includes a fascinating note. “In 1991, for instance, Barry Buzan saw many reasons why a societal cold war was emerging ‘between the West and Islam, in which Europe would be on the front line.’”

This is not a matter to be taken lightly!

What's the beef over school vouchers?

2006-01-28T18:45:00.000-06:00

The NEA needs to own up to the facts

By Dick Tunison

Paradoxes have tended to intrigue me. For example: How can someone be in favor of a woman’s right to choose and at the same time oppose the death penalty? How can our tax laws provide earned income tax credits to people who didn’t pay any taxes in the first place? Why is it that diversiphiles like to create stand-alone groups in our society like Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans that are really conglomerations with little or no true bonds between them? Why is it that teachers unions tell us their principal concern is the good of the children, yet they fight tooth and toenail against school vouchers that would enable kids to get a better education?

Week before last, The Wall Street Journal noted that the Florida Supreme Court has junked a six-year-old voucher program in that state as a result of a union-led lawsuit. Despite the fact that virtually all study data show that not only are voucher programs attractive to many lower income families with school children, but test results reveal the success of practically every school choice programs around the country including the one in Florida.

Now it seems a school choice program in Milwaukee, Wisconsin is being attacked by that state’s governor who wants to lower the cap on the number of kids who can participate. Milwaukee’s Parental Choice Program has been in effect since 1990. It was enacted with strong bipartisan support and provides school vouchers to students from families at or below 175% of the “poverty line.” The program has grown consistently since 1990 and last year encompassed 127 schools and more than 14,000 kids. But teacher union financed Governor Jim Doyle has vetoed three attempts on the part of the state legislature to expand the program and let more students participate.

One can fairly ask about the results of the voucher program in Milwaukee. Jay Greene of the Manhattan Institute conducted a study of 2004 data indicating that students taking advantage of vouchers and attending private schools graduated at a 64% rate as opposed to a 36% rate among public school students. An interesting side effect has been noted by Harvard’s Caroline Hoxby who found the voucher program has raised the standards of Milwaukee’s public schools as a result of competition.

It seems that the arguments used by those opposed to school vouchers boil down to just a few. The primary argument is that private school vouchers take money out of the public school’s budgets in order to pay the freight for those kids who opt out in favor of an alternative education. To some people, this translates into cutting what can be spent for the public school classroom. But what is not recognized is that the non-teaching bureaucracy has mushroomed beyond belief. That’s where the real money is being spent. The U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics has found that between 1960 and 1984 the bureaucracy grew by 500% while the number of teachers and principals grew by a mere 57%. So, the deep pockets are not among classroom teachers and the tools of the trade, but in the offices in the “downtown” headquarters.

Another argument is that a $3,000 or $4,000 voucher really won’t help poor families get their children into private schools, because they are far too expensive. That’s certainly true if one chooses Exeter Academy, Andover, Sidwell Friends or one of the other exclusive schools in major metropolitan areas. But it’s not necessarily the case in most parts of the country where the average private school tuition is about half of what the taxpayers dole out for each child in the public education system. Yes, private schools supplement what the parents pay for tuition with funds raised from other sources, but substantial funds flow into public education from similar sources also.

Then, of course, there is the argument that almost all private schools are somehow church related. To some people this is a frightening thought. Our kids being brainwashed by the Catholics or the Baptists, horrors! Lest we forget, in the early days of this country our colleges were founded and underwritten by various religious groups. Do schools like Harvard, William and Mary, Yale and Princeton ring a bell? How about the University of Southern California, Redlands University, Wheaton, Vanderbilt and Texas Christian, they all started with the support of religious institutions. Yes, they did produce some clergymen along the way, but it would be hard to show that they created religious fanatics of very many of their students. This argument is a red herring.

The principal adversaries of school vouchers are among the leaders of the teacher’s unions across the country. Now, I want to make myself perfectly clear. I am differentiating between union leadership and the so-called rank and file. The primary concern of union leaders is power. An example can be seen in union participation in the Democratic National Conventions where some twenty percent of the delegates are union representatives. If there is any possibility that someone else may get a bite out of the education apple, the union’s members are brought into the fight rather than risk losing ground, even though what is lost may be in the best interest of the kids. For NEA leaders to say their first priority is the children of America is like the United Auto Workers president saying his union’s first priority is making Ford Explorers that won’t roll over. Union management is all about power.

Until the people of this country begin to understand that the voucher system is not here to kill public education, but to get it off the dime, we haven’t even started to help our children learn their A,B,Cs. If vouchers create competition for our schools – good. But we should also be watching the statistics. Proof is in the success of an alternative that the teachers' unions are acutely afraid of.

It’s time to stir the pot a little harder.

The political play

2006-01-21T22:54:00.000-06:00

Seeing through the make-up

By Dick Tunison

When I was in Japan many years ago I took the occasion to visit the ancient city of Kyoto. It was a beautiful place, rich in culture and history. A friend advised that I take the time to see one of the famous Noh performances that were both remarkable and indicative of the nation’s past. But, he warned, it would be an all day event. So I should be prepared to take a nice, soft cushion.

Noh is a classical Japanese performance that combines dance, music and poetry presented as artistic stage art. Typically, the performers are all men; however, there are women depicted but these roles are also played by men. All the players wear heavy make-up that conceals their real identity. Some appear gruesomely fierce and threatening while others look pleasant and protective.

The performance I attended was as long as advertised. When it finally ended I felt like I needed an extra week of R & R. But it was worth it. Otherwise, how would I have been prepared for what I endured week before last while watching the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Capital Hill? They were the American answer to a Noh performance. The only thing different was that men played men and women played women.

Those of you who have daily employment and were not able to see the real thing were blessed. The recap versions of the hearings shown on late night television were bad enough.

The senate hearings were a true spectacle. There were striking similarities to the Japanese play. The main character in a Noh performance is called the shite (no, that’s pronounced sh’tay). Like some of the senators, the shite usually appears early in the performance and seems like an ordinary good-guy, But then he disappears through a secret door and returns later displaying his true character. If you had watched the senators in action you would have noticed the same thing – their coming and going through hidden doors, and then, finally returning to center stage where they revealed themselves as they really are – fire breathing inquisitors.

As observers of this American Noh play we learned little new about Judge Sam Alito. His bio had been thoroughly revealed in the press and by the talking heads on TV. But we learned a lot about how low some of our political leaders could stoop to imply prejudice, philosophical leanings that were beyond the pale and affiliations with subversive groups that some senators claimed wanted to return Princeton, Alito’s old school, to the Stone Age. Alito was guilty of all charges in the minds of a few senators, and all the white make-up in the world could not cover their deceitfulness.

I was bowled over last Sunday morning to read one of the Washington Post editorials that advised: Confirm Samuel Alito. Although the Post criticized the nominee on several counts, it did seize on an important point that should not be overlooked by those of us in the audience. The Post editorialist wrote, “. . . Judge Alito should be confirmed, both because of his positive qualities as an appellate court judge (for fifteen years, I add) and because of the dangerous precedent his rejection would set.”

The Post goes on to say Judge Alito is “superbly qualified.” Well, for heaven’s sake, if not, what should we be looking for, someone bereft of all qualifications? Some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are more interested in interfering with the president’s promise to nominate judicial constructionists than they are in filling the seats on the Supreme Court bench with the smartest people available. They would quickly sacrifice a quality candidate for one who conforms to their ideological model.

Judge Alito seems to be an impeccably honest man. Although he refused to answer questions about legal issues that might come before the Supreme Court – and that is proper – he didn’t adopt a role and hide behind a mask. Even as his interrogators tried in vain to cause him to assume a different character, he maintained his focus without failure. He did no dance, nor did he try to escape from the scene. He was in the end what he was in the beginning. In the final analysis, Judge Alito left the play acting to the American Noh performers – the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Supreme Court confirmations are a part of our history just as the Japanese play is a reliving of their past. But in our case, we need to ask if the plot should be rewritten before our play is performed again. Perhaps it’s a part of our history we can improve upon, because it reminds us of little in which we can find pride.

Much ado about nothing

2006-01-14T18:16:00.000-06:00

The people have more sense than our officials

By Dick Tunison

It’s hard for us common folk to find our way through the legal morass that’s been thrown up around the question of government wiretapping. There are impressive legal positions now being presented on both sides of the issue of whether the president has correctly used his powers. One thing is certain however, lawyers seem to be able to find two sides to every judicial question. That’s why we have plaintiff and defense lawyers. Each side believes it has a corner on the law, but then it’s the judge or the jury that finally decides, not the advocates themselves.

When I was a working stiff, my company had just under a hundred lawyers in its legal department who served executives and senior managers. On average, The Company was sued about once a day by somebody who felt wronged. The interesting thing about the situation was that managers only sought legal advice from their attorneys. The lawyers never made the management decision. In the final analysis, it was always the boss’s choice.

Here we are in a situation where the lawyers don’t all agree on the meaning of the law. They vocally expound on the president’s power, or lack thereof, to conduct secret surveillances for the purpose of gaining vital intelligence information. The law at issue is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and is reported to have grown out of misuse of governmental agencies for the purpose of getting dirt on political enemies of the Nixon administration. FISA was intended to protect the innocent as much as facilitate intelligence gathering. But the law still leaves open a means by which the president can conduct warrant-approved surveillance under certain circumstances.

Even though FISA covers only a limited number of intelligence-gathering situations, no administration since the enactment of the law in 1978 has recognized it as a binding limit on executive power, and they have acted accordingly. When the law was passed, Griffin Bell, Jimmy Carter’s Attorney General, said that “it does not take away the power of the President under the Constitution.” Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick (Remember, she was the one who constructed the “wall between the CIA and the FBI.”) claimed in 1994 an “inherent authority” (within the powers of the presidency) not just to warrantless electronic surveillance but to warrantless physical searches as well.

Yes, there are dyed-in-the-wool libertarians who are finding fault with surveillance of citizens on principle. But many of those who are now opposing the president’s actions argue that Bush has overreached and the legislative branch has not been kept informed of these undercover activities. Thus, we have a turf issue coming to the surface too.

Last Sunday I watched Rep. Jane Harmon (D-CA), the Ranking Member of the Congressional Intelligence Committee, being interviewed on one of the morning talk shows. She acknowledged her presence in meetings where representatives of the administration provided updates of electronic wiretapping and surveillance activities on the part of the government. But, she would not even say how many briefing meetings she had attended so as not to break security rules. In fact, Rep. Harmon refused to answer a number of questions on the same grounds. So, democrat claims of their not having been informed about these activities seem a little shaky.

It was only after the New York Times exposé that democrat leaders have begun to rage about infringement of civil rights. No matter those similar activities, operating under FISA rules had been set in motion at times dating back to the Carter administration. This rage seems to me to be just one more arrow aimed at Bush by diehards who will never accept him as our legitimate president. It also suggests they do not see much urgency in keeping the nation safe. And that, after all, is a sworn responsibility of every president.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) doesn’t seem to get it. Last month she sent a letter to a group of hand-picked legal scholars asking their opinion as to whether the Bush NSA program was an impeachable offense. It’s clear where she’s headed. Her interest is getting the president for something – anything. To my knowledge she has not yet asked how information about such a secret program, whose secrecy was so great that Rep. Jane Harmon would not even tell how many briefings she had on the subject, got to the press. Is Boxer, and others, at all interested in who leaked secret information to the press? They surely were when the question concerned Valerie Plame.

The most frequent answer we get is that somebody at NSA was bold enough to come forward. James Risen, the New York Times investigative reporter and author of the new Book, State of War that portends to tell all about Bush’s misdeeds, says the source was a true whistleblower. Well, friends, a whistleblower does not reveal details about national security matters to a hungry press. Past experience tells us that journalists are losing their powers of judgment about what might be detrimental to the national interests. If there were legitimate criticisms the whistleblower should have taken his concerns to the appropriate congressional oversight committee.

According to a Rasmussen poll released on December 28, sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. Only one-third of the respondents believe President Bush broke the law by pursuing electronic eavesdropping. Nearly the same amount thinks our legal system worries too much about individual liberties and not enough about national security. Another 27% say the current balance of intelligence gathering as opposed to protecting our civil liberties is about right.

What does all this boil down to? Some members of the senate and house intelligence committees may end up with egg on their faces if it turns out they’ve known about the electronic wiretapping program all along while claiming they’ve been left in the dark. Lawyers will continue to be lawyers choosing a side they feel more comfortable supporting. But the American public is going to need to be shown excessive dangers to its privacy and civil rights before it goes nuts over the matter. It seems to me most of us are genuinely concerned about national security as the primary issue.

O're the ramparts we watched

2006-01-07T19:09:00.000-06:00

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance

By Dick Tunison

Just a passing observation about the brouhaha developing over eavesdropping by the NSA: When critics can show that innocent people have been spied upon I'll listen with interest. After the ruckus over the Valerie Plame "outing," I'd think someone would be interested in who leaked the highly classified information about the NSA. After all, the president's critics wouldn't rest until they found somebody's carcass to hang in the Plame matter. Could the leak this time have come from one of our esteemed congressmen?

The whole point of our anti-terrorism activities on the home front has been intervention before a bad act could be committed. So far, we've apparently done quite well. Nothing has happened since 9/11. If information confirmed that no covert plans were developed or actions attempted, the absence of attack would not have the same meaning, but we know better, don't we?

The Terrorism Intelligence Report just published (December 21, 2005) by Strategic Forecasting, Inc., is an eye-opener. All those who sit contentedly in the "ho-hum" world should read this document.

One of the first points made by the report author, Fred Burton, is that he believes "a small number of deeply embedded al Qaeda sleeper agents are inside the United States and have gone to ground because of the U.S. counterterrorism community's relentless counterterrorism disruption activities." This, coupled with well documented evidence that organizations like al-Kifah Refugee Center in Brooklyn - also known as the Brooklyn Jihad Office - are doing all they can to support overseas jihad operations, suggest danger may be at hand. These organizations "have sent thousands of people from the United States to be trained and to fight in the jihad," according to Burton.

Now, al Qaeda and other jihadist organizations have embraced the internet for their recruiting and propagandizing. The Al-Battar Camp online magazine provides online training and instructional manuals. Individuals no longer need to go to Afghanistan to receive ideological indoctrination and paramilitary training. A desktop computer is all that's needed.

In past columns, I've mentioned the MEMRI (Middle Eastern Media Research Institute) website as a fertile source of important information about what's being shown on Arab language television and what's being said in Arab Universities. I recently watched a TV cartoon clip aimed at children that told the story of two boys who joined the jihad to kill Jews. They gave their lives for the cause and thus were glorified as martyrs.

The average American does not see this stuff and hasn't the slightest idea of the intensity of anger aimed at us by the jihadists.

Not long ago, Osama bin Ladin's bespectacled second in command made an ominous announcement. He said, "I call on mujahideen to concentrate their attacks on Muslims' stolen oil, from which most of the revenues go to the enemies of Islam, while most of what they leave is seized by the thieves who rule our countries."

Although the "who" and "where" are a little vague in al-Zawahiri's pronouncement, one could assume he refers to neighboring Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, but it could also mean our own backyard. After all, the United States is the largest single consumer of oil with a little less than one quarter of our needs supplied by the Middle East, so we could be a desirable target for those who want to exact their revenge.

This is where the quiescence we are now enjoying could lead to complacency on our part. After 9/11 much focus was placed on improving our national security. Particularly during the first two years, we made impressive headway in our efforts to close holes in our safety net. Among other facilities, oil refineries and chemical plants did a lot to make their plants secure. But such efforts are costly and there is the old cry wolf problem that tends to make us all relax.

There is little evidence that terrorists have a nuclear bomb in their hip pockets, let alone the means of delivering such weapons. But gas and chemical attacks could be an entirely different matter.

Most of my readers will have forgotten the Bhopal disaster. I was still employed by one of this country's largest petroleum companies at the time, and as employees, we were acutely interested in the terrible event. It occurred in December 1984 in the Indian city of Bhopal at a chemical plant jointly owned by Union Carbide and an Indian company. As a result of an accidental release of methyl isocyanate (MIC), used in the manufacture of pesticides, the deadly gas drifted quietly over the surrounding city. In a matter of hours as many as a half million people were injured and at least 15,000 died.

This was an accidental event, but we should ask, can something like it occur as a result of terrorist action? The answer is a resounding YES. As frightening as it may be, a good target would be somewhere along the Houston ship channel which is dotted with chemical plants and refineries.

The author of The Terrorism Intelligence Report verifies this in his article. He notes that "we have received what we believe to be credible reports that some of the facilities in the Houston area have been targets of suspected hostile pre-operational surveillance."

My intention in writing this piece is not to generate fear in the hearts of the readers, but to raise a level of consciousness that will improve our understanding of the importance of interceptive intelligence and pre-emptive actions when necessary. Let's think carefully about what the consequences may be if we let our defenses down. At this point, the nervous call for the protection our civil liberties does not compare to the urgency of focused vigilance.

Seeing things from different perspectives

2005-12-31T12:02:00.000-06:00

A case in point: Public Welfare

By Dick Tunison

When we lived in Oregon, my wife and I enjoyed sitting out on our deck at night looking at the stars. We lived in the country, part way up a mountain, some distance from town. On a clear night we were always thrilled by God’s majesty because the dark sky revealed things normally unseen.

One of our favorite searches was for the Big Dipper, an asterism which is part of Ursa Major, the bear. My wife and I competed to be the first to find its ever changing design in the heavens. Sometimes she’d discover the bowl of the dipper before making out the handle. Sometimes I located Mizar first. It was the next to last star in the handle and was actually comprised of four separate stars.
Some nights we’d see stars that had not been there a few nights before – at least we thought that was the case. In reality, they were always around some where; it was simply a matter of what we discerned at the moment from our perspective light years away.

A friend once said to me that he had become a democrat because his heart compelled him to show compassion for the poor and infirmed. He believed strongly in social justice. He favored public assistance programs that ministered to the needy and was quite willing to pay his taxes for such purposes. He believed those feelings were not part of the Republican agenda. Instead, he saw Republicans as more focused on less government, investing in business and cutting taxes on the rich. In a way, he saw the bowl of the dipper in the stars while I saw the handle.

It seems to me that both sides of the political spectrum see quite similar needs among the poverty stricken. The difference comes at the point of solutions. We see solutions from different perspectives, just as we see different things in the night sky.

Some think the right solutions are in direct care and financial infusion for those in need, while others see solutions coming through empowering the needy to leverage their lives to higher standards. For the most part, liberal impulses often lead to building public housing projects, providing food stamps and earned income tax credits, financial aid, etc. In a different vein, conservatives advocate creating enterprise zones, pushing private sector job creation and “No Child Left Behind” education incentives.

The success of Habitat for Humanity is an example of empowerment. Volunteers come together with a needy family to build them a house. But it’s not a giveaway; the recipient family is not only obligated to participate in the building project but to pay off the financial debt. It’s not a free lunch.
The other day I read a newspaper column that ended with a statement of hope that the next federal election would bring more victories for democrats, “because they care about the people and the future of the country.” What a cynical statement. I wouldn’t apply that slur to either side of the political aisle. The chasm comes in the choice of solutions.

I know of a family with two incorrigible boys. The parents give them everything they want in the hope they will change their behavior for the better. They’ve not heard of “tough love.” They haven’t figured out that piling more goodies on an unreceptive kid only reinforces his behavior, because he sees his bad actions as the impetus for the giving process.

A major problem with many public assistance programs is that they reinforce a sense of victimhood. This is not to be equated with bad actions, but with the notion that “as long as I’m in need, somebody will take care of me.”

Some years ago my wife and I owned an apartment building. Several of our tenants were on public welfare. One of them failed to pay her rent over a period of several months. When the manager approached her about the back-rent, she told him she needed a little larger place and the county welfare agent suggested she save the rent money so she would have enough for first and last month’s rent on a new place. The tenant soon moved out, but we never got what was owed to us. This behavior shows an attitude of entitlement that works to the disfavor of the lady on welfare.

The family that built the Habitat house sawed lumber and pounded nails for their future and fully understood that they would have to pay the freight until their mortgage was retired.

We, as a society, have an obligation to help those among us who cannot care for themselves. Some experts estimate that a third of the people on welfare have severe physical or mental disabilities. They deserve our care. But we do not have an obligation to forever give succor to those who lack the will to change their lives for the better. A hand up, but not a hand out is a phrase that seems worn, but it carries a strong message. Parent birds feed their young only until they are capable of fending for themselves. Conservatives see their responsibility to open the doors of opportunity for those willing to demonstrate their desire to better themselves, but not to spoon feed the insouciant in perpetuity.

It can be a “feel-good” to see oneself as a compassionate person in an uncompassionate world. But I don’t share the gratification they do in paying taxes for government run social programs that too often fail. Before we support welfare programs we should be asking: will they work?

In the aftermath of Katrina we all were exposed to the abject poverty endured by too many residents of New Orleans. Although there were many reasons for the failure of the people to evacuate, some complained they had neither the money nor the means to leave their flooded homes. Yet governments have poured millions of dollars into public assistance programs that have done little to bring about change in the lives and conditions of the residents.

We can do better as we offer a hand up to the needy. But it requires seeing solutions from a different perspective.

Why the big beef over religion

2005-12-24T15:05:00.000-06:00

By Dick Tunison

There is growing turmoil coursing through our culture these days. Many people see themselves confronted by vocal adversaries as they attempt to protect their rights to observe their deep-felt feelings about God and religion.

Ours is not a theocracy controlled by strong-minded religious zealots. The spiritual beliefs of Americans are varied and have been since the beginnings of our nation, and they guide us as individuals in different ways.

Many of our earliest forefathers came to these shores to escape the pressures of their former governments to conform to a particular religion. The freedom to worship in their own way was the compelling factor. Others came with only the desire to become farmers or merchants. Religion may have played little or no part in their decision to leave their homelands. But all immigrates benefited by the freedom they found here to believe as they chose, or not to believe at all.

As the framers of our Constitution gathered to carry out their creative charge, they were certainly aware of the all this. The Bill of Rights that was eventually added to the basic document of government assures us of the freedom to worship as we choose and it protects us from any demands by the government to conform to a specific religious belief.

My earliest forbearers were, for the most part, committed Christians and they did much to advance their faith in the New World. But among these immigrants were some agnostics and an atheist or two. Over time, those of faith became Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Christians, and even started their own churches. A few of the diehard agnostics clung to their doubts until their dying day when they likely thought, once again, about accepting God or taking a pass.

The interesting thing about the people of this nation is that the majority (87% of them are Christian) believe in one God – the God of Abraham. Whether Christian, Jew or Muslim, and regardless of how they precisely define God, the religious faith of a full 93% of our people springs from that single source.

For the most part there is a tolerance among Americans today about religious differences. This tolerance has been a long time maturing, and it didn’t come without pain, but it is more real than we sometimes will admit. Great strides have been made in achieving an ecumenicity that openly celebrates and honors different religious beliefs.

At the same time, the turmoil I refer to above has grown counter-productively over the past fifty years and is often propelled by a very small minority of angry people who have no belief in a higher being nor do they respect those of us who do. The most vociferous among the dissenters would deny people of faith their constitutional right to observe their religious convictions.

There is no need to elaborate on the complaints of the objectors - discrimination, exclusion and ridicule are frequently enumerated by them. The real question is: Are these complaints legitimate? Do they represent true and measurable injury - not anecdotal examples - or are they the figments of the imagination of a few who only think they have been wronged and should therefore feel pain?

Can the words “Merry Christmas,” “In God We Trust” and “One nation under God” be so rude and hurtful that they must be removed from our national lexicon? Are such words more repulsive than the street language we’re exposed to on a daily basis? How it is the word “God” conjures up such fear? Do the objectors think some subversive “God squad” is trying to proselytize them?
Is God the non-believers’ Jabberwok who stands in dark shadows waiting to snap and bite? Why do some of the strict fundamentalist Christians object to the praiseful mention of God in the public square? Why is a prayer offered up for the safety of the high school football team so threatening?

Those who fear that religion will find a way, through the aegis of a permissive government, to somehow control our lives and our institutions live in a self-created fear. Two hundred years of our history prove that wrong.

Certainly man’s pursuit of God has not been without blemish. Some bad acts resulted in wars and inquisitions that have deservedly come under harsh criticism. But most of these outrages were perpetrated by pretenders who claimed some inside track to holiness or, worse, were possessed by a greed that was greater than their sense of righteousness.

We do not live in the times of Constantine or Charlemagne when political leaders forced conversion on their subjects. We are not under the authority of Pope Urban II who set the departure date for the armies of the crusades. The witch hunting Puritans have been gone from Massachusetts for three hundred years.

We live in a land where freedom of religion was long ago hammered out with a determination to preserve our liberties. We are assured the right to believe, or not believe, that every man deserves. But this longstanding assurance has been increasingly placed in jeopardy by Federal Court judges over the past fifty years. Too many of them have found strange meaning in the Constitution and Bill of Rights that have been used to apply limitations on our freedom. Such rulings have only served to confuse and dilute our faith in the Founding Documents, and they have left us with rancor and animosity toward one another.

Christ’s birth, which Christians celebrate today, was a gift of love intended to set every man free. Whether one sees Him as a Savior, a Rabbi, Prophet or a man of implacable goodness, he did not instill fear in the hearts of mankind but made a plea for forgiveness and love.

Our God, whom some people see as Christ himself, or the Father of all mankind, is the ultimate giver of good. Prying God out of our culture so as not to offend those few non-believers, and help absolutists feel more comfortable in their tight skin, will not make us a better people. It will not assure more freedom than we now enjoy. To the contrary, it will deny the majority of Americans the opportunity to hear and see their convictions legitimized and honored rather than marginalized and expunged.

I am not naïve. I understand that words alone, like Merry Christmas, will not make us a better nation. Nor is belief in God, in and of itself, the mark of perfection. Hard as we may try, perfection will never be achieved, but it’s the struggle to be Godly that causes believers to stretch in that direction. And the words of our faith help us in that stretch. They do not stultify anyone – even those who choose not to believe, for they, even though they may not believe in God, are His children too.

Merry Christmas!

Are the Arab nations showing a positive interest in a stable Iraq?

2005-12-17T16:11:00.000-06:00

If so, it's about time.

By Dick Tunison

Transfixed by the scalding rhetoric that has steamed the heavens above Washington over the past year or more, most of us have been too stupefied to wonder what the Arab world thinks about Iraq.

Above all, there has been deafening silence except for the constant mutterings from the propaganda generating Al Jazeera and others of its ilk. We’ve seen and heard precious little comment from Arab government leaders that clearly demonstrates either their support or displeasure toward Iraq-after-Saddam Hussein. I’ve wondered why that’s the case.

Perhaps they’ve been waiting to see the results of our actions in Iraq. Would America bug out early and leave a mess for others to clean up? Would the insurrectionists finally take control of the struggling nation and drive America into the sea of disgrace? Or, would we misjudge the signals and assume democracy was instilled in the land only to open the door to a violent civil war?

I certainly don’t know if any of these scenarios even comes close to being valid, but it’s a fascinating question to ask in light of what occurred in late November. Little known to most Americans and only sparsely covered by the press, the Arab League called a preliminary conference on the reconciliation of Iraq last month.

Convened in Cairo by the league’s Secretary-General, Dr. Amre Moussa, it was only a planning session, but a vital step that engaged other Arab countries in efforts to provide support for the creation of a new Iraq. About 80 Iraqi political, tribal, and religious figures attended the preparatory conference, among them: President Jalal Talabani and his two deputies. Also attending were representatives from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other Iraq Arab-country neighbors along with observers from the United States, the Russian Federation, France and the European Union.

The meeting was really a first step toward a much wider conference to be convened later in Iraq when more Iraqi leaders are expected to take part because it will be on their home turf.

Even though this was a planning meeting and not a directive conference, it did reach some preliminary conclusions. Among them were the following:

1. Iraq should maintain its territorial integrity within a federal system.

2. The participants recognized that the parliamentary elections scheduled for December 15 should be held as scheduled, and that everyone should participate in them (no more boycotts by the Sunnis).

3. The participants further recognized the importance of the integration of the Sunni community into the political process.

4. The Arab League, led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, could play a constructive role in reconciling the differences between the Iraqi sectarian groups.

Although this may seem to some observers like a tiny step, and many critics inside Iraq voiced disappointment with the results of this first meeting, Secretary General Moussa was greeted warmly when he visited the country. This is not to say the criticisms coming from many Iraqi journalists and politicians were not on point. They frequently cited their anger at the failure of conferees to condemn daily car bombings by insurrectionists and to ignore completely the discovery of mass graves and the crimes of the previous regime.

Nonetheless, the fact that such a meeting took place, with more planned for after the first of the year, may very well be a good sign for the Middle East. It is an indication that there is finally some attempt to openly discuss opportunities for constructive changes in the area, and more significantly, support for Iraq’s fragile steps toward democracy.

When the tsunami hit Indonesia and other locations in the East Indies almost a year ago I was surprised that the Arab countries, by and large, did not respond to the disaster with offers of relief. After all, Indonesia has the largest Muslim population of any country in the world. Estimates of loss of life ranged as high as 270,000. The third pillar of Islam is Zagat, or giving to charity, but only to Muslims. Where the Western World found no barriers because of religious belief and gave vast amounts of money and active support to the victims of the tsunami, most of whom were Muslims, the Arab World seemed little concerned.

That’s why I choose to see something hopeful about the Arab League conference and the follow-up meeting tentatively scheduled for next March. If this is an indication that the Arab countries are accepting a responsibility for lifting one of their own out of despair, for offering support and positive ideas for improving the relationships between disparate religious groups and building a lasting democratic nation where tyranny had reigned, it’s a good thing.

The Middle East Media Research Institute observes that, “The mood of moderate optimism which prevailed during and after the preparatory conference, and various agreements reached, are but a first step in what is bound to be a long and arduous process to achieve stability and nation-building.”

That’s certainly true and we should all acknowledge it as fact. At the same time, we can’t afford to let things in Iraq run out of control. To simply let provocateurs have their way and end up exacerbating the already existing conflicts between Shi’a and Sunni would be a shame. All nations of good conscience should assume some responsibility for safeguarding Iraq’s future.

At this point, the December 15th parliamentary election results are still being tallied. We know the turnout was large, but even so we’re not sure where things may be headed. But it’s important that we leverage every positive aspect of the results. There will be many tea leaves to read, and for that we must look deep to the bottom of the cup.

Support the troops but not the War?

2005-12-11T14:14:00.000-06:00

How do we do one and not the other?

By Dick Tunison

I’ve been troubled over recent months when I hear people say, “I support our troops, but I don’t support the war in Iraq.”

What exactly does that mean? Does it mean it’s okay for a young man to be a Marine and carry an M16 rifle so long as he never engages in combat? Does it mean it’s okay to fight in Mogadishu but not in Falujah? Is one war better than another? Does the statement refer to the war in Iraq, or does it apply to all wars? Franklin Roosevelt said, “I hate war, we all hate war.” But he still led the nation into the most horrendous war of the last century.

“I support our troops, but I don’t support the war in Iraq.” Curious. One thought that comes to mind is what a parent might say about a wayward son who becomes involved in a crime. We sometimes hear a grieving mother or father answer a question from the press by saying something along the lines of, “I love my son, but I disapprove of the fact he belongs to the Mafia.”

After serving fifty-two months in the Navy during the Korean War, I came home to a public that was as indifferent to me as it was the war. No one seemed to care about the soldier or the war. But all that changed during the ramp-up and execution of the war in Vietnam. The public began to exhibit feelings far stronger than indifference. It bordered on disgust toward our service men and women. Oh yes, there was concern about those who were left behind, hidden in Vietnamese prison camps or released only after their bodies were broken and their minds torn apart, but those who made it home in one piece were too often spat upon and called baby killers because so many people hated that war. The soldier and the war were dumped together in the same vitriolic soup.

Things got away from us in the 60s and 70s. Where there had been deeply-felt patriotism about earlier wars and genuine support for our troops and glory in our victories, we now saw ugly placards, banners and exhibitionists parading in the streets shouting down what they believed were our nation’s “War Monger” policies.

All this has left us with a lingering ailment that we’ve been unable completely shake off. In worst case situations it has combined with anti-war activism in a way that prefers immobilizing the country rather than influencing its direction toward a positive resolution. It has afflicted eight presidential administrations. At times it has gone into remission only to break out in new lesions that threaten our social and political fabric. It has left us weakened in our resolve and all too often hesitant about taking decisive action where action has been required. Some have said, for example, that the Vietnam War was won on the battlefield, but lost in Washington.

This was evident again in a strange way in early November. The voters of San Francisco County agreed overwhelmingly to a non-binding resolution, called Measure I that told military recruiters to stay out of San Francisco high Schools and colleges. Stanley Kurtz, a fellow of the Hudson Institute, has pointed out, “Whatever one’s views on the Iraq war and the president’s policies, we are all under the protection of the US Military. Fighting for our foreign policy goals in the public arena is one thing. Making it impossible for our military to recruit is another.”

Placards in San Francisco proclaimed, “Don’t Die for Recruiters,” and “An Army of None.” Counter-recruitment activist April Owen was reported to have explained, “When the soldiers are really hurting because there are no recruits, then we’re getting somewhere.” To me, this says it all. There is no such thing in her mindset that shows support for our troops or the war.

That brings me full circle to my original question about allegiances.

I don’t know how one can support our troops while at the same time tell them they are losing the war, hated by the Iraqi people and caught up in a quagmire. I don’t know how one can support our troops and, in the same breath, tell them their presence is the reason for the insurrection. How can one tell our troops the slaughter of hundreds of innocent Iraqi men, women and children is their fault and will not stop until the soldiers fold their tents and come home? How can one support our troops and call them torturers? How can one say such things about our young men and women who have volunteered to defend us?

What do the critics mean when they say they support our troops, but not the war? I’d like to know. What is the substance of their rationale?

When my daughter was a child she had a talking doll. There was a small ring attached to a wire that could be pulled out of the doll’s back to make it talk. It would randomly say in a wee voice, “I’m sleepy,” “I love you,” or “Please change me.” One day the doll’s voice mechanism broke and only repeated a single, unintelligible line of bleats over and over. Eventually, my daughter stopped listening to the doll, because she knew its words were not worth hearing.

I pray our troops will come to do the same and stop listening to the critics’ words, because they are unintelligible bleats and are not worth hearing.

Truth is not just what you want it to be

2005-12-03T17:16:00.000-06:00

By Dick Tunison

On a trip to Tulsa last week I came upon a car in the I-44 fast lane going somewhat slower than those behind it. As car after car approached the slower one, drivers either sat behind it until frustration made them pass on the right or they joined the others that patiently waited for the slow driver to see he was blocking traffic.

Before long it was my turn to make a decision. I waited a moment before frustration overcame me enough to make my move. In those few seconds I was close enough to read the sticker on the back bumper. In red white and blue, it spelled out KERRY/EDWARDS.

I doubt there is any correlation between how a man drives his car on the turnpike and how he votes for president, but the sight of the sticker stuck in my head and pled for further analysis. Why, a year after the election would one leave a sticker on his bumper hailing the candidate who lost?

In this particular case, I think the craw in the throat dates back to the 2000 presidential election when the democrats found it terribly difficult to accept defeat. In that election the critical end came in Florida. Demand after demand for recounts resulted in the same conclusion. George Bush had won. Yet the holdouts always seemed to want just one more examination of “hanging chad” or which candidate was juxtaposed to what other candidate on a ballot that might have confused some ninety-year old voter. Finally, it was the Supreme Court that settled the dispute.

We don’t need to go back and rehash the way the 2000 election was declared, because it’s now history and cannot be replayed. But it’s unfortunate that there are still so many voters who cannot accept the final results in good grace. It’s as if they have been cheated out of their heart’s desire and the only way to survive the loss is to rant and rave.

That fact that George Bush defeated John Kerry by a 4 million-plus vote margin last year seems to add no legitimacy to his presidency in the minds of the losers. Like the slow moving driver on I-44 who was oblivious to other drivers on the road, the president’s detractors willingly ignore things that the country needs in order to emphasize their displeasure. In some instances this displeasure is expressed in ways that far exceed the veiled message of the bumper sticker. Their criticism is pocked with vile, derogatory remarks that have no relationship to the statesmanship we expect from the loyal opposition, but ring more like the taunting epithets of street kids who chant disparagingly at the boy they dislike.

Not long ago I was called up short by a friend for using pejoratives to describe radical liberals. I suppose my friend has a point. As a general rule I try to be respectful of those who have a viewpoint different from my own. But I do find it difficult not to be nettled when people speak things they know to be blatantly wrong, or they know contain subtle implications masked as truths.

It’s my view that the liberals who are out to undercut the president use whatever methods they can to discredit him and his achievements. Our efforts to win the minds and hearts of the Iraqi people do not rank high on their agenda. They’re not about to give even modest recognition to progress made in Iraq, because the first order of business is to destroy George Bush.

I, like many others, have been exasperated upon hearing politicians on the left ignore or obfuscate their own previous reasons for wanting Saddam Hussein out, while at the same time criticize the president for following a similar rationale. They speak opinion as if it were fact, and they frequently advocate doing things the president is already doing as if it’s a totally new idea. Their distortions of the truth are repeated and repeated like the Chinese water treatment in the hope we will eventually lose our senses.

We have come to a point in our effort in Iraq where we need to fiercely guard against unproductive actions and words that easily become barriers to our ultimate success. The terrorists are watching us closely for any signs of a lessening of our commitment to win this engagement. They likely celebrate when they hear our politicians talk about a need to change direction and plan for an early withdrawal. Words have meaning, and when the critics of the president say things that signal a weakening of our resolve, the world hears it.

Many years ago I tended to a Marine in the San Diego Naval Hospital who had seventy-five wounds over his body from North Korean mortar fragments. One had pierced his intestine and left him with a life-long colostomy. I asked him what had happened. He said simply, “They listened. They knew we only had fifty rounds we could shoot each day, and when we blew our quota, they came after us with a vengeance.”

Think about it, “They listened!”

We've heard too much defeatist language

2005-11-27T11:45:00.000-06:00

We need unity of purpose

By Dick Tunison

Having been pretty much occupied over the past month writing my series on Learning in America, I find the need to readdress another matter that is quite troubling to many Americans: The situation in the nation’s capital.

The political rhetoric coming out of Washington complaining that we’ve been defeated in Iraq has become deafening. We’ve heard stuff from both sides of the aisle that brings into question the intelligence of our political leaders. Inane accusations and counter-charges have become embarrassing because they are all too often politically driven and not rational or based on true facts.

As I look at what’s going on in Iraq, I see a situation that has little to do with how we’ve waged a war to oust a tyrant, or even if war should have been waged at all. The real ground war is over. What I see is a non-cohesive conglomeration of people with wide divisions among them struggling to bring peace to their land.

With only a few beliefs in common, a band of valiant Iraqi leaders are trying to hammer out a consensus that will work where other attempts at democratic self-government have been trampled in the dust. What unity may exist among the people is not based on nationalism, compatible political thinking or even ethnic fusion, but a wobbly adherence to a religion which has been more divisive than inclusive. That makes success hard to achieve. It’s all uphill for them and they deserve our encouragement, not our hesitant second guessing.

The uproar among Washington politicians has been off track. Continuing to play the blame game serves little purpose now. It’s a fact; the ground war in Iraq is over. The winning pass has been thrown and the touchdown completed.

There is no longer a point to be made about the strategy or execution of the play. Let historians deal with that. Our focus must be redirected to the next encounter, and that’s how we will help secure the peace.

It is certainly true that we misjudged the aftermath of the war. We clearly expected a more quiescent period in which rundown infrastructures, civil services and local governments could be restored. We did not anticipate a merging of militant Baathists and Jihadists who had a different idea in mind. The audacious, atrocious vengeance wreaked on an innocent population by these obstructionists was beyond our reckoning. Neither could we quite understand why the citizenry would do so little to protect themselves or expose the transgressors.

The aftermath of the war has been a time of achievement too often overlooked. Progress has been made in remarkable ways – not the least of which is the creation of a constitution and democratic legislature. But it has also been a time of making mistakes and learning from them. Mistakes should not deter us from our objective of bringing new opportunities to the Iraqi people and change to the Middle East. Those who stand in the corner and cluck about our new quagmire and Bush’s lies do no service to America or Iraq.

What the most severe critics of our role in Iraq must come to understand is that it takes two to tango. We cannot bring change to Iraq until Iraq is able to participate, without equivocation, in building their nation anew. This will require the full dedication of non-Jihadists Sunnis, Baathists, Kurds and Shia. America has provided the opportunity for this to happen by removing Saddam Hussein.

But we are not the real players in this Kabuki. The real players must remove their masks and come to the table as constructionists bent on building a new society in Iraq which extends promise to all its citizens, not just a select few. We cannot abandon them at this critical time.

Lest we forget, any progress toward self-determination and a democratic system in Iraq will be seen by other Middle Eastern states as a threat to themselves. Iraq will therefore be subject to outside intrusion. Her borders are no more secure than our own and therefore foreign subversives will be around for a long time. That should be seen as a given.

The problem with the hysteria in Washington is that it obscures what we must do to help achieve stability in Iraq. The ability of the Bush administration to craft a deal is based on its ability to threaten the wayward and, at the same time, make guarantees that are deliverable. Unrest, quibbling, political posturing, and downright divisiveness here are all barriers to our achieving success there. I’m sorry to say sometimes Baghdad seems more stable than Washington. What is required on our part, as Americans, is unity of purpose more than uniformity in thought.

Fourth in a series on learning in America

2005-11-18T19:45:00.000-06:00

What’s wrong with being educated?

By Dick Tunison

Have you every heard the acronym, DAR? No, I don’t mean Daughters of the American Revolution. I’m referring to Damned Average Raiser. It was sometimes applied to excelling students when I was a school kid. Perhaps it’s not heard much these days, but if not it has probably been replaced by something even more demeaning.

I always held brilliant people in awe. Rather than wishing they’d dry up and blow away, I tried hard to emulate them regardless of their special aptitudes and abilities. That certainly didn’t mean I succeeded. Chemistry would be a good example: I was lucky to get a “C”! But the feeling of competition that worked its way into my blood always gave me a little push to try harder.

In much of today’s society, kids who strive for excellence are often looked down upon by peers. Not only are bright kids sometimes shunned, but the whole idea of learning has too often taken a long vacation.

American political historian, and long-time professor at Columbia University, Richard Hofstader made an interesting observation in one of his writings. He said, “It has been noticed that intellect in America is resented as a kind of excellence, as a claim to distinction, as a challenge to egalitarianism, as a quality which almost certainly deprives a man or woman of the common touch.” That’s a long quote. Take a second to read it again.

Perhaps it will help to quantify the effect. John E. Chubb, chief executive officer of Edison Schools, notes that national dropout rates are far too high. Twenty-two percent of white kids, 43% of blacks and 46% of Latino students do not complete their high school educations. Perhaps such rates were acceptable a long time ago when children were needed on the farms and in the factories, but that cannot be the excuse for today’s desertion rates.

We’ve got a problem. Yes, if nearly 25% of white kids and close to 50% of our two largest minority populations are not completing high school, we’ve got a problem. Most of the drop-outs will be unable to achieve even modest levels of social and economic comfort during their adult lives. They will be unable to find meaningful jobs, hold their future families together or, sadly, guide their own children into pathways of promise. Today’s high school dropouts will likely become a part of a circular phenomenon that rolls along from generation to generation.

I believe there are several conditions that perpetuate this cycle. There may be more, but I think the most influential contributors are indifference, the lack of a positive reinforcing environment and victim hood.

Indifference manifests itself in parents who, themselves, show no interest in education. This is as infectious as the Spanish flu, and it quickly controls the thinking of children who come to believe there is nothing beneficial about learning. Often, they compare their own parents to the system, recognizing that mom or dad didn’t finish high school so why bother.

Indifference leads to a lack of positive reinforcement which can be a two edged sword. When parents don’t encourage their children’s achievements and teachers feel bogged down and fail to give deserved kudos for good work, we’re in trouble. What’s needed is the magical “push-me, pull-me” animal of the Dr. Doolittle children’s stories. You’ll remember the animal had a head on both ends and no backsides. This means the parents push and the teachers pull.

The last of my three culprits is the very negative mindset of victim hood. Like a gloomy Pygmalion, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: “I am one of society’s victims and always will be.” Professor John H. McWhorter has written a compelling book titled, Losing the Race: Self-sabotage in Black America, in which he treats this subject in great detail.

But lest we think victim hood only applies to blacks, we need to step back and examine human behavior in a broader sense. Many of us possess a protective mechanism that helps us escape the truth about ourselves. In my many experiences interviewing job candidates I discovered a sad consistency in responses to the simple question: “Why were you terminated from your last job?” Seldom did I hear someone say, “I didn’t meet my performance goals.” Invariably, the blame was laid at the feet of something or somebody else.

After a six-month stint as a senior advisor for education to former Ambassador Paul Bremer in Iraq, Bill Evers tells this story: “In Iraq children and grown-ups smile, always say, ‘Welcome,’ and wave. The teachers and administrators are friendly and dedicated to academic success. You could enter a classroom in the Kurdish north, in rural parts of the Sunni triangle, or in Shiite sections of urban Baghdad and sense that students are eager to learn.” And this is war-torn Iraq!

Iraq isn’t the only place where education is prized. In many countries around the world today, gaining an education is looked upon as a necessity. Japan, China and India are prime examples. If we don’t wake up soon we’ll be riding in the caboose.

In a speech to the Omaha chamber of commerce in February 2004, Alan Greenspan observed that the greatest source of wealth creation in America is “the level of knowledge and skill of the American population.” He pointed to the mismatch between the rising human-capital needs – the knowledge and skill requirements – of a successful modern economy and woefully low knowledge/skill level of much of the American workforce. In this instance, as one would expect, Greenspan is focusing on the needs of a successful economy. But it’s important that we recognize the same factors impact the very core of our culture. As Americans, we cannot afford to see our civilization in decline.

* * * * *
If you are interested in seeing the kind of 8th grade achievement test given in 1895, simply send me an email at rtunison@cox.net with the words “Achievement Test” in the subject line. I’ll be pleased to send you a copy. I bet you won’t pass!

Third in a Series on Learning in America

2005-11-12T15:00:00.000-06:00

Must class sizes always be small?

By Dick Tunison

I don’t know who said it first, but there’s an oft-repeated saying that goes like this: The only true schooling would be Plato seated on one end of a log and the pupil of the other. We should be so fortunate.

Small sized classes have garnered a lot of attention these days. Some colleges trumpet their low student/teacher ratio. I’ve taken university classes with as few as five other students and as many as several hundred. From my perspective, it really didn’t make much impact on what I came away with, because in the final analysis I was the one who needed to learn – the professor already knew the material.

I understand Einstein barely squeaked through school. He was what one might call a “late bloomer.” For the most part, he was self-educated. When Dwight Eisenhower graduated from West Point, he ranked 61st in a class of 164 – not exactly at the top of his class. His low ranking didn’t seem to have much impact on his future achievements, however. We are what we make of ourselves.

All this is not to suggest the role of the teacher is minor. I don’t believe that. Some I came to love dearly because of their devotion and genuine effort to teach. I can still name teachers who had a tremendous influence on my learning. One was Professor Julius Sumner Miller. I was in his physics class at UCLA. Another was Dorothy Hopple, my ninth grade social studies teacher at John Burroughs Junior High who admonished me to become more patient with others. That’s been a harder lesson to learn than Faraday’s Notes on Electrical Excitation.

The education profession is filled with challenging teachers who have the gift of bringing forth knowledge. But unfortunately, there are some teachers who go-along-to-get-along. They are often the ones who put themselves on auto pilot and wing it through the academic year. They’re neither creative nor convincing.

Current thinking has bought us to the conclusion that what are really needed are smaller classes. Of course this begs the question about whether or not the teacher teaches anything, or whether students pay attention in class. When self-impressed parents rave at school board meetings and finally convince the politicians that classes should not have more than twenty students, for example, they feel they’ve done their part to support education and revel in the sense of civic mindedness.

Chester E. Flynn, Jr., president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, points out that “During the past half-century, the number of pupils in US schools grew by about 50 percent, whereas the number of teachers nearly tripled. Spending per student rose threefold too.

Finn makes an interesting observation. He says if the teaching force had simply kept pace with enrollments, school budgets had risen as they did, and nothing else had changed, today’s average teacher would earn nearly $100,000 a year, plus generous benefits. As a result, we’d have a radically different view of teaching, and the profession would attract different sorts of people.

Of course this would require classes to be larger than our target of twenty students, there’d be about 36 kids per class. There would also be fewer supervisors, specialists and administrators. But classroom teachers would be earning twice what they’re paid today and more of the really talented college graduates would opt for public education rather than business and industry.

Over the past fifty years we have invested tax dollars on more teachers rather than better teachers. Pay systems have ignored incentive programs that would reward excellence in teaching and favored the great equalizer, the general rate adjustment, or across-the-board increase as it’s sometimes called. In fact, one rarely hears educators speak favorably about merit pay programs that result in greater increases for teachers who demonstrate the best qualities in teaching over those who just slide by.

My older son had a history teacher in high school who never got out of his chair during the semester he taught (?) his class. One wonders what kind of excitement he instilled in his students. If you were responsible for judging his performance how would you feel about a system that required that man to receive the same salary increase as the teacher who loves to convey new knowledge and does so in creative and interesting ways?

Just as we have added numbers to the ranks of teachers, the educational bureaucrats have set up stupid barriers to keep the profession free of those who may not be “certified” to teach. That is, “certified” in the standards set by the controllers of the system. Never mind that the candidate has an advanced degree in mathematics, or biology, or chemistry. If the candidate does not possess the requisite hours in the fundamentals of education, he or she is assumed not know how to teach. So, all too often we end up with teachers who stumble through a particular curriculum because they never learned the subject, but boy oh boy, do they know how to decorate their classrooms and make stunning posters.

Teachers’ unions will argue against what I propose here. Some teachers will be offended because they will assume I’m accusing them of not doing their jobs. In regard to the latter, if the shoes fit let them wear them.

Let’s not overlook the fact that large-scale public education is by nature and necessity a giant, unwieldy bureaucracy. As Patrick Brophy, writing for the Nevada Daily Mail points out, “In America, it’s the largest industry of all.” It can be viewed as a huge ocean liner, without thrusters, that tends to resist any pressure to turn it around in mid-stream. But regardless of its size, we all need to play a role in changing its course and speed.

Much of the emerging world is competing with us now. The products of education in India, China, Japan and elsewhere are competing for opportunities to challenge American brainpower. We will soon be losing our place as the home of ingenuity and creativity, because we are failing to educate our own children.

Second in a Series on Learning in America

2005-11-05T09:25:00.000-06:00

By Dick Tunison

Ethnomathematics.

It was a column by Diane Ravich in the May 20, 2005 Wall Street Journal, and later extracted for the 2005 Hoover Digest No. 3 that grabbed my attention. After reading Ravich’s work, I became interested in what she dubbed ethnomathematics and began digging into “social justice mathematics.” That’s the more broadly used term for this new method of teaching arithmetic and mathematics.

I’ll bet none of my readers will have heard of social justice mathematics. I hadn’t, and it’s taken me a lot of Googling and several months of study to begin to grasp the concept.

For some strange reason, I’ve always thought mathematics was a step beyond arithmetic – a science that deals with relationships and symbolism of numbers. Geometry, algebra and calculus come to mind. But I suspect most of us combine the high order stuff with addition, subtraction, division and multiplication – which is more properly called arithmetic, when we talk about math.

Social justice mathematics does still use numbers and relationships of numbers, but the vehicle for teaching it comes straight out of contemporary sociology. See if the following quote from The New Teachers Book – Rethinking Schools Online helps you get the picture.

“When teachers weave social justice into the math curriculum and promote social justice math across the curriculum, students’ understanding of social matters deepens. When teachers use data on sweatshop wages to teach accounting to high school students or multi-digit multiplication to upper-elementary students, students can learn math, but they can also learn something about the lives in various parts of the world and the relationship between the things we consume and their living conditions.”

I wonder if Archimedes or Newton had thought about that?
If I were a student in such a learning environment I might wonder what class I’d signed up for. I was gifted with a pretty good mathematical aptitude, and although I did take some advanced classes in college my youthful lethargy overcame any inclination to become a mathematician. But I do remember the learning process to which I was exposed, and it left me with a sense that there was something pure about mathematics.

Professor Luis Ortiz-Franco author of Chicanos Have Math in Their Blood (on page 70) encourages teachers to teach about the base-20 Mayan number system as a way to emphasize, to both Chicano students and others, that math has deep roots in indigenous cultures. This is interesting. After all, most of us have been exposed to a variety of numbering systems such as the Abacus, Roman numerals, Arabic numerals, binomial numbers, and so on. But insofar as I know, base-20 does not rank very high in terms of contemporary usage. Good stuff for a history class, wouldn’t you think?

Another idea that’s sprung from ethnomathematics is the presumed value of getting school kids to write letters to social studies book publishers. One such campaign provided the publishers with the benefit of a study done by a group of math students which analyzed the failure to include statistics on slave-holding presidents in their textbooks.

Gosh, my math education was so simplistic by comparison. If I remember, I did problems about two trains on the same track heading toward one another at different speeds. How boring!

“Social justice math relies on political and cultural relevance to guide math instruction,” says Diane Ravitch. Maybe that’s why NASA has had so many problems with its space program. The scientists never learned how many jicamas it takes to fill a bushel basket.

The advocates of social justice math, or as Ravitch calls it, ethnomathematics, make their point in this way: Different cultures have evolved different ways of using mathematics, and students will learn best if taught in ways that relate to their ancestral culture. What a stretch!

Poor Albert Michaelson, who was a Prussian-born American scientist, probably had difficulty keeping his cultural backgrounds straight when he worked on his seminal experiments to calculate the speed of light. It’s a wonder he got it right.
The beauty of mathematics is its universality. It doesn’t make any difference who learns mathematics, its rules, relationships and symbolism are the same. The advocates of ethnomathematics seem to be saying if we teach math in Milwaukee we should couch the questions in terms of beer consumption – in Chicago problems should be based on how long to boil the kielbasa – Pennsylvanians need to know how much strudel to serve per ounce of sauerbraten.

But, no, that isn’t truly what they’re after. The amount of beer consumed in Milwaukee is low on their radar screen. They really want math teachers to teach about poverty, illiteracy, unfair labor practices, union dues and the children who weave rugs in Pakistan. If students grasp the social significance of why shoes made in Bangladesh are cheaper than shoes made in Boston, they get an A on the test.

If the proponents of ethnomathematics truly want to find ways to help kids learn the basics of mathematics, I could accept it. But that’s not the motivating factor. Eric Gutstein and Bob Peterson point out that their “perspectives on teaching for social justice have been shaped by our own involvement in movements for social justice during the past three decades – the Civil Rights Movement, anti-war movements, educational justice movements, and other campaigns.”

Some readers of this column may conclude that I’m merely making fun of a new twist in teaching math. That’s not the case. Number one, I’m concerned that there are otherwise intelligent members of the education community who are disguising social issues as pure science. Second, for the majority of students, math is a difficult subject to master. It requires the thoughtful application of principles that have evolved over more than two thousand years and have been tested and proven before their acceptance. Third, it’s an honorable discipline that should not be marginalized by those who would use it to repair the world’s social ills. Let them use their own forum.

As Ravitch points out, “This fusion of political correctness and relevance may be the next big thing to rock mathematics education, appealing as it does to political activists and ethnic chauvinists.” Now that really scares me!

First in a Series on Learning in America

2005-11-02T15:45:00.000-06:00

Let's Put Bilingual Education to Pasture

By Dick Tunison

This column was posted earlier, but has been posted again as the first in a series on education in America.

As a past president and board member of the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank I was on a recruiting mission. Sitting across the table from me in the luxurious Universal Sheraton Hotel dining room was Dr. Julian Nava, former United States Ambassador to Mexico. My mission was to persuade him to serve on the Food Bank’s board of directors. He was a busy guy, and I wasn’t making a lot of headway because his plate was already full. But our conversation was breathtaking. Here, a conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat were agreeing on a major public issue - bilingual education.

Dr Nava was born in Los Angeles in 1927 to a Mexican immigrant family of eight children. Since both of us were residents of the San Fernando Valley, I had watched him move up the political ladder over a period of years from his professorship at California State University, Northridge, to the Los Angeles Board of Education and eventually his Ambassadorship. He had been appointed by Jimmy Carter, but remained for a period of time under the Reagan Administration before leaving the political arena.

He was a bright man and even though we had some obvious political differences, I found that we were simpatico in a number of areas of mutual interest. The most astounding similarity in viewpoints was on the matter of bilingual education. As a well-rounded, highly educated Mexican-American, he was adamantly opposed to bilingual education because of what we both saw as its shortcomings. It slowed the process of assimilation among Latino children in the public schools. He explained to me that his parents wanted their kids to become full-fledged Americans, and the quickest way to that goal was through the mastery of the English language.

That was more than twenty years ago, and sadly the battle over bi-lingual education rages on. Even though California voters, by a 3 to 2 margin, passed Proposition 227, repealing bilingual education in public schools in 1998, the issue is creeping back into the foreground. A new program has been announced that will give parents the option on placing their children in classes that teach Spanish and English simultaneously. Sounds a little like bilingual education, doesn’t it?

The Oceanside School District, in southern California, was one of the first to vigorously follow the requirements of Proposition 227 after it became law. Within a year, Oceanside elementary teacher, Suni Fernandez marveled at the progress her students were showing in adapting to the English language. She noted second-graders spelling words like “people,” “friend,” and “could” - words that would likely challenge any second-grader. But the difference was that most of her students were Spanish speakers. Many earned 100s on their English tests under the new regimen.

Some parents of limited-English children argued against the total immersion classroom. They felt their children were under too much pressure to comply with the language requirement. Yet, if Oceanside Schools represent a reasonable example of how it can work, the District’s achievement scores back up the value of the program. By the second year, second-graders with limited English skills made the biggest gains. Scores were up from the 13th to the 26th percentile in reading.

Since the enactment of the California law the battle over bilingual education has continued. In 2000, Arizona followed the California lead and adopted its own new law, Proposition 203, removing the requirement that Spanish be taught in the primary grades to Spanish speaking children. Colorado voters turned down a similar proposal in November 2002, when a broad alliance of voters amassed sufficient strength to overcome the proposition. Texas utilizes both total emersion and bilingual techniques. But parents must request that their children enter the bilingual program

To be fair, there are thoughtful people on both sides of the issue. An attempt to make the matter a question of one’s conservative or liberal values, to me, seems over-simplified. I have several relatives who are former teachers, and I know they don’t all see bilingual education through the same lens. But civil rights and social issues are often raised and, thus, have politicized the issue. And that’s too bad. For the sake of kids who need to learn English, they need the fastest track we can design.

Perhaps my leaning in the matter is a tad more practical than theoretical, partly because I know statistics can be jiggered. In my early professional days I did my stint as an employment interviewer. There was never a question in my mind about a job applicant’s need to speak English well. Employees in the vast majority of American businesses cannot function at an acceptable level if they cannot converse effectively with customers, management and fellow employees.

In the United States there are upwards of a hundred foreign languages spoken by immigrants. They cannot expect to achieve the “American Dream,” unless they find the means of assimilating into the society. And the ability to speak the language is a vital key. Many immigrants depend on their children to help with English, but that is not a long term answer. Children eventually leave home, and when they do the non-English speaking parents are left without the crutch. So learning English should be important to adults as well.

I have spent time in several foreign countries and suffered because I didn’t know the local language. Try buying a ticket on the Paris subway if you can’t speak French. Try asking for directions in Zorita, Spain if you don’t speak Spanish. If I were to choose to make my home in a non-English speaking country, my first priority would be to learn the language. How else should I expect to get along? Should the locals learn my language to accommodate me?

The demands for Spanish speaking teachers to meet the needs of schools in California during the 90s could not be achieved. And that begs the broader question: If we agree to meet the needs for Spanish speakers, what about those who speak Mandarin, Vietnamese, Hindi or Polish? Where does the teaching resource come from and the obligation end? Of course, I had a screwball college mate who was an advocate of Esperanto. Maybe that’s a viable alternative!

The progenitor of my paternal line came from Holland in 1648. He married an English woman and settled in what is now Brooklyn. Considering where my tenth great-grandfather had come from, and the woman he chose for a wife, I expect he and their children learned English out of necessity – total emersion. Are things that different today?

Steps Toward Freedom in the Middle East

2005-10-27T23:18:00.000-05:00

By Dick Tunison

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East. I subscribe to MEMRI’s news service that daily publishes English language translations of newspaper articles, columns and sometimes television interviews originally released in Arabic, or other Middle Eastern languages. MEMRI placed the following translation on its Website on October 24.

“Saudi author Badriyya Al-Bishr, a lecturer in social sciences at King Saud University, recently published an article titled "Imagine You're a Woman" in the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat”.The following are excerpts from her article:

“Imagine you're a woman. When your brother is born, people say: 'It's a boy, how wonderful,' and when you are born they say: 'How wonderful, it's a little girl' - using the diminutive form. Your arrival is welcome if [you are] the first or second girl, but it's best if there are no more than two, so that nothing undesirable happens to the mother. On the other hand, your brothers' arrivals are welcomed - the more the merrier.

"Imagine you're a woman. You always need your guardian's approval, not only regarding your first marriage, as maintained by the Islamic legal scholars, but regarding each and every matter. You cannot study without your guardian's approval, even if you reach a doctorate level. You cannot get a job and earn a living without your guardian's approval.

"Imagine you're a woman, and the guardian who must accompany you wherever you go is your 15-year-old son, who scratches his chin before giving his approval, saying: 'What do you think, guys, should I give her my permission?' Sometimes he asks for... a bribe from you in return for his approval of your request. But your guardian avoids taking a bribe in 'cash' because his self-respect prevents him from touching a woman's money. He prefers the bribe to be a car, a fridge, or an assurance of money that will be paid to him in installments, until Allah gets him out of his financial straits.

"Imagine you're a woman, and you are subject to assault or beatings. When the newspaper publishes your photo together with the photo of the criminals and descriptions of their brutality, there are people who ask: 'Was the victim covered by a veil or not?' If she was covered up, the question arises: 'Who let her go out of the house at such an hour?' If your husband is the one who broke your ribs, people will say that no doubt there was good reason for it.

"Imagine you're a woman whose husband breaks your nose, arm, or leg, and you go to the Qadi to lodge a complaint. When the Qadi asks you about your complaint, and you say, 'He beat me,' he responds reproachfully 'That's all?!' In other words, for the Qadi, beating is a technical situation that exists among all couples and lovers, as the saying goes: 'Beating the beloved is like eating raisins.'

"Imagine you're a woman, and in order to manage your affairs you must ride in a limousine with an Indian or Sri Lankan driver... or that you must wait for a younger brother to take you to work, or that you must bring a man who will learn to drive in your car, and will practice at your expense... because you yourself are not permitted to drive.

"Imagine you're a woman who writes for a newspaper, and every time you write about your women's concerns, problems, poverty, unemployment, and legal status, they say about you: 'Never mind her, it's all women's talk.'"

* * * * * *

Badriyya Al-Bishr, is of course, a Saudi and she sees her plight from the viewpoint of a citizen of perhaps the most fundamental Muslim nation on earth. Saudi Arabia is the womb of Wahabbism, a kind of radicalism that has been subsidized over the years by the House of Saud in order to assure the Royal Family’s continuing preeminence.

At this point, there seems to be little obvious evidence that the Royal Family, or any opposition coalition group that may emerge, will dilute the Wahabi stranglehold on the country. Despite jawboning by the Bush Administration, and particularly Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the stakes are too high for the Royal Family to move against the Wahabi which they, themselves, nurtured to pre-eminence.

It may be that the Saudi people will be encouraged to advocate change in their own land by observing their next door neighbor – not just in matters relating to the rights of women, but to include other freedoms. It would be hard not to notice the progress made in Iraq over the past year, for example.

Not only have Iraqi women gained the right to vote, but they have been elected to the Provisional Council. When the December elections roll around, women should gain a number of coveted seats in the Parliament. From a broader perspective, the Iraqis now enjoy virtual freedom of the press through an expansive print industry that encompasses the nation, and Iraqi television stations are supplanting the influential, but biased, Al-Jazira.

When we look one nation farther east, we see question marks about Iran. On the one hand, the Mullahs there are stretching their muscles to create nuclear arms capabilities disguised as an electrical generating program. A nuclear program is being sold to the Iranian people on the basis of “our right to have.” Nobody believes Iran needs another energy source, but nonetheless the pseudo necessity is being merchandised among the people. It brings about a heady, nationalistic response among the younger citizens. This can lead to a scary situation with world-wide ramifications.

The outside observers of the inner-workings in Iran see the growth of a homegrown “Passive Revolution” in more positive terms. Saudis must be aware of what’s going on in Iran, too, and hopefully they’re learning from what they see. The movement toward moderation that existed several years ago, and was spearheaded by the nation’s youth, was taught a hard lesson by Iran’s oppressive theocratic government. Police clamped down on the activities of reformers, jailed advocates for change, and created situations of mysterious disappearances. Conditions like those don’t encourage radical revolutionaries who could end up putting their lives at risk. So, Saudis would be well advised to emulate the passive revolution.

The present Iranian domestic balance is certainly tentative. To be sure, the political demonstrations we all saw five or six years ago have lessened, but the new passive revolution is more widespread than we may think. Today, the people are more attuned to the methods they use to pressure the government than they were six years ago. They now understand the value of seeking change through the gradual process of civil disobedience, rather than rock throwing and marching down the boulevard. If they can overcome the siren call of the atom, there may be much hope for the Persians.

Jared Cohen, writing in the current issue of the Hoover Digest, thinks Iran holds the key to democracy in the Middle East. He notes that, “Iran – a country of strategic, political, and economic importance to the region – has the potential to drastically change the Middle East, for, in much of the twentieth century, it has been the bellwether state of the region.”

But we shouldn’t jump to a giddy hopefulness over the idea Iranians may enjoy broader freedoms soon. The current leniency toward women’s head scarves, for example, could be sucked up in one breath by the Mullahs. A passive revolution will take time. But time is on the side of the young Iranians. The Mullahs, after all, are old guys and can’t last forever.

There would be a dramatic change in the Middle East if the Iranians would line up with their Iraqi neighbors and op for freedom for their peoples. For those who understand the historical division among the Islamic faithful which occurred after the death of Mohammed, and eventually resulted in antipathy between Iraq and Iran, such parallel movement will seem gigantic. But selling freedom may be an easier task than forcing a quantum jump to democracy.

Democracy after all, requires great change when the starting point is long accepted totalitarianism. Freedom, on the other hand, can come in digestible bites, i.e. women’s rights, open education, and religious plurality just to name three.

Although remarkable steps toward democracy are becoming clear in Iraq, we should not disillusion ourselves that the Iraqi form of democracy will mirror our own very soon. It will at least require some time and may be fraught with disappointments and wrong turns as it evolves. Perhaps even more of the digestible freedoms will be needed to soften the way.

But freedom, on the other hand can begin to be enjoyed in many of the Middle Eastern countries tomorrow. The simple right to vote is a perfect example. Broadening women’s rights is another. It’s not necessary to have a well honed democratic form of government before a woman can be allowed to wear makeup and show her face in public. Maybe a bigger step toward freedom could include loaning one’s wife the keys to the family Mercedes!

I believe there is hope for freedom and democracy in the Middle East. I also believe our continued urging and teaching is vital to such an achievement. But we can’t do that from halfway around the world. This fact reinforces the need for us to stay the course. The fledglings are not quite ready to fly on their own.

It's Time for Harriet to Withdraw

2005-10-24T16:27:00.000-05:00

By Dick Tunison

It’s been a rather tumultuous several weeks reading about and listening to the displeasure over President Bush’s choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. Some of my conservative brethren jumped on the nomination with both feet before taking a deep breath. Perhaps their disappointment was based on knowledge not available to the rest of us. Or, on the other hand, maybe they wanted somebody with clear, verifiable credentials that would assure them of the direction a new judge would take.

There is no question that some of the “Supremes” have turned out to be sheep in wolves’ clothing. Justice David Souter immediately comes to mind, but there are others like Sandra Day O’Connor who wavered between the poles. The one thing Republicans and Democrats long for is predictable court nominees. Of course the Republicans look for strict constructionists while the Democrats are more interested in nominees who will tend toward evolving interpretations of the law – even to the point of giving consideration to what foreign courts are deciding.

That’s been a point of contention among the current justices for some time. Not long ago I watched a discussion between Justices Antonin Scalia and Steven Breyer, on CSPAN, in which they debated the merits of considering foreign court decisions. Scalia’s argument was that ours is an American legal system established under the provisions of the Constitution and therefore stands alone. Breyer, on the other hand, argued that we live in a world larger than our own borders, and that it is proper that we be influenced by other legal systems.

I’m not as bright as either of these two men, but I don’t want to be judged in court on the basis of German, French, or Spanish legal decisions. I grew up with our Constitution, and I have a pretty good understanding of its contents and intent. Our legal system was based on English law, not Napoleonic Law or anybody else’s. Additionally, some decisions handed down by our Federal Courts have been tantamount to legislative action, and my conservative bones rattle when that kind of thing happens. Legislation, after all, is the purview of congress, not the courts. Yet, that basic fact seems to be ignored too many times these days.

I find myself running cooler by the day as I consider Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers. At first, I took a position of trust that the President would choose someone with strong constructionist beliefs who was not going to go along with the liberal trends our courts have demonstrated. One of George Bush’s promises from the beginning was that he’d nominate constructionist judges to the bench. Although, Ms. Miers seems like a solid woman and her achievements are undeniable, where does she really stand?

I don’t see her lack of judicial experience as a reason for eliminating her. After all, we’ve had justices in the past who have served the nation well and didn’t have those tickets. I’ve been told she is intelligent and a quick learner. But, despite all that, I’m feeling squishy about Ms. Miers. I can’t seem to find a hook to hang on.

As I look around at the most talked about alternative candidates, I spy many who stand out as readable. It’s the transparency that bothers me about Ms. Miers. This is an extremely important job she has applied for, and I fervently wish she could reflect back some of the beliefs I hold so dear. So far, that hasn’t happened. Maybe it will when and if we finally get around to hearings.

The trouble with most congressional hearings is that the senators and congressmen spend more time speechifying than they do asking questions for which clear answers are important. I guess I’m not a good expectant mother at this point. I don’t trust the congress to deliver what I’d like.

Every president has the right and responsibility to nominate whom he pleases. The role of the senate, in ‘advice and consent,’ has been blown up almost as big as the heads of the politicians. Some of these senators are absolutely puffed up with their own importance. But if they’re capable of engaging in clear analytical pursuits during their inquiries, they may do their jobs right. We could possibly learn something about Harriet Miers, but I’m not sure we’d get many assurances about her conservative values.

When Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated by Bill Clinton in 1993, her liberal activities and interests were well known and understood. So was her knowledge of constitutional law. Although some Republicans questioned her intently on specific issues, she was mostly closed mouthed when it came to answering such questions. Her avoidances were accepted as reasonable, and she was approved by a high majority of the vote in the senate. In her case, we got what we anticipated. But that’s a long shot with Ms. Miers, isn’t it?

So what’s the answer? Here’s mine. Ms. Miers needs to wake up some morning soon with the clear vision that the right thing to do is withdraw from the nomination. She could thank everybody for the joy of experiencing a frenzied several weeks in the spotlight, and say that she has other fish to fry in her yet young life. No gain, no loss. Then the president could go back to his list of real candidates and select someone who would give the liberal democrats gas. Republicans could unite and cry, “Let the fighting begin.” Ted Kennedy would really get red in the face, Barbara Boxer would grow more gray hair, and Patrick Leahy could dream about going back to the farm in Vermont. Oh, and Arlen Specter would need to show he is, once again, a genuine Republican.

If this should this happen, I won’t think less of George Bush. After all, I almost bought a Ford Edsel once. It would be far better to let Harriet Miers go free now than to find out later the choice was a mistake. I don’t doubt she is a pleasant and capable woman who has served her state and her country well. But we need strong assurances from a nominee to the Supreme Court, based on a clear trail of decisions and writings, that he or she is bound to the Constitution of the United States, and believes it is the true guide in our legal system - not just quaint writings by old fashioned men of the past.

The Stereotype Christian

2005-10-22T16:37:00.000-05:00

By Dick Tunison

As a life-long Christian, I’m confounded by the way the press likes to brand Evangelical Christians. Quite often, Evangelicals are portrayed as a strange breed intent on taking control of almost everything in our lives. They are seen as total zealots who would expunge everything that doesn’t fit their brand of religion.

At the very least, such notions ooze their way out of brains devoid of all knowledge of the history of Christianity, or at worst, they mock many of the beliefs held in the hearts of millions of Americans.

Not long ago, I asked an adult Sunday school class if it thought its church could be classified as evangelical. Interestingly, there was no single answer. Rather, I was asked to explain what I meant by evangelical. “Do you mean having fundamental beliefs?” one person asked. “Are you asking if we believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God?” another person asked. Someone else asked if I was referring to reaching out to convert non-Christians.

All this suggests that the term evangelical can mean different things to different people. Even to very knowledgeable Christians. One might argue that all practicing Protestants are evangelical to one degree or another. They can express a wide array of beliefs and practices, yet in general, there will be elements of genuine agreement. Among the elements are matters such as the inerrancy of the Scriptures, the Virgin Birth, the Deity of Jesus, salvation through Christ, the requirement to proclaim the Word, and, indeed, many more. Some Protestants may embrace all of these elements of belief, while others may be guided by fewer. Members of the press seem not to grasp this polychotomy.

So, for the press to suggest all Evangelical Christians are like Jerry Falwell, is clearly overreaching. But it suits a particular purpose for the press to mock a group based on the identification of one of its members. In the past, Protestant denominations have neither been glorified nor vilified because of the public’s assessment of a particular president. I don’t remember hearing such couplings as, Gerald Ford, the Episcopalian; William McKinley, the Methodist; or Harry Truman, the Baptist.

The current fear mongering over President Bush’s own faith and his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court quickly comes to mind. When she’s described as an Evangelical Christian, there is a clear implication that the description really means a religious wacko. And nothing more need be said.

Some readers will remember that John F. Kennedy was subjected to intense questioning about the depth of his Catholicism. Inquisitors wondered, if he were elected president, would the Pope whisper orders in his ear. There were similar nuances expressed about John Robert’s nomination to the Court. Would his Catholicism influence his decisions regarding abortion and other life and death matters? Once again, we’re likely to see similar inquiries into Ms Miers’ theology, and how it might control her judicial decisions.

It’s my observation that over the past fifty years political attitudes have impacted judicial decisions far more than anything resembling religious beliefs. Rewriting our laws to comply with liberal political standards that ignore the intentions of the framers of our Constitution and the prevailing views of our society is the real culprit here, not the fact that a judge holds a particular religious belief.

The pressures applied by courts regarding school prayer, religious displays in public places, the practices of the Boy Scouts of America, and the use of religious music does not result from deep seated religious beliefs. It comes from the unreasonable decisions of liberal judges who have a soft ear for deconstructionist arguments. It’s as if all these long-standing practices of our American society are now seen as tools of the Christian Zealots who give no quarter in their effort to run the country under some form of Christian Orthodoxy

Bearing in mind the mindset of our Founding Fathers, this fear of faith must be laid at the feet of political deconstructionists. The constant harping about “a wall of separation between church and state” is pure fabrication. Nothing in our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, or the Federalist Papers suggests such a concept.

If one were to examine the constitutions of the fifty states, only Nevada would be found lacking some reference to Almighty God, the Great Creator, Divine Providence, or similar language in its preamble. What Americans seemed to want from the very beginning was a land where the government did not demand adherence to a specific doctrine for citizenship, but rather the freedom to choose one’s own path to Almighty God, or the freedom to opt for none at all. That promise was combined, in the First Amendment, with the right to speak freely and to enjoy a press that was not limited by government of any kind.

It’s strange that we find ourselves, in this day of enlightenment, surrounded by critics who show no respect for those who have chosen to seek Almighty God, particularly if it appears to be an evangelical path. The agitators and complainers about the deeply faithful tend to create a frightful impression of religiosity.

We are not a nation of single-minded automatons marching in cadence. We are a nation of free-thinkers who are practiced in making up our own minds and living our lives as we think best. Although sometimes our choices may be wrong, they are our own. We listen, we study, we absorb and we decide. The path we choose to discover the Divine is influenced more by our personal needs and understandings than by hard-set dogma. Christians worship the same God, but we view Him through our own prism, despite the efforts of the press to paint us all alike.

Roadblocks to Feeding the Starving

2005-10-22T14:54:00.000-05:00

By Dick Tunison

If there is any one among us who is not aware of the severe famine conditions in sub-Saharan Africa, let him step forward for close scrutiny. This problem has been in the news for literally years, and it seems to have no end of vexing twists and turns. We should be better informed, because it represents one of our more expensive foreign aid programs.

The causes of the wide-spread famine in Africa range from the lack of rainfall in broad geographic areas, to pure political malfeasance. In between, one will find obstinance, backward farming methods; warn out soil and religious friction that has created thousands of refugees.

There are two elements of our African Food Program that are worthy of better understanding. The first one deals with the matter of obstinacy. The second revolves around our machinery for getting food to the starving Africans.

Obstinance, how so? Well, it seems that many of the African countries have been persuaded by the European Union that genetically modified grains coming from American farms are not to be trusted. The basis for this negativism is not based in solid science, but a desire on the part of Europeans to protect their own backward farming methods and the revenues that come from the sale of their own farm products.

A few stories, and at least one movie, have been foisted on the public suggesting some ghoulish outcome from the use of genetically altered crops. I remember a movie that came out around 1981 that concerned lab experiments that somehow were released into the community. Infected plants suddenly mutated into man-eaters, or something equally horrible. Fortunately, few people took the idea seriously at the time.

I have some modest exposure to the science of bio-engineering. I was part of a diversification division established in my company. I remember sitting in on early discussions among corporate planners who revealed the very serious threat of world hunger. These analysts impressed me with the dire need for expanded food supplies that would soon be required to satisfy third world hunger.

Two avenues were selected by my company to do something constructive to solve the problem. The first was to establish a ground-up bio-engineering lab to engage in basic plant cell research, and the other was to enter the seed business where the company might find the means to produce and market the results of the research. My assignment was to oversee the recruitment of high quality professionals who would set up and run the laboratory. Within eighteen months we were up and running in both segments.

In the five year process in which I was involved, I learned a lot about agricultural problems that the average person never thinks about. Overcoming tendencies of fresh produce to spoil, reducing damage in shipment, increasing grain production in arid areas of the world, developing strains of plants that would grow harsher climates, eliminating blight and the ravages of pests without the use of pesticides, were all matters of our pursuits.

And we were not alone. A great deal of work was being done within the agricultural industry and the research universities around the country. What the public didn’t understand about bio-engineering was that it might lead to ways of vastly improving agri-business, increasing crop output as well as quality – all the while in a friendlier environment where genetic modification does the work of chemical additives and pesticides. So far, the results have been quite remarkable and there is little evidence that man-eating plants have mutated from the Andean tomato (It has a high natural resistance to frost, in case you’re interested.).

American agriculture is a threat to many nations, even in Europe, where farms are small, soil is depleted and governments want to prop up a non-competitive industry. Rather than embrace the advances new science is offering, they have chosen to fight the dragon by spreading fear about the safety of genetically modified foods. This has hampered America’s ability to lend the helping hand where it’s needed most.

But, there is another hitch in our get-along, as some would say. That’s the current law of the land. As systems, laws and regulations have developed over the past fifty years, they’ve been governed by the notion that America’s generosity ought to be good for American agriculture as well as the starving people of the world. This is not an outrageous idea, but it has its drawbacks in this matter. The law requires that all food aid provided by ISAID be grown by U.S farmers and, for the most part, shipped via American-flag vessels.

Records show that just four companies and their subsidiaries sold more than half the $700 million in food commodities provided through USAID programs in 2004. And, just five shipping companies received over half the more than $300 million spent on transporting the food. The other winners under these circumstances are the middle-men who broker the deals, and some of the relief organizations that have become quasi grain traders.

To its credit, the Bush administration has once again boldly stepped out into the great unknown by suggesting the law be changed in order to allow USAID to buy food product directly from African sources. This way, a greater proportion of the aid money would go to the purchase of closely available product, rather than the roughly fifty percent that is now bled out on Stateside costs and transportation.

Although there will likely be great gnashing of teeth in American middle states and among a number of shipping companies, support for the Administration’s plan is picking up a following. Oxfam, an affiliation of twelve relief organizations, and CARE have now announced their support for Bush’s plan. But don’t expect Congress to embrace the idea with much vigor.

Maybe the resistance is another example of the bureaucrat’s reluctance to think outside the box. But it should be a matter of importance to the Americans who pay the bill, and the hungry people of the world who are always wondering where their next meal is coming from.