Monday, December 26, 2011

No papers please – a Food Ministry Christmas


They came from all over North Alabama and southern Tennessee, black, brown, white and all shades in between. They were the volunteers on Thursday, December 22.

They came from all over North Alabama and southern Tennessee, black brown, white and all shades in between. They were the hungry, those who needed clothes or toys for their kids for Christmas.

It started off as a food ministry, but now it also fills other needs as well. English was the main language, but Spanish was often heard as well.

On the food line we were given strict instructions; two cans of green beans, two cans of carrots, two of pears, a bag of frozen sweet potato fries and two pounds of rice for each person. No more. Unless someone asked. Our customers in turn would not only tell us if they needed more, but when they had enough at home. “No rice today, I have enough and I don’t want to take it when someone else needs it more”.

The toy line was long. Each person got a ticket for two toys. The supply was limited, but no one complained.  Shoppers were let in 15 at a time because the space was small and the demand was large. Hundreds were served by the end of the evening.

The toys were donated, as was much of the food. All of the help was by volunteers; an odd mix of individuals, a middle school basketball team, an alumni group from a fraternity and many different church and civic groups.

You heard Merry Christmas, Feliz Navidad, and God Bless you often. But what you never heard in this ministry the week before Christmas was, “your papers please”. This ministry answers to a higher law.

Friday, December 23, 2011

Jesus is Born – So What?


Christmas is here and Christians around the world are celebrating Jesus’ birthday. So What? You say you’re a Christian? Jesus is born! So what are you going to do about it?

If you respond and say you show your love of God by going to church, my response is again – so what? To quote the bumper sticker, “Going to Church no more makes you a Christian than standing in a garage makes you a car”. You say you give to your church. That’s nice but if it is all you are doing it is not enough.

First, let’s start with your church. Is it inviting to all? Do you welcome the rich and the poor equally? James 2:1-4 teaches us that if we show favoritism, we are committing a sin. James continues in 2:5-7 “5 Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?” James’ work was deemed important enough to include in the Bible. Now we would dismiss him as being a radical in the Occupy Movement. What does that say about us? Why is pointing out social injustice threatening to many US Christians?

The prophet Isaiah had this to say about good, church-going folk who make offerings and pray, but stop there. “15 When you spread out your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from you; even when you offer many prayers, I am not listening” Isaiah 1:15. Isaiah explains why God does not listen to their prayers in verses 16-17: 16 Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. 17 Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow”. Yes Isaiah knew that God would not hear their prayers if they did not practice justice.

Isaiah’s time was much like our own. Here is what he had to say about the leaders of his time in 1:23 “Your rulers are rebels, partners with thieves; they all love bribes and chase after gifts”. It sounds like money has always corrupted politics and power too often attracts scoundrels.

Do you think that perhaps Isaiah is an anomaly in the Bible? Listen to the words of Amos: “7 There are those who turn justice into bitterness and cast righteousness to the ground.  12 For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins. There are those who oppress the innocent and take bribes and deprive the poor of justice in the courts. 21 “I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me. 22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them. 23 Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. 24 But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!” Amos 5:7, 12, 21-24.

But let’s assume that your church is inviting to all and is interested in social justice. It’s time to get more personal.

James continues in chapter 2 “14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” James is clear – faith requires action. To those who are wondering where Grace fits in here, yes, you are saved by Grace, but if you are saved, won’t there be evidence? If your heart is changed to love God, that love will leave tracks for all to see. 

James gives us a hint on one of the things we are to do: feed the hungry. But why don’t we hear from Jesus himself on what we are to do: “Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
   37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
   40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” Matthew 25:34-40.  Jesus goes on to promise condemnation to those who do not heed this call. 

To be a Christian is a call to action, a call to loving others with more than good intentions and good feelings. A call to feed, clothe and provide medical care to those in need. A call to question the world as it is and to demand, not middle class comfort, but justice. A call in all ways to love one another as you love yourself. 

So there you have it. Jesus is Born! So what? So get moving. 

Coming at the New Year: Part 2 – Jesus gives the leper a Band-Aid, or does government fit into this call to action?

Friday, November 18, 2011

Mo Brooks endorses single payer health care (well not really…but)


At a recent town hall meeting at Grissom High School Mo Brooks made an offhand comment praising South Korea’s freedom loving people, contrasting them to the North Koreans. He stated that he believed that their economic miracle was directly related to their love of freedom.

I could not agree more. The people of South Korea are a democratic society that has experienced an economic miracle over the last several decades. While part of that miracle is due in part to the defense assistance we provide them, the majority of their advances are due to their own hard work and commitment that they have made to the betterment of their own society.

Koreans enjoy one of the best public school systems in the world, in part due to strict federal standards and high teacher salaries that attract high achieving applicants. 

Koreans enjoy the fastest broadband Internet speeds in the world, thanks to strict an energetic federal regulation of the telecom industry.

When automaker Kia went bankrupt in the late 1990’s, the government took over the firm (bailout) until the eventual takeover by Hyundai was arranged. Jobs were saved and the company now thrives as a part of the larger Hyundai Company.

Koreans also spend only 6.4% of their GDP on medical care (2006 -according to the CDC) even though they have universal single payer medical care. We in the 15.3% US spent that same year even though we have gaping holes in our medical system.

So Mo was right. There is definitely something to admire about these freedom loving people. Perhaps one of their most admirable qualities is that the people make the system work for their own good.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

House reaffirms 'In God We Trust' as official U.S. motto

 Yes, the House determined that reaffirming "In God We Trust" as our national motto was the most important issue facing our country today.

If we do indeed trust God, why do we need so many weapons?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-house-motto-20111102,0,4529006.story

Friday, October 28, 2011

Why Wall Street should pay attention to Occupy Wall Street


Occupy Wall Street is now a favorite subject for the media. They seem to vacillate between admiration and disdain. Certainly Fox News leans more towards disdain while MSNBC is more open to examining their complaints. I hope that Wall Street is paying attention. Whether you like them or not, Occupy Wall Street is one symptom of a greater issue – falling confidence.

Each month consumer confidence is reported as an indicator of expected future economic performance. Confidence in the value of the dollar is evidenced by foreign currency exchange rates. Confidence in the Federal Government is reflected in surveys with the general public and by investors with the yield rates on treasury bills. Confidence is a valuable indicator and positive economic outcomes in the long run require confidence – the confidence to spend, the confidence to borrow, he confidence that you will have a job and the confidence to invest.

The Occupy __ (fill in your city) movement is, fundamentally, about fairness; the belief that the economic system is not fair to most people in the United States. Protestors believe that if you work hard to get an education and a job, that you should be able to prosper. The reality they see is that people in finance who game the system have prospered enormously while following the rules may leave you jobless and in debt. They believe that if you should start to get ahead, the financial system is set up to fleece small investors while the powerful prosper at the rest of society’s expense. That is, they have lost confidence in our economic system.

As long as that loss of confidence is limited to scattered encampments in large cities around the country (and world) the protestors are merely a noisy distraction to Wall Street, and perhaps a tourist draw for the curious.

But surveys taken since the beginning of the protests indicate that the OWS movement is the true cutting edge of a wave of dissatisfaction with the direction of our country. TEA Party groups blame the government for their dissatisfaction, while OWS blames greed and the influence of money on the political process.  Both groups know something is wrong, and the OWS movement has been growing in influence.

Our stock markets require investor confidence to attract capital. No investor will send money to his broker with the expectation that he will be fleeced. As more investors examine the arguments of the OWS movement, they may come to agree that the system is rigged against them. If this results in dollars slowly being pulled out of the market, then Wall Street ignores the complaints of the OWS movement at its peril. This loss of confidence will likely not result in a run on the markets, rather is would be evidenced by a slow decline as individuals come to the conclusion that the American dream does not flow through Wall Street.

Is Occupy Wall Street the tip of the iceberg or an annoyance to the wealthy? The public is now focusing on the growing income gap and time will tell.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

They wonder why we don’t like them


With the ongoing Occupy demonstrations going on around the country, I’d like to tell two stories about working with banks. Neither of these stories involves large sums of money or great issues, but it is the little things like this that leave us with a negative attitude towards financial institutions. Issues of substance are now magnifying that attitude.  

The refinancing

About a year ago I decided to refinance my house to take care of lower interest rates. I was not taking any cash out, nor was I lowering my payments. The only objective was to cut down the repayment term to pay the house off faster.

I immediately locked the interest rate for 90 days and sent the requested document dump to Bank of America. Then I waited. After a couple of weeks I got an additional document request from a new loan officer. My first contact was no longer on the transaction.  My second loan officer only lasted one day, having apparently left the company about the time that my folder landed on her desk. There was a mix up with the third loan officer, and my refinancing ended up on the desk of a fourth person.

By this time the bank had lost many of the original documents and I was asked to resend them. Several times.

The fourth loan officer was not on the scene long, nor was number five. Because of the churning of the loan officers Bank of America had to extend the 90-day rate lock. Upon the extension I had to update all of my documentation. 

After four months and six loan officers we closed the loan. The final insult of this story is that at the closing we were given the option to have our checking account automatically drafted each month to pay for the loan, and the bank would only charge us $4.00 extra per payment for the honor.

I’m an accountant. I know that the ACH transfer that the bank would use to draft our account is much cheaper for the bank to process than the paper check we would be sending. Yes folks, the bank was charge us $4.00 per transaction to save THEM money. We declined their generous offer.

The checking account

Until last week I had a checking account at Citibank. Two weeks ago I received a notice in the mail that Citi was raising its service charge on checking accounts to $15 per month. The letter also let me know that as long as I maintained a minimum savings balance, I would not be charged – and congratulations I had that minimum balance. After a checking account is set up maintenance on the bank’s mainframe has a negligible cost. I could understand a per check charge – processing checks costs money. But $15 per month just to maintain the account is unconscionable. Although the account would have cost me nothing, I have now closed my Citi checking and savings accounts and am one of the newest members of my local credit union.

We all have a choice. Don’t let yourself be treated like a sheep to be sheared. Don’t do business with companies that don’t value you as a customer.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

The Conservative belief in American Unexceptionalism


Conservatives seem to revel in the idea of American Exceptionalism. Within the last year John Boehner and Kathleen Parker have criticized the President for not using the term, even though in fact he has (April 4, 2009). President Obama frequently invokes the concept of exceptionalism, even when the phrase is not uttered.

On the right, the phrase has become a litmus test of patriotism, as if mere words were enough to prove one’s love for country. But, as in all things, actions are the real proof of one’s beliefs, and it is in actions that the conservative movement in this country shows their belief in American Unexceptionalism.

I live in Alabama’s 5th congressional district. Mo Brooks can’t exhale without uttering the need for budget cuts. We can’t afford universal health care (and according to Mo, requiring the purchase of private insurance is a government takeover of health care). We can’t afford to help the poor- the social safety net is a luxury in a time of slow economic growth. He, along with the other Republicans in the house, have voted to cut funding for nutrition programs for pregnant women, food programs for children, job training environmental regulation enforcement, food safety inspection, updated weather satellite systems, aid for police departments, and foreign aid (except for Israel and Pakistan). Should the Ryan budget plan pass, the magnitude of the proposed cuts would dramatically increase.

By votes and rhetoric, Republicans believe that Unions hurt business and competitiveness, protecting the environment cannot be accomplished without destroying jobs and that drilling for more oil domestically will significantly reduce our energy prices. And of course, they reject the science that shows us that global climate change is being accelerated by human activities.

Meanwhile, countries as diverse as Germany and Taiwan prove that universal health care is a realistic idea that society can afford. China is sprinting to be a world leader in the alternative energy industry and much of Western Europe is proving its commitment to reduce its dependence on fossil fuel with investment and action. Germany requires Union representatives on corporate boards, and requires employers to provide generous benefits. It invests in worker training and strongly protects its environment, yet its economy is the strong man of Europe and unemployment there is much lower than in the US. Yes, Germany has its own economic problems, but it has not had to abandon its social safety net even under our current world economic duress.

So what does it say about our belief in ourselves that other countries can do what our conservative leaders say we cannot afford to do? Do conservatives believe that Americans are lazier than Germans? Are the Taiwanese smarter or richer or more moral than us to be able to afford universal heath care when we are told we cannot? Are the Chinese more farsighted, investing in the energy technologies of the future while we wrestle with crumbling infrastructure? 

By word, conservatives proclaim the greatness of the USA. They proclaim our superiority in most, if not all things. Yet in their words and actions, they betray those statements of American Exceptionalism. They tell us what we can’t do, can’t afford – even while other countries pursue and achieve what we are told is unattainable. They have chosen shortcuts and callousness as the direction we must take to compete in the world. When we accept second best, when we accept that our future is only a diminished version of what we were, that we must turn away from a commitment to each other as a society to pursue our own selfish goals, that we cannot attain what others countries can, that our children must accept less and live in a world of fewer rights and more pollution, then we will truly be the unexceptional people, the unexceptional nation, that they are telling us we must be.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Estate Tax - a Question and a primer


Just before the April tornados, I posted some information about the Ryan tax plan. My focus was on the income tax provisions, including examples of how the plan would exempt investment income from taxation while eliminating most income tax deductions. In that post I mentioned that the plan would eliminate the estate tax completely. I received the following comment/question from a friend.

If I work hard, and save money, after paying the requisite taxes on that income myself, and then also paying taxes on the dividends and interest as I invest that money, do you think it's reasonable that if I want to give some or all of that money to my kids to supplement their lives, that they should then be taxed on that money as income? Generally speaking, I think one layer of taxation from an "income" standpoint (the taxes I paid) should be reasonable. In addition to what I paid as income tax, the kids are likely to spend some of that money, and when they do, aren't they being taxed as well - via consumption (sales) tax?

Since then I have taken a hiatus from writing the blog so I am finally cleaning out the in box.

Of course, implicit in the question is that the Ryan tax plan would not pass (Under the Ryan plan, not only would the estate tax be eliminated, but all taxation on dividends, interest and capital gains would cease).  

Before I offer my opinion, let’s look at where the estate tax currently stands. For 2011, estate tax is due on taxable estates of more than $5,000,000 (or $10,000,000 for married couples). For the first time in history, the joint marriage total survives the death of a spouse – but this provision has many qualifications and a qualified estate tax expert should be consulted to understand this provision and its planning implications. For taxable estates, the maximum rate is 35% of the taxable estate.

This limit is set high enough so that most estates, including most family owned farms and businesses do not trigger an estate tax upon transfer at death. In 2007, estates over $2,000,000 were subject to tax, yet only 38,031 returns were filed (at a time when time when the number of deaths in the year was approximately 2,400,000). While no statistics are available for 2011 yet, it is safe to assume that far fewer estates are subject to tax than in 2007 since the size of the minimum estate subject to tax has more than doubled.

In the past, the estate tax rate has been much higher. As recently as 2001 the maximum rate was 55% on estates larger than $3,000,000. Yet this seemingly punitive tax rate did not result in the ruination of many estates due to the many planning strategies available (family LLC’s, life insurance programs, trusts…).

Indeed, we have yet to see any of the Walton family (Wal-Mart) in bread lines due to the burden of estate taxes. In fact, last time I checked, the family still held on to one of the world’s great fortunes.

So, what were some of the reasons the estate tax was established and are those reasons still relevant? Of course, raising revenues is one of the most obvious reasons for the estate tax and in times of record deficits, any reduction in estate taxes would exacerbate the deficit. The other reasons in favor of the estate tax are more interesting – to prevent the corrupting influence of wealth concentration on democracy and to help capitalism.

Thanks to Koch Industries and the Koch brothers, we can see how concentrated wealth can be used to influence government. Through the financing of right wing think tanks, false grass roots political organizations, direct lobbying and lavish entertaining of politicians (including judges) as well as direct campaign contributions they have fought to reduce the influence of unions, loosen environmental laws, reduce worker safety rules, and reduce worker job rights. They have been effective. With the recent Citizens United Supreme Court decision, their ability to more directly assert their influence on policy has been magnified. Whether you consider this to be a corrupting influence or free speech is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that speech is free, but the megaphone through which they can amplify their opinion is very expensive and even Unions cannot match their influence, thanks to the money they use to buy influence.

How is capitalism helped by an estate tax? The reason for this position is the same that led to the creation of anti-trust laws. Concentrated wealth can be used to crush ideas in the marketplace. Without protection can large companies (and large fortunes) be used to crowd out new and better ideas? Obviously.

Does the estate tax result in double taxation of accumulated income? Yes, it can. But there are several situations where appreciated property is inherited without ever being subject to tax on the appreciation, so there are no absolutes on this subject.

Are the reasons for the imposition of the original estate tax still valid? I believe that they are, and for that reason I do support an estate tax. With estates under $10,000,000 (for married couples) being exempt from tax, and planning strategies available to larger estates, the burden on the wealthy is not too high.

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Michelle Bachman’s 9th Commandment problem


Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."

I welcome Michelle Bachman to the presidential race, but I am confused about something. As she lets everyone know, she is an evangelical Christian, and that is the source of my confusion.

Although we all fall short, I would expect most Christians to at least attempt to follow the 10 Commandments. That brings me to the 9th Commandment, which is printed above.

A very strict interpretation is that this means that you should not offer false testimony in court, but most modern interpretations expand this to simply mean “do not lie”.

Now a lie and a gaffe are two different things. A gaffe is a mistake, like mixing up the birthplace of John Wayne with John Wayne Gacy ( the serial killer) (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/michele-bachmann-confuses-john-wayne-gacy-with-the-duke.html ). Certainly this gaffe could have been prevented with, say, 30 seconds of research, but it is an unintentional mistake.

Lying is intentional, like saying that you never benefitted from government subsidies when your own financial disclosure forms show otherwise (http://www.politicususa.com/en/bachmann-dairy-farm). Unfortunately this is only one of many documented lies from the Congresswoman from Minnesota.

You may be saying to yourself that all politicians lie. Perhaps so, perhaps not, but that is not the point. Someone who campaigns on the strength of their faith should be held to a higher standard – that of the faith they profess.

Family values candidates should not cheat on their spouses, anti-government spending candidates should not be taking government money, and people who run as Christian candidates should at least make every attempt to tell the truth.

It’s really not a lot to ask, now is it?

Monday, June 6, 2011

Bond pop quiz


 Pop Quiz. As of June 5, what was the yield on a 10 year U.S. Government bond? Here’s a hint. When voting against raising the government debt limit, Rep. Mo Brooks said “We face national bankruptcy and insolvency”. Another hint – the current yield on Greek 10 year government bonds is 16.25%.

The answer to the pop quiz is that US 10 year bonds yield is 3.125%.

The answer means two things. First, those people who invest for a living continue to believe that US obligations represent one of the safest risks on earth. Second – Mo Brooks is exaggerating the mess we are in.

Certainly, our debt and deficit problems must be addressed, but the confidence that the financial markets continue to place in the US give us the time to address our deficit issues smartly.  

What would not be smart? Lowering income taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest to ZERO when we are facing historic deficits. How about supporting a deficit reduction plan that, by its own questionable accounting, does not balance the budget for several decades? Yet these are the policies that Mo Brooks voted for in his support of the Ryan budget plan.

Rep. Brooks talks tough about deficits. But his voting record so far shows that more tax cuts for the wealthy are really at the top of his agenda.  What do you call someone who says one thing and does another? I’d call him Mo.

Sunday, April 24, 2011

And Hop is a documentary - How the Ryan bill makes the income tax system fairer.


I want to do away with the myth that the Ryan budget plan balances the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class. It does nothing of the sort. To be sure, it does make draconian cuts in the social safety net, cuts that will result in more hunger and untreated illness in the US. It does change Medicare into a voucher plan from a comprehensive insurance program. But it does not make a serious attempt to use these savings to balance the budget. By the plan’s own questionable accounting, the federal budget under the plan will not be balanced until 2063. By using more objective assessments of the effects of the tax cuts contained in the plan, it expands the deficit to even more unsustainable levels, even with the savings we gain by turning our backs on the needy.

What the plan does is redistribute wealth from the middle class and needy to the wealthy.

I’m a CPA, so I was particularly interested in the estate and income tax provisions of the plan. Most of what has been written about the Ryan plan has focused on the Medicare changes proposed, or the ridiculous assumptions used to cook the numbers (2.8% unemployment by 2021, tax cuts with no negative revenue effect). As a result, the press has not highlighted the changes in income tax laws. Since I did not find that summary, with examples, I have prepared it below. Warning – some of this is pretty dry. I have not tried to make many witty comments or jokes (assuming you have found some of my previous posts to be witty or funny). I think the examples will entertain (shock, scare…) you though. If you have any questions or would like more details or examples, please email me with your requests.

 

Estate taxes

The plan eliminates the estate tax. Thanks Dad (no, not really – I am not a member of the lucky sperm club).

Corporate income taxes


Corporations would see their income tax eliminated entirely; to be replaced by an 8½% business consumption tax (essentially a Value Added Tax – VAT) . The tax is calculated by subtracting purchases (non-wage expenses) from income. For tax purposes, investments made by businesses would be immediately expensed.

The VAT tax would apply to businesses that are now pass-through entities (partnerships, S corporations, sole proprietorships).

Individual income taxes


Individuals would get to select from two tax codes, the current code or an alternative simplified code (a reduced IRS would have to administer this two-code mess). Under the new code, wages would be fully taxable as they are now. Interest, dividends and capital gains would be completely exempt from taxation. Deductions from income would be eliminated. 

Since wages are taxed under the Ryan plan as ordinary income business owners have a tax planning strategy available to them under the Ryan plan.

A business owner makes $500,000 from her business. The business owner, a single taxpayer, takes a salary from that total that results in taxable income of $50,000. The wage income is subject to an income tax rate of 10%. She pays herself the remaining profits as a dividend, which are not subject to income tax (yes - a rate of 0%). Pretty slick, eh? Fair? Not so much.
As the plan advertises, your income tax return would fit on a postcard. Taxable income is gross income less a standard deduction and personal exemption. The value of the health insurance provided to employees by employers will now be a part of that employee’s taxable income. If your salary is $50,000 and your health insurance cost your employer $10,000, your gross income on which income tax and social security is computed is $60,000. You would receive a tax credit for your health insurance cost to partially offset the effect of taxing the value of your health insurance.

To demonstrate, assume that a single taxpayer has $60,000 in taxable income (after standard deduction and personal exemption). His taxes, before health care credit, would be $7,500 (10% of the first $50,000; 25% on the rest). Compare that to someone who inherited wealth and does not work. He earns $1,000,000 per year from interest and dividends. His tax is $0 because all of his income is exempt from taxation. The winners and losers under the plan are clear.

Does anyone want to argue that this is fair or even makes sense?

My congressman, Mo Brooks,  voted for this bill. Did he read it before he voted, or did he expect us to not read it?

Saturday, April 23, 2011

Jump frog Jump – my Head Start experience


Jump frog Jump, that’s what I shout, in unison with thirteen four and five year olds at the Toney-Harvest Head Start Center. Several times a year my Kiwanis Club reads to the kids at the center as part of the RIF (Reading is Fundamental) program. At the start of the year, the kids could not sit still. They didn’t know their numbers or letters. Now, when I point to a number they can tell me what it is. They can count up to 100 (at least most of them). They know their letters. They sat still as I read five books. And I am impressed with their progress.

One of the programs that Republicans in Congress want to slash funding for is Head Start. They say it doesn’t work. They say they have studies that show that the kids do not do better in school. I don’t know how good their studies are. I don’t know if they were conducted properly. I do know that many of these kids start out life with two strikes against them. They come from poor families. Many are raised by single parents. They don’t read at home; don’t even have books. But at the Toney-Harvest Head Start Center they learn to sit still and listen. They learn to raise their hands to be recognized. They learn their numbers, colors and letters. And when they leave to go to kindergarten next year they will be ready.

Jump frog jump, indeed.

Friday, April 15, 2011

Paul Ryan's Safety Thong

Paul Ryan wants to keep the safety net for the poor from becoming a hammock. This just shows how out of touch Mr. Ryan is. If you look at the benefits available with the safety net and consider the cost of living, I think you will agree that the net can hardly be considered a net anymore.

A hammock cradles you, and a net catches you. Mr. Ryan would shrink it more, so we should think of something smaller than a net. Much smaller.

So let's start referring to the social programs that remain if Mr. Ryan gets his way as the Ryan Safety Thong. Like a thong, Mr. Ryan would leave some very important things unsupported. Like a thong, it would not cover nearly enough. And like a thong, it would become very uncomfortable at precisely the wrong time. And for average American a thong is just not a good idea.

I would not even wish Mr. Ryan's Safety Thong on Mr. Ryan himself. That's just something I really don't want to picture.

Saturday, March 5, 2011

Don't eat the Light Bulbs

Being selfish and doing good


I was watching a story about the demise of incandescent light bulbs on the nightly news recently when my oldest son walked into the room. On screen, a Texas Republican congressman (I don’t remember which one, but they have become pretty much interchangeable lately) was speaking on the House floor, decrying the “do good” Federal government for telling people what sort of light bulbs they should be using.

My son, in his boil it down quickly mode, asked “when did it become a bad thing to do good”? OK – you folks out there, when did doing good become bad? When did saving electricity, burning less gasoline or recycling more waste become not goals that we should aspire to, not the least we can do to be good members of society, but instead attacks on our personal liberties (as defined by the TEA Partiers)?

The story went on to interview people who oppose the mandate. Of course Michelle Bachmann was in there, as usual looking like her shoes were just a little too tight as she whined on about this liberal attack on freedom. Let’s ignore the fact that the bill to eliminate incandescent bulbs was signed by George W. Bush. Then there were the two unhappy consumers, complaining that the new lights did not come on fast enough, and that they did not like the color of the light from the new bulbs. Now let’s ignore the “fast on” feature and more natural light spectrum available in the new generation of lights. These consumers were stocking up so that when only the energy saving (fluorescent and LED) lights were available, they could continue to burn more wattage the old fashioned way.

In December, NPR ran a story on how dishes may look less sparkly coming out of dishwashers because phosphates had now been eliminated from dishwasher detergents. The reason for the change is that phosphates dramatically increase algae growth when released into waterways. Consumers interviewed for the story were not concerned with the environmental damage phosphates were causing; they wanted cleaner looking dishes.  One went so far as to buy trisodium phosphate at a hardware store to mix into her detergent. We all have our priorities, don’t we?

What have we become? When did we lose our obligation as citizens to try to work for a better community? When did selfishness and perceived personal comfort (in both cases there is no real “damage” in doing the right thing) become more important than society and the world around us? One popular bumper sticker around Alabama proclaims “Freedom Isn’t Free”. No, it isn’t, so shouldn’t our obligation extend further than our car bumpers?

What have you done lately to make the United States of America a better place lately? We ask our troops to risk the ultimate sacrifice. We now ask our teachers, firefighters and policemen to sacrifice part of their middle class pay so that we don’t have to pay more taxes (more on this in another posting). Republicans in Congress are asking poor kids and pregnant women to sacrifice their food assistance because we have to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy (this will be another stand alone posting).

Should society have to suffer the effects of more coal burning power plants and algae clogged waterways simply because I think it might be inconvenient to change?  So is it really too much to ask of me, as I sit here in my comfort, to change my light bulbs and dishwashing detergent?

Finally, one of the critics of changing to compact fluorescent lights also pointed out that the bulbs contain mercury, and that if a bulb were to break, her family might get mercury poisoning. Yes, the bulbs do contain mercury, and when they burn out, should be disposed of properly. When asked about this one expert on the bulbs explained that the amount of mercury in the bulbs is minor, and the only way that you could get mercury poisoning from the bulbs was direct ingestion.

So to critics of compact fluorescent lights, to those who worry about the health issues associated, I have one bit of advice. Don’t eat the light bulbs!
 

Thursday, February 24, 2011

At least you know I take showers


An optimist, a pessimist and Glenn Beck walked into a bar. They saw a half filled glass sitting on the counter. The optimist saw the glass as half full. The pessimist saw the glass as half empty. Glenn Beck saw a conspiracy in which the glass, gravity and the international jihadist movement were keeping the water from being free.

I thought of that in the shower this morning after I had rinsed off. The problem with thinking about Glenn Beck after the rinse is that you need to soap up again to get clean.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Club 10,000


Glenn Beck is right. In response to Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move anti-obesity campaign he said, "Get away from my French fries, Mrs. Obama. First politician that comes up to me with a carrot stick, I've got a place for it. And it's not in my tummy."

Sarah Palin is right accusing the First Lady of "not wanting us to have dessert." Yes, all red meat conservatives know that if the Obamas are for it, it must be bad.

Sure, telling kids to eat right and exercise sounds good, but there must be a catch, because we all know that the radical Obama agenda ends in a loss of freedom and our subjugation.  Greens today, gulags tomorrow.

So how can you show that you are a patriot? It is time to not stand up for freedom, to join in our non-movement. . It is time to show the food police that you are not their chump. It is time to join Club 10,000.

To join Club 10,000 there are no membership lists (we can’t let Big Brother have a road map to our houses can we?). To participate in Club 10,000 there are no fees. There is only the commitment to show Obama that they can’t push us around by eating 10,000 calories a day and by exercising as little as possible.

Why eat carrots when carrot cake will do? Don’t cook with canola when Liberty Lard is already on your shelf. Make sure that your Independence Ice Cream is super premium, after all, you deserve the best and nothing tells Obama in your face like stuffing yours.

Once you commit to Club 10,000 show the world your commitment with a Club 10,000 t-shirt. We have several designs to make your body your billboard. Whether you are headed to your doctor to check your blood pressure, or buying Metamucil at Wal-Mart, or just Twinkies at the 7-11 tell the world “I cannot be moved. No really, I can’t move”. T-shirts are available in sizes starting at 2XL for the new initiate, up to a more healthy 7XL for the truly red faced super patriot.

Food is Freedom, and you can never get enough.

Friday, January 28, 2011

Four guns, two shootings, no armed heroes


Gabrielle Giffords is well known, Joy Logan was not. Giffords was shot on January 8 in an assassination attempt. Logan was shot by mistake on January 10 and died that night.

Gifford’s’ shooting was international news. What we know about Joy Logan’s death, we know from a short story in our local newspaper. It did not make the front page.

Giffords is a Congressional Representative from Tucson, Arizona. Logan was a student at Faulkner State Community College. She lived in Bay Minette, Alabama.

As we know, the Gifford shooting that resulted in six deaths and thirteen wounded happened when a lone gunman emptied one magazine, 30 shots, from a pistol. He was stopped while trying to reload. We don’t know anything about the gun that killed Joy Logan.

Giffords was shot while meeting with constituents. Joy Logan was shot while entering her Aunt’s house. Her 18-year-old cousin killed her.

The Giffords shooting was a targeted assassination attempt. Joy Logan's cousin thought she was a burglar breaking into the house.

After the Giffords shooting, Arizona Congressman, Rep. Trent Franks said “I wish there had been one more gun in Tucson.” The implication is that if there had only been an armed hero there with a gun, the shooting could have been stopped. What the Congressman was apparently ignorant of is that there was another gun there. In fact, there were at least two others. Jared Lee Loughner planned his attack well. His approach to the Congresswoman was not threatening. When he got close, he raised the hand with the gun in it and started firing. No one had time to react. The second gun, that of a bystander, came out after the shootings stopped. By then unarmed members of the crowd had grabbed Loughner. Joseph Zamudio had the third gun, a 9mm semiautomatic. When he heard the shooting, he ran to the scene. He saw the gun in the hand of the armed bystander and assumed that he was the shooter. Before he could pull his gun, members of the crowd identified the shooter to him. He admits that without that intervention he could have shot the wrong person.

Unfortunately, Daniel Johnson did just that. After the BCS Championship Logan decided that, rather than drive all the way home, she would stay at her aunt’s house. Daniel Johnson didn’t know she was coming. The gun was in the house for protection and Johnson used it against the intruder. Obviously, he didn’t identify his target before firing.

Jared Lee Loughner will be charged with multiple murders. Daniel Johnson will not be charged but he will have to live with what he did.

The United States is well armed. Gun advocates tell us that an armed population is a safe population. It didn’t work for Gabrielle Giffords or Joy Logan. Joseph Zamudio was armed, but he could not stop an ambush. No one could. Daniel Johnson was armed and he shot his cousin. Yes, he should have identified his target. But if you heard someone coming into your house, when your adrenaline starts flowing and you start believing that you are in a life and death situation, how would you react?

We have a gun problem. It is not that there are too many guns in the US, although that may be the case. It is not that too many guns are in the wrong hands, although that is definitely the case. It is the faith we put in guns.

We live in a gun fantasy. Many of us believe that our guns will make us safe. When trouble shows up, we will invoke our inner Charles Bronson and watch the bad guys fall. Except that too often, it is not the bad guys who fall.

How often do you listen to the local news and hear about a hero who defends life and property by using a gun? It is an unusual event. Much more common is the gun used in anger, the gun used in ambush or the gun used in error. I enjoy shooting. But I don’t fantasize about being a hero, using my guns to deal out justice in a lawless world.

The leadership of the NRA is obsessed with guns. To them any regulation of guns or ammunition is an affront to the Constitution. But if we step back and think, do we really need pistols with 30 shot magazines? Do we need to be able to buy unlimited numbers of rifles, including assault weapons?
To hear gun advocates, the streets are filled with violent crime. Perhaps their streets are, but mine are reasonably safe. In my world, I’m more likely to be shot accidentally than by an attacker. Your world is probably like that too, even if you don’t believe it.

What does our gun obsession say about us as a people? Why do we choose a gun fantasy over the reality of gun violence?

Where do you put your faith? Some put theirs in money. Some put their faith in possessions. Some people put their faith in God. If you are an average citizen and you put your faith in guns, I pity you.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Good and evil in the land of guns


The stretch of interstate between Greenville and the exit for the Beach Parkway is monotonous and even in the morning I need the radio to keep me alert. If you aren’t a country music fan, the pickings are slim, so I was happy that our old Honda has XM radio. Sometimes I listen to talk radio, especially those shows whose hosts I might disagree with. And that is how I found myself listening to Glenn Beck in late December.

There was a caller talking to Mr. Beck and for a while it seemed like a normal, almost boring conversation of a fan gushing over talking with his hero. But then the conversation turned serious. In short, the caller was agreeing with Mr. Beck that the Democratic leadership was not just wrong; they were evil. Now Glenn explained it this way – that most of the people who supported Democratic policies were not evil, they were dupes and that only a small percentage, the leadership, was evil.

If you were involved in a fight of good versus evil, what would you do to stop evil? Would you fight? Would you pick up arms? Would you kill?

Gabrielle Gifford’s assassination attempt may have happened whether or not the rhetoric from talk show hosts was heated or not, but casting your opposition as evil adds nothing to our national debate on issues and can set off a tragedy. To Mr. Beck’s credit, his web page today condemns, in no uncertain terms, all political violence. But when you cast your fight not as a disagreement of ideas and ideologies, but of good versus evil, what can result?

And then there’s Sarah Palin. By now, we all know that Ms. Palin put out a map with Rep. Gifford’s district in the crosshairs. Democrats have done similar things, so this is not just a Republican tactic. But to Ms. Palin’s discredit, her spokesperson, Rebecca Mansour, denied that the crosshairs were an allusion to a gun scope, but were instead “surveyors symbols”.  Is there anyone out there so naïve as to believe that? Why can’t she just accept responsibility that it was a bad idea and move on.

No, we can’t know Jared Loughner’s intent and influences unless he tells us. But if the heated language, the threats, including threats of armed resistance, and the casting of opponents as evil adds nothing positive to the national debate, why utter the words? 

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

January 2011 - The Censored Column - Greek Desegregation at the University of Alabama


Perhaps it is exaggeration to say that this was censored. This column was rejected by the Huntsville Times editorial staff in October for (a) having unsupported facts and (b) being too “hard news”. I forwarded support for the factual assertions to the paper, but could not overcome the objection for being hard news. I believe that this is opinion, involving only a little bit of investigative work. You be the judge. 

On Jun 11, 1963. Alabama Governor George Wallace fulfilled his campaign promise of “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” by standing in the schoolhouse door at the University of Alabama to stop desegregation. He then promptly got out of the way and let the adults in attendance get on with registering the first black students at the University. That moment in history didn’t end segregation at the University. The basketball team was integrated in 1969; football followed in 1970. By the time I arrived on campus as a student in 1976 there was only one segregated area of student life – the Greek system. Fraternities and sororities were a powerful force on campus and for whatever reason they had not changed. In the decades since, news about the University’s Greek system seemed to have been only negative. We heard about embarrassing incidents evidencing disharmony, but little else. We’re now in a new century. Thirty-four years have passed since my time in Tuscaloosa. Has the Greek system changed?

First, the good news. The University has been working on the problem of a segregated system. There are now multicultural and Christian sororities and fraternities as an alternative to traditional organizations. New “traditional” Greek organizations have been organized that have been integrated since their founding. For all Greeks, the University offers a diversity lecture series, a Greek Leadership Summit consisting of the presidents of sororities and fraternities (to discuss and solve problems within the community) and a New Member Institute designed to improve the sense of community among Greeks.

The result is a system that has greater diversity now than it has ever had. It is a system that has all members working together for the betterment of the overall University community and I applaud the University’s efforts. Only one gauge of progress remained to be examined - the extent to which the traditional black and white sororities and fraternities have changed.

Why does it matter? There are now 57 sororities and fraternities at Alabama with over 6000 student members. The University has made over $36 million in loans available to fraternities and sororities for house construction. These houses are on University land, and the University has plans for the construction of four new sorority houses on campus in 2011. To oversee the system the University maintains a permanently staffed office of Greek affairs. Because of the University’s financial and organizational ties to the Greek system, I believe that UA implicitly endorses the operations of the sororities and fraternities on campus. If segregation still exists, it is state supported and financed.

After emailing 24 Greek organizations and reviewing public information on fraternity and sorority web pages as well as Corollas (the University’s annual) over the last decade, I found little evidence that the old line Greek organizations have made substantive and permanent changes in the makeup of their memberships. Except for better hairstyles in the more recent pictures most of the membership pictures could have come right out of the 1970’s. The University’s Greek diversity progress to date should now be extended to the entire Greek community. Fortunately, the University has the tools it needs to make this happen.

First, the University should make the lots for the four new sorority houses available to only those organizations that have integrated. This is a simple means to reward those sororities that have been willing to change. Second, the University should establish long range targets for improving diversity in those organizations that have not changed. And finally, the University should recognize that students have a right to associate with whomever they wish – but not with University support. Those Greek organizations that do not meet the targets established should be invited to leave campus.

Notes: Thank you to the University’s Office of Greek Affairs and its director, Gentry McCreary; the University’s Office of Media Relations Director Cathy Andreen and Zack Stillings, President of Sigma Pi on the UA campus. They help me to see the progress that has been made.
 

The Huntsville Times Columns - December 2010 - You don't lead looking backward

The following column was published by the Huntsville Times on December  19, 2010. No part may be republished without the permission of the publisher.  The title has been changed to the original submission title. This column was also edited for content. I had a couple of sentences in the column calling for Senators Sessions and Shelby to be held account for their part in creating the systemic budget deficit. Since they had such a large part in creating the deficit and they condemn the President for the deficit, I find their hypocrisy to be galling.

The Times may be happy that this is my last column as a Community Columnist. Instructions for columnists state that features are preferred and that the hard-nosed stuff should be left to the syndicated columnists. I have not done a very good job of that. I even had one column, on progress in desegregating the Greek system at the University of Alabama, rejected outright. I started the year intending on writing about a variety of lighter subjects, such as cigar box guitars, motor-scooter commuting in Huntsville, and Hollywood promises (my son's experiences in the movie industry). I wrote some of these columns, but when I read The Times' syndicated columnists, I thought that none of them presented my point of view and I aimed my columns at other subjects.

I still feel that way and have encouraged The Times editorial page editor to start a local version of the On the Left/Right columns. With the machinations of Goat Hill, the power of the Alabama Education Association, electronic bingo and our dysfunctional state constitution, the subject matter would be near limitless.

Thank you to everyone who has written to me about a column. I've received many kind comments and a few e-mails taking strong offense to my point of view. In answer to my critics, yes I can be a jerk, but I'm flattered the labels "politically correct" and "apostate" considering the views being peddled by the critics that gave me those labels.

The rest of this last column consists of my topic outlines for four planned columns. Alas, I have run out of months. You can use your imagination to guess where they would have gone.

1) The women of Gees Bend can take scraps of material and make quilts that rise to the level of art. The politicians of Goat Hill Alabama can perform no such miracle with the scraps (known as amendments) that they have blended into our already flawed 1901 Constitution. After the last election my previous belief that only a fresh start can fix Alabama's constitution was reinforced. Not only were most of the amendments we voted on completely irrelevant to Huntsville residents, I believe that the wording we saw on the ballot for these amendments was intentionally obtuse. The arguments I have heard against constitutional reform to date have all been based on fanciful fears that do not equate to the real damage caused by this out-of-date document.

2) The bipartisan Congressional Budget Office determined that unemployment compensation results in more economic stimulus than any other spending, and that tax cuts for high income Americans are among the least effective economic stimulants. When Republican senators held up extension of unemployment benefits they claimed that it was because these payments added to the deficit. Yet they defended tax cut extensions for the highest income Americans, also unpaid for, on the grounds that they would stimulate the economy. Why would anyone reject the most effective stimulus in favor of the least effective?

3) I was wrong about there not being government-led death panels. The new health care bill contains no such animal, but the Republican controlled government in Arizona has rescinded previous approvals for some Medicaid organ transplants. It will save the state $4.5 million over the next year; a savings truly measured in lives lost and shattered families.

4) Alabama has demanded little of its leaders throughout our history and they have delivered. They have diverted our attention from important issues by playing to our fears and prejudices.
Leaders cannot lead by looking backward. Listen to Alabama's leaders; are they looking forward, or performing sleight of hand to divert your attention from their lack of achievement?

Thanks to The Times for giving me a platform from which to vent this year. Huntsville is a truly extraordinary place that has never settled for mediocrity, even when that has been the norm and expectation of much of the rest of the state. I'm lucky to have been born here and happy to have returned after being gone for so many years.

The Huntsville Times Columns - November 2010 - Squirrels for Sanity

The following column was published by the Huntsville Times on November 21, 2010. No part may be republished without the permission of the publisher.  The title has been changed to the original submission title.


The Roots, John Legend, Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens), Ozzy Osbourne, The O'Jays, Jeff Tweedy, Mavis Staples, Kid Rock and Sheryl Crow. If it had been a concert it would have been incredible. Add Father Guido Sarducci, Sam Waterston and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and the lineup becomes more impressive and stranger. Mix in the guys from Mythbusters, Tony Bennett, John Stewart and Stephen Colbert and you have the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington, D. C. on Oct. 30.

Many of the press didn't understand what Jon Stewart was trying to do by holding a rally in Washington. Columnist Richard Reeves thought the rally was to make fun of politics and politicians, that Stewart is all about parody. That was not its purpose, although many politicians deserve to be the butt of jokes. On the right side of the aisle the gathering was derided. Rush Limbaugh called Stewart and Colbert "half baked comedians" and predicted that the rally would draw only 65,000 people.
To him, the comedian's purpose was to excite Democrats in advance of the election. Of course, he was wrong on both counts.

What was absent from the stage on that Saturday was political humor or talk. The crowd of over 200,000 didn't know what to expect but in interviews in advance of the rally, Stewart indicated that it would not be political. He kept his promise.

Although the rally began at noon, we arrived at 9:30 a.m. to get a good view. By arriving so early, we were able to get within two blocks of the stage. We spent the wait by talking to our neighbors and passing crowd members. I've attended concerts and rallies for over 35 years and this was easily the largest and nicest crowd I have ever been a part of. Most of the attendees heeded Stewart's plea for signs to be civil, so humor (Tights are not Pants!) and absurdity (Squirrels for Sanity) ruled over anger.
The rally was a serious plea for civility in our communities and our politics, delivered with silliness and in the end, a heartfelt plea from Jon Stewart.

If there was a target, it was the media and in particular the opinion media. Stewart's idea is that while it is OK to disagree about political ideas, you do the country a disservice if you demonize those that disagree with you.

Because our country has so many serious issues to work through, our leaders must be able to sit across the table from each other and work through their differences. Opinion leaders, whether politicians or pundits, are making this process impossible when they spread unsubstantiated rumors, when they condemn opponents for saying or doing the things they themselves do, or when they exaggerate the importance of a fact or incident.

Repeating a rumor does not transform it into a fact, correlation is not causality, and an outlier should not be mistaken for the average.

Humor is serious. Humor as a tool can cut through hypocrisy, inflated egos and vanity. If you have watched "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central you've seen this in action. The cast is silly, sometimes profane and immature and almost always effective. For me, the unseen stars of the show are the video librarians that locate the news clips played during the show's opening sequence.

Network news shows rarely call out politicians and pundits on hypocritical or contradictory statements they make. Jon Stewart shows the video evidence. Don't talk show hosts and politicians understand that people keep tapes and they can be fact-checked?

So did Stewart's target "get" the rally? For his part, Keith Olberman bristled at being equated with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, but he pledged to stop running his "Worst person in the World" TV show segment to try to cool down the rhetoric. Unfortunately, many on the right don't seem to have listened. While President Obama visited India, right wing superstars such as Michelle Bachman, Limbaugh and Hannity broadcast false rumors that the trip was costing taxpayers $200 million a day.

As Jon Stewart said in his closing remarks, "If we amplify everything, we hear nothing".

The Huntsville Times Columns - October 2010 - Defending the Faith of Others

The following column was published by the Huntsville Times on October 17, 2010. No part may be republished without the permission of the publisher.  The title has been changed to the original submission title. 

This was a column that I wrote under a very tight deadline after my original column for October was rejected by the Times editorial staff. According to the rejection I received the original column, on desegregating the Greek system at the University of Alabama, contained too many unsupported facts and was too "hard news". I provided support for the facts, but the column was not published. I will publish it here in this blog.

On Sept. 11, 2010, Huntsvillians of all faiths spent the morning performing service to our community.
I had the good fortune to work with believers in the Christian, Islamic and Hindu faiths at the Huntsville Islamic Center assembling several hundred food packs for Huntsville's homeless community.

Every year the Islamic Center celebrates the end of Ramadan with a community service project and this year the Saturday at the end of Ramadan happened to be Sept. 11. Our local group was supplemented by a group of Presbyterians visiting our area from South Africa; one room, many faiths, many accents, a kaleidoscope of skin tones, all devoted to helping our community.

I have been deeply disturbed by much of the anti-Islamic rhetoric on television and on the editorial pages lately. Newt Gingrich seems to be trying to make a comeback based on demonizing Islam in general and American Muslims in particular. Sarah Palin warns us that no one will tolerate the imposition of Sharia law, but of course no one has seriously proposed using Sharia law in the U.S.A. We have a thing called the Constitution that is the supreme law of our land. You have probably heard about it.

Locally, some letters against the free practice of Islam in the U.S. have pointed out that in several Muslim nations the building of Christian churches and the free practice of Christianity is not allowed.
Quite true, but are we not better than that? Do we not hold our Constitution dear and believe that the First Amendment really means something special?

Where are the Muslims who condemn violence? They are here, quietly working to make our community stronger. They have been here and they have never wavered in their condemnation of the terrorists that struck America. On Sept. 11, 2001, they felt the same pain we did, but that pain has been magnified by ignorance and intolerance as they and the faith they practice has been blamed for the attacks of fanatical terrorists.

Timothy McVeigh was a believer in Christian Identity theology, a racist theology that, while labeled as Christian, has nothing to do with the Christ I know. Would the victims of the Oklahoma City attack oppose the building of a Lutheran church near the Morrow Federal Building site? Of course not, because they know the difference between McVeigh's extreme ideology and that of a mainline church.
When Reverend Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church spews his hate near the funeral of a fallen soldier, do we blame the Southern Baptists for his sick behavior? It's an absurd idea, yet all Muslin believers are being equated with the acts of terrorists.

Have you read the Koran? Yes, it has passages that seem to advocate violence against non-Muslims. But it also has passages that condemn violence.

Have you read the Bible? It too has passages that advocate violence against non-believers, some quite horrific.

Yet in the Bible Jesus commands us to feed the poor, heal the sick and welcome the stranger. Paul tells us "do not return evil for evil." A complete reading and a study of context are essential to understanding each of these books of faith.

I'm a Presbyterian deacon. It may seem odd that I feel the need to defend a faith that is different than my own. But I think that there is a need to speak, to support religious freedom and to support some good Americans in our community who just happen to practice a different faith.  Practicing freedom is about protecting the rights of the minority.

Going along with the crowd requires no courage and little thought. Isn't it time to park our fears and learn more about fellow Americans who practice a different religion? The Constitution lives when we practice the freedoms that it guarantees. This is one such time.

The day of service opened at St. Mark's Lutheran Church. Before we left for the Islamic Center the Golden Rule was read from each of the world's great faiths. Every one was a version of the same thought, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you."

The Huntsville Times Columns - September 2010 - Do Not Forward!

The following column was published by the Huntsville Times on September 19, 2010. No part may be republished without the permission of the publisher.  The title has been changed to the original submission title. Unfortunately, this mythology still is still given weight by primarily right wing politicians and pundits - the mythical death panels are still being discussed.

Stop. Step away from the mouse. Do not hit the send button.


That's the message that should go off in your head before you forward that political e-mail. Especially if it has any language the writer proclaims that "they swear it's true", "they saw it for themselves" or they heard it from a reliable source. Over the last two years I've received dozens of these and each e-mail had two things in common; it was not true, and it was against President Obama or his policies.
According to Factcheck, the vast majority of these e-mails are against Democrats and their policies. I wonder why?

Although I'm a certified fraud examiner I didn't need forensic skills to debunk these. Within five minutes of beginning to check these e-mails I've been able to find documentation to disprove every one. For the record, President Obama was born in Hawaii, does put his hand over his heart to say the Pledge and during the National Anthem, is a Christian and did not rename the White House Christmas tree a "holiday tree."

He did participate in the National Day of Prayer. Michelle Obama is not doing away with Christmas at the White House and the taxpayers did not pay for 40 of her friends to fly to Spain.
The Nuclear Security Summit logo is not a disguised Islamic crescent, nor is the Obama logo, nor is the Missile Defense Agency's.

The radicals who attacked us on Sept. 11 are not the people who want to build an Islamic Center in New York. Confusing clerics like Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf for the terrorists is like mixing up Southern Baptists and the Westboro Baptist Church.

On the immigration front, headless bodies are not being found all over the desert in Arizona.
We now know that not only was the Shirley Sherrod tape heavily edited to be misleading, but so were the Acorn tapes that made so much news last year. Did anyone receive an e-mail retraction over that?

One of the most despicable themes of these e-mails is the attempt to scare senior citizens about the contents of the health care bill. It never contained language creating death panels nor did it propose anything even closely resembling Canada's or the UK's health care systems. Most of the horror stories about these systems are also untrue, but the e-mails keep coming.

Based on what I've seen, the bill passed would most resemble the Swiss system, but I guess it's just not very sexy to pick on the Swiss.

What did the bill do? It extended the soundness of the Medicare Trust Fund by 12 years among other benefits. Don't believe me? Fine, but please don't send me another doctored photograph, or copy of an easily provable phony document. You should be checking these yourself. Factcheck.org, Snopes or the wire services are useful in debunking sham emails.

Why are outrageous e-mail claims accepted as fact without checking? Could it be that the senders are looking for reasons to demonize the opposition? They don't need to verify the facts, because in their feedback loop the rumor is already fact in their mind.

Why does any of this matter? It's very simple. In order to make this country better we need to be working with facts, not fiction. You don't have to like the president, but should you dislike him for fictional evils? Should you base your vote on far-fetched conspiracy theories or reasoned arguments? Do we want to exhume McCarthy?

Are you OK with character assassination and witch-hunts as political tools? Are anonymous writers spreading libelous rumors OK as long as they support your point of view? Certainly, by repeating the latest conspiracy theory or e-mail rumor, you can make the other guy less popular. Should we, the mob, react to every unchecked rumor or should we ask for proof? What will you do with your next forwarded e-mail?