The High Price of Intolerance

I don’t subscribe to our local newspaper or even pay much attention to it. The “news” is always yesterday’s news, because the printed word just can’t keep pace with the cable news outlets or the digital media. But every now and then I may pick up a paper I find lying around. That happened last week at work and I turned to the editorial page to see a Letter to the Editor titled: Collins Not a Hero.  For those who aren’t familiar with the issue, the writer “Jim” (no last name needed here) was referring to NBA player Jason Collins of the Washington Wizards. Only the week before, Jason Collins became the first professional athlete from a major sport to “come out” as being gay.   

Jim had some pretty clever ways to say he doesn’t approve of Mr. Collins. Jim starts his letter by saying, “Ok, let me get this straight”. Here’s an observation: when someone starts a Letter to the Editor by saying, ”Let me get this straight”, you can bet the farm they don’t have it straight. Jim’s primary point is that we shouldn’t give Jason Collins any credit for courage for declaring that “..when he wants sexual intimacy, it is with other men”, as Jim put it. Jim goes on to cite what he defines as real heroics, like supporting an orphanage in Africa, or “deciding to continue his NBA career on one leg”, or bravely suffering “losing his family in an airplane accident”. In other words Jim, and many like him, cannot recognize that people who are different display courage when they stand before the world to declare for themselves and others that they are slightly different, but still want to be treated with normal human dignity. Those who are the first to do so take the greatest risks, and deserve some degree of credit for their actions. Those who are “first” to take such a step don’t just do it for themselves, they do it for those who may be inspired to follow the example.

The old adage used to be: If you can’t beat ‘em- join ‘em. Now we are so polarized that the new way of things is to say: If you can’t beat ‘em- marginalize ‘em- minimize ‘em- and make them insignificant. That’s what Jim was doing. But, for those who know the pain of discrimination first- hand, or have the humanity to empathize with those who do, Jim’s all too clever argument is just another way to say, “you are not welcome in my world”. That is the essence of intolerance, and discrimination. The result of that thinking is more than just bigotry and inequality. The result is tangible pain and loss of human life. So when Jim makes the argument that people like Jason Collins is no hero, he is fostering the continuation of this damaging discrimination. In fairness, Jim may not even know the consequences of his attitude. If Jim, and others who agree with him, don’t know the real life consequences-they should look into it before they continue to minimize and berate the people who step out to make a stand for justice.

Let’s just agree that we discriminate against the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgender) people of this country. In most of the country people who have a sexual orientation different from the mainstream heterosexual population cannot marry one another. They do not have the rights to inheritance, spousal insurance coverage, parenting through adoption, survivor’s benefits, next-of-kin rights, and a host of other privileges that attend to heterosexual married couples.  Aside from the marriage problem (in most States) LBGT people suffer any number of other types of formal and informal types of discrimination. Jim, it's more than just a sex thing.

One of the ways that change occurs is to gradually “normalize” behavior that was once thought to be abnormal. For example, in the middle of the 20th century this country went through a tremendous period of social change as we struggled to integrate African-Americans into the mainstream after our horrible civil war to end slavery in the previous century. It did not happen overnight, (and the struggle is not over yet) but it began to happen through thoughtful, purposeful planning that involved placing African Americans in normal situations for all to see. In sports, the story of Jackie Robinson breaking the “color barrier” in Baseball is legendary. The other major sports soon followed suit. The big breakthroughs came in the all-powerful medium of Television. The first cracks in the wall of normalcy came by placing African Americans in TV commercials. It showed African Americans using the same products as whites; washing their clothes, dusting their furniture, weeding their yards, and buying cars just like the mainstream whites. It was done on purpose, and it took courage (and some prodding) for the Madison Avenue types to do it. By the late sixties Diane Carroll was the first African American to have her own sit-com on TV. Uhura and Kirk shared the first interracial kiss on TV- and it didn’t take us long to “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” at the movies. Roundtree and Poitier became leading men instead of stereotyped characters. “Black” music became mainstream Rock and Roll. Change happened when the instruments of our culture lead us to accept what we would not accept before. Knowledge and exposure is a key element in educating us to give up our old biases.

It is that time again. Now the issue is justice, fairness, and legal equality for those with a different sexual orientation. The research is very convincing that LGBT folks are that way by nature. There is no evidence this is “just a choice” or a “lifestyle”. The only argument for discriminating against this portion of Americans is the religious argument which holds that homosexuality is a sin. That implies the religious notion of free will and it simply does not apply in this case. But for those who want to believe those tenants then by all means, live that way. The problem comes from the need to force others to live that way too. This is where the damage starts. Earlier on I mentioned tangible pain and the loss of human life. That was not just hyperbole.

No one really knows what portion of our population is LBGT. Some have estimated it to be about 10%. Recently the Gallop pollsters did a survey and they determined that 3.4% of Americans are LBGT. I think that figure is probably very low because it relied on self-reporting (in a world of discrimination), but even if we assume that’s correct, that means there are approximately 10,850,000 LBGT people in the country. Nearly eleven million is a pretty big number- and twice that number is probably closer to reality. The loss of life I mentioned is from the staggering rate of suicides in the LBGT community. I can hardly imagine the pain people feel when they know that their human urges and needs (and not just for sex- but for love, companionship and family) are seen as abnormal and their own society condones discrimination against them. Not only do LBGT people have the inevitable struggle to find their way in a disapproving world- they are more often the victims of violence because of their sexual orientation. The burden of that stigma must be immeasurable.

This issue is particularly hard for young people who struggle with sexuality anyway- no matter what the orientation. For all people ages 15-24, suicide is the 3^rd leading cause of death. Attempts by gay and lesbian youth account for 30% of all completed suicides. Studies show that LBGT teens are between 30 and 40 percent more likely to attempt suicide than their straight peers. Young people unsure of their sexual orientation are more than three times as likely to commit suicide as their straight peers (Garafalo et al) In addition LBGT young people suffer far more mental health problems (primarily clinical depression, anxiety and conduct disorders) have far less success in school, and experience co-occurring disorders (mental health and substance abuse) at far higher rates than straight youth. They are subject to bullying, harassment, and assault at far greater rates than straight kids. These numbers represent real pain and real loss of human life.

 I disagree with Jim and his ilk. I think Collins is a hero. I think he’s important because he has made himself one more brick in the road to allowing LBGT people to experience normalcy. Normalcy leads to acceptance, and acceptance stops discrimination. It is the only way to stop the painful existence and inequality that so many suffer now. We tend to revere our sports heroes. So, it is fitting that Collins’ announcement can be seen as helping us accept LBGT people as they are. They are people we work with, people who want families and to raise children, people who strive for success, people who play sports; mechanics, accountants, teachers, grocery clerks, etc. etc. They are just people. The intolerance that our laws and our prejudices promote has a high price. The price is the loss of promising young people who find it preferable to end their lives rather than live in a world that cannot tolerate who they are. That is far too high a price to pay for bigotry and intolerance.

Thanks for looking in.

P.S. Just this week The Boy Scouts of America changed its policy to allow openly gay boys into the BSA- they still do not allow openly gay Scout Masters. News Flash, there have been gay boys and gay Scout Masters in the BSA forever. But hey, it’s a good move!  

 

 

People who Fly On Airplanes

I used to really enjoy air travel.  I didn’t have my first ride on an airplane until I was an adult. Having spent many long hours in the back seat of a ’52 Oldsmobile as a young kid going places with my family, my first flight was a revelation. Every sensation was new and very exhilarating to me. The sensation of take-off, and the never seen before sights of the earth below from thousands of feet up were all just great. Of course one of the best things about air travel was that you get places in a fraction of the time the Olds took to get anywhere. My first experiences of flying came courtesy of my job. Like many air travelers, I discovered that most of my fellow travelers on the planes were there on business. I was no exception. I worked for State government where the State Capital was on the opposite side of the State from me. Most of the bureaucrats in our state had no concept of geography or courtesy- so just about every meeting I went to was on their side of the state. That meant either taking a whole day to drive 300 miles across the state or hopping on an airplane and being there in an hour. I liked being there in an hour.

In the years since that first exciting flight or two, I’ve had a fair amount of air travel experience. Aside from the business travel I used to do and one amazing trip to Italy,  my wife and I had daughters who went to college in far off places- particularly our youngest who went to school in California for a couple of years, then decided that wasn’t far enough away so she transferred to the University of Georgia. Air travel was an absolute necessity for us then. But even then air travel just felt like a luxury. The waiting areas in the airports were spacious and filled with amenities. Family or friends could see you off, or greet you upon return the moment you emerged from the plane. Once in the air flight attendants were quick to provide food, drink and hospitality, seeing to practically any comfort you would like. Like I said, it was a luxury.

That all changed for us on a cross-country flight to Georgia in October 2001. You may recall there was a rather significant event about a month earlier. That event changed everything about air travel. It was quite literally shocking to see every corner of the airports guarded by active-duty military personnel with combat weapons, and to watch the searches that people were subjected to. It seems after that the fun went out of flying. Of course now the soldiers have been replaced white shirted, latex gloved TSA agents. Beyond that, it seems that the airline industry fundamentally changed too. Aside from the crazy security measures that accompany flying, the people who fly on airplanes have changed as well.  

I haven’t flown on an airplane in several years now- just haven’t had the need. But my wife still flies for business occasionally. So I will be at the airport to pick her up, giving me the chance to see those going through security and walking out of sight up to lonely boarding gates. You can’t get past the lobby without a boarding pass and government issued ID now. I also see the folks arriving. Most are solitary travelers with tidy looking carry-ons and the obligatory lap-top computer case hanging from the left shoulder. For the most part the traveling public is not the general public at all. People who fly on airplanes now are just about entirely the business travelers. The cost of air travel has also increased so much that business travelers are about the only ones who can afford to fly. The airlines never advertise special rates anymore. They used to be all over TV with enticements to travel. No more. They airlines have added so many additional charges and taken away so many services one could almost believe they don’t want anyone except the business traveler on their damn planes. So be it. I guess the air travel business has just changed and air travel now is just for the “business class”. They even invented a new class of traveler: ”Business Class”!   

The event that got me thinking about the people who fly on airplanes (and how that’s changed) was the unusually decisive and bold action of Congress to appropriate money to keep more Air Traffic Controllers on the job.  Courageous stuff! We don’t see this kind of bi-partisan law-making and patriotic legislating very often- so let’s hear it for Congress! They finally DID something. Oh, but wait. Maybe a little history on this event would be helpful.

It all started about a year and a half ago when Congress was so paralyzed by extreme partisanship and Obama hatred that they had to appoint a “super-committee” to attempt a budget fix. Congress and the President agreed that if they couldn’t come up with a fix they would institute automatic budget cuts that would be so painful they would just come to their senses and actually fix the problem. They referred to these horrible cuts as “sequestered budget cuts” and they were ugly enough that no reasonable person would want them to actually happen.  You guessed it. The Super Committee failed- didn’t even come close to an agreement. The Sequestered cuts were looming in the distance and everyone thought the Congress would do something at the last minute. Deadlines came and they did nothing. The sequestered cuts went into effect. The results of the cuts took a while to have an impact, but slowly the cuts nobody wanted, started to look real. On transportation, the sequestered cuts would require reductions in the number of Federal Air Traffic Controllers, and the closure of small airport traffic control towers (among many, many other across-the-board reductions in government programs). Fewer Air Traffic Controllers meant more flight delays or sacrificing air safety.

On the week the layoffs and furloughs were going to affect people who fly on airplanes, Congress looked up and said, “Hey wait a minute, that could mean OUR flights might be delayed or cancelled. That is unacceptable”. So they quickly passed legislation to reinstate funds for Air Traffic Controllers and fund the towers at small airports that were on the closure list. President Obama then caved and signed the bill. It was then I really started thinking about the people who fly on airplanes. I’m not talking about the once-a-year air traveler headed home for the holidays- I’m talking about the folks who fly all the time, the frequent fliers.

So who are these people on airplanes? Knowing who they are helps explain what Congress did. I tried researching the passenger profile of the typical frequent flier but there wasn’t much published. Just a guess here- but I bet the airlines have a pretty good idea who their best customers are, and it isn’t the college freshman trying to get home for a turkey dinner at Thanksgiving. The people who fly on airplanes are men and women who work for corporate America. They are the execs and the minor execs who spend their days enriching their companies. The major execs fly in private planes or are rich enough to own airplanes.  They are also the government employees in mid-management and above who fly from place to place having meetings, “collaborative partnerships”, and engaging in “task forces”, convinced that they are doing it all for you and me. They are the lawyers, the accountants, and the consultants that provide the expert advice and technical know-how to keep all the other folks on that plane in the power positions they occupy. And they are Senators and Congressmen/women who get their once-a-week free air travel back to the home district to “listen to the people”. I’m not entirely cynical about all this air travel and the people who fly on airplanes. I know that most of them work hard and they’re just doing their jobs. I know they contribute to the economy, and we need them. I am, however, very cynical about the hypocrisy of those who make the rules, saying that when the suffering starts because of their failure: namely Sequestration; the first thing they do is relieve their own suffering and the suffering of those wealthy enough to own airplanes or fly business class any day of the week. If there was ever a clear example of how this Congress bends over backwards for the money interests who own them, and their own personal interests- this is it!!

The effect of restoring tax dollars to support people who fly on airplanes, while doing nothing for other programs that are being cut, is that the average taxpayer is literally subsidizing the wealthy business types and those who own airplanes. God forbid, they should be inconvenienced. All the while Head Start programs all over the country are cutting back- and meals for seniors have been drastically reduced- military veterans are waiting unbelievably long periods to get benefits we own them- Medicaid dollars to states will be reduced-and vital infra-structure projects are sitting idle- jobs not filled. And that’s only a few examples of the effects of Sequestration so far. It is clear that our Congress will only act when the wealthiest among us need help, while forsaking all others who they see as parasites on the "business class". It has never been more apparent that the real parasites are the privileged class, while the middle class and poor pay for it all. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is an expert on the way government bends to the will of the financial institutions and the wealthy while ignoring the needs of others in our country. Her analysis of the situation is simple, “the game is rigged”. Our democracy isn’t so threatened by deficits and debt, as much as it is threatened by the growing disparity of wealth that threatens the middle class and the ultimate strength of the economy. Unless the Congress and the President can change that direction the game will continue to be rigged in favor of people who fly on airplanes.

Thanks for looking in.  

 

Government On Our Backs

You don’t have to go far to hear this old refrain: “I just wish the government would get off our backs”. You hear this old saw or some version of it in almost every quarter. It isn’t reserved for “grumpy old man-ville” or Republican-burg anymore. It’s just about everywhere where people believe they may be losing some level of control in their lives and government becomes an easy scape-goat. The whole question about the role and size of government in our lives has given me something to think about, particularly in the last week. The events in Boston and West, Texas are just the last in series of events that have me thinking about what role government plays our unique American culture. The more I think about it, the more I concluded that when it comes to government and American culture, we are really an inconsistent and incomprehensible bunch of people.    

I’m very pleased that law enforcement was able to solve the horrific bombing crime in Boston and capture or kill (his choice) the likely perpetrators. That's a great example of government functioning at its best. Now that the arrest has been made, the usual cadre of hyper-critical Senators and Congress-persons are more than eager to jump in and criticize the work of the FBI and the decisions about how to bring the suspect to justice. Chief among the cadre of the critical are Republican Senators who believe he should declared an “enemy combatant” and tried in military courts- Lindsay Graham leading the way. They are also questioning everything about what the government knew about the two brothers and what they did. This is classic Monday morning quarterbacking played out on a national scale.It is proper to question the actions of the FBI about their previous contact with the brothers- but for me this raises a more basic question. My question is about how much power the government should have to control people based on their beliefs. I understand these two men became American citizens, guaranteeing their basic right to believe as they wish. I’m not defending the actions that ultimately grew out of their beliefs- only that government is not supposed to (and cannot) practice mind control over people and impose prior restraint. It is interesting to me that the most conservative politicians (i.e. those who want the smallest government) are also the ones calling for an all-knowing and all controlling government when they see someone as the “the enemy” or “the other”- and it fits their political agenda.  

We must recognize that the incredible effort to identify those two brothers in Boston was based on the use of a very pervasive video surveillance system that can watch all of us all of the time. I’m not questioning the value of that system to identify criminals- but, I am pointing out that the American tradition is to enjoy privacy and to reject government intrusion or surveillance of our private lives- yet we kind of like it when it works for us. It was the government after all who put those cameras there and has access to all the data on our movements, any time they want to use it. These are the inconsistencies I think about when I consider some of the underlying issues that surface when horrific events happen. Let’s remember that after the 9-11 attacks, Congress quickly passed the Patriot Act, which may be the single biggest threat to basic freedoms in our history, while saying they did it to protect our freedoms. The sting of that attack caused most of Congress and President Bush to leap head-long onto this dangerous legal ground- where they expanded the role of government exponentially beyond their own beliefs or rhetoric on small government.

Within the same week as the Marathon bombing, there was a massive explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, Texas. Fourteen people died and many, many people were injured- threatening an entire community. I see a connection between these two events when I think about the role of government. Here was a situation that clearly called out for government oversight, but there was none. Our government didn’t even know of this plant. But we now know that the operators were working with several thousand times the amount of ammonium nitrate the law allows without over-site. In the constant cry to stop government regulation and get government off our backs this needless loss of life flies in the face of that plea. Republicans blame the Obama administration for over-regulating business and deepening the recession. The facts are that the Bush administration instituted more regulations- but then never enforced them. You might recall that during those Bush years we had more food supply contamination problems than any other time in our history and more imported products coming to the country with toxic materials. (remember lead paint on baby toys?) Every time one of these episodes occurred the people asked, “Where’s the government? They’re supposed keep this from happening”. But there is never a consistent answer because we’re an inconsistent bunch. We don’t want government on our back- unless it’s for some reason we like or it deals with one particular problem. We tend to treat government over-site like an entitlement when it affects our ability to buy hamburger. 

I’m not suggesting how much government we’re supposed to have. I’m suggesting that this question may be the central debate of our time because so many of the issues we are grappling with today eventually circle back to this basic question. We're stuck on this issue because the characteristics of the American culture are colliding head-on with the practicalities of governing a country of over 300 million people that was founded on the principles of individual liberty and freedom. The collision of those two forces reveals the inconsistencies we are dealing with today.

 

Here are a few examples to illustrate this conflict of traditional cultural values vs. modern day realities. Many in Congress will argue to the death to get government out of our lives – but will easily inject government control into our marriages, sex lives, and reproductive choices. What could be more “government on our backs” than that? In the area of basic safety and security you have seen us mobilize the whole of national resources because of an attack that killed three people in Boston, but the idea of stopping thirty thousand deaths a year from gun violence can't even be defined as an issue of basic safety; because our culture says guns are a part of us and the Second Amendment cannot be touched. By adding the “terrorism” label we permit ourselves all kinds of intrusive excesses to enforce laws, when another kind of basic safety issue kills 10,000 times more people every year and our leaders won’t touch it with a ten-foot pole. On personal privacy, which is integral to a free society, we readily give it all away, because Dick Cheney told us they can "WMD" us to death, and we just believed it without a shred of hard evidence. We respond to fear by sacrificing the one thing we hold most precious and defines who we are. Of course there is no NRA-like lobby (or industry) to defend the Fourth Amendment, like there is for the Second Amendment. On religious freedom, we will rail against any kind of government intrusion to impose reproductive health provisions in our national health care system because of religiously based objections, but we will literally persecute any Muslim in this country and characterize them all as ”radical Islamists”- based on our residual fear and hatred from the attack on 9-11. Where was the outcry to warn us about “radical Christianity” following the Oklahoma City bombing or mention of the ballooning Militia Movement that is so openly hostile to our government and huge portions of our population? If there had been a Christian chapel built on the site of the Murrah Building bombing it would have been seen as a pious act of respect for the victims, even though McVay was a radical Christian. But when (U.S. citizen) Muslims wanted to build an Islamic community center near ground zero in Manhattan it was viewed as a disrespectful outrage and was prohibited.  Our ideas about what is dangerous and how government intersects with our lives aren’t based on the nature of actions-unless we can also cast the blame on “the other” at the same time. I know there is not equivalency in all of these examples. But there is most certainly inconsistency and  bad logic in the way we approach the issues, and that is the problem.

There is so much in the culture and character of being American that is great. Those attributes are the ones that draw admiration and respect in some parts of the world, and puff us up with pride that we are Americans. We revere our freedom and independence and there is strain in us that wants justice. We tend to come together in our communities when faced with disaster. Sometimes that pride in who we are and what we’ve accomplished as a young nation also blinds us to the darker side of our character- the side that draws hatred in some parts of the globe. That's the side that doesn’t recognize the vein of racism that runs through our history and still holds us captive today. We sometimes long for yesterday and forget to plan for better tomorrow, believing our traditions leave no room for improvement. And as much as we revere justice in some areas, we neglect economic justice as the driver of a better life for all. And, we rarely deal with our hypocracy in making policy. This is the crux of the American enigma.

Perhaps the time has come to recognize we don’t live in the same kind of country we had in the late eighteenth century. Perhaps it is time to recognize that our enemies, from within and without, are not the same either. Perhaps it is time to realize that wanting and supporting the services and protections only our government can provide isn’t un-American. It just might be the most American thing about us because it speaks to a common good and a shared responsibility among us all, and toward us all. The next time we “just want the government off our backs” it might be helpful to think about what it would really be like if government wasn’t there at all, then re-examine those “rugged individualistic” characteristics that might not serve us so well in today’s world. I absolutely do not know the answer to these matters, but I believe the issue is important enough, that at this stage in the debate about government, it’s probably more important to ask the right questions instead of having all the right answers. Asking the right questions about whom we really are, who we really want to be, and how government will help or hinder that journey is our best course for the future.

Thanks for looking in.

My New Conviction

I've always had an interest in the way our government is supposed to work. Along with that, I’ve always enjoyed learning more about our history. Most of us start out learning about our country in elementary school where the concepts are simple and easy to understand. As we grow older, the same material takes on more complex and nuanced characteristics. For instance, we might have a fairly simple notion of our Revolutionary War in grade school, learning that the whole matter was about a well-spring of folks who just wanted freedom from the King of England- because freedom is a good thing. As we grow older we learn that much of the discontent was centered on the idea of unfair taxation of the colonies. And as we grow older still (and more sophisticated in our thinking and discoveries) we discover the details about how the Revolution was primarily a movement by rich landholders in the colonies who saw their financial holdings being threatened. We discover that the ideas of the Enlightenment in France became a philosophical backdrop for a revolution that was opposed by nearly 80% of the colonists- it gets more complicated  and interesting the further we dig. The point being that our ability to learn and assimilate new and more complex information is an ever changing and evolving process- as it should be.

As you and I witness the continuing ineffectiveness of our government over the last couple of decades, and most particularly over the last five years, I’m coming to a new point of view- a new conviction- about how we select our Representatives and Senators. About twenty-five years ago a movement began around the country to impose Term-Limits on members of Congress. There was a growing feeling that many in Congress were so entrenched and isolated from the people that we needed a new law to get them out of office. Back then I was absolutely against the movement. I was against term-limits for two reasons. The first was that I believed voters should always have the last say on who they elected. I believed that if a state or congressional district felt they should oust an ineffective representative they should do it at the ballot box- and only there. The second reason was that I had faith in our national institutions of government. I believed that the Senate and the House of Representatives had good reasons for establishing leadership roles based on seniority. I believed then that the seniority system in Congress actually helped produce statesmen.

I know there have always been scoundrels and charlatans in government. Our history has many examples of those who went to Congress only to enrich themselves or to enjoy the benefits of their status. Perhaps I'm still a bit nostalgic, but I believe there was a time when true statesmen emerged too. And for all the corruption that seems to follow our politics, the old system actually produced great people who went to Congress with the best intentions of governing. Some left an indelible mark on the nation: Sam Rayburn  is the most influential Speaker in our history; the great Senators include Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Robert Taft, Robert LaFollette, Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson, Arthur Vanderberg, and Edward Kennedy- to name a few. These are people who did not necessarily represent my thinking in all things, but nonetheless provided an important influence on the direction of the nation, and for that reason they gave me hope that our grandest institutions of government were worth preserving without the need for term-limits. I have now lost hope in that notion.

Today, we see a Congress and a Senate inhabited by those seem to have only one interest: getting re-elected! There was a time when true statesmen based there re-election hopes on presenting a list of legislative accomplishments to their constituents. There was a time when the measure of a Senator or Congressperson was what they did- now that measure is what they mean to “the base”. Our politics have become so polarized  and extreme that elections are no longer decided in November- they are decided in the primaries by small, dedicated groups of political activists who control gerrymandered districts such that the outcome of general elections are a foregone conclusion. Lest you think this is just a rant by a frustrated political junkie, let me a give a few examples to support my new conviction about our Congress:

-We need a new Immigration policy/law. Today’s Congress is unwilling to tackle the immigration problem because members from both parties are literally afraid to offend their “base”. The issue is complex and multi-faceted yet nothing we hear on this subject begins to deal with the real issues.  Instead we are told that a “gang of eight” Senators will decide the matter. The problem is that even a small group of eight can’t agree on what they have decided. In truth, the entire Republican Party has deferred to a tea-party Republican with a Spanish sir-name (Rubio) because they won’t own up to their wish to do nothing except complain about border security- while relishing the unspoken truth that they want a cheap labor force to pick our fruit and vegetables for the giant agri-business interests they represent. All the while they are careful to pander to the small group of folks in the home district who might be offended if they appear to be reasonable about the "race" issue. Bottom line: no meaningful reform will take place.

-We need gun legislation. In even the face of true horror in Newtown and overwhelming popular support for some form of gun control legislation our Congress cannot take an action that 90% of Americans want. It took the Senate over a week to even decide to debate the matter, and they only did that because the parents of dead children literally stared them down and shamed them in to it. After all that, one third of the Senate still voted no to even debate it. Of course the Senate then congratulated itself on its magnanimous efforts. After all of that, the Senate couldn’t pass the least intrusive element of a solution. Of course they gave themselves permission to require 60 votes for anything to happen-practically guaranteeing failure . It probably doesn’t matter though- the House would have stopped anything the Senate might have passed. The gun lobby (NRA) is so powerful among a small group of Americans that they can intimidate the great and powerful Congress of the United States. On the day a “gang of two” Senators announced a compromise between the two of them, not one Senator would even stand in the same room with them. Republicans didn’t want to offend the NRA and Democrats in “Red” states wouldn’t risk the taint of "gun control". 30,000 people die from gun violence in this country every year and our Senate couldn't muster the smallest measure of courage to curb it.  There are over 300,000,000 guns in this country- all owned by less than 35% of us. But a relatively small group will push our cowardly Congress to another year of inaction. Shameful!!!

-We need equality in the workplace for women. Last week the leadership of the House of Representatives simply sat in an office at the Capital and decided they wouldn’t even put it up for a vote. Bottom line: there will be no action on equal pay for women for the next two years.

-We need a fiscal and economic plan for the country. For the first time in five years the Senate passed a budget resolution. Every House Republican vowed to vote against it. The House has passed several of Paul Ryan’s budget plans. They are so politically skewed and partial to the wealthy that they have no chance of ever being passed by the Senate- nor should they be. The lines are drawn and no one in the Congress will budge an inch. Most politicians understand the math but will stick to their entrenched doctrines about taxation and/or spending, and won’t even bother to appoint a conference committee to talk about it. But I assure you the members of Congress will ignore simple arithmetic if it means straying one centimeter to the right or left of their extreme ideological base. Bottom line: we have a stagnant economy that cries out for direction from government-but won’t get it. This is the reason the recession drags on!

-We need an energy and environmental policy. We need serious people who are able to see past the next fiscal quarter when it comes to developing an energy source for the future, AND we need that change to include environmental protections for the planet. The science is settled- our use of fossil fuels is damaging the planet and our ability to live on it much longer. Instead of acting like reasonable and informed people, many in Congress call it a hoax and keep pushing the “drill baby drill” position. That thinking is short sighted and dangerous but they all need oil money to fund those campaigns. So they deny their own “lying eyes” as they watch the polar ice caps melt and the weather patterns turn strangely hostile in front of them.  

It is no wonder the last Congress was the most inactive (fewest bills passed) and least effective in history. Nothing I've seen suggests this Congress will be any better.  My new conviction is to start over with a Congress that is term-limited, instead of a Congress populated by those looking for the government pension at the end of the rainbow while the majority of us suffer their foolishness. There is not one member of Congress that gives me faith in our current system. The lure of power and wealth has taken the place of the lure of patriotism. We are a long way from the founder’s vision of citizen-legislators. As much as I’d like to cling to my old convictions about the emergence of statesmen, I’m convinced it cannot happen unless we free the men and women in Congress to vote with their brains and their conscience because we remove the temptation to care only about continuous reelection bids. I’ve come to this new conviction because it is so blatantly obvious that our elected Congress and Senate can’t be trusted to look out for the greater good, instead of looking out for themselves. Sadly I say…

Thanks for looking in.

An Eye For An Eye....

The Bible reference, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” shows up several times in the Old Testament books of Exodus (21:24), Leviticus (24:20) and Deuteronomy (19:21). Most of us, even those of us who are not Biblical scholars, know this verse because it lays out some commonly held notions about justice for those who have wronged us. These verses are generally interpreted in the same way by most folks; and the message is fairly easy to comprehend. The basic message is that the punishment should fit the crime. In one way, it says that when we are wronged, injured, or damaged by a criminal or we are victimized, we are entitled to punish the wrongdoer to the same extent as the injured party. Many biblical scholars hold that these passages are also an admonition against over-punishing. I suppose that in the primitive days of the Old Testament, people of stature were prone to feel entitled to inflict the ultimate punishment on those who wronged them because the offense was also an insult to the status of the victim. For instance a slave (and slavery was very common) who stole a loaf of bread from the household of a nobleman might well face death for the offense.

I also found this passage in the New Testament. In Matthew 5:38-39 Jesus said, “you have heard it said, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’. But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” This message is a departure from the old notions of justice, and instead suggests that not every offense needs to be met by equally severe punishment or punishment at all. Nonetheless the notion of punishment from the Old Testament isn’t that bad. At least it gives us a framework for modern day applications of fairness.

But this essay isn’t a Bible study. There was an incident in my community this week that brought all of this to mind for me. When I first heard what happened, my mind immediately thought of these old bible verses we are all so familiar with. Here are the facts we know so far. About 8:00 a.m. on a Monday morning a man in my town went out to start his vehicle (a 16 year old Chevy Suburban) that was sitting in his driveway at his home. He went back into the house with the engine running in the driveway. A few moments later, from inside his house, the owner saw another man get into the vehicle and start to drive it away. The owner immediately called 911 to report his vehicle being stolen. As the young man (age 25) was driving away down the street in the stolen car the owner came out of his house with a gun and shot at the man stealing his vehicle. The thief was struck in the back of the head by the vehicle owner’s bullet and was killed instantly. The vehicle proceeded down the street with the driver dead in the seat until it slammed into and through a neighbor’s garage and stopped.

I thought for a short while that I might wait to comment on this incident because not all the facts are known to the public just yet. I thought there might some mitigating circumstances that could move me from my initial thoughts about this. Perhaps there was something that I didn’t know yet, that would suggest a whole different scenario than the one first reported in the news.  As I thought about it more I came to the conclusion that I wanted to share my thoughts in very simple terms. I wanted to say something about this incident that gets to the heart of this event. We have since learned that the car thief had a record of previous car thefts, but you see, that doesn’t matter to me. I want to comment on the pure act of what happened in real time, and why this can happen in a society like ours. In its purest form: a man took property that didn’t belong to him and the victim of the theft killed him in the act, for doing so.  

I know there will be those who believe this action was clearly justified. I've already heard the comments on local radio shows and I’ve seen the comments left on the websites of local TV news stations reporting the story. Some say “a person has a right to defend their property, even with lethal force”. Some say “that punk car thief had it coming”. Some say “we work hard for our things and anybody who wants to take my things better watch out”.   There will be those who hang on every piece of (after the fact) ancillary information about the incident that will surely  come out in the days ahead. They will try to use that information to justify what happened. They will cite the thief’s prior record, or they may hear that the man who shot the thief is normally a solid, law-biding citizen. But for me none of that matters. For me the question is how we can live in a society where our citizens believe that have the right to take a life over property. For me the further question is why; the fact that a person with a gun believes that lethal force is justified for property protection. I think it is proper to think that anytime a person is shot or shot at, we have to assume the shot will be deadly- and I think the shooter has to assume that too. Any sane gun owner should know that. 

So I look at this incident in very pure, simple terms. There are obviously two major issues: first, the law in this state does not allow its citizens to kill another citizen over property. The law here is clear; you may only justifiably kill another person if your life or the life of another is immediately threatened by that person. A car thief driving away from you (even in your car) doesn’t meet that test under any stretch of the circumstances. The second problem is a cultural one. We live in a society where many claim our society is based on Judeo-Christian values; but is also rooted in a gun culture that tells us we can use guns anytime we are threatened and individual citizens are free to make that judgment. This is a conflict! Please refer to the Bible passages above. I am not religious so I don’t believe our laws should come from religious scripture-but there are some notions in religion that make good sense on any level. “An eye for an eye” is one I agree with because it makes sense in any context to have the punishment fit the crime in a civilized society. Imagine what might have happened if the car owner didn’t have a gun. Imagine too that our system of laws worked as it should. The thief would have left with the car- the call to 911 would have resulted in the police apprehending the thief and he would have been convicted under the authority of our laws. The thief would be sent to prison for a maximum of five years. He would have probably served 2 ½ years and been released on parole. That is how our law works. Instead the victim of the original crime decided to give the thief the death penalty. I know there will be those who decry the current system and claim that because the laws and the courts don’t work like we think they should, citizens must take the law into their own hands. That is frustration and anarchy- not reason or justice. The unfortunate and inevitable bi-product of that thinking is what we saw this time. The punishment (death) did not fit the crime- under Biblical or secular standards. And although I don’t know for sure, I believe the car owner may well be charged with a crime himself because he intentioanlly killed someone who was not threatening his life.

Our social media is alive with examples of this troubling side of our culture. Sometime ago a relative of mine had a purse stolen from a car while it was parked at a sporting event. That event was promptly posted on Facebook with a proper amount of indignation over the loss. It’s no small thing to have your purse, money, credit cards, and ID stolen. I sympathized. But then came the inevitable torrent of comments about how the thief should be killed if it was found out who did it. There must have been twenty similar sentiments expressed, promising deadly violence to anyone who do such a thing. It’s only conjecture on my part, but that type of crime is usually committed by kids- and it made me think about the idea that someone would actually kill a kid for such a crime- something the legal system would never do. Would they really? I know it’s mostly just “big talk”, but that kind of macho big talk  combined with gun ownership only adds to a culture that turns good people into a person who would take a life to save a wallet or an old Chevy. That seems very out of balance to me. Perhaps it is the gun itself. Guns are potentially lethal in every use against another person. They are inherently designed to kill and any training on the use of guns against another person says that if you shoot- you shoot to kill. The idea of just “winging” someone went out with Marshal Dillon. Perhaps these deadly instruments instill in us a sense of entitlement, invincibility, and power that we should not have. Clearly there are cases where the presence of a gun led to a death that need not happen. The Travon Martin case is one that need not have ended in death- just like the car thief death in my town. But for the presence of a gun- no life would have been lost.

I have great sympathy for all involved in the situation in my home town. I have sympathy for the family that lost a son- even though he was a car thief. I have equal sympathy for the man who shot him.  Although I believe he was quite wrong to do what he did, I cannot imagine myself going through life knowing I took a life over such a trivial thing- not to mention the consequences he and his family may yet face under the law. I don’t know what will happen on that matter- but like I said it doesn’t matter for my purposes. What does matter to me is how we can use this incident to rethink some of our cultural characteristics and beliefs about violence, guns, and our most deeply held moral values. We all have some work to do on that.

Thanks for looking in.

Chicken Dinners and Good Causes

For our family, it’s that time of year again. Three of the four of us in our little nuclear family are what you might call “agency people”. That is, we work for non-profit agencies. I’m a Regional Manager at Goodwill Industries, my wife is a Program Director for Catholic Charities-directing a large child care center, and our oldest daughter is a service Director at Lutheran Community Services- directing a large program that provides services to sexual assault victims and their families. Only our youngest daughter is not an agency person. She’s a sales Director for a large national food distribution corporation. (Perhaps she’s the smart one.) In truth, we’re all very happy with our career choices. But amongst we agency people, this is the season when we’re attending a series of fund-raising dinners. Because we work at non-profit agencies, the process of fund-raising is very important for our employers and the programs we work in- and we support the effort and each other as we sign up for chicken dinners in hotel ballrooms where people from the community are urged to open their hearts and their wallets in support of important services for people in our community.

As I was looking over my chicken dinner schedule I noticed that it just so happened we’re attending three of these events in a row, one-a-month in March, April, and May. The first of these events was mine. My wife and I attended my first Goodwill Industries Awards Dinner. It was a great event attended by about 500 folks, all there to celebrate work done by Goodwill. Our President was the MC and through the course of the night he spoke of the thousands of local people Goodwill had served since the dinner last year. It was a real showcase for the great work Goodwill does and a chance to honor some very special employees, local businesses, and Goodwill clients who distinguished themselves in the last year.

In April we’ll head to the Lutheran Community Services Chocolate and Champagne Gala. Not an actual chicken dinner- but you get my point. Those in attendance will be plied with delicious drinks and treats while they contribute their money in the form of silent auction bids and outright donations to support programs that  serve and protect the most vulnerable and needy victims in our midst. What their clients experience is the among most horrifying and devastating events one can imagine, and Lutheran Community Services is the only organization dedicated to serving them. A good (no- GREAT) cause.

Our third event in roughly 60 days will be the Catholic Charities Gala. This one is time-tested and traditional in every sense. It takes place at the venerable Davenport Hotel in an ornate grand ballroom. The price of admission is high but, for this dinner, that’s the point. The meal is usually quite good and the speakers are generally well-established community and church leaders who tell compelling stories about the good done by Catholic Charities. And the stories are true. Catholic Charities is the largest non-profit social service agency in the region. They have a myriad of programs that serve the poor and the disadvantaged from so many different backgrounds. They provide housing, counseling, refugee and elderly services, early childhood education, services to young parents and variety of small services that effect thousands of people in positive ways. Fund-raisers are important because Catholic Charities' money doesn’t come from the church- they are a separate legal entity as a non-profit corporation. At the end of the dinner, distinguished guests will be asked to contribute even more, and they do.

I think it’s important to show our support for these fine agencies by attending these dinners, but I always leave these events with mixed feelings. As glad as I am to see an outpouring of support and generosity, I’m concerned that agencies with such important missions and programs, serving so many, (and not serving so many more in need) must go to these measures just to survive. Being agency people, we know that fund-raisers supply only a small fraction of the money needed to support the work of the organizations. Don’t get me wrong- these are fine events and they serve another purpose besides fund-raising- they help create community awareness of the incredible needs in the community and promote appreciation of the work staff perform to aid those who need their help. But that too raises a question in my mind.

The question I sometimes ponder is why it is necessary to make the case, and raise money this way for needs that are so clearly evident and universally recognized as important. If the mission is so important (and it is!), why isn’t it everyone’s mission? So I turn my thoughts to the question of public policy when I see these agencies needing to woo donors with fancy dinners and galas to support the work these good people do. For instance, I might ask why it is not good public policy for the government to fully support the work of Lutheran Community Services when they provide advocates and social and psychological services to rape victims and child victims of sexual abuse. Is there a reason why we would not do so? Is there any group of right thinking people who would say that rendering help to those victims so devastated by this horrible crime shouldn’t happen? In the case of Catholic Charities is there a compelling reason to say the most destitute people in our midst should not receive a meal- that a homeless person should not have a bed to sleep in on a freezing night? Spending even a short time at Catholic Charities facilities is an eye-opening experience, because to see the real faces of the poor would change the mind of even the most cynical conservatives who rail against government programs. At Goodwill we specialize in helping people with disabilities and disadvantages find work- and that includes programs for veterans. What could the argument be against that? Why is doing that work not worthy of our collective support and our tax dollars?  There is real pain in our midst and we have the resources as a people to help resolve that pain and make a better society if we choose to do so. But we don’t. Instead we relegate that mission, and that work to the sometimes fickle chances of charitable giving.

I’m often struck by the some of the people I meet at these events because they are more than willing to contribute heavily to these good causes, but so deadly set against government policies that would do the same things. They contribute more at these chicken dinners than they would if public policy called for a small tax from all of us to support good causes.  There is something in our American culture that makes us value the personal choice to give, even when the cause is so widely recognized. Whatever that something is- I don’t think it’s a good thing. That characteristic keeps us from fully funding good causes, perhaps even gives us an excuse not to deal with compelling good causes through public policy. Unfortunately that part of us leaves these incredibly valuable programs always at the margin of financial vulnerability. So they keep having chicken dinners and pleading for operating funds from good people who are willing to give. It just isn’t enough most of the time, so many who are in need go without, and we pay on the other end with more prisons and more costly institutions the taxpayers are forced to fund. 

Public policy is a funny thing. Rarely is it logical. Rarely does it address commonly held values. Instead public policy ends up being a contradictory hodge-podge of programs that are many times in conflict with each other. I think this comes from the influence “special interests” have carved out with our law-makers. How else can we explain why many politicians in government claim we can’t serve the most needy in our country because we don’t have the money- yet will not stop the $30 billion a year we spend to give oil companies tax breaks and subsidies (remember oil corporations are the most profitable in the history of mankind)? How else can some politicians in government claim that we can’t fund early childhood education (empirically proven to be the best public investment we can make in real dollars saved for the tax payers in the long -run) yet protect off-shore tax havens, and tax breaks for billionaires’ private jets? ( Just to name a couple of examples- there are many more)

I’ll keep going to the dinners and galas- and I’ll keep contributing. I’ll also remain thankful for the others who do the same and contribute to these good causes. But I will most likely leave those events with the same mixed feelings I’ve had before, because I know that it won’t be enough to care for all who need the programs that spring from these chicken dinners and the contributions they produce. At the same time I hope a number of us will push for better public policy that recognizes the real needs of the people in our country and develop funding priorities that meet those needs.

Thanks for looking in.

Big Brass Ones

You may have to forgive me for a personal indulgence on this one, but I just have to comment on the discourse I’ve been hearing lately. I don’t listen to the radio when I’m working but I do listen when I’m driving to work and back home, or when I’m out heading to a meeting or something. Our town lost its progressive talk radio station about a year ago so any political talk I listen to is ultra-right wing stuff. You know what I’m talking about- Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, et al, and even a local guy named Fitzsimmons. I used to listen to this ranting on purpose so I would know what people thought on the other end of the ideological spectrum from me. But my wife began to notice it was really affecting my personality (not in a good way) to listen to such negative and caustic stuff all the time. So I stopped doing it and found a more progressive message. Alas that’s gone now and I find myself drifting back to the old radical right- wing stuff because it’s the only political talk I can get. I listen less now than I did before, but I find the language and hatred is so much more concentrated, that a little of it goes a long way.

Over the last few weeks the rhetoric is really heating up to an all-time high over the sequestered automatic cuts in the Federal budget. The blame game is on, and to be fair it’s being played by both sides while all of us would just prefer the Congress and the President would do their job and actually govern.  But after listening to those self- proclaimed ”national voices of conservative common sense” go on for hours on the radio, I’m not sure it’s even possible for governance to happen. You have to remember that conservative talk-radio outnumbers progressive talk ten-to-one. It may be possible that the tone of our discourse has become so vile that a minority of people who religiously listen to that non-stop crap have convinced the Republican Party that they must follow the dictates of the Hannity’s and Limbaugh’s because they “speak for the base”. I don’t think that’s really true because I still believe most of us are just better than that- but such is the power of media. Clearly the very dedicated conservative "base" is a very small minority of people in the country, but they are just enough to effectively obstruct any progress.

Let me give you just a small slice of what you can hear all day (relentlessly repeated) on talk-radio. I'll have to paraphrase because I just can’t take it all down verbatim while I’m driving. If by chance you don’t believe me you can verify my take on this trash by listening yourself, provided you have the intestinal strength to do it. In just the last couple of days I heard the President is running a “crime family”; I’ve heard the President just hates America; I’ve heard the President is “addicted” to taxing and spending with no purpose other than to just take our money- he likes to steal; I’ve heard the President is engaged in a plot hatched in another country (presumable a Muslim or African) to literally destroy America; I’ve heard that the President isn’t a smart person and couldn't to run a small organization or couldn’t govern a small town (this is interesting because this comes from the same guy who claims the President is managing an international plot to destroy us all- but at the same time is a very stupid and incompetent man); I’ve heard that the President wants us all to suffer because he enjoys the powerful feeling he gets from that; I’ve heard that the President should be jailed because he won’t agree with the Republicans and is therefore being treasonous. You get the point. I could sit here and write them all day. It’s interesting that every right-wing talk show host has the same points, almost verbatim- like they all come from the same place. Hmmm? I heard our local talk show guy say that Vice president Biden is “an idiot”, and he meant that Mr. Biden is literally mentally deficient- and said so. The folks I’m referring to aren’t the idle callers who have nothing better to do than sit on the phone all day so they can engage in this cynical trash- they are the hosts.

After listening to these ridiculous statements repeated over and over I suppose I could get angry at the lack of real intellect being displayed, and concerned that so many people get their information from these dubious sources. But lately I’ve become amused instead. It amuses me that radio hosts, entertainers-showmen really, hold themselves up as being superior to people of real accomplishment. How does a Hannity or a Limbaugh really compare to a President (good or bad)? These radio shills have no academic credentials. They have never held office. They have never had to shoulder real responsibility for people’s lives or livelihoods. Other than a life in radio, what have they done? How do their life stories inspire us, or inspire our children? For instance, Limbaugh’s life story is train wreck- married 3 or 4 times, drug addict, racism, sexism, you name it. This man's character is so poor even the NFL wouldn't let him in. Would we teach our children to follow his path as a role model? Yet he’s the ideological leader of the conservative movement, and not one Republican would dare cross him. I was particularly amused by our local radio host. Here’s a guy who has a three hour-a-day talk-show gig in a small radio market saying he’s more knowledgeable, accomplished and has better judgment on the direction of government than a man who served honorably in the U.S. Senate for 36 years and is Vice-President of the United States. It takes some real big brass balls to say that- as it does for any of these talk show blow-hards who only talk and do nothing. It takes someone who doesn’t know the difference between ego and substance to make that claim. How many of us hope our children or our grandchildren will someday be the next Sean Hannity? Would we be more proud of our kin if they were Harvard Law graduates, constitutional law professors and President of the United States; or if they had the afternoon drive time show to spout mindless propaganda five days a week?

These demigods hold themselves up to be our voice and I suppose we’ve let them by giving them a very rich medium to practice in. My point is that we have allowed those who do nothing but talk their “talking points” to be more important than those who do the real work of governing- and that goes for our officials from both parties. Even those whose ideas are very different from mine are worthy of respect because they have put themselves in the real line of fire. They are not pretenders, or entertainers making  big bucks from their pseudo-intellects and a bunch of guys calling in to hear themselves say “mega-dittos Rush” on the radio.

I’m not an educator, but I am married to one so I often think about the public behavior of adults in leadership positions (by virtue of the office they hold or their place in mass media) in contrast to what we teach our children. I believe the way we teach children and the standards we try to instill in them ought to be the way we expect them to act as adults later in life. Isn’t that the point of education? For instance, I wonder what a teacher would say to a child in school who continually berates other people? I wonder what a teacher would do with a child who turns in a report containing blatant lies or misrepresentations of facts, knowing they are false? I wonder what a teacher would do with a child who refuses to pay attention or is disrespectful to classmates and faculty, then encourages other children to behave the same way? I believe that teacher would not accept such behavior. I believe that teacher would employ their skills to correct such children and we would all expect them to do just that, because for most of us such behavior is unacceptable. The same behaviors we call childish and unacceptable in young people seems to get rewarded in this political environment, and by an entertainment medium that values misbehavior and rancor in place of thoughtful discussion and truth seeking. Conservative talk-radio is the intellectual equivalent of professional wrestling. It’s phony, and designed to get the crowd riled up instead of encouraging better communication and clearer thinking.

The unfortunate fact is that the talk radio market and all its hate-filled rhetoric has taken hold because we’ve stopped doing a couple of very important things for our children in the last thirty to forty years. We stopped teaching civics in school and we stopped teaching critical thinking skills. Civics is the study of how our government works. If you don’t know civics-and know it well, you can’t distinguish the crap you hear from the way government is supposed to work.  Without critical thinking skills you can’t tell the propaganda from legitimate intellectual thought because you don't have the intellectual tools to analyze it. When those things are missing we tend to fall for the message that comes from the loudest voice, repeated over and over.  

I will try to remain amused. I take heart in knowing that as hard as they tried last year, the poison talkers and their ditto-head followers lost the battle. Even with a ten-to-one advantage in the radio market- they lost. Better ideas and better hopes for the country prevailed over the empty rhetoric of these charlatans and their coordinated talking points. I’m hopeful that thoughtful progressives and thoughtful conservatives will emerge once again find a way to lead and govern us. That’s what really takes big brass ones.

Thanks for looking in.