STILL ON PATROL

February is African-American History Month

As January 2008 is winding down, we are reminded by listings of many events in our newspapers that February is African-American History Month.  I will admit being initially skeptical when this concept was first put forth several years ago because I saw this as potentially racially divisive, but I have come to realize that not only is this month's designation a good and healthy thing, it would probably be a good idea if we had other months designated to celebrate other parts of our nation's history, too.  Perhaps in some way this could counter the persistent decline in history education from which this country suffers.

There is no question that African-Americans have contributed mightily to the growth and greatness of this country.  From the inventiveness of such geniuses as George Washington Carver, to the valor of such men as the vaunted Tuskegee Airmen, to thousands of others, no American can rightly perceive that the United States would be where it is today without the influence of African-American citizens.  That an African-American man is solidly in the mix for the 2008 Presidential elections is a fitting tribute to this contribution to our society.

This year a great deal of the emphasis in our area seems to focus on the Underground Railroad and the fact that this is the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth.  The former has a lot to do with the presence of the Underground Railroad Center in Cincinnati, which has done so much to bring that aspect of the history of slavery to light, as well as Underground Railroad research centers such as the one located at Georgetown (KY) College.  The Lincoln connection is fairly obvious.

One of the potentially significant benefits that I hope would be realized through the institution of African-American History Month is the revelation of an accurate history of slavery in America.  Slavery was a horrific institution any way you look at it - we can never justify human ownership of other humans.  Within that assumption, however, there are many popular untruths that can and should be understood.

First and foremost is an understanding that the institution of slavery was not solely a southern evil.  Indeed, many northern fortunes were made in building slave ships and operating those loathsome vessels.  Slavery existed in the north until the influx of cheap labor from European immigrants made slave ownership much less economically profitable to northern businessmen.  Slavery really only became a southern institution as the sections of the country digressed in their economic devemopment, the north becoming more industrial and the south more agrarian.  Thus, those of northern extraction cannot and should not congratulate themselves as not having had a part in slavery.

Second, this entire country in the early nineteenth century was shamefully racist.  Superficial study of writings published in that time reveals that African-Americans were perceived to be a lower life form than Caucasians on nearly a universal basis, regardless of geographical placement of the author.  This perception is even found in dozens of religious tracts distributed throughout the country.  As slaves were freed during the Civil War, numerous atrocities were visited upon free blacks in northern cities, where they were perceived as unwanted competition for jobs in addition to the racial overtones of bigotry.  Some historians have even suggested that freed slaves to some limited extent fared better in the south because southerners were more accustomed to the presence of African-Americans in their society.  Even into the civil rights era, riots and racial unrest plagued cities in all parts of America.  We still have many miles to go in solving this plague.

Third, I recently heard a sermon in which the speaker celebrated this year as the 200th anniversary of the abolition of international slave trade in this country.  Superficially, this is true, but when one understands some of the reasons this occurred, it is a much less salutory event.  The reality is that this was a compromise between abolitionist and slaveholders, to which the slaveholders agreed in part because they saw the advantage of not adding potentially disruptive new African captives to the so-called "docile" slave population already in America.  It was believed that "breeding" among the existing slaves would more than sustain the "necessary" slave population, so there was little to lose by stopping importation.

Fourth, the celebration of Lincoln as the "Great Emancipator" is misplaced.  Study of his many speeches as well as of the Emancipation Proclamation itself belies a wholly different truth than the popular notions.  His September 1862 Proclamation in reality freed virtually no slaves.  It purported to free only those slaves in territories in rebellion, over which the Federal government then had no control.  it did not free slaves in border states such as Maryland, Kentucky, or Missouri.  Maryland alone had over 87,000 slaves at the beginning of the War.  The proclamation, rather, was a consummate political document calculated to keep northern abolitionists on Lincoln's side heading into the 1864 elections.  While it is true that many thousands of slaves were freed during the War, the actual abolition of slavery did not occur on a national basis until ratification of the 13th Amendment in December 1865.

Fifth, slavery as an institution has many faces in popular fiction, ranging from abuses of evil overseers and plantation owners to a happy, banjo-pickin' image in Disney-esque animations.  Neither is wholly true, nor wholly untrue.  The simple truth is that, these competing images aside, the sale, trade, and ownership of human beings is a chapter in our history which should be fully explored and understood so as to assure that it is never repeated in any form or fashion.  Regardless of the relative nature of an individual slave's lifestyle, living in bondage can never be said to have been "good."

We cannot sweep this sad chapter in our history under the proverbial rug by modern-day "repentances" or by too-late payments of "reparations."  What we owe the thousands of people who were held in bondage is a serious study of slavery's truths, so that we can embrace and learn from them as we move into the future.  Too many people believe slavery ended in 1865, when in reality slavery still exists in many corners of the globe today, with literally millions of humans still suffering in bondage.  We owe it to those who have suffered from the bonds of slavery in our past to understand what happened to them, and thus educated, to try to prevent others from suffering that same fate.

The Politically-Correct Grinch Who Stole Christmas

I heard a story recently from a state government agency (location and jurisdiction shall remain nameless by me) that demonstrated the depth in allowing politically-correct thinking to ruin Christmas.

This agency had a debate earlier in December over what to call their annual used-to-be-Christmas luncheon.  Of course, living in a state government, politically correct world, it could not be any of Christmas, Hanukkah, or Kwanzaa luncheon.  After much discussion, the choices boiled down to "Holiday Luncheon" or "Winter Luncheon."  Remember, this was not a debate over where to hold the event, or the menu, or the program, or anything of substance.  This was merely a debate over what to NAME the luncheon.

No sooner than the choices were made known than one faction stated flatly that they would not attend if "Holiday Luncheon" was used, and then the other said they would decline to attend a "Winter Luncheon."  This debate wore on, becoming more acrimonious and keeping a significant part of the agency from transacting the people's business.  Ultimately, upper-level management at the agency cancelled the luncheon altogether.  I count this as a win for fiscal responsibility but a loss overall because yet another tradition has died to the jaws of the PC Grinch.

Someone at the agency got the last laugh, though.  The picture below is of the top of the Christmas tree in one section of the agency and I think it expresses the perfect holiday sentiment in our PC-ruled world.

PC on Parade: "Merry Christmas" vs. "Happy Holidays"

As the 2007 Christmas season is upon us, we are once again presented with the mini-controversy of whether the greeting of choice at this time of year should be "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays"...or "Happy Hanukkah" or "Happy Kwanzaa" as the case may be.  To me, that we even have to hear these discussions is just another symptom of the mind-numbing pursuit of politically-correct speech that has paralyzed many Americans with fear every time they are tempted to open their mouths in public.

A survey released by Rasmussen Reports indicates that 67 percent of Americans prefer "Merry Christmas" as their greeting of choice.  A group called the "Liberty Counsel" publishes a list of businesses which are deemed by them to be "Naughty" (do not use "Christmas" in advertising) or "Nice" (use "Christmas" in advertising).  While the latter does not overtly seek boycotting of the "Naughty" stores, it does encourage readers to "thank the manager" of the "Nice" businesses.  And so on, and so on.

My personal preference remains with "Merry Christmas."  It is how I was raised and I am not ashamed to so indicate my Christian beliefs.  If anyone is offended by my so greeting them and proclaiming the season as it has meaning to me, then perhaps they are taking themselves too seriously and forgetting that in this country we have the freedom to believe and speak as we wish.  At the same time, if someone chooses to be PC and use "Happy Holidays" that is their choice as well. 

But isn't the concerted effort to expunge the word "Christmas" from the public lexicon just a tad bit  hypocritical?  After all, whether the listed businesses are considered "naughty" or "nice", the vast percentage of what they sell at this time of year and therefore a high percentage of their annual sales are derived from goods which relate to the symbols and meaning of the Christian festival we call "Christmas."  If one is going to expunge the word "Christmas" should not one also forego the sales and profits from Christmas-related goods?  In fact, if we're going to go PC and be consistent about it, why make a big fuss at all over retailing this time of year instead of reaping profits from religious festival times?  Oops, no, there I crossed a line from an empty PC gesture into something of real meaning and effect.

So far as I am concerned, I don't care if you greet me with any of the above phrases or which one you choose.  I'll not be offended if you choose something which reflects your personal faith, just as I ask you take no offense at me projecting mine.  I do enjoy being greeted with a smile and some kind salutation that doesn't include one of the proverbial "seven words you can't say on television", which us attorneys all-too-often receive.  And I just hope the greeting is sincere, not just some mechanical recitation of the holiday wishes of the PC moment.

Merry Christmas!

A tip o' my kepi to Sarah Hey and StandFirm for the post on the Rasmussen Report.

Lord, Save Me From Committees

I saw a t-shirt once that had a picture of a church with a thought balloon above it saying, "Thank you, Lord, that you didn't send a committee."  Truer words were never silk-screened on cotton.

How many readers have ever served on a committee?  Probably everyone has been similarly cursed.  I've been on far more than I can count, usually because I'm flattered to be asked and my ego takes over from my common sense, and because I seem to have this ridiculous notion that the next committee is going to be better than the dozens of past experiences.  I apparently will never learn.

You know the drill.  It seems like everyone wants to be on the committee, at least in name.  Maybe 2/3 of those who want their name listed will actually attend meetings, if it is an exceptional situation.  Usually the ratio is lower.  Everyone has a bright idea about how to accomplish the committee's purpose and some of them are as defensive of their ideas as if they were their children.  But when it comes time to actually DO something, the Committee becomes like the deck of the Titanic with all but a stalwart few leaping for the water.

I am coming to believe that committees are the bane of my existence.  I plan to ask my friends to bash me over the head the next time I mention getting on this or that committee.

OK, committee rant over.

Criminals Are Victims of Society, Boo-Hoo

Columnist Frank Cerabino, writing in the Sunday Palm Beach Post, opines that the arrest of an Episcopal priest, Michael Royce Penland, for soliciting gay sex in a public restroom, is bigoted because, Cerabino says, "being gay is a crime in North Carolina."

Gimme a break.

Sure, North Carolina has an anti-sodomy law that is archaic, and probably violated in both homosexual and heterosexual bedrooms all the time.  I am reasonable certain, though, that the law is used primarily for public sexual acts and public solicitations for sex, not some Klan-like persecution of homosexuals as Cerabino suggests.  "Solicitation" is broadly defined, but it has to be to address the wide variety of criminal sexual acts which need to be addressed.  What difference does it make that Penland allegedly asked the police officer to meet him somewhere else?

The point here is not that North Carolina has a sex law on the books which is centuries old.  I don't even much care of North Carolina would drop the charges against Penland. If a law needs to be changed, go to the Legislature, not a public restroom.  The point here is that a man who was old enough to know better, and who had not only taken priestly vows but was recently hired to lead a youth program, broke an existing law as well as the moral code he had sworn to uphold and teach, by trolling a public park restroom for sex with a total stranger.  If there were a law on the books for felony stupidity, and another one for felony vow-breaking, Penland would be guilty on all counts.

The liberal, politically correct mantra that breaks out every time a crime is committed, i.e., that the criminal is a victim of society, is a great steaming pile of horse manure.  Michael Vick knew better, as did Michael Royce Penland.  No one and nothing forced them to break the law and behave in an immoral fashion.  As the old saying goes, "if you're going to do the crime, be prepared to do the time."  Let's stop making excuses for criminals.

Make No Apologies for Michael Vick

Columnist Shaun Powell of Newsday recently wrote a column that began with the words "Michael Vick is not guilty."  Powell then goes on to blame "who created Vick?" for the crimes he has committed - the NFL, which created the league in which he could sign a $130 million contract, college football, which made Vick a "superstar", and adoring fans and media, who took in all of who Michael Vick was and gave him a pass because he could run and throw a football like few others.  Powell also blames Vick's upbringing by a mother who had four children before she was 21 and had to work multiple jobs to raise them instead of watching them as they grew up on the proverbial "mean streets."

This sort of apologistic column was inevitable.  It is not the first to be written and no doubt not the last which will try to use the Vick case as an indictment of our society, and portray a bad actor like Vick as a "victim."  This sort of excuse-making gets played out in our court system every day - "poor Defendant, if he had only been given a better chance in life, he wouldn't have (fill in the blank - murdered, stolen, sold drugs, molested children, etc., etc.)."  It is only heightened when someone like Vick, with seemingly all the advantages, brings himself down by his own stupidity or lack of self-control.  On any scale, however, such excuse-making is simply wrong.

While I will grant Powell that our society does fail many individuals, I refuse to accept that as an excuse for someone like Michael Vick.  American sports are filled with stories of individuals who parlayed athletic gifts into not only success in their chosen sport, but a platform from which to do good and inspire others from their similar backgrounds to raise themselves up rather than take the low road.  Had Vick taken the money he spent on setting up a fighting dog kennel and betting on those dogs, and put it into youth programs in Atlanta, Norfolk, or Richmond, he could have helped untold numbers of kids who are growing up like he did.  Had Vick taken the money he will pay his attorneys in this case and donated it to animal shelters and humane societies, those people, who daily do miracles on shoestring budgets, he could have helped so many of God's four-legged friends instead of cruelly executing them.

Michael Vick made a choice when he was showered with the largesse of American sports.  He made the same bad choice so many before him have made, that of self-indulgence in a "bad-boy" lifestyle instead of "giving something back" to the communities who made him wealthy.  America is a society of free will in that way - we are given many crossroads in life and must choose our own way.  The path Michael Vick chose has brought him to the brink of Federal prison, perhaps Virginia state animal cruelty charges in his future, and a possible end to the NFL career which made him rich.   He has no one to blame but himself.

Why I Don't Like Government Bureaucrats

My younger daughter had her purse stolen last week, with every scrap of I.D. she had in it.  Thankfully she had no credit cards.  This week we've been trying to get replacement driver's license, social security card, etc., issued.  In the process, she was given some bad information on the order things needed to be done.  Because her car is also in the shop, I was driving her around and got to share in the lovely experience.

She had been told to start with Social Security.  We both tried dozens of times to reach the office by telephone all day to confirm the information, but never got past a busy signal.  I have come to conclude that they probably left the phone off the hook intentionally.  So we went to the office, which required both of us to take time off work because their hours are 9 to 4.  After getting our number and sitting in the waiting room for about 30 minutes, we were called to a window for our audience with (insert pejorative adjective and noun here).  He informed us that her birth certificate and official vital statistics registration was insufficient, but he would take a signed lease, a life insurance policy, medical records, etc. 

In other words, the Social Security Administration would not recognize a validly issued, certified state government document, but would recognize privately-created documents which could easily be stolen or forged.  What really got to me, though, was the smug little Mona-Lisa smile this jerk had on his face - he actually was getting off on telling us he could not help us.  Needless to say we walked out having wasted an hour for no good reason other than to be reminded why the Federal government is such a mess.

At the local level, we did get help.  The Scott County Circuit Clerk issued a replacement driver's license in about 10 minutes, relying on the birth certificate.  After the jerk at Social Security, this was almost refreshing. She can now, of course, get Social Security to re-issue her card based on the driver's license, which was issued based on a document Social Security would not recognize.

The Social Security Administration makes no bones about admitting that they deny the vast majority of disability claims on the first go-round because they know most people, who are probably entitled to benefits, will not come back and fight that first rejection.  In other words, this is a government agency which thinks it exists to deny help to the very public it was created to serve.  This attitude was borne out by our experience yesterday.  While I understand the societal value of the Social Security system in theory, in actual application I cannot help but wonder if we would not be better off in the long run with a better model?

Another Perspective on Motherhood

There is a delightful essay in this week's edition of Newsweek magazine, in the space called "My Turn."  Carrie Friedman writes of being relatively newly-married (2 years) and her desire to have children, but the problems she continues to get from others in her life's journey toward motherhood.  Read it here:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19762056/site/newsweek/ .

The article is titled "Stop Setting Alarms on My Biological Clock:  If I'm ever going to fulfill my dream of becoming a mother, I'm going to need some better role models." Friedman discusses all of the people who regularly ask her when she will get pregnant, one of whom even placed her hands on Friedman's belly, under her shirt, without invitation.  These people insensitively do so without any regard for what the reason may be.  She says to them (in the article), "It's none of your business." 

She then relates the mindset of many new parents, who project onto others their attitude that there is nothing else worthy of spending one's life on other than childbirth, even to the point of denigrating achievements of others in other pursuits.  Friedman correctly says that to be a well-rounded parent and role model, one should not give up one's life passions.  She says, "It's not selfish to have your own life. In fact, it's selfish not to."

It is in her final section that Friedman's essay most resonates with me.  She begins by saying, "Now let's talk a bit about manners, as in please teach your children some. The world has rules, and kids should learn them. And being well mannered does not infringe on their individuality and freedom."  Friedman  relates experiences such as being punched in the mouth by a 4-year old and bleeding from it, only to be lectured by the mother about "not talking down to children."  Huh? 

She also points out the absurdly narcissistic habit of many young parents to drag their children to obviously adults-only venues and events:  "No one could possibly love your kids as much as you do, so stop inflicting them on others."  Speaking as one who has had more than a few dinners, movies, and yes, airline flights, rendered utterly miserable by misbehaving children of parents who have no clue about keeping them in control, I add my hearty "hear, hear!"  I'm happy for them to have children, truly I am, but I don't remember signing on for babysitter duty.  The proper response to a child smearing their sticky hands on the head of a complete stranger at the next table in a restaurant is not "Oh, how cute!"  (Happened to me a few months ago.)

Anyway, with all of the blogosphere intensity about motherhood and feminism brought about by +Elizabeth Kaeton's intemperate screed of a few days ago, this article lends another, valid perspective to the overall discussion.

Kudos to the NAACP

I have had my share of issues with actions taken in the past by the NAACP, which I think sometimes creates issues needlessly where they otherwise would not exist.  Today, however, I offer them kudos for the burial of the "n" word ceremony held in conjunction with their national convention in Detroit.  I hope people were paying attention, and I hope their effort works.

This ceremony was born out of the backlash from heated public criticism and censure of white entertainers Michael Richards and Don Imus, both of whom used racial slurs directed at African-Americans in the public arena.  Many, myself included, questioned at the time why it was so wrong for whites to use the "n" word and other racially-charged language, while African-American rappers and hip-hop performers, comedians, and other performers used the "n" word liberally and to great effect in their public performances and recordings. 

It was pointed out that this mixed message resulted in confusion of when it was right, or wrong, to use these racial slurs.  It was also pointed out that there was inconsistency by African-American leadership in criticizing use of the "n" word, in their heated attacks of Caucasians such as Richards and Imus, yet their silence about rappers, and comedians such as Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle for their use of the "n" word.

The NAACP has now finally taken a strong stand that it is never right to use racial slurs, regardless of the color or race of the person speaking.  Consistency, in this instance, is definitely a virtue.  While I think we go too far in this country with political-correctness, there is no question that some language can be, and is, hurtful, and if so, it should not be acceptable for usage by anyone, anywhere, anytime.  It is only by consistency in our approach that such words will eventually disappear from the public lexicon.  The NAACP has taken a large step toward elimination of the "n" word - I only now hope that everyone takes heed and this effort works.

"Homophobe" is the New "Racist"

I have been bothered for some long time now by the term "homophobe".  In its strict, Latin-based definition, this word should mean "irrational fear of man", homo meaning man, and phobe being short for phobia, or irrational fear.  In modern usage, though, it means nothing of the kind.  It has come to be one of the more pejorative labels being tossed around at anyone who in any way opposes or questions the gay lifestyle, etc., and is used to paint with as broad a swipe as the word "racist" has historically been brushed around.  In so doing, those who blithely toss the words are in many ways as guilty of stereotyping and bigotry as their targets may, or may not be.

I went looking for the derivation of the word "homophobe", and found a very interesting 2004 article by Bernard Chapin in which he examines the use of the term.  Read the whole article here:  http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/chapin/2004/chapin080504.htm , but don't be put off by the name of the publication.  He has some interesting, good points.

Chapin describes the use of the word "homophobe" as a form of "jamming", a sociological concept which has been long recognized as a tool of minority agendae in this country.  "Jamming" is an effort to force the subject to feel shame and self-revulsion whenever the label is applied to them, thus eventually forcing the subject to change his/her views on the subject. In other words, Chapin believes that the goal of usage of this word is an effort by the LGBT community to make heterosexuals feel as if we have some sort of moral or psychological malady because we don't celebrate, or agree with the LGBT agenda to the extent they desire.  Thus, if any heterosexual even asks questions seeking understanding, inevitably the label "homophobe" is thrown at them, for their failure to accept, ipso facto, the inevitable correctness of the LGBT position.

In the Episcopal Church, we now hear the word "homophobe" almost as often as we hear "and also with you."  Bishop Ingham of Canada this week as much as said if anyone disagree with his position on same-sex marriage, then we must be homophobes.  No, I disagree with your definition of what the Church should recognize as a marriage, Bishop, based on Biblical teachings, not some inchoate, irrational fear of the LGBT folks.  A learned person should be able to argue the issues, not throw labels, and I continue to be most disappointed in the failure of the liberal side of this debate to do so.

I have been accused of homophobia and racism in my lifetime, of which I believe I am neither.  I do question many of the items of the LGBT agenda, and I believe that some of the political goals of many minority groups in this country are wrong and not intended for the best interests of all Americans.  Because I question, and because I take opposite political viewpoints, does not render me a racist nor a homophobe, because I do not take my positions for surface, race-or gender-preference reasons.  I take them from study, research and consideration.

Although I doubt it will ever happen, I would hope one day we could raise the level of our discourse above this pejorative label-tossing.  It only serves to harden positions, inflame feelings, and further separate us as a people.  While some ultimate disagreement on the issues is perhaps inevitable, as it certainly seems in the Episcopal Church, let that happen because we have talked as intelligent beings, not antagonized one another with name-calling.

DUI Stats Going the Wrong Way

What should be the sobering lesson from the Paris Hilton saga will, unfortunately, probably be lost on those who should take it most to heart.  Ms. Hilton's current legal problems started with a DUI arrest on September 7, 2006, when police observed her Mercedes swerving while she went on a late-night "burger run."  Ms. Hilton got 36 months probation, a fine, and alcohol education, as well as the suspended license which is at the heart of what put her in jail.

Despite all of the horrific stories about DUI deaths, despite the tougher laws and tougher stances taken by judges and prosecutors, DUI deaths in the country have gone up since 2002.  In 2006, some 17,941 persons were killed in the U.S. in accidents in which a drunk driver was at least partly at fault.  The majority of DUI deaths occur with drunk drivers in the 20 to 29 age group.

Yet what do we see in the popular media and among celebrities?  A fairly constant stream of DUI arrests.  Think about it, and name those about whom you've heard over the last year or two - Nicole Richie; Lindsay Lohan; Ray Liotta; Vivica Fox; Tony La Russa; Ty Pennington; Mel Gibson; Haley Joel Osment; and so on.  Not to mention LaRussa's St. Louis Cardinals pitcher, Josh Hancock, who was killed while driving drunk on a St. Louis interstate highway.  No matter how much education we're doing about the dangers and legal risks, there are simply too many people who do not get it about DUI.  And there are too many who are, whether they like it or not, role models for some segment of society, who cannot seem to avoid making fools of themselves in public such as those listed above.

These celebrities are, in my mind, more culpable in a sense than the average Joe on the street.  Think about it - an athlete or celebrity is drinking at some public bar or restaurant - is there any question that they'd be able to easily get a ride home, either by taxi, or by groupie/entourage member, or adoring fan?  Why, why, why would one of these people EVER need to get behind the wheel drunk?  Yet they do, and in so doing subtly make it known that they think it's OK that they do.  Oh, sure, they apologize once they're caught, but not before then.  The public mea culpa is nothing more but a tool in the publicist's arsenal, like going to rehab, in an effort to eventually get the Courts to go easy on the offending celebrity.  Sorry, but the absence of sincerity in these gestures is not lost on too many of us out here in the real world.

I don't blame the entirety of the DUI epidemic on celebrities.  The primary blame always will lie with the person who gets behind the wheel after drinking.  But athletes and celebrities are in a special position, as I said before, whether they like it or not.  Their behaviour can and does influence others.  Isn't it time that some of them start to "get it" and accept as part of the deal of their success is a responsibility to give something back to the world which elevated them to their lofty position?  Responsible behavior is a small price to pay for the outrageous money and success thrown their way.

In Defense of the South

Newsweek magazine came out this week with its listing of the top 100 high schools in America, and I was interested to note that some 57 of the top 100 are located in the "Old South", i.e., the eleven states which once comprised the Confederate States of America.  In addition, in a list of 19 public high schools considered so elite that it was unfair to include them in the rankings, 8 of those schools are also located in the "Old South".  Overall, that's 65/119 or about 55% for the eleven states of "Old South"; 11/50 = 22%, so 22% of the states have 55% of the top high schools.  Hmmmmmm.

So, next time you hear someone stereotyping Southerners as "slow", "ignorant", or "stupid rednecks", point them to the May 28, 2007 issue of Newsweek and quote these statistics.  Some of our states rank pretty low in educational statistics, which I both admit and deplore, but on the high end we're getting it done, too.

Smoking Bans Are Advancing

The national trend for passage of smoking bans is advancing.  There are now 14 states with state-wide bans, and countless local governments have enacted laws of varying coverage.  Although I am a non-smoker, I have in the past been against outright "bans" simply because I do not like such government intrusion.  Lately, however, I have been suffering from severe sinus headaches which seem to be set off by exposure to smoke and I am thus growing to love smoke-free environments.  Am I being driven by a personal agenda?  Certainly.

Because of my personal issues, I have done some reading.  There is no shortage of material available.   Here is some of what I have found:  (1)  There is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke. The U.S. Surgeon General issued a warning in June 2006 emphasizing that secondhand smoke is both “toxic and poisonous.” It contains chemicals including carbon monoxide (commonly found in car exhaust), ammonia (used in household cleaners), toluene (found in paint thinners), and hydrogen cyanide (used in chemical weapons). Toxic metals in secondhand smoke include arsenic (used in pesticides), lead (formerly found in paint), chromium (used to make steel), and cadmium (used to make batteries). The Surgeon General’s warning concluded that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke; even short exposure can cause blood platelets to become stickier, damage the lining of blood vessels, and reduce heart rate variability, which may increase the risk of heart attack.  (2)  Cancer is not the only problem caused by second hand smoke. According to the National Cancer Institute, more 50 of the chemicals in second hand smoke are carcinogens and six others interfere with normal cell development. Non-cancerous health conditions caused by secondhand smoke include chronic coughing and wheezing, chest discomfort, decreased lung function, and severe lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis or pneumonia.  (3)  It only takes five minutes of exposure to develop problems. According to the Centers for Disease Control, just five minutes of exposure stiffens the aorta as much as smoking a cigarette. Twenty minutes of exposure is equal to smoking a pack a day, for it activates blood platelets involved in the clotting process and increases the risk of heart attack.  Two hours of exposure can speed up the heart rate and reduce heart rate variability, increasing the chance of an irregular heart beat (arrhythmia) that can itself be fatal or trigger a heart attack. These health effects can take as long as 48 hours to reverse themselves. All of these effects increase the long-term risk of heart disease and the immediate risk of heart attack.

I have made a pledge to myself to do more to avoid exposure to second hand smoke.  Given the number of smokers in my family, this will be difficult and will result in me being considered rude for carrying my small battery-powered fan around.  But I'm going to do it and hopefully the smokers will realize that there is an issue and ultimately respect my need for fresh air.

Smokers shouldn't be mad over bans, or over non-smokers who go to lengths to avoid their smoke.  It is the inattention and inconsideration of smokers, who blow their smoke anywhere and everywhere, and leave stinking, smoldering butts all over the place, who have been a substantial portion of the cause of the backlash of smoking bans in the first place.  When a segment of society refuses to police itself, the liberals take over and ban the offensive activity.  On this issue, I have come to agree with them.

Hasselhoff Drunk Video Useful?

If you haven't seen the video taken by his daughter of David Hasselhoff showing how pitiful a drunk he can be, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82-FJyniP7A .  Words escape me to describe it.  Hasselhoff claims he asked her to video him, drunk, so he could see just how bad he is while intoxicated. 

While it is sad and pathetic to see someone act in this manner, this has given me an idea of how useful a tactic this could be.  Given the number of tiny video cameras and cell phones now extant, it would be very easy to gather footage of someone about whom you are concerned, and then SHOW them, rather than just telling them, just how much of a problem they have.  SHOWING someone the level of their alcoholism, and the level of embarassment they are heaping on themselves and their loved ones, might possibly be a method with which to break through and get them to seek treatment.

I'm sure this technique would not be foolproof and would not work with everyone in such need.  But it is worth a thought.  If the subject of your concern is someone with whom their reputation and public image is important, a little video might just be the thing.

Book Readers Unite

The CNN.com Entertainment blog today asks the question "Who reads books any more?"  The discussion centers around the decision of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to eliminate their Book Editor position and a small protest of that decision which took place in downtown Atlanta at the AJC offices.

That we even ask this question saddens me considerably.  I have been an avid reader since my sister taught me how at age 4.  Getting lost in a good book is better than any movie or TV show could ever be - after all, you make your own indelible movie in your mind as you read.  While a book is not as "easy" as electronic media, one gets as good in knowledge and satisfaction as one gives in the effort to read.

As an aspiring novelist and writer, this question concerns me even more.  There are thousands of good stories to be told which are as yet germs of ideas in writers' minds.  I have a file of book ideas awaiting me which has the seeds for at least five more good books.  The CNN blog talks about a stack of "TBR" books - to be read.  I've got that stack, too, as well as the TBW - to be written.

To me, nothing compares to the experience of reading, or writing, a good book.  It is a chance to escape into another world and set aside your own cares, if only for a few minutes.  It is a chance to hold knowledge and the art of the written word in your hands.  Reading is one of the greatest gifts of being human and one we should not disregard in favor of a cheap and easy electronic experience.

Do books still matter?  Absolutely!

Racial Disparity in Traffic Stops Needs Examination

I have posted several times here about issues of race in this country.  One consistent belief I hold is that we need to devote our time and energy on issues of discrimination to those matters which will truly make a difference, particularly to the victims of discrimination, as opposed to being politically correct for its own sake.  A recent study presents one of those situations in which it seems pretty clear that more energy and effort need to be spent to get to the bottom of a problem and to fix it.

According the the Bureau of Justice Statistics, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ , a very troubling pattern has emerged with regard to police traffic stops in this country.  Approximately 17.8 million drivers were stopped in 2005, according to a recent study, making this type of event, at 41%, the most frequent contact between police and the public.  Contrary to the perception of many, however, African-American, Hispanic and white motorists were equally likely to be stopped by police — between 8% and 9% each.

The racial issues appear AFTER the traffic stop was made:  African-Americans (9.5 %) and Hispanics (8.8%) were more than twice as likely to be searched than whites (3.6%). African-Americans (4.5%) were more than twice as likely as whites (2.1%) to be arrested. Hispanic drivers were arrested 3.1% of the time.  Looking at all police-public contacts, including non-traffic stops, force or threat of force was used 1.6% of the time. But African-Americans (4.4%) and Hispanics (2.3%) were again more than twice as likely than whites (1.2%) to be subjected at least the threat of force by police officers.

The BOJS cautioned that these statistics cannot be taken as absolute proof of disparate treatment, because there was no analysis of the circumstances, i.e., whether there was some basis or provocation for the police action:  While the survey found that black and Hispanic drivers were more likely than whites to be searched, such racial disparities do not necessarily demonstrate that police treat people differently based on race or other demographic characteristics.  This study did not take into account other factors that might explain these disparities.  BOJS also, however, noted that these results were consistent with the outcome of a similar 2002 study; many changes in numbers were deemed statistically insignificant.

While these statistics may present an incomplete picture, they are nonetheless troubling.  If ethnic minorities are truly being treated differently by police based on their race alone, such disparity cannot and should not be tolerated.  At minimum, the BOJS or some similarly credible body should be commissioned to determine, soon, why these statistics present the picture they do.  It is critical in a civilized society that those in authority treat all citizens as equals.  Given that police contacts constitute almost 18 million encounters with a representative of government annually, this is a very big and very important place to start improving the state of racial equality in America.

I Don't Wanna Grow Up

Occasionally, prime-time television can provoke thought about issues which are significant in our society.  Tuesday night, April 24, Boston Legal managed to do just that on two such issues.  One was based on the Denny Crane character saying a potential hiring candidate "doesn't sound Black" by way of explaining his description of him as "articulate".  The other was about the trend in society to force young children to become mini-adults at an early age, which was illustrated by a case of a mother of a 6-year-old girl seeking to force a chain of department stores to stop selling dolls which were dressed in sexually suggestive clothing.

While the first point is no doubt one which we all need to address, it is this latter point that I want to discuss here.  In recent years, we have been persuaded by some questionable research that a major portion of brain function and intelligence is formed in the first three years of life.  This has prompted many young parents, who only want the best for their children, to spend billions of dollars on "Baby Einstein" or "Baby Genius" or other such lines of products designed to stimulate brain development in the womb through the first three years of life.  More recent studies have raised significant questions with this hypothesis and suggest that perhaps just quality time, love and attention to infants will work just as well to eventually get little Janie or Johnnie into an Ivy League school.

A partial spin-off from this thinking, as well as from the permeation of electronic media into our children's lives, has been that children adopt the trappings of adulthood earlier and earlier in life.  Cell phones, hairstyles, make-up, jewelry, clothing with suggestive phrases and pictures on the chest and butt, and so on all make some of us oldies think, "kids didn't look like that when I was growing up."  While this sentiment is often chalked up to the nostalgia of aging, there is a valid point there, too.

Shouldn't there be a time in life when kids are just allowed to be kids?  A time not to worry about what college they will attend, how they will score on the SAT or ACT?  A time when fashion and dressing like Brittney or Justin isn't a big issue?  A time when having the latest and greatest cell phone equipped to text or flix (whatever that is?) isn't the driving ambition in life?

I know the genie is well out of the bottle on this one.  I suppose all that can be done on this point is for parents to try to make sure to not let the toys and trappings of 21st century childhood become virtual baby-sitters.  Quality time, to love, hug, sing, laugh and play are still vital in the development of children.  These things do not require batteries or assembly - they only require time, effort and dedication.

Data for the Married Guys

The Durex Global Sex Survey is out.  Over 317,000 people in 41 countries answered the questionnaire, leading to some very interesting information.  http://www.durex.com/cm/gss2005results.asp

There are many serious issues addressed in the results, but the frequency numbers might just provide some fodder for those married guys who are convinced they're "under-sexed".  Globally, the average frequency of having sex for respondents was 103 times per year, or about twice per week.  A lot of married guys would consider that Nirvana.  Numbers for the U.S. were even better - on average, 113 times per year, or more than twice per week.

Age group distinctions were not what one might have expected.  35-44 year olds are having the most sex - 112 times compared to just 90 times for 16-20 year olds and 108 times for 25-34 year olds.  So don't let anyone tell you sexual activity decreases with age....

There were interesting distinctions by nationality, too.  The Greeks top the league at 138 times a year, closely followed by the Croatians (134), Serbian Montenegrins (128) and the Bulgarians (127).  Lovers in Japan are the least amorous, having sex just 45 times a year. Nations among the least sexually active include Singapore (73), India (75) and Indonesia (77).

So, guys, don't say I never gave you anything useful on this blog.  And if quoting these numbers gets you anywhere, please comment and let me know, OK?

Polite Should Begin at Home

I attended the Georgetown, KY, International Kite Festival this weekend.  Some of the Civil War reenactors from my unit, the 4th Kentucky Cavalry, set up an informational display with tents, saddles, flags and a few weapons, to develop interest in our event on the same site two months hence.  The Kite Fest was a huge success - beautiful weather, turnout of almost 10,000 people over the weekend and a good time was had by all.

One observation we all independently made over the weekend but realized when we compared notes while breaking down our site was the striking and almost perfectly consistent difference in the level of politeness between young children of Anglo familes versus those of Asian families.  I'm not stereotyping here, friends, but telling you the honest observations of those present all weekend. 

Virtually without exception, the children of Asian families used "please" and "thank you", and asked permission before they would look at or handle any of our display items, or enter our tent area.  We were asked before photos were taken and thanked once they were done.   Some of the Caucasian children were so well  behaved and their parents attentive to what was going on, but far too many ran up and grabbed up antique weapons in full view of their parents, many of whom were oblivious to what was occurring.  Some even took things and walked off with them to play - we spent a fair amount of time chasing our stuff.

Don't get me wrong - we were glad and thankful for the attention we received - that's why we were there.  And I understand the children's interest in the things we displayed; after all, I developed mine as a small child and never have lost it.  What I don't understand is the absence of politeness and the apparent lack of parental teaching of politeness.  Had I, as a young child visiting Williamsburg, grabbed up something off a display without asking first, I'd have received a stern lesson in polite behavior applied directly to my stern.  I just don't see those lessons being delivered now, verbally or otherwise.

This weekend, it seemed clearly to be a cultural thing, too.  Have we as Caucasian-Americans just lost interest in being a polite society?  Do we just not have, or make, the time to be polite any more?  The Asian-American community in this country has taken a hit recently over the actions of Cho Seung-Hui, but in my mind there is far more to emulate from their culture than is represented by one bad apple.  Their pleasant, polite way in which they related to what we were doing was impressive and something which all of us could emulate, beginning with teaching our children how to behave in public.