The world dimmed for a few minutes last Wednesday. In the tiny, south Georgia town of Ocilla it felt like an eclipse. After ninety seven years, Mrs. Louise Hancock, better known by all that knew her as Miss Louise, passed from this world to the next.
Miss Louise was one of those larger than life personas that filled small town Georgia. By all accounts, there was nothing in her obituary that would stand out. At first blush, it looked like another elderly widow had passed away. There were no academic accolades. There were no big, time business accomplishments. In fact there was a real lack of formal civic leadership roles given her standing in the community.
Her obituary merely stated the facts of her life. She was born in 1910 in Cordele, Georgia. She married James Newton Hancock and moved to Ocilla in 1927 and remained married for 67 years. Miss Louise worked for the phone company for 25 years. She was an active member of Ocilla Baptist Church for over 70 years. She was a Boy Scout den mother. These are nice factoids which describe some key events in her life but they fail to capture the essence of Miss Louise.
Some people go through life quietly, barely leaving a footprint, much less a legacy. Others barrel thorough life and are a force to be reckoned with. She was the latter. She was a woman of her convictions. Church, family and community shaped her very being.
She loved her church but she was by no means a passive member. After 60 plus years at First Baptist Ocilla, she had a falling out with the pastor. [I think all of you church leaders can appreciate that.] That did not stop her from supporting her church though. While she could no longer support the pastor, she remained involved in the daily and weekly activities. She was not going to let a pastor “ruin” her Sunday morning experience. Each Sunday she continued to attend her Sunday School class and then walked across town to the Methodist Church for worship service. As with most things with Miss Louise, she lasted longer than the problem. Eventually the pastor left and she returned to faithful worship attendance.
As I drove down to Ocilla last Friday, perhaps for the very last time now that all of my relatives have died or moved away from the small town, I had plenty of time to remember Miss Louise. I can still hear her calling me out when I had done something terribly wrong. Her punishment was quite unique but very effective. She would tell me to go outside and pick out a switch (a piece of shrubbery or a tree branch) for it was time for a “switching”. I would spend what seemed like hours picking out just the right switch, not to hard, not to long - hoping that she would change her mind. In the end I never remember the switching but I can still picture the large camellia bush that was so beautiful yet the harbinger of pain.
Five minutes later she was loading the car to take us fishing, our favorite pastime. She would sit under the shade of a tree while my cousins and I would fish in an old farm pond trying to catch that elusive lunker. She would never complain, despite the 100+ heat of a south Georgia summer afternoon.
Miss Louise loved everyone. More importantly she cared for everyone. For her it was not enough to just say you loved your neighbor. You had to show it. She and my grandfather put this love into action. For twenty years they drove the sick and the infirm to the doctors. This meant trips to Jacksonville, Macon or Atlanta. They never asked for anything in return. Why would they? It was just the right thing to do.
This last spring she was honored at the capital in Atlanta as the Distinguished Older Georgian of the year. Several van loads of Ocilla citizens loaded up from Ocilla to see her honored for her years of quite service to her community. She never sought any attention. But that day she had a special twinkle in her eye as the House and Senate read the proclamation.
Her funeral was a couple of days ago. It is amazing how little I remember of it. While it was not sad; it was emotional saying goodbye to my Miss Louise, my mama. As the family and friends shared stories and I listened to the eulogies I had one thought. Somewhere in heaven she was greeted by two men: her husband of 67 years and her Lord and Savior. I feel confident that both will say “you have done well my good and faithful servant.”
Good bye Miss Louise, you will most certainly be missed.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
Where is Georgia’s leadership? It is Time to Act
Where is Georgia’s leadership? It is Time to Act
The Georgia draught is extremely critical. We are facing a water shortage unprecedented in our modern history. With each passing day our reservoirs diminish. It is estimated that metro Atlanta’s primary water reservoir has a 110 days supply – less than 4 months. Lake Allatoona may be dry by this winter. Weather is totally unpredictable. But with the current long range forecasts calling for a dryer than normal winter (the rainy season), every action should be taken to preserve the water we have. Where is our leadership?
Once the water is gone you can not get it back. Immediate action is required to conserve our water. The outside watering ban is not enough. Outside watering accounts for 20% of total residential consumption. To date we have done nothing to encourage, promote or even require indoor residential usage.
The following immediate steps should be taken:
• The State should prepare an action plan for residential users. This plan should identify actions that we can take to conserve water. We are not accustomed to this type of conservation measures. You have our attention. Now tell us what we can do.
• The media should bombard the marketplace with this action list. Make every consumer aware of the situation and the action they should take. This will take time and in some cases money. Time is the one thing we can not control.
• The next step is the most politically sensitive. Let the market help solve this issue. Water prices remain low (because they are regulated) while the demand is high and the supply is low. Temporarily, raise the cost of water on a graduated basis. Steps should be taken to protect the poor, but the price should be driven by supply and demand. This will get the attention of every citizen. Use the excess charges to fund water conservation measures.
• If step3 is too politically charged, the state should use its funds to subsidize water conservation measures. This is potentially unprecedented economic disaster for the region if not a life threatening crisis.
• Part of this problem is man made. The Corp of Engineers continues to use an outdated formula to control the water flow out of Georgia’s lake. It values the sturgeon and mussels of Florida more than the citizens of Georgia. Since they have proven that they can not react in a timely matter to a grave issue the Governor must step in. Governor Perdue should consider calling in the National Guard to take control of the state’s waterways. While this will cause an enormous constitutional crisis, it will break the log jam created by the federal government, specifically the Corp of Engineers. Remember – we have a 110 day supply. Every day the supply drops and the situation grows more critical.
It is time for Georgia’s leadership to lead. We must manage our way through this potential crisis. Tell the citizens what they can do. Provide assistance if necessary. Take control of our waterways.
Today, the draught is a major nuisance. Tomorrow it could be a catastrophe. The consequences of north Georgia and metropolitan Atlanta running out of water would be an unprecedented disaster which will have dire long term consequences for the every citizen of the state and region. It is time to lead.
The Georgia draught is extremely critical. We are facing a water shortage unprecedented in our modern history. With each passing day our reservoirs diminish. It is estimated that metro Atlanta’s primary water reservoir has a 110 days supply – less than 4 months. Lake Allatoona may be dry by this winter. Weather is totally unpredictable. But with the current long range forecasts calling for a dryer than normal winter (the rainy season), every action should be taken to preserve the water we have. Where is our leadership?
Once the water is gone you can not get it back. Immediate action is required to conserve our water. The outside watering ban is not enough. Outside watering accounts for 20% of total residential consumption. To date we have done nothing to encourage, promote or even require indoor residential usage.
The following immediate steps should be taken:
• The State should prepare an action plan for residential users. This plan should identify actions that we can take to conserve water. We are not accustomed to this type of conservation measures. You have our attention. Now tell us what we can do.
• The media should bombard the marketplace with this action list. Make every consumer aware of the situation and the action they should take. This will take time and in some cases money. Time is the one thing we can not control.
• The next step is the most politically sensitive. Let the market help solve this issue. Water prices remain low (because they are regulated) while the demand is high and the supply is low. Temporarily, raise the cost of water on a graduated basis. Steps should be taken to protect the poor, but the price should be driven by supply and demand. This will get the attention of every citizen. Use the excess charges to fund water conservation measures.
• If step3 is too politically charged, the state should use its funds to subsidize water conservation measures. This is potentially unprecedented economic disaster for the region if not a life threatening crisis.
• Part of this problem is man made. The Corp of Engineers continues to use an outdated formula to control the water flow out of Georgia’s lake. It values the sturgeon and mussels of Florida more than the citizens of Georgia. Since they have proven that they can not react in a timely matter to a grave issue the Governor must step in. Governor Perdue should consider calling in the National Guard to take control of the state’s waterways. While this will cause an enormous constitutional crisis, it will break the log jam created by the federal government, specifically the Corp of Engineers. Remember – we have a 110 day supply. Every day the supply drops and the situation grows more critical.
It is time for Georgia’s leadership to lead. We must manage our way through this potential crisis. Tell the citizens what they can do. Provide assistance if necessary. Take control of our waterways.
Today, the draught is a major nuisance. Tomorrow it could be a catastrophe. The consequences of north Georgia and metropolitan Atlanta running out of water would be an unprecedented disaster which will have dire long term consequences for the every citizen of the state and region. It is time to lead.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Can We Really Afford to Lose?
Nothing excites more passion or disdain than the seemingly never ending debate over the war in Iraq. I write this article knowing that most people will stop reading at this point, because of the sense of frustration over this emotional and draining issue. I would encourage you to read on before you use this article to line your birdcage.
Much of today’s debate on Iraq misses the point. Every day countless politicians and pundits debate the issue. I use the word debate but regurgitate might be a better description. Over and over, we hear how we should have not invaded Iraq, Bush lied, there were no weapons of mass destruction and most importantly, Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and 9-11. I would submit to you that all of these arguments are irrelevant to today’s debate on what America should do in Iraq – going forward. Going forward is the critical issue; make that the paramount issue that we need to use to frame the debate.
The politicians and pundits are looking at the issue from a political or historical viewpoint. Neither of these is relevant. We must focus on the future. Let the historians write about the past. The central question is what happens if America withdraws? How does the United States of America benefit from this outcome? Let’s look at the facts.
The fledgling Iraqi government has been a failure. The only thing preventing an outright civil war among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds is the overwhelming presence of the US military. I say overwhelming because in small numbers the US military would not be a deterrent, just a target. All we have to do is remember Somalia when the war lords killed a small contingent of American soldiers and drug their bodies around the city. We did not have adequate resources to protect ourselves much less bring order to the city. We withdrew and chaos ensues to the present. The mere fact that we are American’s will not deter the terrorists. Overwhelming military force will.
If we withdraw, Iran will fill the void. Don’t take my word for it. Just like Hitler, Ahmadinejad (Iran’s president) publicly states his intentions and defies the world to do anything about it. In a recent speech he stated “Iran is ready to fill the vacuum in Iraq, when the US leaves”. He says he will do it. He will do it. If Iran, the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism and on the verge of obtaining the nuclear bomb, gains control over Iraq, Ahmadinejad will have 20% of the world’s oil capacity. A region unified under the control of Iran would be catastrophic to the US and the entire world. We must not let that happen.
If the US withdraws, every terrorist in the world will know they can defeat the US just by outlasting us. The Islamic jihadists are in a long term struggle to dominate the entire world. What is a 4-5 year skirmish with the US in light of global conversion to Islam and Sharia law? That is what they are fighting for. Do you really think the jihadists will stop if we withdraw?
Now comes the tough part. I could go on and on of all of the negative outcomes that would follow a retreat. They are real and certain. They won’t go away just because we are emotionally drained and tired of fighting this war.
The only positive outcome to a withdrawal is the most emotional one of all. We would save a handful of American lives. Each and every soldier’s life is precious and invaluable. However, left unchecked, the terrorists now concentrated in Iraq could unleash another 9-11 and claim thousands of lives in a single instant. Let’s put this into perspective. In the 4 plus years of the war we have lost 3,770 patriotic soldiers. On 9-11, we lost 2,974 fellow Americans in 2 hours.
Given the dire consequences of defeat, our only answer may be a long and protracted military engagement in Iraq, which will result in an agonizing slow trickle of American military casualties. However, given the certainty of the disastrous outcomes that would derive from a withdrawal, this is our only option.
The debate must be logical and reasoned and forward looking. The consequences of failure are enormous. They won’t just go away because we are tired of facing them. Unfortunately, for many in Congress, they see the debate as a way to score political points rather defeating Islamic terror.
I am afraid we have no alternative but to stay and provide a bulwark between the jihadists of Iran and al Qaeda and the American people. The prospect of a long protracted engagement is daunting. However, what is the alternative? Again and again, the only relevant question is how would America benefit in the long-term from a premature withdrawal?
1970 Marbles
Much of today’s debate on Iraq misses the point. Every day countless politicians and pundits debate the issue. I use the word debate but regurgitate might be a better description. Over and over, we hear how we should have not invaded Iraq, Bush lied, there were no weapons of mass destruction and most importantly, Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and 9-11. I would submit to you that all of these arguments are irrelevant to today’s debate on what America should do in Iraq – going forward. Going forward is the critical issue; make that the paramount issue that we need to use to frame the debate.
The politicians and pundits are looking at the issue from a political or historical viewpoint. Neither of these is relevant. We must focus on the future. Let the historians write about the past. The central question is what happens if America withdraws? How does the United States of America benefit from this outcome? Let’s look at the facts.
The fledgling Iraqi government has been a failure. The only thing preventing an outright civil war among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds is the overwhelming presence of the US military. I say overwhelming because in small numbers the US military would not be a deterrent, just a target. All we have to do is remember Somalia when the war lords killed a small contingent of American soldiers and drug their bodies around the city. We did not have adequate resources to protect ourselves much less bring order to the city. We withdrew and chaos ensues to the present. The mere fact that we are American’s will not deter the terrorists. Overwhelming military force will.
If we withdraw, Iran will fill the void. Don’t take my word for it. Just like Hitler, Ahmadinejad (Iran’s president) publicly states his intentions and defies the world to do anything about it. In a recent speech he stated “Iran is ready to fill the vacuum in Iraq, when the US leaves”. He says he will do it. He will do it. If Iran, the world’s largest sponsor of terrorism and on the verge of obtaining the nuclear bomb, gains control over Iraq, Ahmadinejad will have 20% of the world’s oil capacity. A region unified under the control of Iran would be catastrophic to the US and the entire world. We must not let that happen.
If the US withdraws, every terrorist in the world will know they can defeat the US just by outlasting us. The Islamic jihadists are in a long term struggle to dominate the entire world. What is a 4-5 year skirmish with the US in light of global conversion to Islam and Sharia law? That is what they are fighting for. Do you really think the jihadists will stop if we withdraw?
Now comes the tough part. I could go on and on of all of the negative outcomes that would follow a retreat. They are real and certain. They won’t go away just because we are emotionally drained and tired of fighting this war.
The only positive outcome to a withdrawal is the most emotional one of all. We would save a handful of American lives. Each and every soldier’s life is precious and invaluable. However, left unchecked, the terrorists now concentrated in Iraq could unleash another 9-11 and claim thousands of lives in a single instant. Let’s put this into perspective. In the 4 plus years of the war we have lost 3,770 patriotic soldiers. On 9-11, we lost 2,974 fellow Americans in 2 hours.
Given the dire consequences of defeat, our only answer may be a long and protracted military engagement in Iraq, which will result in an agonizing slow trickle of American military casualties. However, given the certainty of the disastrous outcomes that would derive from a withdrawal, this is our only option.
The debate must be logical and reasoned and forward looking. The consequences of failure are enormous. They won’t just go away because we are tired of facing them. Unfortunately, for many in Congress, they see the debate as a way to score political points rather defeating Islamic terror.
I am afraid we have no alternative but to stay and provide a bulwark between the jihadists of Iran and al Qaeda and the American people. The prospect of a long protracted engagement is daunting. However, what is the alternative? Again and again, the only relevant question is how would America benefit in the long-term from a premature withdrawal?
1970 Marbles
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Be Careful What You Ask For
Be careful what you ask for; you just might get it. Truer words may have never been spoken now that America decides how to solve its healthcare crisis. There is no doubt that most Americans are frustrated with the current healthcare system. It is a disconnected mixture of public, private and commercial parties that frustrates all parties.
This public’s frustration is growing and politicians sense an opportunity to take advantage of this angst. Momentum is building for a government run, universal healthcare system, much like those found throughout Europe and Canada.
In Michael Moore’s recent film Sicko, which ridiculed the US’s healthcare system, he claimed that 50 million of our fellow Americans lack health insurance. In addition, he continuously mocked the US by stating that it was a travesty that the world’s richest country does not provide “free” healthcare to its own citizens like the Britons, Canadians, French or even the godless Cubans.
A few facts get in the way of his arguments.
Let’s look first at the 50 million uninsured. According to the Cato Institute, of the 50 million, 9 million of these people earn over $75,000 annually. They can afford coverage but don’t buy it. It is their choice. Some 18 million are healthy 18-34 year olds known as the “young invincibles”. Healthcare insurance is not a priority for this group. Shockingly, another 14 million fail to enroll in Medicaid and other low income programs. That leaves 8 million Americans who chronically lack coverage. While 8 million is too many, it is a far cry from 50 million. The facts would suggest that we could modify our current system to include the chronically uninsured while preserving the innovation and choice inherent in our current system.
The second argument Moore makes is to disingenuously refer to universal healthcare as “free” healthcare. This is an outright lie and misrepresentation of the facts. As we all learn at a tender age, nothing is free. The Brits, Canadians and French purchase their free healthcare through taxes. In America, 44.7 percent of health expenditure came from tax funded government programs. In Canada that number was 69.8; in France 78.4 and Britain, 86.3 percent. All of these countries face huge deficits and rising tax rates due to the burden of their healthcare costs. So much for “free” healthcare.
The entire logic behind turning to the federal government for healthcare is puzzling to me. Why would I want the federal government to determine the amount and quality of my healthcare? Where has the government ever show the ability to outperform the free market in these areas? There are three factors I want concerning healthcare: quality, timeliness and affordability. Where does the government outperform the private sector in these factors? Let’s look at the simple act of mailing a package. The government has been doing this for a long time.
If you have a really important package that must be delivered the next day, do you go to the government run post office or to the commercially run FedEx? Sure the post office is cheaper but you really never know when the package is delivered and you don’t even have the option of a next day by 10AM. This kind of service and innovation is driven by the private sector, not the government sector. The Post Office never even considered, much less figured out how to meet these delivery demands. They had a generic product and the consumer had no choice. FedEx found a way to meet the demand at an affordable price.
Now let’s say the doctor has found a lump in your lungs. Do you want to wait a few weeks or months to get an MRI? In Canada it can take several months to get an MRI scheduled. I don’t want to wait. I want it done quickly and I want the best equipment possible. I am even willing to pay more for it. Another thing to consider, which system (private or government) invented the MRI in the first place. One guess. It was not Canada.
In fact, we have a real live example of government sponsored universal healthcare right now in the US. It is called the Veterans Administration. The government decided long ago to provide healthcare for our Veterans. Our VA system is a perfect example of a government-run, universal healthcare. It wasn’t a few months ago that the news was filled with stories of VA hospitals in disrepair and patients that were neglected. How many of you would swap the ability to go to your local doctor or hospital for the government run VA system?
Our current healthcare system is frustrating and in some cases it is even broken. However, I would caution everyone to thoughtfully consider the alternative. Scrapping a consumer led commercial system for a government run healthcare system is no sure thing. In fact it may have serious unintended consequences.
If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it is “free”.
Kirk is a member of the LaGrange Writers Group. He can be reached at jkirkhancock@yahoo.com
This public’s frustration is growing and politicians sense an opportunity to take advantage of this angst. Momentum is building for a government run, universal healthcare system, much like those found throughout Europe and Canada.
In Michael Moore’s recent film Sicko, which ridiculed the US’s healthcare system, he claimed that 50 million of our fellow Americans lack health insurance. In addition, he continuously mocked the US by stating that it was a travesty that the world’s richest country does not provide “free” healthcare to its own citizens like the Britons, Canadians, French or even the godless Cubans.
A few facts get in the way of his arguments.
Let’s look first at the 50 million uninsured. According to the Cato Institute, of the 50 million, 9 million of these people earn over $75,000 annually. They can afford coverage but don’t buy it. It is their choice. Some 18 million are healthy 18-34 year olds known as the “young invincibles”. Healthcare insurance is not a priority for this group. Shockingly, another 14 million fail to enroll in Medicaid and other low income programs. That leaves 8 million Americans who chronically lack coverage. While 8 million is too many, it is a far cry from 50 million. The facts would suggest that we could modify our current system to include the chronically uninsured while preserving the innovation and choice inherent in our current system.
The second argument Moore makes is to disingenuously refer to universal healthcare as “free” healthcare. This is an outright lie and misrepresentation of the facts. As we all learn at a tender age, nothing is free. The Brits, Canadians and French purchase their free healthcare through taxes. In America, 44.7 percent of health expenditure came from tax funded government programs. In Canada that number was 69.8; in France 78.4 and Britain, 86.3 percent. All of these countries face huge deficits and rising tax rates due to the burden of their healthcare costs. So much for “free” healthcare.
The entire logic behind turning to the federal government for healthcare is puzzling to me. Why would I want the federal government to determine the amount and quality of my healthcare? Where has the government ever show the ability to outperform the free market in these areas? There are three factors I want concerning healthcare: quality, timeliness and affordability. Where does the government outperform the private sector in these factors? Let’s look at the simple act of mailing a package. The government has been doing this for a long time.
If you have a really important package that must be delivered the next day, do you go to the government run post office or to the commercially run FedEx? Sure the post office is cheaper but you really never know when the package is delivered and you don’t even have the option of a next day by 10AM. This kind of service and innovation is driven by the private sector, not the government sector. The Post Office never even considered, much less figured out how to meet these delivery demands. They had a generic product and the consumer had no choice. FedEx found a way to meet the demand at an affordable price.
Now let’s say the doctor has found a lump in your lungs. Do you want to wait a few weeks or months to get an MRI? In Canada it can take several months to get an MRI scheduled. I don’t want to wait. I want it done quickly and I want the best equipment possible. I am even willing to pay more for it. Another thing to consider, which system (private or government) invented the MRI in the first place. One guess. It was not Canada.
In fact, we have a real live example of government sponsored universal healthcare right now in the US. It is called the Veterans Administration. The government decided long ago to provide healthcare for our Veterans. Our VA system is a perfect example of a government-run, universal healthcare. It wasn’t a few months ago that the news was filled with stories of VA hospitals in disrepair and patients that were neglected. How many of you would swap the ability to go to your local doctor or hospital for the government run VA system?
Our current healthcare system is frustrating and in some cases it is even broken. However, I would caution everyone to thoughtfully consider the alternative. Scrapping a consumer led commercial system for a government run healthcare system is no sure thing. In fact it may have serious unintended consequences.
If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it is “free”.
Kirk is a member of the LaGrange Writers Group. He can be reached at jkirkhancock@yahoo.com
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
American Exceptionalism – it is not what it used to be
American Exceptionalism is a belief that the United States differs qualitatively from other developed nations, because of its unique origins, national credo, historical evolution, or distinctive political and religious institutions. It is not an overt belief but rather a collective sense that there is something special about the United States.
American Exceptionalism is the idea that the United States and the American people hold a unique place in the world, by offering opportunity and hope for humanity, derived from a unique balance of public and private interests governed by constitutional ideals that are focused on personal and economic freedom. This concept was first noted by a Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville during his travels to America in 1831. He was inspired by the remarkable culture and institutions he observed in his travels across America.
The concept of American Exceptionalism is the cornerstone that has enabled America to rise from a backwater, rebellious colony to the lone super-power in the world today. American Exceptionalism is the bedrock for the cultural confidence of our nation.
Exceptional does not mean superior, rather it means unique or set apart form others. Who can deny that America is unique in this world? It was the first country founded on a set of republican ideals, rather than on a common heritage, ethnicity or ruling elite. America has prospered beyond that of any other nation in the modern era.
Exceptionalism has fueled the American psyche from the colonial days to the 1960’s. This confidence played a crucial role in enabling the US to withstand the trauma of the civil war and inspired us to fight tyranny in both World War I and II. The cultural confidence inspired by exceptionalism provided the clear distinction between the evil of communism and the ideals of America during the cold war.
However, something began to change in the 1960’s. At that point, the United States was the primary superpower representing democracy, freedom and liberty. It had replaced the historical European powers. America was beginning to dominate the world economically, militarily and culturally. America’s wealth and cultural dominance were without parallel since the height of the Roman Empire.
At this point, a small but growing sub-culture began to gain notoriety. This group’s world view sees America and its overt power and influence as the root cause of many of the world’s problems. They are the blame America first crowd. This group has never seen a problem that was not caused or enhanced by America.
The 9/11 terrorists were not evil; they were driven to do evil because of America’s pro-Israel policy. Global warming is not a natural phenomena, it is due to selfish Americans driving SUV’s. AID’s is rampant in Africa not because of poverty and tyranny of its leaders, but because of the greedy, profit-driven US pharmaceutical companies. The list goes on and on.
This blame America first crowd is dominated by the highly (perhaps overly) educated, the entertainment industry and those with inherited wealth and power. By the world’s standards this group lives a privileged life and have amassed wealth that is not commiserate with the work of others. It is in this fact that I believe at their core they are motivated by guilt.
This group suffers from what I call gilded guilt. They feel guilty that they have so much and others have so little. They try to assuage their guilt by blaming America. This directs the attention away from the individual to the amorphous nation - America.
By no means am I saying America is perfect. It is far from it. Given that, what other country would you want to lead the world – China and its capitalistic communism, Russia and its mafia oligarchy, Iran and its theocratic imans or the even our good friends the British with their deep tradition of superior classes and monarchy? To paraphrase Winston Churchill, “[American] Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.”
America often falls short of its ideals – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all of its citizens. That is why they are called ideals. Ideals serve as an elusive goal that are ultimately unattainable but inspire us to strive for the best.
The weight of American Exceptionalism carries a heavy cost and burden. America has a tremendous responsibility to its citizens and in fact to the entire world. We can not force others to accept our ideals but we should work to make them available to all who strive for them.
American Exceptionalism is the idea that the United States and the American people hold a unique place in the world, by offering opportunity and hope for humanity, derived from a unique balance of public and private interests governed by constitutional ideals that are focused on personal and economic freedom. This concept was first noted by a Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville during his travels to America in 1831. He was inspired by the remarkable culture and institutions he observed in his travels across America.
The concept of American Exceptionalism is the cornerstone that has enabled America to rise from a backwater, rebellious colony to the lone super-power in the world today. American Exceptionalism is the bedrock for the cultural confidence of our nation.
Exceptional does not mean superior, rather it means unique or set apart form others. Who can deny that America is unique in this world? It was the first country founded on a set of republican ideals, rather than on a common heritage, ethnicity or ruling elite. America has prospered beyond that of any other nation in the modern era.
Exceptionalism has fueled the American psyche from the colonial days to the 1960’s. This confidence played a crucial role in enabling the US to withstand the trauma of the civil war and inspired us to fight tyranny in both World War I and II. The cultural confidence inspired by exceptionalism provided the clear distinction between the evil of communism and the ideals of America during the cold war.
However, something began to change in the 1960’s. At that point, the United States was the primary superpower representing democracy, freedom and liberty. It had replaced the historical European powers. America was beginning to dominate the world economically, militarily and culturally. America’s wealth and cultural dominance were without parallel since the height of the Roman Empire.
At this point, a small but growing sub-culture began to gain notoriety. This group’s world view sees America and its overt power and influence as the root cause of many of the world’s problems. They are the blame America first crowd. This group has never seen a problem that was not caused or enhanced by America.
The 9/11 terrorists were not evil; they were driven to do evil because of America’s pro-Israel policy. Global warming is not a natural phenomena, it is due to selfish Americans driving SUV’s. AID’s is rampant in Africa not because of poverty and tyranny of its leaders, but because of the greedy, profit-driven US pharmaceutical companies. The list goes on and on.
This blame America first crowd is dominated by the highly (perhaps overly) educated, the entertainment industry and those with inherited wealth and power. By the world’s standards this group lives a privileged life and have amassed wealth that is not commiserate with the work of others. It is in this fact that I believe at their core they are motivated by guilt.
This group suffers from what I call gilded guilt. They feel guilty that they have so much and others have so little. They try to assuage their guilt by blaming America. This directs the attention away from the individual to the amorphous nation - America.
By no means am I saying America is perfect. It is far from it. Given that, what other country would you want to lead the world – China and its capitalistic communism, Russia and its mafia oligarchy, Iran and its theocratic imans or the even our good friends the British with their deep tradition of superior classes and monarchy? To paraphrase Winston Churchill, “[American] Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.”
America often falls short of its ideals – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all of its citizens. That is why they are called ideals. Ideals serve as an elusive goal that are ultimately unattainable but inspire us to strive for the best.
The weight of American Exceptionalism carries a heavy cost and burden. America has a tremendous responsibility to its citizens and in fact to the entire world. We can not force others to accept our ideals but we should work to make them available to all who strive for them.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Emotion, not logic, driving global warming debate
Emotion, not logic, driving global warming debate
In the movie, An Inconvenient Truth, former Vice President Al Gore repeatedly claims that humanity is at a tipping point in its battle to fight global warming. Mr. Gore claims that if dramatic, if not draconian, measures are not taken in the next few years the entire future of humanity is at stake. He is strident in his arguments that the next few years represent a point of no return, the so called tipping point.
This is the same Al Gore who is prone to self-aggrandizing exaggeration. In case you forgot, this is the guy who invented the Internet; the same Al Gore who claims to have inspired the movie Love Story.
I agree with Mr. Gore that the next few years do represent a tipping point in the global warming debate. However, it is an entirely different tipping point. I fear that in the next few years we will decide to solve this debate either rationally or emotionally. The emotional debate that is fueling the argument that “mankind, specifically the United States, is the cause of global warming” is leaving the rational world of scientific debate to the emotionally charged world of politics and emotions.
The global warming debate has enormous consequences for all citizens of the world and particularly the United States. Depending on how we resolve this debate, we will decide today how future generations will live. As stated in a recent publication, “the climate change debate has gone from being a scientific study to a political wedge issue, used as a cudgel by parties of all persuasions to point fingers and score points.”
The issue is not “is the earth warming?” The critical question must be, “Is mankind the primary cause of the warming?” There is a growing consensus that the earth’s climate is warming but there is absolutely no scientific consensus that mankind is the primary cause. The earth has had countless warming and cooling cycles in its history. Mankind had no impact on any of these.
I have no idea if the threat is real, or more importantly, if there is anything we can do about it. Consider this fact: just this week, National Geographic, a strong proponent of “the man is the primary cause of global warming” movement, reported that the polar caps on Mars are melting due to the sun’s continuous sun spot cycles. There you have it. There is global warming on Mars. It must be the emissions from the Rover we sent there a few years ago.
The problem with the global warming debate in the United States is that it is not a traditional liberal or conservative debate. Our current institutions are not suited to solve this problem. Consider the built-in biases of the following institutions:
The Media – this is the group that is failing the most. The debate is incredibly complex. The press is uniquely qualified to educate its readers. However, in an effort to sell more advertising they have adopted the crisis mantra. Detailed analysis and scientific studies don’t sell papers; imminent, impending global apocalypse does.
Congress – This issue is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It cuts across both parties. In today’s environment, the two parties instinctively take opposite positions. One says “up,” the other instinctively says “down.” They are virtually useless in the current debate.
The President – he has the bully pulpit. He is uniquely qualified to sit back and access the data in an objective manner. He can use this pulpit to educate the citizenry and serve as a thoughtful counter measure to the other institutions. Tragically, he has inexplicably missed the opportunity to make lower oil consumption which would reduce carbon dioxide emissions –and thereby lower oil imports–a national security issue. We continue to burn excess oil and fund the very people with which we are at war.
The United Nations – the U.N. is institutionally anti-US and anti-capitalism. The institution itself is not credible because of its overt anti-American political agenda. Its members know that any “global’ solution will disproportionately impact the United States. Keep in mind, in a 2006 poll, 58 percent of our allies in Europe desired a weaker United States. These are our allies in the UN! They see this as a way to strengthen their own self interests at the expense of the United States.
And lastly, the scientist themselves - there is a noticeable difference in opinion between retired scientists and active scientists. Why is that? Michael Crichton, the scientist and author, claims that it is the due to the perverse quest for funding. The life blood of a research scientist is funding. To get funding you must publish studies that get the media’s attention. The retired researchers do not need funding. These retired researchers are more free to speak the truth. They overwhelmingly cast doubts on the impending doom that man is causing global warming bandwagon.
The point to this article is that the current global warming debate is failing. Emotion is taking over logic. Before we dramatically alter the benefits of the modern world as we know them, we need to be sure we are actually fixing the problem, not merely speculating and taking needless actions. It would be wise to consider the source and motivations of all of the so-called experts before reaching your own conclusion. The consequences are serious. That is why global warming deserves a serious debate.
Kirk Hancock can be reached at jkirkhancock@yahoo.com
In the movie, An Inconvenient Truth, former Vice President Al Gore repeatedly claims that humanity is at a tipping point in its battle to fight global warming. Mr. Gore claims that if dramatic, if not draconian, measures are not taken in the next few years the entire future of humanity is at stake. He is strident in his arguments that the next few years represent a point of no return, the so called tipping point.
This is the same Al Gore who is prone to self-aggrandizing exaggeration. In case you forgot, this is the guy who invented the Internet; the same Al Gore who claims to have inspired the movie Love Story.
I agree with Mr. Gore that the next few years do represent a tipping point in the global warming debate. However, it is an entirely different tipping point. I fear that in the next few years we will decide to solve this debate either rationally or emotionally. The emotional debate that is fueling the argument that “mankind, specifically the United States, is the cause of global warming” is leaving the rational world of scientific debate to the emotionally charged world of politics and emotions.
The global warming debate has enormous consequences for all citizens of the world and particularly the United States. Depending on how we resolve this debate, we will decide today how future generations will live. As stated in a recent publication, “the climate change debate has gone from being a scientific study to a political wedge issue, used as a cudgel by parties of all persuasions to point fingers and score points.”
The issue is not “is the earth warming?” The critical question must be, “Is mankind the primary cause of the warming?” There is a growing consensus that the earth’s climate is warming but there is absolutely no scientific consensus that mankind is the primary cause. The earth has had countless warming and cooling cycles in its history. Mankind had no impact on any of these.
I have no idea if the threat is real, or more importantly, if there is anything we can do about it. Consider this fact: just this week, National Geographic, a strong proponent of “the man is the primary cause of global warming” movement, reported that the polar caps on Mars are melting due to the sun’s continuous sun spot cycles. There you have it. There is global warming on Mars. It must be the emissions from the Rover we sent there a few years ago.
The problem with the global warming debate in the United States is that it is not a traditional liberal or conservative debate. Our current institutions are not suited to solve this problem. Consider the built-in biases of the following institutions:
The Media – this is the group that is failing the most. The debate is incredibly complex. The press is uniquely qualified to educate its readers. However, in an effort to sell more advertising they have adopted the crisis mantra. Detailed analysis and scientific studies don’t sell papers; imminent, impending global apocalypse does.
Congress – This issue is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It cuts across both parties. In today’s environment, the two parties instinctively take opposite positions. One says “up,” the other instinctively says “down.” They are virtually useless in the current debate.
The President – he has the bully pulpit. He is uniquely qualified to sit back and access the data in an objective manner. He can use this pulpit to educate the citizenry and serve as a thoughtful counter measure to the other institutions. Tragically, he has inexplicably missed the opportunity to make lower oil consumption which would reduce carbon dioxide emissions –and thereby lower oil imports–a national security issue. We continue to burn excess oil and fund the very people with which we are at war.
The United Nations – the U.N. is institutionally anti-US and anti-capitalism. The institution itself is not credible because of its overt anti-American political agenda. Its members know that any “global’ solution will disproportionately impact the United States. Keep in mind, in a 2006 poll, 58 percent of our allies in Europe desired a weaker United States. These are our allies in the UN! They see this as a way to strengthen their own self interests at the expense of the United States.
And lastly, the scientist themselves - there is a noticeable difference in opinion between retired scientists and active scientists. Why is that? Michael Crichton, the scientist and author, claims that it is the due to the perverse quest for funding. The life blood of a research scientist is funding. To get funding you must publish studies that get the media’s attention. The retired researchers do not need funding. These retired researchers are more free to speak the truth. They overwhelmingly cast doubts on the impending doom that man is causing global warming bandwagon.
The point to this article is that the current global warming debate is failing. Emotion is taking over logic. Before we dramatically alter the benefits of the modern world as we know them, we need to be sure we are actually fixing the problem, not merely speculating and taking needless actions. It would be wise to consider the source and motivations of all of the so-called experts before reaching your own conclusion. The consequences are serious. That is why global warming deserves a serious debate.
Kirk Hancock can be reached at jkirkhancock@yahoo.com
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
A Pardon for Genarlow
This is an open letter to the Honorable Sonny Purdue
The ability for a governor to grant a pardon is a right left over from the days of the monarchy, when the king was the sovereign power and all laws yielded to his power. Our Founding Fathers clearly framed the law above the king. However, the Founders retained the unique right of the chief executive (i.e. President or Governor) to grant an unconditional pardon. They did not do this to weaken the law, rather to strengthen it. Sometimes the process associated with the law yields the wrong result. From time to time, a manual intervention is needed to fulfill the spirit of the law rather then the strict substance of the law. The case of Genarlow Wilson is just such an example of the need for a pardon.
It is difficult to talk about Genarlow Wilson’s case. It is full of taboos. In no way am I condoning his behavior. It was flat out wrong.
Wilson is serving a ten year sentence for engaging in oral sex with a girl two years his junior. He was seventeen; she was fifteen. Wilson is not a hardened criminal, deserving of a ten year prison sentence. Rather, he was seventeen at the time of his arrest and his future was bright. He was a track star, homecoming king and an honor roll student at Douglas County High.
The facts surrounding his case are not in question. Wilson, like too many teens in our society, was drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana and partying. One female attendee at the party had voluntary sex with Wilson and other boys at the party while another girl voluntarily had oral sex with the boys. The fact that the acts were voluntary was never in dispute. One of the partygoers videotaped the act which proved the voluntary nature of the acts. However, the tape added to the justified, moral outrage of the adults who saw it. In the end the boys were charged with numerous charges including rape, contributing to the act of a minor, aggravated sodomy and aggravated child molestation.
The other defendants took a plea to lesser charges. Wilson went to trial. He was found not guilty on rape and the other charges but was found guilty of aggravated child molestation and was subject to the mandatory sentence of ten years in prison. The law, written to protect innocent children from viscous adults, eliminated the ability for the judge or jury to adjust the sentence to fit this particular crime. Several of the jurors have stated that they did not know there was a mandatory sentence and have expressed dismay at the sentence.
Of course, the real issue here is the rampant sexuality of our children in today’s society. Our kids are bombarded with a constant stream of sexual content from the media and even our institutional role modes (a president and an intern come to mind). Watch MTV or just about any rap or hip-hop video and you will see where both the boys and the girls get the idea that this behavior is acceptable. Parents are failing their children by allowing them to grow up desensitized to this behavior.
The sexual exploitation of our children is a major issue. However, the individual issue of Wilson serving a 10 year sentence is no less troubling. Everyone knows it is unfair and unjust. The state legislature cited this case when it amended the law to strengthen penalties for sex offenders, but reduced the penalty from a felony to a misdemeanor for some teenagers convicted of sodomy. If Wilson were convicted under today’s law, he would be subject to a maximum one year sentence. However, through the legislature’s incompetence or false sense of justice they did not amend the law to help Wilson. On December 16th, the Georgia Supreme Court turned down Wilson appeal. Presiding Justice Carol Hunstein noted that “the Legislature expressly chose not to allow the provision of the new amendments to affect persons convicted under the previous version of the statute.” With that, the Supreme Courts hands were justly tied. The Courts role is to interpret the law not to rewrite it, even if it is poorly written.
That leaves you, Mr. Governor, as the last best hope to right this terrible wrong. You are the last person who can help Genarlow Wilson. What he did as a child to a child was wrong and what the adults did to this child is disgraceful. Up until now the system has failed. He is still in jail facing another 8 years of a ten year sentence. Your ability to pardon is the last safety valve in the system. I ask you to take this opportunity to challenge the adults in our great state to tackle this issue. Challenge us to stop sitting idly by while our children are bombarded and corrupted in today’s oversexed society. If that goal is too large, too politically costly, do the next best thing and grant Genarlow Wilson a pardon.
Kirk is a member of the Lagrange Writers Group. He can be reached at jkirkhancock@yahoo.com
The ability for a governor to grant a pardon is a right left over from the days of the monarchy, when the king was the sovereign power and all laws yielded to his power. Our Founding Fathers clearly framed the law above the king. However, the Founders retained the unique right of the chief executive (i.e. President or Governor) to grant an unconditional pardon. They did not do this to weaken the law, rather to strengthen it. Sometimes the process associated with the law yields the wrong result. From time to time, a manual intervention is needed to fulfill the spirit of the law rather then the strict substance of the law. The case of Genarlow Wilson is just such an example of the need for a pardon.
It is difficult to talk about Genarlow Wilson’s case. It is full of taboos. In no way am I condoning his behavior. It was flat out wrong.
Wilson is serving a ten year sentence for engaging in oral sex with a girl two years his junior. He was seventeen; she was fifteen. Wilson is not a hardened criminal, deserving of a ten year prison sentence. Rather, he was seventeen at the time of his arrest and his future was bright. He was a track star, homecoming king and an honor roll student at Douglas County High.
The facts surrounding his case are not in question. Wilson, like too many teens in our society, was drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana and partying. One female attendee at the party had voluntary sex with Wilson and other boys at the party while another girl voluntarily had oral sex with the boys. The fact that the acts were voluntary was never in dispute. One of the partygoers videotaped the act which proved the voluntary nature of the acts. However, the tape added to the justified, moral outrage of the adults who saw it. In the end the boys were charged with numerous charges including rape, contributing to the act of a minor, aggravated sodomy and aggravated child molestation.
The other defendants took a plea to lesser charges. Wilson went to trial. He was found not guilty on rape and the other charges but was found guilty of aggravated child molestation and was subject to the mandatory sentence of ten years in prison. The law, written to protect innocent children from viscous adults, eliminated the ability for the judge or jury to adjust the sentence to fit this particular crime. Several of the jurors have stated that they did not know there was a mandatory sentence and have expressed dismay at the sentence.
Of course, the real issue here is the rampant sexuality of our children in today’s society. Our kids are bombarded with a constant stream of sexual content from the media and even our institutional role modes (a president and an intern come to mind). Watch MTV or just about any rap or hip-hop video and you will see where both the boys and the girls get the idea that this behavior is acceptable. Parents are failing their children by allowing them to grow up desensitized to this behavior.
The sexual exploitation of our children is a major issue. However, the individual issue of Wilson serving a 10 year sentence is no less troubling. Everyone knows it is unfair and unjust. The state legislature cited this case when it amended the law to strengthen penalties for sex offenders, but reduced the penalty from a felony to a misdemeanor for some teenagers convicted of sodomy. If Wilson were convicted under today’s law, he would be subject to a maximum one year sentence. However, through the legislature’s incompetence or false sense of justice they did not amend the law to help Wilson. On December 16th, the Georgia Supreme Court turned down Wilson appeal. Presiding Justice Carol Hunstein noted that “the Legislature expressly chose not to allow the provision of the new amendments to affect persons convicted under the previous version of the statute.” With that, the Supreme Courts hands were justly tied. The Courts role is to interpret the law not to rewrite it, even if it is poorly written.
That leaves you, Mr. Governor, as the last best hope to right this terrible wrong. You are the last person who can help Genarlow Wilson. What he did as a child to a child was wrong and what the adults did to this child is disgraceful. Up until now the system has failed. He is still in jail facing another 8 years of a ten year sentence. Your ability to pardon is the last safety valve in the system. I ask you to take this opportunity to challenge the adults in our great state to tackle this issue. Challenge us to stop sitting idly by while our children are bombarded and corrupted in today’s oversexed society. If that goal is too large, too politically costly, do the next best thing and grant Genarlow Wilson a pardon.
Kirk is a member of the Lagrange Writers Group. He can be reached at jkirkhancock@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)