Thursday, December 8, 2005

56. Do we follow non-leaders

I am not much of a fan of reality television; however I must admit to watching the last two seasons of ‘The Apprentice.' Even though Donald Trump represents most of what I am against, I enjoy the business/marketing plans executed each week by competing teams. It is similar to the computer simulated "Marketing Game" that teams in my graduate school participated in to test marketing plans in competition against each other. On ‘The Apprentice,' the losing team has one of its members fired. The last person standing earns a job with Donald Trump.

I found a recent episode to be disheartening and with it, I considered the differences in leadership values. One team had arranged to purchase some megaphones to use in the promotion of their product. The other team, which waited too long to place a similar order, essentially, and consciously, stole the identity of the first team and purchased the megaphones from underneath them. The retail store, of course, did not know one team from the other and mistakenly sold the megaphones to the wrong team.

Leadership is a highly sought-after quality in employees- and businesses, as well as business schools, invest heavily in the "teaching" of leadership. My first class in graduate school was "Leadership and Teamwork," and I also participated in Leadership Lorain County. Inevitably the discussion circulates around what makes a great leader, that is, what are the leadership qualities that we all envy? The study includes leadership styles, techniques and the lives of great leaders.

The discussion is an interesting one; consider the different leadership styles of our founding fathers, presidents and leaders of other nations. Likewise, consider the leadership styles of the progressives and revolutionaries such as Martin Luther King Jr., and Gandhi. Finally, sports fans will note the similar success of very different coaches, such as Bobby Knight, Rick Pitino and Mike Krzyzewski.

The success of very different leadership styles might cause one to wonder, or ask, what makes a great leader. For if both authoritative and empowering styles prove successful in the same business by different individuals, how can one be determined to be better than the other? Leadership training can be equally confusing, for one theory is to be a "risk-taker," while the other will be conservative, urging individuals to "stick to their core values." We learned to be "detail-oriented," while at the same time, "not to sweat the small stuff." Some say success lies in "outworking" your competitors, while others urge the healthiness of a balanced lifestyle.

I think one of the biggest mistakes in understanding leadership is the perception that those with power, either authoritative or financial, know what leadership is. It is similar to believing that the majority is right about an issue just because it is in the majority. Some will say that people want to be led- to be told what to do, what to think. However, just because people are following, it does not necessarily mean they are being led. I think powerful people sometimes begin to be viewed as leaders simply because of the steady flow of demands and requests they receive and decisions they make. There is a difference between running an organization and leading one. Those that have experienced both clearly understand the difference.
From week to week on ‘The Apprentice,' it is interesting to watch each competitor's perception of leadership as they attempt to lead his or her team to victory. But the fact is that leadership is an inconsistent idea. Often we see a leader ask for input from his or her team. When the team wins, it is because the leader took the advice of his or her teammates (empowered them). When the team loses, the same act is viewed as being indecisive and weak. Teams that argue and win are "engaging in healthy debate;" those that lose are "selfish and unmanageable," even if the difference between the two are but a few (statistically insignificant) dollars. Apparently the only solution to the no-win situation is to win.

Donald Trump and his "loyal advisors" (Bill and Carolyn) both found the act of "theft and impersonation" to be a clever move on the part of that team that swooped in and swiped the megaphones- despite the fact that that might have been the difference between one team winning and the other losing. I personally found the act deplorable, and to me it demonstrated the type of actions these individuals might engage in when desperate for success. Trump apparently only cares about winning and losing; I would have fired them both, on the spot.

Two quotes from my 2006 Monthly Planner aptly summarize my perception of the situation. Robert Freeman is quoted to say, "Character is not made in a crisis- it is only exhibited," while Lily Tomlin notes, "The trouble with the rat race is that even when you win, you're still a rat."

Thursday, December 1, 2005

55. Expose can't get exposure

"Congrats on your 5th Best Feature Film honor.  We loved your movie and it rated higher than any movie we have screened in the last eight months.  That's the good news.  The bad news is that we will have to pass.  You made a great movie with excellent acting and production values.  But the country is in a very conservative time now.  Our company, and probably most others, can't afford to risk marketing funds for a controversial film that deals with religious zealots.  My advice is to build your Internet support until the buzz about the quality of your movie rises above the concerns of the number crunchers.  When it does, we hope to be able to make you an excellent distribution offer."

The movie is “Heart of the Beholder,” and as the distribution company notes, it has won five Best Feature Film awards around the country.  But, for the reasons described in the statement above, nobody will distribute it.  

The movie is based on the true story of video store owners Ken and Carol Tipton.  The Tipton’s started their video rental business when the debate was still about VHS or Beta.  From there they grew into a multi-million dollar company with franchises in Missouri, Texas and Illinois, and developed the “Movie Machine.” 

Their troubles began when the National Federation for Decency (NFD), now the American Family Association, began picketing their stores for renting movies such as “Taxi Driver,” “Blazing Saddles,” “Animal House” and “Mr. Mom.”  They even protested the movie “Splash” because it “promoted sex with animals.”  The issue reached a breaking point when the Tipton’s were the only St. Louis area video store to offer for rent “The Last Temptation of Christ.” 

They were harassed to the point that they received death threats, including the threat to send their daughter “…back to God to be reborn to parents who worship the Lord.”  The NFD, by blackmailing the prosecuting attorney, were able to bring obscenity charges against the Tipton’s.  The Tipton’s won their court cases, but lost everything- including each other.

The movie, written by Ken Tipton, details the experience and by all accounts and recognition is well done and deserving of distribution.  It must be an eerie irony in realizing that the same religious atmosphere that unfairly put him out of business is now responsible, if indirectly, in preventing the release of the story itself.       

Mike Furches, a “follower of Jesus Christ,” and movie reviewer for HollywoodJesus.com, writes,

“This movie has been winning film festivals across the country. I for one believe that trend will continue, and I personally hope that more film festivals will allow the movie to be juried in and eventually that the film is picked up for wide distribution. I will assure you that once it does, the protests will likely start up again. That is unfortunate, because of the lessons we can all learn from the film, whether one be a Christian or not.”
Interestingly, individual ‘religious’ reviewers differed in their opinions. Some noting, as Furches did in his full review, that the story is troubling, but that it shows both sides of Christianity.  Others, again as Furches predicted, are ready to begin the protesting (and name calling).  Comments from the movie’s website follow:   

“I just knew this movie would trash Christians, but it didn't. As a true believer, I was totally entertained.  Lots of twists and turns.  Very well done.” 

Conversely,

“I dont [sic] know what kind of sick, sadistic, satanic, idol worshipping people you are. But i do know a thing or two myself about religion and I know that that movie you have created is an abomination and that you are all going to Hell. I'm sorry. If you want more info on how to repent from your sins and recieve [sic] the forgiveness which is in the name of the lord jesus christ [sic], then email me back. and i will show you what we are talking about. PS I have never seen such a sick movie, and you have cursed the name of the almighty God.”  
 
I will take the liberty in making the assertion that it is the second comment that has distributors concerned.  The first amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, but as we also saw last year with Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” it does not guarantee distribution.  Ideological expression seems to be controlled by those who are financially at the mercy of conservatives.  My objection is not conservative opinion, rather the attempt to censor ideology that differs from theirs.  I have always believed in presenting both sides of an issue to the public and affording individuals the right to decide for themselves.  What a shame that such an award-winning film may not ever be seen by most Americans.


Thursday, November 17, 2005

54. Teaching science intelligent choice

To the surprise of almost no one in the scientific community, President Bush came out in support of teaching Intelligent Design alongside evolution in high school science classes. The President believes that schools should teach Intelligent Design, "so people can understand what the debate is about." Unfortunately, it appears that the President himself does not understand, not only what the debate is about, but also, and more importantly, what is at stake.

As an issue, Intelligent Design is one of a number of subjects highlighting the "culture war" that has engaged our country, most significantly in the separation of church and state. I have previously written specifically on the issue of Intelligent Design and its impact on education in Ohio, so I will only summarize the idea again here.

Intelligent Design is the proposition that life is too complicated to have evolved on its own, that is, without divine intervention. Despite the fact that evolution is one of the most fundamental ideas in science, the same science that allows us to compare the DNA of species across millenniums, build skyscrapers high into our horizons and fly defiantly into outer space, it has been enthralled by religion as both contrary to the Biblical stories of origin and void of the idea that humans have been employed on the earth as something greater than animals. In that Intelligent Design is impossible to prove, it is not a scientific theory as much as it is a "default" idea. The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), petitions the notion, "Such unscientific attitudes belong in the Dark Ages, not America's classrooms."

However, greater than the issue of Intelligent Design, the concern is the poor performance of American high school students in comparison to students in other developed countries- especially Asia. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Science asked, "How can it be that the nation that leads the world in science and technology still graduates a high school class, which in international comparisons, ranks very near the bottom in science and mathematics accomplishments?"

Moving forward, scientific knowledge is pertinent to the issues surrounding not only this country, but also around the globe. As science progresses, many social, economic and ethical questions are going to have to be considered. Inquiry into the social questions involving nuclear weapons, economic questions that weigh scientific exploration against social welfare, and ethical questions encompassing cloning and stem cell research are going to continue through the next decades. To properly consider these questions, and the many more forthcoming, Americans are going to have to receive a much better education in science than they have been afforded in the recent past. CSICOP harshly, but straightforwardly, concurs, "A public ignorant about the principles of biology is incompetent to make reasonable well-informed decisions on crucial personal, social and economic issues." Consequently, to continue to waste valuable resources in discussing the teaching of Intelligent Design alongside evolution not only demonstrates a lack of knowledge in science, but it also hinders scientific study and continues to divide American culture.

The issue should not be about separating church and state, for even if the metaphoric wall between the two did not exist, Intelligent Design would still have no claim to the science curriculum. Moreover, the issue should not be made to be a religious or political matter- further dividing Americans across the political spectrum. Finally, it is not an issue of equality or debate, as the President suggests. It is an education issue, specifically a science education issue- a discipline in which American education has greatly suffered.

President Bush also said, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." I agree with this statement to a point, but does that suggest that science should also teach that the Earth is flat, the Sun orbits around the Earth, and that rain dances may succeed in times of drought? With enough "schools of thought," and outdated ideas, we might not ever actually get around to teaching science.

Thursday, November 3, 2005

53. Self-interest drives country

Greek philosopher Protagoras is credited with the phrase, "Man is the measure of all things," meaning that individuals are the ultimate source of value, and that they create standards based on an ideology that most reflects their belief in and of society. Essentially that it is man, or should be man, that decides what is important. We decide what to care about, and, just as importantly, when to care.

Too often individuals only care about the things that have an impact on their lives directly or that adhere to their life agenda. For a variety of reasons, including disinterest, loyalty to a person or party, or ideological differences, individuals often remain uninformed or uncommitted to principles outside of what affects them directly. In the same manner, too often individuals only care when it has an impact on their lives or when they have seen the impact that not caring has on other individuals.

For, few seemed to care when President Bush was rewarding unqualified political supporters with government positions. It was accepted, to the extent that "to the victors go the spoils," and the appointments were largely ignored.

Only when millions witnessed the deplorable effort by FEMA that left thousands stranded did Americans question "cronyism." And only now that President Bush has nominated a judge, whose qualifications seem to include mostly that she is religious and a close personal friend of the President, have both liberals and conservatives expressed outrage at a process that has gone on for five years now.

Few seemed to care about energy conservation when Americans were throwing themselves, one after another, into gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles as a measure of lifestyle. Few demanded that American automobile manufactures invest their resources in energy-saving alternatives, such as hybrids. Few care that Americans use 18 million barrels a day, which is 21 percent of the world's output- despite having only 5 percent of the world's population.

Only when gas prices rise and it affects both individuals and the economy, do Americans suddenly become outraged at our dependence on foreign oil, and insist that measures be taken to maintain American affluence. Only when China, now the number two oil consumer and with over one billion people, starts competing for foreign oil do we care what the rest of the world might be doing in their plight for energy.

Few seemed to care when the invasion of Iraq was portrayed as an act of patriotism, a fight against terrorism, and a search for weapons of mass destruction. Few seemed to care when it seemed like an easy victory, and the vogue thing to do was slap a yellow ribbon supporting the troops on their car- as though that protested the war did not. Few were interested in demanding answers to the tough questions.

Only when America became an international embarrassment and Americans started to suffer numerous causalities, for a fading cause, did we admit, among other things, the immorality dispensed on the thousands of Iraqis civilians. Only then did we ask ourselves the questions we should have asked from the beginning- how reliable was the information, was Iraq really involved in September 11, 2001, do we have an exit strategy?

Few seem to care about global warming when it is made to appear as though it is a scientific uncertainty. Few care that our government, despite the protest of hundreds of scientists, continued to blatantly employ flawed scientific studies to promote their economic programs. Few care whether the administration arrogantly dismisses International environmental agreements or not- as long as business is not affected.

Only when hurricanes and Tsunamis began to hit in record numbers and leave thousands dead did we consider the possible impact of global warming. Only when, as the New York Times recently noted, the once frozen North Pole may soon be acting like an open sea much of the year, do individuals seem willing to acknowledge the phenomenon.

Few seem to care about the overpopulation of our planet when American lifestyles continue to be among the most affluent in the world. Most are oblivious not only to the poverty in this county, let alone the third-world countries. Most do not consider the impact of overpopulation on future generations, or on our natural resources.

Only when other countries, such as China with their population of over one billion, begin to consume natural resources in increasing amounts, proportional to their development, and thus increasing demand, and prices, do we care. Only when American companies take advantage of desperate conditions in other counties, to both employ labor at reduced costs and use the full benefit of lax environmental regulations, and it leads to significant job loss in America, do we seem to care.

Few seem to care about the distribution of wealth as long as their middle-class life is unaffected. Most individuals remain uninterested in the fact that those who have the greatest need for representation in government have nearly no voice, and certainly no lobby. Americans sit motionlessly as wealthy corporations and well-funded special interest groups fight for their significance in government.

Only when Hurricane Katrina unearthed a population that most did not even know existed, and less even cared about, did Americans take notice- even if they were called "immoral and welfare-pampered."

Few seemed to care about the pollution to our water and air when the proper disposal of such pollutants was regarded as an economic cost.

Only when cities became engulfed in smog, a river caught on fire and fish suffered ghastly mutations did we demand that the government place a value on clean air and clean water and hold businesses accountable.

Unfortunately, in the examples above, the pattern is that most people will sit silent and not make personal commitments until the problem or issue inflicts them directly. That it not to say that there are not a number of incredibly dedicated individuals that are willing to sacrifice time, money and lifestyle for principle- there are. There are just not enough of them.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

52. Looting, racism both wrong

By definition, the term ‘looting' differs from ‘stealing' only in the undertone that looting is done by force. For example, raiding a village and robbing it of its valuables would be considered looting. Christopher Columbus was especially adept in the looting of the Arawak Indians in his "discovery" of America. Conversely, I would argue, taking things from an abandoned retail store would be considered stealing. There are two differences. While both acts are deplorable, obviously harming someone and stealing from someone is more criminal than just stealing from them. Secondly, the term ‘looting' has been adopted as a discriminatory reference specific to African-American stealing. Apart from the violent undertone, looting is also synonymous with uncivilized and barbaric, and usually attributed to angry or poor African-Americans.

The circumstances in New Orleans for most of us were unimaginable. Also unimaginable were the conditions that many of these people lived in prior to Hurricane Katrina. According to The Progress Report, the area that suffered the worst flooding was 98 percent African-American and one quarter of them earned less than $10,000 per year. Not only did many of the families have nowhere to go, they had no way to get there. They lived in such poverty that Barbara Bush, after touring the people living in the Houston Astrodome arrogantly commented, "So many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them."

Any community that would undergo a period of lawlessness would experience criminal activity as a natural extension of a small percentage of its population. It is not unreasonable to expect this number to increase under the conditions experienced both prior to and following the hurricane. That is not to say that criminal activity is acceptable, or that it should not be held accountable, but there is something to be said for desperation. Everyone has probably considered one time or another at what point his or her ethical standards would break down in the face of extreme adversity.

Unethical behavior and stealing is a problem across a spectrum of demographics. Surprising to some, the leading demographic class for theft, in terms of the amount stolen, is white, educated, males. Moreover, in a recent survey, only 13 percent of top executives at big companies identified ethical values as the most important leadership trait for CEOs. Ethical values seem to be up to debate, often chosen as a measure of convenience or to justify a certain action. For example, filing anything but a truthful tax return is stealing, regardless of how many other people one might believe are doing it.

Wavering ethical behavior can have exponential consequences in the face of lawlessness. If the IRS no longer audited income taxes, and there was a sense of lawlessness among tax returns, how many would receive returns in excess of what they are owed by filing dishonest tax returns? And what would it be called? Would it be ‘looting' or ‘stealing' from the Federal Government? An even simpler example is our roadways. Most people already break the law daily by exceeding posted speed limits. Imagine again if our roadways were no longer monitored by law enforcement. How uncivilized might our roadways become? Would not a certain percentage of our population engage excessively in criminal behavior by driving dangerously or driving while intoxicated?

My arguments should not, in any way, be misconstrued as support for the criminal activity that has occurred in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Rather my point is to note the portrayal and opinion of such acts compared to other acts that are carried out, or would be carried out, by other demographic classes. There is a measure of both hypocrisy and racism in the attitude of those that form an opinion without considering their own fallibility as well as the situation itself.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

51. 'Collapse' sums up Tribe

Maybe the day off before the last homestand gave them too much time to think about it.

Had they really won 92 games, and were they really just a couple of wins away from their first playoff appearance since 2001?

Whatever happened, or whatever they thought about, the Cleveland Indians proceeded to go out and lose 5 out of 6 home games (6 out of 7 overall) and eliminated themselves from the playoffs.

It was as though they looked to the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox, their competitors for the last playoff spot, and said, “No, please, by all means, here is the invitation to the playoffs, take it.”  Perhaps the Indians felt guilty, after all, the Yankees and Red Sox invest millions more than they in hopes of reaching the playoffs.  If that is not enough, their fans are serious, they want to win championships…period, end of story, no kidding around.  And Major League Baseball loves these teams too, because when they play, a lot of people are interested, and when a lot of people are interested- Major League Baseball makes a lot of money.  In this sense, maybe it was the polite thing for the Indians to do- step aside, and do what is best for the game.

Possibly the Indians were jealous of the other Cleveland teams that have that notorious “one-word” to describe heartbreak.  Not that the Indians have not tried before, there was the 1997 World Series after all.  But the Browns have “The Drive,” and  “The Fumble,” and, of course, the Cavaliers have, “The Shot.”  Apparently, the Indians thought this might get them “The Collapse.”  It was an unoriginal attempt however, because last season they moved within a couple games of the first place and then lost nine in a row.  But that was in August, and not enough people noticed.  Perhaps they thought this would be a bit more dramatic.  Give them credit, this was big, the whole country witnessed their display in futility.  It was on all the sports channels, in the newspapers and on the Internet- seems nobody could explain it.  I mean really, if it means that much to them, they have my vote.

In the world of collapses, it is as though the Indians and Cavaliers were in some type of disturbing competition to see who can disappointment their fans the most.  The Cavaliers, with similar type collapses, have narrowly missed the playoffs the last two seasons.  The competition, however, is over- the Indians have won this thing hands-down.  The title, “The Collapse,” with all assumed rights and privileges, now belongs to them.

Interestingly though, the Indians, not unlike a modern political organization, immediately began damage control.  I may have even caught a glimpse of Karl Rove leaving Indians headquarters Saturday afternoon. The organization, from its announcers to its manager, quickly began trying to spin the negative into a positive.  I may have even heard manager Eric Wedge emulate the popular 2000 presidential debate rhetoric of “it’s hard work.”

The Indians lost two out of three games to Tampa Bay, who has a record of 67-94 (27-54 on the road) and then was swept by a Chicago team that lacked incentive and whose lineup included many second string players- including seven on Friday night.  The Indians pitching staff had a string of 33 innings during the homestand in which they allowed only two runs.  Think about that, 2 runs in 33 innings- and they lost 5 out of 6 games.  During the homestand, the offense was 6 for 50 with runners in scoring position.  The offense, despite the credit given to the opposing pitching, showed its inexperience, and was clearly rattled by the pressure.  They were anxious, swinging at bad pitches and failing to move runners along.  Wedge was also rattled by the pressure and managed the games like ordinary regular season games, rather than ones that controlled the team’s postseason fate.  Despite having the best bullpen in baseball, he left pitchers in too long, and he refused to “make something happen” to help his flustered offense.

The organization dealt with “The Collapse,” by talking about the “signs of progression,” and that they were, “one hit short.”  Wedge said that it was “more about the opposition,” and that they will “do better next time around.”  Broadcasters resorted to clichés such as “one step at a time,” and “that’s baseball.”  The only spin missing was that Tampa Bay and Chicago had weapons of mass destruction and that they were harboring terrorists.

Really, “more about the opposition,” and “do better next time around?”  Are you kidding me?  What opposition?  Tampa Bay, Chicago’s triple A team?  Six home games, in front of a packed Jacobs Field?  And you have the best pitching staff in the American League.  How much better does Wedge and the Indians think it gets?  Maybe three games each against Midview and Amherst would be more to their liking?  And “do better next time around?”  Regardless of the success that may come in the future, I do not get the point in just throwing away opportunities.  This year was a special year and one never knows how many opportunities are out there.  For example, the Indians started the same five pitchers all year.  No one faltered; no one was injured.  That is very rare these days in baseball; it cannot be an expectation going into next season.

I do not know how the Indians would have done in the playoffs.  But, that is the experience they needed, not the experience of handing away a great opportunity.  Two years in a row, the Indians’ organization complained that the fans were not supporting them.  However, times when the fans began to support them, last August and this September/October, they not only failed, they failed miserably.  And as harsh as it might be, the fans that packed the stadium this week left extremely disappointed, if not angry, and it will be that much more difficult to get them back next year.  And I can also assure you that most of them do not want to hear about “signs of progression,’ and that it was “more about the opposition.”  They want to hear the truth and the truth is that this team blew a “golden” opportunity to make the playoffs, this year.  Those excuses and that line of reasoning would not work with the fans in Boston and New York, so why should we accept it?  We are baseball fans just like them, and we want to win… period, end of story, no kidding around.  

Thursday, September 8, 2005

50. Texas Holdem' is no sport

I found the creation of ESPN to be a glorious event. What better for sport fans than a cable channel dedicated completely to sports? The network also brought with it SportsCenter, a sports news show that contained highlights from a variety of sports all across the country. For sports loyalists, this meant no more waiting up until after the weather on the local news to get the latest scores and highlights.

For several years, I played competitive racquetball- traveling all over the state and throughout the country. Dedicated to the sport, I was fortunate enough to play at Baldwin-Wallace College, which a couple years ago won the NCAA National Championship. I also had the privilege to play against the best players in the country, amateur and professional, many of which were from right here in Ohio.

Competitive and professional racquetball is much different than the sport most people think of when one mentions it. Though I am a bit partial on the matter, I would argue that their athletes are among the best in the world. The game is tough as nails, both powerful and lightening quick. The ball often travels, within its confined space, between 150-170 miles per hour. However, what is more amazing are the diving efforts put on by the game's top players. I have often commented in comparison to a baseball player that makes a diving catch, which sends the crowd into frenzy, that the top racquetball players make that play sometimes several times per rally- at much higher speeds and while getting out of the way of his or her opponent.

The hope for many involved in the sport is that it would make it onto ESPN, where not only would others be exposed to this great sport; it would also showcase the athletes that played it. To be fair, there is one big problem with racquetball and that is that it is not a great spectator sport- for two reasons. First, the television coverage does not do the sport justice; it is much faster than it appears on television. Secondly, it is a challenge to build and present a glass court that allows cameras to record the relevant action. That being said, it has been televised and ESPN has done a nice job in the past with its production. The problem, however, is that it is rarely on and when it is, it is usually on at two o'clock in the morning.

My complaint with ESPN has been when a lesser sport, again by my bias standards, was shown repeatedly and often in prime time (or at least not 2:00 am). While in recent years I have come to accept racquetball's fate on ESPN, the issue has resurfaced in my mind of late due to recent ESPN programming decisions. Three shows (though if I researched their programming schedule I am sure there would be many more) immediately come to mind- Texas Hold'em Poker, National Eating Competitions and a show on celebrity sneaker collections.

I am mindful of the fact that "sports programming" can be twisted to fit a number of definitions, but I would define "sport" as a competitive individual or team endeavor utilizing mind and body. However, by my definition, if it could not be included in physical education classes, it is not a sport. I could add some other criteria, like one must perspire while participating and the working out must actually benefit performance- but maybe I am being too narrow-minded.

Texas Hold'em Poker is certainly not a physical challenge and, in fact, it is gambling. I have nothing against the game itself or its popularity, or even against gambling, I just do not consider it a sport. It does contain skill and luck, but I do not anticipate the physical education teacher taking time to teach it along with Black Jack and Roulette in gym class.

The eating competition was a learning experience, as the "athletes" were very popular with their followers- signing autographs, trash talking and making dramatic entrances. While it does involve, to a very modest degree, physical and mental talents, it is more like "lunch" than physical education. Perhaps in the future, if the sport catches on, students will be asked to bring a few dozen hot dogs with them to school for gym class!

As for the "sports programming" that includes the display of celebrity sneaker collections, I am at a loss for words. I guess the "tie in" is that individuals that participated in sports once wore these sneakers.

Although the mission statement of ESPN reads, "to serve sports fans," I have no intention of campaigning ESPN to show "real" sports programming like racquetball and the many other sports that have thousands of immensely committed athletes- those athletes that train and compete for the love of the sport, not the love of money. In the same respect, I would probably not get too far anyway; for the "E" in ESPN did originally stand for "entertainment" (the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network). Apparently, there are those out there that find celebrity sneaker collections entertaining.

Thursday, August 4, 2005

49. No fairy godmother for jobless

The movie, Cinderella Man, engages in the romance of a boxing comeback, as a one-time contender cashes in on the chance of a lifetime to become an unlikely heavyweight champion. More than that, the movie takes place during the Depression, and details the difficulties faced by those that lost their jobs, those whose lives spiraled through unthinkable challenges to just survive. It is about reaching a point of desperation in which pride and dignity are no longer a factor in the face of opportunity.

What should have been a very special day for me, not only turned out to be quite the opposite- it also taught me a very valuable lesson in the nature of business. For, on this particular day, I was to sign for my first house. I was working a construction job while attending school- very uninterestingly, like many young adults. Suddenly, things changed. I remember the moment almost in slow motion as my boss called me to his office. I barely got in the door, and without asking me to sit down and void of any compassion, he said, "Friday will be your last day." I could hardly believe my ears, and, of course, asked, "Why, what did I do?" My boss simply answered, "Nothing, the development is nearly finished and we don't need you anymore." And that was that.

Not so coincidentally I found out, two weeks prior, one of his contractors offered me a job that included a significant pay raise. I wanted to prove my loyalty to the company I was working for- so I declined. In my naivety, I did not see it coming and, in actuality, the contractor that offered me a job did so, not only because he liked my work, but also because he knew I would lose my job. When I called him, after receiving the news, it was too late.

The business world is different today in that many people have multiple careers and end up working for several companies throughout their lives. Though the experience of losing a job, on a societal level, is not comparable to the Depression, it is obviously quite significant to the person who no longer has a means of income. And the business world of today, for many reasons such as free trade agreements, globalization and the mere nature of capitalism, lends itself to downsizing, mergers and plant closings- all which put significant number of people out of work. Nothing hits me harder than hearing of someone who has lost his or her job.

Regardless of how one loses his or her job, whether it is because of downsizing, outsourcing, or plant closings- the consequences negatively influence financial stability, family unity, and self-esteem. In short, the loss of a job can ruin a person's life- as well as that of his or her family. The stress placed on that individual can test the resolve of even the best of men (and women).

The fortunate ones may begin to market themselves immediately, though they are likely to find the competition arduous. If the industry itself has collapsed or if the person losing the job no longer has a marketable skill, then often retraining is the challenge brought upon them. In fact, I did interview a few applicants who had lost their jobs after a number of years in a factory, and had gone on to become a nurse or nurse aid.

For most, reentry into the job market means a lot of time, effort, and disappointment. One must become immune, and not take personally, the number of doors that will be slammed in his or her face. Unfortunately, many who have jobs and who are involved in the employment process, either human resource managers or hiring administrators, seem to have forgotten or have never experienced what it is like to be looking for work. They often have the power to change a person's life, yet some exercise arrogance and dismay at the process in general- and the applicants in particular.

If that is not depressing enough, applicants must then fight through the nepotism, favoritism and discrimination that inevitably factors into many open positions. While most only want a "fair chance" at a job opening, the score is often settled based on personal connections and relationships. Through a number of methods, and because it is so difficult to prove otherwise, the most capable candidate may not always get the open position. Through the interview process, and underhanded tactics such as rewriting job descriptions or revising professional qualifications to suit certain candidates, the employer is generally free to hire whomever it desires- except in the most blatant cases of protected discrimination (age, race, etc.). However, just as in the example of losing a job, the employer seems to forget that they are playing with these people's lives. Ethics should dictate equal opportunity, an American meritocracy; however, reality and American aristocracy often prevail.

Nowhere is the importance of opportunity better documented than in the movie, Cinderella Man. Like those that suffered through the Depression, many people work very hard and endure through numerous hardships waiting for that one chance, that one opportunity. However, in a society in which caste increasingly decides who gets the opportunities, even at the microcosmic level, one cannot help to think how many stories like the Cinderella Man will never be told.

Thursday, July 7, 2005

48. Religion shapes policy now

Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution states that all elected officers, "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support the Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. While void of any religious tests, that is, a personal proclamation or affirmation, there is certainly a religious test in the eye of American voters. Never was that more apparent than the 2004 Election.

Religion has been used to form the opinion of many men. Those of the same religious belief share an ideology, built on the perception of values and morals, that, by nature, influences elected offices. In other words, there is a reason that much of the political literature distributed by candidates lists their church among their activities. For those in the majority the relationship is an opportunity; for others, it is an obstacle. Such is the contradiction faced by elected presidents, George W. Bush and John F. Kennedy. The differences are juxtaposed in history, and it tells the story of where we were and what we have become.

John F. Kennedy addressed the issue "head-on" in a famous speech made during the 1960 campaign in Houston, Texas. Equally outspoken, but not nearly as eloquent, George W. Bush has never been bashful as to the extent that religion influences his presidency.

In that 1960 speech Kennedy said, "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President- should he be Catholic- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote..." Conversely, Bush said in speaking to religious broadcasters, "I welcome faith to help solve the nation's deepest problems," and is quoted in Understanding the President and his God, "We need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God."

Kennedy continued, "...(I believe in an America) where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference." Bush speaks to the issue in the 2004 State of the Union Address, "...government has often denied social service grants and contracts to these (religious) groups, just because they have a cross or Star of David or a crescent on the wall. By executive order, I have opened billions in grant money to competition that includes faith-based charities."

Furthermore, Kennedy reaffirms, "I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views- in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to religious pressure dictates." Bush again distances himself from Kennedy in the example of the religious effort to ban gay marriage, "Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage. The outcome of this debate is important- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight."

Kennedy did address the personal conflict between the presidency and religion, "But if ever the time should come- and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible- when my office would require me to either violate the national interest, then I would resign my office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same." On the other hand, according to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, Bush is acting completely on behalf of God when Bush told the Prime Minister, "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." This statement is consistent with an earlier one when Bush proclaimed, "This Crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."

In that 1960 campaign, Kennedy feared of being discriminated against because of his religion. He noted that there were so many other issues deserving of debate. His fear can be inferred, that the election may be based as a religious test, when he said, "...if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the nation as a whole that will be a loser..."

Consider today the 8 million non-Christians and the 30 million non-religious that would face an uphill battle toward holding a political office. The absence of elected officials significantly affects their representation in government- that is, a government imploding on its own culture war based predominately in religious ideology. We have a government that has let religion in and now finds itself consulting it with every consideration- from gay marriage to Supreme Court Justice nominations. Moreover, we have religions and religious organizations that threaten politicians and policy makers based on their powerful voter constituency. Rather than embracing religious freedom and diversity, Christians claim that they have been suppressed, and are determined to create a Christian nation- made up of Christian laws.

Personally, I relish in religious freedom and I would like to believe in the same America that John F. Kennedy believed in, "an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials..." Finally, I agree, as Kennedy concludes, "I believe in a President whose views on religion are his private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation, nor imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office." In principle, the Constitution prohibits religious tests for office; it is up to us to prohibit religious crusades.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

47. Second verse same as first

Words cannot describe the redundant dreadfulness experienced in the recent terrorist attack suffered upon London, England several fortnights ago. As I write, there are more questions than answers- especially considering the timing of the attack.

The implications of the attack are several-fold and in the days to follow, and as people come to terms with the devastation, the event will prompt political, economical and social consideration. I have neither the foresight nor the intelligence to consider even a fraction of the possible complications and repercussions that will be born out of this event. And, of course, accountability will be spread across a gamut of individuals and organizations- that will in return be spun into a montage of accusations and investigations.

My first thought, as the "dust settles," is what happened to hunting and killing the terrorists- as our President promised? Bush won the 2004 election in part because Americans said they feel safer with him as Commander-in-Chief. Though they did not attack America, the alliance with England has proved that terrorists cannot be eradicated and that, on occasion, they will succeed. I also anticipate that the administration will use the event to further negotiate their effort in Iraq, to promote the Patriot Act and to re-instill fear into the American people.

The first six months of the President's second term, in my opinion, has been nothing less than a disaster. I am not, in any manner whatsoever, blaming the President for the terrorist attack. However, taken in total, and in consideration of his campaign pledges to make this world a safer place, it is just a part of what I view as a completely infective start to his second term. Terrorism was the only major issue that the President, according to ABC News/Washington Post polls, had been receiving approval ratings greater than 50 percent (War 41%, Economy 43%, Healthcare 44 % and Social Security 35-37%). His overall approval rating in June 2005 was 43 percent.

His stance on Social Security, a priority for this term, has thus far failed miserably- even among many Republicans. Only 35-37 percent of Americans support his Social Security plan. Much of the distaste comes from the elderly and the poor.

The Downing Street memorandums have implicated the President on, what many have said from the beginning, his intent to invade Iraq at the first opportunity. Dated July 23, 2002, it reads, in part, "There was a perceivable shift in (American) attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjecture of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy..." On August 10, 2002, however, Bush said while golfing, I think that that presumes there's some kind of imminent war plan." Then two days before the war started on March 19, 2003, Bush again said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

The war in Iraq is increasingly being scrutinized and has led, in part, to his highly unfavorable job approval ratings. So much so that- by a 49-44 percent margin- Americans now say that George W. Bush holds a greater responsibility for the war in Iraq than even Saddam Hussein. Finally, it seems, people have come to realize that this is Bush's war. In May 2005, insurgent attacks killed more than 80 U.S. troops and more that 700 Iraqis.

Even the President's political "genius," Karl Rove, has spent considerable time embarrassing himself with comments like, "...liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments, offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Statements like that will not exactly help pull this country together. Especially when, in fact, 84 percent of liberals supported "military action" against terrorists and 74 percent supported "going to war" with the country most responsible for harboring terrorists.

Finally, (though there is more, such as campaign contributions, John Bolton, and foreign relations) early this spring/summer, the President's judicial nominations were met with such distaste by the Democrats for their conservative activism, that Senate Republicans had to threaten to change the rules in order to gain approval (the nuclear option). Previously, Democrats had approved nearly all of the President's nominations.

Let us hope, for the country's sake, that this ship rights itself and that the next three and half years are much better that the last six months. The President's next dilemma will be Supreme Court Justice nominations- something that he has been eagerly awaiting for over four years to do. The question now becomes- will he appeal to the moderates on both sides to assure confirmation or will he choose to repay his conservative base and further divide the country? This is the first of many questions that remain to be worked over the next few years.

In the meantime, let us send our condolences to those families in London that lost loved ones over issues that, seemingly, none of us really understand.

Thursday, June 9, 2005

46.This page will be history

While I was reading a book on mid-nineteenth century American history, specifically on abolition and the feminist movement, I wondered what it would have been like to live at that time. It was a moving time in our nation's history, one that focused around a number of events, most significantly, the recent signing of the Declaration of Independence, the separation of church and state, slavery, women's rights and the French Revolution. The country was in a deep period of conflict as it wrestled through civil rights, religion and government.

I then read the following passage as an editorial/letter to the editor, written in response to Lucretia Mott, a leader in the anti-slavery and women's rights movements who had just delivered an antislavery speech in Marysville, Kentucky. It was signed by "Slave-Holder," and reads,

"This bad women, whose infamous calling is a war against the Constitution of the United States, a sacrilegious condemnation of the Holy Bible, preaching disobedience and rebellion to our slaves, was allowed the use of the Court House for the propagation of her infernal doctrine...What will be the result of a visit from this female fanatic is not yet known; we should not be surprised however, if it were the prelude to a heavy loss on the part of the slaveholders of the country, as a score or two blacks were present to behold and hear this brazen infidel in her treason against God and her country."

My first thought was that, if they were both alive today (Lucretia Mott and the editorial writer, "Slave-Holder"), she might like to give him the, "How do ya like me now?" or "How do like them apples?" quip. But further reflection saw the analogous rhetoric that dampens our society today, and thought, with a few simple reference changes, that the editorial could very well have been written today. I then wondered, are things different, or are only the specific issues different?

"Slave-Holder" argues not directly for the institution of slavery, which he obviously supports, and has a financial stake in, rather he engages in malicious language, religious references, patriotic appeal and is furious that she was permitted to use her first amendment rights- ironically, precisely as they were intended to be used according to the Bill of Rights. He labels her "bad," a "female fanatic," a "brazen infidel" and her calling as "infamous." He then notes that she is "sacrilegious" as she speaks against (apparently his interpretation of) the Holy Bible, that she "preaches" disobedience and that her crusade is one against "God." His attack on patriotism includes a non-specific reference to the Constitution and the "treason" against her country.

In the times of today, several issues might generate a similar editorial/letter to the editor. The war in Iraq, abortion, gay marriage, the Ten Commandments, activist judges, Intelligent Design, the Patriot Act, even the movie Fahrenheit 911, all prompted passionate editorials/letters to the editor from, at times both sides, that challenged the Constitution, religion, education, government and civil rights. The problem, with these types of opinions, is that they are not intended to facilitate discussion or compromise, but rather to inspire fury- on both sides. This is all too common today in all segments of the media as everyone seeks attention- alas, whether or not the opinion contains the slightest segment of truth, morality or fairness.

As we write passionately on the issues of today, which one of us will be the "Slave-Holder," of the next century- whose opinion today reads of narrow-mindedness, racism, a disregard for civil rights and the selective use of religion? Editorials/letters to the editor make it into history books because they are written by "the people," and thus they are the best expression of society's values and attitudes. Moreover, they often detail the debate between opposing viewpoints and ideologies. Looking back in time, historians can appraise the fervor of an issue from the published opinions that describe it.

Editorials/letters to the editor are the chance to exercise our first amendment rights; however, recorded as history, they preserve our thoughts for future generations. Since most newspapers now require, and print, the name of the person submitting the opinion, the words we write do not hide behind the guise of anonymity and, consequently, we cannot assume that they are destined to slip into obscurity. Sometimes greater than the moment, they represent a time in history, the community in which we live and, ultimately, ourselves.

Thursday, June 2, 2005

45. Can't see why they don't see

Nature's caverns often survive void of light, alive only in the shadow of obscurity. The absence of light in these caves postulate many inquiries into the life that it encapsulates. For the contemplation of those that live in total darkness augments the discussions of biological adaptations while quenching the appreciation for nature's diversity. Adapting to life in the dark solicits answers to the question- does one need to see? And if one does not need to see- for it is dark and nobody sees- does, one needs eyes?

The answer to this question, for many species is no- and in fact, in living in darkness for millenniums, not only do they not see, they no longer have eyes. Many species, including insects, crustaceans, salamanders, spiders and fish, have lost their eyes through adaptations to their environment. Thus, the real question for scientists and other interested parties, is how does this happen? The answer is not completely certain and, furthermore, not quite as easy as one might think (noting the temptation to enter into Lamarckian evolution). This fascinating discussion takes place in the June 2005 issue of Natural History (Why Do Cave Fish Lose Their Eyes), and provides much of the material that I base my discussion.

Lamarck proposed a theory of evolution based on the inheritance of acquired characteristics. That is, if an individual, over the course of his or her lifetime, acquired a trait (or talent), that trait would subsequently be passed onto his or her offspring. The most famous example cited is the long necks in giraffes, which Lamarck would explain as generations upon generations of giraffes reaching and extending their necks to reach leaves in the tallest trees, and then passing along that characteristic to subsequent generations. The temptation in our question is to apply the reverse, to propose that species that do not use a specific characteristic are susceptible to losing it. As Luis and Monika Espinasa describe in the article, "Lamarck believed that unused organs shrivel until they disappear. In short, use it or lose it."

As we know now, our genes care not if we use a characteristic- only that the genes survive to be reproduced at rates that are statistically successful. Hence, natural selection is the principle of nature selecting the most successful genes based on reproductive and survival rates. Adaptations are the successful reproduction of mutations- genetic alterations that are tested in nature's arena of "survival of the fittest."

Understanding this theory, in light of regressive evolution (the loss of a trait such as the eyes in cave fish), one can easily argue as to what advantage there is in not seeing- when fish with eyes cannot see either. In other words, how can nature "select" eyeless fish over fish with eyes when it is rather obvious that neither has a reproductive advantage over the other? Humans also have these "rudimentary organs," such as the appendix and the coccyx, which in the course of our evolution proved to be of use to our ancestors, but matter not to us now as a matter of survival. Darwin himself struggled with the issue, writing, "It is scarcely possible that disuse can go on producing any further effect after the organ has once been rendered functionless. Some additional explanation is here requisite which I cannot give."

There are two types of rudimentary organs- embryonic and those that develop into adulthood. Gill slits are an embryonic example of ancient relationships that never develops as the embryo does. Deciphering evolutionary lineages through embryonic development is just one of the things that makes embryology so interesting.

The appendix represents a rudimentary organ that does develop and that through comparative anatomy can be studied to reveal evolutionary lineages, homology and purpose. Another interesting biological field, comparative anatomy provides diverse insight into vestigial organs. Many other mammals have functioning appendixes, that, to be fair and to make matters more confusing, must be sorted out between evolutionary relationships and convergent evolution.

Biologists today, according to the article, offer two hypotheses for rudimentary organs: pleiotropy and neutral mutation theory. Pleiotrophic effects are the alterations to multiple characteristics, inherently unrelated, by a single gene. The best example, also described in the article, is sickle cell anemia. As a mutation, deformed red blood cells survived in certain, primarily African, populations because the parasite that causes malaria could not survive in the "sickle" cells. However, the consequence is that this adaptation can lead to other problems such as anemia and organ damage.

Neutral mutation theory is the negligible effect of a mutation on an individual or species. Thus, since the mutation does not hinder survival, it continues to be reproduced generation after generation- increasing its likelihood in the population.

In a series of experiments, only possible in the last few decades, the differing theories were tested by switching the (eye) gene of an eyeless fish with the (eye) gene of a fish with sight during embryonic development. What they found is that the gene for the fish with sight produced an eye in the eyeless fish and vise versa. In other words, the gene for sight in the eyeless fish is functional and must be "turned off" by some other mechanism. This discovery essentially rules out neutral mutation theory.

Further to the pleiotrophic hypotheses, scientists have isolated a "master control" gene that "whose modified expression leads to blindness in cave fish." More interesting is the fact that the smaller the eyes were, the more taste buds are produced. Moreover, when a fish develops without eyesight, the bones in the skull shift, allowing for a bigger olfactory pit and larger olfactory epithelium. Hence it is likely that the non-existence of eyes, which in the natural environment of cave fish are useless anyways, offers the opportunity for an improved sense of smell- which can certainly be a competitive advantage.

In conclusion, the authors note the "classic example" pleiotrophic effect and summarize that, "Natural selection is not acting on cave-fish eyes; it is acting instead to increase the fish's sense of smell." In essence, evolution has said, on the issue of eyeless cave fish, that if in the process of amplifying some senses (which can be a competitive advantage), the fish loses its ability to see (which in this case is not a competitive advantage)- then the fish species is better suited to compete in its environment.

Nature, it seems, is always up to something- always looking for the slightest advantage and the most remote opportunity. And to appreciate nature's intricacies, scientific exploration celebrates in allowing us to not only ask the questions, but to also "see" what others cannot.

Thursday, May 12, 2005

44.This hobby is for the birds

Nature offers many splendors and amazing adaptations, one of which is the return of the migratory birds each spring. It is amazing that each fall and subsequent spring, birds of all sizes and shapes fly across the continent(s), often returning to the same nest from which they parted.

As novice birdwatchers, each year my wife and I learn more, and enjoy more, about these amazing animals. After learning to identify different bird species, bird watching includes noting feeding habits, mating rituals and individual personalities. Inevitably, each species has some interesting trait or fact that both aids in identification and affords fascination.

Like many hobbies, bird watching can spur addiction. Our back yard has become a sort of bird sanctuary with several types of food, a few houses and a small running pond available for our feathered friends. We have upwards of ten feeders, while offering a diversity of shelter including brush, small trees and large trees. Of course, they are left to themselves to compete with the deer, rabbits, raccoons, and squirrels that frequently visit our small nature "reserve."

Over the last two years, we have recorded around thirty-five species of birds. Our favorites include the Northern Cardinal (especially the female), Red-headed Woodpecker, Tufted Titmouse, Baltimore Oriole, Ruby-throated Hummingbird, American Goldfinch, White-crowned Sparrow, Northern Flicker, White-breasted Nuthatch, Brown Thrasher and Red-breasted Grosbeak. To catch a glimpse of some of the migratory birds that do not visit, we usually make the trip to Magee Marsh each May to see them off before their long trip across the lake. Each year, the second Saturday in May is International Migratory Bird Day.

Magee Marsh is often labeled as the best place in Ohio for bird watching. This year's trip included Lincoln's Sparrow, Blue Heron, Eastern Screech Owl, Yellow-rumped Warbler, Nashville Warbler, Blackburnian Warbler and a Ruby-crowned Kinglet- among an array of species. Magee Marsh offers an easy to navigate boardwalk, just over a half-mile long, through the marshy forest. The park is also positioned on the lake, complete with a small beach and areas for picnicking. Another benefit of the tour of Magee Marsh is the knowledgeable birdwatchers from around the region. For amateurs like us, they help in the identification of the migratory birds- most of which we rarely see (especially the innumerable, and closely related, warblers). Over 300 species of birds have been seen at the Magee Marsh Wildlife Area.

At home, we have started keeping track of our spring arrivals and other habits. For example, last year we first saw the Oriole on May 6; this year they appeared on May 7 (at least two pairs). The Hummingbird first visited on May 4 of last year; this year it was May 6. The Orioles have been especially active this year, enjoying our newest buffet item- grape jelly. We get American goldfinches in numbers, sometimes as many as twenty at a time, either eating or waiting to eat. New this year includes a pair of Mallard ducks, the female that hops into the pond that is barely bigger than she is. A House Wren found the front yard bird house and is entertaining to watch in the preparation of his nest. He will maneuver the twigs to find the proper angle to enter the house (he will build several in hopes of luring a female). The other day we witnessed a Crow and three babies flying from tree to tree. Many other species perform dances, feed one another or sing an array of tunes as part of their aesthetics.

One uninvited guest, besides the occasional neighborhood cat, is the hawk. We have at least one, but probably a couple that regularly pays our backyard a visit- often sitting in our small trees that overlook the feeders and pond. They are smart, flying between the houses or hiding up in the tree waiting for an unsuspecting victim. Our small, but dedicated, German-Shepard mix, Shea, is responsible for keeping the yard free of felines and predatory birds.

Noticing birds, as a matter habit, has been extended to driving. Heading back and forth down Route 2 usually includes a couple of hawk sightings as they sit in the trees and on the fence posts lining the highway. Glimpses that are a bit more exciting included three buzzards (Turkey Vultures) sitting on a small fence just off the highway (they are beautiful in flight, but quite homely up close) and a Bald Eagle sitting in a tree in its classic intimidating pose (whose sighting nearly spurned a dangerous double-take).

Bird watching is a popular activity, with approximately 29 million individuals. For me, it is a way to relax and enjoy nature. In a world in which it is easy to get caught up with phones, web-surfing, email and blogging, it is refreshing to spend some time narrowly piercing the environment that employs most other species of our world.

Thursday, May 5, 2005

43. Free trade hurts everyone

William McKinley wrote, "Open competition between high-paid labor and poorly paid European labor will either drive out of existence American Industry or lower American wages." Of course, to account to the present century we must insert "third world country," where "European" once resided, however the impact of such insight is obviously clear. The source of such open competition is free-trade agreements, which have acted on American society to increase the wealth of shareholders at the expense of American jobs. Further to the impact on American society is the effect on the countries in which the cheap labor is extracted, human rights are trampled and environmental laws are rendered essentially nonexistent.

In my brief, MBA-inspired, Republican days, I thought differently about free trade, albeit my thinking was most inspired by the fact that I believed free trade acted to enhance the lives individuals in foreign countries rather than for the wealth of large corporations. Moreover, it is not that I did not buy into the fact that many MBAs inspired to be CEOs and that their primarily obligation was to the shareholder, rather that I did not immediately recognize the loss of American jobs, the impact on the environment and the state of the trade deficit.

Our local congressional representative, Sherrod Brown, has written a book regarding the misrepresentation of free trade along with the many concerns about the impact of free trade here and abroad. In the book, he details the abuses made on developing companies for corporate profits. In addition to the violations of worker rights as well as environmental and safety laws, he notes that low third workers cannot even afford to purchase the products they producing. Detailed in corporate abuse and passionate of workers' rights, Congressman Sherrod Brown's book, "Myths of Free Trade," in many ways, is to American free trade policy what Howard Zinn's book, "A People's History of the United States," is to American history.

Several examples in Brown's book illustrate his notions. In one example, Brown briefly chronicles the Levi Strauss Company, which from 1998 to 2003 closed every one of its American factories. Although Levi Strauss was one of the last holdouts, and did offer a decent severance package to its employees, it was forced to compete with other companies that were already making full use of inexpensive labor. As Brown notes, "In fact, the company make no jeans anywhere in the world; all of their production is subcontracted."

The wealth created by companies in foreign countries is shortsighted, and is not creating consumers, let alone a middle class- as proponents of free trade might argue. Brown notes in his book, "With only 4 percent of the population living in the United States, and another 10 percent living in Canada, Western Europe, Australia and Japan, who will purchase the goods made by the hundreds of millions men and women earning only a few dollars a day?" Furthermore he notes, "Nike paid more money in 1998 to Michael Jordan than it paid its entire 30,000 Vietnamese workforce of mostly young village girls. Who will buy the shoes? General Motors, Mexico's largest private employer, pays its employees forty dollars a week. Who will buy the cars?"

It is the use of cheap labor in developing countries that allows companies to excessively lobby its interests in Washington. It also allows companies to spend more money on high-price company spokespersons. Would the money not be better spent on American workers, or even to pay a fair wage to foreign workers? One might have believed that each Nike purchase was paying for Michael Jordon's endorsement, and that is true in some respect- but more significantly, it is what Nike is not paying in wage labor that allows it to market itself through high-priced spokespersons.

Globalization should be of competitive advantage, that is, of natural (geographical/climate) advantages, technical advantages or economies of scale. Competitive advantageous should not be created due to low wages or favorable environmental or safety laws. For example, if China enjoys natural advantages in terms of soil and climate in the growing of rice, then significant importations of rice are justified (and, perhaps, in turn used to purchase American products). If, however, the advantage were a workforce earning $4.00 a day, poor operational conditions and the non-existence of environmental standards, then I would favor tariffs to hold the country accountable and protect American industry-, which cannot possibly compete. Finally, the idea that American companies would send their employees, by the thousands, to the unemployment lines to outsource production, specifically to take advantage of low wages and lax environmental or safety laws is nothing less than deplorable.

Although a few courses and a couple of books in no way qualifies me as an authority on the complicated subject of free trade, I agree with Abraham Lincoln who wrote, "I don't know much about the tariff. But I know this much. When we buy manufactured goods abroad, we get the goods and the foreigner gets the money. When we buy the manufactured goods at home, we get both the goods and the money." In addition to, the jobs, I might add.

Thursday, April 7, 2005

42. Sports ignore customers

Despite the increasing popularity and commitment of fans and supporters, professional and collegiate sports continue to struggle to understand their role in American culture and accept responsibility for their actions. Moreover, professional and collegiate sports have lost sight of its customers, and have been slow to adapt to societal standards (such as fighting, steroid use, fair use of labor and equality).

Work stoppages in professional sports have become all too commonplace- with the latest casualty being the cancellation of the professional hockey season. Regardless of whether it is baseball, football or, now, hockey, the fact that billionaires and millionaires cannot figure out how to share large amounts of revenue is nothing less than appalling.

The question is though: Who really gets hurt during a work stoppage? Obviously, owners and players have enough money to forgo a season worth of revenue or salary. Many owners have other sources of income, in fact probably a primary source of income that was used to purchase a sport franchise in the first place. The players have been paid well enough to stash away some money or investments, and many of them have businesses of their own. Furthermore, many players have other options- playing in other professional leagues (in Europe, for example).

But what about the individuals that work for the team or at the sports arena? What will the ushers, vendors, cleaning crews and maintenance workers do without a season's worth of income. What will the individuals that print the tickets have to print, and what will the promoters have to promote. Did the owners and players ever consider these people when they rejected the latest proposal?

When there are wars being fought, people starving, and sick people dying because they cannot afford healthcare, how can these owners and players justify not being able to reach a compromise. As demonstrated through their actions, self-indulgent arrogance must consume their every thought. What happened to being blessed and recognizing one's good fortune? When individuals in this country would stand in line for a week for a $20 an hour job at Ford or Chevrolet, what right do these owners and players have to flaunt their prosperity by turning down millions of dollars?

The fans are to share some of the blame, for a number of reasons. They have essentially created this monster, not just in hockey but also in all major sports. The fans forget that ultimately, they are the customers and they control wages and revenue. If fans want the game to change, the attitudes to change- the recourse is simple...stop watching or attending the games. If fans want players salaries cut in half, stop buying tickets until prices are cut in half (of course it is not quite that simple, but the point is the same). If fans want a salary cap in baseball, stop going to games until a salary cap is put into place. If fans want a college football playoff system, boycott the first couple of games and the NCAA will be quick to listen. In what other business are the customers so silent, so ignored?

Ironically, there are some athletes that should go on strike, most notably college football and college basketball players. Especially in football, the NCAA has managed to control the system, its customers (the fans) and its employees (the athletes). Despite the overwhelming desire for a NCAA football playoff system from its fans, the college presidents, at nauseam, have been able to suppress this idea in favor of the ridiculous BCS system. Furthermore, it controls the costs of its employees, the players, by "paying" them in scholarships. Top college athletes are worth millions of dollars to colleges and universities, yet they are entitled to only a few thousand dollars in scholarships. If one doubts this, ask how much money LeBron James would be worth to Ohio State, or any other university for that matter? However, despite the athletes holding the trump card, which group (or class) of athletes is going to be the one to "strike" and risk their chance at a professional career? With fan bases numbering in millions in the form of alumni, students and other supporters, and a ready supply of cheap labor, the NCAA has, in a sense, monopolized college athletics. The final nail in the coffin for the college football monopoly was the court ruling that the NFL can impose an age restriction on its players. What recourse, in realistic terms, does anyone really have?

As a sports fan, it is becoming increasingly difficult to support professional and college sports as both organizations and athletes drift from reality. Entertainment, to be sure, is a part of American culture, but at some point, the question needs to be asked- at what cost? When are fans going to act as the customer and mandate that they be respected and considered? When are fans going to demand fairness, accountability and just a bit of integrity? After all, without them, there are no professional sports and nobody makes any money.

Thursday, March 10, 2005

41. ACLU fights for our rights

The American Civil Liberties Union, for a variety of reasons, is often the subject of debate and controversy. Heating up the controversy is Fox News host Bill O'Reilly with his assault on the organization that has endured steadily over the last couple of years. I do not usually comment on political talk shows because of the understanding that they are appealing to a certain audience. For them to retain ratings, these "political analysts" must stir up controversy by making outlandish claims or analogies. For if they become boring, they lose ratings and then their jobs. Controversial claims often have one side vigorously applauding while the other protests in anger. In the country's current state of ideological and cultural warfare, the battle lines have been drawn as both sides fight to have their viewpoints represented in the media. They fight, because sadly, in a country that has become addicted to thirty-second sound bites, if people hear it enough, they begin to believe it. It is this notion that I have taken offense to O'Reilly's comments and offer here my rebuttal.

O'Reilly has claimed in the past that the ACLU is the "most dangerous organization in the United States right now, ...they're like, second next to Al Qaeda." He labels it as "fascist organization" and then states that Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin would be card-carrying members. Recently, O'Reilly claimed that the ACLU is a terrorist organization, "terrorizin' me and my family."

To begin, we must understand the basis of these quotations. The reference to the "most dangerous organization," is an unoriginal reference to Rob Boston's book about Pat Robertson being the "most dangerous man" in America. Also unoriginal is the reference to Al Qaeda, Hitler, and Stalin. It seems that whenever the right is frustrated over a political issue, it resorts to name-calling and analogous references. Other ideological references to the left include labeling them as liberals, socialists/communists and atheists, as well as accusing them of being unpatriotic and now, classifying them as terrorists. I would guess that O'Reilly's frustration stems from the fact that the ACLU acts as a hurdle for the majority he represents- those that desire to trample on the rights of others in the name of "god and country." Moreover, while it might have been of significant impact in the past for the right to use these terms in times of frustration, its effectiveness has worn off and the left have become numb to these references. If nothing else, perhaps a bit of creativity is in order.

My opinion is that the ACLU, more than ever, is one of the most important organizations in the country. No other organization, whether one agrees with all its issues or not, has the power to hold the government accountable for its actions. In that manner, the ACLU has attempted to hold the government accountable for the Patriot Act and the treatment of its prisoners. How can an organization that speaks against torture and illegal detention, be a terrorist organization, as O'Reilly claims? What other organization will seek accountability for widespread allegations of torture when the Bush Administration and Congress have repeatedly denied any sort of independent commission? Regardless of the outcomes, America needs the ACLU- if nothing else but to let the government know that someone is paying attention.

The ACLU also fights for religious freedom, racial equality and tolerance. Yet, O'Reilly makes the statement that Hitler would be a card-carrying member. The murder of millions of Jews does not seem to be a characteristic of one endorsing religious freedom, racial equality or tolerance. O'Reilly is clearly aware of such misrepresentations, as well as others, yet in the interest of public manipulation blurts out these slanderous terms in hopes that an uninformed public will adopt their use.

The ACLU is a nonpartisan organization that fights for the rights of all Americans as secured in the Constitution and its amendments- particularly the Bill of Rights. It does, however, or I should say naturally, often represent minority viewpoints. This representation should offend only those, as I have often written, that do not understand (or accept) the difference between majority opinion and civil rights.

It is important to note that the ACLU fights not only for religious freedom, but more importantly (and here is where the criticism often surfaces) to define the role of religion in society as set forth by the Constitution. The ACLU, at one time or another has protected the rights of individuals of all faiths- including Christians. It holds accountable government action and preserves the freedom of speech. It fights for voting rights and against racial profiling. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, it is one of the few organizations in America that recognizes and protects it against the "excessive tendencies" of majority rule. In apparent agreement, James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, "measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."

As a member of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio's educational committee, I work to inform the public of the mission of the ACLU. The ACLU represents a number of issues, and with each issue, there are degrees to which one may or may not support it. The issues are difficult ones; in fact, society's most passionate issues, and individuals must open their minds to consider both their religious and civil values. Unfortunately, as an example of their response to the negative press it has received from the conservative media, and in particular the Internet, they have had to initiated a fact/myth page on their website to dispel the rumors that have been flagrantly started.

I am sure that O'Reilly has many fans that have relished in his attack against the ACLU. I only ask for objectiveness, and a rebellion against easy-to-make, inaccurate, and hideously offensive comments that are made with the sole intent to influence public opinion without discussing the issue. While the ACLU does take sides on abortion and perhaps other issues that one may inherently disagree with based on religious beliefs, it also defends many principles that I would like to think that most Americans agree upon. At the same time, it is important to understand why the ACLU stands up for these principles. They are not abstract beliefs; they are protected civil liberties that are rooted deep in American law, history and culture- and are set forth, or being set forth, in legal precedent.

Thursday, March 3, 2005

40. Are you listening to me now?

The American Civil Liberties Union, for a variety of reasons, is often the subject of debate and controversy. Heating up the controversy is Fox News host Bill O'Reilly with his assault on the organization that has endured steadily over the last couple of years. I do not usually comment on political talk shows because of the understanding that they are appealing to a certain audience. For them to retain ratings, these "political analysts" must stir up controversy by making outlandish claims or analogies. For if they become boring, they lose ratings and then their jobs. Controversial claims often have one side vigorously applauding while the other protests in anger. In the country's current state of ideological and cultural warfare, the battle lines have been drawn as both sides fight to have their viewpoints represented in the media. They fight, because sadly, in a country that has become addicted to thirty-second sound bites, if people hear it enough, they begin to believe it. It is this notion that I have taken offense to O'Reilly's comments and offer here my rebuttal.

O'Reilly has claimed in the past that the ACLU is the "most dangerous organization in the United States right now, ...they're like, second next to Al Qaeda." He labels it as "fascist organization" and then states that Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin would be card-carrying members. Recently, O'Reilly claimed that the ACLU is a terrorist organization, "terrorizin' me and my family."

To begin, we must understand the basis of these quotations. The reference to the "most dangerous organization," is an unoriginal reference to Rob Boston's book about Pat Robertson being the "most dangerous man" in America. Also unoriginal is the reference to Al Qaeda, Hitler, and Stalin. It seems that whenever the right is frustrated over a political issue, it resorts to name-calling and analogous references. Other ideological references to the left include labeling them as liberals, socialists/communists and atheists, as well as accusing them of being unpatriotic and now, classifying them as terrorists. I would guess that O'Reilly's frustration stems from the fact that the ACLU acts as a hurdle for the majority he represents- those that desire to trample on the rights of others in the name of "god and country." Moreover, while it might have been of significant impact in the past for the right to use these terms in times of frustration, its effectiveness has worn off and the left have become numb to these references. If nothing else, perhaps a bit of creativity is in order.

My opinion is that the ACLU, more than ever, is one of the most important organizations in the country. No other organization, whether one agrees with all its issues or not, has the power to hold the government accountable for its actions. In that manner, the ACLU has attempted to hold the government accountable for the Patriot Act and the treatment of its prisoners. How can an organization that speaks against torture and illegal detention, be a terrorist organization, as O'Reilly claims? What other organization will seek accountability for widespread allegations of torture when the Bush Administration and Congress have repeatedly denied any sort of independent commission? Regardless of the outcomes, America needs the ACLU- if nothing else but to let the government know that someone is paying attention.

The ACLU also fights for religious freedom, racial equality and tolerance. Yet, O'Reilly makes the statement that Hitler would be a card-carrying member. The murder of millions of Jews does not seem to be a characteristic of one endorsing religious freedom, racial equality or tolerance. O'Reilly is clearly aware of such misrepresentations, as well as others, yet in the interest of public manipulation blurts out these slanderous terms in hopes that an uninformed public will adopt their use.

The ACLU is a nonpartisan organization that fights for the rights of all Americans as secured in the Constitution and its amendments- particularly the Bill of Rights. It does, however, or I should say naturally, often represent minority viewpoints. This representation should offend only those, as I have often written, that do not understand (or accept) the difference between majority opinion and civil rights.

It is important to note that the ACLU fights not only for religious freedom, but more importantly (and here is where the criticism often surfaces) to define the role of religion in society as set forth by the Constitution. The ACLU, at one time or another has protected the rights of individuals of all faiths- including Christians. It holds accountable government action and preserves the freedom of speech. It fights for voting rights and against racial profiling. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, it is one of the few organizations in America that recognizes and protects it against the "excessive tendencies" of majority rule. In apparent agreement, James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, "measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."

As a member of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio's educational committee, I work to inform the public of the mission of the ACLU. The ACLU represents a number of issues, and with each issue, there are degrees to which one may or may not support it. The issues are difficult ones; in fact, society's most passionate issues, and individuals must open their minds to consider both their religious and civil values. Unfortunately, as an example of their response to the negative press it has received from the conservative media, and in particular the Internet, they have had to initiated a fact/myth page on their website to dispel the rumors that have been flagrantly started.

I am sure that O'Reilly has many fans that have relished in his attack against the ACLU. I only ask for objectiveness, and a rebellion against easy-to-make, inaccurate, and hideously offensive comments that are made with the sole intent to influence public opinion without discussing the issue. While the ACLU does take sides on abortion and perhaps other issues that one may inherently disagree with based on religious beliefs, it also defends many principles that I would like to think that most Americans agree upon. At the same time, it is important to understand why the ACLU stands up for these principles. They are not abstract beliefs; they are protected civil liberties that are rooted deep in American law, history and culture- and are set forth, or being set forth, in legal precedent.

Henry David Thoreau wrote, "The greatest compliment that was ever paid me was when one asked me what I thought, and attended to my answer." It is the second part of this quotation of which I will focus on- the part that seems to be becoming increasingly negligent as a matter of courtesy and respect.

Ever have someone ask you what you thought about a subject or idea, and then before you can finish your answer, sometimes even before beginning your answer, he or she cuts you off and tells you what he or she thinks? Alternatively, perhaps, he or she misses your point completely or even starts doing something else before you can finish your answer. I have noticed lately, that as a culture, we seem to be getting worse at listening. This observation spans across a plethora of venues- from classrooms and boardrooms to business meetings and casual dinner conversations. And I am sure that, at least to some degree, we are all guilty from time to time.

The art of listening encompasses several different aspects, such as hearing only a part of an answer or idea, cutting someone off before hearing a complete response and not really listening at all.

The thought of hearing what we want to hear can be considered across a couple of domains; however, in this example I am concerned with what is selectively heard (not believed). Consider a conversation with someone in which you compliment them repeatedly, adding just a hint of what you might believe to be constructive criticism. It might go something like this, "Thanks for the wonderful dinner. The turkey was great, the potatoes were excellent and the salad was the best I have ever had. The dessert was a little sweet for my taste, but overall we had a great time." Those engaging in selective listening would only hear that the dessert was a little sweet, missing the theme of the message.

The worst aspect of not listening, at least personally, are those individuals that will be so focused on making his or her point that they are not listening to what is being said to them. These individuals are easy to note because their reply to your statement often has nothing to do with what you just said. Moreover, and worse, these individuals will often not even let you finish what you are trying to say. They will cut you off and get back to their point, not surrendering the time or courtesy to offer a credible comment or argument. I think they sometimes ask the question just so they can tell you what they think, not really because they care about your answer. Television has added to this aspect by broadcasting short debates in which the winner is often the one that presents his or her views the loudest. Furthermore, neither side is afforded the opportunity (because of time restraints) to recognize or concede a good point made by the other. Debates like this offer no chance for compromise, only the marketing of ideas or agendas.

Almost as frustrating as being cut-off when trying to make a point, is trying to talk to someone who is doing something else at the same time. Have you ever talked to someone on the phone in which you can hear them typing away? The slow reaction time to your comments further indicts the multitasker. Asking an off-the-wall question or making a strange request often serves as confirmation, especially if the individual agrees. In some respects, this lack of listening might be a cultural phenomenon due to information overload and the multitude of media outlets. As individuals try to accomplish more and more each day, tasks are often performed simultaneously. Busy individuals get used to reading headlines, skimming articles and surfing the web. I hate to admit it, but I have been guilty of trying to drive while reading and talking on the phone.

Business meetings can be dreadful as they often combine several poor listeners, each adhering to his or her own agenda. We have all been there at one time or another and recognize the scenario. One individual is finishing his or her work, or looking over his or her calendar. Another individual or two are constantly cutting off the other speakers as soon as they have something he or she perceives to be interesting or relevant to say. Other people are missing the point; commenting only to their agenda. Meetings of this sort test the patience of all those involved, long before personalities are even considered.

Listening is an art form, at least in that it takes practice. In fact, if you have had a conversation with a good listener, it is almost awkward in some respects. There is often an uncomfortable gap in the conversation as he or she waits to see if you have completely answered the question or made your comments. Furthermore, a gap often indicates that he or she is taking a moment to consider what you may have just said (as opposed to already having a response or comment prepared regardless of your opinion). Finally, a good listen offers a compliment to the speaker, by, as Henry David Thoreau perceived to receive, truly attending to his or her message.

Thursday, February 17, 2005

39. Stability shouldn't be unstable

Nature works through systems of cycles and subsequent states of equilibrium. Chemistry is built upon the stability of its elements; biology is built upon the recycling of energy through the food chain. The process of energy transfer is what supports life on this planet. Similarly, ecology works through species equilibrium. Prey and predators must achieve levels of equilibrium or else the survival of both species will be threatened. Essentially all systems on this planet are cyclical in nature- each working towards states of equilibrium, otherwise known as stability. For humans, agriculture brought a degree of stability, the end of the need for the changing environments of nomadic life- of hunting and gathering.

The theory of human stability states that humans, individually, strive to be in a state of stability. When not in a state of stability, humans endure feelings of, sometimes severe, discomfort that may be either physical or emotional. Subsequently, in times of instability, humans will act accordingly, even violently, often irrationally, to relieve themselves of that discomfort.

For example, when humans are hungry they are in a state of physical discomfort. They desire to eat, following which will quickly return them to a state of stability. Even when not hungry, just the threat of being hungry will invoke feelings of instability. Consider any national threat such as September 11 or the blackout, when individuals immediately, and sometimes fiercely, react by buying water, canned foods- whatever they feel necessary to help them survive the potential danger.

Similarly, under stress, the human body reacts to defend itself from the immediate threat of discomfort, uneasiness or fear. Physiologically, the body reacts and chemicals such as adrenaline are released- at the expense of other systems, such as the immune system (individuals under stress are far more susceptible to illnesses and diseases than those who are not). As an immediate relief to stress, individuals seek comfort through food, cigarettes or alcohol- whatever relives them of their personal anxiety or instability.

The issue is more obvious in matters of the heart. When a relationship ends, one or both partners often enter into a difficult state of instability (in this case, instability is best described as that feeling in the pit of one's stomach). A new relationship or getting back together best relives this feeling- and is why rebound relationships and reconciliations are so popular. Our second president, John Adams, gracefully noted upon the subject that, "A heart agitated with the remains of a former passion is most susceptible to a new one." Conversely, it may be "instability" that is responsible for the "crimes of passion." Revenge, as we will see and despite its consequences, is a powerful tool in the fight against instability.

On a larger scale, religion offers, for many, a sense of stability to their lives. It brings comfort in not only the death of a family member, but also their own life. The thought of an afterlife relieves the anxiety of one's own mortality. For some, this belief brings hope, purpose and a much more peaceful life. The ability to fall back on one's religious beliefs offers considerable stability to both personal crisis and the meaning of life. It provides an explanation when seemingly there are none, and in this way turns away one of our greatest senses of instability while, at the same time, providing us a "ráison d'tere."

Since the adoption of human stability, however, nothing challenges our sense of stability more than fear. So comfortable have humans become that fear seems to perpetuate an emotional and almost unreasonable effect on the population. Consider again September 11. The country sat motionlessly glued to their television sets and then, in my opinion, overreacted not to the horrific event itself but to the consequences, fears and emotions of the incident. The country looked to return to stability through revenge, "We must find and kill the terrorists," leaders proclaimed. Then, with revenge seemingly in hand, the next step toward stability is the assurance that this sort of thing will never happen again. With this, Americans adopted The Patriot Act, and created the Department of Homeland Security.

Our government, many will argue, was quick to capitalize on the principle of instability. Understanding this principle, the administration used the fear of the people to fight, what the majority now feel (steadily around 52-54%), was an unjustified war. The country, shivering at the thought of being attacked from those with weapons of mass destruction, approved the invasion of a country that never attacked us, and that has yet to show any evidence of those weapons of mass destruction. Finally, the White House successfully used the fear of the American people as part of the campaign to win four more years- as polled Americans often recited "safety" as a significant factor in their voting decision.

Statistically, the fear of terrorism is unfounded. If the government really cared about protecting this country and its citizens from harm, from the actual causes of death, it would bomb the tobacco fields, level the fast food restaurants and encourage individuals to work out rather than sit in front of the television fretting over the current national security level (orange is what again?) or watching the latest "special report." However, as we have seen, fear, as a measure of instability, can be used to persuade what would otherwise be regarded as an irrational or unfounded agenda. Ask the question, would Americans have approved an invasion of Iraq prior to September 11, given the same claims of weapons of mass destruction?