79. Democracy is tyranny, too

I must admit that I have some compassion for smokers. Although I have vehemently argued against the cigarette companies for their acts of irresponsible marketing and I find it remarkable that this dangerously unhealthy product endures such viability in our culture, I understand on an individual level that smoking is an addiction.

Voters this November were afforded the opportunity to remove smoking from all public places- an issue that easily passed. Certainly, from a health perspective, this was an easy decision. The decision was made easier by the somewhat underhanded attempt by the cigarette companies to add an amendment to the state constitution preserving the right to smoke is several venues. But I do have apprehension regarding the process, most notably, the use of majority rule to pass legislation and ratify constitutional amendments.

I have considerable concern for the use of the state constitution and Ohio voters in addressing these types of social issues. I believe that amendments to the state constitution should be reserved for the most creditable of social conditions. Ohio voters recall in 2004 when it was used to amend the constitution prohibiting gay marriage- something that was already illegal under Ohio law. This year an amendment was added raising the minimum wage. I agree wholeheartedly with the raising of the minimum wage, but I do not think that it should have been an amendment to the state constitution.

While smoking is not a civil right issue to the same degree as gay marriage; the tyranny of the majority, as I have written before, is capable of trampling the rights and privileges of others. If we are going to engage in using the Ohio constitution to accommodate the wishes of the majority, one has to be concerned at what point they, themselves, will be on the outside looking in. Certainly, smokers that voted against gay marriage now recognize the consequences of majority rule. Conceivably, there is an endless list of demographics that can be sorted through a democratic vote, such as making English the only acceptable language and defining ourselves as a Christian nation.

This issue is further exemplified in Cuyahoga County where voters turned out to support a tax on cigarettes to fund arts and culture. What does smoking have to do with art and culture, and what limit is there on taxing any activity that is performed by a minority of the population for the benefit of the majority? Why not tax the purchase of bubble gum? Taxes are usually levied on "sins," such as cigarettes and alcohol or luxury items- both which separate a minority from a majority who would rather have someone else support their endeavors.

The Sun Newspaper endorsed the issue, noting "...we're giving the nod to county Issue 18, an excise tax of 1.5 cents per cigarette for the sole reason that we are convinced a strong arts and culture community can only help spur badly needed economic development, attract businesses by raising the quality of life and avoid the stigma of being a city that doesn't support the arts."

The Plain Dealer also endorsed the issue, while admitting, "...we agree: This particular tax is not ideal, especially since it forces a shrinking minority to pick up the tab for supporting the arts."

There are two points to these endorsements; the first is my assertion that the majority is forcing a tax onto a minority population. The second is to ask why the entire community cannot be taxed to support art and culture- considering its benefit. The answer to my second point is that they tried, but in 2004 the county voted against a property tax proposal to finance art and economic developments. It seems that it is only a good idea when someone else pays for it. I also cannot resist the proposition that this tax is levied "per cigarette," as an unfair ploy to make the tax feel painless.

People will almost always vote in their best interest rather than on the principle of what is right or wrong. For example, how many smokers voted to ban smoking in public places? How many considered the effects of second hand smoke and made the rational decision to vote against their own interest? I would guess not many. And how many non-smokers voters decided against breathing fresh air or increasing the tax on cigarettes? Again, I would guess not many.

This idea of the tyranny of the majority was explored by Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy of America. He boldly states that if people are given power through equality, they will have a tendency to become weak through their dependency on the rule of the majority. He further comments, "I know of no country in which, generally speaking, there is less independence of mind, and true freedom of discussion, than in America."

78. Green lawns are a luxury

The aesthetics of that, which we find pleasurable, range from classical music and photography to beautiful landscapes and fine art. In between are numerous cultural and economic differences and preferences. While no one has the right to decide for others what they find attractive, there is an argument that all aesthetics are a luxury. That is, they are a part of our disposable income which we pursue for little other reason than we find them personally appealing.

I contemplated this idea while cutting the grass for what I hope will be the final time of the year. I was noticing the wretched condition of our lawn, which coincided with the unexplainable desire to improve its condition. I reflected in depth about this subconscious longing, since I can find no practical reason to indulge in what many people may find aesthetically pleasing, namely "green grass."

We planted our own lawn about six years ago, which has gone through cycles of spirited growth, drought and the invasion of uninvited species of imposter grasses. We have sparsely maintained the traditional method of lawn care, that is, consistent watering and seasonal fertilization. Even then, rarely do I engage in this activity without noting to myself, in amusement, the sound bite I heard a couple years ago describing the seemingly inane human activity of spending money to fertilize and water the grass, only to create the chore of cutting it. It is not that I would not like to have a lush lawn, free of crabgrass and dead patches of turf; rather, it is that I have a hard time justifying it as a worthy cost of disposable income.

Certainly I understand that many people enjoy doing yard work, as I do myself. And as I mentioned in the introduction, I respect the right for everyone to appreciate whatever it is they find pleasing. However, I wonder if it is truly an appreciation that they are engaging in. Do people really consider why they appreciate a lush lawn? Is it aesthetically pleasing or is it a measure of tradition and expectation?

I think that people often do what they think they are supposed to do, an idea I will develop further in future writings as the "scripted life." Living the "scripted life" is a product of doing things that are either traditional or as a measure of expectations- without really considering why those things are being done. It is also a product of doing things without considering alternatives.

I have commented to my wife about some of the more obsessive people dedicated to lawn care that they will have nothing else to write on their tombstone other than, "Here lies John Smith, he had a great lawn." Recognizing it as an insensitive comment, my point is hopefully obvious. Everything we do, and everything we spend our money on, is at a cost of every other thing we could do with our time and money. I bet many people who want to have a nice lawn do so because they are "supposed" to have a nice lawn, rather than because of its intrinsic value. The cost of such a lawn can be expensive, considering the lengths some people will go to. Not only are some people will give up a large amount of time, they are willing to employ professional lawn companies and install sprinkler systems. To pay that price for "green grass," is, in my opinion, a woeful luxury. The idea is a slanted socioeconomic premise when one considers that many people cannot afford to purchase food or keep gas in the car, while, in juxtaposition, others throw money out into the lawn for the brief visual pleasure of a steady shade of green and the consistent shape of its vegetative blades. Further societal debate would include the wasteful implications of watering the yard when some parts of the world lack clean drinking water and the environmental aspect of overzealously throwing lawn clippings into our landfills.

"Green grass" is one of possibly many things we take for granted without considering the real reason why we find those things worthy as a part of our lives. It is might also be one of many things we do without considering alternatives. For example, would the time and money spent on its endeavor be better spent on philanthropic causes? Imagine, for a moment, if every homeowner in the country donated the money spent on their lawns to charity.

There seems to be a subconscious value placed on philosophy and ceremony, aesthetic and otherwise, which we often act on in life without considering its actual value, our real desires, possible alternatives or potential consequences. Is a little crabgrass, in lieu of say, cancer research, really so bad?

77. APL is going to the dogs

The Friendship Animal Protection League (APL) has been in the news lately, releasing information that it is in serious financial trouble. On Sunday, October 15, the APL held its annual membership meeting at the shelter, where it elects trustees and officers of the board. Concerned with the viability of the APL, my wife and I paid our dues, to become voting members, and attended the meeting. I debated whether or not to seek election to the board- in the end, deciding to see what direction the organization took before committing.

The meeting was attended by forty or so dedicated animal lovers, all which should be commended for their dedication in helping these homeless companions. Many of these volunteers donate their time and money to assist these animals in finding a blissful home. In addition to the laborious chores of cleaning cages and walking the dogs, they spend a lot of time helping with fundraising activities.

The non-profit protective league, based on the meeting we attended, seemed dangerously unorganized. The biggest shock for me was when David McClelland, the executive director, was unable to tell the membership exactly how many trustee positions were to be elected (until consulting his cheat sheet). How can an executive director not know how many trustees are to be elected at a membership meeting, especially considering that the trustees serve as his boss? Furthermore, it was disappointing to notice that many of the current trustees, not up for reelection, did not bother to attend the meeting- considering the state of the organization. After the election of what ended up to be six trustee positions, four officers, (and a "hanging chad" type discussion) a complete board of sixteen organizational trustees was put into place. The first challenge for this board will be to decide whether or not they have adequate leadership.

McClelland began the meeting with the notion that the shelter is broke. This is consistent with his statement to the Chronicle Telegram which reported that, "He (McClelland) stopped taking a paycheck in May - he made about $40,000 a year - and used his own money to pay APL staff last week." If this is the case, why did he and the board wait until October to make a public statement? The paper also reported that APL reserves ran out in September. Again, why do an executive director and his board just sit there and wait until they are out of money before making a public appeal. This delay puts the public in a tough spot, for now they have to decide whether or not to donate to what might be a "sinking ship." In other words, will my donation make a difference if the shelter is doomed to close?

Reviewing just the last two issues of the APL's newsletter also hinted at poor decision making on behalf of the APL's leadership. In the August issue, McClelland writes that he met with trustees and volunteers for a "Solutions Summit to review our financial problems and find a solution." He continues, "Of course, I reviewed the information in detail. This was a mistake. I should have told the group that we were broke but that this was not important." How is reviewing financial information with a Solutions Summit, dedicated to reviewing the financial problems, "a mistake"? How is it "not important"?

In the newsletter article he talks on two occasions about a "love miracle that will find us," and that losing the lease to Bingo, one of their most profitable fundraising events, as "God clobbering us on the head so that we could find a better place." Maybe God could have found them a better place, before the lease expired or within a month or two of its expiration? It sounds somewhat evangelical and a little desperate to me.

In the Chronicle Telegram, it says that the APL lost their Bingo lease in September. However, in the newsletter it states they lost their lease a year ago. Perhaps it was a year ago in September, and a convenient misuse of the facts as not to appear so delayed in their appeal. But it gets worse, as the October newsletter notes that, "Since people have been fighting over a plan to buy a party center and use it as a bingo hall; a plan to lease a bingo hall or doing something else to raise money quickly. Unfortunately, nothing has happened." The creative use of punctuation aside, it obviously puts forth the idea to its membership, and anyone that buys a newsletter, that this organization has had problems for a long time. Evidently, the recent financial problems were anticipated well in advance, and APL leadership has spent at least a year fighting over what to do. In the meantime, the organization has been sliding into financial difficulties. Finally, I do not think I have ever seen the "dirty laundry' between an executive director and his board shared in a community/membership letter.

The APL is a valuable resource to our community, but like any non-profit in today's competitive philanthropic market, it needs to show supporters that their donations will properly managed and utilized. There are a number of good causes and good organizations, including competing animal organizations, which donators will consider.

The challenge for the elected board is not only to rescue the APL from its financial difficulties, but also to decide if the management that created the financial hardship is capable of leading it out of it. Personally, I am skeptical.

76. Call law what it really is

A recent trend in Congress is the attempt to pass bills through what I would call, "the backdoor." Actually, it is probably not a recent trend; it is just that I notice it more nowadays. I am also sure that it is not a partisan issue, but my recall is largely limited to the last several years of Republican rule.

There are several ways this is accomplished, such as adopting a popular or patriotic name for the bill, attaching it to a larger perhaps even compromising bill, or rendering a law meaningless by cutting off its funding source. They all lack integrity and serve nothing more than to "trick" the general, unsuspecting public. Elected officials that engage in this practice are an embarrassment to the political system- regardless of which political party they belong to.

I have previously noted the improper notion of the Patriot Act, which is actually a stripping of civil liberties, that was unread and passed by Congress in the early morning hours. The bill has nothing to do with patriotism, and one could even argue that infringing on civil liberties is, in fact, quite unpatriotic. It is more accurately described as the search for terrorists, acted upon with few boundaries. Ironically, appropriately described, it might still have passed due to the level of fear propagated by the government.

In another example, Congress recently considered a bill involving the death tax and the minimum wage. Project Vote Smart summarized it this way, "a motion to invoke cloture on a bill that increases the federal minimum wage to $7.25 by June 2009 and increases the "Death/Estate Tax" exemptions to $5 million by 2015 and extends many other expiring tax provisions (Sec. 401) (Sec. 101) ." It does not seem to me that something as important as raising the minimum wage ought to be attached to any other bill, especially one that provides such a benefit to the very wealthy- many of whom are voting on the bill itself. To me, it is analogous to your boss offering you a significant raise if you promise to ask your neighbor to feed his or her dog a little extra. I have to ask, whatever happened to the Republican plea for an "up and down" vote.

Recently, I was made aware of another sneaky and inappropriately named bill attempting to get through Congress. This one is entitled, "Public Expression of Religion Act" (H.R. 2679)." The American Humanist Association, among several opposing the bill, summarizes it this way, "This bill would bar courts from awarding attorney's fees to prevailing parties bringing suit under the Establishment Clause, and they would make it much more difficult for citizens to challenge governmental violations of the separation of church and state."

Very clever, but really, how does the person who authored and entitled this bill sleep at night? It has little to do with the public expression of religion; rather it seeks to accomplish just the opposite- preventing individuals from exercising their religious freedom. The bill seeks to prohibit victorious (that's right, victorious) attorneys from collecting their fees. Unsuccessful lawsuits do not receive attorney fees; which, of course, is the natural deterrent from investing in cases that have little chances of winning.

Thus, in order to protect the government's actions as a conscious hindrance of religious freedom under the Establishment Clause, the sponsors of this bill have resorted to cutting off the financial support necessary of bringing suit against those actions. To me, this is an immoral manipulation of our most precious freedoms. Rather than expect the government to follow the laws of this country and the rights of individuals, Congress would rather prevent its citizens, especially its poorest citizens, from challenging it.

Following a bill through Congress, as it weaves through the House and Senate, is difficult enough. Certainly there many other examples, such as the Horse Slaughter bill and the bills that attempted to commence drilling in Alaska. This is still a representative government, and I am sure that those of us that would like to occasionally follow the legislative process would appreciate our perspective laws being properly named, fairly presented and of respectable moral standard.