But Seriously ...

I find that without perhaps intending it to, that this has become a theme weekend for me. I wrote the TFP Column "Leaving It To Professionals" last week after becoming increasingly incensed by some of the talking-heads on the cable news channels insisting that only members of their journalism school club should get an opinion on matters of import. I believed then, and I do now, that their spouting on the subject was little more than some intellectual snobs performing an act of mutually satisfactory sexual congress (sorry, but that's as obscure as I could make the reference).

I may not always agree with Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity (though far more often than not, I find that I do agree with local WSPD hosts Fred Lefebvre and Brian Wilson); but they appear to do their research on the subjects they choose and therefore have just as much right to spout opinion as many of the other pundits on radio and cable ... and at least as much as media trolls Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews.

I followed up yesterday with a post in this blog, "Area of Expertise", where I might have appeared to contradict myself by saying that actors or musicians should probably refrain from expressing opinions about subjects they are untrained on; but I was not. As I said in the piece, everyone has a right to an opinion and to express it. Publicly doing so however, carries an obligation to do some research before expressing oneself. Being given a national stage on television or radio provides them an additional mantle of expertise (real or imagined) that mandates even more of an effort to perform due diligence on the subject they speak on.

Having said both of these things already, it seems as if it's time to wrap it all up in a pretty package and tie it up with a bow. For the most unstable of perches has only two legs, and there is a third that should recommend itself to your consideration. That of course is how serious all of this is and how serious those saying should be taken.

We live in truly interesting times, and many of the decisions being made today will have an impact far into the future. There are hard choices being made as we speak about the role of government in this country, the role being played by corporations and unions in that government, and of the role left to its citizens (or the role they will be allowed to have) in the coming days. These are subjects of serious import and there are many meeting, speaking, and writing on them (many far better than myself). Since most people do not have the time or the interest to research the data on the wide variety of subjects out there, let alone attempt to cohesively analyze it, the work that these pundits do is extremely important. They are not of themselves however, important at all except as a source.

As important as these ideas and their interpretation might be, we need to be careful not to lionize those expressing them. Media personalities are in fact no different than the rest of us. They have their strengths and their weaknesses, and the only thing that might truly set the major ones aside is that they have performed their professions well and promoted themselves with equal alacrity.

In fact there is a distinct danger in creating something more of these personalities than they deserve. Power and influence are dangerous toys to play with, and more than one media figure (or politician) has fallen prey to abuse its temptations. We need to be careful to separate the knowledge that we desperately need from the people supplying it. The last thing that we need is to create a cult of personality around such people.

Even we humble bloggers hold no special place in society. Most do what they do in fact, because of a desire to inform or simply they simply love to do it. One can admire their pluck in taking a stand or skill in expressing it, but they are still a part of the same flawed humanity as the rest of us. Their work should be critically examined and even judged, but no special place should be assigned to those who do it.

So please, take the issues being put forward with all due seriousness. Study the arguments on both sides with equally sober consideration. Expose yourself to all of the punditry on these subjects that you can stand without tearing your hair out. Please however, do not confuse the serious nature and import of the subjects with how serious you take the people who are dealing with them.

It is only through enlightened skepticism that we truly become informed. That holds true for people as well as ideas.

Area of Expertise

I was surfing TV stations recently when I came upon a couple of actors speaking out about the passage of immigration legislation in Arizona on one of the cable news networks. It isn't important which station we are talking about, nor are the actors names particularly important. What was important however, was that neither of them appeared to have actually read the legislation they were commenting on and it appeared that they were simply mimicking some talking points that they had heard or read elsewhere. 


Their lack of informed opinion was the point that struck me ... that and the fact that the only reason anyone was willing to listen to what they had to say had nothing to do with what they knew and was all about who they were. So I asked myself: What makes the opinions of actors (or musicians for that matter) in any way important on subjects other than acting or music? 


Certainly an actor can have credibility when it comes to speaking about the theater, doing TV, or making movies; but how does that translate to expertise in the area of state or federal legislation (or any other subject for that matter)? If achieving celebrity is to be the arbiter of who gets to have opinions, one might just as easily accept their opinions on medical ethics or nuclear physics. If being famous is the only scale that counts, one could just as easily decide that since everybody seems to care what the judges from American Idol think every week, we should send them over to negotiate peace in the Middle East once and for all.  


This is not to say that celebrities have no right to an opinion or to express it. They in fact have the same rights of free speech that everyone in this country has. Nor is this an indictment of a particular point of view that any chooses to express (whether I agree with it or not), but instead a question of its relevance. If you choose to speak out publicly on a subject, then you need to at least take the time to become informed on it. If the mainstream media is going to give you a national platform to express your convictions, then someone in charge should make sure that you have some idea of what's going on before allowing you to do so.


The whole thing took me back (way back) to my days in high school, when those of us who were not the popular or cool kids were so concerned about the approval, the personal style, and the opinions of those who were. Looking back on it now of course, I realize now that members of the football team or the cheerleaders were in no way smarter or better than anyone else; but we certainly seemed to think so at the time, and far too often we let them influence our decisions. I would venture to say that those who still have any contact with these people today would probably not consider asking for their views, let alone continuing to follow their lead. 


This need to influence on the part of the famous seems to stem from the atmosphere that makes up the celebrity lifestyle. Catered to at home and at work by an entourage of handlers, assistants, and agents (all of whom would like to keep their celebrity jobs), these performers are surrounded by little more than a group of human bobble-head dolls. The result of such an atmosphere is foreordained: spend enough time with people who always agree with you (whether you're right or not) and you can't help but grow into the belief that your opinions are not only always right, but of greater value to the world at large. Few of us exposed to such constant approbation and worship could retain the proper level of humility, or fail to succumb to a feeling of ingenuous self-importance, if not false omniscience. 


Now I know that there are some celebrities that take a genuine interest in causes around the world. They take the time to do careful research, consult with actual experts in the field, and try to gather as many facts as possible before putting themselves forward. They then use their celebrity to draw attention to causes and lend their support with personal appearances and with monetary donations. For this they deserve our respect. 


I fear however, that they are the exception rather than the rule. Most seem far less involved and far too easily swayed by whoever manages to bend their ear while massaging their ego. Having once been swayed, they mount their steed of self-importance and ride off in quest to right a wrong that they don't understand and which may not exist; secure in the knowledge that as one of the beautiful people, they will never really be questioned. 


Overall, I think that the world would be better served if these over-aged "popular kids" spent more time concentrating on their art and craft, and less pontificating on subjects that they saw on a PBS special or read about in People Magazine. No matter how pretty they are and how far-reaching their celebrity, most of the world's great issues are simply outside their area of expertise.

TFP Column: Leaving It To Professionals

It is the last day of April and my last column of the month for the Toledo Free Press. It may even be my last effort ever for this fine publication. Having met with Michael Miller (editor-in-chief of the TFP) on the subject a bit earlier in the month, Michael rightly points out (and I agree) that to be relevant to Toledo market and growing readership of the TFP, one really should be a part of that city and immersed its culture. This is something that will prove difficult for me in the days ahead when I will have left Toledo for Kansas City. He has graciously left the door open a tiny bit however, and the challenge will be for me to produce something worthwhile for the TFP readership from my new home. I don't know if such a thing is possible (then again, I don't know if I have done so in previous efforts), but I've always enjoyed a challenge and it will be interesting to see if it will be possible to pull it off. The idea of relevance is something that I took to heart in this weekend before the May primary, as a significant part of the discussion in the mainstream media has recently turned to who deserves to be heard in the marketplace of ideas. It reminded me of many of the same discussions about who is qualified to serve in elective office. I therefore hope that you find "Leaving It To Professionals" as a worthy effort and perhaps a fitting end to my contributions to the TFP. My work for the Toledo Free Press has been one of the great joys of my time in Toledo and of my life, and I will always be grateful to Michael and to publisher Tom Pounds for the opportunity they have given me to submit material and for the help and support that they have given me throughout these efforts (and I'm going to stop now before I get sloppy about it). This being the week before the primary, there is going to be lots of stuff (important stuff) for readers in Toledo to catch up on. Perhaps the wealth of information contained in this week's edition will even be enough to inspire more than the normal handful of dedicated individuals to GET OUT AND VOTE! As usual for spring in Toledo, the weekend promises little but rain (though the temperatures will be pretty good). My recommendation would be to enjoy the warmth, ignore the rain, and try and find out everything that's going on in Toledo and NW Ohio in the Toledo Free Press.

Questions of the Day

Am I the only one who wonders how many of the same politicians that applaud the use of "red light cameras" to enforce traffic laws can decry the recently passed Arizona legislation to enforce immigration law? 


Aren't both about both safety and holding those accountable who break the law?

The Greater Threat

Though there appears to be some confusion regarding the priority of the legislative agenda right now, it is apparent that sooner rather than later Congress will be looking to take up the subject of Financial Reform in this country. 


There is little doubt that miscalculation in the the relative values of real estate and the stock market in this country contributed significantly to the financial dilemma of unprecedented proportions beginning in 2008. There is little doubt as well that the public was duped by the system of banks and brokers, screwed by the regulatory processes that we counted on to protect us, and clueless of the rather arcane rules involved with the banking industry in general, and those curious things known as financial derivatives in particular. 


I will not attempt to provide specific definitions on these particular items, as even Wikipedia admits that its explanation may involve too much jargon and be too complicated to understand without further clarification. Neither will I attempt to apologize in any way for the actions of bank managers and stock brokers who appeared to have proved little more than thieves and prostitutes while selling us out. They took our trust in the system as well as our money; and if it can be in any way proved that any broke the law, they should be jailed. 


None of this appears to matter anyway, as Congress (which is becoming well-practiced in attempting to repair things that it doesn't understand either), has decided that only now can we bring all of this to the attention of the American people. Now many might question why it is that if the issue of this abuse (real or imagined) is such a critical one, it has taken so long to bring it to the public eye.  


Some might even be cynical enough (like me) to see that we are well into an election year, and the timing is all about the fact that there is now enough potential political advantage to both sides to finally bring up the issue. Some might even ask if the attention being drawn to one evil group might draw attention away from some other. For as we join in the charge to castigate the moneylenders, we might want to notice that the crisis is also far enough in the past that many will forget that there was already government oversight in the banking industry and the stock market ... oversight that failed rather miserably. 


The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) was apparently incapable of oversight of its own employees, let alone the markets which they were tasked to watch. Forget that some of those employees were too busy surfing the Internet for porn to perform the tasks assigned to them, the truth of the matter is that they didn't appear to understand the house of cards being built as stock brokers and banks became interchangeable, or make any attempt to limit risks with other people's money which increased exponentially as a consequence of such inaction. 


Meanwhile, the House Oversight Committee on Banking not only allowed banks to become further embroiled in the risky nature of certain parts of the stock market, but encouraged (threatened) the banking industry to make riskier investments in the mortgage industry in order to provide home ownership to all. At the same time, they stood idly by as these companies loaned money in excess of inflated housing values to those who could not afford it. When the lack of regulatory oversight responsibility on the government's part met the fiscal irresponsibility of banks gambling on drawing an inside straight in the derivative market, a perfect storm of economic unsustainability was created and we have all been forced to live wit the results in the days since. 


We must now deal with the future rather than the past however, and our concern might better be to look at the continued political philosophy that if improperly handled regulatory practices have failed, more regulation is the best and only answer to fix it. If the existing regulators fail to fulfill their responsibilities, then the only answer is to add even more regulators to fix it. This seems to be philosophy of Congress when dealing with anything from Income Tax to Social Security, and while the while the complexity of the regulations continues to grow (the Tax Code is over 13,000 pages currently) and the number of regulators continues to grow as well; the problems of understanding these complex regulations and proper oversight of such programs yet remain. 


In other words, both groups have taken billions of dollars of our money over the years to keep for us. Both groups appear to be untrustworthy with this money, having squandered it for their own gain while ostensibly holding it in trust for our future use. Both seem incapable of following the often conflicting, confusing, and often contradictory rules either by monitoring themselves or under the oversight of outside groups set up specifically for this purpose. 


One cannot help but wonder therefore, whether the greater threat to Main Street (as politicians love to call us) is Wall Street or Congress?

Packing Is Such Sweet Sorrow

Packing has preoccupied a good bit of my time and attention in recent days, much to my dismay. As any of you who have performed such labors recently already know, it is not something that someone would recommend to a friend (or even an enemy that one wishes to take pity on). And as I bend you ear (eye actually) with complaints on the process, understand that it is only a one bedroom apartment that I am attempting to deal with here, not a residence of any size.


This is one of those labors that should be taken on with the regularity of the appearance of Haley's Comet, and I have done it far too often in recent years. I moved in Ohio from Columbus to Medina (and back to Columbus again), Columbus to LaGrange, GA, LaGrange to Toledo, and now Toledo to Kansas City; and all this in the time that has passed since the turning of the millennium. 


Oddly enough, even with all of the practice that I have been getting, I find that I get no better at the process; and each succeeding effort becomes no easier than the last. It's not the physical effort required that's all that onerous however, but the mental and emotional effort that one can find difficult. Moving forces us to deal with the fact that no matter how hard we try, we still manage to accumulate far too many "things" in our lives and that some day they must be dealt with. We are likewise compelled when the time comes to move them, to decide how important each of them is to us. 


Packing them therefore makes us look back far too closely at our lives and our past, reliving a memory with each item picked up to be carefully wrapped or set aside. Each sorting selection of what to take and what to leave behind makes us consider all of the other choices that we have made in our lives. (It also makes us wonder how we could have accumulated so much crap in such a short period, but that's a posting for another day.) 


You can therefore understand the painful nature of the process I'm talking about. Memory is in fact a minefield planted with beautiful flowers that we wander in at our peril. It's fun to savor the view and the aroma of the blooms, but we never know when a misstep will reap us a reward that we neither looked for nor wanted (along with the addition of a scar or two). Even the happiest and most poignant of our memories can carry a painful price. 


As for choices, I can't say that say that the ones I have made in life have always been the best, either for myself or for those around me. Reliving them in this process does nothing to change or improve them, and often only seeks to remind us how little we learn from history (especially our own). Packing for a move however, does not allow us the luxury of avoiding such memories and choices (something that many would say I have become pretty good at over the years). 


The process inevitably involves deadlines that cannot be avoided and will not be postponed. It is a time that proves once again that the only constant in life is change, and that our only real choice in life is to move forward (often blindly) to whatever future might await us. And it is with this terrible realization that I perform the labors of packing up my life and belongings yet again, coping as best I can with the sweet sorrow of these memories that must inevitably come with the process.

TFP Column: The Right Tool For The Job

Tax day is behind us and for those of us who have survived, another weekend approaches. It seemed a fitting time to look back a week to the subject of taxes and tax day protests in the TFP with "The Right Tool For The Job". 


 As always, there is a lot more going on in the TFP, with a great piece on some of the candidates for the Lucas County Commissioner position by publisher Tom Pounds, as well as an extremely informative piece by Lisa Renee Ward catching you up on all of the issues on the May 4th ballot. 


 It's going to be a rainy weekend here in Toledo, so your best bet is to find a dry place and catch up on everything going on in Toledo in the Toledo Free Press.

Concession Speech

At the end of an election night, there is always one politician who must stand before a dejected (and usually intoxicated) group of supporters to concede defeat. (The other politician usually stands in front of an exuberant and equally intoxicated group to accept victory.) The speech that the loser gives is one where he congratulates his opponent on victory, pats his supporters on their collective fannies in spite of the outcome, and concedes that their effort (while noble) was not successful. While there is no election this week, there certainly seems to be a number of concession speeches being given. 


In fact it seems that we have heard little else in recent days than speeches about concessions by Toledo Unions. AFCSME locals gave a speech on their concessions of six members, 3 percent of their pension pick up (for 7 months), and spread of retirement payouts for those leaving employment this year. Toledo firefighters had already conceded at least a temporary 3 percent pension pick up and some delayed overtime payments. Toledo fire chiefs also conceded the 3 percent pick up, along with some vacation to be carried over to 2011 and some sick time conversion reduction. The police union (TPPA), has to date conceded nothing to the city and has instead taken it to court. All of this was done in response to Mayor Bell and City Council approving the move to exigent circumstances for Toledo, and the city demand of an across the board pension pick up all 10 percent of the employee contribution by all unions to their respective pensions (for those of you who didn't already know it, the city currently picks up the 10% employee contribution). 


Now since this is Toledo, we must defer to the definition of concession in the SOS Dictionary as the final arbiter of meaning, and this tome speaks as follows:  


Concession: 
1. Yielding a right or privilege in an argument or negotiation 
2. Yielding something barely worth noticing on a temporary basis in a contract negotiation, only to have it returned to you a few months later with interest. 
3. The appearance of giving something back when in fact nothing actually has been, so as to make those asking for it appear in some way assertive and those giving it in some way magnanimous . 


The problem in this case however, is that I at least am confused about who is actually losing, and who should be giving the concession speech as a consequence. While the unions appear to be giving something back to the city, they don't appear to be giving much ... or for long. The city, having finally taken the principled stand of exigent circumstances to resolve this situation now seems to have conceded that the problem may not have been as great as they made it out to be. They also seem to have conceded that what they originally demanded of the unions to balance the budget is not in fact what they need. Meanwhile, it seems as if the city has merely put a piece of duct tape on the band aid, which is in turn holds on the patch, which covers the money leaking out of the hole in the city's budget through union contracts. 


The solution proposed appears to do little to resolve the issue of spending more money than the city is taking in; and instead seems only to push the hard choices out beyond the next election cycle (perhaps what was intended all along). It should also be noted that should TPPA win any part of its case in court, all bets on these "concessions" will probably be off. 


I fear that the only concession speech that should be made is the one that will never be given. It is the one where the Mayor and Council concede that they took the best chance they had to permanently fix the budget problems of the city and threw it away in the name of political expediency. It should also concede that far too many City Council members are running for new offices in the approaching election cycle to maintain the principled stand that they briefly assumed, and have once again conceded the city's future to union rule.

From A Certain Point Of View

"So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view. Luke, you will that many of the truths that we cling to depend greatly on our point of view." - Obi Wan Kenobi (from Episode VI, "Return of the Jedi) 


Something about this simple pronouncement in a movie script has caught my attention recently as I watch instances of the political debate in this country. Both sides believe that they have the facts on their side, both seem convinced that they have the backing of history, and both are equally passionate in defending their beliefs (and attacking the opposition). It is however, the facts that we choose and how we interpret them that defines us however. 


Take for example, the recent proclamation made by the Bob McDonnell, Governor of Virginia, declaring April as Confederate History Month. Given that he was a Republican governor swept in on the Conservative momentum change he was already a target, and with this he was immediately attacked by the media and the left as racist for attempting to lionize the Confederate history of his state and for not specifically mentioning the evils of slavery in this proclamation. (He later amended his proclamation to do so, though he continued to be vilified.) 


Forget that Civil War tourism is a large source of revenue for his state, at a time when all are struggling with revenue shortfalls. Forget as well that many of Virgina's most famous and laudable citizens deserve to be remembered regardless of which side of this war that they fought on. Apparently all we are to remember is that slavery is evil and that the Civil War was fought about the cause of slavery alone. 


Now while there is no doubt that slavery is evil and little that it had something to do with this tragic period in American history, anyone who looks closely at the times can see that there was far more to it. If slavery were the cause of the war, then why is it that slavery was not ended before the war began (see definition 1 of cause)? In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until January 1, 1863, two years after the war had begun, and slavery was not officially abolished in the United States until 1865, with the passing of the 13th Amendment. 


If the belief instead is that the war was fought not because of, but over slavery; how do we reconcile this with the fact Lincoln initially felt that he had no Constitutional right to abolish the institution? In fact, Lincoln stated after the war had begun: "My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it."  


Perhaps instead we should look more closely at this first Republican president, someone who was committed to strong central government and to a tax and spend philosophy. Lincoln believed in high tariffs that were putting a strangle hold on Southern exports when he was still a Whig Party member in the mold of Henry Clay, and signed the bills that created the IRS and the first US income tax when president. He also favored spending federal money to sponsor massive infrastructure projects (outlawed in most state constitutions of the time), which greatly expanded the miles of railroad track in this country (mostly in the North) through the use of federal subsidies. 


In addition to saving and strengthening the Union, Lincoln was unafraid to use the power of that stronger central government he desired to enforce his will. He suspended (illegally) the rights of habeus corpus in this country, arrested Maryland legislators who were considering joining the Confederacy in legitimate legislative session, shut down newspapers and arrested publishers who spoke out against his abuses, and deported to the Confederacy a former Ohio Democratic state legislator (Clement Laird Vallandigham) who criticized him.


Perhaps in fact, the Civil War was (until very recently) the last stand of the states who adopted the US Constitution in 1787 to assert the states rights that they thought were guaranteed under that document. It might be said they feared the federal government with Lincoln at its head was overreaching the limits placed on it by that document, and that they simply sought the same relief that the Founding Fathers outlined in the Declaration of Independence and pursued some 111 years earlier. 


While some might argue the extremity of the method used, it is difficult (especially in these times) not to sympathize with the fears that these men had. It is also difficult to understand why Virginia cannot use a state proclamation (often an instrument of spectacular absurdity) to create a discussion to explore the subject and more closely scrutinize some of the facts and interpretations of the history of this period. Instead of castigating the man and attacking the idea, perhaps this could be used as one of those "teachable moments" that the liberal intelligentsia is so fond of. 


Of course all of this is simply my take on the issue, given from a certain point of view ...

TFP Column: Issue 3 Is Long On Tax, Short On Explanations

Another weekend is upon us, and yet another of my efforts has made its way onto the pages of the Toledo Free Press. "Issue 3 Is Long On Tax, Short On Explanations" is my manifesto as to why the .75% income tax issue for the Toledo Public Schools should be voted down. 


Since the May 4th vote is only a few weeks away, perhaps it will cause a few of Toledo's voters to think twice. 


But as usual there's a lot more in the TFP this weekend, including a Kristen Rapin piece on Mayor Bell's first 100 days in office that you will undoubtedly find of greater interest and a piece by Michael Miller on Professional Journalism, the competition, and the use of social networking.