I heard from an American Muslim troubled by my September 20, 2007 column, "National security vs. civil liberty in America" My reply to him follows...
"I appreciate your thoughtful reply and I apologize for the length of time it has taken me to respond.
Before I address the points you make below, I should like to make clear that I fully recognize that the overwhelming majority of Muslims (American and otherwise) are peaceful, decent, people of faith. Radical Islam represents only a small fraction of the one billion-plus Muslims in the world. Unfortunately that small fraction still equates to a large number of people that we must monitor and defend ourselves from, in order to preserve our freedoms.
As for the incident that took place at the Minneapolis airport in 2006, it is obvious that you are troubled by my use of the word “suspicious.” If the 6 clerics involved were simply and quietly praying as you maintain, the flurry of events that made their presence so newsworthy, would not have developed. After all, thousands of Muslims travel through American airports every day without the same type of fallout. Your benign characterization of their actions during the whole ordeal does not at all comport with statements from eye witnesses, the gate agent, or excerpts that I read from the police report.
Whether one chooses to describe the activities of the clerics as suspicious or merely provocative, misses the point.
In this day and age, after what we have all been through, greater sensitivity on the part of the clerics would have been highly advisable. People are understandably on edge, particularly in airports. By saying that, I do not in any way, shape, or form, suggest that anyone should refrain from public prayer and again, I do not share your view that all that occurred that day was harmless prayer misunderstood by ignorant Americans. I am fully aware of and greatly respect your practice of praying five times a day. I am also a person of faith and most Americans are not as woefully ignorant of Islam, as you believe.
After this whole sad episode, the clerics elected to sue not only the airline, but also the passengers that shared their concerns with authorities. Therefore, in the future, some who would be inclined to alert authorities to potential danger, will have to weigh the possibility of being incorrect and then becoming the recipient of a fresh lawsuit. I find that conundrum more than a little troubling.
Should you receive this message in time, I’d invite you to watch a local television program called 4th Street Forum, tomorrow afternoon @ 3PM, on Channel 36. The topic of my last column (that you take issue with) is explored during a panel discussion and I was privileged to participate. Within hours of taping that program, I learned that bombs exploded in Pakistan killing 134 people. The latest reports indicate that it was more death coming from the evil hand of al Qaida.
The timing of that tragedy and the taping of the aforementioned TV program was sad irony for me, but I draw no comparison between decent people like you and people who celebrate the murder of Western children, so please do not paint me with such a broad brush. I argue to preserve freedoms not just for myself, but for people like you as well.
That is why I sometimes get discouraged by reactions like yours. Yet I become encouraged when I read and hear other American Muslims like Muqtedar Khan who fully recognize where to place their energy and advocacy. If you are not familiar with Dr. Khan’s work, you may wish to read one essay in particular called “Memo To Mr. Bin Laden: Go to Hell! It can be found at http://www.ijtihad.org/BinladenII.htm
All of this notwithstanding, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to write to me. I wish you well.
- John J. Maddente"
National security vs. civil liberty in America
Published: Sept. 20, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
It is a solemn anniversary each year, the kind where you hold your breath hoping that you won't hear a news report about a terrorist bombing or some other horrific act. I'm talking, of course, about Sept. 11, a date that will remain seared into our consciousnesses for the rest of our lives.
Understandably, the date also has devolved into a ritualistic debate regarding the competing ideals of national security and civil liberties. Here's my take.
Civil liberties, including the right to privacy, are critically necessary in any free society. The ability to express myself through this column is an obvious example. However, civil liberties should not in and of themselves supersede national security. And some of the clamor about domestic surveillance has gone from making my eyes roll to making my blood boil.
Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, enacted in 1996, the government reserved for itself the right to comb through your medical records without court approval if such an action is deemed potentially useful to a federal investigation.
I wasn't particularly concerned about that in 1996, nor am I now. How many abuses of that law have been documented in the past 11 years? Consider the entire domestic surveillance hubbub we hear today and ask: Do you really think the CIA cares about phone calls you have made or books you have checked out from the library?
Of course not, and I don't want to hamper its efforts to locate people who would hurt innocent Americans. Vice President Dick Cheney can pore over my phone logs whenever he pleases. If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear.
So frisk me! If it makes us all safer, it's worth it. Blame terrorists and their supporters for the circumstances that gave rise to these extraordinary precautions; don't blame policy-makers trying to keep us safe.
A related concept in the civil liberties controversy is the notion of racial profiling. The idea that added scrutiny is given to some purely on the basis of ethnicity is not new, and, in practice, it arguably can be quite troubling.
During World War II, for example, many Japanese-Americans and some German-Americans underwent humiliating treatment in this country to ensure that they possessed no loyalties to the Emperor or to the Führer.
That's a sad chapter for us, but it's not at all what I am advocating. There are no internment camps today for Muslim-Americans. No reasonable person would support such measures.
On the other hand, our country was not attacked by radical fundamentalist Norwegians. I doubt you'll find many Nordic sleeper cells operating around the world. So if I am acting suspiciously in an airport like the six Muslim men in the Minneapolis airport last fall, the fact that I am drawing comparatively more attention than some platinum blond named Sven makes sense to me.
Letter writer Patrick Collentine put it thus in the Sept. 16 Journal Sentinel:
"Since there have been countless attacks thwarted and none executed in six years, I think it is obvious we are more safe today because of the USA Patriot Act, domestic wiretapping, aggressive interrogation and holding suspected detainees until we are sure they pose no threat to America."
He added, "There has been one case in six years that the Justice Department has prosecuted for the infringement on civil liberties. I'll take that trade-off any day."
So will I.
It is a solemn anniversary each year, the kind where you hold your breath hoping that you won't hear a news report about a terrorist bombing or some other horrific act. I'm talking, of course, about Sept. 11, a date that will remain seared into our consciousnesses for the rest of our lives.
Understandably, the date also has devolved into a ritualistic debate regarding the competing ideals of national security and civil liberties. Here's my take.
Civil liberties, including the right to privacy, are critically necessary in any free society. The ability to express myself through this column is an obvious example. However, civil liberties should not in and of themselves supersede national security. And some of the clamor about domestic surveillance has gone from making my eyes roll to making my blood boil.
Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, enacted in 1996, the government reserved for itself the right to comb through your medical records without court approval if such an action is deemed potentially useful to a federal investigation.
I wasn't particularly concerned about that in 1996, nor am I now. How many abuses of that law have been documented in the past 11 years? Consider the entire domestic surveillance hubbub we hear today and ask: Do you really think the CIA cares about phone calls you have made or books you have checked out from the library?
Of course not, and I don't want to hamper its efforts to locate people who would hurt innocent Americans. Vice President Dick Cheney can pore over my phone logs whenever he pleases. If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear.
So frisk me! If it makes us all safer, it's worth it. Blame terrorists and their supporters for the circumstances that gave rise to these extraordinary precautions; don't blame policy-makers trying to keep us safe.
A related concept in the civil liberties controversy is the notion of racial profiling. The idea that added scrutiny is given to some purely on the basis of ethnicity is not new, and, in practice, it arguably can be quite troubling.
During World War II, for example, many Japanese-Americans and some German-Americans underwent humiliating treatment in this country to ensure that they possessed no loyalties to the Emperor or to the Führer.
That's a sad chapter for us, but it's not at all what I am advocating. There are no internment camps today for Muslim-Americans. No reasonable person would support such measures.
On the other hand, our country was not attacked by radical fundamentalist Norwegians. I doubt you'll find many Nordic sleeper cells operating around the world. So if I am acting suspiciously in an airport like the six Muslim men in the Minneapolis airport last fall, the fact that I am drawing comparatively more attention than some platinum blond named Sven makes sense to me.
Letter writer Patrick Collentine put it thus in the Sept. 16 Journal Sentinel:
"Since there have been countless attacks thwarted and none executed in six years, I think it is obvious we are more safe today because of the USA Patriot Act, domestic wiretapping, aggressive interrogation and holding suspected detainees until we are sure they pose no threat to America."
He added, "There has been one case in six years that the Justice Department has prosecuted for the infringement on civil liberties. I'll take that trade-off any day."
So will I.
To: Editorial board at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Their question to readers:
Would you be willing to pay a higher sales tax on gasoline to pay for bridge maintenance and replacement?
My reply...
Dear Editorial board,
My answer is no I would not and it’s the phrasing of your question that might draw scrutiny from other like-minded readers. That is, why do you presuppose that the only way to fund such infrastructure improvement is through an increase in the gas tax- or an increase in any tax for that matter? We already pay among the highest sales tax rates at the pump.
During the previous budget cycle, Governor Doyle, like a modern day Cesar Augustus, used his famous “Frankenstein veto” to instantly transfer over $400 million dollars from the highway fund to K-12 education. The magnitude of his audacity surprised pols on both sides of the aisle. Perhaps some of those funds might have remained better invested in infrastructure like that suggested by your query to readers in today’s paper.
In any event - why not ask a follow up question to JS readers?
“In order to fund such bridge work, would you allow the consolidation of school districts where enrollment no longer justifies operating such schools, or through asset sales of state owned property and land used by a paucity of our population, or through cancellation of marginally-necessary pet projects?”
OK, I understand space limitations -- but you get my point.
Respectfully,
John J. Maddente
Would you be willing to pay a higher sales tax on gasoline to pay for bridge maintenance and replacement?
My reply...
Dear Editorial board,
My answer is no I would not and it’s the phrasing of your question that might draw scrutiny from other like-minded readers. That is, why do you presuppose that the only way to fund such infrastructure improvement is through an increase in the gas tax- or an increase in any tax for that matter? We already pay among the highest sales tax rates at the pump.
During the previous budget cycle, Governor Doyle, like a modern day Cesar Augustus, used his famous “Frankenstein veto” to instantly transfer over $400 million dollars from the highway fund to K-12 education. The magnitude of his audacity surprised pols on both sides of the aisle. Perhaps some of those funds might have remained better invested in infrastructure like that suggested by your query to readers in today’s paper.
In any event - why not ask a follow up question to JS readers?
“In order to fund such bridge work, would you allow the consolidation of school districts where enrollment no longer justifies operating such schools, or through asset sales of state owned property and land used by a paucity of our population, or through cancellation of marginally-necessary pet projects?”
OK, I understand space limitations -- but you get my point.
Respectfully,
John J. Maddente
Don't believe the doomsday predictions about newspapers
Published July 29, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Here's hoping that some things never change. The Civil War memorial statues on Wisconsin Ave. in Milwaukee, no stadium naming rights to Lambeau Field and the Menomonee River Parkway in Wauwatosa will all, with God's good grace, remain unaltered in my lifetime.
What you're reading at the moment is a local newspaper that has existed in various incarnations since 1837. Different names, different mastheads and different owners, but, nonetheless, this paper has been a part of our consciousness for a long time.
Some of us are old enough to recall a time when we'd pluck out The Green Sheet from The Milwaukee Journal and read Mrs. Griggs' advice column. For some, the memories go back even further. Many have heard prognostications about a trend away from newspapers as consumers demand more information via computer and the Internet. Some maintain that since more people than ever obtain their news and entertainment online the inexorable death of the old fish wrapper is just a matter of time.
Nonsense! I doubt that the printed newspaper will ever become extinct - and not just because I want to doubt its demise. My reasoning is more practical.
A newspaper enables one to consume information with so much ease and so little dexterity that it cannot be duplicated. You just can't argue with good design. That is to say, is it conceivably easier or more satisfying to hold some wafer-thin (albeit newspaper-sized) screen and scroll through your daily pixels of news and pictures? Not for me. I'll never give up my pulp-based reading. Information technology can be a great enhancement to slake our thirst for information - and also a great waste of time.
For example, I've used two different handheld devices to support all of my phone, calendar, Internet and e-mail needs. The first device I loved because it was intuitive to learn and easy to use. I have a different device now that I detest for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is the most over-engineered contraption I have ever encountered. It was made by geeks for geeks who love the thing because it's state of the art, whatever that is.
But information technology and its beguiling ecosystem - the Internet - can't be judged so simply. It's a blessing, it's evil and it's a waste of time all at once. Creeps use the Internet to prey on children, but it also helps parents stay close to their children when separated by great distances. Porn sites proliferate, but so does some exceptional blogging and grass-roots reporting that help to equalize and make more transparent a very complex world.
Journalists are becoming increasingly reliant upon and held more accountable by just about any serious person with a modem and a hankering to share something important. Teens and adults fritter away countless hours playing games, but on the other hand . . . well, you get it.
It's the content that remains important - the digital and paper platforms will remain only as catalysts to slake our thirst for information, and they will continue to coexist. Whether you want news electronically or prefer to rattle those pages between your fingertips as I do, what's important is the quality of what we pull off of the platform.
Is it fair? Is it accurate? Is it useful? So don't write off the newspaper. It may be an aged medium, but it's one as comfortable as those trusty pair of shoes you'll never part with.
Here's hoping that some things never change. The Civil War memorial statues on Wisconsin Ave. in Milwaukee, no stadium naming rights to Lambeau Field and the Menomonee River Parkway in Wauwatosa will all, with God's good grace, remain unaltered in my lifetime.
What you're reading at the moment is a local newspaper that has existed in various incarnations since 1837. Different names, different mastheads and different owners, but, nonetheless, this paper has been a part of our consciousness for a long time.
Some of us are old enough to recall a time when we'd pluck out The Green Sheet from The Milwaukee Journal and read Mrs. Griggs' advice column. For some, the memories go back even further. Many have heard prognostications about a trend away from newspapers as consumers demand more information via computer and the Internet. Some maintain that since more people than ever obtain their news and entertainment online the inexorable death of the old fish wrapper is just a matter of time.
Nonsense! I doubt that the printed newspaper will ever become extinct - and not just because I want to doubt its demise. My reasoning is more practical.
A newspaper enables one to consume information with so much ease and so little dexterity that it cannot be duplicated. You just can't argue with good design. That is to say, is it conceivably easier or more satisfying to hold some wafer-thin (albeit newspaper-sized) screen and scroll through your daily pixels of news and pictures? Not for me. I'll never give up my pulp-based reading. Information technology can be a great enhancement to slake our thirst for information - and also a great waste of time.
For example, I've used two different handheld devices to support all of my phone, calendar, Internet and e-mail needs. The first device I loved because it was intuitive to learn and easy to use. I have a different device now that I detest for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is the most over-engineered contraption I have ever encountered. It was made by geeks for geeks who love the thing because it's state of the art, whatever that is.
But information technology and its beguiling ecosystem - the Internet - can't be judged so simply. It's a blessing, it's evil and it's a waste of time all at once. Creeps use the Internet to prey on children, but it also helps parents stay close to their children when separated by great distances. Porn sites proliferate, but so does some exceptional blogging and grass-roots reporting that help to equalize and make more transparent a very complex world.
Journalists are becoming increasingly reliant upon and held more accountable by just about any serious person with a modem and a hankering to share something important. Teens and adults fritter away countless hours playing games, but on the other hand . . . well, you get it.
It's the content that remains important - the digital and paper platforms will remain only as catalysts to slake our thirst for information, and they will continue to coexist. Whether you want news electronically or prefer to rattle those pages between your fingertips as I do, what's important is the quality of what we pull off of the platform.
Is it fair? Is it accurate? Is it useful? So don't write off the newspaper. It may be an aged medium, but it's one as comfortable as those trusty pair of shoes you'll never part with.
Still weary about our punitive state tax burden
Published July 5, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Watching our state's political budget process is not easy. There are so many additional taxes - and some with such vast implications - all under discussion at once. One billion, 2 billion, 3 billion, 15 billion: all numbers I have seen to describe potential tax increases.
The characters involved mirror stereotypes of both political parties: Democrats are seeking a broader governmental role in fixing our problems through tax increases and government spending. The GOP is digging in its heels, wanting to hold the line on taxes and government spending and government's increased involvement in our affairs.
Reminiscent of the high stakes budget showdown that occurred between President Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1995, Republican Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch stated he would block the process if the budget delivered to him contains tax increases. By any credible measure, we live in a high-tax state, and this budget season reminds me of the myriad ways government can tax us and how far Gov. Jim Doyle and his coterie of party faithful are prepared to go in order to exercise their views about what government ought to do. But what about the long-term picture beyond the current two-year budget cycle?
I was troubled by a June 24 column by John Tornius that referenced a credible third-party analysis of our state's annual "structural deficit" of $2.2 billion ("State's accounting doesn't pass muster"). The analysis revealed that relative to population, Wisconsin is at the top of all deficit-running states in the nation.
That's more than a little disconcerting if you or your children care about life in Wisconsin more than a couple years from now. Many of us grouse about the need to reduce taxes. That's personal income taxes, real estate taxes, corporate personal property taxes, gas taxes, home-selling taxes and they-don't-give-me-enough-space-to-list-all-the taxes. Others counter with, "That's not realistic; our needs have increased." Or my personal favorite, "But look at our fine educational system and park system and whatever system."
Even if I agreed that we derived an equivalent value from the punitive tax burden we've paid through the decades, we cannot afford everything any longer. As opposed to making more hard choices, I read about things like the governor's proposal to increase by some $55 million annually the cost of state-owned lands in "far-flung natural areas" beginning in 2011. What percentage of us has a desire, let alone need, to traverse additional land already owned by the state in the wilds of Douglas County when our long-term fiscal condition is so bleak?
Other troubling budgetary facts:
• The $15 billion universal health care plan is an 11th-hour power play, and whether you believe such a plan is the answer to our health care conundrum or not, the issues and implications are too complex, too far-reaching, too everything to contemplate now. That patient is dead.
• The new gas tax on oil companies that ostensibly would be borne by oil companies and not passed on to you and me has zero chance of success. If it makes its way into law, it will fail in practice or the courts.
• Lifting any real estate property tax cap will diminish any hope I have left in government.
What we will wind up with this budget season is anyone's guess. The only safe prediction is that if any tax increases get out of the Assembly, there will be a run on bumper stickers that read, "Don't blame me; I voted for Green."
Watching our state's political budget process is not easy. There are so many additional taxes - and some with such vast implications - all under discussion at once. One billion, 2 billion, 3 billion, 15 billion: all numbers I have seen to describe potential tax increases.
The characters involved mirror stereotypes of both political parties: Democrats are seeking a broader governmental role in fixing our problems through tax increases and government spending. The GOP is digging in its heels, wanting to hold the line on taxes and government spending and government's increased involvement in our affairs.
Reminiscent of the high stakes budget showdown that occurred between President Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1995, Republican Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch stated he would block the process if the budget delivered to him contains tax increases. By any credible measure, we live in a high-tax state, and this budget season reminds me of the myriad ways government can tax us and how far Gov. Jim Doyle and his coterie of party faithful are prepared to go in order to exercise their views about what government ought to do. But what about the long-term picture beyond the current two-year budget cycle?
I was troubled by a June 24 column by John Tornius that referenced a credible third-party analysis of our state's annual "structural deficit" of $2.2 billion ("State's accounting doesn't pass muster"). The analysis revealed that relative to population, Wisconsin is at the top of all deficit-running states in the nation.
That's more than a little disconcerting if you or your children care about life in Wisconsin more than a couple years from now. Many of us grouse about the need to reduce taxes. That's personal income taxes, real estate taxes, corporate personal property taxes, gas taxes, home-selling taxes and they-don't-give-me-enough-space-to-list-all-the taxes. Others counter with, "That's not realistic; our needs have increased." Or my personal favorite, "But look at our fine educational system and park system and whatever system."
Even if I agreed that we derived an equivalent value from the punitive tax burden we've paid through the decades, we cannot afford everything any longer. As opposed to making more hard choices, I read about things like the governor's proposal to increase by some $55 million annually the cost of state-owned lands in "far-flung natural areas" beginning in 2011. What percentage of us has a desire, let alone need, to traverse additional land already owned by the state in the wilds of Douglas County when our long-term fiscal condition is so bleak?
Other troubling budgetary facts:
• The $15 billion universal health care plan is an 11th-hour power play, and whether you believe such a plan is the answer to our health care conundrum or not, the issues and implications are too complex, too far-reaching, too everything to contemplate now. That patient is dead.
• The new gas tax on oil companies that ostensibly would be borne by oil companies and not passed on to you and me has zero chance of success. If it makes its way into law, it will fail in practice or the courts.
• Lifting any real estate property tax cap will diminish any hope I have left in government.
What we will wind up with this budget season is anyone's guess. The only safe prediction is that if any tax increases get out of the Assembly, there will be a run on bumper stickers that read, "Don't blame me; I voted for Green."
Valor worth commemorating
Published 5.31.2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
"Why write about something that happened 12 years ago?"
So went part of a reader's e-mail critique of one of my prior columns. To some, there is little value today in citing dates, events or people from a mere decade ago, let alone 14 decades ago.
At this year's Memorial Day service in Delafield, about 100 observers begged to differ. The event was the Cushing Park Memorial Day service, with a speech delivered by Rick Gross, who along with a half-dozen or so other members of the Cushing Historical Association addressed a crowd to commemorate the military service of four brothers during the American Civil War.
Three of the Cushing brothers were born in southeastern Wisconsin (two in Delafield, one in Milwaukee), and a fourth was born in Columbus, Ohio. On a resplendent spring day at Cushing Park, Gross and his colleagues wore period costumes to portray the kind of Union soldiers they were honoring, to speak of sacrifices made long ago and to fire four thundering cannon blasts to commemorate the Cushings' military service.
Ron Aronis, who portrayed the Union battery commander, has been participating in re-enactments since 1965. I asked him why he felt it was important to re-create and memorialize the military service of those gone for so very long.
Aronis replied, "If we don't remember, we tend to repeat history, which isn't always the best; you need to know what your country's been through. Have we always loved each other? Have we always hated each other?"
Gross, who is a design engineer by trade and who mentioned that he had a bit part in the 1993 movie "Gettysburg," had a simpler answer: He gives his time for these events because he enjoys "preserving the memory" of the fallen.
On Memorial Day this year, the fallen included Milton, Howard and Alonzo Cushing. William Cushing, like his three brothers, fought valiantly for the Union but, unlike them, did not die in battle. (He died of illness while serving in the Navy.)
Those interested in learning more about the Cushing brothers or to support the Cushing Historical Association, which is a Wisconsin non-profit corporation, can e-mail James Benware at Cushing_recruiter@yahoo.com or phone (262) 306-1279. A related Web site of interest ( http://www.suvcw-wi.org/) is sponsored by the Sons of the Civil War and has a link to Wisconsin's Civil War heritage.
Last year, a Delafield resident complained to the city about the cannon blasts fired at the park. Apparently, the sounds of the charges were frightening the resident's dogs. The blasts, to be sure, are something to hear. The charges I witnessed stripped leaves off of a nearby tree and echoed throughout the park and beyond.
According to one member of the historical association, the permit to fire the blasts this year - a total of six discharged over about 30 minutes, two to begin the service and one for each of the four Cushing brothers - had to be defended before city representatives in order to continue the tradition.
Remembering events and sacrifices made so many years ago strikes me as a worthwhile endeavor, even if it means that I need to comfort my pets for a while or take them on a well-timed walk elsewhere in town.
But that's what makes our land so great; we can disagree on that point without fear of retribution. Unfortunately, such freedoms have never come without the ultimate price being paid by others, many of whom are long forgotten. Here's hoping our memories of war dead linger throughout the ages. Let freedom ring, and may the cannon of Cushing Park never be silenced.
"Why write about something that happened 12 years ago?"
So went part of a reader's e-mail critique of one of my prior columns. To some, there is little value today in citing dates, events or people from a mere decade ago, let alone 14 decades ago.
At this year's Memorial Day service in Delafield, about 100 observers begged to differ. The event was the Cushing Park Memorial Day service, with a speech delivered by Rick Gross, who along with a half-dozen or so other members of the Cushing Historical Association addressed a crowd to commemorate the military service of four brothers during the American Civil War.
Three of the Cushing brothers were born in southeastern Wisconsin (two in Delafield, one in Milwaukee), and a fourth was born in Columbus, Ohio. On a resplendent spring day at Cushing Park, Gross and his colleagues wore period costumes to portray the kind of Union soldiers they were honoring, to speak of sacrifices made long ago and to fire four thundering cannon blasts to commemorate the Cushings' military service.
Ron Aronis, who portrayed the Union battery commander, has been participating in re-enactments since 1965. I asked him why he felt it was important to re-create and memorialize the military service of those gone for so very long.
Aronis replied, "If we don't remember, we tend to repeat history, which isn't always the best; you need to know what your country's been through. Have we always loved each other? Have we always hated each other?"
Gross, who is a design engineer by trade and who mentioned that he had a bit part in the 1993 movie "Gettysburg," had a simpler answer: He gives his time for these events because he enjoys "preserving the memory" of the fallen.
On Memorial Day this year, the fallen included Milton, Howard and Alonzo Cushing. William Cushing, like his three brothers, fought valiantly for the Union but, unlike them, did not die in battle. (He died of illness while serving in the Navy.)
Those interested in learning more about the Cushing brothers or to support the Cushing Historical Association, which is a Wisconsin non-profit corporation, can e-mail James Benware at Cushing_recruiter@yahoo.com or phone (262) 306-1279. A related Web site of interest ( http://www.suvcw-wi.org/) is sponsored by the Sons of the Civil War and has a link to Wisconsin's Civil War heritage.
Last year, a Delafield resident complained to the city about the cannon blasts fired at the park. Apparently, the sounds of the charges were frightening the resident's dogs. The blasts, to be sure, are something to hear. The charges I witnessed stripped leaves off of a nearby tree and echoed throughout the park and beyond.
According to one member of the historical association, the permit to fire the blasts this year - a total of six discharged over about 30 minutes, two to begin the service and one for each of the four Cushing brothers - had to be defended before city representatives in order to continue the tradition.
Remembering events and sacrifices made so many years ago strikes me as a worthwhile endeavor, even if it means that I need to comfort my pets for a while or take them on a well-timed walk elsewhere in town.
But that's what makes our land so great; we can disagree on that point without fear of retribution. Unfortunately, such freedoms have never come without the ultimate price being paid by others, many of whom are long forgotten. Here's hoping our memories of war dead linger throughout the ages. Let freedom ring, and may the cannon of Cushing Park never be silenced.
Celebrities' political preening
Published: May 4, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
If the entertainment elite could remove the words "decorum" or "credentials" from Webster's Dictionary, many of them would assuredly do so.
Consider Sheryl Crow's April 21 performance during the White House Correspondents Association Dinner in Washington. Crow decided to accost presidential adviser Karl Rove and, in the process, impress Lord knows who, about her passion for the topic of global warming.
Recounting this is not an indictment of anyone concerned about global warming. Rather, the issue is public behavior (or, more precisely, public misbehavior) by entertainers with dubious qualifications but plenty of pluck and A-list invitations to do their public preening.
To be honest, I do have a double standard. That is, I'd have less of a problem with the Crow-Rove ordeal if, instead of a musician, a renowned climatologist from Yale had cornered Rove and a heated debate ensued. At least such an altercation, while still socially awkward, would have taken place between people with depth and a useful angle. Crow? Precisely whom does she represent? All she wanted to do was have some fun, I thought.
I guess our Midwestern sensibilities come through differently at local entertainment outlets. I have attended many plays at the Sunset Playhouse and the Marcus Center over the years, and not once did an actor stop a performance, turn up the lights and pass the hat to save spotted owls. Maybe they know we didn't come to hear the political cause du jour.
The correspondents dinner has been a painful penance for every administration. And the casualties are chosen in a non-partisan manner.
I'm not referring to good-natured ribbing but rather the type of thing spewed by now-disgraced radio jock Don Imus, who took the podium in 1996 and proceeded to caricature a sexual encounter between President Clinton and someone other than his wife, Hillary. All this done, of course, with the first couple seated next to Imus' lectern on national television.
No, a successful entertainment career doesn't mean you forfeit a right to public debate on serious issues. But it should mean that you make sense, that you espouse your views at a proper time and place and that you thoroughly understand what you are talking about. Bono, lead singer of the rock band U2, courts lawmakers for debt relief to impoverished nations, but he does so without making silly public displays or mindless pleas. Moreover, he has impressed government officials with a command of complicated issues. In short, he gets it. If you want to be taken seriously on world affairs, you need more than a Grammy and a choice table at the Washington Hilton.
Three years before the Imus debacle, we witnessed Richard Gere at the Academy Awards lapsing into a dreamy metaphysical trance to "send a message" to the people of Tibet, Deng Xiaoping and perhaps someone at a Dairy Queen in Vermont. We never heard what his message was, but afterward, 38 states wanted to revoke Gere's driving privileges.
Want another recent example? I never understood why Rosie O'Donnell occupies the airwaves, but after the Supreme Court upheld the federal partial-birth abortion ban, she decried on "The View" the lack of a "separation of church and state in America" because five Supreme Court justices happen to be Catholic.
With rigorous analytical thinking like that, who needs to stay in school? Not O'Donnell, who dropped out of college with a 1.62 grade-point average.
With O'Donnell vacating "The View," the state of political discourse in America just improved.
If the entertainment elite could remove the words "decorum" or "credentials" from Webster's Dictionary, many of them would assuredly do so.
Consider Sheryl Crow's April 21 performance during the White House Correspondents Association Dinner in Washington. Crow decided to accost presidential adviser Karl Rove and, in the process, impress Lord knows who, about her passion for the topic of global warming.
Recounting this is not an indictment of anyone concerned about global warming. Rather, the issue is public behavior (or, more precisely, public misbehavior) by entertainers with dubious qualifications but plenty of pluck and A-list invitations to do their public preening.
To be honest, I do have a double standard. That is, I'd have less of a problem with the Crow-Rove ordeal if, instead of a musician, a renowned climatologist from Yale had cornered Rove and a heated debate ensued. At least such an altercation, while still socially awkward, would have taken place between people with depth and a useful angle. Crow? Precisely whom does she represent? All she wanted to do was have some fun, I thought.
I guess our Midwestern sensibilities come through differently at local entertainment outlets. I have attended many plays at the Sunset Playhouse and the Marcus Center over the years, and not once did an actor stop a performance, turn up the lights and pass the hat to save spotted owls. Maybe they know we didn't come to hear the political cause du jour.
The correspondents dinner has been a painful penance for every administration. And the casualties are chosen in a non-partisan manner.
I'm not referring to good-natured ribbing but rather the type of thing spewed by now-disgraced radio jock Don Imus, who took the podium in 1996 and proceeded to caricature a sexual encounter between President Clinton and someone other than his wife, Hillary. All this done, of course, with the first couple seated next to Imus' lectern on national television.
No, a successful entertainment career doesn't mean you forfeit a right to public debate on serious issues. But it should mean that you make sense, that you espouse your views at a proper time and place and that you thoroughly understand what you are talking about. Bono, lead singer of the rock band U2, courts lawmakers for debt relief to impoverished nations, but he does so without making silly public displays or mindless pleas. Moreover, he has impressed government officials with a command of complicated issues. In short, he gets it. If you want to be taken seriously on world affairs, you need more than a Grammy and a choice table at the Washington Hilton.
Three years before the Imus debacle, we witnessed Richard Gere at the Academy Awards lapsing into a dreamy metaphysical trance to "send a message" to the people of Tibet, Deng Xiaoping and perhaps someone at a Dairy Queen in Vermont. We never heard what his message was, but afterward, 38 states wanted to revoke Gere's driving privileges.
Want another recent example? I never understood why Rosie O'Donnell occupies the airwaves, but after the Supreme Court upheld the federal partial-birth abortion ban, she decried on "The View" the lack of a "separation of church and state in America" because five Supreme Court justices happen to be Catholic.
With rigorous analytical thinking like that, who needs to stay in school? Not O'Donnell, who dropped out of college with a 1.62 grade-point average.
With O'Donnell vacating "The View," the state of political discourse in America just improved.
Don't read more into war opposition than what's there
Published: March 20, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
"Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser . . . the very thought of losing is hateful to an American."
So goes the famous quote from Gen. George S. Patton's 1944 D-Day address to his troops. That quote was later popularized in a 1970 masterpiece of a movie called "Patton." And Patton's words have relevance today when pondering President Bush's low approval ratings.
It is not the president's decision to go to war in Iraq that sunk his popularity. For many, it's the perceived lack of results stemming from the war, which began four years ago today. That means it isn't the inherent "morality" of the war that troubles many Bush critics; it's the practical yield from it, or lack thereof.
In pure theory, why wouldn't a plan to establish a democratic beachhead in a portion of the world fraught with violence and instability and depose an evil despot like Saddam Hussein, who had slaughtered his own country's citizens, strike millions of reasonable people as a worthy undertaking? Answer: It did.
The late President Nixon, who was arguably one of our most able presidents on foreign policy, put it saliently in his later books. Basically, Nixon asked questions like, "If America does not lead in the world, who will?"
After World War II, the United States successfully "exported democracy" to post-Imperial Japan. And by any measure, the U.S., Japan and the rest of the civilized world are better off for having done so.
But the notion of success in the Middle East is murkier. There is no tangible cliff to scale like there was at Omaha Beach. After the U.S. liberated Nazi-occupied Europe, implementation of the Marshall Plan wasn't paralyzed by legions of suicide bombers trying to derail new regimes or by sectarian fanatics trying to kill one another in the same country.
The frustration is understandable. With more than 3,200 American lives lost (including 70 Wisconsinites) and billions of dollars of our nation's treasure spent, it's difficult not to grieve or grow angry because we can't see an end to the whole depressing morass.
Even the president's staunchest supporters have grown increasingly restive. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll revealed that a full 73% of Americans are following the 2008 presidential race closely. That is either an astonishing level of interest for an election so far away or a clear reflection of popular restlessness.
Yet today's collective opposition to the war in Iraq does not come in one size or shape. Americans who have grown impatient with this war do not all want to join arms, sing John Lennon songs and pretend to act as one for a whole number of unrelated "causes."
Many calling for a troop withdrawal today would look contemptuously at fellow critics who are calling for the exact same thing. Contrary to an old Arab bromide, in the U.S., the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. U.S. Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) would never share a stage with anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, nor should he.
In a perfect life, we could airlift all peaceable, decent citizens of the Middle East, clothe them, feed them, give them better shelter than they could have possibly imagined and then proceed to bulldoze everyone and everything else in that part of the world. But since life is so imperfect, a 50-year, Korea-type occupation is possible and probably necessary.
We may all uniformly lament that prospect, but don't confuse common sentiment for a single voice concerning America's role in foreign affairs. Had we rid the Middle East of bomb-toting fanatics, Bush's popularity would have soared. Americans love a winner.
"Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser . . . the very thought of losing is hateful to an American."
So goes the famous quote from Gen. George S. Patton's 1944 D-Day address to his troops. That quote was later popularized in a 1970 masterpiece of a movie called "Patton." And Patton's words have relevance today when pondering President Bush's low approval ratings.
It is not the president's decision to go to war in Iraq that sunk his popularity. For many, it's the perceived lack of results stemming from the war, which began four years ago today. That means it isn't the inherent "morality" of the war that troubles many Bush critics; it's the practical yield from it, or lack thereof.
In pure theory, why wouldn't a plan to establish a democratic beachhead in a portion of the world fraught with violence and instability and depose an evil despot like Saddam Hussein, who had slaughtered his own country's citizens, strike millions of reasonable people as a worthy undertaking? Answer: It did.
The late President Nixon, who was arguably one of our most able presidents on foreign policy, put it saliently in his later books. Basically, Nixon asked questions like, "If America does not lead in the world, who will?"
After World War II, the United States successfully "exported democracy" to post-Imperial Japan. And by any measure, the U.S., Japan and the rest of the civilized world are better off for having done so.
But the notion of success in the Middle East is murkier. There is no tangible cliff to scale like there was at Omaha Beach. After the U.S. liberated Nazi-occupied Europe, implementation of the Marshall Plan wasn't paralyzed by legions of suicide bombers trying to derail new regimes or by sectarian fanatics trying to kill one another in the same country.
The frustration is understandable. With more than 3,200 American lives lost (including 70 Wisconsinites) and billions of dollars of our nation's treasure spent, it's difficult not to grieve or grow angry because we can't see an end to the whole depressing morass.
Even the president's staunchest supporters have grown increasingly restive. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll revealed that a full 73% of Americans are following the 2008 presidential race closely. That is either an astonishing level of interest for an election so far away or a clear reflection of popular restlessness.
Yet today's collective opposition to the war in Iraq does not come in one size or shape. Americans who have grown impatient with this war do not all want to join arms, sing John Lennon songs and pretend to act as one for a whole number of unrelated "causes."
Many calling for a troop withdrawal today would look contemptuously at fellow critics who are calling for the exact same thing. Contrary to an old Arab bromide, in the U.S., the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. U.S. Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) would never share a stage with anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, nor should he.
In a perfect life, we could airlift all peaceable, decent citizens of the Middle East, clothe them, feed them, give them better shelter than they could have possibly imagined and then proceed to bulldoze everyone and everything else in that part of the world. But since life is so imperfect, a 50-year, Korea-type occupation is possible and probably necessary.
We may all uniformly lament that prospect, but don't confuse common sentiment for a single voice concerning America's role in foreign affairs. Had we rid the Middle East of bomb-toting fanatics, Bush's popularity would have soared. Americans love a winner.
Let's get our priorities straight
Published: Feb. 8, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Trying to predict what current event will capture our collective interest is a fool's errand. I gave up years ago.
For example, I never could understand the avalanche of news coverage on, or public reaction to, the Elian Gonzalez story several years back. The circumstances, while sad, involved one child. Yet politicians and media were consumed with the ordeal for more than a year.
Now consider the recent information security blunders by state government and the relatively small amount of attention they garnered. One case involved Social Security numbers printed on the outside of tax booklets for about 171,000 Wisconsin taxpayers. Some were recovered, but most were mailed.
It made me wonder: Were we really more concerned about Brett Favre's return to the Packers than actions that could have potentially compromised the identities of thousands of taxpayers?
I hope that is not the case, but the amount of public and media interest for each topic might suggest otherwise.
That Social Security saga for me began with a letter from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue on Jan. 27. It was reminiscent of unscheduled invoices from my home builder that always arrived on a Saturday when I could reach no one at his office. The builder's strategy, I believe, was so I'd have a couple of days to cool off before he'd hear from me. Better to spoil my weekend than his, I suppose. (The strategy worked.)
Similarly, after reading the letter from the Department of Revenue and an accompanying one from the printer informing me that an error put at risk my wife's Social Security number along with thousands of others, my first reaction was not printable in a family newspaper. My second reaction was: Wow, this is a reporter's dream for a slow news day because it was the first I had heard of it (although the Journal Sentinel reported on the blunder on Dec. 30).
How many staffers will get sacked, I wondered? Who was responsible for overseeing the process before, during and after Social Security information was distributed to the printer? How can a security breach reported by the Department of Revenue to news outlets on Dec. 29, and described in its letter dated Jan. 12, not reach me until Jan. 27?
What a story, I thought. I can't wait to see the firestorm from angry citizens. I'm still waiting.
On Feb. 3, there was an article in the Journal Sentinel's Metro section with the headline "Personal information theft hits Assembly." It described another government-bungled possession of Social Security numbers.
This time, a human resources aide took a report containing Social Security numbers of state officials and tossed it in her car before going to the gym. A thief stole the report and other items from her car.
I wonder if all the privacy wonks so unhinged over Bush administration surveillance measures to track down terrorists care about this colossal carelessness with our Social Security numbers.
In his recent "state of the state" address, Gov. Jim Doyle talked about financial incentives to stem global warming, a problem that, by definition, requires action from national and international policy-makers.
We'd benefit more from Doyle's efforts to change what is in his earthly sphere of influence. We need added attention to concerns like spending reform and tax reform and a renewed sense of urgency for internal controls at state agencies handling our personal data or managing procurement with state funds.
Oh, and welcome as it is, Favre's return next year won't alleviate those concerns.
Trying to predict what current event will capture our collective interest is a fool's errand. I gave up years ago.
For example, I never could understand the avalanche of news coverage on, or public reaction to, the Elian Gonzalez story several years back. The circumstances, while sad, involved one child. Yet politicians and media were consumed with the ordeal for more than a year.
Now consider the recent information security blunders by state government and the relatively small amount of attention they garnered. One case involved Social Security numbers printed on the outside of tax booklets for about 171,000 Wisconsin taxpayers. Some were recovered, but most were mailed.
It made me wonder: Were we really more concerned about Brett Favre's return to the Packers than actions that could have potentially compromised the identities of thousands of taxpayers?
I hope that is not the case, but the amount of public and media interest for each topic might suggest otherwise.
That Social Security saga for me began with a letter from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue on Jan. 27. It was reminiscent of unscheduled invoices from my home builder that always arrived on a Saturday when I could reach no one at his office. The builder's strategy, I believe, was so I'd have a couple of days to cool off before he'd hear from me. Better to spoil my weekend than his, I suppose. (The strategy worked.)
Similarly, after reading the letter from the Department of Revenue and an accompanying one from the printer informing me that an error put at risk my wife's Social Security number along with thousands of others, my first reaction was not printable in a family newspaper. My second reaction was: Wow, this is a reporter's dream for a slow news day because it was the first I had heard of it (although the Journal Sentinel reported on the blunder on Dec. 30).
How many staffers will get sacked, I wondered? Who was responsible for overseeing the process before, during and after Social Security information was distributed to the printer? How can a security breach reported by the Department of Revenue to news outlets on Dec. 29, and described in its letter dated Jan. 12, not reach me until Jan. 27?
What a story, I thought. I can't wait to see the firestorm from angry citizens. I'm still waiting.
On Feb. 3, there was an article in the Journal Sentinel's Metro section with the headline "Personal information theft hits Assembly." It described another government-bungled possession of Social Security numbers.
This time, a human resources aide took a report containing Social Security numbers of state officials and tossed it in her car before going to the gym. A thief stole the report and other items from her car.
I wonder if all the privacy wonks so unhinged over Bush administration surveillance measures to track down terrorists care about this colossal carelessness with our Social Security numbers.
In his recent "state of the state" address, Gov. Jim Doyle talked about financial incentives to stem global warming, a problem that, by definition, requires action from national and international policy-makers.
We'd benefit more from Doyle's efforts to change what is in his earthly sphere of influence. We need added attention to concerns like spending reform and tax reform and a renewed sense of urgency for internal controls at state agencies handling our personal data or managing procurement with state funds.
Oh, and welcome as it is, Favre's return next year won't alleviate those concerns.
Media images and our kids
Published 1.19.2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Why should we care what children watch or read? Are we simply riding a high horse when complaining about parental indifference and the deluge of sex and violence surrounding our kids? Does it border on censorship?
I called a local radio talk show once to comment on the ever-increasing flow of sex and violence polluting our airwaves, and the host's predictable response was something like, "Well, if you don't like it, just change the channel."
Of course I can change the channel, pal. What I worry about is the impact on young people who won't change the channel.
In many communities and particularly in our inner city, teen sex and pregnancy rates are beyond crisis proportions. It helps when Bill Cosby comes to Milwaukee to discuss personal responsibility for part of the population, but the problem is funded by people across all racial lines and economic strata.
Can anyone make a movie targeted at younger people without the perfunctory scenes of two people chewing on one another? (Sorry, I forgot about the artistic value of those scenes and their importance to plot development.)
We know that media images absorbed by youths affect their behavior. It isn't even worth debating. So why do gratuitous images of sex and violence continue to proliferate?
Part of the answer could be analogous to why some of us are overweight. Creators of junk stay in business by appealing to our worst instincts like a craving for delicious and fattening food. And you can't eat just one. So we watch, and our kids watch again and again.
For example, I like boxing, but it is no longer enough to satisfy those who want full contact. We now have mixed martial arts fights where you can flout the "rules" and beat your opponent to a bloody pulp even after the guy lies helplessly. It's unfortunate all that testosterone can't be usefully directed at fighting terrorists abroad and out of sight.
But you still think that what we watch has no impact on our children's behavior?
Nebraska sociologist Mike Hendricks wrote about the impact of the popular 1999 movie "Fight Club." He notes on his Web log that the movie "depicted disaffected young adults competing in bare-knuckle boxing matches in underground clubs" and that since the movie's release, "real fight clubs have been popping up all over the country."
He continues, "Arrests have been made in large cities such as Seattle, Provo and Milwaukee." Hendricks concludes, "There is no record of any fight clubs being in existence before the movie was made. Now it is an activity that is sweeping the nation."
When NBA player Ron Artest vaulted into the stands in 2004 to beat up some ignoramus who tossed a beer at him, the lasting damage wasn't that a game was disrupted. The harm extended to youths who idolize Artest and infer from the incident that this is how real men settle scores.
One way to reduce a growing tumor is to cut off its blood supply. If we discourage others from using their cash to patronize print, video and audio businesses of people we disagree with, like a blood-starved tumor, these "products" will also begin to wither.
One can also support political leaders committed to restoring cultural sanity, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), or we can align ourselves with national organizations found at Web sites such as http://www.parentstv.org/
Either way, it's up to us. Then again (pass the dip, please), we can always leave it to someone else.
Why should we care what children watch or read? Are we simply riding a high horse when complaining about parental indifference and the deluge of sex and violence surrounding our kids? Does it border on censorship?
I called a local radio talk show once to comment on the ever-increasing flow of sex and violence polluting our airwaves, and the host's predictable response was something like, "Well, if you don't like it, just change the channel."
Of course I can change the channel, pal. What I worry about is the impact on young people who won't change the channel.
In many communities and particularly in our inner city, teen sex and pregnancy rates are beyond crisis proportions. It helps when Bill Cosby comes to Milwaukee to discuss personal responsibility for part of the population, but the problem is funded by people across all racial lines and economic strata.
Can anyone make a movie targeted at younger people without the perfunctory scenes of two people chewing on one another? (Sorry, I forgot about the artistic value of those scenes and their importance to plot development.)
We know that media images absorbed by youths affect their behavior. It isn't even worth debating. So why do gratuitous images of sex and violence continue to proliferate?
Part of the answer could be analogous to why some of us are overweight. Creators of junk stay in business by appealing to our worst instincts like a craving for delicious and fattening food. And you can't eat just one. So we watch, and our kids watch again and again.
For example, I like boxing, but it is no longer enough to satisfy those who want full contact. We now have mixed martial arts fights where you can flout the "rules" and beat your opponent to a bloody pulp even after the guy lies helplessly. It's unfortunate all that testosterone can't be usefully directed at fighting terrorists abroad and out of sight.
But you still think that what we watch has no impact on our children's behavior?
Nebraska sociologist Mike Hendricks wrote about the impact of the popular 1999 movie "Fight Club." He notes on his Web log that the movie "depicted disaffected young adults competing in bare-knuckle boxing matches in underground clubs" and that since the movie's release, "real fight clubs have been popping up all over the country."
He continues, "Arrests have been made in large cities such as Seattle, Provo and Milwaukee." Hendricks concludes, "There is no record of any fight clubs being in existence before the movie was made. Now it is an activity that is sweeping the nation."
When NBA player Ron Artest vaulted into the stands in 2004 to beat up some ignoramus who tossed a beer at him, the lasting damage wasn't that a game was disrupted. The harm extended to youths who idolize Artest and infer from the incident that this is how real men settle scores.
One way to reduce a growing tumor is to cut off its blood supply. If we discourage others from using their cash to patronize print, video and audio businesses of people we disagree with, like a blood-starved tumor, these "products" will also begin to wither.
One can also support political leaders committed to restoring cultural sanity, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), or we can align ourselves with national organizations found at Web sites such as http://www.parentstv.org/
Either way, it's up to us. Then again (pass the dip, please), we can always leave it to someone else.
Offering gifts and hopes this holiday season
Published 12.21.2006 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
As this is the season of giving and sharing, I wish to publicly share the following holiday gifts and warm wishes for the new year to some specific recipients.
To project managers of the Marquette Interchange reconstruction or anyone else supporting this multiyear mess: I give a hand-selected bag of high-caffeine coffee that will speed up the work (whether or not it is ahead of schedule now). May all the inconvenience caused by the next state highway project take place no closer to me than Plover but no further from you than your favorite grocer.
To all Wisconsin men and women in the armed forces who won't be home this holiday season: I offer my gratitude for your service and prayers for a safe trip home. For those who want to give more than good wishes, go to the state Department of Veterans Affairs Web site: dva.state.wi.us/supportourtroops.asp or call (800) 947-8387. There are a number of ways to get gifts to our service members overseas.
To Sen. Hillary Clinton: I give the strongest encouragement to run for president in 2008 and speak your mind without reservation. Your candidacy is the single best hope Republicans have to retain the White House.
To the aging, sniveling cynics who welcomed back American soldiers from Vietnam by spitting on them or calling them "baby killers": I didn't have time to get you anything, so why don't you just meet me for a quiet drink at the local VFW? Oh, and take a cab. I have some friends who would be happy to give you a lift home. Let's hope history doesn't repeat itself as our service members return from the Middle East and that your children don't act as disgracefully as you did in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
To the anonymous donors of $25 million to Marquette University: You are doing God's work. No joke. However, my Christmas fund is almost depleted, so I believe I can scratch you from my list without much worry that you'll miss the Sam's Club membership card I had intended to send. I'm not sure where to send it anyway.
To the Milwaukee Public Schools and City Hall: No gift to you would be sufficient in that you already have given so much to Milwaukee taxpayers in the form of that inadvertent (but perhaps temporary) $9.1 million tax break. Now, could you extend your good deed by convincing Madison lawmakers that the rest of us in Wisconsin need more tax relief, too?
To the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents: At considerable personal expense, I have had made several engraved copies of the Supreme Court's 2003 decision striking down the practice of the University of Michigan's Law School to award an extra 20 points to its applicants purely on the basis of minority status. Please read it with a warm holiday beverage in front of your fireplace and recall what your dear grandma once said about two wrongs never making a right. Discrimination of any kind is unacceptable, even the kind that works in reverse.
To every jewelry store owner or jewelry department manager in southern Wisconsin: I give a large bag of price tags. Please place them in plain view in your merchandise displays so I don't have to repeatedly waste time or feel embarrassed by asking the price of items that I cannot afford to buy.
Finally, my personal holiday wish to all readers, regardless of what you celebrate at this time of the year: God bless you, and may 2007 be just a tad better for us all.
As this is the season of giving and sharing, I wish to publicly share the following holiday gifts and warm wishes for the new year to some specific recipients.
To project managers of the Marquette Interchange reconstruction or anyone else supporting this multiyear mess: I give a hand-selected bag of high-caffeine coffee that will speed up the work (whether or not it is ahead of schedule now). May all the inconvenience caused by the next state highway project take place no closer to me than Plover but no further from you than your favorite grocer.
To all Wisconsin men and women in the armed forces who won't be home this holiday season: I offer my gratitude for your service and prayers for a safe trip home. For those who want to give more than good wishes, go to the state Department of Veterans Affairs Web site: dva.state.wi.us/supportourtroops.asp or call (800) 947-8387. There are a number of ways to get gifts to our service members overseas.
To Sen. Hillary Clinton: I give the strongest encouragement to run for president in 2008 and speak your mind without reservation. Your candidacy is the single best hope Republicans have to retain the White House.
To the aging, sniveling cynics who welcomed back American soldiers from Vietnam by spitting on them or calling them "baby killers": I didn't have time to get you anything, so why don't you just meet me for a quiet drink at the local VFW? Oh, and take a cab. I have some friends who would be happy to give you a lift home. Let's hope history doesn't repeat itself as our service members return from the Middle East and that your children don't act as disgracefully as you did in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
To the anonymous donors of $25 million to Marquette University: You are doing God's work. No joke. However, my Christmas fund is almost depleted, so I believe I can scratch you from my list without much worry that you'll miss the Sam's Club membership card I had intended to send. I'm not sure where to send it anyway.
To the Milwaukee Public Schools and City Hall: No gift to you would be sufficient in that you already have given so much to Milwaukee taxpayers in the form of that inadvertent (but perhaps temporary) $9.1 million tax break. Now, could you extend your good deed by convincing Madison lawmakers that the rest of us in Wisconsin need more tax relief, too?
To the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents: At considerable personal expense, I have had made several engraved copies of the Supreme Court's 2003 decision striking down the practice of the University of Michigan's Law School to award an extra 20 points to its applicants purely on the basis of minority status. Please read it with a warm holiday beverage in front of your fireplace and recall what your dear grandma once said about two wrongs never making a right. Discrimination of any kind is unacceptable, even the kind that works in reverse.
To every jewelry store owner or jewelry department manager in southern Wisconsin: I give a large bag of price tags. Please place them in plain view in your merchandise displays so I don't have to repeatedly waste time or feel embarrassed by asking the price of items that I cannot afford to buy.
Finally, my personal holiday wish to all readers, regardless of what you celebrate at this time of the year: God bless you, and may 2007 be just a tad better for us all.
With speakers, courtesy wins
 |
Wikipedia image |
Yet some speakers, overly comfortable at the stump, blithely deliver presentations with so little regard for their audience, one wishes they’d contract this phobia and never speak publicly again. And yet other speakers, who are utterly paralyzed by the prospect of giving a speech in public, are the ones we ought to hear from. Sad paradox.
Fortunately, most public speakers are conscientious enough to adhere to a few intuitive rules and share their knowledge, views, etc. in a useful manner. Only simple courtesy and common sense are required.
Back in 1992 retired U.S. Admiral, Stanford University professor and Ross Perot running mate James Stockdale began to speak at a vice presidential debate by asking, “Who am I?” “Why am I here?” That opening was greeted with laughter and later parodied on TV. I laughed too.
At that moment, Mr. Stockdale sounded slightly out of touch player before a worldwide audience. This was unfortunate since the Admiral was a genuine American patriot, scholar and highly decorated Vietnam War veteran who suffered years in captivity.
Although Mr. Stockdale, who died last year, was mocked for those lines, he began that debate by trying to explain exactly who he was and why he stood before us. Totally appropriate and so simple, yet how many times do other speakers drone on without giving even the most perfunctory information about who they are, what their organization does, or what we can expect to learn from them today?
Before drafting your presentation, consider what your audience really wants or needs from you. Then stick to it. Save the meandering town hall style for friends and family. Start by explaining who you are, your organization’s mission and your role. Share an agenda or an outline for the presentation that tells your audience the sequence of topics you’ll cover. Mention that after your prepared remarks, you’ll take questions (if that's part of the format). Don’t leave us guessing or assume we know any of these things mentioned above. We don’t.
Of course, some famous speakers don’t require much introduction or a clearly stated agenda because those things are obvious to the audience. But famous speakers don’t get a free pass. We come to hear them for the same reason we come to hear ordinary people. We want a better understanding about something the speaker knows and the speaker’s job is to transfer that understanding as effectively as possible in the time allotted.
Years ago I attended a breakfast event in Chicago where the keynote speaker was a renowned economist. People, who had paid handsomely to eat cold eggs and hear her views, packed a hall at a swanky downtown hotel. Midway through her presentation, she began talking about her relationship with one of her children. I don’t mean a short, illustrative anecdote that related to her topic. No. I’m talking about multiple paragraphs spewed out to an audience that politely "listened".
Although Mr. Stockdale, who died last year, was mocked for those lines, he began that debate by trying to explain exactly who he was and why he stood before us. Totally appropriate and so simple, yet how many times do other speakers drone on without giving even the most perfunctory information about who they are, what their organization does, or what we can expect to learn from them today?
Before drafting your presentation, consider what your audience really wants or needs from you. Then stick to it. Save the meandering town hall style for friends and family. Start by explaining who you are, your organization’s mission and your role. Share an agenda or an outline for the presentation that tells your audience the sequence of topics you’ll cover. Mention that after your prepared remarks, you’ll take questions (if that's part of the format). Don’t leave us guessing or assume we know any of these things mentioned above. We don’t.
Of course, some famous speakers don’t require much introduction or a clearly stated agenda because those things are obvious to the audience. But famous speakers don’t get a free pass. We come to hear them for the same reason we come to hear ordinary people. We want a better understanding about something the speaker knows and the speaker’s job is to transfer that understanding as effectively as possible in the time allotted.
Years ago I attended a breakfast event in Chicago where the keynote speaker was a renowned economist. People, who had paid handsomely to eat cold eggs and hear her views, packed a hall at a swanky downtown hotel. Midway through her presentation, she began talking about her relationship with one of her children. I don’t mean a short, illustrative anecdote that related to her topic. No. I’m talking about multiple paragraphs spewed out to an audience that politely "listened".
Although I witnessed some eye rolling; I doubt anyone in the audience was inherently uncaring. Rather, the problem was a speaker who forgot her purpose and indulged an impulse to stray from the expected topic for what seemed like an eternity.
Finally, if you use technology to underscore your points, please make sure it works beforehand or don’t use it at all. If you can’t connect to a website, get that video clip to run properly, etc. don’t hope for the best knowing you can summon an attendant while your audience waits. Think about a paper chart or sock puppets instead.
In sum, as a present to all of us subjected to public speakers from home, school, church, government, nonprofit organizations, or business - when it’s your turn to speak; please respect your audiences’ time and they’ll respect you for it.
Finally, if you use technology to underscore your points, please make sure it works beforehand or don’t use it at all. If you can’t connect to a website, get that video clip to run properly, etc. don’t hope for the best knowing you can summon an attendant while your audience waits. Think about a paper chart or sock puppets instead.
In sum, as a present to all of us subjected to public speakers from home, school, church, government, nonprofit organizations, or business - when it’s your turn to speak; please respect your audiences’ time and they’ll respect you for it.
Unity among the divided
Published: Oct. 5, 2006 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
There was a time when we didn't require hyphens to describe our citizenship - we were all just Americans. There was a time when no one, not a head of state or a popular rapper, would have the temerity to call the president of the United States a devil or a racist. There was a time when no one, Republican or Democrat, would go to an opposing party's Milwaukee offices to slash car tires on election day.
Times have changed. Yet there are still bright moments for those who believe we have some collective principles as a people. If you ever felt moved after someone you don't care for takes a public stand to defend you, you'll know what I mean. Something triggered that feeling recently.
Consider the words uttered on national television Sept. 21 by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.). Rangel is a highly visible politico, a street fighter with a law degree who never minces words for his base on the left (some would say far left). He is a formidable debater who usually manages to alienate people like me - until recently.
Referring to the anti-Bush blather delivered at the United Nations by Venezuela's Fidel Castro-adoring president, Hugo Chavez, Rangel said: "You don't come into my country, you don't come into my congressional district and you don't condemn my president."
Recounting his words still gives me a chill. You just wanted to hug the guy.
No, I don't care for Rangel's politics, but I must concede it takes integrity to rise above your differences and publicly defend a bitter adversary - after that adversary has been smeared - because your love of country compels you to do so.
Chavez's performance was reminiscent of a college speech given by some over-caffeinated student who accuses "the establishment" of causing every misfortune in the world. Instead of a youthful prima donna, though, it was a head of state. And instead of blaming everyone with a job, the target was one man.
What happened to decorum and tradition among national leaders? President Reagan even refused to remove his suit coat in the Oval Office, citing a tradition and sense of respect that previous presidents had had for that hallowed place. Contrast that with Chavez.
There are acceptable boundaries of dissent when critiquing the way American power is projected throughout the world. Once the boundaries are breached, Americans will often come together to say, "Wait! This is my country."
There must be something that unites us as citizens, something we agree on, something we'll come together on, regardless of political disposition.
In June, a Milwaukee jury came together in federal court and returned a guilty verdict for a former state official in the travel contract scandal. It's doubtful the defense team or judge would've allowed a group of stalwart Republicans to pack a jury, so people of differing political persuasions must've acted together to reinforce the ideal that Wisconsin needs a government that doles out contracts ethically and within the law.
That notion is something we can all embrace - from Racine to Rhinelander.
Whether on a local or a national stage, divided as we are, it's still gratifying when opposing Americans can come together for a common purpose.
John Maddente of Delafield works at an international audit firm. His e-mail address is jmaddente@wi.rr.com. His Web log is at www.maddente.blogspot.com
There was a time when we didn't require hyphens to describe our citizenship - we were all just Americans. There was a time when no one, not a head of state or a popular rapper, would have the temerity to call the president of the United States a devil or a racist. There was a time when no one, Republican or Democrat, would go to an opposing party's Milwaukee offices to slash car tires on election day.
Times have changed. Yet there are still bright moments for those who believe we have some collective principles as a people. If you ever felt moved after someone you don't care for takes a public stand to defend you, you'll know what I mean. Something triggered that feeling recently.
Consider the words uttered on national television Sept. 21 by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.). Rangel is a highly visible politico, a street fighter with a law degree who never minces words for his base on the left (some would say far left). He is a formidable debater who usually manages to alienate people like me - until recently.
Referring to the anti-Bush blather delivered at the United Nations by Venezuela's Fidel Castro-adoring president, Hugo Chavez, Rangel said: "You don't come into my country, you don't come into my congressional district and you don't condemn my president."
Recounting his words still gives me a chill. You just wanted to hug the guy.
No, I don't care for Rangel's politics, but I must concede it takes integrity to rise above your differences and publicly defend a bitter adversary - after that adversary has been smeared - because your love of country compels you to do so.
Chavez's performance was reminiscent of a college speech given by some over-caffeinated student who accuses "the establishment" of causing every misfortune in the world. Instead of a youthful prima donna, though, it was a head of state. And instead of blaming everyone with a job, the target was one man.
What happened to decorum and tradition among national leaders? President Reagan even refused to remove his suit coat in the Oval Office, citing a tradition and sense of respect that previous presidents had had for that hallowed place. Contrast that with Chavez.
There are acceptable boundaries of dissent when critiquing the way American power is projected throughout the world. Once the boundaries are breached, Americans will often come together to say, "Wait! This is my country."
There must be something that unites us as citizens, something we agree on, something we'll come together on, regardless of political disposition.
In June, a Milwaukee jury came together in federal court and returned a guilty verdict for a former state official in the travel contract scandal. It's doubtful the defense team or judge would've allowed a group of stalwart Republicans to pack a jury, so people of differing political persuasions must've acted together to reinforce the ideal that Wisconsin needs a government that doles out contracts ethically and within the law.
That notion is something we can all embrace - from Racine to Rhinelander.
Whether on a local or a national stage, divided as we are, it's still gratifying when opposing Americans can come together for a common purpose.
John Maddente of Delafield works at an international audit firm. His e-mail address is jmaddente@wi.rr.com. His Web log is at www.maddente.blogspot.com
Learning to save lives
Published September 13, 2006 in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Normally, I find medical matters as interesting as a gossip column about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. So with some trepidation, I trudged off to learn about cardiopulmonary resuscitation and other first responder techniques for medical emergencies.
CPR conjures a TV image of someone blowing air into the mouth of a victim and performing a series of rapid thumps on the person's chest using the heel of a hand. With that in my mind, a dozen or so other middle-aged guys and I convened at our local church hall for evening instruction.
We were joined by two experienced emergency room nurses and a number of flaccid, half-bodied mannequins strewn across the floor. The program, which was conceived to train church helpers (in our case ushers) about emergency procedures, has been in place for some time.
The techniques have been used on more than one occasion after a parishioner turned victim during Sunday services. Ironically, my own father had his first heart attack in 1968 while serving as a church usher.
Oh, but all the things I'd rather be doing tonight, I thought.
The nurse began by discussing the church locations and characteristics of a device she kept referring to as an AED. "Excuse me, what's an AED?" I asked. Answer: automated external defibrillator. Then I knew what she meant, but again, only from television.
For the medically uninitiated like me, an AED is that box-like device with cables at the end of which are pads that adhere to a victim's chest to deliver an electrical shock. I had no idea that these machines are increasingly being deployed throughout public buildings or that AED operation is no longer the exclusive domain of emergency room doctors, paramedics and TV actors.
Of course, no one should "play" at administering CPR, operating an AED or trying to help someone who appears to be choking. It's not child's play. Without proper training, one can do more harm than good before professionals arrive on the scene.
What about the legal liability after trying to help someone who ends up dying during or after CPR you administered? Presuming that the individual trying to help has been properly trained, acts reasonably and is not paid for performing CPR, he or she will most likely be protected.
According to the American Heart Association's student workbook, all 50 states have good Samaritan laws and no "lay rescuer has ever been successfully sued for performing CPR" because these laws protect someone acting in good faith to save a life.
No, it doesn't mean that you won't get served for trying. I hope in that fateful moment when someone drops before me, I won't be paralyzed by fear of a lawsuit. Legal fears preclude a great many of us from performing otherwise humane deeds.
Still not persuaded to take the time to learn these procedures? The Milwaukee office of the American Heart Association provided me information that might compel you or someone you know to obtain training:
• About 75% to 80% of all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests happen at home, and about 900 Americans die every day due to sudden cardiac arrest.
• Effective "bystander CPR" provided immediately after cardiac arrest can double a victim's chance of survival.
• If bystander CPR is not provided, a sudden cardiac arrest victim's chances of survival fall 7% to 10% for every minute of delay until defibrillation. Few attempts at resuscitation are successful if CPR and defibrillation are not provided within minutes of collapse.
You don't have to invest a ton of time, either. The American Heart Association created CPR Anytime for Family and Friends as a simple, affordable way for people to learn CPR in their homes. It costs only $30 and includes a CPR mannequin, a DVD and resource booklet.
To find an American Heart Association CPR or AED course or to order the CPR Anytime kit, call (877) 242-4277.
It's more interesting than a Hollywood gossip column any day.
John Maddente of Delafield works at an international audit firm. His e-mail address is jmaddente@wi.rr.com. His Web log is at www.maddente.blogspot.com
Normally, I find medical matters as interesting as a gossip column about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. So with some trepidation, I trudged off to learn about cardiopulmonary resuscitation and other first responder techniques for medical emergencies.
CPR conjures a TV image of someone blowing air into the mouth of a victim and performing a series of rapid thumps on the person's chest using the heel of a hand. With that in my mind, a dozen or so other middle-aged guys and I convened at our local church hall for evening instruction.
We were joined by two experienced emergency room nurses and a number of flaccid, half-bodied mannequins strewn across the floor. The program, which was conceived to train church helpers (in our case ushers) about emergency procedures, has been in place for some time.
The techniques have been used on more than one occasion after a parishioner turned victim during Sunday services. Ironically, my own father had his first heart attack in 1968 while serving as a church usher.
Oh, but all the things I'd rather be doing tonight, I thought.
The nurse began by discussing the church locations and characteristics of a device she kept referring to as an AED. "Excuse me, what's an AED?" I asked. Answer: automated external defibrillator. Then I knew what she meant, but again, only from television.
For the medically uninitiated like me, an AED is that box-like device with cables at the end of which are pads that adhere to a victim's chest to deliver an electrical shock. I had no idea that these machines are increasingly being deployed throughout public buildings or that AED operation is no longer the exclusive domain of emergency room doctors, paramedics and TV actors.
Of course, no one should "play" at administering CPR, operating an AED or trying to help someone who appears to be choking. It's not child's play. Without proper training, one can do more harm than good before professionals arrive on the scene.
What about the legal liability after trying to help someone who ends up dying during or after CPR you administered? Presuming that the individual trying to help has been properly trained, acts reasonably and is not paid for performing CPR, he or she will most likely be protected.
According to the American Heart Association's student workbook, all 50 states have good Samaritan laws and no "lay rescuer has ever been successfully sued for performing CPR" because these laws protect someone acting in good faith to save a life.
No, it doesn't mean that you won't get served for trying. I hope in that fateful moment when someone drops before me, I won't be paralyzed by fear of a lawsuit. Legal fears preclude a great many of us from performing otherwise humane deeds.
Still not persuaded to take the time to learn these procedures? The Milwaukee office of the American Heart Association provided me information that might compel you or someone you know to obtain training:
• About 75% to 80% of all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests happen at home, and about 900 Americans die every day due to sudden cardiac arrest.
• Effective "bystander CPR" provided immediately after cardiac arrest can double a victim's chance of survival.
• If bystander CPR is not provided, a sudden cardiac arrest victim's chances of survival fall 7% to 10% for every minute of delay until defibrillation. Few attempts at resuscitation are successful if CPR and defibrillation are not provided within minutes of collapse.
You don't have to invest a ton of time, either. The American Heart Association created CPR Anytime for Family and Friends as a simple, affordable way for people to learn CPR in their homes. It costs only $30 and includes a CPR mannequin, a DVD and resource booklet.
To find an American Heart Association CPR or AED course or to order the CPR Anytime kit, call (877) 242-4277.
It's more interesting than a Hollywood gossip column any day.
John Maddente of Delafield works at an international audit firm. His e-mail address is jmaddente@wi.rr.com. His Web log is at www.maddente.blogspot.com
Religion in sports? Amen
Published: Aug. 15, 2006 in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
The first thing I noticed was the likeness of Reggie White and a crucifix in a half-page spread. Hundreds of miles from home, I found the prominent article about the late Green Bay Packer in a national newspaper a welcome sight.
The second thing was the not-so-humble headline: "Reggie's (whole) story." Unsure how one can reveal the "whole" anything in one opinion article, I grabbed my hotel copy of the July 31 USA Today.
The article was timely because White would be posthumously inducted into Pro Football's Hall of Fame that week.
So what was the startling news, I wondered? Reading the first paragraph about White's "regrets" of preaching while in uniform, I began to anticipate some bombshell admission made just prior to his death. Maybe someone discovered a tape White recorded before his short life ended in 2004.
I prepared to have the image of a man whom I admired not only for devastating play on the football field but also for an unabashed faith life off the field altered in some way.
However, the article failed to deliver what one might have expected from its headline, first paragraph or closing sentence: "Let's remember Reggie's story - all of it."
That's when I became more intrigued with the author - Tom Krattenmaker, who holds a master's degree in religion from the University of Pennsylvania and serves on USA Today's board of contributors.
Krattenmaker's work reveals a recurring theme of what troubles him. With all that imperils professional sports today - bloated payrolls, steroids, player scandals, etc. - Krattenmaker worries about the increasing menace of overt displays of faith practiced by Christian athletes and religious organizations supporting them.
Several of his works that sound a warning include: "Going long for Jesus," "Playing the 'God' card" and "A 'war' on Christians? No." But back to his article on White.
The first problem is that there is little new in the article. Indeed, Krattenmaker simply recycled the same quotes from his Jan. 3, 2005, piece titled "Rushing for Jesus" (published at Salon.com).
Team chaplains and public displays of faith among professional athletes are not new, either. Wisconsinites old enough to remember the Lombardi era will recall St. Vince's oft-repeated mantra to players about three priorities: God, family and football.
Yes, the framers of our Constitution took care to preserve a separation of church and state. They didn't want religious fanaticism to supplant the role of government. They also wanted to protect the rights of citizens to worship, or not, as they choose.
But Krattenmaker invokes the church-state boundary by reminding us that sports facilities used during displays of Christian faith are publicly financed. He forgets that attendees at these games are voluntarily voting with very private dollars - the same private dollars that patronize advertisers feeding the money machine of pro sports.
There is our check and balance. We do not need a separation of church and locker room.
The second problem with Krattenmaker's work is that there is no arresting feature or strong indicators to support his assertion that something is increasingly awry in professional sports due to "the conspicuous religiosity that we witness in pro sports today." And we can't know had he lived longer whether White would have fully adopted Krattenmaker's cause.
The quotes used in the article do reveal that White felt sports ministries had exploited his fame, that deeds are more important than preaching and that he was living that ethos more than before.
But that's it. I see thin evidence to justify a mission to identify what Krattenmaker calls "the appropriate place of religion in pro sports" or to control a force he describes as "problematic."
Krattenmaker is working on a book about the influence of religion in pro sports. I'm content to close this chapter with words from White's widow, Sara, addressing fans on Aug. 5: "I encourage you to live like Reggie lived."
Amen.
The first thing I noticed was the likeness of Reggie White and a crucifix in a half-page spread. Hundreds of miles from home, I found the prominent article about the late Green Bay Packer in a national newspaper a welcome sight.
The second thing was the not-so-humble headline: "Reggie's (whole) story." Unsure how one can reveal the "whole" anything in one opinion article, I grabbed my hotel copy of the July 31 USA Today.
The article was timely because White would be posthumously inducted into Pro Football's Hall of Fame that week.
So what was the startling news, I wondered? Reading the first paragraph about White's "regrets" of preaching while in uniform, I began to anticipate some bombshell admission made just prior to his death. Maybe someone discovered a tape White recorded before his short life ended in 2004.
I prepared to have the image of a man whom I admired not only for devastating play on the football field but also for an unabashed faith life off the field altered in some way.
However, the article failed to deliver what one might have expected from its headline, first paragraph or closing sentence: "Let's remember Reggie's story - all of it."
That's when I became more intrigued with the author - Tom Krattenmaker, who holds a master's degree in religion from the University of Pennsylvania and serves on USA Today's board of contributors.
Krattenmaker's work reveals a recurring theme of what troubles him. With all that imperils professional sports today - bloated payrolls, steroids, player scandals, etc. - Krattenmaker worries about the increasing menace of overt displays of faith practiced by Christian athletes and religious organizations supporting them.
Several of his works that sound a warning include: "Going long for Jesus," "Playing the 'God' card" and "A 'war' on Christians? No." But back to his article on White.
The first problem is that there is little new in the article. Indeed, Krattenmaker simply recycled the same quotes from his Jan. 3, 2005, piece titled "Rushing for Jesus" (published at Salon.com).
Team chaplains and public displays of faith among professional athletes are not new, either. Wisconsinites old enough to remember the Lombardi era will recall St. Vince's oft-repeated mantra to players about three priorities: God, family and football.
Yes, the framers of our Constitution took care to preserve a separation of church and state. They didn't want religious fanaticism to supplant the role of government. They also wanted to protect the rights of citizens to worship, or not, as they choose.
But Krattenmaker invokes the church-state boundary by reminding us that sports facilities used during displays of Christian faith are publicly financed. He forgets that attendees at these games are voluntarily voting with very private dollars - the same private dollars that patronize advertisers feeding the money machine of pro sports.
There is our check and balance. We do not need a separation of church and locker room.
The second problem with Krattenmaker's work is that there is no arresting feature or strong indicators to support his assertion that something is increasingly awry in professional sports due to "the conspicuous religiosity that we witness in pro sports today." And we can't know had he lived longer whether White would have fully adopted Krattenmaker's cause.
The quotes used in the article do reveal that White felt sports ministries had exploited his fame, that deeds are more important than preaching and that he was living that ethos more than before.
But that's it. I see thin evidence to justify a mission to identify what Krattenmaker calls "the appropriate place of religion in pro sports" or to control a force he describes as "problematic."
Krattenmaker is working on a book about the influence of religion in pro sports. I'm content to close this chapter with words from White's widow, Sara, addressing fans on Aug. 5: "I encourage you to live like Reggie lived."
Amen.
March 22nd, 2002 published letter - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
"The recently announced blanket indictment of Arthur Andersen is not appropriate or beneficial for anyone.
With the comprehensive nature of this indictment, the Department of Justice has chosen to imperil an 89-year-old institution and the livelihood it provides for tens of thousands of innocent Andersen employees, including around 650 Wisconsinites.
How will former Enron Corp. employees receive "a bit of solace" - as the March 15 editorial "First blood in Enron debacle" put it - if other blameless people join their ranks?
Two wrongs never make a right, and the indictment of the whole Andersen organization by the Department of Justice, for incidents that Andersen itself reported to the department, is already drawing suspicion in the court of public opinion.
Stay tuned."
Post Script: On May 31st, 2005, the United States Supreme Court unanimously threw out the Arthur Andersen conviction.
With the comprehensive nature of this indictment, the Department of Justice has chosen to imperil an 89-year-old institution and the livelihood it provides for tens of thousands of innocent Andersen employees, including around 650 Wisconsinites.
How will former Enron Corp. employees receive "a bit of solace" - as the March 15 editorial "First blood in Enron debacle" put it - if other blameless people join their ranks?
Two wrongs never make a right, and the indictment of the whole Andersen organization by the Department of Justice, for incidents that Andersen itself reported to the department, is already drawing suspicion in the court of public opinion.
Stay tuned."
Post Script: On May 31st, 2005, the United States Supreme Court unanimously threw out the Arthur Andersen conviction.
How do you rate on the phone etiquette meter?
 |
| Wikipedia photo |
When one calls someone else, one is invading their office, their home, or their peace. One is an invader, perhaps a friendly one, but nonetheless an invader in the strict sense of the word. Therefore, it’s incumbent upon the invader, to identify himself/herself first. Key point: callers should identify themselves first.
As a boy, I was raised to answer our home phone thus:
“Maddentes’ residence, John speaking, may I ask who is calling please?"
OK, I don’t answer the phone that way any longer; and I don’t ask my children to do that either, however, I still identify myself first whenever I am calling someone else. It is the minimum courtesy one ought to expect.
This issue applies to work or home life. My daughters get phone calls from school mates and as soon as I answer, the caller usually begins by saying something like “Hi is (insert name) there?” Sometimes, there is not even a greeting, it’s just, “Is (insert name) there?”
Whoa. You are asking me to function as a switchboard operator and just turn the phone over to my daughter without the courtesy of even knowing who you are?
I suspect it’s generally how one's parents used the phone that affects the way one practices (or chooses not to practice) phone etiquette. I just penned this post after taking a call from an adult who after hearing me answer said simply, “Hi is (insert name), there?”
Now I immediately responded with “I’m sorry, you must have the wrong number.” As it turns out, my daughter got on an extension in the nick of time and said “Dad, hold it, she’s here!” I knew my daughter had a guest over, but I know her as “Katy” not “Caitlin.” Had her Mother began the phone conversation by saying, “Hi, this is Caitlin's Mother calling…” I would have made the connection and spared us both the embarrassment.
My wife gets calls from a neighborhood friend (whom I really like) and I have a little unspoken game with her. The woman calls, doesn’t identify herself and simply says “Is Mary there?” I answer knowing full well who she is because of her familiar voice - and I reply - “May I ask who is calling, please?”
We both know how the game is played and we both never change our lines. Once she says, “Its Gladys Pickover" (name changed) I immediately respond with something like, “Hello Gladys, good to hear from you!”
That’s how we play the game. When I answer, she knows she’s going to get “the question” from me, but instead of beginning with a simple “Hi, it’s Gladys” she puts us both through the paces and I stick to my part of the game by asking who is calling. It bugs my wife, but I won’t change (and I doubt Gladys will either).
Again, this principle applies equally well to home or work. Yesterday, with our office assistant on vacation, a few of us were trying to figure out how to work the postage meter. One employee, while trying to solve the problem, received a call at her desk. To make myself useful (and keep her focused on the postage problem) I answered the phone for her. It was an internal call from another office, but before turning the call over to the employee, I asked the caller, “Could I tell her who is calling, please?”
I wouldn’t think of doing less.
A blockbuster book on Enron
For a definitive account of the whole Enron matter, grab a copy of Conspiracy of Fools (Broadway Books) by Kurt Eichenwald, a New York Times Reporter, based in Dallas.
At over 700 pages, you won't exhaust this book quickly, but you'll have difficulty putting it down.
Unlike creators of the TV movie "The Crooked E" (with questionable casting of Mike Farrell as the late Ken Lay) or authors of the well-titled, but shallow account Final Accounting by Barbara Ley Toffler and Jennifer Reingold. (Yes Ms. Toffler it's true, partners at professional services firms must sell work) -- Mr. Eichenwald delivers more substance.
Eichenwald manages to avoid easy stereotypes of all the major players in his meticulously-researched tome. He writes with the verve of a mystery novelist, so you can't turn the pages fast enough, even though you know how the narrative ends.
This detailed account confirmed some of my early impressions about the primary players involved. After reading the news stories, it was hard to come away with much sympathy for the now incarcerated, ex-CFO, Andy Fastow. After reading Mr. Eichenwald's book, that hasn't changed for me.
I'm still unsure if the fired Andersen partner turned government witness David Duncan, was truly an unwitting sacrificial lamb offered up to the wolves by Andersen's leadership, or a firmly culpable player that deserved everything his actions wrought.
When reading Conspiracy of Fools, readers are reminded that Mr. Duncan repeatedly ignored and possibly distorted advice given from Andersen advisers rendering in-house guidance on push-it-to-the-line accounting matters. Still I have some pity for Mr. Duncan and his family. Like Icarus, he flew way too close to the sun and burned himself...big time.
I disagree with Mr. Eichenwald's conclusion that Andersen as an entire firm "deserved the death penalty." Andersen was a dynamic, monolithic institution with a rich history and I was fortunate to be a part of it -- even for a short two and a half years. Eichenwald might feel differently if he (like me and 29,000 other Andersen people in the U.S.) had been displaced by this debacle because of the actions of a few Houstonian Andersen people and an overzealous Justice Department.
All that notwithstanding, I recommend that interested parties read this fine book.
At over 700 pages, you won't exhaust this book quickly, but you'll have difficulty putting it down.
Unlike creators of the TV movie "The Crooked E" (with questionable casting of Mike Farrell as the late Ken Lay) or authors of the well-titled, but shallow account Final Accounting by Barbara Ley Toffler and Jennifer Reingold. (Yes Ms. Toffler it's true, partners at professional services firms must sell work) -- Mr. Eichenwald delivers more substance.
 |
| Ken Lay, Wikipedia |
Eichenwald manages to avoid easy stereotypes of all the major players in his meticulously-researched tome. He writes with the verve of a mystery novelist, so you can't turn the pages fast enough, even though you know how the narrative ends.
This detailed account confirmed some of my early impressions about the primary players involved. After reading the news stories, it was hard to come away with much sympathy for the now incarcerated, ex-CFO, Andy Fastow. After reading Mr. Eichenwald's book, that hasn't changed for me.
I'm still unsure if the fired Andersen partner turned government witness David Duncan, was truly an unwitting sacrificial lamb offered up to the wolves by Andersen's leadership, or a firmly culpable player that deserved everything his actions wrought.
When reading Conspiracy of Fools, readers are reminded that Mr. Duncan repeatedly ignored and possibly distorted advice given from Andersen advisers rendering in-house guidance on push-it-to-the-line accounting matters. Still I have some pity for Mr. Duncan and his family. Like Icarus, he flew way too close to the sun and burned himself...big time.
I disagree with Mr. Eichenwald's conclusion that Andersen as an entire firm "deserved the death penalty." Andersen was a dynamic, monolithic institution with a rich history and I was fortunate to be a part of it -- even for a short two and a half years. Eichenwald might feel differently if he (like me and 29,000 other Andersen people in the U.S.) had been displaced by this debacle because of the actions of a few Houstonian Andersen people and an overzealous Justice Department.
All that notwithstanding, I recommend that interested parties read this fine book.
A Post-Katrina view minus revisionism
After a national catastrophe like Katrina, some voices are bellowing about indifference to the poor and racism, while a grieving nation fumbles to make sense of it all. Some criticism is out of control.
Let's decry an inept response to a natural disaster, hold accountable and prosecute decision-makers who controlled resources that could have helped more of our southern citizens. We can blame those who could have executed a more efficient evacuation from what Columnist David Brooks described as, “the most anticipated natural disaster in American history.” Let us do all this but in the process let us also reject empty political charges that amplify the harm of the hurricane.
Contributors on the editorial pages of my local newspaper (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) could not resist the temptation to tar the Bush administration's actions with a recent piece entitled, “A racial rift sadly revealed” (Sept. 9, 2005). Reactionary rap singers have called the President of the United States a Racist and far left columnists are actually tying the Katrina disaster to “tax cuts for the rich.” If one whispers any dismay over a lack of responsibility among those forewarned and able to avert Katrina but who chose to remain in the hurricane’s path, or condemn the behavior of those looting in New Orleans; someone will brand you a Racist.
Tendencies to make accusations of racism after natural calamities is not new. In some cases, the effects can endure. In his last book, To America, Personal Reflections of an Historian (Simon & Schuster, 2002) former University of New Orleans professor Stephen E. Ambrose writes about the propensity of educators over the decades to teach American expansionism in the West as a period where we practiced systematic genocide of American Indian tribes.
Ambrose called such explanations for the complete disappearance of Indian tribes, “totally irresponsible.”
That our forefathers’ presided over a massive land grab, that they broke treaties, that they failed miserably to assimilate Native Americans, is all true Ambrose reminded us. Yet the only factual basis behind the total disappearance of Indian tribes occurred as Ambrose wrote,”…because of the introduction of European diseases, most of all smallpox.”
If he was alive and writing about Katrina years from now, I'd like to think that Dr. Ambrose would conclude that Crescent City tragedies witnessed in the year 2005 were caused by a devastating hurricane and bureaucratic ineptitude -- not racism, because such charges are "totally irresponsible".
Let's decry an inept response to a natural disaster, hold accountable and prosecute decision-makers who controlled resources that could have helped more of our southern citizens. We can blame those who could have executed a more efficient evacuation from what Columnist David Brooks described as, “the most anticipated natural disaster in American history.” Let us do all this but in the process let us also reject empty political charges that amplify the harm of the hurricane.
Contributors on the editorial pages of my local newspaper (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) could not resist the temptation to tar the Bush administration's actions with a recent piece entitled, “A racial rift sadly revealed” (Sept. 9, 2005). Reactionary rap singers have called the President of the United States a Racist and far left columnists are actually tying the Katrina disaster to “tax cuts for the rich.” If one whispers any dismay over a lack of responsibility among those forewarned and able to avert Katrina but who chose to remain in the hurricane’s path, or condemn the behavior of those looting in New Orleans; someone will brand you a Racist.
 |
| Stephen Ambrose, Wikipedia |
Ambrose called such explanations for the complete disappearance of Indian tribes, “totally irresponsible.”
That our forefathers’ presided over a massive land grab, that they broke treaties, that they failed miserably to assimilate Native Americans, is all true Ambrose reminded us. Yet the only factual basis behind the total disappearance of Indian tribes occurred as Ambrose wrote,”…because of the introduction of European diseases, most of all smallpox.”
If he was alive and writing about Katrina years from now, I'd like to think that Dr. Ambrose would conclude that Crescent City tragedies witnessed in the year 2005 were caused by a devastating hurricane and bureaucratic ineptitude -- not racism, because such charges are "totally irresponsible".
Brokaw & Co. still in denial
Published July 12, 1996, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Perhaps it's just too much to ask, because few prominent journalists will publicly break ranks when asked to comment on the "B" word. The issue of media "bias" surfaced again. And once again, it was drowned by the voices of the renowned.
At a recent National Press Club luncheon in Washington, NBC anchorman Tom Brokaw's responses to hard questions about the Fourth Estate did little to foil skeptics. Public television's Jim Lehrer's rejoinders to the same questions were entirely different. You had to believe one man or the other.
The fodder at this event was a well-publicized survey suggesting that 89% of U.S. journalists voted for Clinton in 1992. Asked to comment on the survey, Brokaw dismissed the familiar charge of industry bias by providing an equally tired reason why he feels it just is not so.
Echoing most of his colleagues from print to broadcast and sea to shining sea, he mused, "Bias like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder." In essence, the logic is that since complaints come from interlocutors at both ends of the political spectrum, (moreover, since the Clinton White House complains) the liberal bias issue must be overblown.
Of course, extremists will always cry foul. But most Americans, by definition, fall closer to the center of the political spectrum than either extreme. What could trouble more journalists is that Americans on the whole view the media as a decidedly liberal institution.
Can this group police itself as easily as Brokaw would have us believe? Brokaw theorized that since he and others owning responsible positions still remain, it is at least partial testimony to their objective performances. I think; therefore, I am. It worked for Rene Descartes.
He reminded the audience, "Otherwise, we just wouldn't survive."
Really? If 89% of our media are indeed left-leaning, how do journalists take risks by injecting liberal sentiments before so many ideologically like-minded editors? Brokaw is a pro and few would insist that he has to trash CNN's Peter Arnett to appear fair. However, he could have given the media a bounce on the credibility meter. He could have strayed from the party line and conceded that slanted reporting occurs and yes, it often does tilt to the left.
Brokaw could have said that responsible journalists don't have personal agendas and that others who do should find another way to make a living. He didn't. Instead, Brokaw chose to decry those reporters who have become "too much news celebrities in the eyes of the public." It was an odd attempt at critical balance coming from a regular guest on David Letterman's show.
PBS news anchor and author Leherer shared the podium with Brokaw at the same event. If Brokaw's remarks gave testimony to the continuing miasma of denial among major figures, Lehrer's comments were a sorely needed tonic.
In refreshing contrast, Lehrer drew a sharp distinction between himself and the pack. "Nobody in this room has to agree with me, including Tom," said Lehrer, as he surged with contempt for the "slippage" in journalism. "Remember, we are down there with the lawyers and the members of Congress on the public esteem polls," he opined.
Most repugnant to Lehrer is the subtle coloring of the news by journalists who make it difficult to distinguish an editorial from a news report. "People have just stepped over the line...and I think a very simple solution is just to quit doing it," he asserted.
Amen. Although Lehrer stopped short of calling the nature of the "slippage" inherently liberal, he at least acknowledged that something is amiss and allowed us to ponder its origin.
The most startling development of the entire Brokaw/Lehrer news hours was the scant, but audible applause after Lehrer's carefully worded scrutiny of his contemporaries. For those not watching that day, the word scant is safely defined here as something less than 89%.
At a recent National Press Club luncheon in Washington, NBC anchorman Tom Brokaw's responses to hard questions about the Fourth Estate did little to foil skeptics. Public television's Jim Lehrer's rejoinders to the same questions were entirely different. You had to believe one man or the other.
The fodder at this event was a well-publicized survey suggesting that 89% of U.S. journalists voted for Clinton in 1992. Asked to comment on the survey, Brokaw dismissed the familiar charge of industry bias by providing an equally tired reason why he feels it just is not so.
Echoing most of his colleagues from print to broadcast and sea to shining sea, he mused, "Bias like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder." In essence, the logic is that since complaints come from interlocutors at both ends of the political spectrum, (moreover, since the Clinton White House complains) the liberal bias issue must be overblown.
Of course, extremists will always cry foul. But most Americans, by definition, fall closer to the center of the political spectrum than either extreme. What could trouble more journalists is that Americans on the whole view the media as a decidedly liberal institution.
Can this group police itself as easily as Brokaw would have us believe? Brokaw theorized that since he and others owning responsible positions still remain, it is at least partial testimony to their objective performances. I think; therefore, I am. It worked for Rene Descartes.
He reminded the audience, "Otherwise, we just wouldn't survive."
Really? If 89% of our media are indeed left-leaning, how do journalists take risks by injecting liberal sentiments before so many ideologically like-minded editors? Brokaw is a pro and few would insist that he has to trash CNN's Peter Arnett to appear fair. However, he could have given the media a bounce on the credibility meter. He could have strayed from the party line and conceded that slanted reporting occurs and yes, it often does tilt to the left.
Brokaw could have said that responsible journalists don't have personal agendas and that others who do should find another way to make a living. He didn't. Instead, Brokaw chose to decry those reporters who have become "too much news celebrities in the eyes of the public." It was an odd attempt at critical balance coming from a regular guest on David Letterman's show.
PBS news anchor and author Leherer shared the podium with Brokaw at the same event. If Brokaw's remarks gave testimony to the continuing miasma of denial among major figures, Lehrer's comments were a sorely needed tonic.
In refreshing contrast, Lehrer drew a sharp distinction between himself and the pack. "Nobody in this room has to agree with me, including Tom," said Lehrer, as he surged with contempt for the "slippage" in journalism. "Remember, we are down there with the lawyers and the members of Congress on the public esteem polls," he opined.
Most repugnant to Lehrer is the subtle coloring of the news by journalists who make it difficult to distinguish an editorial from a news report. "People have just stepped over the line...and I think a very simple solution is just to quit doing it," he asserted.
Amen. Although Lehrer stopped short of calling the nature of the "slippage" inherently liberal, he at least acknowledged that something is amiss and allowed us to ponder its origin.
The most startling development of the entire Brokaw/Lehrer news hours was the scant, but audible applause after Lehrer's carefully worded scrutiny of his contemporaries. For those not watching that day, the word scant is safely defined here as something less than 89%.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Is that what heaven looks like?
L ast week before leaving Thailand (more about that trip shortly), I learned my brief reader's comment about financial advisory services...
-
This morning, I attended a seminar about the "Psychology of Golf". The topic intrigued me because all of my personal golf instruc... -
Pointed, brilliant drifts of snow pierce the evening of winter. Curving upward they arch to a luminous, cyclopean moon. A guest, humble, I s... -
In Oliver Stone's 1995 biopic film about President Richard Nixon, there's a memorable passage attributed to H. R. Haldeman . Hald...