In Royal Oak
Distrust of government has gone too far
* I am pro-alcohol and I opposed the liquor license moratorium, but I am disappointed that CITCOM reversed itself  (09 Nov) and approved a liquor license for 526 S. Main Street Pub.

Whether in local politics or world affairs
Sticking to principle without exercising judgment is unwise
Commenting on the recent joke of a YouTube candidates debate, several pundits chided Barrack's willingness to talk to everybody -- friend, neutral, enemy -- and praised Hillary for insisting on conditions being met before she would talk to some world leaders. It strikes me that Obama was voicing a principle, not the naiveté his critics were charging him with. Unless one assumes he is stupid, his principle is to remain open to all and case-by-case judgment would determine his decision.

Diversity is desirable and choice is cool
Diversity is desirable and choice is cool, right?   

Vigilantes with an ACLU mindset continue to attempt to prevent students fro mentioning God or their religious faith during class or at graduation ceremonies. Separation of Church & State, you know.

Let's see, now: Doesn't "diversity" call for inclusion, not exclusion? Isn't it "cool" to permit students to choose their individual words and references, without in the slightest way compromising the school's religious neutrality?

Government remains separate when it merely acknowledges all religions, so long as it makes no attempt to establish a state church.

Diversity is desirable and choice is cool, right?

So why not have diversity and choice in Education?

Why not follow the example of most other developed democracies, even those with a state church, and let per-child funds be spent where the parent chooses -- public school, charter school, private school? -- 02 August 2006

Why can't property owners vote?
"Taxation without representation is tyranny," right?

But in most jurisdictions there is an entire class of property owners who pay taxes but aren't permitted to vote. "We'll take your taxes, thank you, but don't expect to have any say in how those taxes are spent," is the message those property owners receive.

Who are they?

Job-providers. Businesses.

To make matters worse, there are those college towns which give the right to vote to "transients," which is the only fair way to describe temporary residents like college kids.

Why shouldn't tax-paying corporate citizens have the right to vote on local matters? Why is it okay for unions to lobby for legislation and for homeowners to challenge the zoning board but a "conflict of interest" when tax-paying businesses attempt to influence public policy?

Turn that thought around. Shouldn't teachers and other public employees be denied the right to vote? After all, isn't it a "conflict of interest" for a teacher to be allowed to vote on a school millage? Can you imagine the teacher voting "no"?

Think about it.
Frank Versagi

Paying for health care
Having been self-employed for more than half of my 60-year working life before retirement, I empathize but certainly can't sympathize with buyout victims who may have to pay for their health insurance. Self-employed individuals -- even those who are also job-providers for others -- pay those hundreds of dollars per month on themselves, with no tax deduction; they pay double for Social Security on themselves; they are not eligible to receive unemployment benefits or workers' compensation.

When state and federal legislators get around to addressing the problems resulting from this new buyout demographics they would do well to consider a bit of fairness toward the self-employed demographics. -- April 2006

Increasing the minimum wage
may affect this or that individual or small business -- positively or negatively --  but decades of studies have made it clear that there is no macro effect -- positive or negative -- on a state's or on the nation's overall economy. 

The controversy is more politics than economics. Both organized labor and management spokesmen see minimum wage increases as helping set the tone for raising wages in general. Hence, the manufactured arguments, the posturing, about "helping the working poor," at one end, and about "punishing job-providers," at the other.

The broader philosophical debate for liberals and conservatives is the proper role of government in dictating prices, wages, fringe benefits, economic policies in the private sector -- a debate which continues world-wide, even as momentum measurably moves toward the market-economy model.. 

Moderates versus Extremists?
It was Aristotle who suggested the principle of "the mean," the notion that moderation is advisable in most matters. Three of his examples; courage is the mean between the extremes of cowardice and rashness; the proper degree of pride is the mean between empty vanity and undue humility; modesty is the mean between "the bashful man who is ashamed of everything and the shameless man who is ashamed of nothing."

During political discourse, from before Aristotle's' time till now, moderates are considered cowards by extremists at both ends, but the measure of moderation is subjective, usually varying with the issue.

On a scale which places extreme liberalism at 1 and extreme conservatism at 10, for example, I give myself a score of 8. Over the years, I have worked with four or five groups in which individuals exchanged self-scores and compared them with how others scored them. Every group scored me 6 or 7. -- Dec 2005

A hundred years ago, I was invited to join the Human Relations Board in Port Huron. The group addressed societal tensions caused by race or religion, or -- in an unofficial mediating capacity -- labor disputes.  At the time of my joining, I could justly have been  labeled a liberal civil rights activist. By the time I became chairman, I had been forced to deal with enough extremists in several camps to have become a moderate.

For those who like numerical ratings, on a scale of 1-to-10 for extreme liberal-to-extreme conservative, I define a moderate as one who will variously score between 3 and 7, depending not on the nature of the issue but on the facts of the case. -- Mar 2006 

Each of us has three vocabularies
The smallest is our speaking vocabulary, words we know the meaning of and are comfortable pronouncing.

Substantially larger is our writing vocabulary; this includes words we know the meaning of but are unsure of their pronunciation and words which might strike a listener as affected or out of place in conversation or in an oral presentation. My use of vincible in a recent essay is an example of the latter. In context, the term is understandable to readers who have not encountered it before but who are familiar with the more common invincible. As another example, I say "untiring' in conversation but I might write "indefatigable." 

Finally, each of us has a reading vocabulary, the largest of the three. Here we encounter (a) words whose meaning we know but which -- for any of several reasons -- we have never heard spoken, and (b) words whose meaning we somewhat understand in context but which we can't define. In recent reading, I encountered peristyle, which I recognized vaguely as an architectural term. I was able to continue reading without diminishing my understanding of the passage in which the word appeared. Later, I looked it up: a row of columns supporting an enclosure or a roof.

It's fun, while maintaining appropriateness for diverse listeners and audiences, to move words from either of the larger vocabularies to one's speaking vocabulary. -- Dec 2005

Everyone doesn't need to know math
As a former metallurgical chemist trained in science and math, I have reluctantly concluded that insisting that all students must become proficient in mathematics for the good of the country is misguided.  I can't remember ever again using calculus after switching careers (chemist, technical writer, editor, corporate executive, management consultant, retiree), although I occasionally use a bit of algebra and plane geometry.  

Competent and educated people can succeed, occupationally and intellectually, without knowing how to measure the area of a rhomboid or how to solve a quadratic equation -- if their specialty or non-vocational interests don't require that skill.

Until 200 years ago, it was thought necessary to know Greek and Latin to be considered educated or to practice any of the only-three recognized "professions:" law, clergy, medicine. That's no longer true, and most intelligent adults do more than well-enough reading English translations of Aristotle and Aquinas. Those who want to experience the added pleasure of reading the original texts can learn the classical languages without forcing everyone else to learn them.

Does 'Public Comment' serve democracy?
"The sorry fact is many voters are lazy, ignorant and don't know the definition of due diligence," maintains veteran Michigan political writer Tim Skubick, in an opinion piece asserting that Governor Granholm will be unfairly tagged with responsibility for economic woes over which she has no control, like the Delphi bankruptcy.

That's a bit sharper than my suggesting too many Royal Oak voters are uninformed and excessively emotional, but both comments make the point that elected officials must live with a public which is largely guilty of vincible ignorance. That is, those voters suffer from a lack of information which is attainable by reasonable diligence -- a little effort, if you please. 

Disbelievers in democracy point out that history is full of successful governments which -- benevolently or not -- took for granted the ignorance of most of the public to justify rule by an enlightened elite. Disbelievers also find many examples, today, of an elected elite maintaining their power stations by deliberately deferring to mass ignorance. Another point of view is expressed by Qadhafi, in his "Green Book" which touts his "Third Universal Theory" of government: "The most tyrannical dictatorships the world has known have existed under the shadow of parliaments."

Between those theoretical extremes falls the practical role of Public Comment at City Commission/Council meetings throughout democratic nations. An occasional practical suggestion comes forth but for the most part people come up to complain about this or that. One current Royal Oak commissioner was shocked to learn that more than one past commissioner have told me that the commissioners at the table are thinking about the coming agenda discussions and pay relatively little attention to what is being said during Public Comment. "If something really important needs to be addressed, it will make its way to an agenda," was the way one put it.

Under Mayor Ellison -- drawing both praise and criticism -- the current commission occasionally engages in dialogue with a Public Comment speaker. For decades, the practice has been almost never to do else than thank each speaker or perhaps promise to have a department head look into the matter. On the other hand, many who monitor city commission meetings wonder at the ability of the mayor and commissioners not to fall asleep or not to grab an abusive speaker by the throat.  

On a humorous note, 1920s comedic drunk W. C. Fields, learning that it was illegal for bars to be open on Election Day, complained, "That is carrying democracy too far!"

Conclusion? With all its faults, democracy -- "mob rule," in the minds of authoritarians -- seems the best of all ruling concepts to accommodate the needs of society and individual freedom. -- 14 Oct 05

When emotions rule -- Some have no mind to change
One of my three careers was as the editor of an internationally circulated weekly business newspaper, and one of my pet projects was an annual Statistical Panorama (StatPan), an industry-wide product-by-product analysis of sales and technological developments.

For each StatPan, I interviewed or examined the writings and predictions of a score of prominent economists. Each year their predictions fell into three piles: 1) going up, 2) going down, and 3) uncertain.

What was fascinating was that over two decades, there were economists whose predictions went into the same pile every year!

The point? It isn't only in politics that some individuals are so driven by temperament, by predisposition, that it is fruitless to have dialogue with them because they have no mind to change.

Let's apply that thought to the post-election dialogue about whether Bush & Company need to compromise with Democrats & Company about agenda. Feelings aside, the reasoning isn't that complicated: Compromise is about how, not about what.

• If the parties agree that Social Security needs to be addressed, for example, there can be vigorously debated compromise about how to modify the program. If one party, in this case the Democrats, insists as a matter of principle that the current program remain untouched, there is no chance for win-win, so forget compromise and go for win-lose.

• When both parties agree that the Tax Code needs reform, the long argument will be over how and where. This dialogue can very well end win-win.

• If Republicans insist as a matter of principle that partial-birth abortion must be banned and Democrats insist as a matter of principle that a woman's choice trumps all other considerations, and the public doesn't strongly favor a position, there can be no compromise. Lose-lose.

To return to the title of this essay:" Principle" can mean a thoughtfully considered intellectual fundamental mindset about a given issue or set of issues. Or it can mean a gut-level overwhelming feeling about, say, the role of government in society, in the marketplace.

If the former, compromise is possible.

If the latter, there is no mind to change.

FJV: 11 Nov 2004

What is censorship?
To listen to some free-speech extremists (One should have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.), any attempt to hold a writer responsible for the effect of his writings is "censorship." English poet John Milton's "Areopagetica" is frequently cited to enforce that point of view by people who obviously have never read Milton"s tract, for that contemporary of Galileo actually wrote:

I deny not, but that it is of greatest concernment in the church and commonwealth, to have a vigilant eye how books demean themselves as well as men; and thereafter to confine, imprison, and do sharpest justice on them as malefactors, for books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potentency of life in them to be as active as the soul whose progeny they are -- but if it be proved a monster, who denies, but that it was justly burnt, and sunk into the sea?"

Milton defined censorship to mean prior restraint, the power of the state or church to forbid publication of a written work. It was Plato who made the strongest case for prior restraint, in his Republic II:

Then the first thing will be to establish a censorship of the writers of fiction, and let the censors receive any tale of fiction which is good, and reject the bad: and we will desire mothers and nurses to tell their children the authorized ones only."

It's well to keep that before/after distinction in mind when praising or condemning writing, television, video games about everything from pornography to the Iraq war. -- FJV 28 July 2005

ACLU to the rescue!
"The Bush administration is claiming a post-election mandate to wage a no-holds barred campaign to challenge our most fundamental freedoms . . . The most powerful politicians in America have made it their mission to accumulate unchecked government power, relentlessly undermining civil liberties . . . repression of dissent and freedom . . . disguise ways in which the Patriot Act seriously and needlessly undermines our civil liberties."

Those excerpts are from an invitation I received to join the American Civil Liberties Union, an invitation that flattered, "We need people like you." Boy, have they reached the wrong number!

Yet, I welcome the ACLU's aggressive challenge to the Patriot Act because as necessary as I consider that legislation, no government should have such broad power without being challenged. -- 28 July 2005

About selling wine to those who want it, when they want it
When President Truman fired General MacArthur, the President was both wrong and right.

Wrong, because had the President allowed MacArthur to continue his winning strategy and tactics, the General would have won the Korean War. Right, because in the U.S. the Military must not usurp civilian control, even when that control is in error.

I find myself thinking in a similar wrong-right mode when I consider the reaction of  Michigan's liquor lobby to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to shoot down the state's ban against permitting wineries anywhere to deliver to Michigan consumers.

Wrong, because the lobby, and Governor Granholm, wants to retain its monopolistic control over spirit distribution. Right, because I disagree with the Court's using the constitution's commerce clause to circumvent the 23rd Amendment which assigned control of alcohol distribution to the states when Prohibition was repealed.

The standoff will be broken when, as is likely, consumer groups collaborate to mount a fight for liberal access to wine. A related thought: Most people have forgotten, may never have known, that Prohibition was largely an anti-Catholic reaction to the beer-drinking and wine-drinking European immigrants whose cultural habits offended then-dominant Protestant manners. -- FJV 06 June 2005

Addressing the "Passing Parade"
Mentally active seniors avoid becoming jaded by continually reminding themselves that writers and readers are forever speaking to a new generation, a passing parade. So, the umpteenth new jargon for a perennial concept is simply a different way of saying the same thing to a new audience. If yesterday's "job enrichment" becomes today's "ownership," so be it.

It is hard, though, not to chuckle when pseudo-philosophical notions, really intellectual fads, are taken seriously, and when common sense principles are restated as profound new insights. Several examples came to mind when I had occasion to refer to three books, each of which was a best-seller at its peak, even though some -- me among them -- scoffed at what seemed pretentious posturing. 

• 1971 -- Alvin Toffler's Future Shock:  Breathlessly citing completely unrelated statistics and forcing them to fit his arbitrary matrix of rapid-changes-to-which-humans-may-not-be-able-to-adjust, Toffler came up with such insights as, "The cultural transformation of the Manus Islanders was simple compared with the one we must face. We shall survive it only if we move beyond personal tactics to social strategies -- providing new support services for the change-harassed individual, building continuity and change-buffers into the emergent civilization of tomorrow."
• 1982 -- John Naisbitt's Megatrends: As part of his explanation that "ten new directions" would transform our lives, Naisbitt offered such gems as, "Strategic planning is worthless -- unless there is first a strategic vision." . . . "We've reduced our fat intake mightily: Butter consumption is down 28%, milk and cream down 21%, since 1965" . . . "The large-scale movement away from reliance on government to solve problems continues unabated." . . . "We are living in a time of parenthesis, the time between eras . . . we are neither here nor there . . . we have not embraced the future."
• 1991 -- Faith Popcorn's The Popcorn Report: "Socioquake!" Popcorn announces on her opening page, to get the reader's attention. Then, "If you thought it yesterday, if you're thinking it today, you won't think it tomorrow." . . . "Look for major growth in 'paranoia' industries . . . gun ownership among woman jumped 53% between 1983 and 1986, to more than 12 million." . . . "How about having each team that built the plane sign their names to it in a show of pride and responsibility!" . . . "Nonviolence will be a theme -- from therapy to food. The primal screaming session of a decade or two ago . . . will turn passively serene, into tomorrow's new brain clinics where doses of light invigorate and relax you at the same time."

Have you caught your breath?

Broken English, Black English?
Comedian Bill Cosby is causing controversy with his critical comments, and suggested remedies, about what some fear is a self-perpetuating black underclass. Cosby is sadly funny when he deliberately mumbles street black talk to make a point. Years ago, some defenders of such black talk went so far as to suggest that "Black English" be dubbed "Ebonics" and be formally recognized as a language.

My parents came to America from Italy at the turn of the 20th century; my mother learned to speak English well, my father haltingly. If my grandchildren still spoke broken English, "like-a dis-a", articulating a non-existent vowel at the end of every word, it would be reasonable to ask why.

Why do so many fourth and fifth generation American blacks still speak in a manner which prevents their entering into mainstream dialogue? They have been exposed to standard English for decades, including from fellow-blacks -- in stores, in church, on the radio, in movies, on television. Are they incapable of learning, or is it a choice on their part?

Just as society is encouraged to seek "root causes" for other societal problems, it is reasonable to seek the actual cause for the inability or unwillingness of some blacks to speak properly. Perhaps if we find the root cause . . . -- 22 March 2005

Not true --
Half of all marriages do not end in divorce
You've heard it a million times: "Half of all marriages end in divorce." That's false. Some who repeat the falsehood know they are lying; most people simply misunderstand the math. To illustrate, using simple, rounded numbers:

Let's say that there already were 1,000,000 married couples at the end of 2003, and that by the time 2004 ends, there will have been 10,000 new marriages and 5,000 divorces.

5,000, divided by 10,000, times 100 = 50%

The mistake is to assume that half of 2004 marriages ended in divorce. That's not the real story. The total number of marriages is now 1,010,000 (the original million plus the new 10,000).

5,000, divided by 1,010,000, times 100 = 0.5%
That's half-of-one percent of "all marriages," not 50%.

When we subtract the 5,000 divorces, we are left with 1,005,000 married couples at the end of 2004.

America's admittedly high  divorce rate can accurately be stated by something like, "Each year there are half as many divorces of all married couples as there are marriages in the year."

That's not at all the same as "half of all marriages."

21 Apr 04

Some impressions after the 2003 Royal Oak Election
It would be a mistake to make too big an issue out of the Republican-Democrat controversy which arose during the 2003 Royal Oak election. Actually, so-called "non-partisan" elections for mayor and commissioner aren't really non-partisan, anyway. Candidates come with a history known by most voters, but party affiliation has little influence on most local issues which a City Commission must address.

Suicide, Abortion, Art and the Law
There should not be any laws which (1) make assisted suicide a crime, (2) make abortion illegal, or (3) censor artistic expression.

Neither should any level of government use taxpayers' money to (1) establish standards and conditions for assisted suicide, (2) fund abortions, or (3) subsidize any art, "good" or "bad."

In a one-religion society like Israel, Iran, or Spain, it may make sense to declare a sin a crime. But in a multi-religion society like the United States, it is unproductive and futile for government to attempt by law to prohibit or to regulate more than a very few items of personal behavior.

If a large majority in a town, for example, votes to keep the town "dry," that's understandable and appropriate. If on the other hand the citizenry of a city is diverse, it makes no sense for the government to make "criminals" of good people by declaring it illegal to -- have a drink, play cards, dance, open stores on Sunday. All such activities may be considered sinful by some, but not by others.

Unless or until the "sinners" can be convinced otherwise, the government should butt out.

Think about it.
Frank Versagi

Why encourage the uninformed to vote?
Why do we want to make it easy for uninformed and uninterested people to vote?

How are democracy and good government served when an individual who doesn't know and doesn't care casts a ballot?

Many voter-drives, of course, are mounted by political parties which hope for a straight party-line vote and by single-issue groups who want an up-or-down vote on matters ranging from abortion through vouchers to world trade.

Even such futuristic concepts as Internet-voting encourage anyone who can click a mouse-button to vote whether or not she knows anything about the candidates or the issues on the ballot.

Wouldn't it be better to take such positive actions as to have "drives" to encourage citizens to attend candidate forums and issue-rallies or to offer perpetual courses in old-fashioned civics and history at all educational levels?

Citizens who attend rallies and attend refresher courses in civics, of course, don't have to be encouraged to vote.

Think about it.
Frank Versag

Less Government, Please
"They don't answer questions, hoping that if they delay long enough you'll give up."

"Public hearings and public comment at meetings are a sham. They've already made up their minds."

No, this isn't Royal Oakers talking about zoning or historical districts or library funds or liquor licenses. These comments were made during a formative meeting of civic activists from Allen Park, Bloomfield Hills, Dearborn Heights, Leonard, Madison Heights, Oak Park, Oxford, Romulus, Royal Oak, St. Clair Shores, Sterling Heights, Troy, and Warren.

Voice sat in on one of the group's organizational meetings when it had yet to find a name for itself and to create a mission statement. Their concerns range from bond issues to perceived violations of the Open Meetings Act. Indeed, in a recent news article addressing the ongoing Royal Oak "historic" battle (click the green button on this page), an attorney for the Michigan Department of State, opines, "There's a popular movement right now in the United States that involves reaction to some types of regulations, including historic preservation."

You bet there is!

If Voice were writing the mission statement for the newly forming group of civic activists, it would be: To regain control over local government by overcoming the too-common practice of elected and appointed officials to use their knowledge of governmental procedures to avoid effective citizen oversight.

Think about it.
Frank Versagi

To disagree is not to discriminate
One can disagree with a papal pronouncement and not be anti-Catholic. Or disagree with an Israeli political policy and not be anti-Semitic. Or argue against a gay position and not be homophobic.

During a recent City Commission meeting, a spokesman for the gay and lesbian community chided the City because in advertising for a worker the City did not include "sexual orientation" in the list of all those groups against which the City does not discriminate.

Nonsense. Total nonsense.

The list is already a mile long, and it doesn't include left-handed Lithuanians, cross-eyed Italians, light-skinned blacks - have I offended enough people?

Look, organizations don't - or shouldn't - hire groups. They hire individuals.

In my management consulting work, I attempt to replace all such "we do not discriminate" statements with something like, "Applicants are judged exclusively by their demonstrated knowledge and skills, occupational track record, and compensation requirements."

It is taken for granted that we won't discriminate against anybody.

Think about it.
Frank Versagi

Muriel Versagi on the Single Issue Voter
A person who is a single-issue voter — whether about abortion, neighborhood  protection, civil rights,  the environment, whatever — will in good conscience refuse to vote for a candidate who does not share that voter’s belief, no matter how philosophically aligned the candidate may otherwise be.

Mass Transportation versus I-75
We need neither mass transportation nor the widening of I-75 in Oakland County. Take that money and repair bridges and roads.

In the early 1980s, SEMTA was successfully fought when it tried to run light rail down Washington, then down Main. It helped that the Royal Oak Chamber of Commerce found errors in SEMTA's physical measurement of how wide the streets actually are and also contested some arbitrary computer input which generated questionable ridership estimates.

In 1996, a thorough nation-wide study of AMTRAK -- in place and proposed -- showed maximum energy savings on the order of 1% and no statistically significant reduction in traffic density or pollution.

Concerning the proposed widening of I-75, those who choose to live or work anywhere along the expressway know what they are doing. The choice to live with clogged traffic and to take an hour each way to and from work is not different from the choice some Easterners make to spend hours each day on commuter trains running from Connecticut to Manhattan.

Speaking of the East Coast, which has a population density very much like Western Europe, that's the only place trains make some sense. Even in both places, though, each rider is subsidized. Rail mass transportation does not pay for itself anywhere in the world.

Mass transportation enthusiasts insist they are promoting a public "good", but they are certainly not "pro-choice" when it comes to our individual rights to come and go when and where we please.

Similarly, anti-development activists are definitely not "pro-choice" when it comes to an individual's right to decide where to live or to work. The activists cover their anti-freedom posture, their social engineering mindset, by labeling any growth they don't like as "urban sprawl."

The arrogance of these social planners is expressed well in a quotation from one of the SEMTA officials back in the 1980s. The man's reaction to a proposed referendum on the light rail project was, "Why do we feel it necessary for the people to vote on a transportation issue, when the Congress can declare war without asking the people's permission?"

Enough said.   (12 March 04)

Of Condos & Class
Those Royal Oak "No Condos" signs of several years ago are history. The West of West group and its allies lost that battle.

Despite dire warnings about an undesirable impact on property values, traffic problems, and the like, condos are currently part of the attraction of Royal Oak to many. Nationwide, condos are increasingly considered a desirable component of urban environment -- by individuals, families, communities.

Not always spoken aloud was, and is, an uneasy fear that condos attract undesirable people. For such snobs, condos are a tiny step up from "trailer parks." That impression is impacted by the overall effect of the undeniable growth of an economic middle class. Notice, I say "economic" middle class, because almost everyone has experienced dismay and disgust encountering individuals who have made it economically but of whom it is properly said, "He has no class."

Here, "class" refers to attitude, to behavior, to the use of language, to culture. While there have always been boors among the wealthy and gentlepeople among the poor, it was a valid generalization till World War II to equate class with economic well-being. How define "class" today, when most people seem to have enough money to buy whatever they want?

A study published in 1963* suggests class shows by one's "central value." The author offered the following tabulation.

One may safely assume that, today, all those value-classes are represented among people whose economic status enables them to go-condo, in Royal Oak or elsewhere.  (FJV: 13 Apr 04)

* "Sociology," by John F. Cuber, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1963         

Six politically incorrect observations

Fact 1: Seventy-one percent of American Jews voted Democrat in the last presidential election.

Opinion 1: It concerns me that otherwise steady presidential candidate Joe Lieberman reacts in knee-jerk fashion when someone challenges or questions an action or policy of the State of Israel.

Question 1: Does expressing that concern make one an anti-Semite?

Fact 2: Ninety-two percent of African-Americans voted Democrat in the last presidential election.

Opinion 2: It concerns me that straight--talking presidential candidate Al Sharpton insists it is appropriate for him to disproportionately push black issues during his national campaign.

Question 2: Does expressing that concern make one a racist?

Fact 3: Environmentalists complain that government and developers are not doing enough to protect wetlands.

Opinion 3: Big deal. Before they became holy wetlands, these mosquito-infested areas were properly called marshes or swamps.

Question 3: Who is more dishonest than anti-development zealots who attempt to hide their anti-growth mindset by pretending they are fighting to preserve endangered species?

Fact 4: Except in some Europe-like high-population-density areas on our country's Eastern Seaboard, mass transit is used by something like 8% of the nation's commuting population. Mass transit proponents maintain that "if we build it, they will use it." Opponents of mass transit are frequently labeled non-progressive and anti-poor.

Opinion 4: Nowhere in the United States where mass transit has been recently built does it pay for itself. Want to make it possible for the poor to go to work? It would be more cost- effective to provide vouchers for the poor to take jitneys than to fund mass transit.

Question 4: By what right do we force people out of their personal transportation and onto buses and trains, depriving them of their right to come and go when and where they please?

Fact 5: The ACLU and like-minded souls maintain that displaying the Holy Family on public property violates separation of church and state.

Opinion 5: True, unlike quasi-theocratic countries such as Israel and Iran, the United States constitution forbids establishing a state religion. The constitution does not forbid government from acknowledging all religions. One must be extremely biased or intellectually dishonest not to recognize that America is culturally a Christian nation. So, it is arrogant, offensive, unfeeling when  public school calendars, for example, convert Easter Break to Spring Break and Christmas Break to Winter Break, while specifying Jewish Holidays or Muslim Holidays. The religiously neutral government -- keeping only public health and safety in mind -- will permit any and all traditional holy displays on public property.

Question 5: How hypersensitive or intolerant is the psyche which takes offense when wished the joy and goodwill contained in "Merry Christmas" at a party, at work, in correspondence, on greeting cards -- and why is it politically incorrect to refuse to defer to such intolerance?

Fact 6: Mass media, when reporting about any aspect of the abortion debate, use the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" to identify opposing viewpoints. They also frequently identify "anti-abortion" but never "pro-abortion" individuals and groups.

Opinion 6: The abortion debate will never be finished. At one extreme are those who consider abortion murder and would ban it under any and all circumstances. At the other extreme are those who cite a woman's right to control her body as reason enough never to ban abortion. Neither extreme would react reasonably to a suggestion, say, that there may be an abortion-equivalent of  "justifiable homicide" -- which maintains that even though killing is generally wrong, there are times and circumstances where it is not a crime.

Question 6: Why is it that most of the people who consider the right to choose absolute, relative to abortion, aren't pro-choice when it comes to things like owning guns; smoking; moving to and living where one wants to live; driving any size car; joining exclusive (oops "restrictive") clubs to which only whites or blacks or Jews or Catholics or Muslims or left-handed Lithuanians may belong; praying at a football game; seeking historical designation for one's property -- you know, the whole list of choices that red-necked reactionaries allude to when they say, "It doesn't get any better than this."

01 Dec 03

Available on or from this page

Does Public Comment serve democracy?  

Everyone doesn't need to know math   

Thoughts about the 2003 Royal Oak Election

Less Government, please 

Some have no mind to change 

What is censorship? (English poet John Milton acknowledged that some books should be burned!)  

ACLU to the Rescue!

Buying, selling wine in Michigan

Why can't property owners vote? 

How active seniors keep from becoming jaded. 

Broken English, Black English

Half of all marriages DO NOT end in divorce

Personal slurs poison Main Street Place dialogue

Why encourage the uninformed to vote?  

It all began with Barbara Hallman?  

Suicide, Abortion, Art and the Law

To disagree is not to discriminate

Muriel Versagi on the Single Issue Voter

Of Condos & Class  (Values of lower, middle, upper classes)

Six politically incorrect observations

Diversity should include ALL religions

Everybody is a Special Interest

Protesters don't always represent community

Who needs Mass Transportation?

Permit all religious displays on public property

Educational vouchers make sense
Education taxes belong to the student, not the school district

Longer Essays

Voluntary Diversity, yes; Multiculturism, no
Biculturism in Canada has clearly proved politically divisive. As the Brits like to say, the animosity between the French and the English is "intolerable." Mandated multiculturism in the U.S. could easily provoke even greater fission.

The unfortunate experiences of Britain with "coloured" immigrants from several nations and of France with its segregated Muslims provide further proof that America's 19th and early 20th century encouragement of mainstreaming provides a solid political base atop which each group of immigrants was free to maintain its culture in its private/communal life, while simultaneously working to become fully American in the work force and schools and the public sector. To this day, recent Italian immigrants -- in the U.S. and Canada -- find it possible for the workers in the family to mainstream, even though Momma insists on never learning English. Both Momma and the workers are free both to maintain their traditions of festivals and markets or to participate in American holidays and customs or both. That is friendly, mutually respectful cultural integration; that is true diversity.

The majority of Americans is unreservedly willing to recognize and respect minority cultures. It is not unreasonable to expect minorities to extend  the same courtesy to their hosts. -- Jan 2006