Louis R. Avallone

Category: 2013

Fake War: Christmas Spirit Comes From Within

By Louis Avallone
–
“I am so sick of myopic, self-centered, ‘persecuted’ Christians who complain about a fake war on Christmas by the people in this country who don’t happen to share their particular views,” a letter to the editor of the Dallas Morning News started out.

The letter continued, “So please, Christians (‘persecuted’ Christians, not the kind who actually do unto others as you would have others treat you), open your eyes and see that the U.S. is not a Christian nation but a giant melting pot of many different cultures and beliefs. The world does not revolve around you.”

Maybe this describes your opinion of the matter, as well. Maybe you feel Jon Stewart from “The Daily Show” said it best when he said, “You’ve confused a war on Christianity with not always getting everything you want.”

Or, on the other hand, maybe you would have shouted “Amen!” to Ronald Reagan when he said, “Christmas can be celebrated in the school room with pine trees, tinsel and reindeers, but there must be no mention of the man whose birthday is being celebrated. One wonders how a teacher would answer if a student asked why it was called Christmas.”

But whichever pew you sit in, the religious celebration of Christmas faces trivialization every year, and this is what many characterize as the “war on Christmas.” It draws attention (and controversy) whenever folks demand that a Christmas tree be referred to as a “holiday tree,” or when seemingly benign Christmas carols cannot be sung in our schools, or whenever Christmas decorations are not permitted to be displayed in our public squares, for fear of offending others.

Just a few years ago, for example, even the White House was not planning to display the Nativity scene, which has been a longtime East Room tradition. Instead, according to the White House’s former social secretary Desiree Rogers, the “Obamas were planning a nonreligious Christmas.”

But good grief. Does hearing, “Peace on earth, good will toward men” really sound oppressive? Does “Joy to the world” bring despair to those who hear it? Is there such a scarcity of darkness in the world that a few twinkling lights might not brighten one’s day, or where the innocence of Santa Claus might not teach us all that it is in giving, that we receive?

Poll after poll has shown that the fear of offending others with “Merry Christmas” is misplaced. According to the polling firm Zogby, 95 percent of Americans are NOT offended when they hear “Merry Christmas.” In fact, even 62 percent of non-Christians (including Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists) all celebrate Christmas, in some form or fashion, plus more than half of self-identified atheists and almost 90 percent of agnostics.

Interestingly, this misplaced fear of offending others, through religion, was the reason that the CBS network executives almost canceled “A Charlie Brown Christmas,” back in December, 1965. You see, the executives did not want Linus reciting the story of the birth of Christ from the Gospel of Luke. It was thought that viewers would not want to be preached upon by an animated cartoon, especially from Biblical passages.

Yet 15 million viewers, or one-half of the television viewing audience, tuned in to watch “A Charlie Brown Christmas” when it first aired in 1965 and it has become the longest-running cartoon special in history, having aired now for 48 Christmases, and receiving an Emmy and a Peabody award along the way. Those CBS executives just got it wrong when it came to religion.

So, what’s the commotion about the “war” on Christmas? It’s really about a larger “war” on Christianity, and not just here at home, but around the world where Christians are persecuted, and even killed. It is estimated that 80 percent of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today are directed against Christians. Even Pope Francis recently pointed out, “So many Christians in the world are suffering,” and “giving their lives” for their Christian faith.

When your waitress at Denny’s says, “Happy Holidays,” or your local Radio Shack doesn’t even acknowledge the reason for the season, that’s not the same as taking machine gun fire to your soul, but some Christians are arguably concerned that it’s an awful, slippery slope.

You see, history teaches us that imperceptible changes can have a lasting, irreparable effect on society. Dictators understand the effectiveness of eroding freedoms by imperceptible reductions. As Adolph Hitler wrote in his book, “Mein Kampf,” “the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”

And it is this feared, imperceptible erosion to the freedom of religion, and persecution for one’s beliefs, that concern folks so much that they characterize the trivialization of Christmas as a “war.” Those that mock their angst, or making fun of their concerns, simply aren’t digging down deep enough.

Yes, the true Christmas spirit still comes from within, and it is not just a time of year, but a state of mind. I just pray now that Charles Schulz is still right when he said, “There will always be an audience for innocence in this country.” Well, I hope so. Our nation’s future literally depends on it.

April 17, 2014
Unspoken Reason: Effects of ‘Deindividuation’ in our Nation

By Louis Avallone
–
You know how you’ve felt whenever another driver has cut you off in traffic, or has made hand gestures (which were completely unnecessary), as they sped away from you anonymously, disapprovingly honking and shaking their head the entire time about your driving?

Maybe you even expressed yourself back to that individual by vigorously honking back at them, and letting the other driver know you completely disapprove of their aggressive behavior.

But a quick question: If either of you were introduced to one another and shared a Coke, or a cup of coffee, at Strawn’s, you’d hardly express yourself as aggressively as you would if you were seated anonymously behind the windshield of your vehicle in heavy traffic. But why is that? It’s because when we blend into a crowd, instead of meeting with someone face-to-face, we have a decreased sense of personal accountability.

Psychologists call it “deindividuation,” and it is a psychological theory developed to explain how people, when they are doing something anonymously, become more capable of acts that rational individuals would not normally do. It’s the unspoken reason that criminals will often disguise themselves with masks, and why it’s so easy for folks to engage in harsh criticism of others online. Anonymity makes it easier to disconnect you, from you.

But this is not just a psychological theory that is merely academic. With the roll-out of Obamacare this month, the practice of this theory is actually on full display in our nation’s capitol.

You see, every time that President Obama goes on television, gives an interview, and steps behind his teleprompter, and then blames Obamacare failures on the Republicans, or the defective website, he disconnects himself from the failures of very legislation that bears his name, and he blends into the “crowd.” He points to everyone else, and anyone who will listen, and says, “It’s not my fault, it’s theirs.”

And while 57 percent of Americans oppose Obamacare and want it scrapped, and less than half of all Americans even view President Obama as honest or trustworthy, or as a strong leader, and even though experts predict 129 million Americans will lose their current health insurance, the President’s response has been, as the psychological theory predicts, to disguise himself as a bystander, and thereby avoid the responsibility for dismantling private healthcare in our country.

The more he blames, the more he blends, and the more anonymous (not synonymous) he becomes with the healthcare debacle facing every American, instead of being held accountable for what he has done.

As he told the Wall Street Journal, “(o)ne of the problems we’ve had is one side of Capitol Hill is invested in failure.” In the Rose Garden, he complained about the “reckless demands by some in the Republican Party to deny affordable health insurance to millions of hardworking Americans.” He has blamed the insurers for the millions of canceled policies, then blamed software developers for the website failure, and now blames the critics of Obamacare for creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I call it all baloney. While blaming others may make him feel more confident about the dismal implementation of Obamacare or even make him feel superior to others, it’s simply not helpful.

The bungled roll-out of Obamacare, and the failed promise that if you liked your insurance, you could keep your insurance, is further evidence that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

And despite the disguises, or masks worn by the politicians in Washington these days, the effects of deindividuation in our nation can be overcome with a simple, plain oldfashioned choice; a choice to champion personal accountability wherever, and whenever, we see it.

So the next time someone honks at you, or otherwise expresses themselves through sign language to you in traffic, look at it as another opportunity to illustrate why Washington’s lack of accountability simply doesn’t work for us. Sure, opportunity usually knocks, but in this case, it honks too.

April 17, 2014
Inner-City Connector

By Louis Avallone
–
It is widely accepted that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. In fact, it was 5th-century B.C. Greek mathematician Pythagoras, who discovered the longest side of a right triangle is actually the shortest path between the two points on either end.

But Pythagoras missed a couple of key exceptions, however. First, his theorem only works on flat surfaces. And secondly, he never calculated the distance between the folks who want to establish an inner-city connector between I-20 and I-220, and those folks who don’t.

And despite the proposed distance between those two points being virtually a straight line, these groups could not be further apart. Here’s what I mean:
Earlier this year, the Louisiana DOTD formally broke ground on a section of I-49 that will connect Martin Luther King Drive and La. Highway 1 by 2016. As this section of I-49 inches closer to Shreveport, so does the debate over constructing an estimated $300 million inner-city connector to this last section of I-49, which would be built through the Allendale neighborhood.

Formally, the prospect of this inner-city connector is only in the planning and environmental stage, where an Environmental Impact Statement will be presented to the Federal Highway Administration and DOTD for approval, before proceeding further.

But for others, like the Shreveport City Council, they’ve already made up their minds. In June, they unanimously supported the construction of a new 120-unit affordable housing complex that is being built on land owned by the Shreveport Housing Authority. And this was in spite of the Metropolitan Planning Commission’s denial of the project only days earlier.

State Representative Roy Burrell argues that building this inner-city connector is more important than this housing complex because the connector will have a projected economic impact of $400 million in the Allendale area alone. He claims that those opposing the inner-city connector, and supporting the construction of the housing complex instead, have their own, selfish economic interests in mind, and not the “plight of the poor black folks in Allendale.”

On the other side of the road, those opposing the inner-city connector point out that downtown was most prosperous when neighborhoods like Allendale, and Ledbetter Heights, were prosperous. Architect Kim Mitchell points out that since 1980, the population in these neighborhoods has decreased by 80%, and that revitalizing these neighborhoods, and making it attractive for entrepreneurs, doesn’t include running a six-lane interstate highway through them.

He points out that the even President Eisenhower, who signed into law the construction of the interstate highway system in 1956, admitted that building these highways through congested parts of cities was against his original concept and wishes. And now, it seems, his original concept and wishes may be part of a growing trend throughout the nation.

For example, there’s a proposal in downtown Dallas to tear down I-345 because some say it divides the Deep Ellum neighborhood and downtown Dallas, effectively choking the life out of both. And even down in New Orleans, Mayor Landrieu says that he is willing to consider tearing down the elevated stretch of Interstate 10 through downtown New Orleans, pointing out that it “gave people more impetus to bypass the city than to stay in it.” Tearing it down, he explained, could attract new residents and businesses.
And that’s what Senator Barrow Peacock has in mind too, on this matter, but for a different reason. He believes that by building the inner-city I-49 connector it will attract new residents and businesses to both Allendale, and downtown alike. He points to the North Central Expressway in Dallas, complete with miles of service roads on both sides, as an example of how to build more than a highway, but an economic engine. “Look at the development along North Central in Dallas,” Senator Peacock explains, “there are neighborhoods and businesses that are thriving, and which have continued to grow, decades after it was built.”

But what’s the alternative to building the inner-city connector? Some folks propose simply looping I-49 traffic around I-220 and the existing 3132, and for considerably less than the estimated $300 million construction cost of the 3.9 mile proposed connector. Of course, this will increase traffic on North Market for travelers southbound on I-49, whose destination includes downtown Shreveport.

Some say that this would reinvigorate a once thriving, vital part of our city. Others say the inconvenience of it all will only grow, and they point out that I-220 and 3132 are only 4-lane highways, and should be 6-lanes, if such looping is to be seriously considered, not to mention that the loop will require travelers to drive an additional 12 miles further than they would if the inner-city connector was built.

Well, that’s enough for now. This is a matter of great importance, for the future development of our community, and the generations of folks yet to come. It’s difficult to underestimate the role that the interstate highway system has played in the American economy and our culture. The interstate connected us, as a nation, long before Facebook, and as such, it’s hard to imagine progress without it.

In the coming months, get informed, and be heard. Surely there’s a way for us to get Pythagoras and Robert Frost together, somehow, so that we can travel along the shortest distance between two points while, at the same time, perhaps taking the road less traveled. I hear it will make all the difference.

April 14, 2014
Fight for Territory

By Louis Avallone
–
It is often said that, “Life is a fight for territory. When you stop fighting for what you want, what you don’t want automatically takes over.” This could be the individual who walks around the block each day to improve their health, or the employee who routinely seeks out learning new skills to advance them in their profession, or the volunteer who contributes their time and talents to support a worthy cause they believe in.

Or it could be our American democracy that, in the words of Ronald Reagan, “must be fought for, protected, and handed on” to our children for them to do the same. While it has been said that the greatest threat to the constitutional right to vote is voter fraud, the Democrats in Washington are seemingly unconcerned these days, and are willing to surrender growing perceptions of voter fraud in exchange for increased voter support.

Take former Secretary of State, First Lady, and presumed Democrat nominee for President in 2016, Hilary Clinton, for example. She recently took issue with the more than 80 bills introduced in 31 states requiring photo I.D. for voting, claiming that such was a burdensome requirement and would disenfranchise millions of voters. She said, “Anyone that says that racial discrimination is no longer a problem in American elections must not be paying attention.”

But is she paying attention to the facts, or the polls? More than 30 states have passed laws in recent years requiring voters to display photo I.D., yet in 2012, black voters clearly turned out higher percentages of registered voters than other ethnic minorities, and they appeared to have voted in greater percentages than white voters, as well. In Indiana, for example, where voter I.D. laws are considered the strictest, Democrat turnout increased by over 8 percent – which was the largest increase in the nation.

And even in powerful swing states with voter I.D. laws like Ohio and Pennsylvania, black voters accounted for 13 percent of all votes cast in 2012, even though they only make-up 12% of the eligible votes – a repeat of the 2008 presidential election. So, when President Obama calls such laws to ensure voting integrity as a “setback” for minority voters, we really must wonder, are Democrats more interested in the polls, or the facts?

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens was interested in the facts when he wrote the majority opinion upholding Indiana’s voter identification law, explaining that flagrant examples of fraud have been documented throughout our nation’s history and that “not only is the risk of voter fraud real, but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

The bottom line is that the perception of voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and sows seeds of distrust in our government. When citizens believe their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones, we all become disenfranchised.

In fact, 66% of likely U.S. voters believe voter fraud is a serious problem in America today. Critics (more specifically, Democrats) say that voter identification laws disenfranchise the poor, claiming that some people who are poor have never obtained a photo I.D. because they don’t have a copy of their birth certificate, or because it would be expensive to obtain. They claim that people of limited means don’t have a photo I.D. because, in their neighborhoods, everyone knows one another.

However, I know of no predestination for people who are poor to also belong to families lacking the organizational skills of keeping up with important papers, such as birth certificates, or aspiring to obtain a driver’s license, regardless of whether one has the means to purchase a vehicle or not. And such socio-economic status is not a factor in the poor obtaining the photo identification needed for everything from pharmacies to banks to even visiting your child’s or grandchild’s school.

These are mere excuses, of course, because the facts simply don’t bear out any connection between voter I.D. laws and disenfranchisement of minority voters. Yes, we can debate the extent of voter fraud until the cows come home, and admittedly, the lack of routinely collected and published data from public agencies makes it difficult to study voter fraud.

But while Democrats want to read off of the same old, tired, racially divisive, political stump script, the Supreme Court made it clear, just this past June, that the country has fundamentally changed since the racially motivated laws of the civil rights era, and that federal government’s evaluation of state voting laws can no longer rely on the past “when today’s statistics tell an entirely different story.”

Yes, this is a fight for territory – a fight for the integrity of voting – so that tyranny does not automatically take over. It’s not about the love of party, nor the distraction du-jour of the mainstream media, or the presidential aspirations of Hilary Clinton. It’s about the love of democratic principles, and the expectation that voting must be free from the perception of corruption – plain and simple, so that when we vote, we might never forget, in the words of Samuel Adams, that we have just exercised “one of the most solemn trusts in human society” for which we are accountable to both God and country.

April 14, 2014
Deen’s Apology

By Louis Avallone
–
You know, this Paula Deen matter is interesting. First, and it should go without saying, that using a racially derogatory term, whether in public or in private, or whether used in anger or otherwise, whether uttered last week or 30 years ago, is not acceptable. But it’s not any more shocking than learning from an African-American witness, in the George Zimmerman trial last month, that it is normal for folks in her neighborhood to call white people “crackers”.

And whether or not people believe Paula Deen is (or was) racist for having used that racially derogatory term is not the point. The bottom line is this: She admitted her mistake and apologized, but it wasn’t enough. Almost overnight, she was fired by The Food Network, and cut-loose from QVC, Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, Sears, J.C. Penney, Caesars Palace, Walgreens, and Kmart.

But why was her apology not enough? Isn’t America the land of second chances? Bill Clinton lied to the American people regarding Monica Lewinsky, he apologized, and he was forgiven. In fact, he was the toast of last year’s Democrat National Convention.

Meanwhile, Alec Baldwin tweets gay slurs, and Jamie Foxx says that starring in the film Django Unchained was fun because he gets to murder “white” people, yet both of these guys got “free passes” from both the media – and the American people. And even as Wal-Mart associates were clearing their shelves of Paula Deen cookware and cookbooks, the DVD of Django Unchained, which uses a derogatory racial term 112 times, remains prominently displayed on Wal-Mart shelves, and is even promoted with a special DVD bonus disc, available exclusively at Wal-Mart.

So, what gives? Maybe it’s not Paula Deen’s apology that wasn’t sufficient. After all, Bill Maher of HBO didn’t apologize at all when he referred to Sara Palin in a sexually derogatory manner — and he swears he never will apologize to her, either. It obviously hasn’t affected his television show’s ratings, because just last year, he averaged 1.4 million viewers during one of his shows, marking his biggest audience in almost eight years.

Then there’s President Obama, who has done his share of apologizing too. He has been around the world apologizing for America, saying we “sometimes make mistakes” and that “there have been times where America has shown arrogance.” Even so, our stature in the world is still declining and our national security continues to be diminished.

So, if it’s not the apology that makes a difference, when folks misspeak or otherwise make some transgression, could it be that maybe the media doesn’t report as much, or as often, when some folks mess up, and so they come out from a scandal relatively unscathed? Or is it that we all just feel better about ourselves when we see certain public figures fall?

It’s ironic that many people of faith, who are often accused of being too judgmental, and speaking out loudly about the immorality of others, are the very same ones urging forgiveness here, and encouraging the understanding that tolerance of other’s views, and agreeing with them, are altogether and completely different.

What is interesting too is that the same media folks, who so staunchly promote a freedom from religion, while at the same time demeaning people of faith as intolerant and narrow-minded, are the same media folks who are exhibiting intolerance and narrow-mindedness themselves. They have skewered Paula Deen in the town square of public opinion, causing her business partners to flee for cover, even though many in the African-American community, as well as public figures, from Jimmy Carter to Rush Limbaugh, have all urged forgiveness.

Of course, our culture doesn’t do a lot of celebrating of forgiveness, does it? We mainly just get mad at one another. And then folks simply want to get even. But this time, at this hour, can we handle this differently? Can we simply forgive, as one nation, under God? After all, in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., “He who is devoid of the power to forgive, is devoid of the power to love.”

April 14, 2014
Taking Action

By Louis Avallone
–
So, there we were, at a local restaurant being seated. The music was loud and lively, the wait staff was busy, and every table filled the room with conversations of every kind. And as we unwrapped our silverware and paper napkins, we made a curious discovery: There was a person’s name, handwritten in ink, on the backside of the paper napkin band. “Why is there someone’s name written here, Dad?,” came the response from the 7-year old son seated at the table. Well, it didn’t take me long to understand, and after confirming with the waitress, we soon all knew.

“You see,” she said, “Every night, the wait staff wraps the silverware and napkins together for the following day, and we place our name on the backside of the paper napkin band so that if a set of utensils was incomplete, or not clean, we’d know exactly who was responsible.”

Of course, this got me thinking about the increased accountability for those who did their job well at that restaurant, and the better results that obviously must have followed, from such a simple, inexpensive idea to measure results, and take the personal responsibility for them.

After all, whether you are managing a business, or a family, you can’t manage what you don’t measure. It’s the reason that baseball players know their batting average, and why advertisers measure the number of people who respond to an ad. It’s why golfers keep track of their scores, and why students want to know their test results. If they didn’t measure their performance, how would they know if they improved?

As much as that makes sense to you and me, there are far too many folks in Washington that simply don’t get the principle of accountability. You see, there are trillions of tax dollars raised and spent by Congress each year, and almost no accountability for their results, or the value received by the taxpayers.

And to add insult to injury, Congress hasn’t passed a budget since 2009, even though the Budget Act says it must do so by April 15 every year. Literally tens of billions of dollars go unaccounted for every year, disappearing down bureaucratic black holes.

And there are lots of examples of this unaccountability. From the estimated $72 billion in improper payments made each year, to the $25 billion annually spent just maintaining unused or vacant federal properties, to the health care fraud that is estimated to cost taxpayers more than $60 billion annually, our federal government is the model of unaccountability, and the undesirable results that necessarily, and predictably, follow.

There is perhaps no corporation that comes close to the scope of fraud, waste, and lack of accountability than our federal government, and yet most folks stand idly by and vote for bigger and bigger government each election cycle. A government that spent over $593,000 to study where in a chimpanzee’s brain they get the idea to throw feces and that spent $200 million to fund a reality television show in India to advertise U.S. cotton.

So, here’s what I was thinking: Would the bigger government folks in Washington sign a “napkin band” of their own, just like in the restaurant? Would these bureaucrats in Washington be willing to be accountable to families living paycheck to paycheck, and explain why they allowed the 2% payroll tax cut to expire at the end of 2012? Would they sign the back of the “napkin band” that raises your federal and state taxes to finance Medicare and Medicaid, when fraud and waste is the real source of the problem?
You see, as a people, if we are to govern own affairs, either directly or through representative government, we must be informed about what our government is doing, and measuring the results.

The reason is simple: If we don’t hold our elected officials accountable, then elections and the will of the people have no meaning. That’s why that simple “napkin band”, with a person’s name scribbled in ink on the backside, serves as a simple reminder that what works best, works simply.

So, what if we all wrote our name on the back of our ‘napkin band’ in life?” Lots of folks, like you, already do. It’s the doctor that writes your prescription, or the bank officer that approves your loan. It’s the teacher who signs your report card, or the air conditioner repairman who comes to your home. Isn’t way past time for our federal government to do the same?

Now, are you ready to order?

April 14, 2014
Multitasking

By Louis Avallone
–
It’s ironic, isn’t it? The Democrats in Washington, on any day of the week, want to convince you that bigger government is better government. They want you to believe that it can provide better schools for our children, even though only 69 percent of U.S. teens now graduate from high school (despite $2 trillion in federal spending since 1965). They want you to believe that government can create jobs, even though nearly 30%, or over 30 million Americans are unemployed (or underemployed) – and that’s after more than a trillion dollars in stimulus spending. In fact, at the current rate of job growth, it won’t be until 2022 before we return to the almost full employment rate that we had back in 2007.

And these Democrats are the same folks that believe that bigger government (along with good intentions) can help the poor move from poverty to prosperity, even though there are more people on food stamps today than ever before in our country’s history, and that’s after $1 trillion in annual welfare spending (which is 250% more than it was just 20 years ago).

Yes, these are the same folks that feel government-run healthcare, which makes up almost 20% of our gross domestic product (or $2.5 trillion in spending), can be administered efficiently, and effectively, by the same federal government that already makes $72 billion in improper payments every year to our healthcare providers.

And yes, that’s the same federal government that cancelled White House tours for students, released thousands of illegal aliens from prisons, and cut back on the number of air traffic controllers, just to make a point during the sequester earlier this year.

But even though liberals have an unshakable confidence in bigger government, liberals suddenly start acting like our federal government can’t walk and chew gum at the same time whenever there’s scandal or impropriety. They deflect the importance of issues by claiming that the federal government can’t be troubled with the issue du-jour, as if their all-knowing, all-solving federal government can’t focus on more than one issue at one time.

You can tell when liberals feel threatened with scandal or impropriety because they suddenly start saying that they need to be “doing the job that the American people sent them to do”, or that they’re “going back to work for the American people” now.

Remember, during the Monica Lewinsky investigation? President Clinton couldn’t be troubled with such ridiculousness, since the allegations being made were “false” and he said he needed to “go back to work for the American people”.

And then there’s White House advisor David Plouffe who said Republicans in Congress should focus more on “doing the job they were sent to do”, instead of focusing on the IRS scandal, the seizure of the Associated Press phone records by the Justice Department, and the foreign policy failure in Benghazi.

You see how this works?

And when Obama’s $500 billion “American Jobs Act” was in danger of not passing in Congress, and was being debated by Republicans, what do you think a Democrat Congressman pulled out of his talking points? You guessed it: He urged his colleagues in Congress to stop debating and to finish “the job the American people sent us here to do.”

And what about when Republicans were questioning last month the confirmation of Thomas Perez as our next Secretary of Labor? Yep, a Democrat U.S. Senator pulled out the predictable, “Let’s just do the job the American people sent us here to do.”

So, instead of confronting the objection, or the underlying issue, these folks in Washington are only interested in their next election, instead of the next generation. They don’t get it, and they will use any means necessary to distract attention away from failed policies and broken promises. And while the Roman empire kept its citizens distracted during its decline with bread and circuses, Congress is aided by Americans who are kept far too occupied by Royal weddings, American Idol, Justin Bieber, Dancing with the Stars, and Lady Gaga.

Our message to liberals in Congress is simple, though: You can’t have it both ways. A government that is big enough to be all things to all people can multi-task, if you really want to do the job that the American people sent you to do.

You can investigate the failure of the Obama administration’s foreign policy in Benghazi, while at the same time addressing the fact that the U.S. will no longer be the largest economy in the world by 2016.

Congress can appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS scandal, while at the same time deal with the fact that the average American family is struggling with the rising costs for food and healthcare costs. You can investigate the Justice Department’s seizure of the Associated Press phone records, and at the same time figure out how to reduce our nearly $16 trillion in federal debt.

It’s still true, in the words of Ronald Reagan, “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.” However, that “problem” can still walk and chew gum at the same time. But continuing to walk all over the American people with tired and trite distractions, should simply no longer be an option.

April 14, 2014
A Motto to Live By

By Louis Avallone
–
Wal-Mart says, “Save Money. Live Better.” Hallmark is “When You Care Enough to Send the Very Best.” Disneyworld is “the Happiest Place on Earth.” And of course, M & M’s “Melt in your Mouth, Not in Your Hands”. These are among the most memorable phrases, or mottos, used in advertising, and you would be hard pressed to find many Americans who wouldn’t readily recite these with great confidence. But, do you know our nation’s official motto, as well?

Many folks might respond these days with, “Live and Let Live.” Others might answer, “The Land of Opportunity,” or “The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.” If you asked the current President of the United States, he says it is “E Pluribus Unum” (which, translated loosely, means ‘one from many’).

Of course, none of these are correct, because the official motto of the United States is, “In God We Trust,” and since our nation is facing such formidable social, economic, and political challenges, isn’t it about time that we better understand why?

Although this motto has appeared on U.S. coins since 1864, and originated in the lyrics of the “The Star-Spangled Banner” in 1814, it’s not hard to understand why “God” is central to our nation’s guiding principle.

After all, The Declaration of Independence secures our unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by recognizing those rights are endowed to us by our Creator, not by men or government. Of course, Abraham Lincoln called for our nation to have a new birth of freedom “under God,” in his famous Gettysburg address in 1865 and Franklin Roosevelt led the nation in prayer, over the radio, calling on “Almighty God” for strength, and faith, on D-Day in 1944.

How different it was then – The New York Daily News even printed “The Lord’s Prayer” on its editorial page on D-Day, in lieu of its usual content.

So, it’s no surprise that a few years later, in 1956, Congress made it official – it passed a law declaring the official motto of the United States as, “In God We Trust.”
Since then, our nation has seemingly retreated from our trust in God, and it is reported that only 40% of Americans regularly attend church, although some studies indicate that number could be as low as 20%. In fact, it is estimated that by 2050, the percentage of the U.S. population attending church will be almost half of what it is today.
And with the current administration’s policies coming out of Washington these days, such as opposing the inclusion of President Roosevelt’s famous D-Day prayer in the newly built World War II Memorial, it should be no surprise that God is increasingly harder to find in our national conscience. Just this month, for example, it was announced that the military would make it a crime for anyone in uniform to share their faith – and it is reported that this would include chaplains (or military officers who are ordained clergymen of their faith) to minister to the spiritual needs of our soldiers – a practice which has been performed continuously since the founding of our military under George Washington.

And even though poll after poll reveals that almost 90% of Americans say that the motto, “In God We Trust” should not be removed from our currency, “God” is being challenged everywhere else, from praying in our legislative halls, to referencing God in courtroom oaths, to even reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in our schools.
You know, there was a time in America where an atheist did not want to stop prayer during a high school graduation, or protest a moment of silence to begin the school day. Instead, they just did not believe in prayer. Christians that were not for abortion did not bombs abortion clinics – they just did not support abortions. Times are different today, and I get it – and religion has always been personal. As a matter of tradition, though, we have always mixed church and state, but by respecting all religions, as well as of those who don’t practice any religion at all.

The largest challenges facing our nation today seemingly originate from a declining consensus about what we ought to do, and what we ought not to do, from abortion to marriage to our work ethic. And increasing the separation of church and state has not improved our nation’s quality of life, or its liberties. In fact, our national conscience has become so diluted, and so politically correct, that it is in danger of eroding altogether. It’s like a popular country music song explains, “You’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything.”

The bottom is line is that if life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are based on unalienable rights, granted to us by God, then in our society’s seeming rush to pull God out completely from our daily lives, in the name of political correctness, what replaces God? Who grants us those rights, if not by our Creator? Or will our nation’s new motto simply be, “In We, We Trust”?

April 14, 2014
Plan B

By Louis Avallone
–
Ronald Reagan once said, “Governments have a tendency not to solve problems, only to rearrange them,” and the same could not be more true regarding the debate over the “Plan B” or “morning after” contraceptive. In fact, a U.S. District judge just ruled last month that the FDA must make “emergency contraception” available to girls of all ages, without a prescription, because there is no compelling state interest to restrict access based on age.

So, let me get this straight: In our nation today, a thirteen-year old girl, who cannot drive or vote, or even sign-up for soccer at the YMCA, without parental approval, can now ingest massive doses of synthetic hormones – which could result in nausea, lower abdominal pain, and blood clots – and parental consent is not even required?

If you’re like me, and think that sounds ridiculous, we apparently are in the minority on this issue because the American Medical Association, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have all recommended, for years, unrestricted access to emergency contraceptives. Even a U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1977 that it was unconstitutional to ban the sale or distribution of contraceptives based on age, because doing so “clearly burdens the right of such individuals to use contraceptives if they so desire.”

Apparently, then, the same folks that brought us “safe” sex, are now bringing us “safe” emergency contraceptives. Well, we just can’t afford what that crowd is selling this time.
You see, this is all about a public policy aimed at marginalizing parents, rather than involving them. Sure, most anyone would want to encourage abstinence, and thereby prevent children from having babies. But does unrestricted access to contraceptives by children accomplish that goal?
Historically, it doesn’t seem so.

In 1999, the British government launched its Teenage Pregnancy Strategy program, aimed at reducing the number of teen pregnancies in half, by promoting birth control. After $454 million later, British teen-pregnancy rates, and teen-abortion rates, have climbed steadily – with teen-pregnancies (among girls under 16) reaching their highest level since 1998, which was the year before the program even began.

Here at home, the Centers for Disease Control reported last year that the unintended-pregnancy rate increased between 1995 and 2008 – despite increased contraception use, and the development of more reliable forms of contraception, as well.

So, if you consider the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1977 that said it was unconstitutional to burden the access and use of contraceptives, based on any minimum age requirement, and you consider the decision of the U.S. District just last month, ordering the FDA to lift all age restrictions on “emergency” contraceptives, it’s hardly a Norman Rockwell picture of America that so many of us still long for.

But there’s hope. In fact, up in Washington state, a U.S. District judge recently ruled completely the other direction, saying that it would be okay if pharmacies refused to sell “Plan B” to folks of any age, if they believe selling those products would violate their own religious beliefs. I’m sure that this decision will soon make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But in the meantime, put all of this discussion against the backdrop of a federal healthcare system that is currently forcing religious organizations, such as the Catholic church, to offer insurance coverage for birth control, which apparently now pharmacies don’t have to sell in the first place (well, at least in Washington state, that is).

None of this fits together. None of it. It’s like Mark Twain said, “It’s no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.”

So, instead of “quick fixes,” let’s promote abstinence, at home and in our schools. Instead of talking more about the medical risks of unprotected sex, let’s talk about how only 50% of teenage mothers graduate from high school or receive their GED. Or how they are 10 times more likely to live in poverty, and how almost 80% of them end up on welfare. Tell them that teenage mothers have higher levels of anxiety and depression, and how their children will be more likely to be incarcerated and be less likely to even finish high school themselves.

There’s no “morning after” pill for these consequences, and no substitute for making better choices. Focusing on providing children with unfettered access to contraception is not the issue, nor the answer, and that’s regardless of the question. The bottom line is that if you need this “Plan B,” then your Plan “A” couldn’t possibly have been that good of an idea to begin with.

April 14, 2014
Triumph of Good

By Louis Avallone
–
In Stephen Covey’s best-selling book, “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People,” habit number 5 is, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” The principle here is that by empathically listening to one another, we create an atmosphere of caring, and positive problem solving, whereby the other person then reciprocates the listening, and a win-win outcome can be achieved. In other words, if we just understood one another better, we would all be happier with one another.

That may be true, generally speaking, but frankly, I’ve had enough of folks in the media seeking to “understand” the Boston bombers, whose callous disregard for human life left 264 people injured, and took the lives of 4 others, including 8-year old Martin Richard.

I’m not sure it’s important that we understand that the Boston bombers came from a Chechen tribal community that has been brutalized by the Russians in recent decades. Or that the bombers felt alienated and disillusioned, despite both of the bombers being afforded all of the advantages that America has to offer – including public assistance when they needed it most.

It does not matter if the bombers’ motivation was because of the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or because they were frustrated with the perceived lack of economic opportunity that they were finding here.

Save the psychiatric analysis for the doctor’s office, please. I’m equally not interested in whether or not these crimes were rooted in the development of their masculine identities, or if they lacked self-esteem.

It’s not that important that the surviving bomber, until recently, was a nice and sociable kid with a bright future, or that the deceased bomber attended community college and was a Golden Gloves boxing champion who wanted to compete in the Olympics for the United States.

All of these details are distractions from the real issue: The bombers committed an act of evil, plain and simple, and they knew that what they were doing was wrong. They chose to cause irreparable harm and injury to hundreds of people, and it’s inexcusable, and unworthy of any justification whatsoever, regardless of whatever crybaby problems they were having.

And while single victim killings have dropped by more than 40 percent since 1980, mass murders are on the rise. From 1900 to 1980, there have been approximately 1 to 2 mass murders per decade, but in the 1980’s this spiked to 9, and then to 11 in the 1990s. Since 2000, there have been 26 mass murders.

Some folks say that we can’t stop mass murders if we don’t understand mass murderers, and that we can’t stop terrorism if we don’t understand terrorists. Tom Brokaw says, “We have to work a lot harder at a motivation here. What prompts a young man to come to this country and still feel alienated from it, to go back to Russia and do whatever he did?”

I don’t think that it’s all that complicated, Mr. Brokaw. You see, in the book, “Man’s Search for Meaning,” Viktor Frankl explains simply that, “There are two races of men in this world, but only these two – the ‘race’ of the decent man and the ‘race’ of the indecent man.” And that’s what is underlying the challenges of our modern day society – a lack of decency – not a lack of understanding, coddling, or pampering of the indecent.

There has always been a certain population of young people disillusioned with the status quo, and who felt alienated. But until recent times, murder was simply never considered by them as an acceptable way to express their unhappiness. But there’s just evil in the world, and indecent people who find it acceptable.

And the more we justify it with explanations, and focus on the motivations; we’re only encouraging such evil to spread. In the words of Les Brown, “Life is a fight for territory. When you stop fighting for what you want, what you don’t want will automatically take over.”

This is about the fight, then, not forgiveness. The only folks in Boston that can forgive are those that have lost limbs, and those who have lost their loved ones.

For the rest of us, it’s about fighting for the good in all that we do, and the triumph of decency over evil, because if good people don’t inspire others, bad people always will. After all, in the words of Edmund Burke, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

April 14, 2014