Replacement Refs and World Hunger

At one time we would have bristled at the accusation that we Yanks were decadent. We no longer do, chiefly because, in too many ways, we are.

In these rough economic times that may appear an odd lament, yet we stand by it. What type of luxuries have we demanded in recent years? Things such as seat warmers in our cars. Seat warmers? The seat is the first thing that warms up when you get in your car, in a span of maybe five seconds. This is before we even get to remote starters; how much money do you have that you can burn gasoline simply so that your car is toasty warm the instant you get in it? This at a time when, we'll say it even at the risk of appearing liberal, there are too many people in the world without enough to eat, and even too many in our country without proper access to housing and medical care.

We find ourselves paying six bucks for one single hot dog at a sporting event when that same six dollars would buy a whole pack of them, buns and all, outside the park. We twitter incessantly over the results of the game we just watched, as though it were the end all be all of human endeavor. It's just a game, folks. To be sure, there's nothing wrong with recreation or personal comfort. Yet that doesn't mean that a better perspective isn't a good thing as well.

This is not naive. We realize that there is no direct correlation between add-ons to cars, or millionaires playing games while thousandaires overpay for the privilege of watching them, and someone in Haiti lacking good food. We will even readily concede that these luxuries do have the positive side benefit of keeping people in jobs. Further, we recognize that the problems elsewhere are not, as a rule, our fault. As P. J. O'Rourke for example explains so very well in his funny and enlightening book All the Trouble in the World, many of those problems are caused by the local government in question and not American selfishness. Still, we have to ask whether this sort of consumerism is what we ought to be promoting when there are folks who lack basic necessities. On their own merit, we have to wonder whether they are worthwhile uses of our time, effort, and cash.

In short, that something is doable doesn't mean that it's worth doing. That we can buy something doesn't mean it's worth the purchase. What we consider basic creature comforts may be little more than modern forms of let them eat cake. We believe it would do our souls well to mull that over when we make certain purchases or demands on our productive forces.

Who knows? We may actually find that what we want isn't what we need.

The Ballot Proposals which Failed

We know that there are 6 ballot proposals facing Michigan voters this November. Yet how many people realize that there were 9 more that were, for one reason or another, not included on the upcoming ballot? We don't necessarily know why each was rejected, but that really doesn't matter right now. What is interesting is that sometimes the things which don't make it are more interesting than the ones which do.

An initiative on expanding casino gaming was scrapped by a ruling of the Michigan Supreme Court. But that was one of two which dealt with new casinos; this demonstrates that gambling has become a big business around here. Yet it ignores the issue of how much is too much, and we're probably just as well without having to consider the question ourselves.

Two other rejected ideas involved the structure of government: one would have abolished the State Senate, while the other would have enshrined the right of the people to alter or abolish government. Interesting ideas, both. Yet both are better off off the ballot. There's nothing particularly wrong with a two house legislature, and don't we have the right to 'alter or abolish' government as it is?

Another proposed amendment would have made horizontal hydraulic fracturing for oil illegal. Come now, why would we want to do that? We need oil, and fracking is safe. This is just a liberal scare mongering tale which has no business as part of our State's highest law. We must be very, very slow about having a Constitution dictating how and why to get energy. It would have only tied the hands of our legislature in an area where it ought to be making decisions.

One proposal would have banned union dues as a condition of employment. We would have liked for that one to have approved. There's always been something underhanded about a group of people claiming to represent your best interests but, as is often the case, against your will. With your money and my brains, we can change the world; how can that not sound suspect? Yet it didn't make the ballot, and that's too bad. It's one we would really have liked to see voted upon.

Any way you slice it, for all the complaining about this November's initiatives clogging up the state Constitution, it could have been worse. We might have had another 9 to consider. Seeing that, perhaps we are lucky to have only what we have.

A Conservative Movie?

Picture, if you will, a man who tries to control others through the everyday behavior and wants of the people in an area. Under his influence, the local government bans innocuous actions. The people can't do what they want; their most offhand actions are deemed immoral by a higher power. They must walk about the town unable to do what they would like. The town becomes a walking dirge, watching in trepidation its every step trying to avoid the evil eye of its leadership, to avoid its condemnation. Fear, fear of the slightest error, rules the populace, because even the smallest errant action, however slight, and indeed however unimportant, may lead them to ridicule and sin. Imagine that; then imagine that you were talking about the social conservatives and the Reverend Shaw Moore from the movie Footloose.

Imagine that, and you're wrong. We are talking about the likes of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who says you can't buy soft drinks in larger than 16 ounce sizes. We are talking about Verenice Gutierrez, who believes that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, good old PBJs, are racist. We are talking about all the folks who do not want others to sell their farmland to developers, who do not want people to take anything but public transportation to and fro, who want us to live according to their own autocratic and despotic rules. We are talking about liberals.

Conservatives are supposed to be the ones who want to control you. Conservatives are the ones who want you parading around in goose step fashion. Conservatives are the ones who believe that anyone who doesn't look like them, think like them, talk like them, and act like them are evil. Conservatives are the control freaks who measure everything with a harsh and certain ruler.

They aren't. The left wants to control you. Liberals want you to do their bidding. Liberals are the ones whop want you to dance to the rhythm of their drum. Liberals, not conservatives.

The Reverend Mr. Moore from Footloose may well be a conservative. Indeed, we think he is. He overreacts, sees the error of his ways, and repents. Will the left?

No. They aren't wrong, and they know it. They tell us all the time. And what better assurance can we have?

To be a Professional

It is fascinating where certain interesting ideas may be found. The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract is must reading for any baseball wonk, almost entirely (surprise, surprise) for its in depth analysis of the game and its players. Still, that doesn't mean that every scrap of value found within it is restricted to interpretations of the true American National Pastime.

Mr. James at one point laments the rise of professionalism in our nation over the last fifty years or so, indeed comparing it to the many other -isms which have infected our body politic. Sportswriters and reporters have become journalists, whereas at one time they had the simpler jobs of reporting the news or sports, with someone to answer to if they didn't stick to those specific jobs. But James takes it further: teachers have become educators who teach to tests rather than teach the subject at hand. Cops have become police officers, garbage collectors sanitation workers, and so on.

The result is that we now have self aggrandized professionals in all fields, but to what point? James opines rather well that legal professionals delivered us the O. J. Simpson verdict, but not justice. On other fronts, he says, journalism has made reporting on news and athletic events adversarial rather than benign. Doctors evolving into physicians and nurses into health care professionals have driven the cost of an aspirin in a hospital to $35 while doctors used to make house calls. You get the point.

While we cannot agree with him on every particular (health care costs have went up for reasons beyond and better than a simple change of attitude, even if you believe they have gone father than reason might allow, and reporters are almost naturally adversarial) his general point is well founded. Why do we see teachers so differently lately? At one point, they had the rather straightforward job of making kids sit down, shut up, and pay attention, while expecting and getting the general support of the community. Now, we demand results from them, codified and quantified based on all kinds of data which the general public doesn't understand yet supports in the cause of education. Why can't we be happy that the kids end up with a high school diploma? Surely most of those earned over the course of American history have been reasonably granted?

Why can't cops catch the bad guys and lawyers by turn prosecute or defend them? What are we really seeking when we make things into more than they are? The net result seems to be displayed through that incident with Barbara Boxer awhile back. You know, the one where she asked to be called "Senator" rather than "Ma'am" because she earned it? Instead of becoming the professionals we claim we are, we instead begin to be arrogant about what we in fact perceive ourselves to be.

We do not mean herein to pick on Senator Boxer in particular. Really, we don't; nor do we wish to disparage the jobs which are done every day and well by all the good teachers and cops and doctors and nurses out there in our land. But the sanctification of what, in the final analysis, we as individuals do for a living cannot help us to truly appreciate the necessary jobs being done for us and by us each and every day. It seems that we've lost something of our innocence, indeed of our humility, when we demand a certain grovelling before us as we earn our daily bread.

We hate to say that all a teacher is is a teacher, or that all a doctor is is a doctor. Yet we cannot escape the feeling that a real teacher or a real doctor should feel that way. It is one thing for the general society to venerate any given individual's very good and very much needed work, indeed up to and including that of, say, trash collector. Would you do that? Pick up others' garbage? Then respect the ones who do. But for the professional to demand that treatment, quite frankly, reeks of a lack of professionalism.

By and large, true professionals command the respect they deserve. They command it precisely because they stick to their jobs rather than trumpet about them. They tend to know their place, and to know that they are not irreplaceable. They know their jobs are bigger than they ever will be. They do them in that light: as best they can without ever thinking they are better than anyone else because of it.

Be appreciative of all the things others done for you. Be humble about what you do for them. If there is a better prescription for a better world, a better description of true professionalism, we do not know what it is.

Act Locally

One of the most basic axioms a conservative should have in his arsenal is known as the Principle of Subsidiarity. Plainly stated, it says that things should be done on the most local level possible. Why? Because that it the surest way to get necessary things accomplished in the most efficient manner.

The closer we are to a problem the better we ought to be able to understand it. We will see it more clearly, and indeed, particularly with issues and events nearby, we will likely have a greater interest in it. Schools, for example, should by and large be run within the local community because it is the locals who have the greatest interest in the education of their kids. Their kids are the ones who are generally going to hang around and run things when the current generation cannot anymore.

As a rule, the closer to a problem the less money which must be spend alleviating it. This is in part due to localized control, again as issues should be seen more clearly but also as there would be no added layers of bureaucracy which would otherwise have to be paid for by the electorate. Perhaps this is why, try as she might, Washington cannot get a grip on poverty: too much money which is supposed to help the poor in fact keeps bureaucrats at a desk.

There are of course many factors to consider when deciding what job should be done where in a national scheme. A nation as a whole must take up the defense of its people: could Detroit reasonably be expected to ward off an attack by a large foreign power on its own? If we were to leave Detroit to its own devices (a prospect many folks out there may not mind, but let's set aside jokes right now) we would hardly be a nation in the best sense of the word.

As a rule, conservatives would argue that few powers would be nationwide in scope. Military protection, the necessary and proper federal judicial arrangements, coinage, and issues of commerce (to varying degrees) come first to mind. State power would be wider than that of municipalities, perhaps, while communities would see to the bulk of day in and day out tasks: police and fire protection, trash pickup, and to the schools, among other chores.

We could go on all day discussing particulars, but you get the point. Local control is the best remedy for most ills. It is a point which should be discussed, if you'll excuse the irony, on a wider scale.

Be Careful about Ballot Initiatives

The November elections are not very far away now, and excitement is in the air for, at least, the big races. Yet there is something of an elephant in the room, at least in Michigan, and, at least, according to the local political wonks anyway. No, it has little or nothing to do with Presidential politics. We are talking about the six statewide ballot proposals Michigan voters are faced with 7 weeks from today.

They cover subjects ranging from tax increases to collective bargaining rights. Each item is controversial to one degree or another, and likely as not all deserve discussion at one level or another. We'll look into each of them in the coming weeks; or, at least, we intend to. But today, we are interested in the game within the game. There is a controversy which covers all six initiatives, and it is interesting enough in itself. That is, if state constitutional issues can be all that interesting in themselves.

Anyway, backers of each proposal firmly believe that their ideas require public affirmation, so much so that what they want must be made part of our state's highest law. Yet others say that all which is happening is that we are clogging the constitution with issues which ought to be addressed by the Legislature and, further, that all these ballot measures simply confuse the electorate. They say that the effect of all this is an abuse of the Michigan Constitution.

Well, if the mechanism for constitutional amendment is what is causing all this, and the mechanism itself is acceptable under the terms of the US Constitution, it seems a stretch to say the local document is being abused. Ironically, should that be the case, perhaps the long term answer is to amend the state constitution to make ballot initiatives more difficult to put before the voters. Yet that is not the point today. What is now is what is now; if each of the six proposals are on the ballot legitimately under existing law then we cannot call them abuses. Simply because small, well funded groups may be behind any given one of them, a likelihood we don't doubt at least on one or two, cannot make their efforts illicit. At least, not on legal grounds.

Still, that doesn't mean we can't have a certain sympathy for the groups trying to cry foul. Some proposals may well be of questionable merit for non-legal reasons. Further, the confusion of the voters does appear a legitimate enough worry. We are quite sure that much of the electorate will not study the questions sufficiently enough to cast a rational ballot; when there is a lot to consider those not particularly interested in a question or questions simply will not consider them fully. That's hardly the fault of the state constitution, though; as such, we may fault the backers of these proposals as vague charlatans, depending, again, on the nature and content of the proposal. And merely because some of the proposal backers and funders may have less than the best of intentions does not make the legitimate ballot questions any less so.

As such, we seriously disagree those who say that every measure must be rejected simply because some people are, as a set of widely seen commercials have asserted, messing with Michigan's Constitution. The best thing to do as a voter is to consider each proposal on its own merits and vote accordingly. If you aren't sure how to vote, then no is better than yes as it simply isn't wise to support anything which you don't understand. After that, if the constitution needs tweaking, than all we really can do is hope that someone somewhere takes the bull by the horns and goes about getting it properly tweaked. Until then, it is silly to apply a blanket answer over what we face in the voting booth this November. To encourage the electorate to do that and reject the measures en masse is as questionable as the process which led to the measures in the first place. Those people are simply charlatans wearing new clothes.

To Whom do We Owe Allegiance?

Is it good to fly the flag in public schools and to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? 43 states say yes; Michigan has passed legislation which would add our state to that number. Students would not be compelled to recite the Pledge. That's probably good; no sense offending those with serious and rational objections to it.

Yet the first question which comes to mind is: why can't we have voluntary school prayer under the same guidelines? The answer: because that makes non-Christian students feel pressured to become Christians (or Muslim or Buddhist, perhaps, depending on the locale; inserting any creed here will make the point). Wouldn't recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by many if not all others effectively 'pressure' non participants into affirming allegiance to the United States?

e certainly are not against the Pledge. It is a good and noble thing to love your country (so long as your country is good and noble) and such sentiments should be encouraged. We are likewise not against things which encourage allegiance to any right and proper cause, or to instilling a decent sense of nationhood within the citizenry. But what we are against is the relative hypocrisy on the matter. The state can, well, at least attempt to compel its wards to love, honor, and support the state. The trouble is that the state is, after all, an institution of mere human design.

Why can the state, in even so modest of a fashion, try to make elementary and high schools students love and support it while not allowing those willing to love and support something of greater importance than a simply human construct express open and public support for it while in view of all?

We will leave the question at that. We're simply throwing it out there for the consideration of body politic. Yet we strongly suspect that the answer from that body will tell us all we need to know about the state indeed.