Freedom of the Press

In a commentary, published in the Washington Post, this morning by E.J. Dionne Jr., wrote “The mainstream media and the Obama administration must stop cowering before a right wing that has persistently forced its propaganda to be accepted as news by convincing  the traditional journalists that “fairness” requires treating extremist rants as “one side of the story”.

My posted response to his commentary was:

Mr. Dionne, why do you (and others) accuse Fox of “persistently forcing propaganda as news” as if they are the only ones doing it.  Yesterday as I was listening to CNN, I heard a panel make essentially the points you did in your article.  It appears that both you and CNN want to make FOX the story and not the trigger happy administration.  What was interesting was that no one on the panel expressed any viewpoint other than this was all a conspiracy by FOX News.

Let’s review some actual facts.  First, for the record, on my post last Thursday, I made it clear that I have sympathies for Ms Sherrod.  This was a clear case of recklessness where the guilt is borne by many.  However this is not the way CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post and New York Times are reporting it. 
Fox, on the other hand, is the only major network that is presenting a true vibrant debate in which advocates harmonious with your position are interviewed along with others who defend conservatives and new media.  For example, yesterday on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, both Howard Dean and Jesse Jackson were interviewed and, in the case of Howard Dean, he accused FOX News of being “racist”, on FOX News.  I thought that interesting and remarkable that he made many of the same points you did in your article on the very network that was broadcasting it.  Jesse Jackson made similar arguments and there is a full spectrum of commentary that is expressed by many on the network.  I am not sure that I see your point about FOX news, especially when, a telling of the full story does not appear to be expressed on the other networks/newspapers.

For example, where on MSNBC was it reported that FOX news only ran the video AFTER the administration had fired, Shirley Sherrod?  Where on CNN was it reported that O’ Reilly not only made a mistake, but then confessed to the mistake and apologized for it.  Where, beside the Huffington Post, was it reported that Sheppard Smith said “"We here at Studio B did not run the video and did not reference the story in any way for many reasons, among them: we didn't know who shot it, we didn't know when it was shot, we didn't know the context of the statement, and because of the history of the videos on the site where it was posted, in short we do not and did not trust the source."

Where on MSNBC was it reported that Fox News president cautioned his staff to “go slow” with the story and make sure that all the facts were straight before running it.  (Advice ignored by Bill O’Reilly and according to him, Bill O’Reilly alone.)  Finally, where in the New York Times was it reported that in spite of the poor judgment overall that Bill O’Reilly displayed, he only ran the story AFTER Ms. Sherrod had been fired by the Administration?

I enjoy listening/watching many sources.  This “Freedom of the Press” gives me a way to view/hear many points of view.  (It is one of the reasons why I read the Washington Post and commentaries such as your own along with MSNBC, PBS and CNN.)  I value this rich diversity of opinion.  It saddens me a bit when the so called mainstream media does not present all sides of the story, but appears to have an agenda of its own.  It seems that MSNBC, CNN and you are guilty of the very thing you accuse FOX News of.

With Fred Barnes recent story that suggests collusion in the liberal media and an organized effort to discredit the source(s), I keep coming back to the power that is embedded with the notion of racism.  It appears that whenever things don’t seem to be going the way the left wants it to go, a “let’s make this about racism” seems to crop up, over and over.

Once again, I assert that the true issue that we should all be fighting for here is FREEDOM!  In a free society we CAN have a vibrant debate.  Freedom deserves to be nurtured and protected.  I for one will strive to keep this focus and avoid, if I can, this attempt to distract from this main message.
Let Freedom Ring.

What's In It For You?

Last night I had the privilege to meet Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling at a gathering of Republicans in Falls Church, VA.  The purpose of the occasion was to support the candidacy of Patrick Murray for congress.  These people were all gathered at a wonderful home on a pleasant, if a little muggy, evening for a "no pork" luau.

Mr. Bolling provided a few brief comments and proudly announced that the state of Virginia had gone from a fiscal deficit to about 400 million dollar surplus in the year since Governor McDonnell had been elected.  The conversation for the evening by this very nice crowd was passionate and generally drifted to  the common themes we hear from Republicans, less taxes, smaller government, fiscal discipline and so on.  With all of the hoopla associated with Mr. Murray's campaign to "RetireJimMoran", I was thinking....

So What!

I was pondering this dilemma.  I suspect that most people couldn't care less about lower taxes or "fiscal discipline" or "smaller government".  If I was them, I would be thinking...

What's in it for me?

It is a legitimate question, especially if you are part of the reported 60% of Americans who pay little or no taxes.  I mean, why should I care if lower taxes is not affecting MY wallet?

Ah my friend, but it does.  What is at stake here is Freedom!  Last night I was asked, "What do you mean, "Freedom"?  I loved the question.  It was the right question.

We live in a world of imperfect men and women.  Our founding fathers knew this.  In their wisdom, they created a system of government that created an environment of many competing centers of power.  From the federal to the state to local governments, each center of power "competes" with the other to be both a check against power abuse and as a laboratory of new ideas.  The ideas here in Virginia, some of which directly challenge the federal government, provides a powerful crucible in which ideas become better.  When proven, these ideas become models for others. 

Further, private initiative with the risk and ultimate reward for the best ideas provides a platform for innovation in which new and different ways to solve problems can flourish.  Can you imagine what Facebook would look like if it was "invented" by a subcommittee of the FCC?

Every time we empower a federal agency AND take money from the private sector, we take away the funds that fuel innovation and lead to economic activity.  Every time we create a government agency with rules and regulations, we make things more difficult for innovative ideas to flourish because they are stifled with rules known and unknown that choke off the idea before it has had a true chance to prove itself in the marketplace. 

When we keep money in the pockets of people, prosperity flourishes and leads to an accumulation of dollars that individuals and enterprises are free to invest into creative solutions.  This investment of both time and treasure, is ultimately followed with new and better approaches to the issues we face every day.  Often it is messy and there are failures, but this crucible keeps bubbling up new ideas that address real problems and tackle problems unimagined.  If it is done well, it is rewarded with people willing to pay for those solutions... and that, my friend, leads to the creation of jobs and meaningful work.

So, what's in it for you?  Jobs that pay fair wages.  Creative solutions to our problems.  Freedom to pursue our own hopes and dreams.  ...and in that "pursuit" where we are building a future both individually and together, we more often than not discover.... "happiness".

Let Freedom Ring.

When Tag Turns into a Nasty Game

When I was a child one of my favorite neighborhood games to play was tag. My friends and I would run around our neighborhood in Whittier, California often into the twilight and early evening hours running and chasing each other with shouts of "Your IT!" when the IT person tagged someone else.


Often there would be a refrain, a sort of rule we would use called "no tag backs" meaning we would not be able to quickly tag back the person who had just tagged us. This, of course, made the game more interesting. Though we had a great deal of fun. The game was essentially pointless. It was simply a lot of running, shouting, and figuring out who we could "tag" and how we could "tag" them.

We seem to be playing another version of this today. Also with a great deal of shouting and running around. None of which accomplishes much, but can give the illusion of excitement. That is not to say that people don't ever get hurt. Like the childhood game where sometimes in the exuberance of tagging someone, your enthusiasm would get the best of you and when you tagged another, they would fall down. If it happened on the pavement, scuffed knees and tears would sometimes be the result. Today's version of "tag" can have consequences and sometimes innocent people, who did not even sign up to be in the game get hurt.

I am speaking, of course, about the on-going tempest associated with the NAACP, the tea party movement, Shirley Sherrod. The back and forth between the tea party movement and the NAACP led up to the embarrassing debacle of the firing of Shirley Sherrod on Monday. It appears that nearly everyone from the blogger, to the administration to the media, to Bill O'Reilly and I say even the NAACP itself, had a role to play and contributed to this unnecessary ugly incident.


I am most sympathetic to Ms Sherrod. Here she was trying to make a point about overcoming bigotry, to do the the right thing and a knucklehead with an agenda pulls out a snip of her talk, out of context, and displays it for all to see so that he can make the point that bigotry is not one-sided. I also blame the NAACP itself for creating this environment in which members of the tea party movement felt compelled to "tag back" after they were "tagged" with the brush of racism.

Racism has nothing to do with the fundamental tenants of this movement.

The Tea Party Movement is most fundamentally about freedom.

The goals of limiting the government (especially the federal government), keeping taxes low, minimizing regulation, etc. are all means to maintain that core American value - Freedom.

Charges of racism and racist remarks do not belong in this conversation. I am troubled and sad that people involved in this from both people associated with the tea party to the NAACP with the support of news organizations of all persuasions, have allowed the conversation to be hijacked into this senseless shouting match in which, not only is no one listening to the other, but they are not even having the right conversation.

If I was a cynical man, I might think that this was the agenda of the perpetrators all along.

In this world of imperfect men, Freedom is a fragile thing that needs to be protected, nurtured, respected and if maintained, represents our best hope for a future or wondrous innovation, prosperity and progress. Let us strive to stay on this message and not allow ourselves to be sidetracked with pointless games of "tag". Perhaps we can avoid skinned knees, bruised egos, and knee jerk reactions that devastates the lives of our citizens who are simply trying to do the right thing.

Let Freedom Ring

For something a little different, consider my thoughts on State of Independence

Home Ownership Under Attack

A lesson in the pride of home ownership.

Some of you may know that we own a home in the Lehigh Valley, just south of Allentown.  We have owned if since 1999.  For the past two and half years we have been leasing it out to a very nice family from Japan who was in the US working as an executive at the US headquarters of Olympus. 

As nice and wonderful as these people were, it was clear that they did not have the same commitment that we do regarding maintenance and care for the home.  It wasn't that they were bad.  In fact, I would classify them as "good" tenants.  They simply did not invest themselves into the home the way we would as owners. 

Recently we have been having a debate as to how much we are willing to work on this place since it is unclear whether we will return there or not.  If we do, then it makes sense to really get it "in-shape".  If not, then we will do only what is necessary so that we can get it sold.

Ownership makes a difference.

A news article in this morning's Washington Post caught my eye. Next up for reform: Housing finance. In the article, HUD Secretary is quoted as saying "For many Americans, renting will continue to be the only or preferred option".

This is a troubling shift for the government as it could be construed as a reversal of the policy of this country going back to at least the time right after World War II, when the government provided support for thousands of returning GIs and their families for home ownership. This, coupled with he affordability of the automobile and improved roads began the migration of families away from the inner city and to a land where individuals and families could create a positive mark for the future.
Aristotle wrote, "What belongs in common to the most people is accorded the least care: they take thought for their own things above all, and less about things common, or only so much as falls to each individually." And we all observe that homeowners take better care of their houses than renters do. That’s not because renters are bad people; it’s just that you’re more attentive to details when you stand to profit from your house’s rising value or to suffer if it deteriorates.

David Boaz wrote, "Just as home ownership creates responsible homeowners, widespread ownership of other assets creates responsible citizens. People who are owners feel more dignity, more pride, and more confidence. They have a stronger stake, not just in their own property, but in their community and their society".

As I have noted in a previous post, the concentration of power (at any level), is a threat to freedom. Our framers understood this. They designed a system of government based on a free society with many epicenters of power (including private enterprise and ownership) such that these would act as a balance against the temptations of tyranny that are often the ugly consequence of the concentration of power.
Home ownership is a fundamental tenant of the American Dream. Without respect and support of this noble striving, we put at risk not only an orderly society, but our hopes and dreams for a better future for ourselves and our children.

Our policies should responsibly nurture and support home ownership as fundamental to maintaining a free and orderly society.

Let Freedom Ring

Double Standards? Black Panther Thugs vs Tea Party Patriots

Today Eugene Robinson wrote an article titled, "The Tea Party Poison".  In it he, like many liberal writers, continues to attempt to make the connection between this grass roots organization and a charge of racism.  I don't see it.  The Tea Party movement is about freedom.  It's stated purpose is as follows; "We are dedicated to uphold the Constitution and our rights as citizens of these United States of America. It is in our best interests to join in the "Tea Party Movement" to speak out and voice our thoughts on what we need to do in the United States to ensure our children have the ability to sustain this wonderful country. We are committed to keeping government from excessive spending and becoming so overpowering that we would lose our individual rights." Taken from http://www.jointheteaparty.us/aboutus.html. Can someone point out where anything about race is mentioned?  A commitment to freedom and stand against oppression is what I see, read and hear.  Are you kidding me? This should be a shared commitment honored by all thinking human beings regardless of color, class, race creed, sexual orientation and religion.

He asserts as proof of his allegation that , "On Saturday, the National Tea Party Federation announced it had expelled one of the movement's most prominent figures -- a California blowhard named Mark Williams -- because of the outrageously racist things he had said about the NAACP."

Now, let me get this straight.  Mr. Robinson considers the organization racist (or having racist elements) because it kicks out someone who is a moron and expresses himself in a racially insensitive way that would suggest a racist intent????

Hmm.  Let's compare this to the recent decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to the Black Panther incident in which our federal government decided to drop the case against members of Black Panther party who were engaged in voter intimidation.  Oh, wait a minute, perhaps you think I am making this up.  Well, here are two videos that show the incident.  I leave it up to you to decide whether this is racism or voter intimidation (a federal offense, I believe).





Now, here is my question for Mr. Robinson, "If you are committed as you say you are to balanced reporting and a society free of bigotry, where is your outrage not only for this incident, but more problematically, towards Attorney General Eric Holder dropping this investigation and prosecution of what appears to be not only racist rhetoric, but voter intimidation?"

I see no evidence, on any official tea party website or documentation that is officially connected to the tea party movement is there any discussion about race.  This movement is about freedom.  Limiting the size and role of the federal government and empowering private enterprise hearkens back to our founding fathers goals.  They intentionally designed a government system in order to reduce the likelihood that our country would ever drift back to tyranny as exemplified by the grievances listed against King George of England in our Declaration of Independence.  Despots can take many forms and a precursor to tyrants be they 18th century kings or modern day despots is the concentration of power.

Recently, we have seen an unprecedented concentration of power into the hands of relatively fewer and fewer men, mostly associated with our federal government.  This path is fraught with danger because as Nobel laureate, Milton Freedman said, ""Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it."

That is the mission of the tea party.  That is what drives these patriots to committed action.  This is something that men and women of all races, creeds, sexual orientation, or religion should be supportive of.  For it is ours and their freedom we are standing up for.

This attempt to discredit the tea party movement by tarring it with the brush of racism is disrespectful at best and dishonest at worst.  Mr. Robinson, I ask you to 1) Bring balance to your commentary, if you are going to point out racism, point it out without regard to race.  (Racist behavior is not limited to Mark Williams or King Samir Shabaz, but both need to be called out) 2) Just as King Samir does not speak for all African Americans, or the NAACP, Mark Williams does not speak for White Americans or the Tea Party Movement.  So any attempts to make those connections dishonors the work and intentions of many noble patriots.

Let Freedom Ring!

I Am Proud to Say NO!

In response to the following cartoon in this morning's Washington Post, I offer the following commentary.....

In the Hippocratic Oath, physicians are sworn to "first do no harm". Therefore, doing nothing can sometimes be noble, just, and heroic (and maybe the right thing to do). The answer to our challenges does not always lie with a government program.

Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman once said, "As 'liberals', (commentator note, not the interpretation commonly used today) we take freedom of the individual, or perhaps the family as our ultimate goal in judging social arrangements. Freedom as a value in this sense has to do with the interrelations among people."

Preserving the ability of private enterprise to create solutions based on market driven principles allows for multiple centers of power and acts as a balance against the potential for tyranny and abuse that is often the result of concentrating power into the hands of relatively few men.


According to Dr. Friedman, that concentration of power no matter how well intentioned becomes the mechanism by which people who are tempted begin the process that ultimately leads to tyranny.


I, for one, am proud that some principled Republicans are standing together and saying NO in a loud voice against the most sweeping concentration of power into the hands of our federal government we have seen in at least a generation.


I am deeply concerned for the implications of this concentration of power. Maintaining the distribution of power into the hands of many places (state, local, private enterprise, families) is the best chance to preserve our freedom, maintain our pace of innovation and strengthen our economy.

We all need to take a giant chill pill here and slow down this runaway, out of control Democratic machine that no matter how well intentioned will inevitably leave us a poorer, less diverse, and ultimately oppressed society.

Operating with Integrity

We usually get this question on company surveys: do you act with integrity and honesty in all that you do? The funny thing is that we do create environments where honesty and integrity are punished. Take for example online dating services. These systems have been around for long enough that they provide a rich set of data to analyze. For example, what female attribute are men most interested in? Sadly, not much has changed in a few million years; it’s her weight. On the ladies side, they are mostly concerned with income followed closely with height. The more interesting is the studies show that 90% of applications are actually inflated on these characteristics. Men tend to add 10-20% to their income and slightly adjust their height. Hey, if I wear my Nike Air Max 2010’s I am almost 6 foot. I am not even going to touch the ladies side of this equation. So what does an honest man do? If I say I make $50,000 then potential soul mates are going to reduce that by $20,000 and think I am a bum. The system is built to punish the honest person that acts with integrity. So these types of systems do exist.


Driving home is another example where honest people act in a dishonest way. Everyday where I exit the interstate, at least 5-10 cars will wait until last second to push their way into line versus actually waiting like everyone else. This is very interesting behavior in that these same people would never do this in line at a bank or fast food restaurant. Regardless of the possibility for causing a traffic accident or other issues to those behind them, they know how to game the system.

How about you? Suppose that I tried an experiment on your team of 10 co-workers. Let’s say I give everyone $10 and then asked you to put as much of that $10 into a bucket as you like. Once I collected the money, I would double the dollars and redistribute to the team. Wow, not only did you get $10 but now you can get $20 for free. Sounds like a sweet deal to me. But, what if William and Mary decide to hold on to their $10 which means $80 was put into the pot and you only got $18. Knowing that two people got $28 ($10 for the original gift plus another $18 from the pot) for gaming the system what would you do the next time I offer the same deal?

Despite the amusing aspects of these stories, they point out several interesting dimensions of acting with honesty and integrity. First, we do create systems that benefit those that cheat. In fact, many of these systems go so far as to reward those that cheat and punish those that do not. Secondly, once one person begins to game the system we have little choice but to follow suit. In a hyper competitive world, your core beliefs are challenged on a daily basis by those that game the system.