Life, Liberty, Birth Control and the Pursuit of Happiness

If you happened to be tuning into the right channel at the right time you might have seen a panel of women representing a variety of woman's rights groups weighing in on the recent events surrounding birth control. One stated defiantly 'We are MAD' when asked how she and those she represents feels about the stir over a government mandate to cover birth control as a part of health insurance. She said they were 'tired of being robbed of their rights'. In essence these women were saying that birth control was a right and if insurance companies do not offer this under their group plans then they are somehow denying women some inalienable right.

Sandra Fluke is a woman who believes subsidized birth control is a woman's right and the denial of it is an attack on women. Miss Fluke is not alone. She testified that without state mandated birth control, coverage would be so costly it would force a woman to choose between her education and birth control. This is absurd and given the availability of low cost birth control, it's just untrue.

If a woman is uninsured or her insurance doesn't cover the birth control pill then she is on the hook for anywhere between 150 USD to 1000 USD a year depending on whether the medical visit is covered by insurance, where she buys it and whether she buys generic or name brand.  If this price tag is still too much then there are several organizations that offer free birth control pills for lower income women and families. Assertions that the price of birth control would be roughly 3000 USD over a 3 year period are extremely high and would only be true with the most expensive options and of course there are much cheaper options. Condoms are quite cheap and are often given away for free at many clinics and they also help prevent the spread of disease.

Then there is her anonymous friend who she says was denied hormonal contraception as a preventative treatment for ovarian cysts. Few would doubt that an insurance company has whole teams of people whose only job is to find any reason not to pay out a dime but the story is lacking any details. It is simply a story of a person she says she knows who was denied coverage for a preventative medical treatment because the insurance company decided she only wanted it for birth control. Who was this woman? who was her doctor? Did her doctor prescribe this as a medical treatment? Why would her pills cost 100 USD a month? Did she look into Planned Parenthood who offers free or highly subsidized birth control pills to those who cannot afford it? This could certainly be a true story but as it comes to us it is simply an unverified and, possibly unverifiable, rhetorical device and to give credence to such a vague statement is unwise.

Then of course there is the inevitable argument that providing birth control is cheaper in the long run as it prevents unwanted and expensive pregnancies. The argument assumes that we all carry the responsibility to prevent others from becoming pregnant. It assumes that if a woman cannot, for some reason, get birth control pills, she will simply refuse to use a cheaper alternative, she will have unprotected sex, have an unwanted pregnancy and it will be our fault. A classic case of displaced blame because a woman cannot be expected to take responsibility for her own actions.

Paying for birth control is a significant added expense to a system you will be relying on to approve an expensive (but possibly lifesaving) procedure in the future.Taking on that added expense cannot be justified simply by saying that if we don't we will then be taking on the expense of unwanted pregnancy in the future. The responsibility for reproduction always will lie with the individual and the threat that women will, for some reason, simpley have more babies if they cant get the pill offered on their health plan is simply an insult to women.

Religion has been the most vocal in their objections but they are far from alone on this issue. There are also those who believe that government should not dictate to insurance companies what they must cover. Then there are those who simply disagree with the notion that birth control pills are a inalienable right.

Those in the latter are not objecting for religious reasons, they are not opposed to birth control and many would even say it should be encouraged. Nor do they object to the government reserving the power to mandate to insurance companies a certain standard. To leave the terms of coverage completely to the insurance company would be as unwise as leaving it solely in the hands of the people or the companies who offer the coverage as condition of employment. Just like any industry or service offered there must be a minimum standard set for insurance companies as what is to be considered important medical coverage. For good or bad, our elected officials are our main advocates in the battle over health care so we want them to have the ability to mandate on our behalf.

Maybe you just hate women? Maybe you just don't understand how reproduction affects women so much more than men? Maybe you can't understand how important it is to women everywhere. You dont see that to even question whether its inclussion in group health plans should be mandated is an attack on women?

Why would a person who has no religious objection, no moral objection, or no objection to government mandates still be against their health care paying for birth control pills?

Health care insurance is a safety net to be used when we are sick, injured, or to aid us in staying healthy and alive. Most health insurance is provided to a group whose members pay their hard earned money each month on the assurance that when thay need it, they will have access to health care at a lower rate. It is an assurance that if that cold turns into pneumonia, if you or your family member breaks a bone, if you develop a chronic condition, you will not be forced to sell the house. Young or old we all end up needing health care so when people see something that might affect that assurance it ruffles feathers.

Taking birth control is elective. If you do not have sex, and you do not have a medical condition that requires you to take the pill, you don't need the pill. If you choose to have sex, then there is a variety of options that do not require medication that one can choose or you can choose to take medication, but as there is no real medical need to take the pill, why should it be covered under a standard medical plan? This is the case for many things that are not covered by insurance... there is no medical necessity. If you have acne and it can be treated successfully with an ointment, but you are an adult, your insurance might not cover it so you will need to pony up 120 USD for it or live with acne. Right or wrong it was decided that adults who have acne have no medical reason for taking an acne treatment.

This is not a matter of denying women a right. Birth control is not a woman's issue, it is a human issue as it affects both sexes and it potentially affects everyone that pays into a health plan. To say it is a woman's issue is looking at it in a sexist and very myopic way. Women are equals to men and they have a right to live and compete with men on a an equal playing field. If anyone, be they man or woman, wants their birth control covered by a plan that includes thousands of other people, those other people have a right to an opinion on the subject. They have the right to question why or even challenge the idea that government mandated birth control (and zit cream) might not be a basic human right.

Health Care Hyperbole: Over the Top Rhetoric Rules the Day

One cannot follow the events of the day, especially those surrounding the current turmoil over health care, without being bombarded by hyperbole and dishonest rhetoric. It is not the healthy debate, varied opinions and concerns regarding health care, our government, life, liberty, freedom and our future as a nation which is so objectionable. It is the dishonest and tyrannical way many people approach these subjects. The behavior exhibited by our leaders and the people when addressing any important issue of the day.

Hyperbole: literally means an exaggeration and pretty much everybody uses hyperbole every day. When I say "I worked my fingers to the bone" , I do not mean I literally worked until the skin of my fingers fell away. I am simply using harmless exaggeration to emphasize that I worked very hard. Not only does everybody use hyperbole, you might even find it hard to eliminate it from your daily conversation as it is simply a part of the way we communicate in our everyday life.

The key word here is exaggeration. When my wife says something I said or did made her 'die of embarrassment', its quite apparent she didn't actually die. It is plainly obvious to all that she was exaggerating. Mixing fact she was so embarrassed with an extremely exaggerated outcome resulting from that embarrassment, she died. Its all a harmless and transparent rhetorical device.

Hyperbole is far less benign when employed in the sociopolitical arena, a world ripe with a wide variety of opinions and beliefs competing with one another. It becomes dishonest rhetoric. It becomes a tactic. It becomes a weapon deployed by politicians, and pundits and echoed by many of those whom they reach from thier soapboxes.

These tactics hit a fevered pitch when there is fear. Fear of foreign threats or a fear of social, political, and/or economic upheaval. In times of crisis or change. Whether the change be good or bad is not relevant. One will always point the finger of blame at the other. All change is not good and even when good, change will always be opposed as will the perceived status quo. Whether a course of action is beneficial or not is often far less important than an ideological and political victory.

By change I do not refer to an empty political slogan or shifts in political and societal norms but the inevitable change that all societies go through as generations pass. In the last century, mankind has arguably witnessed what could be the most drastic change in our collective ways of life than during any other time in history. Advancements in education, science, medicine, technology and human rights alone during the last 100 years have changed the very way we live, work and interact with the world. A world that has become a lot smaller.

It seems an unfortunate weakness of humanity that during trying times, when there is such a need for level headed, logical and honest men offering realistic assessments and solutions, so often there are so few forth coming. Instead of unity in the face of adversity, we fracture. Instead of honest criticism we use unfavorable and often outrageous generalizations, predictions of catastrophic futures and of course negative associations. Such tactics are pages in all partisan political play books. This is how George Bush was associated with Hitler as Obama is, in turn, being compared to Stalin. Bush becomes a Nazi, Obama a Communist.

These two men have regularly been compared to two of the most tyrannical leaders in history, men who sent millions to their death for having a different religious or political view. Such gross and absurd exaggeration is no different than when a person who missed breakfast says he is 'dying of hunger.' We know that person isn't literally dying of hunger and we should know that to compare George Bush to Hitler, or to compare Barrack Obama to Stalin is a tactic employed for only one reason, to associate them with historical figures who were almost universally condemn as monsters. Such characterizations need not have any real basis in reality, as long as people accept the comparisons, as long as their names are mentioned in the same sentence, they have served their ultimate purpose.

If someone thought George Bush was overly aggressive in attacking Iraq, there are countless other overly aggressive leaders through history who DIDN'T murder millions of people for simply being the wrong religion or race one could compare him to. It's clear the purpose is not to put forth an honest comparison but to simply associate them with the worst tyrants in history for propaganda purposes.

Of course comparing an American president to mass murdering tyrants is only one of the more transparent in a long list of such dishonesty spewed forth from the mouths of politicians and pundits on a daily basis. These tactics are not born in genuine concern for the well being of the country and its citizens. More often than not these tactics are employed for far more selfish reasons. Politicians use these tactics for purely partisan reasons, to advance their party and to protect their positions. They unleash armies of brash, highly opinionated talking heads, who have in recent times replaced real news. who will employ these tactics to keep people watching and listening. Its their job.

One does not get elected (and donations) or garner high ratings (and advertising dollars) by simply and calmly stating facts and well thought out opinions and allowing them to stand on their own merits. If pundits cant get you to tune in and stay tuned in, they don't get paid. If politicians don't get reelected, they lose their source of money, power and influence. Their very livelihood depends on you following their every word. They will say anything to insure an audience as more audience = more money and votes. Does anyone honestly think such people have the best interest of the people and the county in mind when they address their audience?

Do you think that a pundit is concerned about you and the country when he maps out a hypothetical course towards American communism with a picture of Mao Zedong on his blackboard for visual aid? When he implores you to realize that the consequences of the health care bill will be the inevitable loss of all freedoms and maybe your life to a death panel. When he predicts an almost certain future where the US will become a communist dictatorship the likes of China or the Soviet Union under Stalin (again, lets not forget Stalin killed millions of human beings for the crime of having opposing views). Do you believe these outlandish scenarios hold any real merit save to frighten people into bitterly opposing whomever he judges to be the enemy of America and freedom?
 
The main concern of a pundit is his advertisers. How often do you hear such talking heads segue from fear mongering segments where they predict elaborate scenarios of assured economic collapse and worthless devalued currency to a commercial for one of the many buyers and sellers of gold. First they scare you, then they try to get you to sell your gold to, or buy gold from, their sponsor. Whether you choose to buy gold for well over spot or sell gold for well under, they will make money. The paper kind they are warning us is about to become completely worthless. They tell you that gold is the only way to protect your money in this coming economic maelstrom. Why would they lie?

Because they are trying to make a living and a very good living it is. Because in the end, all biased pundits whether conservative or liberal are salesmen and their goal is to get you to buy what they are selling. They are selling not only themselves, but more importantly they are selling their advertisers products. Each person they reel in is more money in the bank and there are wealthy and powerful people who will pay handsomely for a proxy to spread their agendas. With enough money, your agenda can become their agenda. Why would a politician be dishonest? Because he is just as much a salesman. He must sell himself, his and his party's agenda, and his ideology to you. Both are selling and they will use almost any tactic at their disposal. honesty need not play a role.

This is a partisan and ideological issue that reaches across both aisles, there is no one political party, no one ideological movement more guilty than the other. Politics is not about the capable administration of the government, it is not about the welfare of the people, it is about one side winning and the other losing. Politics attract only the vain. Those who will stop at nothing to gain power and fame. Shameless people who have no aversion to self aggrandizement. People devoid of honesty and integrity because no good honest man could lower himself to do what is required of him to run for office and win.

Such dishonest rhetorical tactics are an insult to our collective intelligence. If a person must push his opinions cloaked in over the top rhetoric and hyperbole, it is probably because those opinions can not stand on their own merits.

Freedoms Must be Tempered with Common Sense

We value our freedoms, not just Americans but all people. In America we have taken steps to try and guarantee certain freedoms. These guarantees always come with rules, limitations and expectations that we will exercise these freedoms in a responsible manner. As guarantees go, they are limited. In many cases, the guarantee on paper is not so black and white when implemented in the real world and are seldom as broad as people might think. You may say you have the freedom of speech and it is guaranteed in the constitution, this is true. The first amendment guarantees this freedom:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Of course one can interpret something to mean anything they wish but what I read in that passage is that the congress will make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and general free speech be it what we say or what we write or publish. This simply means the government cant stop you from saying and worshiping whatever you wish as long as you aren't hurting anyone. This is an extremely important restriction to the governments power, one that does not exist in many countries. However it only deals with the right of the people as it relates to the power of the government.

The first amendment does not say that you are protected from the real world societal consequences your free expression of religion and speech might bring down upon you. You can tell everyone you meet that you worship Satan and admire Adolf Hitler, this is your right. It is also the right of 99% of the people you meet to want nothing to do with you and it is a company's right not to employ you. You can say what you wish and worship how you wish but you must take ownership of your words and deeds. The government can protect these rights but they can not protect you from the opinions of those around you. We must remember that these guarantees of freedom do not come with protection from real world consequences in ones everyday life.

When I was younger and far more naive, I was quite open about my personal beliefs. I wouldn't shout them from the roof tops mind you, but I certainly wouldn't shy away from a healthy debate and had no problem letting my opinions be known. Once I entered the working world, the real world most of us must face each day, it didn't take long for me to realize there could be negative consequences to what I saw as simply a healthy difference in opinion. I found it best to not wear your religious and political beliefs on your sleeve unless you are a person who thrives on conflict.

I have heard religious people lament the fact that they do not feel free to express their faith openly in their workplace. They are asked not to put up overt religious items in their work space, or when they do express their faith openly, people begin treating them differently. I have even heard pundits call for their listeners to challenge this in the courts as it robs a person of their freedom of both speech and religion. Of course those radio pundits will probably not be there to help you when you are looking for a new job and cant pay your mortgage. In reality we do have the right to say and believe what we want as long as we are not hurting anyone. It is also a reality that we will face real consequences, good or bad, when we do.

There are no laws prohibiting a man from wearing his hair long but I can assure you that if I let my hair grow I would be looking for another job. I used to have long hair, but most office environments I have worked in frown on long hair on men so I wear my hair short now. I would love to wear shorts and a T-shirt to work as well, it would be much more comfortable and my job does not require me to meet customers. If I did, I would probably be told 'Its not working out' and I would be asked to leave. Sometimes we must make compromises to get by. Indeed It is often said that life itself is just a series of compromises. if we refuse to ever compromise then we should expect great difficulty. Why is it that compromise is seen as such a bad thing? It is seen by many, if not most, as if it is a sign of weakness. So many people pride themselves on never having compromised and are proud of the hardships they have had to live through because of it.

I dress the way I am expected to for the time I am on the job and wear my hair the way they expect. This is just outward appearance, I am still the same person. I did not lose my personality when I cut my hair. My personality and identity is not dictated by my outward appearance. If you compromise and take down the cross or that verse from the Qur'an at work because such things are frowned upon there, will that make you any less devout? Where does it say in the bible 'thou shalt hang a cross in your office at work.'

One can argue theoretical wrong and right all your life but all that matters in the end is the reality. I took a painting class and one of my paintings was not well received by my classmates. After the negative criticism I went on the defense and said something like 'I don't care what others think about it.' My teacher then asked me 'Why are you in this class then? You could easily not care what others think about your work at home.' Wrong or right we are being judged by what we reveal of ourselves through what we say and do. Wrong or right, how we interact and what we say colors peoples opinion of us and often such opinions are important in the reality of our day to day lives. You may say you don't care what others think, you will say and do as you please. This is certainly protected by the constitution but the first amendment does not guarantee any further protections.

When I was younger I was hired by a small company in East Texas as a screen printer. I liked the work and the people were all very nice. My supervisor looked like your typical biker, he rode a Harley, had long hair and a long scruffy beard and seemed like quite a character. I also ride so I hoped we might hit it off. One day while on lunch break he struck up a conversation with me. Over the course of that conversation I unknowingly talked myself into the unemployment line.

The conversation started harmless enough with small talk about bikes, my work experience, trivial likes and dislikes but it didn't take long for things to go south. I may have mentioned I liked rock music and when asked what church I went to, I said I didn't go to one. When asked why, I said I didn't believe in God. I soon learned he was a fundamentalist Christian, a biker for Jesus, and he spent his free time picketing abortion clinics and handing out pamphlets outside music venues telling of the evils of rock and roll. Most of our core beliefs could not have been more divergent.

It became apparent that he lived his life completely for Christ in all he said and did. His life revolved around his religion. If someone asked him to write something about himself 'Christian' would be pretty high up there right after 'white male'. Our casual chat over lunch quickly turned into an attempt to save my soul. He gave me a pamphlet about the evils of rock music in cartoon form., on the back it listed bands they deemed to be especially vile like the Rolling Stones, Jethro Tull, Black Sabbath and Deep Purple. These were all bands I liked.

Saving me became his mission. My beliefs were wrong and offensive and he had to at least try and put me on the right path. He assumed I did not believe because I did not understand or that I came to my conclusions out of ignorance and that ignorance could be corrected with guidance. It fell to him to show me the truth. He told me he pitied me because I did not have any faith and without Jesus I was lost with no moral compass. He seemed to think that because I did not believe in God, there was nothing to stop me from doing whatever I wanted to do. As if the only thing stopping people from committing rape, murder, or trying to steal all your possessions the minute your back is turned is God. He seemed to think I could not comprehend the difference between wrong or right without God and the promise of heaven or the threat of eternal damnation.

Its frightening how otherwise nice people can turn so ugly when their faith is threatened and often all it takes to do this is to have divergent beliefs. Over the next few days he continued to try and convince me of the error of my ways and I continued to politely tell him that whatever he believed in was fine with me, who was I to say he is wrong? But it wasn't for me. He was undeterred and I finally just had to tell him, in no uncertain terms, why I did not believe in a God, why I don't think rock music is evil, and there was absolutely no chance of him convincing me otherwise. The next week I was fired and told 'Its just not working out.'

I was told by people I should sue but what good would that do? It was their word against mine and in the end, why would I want to work for a company and with people who so obviously found just my presence there as a disruption. What would a trial accomplish? It would not save my job, it wouldn't give me back the steady paycheck, and it wasn't going to pay my rent. I would be going against Christians in an area renowned for Christian fundamentalism. In reality we are, most of us, just people trying to make a living and get by, we are not crusaders. Life is hard enough without making it harder with lost jobs, burned bridges and legal battles. I moved on, I found another job, and it turned out to be a much better job. Learning a lesson from my previous experience, I was far more cautious as to what I said to my fellow coworkers and revealed nothing personal until I knew them better. Ultimately I decided I would not talk religion and politics at work regardless.

This is just a personal experience to show how wearing your beliefs on your sleeve can have unintended negative consequences, it is not a condemnation of the Christian faith. In this case I unwittingly walked into a small local company of fundamentalist Christians who had an unwritten rule not to employ people of divergent beliefs. This is just one scenario and It just so happened to be a Christian company. Christians certainly do not hold a monopoly on intolerance nor are they all intolerant. Some of the most intolerant people I know are Atheists.

Small localized companies can do these things with little consequences but with multinational corporations its a different story. More often than not these companies exist on the opposite spectrum. I have now worked for several international companies and have found they are more likely to frown on any religious expression in the work place. These types of companies often have a more diverse work force employing a wide variety of people with different nationalities and religious beliefs. For them, it is not about your religious beliefs or who you vote for, it is about what skills you bring to the table, dependability and professionalism.

In such companies it is generally recognized that the workplace is no place for religious and political expression. Its just bad for business not to try and maintain a neutral atmosphere. Often you will have Muslims, Christians, Jews, black, white, hispanic, asian etc.. all working side by side with few problems. These companies will be less likely to tolerate expression of religious or political beliefs as this might cause conflict and conflict is bad for productivity and besides, you are at work to work, not debate whose political party or god is the greatest. It is not terribly surprising that when religious and political views are not allowed to become an issue, people of all nationalities, religions, colors and creeds are able to coexist and work together.

There is a thin line we all walk and it is easy to end up on the wrong side of that line in other peoples eyes and those people may have the power to affect your life. The line between being seen as decisive or rash, being seen as thoughtful or indecisive, intelligent or pompous, a person with strongly held beliefs or a zealot. In your daily interactions with people, be it at work or just in your daily life, the best course of action is to always know your audience. When in doubt, say nothing. You never know when your views will be received poorly and affect your life in a very negative way. Having the freedom does not relieve you from exercising common sense and the government cannot protect you from the consequences of what you say and do....nor should it.

Politically Correct

Someone once said 'Life is hard for us all, why make it harder?'

Personal rights and freedoms, especially of speech and the free flow of ideas and information in all its forms, are important. There is a lot of objections about being PC (Politically Correct), how such a thing is intolerable and how it is ruining our society. PC is not new; it is an ancient concept under a new name. All cultures have rules both written and unwritten. All societies have their general expectations regarding standards of behavior. All social creatures exist with one another because they live by rules. To exist in a society of ones peers it is, in fact, imperative that people learn and take into account those around them. To consider others around you has always been offered as ageless sage advice.

It’s the golden rule and something similar to it exists in most if not all cultures and it is considered to be one of the highest and universal truths. It is passed down through history and is the basis to all ethical and moral codes. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. This simple rule applies to all aspects of human behavior. Would you like to have your life taken? No? Then don’t take a life. Do you value your belongings and don’t want them to be stolen? Then don’t steal the belongings of others. Do you like to be physically or verbally abused? No? Most people don’t. Then why would you do this to others? Do you like people attacking or belittling your religious faith, your political views, your sexuality, your station in life, your education, your ethnicity, your personal opinions, your height, or your weight? Few do.

Most people have some measure of conscience; they are able to feel some form of empathy for fellow human beings. In general it is our conscience and empathy that enforces the Golden Rule and when we slip, it is what causes feelings of guilt and remorse. A guilty conscience is simply a sign that you have somehow wronged someone. If you have never suffered a guilty conscience then you are either perfect or a psychopath.

Political Correctness is just a new label for ‘Do onto others’ for a new time sculpted by a smaller world. Today people of all religions, cultures and political leanings must often live and work side by side, particularly in the west due to a comparative high respect for human rights and freedoms. Because of this the populations have become quite diverse. With a change in the make-up of a population come shifts in social norms. Such shifts are often seen as threats to status quo. Such shifts are always met by resistance and accompanied by conflict.

People who seem to think they should be able to say whatever they like with no consequences hold the concept of Political Correctness in contempt. They must be able to make the basest accusations; they don’t have to be true as long as someone believes it. They just fling cr*p against the wall and whatever sticks is true, or might as well be. They communicate in the most abrasive, antagonistic and insulting way and when people object they will lament their persecution at the hands of the oppressive PC thugs. We are guaranteed the freedom to speak our minds however we wish but we are not guaranteed protection from public opinion.

Political Correctness is ever changing and reflects what is generally viewed as acceptable by a society at a given time. Although it can be taken to the extreme like anything else, it often seems to simply mean having some common sense; taking into account those around you. It requires that people take at least a modicum of care to be thoughtful in their communication and treatment of others. It is a wish not to make a hard life any harder by ones careless actions and words.

Mexicans Go Home

http://mexicans-go-home.com/?p=98

“Study Shows that Mexicans breed like sewer rats”

This little gem is from the very informative website mexicans-go-home.com, just one of an ever growing group of websites and organizations dedicated to ridding the United States of the greatest threat since the British burned the capital in 1814. The writer doesn't bother to quote the study it refers to in the title although there is a link to an opinion piece in the letters section of the Yuman Sun that reveals the source study of THAT posting to be a controversial book called "The Immigration Solution : A Better Plan Than Today's," by Heather MacDonald, Steven Malanga of the and Victor Hanson.

This book cites statistics of higher crime rates, lower education, lower skill levels, the inability to speak English, high birth rates and the fact that immigrants tend to develop and live in their own communities and are resistant to assimilation. The book leads the reader to the inevitable conclusion that these immigrants have much more to gain from America than America stands to gain from them,  they are destroying our country and threatening the white English speaking population. It suggests we should, at best, only allow immigrants who are educated, skilled and willing to assimilate quickly to immigrate and remove and bar all others. It doesn't equate them to sewer rats, that inspired idea was added by our friends at mexicans-go-home.com.

Many of the statistics that are a given in this book and the anti-immigration community at large, are common when it comes to any population that leaves one country to escape poverty to live in another which is more prosperous and promises a better life. Of course they are often desperate, of course they are less educated, certainly they may not be able to speak English. They are often met with distrust and antagonism by many in their new country thus they will tend to gather together for support and have difficulty assimilating. These are people in a foreign land living within a foreign culture trying to get by. It is hard to go from one culture to another, especially cultures that do not share a common language. Because of this, the first generation is always slower and hesitant to 'assimilate'.

While it is certainly true that first generation immigrants often never fully assimilate or identify with their new country, their children and their childrens children often do. While its true they come because they believe they can make a better life, it is arguable whether America does not also gain a real benefit from their presence. They do not come here because there are no jobs waiting for them here. It seems more likely both sides are benefitting in some way.  

This book has become a favored source to quote by groups who oppose immigration from the overtly bigoted mexicans-go-home.com to those who attempt to put forth anti-immigration sentiment in a more academic tone like the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). CIS, FAIR, NumbersUSA,  Pro English, Social Contract Press, U.S. English, and many other related groups were either organized by, founded by, or co-founded by Mr. John Tanton, a retired dentist who is a fervent and active opponent to immigration as well as a proponent of eugenics and selective breeding. He also helps fund many more like minded groups through his organization U.S. Inc. All these groups have roughly the same goal, to illustrate the dangers of immigration, the threat of immigrants to the white, English speaking population of the United States and to safeguard this population through legislation.

These days such sentiments seem to be more and more prevalent. It has become quite common to hear people place all of America’s woes at the feet of the Mexican immigrant often without regard to whether they are here legally or illegally. It has become a very active movement directed against one vilified ethnic group who is seen as a major threat. So many people have come to see Mexicans as a faceless horde that is of one mind and malicious ambition. They have only one goal, to take over America or destroy it trying. Most disturbingly they are often equated by these people with rodents or cockroaches.

Viewing these people as a whole like animals is one of many characteristics of the growing anti-Mexican movement that mirrors earlier malignant racial ethnic movements of the past. Today we are witnessing strong nationalist rhetoric coupled with xenophobia, a minority segment of the population of foreign origin declared to be the root of all a nations woes, and an ever growing number of people calling for laws that would directly affect this population.

When we can equate a group of people with animals such as rodents or insects, they become less than human in our eyes. If they are like rats and roaches, we can treat them as such and what do we do to rats and roaches? We exterminate them.

This sentiment becomes even more alarming when people in government echo it. When Tennessee State Rep. Curry Todd objected to the birthright citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, he suggested that pregnant immigrants will "multiply" like "rats". To the disappointment of the good folks at mexicans-go-home.com, he later apologized saying he should have used, what he must see as the far less objectionable term, "anchor babies" instead. One gets the feeling he does not see equating immigrants with rats as being so wrong, that he was not apologizing for the sentiment but for saying it in mixed company.

When Mr. Curry Todd likened the breading habits of  Immigrants to those of the rat, he was far from alone in this opinion. He was probably speaking for many of his constituents and certainly for many across this nation as so many have come out to defend him. Although he apologized, it is certain he thinks in these terms. Many people believe he was simply stating the plain truth and the truth hurts sometimes. Any criticism is seen as people trying to suppress his freedom of speech. In reality he is without doubt entitled to express his opinions and if people hear something that strikes them as disturbing, they also enjoy the freedom to strongly protest. Freedom of speech protects you from those who would rob you of your right to say whatever you wish no matter how objectionable, it does not protect you from the consequences. Those who see such speech as disturbing are equally within their right to strongly object in the strongest terms.

This is not the first time that Americans have vilified an immigrant culture. The Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, they were all cultural groups which were slow to assimilate and were often vilified for many of the same reasons Mexicans are vilified today. The fear of Asians struck a chord and flamed anti-Chinese fervor among white Americans driving many people and their representatives to call for the repeal of birthright citizenship in the mid nineteenth century. The fear of the Chinese and other Asian races were based on the difference of their culture. As Justice John Marshall Harlan stated “there is a race so different than our own that we do not permit those belonging to it to become citizens of the United States . . . I allude to the Chinese race.”  A common reason given for this fear of Asians was that the Chinese and other 'Mongoloid' races would over run our nation and pollute our gene pool.

Whatever you think about immigrants, their children, either legal or illegal, remember they are all individual unique living human beings. They are someone's mother, father, son or daughter. They are a population as diverse as any other. Do not lose your own humanity by debasing the humanity of others out of fear, anger or frustration.

I Love Being Black

I Love Being Black is a Facebook page with roughly 5.7 million 'Likes' whose stated mission is:

To uplift Black people Worldwide & combat self-hatred and negativity coming from outside or inside our community, and to do it with style.

In their notes there is a broad politically charged piece about white privilege which seems to be personified here as Sarah Palin and George Bush. These two typical white people are compared and contrasted with President Obama to illustrate how Black people are treated unfairly in comparison. Most white people may not be able to relate to any of these representatives of the white race as most people, regardless of color, are just trying to get by like anyone else. Most white people who read this may wonder what happened to the great privilege they are supposed to have been born into? Did they miss an announcement at the white persons club? Was there a letter lost in the mail?

This is just one of many groups and websites that are there to cater to people who love their race whether it be white, black or any color in between. Some are more positive such as I Love Black People and others are far more sinister in nature such as the white supremacist website Stormfront for White Nationalists and Racial Realists. All of these forums and websites are dedicated to a race and visited by people who strongly identify with their race and actively promote racial exclusionary issues and causes. There seems to be a segment of all races who take pride in, or actively promote, their race.

While people are certainly entitled to be proud of their race, it begs the question why?
If asked to "tell me about yourself?" or asked to make a list of things about yourself that you think are important fact people should know about you, or that encompasses who you are or how you identify, where would race be? Would you start this list with "I am a black..." or "I am Hispanic..." or "I am white..." Would you start it by saying you are gay? A man? A woman? Left handed? Blonde? Or would you instead say "I am and artist" or "I am a doctor" or "I love to read" or "I play the guitar"? Are you a race first? Or are you an individual first and foremost? How do you identify?

We are born to our race, gender or sexual orientation, these are not accomplishments, they are merely attributes we share with millions of other people in the world, they say nothing of a persons likes or dislikes, profession, talent, training, or their passions and pet peeves. If these attributes are high on a persons list of facts about themselves it means that they heavily identify themselves by these traits. It may be that at some point they came to believe that these attributes are worthy, important enough, or are the greatest contributor to their identity.

Indeed this may be that people of color, homosexuals and women have historically been denied rights and suffered persecution, being forced to come together to face these challenges. In so doing they have, out of necessity, fostered a strong identity around their common physical traits. Indeed the very traits for which they have suffered persecution are the same traits that have drawn them closer because of shared experiences. Certainly the subject is very complex as is all human interaction.

Certainly being vigilant that your race, gender and sexual orientation is not a target of discrimination is very important. The very fact that there is a need to have advocates for equality creates a greater awareness of ones race. It also creates professional advocates, people who earn a living as an advocate for a race, gender and sexual orientation.

It may also be that these people have few accomplishments to speak of otherwise. Racially minded people will often tout the accomplishments of their race as if they are something they should also be proud of, as if they share credit somehow because they happen to be born a certain color.

Percy Julian was a pioneer chemist whose work in chemical synthesis greatly benefitted mankind. He happened to be black but his accomplishments are his own to be proud of. Thomas Edison was a great inventor and businessman whose devices changed the world. He happened to be white but his accomplishments are not shared by all whites. Average people who work hard to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads, minor miracles for most of us, might be black or white, but they accomplish what they do, not for their race, but because they are all people.

Great accomplishments are achieved by people, not a races. By the same token, if someone of a specific race commits a horrible crime, says or does something abhorrent, the whole race is not complicit, it is just the actions of that individual. A race does not take credit for great individual accomplishments any more than there is racial condemnation over horrible individual crime. This holds true for sexual orientation and gender as well.

Allowing one's self to be proud of the accomplishments of those who share your race, gender or sexual orientation alleviates the burden of having to accomplish something so you can be proud of your own accomplishments as an individual. Race, gender or sexual orientation is not an accomplishment. You had nothing to do with the color of your skin or who you were born to. What is there to love or hate or be proud or ashamed about in ones skin color or gender? Isn't it far more important to love and take pride in your own actions and deeds?

Racism in the US certainly still exists but it is not solely a Black or White problem, it is a human problem. Seeing the race and refusing to see the person will simply assure nothing will ever change. This goes the same for how we see ourselves. Only seeing ourselves as our race, our gender, or our sexual orientation will always limit the ability for us to see ourselves and others as unique individuals.

"Reverse Racism"

Any time the topic of conversation comes around to racism, you will invariably hear the charge of reverse racism tossed out by a white person. This charge is usually accompanied by a tale of racial discrimination at the hands of a person (or people) of color. Many white folks have such stories, as do I.

The first time it happened to me was when I was living in a small town in East Texas. I was walking home from the store and I happened to pass a group of black guys standing around a car. They stared at me as I approached and just as I was passing, one suddenly called me a “cracker”. When I heard it I turned and they looked at me as if they were all saying in unison “what are you going to do about it?” My answer? I did nothing. There was about four of them and one of me, not that I would have wanted to tangle with even one of them let alone four. If I walked by any one of them as they stood alone, I have no doubt that nothing would have been said, but courage rises in direct relation to numbers. I walked on as they laughed and I thought to myself, “I have just been a victim of reverse racism!”

Once I got home I thought about what had just happened. I felt a bit angry and ashamed but reasoned with myself that it wasn’t worth being seriously injured and they were the cowards for ganging up on me. In truth, being called a "cracker" didn't bother me that much. It bothered me more that they ganged up on me me with the idea to intimidate me. In the end it made me think about the concept of reverse racism and what this concept implies. I realized that a charge of reverse racism is a harsher condemnation of my own race and me than the person actually being racist. Ironically, by claiming to be a victim of reverse racism, I was calling myself, and all who are white, the only real racists thus displacing blame for their racism upon myself.

Reverse racism implies that one race (in this case Caucasians) have a monopoly on racism. It implies that white people are the only people who can be truly racist and all others who commit racist acts against white people (or any other race) are simply turning our own racism back on us. What it says is that these young gentlemen are not racist, I am the real racist and they are just giving me a taste of my own medicine.

The fact is that white people do not own prejudice and racism. Anyone who has traveled outside the US will know that racism exists in all races and nationalities. I was not a victim of reverse racism. They used a racial slur in an attempt to demean and intimidate me. These young men simply committed a racist act.

Reverse racism is a term developed from a myopic point of view. It assumes there is one race that is inherently racist and another that isn't. It is a term that arises in a society in which one race has a long history of dominating and oppressing another. Racism originating from a dominant position, or from an oppressor, is far more poignant with very real repercussions while racism originating from the oppressed and powerless has no teeth.

In the US, like many nations all around the world, there is a long history of oppression that has largely been a one-way street. In the US it took the form of slavery, whites owning blacks and using them as beasts of burden, later in the form of racial oppression and intimidation of ex-slaves and their progeny. Indeed it was not until a little over fifty years ago that blacks were truly considered equal to whites by the law of the land (if not in the minds of some).

In this environment one form of racism was seen to be the only real racism but in truth it was not the only form of racism but the only racism with consequence. This is why racial slurs for whites carry so little weight and are even allowed to be used on network TV while racial slurs commonly used for blacks will cut deep, especially when uttered by a white person, and even make people of other races uncomfortable.

Strictly and commonly defined in short, racism is: Hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. Racism is not a trait exclusive to Caucasians nor is the ability to be racist dependent on who garners the lions share of power and wealth in any given society. Racism is just one color in a spectrum of discrimination's practiced all around the world in the east and the west, by poor and rich, oppressed and oppressor, white and black and all colors in between. There is no such thing as reverse racism, its just racism.

Progressives: Rebranding Liberal

Although extremists seem more plentiful these days in what seems to be a charged political atmosphere, it is easy to forget that people have always polarized and extreme views have always been present and politics have always been highly contentious since before recorded history. There has never been a time, from the founding of the United States of America to today, in which we all held hands in harmony. All the same, few people I meet are black and white. Few people I meet are so easily defined as simply liberal or conservative. While people are not black and white, most do lean enough one way or the other to comfortably be labeled as either liberal (liberal leaning) or conservative (conservative leaning).

Unlike many other democratic nations where the people often have a wide array of political parties to choose from, Americans live under a rigid two party system. Its not that other political parties are not allowed, its just that Americans tend to gravitate to one of the two main parties, each one representing the full spectrum of what they see as the two major socio-political ideologies. We are so hard coded into a two party monopoly that, when you tell someone in America that you have, or were thinking of, voting for a third party candidate they will say 'Go ahead, throw your vote away!!'. The American political system does not recognize subtle differences in political and social ideology and because of this, few people who live within this system recognize these subtleties either. You are 'Liberal' or 'Conservative', 'Left' or 'Right'. In America today you are either a Republican, the party for those who gravitate to current conservatives ideals, or a Democrat, those who are Liberal leaning, or you vote third party and 'throw your vote away'.

In general Conservatives are people looking to preserve the status quo. Based on the word 'conserve', those who follow this ideology are often those who stand in opposition to change in the norm, in what is traditional or customary. Conservatism can take many forms and manifest in many ways and in many areas of our lives. People can be social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, political conservatives, religious conservatives, conservative values reach across the spectrum. While many are not conservative across the board, they all mean to maintain, conserve, and preserve be it money, religion, morals or traditional ways. Conservative in the US often means a person who is more traditionally minded. They are likely to be religious, social conservatives, who believe in less government and more guns, less entitlement programs and more God. They present themselves as anti-tax and spend but just like liberals, they are not opposed to tax and spend as long as the right people are taxed and its spent for the right things. The conservative can either be seen as an obstacle to change and advancement or a guardian of traditional ways, morals, and values. Conservatives are further labeled as the 'Right'.

People who would traditionally be deemed Liberal are people whose ideology often goes contrary to the established norm. Liberal is based on the Latin Liber, and further Liberalis. Its where we get the word Liberty and it literally means Free or Freedom. Historically Liberalism, as a political philosophy, advocates the freedoms and inherent rights of the individual. Historically liberal movements have often brought about desperately needed socio-political changes by challenging the status quo when the status quo meant unfair political, social, and economic institutions, the lack of personal freedom, human rights, human dignity, civil liberties and democracy. Like conservatism, liberalism spans across the spectrum of the human condition be it social, political, fiscal, or religious. Liberal in the US today often means a person who looks to use government to cure social injustice and improve the human condition. They present themselves as defenders of personal freedoms but in reality they are often reactionary idealists who tend, when in power, to enforce their ideology just as zealously as any conservative. Liberals can either be seen as as subversives looking to destroy the very foundations a country was founded upon or advocates for positive change. Liberals are further labeled as the 'Left'.

Today conservatives, more often than not, seem as ready as ever to proclaim they are conservative. They are proud to be conservative and think you should be conservative as well. They are staunch supporters of the conservative philosophy as a sports fan supports his team. An us vs them, win at all cost mentality. A conservative stands ever ready to defend against liberal ideals, what ever that ideal means at any given time. I have never met a conservative that balked at being labeled a conservative.

Liberals, on the other hand, are more and more reluctant to own the designation of liberal. The most liberal man I know, a man who by any standard would be labeled a lock step liberal democrat, is a good example. When we are together we often discuss the politics of the day and about a month ago I began to notice a change. During these conversations he has always referred to Republicans, or the 'right', as conservatives almost exclusively. While he used to refer to Democrats and the so called 'left' as liberals, I noticed that lately he had purged the word liberal from is vocabulary. The label he used for himself, and liberals in general, was Progressive. He is a supporter of gay marriage, a supporter of legalized drugs, a supporter of the right to chose, entitlement programs, anti-gun, anti-war and an atheist, but not, it seems, a liberal...he is now 'Progressive'.

This was not the first time I have heard a liberal refer to liberals and the liberal ideology as progressive. It's as if there was a mass e-mail sent out to all liberals to let them know of the rebranding effort. Liberal seems to have become a bad word, even for Liberals. As if they have bought in to the silly dishonest two dimensional stereotype of liberalism so often depicted in AM radio style hyperbolic rhetoric. Liberals have allowed the word to be redefined to represent a stereotype of liberal ideology. They fear if they are tagged as liberal they will be seen in a negative light, and maybe they will. So often the stereotype takes the form of the extremes. Liberals are not all godless, socialist, communist, utopians who believe in unchecked government spending, anti-business, anti-god, pot smoking, multi-cultural vegetarians who want to take all of your money and redistribute it to lazy welfare cheats. Conservatives are not all gun toting, fundamentalist Christian, gay bashing, greedy, selfish, racists who still live in the 1930's (or worse, the 1100's) when women and blacks knew their place. Most fall somewhere in between these two extremes.

I, like many, am not completely liberal and not completely conservative. I see the need for both ideologies to be in play for a good balanced society. Like so many I possess a mixture of both, I simply lean one way or the other. I lean left. The lean is not extreme but few would consider me a conservative. I am a social and political liberal. What is so bad about being a Utopian anyway? By very definition the word means 'the ideal society' possessing the 'perfect socio-politico-legal system'. Its a goal that may be unobtainable but shouldn't we always being trying? Should we be striving for an imperfect society?

Conservatives are unabashedly conservative, they are fighting for what they believe and their beliefs are often those of their fathers and grandfathers so they seldom ruffle the feathers of tradition. To be Liberal is often to be in opposition to the traditional norm and that can be a bumpy road to travel, but it is no less an important road. America needs both conservative and liberal. I would not want to live in a society where one was not present, where one was not tempered by the other. I would not want to live in a world without Liberals.

There are always extremes. While extremist liberal movements have been the cause of bombings, kidnappings, war and killing, most liberals do not stand up and applaud these violent acts. So to do most conservatives disown the extreme, radical, oppressive, far right, conservative movements that have been the cause of so much suffering and death. It is admirable to be a person with strong convictions but it is dangerous to us all when someone invests too much of themselves in their ideology and loses sight of their humanity. We should never forget that whether Liberal or Conservative, we are all human.

What an aging hippy liberal thing to say.

High caliber guns and money, served with a side of fear

Today I went to the Houston Money Show being held at the George R Brown Convention Center in Houston. There were two shows being held there, the money show, my destination, and the high caliber gun show being held down the way. I parked the car in the parking lot at the far end from the money show so I had to walk the length of the convention center. As I walked I thought about the wisdom of having a gathering of a large amount of high caliber guns and their users just down the way from a large cache of gold, silver and extremely valuable and rare coins and currency. It seemed like a perfect set-up for a great heist movie.

I had to pass the gun show entrance to get to the money show and as I passed I notice people around tables with posters attached and they were talking to people, some strapped with weaponry. The most prominent poster was the tried and true image depicting the president as Hitler, a classic used heavily during the Bush presidency here being used on Obama. This is a well worn tactic used to make a connection in peoples minds that will inspire hatred for a person by comparing him to a man responsible for the death of millions of people, who committed the most horrendous acts humanity has ever seen.

Around the poster of Hitler/Obama were other posters with images of other political villains and a lot of text. Apparently it takes a lot of posters to fit even a general outline of the complicated liberal conspiracy to put us all in labor camps. The most prominent text was ‘Remove Obama Now’ written in bold red marker above the image of Hilter/Obama. They are not saying stop Obama, something I see reiterated ad nauseum by many, they are not talking about the next election, they are saying now. This call to remove our elected president seemed more ominous being made surrounded by heavily armed men 50 feet from a building with enough weaponry to supply an army.

I slowed down as I passed to get a better look at the posters and people and I overheard an impassioned speech made by a small middle-aged man holding literature in is hands. His speech was directed towards several larger men with what looked to be brand new shotguns strapped over their shoulders. What I heard of his dialogue painted America in an emergency situation that can only be solved with the immediate removal of Obama who he refers to as a Stalinist. Apparently it is not enough to compare Obama to a man who exterminated millions of Jews and threw the world into war; they must also compare him to Stalin, another man who systematically murdered millions of his own people. Obama is such a terrifyingly evil mastermind that in just two years of his presidency he has managed to almost destroy America, which is his plan it seems, and if given two more years we will surely be doomed.

After just a brief pause I continued on to the money show. Ironically money being the very thing that is at the root of many of the problems causing such discontent which has inspired people to use their free time to spread this over the top doom and gloom rhetoric. I wondered how many of these people actually believe what they are saying or hearing and how many are knowingly creating and feeding a false sense of imminent danger from a president they typify as a villain, worse than Stalin and Hitler combined, who wants to destroy America. I wondered if the fact that they were specifically targeting heavily armed white men with high caliber weapons says anything about who they believe will be sympathetic to their message or hinted at how they imagined the immediate removal of our President should play out.

12/5/2010 9:19 PM CST

In God We Trust vs. E Pluribus Unum

The official national motto of the United States is 'In God We Trust' . This motto did not replace a previous motto, it has not always been our motto and, in fact, it is a relatively new motto, but it is the only official motto the United States has ever had. Its adoption as the national motto was possibly in reaction to a fear of growing skepticism towards religion resulting in surges of increased religious zeal.

In God We Trust first appeared on coins thanks to an early push by Reverend M. R. Watkinson and his supporters who petitioned the Treasury Department in 1861 requesting they add a statement recognizing "Almighty God in some form in our coins." Soon after the motto was approved as an officially accepted phrase that could be used on US currency. It began to appear on some coins in 1864 and by 1938, most US coins have borne the motto. In 1956 the US adopted In God We Trust as the national motto (H.J. Resolution 396) and a year later all currency bore the phrase.

What about E Pluribus Unum?

E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One) is one of several phases found on the National Seals and is generally considered to refer to the union of states. A very similar phrase appears in English on early American currency. The phrase We Are One appears on the 'Continental Dollar' as well as the 'Fugio Cent' (pictured below), early American currency produced in 1776 and 1787 respectively. The sentiment was ancient but the phrase may have been borrowed from The Gentleman's Magazine, a popular and long running publication of the time that used E Pluribus Unum on its title page.

E Pluribus Unum was first suggested by Pierre Eugene du Simitiere, an artist living in Philadelphia, who was a contributor to the first draft of the Great Seal of the United States. He used the phrase on this early seal design that was submitted for approval by congressional committee in August of 1776. This first draft for the Great Seal was never used but aspects of it were incorporated into the final design approved in 1782, one of which was the phrase E Pluribus Unum, one of three Latin phrases adopted at this time.

E Pluribus Unum and the sentiment it conveys was obviously embraced by the founding fathers and those who came after. Although never codified by law, it was considered the de facto motto of the United States as it also appears on the seals of the President, the Vice President, Congress, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Supreme Court and, eventually, every coin and paper currency issued by the United States by 1873.

Two mottos, Two Very Different Sentiments

E Pluribus Unum is an all inclusive statement of strength in unity. We are a union of states and by extension we are a union of people who populate these states. While separated by state boundaries, we remain unified as Americans, all parts making up a greater whole. It is a phrase that was obviously embraced by a majority of our founding fathers as is evidenced by its extensive use.

In God We Trust conveys the idea that all Americans believe in God since you must believe in a God to trust it. This motto suggests that if one does not believe in a higher power, one must not be American. Such a statement was most likely true for the most part at the founding of our nation but by the time it was adopted as our national motto in 1956, this statement was arguably less universally true. Its affect would become the exact opposite of E Pluribus Unum, it would be an exclusive and divisive statement meant to elevate believers and marginalize those who do not.

Our Founding Fathers did not balk at mentioning God when they deemed it appropriate. God as a creator is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence thus the precedence for referring to a higher power was set very early on. While our founding fathers had wildly different views on God, Religion and their place in government, most if not all seemed to profess some form of faith in a God. It cannot be denied that this nation was founded by people who accepted and believe in a creator of some form if not an organized religion. There was no reticence in referencing God but with their obvious fondness for the phrase E Pluribus Unum, would they see In God We Trust and the sentiment this phrase conveys as ideal?

The fact is the founders seemed to find little need to make such an absolute and overt official announcement regarding the religious characterization of our nation when such a characterization was true. Would they see a need today at a time when a growing number of Americans no longer believe in a God (anywhere between 6%-15% depending on the poll) let alone trust in one?

A national motto is a simple phrase that serves to express in just a few words a defining message about our nation. One tells the world "We stand United" while the other says "We believe in God". One reads like a strong characterization of a nation of states and citizens bound together within a union, the other reads like a phrase one might read on the message board outside a Church. Any objections to references to a creator or a God by the state put aside, and regardless of one's beliefs and religious affiliations, an all inclusive message of strength in unity as opposed to an exclusive statement of belief in the divine may still seem the more ideal message to define our nation.