Founding Father Benjamin Franklin brought his skills as a “modern day printer” to the “New World”.  In 1729 he purchased the fledgling Pennsylvania Gazette and began the work of transforming this rag-tag operation into a to a respectable weekly newspaper.  It would not be long before Franklin and his printing enterprise were routinely  criticized for what they printed.  Some would criticize the newspapers topics or the author’s opinion while others took issue with the businesses that were advertising in the paper.  It seemed as though while some people enjoyed reading what he published, others were offended.  This criticism continued to grow and became a real “thorn” in Franklin’s side.  Finely, in 1731, Franklin felt compelled to publish “An Apology For Printers” in his gazette as a “standing Apology for my self”.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  Our society is experiencing a new “information revolution”.  Just as the printing press transformed how thoughts, ideas, and opinions could be shared on a large-scale, the advent of the Internet, blogs, and social networks is taking the ability to a whole new level.  I think Franklin would be impressed and he would approve.  However, based on personal experience, it seems that bloggers and contributors in this new medium are experiencing the same frustration as Franklin and his contemporaries.  Perhaps it’s time to re-visit Franklin’s annual apology and bring it up-to-date.  So, with a respectful nod to Benjamin Franklin, I think I’ll draw on his wisdom and model my standing apology after his. 

An Apology for Bloggers

Having experienced the ire of those who say I should not have expressed my thoughts, ideas, or opinions on my Facebook Wall or personal BLOG, I think it both necessary and appropriate to save myself and my readers some emotional bandwidth by posting a standing apology.  Such an apology deserves careful consideration and I hope I don’t overlook something.

I simply ask that all who are angry with me, because what I have posted or the manner in which I posted it, calmly consider the following:

1. I think Benjamin Franklin  put it best, so why mess with the wisdom of a Founding Father.  He said, “The Opinions of Men are almost as various as their Faces; an Observation general enough to become a common Proverb, So many Men so many Minds.”
2. The business of blogging primarily has to do with the sharing of a writer’s personal point of view.  Some blogs are fairly innocuous as they are devoted to some personal hobby such as mountain biking, camping, or cooking.  Others take on the tough topics of the day such as politics, ethics, or religion.  In all cases, the blogs are devoted to the sharing of the contributor’s opinion.  Some opinions server to promote or support an idea, concept, or opinion while others serve to oppose the same.
3. Some people are content to “tweet” information like “I’m sitting on the porch enjoying the sunset” or “Hey, I really enjoyed this new movie” – and that is perfectly fine.  Some blog about their hobby or their business – that is also fine.  Others promote religious worldviews or, like me, post their thoughts on current political events – this too should be fine.  However, I think you would agree that tweeting “I’m sitting the porch” is information that is not relevant to someone’s worldview and therefore is not likely to offend anyone.  However, it is more likely that sharing thoughts, ideas, and opinions on matters of religion, ethics, or politics are at high risk of offending anyone who holds an opposing point of view.  The blogger that chooses to take on the tough issues of the day will inevitably step on someone’s toes. 
4. Just as it is unreasonable to expect that everyone in a given group of people would share the bloggers opinion, it is also unreasonable to expect that because some are offended by a bloggers opinion that everyone is offended and therefore the blogger should keep their opinion to themselves.
5. Bloggers believe strongly that when people have differing opinions, all sides have an equal right to be heard.  Today’s technology, more than any time in human history, facilitates the sharing of views, ideas, and knowledge on a large-scale.  We also believe that truth prevails over error and that given equal opportunity, truth will always prevail.
6. Sometimes, people will comment on the ideas and opinions a blogger shares.  While a blogger can take steps to moderate their forums, we do not censor ideas or writing styles.  We will step in if someone becomes overly abusive – but for the most part, we allow point number 5 above to run its course.
7. It is unreasonable to assert, as some do, that we should not post our thoughts and opinions if they might offend someone.  Holding to that standard would only serve to stifle thought, dialogue, and the expansion of individual horizons.  With respect to the advancement of the human condition, the free exchange of thought is the cornerstone of freedom and liberty.  If world history teaches us anything it is the unfortunate truth; that tyranny is the nature of all governments and stifling of the free exchange of thought is the enabler of tyranny.
8. If everyone agreed not to post anything until they were sure that no one would be offended… well to be sure we would be flooded with transformational thoughts such as, “I’m going to bed now… good night all” or “guess what Sally said about Jenifer at school today”.
9.  Sometimes, the things I post will be challenging to you and your point of view.  Sometimes, in a fit of personal rage or anger on a topic, I will write things that are downright stupid and audacious.  But because I sometimes post things that are difficult, challenging, or stupid does not represent the sum-total of who I am or how/what I think.  Likewise, what I post is not a reflection of my wife, children, extended family, friends, church, social network, or employer.   Believe it or not, there may be a nugget of wisdom in what I write.  If you choose to read what I write, I think it is reasonable to ask that you give it some thought and consider my perspective.  If you want to comment with affirmation or opposition, you are welcome to.  I in turn, promise to give you the same consideration.
10. While I don’t agree that ideas should be “aborted at birth” – so to speak – I will not post to my blog, nor allow to be posted, anything that is immoral according to societal norms.  However, given the nature of an ever-changing standard, I will be the sole arbiter of morality on my blog – after all, I pay for it, so I claim both the right and responsibility.  I hold a Christian worldview and that worldview will be the lens through which I will judge issues of morality.  Some may find that standard offensive – too bad, you can post somewhere else.  Likewise, there are those who will say, “Christians should think this way… “ or “Christians should not think that way …”.  Be forewarned, if you are going to make that claim on my blog postings you should be able to back that up biblically and be prepared to be challenged.  I know that this perspective will not be acceptable to all so, please accept my apology in advance.

To help you better understand why I think it is important to take on the tough issues of the day, I’d like to share with you a short poem I wrote:

The child of a former slave looks at her father’s back

Quietly she wonders, “Why didn’t someone say something?”

            Because, it’s a matter of property rights, echoed the reply

 The old woman looks at the number tattooed on her arm

Quietly she wonders, “Why didn’t someone say something?”

                        Because, it’s a matter of a nation’s internal politics, echoed the reply

 The parent hears the doctor say, your insurance does not cover this treatment.

Quietly he wonders, “Why didn’t someone say something?”

                        Because, for the good of the many we have to ration care, echoed the reply

 The former business owner stands in a soup line holding his children close

Quietly she wonders, “Why didn’t someone say something?”

                        Because, we thought the government should provide, echoed the reply

 The government tells the student what to think, when to think, how to think

Quietly he wonders, “Why didn’t someone say something?”

                        Because, to control society we have to control your mind, echoed the reply

 Today, at this moment, open your eyes and look around, see what is happening

            Quietly resolve to say something!

                        But I’m afraid of what others might think about me, echoed the reply.

Benjamin Franklin closed his standing apology with a fable.  I took the liberty of re-writing it in modern English:

 A well intentioned old man and his son were traveling to the market with an ass they needed to sell.  The weather was bad and the road was muddy so the old, frail man rode the ass while his young, healthy son walked along side. Soon, they came across a stranger who relentlessly chided the father for forcing his son to walk in the mud instead of having him ride the ass along with him.  To quiet the criticism, the father invited his son to ride behind him.

 They traveled a little further and encountered another stranger who began to complain vehemently that the ass was suffering under the weight of both the father and son as it made it way along the muddy road.  To quiet the criticism, the father got off the ass and walked along side as they continued on their way.

 Then, they came across another stranger who scolded the son for riding the ass while his aged father walked through the mud and muck.  The stranger went so far as to call the father a fool for letting his son take advantage of him in such a way.  So, to quiet the criticism, the father asked his son to come down and walk along with him as they led the ass to market.

 A short time later they encountered yet another stranger.  This time, the stranger ridiculed the man and his son for walking when they had a perfectly good ass to ride.  Not able to bear it any further, the father turned and said to his son, “I cannot stand all this criticism.  It seems we cannot please everyone, so help find a bridge so we can throw this ass over the side and into the river below.

If someone had seen this father  actually carry out his decision – born out of frustration – undoubtly they would have called him a fool for being overly concerned with the opinions of others.   Like the old man in this fable, at times I get so frustrated by those who try to tell me what I should write, or how I should write, or that I should not write at all, that I feel like saying to heck with it all.  But, when all is said and done, I want you to know that I intend to continue to participate in exchange of ideas and in the process of the furtherance of our society while being fully aware that I will not be able to please all the people all the time. 

In closing, please accept my apology if in any way I have offended you by what I write or how I write.  But, please know this, I will not “throw this ass off a bridge” anytime soon – metaphorically speaking of course.

It seems to me that the perfect platform for affect was President Obama’s speech to the General Session of the United Nations on Sept. 23, 2009; a full two days before this press conference.  Instead, President Obama used his speech for self promotion with comments like “For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months.” [2] Additionally, he used this opportunity to stoke the anti-Semitic attitudes that are so prominent in the UN by overtly criticizing Israel – the first democracy in the Middle-East and a staunch ally of the U.S.

So, what was the desired “affect” the President was targeting?  Was he looking for an opportunity to force the Holocaust-denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to answer for his nation’s deception of the UN and IAEA or did he not want to put this lunatic in a difficult position when he took the platform later that afternoon.  President Obama, President Sarkozy, and Prime Minister Brown all spoke before President Ahmadinejad did during the Sept. 23^rd United Nations General Session.  Each had an opportunity to put the evidence of Iran’s deception before the General Assembly.  Instead, our President spoke with idealistic views of a world that would one day be rid of nuclear weapons – a view that totally ignores the undeniable truth of the existence of evil and of nations bent on the destruction or domination of other nations.

The next opportunity for maximum affect while confronting Iran was on Sept. 24, 2009 during the United Nations Security Council meeting.  President Obama, with much “historical” fan-far, became the first sitting U.S. President to preside over this body.  The focus of the meeting – nuclear non-proliferation.  Did the President use this opportunity to confront Iran?  No!  Instead, the council under Pres. Obama’s leadership passed Resolution 1887 supporting enforcement of old and the creation of new non-proliferation treaties. [3] No mention was made of Iran’s clandestine nuclear material processing facility at all despite the fact that our President clearly had knowledge of its existence.

Instead, Pres. Obama, Pres. Sarkozy, and PM Brown chose G20 summit on economic issues as the stage to confront Iran and announce their unified intention to pursue sanctions.  The three individually spoke firmly and resolutely about the need for Iran to “come clean” and comply with international treaties and UN mandates on non-proliferation.   It does seem to me though the three western leaders purposely let Iran off the hook on the world stage at the very least.

Just as Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel stood on the podium during his remarks to the General Assembly with physical evidence of the Holocaust - Obama, Sarkozy, and Brown each had an opportunity to present evidence to the world in a way that could not be denied by Iran and would have required a response when Iran addressed the same body later that afternoon.

Given this, I’m concerned that the “timing” of the confrontation was not for maximum impact at all, but to minimize the impact it would have had on President Obama’s “coming out party” on the world stage while minimizing the embarrassment to Iran.  The end result – what was intended to be a show of force by the U.S., France, and Great Britain was in fact a show of weakness to a region and a people that traditionally respect strength and abhors weakness.

I recall during the Cold War that one of the objectives of the U.S.S.R. was to have a warm-water port in the Middle-East.  The U.S.S.R. recognized the strategic importance of having a dominant presence there.  While Iran develops nuclear weapons, it’s clear that it can count on Russia’s support.  Russia is standing in the way of any meaningful sanctions while placing a missile defense system in Iran.  It would certainly appear that this long sought after goal by Russia is closer than ever to being achieved.

Peace through weakness has never been achievable.

Footnotes:

[1] The Wall Street Journal:  Iran’s Troubling Nuclear Disclosure Leaves Key Questions to Be Answered by Jerald F. Seib, page A2, Sept. 29, 2009

[2] The New York Times: Obama’s Speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Sept. 23rd, 2009

[3] United Nations Security Council SC/9746 meeting communication to the media, Sept. 24, 2009

I call on President Obama to live up to his own words.  Members of Democratic party and the current administration have in fact been taking very concrete steps to muzzle the voice of dissent to its domestic policies.

On Monday, in response to an opposition mailing from Humana mailing to their Medicare Advantage subscribers, the Health and Human Services agency issued a directive to all Medicare Advantage providers ordering them to “immediately discontinue all such mailings” and to remove all such material from their internet sites. [2] This action reversed the 1997 position of HHS when it acknowledged the Center for Health Plans and Provides letter addressing the right of an insurance company to inform their subscribers of their view of pending legislation.  In that letter, CHPP director Bruce Fried wrote, “While it may be difficult for a reviewer to ascertain whether or not the information about legislation, for example contained in a member’s newsletter issued by an HMO, is accurate and without a slant or unrevealed self-interest, we believe that prohibiting such information would violate basic freedom of speech and other constitutional rights of the Medicare beneficiary as a citizen.” [2]

The Democratic National Committee, along with Congressional leadership and leading members of the Democratic party, have participated in an escalating effort to marginalize and silence the citizen opposition to your domestic and economic policies first by calling participants of town-hall meetings and Tea Party protests an “unruly mob” [3], then making accusations of Nazi [4] and KKK affiliation [5], implied threats of violence [6], and now directly linking opposition views to racism.

There is notable silence from the White House as media commentators like Chris Mathews of CNN imply that those opposed to this administration’s domestic policies are inciting violence against the President and warning of violent revenge if this occurs.

In the President’s address to the United Nations told member nations that change would not happen with just words and speeches and that change had to start at home.  I call on the President to show some leadership and to backup his words to the United Nations by taking these concrete actions:

1. Reverse the HHS directive to insurance companies imposed on Monday.
2. Publicly rebuke members of the Democaratic Party leadership who have openly called American citizens who oppose this administration’s position on policy matter racists and Nazis and accused them of inciting violent action.
3. Live up to the promise of transparency by asking the Senate to reconsider their decision to reject Sen. Jim Bunning’s amendment that would require both the legislation and the Congressional Budget Office report posted and available for review 72 hours prior to a vote. [10]
4. Publicly rebuke Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for threatening to circumvent the very foundation of our legislative system by manipulating senate rules to force passage of major, sweeping legislation using rules meant to reconcile fiscal bills that need reconciliation between chambers of the legislative branch.

Both the nation and the world are watching Mr. President.

Footnotes:

[1] The New York Times: Obama’s Speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Sept. 23^rd, 2009  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us/politics/24prexy.text.html

[2] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/24/clinton-administration-guidance-proves-humana-acted-properly-republicans-say/

[3] NewsBusters: Tapper: ‘DNC Suggests Town Hall Protesters are Fringe Birther Mob’ by Noel Sheppard, August 5^th, 2009 http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/08/05/tapper-dnc-suggests-town-hall-protestors-are-fringe-birther-mob

[4] NewsMax: Media Ignore Pelosi Nazi Comparison, August 7, 2009 http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pelosi_limbaush_swastikas/2009/08/07/245316.html

[5] Examiner: Dingell says town hall protesters remind him of KKK, by Heather Hogue, August 11, 2009 http://www.examiner.com/x-4124-Phoenix-Republican-Examiner~y2009m8d11-Dingell-says-town-hall-protesters-remind-him-of-the-KKK

[6] Fox News: Pelosi: Health Reform Rhetoric Reminiscent of violence in ‘70s, Sept. 18, 2009 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/09/18/pelosi-health-reform-rhetoric-reminiscent-violence-s/

[7] The Heritage Foundation Foundry:  Obamacare: Day One Finance Committee Ammendments, Sept. 24^th, 2009 – http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/24/obamacare-day-one-finance-committee-amendments/

But today, the term racism has been misused and abused to the point where there is a real risk of a complete devaluing of the term.  This would be a huge disservice to those who have or are experiencing the impact of true racism.

Rep. Hank Johnson, D- GA today attempted to link Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie” outburst during Pres. Obama’s address to the Joint Session of Congress to an underlying racist attitude; a completely absurd a notion.  Is Rep. Johnson suggesting that the simply disagreeing with the assertions being made by a person of color is a racist act in and of itself?  If that’s the case, then I am guilty of racism during many sporting events when I have disagreed with an African-American referee who made a bad call, or a non-caucasian news commentator I disagree with.  How ridiculous.

For Rep. Johnson to make such a claim dishonors the memory of those who have in fact suffered grievously under true racism; slavery, torture; lynching; Jim Crow laws; employment disadvantages, and more.

If Rep. Wilson had shouted a racial slur, or called for a lynching, or taken some action based on the color of the President’s skin then he absolutely would be guilty of such a charge as Johnson’s.  In that case he should be expelled from congress!  But that is not what happened – and Rep. Johnson, like the rest of us who watched the event live on TV, knows it.

It seems clear that Rep. Johnson’s remarks have a purpose – and that is to use emotion associated with true racism to stoke the fires and cause division.

Come on Rep. Johnson, don’t bring dishonor to the real victims of racism and in doing so bring dishonor to yourself and the House of Representatives as well.  We can have political discourse without such antics.

This comment made by Anderson, which he readily acknowledges, stands by, and continues to re-state is reprehensible.  There is no room for this in political discourse and there is absolutely no room for this in Christian dialogue.  Those of us on the political right have a responsibility to speak out against this kind of rhetoric – especially when it is comes from someone who is on the political right.  Likewise, those of us in the Christian community, regardless of our political leanings, should stand up and say this is unacceptable.

Equally unacceptable are the multiple hate sermons given by Jeremiah Wright, former senior pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago where Pres. Obama attended for years (2).  Wright’s comments on “God D___ America”  and his Sept. 11^th sermon on “America’s chickens are coming home to roost” are well documented.  Like Anderson, Wright is unapologetic and, although he has stepped down as Senior Pastor of Trinity United, he continues to preach and teach the same.

We can be passionate about our opinions without crossing the line with this kind of hatred and nonsense.   We can challenge our elected officials, we can voice our opinions, we can go to rallies, we can march, we can write letters, we can call, and we can encourage others to do the same.  But regardless of our political leanings, we cannot be silent when someone – anyone – spews this kind of garbage.

 Footnotes:

(1)    Fox News:  Phoenix Pastor Draws Protests After Telling Church He Prays for Obama’s Death August 31, 2009

(2)    ABC News:  Obama’s Pastor: God D— America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11; by Brian Ross and Rehab El-Buri, March 13, 2008

Up until the birth of our nation, the history of the world was a history of tyranny, where the people’s very existence was subject to the will of the people in position of authority; chiefs, kings, lords, and barons. In any given nation, you will find examples of leadership that led well as well as examples of those that did not. The people where constantly at the mercy of “personalities” in positions of power.

Our Founding Fathers knew firsthand the misery of government tyranny and they took great pains, sacrificing both blood and treasure, to establish a “more perfect union” where centralized government would never be in a position to impose on the liberty of the people. Understanding this is essential to understanding the conservative point of view in the current healthcare debate.

The proposals being forwarded by the Democratic controlled House and Senate will forever change the most fundamental relationship between our government and the people. Any law that puts the government in a position whereby it can dictate to the people what medical procedures will be allowed and what will not is a shift away from liberty and towards tyranny. What we are talking about here is a massive shift in power. Giving the government this authority touches virtually every aspect of lives.

Once the government has both authority and responsibility to manage the finances of the healthcare system then the government is in a position to start dictating behaviors to the people all in the name of saving healthcare costs. For example, in the UK if you smoke you are not eligible for certain heart treatments. Understand, this is not just a denial of payment; it is a denial of service… even if the patient wants to pay for it themselves they cannot get it. I am in no way a proponent of smoking. But frankly, I don’t want my government to be in a position to tell me I can’t smoke if I decide that that is what I want to do.

Now, some say that nothing is stopping private health insurance companies from doing the same thing. That is not true. If I decide I want to smoke and my current health insurance provider puts limits on available treatments as a result, I have the option of 1) opting out of the company and finding another or 2) paying for the treatment myself. However, under a centralized system – whether it’s government run or co-op run with government dictates – there is no choice. What the government dictates is it.

There are ways to solve the problems our current healthcare system faces without shifting the fundamental relationship between “We the People” and our government.