A monument fit for a King

Today marks the forty-eighth anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr's. famous "I Have a Dream" speech. The speech was delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington in 1963. As Americans, we owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. King for the work he did to help our nation overcome the evils of segregation and racial injustice in the 1950's and 1960's. From Birmingham to Selma, Selma to Montgomery, the work of Martin Luther King Jr. lives on. It was Martin Luther King Jr. who challenged us to look beyond one's color so that we could focus on one's character. Dr. King knew the journey towards racial equality would not be an easy one. We hear evidence of this in the last speech that Dr. King ever gave. It came on the night of April 3rd, 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee. In that speech, Dr. King famously said, "we've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop, and I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will, and he's allowed me to go up to the mountain, and I've looked over, and I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the promised land." With the opening of the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial this past week on the national mall in Washington D.C., our nation has finally paid tribute to one of it's most influential leaders. I can't think of someone more deserving of such an honor, an honor that is long overdue. Very few, if any, have changed the course of history the way that Martin Luther King Jr. has. While King spoke of longevity in life, he was never able to achieve it. The memorial honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. will not only provide the longevity that King sought in life by immortalizing the work of the late civil rights icon, it will also cement his legacy as a drum major for justice.

Crisis in Somalia

The situation is becoming more serious by the day in the east African country of Somalia. The region is experiencing one of the worst famines since the 1990's. Thousands of Somalis, including children, are dying from lack of food and water. When crises such as the current one in Somalia emerge, the United States never hesitates to offer our support . Some might say that the United States should take action now to help end the suffering for the people of Somalia. Given the current financial state of our country, one has to ask if we have the means to offer the necessary humanitarian support? There are many in America who would suggest that it is time for the United States to start taking care of its own people. Rather than worry about those who are starving in Africa, we should worry about those who are starving right here at home. The people of America are a kind and generous people. Many of us have a strong desire to want to reach out and assist those who need it the most. For hundreds of years, the United States has been a beacon of hope to so many nations in need. Despite the economic difficulties that we face, I believe that it is important that we never lose sight of that fact. Under the current circumstances, those of us in America who might want to assist the people of Somalia, might have to do so on our own. Private donations and offerings may be the best way to lend our support. A multi-billion dollar relief package from the U.S. government is just not possible at this time. As the crisis in Somalia continues, it is important that we continue to show concern and compassion for the people of this country in their time of extreme need.

The resignation of Richard Nixon

"Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow." These words were spoken by President Richard Nixon thirty-seven years ago today. With these words, Richard Nixon became the first  and only president in U.S. history to resign. As most people know, Nixon's resignation came in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. Following the break-in at the Watergate office complex, President Nixon denied any involvement, and claimed that he had no knowledge of what had taken place. President Nixon was eventually implicated in the scandal, and made the decision to resign on August 9, 1974. History has shown that President Nixon did not reach this decision easily. He was determined to stay in office despite all of the controversy surrounding him. Ultimately, the outside pressures became too much, and facing certain impeachment, the President did the only thing that he could. While I am disappointed in the actions of President Nixon, I commend him for his decision to resign. He knew the implications that impeachment would have on the nation, and he didn't want to put the American people through that. In his resignation speech, President Nixon stated that America needs a full time President. He knew he could not effectively govern the nation while facing impeachment. Presidents often speak about what their legacy will be. Almost every President wants history to remember them fondly. Unfortunately, Richard Nixon's legacy will forever be linked to the scandal that was simply known as Watergate.

Does religion have a place in the political world?

Does religion have a place in the political world? It is a question that dates back to the beginning of our republic, and has been one of the most hotly debated topics ever since. As a supporter of the concept of separation of church and state, I personally believe that a politician's religious views should not influence their decision making. Likewise, a religious organization should not use its position to influence one's political thinking.  We have to have a mind of our own. We have to be able to think for ourselves. One might ask, why have religion and politics become so intertwined? The answer lies in the fact that certain political issues have serious moral and ethical implications in the eyes of some. For example, abortion violates one of the most sacred commandments, "thou shalt not kill." Opponents of gay marriage would most likely say that their opposition is due in large part to the fact that the bible says homosexuality is a sin. I have visited a church where the pastor/priest used the pulpit to try to influence the political thinking of the congregation. I told my wife, never again. Never would I step foot in that church again, and so far I haven't. I have a lot of respect for those who have a deep faith. I consider myself a deeply religious person. However, there is a time and place for everything. In my view, church is not the time, nor is it the place to try to influence one's political beliefs.

There's a first time for everything... including a downgrade in our credit rating

For the first time in our nation's history, the United States has lost its AAA credit rating. Standard and Poor's, a credit rating agency downgraded America's rating to AA+. The primary reason for the downgrade was because the debt reduction plan approved by Congress did not go far enough to stabilize the debt situation in America. So what effect will the downgrade have on the United States? For average Americans, it will most likely mean higher interest rates, which in turn will slow down economic growth. Higher interest rates will likely discourage people from borrowing money. A lack of borrowing could lead to fewer home sales, fewer car sales, and fewer new businesses. Essentially every area of the economy would be adversely affected at a time when we can least afford it. The downgrade in America's credit rating could also lead to instability in world markets. This instability would most likely be reflected in the stock market. America's downgrade could also discourage other countries from wanting to invest in the U.S. economy. It is unfortunate that our leaders in Washington allowed our great nation to get to this point. While President Obama will undoubtedly receive the blame for our credit downgrade, it is the poor financial decisions of previous presidents that have led us to this day. Our current President owns some of the blame, but so too do past presidents who have simply kicked the can down the road so that it would become someone else's problem. Now more than ever, our leaders in Congress need to work together in a bi-partisan way to do all that we can as a nation to get our AAA rating back. Hopefully the wealthiest nation in the world will learn a valuable lesson and spare itself the embarrassment of ever having to go through something like this ever again.

Right or wrong? President Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb

Sixty-six years ago today, the world changed forever. On August 6, 1945 President Harry S. Truman authorized the dropping of the first ever atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later, on August 9, a second bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki leading to the unconditional surrender of Japan, and the end of World War II. Truman's decision to use atomic weapons against the Japanese has been one of the most debated issues of the twentieth century. I will never forget my grandfather (who served in World War II) telling me that President Truman's decision undoubtedly saved his life. Had Truman not made the decision that he did, my grandfather, along with thousands of other U.S. soldiers would have had to go in on the ground. If that particular scenario would have played out, my grandfather told me that there was no way he would have made it out alive. My grandfather said he owed his life to President Truman, and was forever grateful for the decision that he made. Like my grandfather, I also believe that President Truman made the right decision. I hate to think of how many more American soldiers would have died if Truman didn't take the decisive action that he did. Critics of the decision will say that thousands of innocent lives were lost in the bombings. They will also argue that Truman essentially ushered in the atomic age as we know it, leading to standoffs in the future with nuclear powers such as the Soviet Union, Iran, and North Korea. I have heard it said many times that history will be the judge of the greatness of one's presidency. Being viewed as one of America's greatest presidents, I think it is safe to say that history has validated the decisions of President Harry S. Truman.

Would President Lincoln be considered a Republican today?

It was 150 years ago today that President Abraham Lincoln imposed the first federal income tax. During the Civil War, Congress approved the Revenue Act of 1861 which included a tax on personal incomes to help pay war expenses. While the decision by Lincoln to raise taxes in a time of war may not seem like a monumental one, it certainly has relevance today. During the debt ceiling negotiations, Republican members of Congress stated there would be no tax increases as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling. President Obama supported an increase in taxes (along with spending cuts) so that we could pay off the debt that we already owe. Part of that debt can be attributed to two wars that were not paid for. I wonder if Republicans today would be critical of one of their party's greatest (and one of America's greatest) presidents for raising taxes? They certainly have no problem criticizing our current president for wanting to do the same thing. President Lincoln was an intelligent person. He understood that if you didn't have the money to conduct a war, you raised the required revenue to do so. Despite what some may think, President Obama is an intelligent individual as well. I don't dispute the fact that he has spent too much of the nation's money, but in order to be fair to the president, much of that spending was aimed at trying to pull us out of the worst recession since the 1930's. Given the current economic crisis that we are in, the President understands that spending cuts alone will not solve the problems we are facing. The President has the foresight to see that we need additional revenue to avoid an economic calamity. The same foresight that Lincoln used to avoid an economic collapse during the Civil War. Given the current Republican position on taxes, I am left to wonder if Abraham Lincoln would be an outcast in today's Republican Party?

Mr. President... You sure look old

Since today is President Obama's 50th birthday, I thought it might be interesting to discuss why presidents age so much faster than the rest of us. According to Dr. Michael Roizen, chief wellness officer of Cleveland Clinic, presidents age two years for every year that they are in office. Therefore, a two-term president will age approximately sixteen years during their time in office. Why do presidents age so much faster than the rest of us? The answer might seem obvious. As most would assume, stress is a big factor as to why presidents age so quickly. Serving as President of the United States is perhaps the most stressful job imaginable. However, Dr. Roizen points to other factors as well that can cause presidents to age at a much quicker rate. He cites the fact that most presidents don't have close friends nearby that they can vent their frustrations to. These frustrations will eventually take a mental and physical toll on a president that can lead to accelerated aging. Dr. Roizen also points out that many presidents don't eat as well as they should, or exercise as much as they should while in office. All of us are aware of the risks associated with poor diet and lack of exercise. Not surprisingly, many former presidents are able to reverse the effects of aging once they are out of office. If serving as president makes one age twice as fast as normal, why would anyone want the job of chief executive? That's a question that only America's former presidents can answer.

Why can't we be friends?

As the start of a new school year quickly approaches, the state of Missouri is taking greater measures to ensure that its students are as safe as possible both in and out of the classroom. On July 14th, Governor Jay Nixon signed into law the Amy Hestir Student Protection Act. The law, which takes effect on August 28th, is the first of its kind in the nation, and states that no teacher shall establish, maintain, or use a work-related internet site unless such site is available to school administrators and the child's legal custodian, physical custodian, or legal guardian. Also, no teacher shall establish, maintain, or use a nonwork-related internet site which allows exclusive access with a current or former student. Due to these provisions, the legislation has earned the nickname, the "Facebook Law." Critics of the new law say that the wording of the law needs clarification. For example, does former student mean someone who a teacher had as a student last year that has not yet graduated, or does it mean someone who a teacher had twenty years ago? If, according to the law,  the definition of former student includes the latter, I, along with several other teachers will be required to de-friend numerous facebook friends. While I would never "friend" a student who is still in school, I see nothing wrong with doing so if a student has graduated. Many teachers, including myself, like to stay in touch with former students to see how things are going. We enjoy hearing about all of their accomplishments in life after they leave high school. While I fully support the intent of Missouri's new law, I do have problems with it's clarity. It appears as though this new legislation could possibly punish teachers who have never done anything wrong. Until we know how the law will be fully implemented, former students who want to reconnect with their teachers may be left wondering, why can't we be friends?

A triumphant return

What Americans saw on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on Monday night was just what we needed. Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona returned to the house floor for the first time since being shot in January to cast her vote in favor of the debt ceiling bill. In a matter of seconds, Representative Giffords brought to the house floor what has been missing for quite some time, a sense of civility and good will. The return of Representative Giffords brought back memories of Ted Kennedy's return to the Senate to cast a historic vote in favor of the president's health care bill while recovering from surgery for a brain tumor. It also invoked memories of Ronald Reagan's return to the house chamber to deliver his state of the union address shortly after being shot in 1981. Why can't our elected officials exhibit this type of behavior towards one another all the time? Why does it take a tragedy to get those in Washington to act in a civilized way? The people of Arizona and the United States should be proud of Gabrielle Giffords. In deciding to return for the all important vote, Representative Giffords said, "I have closely followed the debate over our debt ceiling and have been deeply disappointed at what’s going on in Washington. After weeks of failed debate in Washington, I was pleased to see a solution to this crisis emerge. I strongly believe that crossing the aisle for the good of the American people is more important than party politics. I had to be here for this vote. I could not take the chance that my absence could crash our economy.” While the back and forth arguing and bickering will likely continue in the nation's capital, at least for a moment, Representative Giffords was able to show us all what Washington politics should be all about.

Did President Obama concede too much in debt negotiations?

Late last evening, President Obama announced that congressional leaders from both parties agreed in principle to a deal that would end the current debt crisis. The deal, still requiring congressional approval, would increase the debt ceiling through 2012, and cut approximately a trillion dollars in spending almost immediately. As details of the deal began to emerge last night, many supporters of the president were wondering if he conceded too much to congressional Republicans. Count me among those who believe that the president gave up more than he should have. In the end, Republicans will get the spending cuts that they demanded along with no increase in taxes, both of which are victories for the GOP. Tell me what is fair about that? Does that sound like a compromise to you? While the deal appears to be a defeat for the Democrats and President Obama, it could turn out to be a victory in the long run. For example, if spending cuts alone do not get us out of this mess (which they won't), President Obama can simply say to Republicans, I told you so. On the campaign trail, President Obama can make the case to voters that he was the one who was willing to work on their behalf, while Republicans simply stood in the way of progress. I personally believe that the president will come out of this crisis in a much stronger position politically than his Republican counterparts. For now, Republicans can bask in the glow of their legislative victory. A victory that might have come at a huge cost for their party moving forward.