Introduction

“Beat L-A!” “I love Tom Brady!” “My two favorite teams are the Broncos and whoever is playing the Raiders.” That is acceptable--even healthy--partisanship.

I am a Broncos fan because of an accident of history. My step-father bought 2 tickets in 1960, the first year they existed, and I have been a fan ever since. A good friend of mine in the San Francisco Bay area is a Raiders fan because his father was a 49ers fan. An opposite motivation, but still a very acceptable one.

Most of us who are loyal to favorite teams came by that loyalty in some unstudied way. There was no deep thought involved. No evidence gathering. No long-term study of character and methods of play. We just grabbed onto something and jumped in. And stayed jumped in. We shout at the other team at the games, yell at the TV, tease our friends who root for the “enemy”, and generally carry on. All good stuff.

Increasingly our choice of political parties is just as casual. And our loyalties and actions, based on that casual, unchallenged choice, are just as deep, unquestioned and unchanging.

That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

What typically influences our choices when it comes to teams and parties? Accidents, mostly. Our family of origin. Where we grow up. Where we wind up working. Where we choose to live. Geography is a big one. Take a look at the map of the electoral results of the 2016 Election.

Is it an accident that states like California and New York are predominantly progressive, and states like Texas and Oklahoma are not? Take a careful look at this electoral map; with four exceptions, virtually all of the states in the contiguous 48 that voted one way or the other are in connected blocks. Colorado and New Mexico share a border, and the remaining two, Minnesota and Illinois, are very nearly connected. Q. Did everyone of a like mind move to the same places, or is something else going on? A. Something else. In the absence of differing opinions from a variety of sources, people will rely on the opinions of family and friends, co-workers and their favorite news sources and social media. Outside of family, all the sources will be selected more to have one’s preconceived notions and thinking supported rather than challenged. It seems so much easier that way. Lazy might be a better word. Not surprisingly, all the selected sources will pretty much share the same opinions. Similar opinions from apparently different sources reinforce each other and can easily be seen as a valid consensus. And with some notable exceptions  families, neighbors and co-workers in the same geography tend to lean one way or the other on significant issues, adding to the sameness. Creating not a new idea generator, but an echo chamber. And echo chambers, by definition, can do nothing but reinforce thought--echoes can only repeat what has been already said.

And within parties, why does everyone have to think the same way about every issue--no matter how controversial? Strict party line votes occur all the time in federal, state and local governments. Here’s an obvious example on a huge issue: All Senate Democrats voted for Obamacare; no Senate Republicans did. Is that because not a single Democratic Senator wanted to vote against it? Could it be true that every single Republican thought Obamacare was unacceptable? I posit that it is impossible for every Democrat, voter or legislator, to agree with every other Democrat on every issue. I claim the same thing for Republicans. But that is how our elected representatives vote. On a lot of issues, both sides of the aisle vote in blocks, all while they must have differing views on at least some of the issues being brought up for discussion and voting.

Why is that? Easy answer. The head coach of the political team,

Introduction

Life is simple. And hard. And well worth it.

Let’s start with the good living part. Start with being grateful for everything. Have a moral compass. Always be personally responsible for everything in your life. Be your brother’s keeper for everyone in your life. Love. Nothing else matters without that.

Now let’s build on this by adding the plan for sound politics. Remember that we are all the privileged inheritors of Revolution 1.0 in ‘76. Stop labeling ourselves and others and think. Look for the common goals. Look for the facts that pertain to those goals, and apply non agenda-based reasoning to those facts to achieve those common goals. I will repeat my offer to give $100 in cash for every issue, no matter how controversial, where we cannot come up with an overall common goal. Love. Nothing else matters without that.

All of the above is simple and easy to understand. And very little of it is at all easy to accomplish. And every bit is worth it. That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

It all starts with gratitude. Gratitude is the bedrock, the touchstone–cornerstone–for any effective philosophy, religious dogma or simply a way to get through life or the day. Without gratitude, there is an inescapable emptiness; not a yearning, but a feeling of being ungrounded. This makes for a fertile ground for resentful thoughts of unfairness or “Why me? Or worse, comparing yourself to others.

Add the Moral Compass. Some people call it your True North.

No matter; the questions are:

Do you have one?

If you have one, what is it?

Why is that your True North/Moral Compass?

Do you follow it?

If you don’t have a solid Moral Compass that you follow, then again nothing else matters. Nothing. You will simply be a cork on the ocean of life, following the changing paths of the tides, currents and waves. I know; I have been there. And I still have to fight to stay with and strengthen my adherence to my True North.

“I’m not unmindful of man’s seeming need for faith; I’m for anything that gets you through the night, be it prayer, tranquilizers, or a bottle of Jack Daniel’s.” -Frank Sinatra. So, what gets you through the night? And is that the same as a True North? Finding and following your True North will get you through the day and night in far better shape than pills and booze. And will set you up for continuing, healthy success.

What are some examples of an effective Moral Compass? And how do you know? Two things: 1. Your North has to be something outside of you–with externally inspired values, goals and checkpoints. A compass works because no matter which way you look or turn, it always points to an externally fixed location. The danger is that our own internally generated principles may lull us into a false sense of commitment. There must be an outside entity to learn from, and to act as a touchstone–a place to check in to see how we are handling ourselves. This does not mean that you don’t need to internalize the external teachings and examples; all is certainly lost if you don’t. But it is equally certain that it cannot be just you. 2. That outside entity must be powerful enough to keep you on track even when it is hard. If your North’s power and influence in your life is weak, so will be your adherence to it.

Okay, back to simple but hard, easy to understand, but difficult to do. People know what to do even in difficult situations. The reason they don’t is not lack of knowledge, but lack of sufficient motivation to do the hard tasks that likely lie in front of them. A friend, the most long-term successful health and life coach I know, provides a great example. When I approached Don about losing weight, he asked two questions. The first was, “Will, if you are at McDonald’s,

Introduction

“Medicare for All” is an intentional misnomer used to disguise free, single-payer insurance as the popular Medicare plan that so many are currently using for health insurance. Most parts of real Medicare require some form of cost sharing by patients. Medicare Part B, for outpatient medical expenses, has a standard premium of $1,626/per year with an annual deductible of $185, plus a 20% copayment. Dental coverage, vision insurance and useful drug coverage cost even more money.

Medicare for All would have much broader coverage, no cost sharing, and fewer choices of healthcare plans.  MFA would cover a wide variety of dental, vision, drug and mental health services not covered by Medicare. The most recent version of the House bill would add long-term nursing and home healthcare. All of this would mean dramatically higher federal spending; the various estimates come in between $2.5T and $3.5T/year. That’s trillions of dollars per year with a current federal budget of $4.4T; meaning that the budget would increase by about 68% right off the bat.

Supporters of MFA are not being at all honest about what they are pushing. Opponents of MFA are being strangely silent because of ignorance, fear or for not having a platform. That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

If you want no cost, single-payer insurance, then stand up and say it. Don’t hide behind giving everyone good ol’ Medicare. Hey, if it is good enough for our seniors, then it’s good enough for everyone. Right?

And if you are against no cost, single-payer insurance, then stand up and be counted. Know what it costs. Know the difference between MFA and currently popular Medicare.

This is exactly like the border security debate, where statements and claims like “Walls don’t work”, “Walls are inhuman” and, “We do not have a border problem.” really means that the speaker wants open borders. The correct assessment is that voters in America would not support a push for open borders, as they would not support single-payer health insurance, so let’s just pretend that we want something less drastic. Let’s creep up on what we really want. In other words, lie.

How many have heard the story about the frog in boiling water? If you drop a frog in boiling water, he will jump out and save himself. If you put a frog in a pot full of room temperature water and gradually heat it to boiling, he will stay in and die. Learning from the experiments on frogs, most leading supporters of both open borders and single-payer health insurance are putting us in tepid water, completely prepared to raise the temperature to where they want it--be that a nation with no borders, or a country with no cost insurance that covers everything for everybody. I am clearly not for either, but that is not today’s central point.

It is clear in today's example that the frogs represent Americans, us, you and me. Politicians of a certain stripe are putting us into the room temperature water, fully intending to raise the temperature gradually so that we will not notice and jump out.

Now for Today’s Key Point: If you are for something, have the courage of your convictions and stand up and claim what you want. Don’t do the frog thing. Conversely, if you are against something, know what you are talking about, and stand up on your hind legs and call it out. Be heard. Be effective. And don’t be the frog.

Not being the frog who lets the heat creep up on him is part of what Revolution 2.0™ is all about. Not letting yourself be put in the water in the first place is more of what we are about. As is keeping fellow Americans out of the pot. More of what we are about is taking control from those who use these kind of tactics to fulfill their personal and professional agendas.

Segueing from the specifics of today’s topic to...

Introduction

Dignity, like self-esteem, cannot be conferred; it must come from within.

There is a lot of talk from some quarters supporting giving people what they want in areas like healthcare, education and housing, as well as in cash, with a growing call for a guaranteed income. The reasons given include these benefits being “human rights” and that conferring these benefits will allow the recipients to live in “dignity.” The truth: like a feeling of accomplishment, dignity cannot be granted, it can only be earned.

That's the topic of today's 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

There is an increasing amount of conversation--and action--around the subject of providing everything from free housing, free higher education and free healthcare to a universal income (free money) so that the recipients can “live in dignity.” Is having money a source of dignity? Henry VIII had vast wealth, and was by no measure dignified. Louis XIV, the wealthiest man on earth at the time, was an arrogant, out-of-touch, absolute dictator. Gandhi was, quite literally, dirt poor, yet projected a quiet and powerful dignity. As did Mother Teresa. And who would make the argument that Mark Cuban is more dignified than Luther Harris?

We can dismiss the notion that having money bestows dignity; it simply does not. That would also mean that giving people money would also not confer any type of dignity.

I hear the argument being made that being poor to the point where one is unable to feed or house themselves would necessarily be undignified. There is a natural temptation to accept that position, but it really is just the flipside of the money equals dignity argument we disproved moments ago. Let’s dig a little deeper. The lesson I learned growing up was, “We may be poor, but we can always afford soap.” The idea was that maybe your parents could afford only one pair of shoes and two school outfits for the coming year, but they would keep the clothes clean for you and you could clean your own shoes. The dignity here was in doing your absolute best with what you had. Pride and dignity came from being clean, even if you were wearing worn clothes that were not new even when your older siblings wore them.

Another part of the ethic of the times was the dignity that came from not accepting welfare, and a sense of needing to “pay back what you took” if welfare was needed as a last resort. Now we are being told that welfare, money from taxpayers, is a human right and confers dignity. It appears that we are trying to move past even the very recent, “you deserve it because you are a victim” position, to “you deserve it because you are alive.”

Money and dignity are connected: The connection is that dignity comes from working hard to earn it. You have heard the expression that, “Money is the root of all evil.” That’s not at all correct. The original quote is, “The love of money is the root of all evil.” This is a key distinction. Let’s make another vital distinction: It is not money that confers dignity, it is doing your absolute best to earn it that does. Money confers the ability to buy things; doing your best confers dignity. John Wooden, three-time collegiate basketball champion as a player, a professional player, and the best college coach of all time, said, “Focus on effort, not winning. Winning is a byproduct of effort.” He consistently emphasized the importance of doing your best over winning. Here’s another, “Success is never final; failure is never fatal. It's courage that counts." Coach Wooden is correct in saying that dignity comes from the courage to do your best, whether you are succeeding or failing at that moment.

Telling people that giving them money gives them dignity does two terrible things:

It robs them of learning that working for that cash is the only money-connected path to dignity...

Introduction

What is more important, how well we live or how we live in comparison to others? If we have a life with decent food and clothing, access to healthcare, comfortable housing including heating and AC, transportation, a cell phone and a TV with multiple channels, does it matter if Warren Buffet is worth $87 Billion?

That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

"The only person you should try to be better than is the person you were yesterday." -Unknown. Lots of people are going to say this person or that person first or most famously said this; the point is we all know this to be one of the major guiding truths in our lives. Or at least it should be. So why then is there an ever-increasing amount of conversation focusing on inequality, perhaps the most dangerous form of comparing ourselves to others?

Let’s ask a few setup questions. Inequality in what?

Results? I trust that no one is seriously saying that everyone’s results should be the same.

Talent? I don’t have, and never had, the talent to be an NBA star. And even the most ardent supporters of government solutions realize that no law can change basic talent levels.

The law? We are all equal under the law. If you don’t agree, name one law that promotes, or even allows, inequality.

Opportunity outside of the law? Yes. Of course. My parents could not afford to send me to college or grad school. Some parents send their kids to private school from K-graduate school. Unequal? Yes. Unfair? Oh, hell no.

Frederick Herzberg, was an American psychologist who became one of the most influential names in motivation and  management. He separated what he called hygiene functions from motivational factors. His work showed that once certain functions, the hygiene functions, have been satisfied, advancement in those areas does not create significantly more satisfaction and motivation. For example, once certain compensation and work area needs were met, more of the same made little difference. After the hygiene functions had been satisfied, the motivational factors needed to take over. Things like achievement, recognition for achievement, the work itself, responsibility, and growth or advancement, and the approval of respected superiors are the key. The hygiene functions need to be in place for the motivational factors to come into play. But once the hygiene function needs have been satisfied, the motivational factors are the key to growth and satisfaction.

Governments, at best, can provide the only hygiene functions. Only individuals and other private entities can supply the growth and satisfaction that comes from adding the vital motivational factors.

Where does all this leave us with the initial question of which is more important; quality of life or comparing lives? Given that all results cannot--and should not--be the same, if we are concerned with inequality, aren’t we left trying to come up with an acceptable ratio between, say, the bottom 10% and the top 10%? There are useful examples from the corporate world. Ben & Jerry’s, the famous ice cream company, once had a 5:1 rule where the CEO’s total compensation could not be any higher than five times that of the lowest paid employee. When Ben Cohen was set to retire, and a search for a new CEO began, the ratio was increased to 7:1. Realizing the ineffectiveness of the ratio’s ability to attract, retain and motivate a valid candidate, the company decided on a 17:1 ratio in 2000. Shortly afterwards the pay cap was abandoned. More currently there was an article in the left-leaning Guardian that says that no CEO should earn more than 1,000 times the lowest paid employee. We will use that ratio elsewhere.

Any reasonably smart business is paying its employees at the market rate and is charging for its goods and services at the market...

Introduction

When I was in grade school my classmates and I sang "Old Folks at Home" (also known as "Swanee River"; that’s how I knew it.) Swanee River is a minstrel song written by Stephen Foster in 1851. Since 1935 it has been the official state song of Florida, although in 2008 the original lyrics were revised.

Here is the chorus from this 1851 song:

“All de world am sad and dreary,

Eb-rywhere I roam;

Oh, darkeys, how my heart grows weary,

Far from de old folks at home!”

Stephen Foster, is known as “The Father of American Music” because of the many lyrical and extremely popular songs he wrote, including "Camptown Races", "My Old Kentucky Home", "Jeanie with the Light Brown Hair", and "Beautiful Dreamer". Foster used the Negro dialect of the day for the lyrics.

Should a song like this be sung today? No. Should we rip songs like this and the people who wrote and performed them from our history books, to be replaced by accusations of hate and racism? How about people like Robert E. Lee and Kate Smith? No. Not at all. Should we know and learn from our history--all of it? Yes. Of course. And that’s the topic of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

Let’s start the discussion by saying that we cannot learn from history if we do not understand it. Insert your favorite quote about learning from history here. That part is clear on its face, yes? And if we distort and twist that history before erasing it, things get even worse.

Here is today’s Key Point. And, yes, we are getting to it early. We need to know, to really get it, that people like Stephen Foster, Robert E. Lee and Kate Smith are not hard-core Nazis, KKK riders or even sad little David Duke. They are ordinary people, like you and me. The lesson we need to learn is how to be sufficiently educated, aware and caring to keep evolving as individuals and as a society. We need to be continually evolving and constantly improving. Tearing down statues and reputations while rewriting history books in an effort to make yesterday look like we think it should have been make that learning and evolving impossible. All of us, including the “tear it down” advocates, need to remember that the learning and evolving needs to continue forever. What we do today will be judged through the lens of history tomorrow. And don’t we want future generations to be learning and improving rather than accusing and tearing down the history we create?

I hold Robert E. Lee accountable for most of the death and destruction in the Civil War, a war that killed more Americans than all of our other wars put together. General Lee was asked by Abraham Lincoln to head the Union Army, but Lee refused, and proved the wisdom of Lincoln’s request by brilliantly leading the Confederates to victory after victory over the superior but poorly led Union forces. Lee’s mistake was in seeing his loyalty to his state, Virginia, as more important than his loyalty to the United states. At the end of the war, Lee petitioned to have his citizenship restored. Because of a clerical error, it never happened.

Kate Smith, had a radio, television, and recording career spanning five decades, which reached its pinnacle in the 1940s. Smith became known as “The Songbird of the South” after her enduring popularity during World War II. Later, sports teams including the Philadelphia Flyers and New York Yankees featured her. I remember how the Flyers thought that having her sing a ringing rendition of “God Bless America” before games was a lucky charm. Ms. Smith was the featured performer in tours that raised the equivalent of $10B (billion) in today’s dollars to fight Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in WWII. Then came the news of her 1931 recordings of "That's Why Darkies Were Born" and "Pickaninny Heaven.

Summary

“My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with the facts.”

Do you know anyone whose mind was changed about the person or party they support as a result of the Mueller report?

After two years years of investigation by top-line professionals with all sorts of investigative resources at their command, don’t you suppose there should have been general agreement about the Mueller report result?  Not a chance. The investigation produced a 400 page report--and no changed minds.

Why?

That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

The answer to the following question is telling: Are you angry or relieved that the President of the United States was not found guilty of colluding with a foreign power to alter the results of a presidential election?

Some people are angry because they were convinced that Trump was guilty well before the report was released. Why? Because they simply wanted him gone? Because certain news sources had been telling them that for about two years?

Others, the people from day one who had decided that Trump was not guilty, are angry because they believe the whole agonizing, national process was a politically-inspired fishing expedition, with no other purpose than to damage the President.

The only relieved--non-angry--people are the ones who withheld judgment until the evidence in the report was released. And who among them would not be relieved to know that their President had not colluded with the Russians to better his election chances.

Here is my summary of the Mueller report. There was no collusion, and Mueller did not find enough evidence to charge obstruction. Mueller and his team investigated 10 incidents of possible obstruction, and found none to be worthy of further action on his part. Trump did urge some of his senior staff to take actions that could very well have been seen as obstructions, but each one refused. And Trump backed down each time. Discredit to Trump for trying. Credit to his staff for standing firm.

The report also revealed something long true about Trump that anyone who had been paying attention should have already known. Donald J. Trump repeatedly does things that are embarrassing and wrong to cover up other things that he has done that are embarrassing and wrong. But not criminal.

Trump and others are claiming full exoneration. That’s the truth and nothing but the truth, but not the whole truth. He was exonerated of collusion, but not of the obstruction. When faced with the “no exoneration” on collusion part of the report, the response is that obstruction on a non-crime, the report said there was no collusion, is a thin premise upon which to seek further action.

Democrats and much of the media are still insisting that Bob Mueller has laid out the case for Congress to take action on obstruction. Some are already calling for impeachment. One representative, Rashida Tlaib, D-MI, did not feel constrained to wait for the evidence in the report when she shouted, “We’re gonna impeach the motherfucker!” hours after being sworn into Congress last January 3rd.

To date, the Mueller investigation and the reaction to it has produced more heat than light. The Democrats seem determined to let nothing drop until they have proven what they want to prove. Or at least have provided enough cover to keep their voters and viewers happy. Trump and some of the Republicans appear to be ready to launch an investigation of their own into Hillary Clinton and what they believe to have been the nefarious political origins of the Mueller investigation. If that happens, do you think that anyone's mind will be changed as a result? Will we once again produce more stress, more division, and no changed minds or hearts?

There are two Key Points today: 1.

Summary

That was the evening ritual as announced each night by “Auntoy”, my stepmother’s mother. Auntoy (her real name was Florence Pauly Carroll--but I don’t think I knew that until years later) was the savior of my youth.

Today’s podcast is about the vital, no-substitute-for it, home life, family life. I have used the term dinner table in the past as an anchor phrase for how wisdom and learning about everything from handling finances to faith to work ethic to understanding history to values to respect for authority to patriotism to how to think (not what to think) is shared and discussed at the family level.

As a way of getting us into this discussion, I am going to take a moment out of our 10 minutes together to tell you a bit more about me. Then we’ll get into why family interracton, the dinner table, is the beginning of everything.

Continuing

My parents split when I was 1. My Dad got custody; I did not see my Mother for several years afterwards. For about 2 ½ years, I was raised by the staff in one or the other of my paternal grandparents' homes. I met my step-mother, Paula, when I was 3 ½; she, my Dad, Auntoy and I became a family. Dad was distant, Paula was unpleasant, and Auntoy was my rock, my support. I remember times with her at the dinner table--having nothing to do with dinner--that I still treasure. Halfway through my Junior year in high school, I moved to Colorado to live with my Mom and her husband--mainly to see if it was any better there. This is not the “dinner table’ upbringing I am recommending and encouraging. But it is the one I want for your children and grandchildren. Yes, grandparents get to participate, too. Let’s talk more about the dinner table.

In schools, doesn’t it all start with parental involvement? Time after time we hear that the parents of low performing students are the ones who do not show up for the parent -teacher meetings. In homes where the importance of getting a good education is modeled and stressed, that’s the direction the kids go in. Conversely, in homes where being taken care of by others is modeled and stressed, that’s the direction the offspring most often take.

The dinner table works. For example, successful political, acting and sports families, often produce equally--or more--successful children. Archie Manning had a good college and NFL career as a quarterback. You may not have heard of him, but you have likely heard of two of his sons, Peyton Manning and Archie Manning. Kirk Douglas was a movie star, as are his sons and grandsons. Anglina Jolie’s father is Jon Vought, and Drew Barrymore is a member of the Barrymore family of actors, and the granddaughter of acting immortal John Barrymore. And we all know about political families like the Kennedys and the Bushes.

Closer to home, one of my friends and former business colleagues is a highly skilled personal investor, using skills and disciplines that he learned at, you guessed it, the dinner table. He has built an enviable financial life by putting those dinner table skills to use.

Today’s Key Point: What your children--what other children--learn at home through modeling and discussion will help shape their entire lives. For good or for ill. Your choice. And silence--no conversations--is also teaching and modeling. It goes on when they are listening and absorbing. It happens when they appear distant and distracted. And, yes, your kids are absorbing everything even when they are openly unreceptive and defiant.

Yes, it takes a village, but parents are the main hut in that village. The village is there to support the parents and grandparents in their good work--not to substitute for parenting. Teachers, law enforcement and community services are all part of the village’s support system for the parents. If parents abdicate--don’t step up to--their responsibility,

Summary

Barack Obama is ½ black, as is Tiger Woods. Both are seen as simply black. All-white Rachel Dolezal was elected president of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP in 2014. Despite her darkening makeup, she was obviously very light-skinned. Yet she was welcomed as a leader in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Ms. Dolezal was 0/0 black. I am 1/14 black.

Seven Native American Tribes, including the Fort Sill Apache Tribe, and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, North Carolina, see you as qualified for membership if you are a 1/16th blood match. Twenty-three tribes, including the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, Peoria Tribe of Indians and the Seminole Nation, will consider you if you have any sort of Native Americican lineage.

To the Nazis, anyone, regardless of religious affiliation, who had two Jewish grandparents was classified as a Jewish Mischling (mixed blood) of the first degree. A person with only one Jewish grandparent was classified as a Mischling of the second degree

Serena Williams, with two black parents, lost an important and controversial tennis match to Naomi Osaka, who has one black parent, and one Asian parent (see Tiger Woods). Many people, post Serena’s loss, blamed racism. Think about that one for a moment.

Today’s podcast/blog spotlights the often artificial designation of who is a disadvantaged minority--not to promote fairness under the law--but to create, justify and advance so-called social justice and other political agendas.

And that’s today’s 10-minute blog/podcast topic.

Continuing

In America’s racial past, someone who was half black would have been called a mulatto. A quadroon was ¼ black, and an octoroon ⅛ black. I would have been a hexadecaroon. Those were pejorative terms, designed to “prove” that even if you were half, partially or even marginally black, you were really all black and therefore inferior in the minds of the bigots. That was their agenda. Isn’t it equally wrong to identify and treat people who are half, partially or marginally members of a certain minority race or ethnicity as full members for their benefit? This is most often done to qualify them for victimhood and the ability to draw financial benefits and claim the moral high ground.

We have gone from claiming that full or partial genetic membership in certain racial and ethnic groups proves inferiority and justifies unfair poor treatment, to using the same characteristics to prove superiority, justifying unfair favorable treatment. Both are equally wrong; both are equally dangerous.

We all see race and color. Everyone of us. Where we might be different is what we think and do after we see what we all see. Do we see excuses to declare either inferiority or superiority? Do we look for other ways to make unnecessary and unfair judgments? Or are we simply aware of those differences, which may be unremarkable, but still real, on one hand, or quite remarkable and useful on the other?

It is terribly wrong for a person to root against a black NFL quarterback because of race. It is fine and good for a young black man playing Pop Warner football to root for that same QB because of race. Am I being hypocritical here? Of course not. The first person was motivated by racial dislike. The second person was motivated by a highly-relatable example of excellence.

Tiger Woods just won his first Masters golf tournament since 2005. I love it because it showed the world that a man can come back even from a self-imposed hell. Once heralded by many as the player who might have become the greatest golfer who ever lived, his golf game disintegrated because of where his head was after his parade of egregious misdeeds. But he not only learned and recovered; he triumphed. Bravo. To me, this has nothing to do with race; it has everything to do...

Summary

There is surprising controversy about wanting only legal immigrants, and then only those who want to assimilate into our culture. I see both as non-negotiable, but many do not. Some even want the opposite. I want to see tightly secured borders, a generous allowance for both the immigrants we want and those who need to be here for reasons of either economic or political persecution. And, yes, a final, post having well-secured borders amnesty for the millions of illegals already here.

I am an ardent fan of the historically-successful American melting pot. For the same reasons, I am not a fan of an American salad bowl.

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about who we think we are, who we think we should be, and what it is that immigrants need to assimilate into.

Continuing

I started the high tech electronics portion of my career in Silicon Valley in the early 80s. An emerging press relations (PR) firm, Regis McKenna, discovered, to their surprise, that they could not deliver the needed cohesive PR message for their client firms. Why? The client firms did not have a cohesive message to deliver in the first place. The CEO, executives, and employees had varying views on what their company was all about. Before Regis and his team could explain to the world who their client was, what it stood for and why it mattered and to whom, the company had to sort that message out before it could be delivered. In short order, Regis McKenna added a strategic consulting firm to the front end of its PR arm. Summary: Regis and his staff needed to help their clients decide who they were before that message could be intelligently announced to the world.

In exactly the same way, we, we as Ameircans, must decide who we are, what we are proud of and what we stand for as a culture, before we can invite other people to join us. And before we can proudly tell others why being part of our culture will be a plus--a huge plus--for them. N.B. I said “people” here, not just immigrants. Some of us, and some of our neighbors, need to be reminded of who we are as a people, and what we stand for as a culture.

Let’s pause for some clarifications here. I am a supporter of people being bilingual, not countries. When a person has an understanding of more than one language, he is broadened in his thinking. She has insights into other cultures and ways of thinking than can come only from understanding linguistic nuances. When countries are multilingual, it tears them apart. I am also a fan of countries being multi-ethnic, but not multicultural. Bringing different ethnicities together in one culture is like adding alloys to iron to make steel. Bringing different cultures together trying to make a successful country is like stirring rocks in the attempt to get them to blend.

American culture was first codified in its founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Founders put in writing that we the people had unalienable rights, rights that came from our creator, not the state. The state could neither grant nor deny these rights; rights including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  For the first time in history, the individual was elevated higher than the state. In a series of astonishingly bold documents and announcements, an unknown group of men and women from an equally unknown backwater British colony, declared that the divine rights imbued in man by his creator completely replaced the false notion of the divine right of kings. What began with the Magna Carta in 1215 was now complete. As long as they were not hanged as traitors for their beliefs.  

Today’s Key Point: We are the highly fortunate inheritors of the revolution of 1776. We are here to build on that legacy, not to dismantle it. As a country, with heroic ups and tragic downs,