by Gene Hawkins Over on Music Circle, there’s some disharmony. A big developer from Houston, Lionstone, wants to build something. It promises to be a great asset for the city. But there’s a little problem. Lionstone doesn’t own all the land they need. Ms Joy Ford of Country International Records owns a crucial parcel, and she doesn’t want to sell it. In response, Lionstone has requested that the city of Nashville use their power of eminent domain. They want Metro to seize Ms Ford’s property (with compensation, of course) and turn it over to them. In order words, take property from one private owner, and cede it to another private owner, because they can build something bigger and grander on it. To Nashvillians of a certain vintage, this has a familiar ring. As the ever eloquent Yogi Berra once said, it’s “deja vu all over again.” A quarter century ago, another big developer from Houston asked Nashville to do exactly the same thing. The Houston firm in that case was named Murphee. Back in the early eighties, they wanted to erect a new skyscraper on Church Street. It was to house the headquarters of Third National Bank, and promised to be the tallest building in Nashville. But Murphee had the same problem then that Lionstone is facing now. There was one parcel of land they hadn’t been able to acquire. That parcel was occupied by a men’s clothing store, Petway Reavis. Its owner refused to sell it. And it stood squarely front and center of the proposed Third National tower. When they were unable to purchase the property, Murphee asked the city of Nashville to use their power of eminent domain, seize it, and turn it over to them. Sound familiar? Deja vu all over again. The Murphee/Third National case wound up in the Metro Council. After much debate and discussion, the Council determined that this was not an appropriate use of eminent domain. To its credit, the Council said no. Having been turned down by the city, Murphee redesigned their building to wrap around the holdout parcel. By this time the property owner relented and decided to sell after all. But the revised design was judged better than the original, and the developer stuck with it. And that is why the big building at Church and Fifth (now the Fifth Third Center) is built in a U-shape. Now fast forward a quarter century. Another Houston developer is asking the city of Nashville to do exactly the same thing. There’s an additional wrinkle this time. A few years ago a developer wanted the city of New London Connecticut to seize property for a private development there. There were lawsuits, and the case made it to the US Supreme Court. In its 2005 Kelo ruling, the Court gave its Supreme blessing to this use (or misuse) of eminent domain. To some people, this seemed Robin Hood in Reverse -- take from the poor, and give to the rich. Some people might also say this is just orthodox Republican theology. But rightly or wrongly, there is now a legal precedent for Lionstone’s request. So in 2008, Metro has a tough decision to make. Is seizure of private property an appropriate use of eminent domain, when the property is ceded to another private entity for a larger development? A quarter century ago, the Council showed courage when they said no to this question. It will be interesting to see what happens in the current case. Will Metro’s decision, like the case itself, be deja vu all over again? Guest blogger Gene Hawkins is a longtime resident of Nashville's Woodbine community. He's retired from the Air Guard base at Berry Field, and more recently has worked at the Bike Pedlar bicycle shop in Hermitage.
I don’t think that always sticking to one's original position is necessarily a virtue. Circumstances change or one gets new information. I have changed my mind on several important issues over the years.
Some years ago, I was a global warming skeptic but as I studied the issue and gained more knowledge I began to accept the prevailing scientific opinion. Now, I think global warming may be the most important issue we face and think we must develop polices that address it. I was once a supporter of isolating and punishing Cuba, but that was when Cuba was a client state of the Soviet Union. Circumstances changed and I think we should change our policy. I see our current policy as irrational and counterproductive I once helped mount a local campaign to stop a one-cent sales tax on gasoline; now I favor a nationwide carbon tax. So, I am certainly tolerant of those who change their mind. I understand that a campaign to get your party’s nomination is a different campaign and a different audience than the general election campaign to win the office. Candidates often move toward the center in the general election. Obama, however, must be setting a new record for rapid change of positions. He is making a radical transformation before our very eyes. Quite frankly, I like the new Obama much, much better than I liked the old Obama. If Obama would only “clarify” and “refine” his position on national health care, I might even be able to vote for him. I might be able to bring myself to vote for him if I could believe him. I am just not sure the new Obama is the real Obama. Would the real Obama please stand up? On the FISA compromise bill, which would give the phone companies immunity for helping the government engage in illegal wiretapping, he did a complete reversal. Did he not once say that he would not support any retroactive immunity for the phone companies? He flip-flopped with this simple explanation: "My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people." On Iraq, during the primary, it seems that Denise Kucinish, Bill Richardson and Barack Omaba were competing to see who could promise to get out of Iraq the fastest and damn the consequences. I seem to recall Obama saying something about being out within 16 months. Recently he said, “I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed. And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.” That is reassuring. That is reasonable. I was fearful he really meant he would have all troops out in 16 months. On Iran, during the primary he certainly seemed to reassured war-weary, Bush-scared voters that he would never attack Iran. More recently he said the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran and he called Iran "a threat to all of us." One of the biggest flip flops of all is his rejection of public campaign financing. His campaign’s claim that he does not need the public funding because he is racking in mass amounts of cash from small contributors is bogus. He is getting the corporate money and the funding from the well-connected. I am not a supporter of public campaign finance myself, so I don’t criticize him for opting out of public funding, but do not see how he can do it with a straight face. It is reassuring to see that Obama is not the Messiah, but just another lying politician. He has also reversed his position and endorsed the Supreme Court rulings on the death penalty and gun control without adequate explanation. He has also said he would not only continue but would expand the Bush faith-based intuitive. And, during the primary wasn’t he saying something different about NAFTA than what he is saying now? Have you noticed that he has started wearing every politicians favorite fashion accessory, the flag lapel pin? Obama has been able to do all this without apparently angering his most “progressive” supporters. Of course, they have no place to go. They are not going to vote for McCain and I don’t see them jumping on the Ralph Nader bandwagon. Still, they must feel betrayed. Don’t you know many of them are feeling like they should have went with their first instinct and voted for Kucinish? If you consider yourself a “progressive”, do you not feel betrayed?
Sen. John Warner, R-Va., has indicated that Congress may want to consider reimposing a national speed limit in an effort to curtail gasoline consumption. I have been expecting this. He has asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to look into what speed limit would provide the optimum gasoline efficiency. He has asked if the administration might support efforts in Congress to require a lower speed limit.
In 1974 in response to the Arab oil embargo Congress set a national 55 mph speed limit. The speed limit stayed in effect until 1995.
In about 1987 I went through a divorce and my ex-wife moved from Nashville to McKenzie, Tennessee, a distance of about 125 miles. She had custody of our five-year-old daughter but I had liberal visitation. I was determined I would not lose contact with my daughter so I continued to exercise my visitation despite the distance. For about the first year after her move out of town, when my daughter was six, I continued my every other week visitation and the every Wednesday night visitation. Later I reduced the Wednesday night visits to the alternate Wednesdays when I did not have weekend visitation. A couple years later I discontinued the Wednesday night visitations all together. I thought while she was young, that the regular continued contact was important. And, it was certainly important to me.
I had the greatest car I ever had during this period. It was a 1986 Pontiac 6000, Sports Touring Edition. It had a sunroof, a great stereo with controls on the steering wheel, rack and pinion steering (what ever that is) and something called “engineered ride control.” The shocks would pump up and adjust to how fast you were driving and the amount of weight you were carrying. The car seemed glued to the road and the steering was real responsive. I loved that car!
I bought the absolutely best radar detector money could by and I burned up the road. Every Wednesday I would leave work early, drive to McKenzie, visit my daughter and drive back. Riding the same route every Wednesday night, I got to know every bump in the road and I learned where the state troopers usually hid. I would crank up the radio, and make the trip and did not mind the drive at all. After a while, it seemed like the car drove itself. I would leave McKenzie and when I hit the interstate I went into an almost trance-like state. I would enjoy the music and in no time at all it seemed like I was home.
I routinely drove at about 85-90 MPH. Sometimes my speed would creep up to over 100. The radar detector kept me from getting numerous tickets but radar detectors are not fool-proof. I had some friends in high places at the time and I got a couple tickets “dismissed.” A couple times, highway patrolmen cut me a break and gave me a warning or wrote the ticket for a lower speed than I was really driving. After about the fourth ticket however and notice that one more ticket would cause me to lose my license, I slowed down. By that time, I was ready to discontinue the Wednesday night trips anyway.
I hated driving 55. I hated driving 75. If I would have obeyed the speed limit, I would not have been able to visit my daughter. In a good car, Interstate driving at 80 is not so bad; interstate driving at 55 is hard work.
A 55 MPH speed limit will bring back CB radios and disrespect for the law. Like Sammy Hager says, "I Can’t Drive 55!"
Ronald Reagan, July 3, 1986 Like all great holidays, the Fourth of July brings to mind the traditional ways we celebrate: dazzling fireworks displays light the skies; march music fills the air; parades with flags and floats and blaring bands brighten the broad avenues of our cities and the main streets of our small towns; families get together with friends and neighbors for picnics and barbecues; patriotic songs stir the heart. These are the images -- glad, bright, and touching -- that we have come to associate with the Fourth of July from the time we were children. It is altogether fitting that we should celebrate this day with great joy, because it is the birthday of our beloved country. It is especially fitting that it should be celebrated as a family holiday and a community holiday, because it commemorates our solemn bonding together as a new nation -- the American Family. It is a day not only for celebration but also for reflection -- a day to ponder what it was that forged 13 diverse colonies into an unbreakable union that has endured and grown and prospered for more than two centuries. What was the secret that emboldened a loose confederation of some two and a half million settlers on the Eastern rimland of the New World to challenge the might of the most powerful colonial empire on earth? Quite simply, it was the courage and the vision of our Founding Fathers. They seized the unique historical moment Providence had placed within their grasp. Determined to protect and guarantee fundamental human rights, they felt called upon to bring our nation into being. In order to give that new nation shape and direction they drew freely on the riches of the Judeo-Christian tradition with its central affirmation that God, not chance, rules in the affairs of men, and that each of us has an inviolable dignity because we have been fashioned in the image and likeness of our Creator. The Founding Fathers established a nation under God, ruled not by arbitrary decrees of kings or the whims of entrenched elites but by the consent of the governed. Theirs was the vision of a striving, God-fearing, self-reliant people living in the sunlight of justice and breathing the bracing air of liberty. As the years unrolled, generations of Americans painted that vision across the broad canvass of the continent. It has always been the secret of our progress, our power, and our prosperity. Whenever we have allowed it to fade we have done so at our peril. Whenever it has burned bright we have amazed the world with our inventiveness, our daring, our achievements, and our magnanimity. Through the years, America's promise of liberty and justice for all served as a magnet, drawing to our shores millions of people yearning to breathe the heady air of freedom. They flocked here from every continent, bringing with them the riches of their customs and their cultures; precious strands of every color, tone, and texture, to be woven into the rich tapestry of America. And still they come, drawn by the promise of liberty under law, guided still by the beacon light of liberty whose most majestic symbol -- newly refurbished this year -- is the Lady with the Lamp who stands in New York harbor. Her high-held torch beams forth the same message that the Liberty bell rang out more than 200 years ago, the message of Leviticus: ``Proclaim liberty throughout the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof.'' As we celebrate this day, let us draw closer to all of our fellow citizens in common purpose guided by a common vision. Let all Americans like one grateful family honor our Founding Fathers and all who have worked and fought and died to keep their dream alive. Let us renew our commitment to the message and the meaning of the Declaration of Independence:
``That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . '' Let us sing again the great patriotic songs:
God bless America, land that I love Stand beside her, and guide her, Through the night, with a light from above. Let the words ring out loud with conviction and with joy:
America! America! God shed His grace on thee And crown thy good with brotherhood From sea to shining sea!
To all my fellow Americans -- Happy Fourth of July!
WASHINGTON (IP) — Sen. Barack Obama on Sunday said as president he would strengthen government oversight of energy traders he blames in large part for the skyrocketing price of oil. "Read my lips: No New Profits!"
"Some people blame low oil supplies or high oil demand for the recent spike in gasoline prices," said the presidential hopeful, "but these are just outdated economic theories. The real cause is speculative trading in the oil futures market. Trading by unscrupulous, unpatriotic profit-mongers. My administration will put a stop to this by making it illegal to sell oil futures for more than was paid for them. Without the market distortion caused by the so-called 'profit-motive' , our energy market - under the prudent and level-headed guidance of the federal government - will once again become both free and fair."Obama said that he intended to implement his "No New Profits" pledge within his administration' s first 100 days, promising to expand his economy-saving plan to other markets as his tenure progressed. "Although I've long stood against the 'excessive' profits made by oil companies," said Obama, "the fact is that ALL profits are inherently excessive. That's why I vow to extend this program to other markets as well. Food, precious metals, stocks, bonds - all will eventually be both bought and sold 'at cost'. With all price fluctuations banned by the force of law, America will finally have a stable, sustainable, plannable future, unmarred by the evils of fear or uncertainty. "The Democratic contender, however, reassured his audience that this new stability would not interfere with the creation and implementation of new government programs. "Some of my critics contend that without profits, we would be unable to collect the new taxes necessary to implement important new government programs like Universal Health Care, but we will find a way to make the wealthy pay their fair share. They'll just have to sell off their mansions and limousines." "At cost, of course," he concluded. Commentary: This speech by Obama should appeal to the Democratic base, many of whom are socialist at heart. Unfortunately, I also run into people who drive SUV's and are not necessarily die-hard Democrats or very political at all who will also find this rhetoric appealing. There seems to be a lot of people, even otherwise educated people, who simply have no understanding of economics. An increase in the price of their favorite commodity or a loss of a job and they are ready to tax away an industry's profits, embrace wage and price controls, and nationalize companies. You may recall, California Representative Maxine Waters called for "the government taking over and running the oil companies" back in May. Despite the repeated failures of socialism, there are many who still find it appealing. OK. For you people in Antioch, the Obama speech is a parody. That is not a real story and he really didn't say those things. I don't want this to become one of those Internet rumors that are repeated as the truth. Unfortunately however, as bizarre as it may sound, Maxine Waters did call for oil company nationalization. Author unknown, I plucked this from a chat group. Commentary is mine.
To learn more about this story and see a Channel 5 news report click the title above.
Does this look blighted?
It is not pretty. It is not even charming; but would you call it blighted? This is the home of Country International Records, and it is in the way of a new high rise. Metro wants to take it and sell it to the developer.
By PHIL VALENTINE Blighted. That could very well be one of the most powerful words in America today. It strikes terror in the hearts of those on the receiving end of it. It's wielded like a sword by power-crazed municipalities. Its interpretation is widely subjective, and those who are the first to utter it often own the power of its definition. That sword is being wielded against a Music Row business of a quarter century that just happens to be sitting in the way of a Houston developer who wants to build a hotel/condo complex on the Music Row Roundabout.
Comment: To read the rest of the above article click the title. What is happening in Nashville is an outrage. I agree wholeheartedly with Phil Valentine when he says, "This whole notion of taking someone's property just because you think it can be used in a better manner runs contrary to every principle we hold near and dear as Americans."
Our newly elected mayor could stop this. We have a forty member metro council. Any one of them could speak up for private property rights and try to stop it. If a council member was not able to stop it, he could at least make the Council go on record and this would allow us to know who does and who does not, believe in private property rights.
I am a pragmatist and do feel there are times when use of eminent domain is necessary. Sometimes we need to widen roads or take property to build a school. Sometimes, it may even be necessary for slum and blight clearance, but it should be used very sparingly. The property discussed in this article is not blighted! It is simply in the way of a private developer who wants it.
A few years ago, my wife-to-be at the time, Louella, and I were vacationing in France. We were visiting Avignon. On a beautiful spring day, we walked across the bridge to the town on the other side of the river that borders the city. We had no destination in mind but were just exploring. We happened to come across a regional trade fair set up in a large tent. We were not on a schedule and the admission was cheap, so we went in. Inside there were probably 50 or more vendors exhibiting their products and giving away samples: wines, cheeses, sausages, spice cakes and other goodies, all for free. It turned out to be a delightful day and was one of those things you just accidentally stumble upon, that make a trip memorable.
Many of the booths were representing vineyards and the vendors were offering wine tastings. Each had several wines and were generous with their samples. We spent a couple hours slowly making our way around the tent, visiting the exhibitors. Since the vendors were there for the day, they seemed to be in no hurry and were eager to engage in conversation and tell us about their vineyards and products. We felt like we were really getting to know the people and were having an experience that cannot be captured by simply visiting the tourist sites.
Many of the exhibitors spoke some English, while some of them were quite fluent. They wanted to know where in America we were from; what we did for a living and our impressions of France. Many of them had questions about life in America and American culture. One delightful man, after conversation about other things, asked me a question I did not know how to answer. Imitating a double holster quick draw, and accompanied by verbal sound effects, he asked, "Why America so violent a country?" What could I say?
How violent is America? How do we stack up in gun deaths compared to the rest of the world?
We are the 8th most deadly country in the world.
Below is a list of the 32 most deadliest countries. I ask you to look at those that are more deadly than the US: South Africa, a nation that has had violence rooted in the apartheid system and tribal conflict. Columbia, home of the drug cartels and drug wars. Guatemala. Paraguay. Zimbabwe! How does it feel to be ranked with third world dictatorships and with poor countries wracked by wars and rebellions?
Among industrialized Democracies, we are the most violent. The majority of European democracies don't even make the list. England, France, or Italy are not in the top 32. The U.S. has a rate of 3.6 gun deaths per 100,000, while Germany has a rate of 0.46. This is 1/7 that of the U.S. Spain's rate is 0.25, which is 1/14 that of the U.S. What is the reason that we are 14 times more deadly than Spain? It seems we just accept that is the kind of country we live in. Most civilized nations of the world would find our gun death rate unacceptable. I am embarrassed that my country is such a violent, deadly nation. We should not be happy about this statistic. Below are the rankings.
Barack Obama, the Presidential Democratic Party candidate, supports banning all guns in America. He is considered by those who have dealt with him, as a bit more than just a little, self-righteous. At a recent rural elementary school assembly in East Texas, he asked the audience to be totally quiet. Then, in the silence, he started to slowly clap his hands once every few seconds, holding the audience in total silence. Then he said into the microphone, "Children, every time I clap my hands together, a child in America dies from gun violence." Then, little Richard Earl, with a proud East Texas drawl, pierced the quiet and said: "'Well, dumb-ass, stop clapping!"
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, in a 5-4 decision that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. This is the first major ruling on the Second Amendment in our Nation's history. In the case before the court, the Court overturned a 32-year-old, Washington D.C. ban concerning the keeping of handguns in the home. I am pleased the way the court ruled, but I am not a gun nut. I don’t think we need to be an armed society. This is not the old west. We do not need an armed populace; I believe the readily availability of guns causes more people to be killed. I know “guns don’t kill people; people kill people,” but guns sure do make it easier to kill people. If teen gang members do not have guns they may throw rock at rival gang members instead. With guns, however, they kill rival gang members. Without guns, a bar room brawl may end up with someone having a broken nose. With guns, however, it ends with someone dead on the floor. Without guns, an altercation with your neighbor, or a domestic dispute, or road rage, may simply result in a "cussing out." With one or both of the parties armed, however, it may end with a fatal gunshot. For example, in the city of Nashville, Tennessee, more people die from gun-related deaths in a single year, than all the gun-related deaths in all the European nations combined in a year. America is a very violent nation. If you look at a country-by-country comparison of gun deaths, America is one of the most deadly countries in the world. Of course, there are probably other factors than just guns alone, which make us such a violent nation. We have an underclass with a high crime rate; we are a more mobile society; people are not as grounded in their communities as they are in many other nations. In America, we are autonomous individuals, more so than any other place in the world. That is both a blessing and a curse. It is difficult to hold other variables constant, but the fact remains, we are a very violent society. Certainly our homicide rate, our accidental gun-death rate and our suicide rate has something to do with the availability of guns. So, my pleasure in the Supreme Court's ruling is not because I love guns. I don't love guns, but I do love our Constitution. It is for this love, that I am so pleased with the ruling. I believe we will remain a free and great country if we honor the Constitution and thus, take our liberties seriously. Admittedly the Second Amendment is awkwardly worded. It reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
What does that mean? I am not a legal scholar or an expert on Constitutional law, but it seems there are two ways to interpret that. One interpretation is that states have the right to a National Guard. Putting the text into context of what was meant by the meaning of words at the time however, it appears to mean something like this: “A group of citizens who are eligible for military service and who are capable of performing military service are essential to keeping our country free. Therefore, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If the latter interpretation is what the founders intended to convey, then should not the people have the right to military weapons? Should they not have the right to bazookas, and machine guns, and flamethrowers? I think so. If the reason we have the right to have firearms is for a military purpose, then it stands to reason we should have the right to have military weapons. Thursday's ruling was limited and invites further litigation, but if the court should follow the logical trail of interpreting the Second Amendment to mean what I think it means, then what? Then, I think that we are stuck with the Second Amendment until we change it. And, that is the answer: Change it! The meaning of the Constitution should be respected, but if we no longer like parts of it or find that a provision is outdated, we have it within our power to amend it. Those who see the courts as just another arena to change policies they don’t like, scare me. Actually, they scare me more than guns scare me. Ideally, I would like to see America have fewer guns in circulation rather than more guns. I would like to see reasonable gun control, but I fear allowing the Constitution to mean anything we want it to mean, more than I fear guns. It's a delicate balance.
Washington, DC - Congress is considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition. "Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society,'"said California Senator Barbara Boxer. "We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favours to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing." In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack any job skills, making this agency the single largest U.S. employer of Persons of Inability. Private-sector industries with good records of non-discrimination against the Inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry (68%), and home improvement 'warehouse' stores (65%). At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons of Inability (63%). Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million 'middle man' positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance. Mandatory non-performance- based raises and promotions will be given so as to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability into middle-management positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires. Finally, the AWNAA contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the Non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, 'Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?'' As a Non-abled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them,' said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint , Michigan , due to her inability to remember righteytightey, lefty loosey. 'This new law should be real good for people like me,'Gertz added. With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel. Said Senator Dick Durban (D-IL): 'As a Senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her adequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so.' Note: I did not write this. The author is unknown.
Above is the video and below is the text of Senator Obama's Father's day speech delivered to the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago.
Good morning. It’s good to be home on this Father’s Day with my girls, and it’s an honor to spend some time with all of you today in the house of our Lord. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus closes by saying, “Whoever hears these words of mine, and does them, shall be likened to a wise man who built his house upon a rock: and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock.” [Matthew 7: 24-25] Here at Apostolic, you are blessed to worship in a house that has been founded on the rock of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. But it is also built on another rock, another foundation — and that rock is Bishop Arthur Brazier. In 48 years, he has built this congregation from just a few hundred to more than 20,000 strong — a congregation that, because of his leadership, has braved the fierce winds and heavy rains of violence and poverty; joblessness and hopelessness. Because of his work and his ministry, there are more graduates and fewer gang members in the neighborhoods surrounding this church. There are more homes and fewer homeless. There is more community and less chaos because Bishop Brazier continued the march for justice that he began by Dr. King’s side all those years ago. He is the reason this house has stood tall for half a century. And on this Father’s Day, it must make him proud to know that the man now charged with keeping its foundation strong is his son and your new pastor, Reverend Byron Brazier.
Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important. And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation. They are teachers and coaches. They are mentors and role models. They are examples of success and the men who constantly push us toward it.
But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing — missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it. You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled — doubled — since we were children. We know the statistics — that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it. How many times in the last year has this city lost a child at the hands of another child? How many times have our hearts stopped in the middle of the night with the sound of a gunshot or a siren? How many teenagers have we seen hanging around on street corners when they should be sitting in a classroom? How many are sitting in prison when they should be working, or at least looking for a job? How many in this generation are we willing to lose to poverty or violence or addiction? How many? Yes, we need more cops on the street. Yes, we need fewer guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. Yes, we need more money for our schools, and more outstanding teachers in the classroom, and more after-school programs for our children. Yes, we need more jobs and more job training and more opportunity in our communities. But we also need families to raise our children. We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child — it’s the courage to raise one. We need to help all the mothers out there who are raising these kids by themselves; the mothers who drop them off at school, go to work, pick up them up in the afternoon, work another shift, get dinner, make lunches, pay the bills, fix the house, and all the other things it takes both parents to do. So many of these women are doing a heroic job, but they need support. They need another parent. Their children need another parent. That’s what keeps their foundation strong. It’s what keeps the foundation of our country strong. I know what it means to have an absent father, although my circumstances weren’t as tough as they are for many young people today. Even though my father left us when I was 2 years old, and I only knew him from the letters he wrote and the stories that my family told, I was luckier than most. I grew up in Hawaii, and had two wonderful grandparents from Kansas who poured everything they had into helping my mother raise my sister and me — who worked with her to teach us about love and respect and the obligations we have to one another. I screwed up more often than I should’ve, but I got plenty of second chances. And even though we didn’t have a lot of money, scholarships gave me the opportunity to go to some of the best schools in the country. A lot of kids don’t get these chances today. There is no margin for error in their lives. So my own story is different in that way. Still, I know the toll that being a single parent took on my mother — how she struggled at times to the pay bills; to give us the things that other kids had; to play all the roles that both parents are supposed to play. And I know the toll it took on me. So I resolved many years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle — that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father to my girls; that if I could give them anything, I would give them that rock — that foundation — on which to build their lives. And that would be the greatest gift I could offer. I say this knowing that I have been an imperfect father — knowing that I have made mistakes and will continue to make more; wishing that I could be home for my girls and my wife more than I am right now. I say this knowing all of these things because even as we are imperfect, even as we face difficult circumstances, there are still certain lessons we must strive to live and learn as fathers — whether we are black or white; rich or poor; from the South Side or the wealthiest suburb. The first is setting an example of excellence for our children — because if we want to set high expectations for them, we’ve got to set high expectations for ourselves. It’s great if you have a job; it’s even better if you have a college degree. It’s a wonderful thing if you are married and living in a home with your children, but don’t just sit in the house and watch “Sports Center” all weekend long. That’s why so many children are growing up in front of the television. As fathers and parents, we’ve got to spend more time with them, and help them with their homework, and replace the video game or the remote control with a book once in awhile. That’s how we build that foundation. We know that education is everything to our children’s future. We know that they will no longer just compete for good jobs with children from Indiana, but children from India and China and all over the world. We know the work and the studying and the level of education that requires. You know, sometimes I’ll go to an eighth-grade graduation and there’s all that pomp and circumstance and gowns and flowers. And I think to myself, it’s just eighth grade. To really compete, they need to graduate high school, and then they need to graduate college, and they probably need a graduate degree, too. An eighth-grade education doesn’t cut it today. Let’s give them a handshake and tell them to get their butts back in the library! It’s up to us — as fathers and parents — to instill this ethic of excellence in our children. It’s up to us to say to our daughters, don’t ever let images on TV tell you what you are worth, because I expect you to dream without limit and reach for those goals. It’s up to us to tell our sons, those songs on the radio may glorify violence, but in my house we give glory to achievement, self-respect and hard work. It’s up to us to set these high expectations. And that means meeting those expectations ourselves. That means setting examples of excellence in our own lives. The second thing we need to do as fathers is pass along the value of empathy to our children. Not sympathy, but empathy — the ability to stand in somebody else’s shoes; to look at the world through their eyes. Sometimes it’s so easy to get caught up in “us,” that we forget about our obligations to one another. There’s a culture in our society that says remembering these obligations is somehow soft — that we can’t show weakness, and so therefore we can’t show kindness. But our young boys and girls see that. They see when you are ignoring or mistreating your wife. They see when you are inconsiderate at home; or when you are distant; or when you are thinking only of yourself. And so it’s no surprise when we see that behavior in our schools or on our streets. That’s why we pass on the values of empathy and kindness to our children by living them. We need to show our kids that you’re not strong by putting other people down — you’re strong by lifting them up. That’s our responsibility as fathers. And by the way — it’s a responsibility that also extends to Washington. Because if fathers are doing their part; if they’re taking our responsibilities seriously to be there for their children, and set high expectations for them, and instill in them a sense of excellence and empathy, then our government should meet them halfway. We should be making it easier for fathers who make responsible choices and harder for those who avoid them. We should get rid of the financial penalties we impose on married couples right now, and start making sure that every dime of child support goes directly to helping children instead of some bureaucrat. We should reward fathers who pay that child support with job training and job opportunities and a larger Earned Income Tax Credit that can help them pay the bills. We should expand programs where registered nurses visit expectant and new mothers and help them learn how to care for themselves before the baby is born and what to do after — programs that have helped increase father involvement, women’s employment and children’s readiness for school. We should help these new families care for their children by expanding maternity and paternity leave, and we should guarantee every worker more paid sick leave so they can stay home to take care of their child without losing their income. We should take all of these steps to build a strong foundation for our children. But we should also know that even if we do; even if we meet our obligations as fathers and parents; even if Washington does its part, too, we will still face difficult challenges in our lives. There will still be days of struggle and heartache. The rains will still come and the winds will still blow. And that is why the final lesson we must learn as fathers is also the greatest gift we can pass on to our children — and that is the gift of hope. I’m not talking about an idle hope that’s little more than blind optimism or willful ignorance of the problems we face. I’m talking about hope as that spirit inside us that insists, despite all evidence to the contrary, that something better is waiting for us if we’re willing to work for it and fight for it. If we are willing to believe. I was answering questions at a town hall meeting in Wisconsin the other day and a young man raised his hand, and I figured he’d ask about college tuition or energy or maybe the war in Iraq. But instead he looked at me very seriously and he asked, “What does life mean to you?” Now, I have to admit that I wasn’t quite prepared for that one. I think I stammered for a little bit, but then I stopped and gave it some thought, and I said this: When I was a young man, I thought life was all about me — how do I make my way in the world, and how do I become successful and how do I get the things that I want. But now, my life revolves around my two little girls. And what I think about is what kind of world I’m leaving them. Are they living in a country where there’s a huge gap between a few who are wealthy and a whole bunch of people who are struggling every day? Are they living in a country that is still divided by race? A country where, because they’re girls, they don’t have as much opportunity as boys do? Are they living in a country where we are hated around the world because we don’t cooperate effectively with other nations? Are they living a world that is in grave danger because of what we’ve done to its climate? And what I’ve realized is that life doesn’t count for much unless you’re willing to do your small part to leave our children — all of our children — a better world. Even if it’s difficult. Even if the work seems great. Even if we don’t get very far in our lifetime. That is our ultimate responsibility as fathers and parents. We try. We hope. We do what we can to build our house upon the sturdiest rock. And when the winds come, and the rains fall, and they beat upon that house, we keep faith that our Father will be there to guide us, and watch over us, and protect us, and lead His children through the darkest of storms into light of a better day. That is my prayer for all of us on this Father’s Day, and that is my hope for this country in the years ahead. May God bless you and your children. Thank you.
Commentary: This is a great speech. I wish every man could hear it. I am equally as critical of White men who abandon their children as I am of Black men, but it is fitting that this speech was delivered to a Black audience where the destruction of the family and the resulting social problems are so severe. I could quibble with his specific prescriptions for government action. Some of his proposals I think are on target, but others I disagree with. His recognition of the problem however is important and long overdue. Also, it is important to recognize that there is a roll for government in addressing the problem. Since this was a Father's Day speech I am not going to criticise him for not addressing the roll of mothers. Maybe next Mother's Day, he will tell single mothers that it is equally irresponsible to bring children into the world without a father in that child's life. Maybe he will say that there is no excuse for having multiple children by different men. Being a single mother is not something that just happens. Black women must also share the blame for the destruction of the Black family and the state of Black society. I differ with Senator Obama on several important issues and am not supporting him for President, but if elected I hope he will aggressively pursue an agenda to address Black poverty and the state of the Black family. For too long we as a nation have simply ignored this problem. It is time to do something about it. Recognizing there is a problem is a place to start.
As the author of A Disgruntled Republican I often post items which I think may be of interest to the conservative, Republican, libertarian or the greater community. Posting of a press release or an announcement of an event does not necessarily indicate an endorsement. Rod
Posts
