We've come a long way from John F. Kennedy's inauguration speech of January 20, 1961. It is from this great speech that President Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country." On a Townhall-like telephone conference with Congressman Sander Levin a few weeks ago this was the last thing on questioners' minds. All they most wanted to know was what the federal government will do for them.

According to the conference moderator, over 2000 people from the congressman's district were on the phone. It was the congressman's staff's job to screen questions. Maybe Kennedy's words were the last thing on the screeners' minds. The only questions I heard asked were basically:

• How can the government pay for my health insurance?
• How can the government pay for my child's education?
• How can the government lower gas prices?
• How can the government pay for my mortgage?

After answering a few of these, I could have easily taken the congressman's place because his answer to each was basically, "Democratic leaders in the house and senate are working to provide (fill in the blank) but we'd make better progress with a friend in the White House, instead of President Bush."

From the congressman's point-of-view, the only thing stopping Democrats from paying for everything was President Bush. If that's the case, I'm glad President Bush is there, and am not optimistic for either an Obama or Clinton presidency.

The high cost of health insurance, education, and the so-called mortgage crisis are likely the product of government interference in the first place. Many who get the joke chuckle when the hear,

patient: Doctor, it hurts when I do this
doctor: Then stop doing that!

If government interference helped create the problem, why do so many expect more government interference will remedy it? I had a grandmother that used to over-cook meat. She thought the solution to any tough, unchewable roast was to put it back in the oven.

When someone else is paying our tab we tend to be less careful what we put on it. This is the case with corporate expense accounts as much as it with insurance. Healthy people are perfectly capable of fighting off infections without antibiotics, but since they're made less expensive with insurance we're seldom reluctant to have them prescribed for us. This is an unnecessary medical subsidy that inflates the prices of medicines and contributes to the antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.

Government subsidies also remove the pressure on colleges to yield to the economics of supply and demand. Administrative and staff salaries, building and maintenance expenses are all increasing faster than inflation, and both state and federal governments are racing to back-fill their budgets so the cost to families might remain affordable. Though universities teach supply & demand, as well as the basics of capitalism and free markets, apparently they prefer a more socialist funding mechanism.

Gas prices? Punish the oil companies. None of us are individually responsible for our nation's dependence on foreign oil. We have a right to live wherever we want, drive whatever we want, heat our homes and pools to whatever temperature we want, and exercise our recreational vehicles however we desire. The preferred mechanism to affording our wants is to have the government pay for it--which is to say taxpayers. And while income taxes are graduated--have "the rich" pay for it. In fact the less we pay in income tax the better the deal it is.

Congressman Levin also promised to rescue homeowners at risk of foreclosure or upside-down on their mortgages. Even before 2005 economists warned home prices couldn't keep going up. Everyone that lived through the Internet Bubble of 2000 or the savings & loan scandal knew the economists were right--but that didn't stop them from buying more home than they could afford or speculating that interest rates wouldn't rise.

So what else did President Kennedy say in that speech? Read it for yourself. You might notice he used words similar to what President Bush used in Israel that so upset Democrats. A good speech, like a good constitution, is as relevant today as it was when first composed. The only difference I see today from 47 years ago is that that speech seems more conservative than progressive, and more likely to come from Bush than either Clinton or Obama.

So I wonder to myself, have Republicans become more like Kennedy or have Democrats become less like him?

Cross posted at Everyone takes their turn.

Why the fuss over a gay Dumbledore? Many who cheer the Harry Potter character's outing by series author, JK Rowling, express contempt for those that jeer it. The irony that escapes the isn't-it-great-that-Dumbledore-is-gay crowd is that by celebrating Rowling's comments as brave and audacious they betray the fact they haven't accepted homosexuality as normal. The real benchmark of homosexuality's acceptance into common culture is when remarks such as Rowling's would be otherwise unremarkable.

Another benchmark would be when The Detroit News stops publishing Deb Price or Deb Price stops writing specifically on gay issues. Having a column dedicated to gay topics trivializes homosexual issues to the daily horoscope or crossword puzzle. The nation's, Michigan's, and Detroit's issues are gay issues. Insisting gay issues are separate from America's risks keeping gays separate. If acceptance is the goal of advocacy then advocates might consider fewer isolating tactics.

Common culture doesn't celebrate or overreact to the ordinary. It's hardly noteworthy anymore that Hollywood actors and actresses seem to change lovers and spouses with each new film, hairstyle, or self-congratulatory awards banquet. What is noteworthy anymore is when we discover a pair of celebrities that have been married for 20 years or more. Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward will be married 50 years this year and recently deceased Charlton Heston was married to his wife, Lydia Clark Heston, for 68 years.

Was anyone surprised Harry Potter married Ginnie Weasley or that Britney Spears did whatever outrageous thing she did last week?

Black History Month is another celebration that in 2008--143 years after General Lee's surrender, 53 years after Rosa Parks' bus ride, and 44 years since the Civil Rights Act--should be thought an anachronism. To draw attention to the accomplishments of black Americans as peculiarly distinguished from the accomplishments of all Americans suggests our nation still regards black accomplishment--academic or otherwise--as a novelty. The month-long blacks-are-people-too infomercials, documentaries and school programs are only necessary in a culture that either expects little of blacks, is compensating for its low expectations, or believes annual booster shots of encouragement inoculate black self esteem.

Think of it a four-week long anniversary of when a child first colored inside the lines. After a few years it's embarrassing to both the child and everyone invited to Chuck-e-Cheese's. The child is fine. It's the parents that need therapy.

As Shelby Steele suggested, it may be paternalism that keeps the training wheels on for minorities and not lack of opportunity or achievement.

It's not always a bad thing to celebrate what people ought to do, but repeated celebration risks drawing more attention to ourselves than the people or events we're celebrating. Our celebrations become less about them than being counted among the revelers. Are we truly glad Dumbledore is gay or do we only want to be seen being glad he's gay? Are our criticisms of those protesting the announcement for our benefit or Dumbledore's and Rowling's? Surely neither of them requires our coming to their defense--the former is a fictional character whose romantic attachments played no part in the plot created by the latter.

The ordinary doesn't attract attention to itself--that's what makes it ordinary. Unless we've come to a place where doing the right thing is unexpected we should stop acting surprised when it happens, and stop celebrating ourselves at the expense of others.

Today the Washington Times is reporting the Republican National Committee is seeing a donor fall-off. Rumor has it the grass-roots are disappointed with the President's immigration policy. When solicitors call for donations, instead of getting checks for $10, $20, or $50 they're getting an earful--and none of it is what they want to hear.

Lately, I admit to be among the people hanging-up on republican fund raisers, calling me with an important (recorded) message from Newt Gingrich or sometimes even the president himself. If Gingrich, chairman Mike Duncan (national party chairman), Saul Anuzis (Michigan party chairman) or even the president want to talk to me they can call me at home themselves.

The only time I hear from these guys is when they want money. When they ask for money it's so the party can defeat the evil Speaker Pelosi or to defend itself against the fund raising powerhouses of Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama. It's always so we can do battle with democrats in general or specifically by name.

In my head, the party has become less about politics than it has fund raising. It's in constant fund raising mode. I even get calls for races in other states. Every arm of the party wants to make sure it has enough money to beat the democrats.

I want to know if they have enough ideas.

Instead of calling people and asking for money they should be calling folks asking for clues. They seem to have forgotten what drew us to the party in the first place. Republican leadership seems to have become less about fiscal responsibility and smaller government than about beating Hillary Clinton. Why doesn't Mike Duncan just change the party's name to the Anti Hillary Foundation--doing business as the Republican Party? At least their corporate name would reflect their corporate mission.

Like any good company, political parties need salesmen, but they also need a product. Exactly what is the Republican Party product these days? The party of Lincoln used to sell social conservatism, fiscal responsibility, a strong military, strong borders, federalism, states rights, lower taxes, and constructionist judges.

Michigan's most recent gubernatorial election wasn't about product (billionaire Dick DeVos) as much as it was an anti Granholm campaign. The party didn't help DeVos articulate his ideas to citizens and DeVos couldn't debate a governor who had overseen swelling state deficits and a crashing economy rivaled only by two other states devastated by hurricanes. That's about as easy as it gets.

Two big things, I think, sabotaged DeVos' campaign--his refusal to back Michigan's Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) and the lack of any primary competition. When a billionaire announces his candidacy it basically eliminates the competition (unless they're also billionaires). In a party focused on sales more than ideas it mattered little what great ideas other candidates may have had. As a result DeVos went head-to-head with a beauty queen (Granholm) before he proved he could go head-to-head with a grandmother (Nancy Cassis).

As it turns out, billions in sales without a product can't beat a beauty-queen from Canada.

The MCRI passed because it was all about product.

If I could place a plaque on every State or National Republican officers desk similar to Bill Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid," it would say "It's the product, stupid."

And without a product, the Republican Party is looking kind of... well... let's just say lost.

The short answer is they lie to us because we want them to.

When my oldest son was younger he believed in the tooth fairy. Any why wouldn't he? My wife and I told him she existed, and he slept soundly enough we could exchange a dollar bill for his most recently liberated baby-tooth without waking him and spoiling a rite of passage.

Basically, we lied so he could enjoy a more magical world than a child could otherwise understand in the real world. Which is a fancy way to say we indulged (abused?) his child-like wonder of the world and his trust in us while mom and dad went on with business in the real world and took care of his every need--and many of his wants.

In a moment we'll get to why the new democrat-controlled congress funded the Iraqi war without pull-out dates, but first a little more groundwork.

With my apologies to those taken aback with my sacrilege, let's take a short test to see if you believe in Santa Clause:

• Gas prices are manipulated by big oil companies, yes or no?
• The President is responsible for the economy, yes or no?
• The rich become rich by exploiting the working class, yes or no?
• "Living wage" laws lift people out of poverty, yes or no?
• Congress will make sure Social Security will provide for your retirement, yes or no?

If you answered yes to any of these questions there's a good chance you may still believe in Santa Claus--or if not Santa, at least you believe in fairy tales.

Don't be upset. Your child-like innocence is endearing to your mother--and your representatives in congress. In fact, most politicians admire those qualities in voters because it makes their constituents easier to manipulate. Or in plain English, easier to lie to.

Lies work best when one party is more gullible than the other. In the issue at hand, Democratic candidates won a congressional majority by telling voters what they wanted to hear: that they wouldn't provide any more funds for the war without a time line for withdrawing the troops. Put your vote under the pillow and the fairies will replace it with an exit strategy tied to funding.

How were voters so easily duped? Because they'd rather believe withdrawing the troops this fall has no military consequences than that insurgents and terrorists would use it to their own positive ends. They'd rather believe the troops in Iraq will see a withdrawal plan as concern for their safety than a lack of confidence in their mission. They'd rather believe the non-uniformed combatants that blend into the population and think nothing of targeting civilians as they do our military are petty criminals better tried by Judge Judy than a military court.

As much as it pains me to write it, the new democrats in congress knew tying funding to pull-out dates was a bad national strategy but they also knew promising it to impatient voters was their best ticket to Washington. Even after giving empty baskets to MoveOn.org, Pelosi and gang are still promising they've hidden eggs in the living room--or that they soon will.

Voters are also anxious about gas prices so congress passed a bill promising to investigate gouging when they know they'll find none--but they can say they did something. Reminds me of how parents shoo monsters out from under the bed. It works for children for the same reason it does voters--because both are gullible. Voters are gullible because they're either ignorant or prefer to live in an make-believe world than the real world.

So voters need to ask themselves if they want to be grownups, if they want to be treated as grownups, and which candidates will talk to them like grownups. It's easier to spot politicians pandering to childish thinking after we become adult about the issues facing our nation's borders, oil dependency, education, health care, income taxes, and all the issues facing our state and local governments.

Adults don't trade votes, or teeth, for favors from politicians we know they can't deliver.

Which is more patronizing; Hillary Clinton's fake twang when speaking to black audiences or conservatives' insisting blacks should be outraged at her obvious pandering?

I think both are equally patronizing.

Blacks are too often (as even I am even doing here) treated as though no black person exists as an independent, free thinker. 140+ years after their emancipation they are still slaves to black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and the democratic party for which they are all expected to vote come election time.

The recent Imus scandal involving Rutger's women's basketball team is another example. The team didn't have to respond to Imus' comments. They could have chosen to treat Imus as irrelevant (and irreverent) as he is, but under immense public pressure they chose to give Imus power over their own self respect, and forfeited control of their own self esteem to the media, of which Imus is still a member of.

Would Rutgers' officials and the team have decided otherwise if the media and black leaders didn't put them in the spotlight and they were allowed to celebrate as originally planned? To paraphrase an old saying, if Sharpton shouted in the woods and nobody listened to him would Imus be less insulting?

I don't think black Americans need to be told how to react, or how to think. Most of them have been reacting and thinking on their own for decades. Nor do I think they need to be spoken down to. Hillary's, the press', and democrats condescension and paternalism toward blacks tells me more about Hillary, the press, and democratic policies than it does their black audiences or wards.

Black Americans are not foreigners. Politicians don't have to speak more slowly, use smaller words, or feign dialects or accents to communicate with them.

For everyone congratulating Hillary for "relating to her audience," as Sharpton put it, how do they expect she'd address an assembly of rappers? How should anybody speak to rappers? Should candidates all fake a Southern Drawl when campaigning in Kentucky? Isn't that catering to a stereotype? Isn't that profiling? If it's not allowed in airports or on I-75 why would it be appropriate at a Baptist convention?

Ultimately, I'm confused about who's patronizing whom. If blacks aren't offended at Hillary's mocking can anyone be offended for them without also mocking blacks? Is everyone really that anxious to get on the I've-been-offended train that their willing to use affronts to others as their own boarding pass?

If the price to buy that ticket is to forfeit control of my self respect to others than I've no shame not affording it. Besides, I don't think that train is going anywhere I want to go.

Mostly, people tend to sympathize with themselves. If you doubt that, read the Letters to the Editor in Monday's Detroit News.

In an earlier editorial, the Detroit News editors suggested congress should pass a $1/gallon federal gas tax.

Except for a few letters, it's apparent most letter-writers (if the sample is representative) believe higher gas taxes are a bad idea. But given a chance to vote, most of these same people have no problem raising cigarette, beer, and wine taxes to penalize others for their indulgences--or for that matter increase taxes on "the rich."

So in a nutshell, people opposing a $1/gallon gas tax increase are saying it's OK to tax other people to change their behaviors but their own behaviors don't need changing. Increased taxes, in their opinion, are helpful to curb other people's appetites but not their own. Naturally, their own appetites are necessities or artifacts of exercising their personal liberties. But as the editorial points out, progress doesn't come without sacrifice, and if we want progress on public transportation, progress halting sprawl, and progress revitalizing downtown Detroit then some sacrifice will be necessary.

It is said that people move away from pain more quickly than they do to comfort. This is why many people won't leave jobs they complain about constantly even when better jobs exist--the current job hasn't really become intolerable--even if they say it has. In the case of our nation's insatiable thirst for oil, apparently it's everyone else's responsibility to change their lifestyles than it is for themselves to bear the price of their own.

Higher gas taxes will certainly change Michigan, for the better I think, but not without some transitional discomfort.

When gas costs $4, $5, or $6/gallon, people may not be willing to sit in clogged traffic and begin demanding subways, elevated rail, or other public transportation that can be financed with new gas taxes. Buses fall somewhere between personal and mass transit, but are neither personal or mass. Mass transit is progress for Detroit and Michigan.

Cheap gas accelerates urban sprawl. It makes 20, 30, or even 40-mile or more commutes an inconsequential expense. Imagine how real estate costs might change if Detroit and its inner-ring cities like Oak Park, Ferndale, Royal Oak and others suddenly become more desirable properties than Clarkston and Addison because of their close proximity to mass transit, urban infrastructure, office and retail space, and $4-or-higher per gallon gas prices.

Lastly, increased gas prices might spur revitalizations in Pontiac and Detroit. Due to the city's ability to provide high-density housing and plentiful office space, companies may realize the greatest benefit they can provide their employees and their families is to relocate to a city where people can conveniently live near their workplaces, entertainment venues, restaurants, and other attractions.

True, taking responsibility for our own share of America's dependence on foreign oil (or man-made global warming if you believe that) will cost each of us something. And it's also true that it's unfair for people already living close to work or with alternative means to commute to be in favor of higher gas taxes. But that hasn't stopped us from raising cigarette, capital gains, or graduated income taxes on other non-majority groups, has it?

Cross posted at Everyone takes a turn.

Since December 2005 I've been blogging about local, state, and national issues at Everyone Takes Their Turn.  My intention was to focus primarily on issues facing the citizens of Ferndale, Michigan, which includes local, county, state, and national politics.

Early on I realized the further up that ladder I climbed the less likely my voice would be taken seriously.  Without national credentials (celebrity, publicity, office) it's difficult to build credibility, and without credibility why would anyone take what I wrote seriously?

But celebrity shouldn't be confused with credibility.  It's dangerous enough when actors confuse their celebrity for credibility  on social or political issues, but it's even more dangerous when the public does as well.

Neither does anonymity bring credibility, but it sometimes brings empathy.  I hope some may be able to identify with what's written here and either find themselves in honest disagreement, agreement, or at least moved to think about something or in some way they haven't before.  Whatever your reaction your comment is welcomed here.

Until my next post, please visit where I've been, to get a glimpse of where I may be going next.