Congestion: Silver Bullets vs. Band Aids

Congestion: Silver Bullets vs. Band Aids

According to national studies, the area that I live in (Fairfax County, Virginia) has the most congested traffic in the nation. I’ve lived here more than 35 years and my wife has lived here her entire life. There’s no doubt about it, traffic continues to get worse each year and since highway construction is virtually nonexistent, and the population keeps growing, it will undoubtedly get worse.

While I believe that road congestion could be solved if we applied all the gasoline tax dollars to the problem (instead of using it for non-related purposes), I’m also realistic enough to know that is not going to happen in the current political climate. I do believe, however, much could be done with an absolute minimum expenditure of tax dollars to ameliorate the situation.

I’m talking here about band aids, not silver bullets. As I grow older, I have come to believe in band aids. Silver bullets usually miss the mark, so why not focus on applying a number of band aids which may not solve the problem, but will certainly make driving easier. Truthfully, my hat’s off to the folks who work on highways and roads in Fairfax County. They are constantly making small improvements like extending access lanes and lengthening turn lanes that have a very positive effect on driving.

But, as I have traveled across the US, I have seen other cities come up with unique innovations that have greatly helped their congestion. Here are just a few concepts that I have seen work successfully.
Toll Roads. An old, but good idea providing the public is assured the toll will immediately come off the road once the capital cost of construction is retired. Otherwise, confidence in the integrity and honesty of politicians will continue to deteriorate and much needed roads will go un-constructed.

Elimination of Access Lanes. This is something that California has already done. It adds extra lanes for travel with no construction required.

Reversible Lanes. For more than 40 years they have used reversible lanes in the Seattle area and for many years in other West Coast jurisdictions. Again, the cost is minimal, but the benefit to commuters can be huge.

HOV or Commuter Lanes. Limit all HOV or commuter lanes to two passengers. It’s simply not practical to insist on more than two people in a car. When such a requirement exists the highway is always underutilized.

No Slow Down Toll Lanes. In Atlanta, Denver and Houston, cars with proximity passes can continue through the toll area on wide lanes that do not require any reduction in speed.Millions of tons of air pollution could be eliminated from our skies and our lungs by building highways that get rid of the stop-and-go congestion that is the cause of nitrous pollution. Nitrous pollutants are released solely when automobiles accelerate. The construction of toll roads, with the mandatory removal of the toll upon pay-off of the capital cost, would restore public confidence in the politicians and it would go far to clean our air, reduce our stress level, and get us to and from work faster and more safely, while reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

My only concern is this: Do the politicians really care?

The New Morality vs. the Old Morality

The New Morality vs. the Old Morality

During the period when the nation was caught up in the Monica Lewinski-Bill Clinton peccadillo, I happened upon a rather fiery televised debate between one of the President’s top advisors and a conservative critic.  The President’s defender made a statement I’ll never forget.  He said, “Bill Clinton is the most moral President in the history of the United States!”  Of course, it is common for Washington politicians to use hyperbole, but at first blush, this seemed to be the most outrageous claim I had ever heard.  You can love or hate Bill Clinton, but it seemed more than improbable to claim that he was the most moral man to ever serve as President.

However, after thinking about this claim for some time, I decided it was true, providing you cling to a set of moral values that have absolutely nothing to do with the Ten Commandments.  The Ten Commandments tell us not to lie, steal, kill, commit adultery or covet, among other things.  But, to many in our society today, this is the old morality of traditional Christians and Jews that no longer applies.  In fact, they make the case that it’s ok to lie, deceive, steal, and cheat on your wife as long as you have the right objectives.

The new morality is about how you think and what your goals are.  It’s not about how you act.  If your goals are noble then you are moral, regardless of your personal actions.  The President’s defender was clearly a man who believed in the new morality.  Whether Bill Clinton was faithful to his wife was simply not relevant.  Whether he lied was not relevant.  The only thing that counts in the new morality is what your goals are.  

The catch is that a free society exists only so long as individuals choose to live responsibly.  It exists only when you and I exercise self-restraint in our daily lives.  If everyone decides that the laws don’t apply to them, no number of law enforcement officials can contain the chaos that ensues.  The less self-restraint we use, and the more we ignore the commandments God gave us, the less freedom we will have.  Without faith which compels us to do what is right to honor God out of love for Him, our free society will collapse.  As the old saying goes, men either fear the law or they fear God.  If they fear neither, there is chaos.

If there is no fear or love of God then only civil authority can maintain order and safety.  The less respect for God, for our civil laws, and for the rights of others, the greater the arm of the law becomes until freedom all but disappears.

Unwittingly, as our society chooses to tolerate or even celebrate immorality (as defined by the Ten Commandments), we begin to dismantle our freedoms.  We can’t have it both ways.  It’s simply not possible to ignore one commandment and expect the others to withstand the onslaught against them.  As the Bible says, when we break one commandment, we break them all.  When we reject honesty, faithfulness, love, truthfulness, and all of the other Judeo Christian virtues, we begin to bring down the foundation of our free society.

Ironically, even if you don’t believe in God, in your own self interest, it’s worth clinging to the old morality just so you can continue to enjoy the freedoms for which our forefathers paid such a high price.

Energy Bill?

                    Energy Bill?

Should we laugh or cry? There’s an "energy" bill being debated in the US House of Representatives today, but the bill makes no provision whatsoever for more oil exploration, more oil production, or greater refining capacity. Yes, there are provisions for more windmills, forced energy conservation, and other goofball ideas, but not one provision for increasing Americans access to gasoline! And this in the face of gasoline prices above $3.00.

Talk about irrelevant, that’s the United States Congress. American’s young and old are concerned about the steep rise in the cost of gasoline, and Nancy Pelosi plays the role of Nero. That’s leadership?

Frankly, I’m sick and tired of politicians talking about America becoming energy independent. The truth is that the politicians really don’t care. It does not take a genius to make the United States energy independent. It’s no dark secret and it’s not complex. Here are five steps that could be taken in less than 10 years that would not only guarantee energy independence, but also lower prices and reduce pollution:

                  1.   Off Shore Drilling. Allow off shore drilling beyond the
                        30 mile limit. Due to the curvature of the earth, Texas
                        islands beyond 30 miles cannot be seen by someone
                        standing on shore. What about oil spills? Well, how
                        many oil spills from offshore oil rigs have occurred?
                        The answer is not one! There has never been an oil
                        spill from a Texas island, even in a hurricane! But did
                        you know that exploration for oil can only take place
                        beyond 100 miles! That silly, but then it was put into
                        law by silly people, America’s politicians. The
                        Republicans tried for a 60 mile limit, but that was just
                        too close for the Democrats.

                  2.   Nuclear Power. More than 60% of the energy needs
                        of France come from nuclear power, yet Americans
                        haven’t built a nuclear power plant since the 1970s.
                        Why? Because of fear mongering. The opponents of
                        nuclear power always point to the power plant failure
                        at Three Mile Island, and to the disaster at Chernobyl.
                        But the truth is that no one died as a result of the
                        Three Mile Island failure because we built-in safe
                        guards that the Soviets refused to include in their
                        plants. Nuclear power plants are pollution free and
                        would not only provide all the electric generating
                        power we need, but they also would provide a power
                        source that is not dependent in any way on OPEC. In
                        order to really make an impact on pollution and to
                        increase energy availability, let’s start today to phase
                        out our conventional coal and oil fired electric
                        generating plants and replace them with nuclear
                        power. This is a step that is long overdue.

                 3.   Domestic Exploration. Have you ever been to Alaska?
                        It is so incredibly vast as to be nearly
                        incomprehensible. We need to open up Alaska to
                        exploration (while implementing the necessary
                        safeguards to protect the environment). Tens of
                        millions of gallons of oil are there for the taking and
                        we need to proceed to get at them post haste. And the
                        same is true for vast reserves in Montana, Utah, and
                        Wyoming that are readily available. Politicians need to
                        stop the demagoguery and start acting like
                        representatives of the people by putting the people’s
                        needs first.

                  4.   Liquid Natural Gas. I understand that our known
                        liquid natural gas fields are the greatest on the face
                        of the earth. Most of these are in the Gulf of Mexico.
                        It’s time to accelerate production of LNG and quit
                        trying to legislate scientific advances. I have been out
                        of the engineering field for more than 30 years. But
                        one thing you learn when studying engineering is that
                        you can’t legislate advances in technology. It’s a
                        waste of time and money. Congress can pass all the
                        bills in the world demanding and insisting that we
                        make new discoveries, but until those discoveries are
                        actually made, it’s just more hot air.

                  5.   Refineries. I worked in a refinery for several years and
                         there’s something that can be done about our oil
                         refining capacity without building a whole slew of
                        new refineries. What most people don’t understand is
                        that a refinery is not just one unit that produces
                        gasoline. Most refineries are comprised of a whole lot
                        of units that produce all sorts of other byproducts, in
                        addition to gasoline, that are used for the         
                        manufacture of rugs, plastic, oil, etc. If we can’t
                        persuade states to let more refineries be built, we can
                        at least encourage and allow existing refineries to add
                        more units that produce gasoline. Many of these
                        refineries cover vast amounts of acres, sometimes
                        more than 1,500 acres, as did the one I worked in at
                        Port Arthur, Texas. There’s plenty of room to add
                        additional units to increase gasoline production. Let’s
                        get moving!

What I have proposed is just common sense. When you are getting a primary energy resource from an area of the world that, for the most part, is controlled by your enemies, you take the necessary steps to protect the sovereignty of your nation. Embarking on this commonsense course would make our nation energy independent in less than a decade. All we need are men and women of integrity and courage who are willing to act in the best interest of their constituents, rather than to radical special interest groups to whom they are beholding. Will it happen? Don’t hold your breath.

The Rules Have Changed

                             The Rules Have Changed

Most people don’t realize it, but the Republicans had "owned" the black vote for nearly 100 years from the time of Abraham Lincoln, through the time of Dwight Eisenhower. During this period, the majority of African Americans voted consistently for Republican presidential candidates and as well as most other political offices. Today, however, the Democratic Party "owns" the Black vote, lock, stock, and barrel. 

When a Republican candidate, at any level, obtains more than 10% of the Black vote, it’s big news. Typically the GOP portion of the Black vote is closer to 5%. How did this come about?
If one had to pick an event that caused this cataclysmic political shift, it was the nomination of Barry Goldwater, and more precisely, his vote against the 1964 Voting Rights Act. Ironically, Goldwater had an outstanding record of civil rights. He had personally taken a hand in integrating the Arizona Air National Guard and, in fact, had received commendations and awards from the NAACP. But once he was nominated and once he cast his vote, the die was cast. It was the end of any significant support of Republican candidates and understandably so.

Thomas Jefferson reputedly said that slavery was the fatal flaw of the Constitution. That was certainly true, and I believe that the failure of conservatives to be in the vanguard of the civil rights movement was the fatal flaw of the conservative movement. In hindsight, it was rank hypocrisy for conservatives to hold themselves up as the champions of individual freedom, and yet be AWOL when it came to fighting for basic human and civil rights for African Americans. As a high school and college student, I was as guilty as anyone else. 

It’s no wonder that Black Americans don’t trust conservatives. If I were in their shoes, I wouldn’t trust them either. After all, you gotta dance with the one that brung ya, and in the case of the civil rights movement, that was the liberals in the Democratic Party, not the conservative Republicans.
That doesn’t mean that I agree with big government liberals. They were wrong on the threat of the Soviet Union and they were wrong about the threat to individual freedom from big government. Liberals are wrong to cavalierly discard traditional moral values. But conservatives were wrong on the civil rights movement, no ifs, ands, or buts.

But much has changed since 1964. Today, Conservatives champion many, many causes and issues which are supported by a vast majority of the African American community. While conservatives promote vouchers that address the severe problem of failing primary and secondary schools in the poorest part of our cities, the liberals are chained to the National Education Association union, which is more interested in teachers than students. It was a liberal Democrat, Polly Williams, that championed vouchers in Wisconsin, and working in league with conservative Republicans she carried the day.

Today Black Americans work to modify a Social Security System that is clearly unfair to the members of their community, but they get no help from the Democratic Party. It is conservative Republicans that are working with them.

While Christian conservatives, both Black and White, utilize faith-based initiatives promoted by a Republican President, they face opposition from liberal Democrats.

But perhaps the picture has changed the most on the local scene where conservatives and liberals work side-by-side with voluntary organizations that help the poor and disadvantaged. It’s often surprising who you see working side-by-side in the trenches.

My wife, Kathi, and I have been involved in Joe Gibbs’ Youth For Tomorrow residential home for at-risk boys and girls for more than 20 years. We have witnessed conservative Oliver North and former Virginia Lt. Governor Don Beyer (a top fund raiser for the Democrat Party) working together without fanfare, giving of their time and resources to give these boys and girls a second chance at life. 

No, conservatives don’t deserve to be trusted by the Black community. But in their own self-interest, members of the Black community need to take a second look at individual conservative candidates to see exactly what their track record is when it comes to issues and programs that affect the Black community. As long as liberal Democrats can count on virtually all Black Americans to vote for them, they can continue to ignore the problems of failing primary and secondary schools, violence in the central city, out-of-wedlock births, etc. 

I believe it was Bob Dylan who sang, "The times they are a changing." Yes, times are changing. Being a liberal Democrat no longer guarantees concern and attention to the problems and challenges faced by Black Americans. Being a conservative Republican no longer means someone who doesn’t care about the crisis among America’s poor. Today it’s often a conservative Republican whose values and principles are more closely tied to the interests and needs of the African American community, than are those of his liberal opponent. More than 50 years have passed since the 1956 election of Dwight Eisenhower. It’s time to take a second look.

Thinking Outside the Box

                           Thinking Outside the Box
I have always admired individuals who have the ability to "think outside the box," who see perspectives of problems and opportunities that others simply can’t envision. You and I see a box, but they look at the same thing using another perspective and see that it isn’t a box at all, but rather, it is a pyramid.

Perspective is critical when you are trying to solve a problem or trying to take advantage of an opportunity. Traditions are very important and they develop because certain practices and approaches have worked consistently well over the years. I’m a very traditional fellow, but I’ve come to realize that when things quit working as well as I would like, it’s often helpful to look at the problem from a different perspective.

My wife and I recently had the pleasure of having dinner with a friend and his wife. We happen to belong to the same church and we have all been involved in a number of church-related activities both locally and nationally. Our national church body has been around since the mid 1800’s and it faces the same sorts of challenges and opportunities that other church bodies face—changing culture, declining membership, leadership needs (both pastoral and lay), etc.

My friend, who happens to be a doctor, made a thinking-outside-the-box type of observation that "blew my mind." He said that even though medicine changes dramatically every 7 to 10 years (in terms of medical breakthroughs), they can still take a graduate of a music school like Julliard or someone with a degree in English or history and turn that person into a doctor four years later. He said they needed to give that person some chemistry, but that some of these individuals became the very best doctors because they came to the medical profession with a different perspective and with a mature passion that someone who started down the path at a younger age often did not bring.

I thought that observation was amazing. I didn’t realize that medical doctors came from such diverse backgrounds. I assumed, given the sophisticated nature of medicine, that every doctor started as a pre-med student. However when it was explained to me, it made sense. After all, how many young men or women really know what it means to be a doctor or feel a calling to be a doctor when they are just out of high school?

My medical doctor friend followed up that observation with this question: "If we can teach someone with a music degree to become a medical doctor in four years, why can’t we take someone with an engineering degree and make them a pastor in four years?" He went on to point out while there are dramatic advances and changes in medical treatment that continue to change the practice of medicine, Christian doctrine hasn’t changed in more than 2,000 years. A traditionalist would argue that you must have preparatory high schools and colleges so that an aspiring pastor can master Greek and Hebrew, among other things. But if medical schools can help music majors get the necessary chemistry, while keeping their students on top of the ever changing medical scene, why can’t seminaries provide the necessary Greek and Hebrew basics for men aspiring to become pastors?

By eliminating preparatory high schools and colleges required to attend a seminary, a church body like the one I belong to, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, would not only open up opportunities for more pastors to be trained, but perhaps also practice better financial stewardship.

This "outside-the-box" change would eliminate the need to ask young people to make a life decision at such a tender age when they really have no idea what they want to do with their life, and do not have a true understanding of what role a pastor plays as the leader of a congregation.
Perhaps the result would reduce the number of pastors who lack the passion or the necessary God-given skills to shepherd a congregation, and produce more men who do have the passion and the skills. Perhaps we would reduce the number of pastors’ sons who are pressured into becoming pastors, while producing more laymen’s sons who feel a real calling to be a pastor. Perhaps the financial savings of such an approach would provide the funds to do a better and more effective job of fulfilling the Great Commission.

Perhaps this is the right answer to running a church body in the 21^{st century, perhaps not. But we need to put everything on the table when we try to lift up an organization to new heights and to meet new challenges. We need to start thinking outside the box. Tradition is a great thing, and should be treated with respect. However, sometimes the old ways just don’t work any more because the culture has changed. What’s your latest outside-the-box idea?}

Is Your Integrity for Sale?

Is Your Integrity for Sale?

One of my favorite movies is Family Man, staring Nicholas Cage (2000). In fact, I think Cage is one of Hollywood’s most versatile and accomplished actors. In Family Man, Cage is supported by Tea Leoni and Don Cheadle, who is apparently Hollywood’s 21^{st century version of an angel. The story is a sort-of reverse adaptation of the Frank Capra classic, It’s a Wonderful Life. It’s a really great movie and if you haven’t seen it, I urge you to rent a copy.}

There are lots of great scenes in the movie, but one of my favorites is when Don Cheadle, portraying a convenience store clerk, intentionally gives a young girl change for a $10 bill, although she actually only gave him a $1 bill. He’s hoping that when she realizes she received too much change she will, for her own good, come back and tell him. But when she continues on out the door, he just shakes his head and muses something about how disappointing it is when someone sells out their integrity so cheaply. While those aren’t his exact words, they capture the essence of the message.

I am the first one to admit that I’ve done some things (maybe more accurately, a lot of things) that I’m not proud of. But it disturbs me greatly to see someone sell out their own integrity so cheaply. What is integrity? Former U.S. Congressman J.C. Watts defined it as doing the right thing even when no one is looking. That is a pretty good definition. You might add that it’s doing the right thing when no one is looking, even when it is difficult. Integrity is indeed doing the right thing, not just the thing that gets you by.

Of course, the power of rationalization, the sin of pride, and just plain old greed often get in the way of integrity. Children are great at "lawyering" their excuses in an effort to get out of being responsible for something their parents are not happy about. But big kids who run companies and nonprofits often seem to be afflicted with the same problem. "Well, the contract doesn’t say exactly that," they rationalize. And, perhaps they can get by with doing what they want to do even though they know it’s not the right thing to do. But how do they sleep at night? Are they really advancing themselves? Is it really good business? Don’t they care about their own reputation? Why would they put such a low price on their own integrity? Will such a reputation benefit them and the organization they represent in the years ahead?

Lincoln was right, "Honesty is the best policy." In the long run, a company, an organization, or an individual will rise or fall in large part based on integrity. When you do the right thing, rather than simply doing the thing that gets you by, you build trust with your acquaintances, your clients, your vendors and everyone you come into contact with. In turn, that trust leads to more business, better employees and greater success. However, when you cut corners, it ALWAYS comes back to haunt you. 

But far more important than doing what is right because it gets you ahead, is doing what’s right because it’s the right thing to do. God wants us to genuinely care about our friends and neighbors and even to put their needs before ours. Ouch! In His Word He tells us not to cheat, steal or tell lies. He doesn’t tell us that obeying these things are the way to Heaven (that’s a free gift), but it does please Him when we do the right thing in every circumstance. As mortal humans it is obviously impossible for you and me to live up to that standard, but we can at least try. And when we do, it makes this a better place for all of us.

The "Unfairness Doctrine"

                    The "Unfairness Doctrine"

Lately, I’ve been reading that Al Gore and his friends at the Center for American Progress think it’s time to bring back the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." When I hear goofy ideas like this I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. 

What was the "Fairness Doctrine?" It was a law that said a radio (or TV) station had to give equal time for FREE to anyone who disagreed with an on-air editorial or a talk-radio host. That meant that radio stations had to give away air-time that others need to pay for. This law nearly destroyed AM radio, and it was anything but fair.

The market place is not perfect, but it is about as fair as is possible on this side of heaven.

Consumers (that’s you and I) get to "vote" with their dollars as to what they want to hear on the radio. It certainly is a lot more fair than letting some bureaucrat or other third party decide what’s best for you and I to hear.

But the catch is that liberals like Gore have not been successful in competing in the marketplace of ideas, so they want to force radio stations to give them time for free to get their point of view across. Obviously, the existing liberal monopoly on television, newspapers and news magazines isn’t good enough for the left. Apparently they have decided that the only way to get their way with public policy is to silence their critics through the power of government.

They have made numerous attempts to counter talk-radio through efforts like Air America, but after pouring millions of dollars into Air America, it has failed and failed again. So, what else is a liberal to do, but to use government to force people to not only listen to their liberal ideas on ABC, CBS or NBC, but also for FREE on the radio across the nation.

Of course, liberals strongly object to the idea of a biased news media, even in the face of countless studies and reports showing their bias. In fact, liberal bias exists and the fact that it masquerades as objective news makes it all the more less than honest. At least talk-radio hosts make no bones about the fact that they have an agenda and a point of view. They don’t pretend to be unbiased observers.

Nevertheless, Al Gore, in his latest book, expresses concern about the danger and threat of Americans being led astray by talk show hosts that don’t happen to agree with his perspective. He thinks something must be done and clearly he believes what must be done is the re-imposition of the "Fairness Doctrine." John Halpin, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress said that the current policy, "…does not meet any reasonable public-interest standard."

Apparently both Mr. Gore and Mr. Halpin feel they are qualified to decide what is and what is not in the public interest. In truth, neither Gore nor Halpin have any concept of freedom or fairness.
What is fairness? Fairness is when I create a radio program that draws listeners, causing commercial sponsors to pay for air time, resulting in a profit for both of us. Unfairness is when you use the government to force the radio station to give you FREE time to respond to my ideas because you can draw neither an audience nor sponsors.

Suppose I own a theater that hosts musical entertainers. You are a talented musician and draw a full house, making money for yourself and money for me as a theater owner. Another person who thinks of himself as talented, but does not have an audience, complains, feeling he is at a disadvantage. So he gets government to force me to accommodate him in my theater for FREE. Just how long do you think I would stay in business? That’s really what the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" is all about.

The reality is that liberal ideas can’t compete in an open and fair marketplace, so they want to use the power of government to impose their views on you and I – they don’t want any competition. They honestly think it’s for our own good.

In fact, they believe they are a bit smarter and wiser than you and I are and that they know how to run our lives better than we do. They consider themselves to be more enlightened and more sophisticated, and therefore they should make decisions about our lives that we are just not competent enough to make.

The long and short of it is that liberals just don’t trust the common man. It’s another good reason to oppose re-imposition of the unfair "Fairness Doctrine.