Steuben Courier Town Square

Yesterday, the biggest news came out of North Carolina where voters approved what is called Amendment One, which constitutionalizes already existing law that forbids same-sex marriage and further, limits the recognition of domestic unions. 

We could have a long, in-depth discussion about this amendment and same-sex marriage in general.  But regardless of how you feel about banning same-sex marriage or, inversely, a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right of consenting adults to enter into marriage contracts regardless of their sex, the news surrounding Amendment 1 gives us an opportunity to discuss states’ rights and the power of competition that lies unseen at the root of the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

I tend to view states somewhat differently from most.  To me, states are, or should be, a lot like businesses competing for customers, in this case citizens, within a market.  When a business acts in a way with which you disagree, whether by selling an inferior product or having poor customer service, you find a business that will treat you right.  Similarly, when a state enacts laws that are not conducive to your economic or personal freedom, or are not in line with your morals, you are free to “vote with your feet.”  This not only extricates you from a less than optimal living situation, it might also eventually force a state to modify its behavior, just like boycotting a business.  We have fifty “businesses” from which to choose in this nation.

If you think that economic and personal freedom doesn’t mean much in terms of where a person lives, we can look to none other than our home state which, as I discussed in this column in March, is the least free and highest taxed state in the nation.  According to the report “Mass Migration of New Yorkers to Other States” published by the Empire Center for New York State Policy, New York “experienced the nation's largest loss of residents to other states—a net domestic migration outflow of over 1.5 million, or 8 percent of its population at the start of the decade [2000-2008].”  In the previous decade, 1.7 million people left for other states. 

Significantly, the same report notes that in 2006-2007 alone, New York lost $4.3 billion in taxpayer revenue due to its citizens leaving, and those who leave have average incomes 13% higher than those coming into New York.  When people “vote with their feet,” a state can be punished, and punished severely.

The three least free states according to the Mercatus Center, New York, California, and New Jersey, are also at the top of the list in citizen migrations to other states.  This is not a coincidence.  The top three gainers are Nevada, Arizona, and Idaho, which rank sixth, twenty-second, and fourth respectively on the list of state freedom.  Only two of the top ten gainers rank outside of the freest 25 states.  Freedom pays dividends all around. 

With the consolidation of power at the federal level over the past 100 years, we tend to view the states as mostly the same.  But the fact is they are not.  They offer an incredible variety and we’re free to choose the best one for each of our needs.  And for that, we owe a debt of gratitude to the Tenth Amendment.

Word of the Day: Kowtow (verb): To act in an obsequious manner; to show servile deference.

On This Day in History: The impeachment hearings against President Nixon begin (1974).

Yesterday the online magazine Reason published another in a long line of articles about asset forfeiture, this time reporting that small towns police departments in Maine will increase the practice to make up for budget shortfalls.  Asset forfeiture is the seizure by the government of property, generally if that property was used in committing a crime. 

This, of course, sounds reasonable.  Criminals guilty of crimes should be deprived of their ill-gotten gains.   But when one considers that in civil asset forfeiture, widely used by the government, the conviction standards are considerably lower and the owner of the property must prove that said property is not subject to seizure rather than the burden being placed on the state as is normally the case in criminal proceedings.  It should be clear to any observer that there is a serious potential for conflicts of interest and abuse on the part of the government, especially when there exists a motivation to make up for budget shortfalls.

Consider the case of the Minnesota waitress who, after being left a $12,000 tip in a to-go box, called the police.  The police said that if no one claimed the money after sixty days, the woman could have it back.  However, a drug dog found marijuana residue on the bills and the police refused to give the money back, offering her $1,000 as a reward instead.  Because the money was allegedly “in the proximity of a controlled substance,” it can be legally seized.  You can’t walk down the street without being in the proximity of a controlled substance.  The woman got her money back only after filing a lawsuit.

If that doesn’t sound too unreasonable, consider the case United States v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Mass.  Here, the proprietor of a motel may lose his business because some of his guests were arrested for drug-related crimes.  Notice that the defendant is the property, which itself is “accused of facilitating drug crimes,” and not the owner of the property.  Because Massachusetts law is stricter than federal law, which states that the property owner show that they “did all that could reasonably be expected under the circumstances to terminate such use of the property,” the police pursued this as a federal case.  The burden is on the proprietor to prove that he did everything that he could to prevent his guests from engaging in illegal activity – a virtual impossibility.  Imagine if you owned a few thousand acres of land, leased that land to farmers, and some kids grew marijuana there without your knowledge.  The state could take your property.

It should also be pointed out that the local police department in the above case is allowed “to keep 80 percent of the proceeds, whereas under state law it would get only 50 percent.”  This doesn’t sound like justice.

The Institute for Justice has published a comprehensive report, “Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture” for those who are interested in learning more about this issue.  The report says, “It’s time to end civil forfeiture.  People shouldn’t lose their property without being convicted of a crime, and law enforcement shouldn’t be able to profit from other people’s property.”

Do you agree?

Word of the Day: Agnomen (noun): A nickname.

On This Day in History: The Peloponnesian War ends (404 BCE).  New York requires automobile license plates; the first state to do so (1901).

The portfolio of the President of the United States is breathtakingly (and frighteningly) expansive.  In 1956, Clinton Rossiter attributed to the president ten roles, including World Leader, Protector of the Peace, Chief Legislator, Manager of Prosperity, and Voice of the People.  These roles are not described in Article II of the Constitution. 

In “Cult of the Presidency,” Gene Healy of the Cato Institute argues that the modern presidency is far more than the Founders ever imagined it should be, and has aggressively expanded its scope, role, and power.  The book is persuasive in defending this thesis.  (The full book is available as a free download HERE.  I encourage you to read it.)  Historians routinely evaluate presidents in terms of their greatness and what they’ve “accomplished.”  Excepting George Washington, these great presidents are the ones who have, for the most part, ignored the Constitution and expanded executive power. 

We the People tend to agree with the historians’ grading.  This is because we do not really understand the role of the presidency, and accept at face value that presidents should be leaders, problem solvers, national healers, soothsayers, financial advisors, and above all, keep us safe from every imaginable threat.  Presidents and candidates for president clearly fail to understand their roles too, even if they’re constitutional lawyers.

But despite the accumulation of power, which is ostensibly aimed at addressing every circumstance for which the president might be blamed, he can neither meet expectations nor deliver campaign promises.  This is why his approval rates routinely plummet.  We expect much, and he can deliver little.  We trust him less, but grant him more power over our daily lives.  This should be indicative of a fundamental problem in our understanding of the executive branch. 

Gene Healy says,

Over the course of the 20^th century, Americans have transformed the presidency from a modest chief magistrate into a national father protector invested with the responsibility for fixing every major problem in American life.  We’ve matched that responsibility with powers that are unlikely to meet those demands, but are virtually certain to threaten the American constitutional order.

Perhaps it’s time that we discussed the order of things.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has abandoned his campaign for the GOP nomination for president, but before doing so sent a letter to Iowans which discussed his opinions on Mitt Romney.  In this letter, Santorum expressed his fear of an eventual Romney nomination and implored conservatives to, “act now to win this primary to make sure our party doesn’t nominate a Massachusetts Moderate to run against Obama.” 

This discussion should not be viewed as an endorsement of Mitt Romney’s candidacy because in this space you’ll not hear an endorsement of any candidate (from me).  However, you hear the label “moderate” being tossed about as a vicious epithet by members of both parties, usually during the campaign seasons (which grow longer and more laborious with each passing cycle) and usually against those they’re competing against on the campaign trail; people with ostensibly the same principles.  Thus, I’m compelled to believe that each candidate is attempting to portray him or herself as being the most extreme. 

Ignoring for a moment Santorum’s 2008 endorsement and laudation of Romney, I have to ask two questions.  Firstly, what’s so wrong with being a moderate?  And secondly, isn’t extremism bad? 

Few people other than politicians wish to be labeled extremists, and I’m sure those politicians would prefer other, platitudinous adjectives, such as “Standard Bearer of Liberalism” or “Foot Soldier in the Reagan Revolution” or some similar tripe.  But keep in mind, victory is contingent upon wining at least some of the independent vote, which is a sorely ignored and rapidly growing demographic.  This being the case, you would expect candidates to become more moderate and less extreme, mirroring society’s shift.  Unfortunately, the opposite is the case, as Santorum’s letter helps to illustrate.  Candidates from both parties become more extreme and yet, despite this, their administration of power looks eerily similar. 

Maybe it’s time to do away with politics altogether.  Doesn’t it just make us worse?

Word of the Day: Filiopietistic (adjective): Pertaining to reverence of forebears or tradition, especially if carried to excess.

On this Day in History: Yankee Stadium opens (1923).  The Doolittle Raid was conducted (1942).

People often ask me what my favorite amendment is (in truth, no one asks me this, but it provides a good lead in).  While it’s hard to pick a favorite, I always answer that the First Amendment is my favorite.  Here is the text of that amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

There’s so much good stuff there.  Unfortunately, people misunderstand the true power of this amendment, particularly as it pertains to free speech, which is what I'll talk about today.  If you ask anyone, they’ll probably tell you that it allows them to say whatever they want.  Because of this, some people think there should be limits on, say, distasteful speech.  Such limits would be unfortunate (and unconstitutional).  But this freedom isn’t the true power of the First Amendment.  We should think of the First Amendment as an illuminator and exposer, allowing us to better gauge the people around us.  Let me explain. 

If we lived in a society where speech was restricted, we would be much poorer because we would not be able to identify people with flawed reasoning, hateful thoughts, and vile ideas.  If racists, sexists, bigots and others were not able to speak their thoughts, we’d never know that they were in our midst, and we’d not have the opportunity to confront them.  Contrary to popular opinion, restricting speech does not defeat ideas, it simply gives those ideas the opportunity to fester and grow like a cancer.

So we should celebrate the First Amendment not for what it allows you to say, but what it allows others to say, as well.  Even if what they have to say is vile and hateful.  Let’s not restrict speech.  Remember: The First Amendment is The Great Illuminator. 

What’s your favorite amendment?

Let’s say that you walk into the only restaurant in the county.  You sit down, and open a menu printed on high-quality paper.  The tables are beautiful and there are all sorts of luxurious decorations.  The wait staff is top notch.  In other words, the presentation is impeccable. 

However, inside the menu are two choices and neither are very good.  You come back a few times over the years, but the food gets neither more diverse nor better tasting. 

So what do you do?  It's the only restaurant in the county.  Would you keep going back to this restaurant?  I'm guessing that you would not, at least not until they got a third item on the menu for you to try.  Instead, you'd either stop eating out, or drive to the next county. 

Our current two-party system is much like this restaurant, except that we can’t really drive to the next town to dine.  We have two choices.  They are flashy and polished and they all look good at first glance.  But both of them repeatedly turn out to be less than nutritious and delicious.  Why do we keep going back to this limited buffet? 

Think of voting as the sustenance of civic virtue.  But like your real-life diet, you must be careful what you consume.  Likewise, you must be careful on whom you cast your vote.  Your vote is sacred, and right now we don’t seem to be making healthy choices.

I’d like a third choice on the menu of democracy.  I’d like a viable third party.  Wouldn’t you?

In a conversation between two people about the possible erosion of our freedoms and civil liberties, you might hear the phrase, “Yes, but we’re still the freest nation on earth.”  While this may be true for the time being, I think it’s the wrong way to look at it.  In my opinion, when talking about freedom we should always ask, “Do we have enough?”

We may be (or may not be, depending on your particular bent) the freest nation on earth, but I have bad news for New Yorkers.  According to the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, we live in the least free state in the union.  I encourage you to read the report for yourself, but if you’re a freedom-conscious person it may strike you as a little depressing.  You can read the reports on all fifty states as well, and perhaps see why New Yorkers lead the nation in emigration to other states – New Yorkers are voting with their feet.

If you’re the least free of the freest, how free does that make you?  While that sounds like a grade school tongue twister, it’s a legitimate, if somewhat rhetorical question. 

Freedom is something that I think about a great deal, and it’s something that should be on the minds of all Americans.  But we tend to, overall, take our freedom for granted and those freedoms are most threatened when such apathy and ambivalence exists.

How do you rate our freedom?  Too much?  Too little?  Just right?  Or is it something you simply don't think about?

I recently read an article that discussed Republican candidate for President Rick Santorum’s intent to crackdown on internet pornography.  In a statement he said, “The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws.”  Ignoring, for a moment the impossibility of Santorum’s proposition, this got me thinking: Is it the government’s job to preserve our culture?  Perhaps more importantly, does our government have the power to regulate morality, and if it does, should it? 

Of course, I’ve long asked those questions and my conclusion is that such cultural preservation and regulation is beyond the scope of the government.  We should, as a nation, be aware that legislating morality and the very subjectively applied preservation of culture are slippery slopes upon which to tread.  Once it starts, where does it end?  Even if you believe that pornography is bad and agree with Santorum’s plan to limit its consumption, what is to stop the government from making for you moral choices with which you disagree?  What if Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher are deemed obscene and are thus forced off the airwaves and televisions?  These are things we should think about before we grant the government the power to make these types of decisions for us. 

Personally, I do not want the government making my choices.  If I don’t wish to consume pornography or violent movies and books, I can simply not consume those things.  I feel that I am a fully informed adult and am better suited than the government to make these decisions.  I would posit that moral choices are personal choices and I fear the day when they are instead made and enforced by the government.  After all, aren’t we supposed to be the freest nation on earth? 

What are your thoughts on the subject of regulating morality and preserving culture?

One year ago today, Arid Uka saw a USAF bus outside of a passenger terminal in Frankfurt International Airport.  He asked an airman for a cigarette and inquired if the men on the bus were going to Afghanistan.  The airman replied that they were and when he turned away, Uka pulled out a pistol and shot him in the head.  Yelling “God is Great,” he then shot the driver and fired several shots at the passengers of the bus.  He was stopped by an airman and two German police officers when his gun jammed.  He killed two men and wounded two others. 

On November, 5, 2009, US Army Major Nidal Malik Hassan walked into the Soldier Readiness Processing Center on Fort Hood, Texas, sat at an empty table, bowed his head, and, shouting “God is Great,” began firing on the soldiers in the building.  Thirteen people were killed and nearly thirty were wounded. 

Ten Soldier’s Medals were given out as a result of the Fort Hood shooting to soldiers who distinguished “himself or herself by heroism not involving actual conflict with an enemy.”  I do not presently know of any medals given to the airmen at Frankfurt, but to the men and women being shot at and trying to defend themselves, it felt a lot like actual conflict with an enemy, just as Hassan and Uka felt that they were combating an enemy. 

We can argue about the validity of the term “Global War on Terror” another time, but if we are to believe that this is in fact a global war, that our citizens can be declared enemy combatants and killed in a foreign land without trial, and that our homeland is a potential battlefield, shouldn’t the men and women killed and wounded in incidents like the above be recognized as participants in battle?  Should they be awarded the Purple Heart? 

Which of these statements is true: A.) The War on Drugs has been a success?  B.) The War on Drugs has been a failure?

Admittedly, this is a bit of a trick question because the terms of success and failure are not adequately defined.  But are the actual terms of success in the War on Drugs any better defined?  Do any of us know the measure of success? 

Taking this thought experiment further, if I told you that the correct answer was B.), you might be hesitant to believe me.  Drugs are a bad thing, so a war against them must be a good thing.  That logic misses the point, however, and if our measure of success is a decrease in the number of drug users in America, the War on Drugs has failed.  In fact, I don’t know of any way in which you could qualify the drug war as a success.

The monetary costs of this war is staggering, and you’d be surprised to learn that only a tiny fraction of funding goes towards treatment programs, which the RAND Corporation says is twenty-three times more effective in cutting drug use.  Foreign aid sent to South and Central America is equally staggering and oversight on its use is often very limited.  We are imprisoning nearly a half a million Americans each year on drug-related charges, further burdening our prison system and straining budgets.  Our efforts to interdict drugs are not reducing drug trafficking profits in the slightest and may in fact increase profits.

Three-quarters of Americans viewed the War on Drugs as a failure in 2008.  Has that changed in 2012?  What are your views on the War on Drugs?  Should we keep it, scrap it, or modify it?

In the United States, individuals have an incredibly powerful political voice.  The problem is we don’t realize it.  Every couple of years we have the opportunity (or perhaps the duty) to cast votes in elections ranging from the town level to the national level.  When you consider the sheer number of elections at the various levels of government, you begin to realize that you have a great deal of say on how your town, village, state, and federal government are run. 

Unfortunately, cynicism has eroded the opinion of voting and a lot of us simply don’t do it.  This cynicism might cause you to think that you have no say; no influence.  Further, it is easy to think that once an election is over, we’ve had our say in the process, that we’ve given our blessing for the newly elected (or reelected) to act on our behalf, and there’s nothing left for us to do.  This is simply not true.  While I encourage everyone to be an educated voter, voting is not our only tool with which to speak.  Arguably, a more powerful tool exists: Your pen.

Your vote is, in any given election, a single-use item.  But there is no limit on how many times you can write your representatives and express your opinions and concerns on the issues of the day.  Though you shouldn’t be, considering it is our representatives’ jobs to field our concerns, you will be surprised at how effective this is, and with that comes a growing confidence in your ability to participate in and influence the system.  When we write, they listen.

You might ask, “How do I do this?”  It’s easy.  You can send them email or regular mail, and they will respond.  I’ve contacted my representatives on three issues in the last five months and have received responses from all of them.

You can find your Congressmen and women HERE.

You can find your Senators HERE. 

Look here for NYS Senators and Assemblypersons. 

If you have any questions, feel free to post a comment and I’ll get back to you.  Also, if you’ve any successes or experiences you wish to share, please do the same.

Remember: You’ve a voice.  Please; use it.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that he will announce “major nuclear accomplishments” very soon, perhaps sometime this week.  The nature of these accomplishments are unknown, but simply saying that he has an announcement to make concerning his nation’s nuclear capabilities (be they peaceful or otherwise) has set the region, and the world, on edge. 

Leon Panetta, the US Defense Secretary, has publicly stated that there is a “strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May, or June.”  This would be a preemptive attack, ostensibly made before Iran could develop a viable nuclear weapon and, it is Israel’s thought, use that weapon on Israel.  The question, however, is whether or not such an attack would be successful in crippling Iran’s capabilities.

Israel has had past success in preemptive strikes, for example on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and a possible nuclear facility in Syria in 2007.  But Iran is neither Iraq nor Syria.  Iran’s nuclear facilities are thought to be highly decentralized and many are undoubtedly located deep underground.  There are sure to be gaps in Israel’s knowledge.  Success, even limited success such as setting Iran’s program back six months or a year, cannot be guaranteed.  Israel must determine for itself if the risks are worth the reward. 

What about the United States?  Currently, the American aircraft carriers are in the region and 5^th Fleet’s headquarters is in Bahrain, right across the Persian Gulf from Iran.  Congress has recently approved a request for funds to improve the capabilities of the so-called Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a weapon designed to destroy facilities buried deep in the earth.  President Obama has repeatedly stated that while diplomatic solutions are preferred, no options are off the table.  But is America’s military or economy able to carry out the unspoken yet obvious options still on the table? 

This is a highly complex situation and a discussion of it could span dozens of pages.  Regardless, it is a situation that Americans should be aware of and should discuss.  It’s possible that a military confrontation with Iran is in the near future.  I’m not so sure that’s a good thing.

The social scientists tell us that when disaster strikes, human beings drop all the petty antics of ...well, being a human being.... and work together for common interests and the common good.  When all of us face the same giant, we perceive the common threat, and an unconcious realization surfaces that by working together, every individual as well as the community in general will benefit.  Sometimes this is a conscious thought, and people with this talent usually find themselves volunteering in a leadership capacity or as a volunteer working with other people in other places affected by disaster. This dynamic of human interaction is going on right now in Birmingham, Alabama. I saw it after the Good Friday earthquake in Anchorage, Alaska in 1964; after the floods created by hurricane Agnes across the Southern Tier in 1972; and after hurricane Hugo scrubbed clean not only the South Carolina coast near Charleston, but a huge swath of the landscape into the Carolina Piedmont in 1989. We look each other in the face, see the same bewilderment, feel the same fear, and something deep in our hearts connects us one to another in a way that was not possible just a few hours ago.  Compassion, hidden deep within the human soul, springs to the forefront - almost as a defensive mechanism to help us deal proactively with the devastation that has been visited upon us.  How fearfully and wonderfully we are made!

So how are we dealing with the devastation of poverty that has been eroding our community and our region of the country?  Poverty has done exactly what every other natural disaster does to human community.  It takes away homes and livelihoods, like a tornado ravages a town.  It isolates us the way a flood tears down bridges and digs up highways and railroads.  It pits us one against another as resources dry up, and we each fight to hang onto our individual slice of the economic pie while keeping someone else at bay, like seagulls fighting over a scrap of food, "mine, mine, mine!" We talk a lot about cooperation and collaboration - and we do work on some things together  - but the truth is that we will rarely sacrifice in order to help another struggler overcome, especially when we judge that struggler to be deficient, needy, temperamental, or infected with an entitlement mindset. Whew!, that last observation is pretty judgemental in and of itself, isn't it?

My point is that as individuals we may each feel overwhelmed by the poverty that's right in front of us like a fallen tree on the road, but as a community we have yet to look into each others' eyes, and do something that will connect us one-to-another at the heart level.  I believe compassion fatigue has affected some of us; others just look away and may even privately thank God that, "I'm not one of them".  We give food, we donate money, clothing, outdated and unused furniture and house wares; we may even donate cars and boats - but we haven't connected the dots to see the big picture.  Poverty is overwhelming us, and it's not just about lack of jobs.  Changing your economic status may change the outward aspects of your life, but not touch the inner workings of your spirit.  In fact a positive change in economic status sometimes reveals the true poverty of the spirit. In the America of today, economic class translates into cultural class, and cultural class divides us - just like it did in the old country that so many of our forebears fled; just like it did before the other great cultural awakenings in our history: women's suffrage, World War II's Rosy the Riveter, the Civil Right's movement.  We've been through much as a nation and as a people, and by and large we've risen above our circumstances.  How fearfully and wonderfully we are made!

So, what will be our response to the poverty that is diverting our taxes to Medicaid instead of maintaining the infrastructure necessary for commerce, like snow-plowing and salt for our roads and paving machines to keep our byways in good repair.  What will we do to combat the poverty that's sending away our brightest young men and women who know they have to go elsewhere to find work, careers, and opportunities.

We are fearfully and wonderfully made, endowed by our creator with talents, and talents can be honed into skills.  The problems of poverty are too big, too great a giant, for any one group or organization to overcome.  We have to start working together at the individual level as well as at the institutional and community policy level.  Citizens, agencies, government, non-profits and school districts, we can all start looking each other in the eye, and agree that we must work together to defeat poverty.  If we do not, the disasters of broken lives and broken community will have defeated us, and we will have betrayed the hard work, sweat, tears and sacrifices of the generations that harvested the forests and broke the land that made it possible for Bath to have once been the Jewel of the Southern Tier.

Can we get it back?  Do we want it back?  We're better than what we have been.  In the words of an American hero who may have saved the White House from a terrorist-piloted jetliner, "let's roll."

In the early 1990s, term limits for Congress was a hot topic at the state level with many states voting to limit the terms of their congressional representatives.  A constitutional amendment was even proposed by certain lawmakers.  These efforts were defeated respectively by a Supreme Court decision in 1995 and congressional apathy.  Today we don’t hear much about term limits and we’ve come to accept the possibility of virtual life terms for our Representatives and Senators.  I think that it’s time the issue was brought up once again. 

Since 1964, the reelection rate for the House of Representatives has never dipped below 85%.  The Senate hasn’t enjoyed quite as high numbers, but has only dipped lower than 70% in three elections since that year.  At first glance, one might think that these high reelection rates are indicative of a happy electorate.  But when the approval rating for Congress is in the low teens, this reasoning must be questioned, especially when voters affiliated with both parties seem to agree that Congress does a terrible job. 

There are many reasons incumbents enjoy such high reelection rates, and the sum of these reasons make it difficult if not impossible for challengers to defeat them, essentially guaranteeing long careers for what have become career politicians.  Incumbents have name recognition, organized infrastructure in their home districts and in Washington, ready access to donors, the backing of one of the two major parties, and no challenges from within their own party.  They’ve already won at least one election, and we should never discount the effects of district realignment resulting in favorable demographics (i.e. solid party voters).  Voters aren’t necessarily happy with their representative; the deck is just greatly stacked against challengers.  Term limits solve these problems. 

Collectively, we recognize the poor job Congress does, yet we keep sending the same men and women to represent us.  This isn’t a good thing.  Poor turnover ossifies the legislature, and limits the opportunities for otherwise quality and qualified citizens to represent their communities.  Further, the success of term limits in local and state politics is proof that term limits are not bad and may in fact infuse legislative bodies with new life. 

So I ask our leaders and fellow citizens:  Term limits; why not?

When I was a kid, home was anywhere my dad's career as a U.S. Army soldier took us. We lived in some pretty cool places that, nowadays, people pay lots of money just to go visit.  But I was a child, they were only the places where my family lived, no big deal.  However, when I emerged from the cocoon of child-hood into young manhood, my spirit fell in love with the place where we lived at that time.  The forested hills and mountains, the cool, clear brooks, creeks and rivers running into lakes with beaches of pebbles and stone, the verdant valleys brimming with fruits and vegetables like a cornucopia; it all said,"welcome home".  The feeling that cemented itself into my bones was that finally, after wandering across all 50-states and some foriegn countries, the rich, fertile soil invited me to plant my roots and become one with something beautiful, solid and dependable.  For John Denver it may have been the mountains of Colorado, but for me, moving to western New York was coming home to a place I'd never been before.

Then I went to college, and once again career carried me from place to place, and even overseas.  Each time I moved, I remember thinking how I would love someday to finally settle down in a small town in the forested hills of western New York, and raise my family in the same kind of atmosphere that I had found so rewarding as a teenager.  Then one day Opportunity called on the phone and an invitation to do something meaningful was extended, and my wife and I our three youngest children moved to Bath a little more than 10-years ago.

Upstate New York is still a lovely place, and there are some lovely and loving people here.  The mountains are still forested, and clear, cold, rocky streams and lakes still beckon. The soil is rich, the air clean. The landscape is enchanting. Much is still the same.  The soft summer evenings with sunsets that seem to last forever, the cold blue hue of a winter evening as the family gathers in a warm home and sits down together for dinner; there is much to be cherished here.

But something is different.  Something has left and gone away, and something not welcome has settled into it's place.  Something other than hope and bright expectations for the future has sent away that which was dependable and solid.  Blame it on jobs going elsewhere, or blame it on the progeny of the solid stock of pioneers moving away and taking the spirit of their forebears with them. Blame it on what you will - something is different.  Call it the spirit of pessimism, if you will.  I don't mean to insult anyone, but heaven knows that entrepreneurs are fewer and farther in between.  Instead of a solid and growing pool of employment opportunities supporting a solid and dependable tax base; instead of sustaining and growing the building trades as citizens work toward building new homes for growing families and pushing the envelope of economic development; instead of attracting the creative class who are inventing the future of technology and science - we offer tax incentives to casinos, and tax the vices and addictive substances in hopes of buffering state coffers.  

There is a mourning for what was, but little sentiment for what can yet be.  We have a lot of great people, and the attractions that appealed to me as a young man are still part of the landscape.  But an eroding tax base, the growing presence of poverty, and a spirit of defeatism now occupy these valleys and hills. 

I've been stirred by a community effort underway in Rochester, a TV ad that challenges the community and its' leadership with a simple phrase: "we're better than this."

I firmly believe that Steuben County and the Southern Tier are, and can be, "better than this".  We have what I as a young professional, and then a young husband and father, was ardently looking for.  Let's open up a conversation centered on hope, dream some big dreams, and see what grows.  

When I returned to my hometown after living overseas, my first mission was to stop at Arby's for a chicken, bacon, and Swiss sandwich.  As much as I enjoyed German cuisine, I missed the satisfying taste of some American fast food.  Having accomplished that mission on the drive home from the airport, my second order of business was to pick up the local paper.  Because I had been gone for so long, I had developed a strong desire to contribute to the public discussion about issues that I thought were important.  Upon opening The Courier, I was immediately impressed with the rich dialogue that was taking place in our area, and I had no choice but to reconsider my theory that civic virtue and participation were dying in America.  What I saw was a citizenry that was deeply connected and keenly interested in the topics of the day, both locally and nationally.  Even better, The Courier seemed to not only provide ample space for such dialogue, but to strongly encourage participation.  In short, it was a community and I had to be a part of it. 

I wrote a few letters to the editor over the summer and into the fall, thinking very modestly in terms of feedback and reciprocation.  But every time I wrote, people would remark to me that they had read my letter and would often offer comments about the subject matter I chose.  People weren't just contributing; they were reading their fellow citizens' contributions, forming opinions, and following up.  Because of this, when The Courier approached me about being an online contributor, I couldn't say no.  How could I pass on a chance to be so intimately involved in the local dialogue?  The truth is, I am honored to do so, and I hope that my contributions will continue to be well-received even if we disagree from time to time. 

In this space, I aim to challenge you to think differently.  I ask that you not only accept that challenge and keep an open mind, but strive to challenge me in turn.  I am excited to have this opportunity, and I welcome you to The Steuben Courier Town Square.