The hot and miserable August weather has moved indoors in cities and towns across our land. Moved indoors and taken the form of recriminating rhetoric as neighbors square off in shout fests billed as informational town hall meetings about health care.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) enjoys using the term “evil mongers’ to describe American citizens expressing their anxieties and frustrations, many times with verbal vigor and abuse, over healthcare proposals they fear will adversely affect their lives and the lives of their children and of their parents.

Reid, along with many supporters of the various healthcare bills floating around Capitol Hill, says Republican special interest groups have organized the protests. That is the case to some degree. But to say individual Americans who cut across generational, social, and economic lines cannot think for themselves and cannot decide on their own to attend these meetings is simply absurd and borders on the disingenuous.

These town hall demonstrators, many of them children of the Summer of Love, have taken a page out of the liberal playbook to create our current Summer of Dissonance. Obstructive behavior to silence opposing views is not uncommon, particularly on college campuses, and the targets are usually conservative speakers.

In October 2006, someone pulled a fire alarm at Georgetown University to stop a speech by Minuteman co-founder Chris Simcox. A few weeks later, Columbia University students stormed a stage where Jim Gilchrist, the other Minuteman co-founder, was speaking.

In October 2007, members of Amnesty International, Veterans for Peace, and Students for Justice in Palestine, among others, disrupted a lecture by David Horowitz at Emory University, a common occurrence for Horowitz.

In April 2008, dozens of lesbians at Smith College climbed through windows and stormed the podium to stop a speech by Ryan Sorba, author of The Born Gay Hoax.

And last April, University of North Carolina police arrested six people who disrupted a speech by Virgil Goode, a former congressman from Virginia, who was speaking against affirmative action and illegal immigration. A week earlier, UNC police used pepper spray on students who disrupted a speech by Tom Tancredo, a former congressman from Colorado, who was talking about his opposition to in-state tuition benefits for illegal immigrants.

Back when I handled communications for a university president, I crafted the school’s position regarding controversial speech on campus. The result was a statement that said universities, by their very nature, are forums for the free expression, discussion, and debate of all views, including those that may be unpopular or even repugnant to some members of the university community or to the public. I went on to point out that we should encourage these exchanges as long as they remain within the boundaries of the law, which is an idea essential to a thriving and open democracy and, if followed, would temper today’s tempestuous town hall meetings.

I have come to believe over the years that some people on the left of the political spectrum interpret the First Amendment to mean this: “You can say what you like as long as I like what you say.” This is why they meet challenges to their political agenda with hateful words and ham-handed techniques. These attempts to stifle questions and concerns end up frustrating citizens not used to civil disobedience and unruly demonstrations.

They learn fast, however, these so-called special-interest puppets and evil mongers. They learn fast and respond to attempted censorship with shouts and jeers, chants and slogans. They quickly become that which they do not like and do not respect.

And this why we need Atticus Finch, the quiet and reasoning father in Harper Lee’s Pulitzer Prize winning novel To Kill A Mockingbird. We need to sit on the porch and listen to Atticus explain how we confuse issues and drown discourse with raised voices and angry fists.

He would begin by telling us to hold our heads high and keep our fists down. “No matter what anyone says to you, don't let 'em get your goat,” he would say, adding, “Try fighting with your head for a change.”

Atticus would then raise his chin and look out over those assembled around his porch, the very ones who had been hurling invectives at each other and getting no closer to resolving the issues. “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view,” he would say, “until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”

Finally, he would place his hands on his knees, slowly stand, then look down upon the upturned faces. He would watch the thoughtful in the crowd nod their heads and walk away into the night. Then he would imperceptibly shake his head as he looked at the remaining angry faces, and, in a quiet voice, almost as if speaking to himself, he would say, “I think I'm beginning to understand something. I think I'm beginning to understand why Boo Radley’s stayed shut up in the house all this time.”

President Barack Obama’s performance on “The Tonight Show” last week prompted various friends and colleagues to discuss the question of leadership. No one came up with a definition suitable for nailing to the wall or turning into a message to scroll across the computer screen. I suggested it may be one of those things we know when we don’t see it. Kinda the reverse of former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s description of hard-core pornography. He knew it when he saw it.

And that’s the curious, if not tortured, parallel between lack of leadership and porn: with both, someone’s gonna get (fill in the appropriate verb).

I used to work closely with the CEO of a billion-dollar research and education organization with thousands of employees spread out over several locations. Looking back over his tenure, I can break down his leadership style into four principles: 1) don’t make me make a decision, 2) give folks what they want, 3) make people feel good, and 4) make them laugh. I guess you could combine the third and fourth tenets to shorten the list.

Early on, the CEO told his vice presidents not to bring him any problems. “I expect you to work them out,” he said. “If you come to me for a solution, I figure the best minds here couldn’t come up with an answer, so you’ll be stuck with whatever I come up with.” 

Shortly after that, a group of downstream managers asked permission and funding to continue an annual management conference. “I had the same sort of request at my last place,” he told me. “I always let them do it, because it takes them about a year to organize one of these things, and that keeps them away from me for a year.”

He never spoke in depth on any subject, because, as I discovered, he didn’t possess any depth of knowledge or experience. But he was awfully good with smoke and mirrors. “I don’t use prepared speeches,” he told me. “I got about six or seven basic speeches I like to use, and I use a little of one here and a little of another there, to come up with something to say. I usually don’t know what I’m going to say until I get up there.  But it’s important to know that people don’t want to think hard about things and they don’t want to hear bad news. You want to give them just a few statistics to keep the subject fresh, and tell them a little history to give them some perspective on what you’re talking about.”

And then came his request of me. “I need you to find me some new jokes,” he said. “I spend about half my time finding jokes. So, you could do me a big favor by finding some new jokes for me.”

President Obama’s appearance with Leno made me look back over the past year and at the parallels with the aforementioned CEO. Let’s start with decisions. We’ll have to give the president the benefit of the doubt here and assume someone else is making the big decisions, like naming tax cheats to his cabinet, or picking a treasury secretary who was butt deep into the AIG bonus fiasco from the git-go. Those must have been examples of “If you come to me for a nominee, I figure the best minds here couldn’t come up with a good choice, so you’ll be stuck with the person I choose.” 

Next is give folks what they want. People wanted change going into the November elections. Every national poll last summer showed nine out of ten Americans did not like Congress’ performance, while eight out of ten didn’t like the president’s performance. The voters wanted change, and that was the mantra repeated by candidate Obama at every stop. It didn’t matter if the change were cosmetic and easily reversed when needed, like with John McCain’s assertion that the fundamentals of the economy are sound, a position derided by candidate Obama as a statement by someone out of touch with the realities of the American people. Then a few days ago, a bright light shone from the heavens and suddenly the fundamentals of the economy are sound. Praise the Lord and pass the ipecac.

Then came the I’m-just-one-of-you evenings with Leno, with Mr. Obama as the sole guest on a night that could have included an enhanced starlet, a stoned rocker, or a kid who whistles Chopin through his nose. No, we didn’t have one of those. Pity. I’m not sure even the most vapid of entertainers would have made fun of the Special Olympics just so folks could feel good and laugh.

Memo to President Obama: Laughter is no substitute for leadership.

My birthday is Jan. 20.  Every four years, the nation stops its normal course of events and holds a parade and celebration.  The quadrennial festivities began, by coincidence, at the moment Dwight Eisenhower became the 34th president of the United States of America back in 1953.  Truly, a moment in history.  But, was either event an historic moment?  After 56 years of thoughtful consideration, I vote in the affirmative to both.

History, by its very definition, is in the past; therefore, an event of historic significance, be it my birth or the inauguration of a president, does not become a momentous occasion until after it occurs.  We can anticipate with great expectation the significance of a future event, but to do more is to wallow in the shallow pit of hyperbole.

And, the wallowing over the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama as the nation’s 44th chief executive has taken away some of the “historic” joy for me.  Here’s why I say this.  Three months before the Democratic National Convention, wide-eyed journalists gushed with school-girl giddiness over the fact that Mr. Obama would accept his party’s nomination on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech.  Yes, this would be a significant event in the histories of presidential politics and civil rights (USA Today termed it “serendipitous timing”), and the angle freshened an overly long story.  But, when journalists declared Obama the nominee (not “the presumptive nominee”), and brought to our attention the convergence of these two events, they smothered us with their unfettered excitement.  No fewer than 900 references to the serendipitous timing, but not with that wonderful phrase, turn up in a Google search for June 3-4.  Hundreds more show up in the days that followed.

Thank you for pointing it out, but stop beating me with it.

The same sentiment holds for the inauguration.  Today, just a few hours before the event, the forced creation of history by journalists and regular folks alike is making me want to turn away.  It’s like when your mother arranges a blind date with the daughter, or son, of a friend of a friend.  The build up rarely lives up to reality.

And, the sad thing is that the desire to be a part of any history is so strong with some people that they fail to see the irony in their words and actions.  Take this email describing the events at one Inauguration Day gathering in Houston: 

“The general plan is to commemorate the day with an ocular demonstration of ‘The Evolution of a Dream:  Remembering Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’ by simulcasting the swearing in of the 44th President who is a person of color.”  The follow-up email arrived a few days later with a flyer containing the Obama quote:  “This is not a White America.  This is not a Black America.  This is not a Latino America.  This is not an Asian America.  This is the United States of America.”

The new generation of journalists long for their own presidential Camelot.  Another Google search for the terms Obama and Camelot returns nearly a thousand hits.  The truth is that Camelot did not exist as a descriptive term for the shortened Kennedy administration until after the president’s assassination.  Also, keep in mind this bit of political irony purveyors of the New Camelot keep quiet:  Kennedy won the 1960 election thanks to some old-fashion Chicago vote-counting chicanery.

That historians will view my birthday this year as a significant day in the history of our nation is not totally a function of my being or of Mr. Obama’s racial mix.  The inauguration of the 44th president would have historic significance regardless of who won the election.  We could have had as president the first former prisoner of war, the first female, the first Mormon, the first Libertarian, the first former First Lady, the first cross-dressing former mayor, the first former preacher from Arkansas, the first former actor from Tennessee, the first Hispanic, the first president with hair plugs, the first . . . well, you get the idea.

My birthday and the national event that accompanies it this year are heady times, no doubt about it.  That’s why there’s something unseemly about all of the pre-birthday/inauguration hype.  Let the day be what it is to each person according to what’s important to that person.  It may be a day to celebrate the start of another year.  For some, the day may carry great ideological significance or racial pride.  And pride for others may be found in the peaceful transition of power that begins another chapter in our nation’s history. 

I intend to spend the day celebrating my birthday, celebrating a new president, and letting history sort out the significance of both.

The first comment I received from someone not on my television screen regarding the election of Barack Obama as the next president of the United States came via email early the day after the election. It asked simply, “Now what?” Those two words coalesced the questions facing not only our new president, but also the people of our nation, regardless of ideology or political affiliation.

Now we wait, I replied, and guard the house, and protect the chickens, and peer deep into the night and listen.

It occurred to me that my reply may sound skeptical, indeed fearful, of Mr. Obama. Quite the contrary. I meant to point out folks should react cautiously, but not anxiously.

Those who did not vote for him have no need to grab their rifles, run out into their yards with hair aflame, and fire blindly at imagined intruders. Those who voted for the current Mr. Bush the first time must remember their outrage when supporters of Al Gore derided the nation’s new leader before he could prove himself one way or the other.

Yes, there was much anger and even considerable suspicion regarding the election, bad feelings that remain to this day. But it’s different this time. The outcome is clear. No chads hanging the election in the balance. Back then, in 2000, Mr. Gore received half a million more votes than Mr. Bush. This week, Mr. Obama outpolled Mr. McCain by more than seven million votes. Even though he did not win, Mr. McCain received more votes than Messrs. Bush and Gore and even Ronald Reagan in either of his landslide elections.

Mr. Obama will become president of a nation divided strongly along many lines. Nearly 56 million of his fellow citizens preferred another candidate, another set of ideas, another plan for change. He will learn on the job, as did every other president before him, the best way to lead his nation in the direction he believes best. In the process, he will lose many of his followers, people who want to take their leader to places he does not, or cannot, go. He will find, as did every other president before him, that the Oval Office is a lonely and confining place.

That’s why we the people need to cut him some slack and resist the temptation to nitpick, to continue the mean-spiritedness that has infected our nation and has made a sport out of making sport of someone we don’t particularly like. The level of political intolerance and nasty rhetoric seems to have increased considerably during the last couple of years. Were the commentators and comedians to blame or did the campaigns set the tone that others mimicked? It doesn’t matter today. The election is over and both candidates, in their respective concession and acceptance speeches, achieved the level of eloquence we should see during a campaign, not just at the end.

Mr. McCain began his speech by asking the crowd to stop booing at the name of Barack Obama. And then he urged his supporters to join him in congratulating the next president and in offering Mr. Obama “our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromise to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited. Whatever our differences,” he continued, “we are fellow Americans.”

It is natural, he said, to feel disappointment. “But tomorrow, we must move beyond it and work together to get our country moving again.”

Mr. Obama echoed in his acceptance speech that call for national unity. He told the world that the citizens of our nation “have never been a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states. We are, and always will be, the United States of America.”

And then, on a night filled with history, he called forward the memory of Abraham Lincoln, a Republican from Illinois, who was the first to carry his party’s banner to the White House. “As Lincoln said to a nation more divided than ours,” he said, “we are not enemies, but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.”

That statement answers the second email I received the morning after the election, sent by a person who wrote, “He will never be MY president.” Our political system, the envy of the world, allows us to embrace fully the victor while guarding the house and peering deep into the night and listening. Then, if we find ourselves at odds with what comes to our front door, we can take up our ballot, not our rifle, and change our leadership again.

When historians look back on the 2008 U.S. presidential election, they may determine race and trust were the silent and deciding factors in the surprise election of John McCain.  Those same historians may also conclude Barack Obama played a significant role in his own defeat by making race an issue and by eroding the trust of voters by refusing to place his faith in them.

Let’s begin the race issue with a disclaimer.  I looked hard at the Obama candidacy early on, because I didn’t find much in common politically with the choices at the time.  Except for Obama.  We’re both from Illinois.  We’re both racially mixed.  Neither of us conducted our youthful days in conventional ways, at least not conventional to people of earlier generations.

But, before I went Full Barry, I wanted to hear him repudiate those who could not resist the easy temptation to call him the black candidate.  I waited for him to say his father was a black man from Kenya and his mother was a white woman from Kansas, which made him the new, blended face of our nation.  I wanted to hear him say he was not a hyphenated American, because that simple mark dividing races and nationalities also divides our people as a nation.

Instead, he encouraged his followers and confederates to carry his African-American status like a battle flag to rally the troops.

I considered myself an equal mix of Anglo and Chinese until my wife pointed out this week, “Obama’s more of a white man than you are.”  After blinking my eyes a few times, I asked what she meant.

“Think about it.  Your father was part Native American.  Duh.”

I thought about it, and she was right.  My mother is full-blooded Chinese, my father was around a quarter Native American, so that makes me less than 40 percent Anglo, or white.  And (if you’ll pardon my grammar) that makes the black candidate for president more of a white man than me.

Obama’s choice to play the race card may not be lost on a sizeable portion of the non-black electorate.  Some folks already mention the Bradley Effect, which says a decisive number of people just can’t bring themselves to vote for a black candidate, regardless of what they say or do leading up to Election Day.  The name comes from former Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley, a black candidate who lost his 1982 California gubernatorial bid even though he led in pre-election polls.  

And today, less than two weeks from Election Day, it’s easy to understand why some non-black voters don’t want others to know they do not support Obama.  Who can blame them when any criticism or questioning of the candidate of change results in immediate old-school accusations of racism?

And that brings us to the second factor, the issue of trust.  Obama never really condemns the past and current political views of fellow Chicagoan Bill Ayers, pointing out, instead, that Ayers’ terrorist activities occurred when Obama was 8 years old, and, therefore, have no connection to Obama today.  If that’s true, then Obama’s position negates the argument of some black people who push for reparations because their ancestors were slaves.  That’s because slavery occurred before those living today were born, and, therefore, has no connection to anyone today.  Unless, of course, we have people who believe in slavery, in segregation, and in the superiority of one race over another.  If so, then we can make an argument that those who pal around socially, politically, or professionally with such individuals must share some level of affinity.

But Citizen Obama does not fully trust the American people to know his full and true relationship with Ayers, because he does not trust the American people to look at his life and accept him as our president.

The American people knew George W. Bush grew up around such neo-con luminaries as Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, but we elected him twice to the presidency.

The American people knew Bush was an average college student, and at one time was what some would call a drunkard who even lost his driver’s license for drunk driving, but we elected him twice to the presidency.

The American people knew Bush was an unsuccessful businessman and person not glib or quick on his feet, but we elected him twice to the presidency.

The American people only know about Obama what Obama wants us to know.  And mistrust in the judgment of the American people may tip enough votes to McCain, a candidate the American people know well.

Lost amid news about rising fuel costs, falling stock prices, mortgage foreclosures, and one African-American’s nutty surgical wish are stories of push backs by communities fed up with illegal immigration. 

Out in Thousand Oaks, Calif., earlier this month, some residents scored a small victory by effectively closing down for a day a city-sponsored day-labor center. Last year Judicial Watch wrote the mayor about the organization’s concerns that the city was violating federal immigration laws by spending more than $133,000 of public funds between 2001 and 2007 to subsidize what amounts to city-sanctioned criminal activity, since mostly illegal aliens hang out at the center. 

A small group of residents gathered on the sidewalk to wave placards and US flags at passing motorists. They also used video cameras to tape folks trying to hire illegals, which considerably cut down on business for the day. 

Out in Aurora, Colo., city council members this month will take up a proposal to change the definition of a temporary employment agency after citizens and business owners complained about people gathered at an intersection looking for temporary work. Some of the job seekers reportedly jump in front of vehicles or urinate behind the buildings. The proposal would force day laborers to stand 1,500 feet from the newly defined employment agencies. 

Lou Barletta, the three-term mayor of Hazelton, Pa., wants businesses there to work with a company that uses a federal data base to check on employees’ immigration status. Illegal immigration is the cornerstone of his campaign to oust a 12-term member of Congress. He also convinced the city council in 2006 to approve an ordinance denying business permits to companies that employ illegals. The ordinance also allowed for fines against landlords who rent to illegals, and it required tenants to register and pay for a rental permit. A federal judge said “No, no, no.”  

Federal courts around the nation struck down other attempts by cities to staunch the flow of illegals into their communities. Up in Farmers Branch, Texas, a federal judge this month quashed the city’s ban on renting apartments to illegals. Now, the city is thinking about following Hazelton’s plan.

The Fremont, Neb., city council is considering a proposal to ban the harboring or hiring of illegals or renting to them. And, officials in Escondido, Calif., want to enact ordinances that outlaw picking up day laborers from along some streets. They also want to discourage multiple families from sharing houses by requiring a permit for overnight parking.  

Opponents of the Fremont and Escondido plans say the cities’ attempts are unconstitutional. And, they’re probably right. Cities and states can’t enact laws governing immigration. That’s the job of the federal government. Plenty of laws exist to control immigration; they just need to be enforced.  

We’re starting to see some that enforcement. A few days ago, feds in Rhode Island raided six courthouses and arrested 31 illegals from Mexico, Guatamala, Honduras, and Brazil hired by contractors for the state court system. Then there’s Mack Associates, Inc., owner of eleven McDonald’s restaurants in Nevada, fined $1 million this past week after admitting to hiring 58 illegal immigrants. In Morgan City, La., Lenny Dartez, a former member of the state’s Democratic Party central committee and husband of former state representative Carla Dartez, faces up to five years in the pokey and up to $250,000 in fines for employing illegals from Trinidad at one of his companies. Citizen tips led to the arrests in all three of these cases. 

And, there is the answer. The illegal immigration issue may be a national concern, but it’s really an issue that can be addressed only on the individual level. 

Here’s what I mean. A couple of years ago, my mother-in-law nearly died after an illegal immigrant made an unlawful u-turn and rammed into her vehicle. My mother-in-law wanted to talk with her city council member and write letters to her state representatives about passing stricter immigration legislation until I pointed out that neither the city nor the state has jurisdiction. 

It’s up to you and your friends to do something about it, and that something is simply shunning those who purposely hire illegal workers, I said. Folks concerned about crime in their neighborhood establish neighborhood watches to keep out miscreants. Residents fed up with prostitution chase away the customers from the street corners. Citizens tired of drugs run off the dealers. They don’t wait for the government to enforce laws already on the books. 

Her preacher frequented the Mexican restaurant that hired the woman who hit her, so I suggested she tell the preacher to either stop going there or else they’d find a new minister. She didn’t like the idea.  

Shunning is not easy. She lives in a small Arkansas town. Shunning business owners and neighbors she’s known for decades would make it uncomfortable for her whenever she went to the country club or attended a Kiwanis meeting, she admitted. 

Some places encourage illegals to settle in their communities. But folks living in other cities, like the one’s mentioned earlier, want the illegals to go away. They can’t pass city ordinances, but they can take individual action. 

One person becomes two, who become four, which then becomes a movement. When the government won’t enforce its laws, the individual must turn his or her back on those who hire and harbor illegals. Non-violent community pressure in the form of economic and social shunning, also known as boycotts, may be the only solution.

I like satire as much as the next person, having engaged in a bit of it at the expense of  publicity-hungry nitwits. Yet, I don’t remember using satire to denigrate public employees as are some citizens in San Francisco.

Here’s what happened. Members of the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco, a merry band of political pranksters, were downing some brews when they came up with the idea to rename their city’s award-winning Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant in honor of George W. Bush. They want the name change to take effect Jan. 20, 2009, which is Inauguration Day. 

Supporters of the idea suggest San Franciscans participate in a synchronized flush to christen the renamed plant just as the new president takes the oath of office.

They have more than 8,500 signatures on a petition to put the question on the November ballot. One of the organizers admits the petition drive is a silly idea to some people, but adds that their grassroots campaign is the democratic process at work.

No argument there. In fact, we need more grassroots efforts, just not at the expense of hard-working folks, such as those who operate our sewage treatment plants.

I’ve never worked in a treatment plant, but I spent a couple of summers at the bottom of sewer mains in my hometown shoveling, well, stuff. Here’s a pop quiz: Do you know what a honey dipper is, and have you ever used one?

New York City describes what new sewage treatment employees can expect for their $30,000-a-year salary: working outdoors in all kinds of weather; working under high levels of noise; working in areas that may be damp, dark, dusty, dirty and/or acrid; using a respirator; and using equipment for fecal testing.

The wastewater treatment occupation is one of our nation’s most hazardous jobs. A 1997 study at Cornell University pointed out the primary route of chemically related health problems among sewage treatment workers came from inhalation, because many plants are not designed to prevent aerial dispersion of wastewater during the treatment process.  

Treating our sewage exposes these workers to chlorinated organic solvents and pesticides, PCBs, asbestos, dioxins, polycyclic aromatics, petroleum hydrocarbons, flame retardants, heavy metals, and radioactive materials that may increase the risk of cancer or abnormal births for the workers or their families.

Earlier this month, six workers at a sewage treatment plant in Sicily died from breathing poisonous fumes.

San Francisco (where some residents apparently believe their sewage don’t stink) has nearly 900 miles of sewers, three treatment plants, 36 overflow points, four outfalls, and 17 pump stations, according to the city’s official sewage site. The proposed George W. Bush Sewage Treatment Plant treats an average dry-weather flow of about 17 million gallons a day and has a total capacity of 65 million gallons during wet weather. 

In 2002, a National Public Radio reporter and his producer went into Cincinnati’s sewers as part of NPR’s series on dirty work. They descended 25-feet below the streets and, in hip waders, walked into a 20-foot-diameter pipe, part of a collection site, which spews what the reporter called “an unsavory mix of storm-water runoff and brown sewage.”

Cincinnati sewer workers told the NPR team they saw themselves as “environmentalists improving the quality of peoples’ lives,” even though others may find the work distasteful.

No. What’s distasteful here is the adolescent glee in which the petition organizers and fellow Bush haters in San Francisco and around the country revel.

One organizer, ignoring the obvious irony, said he believes most politicians are narcissistic and egomaniacs, and that it’s important for “satirists” like himself and the petition-drive organizers not let politicians define their own history.

A member of a Democratic online discussion board put it another way. If Bush had any sense of remorse, the member wrote, “he would die of humiliation and shame,” at having a sewage treatment plant named after him.

Is this arrogance based in ignorance or mean spiritedness, or both?

The White House refuses to comment on the petition drive, but who would blame the president for saying he is honored to be associated with folks who feel no humiliation and shame in their work? 

The humiliation and shame rests on those promoting the petition.

Here we are with a new week and another round of posturing, politicking, and punditry regarding the price of petroleum.  As happens when folks do a lot of talking, very little is said.

I hang around educated and talented people.  Each individual has at least one university degree.  Most read, watch, or listen to more than one news source every day.  They span generations with ages ranging from the 20s to the 70s. 

Yet, not a single person among them knew the answers to some basic questions pertinent to the growing discourse regarding the rising price of oil.  A few knew some of the answers, and some knew a few of the answers.  To be fair, I had to look up the answers, or else I would have been among the shoulder shruggers.

For instance, how big is a barrel?  Answer: 42 gallons.  So, now you know that when the price for a barrel of crude oil hits $140, that’s the same as $3.33 a gallon.

What nation supplies the most crude oil and petroleum products to the United States?  Answer: The United States.  According to the Energy Information Agency (www.eia.doe.gov), our country supplied 41 percent of the oil we consumed in March of this year. 

What nation, other than the U.S. , supplies the most crude oil and petroleum products to our country?  Answer:  Canada .  Our northern neighbor accounts for 12 percent of our nation’s oil and 20 percent of all the oil we import.  The rest of the top five include Saudi Arabia (7 percent and 13 percent); Venezuela (6 percent and 11 percent); Nigeria (6 percent and 10 percent); and Mexico (5 percent and 8 percent).

How much oil do we import from Persian Gulf countries?  I’m glad you asked.  Persian Gulf countries accounted for only 16 percent of our foreign oil imports each year from 2005 to 2007.  In fact, our Persian Gulf imports declined most of this decade, from a 15-year high of a little more than 1 billion barrels in 2001 to 791.9 million barrels in 2007.

What’s the difference between crude oil and petroleum products?  Answer: Crude oil provides, among other products, gasoline, diesel and jet fuels, heating oil, liquefied petroleum gas, lubricants, asphalt, plastics, synthetic fibers, detergents, fertilizers, ink, crayons, bubble gum, deodorant, tires, and heart valves.

One barrel of crude oil (which is 42 gallons, remember?), yields about 19.6 gallons of gasoline.  The other 22.4 gallons go into the products just mentioned.

How much of the cost of oil goes into the price of gasoline.  Answer:  A bunch.  We consumed about 390 million gallons of gas a day last year in our cars, trucks, recreational vehicles, boats, farm implements, and construction and landscaping equipment.  Back when crude was $68 a barrel (that was just last year), it accounted for about 58 percent of the price of a gallon of gasoline.  The rest of the price came from refining costs (17 percent), federal and state taxes (15 percent), and distribution and marketing (10 percent). 

By the way, the price of crude accounts for about 77 percent of the cost of gas at $4 a gallon.

Here’s a little something you may not have considered.  What products that you buy on a regular basis are sold with tax included?  Answer:  Gasoline.  For everything else, you add the tax at checkout.

The folks in California pay 63.9 cents a gallon in state and federal fuel taxes, the most in the nation.  That’s just the base, though.  Motorists there also pay an additional 6-percent state sales tax, with some paying another 1.25-percent county sales tax plus applicable local sales taxes.  Same in Illinois , where Chicago motorists pay 12.75 cents per gallon on top of the 57.9 cents per gallon in state and federal taxes.  Some Illinois motorists also pay a 6.25-percent sales tax.

Politicians, pundits, and other TV talking heads don’t like to provide these answers, because facts get in the way of positions that pander to the mob.  We don’t point fingers at Canada , because it’s de rigueur to paint the Saudis with the broad brush of blame.  Folks float the idea of a moratorium on state and federal gasoline taxes without explaining its minimal impact on gas prices, or without mentioning the $3 sales tax some motorists pay on top of a $50 fill up.  Policymakers don’t explain that oil trades in the dollar, which is weak vis-à-vis the Euro, because that would require solutions for strengthening the greenback.

And, it’s easier for simple minds to convince simpler minds to impose windfall-profit taxes on pension funds and owners of Individual Retirement Accounts who invest in oil companies than to take on credit card issuers charging double- and triple-digit interest rates to the millions of people using plastic to pay for food and fuel.  Talk about irony.

And, we sure wouldn’t want to impose a windfall-profit tax on someone who goes from making $56,000 a year as, say, an Illinois legislator, to $165,000 a year as, say, a U.S. senator, an increase of nearly 200 percent (not counting book deals or real-estate related loans).

Mundus vult decipi (and as my magician friends add: decipiatur)

Millions of Americans spent May 26 observing this year’s federally approved date for Memorial Day by chugging beers, burning meat, and participating in a host of other activities that had absolutely nothing to do with commemorating our nation’s war dead. Meantime, thousands of school children spent the day in classrooms, much to the dismay of some parents and talk-radio hosts. 

Although Memorial Day is a national holiday, it is not a federally mandated observance. At least not in the sense that states or public entities run the risk of losing federal funding or getting a wagging finger from Uncle Sam if they choose not to close shop on that day.
 
Here’s the weird thing. The schools that stayed open on Memorial Day closed their doors on Labor Day, Thanksgiving, that period at the end of December and the first couple of days of January that used to be Christmas Break, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Presidents Day, and Spring Break.  

Houston County, Tenn., schools took off ten days in October for Fall Break and another two weeks in March for Spring Break. Lancaster County, S.C., schools took two, four-day Spring Breaks: one in March and the other in April. 

And the kids in Seguin, Texas, got out to celebrate Cinco de Mayo, something kids in Mexico don’t do. Go figure. 

School officials say they had to keep their doors open. The guy speaking for Taylor County (Fla.) High School blamed it on the state legislature that changed the academic calendar for Florida’s public schools. 

The spokesperson for Lancaster County, S.C., schools (the ones that took two Spring Breaks this year) also blamed his state’s legislature, which he’ll have to do again next year, because the school board in February approved the 2008-09 calendar that also does not include a Memorial Day holiday. 

While driving in from the ranch the other day, I listened to a local talk-radio guy in Houston lambaste school officials down in McAllen for not observing Memorial Day. He failed to point out, though, that McAllen kids almost never get out of school. They don’t get Labor Day, MLK Day, Presidents Day, Fall Break, Cinco de Mayo, or a student/staff holiday the week after returning from Spring Break like the kids up in Austin get. All the McAllen kids get are a couple of days at Thanksgiving, those days at the end of December and the first couple of days of January that used to be Christmas Break, and a week in March for Spring Break. 

There is a point to all of this. Maybe holidays are too important or too personal for legislatures, school boards, and bosses to decide. Oh, they can set aside a finite number of days that their employees can take off, but maybe they should let their employees decide which days to stay home. 

An example is Christmas. There was a time when Christmas was the day set aside to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, you know, the Messiah, the Son of God. So, who would observe such a day? Certainly not Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists. Yet they all got Christmas off. Of course, today we don’t have Christmas. We have Winter Break, those days at the end of December and the first couple of days of January that used to be Christmas Break. 

Why not let local folks decide for themselves when to work and when to celebrate whatever it is they wish to celebrate? It’s a state rights thing, only on the local level. 

Here in Texas, we have several holidays that other states probably would celebrate if they put aside their Lone Star envy. San Jacinto Day on April 21 commemorates the capture of Santa Anna and more than 700 of his troops at the Battle of San Jacinto in 1836, but it’s just another work day for most Texans. We also have to work on Texas Independence Day (March 2), Emancipation Day (June 19), and Lyndon Baines Johnson Day (Aug. 27). 

I’d like to visit Hawaii some day. Until then, I might like to stay home every June 11, eat some pineapple, get lei-ed, and celebrate King Kamehameha Day. But I can’t, because someone else decided what holidays I can have.

On April 9, 2006, Internet sites that carry my column ran the following piece.  Events of recent days, and last night's debate against Bush by Democrat presidential candidates, made me consider reprising the column here.

No easy solutions to immigration’s Gordian Knot:
Just ask the Chinese

Before things get more out of hand, it is time for folks to take some deep breaths and think rationally about the next steps in undoing immigration’s Gordian Knot before it becomes our undoing.  This will not be easy (that’s why it’s a Gordian Knot!), and empty political rhetoric from Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, and political pot stirrers will just add to the confusion and delay reasonable resolutions. 

A sane and productive debate does not use the fates and fortunes of people as opportunities for political head knocking.  Not to pick on Democratic Party jeffe Howard Dean, but he just happens to be the latest high-profile politician to unleash another contender for the Mother of All Ironies. 

During a visit last week to California’s Alameda County Central Labor Council offices, Dean accused the president and the Republicans of scapegoating illegal aliens for political gain.  Dean’s audience included labor, community, and interfaith leaders who have their own reasons for exploiting illegal aliens; reasons that include increasing sagging union membership and assuring the future employment of individuals who make their living by taking public and private dollars to perpetuate poverty and the idea of victimhood.  There is no need to go into the hopes for political hay on the parts of Dean and the Democrats.

And others are out there.  

Like the Spanish-language DJs who used their airtime to promote and encourage the first marches by Mexicans and other Spanish-speaking immigrants.  Did they do it out of the goodness of their hearts, or out of the desire to increase ratings, considering they were just coming out of the winter ratings period and entering the spring sweeps?

Like the people passing out large, new Mexican flags.  Sure, many Mexican families own their country’s flag and proudly wave it on Cinco de Mayo; but, no rational person would doubt the existence of Mexican flag foisters hanging out of the back of trucks.

Like the people who work behind the scenes to encourage middle- and high-school students to cut classes and march on city hall.  These political puppet masters are no dummies.  They know kids are safe and make great front-page photos and tv news video.  They also know kids are safe because no city official wants to see images of tear gas and attack dogs unleashed on children.

History has an uncanny ability to shake off the dust and smack us up the side of the head.  Look closely and you will see a dust cloud coming, and that rushing sound you will hear shortly will be the prelude to a mighty reminder that we have been down this ugly road before.

Just ask the Chinese.

(Disclaimer: My grandfather was an illegal immigrant who left China in the early twentieth century and crossed into the U.S. from Canada.)

Immigrants from southern China started showing up along the Pacific coast about the middle of the nineteenth century, because of natural and manmade disasters and China’s collapsing rural economy.  Most of them were men who left their families, hoping to make some money and return home.  The first Chinese included professionals and merchants; laborers followed. 

Everyone got along until Chinese gold miners started making money from digs abandoned as worthless by American miners.  Then folks started looking around and saw that Chinese were working as cooks, launderers, and domestic servants.  By the depression of the 1870s, a few years after the completion of the Chinese-built transcontinental railroad, Americans saw Chinese as serious competition for the limited job opportunities.  Violence against the “Oriental Menace” spread from California to Wyoming, led by an Irish immigrant in San Francisco.

Not everyone saw the Chinese as a threat.  In 1876, David Phillips, in his “Letters from California” (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/cbhtml/cbhome.html), wrote that to take the Chinese out of California, “its industries would be ruined, and the lands, now so productive, would be cultivated without remunerative results.  They supply, by their toil, nearly all the vegetables and much of the poultry.  They are doing a large share of the farm-work, and build all the railroads and irrigating canals and ditches.  They do much of the cooking, and nearly all of the washing and ironing.”

Mark Twain wrote in “Roughing It”, published in 1872 (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpedu/features/timeline/riseind/chinimms/twain.html), that “No Californian gentleman or lady ever abuses or oppresses a Chinaman, under any circumstances . . .  Only the scum of the population do it – they and their children; they, and naturally and consistently, the policemen and politicians, likewise, for these are the dust-licking pimps and slaves of the scum, there as well as elsewhere in America.”

By 1876, a Republican Congress decided to investigate the Chinese immigration problem, which resulted in the Report of the Joint Special Committee to Investigate Chinese Immigration, Senate Report No. 689, 44th Congress, 2d Session, issued Feb. 27, 1877 (http://cprr.org/Museum/Chinese_Immigration.html).

The committee found that California and the Pacific coast developed rapidly thanks to cheap Chinese labor.  The committee also found, however, that “laboring men and artisans” opposed Chinese immigration because the Chinese worked for less money and, therefore, took many of the available jobs.  This attitude, according to the report, led to widely held fears that low wages would turn the white working class into a servant class. 

The future of the Pacific coast was clear to the committee:  It would become either “American or Mongolian.”

“There is a vast hive from which Chinese immigrants may swarm, and circumstances may send them in enormous numbers to this country . . .The Chinese do not come to make their home in this country; their only purpose is to acquire what would be a competence in China and return there to enjoy it . . . It further appears from the evidence that the Chinese do not desire to become citizens of this country, and have no knowledge of or appreciation for our institutions.  Very few of them learn to speak our language . . .”

The committee believed Congress had to act before the West Coast became a province of China instead of the United States.  The American population of the region was patiently waiting for Congress to act, the committee said.

Congress passed The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the nation’s first law banning immigration by race or nationality.  The law barred all Chinese except for travelers, merchants, teachers, students, and those born in the United States.  Congress repealed the law in 1943, when China became an ally in the war against Japan.

It is time for responsible people to replace rhetoric with reason and to learn from the well-meaning mistakes of the past.  Our nation’s current predicament did not spring forth fully formed like a border-crossing Athena of immigration.  It will not be resolved by political knee jerking.  Just ask the Chinese.