Just because you can ... doesn't mean you should.

If you have a radio, or television than you have recently heard of Pastor Terry Jones and his plans for a 'Burn a Koran Day'. There is an argument to be said for his freedom of speech and his ability to make a political statement regarding his views of Islam.

At the same time we are all well aware of the plans to build the Ground Zero Mosque, and the controversy surrounding Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Comments by our own President clearly state that everyone has a right to worship in their own way, to include the right not to worship at all. Specifically, President Obama stated:

"But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure."

Indeed freedom of worship and freedom of speech are two cornerstones to the founding of this great nation. In fact, they are both part of the same amendment to the Constitution. So where does this leave us, as Americans? For starters - let us parse the semantics of what is actually in the Constitution. The First Amendment, which to many is considered the most important portion of the Constitution guarantees certain liberties but has also been misused and abused over time by those on both side of the two issues previously mentioned. The amendment very simply reads:

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

So, the amendment is written in a way to preclude the government from 1) 'dictating' a religion, 2) blocking an individual's right to speak freely, 3) blocking the press from publishing and 4) blocking the people of the nation to assemble peaceably. At this point, I could craft an argument to show where the president's comments are not supportable by the First Amendment but the Pastor in Florida is well within his right to perform his intended act. That is not my intention - No, as the first line in this post said ' Just because you can, doesn't mean you should'.

Instead, I am asking everyone who reads this to ask yourself 'Do I agree that Pastor Terry Jones has the right to do what he is planning?', and 'Do I agree that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's group has the right to build the mosque they are planning to build?' . I would bet that most people will agree with one half of the question. You either support the burning of the Koran or you support the building of the mosque. Yes, I can make the argument for either half of the controversy because I truly believe that the rights of all Americans must be protected. However, there is something much larger to consider - Just because you can, does it mean you should? .
I believe that both issues are grounded in that very question. Both issues create strong sentiment for and against. Both issues are steeped in 'rights' of individuals and organizations. Both issues, on their own, are capable of further dividing families and this nation as a whole. And, both are absolutely and incredibly insensitive to large portions of this democracy.

Unfortunately, at this time we lack, as a country, the leadership to stand up and do the right thing. Our government officials are ill-equipped to deal with the real problems in this country and set the example for all to see. There was a time when we had great men (and women) who would set the example for all to follow. The time of great leadership has apparently passed us by. There is not solid example of how to act or even govern in this country.

It is up to each and every one of us to just Do the right thing.

Farewell Dad

A short post to say farewell to one of my best friends - my Dad.

Francis Richard Maher had many roles in his life. He cherished each and every one of them. A few years ago, at my bride's recommendation, I did something that I am eternally grateful to have had the opportunity to perform. An eulogy is typically a testament to a friend or family member that has passed. Instead - I took a living eulogy to my father on his 65th birthday. I had no idea at that point that the good Lord would call him home in under 3 years.

I had the opportunity to tell him exactly what I felt about him, the example that he set for his family and friends and the way he had changed so many lives. This was not intended for any purpose other than to let him know how I will remember him - it simply was not to be shared, and so it will remain. When I finished my Dad looked me in the eye, wiped a single tear, and said ' I had no idea.'. We talked about this several times over the past 3 years and he gained an understanding of just how wonderful a man he was and how many lives he had influenced.

Since he passed nearly two weeks ago, I have received a number of notes/calls/posts from friends old and new that shared their thoughts on my Dad. They shared of lessons learned and experiences shared with my friend and father and much to my surprise many of them had already been shared with Dad that day at Piney Run Park.

If you love someone - tell them.
If you miss someone - call them.
If you have something to say - do it now.

We know not the day, nor the hour when we may breath our last. You may not have the opportunity to share what you want/need - do it today.

Watch over me my guardian. Remind me of lessons learned and shared. Help me to be what I am to be.

Destroying the Consititution - my states attempt

I have been asleep at the wheel and completely missed my states attempt at the destruction of the electoral college. Taking a look at http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/states.php?s=MD, I see that my state was the first to sign in to law that we have given away our electoral votes to whatever the rest of the country decides, based on popular vote in, in all presidential elections. There seems to be a good bit of support, by the un-informed, for this approach that the popular vote should trump electoral vote.

As Mark Levin articulated, this one man: one vote mentality is easy to sell but is completely misleading in its implementation. Because the populace does not understand the electoral college it is easy to disparage it. To understand why it is so critical requires the individual to actually do some research which is something that many seem either unwilling or incapable of doing. As Mark stated on his show on July 27, 2010, doing away with the Electoral college can only really be done with a constitutional amendment, but that is apparently too hard. However, states are permitted to give away their rights at any time.

If 'one man: one vote' is indeed the sole purpose for the support of this approach, then other changes should also be 'in the public interest'. To start, as Mark illustrated, we should abolish the United States Senate. After all, why should each state have the same number of representatives to a governing body if the states are of different sizes?

Perhaps we should really take the individual right and responsibility a number of steps further and consider all 310 million citizens as individual tax payers. With a $3.8 trillion budget, each citizen should be responsible for their 'fair share' of the budget. So, my family of 5 should be expected to pay $61,290. While I don't have the money at the moment - this will definitely cause me to become more active in the legislation that my government decides to pass. Is this practical - absolutely not. Am I honestly encouraging this - NO! However, it does put things in perspective .... doesn't it.

So, my apologies to my fellow Marylanders for not watching more closely. For the more populated states and regions around this once great country - PLEASE GET IT RIGHT. We need the popular vote more than ever to actually elect the right candidate and then my state will offer its votes when everything is said and done. Of course, I wouldn't put it past them to make changes to the law to match their political desires.

Boys of Summer

Apparently, I forgot to actually post the below entry.

I was fortunate to spend this past week with some of my favorite people - My bride and our three children. We were joined part way through the week by my parents - something that just seemed to make the magical week that much more special.

My youngest son joined a new baseball team this past year and had a relatively good season. Yes, he improved. Yes, the competition was another notch up. And most important - he enjoyed the team, the coaches and himself. The team finished the season in a truly remarkable fashion.

The coaches met with the parents, pre-season, to talk about the plans for the season. Most of the time was spent talking about expectations of the players and families. The kicker on the budget side of the discussion was the planned trip to Myrtle Beach for an end-of year tournament. That tournament is the real subject of this post.

I will not bore you with all the other family details but did want to share the magic 'the Boys of Summer' provided to close out the week. The baseline for the tournament is that each team would play 5 games to 'seed' the championship and consolation rounds for the end of the week. The Cardinals started strong winning their first two games. Then, they hit the buzz-saw and dropped 3 in a row - and a couple were really tough to swallow.

The competition at the Ripken tournament was impressive. Teams from around the country and a few of them were very disciplined, talented and a joy to watch. There is a difference in play when you realize that the team in the other dugout has not only played together for a few years, but that they play year round. It shows!

The finals started on Thursday and were set up as a single elimination tournament. The Cardinals found themselves the #6 seed in the 6 team Championship bracket. This meant they had to start by playing the #3 seed, a team that only had one loss and we had grown accustomed to hearing their name throughout the week with one outstanding game after the other. The boys from Eldersburg jumped out to a 5-0 lead in the first inning and never looked back. On to the second round.

The second round found the young Cardinals up against the #2 seed, a team that had just beaten them a few days ago by .... several runs. The game was one of those games for the books. The Cardinals jumped out to an early lead and were looking like they were well on their way to the Championship. However, in the 4th inning things started to change and the opposition battled back. Late in the game we surrendered the tying run and needed to hold them for a push to extra innings. The Gods of Baseball shined on our Cardinals that day and they did indeed hold for extra innings. In the top of the 7th, our boys put two on the board and shut them down 1-2-3! Cardinals win and we are headed to the finals.

A day later, the Cardinals took the field against the undefeated squad from Houston, Texas. The opposition had given up a total of 11 runs in the previous 7 games. This was going to be tough. The Cardinals started off strong, but were unable to capitalize on several different occasions when they had runners at the corners. The opposing coach was pacing and obviously getting a little nervous as his group had not seen anyone hold them this tight. In the fourth inning, the first run was scored but it wasn't for us. We managed to hold the game close but in the end - lost the final game. Hats off to all the teams, but this last group was something special.

I was/am very proud of our 11 year olds. The battled the best and held them in check. Thank you boys for bringing me back to my youth this season. Thank you coaches (Curt, Mike, Bob & Dave) for making this truly a Season to Remember.

Change: Not for everyone

Why do people and organizations move or change their affiliations from something they apparently believe in, only to join a new organization or location and work to change that org/location to match what they left?

There is a mindset that I continue to be confronted with that I just can't understand. Perhaps that is due to my nature of being logical and reasoned and I just can't comprehend this alternate view.

A few years ago, we met our new neighbors who moved 'to the country' from a much more populated area. They said they looked forward to the open fields, safe environment, lower property taxes, well-respected school system and 'easier way of life'. Shortly after they finished un-boxing their earthly possessions they began complaining about the lack of service. The young couple started complaining about trash service - you need to contract for your own service, that we needed sidewalks for strollers, that the police should routinely patrol the area. The neighborhood in question resides on an old horse farm with 20 MPH speed limits and 1-10 acre home sites and I can't remember any crime being committed since I moved in 11 years ago. This same couple were the first to contact the county and complain about the increase in their property assessment and demanded it be reduced as they did not wish to pay any more than what they were already paying. How exactly did they think the county would pay for the existing services - let alone the new ones they were asking for?

On a related note, I have been a part of youth sports in the area for several years. First, as a parent and coach and then on to the administrative side (league coordinator, coaches training, authoring policies ....). On two separate occasions, neighboring sports programs have had difficulty maintaining their programs and deferred families to our programs. As soon as we enrolled the new players and the seasons began to start - the former programs started making demands that 'our' program change to reflect the existing of 'their old' program. From 'adding a patch on the sleeve' to show the heritage from the older program to demanding that we change the guidelines for how teams are formed - WE NEEDED TO CHANGE TO ACCOMMODATE their wants/needs.

A friend of the family moved to a very nice, convenient location in the area. The convenience of the area did have a price and that was it is difficult to get out of the neighborhood at certain times of the day due to the amount of traffic that passes the entry. I recently heard them complaining that a traffic light should be added to ease the flow in and out of the neighborhood.

My children attend private school. Specifically, they attend a Catholic school. We, as a family, made the decision to invest time and treasure to insure the best (in our eyes) for our children. Others have made that same decision and I applaud them for it. There are those (and I have heard them loud and clear) that are offended that their child must attend religion class ... IN A CATHOLIC SCHOOL. I respect that they are not of the catholic faith but they did elect to send their child to that very school.

Lastly, when we moved in to our home we sought out the opinions of our neighbors prior to any projects. There was no law that said we had to do so, and the county I live in is very much a proponent of property rights. We had never had a conflict with any of our ventures until very recently. I hand carried a letter to my neighbor (newly moved in to the area) explaining an upcoming project. I respectfully requested any feedback on our plans and that we would listen to any/all concerns or questions but that the project was on a short timetable due to demand in the market. After a week of no feedback, I contacted the contractor and proceeded to start. Immediately, I received the call requesting a work stoppage until they could verify concerns they had with the county office. We (my family) had been to the county 3 times on permits and restrictions to insure there were no legal issues with what we had planned. Other than informing us that she did not want us to execute the project - there were NO comments regarding what our plans were. Nope, it was 100% about stopping the project and no 'middle ground'. In the end, the county backed us up and said we still have some rights in this country and county.

So, what to do? Why is it that new organizations or people moving in to a functioning society/group/area are free to dictate that the existing functioning group must change to adapt to the new tenants? Why is it that it is wrong to request and/or expect others to conform to the area they are moving to?

What do you stand for ?

What do you stand for? I mean really stand for. In this politically divided time in which we live, have you taken a serious look at what you believe in, desire and will stand for? There are three primary groups within the United States {progressives, independents, and conservatives} that individuals identify themselves with. I can only really define my own beliefs and connect to the group that most closely relates those beliefs. I challenge you to do the same - be honest with yourself. If you can't be honest with yourself in the assessment - do me a favor and stop judging others, you have no leg to stand on.

Everyone that knows me understands that I like keeping things simple. Does this overlook certain aspects of a situation? Absolutely. However, if you can simplify things right - you can get by with the bulk of what is before you and have reasonably good insight to the ancillary information that you otherwise overlook. So, what about the three political groups? My simple definitions: Conservative - those that strive to protect or revert back to the principles that founded this country. Progressive - those that strive to change what is into something that differs from what is/ or was. Independent - those that are caught somewhere between the two; longing for some of what was but desiring something different.

The Constitution set forth a number of principles that over time have been changed. The men that created this document / blueprint did so based on on their life experiences and out of a belief that all men are fallible. To that end, limits were placed on what the governing body was authorized to do to the citizenry. Did they get everything right? No, but they did set forth a method for changing the laws when the failings were discovered. Somehow, the limits and methods for change appear to have been pushed to the side.

Unfortunately, we are now at a point that the Constitution is being shredded by the the failings of a few, overly aggressive legislators. Those legislators sit on both sides of the isle and mislead the rest of the government as well as the governed, those whom they have sworn an oath to protect and represent. At the time the Constitution was drafted and signed - a man's word was the representation of his life. His signature represented his beliefs for all of history to witness. Now, a signature or an oath's value is not worth the paper it is written on and is not meant to exist beyond the time it took to expel it from the individuals mouth. While I am most concerned with the misappropriations of the citizenry by their elected Congress, our President recently made a statement that I could not agree with more : "I think part of what our constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals have protection in their privacy, and their bodily integrity, and women are not exempt from that" . How is it that the President of the United States can make a comment like this just a few short weeks after signing the abominibal health care act into law? The law violates the individuals right to privacy! The law violates the individuals bodily integrity! As I said - I agree with the words he used, I just can't agree with the actions he takes.

By way of example, I am a firm believer that the President's ability to appoint judges should not be inhibited. There should be a level of investigation done for all person's appointed to positions of trust but the use of the fillibuster should not be used. Not that it is un-constitutional, just out of respect for the office of the President. However, since there is no statute stating when/where a fillibuster should/should not be used - Congress should pass a law to govern their own actions in this area. Until then, perhaps a constant fillibuster should be used .... This type of common sense work will never happen in Washington, D.C. . Why? Simply because our Congress is not made up of a group of honest individuals.

Term limits for the legislator is the solution - but not by passing law. I am 100% opposed to a legislated limitation. Individuals need to exercise their right to vote and express their opinions to the elected. Do so by following the law, expressing your thoughts and feelings directly and respecting that others have those same rights.

As an individual, hold me to my word. As a citizen, hold me to the laws that have been put in place for me to follow. As a tax payer - keep the promises you made to me, respect the law that we are all governed by and if you want to change the law - do it the right way.