THE POPE GOING OFF THE RESERVATION

Pope Francis; a person who is widely admired, but also lately one who has been the subject of criticism for some of his statements about the framework of the church he leads, has found a new way to generate the admiration he so desires. That involves speaking frequently, loudly and publicly about climate change and immigration issues.

In that regard, it is said that he lets his instinct lead him in all respects and sometimes that instinct lets him down when he talks about changes in the church, but when he talks about the more secular issues, like immigration and climate change, he almost always talks about change that needs to come in the future and is not rooted in the historical past – making it safe territory for him to tread as far as public opinion is concerned.

We are left to ask: What does climate change and immigration have to do directly with the church. He is not schooled in the politics of either issue enough to be a spokesperson in them, yet he persists in speaking about them just as an expert would.

He should not be faulted for raising these secular issues, but the politics behind his thoughts come from a person who has only known political socialism much of his life. For example, the newspaper today had a story about 500 immigrants who have been turned away from Italy and are now headed to Spain to find the asylum they seek. While his remarks about this issue have non-existent, he would normally criticize the country of Italy, where he now resides, for turning those immigrants away without making any reference to the costs associated with allowing them into the country. His strong “socialistic” leanings only allow him to see one side of that issue.

As for climate change; while it might seem like a safe area for Francis to comment, it is important to note that politically, there are still people on both sides of the issue. His efforts, which started three years ago when he issued a sweeping letter that highlighted the global crisis posed by climate change and called for swift action to save the environment and the planet barely reached the news desks in America; probably because he has never been thought to be a guru on the issue. Yet he continues to talk today as if he knows what is coming. But much of the silence coming from people on the other side of the issue, including President Trump, maintain that posture quietly out of respect for the office the pope holds.

It is my sense the pope’s active participation on this issue is only a diversionary tactic he uses when the heat gets to severe on issues he wants to move forward on within the confines of the church wher he carre4is so much influence. He knows the media will always report on his thoughts on climate change and immigration if only because it parallels their position on the subject.

 

 

THE PET EFFECT

The real benefits of pet ownership may not make us healthier humans, but they do have a way of bringing people together. Other researchers have proposed that having a pet bestows a dazzling array of health benefits, such as lower cholesterol, reduced blood pressure and reduced risk of cardiovascular disease.

Still others claim that pets can combat stress, relieve depression and enhance self-esteem and that their company makes children more empathetic. It is even noted that “pet therapy” is widely practiced in hospitals and facilities for the elderly.

Until fairly recently, many animals were seen as harmful – carriers of parasites and disease. But now, they’re considered part of a healthy lifestyle. While most people don’t acquire a pet because they feel it will help them live longer, the might believe it will be a kind of panacea for modern living.

The problem is that these claims about the benefits of pet ownership don’t always hold up to scientific scrutiny. Some early studies did show that dog owners were generally in better shape than those without dogs, but a more recent analysis of the health records of more than 40,000 California residents by the Rand Corporation showed that these differences can be attributed to other characteristics of pet owners.

Most owners are more likely to be white, married and homeowners – attributes that are all linked to good health. Rather than pets making people healthy, it’s more likely that healthy people choose to own pets. At the other end of the spectrum it has been found that unhealthy people may be more likely to choose to own cats as pets because they are less burdensome than dogs.

The Rand study also cast doubt on the fact that children raised alongside pets become more empathetic, acquire better social skills or have higher self-esteem. Caring for a pet may teach children responsibility, but it doesn’t necessarily make them better people.

Even if pets don’t make us healthier, or better, they do earn their keep in other ways. For one, they can have a strong calming effect on people and studies have shown that interacting with a dog can improve a person’s mood. Stroking a dog often results in a surge of oxytocin and endorphins – hormones that promote bonding and feelings of well-being.

However, studies suggest that owners don’t walk their dogs with sufficient vigor to improve their cardiovascular fitness. But, this may also be good news for the dogs, for whom the daily walk is not so much a workout as a chance to catch up on sniffing for signs of other dogs in the neighborhood, which requires a slower pace.

People who walk their dogs in public places might also notice another manifestation of the “pet effect,” that of bringing them into conversation with passerby. But the aura of “trustworthiness” may be the strongest effect of pet ownership. People with pets are more likely to get to know others in their neighborhood more than non-pet owners. Dog owners help their owners build communities, breaking down barriers between people and paving the way to build stronger friendships and networks.

The same holds true for therapy dogs. They have a way of encouraging relaxed conversations with other people.

WHEN THE “GIG” ECONOMY REPLACES FULL-TIME WORK

There are many subtle forces and dynamics at play that are controlling our economy and that are also likely to ultimately shape how many of us work.

First, we are getting older and many of us are wanting to work longer to provide more retirement money to live on. Then there is the rapidly increasing minimum wage that is forcing more automation in the workplace and opening up more part time work. There is also the general desire to get out from under a boss, so more people are looking at starting their own small businesses and finally, there is an increasing desire for employers to not need to rely on humans to produce their goods and services for sale to the public, which is an offshoot of automation. These are just some of the reasons that the “gig” economy will certainly thrive in the time ahead.

However, these dynamics and forces are a bigger problem for those of us who support and prize our “market” economy. This is happening when so many young folks are leaving college burdened with heavy student debt that won’t allow them to work and live in many of our large cities. As a result, they are disdaining democracy in favor of socialism. To these young people, our democracy doesn’t seem very fair because it favors the wealthy and elite much more than the working person – of which they feel they are one.

These folks now have Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren as their leaders, but those two folks have their own weaknesses, Bernie has age working against him and Warren has a poor public image to deal with, as a result of her claiming an American Indian background. There are also other socialistic thinking members who have been recently elected to the U. S. House of Representatives; but, fortunately none of them have any clout – including the young woman who represents the city of Minneapolis, Ms. Omar.

In my days of being in the workforce, “gig” work was uncommon because most workers felt a need to have a steady job, so they could pay their expenses, family or not. It even carried a little stigma because it was thought that these folks could not hold down a full-time job.

Yet the forces at work in our economy, including the impact of automation are pressing ahead and forcing workers to obtain more education if they want to hold full time work. As a side-light, more and more of these folks are embracing socialism because they feel our current market economy is no longer fair because it favors the elite in our society.

People, like Sanders and Warren recognize this and are playing to these folks by expressing thoughts that the (primarily) young people like.

It will be up to our more seasoned policy makers to nip this trend in the bud begore it gets too much of a foothold in society.

 

WHEN PLANNING GOES AWRY

Our entire society is geared around planning for retirement and the focus seems to only be on having enough money to live through that phase of life.

Thus, we spend a great deal of time preparing cash flow analyses (for those of us who understand the concept and meaning of cash flow), and to complete other preparations we know are important. For most people this really ends up being the preparation of cash flow plans that range from one year to five, ten, and twenty-year plans – once again always focusing on money. Then as we get older, the planning shifts to, and culminates in our overall retirement plan.

Our retirement pan usually takes into account, the desire of one or more of the spouses to retire early, make changes in their housing requirements and the creating of new spaces where one or both spouses can pursue a favorite hobby.

Rarely do these plans work out as expected and there is certainly nothing wrong with this, but it rarely includes changes in life, like sickness of one or both spouses, caring for their parents, having children moving back home after college, and myriad other changes that are likely to occur.

The entire concept has given rise to the saying that: the best laid plans often go awry.

A growing number of baby boomers are finding themselves caring for both their elderly parents and their adult children rather than kicking back when they reach retirement age. Thus, they are facing the strain of constant caregiving and their own derailed retirement plans, as well as the added expenses created with their caregiving. It is a big reason that so many Americans are entering their retirement years as unprepared financially as any generation has in recent years.

The Pew Research Center has recently found that 52% of U. S. residents – 17.5 million people – are financially supporting either a parent or an adult child. This is up from 45% in 2005. Among this group are about 1.3 million who are supporting both a parent and a child, which is double what it was just a decade ago. The squeeze is getting tighter as each year passes and as older people are living longer.

Regarding the adult children, the parents are dealing with career changes, health problems and the continuing burden of student loan payments; all of which is driving the kids back home.

Needless to say, each or any of these instances drive expenses upward and renders the new retirees plans moot.

The issue also points to the old folks not having prepared financially for their retirement and now they are fouling up their kid’s retirement plans. It also brings the role of individual retirement plans (IRAs) under scrutiny, and whether it was the right way to go for policy makers some years ago when they created them as an alternative to company pension programs. The fact that people can borrow from their IRA’s has exacerbated the issue even more by allowing workers to get at their retirement funds for other purposes.

As for providing shelter and food for their adult kids, most parents have no idea how enabling their actions are when they provide food and shelter. Without strict monitoring, this type of assistance becomes an entitlement the kids expect and plays no part in their own future plans. More than that, it actually discourages them from making their own plans if there are no formal payback provisions instituted between themselves and their parents.

While the train has already left the station in most of these cases, it is certainly something that policy makers need to look at in the future.

 

WHEN NAPS ARE FOR SALE

The season of the “nap” is on us once again. It’s cold. It’s dark. And it’s going to be cold and dark for the foreseeable future because the days will not be getting any longer until after December 21^st. My late grandmother used to say about living in Minnesota: “As the days grow longer, the cold grows stronger,” which was said in reference to the fact that much of our winter weather comes after the vernal equinox and is always slow in adapting to the time of the year depicted on our calendar.

All of us know in our bones that the proper course of action over the next several months is to take a nap when the occasion arises and we are free to do so. But we also need to be aware that late stage “capitalism” has naturally found a way to pose another new question: What would we be willing to pay to be able to take a mid-day nap?

This has given rise to the “Dreamery,” a sub-unit business to the Casper Mattress Company business in New York. This new business is now offering a 45-minute session in a darkened nook with peace and quiet all around, for $25.

To be clear, the mattress business and its “Dreamery,” is not just another pod hotel, nor is it a place in a train station for people stranded far away from their homes. And, most definitely, it is not a room for the completion of any transaction of a temporary and illicit nature. It is simply a “nap joint;” where the sale of a nap is as important as the nap itself.

From the street, potential customers pass through a blue tunnel flecked with starry lights, to a room   that looks like the bedroom of a wealthy child. Everything you might need for a nap is available: various lotions and balms, free toothbrushes and even a pair of pajamas. There is a changing room and then users are led into a quiet space with a series of hutches that are behind heavy curtains and the lights are turned off, only to go back on when the forty-five minutes are up. Nothing is said about the heavy snorer, who might be in the next hutch.

The big question is: Is a nap worth $25?

Before answering that, one must focus on the benefit of naps. Studies show the benefits of napping describe how a third of American adults aren’t getting the sleep they need for optimal health and well-being. More studies show that people who nap for 60 minutes each day have significantly higher tolerance for frustration and have more focus on tasks than the folks who don’t nap.

Few of us need experts to tell us any of these facts when we can look around any room full of workers at about 2:30 p.m. in the afternoon and see the truth for ourselves.   

On a personal level, I find myself wondering how I might fit into the picture of needing a nap. I sleep with a mask (for my sleep-apnea) that does my breathing for me at night. Because I sleep so well, it seems to have taken any need for an afternoon nap away from me as I navigate my way through each day. In fact, my dependence on the machine is so great that I seldom if ever even desire a daytime nap.

However, most people I know who work in offices also express a feeling that taking a nap is “equated with laziness,” on their part, while all of the research counters this feeling.

Maybe the rise of the “gig” economy will become a huge advantage for workers who fit in that category? They don’t have “big brother” watching over them.         

 

THE GREAT AMERICAN ROAD TRIP

Growing up, our family never had enough money to take regular road trips and besides that it would require someone to be hired to milk our cows twice a day, feed our chickens, take care of our dog, etc. This is a kind way of saying that the trouble would be more than worth the trip might be to our family.

Back in those days, in the early and mid-1940s, motels were few and far between – and too expensive, restaurants were expensive too, and the only affordable part of the trip was gasoline for the car, which, by the way, had no air conditioning. The gas generally cost between 10 cents and 20 cents per gallon.

Consequently, with one exception when we drove to Louisiana to see our aunt and uncle and cousins in 1948, any trips we took were generally “turn-around” ones so we could be home again within twelve hours, especially when my brother, Jerry, and I were still too young to do all of the daily chores.

Other families we knew well, that did not live on farms, were free to take longer trips. But even their trips seemed to be unforgettable as they described them to the rest of us.  

Skipping ahead to today, family trips taken with the children of Generation X parents, are in danger of death by neglect. Neglect from teenagers who are perpetually wired into their electronic devices and neglect from misbehavior by the younger siblings also riding in the rear seats of the family their younger siblings riding in the back of the SUV. This always seemed to occur when the back seat was just beyond the long arm of parental justice and any other interaction between parents and children.

A few years earlier, everything seemed to be different, mom would sit in the passenger seat up front and dad would so all of the driving, but only after everyone and everything was packed in the car. He would stride out of the house like a relief pitcher walking across the outfield to take his position on the mound at a baseball game, and ask rhetorically, “Is everyone ready?” Seatbelts were optional, if they even existed, and everyone thought they were too busy to take the time to buckle them.

Things in the car would be calm for a while, but about an hour into the trip, something would set dad off – maybe a yell from one sibling after a kidney poke from another – and the fur would fly. It would also happen when one sibling would ask: “Are we almost there?”

That was when the magic would happen. Road rage between two drivers is usually deadly serious, but road rage between father and children always gives the children a wonderful opportunity to develop critical-thinking skills right there in the car.

It became a time when the threats would begin. “Don’t make me come back there.” This was an absurd threat because it was unlikely that dad would ever stop to crawl in the back seats to make peace. His concern for getting to a destination on time was really his prime goal for the day.

The next threat was, “Quit crying or I’ll give you something to cry about.” That threat was always menacing, but the kids always knew it was “all hat, and no horse.” Never would a threat like that make a child stop crying, and everyone, including dad, knew it.

The next threat was, “I don’t want to hear another peep out of you.” That was always followed by silence until one of the kids made a “peeping” sound and the others joined in symphony form. Pretty soon, the back seat sounded like a chicken hatchery and not even the old man could suppress a smile.

The next admonition that came from the driver’s seat, was, “This is our only bathroom stop. Make yourself go.” Most urologists will say that is not a good idea.

By that time, we had reached our destination.

 

THE G-7 SUMMIT

As I write this piece on June 12, 2018, I have had a chance to reflect on that Summit, hosted by the Canadian government as well as President Trump’s summit meeting with the President of North Korea, Kim Jong Un in Singapore a few days later.

While the stated mission of both meetings was to be about trade and strengthening the Western Alliance in the case of the G-7 Meeting and the denuclearization of North Korea in the case of the Trump/Jong Un meeting, the real essence of both meetings was that they both highlighted the steady collapse of the ‘post-war order’ and the way power structures are now being reorganized and renegotiated across societies around the world.

The post-war order that created the G-7 Group was thought of as a great historic post-war achievement. As for the Korean Summit, it reminds us that the Korean War has dragged on for sixty some years, seemingly hindered by human rights abuses.

The founding generation of the (then) G-8 Group (Russia has since been kicked out) created a series of organizations and alliances that were designed to fight communism, create a stable trading system, combat global poverty and promote democracy. If the goals of the Korean Summit are similar, we need to understand that the relationship between America and North Korea is still in its infancy stage, at best.

The current generation of G-7 leaders seems to have lost their thread of unity as European elites have become so afraid of nationalism that they fell for the illusory dream of convergence – the dream that nations could effortlessly merge into cosmopolitan Pan–European communities.

While progressives were so confident when the G-7 was originally set up, they allowed the concentration of power to be upward and away from the people, but at the same time, technology advances were pushing power downward and toward the people. Consequently, elites of all stripes became so detached that they never saw that untrammeled meritocracy divides societies between the fittest and the rest of the folks.

The current leaders of G-7 are not so much bound by a shared ideology as a shared mentality that makes them think and act like a pack of wolves. Wolves perceive the world as being a war of all against all, as they seek to create a world where only they can survive and thrive, which in turn is a world without agreed-upon rules, without restraining institutions, norms and etiquette.

With President Trump as our leader in this consortium, values don’t matter much, because they are only interests. In his world, friendships are just a ‘con’ that other people try to pull on you before they screw you over. This low-trust style of politics is often characterized as realism on steroids.

He (Trump), takes every relationship that has historically been based on affection, loyalty, trust and reciprocity and turns it into a relationship based on competition, self-interest, suspicion, and efforts to establish domination. When he seeks to destroy trust and reciprocity, he creates an environment where he can thrive – just like the wolves do.

When we turn our thoughts to the North Korean Summit, we can realize that trust and reciprocity have never existed, so it may be an easier route to take toward any new peace accord.  

 

 

THE CULTURE THAT SUSTAINS OUR CONSTITUTION

When we think or talk about our Constitution, the conversation rarely turns to how old it is and how long it has lasted. But now that a Supreme Court seat has opened up, it will likely be spoken of in terms of the candidates being “textualists” or “originalists” in their interpretation of the document.

Depending on how each of those terms is defined, with “textualists” generally being described as what the document meant to the writers at the time it was written and should not be thought of any other way, while the “originalists” think more about how the document fits today’s society when laws are made and judged. While these two versions can overlap, it would take too many additional essays to fully explain everything beyond what I will use for this essay.

Since 1789, when our constitution went into effect, the average lifespan of national constitutions word-wide has been 19 years, according to scholars and researchers at the University of Chicago. Meanwhile, the “We the People of the United States” document is now well into the third century. We’ve lived under the same written charter longer than any other people on earth. We’ve even had regular federal elections every two years that have never been uninterrupted by, even the Civil War.

Yet America’s founders had serious doubts about the durability of their ‘experiment,’ as they called the Constitution at the time of its writing. Alexander Hamilton, in an 1802 letter to ‘Gouverneur Morris’ even wondered why he had wasted his best years defending our “frail and worthless” charter. In 1832, Chief Justice John Marshall, near the end of his 34 year tenure on the high court, lamented in private correspondence that “our Constitution cannot last.”

One might think America’s track record in the subsequent 200 years would inspire greater confidence in the document. Yet, many people today feel, as they have after many fraught elections, still feel that our president is either a savior or the harbinger of doom.

All of this makes it worth reflecting on why the Constitution has endured. The first and most important thing to consider is its text. It is rigid enough to restrain excesses, yet flexible enough to accommodate innovations. It is terse and it presumes that both governors and the governed will act responsibly.

Next, the framers created the world’s first constitution to institutionalize the principle of human equality. Our country’s progress in respecting the real implications of equality has at times been slow, even glacial, especially with regard to race. It took until 1876, in the case ‘Brown v. Board of Education’ passed to admit minority children to schools on an equal basis as white kids.

Other classic laws were affirmed as the years passed. Justice Anton Scalia reminded us that ‘written guarantees are meaningless without a culture to sustain them,’ he went on to say that “every American generation has a vocal minority that considers itself doomed to live in an age of constitutional degeneracy.”

Constitutionalism is not a mere institutional form but a culture that exists around it – a set of sentiments, habits  and assumptions, pa permeating spirit that animates an otherwise lifeless paper scheme.

So long as we keep faith, our Constitution will be displaced no sooner than an ant tips over the Statue of Liberty.   

 

When we think or talk about our Constitution, the conversation rarely turns to how old it is and how long it has lasted. But now that a Supreme Court seat has opened up, it will likely be spoken of in terms of the candidates being “textualists” or “originalists” in their interpretation of the document.
Depending on how each of those terms is defined, with “textualists” generally being described as what the document meant to the writers at the time it was written and should not be thought of any other way, while the “originalists” think more about how the document fits today’s society when laws are made and judged. While these two versions can overlap, it would take too many additional essays to fully explain everything beyond what I will use for this essay.
Since 1789, when our constitution went into effect, the average lifespan of national constitutions word-wide has been 19 years, according to scholars and researchers at the University of Chicago. Meanwhile, the “We the People of the United States” document is now well into the third century. We’ve lived under the same written charter longer than any other people on earth. We’ve even had regular federal elections every two years that have never been uninterrupted by, even the Civil War.
Yet America’s founders had serious doubts about the durability of their ‘experiment,’ as they called the Constitution at the time of its writing. Alexander Hamilton, in an 1802 letter to ‘Gouverneur Morris’ even wondered why he had wasted his best years defending our “frail and worthless” charter. In 1832, Chief Justice John Marshall, near the end of his 34 year tenure on the high court, lamented in private correspondence that “our Constitution cannot last.”
One might think America’s track record in the subsequent 200 years would inspire greater confidence in the document. Yet, many people today feel, as they have after many fraught elections, still feel that our president is either a savior or the harbinger of doom.
All of this makes it worth reflecting on why the Constitution has endured. The first and most important thing to consider is its text. It is rigid enough to restrain excesses, yet flexible enough to accommodate innovations. It is terse and it presumes that both governors and the governed will act responsibly.
Next, the framers created the world’s first constitution to institutionalize the principle of human equality. Our country’s progress in respecting the real implications of equality has at times been slow, even glacial, especially with regard to race. It took until 1876, in the case ‘Brown v. Board of Education’ passed to admit minority children to schools on an equal basis as white kids.
Other classic laws were affirmed as the years passed. Justice Anton Scalia reminded us that ‘written guarantees are meaningless without a culture to sustain them,’ he went on to say that “every American generation has a vocal minority that considers itself doomed to live in an age of constitutional degeneracy.”
Constitutionalism is not a mere institutional form but a culture that exists around it – a set of sentiments, habits and assumptions, pa permeating spirit that animates an otherwise lifeless paper scheme.
So long as we keep faith, our Constitution will be displaced no sooner than an ant tips over the Statue of Liberty.

THE CATHOLIC MEDIA UNIVERSE

The media types that have historically followed the moves of the Catholic Church in America, the National Catholic Reporter, Commonweal and America, have carried much of the church’s water to the public, but it is not difficult to take a leap of faith and call all of them liberal in their presentations.

In reality, the writers for those publications understood that the universe they were writing for was small, so if they wanted to get their voices heard or read so they had to write in a way that pleased the editors of those three journals.  

Yet, because none of them have a very wide reading audience, which is primarily made up of professionals, they speak to those people in their writing and leave conservative thinkers in the weeds. Consequently, the approach of these journals leaves a wide swath of Catholic thinking the social media and its adherents feeling they are targets of their writing.

Auxiliary bishop of Los Angeles, Robert Barron, has stepped into this breach with his folksy Midwestern “aw-shucks” demeanor that doesn’t fool anyone. With his popular online film reviews, political commentary and plain-English commentaries, he has acquired 1.6 million Facebook fans, and 130,000 Twitter followers. His You-Tube videos have been viewed 34 million times and his own television channel has about 165,000 subscribers. This number is greater than the number of subscribers to the three Catholic journals combined. Additionally, Barron has attracted over 91,000 Instagram fans. Only Pope Francis, among church people is more popular with English-speaking Catholics.

However, his robust online presence does carry some pitfalls, when viewers use the comment sections, it frequently attracts comments that range from contemptuous to profane. But he has learned to shrug the profane ones off by simply saying he has gotten used to them. 

Bishop Barron grew up in Chicago and had the late Cardinal Francis George as a mentor. As such, George encourage him to develop his talent for communicating with non-Catholics and those Catholics who have strayed from the church. George reminded him that: “You can’t evangelize a culture you hate.” As such, George had a reputation as a social and theological conservative, a tag Bishop Barron wishes to avoid. Barron, when talking about Cardinal George, characterizes him as not being “antiliberal,” but “postliberal,” a moniker that Barron says he can identify with.

Like most clergy members, Bishop Barron works hard to keep his political preferences under wraps: By firmly saying he is neither Republican or Democrat, but as person who represents the great values of Catholic teaching, and drawing members of both parties closer to those teachings.

As such he advocates for the common good, subsidiarity, solidarity and human dignity as the greatest of all principles. Following those principles, he is against abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research and whatever else directly attacks life. Barron also opposes capital punishment, unjust war, any marginalization of the poor and any aggressive attitude that is directed toward migrants.

These thoughts don’t jibe with any American political party, but he has the ability to make arguments on behalf of each of these potential policy positions.

He believes we are “anti-socialist” in America, people who support a vigorous market economy that is disciplined by a very strong moral sensibility. Said another way, that is, a market economy that is morally constrained and culturally conditioned. He goes on to say that any party that can espouse those positions, is the party he would like to be affiliated with.        

                    

TEACHING TOLERANCE

Our country has long had problems with “leftists” who can’t stand to have conservatives speak on our college campuses. Those venues are supposed to be open forums for free thought and speeches, but that is no longer the case in today’s society.

In fact, the situation has gotten so bad that several colleges and universities have adopted programs to deal with what they call “offensive speech” on their campuses. But, what does “offensive speech” really mean? 

When it comes to tolerating offensive speech, many American colleges and universities, simply hold themselves to a lower standard than the rest of society does. Kentucky State University, for instance, includes “embarrassment” on its list of “sanctionable “offenses against speakers.” Dickinson College promises to sic its “Bias Education and Response Team” on those persons whose speech is deemed “offensive or inflammatory to some,” even if no rule has been violated.

Now we have a new book, “Speak Freely,” in which the author, Nadine Strossen, argues that even free societies are shaky on the proposition that, “free speech” is essential to the advancement of knowledge, but at some universities, “free inquiry and debate” are the only possible means of advancing their core mission of “producing and disseminating knowledge.”

Externally, all schools should always demand more freedom for speech than in the society they inhabit. Internally, schools have a need to welcome the unorthodox and reject “those who prefer to be sheltered from challenge.

For example, when students at Emory University shouted down a Trump friendly speaker in front of an administration building on campus, the school’s president responded by suggesting that Emory would be a better institution if students were spared exposure to disfavored electioneering speech. But most of us know that when those people prefer to be sheltered, the university has lost sight of its core mission.

Despite the power of speech to motivate and wound, there is basically insufficient evidence that any constitutionally protected hate speech contributes significantly to violence, discrimination or psychic harm.

Today, we are wrestling with U. S. House of Representatives member, Maxine Watters, who unleashed a significant amount of vitriol in front of a crowd against President Trump and the people who work for him. Those same “free speech” advocates are the same people who tested the waters when Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s press secretary And Kristen Nielsen were respectively asked to leave a public restaurant and were then heckled at another public restaurant.

Unfortunately, when we allow “hate speech” to occur, it only allows the division of our country to deepen further, despite the right to express free speech we all have. No doubt, our court system will be asked to review when speech becomes too hateful that it impinges on “free speech.”