Future Doesn’t Come With Any Guarantees

Jennifer: The letter from the woman who had lost her job reminded me - I’ve been there, done that, and almost didn’t survive. In 1982 my wife and I became self-employed. By 1990 we had lost it all - lost it all! House, medical care, family savings, retirement funds, pride, fair-weather friends, college funds for our children - we lost it all.

We relocated and discovered we still had many resources “they couldn’t take from us.” Karen’s letter and your response brought it all back. Well done.

Self-employed workers fall through the slots when they hit hard times. This fact was explored at the White House Conference on Small Business. I’d be pleased to share information on the conference, small business failures and work-force training. - Terry

Dear Terry: Thank you for reminding us that people fail, they lose everything and then they pull it all back together. That is the history of this country. We are pioneers expected to start over as often as necessary. We are entrepreneurs. It wasn’t until the 1950s that the “secure” job in a big company became common. The self-employed have never had a safety net. That is why I don’t understand this expectation that, in life, the government or the legal system is supposed to protect us from all failures and accidents. Where did we get the idea that we don’t have to take care of ourselves and our neighbors?

Actually, I think I know the answer. It was when greed and racial or gender discrimination made it too hard for many to find a foothold in the post-war world. Somewhere, in a democracy, there is a balance between taking care of yourself and your family and giving to your community. Government, e.g. leaders, are supposed to remind us of that balance through their speeches and legislation. Your letter reminded me of what should be. You survived yourself and now you offer help to those still struggling. Thank you. - Jennifer

Dear Jennifer: Some time ago, in your column, you contrasted extremist positions by conservatives and liberals. Of the latter, you said, “The ACLU stands on principles of individual freedom that deny the common good.” The ACLU is a worthy and very reputable organization and it does not deserve this essentially casual labeling as “extremist” in its principles. I would appreciate a clarification. - Richard

Dear Richard: I wish the media, or our community forums would engage in a discussion of the ideals of “common good” and the laws of our land as they are currently administered. This column does not have the space, nor I the knowledge, to deal with the issue effectively.

The point I was making is that if you go too far in any one direction, whether a conservative or a liberal interpretation of the Constitution (e.g. the Second Amendment, we all get to carry a concealed machine gun if we want vs. convicted rapists cannot be tested for AIDS), the community loses too much at the expense of individual rights.

Common sense does have a place in the Constitution despite generations of legal scholars who, as purists, are able to deny reality. I am pushing my theme of balance again, because I think that some portions of our social fabric are fraying because we are unable to agree on some fundamentals of citizenship. The extreme examples that come to mind are the rights of children over adults (in particular teachers), the right to urinate and sleep on sidewalks (despite alternatives that provide safety and independence), the release of sex offenders who have records that clearly indicate they will commit violent crimes, the gamesmanship that sometimes replaces reason in our trials, the defense of child or violent pornography, the denial that constant exposure to violence at an early age socializes children to violence, etc.

I have long respected the ACLU and many of my good friends have been board members. I am well aware of the vital and groundbreaking work that the ACLU has done to protect our liberties. It is and has been a visionary and heroic organization. But it is not always right and in recent years, as our society becomes increasingly complex, I find I sometimes disagree with its interpretation of the principles of the Constitution. I am not a legal scholar, but I think it is time that legal specialists as well as the rest of our citizens try to understand what serves the community and what may not. I believe that is what the founding fathers intended. - Jennifer

The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Jennifer James The Spokesman-Review