Government Overregulation of Broadcast Content Could Backfire

Rush is right! The government's stepped up bid to regulate broadcast television content is indeed frightening. Limbaugh made his comments during one of his regular radio broadcasts last year. Those remarks were in response to the FCC's crackdown on broadcast indecency and Congress' threats to hand out much larger fines to broadcasters for such violations, in the wake of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" at the Super Bowl halftime show last February.

Limbaugh is the not only media personality alarmed by this intensified government scrutiny of television content. At the beginning of his news program on CNN during that same time frame, Aaron Brown said he thought the only thing worse than Jackson's Super Bowl debacle is the fact that the government is now getting involved in trying to prevent similar incidents in the future. Amen, Aaron!

Television, like any other business in a capitalistic society like ours, is and should be governed by the marketplace and the laws of supply and demand. I would love to see more family-friendly television programming. However, if there were truly a great demand for it, there would naturally be a lot more of it in existence (as well as a lot less of the offensive stuff). The folks who are pushing the hardest for greater government intervention to make TV more family-friendly will assert that they are in the majority of viewers and listeners in the U.S. However, the facts belie this assertion.

Of the seven broadcast networks, PAX, widely recognized as the most family-friendly, is last in the ratings. It's not just last, it is dead last! PAX gets about one-fourth of the audience of the sixth place network! Even in places that don't have a local PAX affiliate, it is usually available as a cable channel. However, it's not even among the 30 top-rated cable channels. On the other hand, some of the TV shows and cable networks with the most controversial material get the highest ratings. Go figure.

In reality, those who are clamoring the loudest for TV to "clean up its act" know they are in the minority. Instead of tuning their TVs to PAX or one of the other tamer channels (as I do) or even turning their TVs completely off, they go running to the government to force their tastes on everyone else. Oddly enough, most of these people consider themselves conservatives. Funny, I thought conservatives disdained government intervention in favor of allowing the marketplace to take its course. Where did I ever get such a silly idea?

What these people seemingly don't realize is that their efforts could very well backfire on them and all the rest of us. Broadcasters have generally submitted to the concepts of the V-chip and content ratings to help parents regulate their children's TV viewing in their homes. After all, isn't that what all of this hoopla is about? They have also meekly accepted reasonable fines from time to time for indecent broadcasts. However, the vocal minority is now demanding that the FCC and Congress play hardball, i.e., impose very large and numerous fines as well as revoking the licenses of stations found guilty of indecent broadcasts. In response to this demand, there are now bills circulating in both houses of Congress that would increase fines to the range of $250,000 to $3 million per violation along with threatening license revocation for habitual offenders.

Many people forget that the FCC and Congress are not the final arbiters of these matters. The courts are. In the past, the courts have vigorously defended the First Amendment and I believe they will continue this trend. By playing hardball, the FCC and Congress will leave broadcasters with no other option but to take them to court. Even though the courts have, in the past, upheld the FCC's reasonable jurisdiction over broadcast TV, things could change if the government's newly attempted heavy-handed penalties are challenged. Long ago, the courts stripped away the government's "right" to regulate indecency on cable and satellite channels. If the government decides it really wants to play hardball with broadcasters, it could ultimately lose any jurisdiction over broadcast content as well.

But let's suppose the government's more restrictive regulations are upheld by the courts. That's definitely a possibility. However, because of the greatly increase fines and the possibility of license revocation, the courts will likely force the FCC to be more specific and draw up more detailed indecency guidelines. They are currently vague, to say the least.

I'll use the following illustration to demonstrate how vague the FCC's current guidelines really are. Let's suppose that none of the roads or highways we all drive on everyday had posted speed limits. Instead, let's suppose they just had signs warning us not to drive too fast. Then let's suppose that the police were allowed to subjectively write tickets whenever they thought someone was driving too fast, but would never actually define what they thought "too fast" really was. That's similar to how the FCC operates. It doesn't provide any specific guidelines and only investigates a claim of indecency when someone files a complaint. It never explicitly states what a broadcaster can and cannot do.

Now, going back to our speeding analogy, let's suppose that we (along with the courts) tolerated this kind of speed enforcement because the fines were relatively small and no one's license was ever revoked. However, what do you think would happen if the governing authority decided to greatly increase the fines for speeding and allow the possibility of license revocations for such violations, without giving us specific speed limits? We would not stand still for such a thing and neither would the courts. Posted speed limits would be mandated.

With the FCC forced to write more specific rules governing indecency, it could find itself in a very precarious position. If, for example, the FCC strictly forbids specific words from being used and/or specific body parts from being shown on broadcast TV, it will invite another court battle that it will probably lose. However, if it explicitly lists situations in which certain words can be used and/or certain body parts can be shown, broadcasters will begin to find loopholes in these rules and exploit them. We all know that the more specific a law or rule is, the easier it is to find loopholes in it.

The bottom line is that more aggressive enforcement of indecency regulations on broadcast TV and radio could backfire and actually lead to even racier content. Members of Congress would be advised to look before they leap.

By Terry Mitchell

Affirmative Inaction

One of Abraham Lincoln's claims to fame is the fact that he is best known for abolishing slavery. While he may have felt some personal satisfaction from liberating the Negroes from their bondage, Economy was the main reason why he made his emancipation proclamation. He wanted all of America to move into the Yankee version of capitalism. Over half a decade later, and after a series of civil rights "victories", the roots of Affirmative Action were laid into law.

This was at a time when black civil rights leaders where being assassinated, churches were being bombed, and dogs were not the black man's best friend. Some blacks had managed to prosper in a separate, but equal America. They become lawyers and businessmen and doctors. However, very few businesses employed blacks in a management position, as they knew their white employees would not adhere to their direction.

There was a time when all that were true. It was the same time that smokers were not treated as social pariah; professional athletics made less than the average worker and the only way to send mail was in an envelope. Times have changed. The social landscape has evolved. Technology has made a huge impact in our social fabric. Millions of families have found a home, and built their families in North America from across the globe. Blacks are no longer the scorn of White America. And while the Civil Rights amendments apply to all races, colors, and ethnic peoples, let's face it, it is primarily applied to the African-American.

Between Affirmative Action and demands for reparations, the black community has continued to ask for government handouts needlessly for almost 2 decades. It is time for this to end.

When Italians and Irish peoples first came to Ellis Island, they were not treated any better than the people that were already settled. They faced most of the same persecution and challenges being directed to the black community as well. But they adapted. They formed close ties with their communities, and bought their way into mainstream America. That is the same for the Jews.

Throughout history, no peoples have been persecuted to the same levels as the Jews. Laws, throughout history, were made to keep them out of public office, and some times legitimate business, yet still they prosper. What are their secrets? Banding together as a community. Forming strong business groups. Supplying needed services or products to mainstream America. For some reason, since the wholesale pillaging of Africa, African-Americans cannot seem to imitate other ethnic communities in that regard. They continue to follow the African model of exploitation so that a few can maintain a hold over the many.

What I have stated may be controversial, but it is nevertheless factual. In your company, if a new Italian person is hired, he will be eating with other Italians by lunch. That is the same across most other ethnic communities, except the black community. Black people will look into themselves to find differences (Haitian against Jamaican, American against African, etc).

I believe that this goes against the spirit of Affirmative Action. Its purpose is to give a foothold into long-held white only corporations and their management staff. Most blacks today, once elevated into that position, try to take on the genetic make-up of those in the same position as them. They will not seek to promote other black candidates, in fear of looking too sympathetic, or incompetent. So no matter how many blacks may be working in the bowels of the company, the way blacks have applied Affirmative Action even amongst themselves does nothing but try and maintain a 2% average, even if there are more highly qualified blacks ready to get promoted.

The tide appears to be changing, as more and more black people have benefited from the explosion on their culture in White America, or with the incredible salaries now paid to athletes. They have re-invested into their communities to make a difference in both education and job opportunities. That being stated, if there were no more government sponsored welfare-type programs, those communities would be forced to band together to create a better environment for all their peoples.

Why should the government continue to fund programs and departments meant to uphold this archaic view of corporate practice, when for the most part, they are already in place. Let the communities speak for themselves. If a company has suspect-hiring practices, let the community speak out, and only then should the government get involved. Instead, the government should be focusing on getting kids of all ethnic communities the same opportunities for education afforded to those of privilege. Let's put affirmative action into the hands of each individual, to succeed in whatever profession they excel in, instead of limiting their own job opportunities to about 2% in each company.


By Gary Whittaker

A Viewpoint Not Represented in the Mainstream Media

The news media will regularly present views from Democratic (liberal), Republican (neoconservative), and independent (moderate) perspectives. However, I rarely, if ever, see my point of view represented in the mainstream media. Let me begin to sum up my politics by saying that I believe our most fundamental right as human beings is the right to not be bothered if we don't want to be. Supreme Justice Louis D. Brandeis got it right when he said, "The makers of the Constitution conferred the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilized men - the right to be left alone." I am somewhere in between a Goldwater Republican and a Libertarian. I do not go along with the agenda of the neo-cons who currently control the Republican Party nor do I completely adhere to the Libertarian party line.

I believe in small government whose only functions are to do what we cannot logically do for ourselves as individuals. I don't believe in a "nanny state" that tells adults they must wear seatbelts. I believe we should fight wars only when our national security is directly threatened and only after all other means of resolution have been exhausted. I believe in pre-emptive strikes in certain cases, but never pre-emptive wars. When we do have to go to war, I believe we should use a take-no-prisoners approach, with the ultimate goal of vaporizing our enemies. I don't believe a military draft should ever be imposed. I do not believe in nation building. I believe in legal immigration and would increase the quotas for most countries if I could, but I think illegal immigrants should be treated like the criminals they really are - not given special rights or handouts.

I do not believe in attempting to legislate morality (or immorality). I believe people should be allowed to do what they want, as long as their actions do not adversely affect or directly threaten someone else. Just because something is vile is not alone enough to make it illegal. I do not believe in policing thoughts, i.e., I don't worry about what someone is doing or reading might cause them to think. At the same time, I believe in accepting personal responsibility for one's own choices and that each individual must bear the natural consequences for his or her actions, e.g., don't say you didn't know smoking causes lung cancer and don't blame the government when you get HIV due to your promiscuous, careless, and/or perverted behavior. I believe tobacco, alcohol, and pot are equally bad for a person's health, but should be equally unrestricted.

I believe the rights of speech and expression, no matter how offensive or inciting, should be completely unabridged except for direct, explicit threats or speech that directly endangers others, e.g., yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. I believe implied threats should be protected speech for the simple fact the implication could easily be misunderstood. I don't believe so-called "hate speech" by one person should be blamed for a violent act committed by another. I don't believe pornography, indecency, or violence in the media should be blamed either. If given the chance, most convicts will blame anything, everything, and everyone but themselves for their own actions. That's human nature, so I don't put much credence in studies that say outside forces like that cause people to rob, rape, or murder.

I believe abortion, except in cases of rape, non-consensual incest, or endangerment of the mother's life or health, is murder. I believe it's proper to use the death penalty against those who are beyond any doubt guilty of certain types of murder. However, I believe it should be applied fairly and consistently. If not, then it should not be used at all.

I believe punishment for those who deliberately harm others and/or their property should be swift and sure, but not excessive. Punishment should never include torture or humiliation and should be applied by the penal system, not other prisoners. Inmates should not be allowed to set up a "pecking order" or have any control over the conditions at a prison or jail. Any inmate harmed by another inmate should be allowed to sue those responsible for security at the facility in which he or she is detained. No arrestee or inmate should ever be subjected to a strip search unless probable cause can be established that he or she is carrying contraband on their person and is refusing to voluntarily hand it over. Homosexual behavior, both consensual and nonconsensual, should be abolished from our prison systems.

I believe in absolute property rights. People should be allowed to do whatever they want on their own property, regardless of zoning laws, as long as they are not creating a hazard for anyone else. Ugly paint colors or structures do not constitute hazards. The government should not be allowed to forcibly take all or part of someone's property.

I believe anyone who is mentally sound and has never been convicted of a violent crime should be allowed to own any kind of firearm he or she wants. I believe in capitalism in its purist form. I believe the republican (little 'r') form of government, which the United States has, is a much better form of government than a democracy. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule in which the good of the majority always trumps the rights of the minority. I believe in a colorblind society in which everyone is given equal access and opportunity without discrimination or special favors.

I believe in separation of church and state, but I'm not an extremist about it. I see no reason why the government can't play favorites with the majority religion (in our case, Christianity) when it comes to open displays, as long as those who practice other religions are free to do so without encumbrance. If someone is offended by the open display of the majority religion in our country, then they are free to leave anytime they want. I believe no one has the right not to be offended by another person's speech, religion, dress, etc. Being offended once in a while is the price we have to pay for living in a free and open society - a small price indeed!

By Terry Mitchell

A Noble Attempt To Bring Peace in Assam

United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), one of the most powerful militant organizations operating in the northeast region is in the limelight again but this time for a better reason. Attempts to initiate talks with the center and the group are in progress. The group was established in 1979 by Paresh Baruah along with his associates. The group aims to establish a Sovereign Socialist Assam.

In the latest developments the renowned Assamese writer Indira Goswami met PM Manmohan Singh on November 19 to initiate talks with the proscribed group. This step is seen as a path breaking one however the end result is still awaited. In 45 minute long meeting with PM Indira Goswami appealed to the Prime Minister to initiate talks with the militant outfit. Goswami submitted a written appeal on behalf of the ULFA to the PM. ULFA has demanded that the sovereignty issue should be part of the talk process. On 22 November Mr.Singh made his stand clear in Guwahati that "If they shun violence, then I will invite them for talks but violence and talks cannot go on simultaneously". Further stalking the process, on November 22 the ULFA chief Paresh Baruah said that "The comments made by the PM was not unexpected and not different from that made by his predecessors. It is evident that the Centre's colonial policy will continue."

The chances of peace in the two decade old insurgency torn state of Assam seems to very bleak, however Goswami's attempt has laid the foundation stone for a process. Indira Goswami the recipient of the nations highest literary award the Jnanpith Award association with the ULFA started thirteen years ago when she was invited for attending a function in Northern Assam. Her famous novel "Mamore Dhora Tarowal"(The Rusted Sword) is selected as a must-read by the ULFA for its women cadres.

Prime Minister showed his appreciation for the literary marvel for taking the initiative to bring ULFA to the negotiation table with New Delhi. The letter from the Prime Ministers office to Indira Goswami says that " the Prime Minister has a special interest for Assam and its people. He, therefore acknowledges the expression of desire by the ULFA for talks with the Government of India." The letter also said that the Prime Minister welcomed the expressed desires of the ULFA leadership to hold talks with the government of India.

Manmohan Singh has said that he is willing to talk to any "disaffected" group in the country, provided it gave up the path of violence. As per NDTV reports on December 7 the PMO sources said that the "Prime Minister has made the government stand with regard to talks with insurgent outfits clear during his visit to the North-East and Jammu and Kashmir last month.

Colts' Stadium Short on Horse Sense

The predominant discussion in the Indianapolis media over the proposed $500 million Colts stadium is how to fund it, not over the wisdom and propriety of taxpayers going into debt to build it.

Apparently the leaders of both major political parties in Indiana have signed off on the concept, including a poor building design, and are content to confine their discussion to who's picking up the tab.

Come hell or high water on White River, Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson has vowed not to lose the Colts during his administration. His plan in part is to raise $13 million annually through higher car rental, innkeeper and admissions taxes in Marion County, as well as with annual gambling profits of $46 million from 2,500 pull-tab gambling machines in downtown Indianapolis.

Regional Republicans have their own plans to fund a new stadium. Rep. Luke Messer of Shelbyville proposes giving Indianapolis $30 million in annual revenue from 2,500 slot machines at the Hoosier Park and Indiana Downs horse tracks. Marion County GOP chairman and state Rep. Michael Murphy has a similar plan that would divide the slot machine profits differently, giving Indianapolis $48 million annually.

Here are three problems with these major party proposals, besides any issues that readers might have over funding the stadium with gambling profits.

First, they do not address the issue of stadium obsolescence. Taxpayers cannot afford to again let government build a stadium that the NFL outgrows, especially one that is three-times the real cost of the first one. Proponents should guarantee that the stadium will be valuable for 50 years, or promise to indenture the lives of their children and grandchildren at double the rate of our servitude.

Second, their proposals treat businesses unequally. They subsidize rich millionaires at the expense of smaller or more deserving businesses. Likewise, they treat businesses such as the Indianapolis Motor Speedway unfairly by taxing them to underwrite their sports competitor. It's a slap in the face to the Speedway, which funds itself.

And why should we indenture each Indianapolis citizens with more than $1,000 in debt for eight regular-season football games each year? If gambling revenue projections are not met, are residents of Indianapolis willing to be on the hook for the balance? I'm certainly not.

But here's the real crux. The RCA Dome is perfectly good as it is, except for one basic flaw. No, the flaw is NOT the size of the Dome. Although it is the smallest in the league at 57,900 seats, the Colts barely sell the Dome out even with ticket prices just below the league's average of $54.75.

The problem with the RCA Dome stems from how NFL teams share revenue. Owners keep their revenues from private luxury suites. At the Dome, Colts owner Jim Irsay has 104 suites. The league's most profitable franchise, the Washington Redskins, has 280.

Irsay seeks a stadium with enough suites to give him a shot at a medium profit relative to the rest of the league. He would have already moved his franchise to Los Angeles had that city promised him a stadium with enough suites, which it could not afford to do.

So he and his franchise are leveraging Indianapolis and our state government into building him a stadium by 2008 that merely gives him more profit potential. Ironically, Irsay's best selling point is that he will not also hold the city hostage by making it guarantee that the suites it builds him will be sold. Huh? Until then, the city expects to pay him at least $36 million to keep the Colts in town.

Compare this to the real costs of a new stadium. Its $500 million price tag can triple by the time its bond is paid. For the 400 permanent jobs that the stadium creates and the hundred or so new suites that are created, that amounts to a public investment of over $1 million per job and $3 million per luxury suite. Plus, we will build a stadium with no more capacity than the original Hoosier Dome and, from the looks of the design, one with lousy viewing for NCAA basketball.

That's maddening. Our elected officials are about to build another obsolete stadium with limited capacity, a poor configuration and an exorbitant price tag. They will again saddle us with public debt that is tall on political horseplay and short on horse sense.

Seven Things That Make Me Angry

I watch the TV news and I get angry. I really need to quit that. It's not good for my blood pressure. However, there are certain things that always get me going no matter how hard I try to ignore them. They get me hot under the collar and I guess they always will. I feel a need to vent right now, so I'll discuss seven of them below. (Hey, that's a nice round biblical number).

(1) Unrighteous indignation. What right do convicted felons serving time in prison have to punish someone else for their sins? They have no right whatsoever, but they do it all the time and the system winks at it. Very often, we'll hear about a convicted child molester, for example, being assaulted or killed by another inmate. The sad part is that society has grown to accept this kind of behavior as a fact of life and, in many cases, seems to approve of it because of our deep hatred for certain kinds of criminals. Actually, God doesn't give anyone, not even the best of us, the right to hate anyone else, not even someone like Hitler or Osama Bin Laden. When it comes to punishment for crimes, only those with clean records have a right to apply it, and then only in a lawful manner in keeping with the due process of law. Apparently, most of us, including members of the news media, have forgotten this precept.

(2) Forced acceptance. I'm a very tolerant person. I believe in religious freedom for all. I don't believe in so-called "crimes against nature" laws. I believe everyone should be free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't directly affect anyone else. However, I wish the liberal busybodies would quit trying to force me to accept other people's life styles, religions, customs, and cultures. Isn't tolerance good enough? Apparently, it isn't. I'm now being told that I must accept homosexuality as the moral equal to heterosexuality or risk being branded a "homophobe." I must now accept other religions as being on a par with Christianity. It is politically incorrect to acknowledge Christianity as the only true religion. Instead, I am told that I must worship at the alter of diversity. In the name of multiculturalism, I must now refrain from viewing mainstream American culture and customs and as being superior to other cultures and customs. Otherwise, I risk failing the sensitivity test.

(3) Government coercion and confiscation. No law-abiding citizen should ever have to give up life, limb, liberty, or property (other than reasonable taxes) at the behest of government. However, all of these things happen or have happened, even in our beloved United States. People who have not been charged with crimes have been and continue to be detained for various reasons. The USA Patriot Act, among other things, places controls on where we can go and how we can use and store our cash. The concept of eminent domain is utilized every day to confiscate people's property. For years, we had a military draft in this country and may have it again soon. A draft is not needed as people can be enticed into the military with enhanced salaries and benefits (which I'm all for). In times when that isn't enough, I don't see why convicts can't be allowed the option of going into the military in lieu of their prison sentences. A draft, however, takes productive, law-abiding citizens by force and places their lives in jeopardy. To me, that's almost the same as executing innocent people!

(4) Censorship. Other than for reasons of national security, censorship should never be used. Free adults should be allowed to choose whatever they want to view or hear and should be allowed to regulate what their children can see or hear. The marketplace should be the only deciding factor as to what is available. A free market system will provide what people want and discard what they don't want. Each individual should have the right to decide what is offensive to him or her. No one should be given the right to decide that for another adult. Besides being a violation of a person's basic rights to exercise his or her own tastes, censorship is problematic for another reason. Those doing the censoring rarely have enough common sense to avoid throwing the baby out with the bath water. In other words, stuff that most people would find acceptable or even desirable tends to get thrown out along with the obvious garbage.

(5) Double standards. Why is it "okay" for a man to be sexually promiscuous, while a woman behaving that way is considered a slut? Why do many fathers tell their sons to "have fun", while telling their daughters they better not? In my opinion, sexual impurity just as bad for one gender as it is for the other. Why are only men required to register for the draft? Isn't that government-sponsored sexism? Why are married men with kids encouraged to be safe, while single men without kids are not? Shouldn't a high level of safety be stressed for everyone? Why can we have black history celebrations, Miss Black America pageants, black congressional caucuses, and so forth, but not the corresponding items for whites? Would their white equivalents be racist? Maybe, but not necessarily. Personally, I think we should forget about race and strive toward Martin Luther King's ideal of a colorblind society. However, as long as we continue to identify people by race, his dream will never come to fruition.

(6) Too many lawsuits awarding too much money. Many small communities no longer have the services of an obstetrician. Medical costs are skyrocketing. No company within the borders of the U.S. now produces flu shots. Most of this is due to out-of-control lawsuits in which juries award ridiculous amounts of money. Lawsuits for accidental or negligent behavior should be limited to actual damages only. No pain and suffering or punitive damage awards should be made in those cases. Lawsuits for intentional misconduct that don't involve physical injury should be limited to actual damages and punitive damages. Only lawsuits for intentional misconduct involving physical injury should be eligible for pain and suffering damage awards. Lawsuits involving the consequences from things that people do to themselves, ex., smoking or overeating, should never be allowed and not even be taken seriously.

(7) Nation building with American blood. If George W. Bush wants to "export freedom", that's fine with me. It's certainly an honorable endeavor and there are many ways to do it without placing our military personnel in harm's way. However, Americans should never have to shed their blood fighting for someone else's freedom, especially in when it's unclear whether many of the people we're trying to liberate actually want the kind of freedom we're trying to bestow on them. Despite what some will have us believe, it is neither our duty nor in our interest to remove tyrants that are not a direct and imminent threat to our security. If people of other countries yearn for freedom, let them take up arms and fight for it themselves. Americans will be more than happy to provide encouragement and send weapons and other types of aid.

By Terry Mitchell

The American Worker: Downward Mobility

All the indicators show an improving economy and, finally, the start of job growth. More than eight million unemployed workers see hope around the corner and re-enter the nightmare of job search with increased enthusiasm and the positive outlook they lost six months ago when they virtually gave up on ever finding a good position.

What do they find?

Service jobs: customer service, hospitality, tourism, food, travel, entry-level healthcare, retail. What are these jobs offering? 30%, 50%, 75% less income than the old manufacturing jobs which have moved to foreign countries. Where are the benefits, the insurance, the paid holidays, retirement plans? Where have the stability, seniority system and regular raises gone?

It is a new world, an evolving economy, a changed future. Everything will work out, government forecasters confidently predict. With tax reductions continuing, the economy will expand and thousands of high-tech, highly compensated positions will be created. Keep the faith, job seekers are advised -- this is the United States where innovation and entrepreneurship always prevail and life gets better and better.

Keep mouthing the platitudes and perhaps the 50 year-old former auto worker with an eleventh grade education or the 60 year-old dislocated engineer with outdated job skills and high blood pressure will actually start to believe it. At least until they return to active job search and encounter the real, not the hypothetical/political, labor market. That is when the true economic progression of twenty-first Century America emerges: an increasing number of millionaires, an increasing number of entry-level, low paid workers, and a great middle class vacuum.

The displaced worker is confronted with the choice of working at a level far below his/her skills, education, and abilities warrant, or staying unemployed. When the government reports that in the near future "Every one who wants a job will get one," the connotation of unemployment is that jobless workers do not WANT to work. This political myth leads to increased depression, diminished self-esteem, and the final conclusion by the legions of the unemployed that their personal fears turned out to be true: they are worthless, unwanted, redundant. The universal anxiety about not being quite good enough, not measuring up, not able to run with the big dogs has been validated and the mental health of the unemployed deteriorates further.

By Virginia Bola