Character-in-Action® Blog

Character Increases Personal Safety

Administrator — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:36:26 +0000

On Saturday, June 28: a teen-aged boy visiting Six Flags Over Georgia died due to a lack of character.

You don’t believe that?

It is, sadly, very true. His death was caused by a lack of character.

First, let me say that I am not saying the teen was a bad person. I never knew him. Nor am I saying it serves him right. I am not callous. I am saddened at the thought of his death and the grief his family is suffering. I can imagine my own son being killed, and my heart goes out to all who knew the teen. Nevertheless, the situation can teach others, both young and old, a vital lesson, and we are obliged to teach it. We are especially obliged to teach young children, repeating the lesson frequently until they are saturated with its truth. Let’s look at how character would have spared this teen.

It began when, lacking the character trait respect toward authority, the teen climbed over two six-foot fences to get into an area that was marked off limits. He could read the multiple signs stating “Danger Zone”, “Do Not Enter”, and “Authorized Personnel Only”. He knew that he should not climb the fences. The trouble is, he lacked character, and refused to exercise respect for park rules. He climbed over both fences and entered the area where he was killed.

Not only did this teen fail to exercise respect, he also failed to exercise the character trait submission, sometimes called obedience. Submitting to the signs he read, and obeying them, would have increased his personal safety. He would not have been in harm’s way. The trouble is, he lacked character, and refused to exercise submissiveness. As a result, he was struck and killed by the Batman ride.

A third character trait that the boy failed to exercise was courage. He understood clearly what the right thing to do was, but he lacked the courage to do it. He failed to exercise courage and stand alone when the rest of his teen group decided to climb the fence. He failed to speak up, remind them of the demands of character, and refuse to go against what he knew to be wrong. As a result, he was decapitated.

One report says the teenager jumped up under the moving Batman ride, and tried to grab someone’s feet. Riders’ feet dangle in space below the Batman as it hurtles along at 50 miles per hour. Had the teen exercised the character trait compassion, he would have realized that such an action would endanger a rider. As it was, his lack of compassion endangered – and killed – him. No one else was injured.

Self-control would have kept the seventeen-year old from giving in to his itch to play a prank. Self-control would have nailed his feet to the ground when he had an impulse to scale the fence. He failed to exercise self-control, however, and his failure cost him his life.

Check out a list of character traits, and you will see that many others apply in this situation. The point is this: character steps up the personal safety factor.

The exercise of character traits really does make life safer. The more I study that, the more I realize that it is true. Those who build character into their lives, and exercise it consistently, avoid many dangerous situations.

Parents and teachers would do well to drill this lesson into every child – and teach character in a way that is, above all else, thorough and effective.

That’s the view from my chair. What’s your view?

Character in Government – Part 3

Administrator — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:24:00 +0000

“Character is the only secure foundation of the state,” said President Calvin Coolidge, and our last two blog entries considered the meaning of that statement. Coolidge was “distinguished for character more than for heroic achievement,” wrote a Democratic admirer, Alfred E. Smith. In other words, Coolidge did not only talk about character, but also exercised character. He was able to speak freely about character because there was no dichotomy between what he said and what he did.

Let’s look at a few last comparisons between the behavior of character and the behavior of modern politicians in the U.S.

- Character agrees with President Coolidge’s exhortation: “Don’t expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.” He learned and exercised the character trait “love” in doing what was best for everyone, both weak and strong. He knew that we could never strengthen the weak and poor of our nation by taking from the strong and giving it to the weak. He knew that would only weaken the entire nation. The weak and poor had to build character. They had to exercise industriousness for themselves. They had to exercise persistence, efficiency, punctuality, responsibility, respect, and a host of other character traits that lead to greater success.

By contrast, many modern politicians want to achieve redistribution of wealth – as long as it does not redistribute what is in their own pockets. Contrary to the belief of Coolidge, they urge the pulling down of the strong (except for themselves) in a supposed effort to build up the weak. This is not character. This is not love. No character trait is exercised when we feed people who refuse to work. No character trait is involved in taking from those who work hard for a living and giving to those who reject hard work.

A government that is founded on and operates by character is a government that trains its people to know that no one gets a free ride. It is a government that makes it clear in actions as well as words that everyone must work for his or her food, clothing, education, health care, etc.

Character is not at the foundation of politicians’ promises to feed and clothe those who are oppressed – when that oppression is due to rejection of such character traits as: diligence, determination, dependability, resourcefulness, responsibility, respect, forgiveness, self-control, persistence, perseverance, etc. These character traits pave the road that leads out of oppression.

Character is not at the foundation of many political promises – when those promises are made in order to gain office and power. Character does not seek fame and power for self. Character does not seek change for the sake of self.

Character is not puffed up with its own importance. Character is not noisy. Calvin Coolidge was called “The Quiet President” and not the eloquent president.

If we were to found a government on character, that government would require far less money; far fewer government workers; and far fewer laws. A government founded on the secure foundation of character would not need a proliferation of politicians with large staffs. It would have no use for lobbyists who strive to influence those politicians. It would never produce laws with earmarks and pork barrel spending. It would have very low, reasonable taxes to fund its minimal size.

If we were to found a government on character, that government would expect its people to operate on character also, learning and exercising character traits that lead to financial independence. Yes, there would still be poor people. The poverty would not be due to lack of character, however, and needs would be met by individuals with character rather than by big government.

As President Coolidge said, “Character is the only secure foundation of the state.”

That’s the view from my chair. What’s your view?

Character in Government – Part 2

Administrator — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:18:17 +0000

“Character is the only secure foundation of the state,” said President Calvin Coolidge, and our last blog entry looked at the kind of man who would make such a statement. We saw a politician who had the courage of his convictions. We saw a politician who knew that governments tend to rise and fall based on the presence or absence of character in their leaders.

Now let’s contrast President Coolidge’s beliefs with those of our current politicians.

- President Coolidge was not afraid to admit that his political strategy required no great intellect. He was not afraid to show that any child could operate by his political strategy. In a January 17, 1925 speech, he said, “There is only one form of political strategy in which I have any confidence, and that is to try to do the right thing and sometimes succeed. In other words – character – doing the right thing.

Modern politicians cloak political strategy, believing that the common man or woman will marvel at their wisdom. They may state plainly that character is not important: it is the economy – or health care – or peace – or any of a multitude of other things. These matters, not character, dictate political strategy.

- President Coolidge gave the people credit for intelligence – far more credit than many modern politicians are willing to give. He exercised the character trait “respect” when he thought of and spoke of his countrymen. He did not take an elitist attitude toward them. He never indicated that he knew better than they what was good for them. He respected them and believed they could solve their own problems. He held them in proper esteem.

By contrast, hundreds of modern politicians show disrespect, disdain for their countrymen. They plan and plot behind the scenes, and assure voters that they have a million wonderful ideas for them. They promise, as though they were gods, to make everything perfect. This is not character. It is merely self ambition, wanting to have things go the way of the politician.

- Coolidge exercised the character trait “love” in seeking to do what was truly best for his countrymen. He wanted to work for the success of everyone, not just a few. He put it this way: “The people cannot look to legislation generally for success. Industry, thrift, character, are not conferred by act or resolve. He knew, too, that it was not love for his people if he were to levy heavy taxes on corporations and oil companies. “The suspension of one man’s dividends,” said Coolidge, “is the suspension of another man’s pay envelope.” In other words, to tax the dividends of big companies is not an act of character toward the oppressed worker. The result will only be that the oppressed worker loses the job he does have.

By contrast, we currently hear politicians demanding penalties on those who experience the greatest success. “Windfall profits” must be taxed heavily, they say, for the good of the worker. This is not love. This is not character. Such demands threaten increasing trouble, not good, for the worker.

- Coolidge believed that “Laws must be justified by something more than the will of the majority. They must rest on the eternal foundation of righteousness.

Modern politicians believe that laws are justified by the will of the majority in Congress. Period. Full stop. Character and righteousness do not matter. Welfare programs that ignore character traits such as personal responsibility, diligence, determination, and perseverance are pushed into law as rapidly as possible. People who think themselves lucky to have such laws are soon worse off than before.

Character is the only secure foundation of any government in the world.

This subject calls for one more blog entry, and then we will move to other matters.

That’s the view from my chair. What’s your view?

Character in Government – Part 1

Administrator — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:53:49 +0000

“Character is the only secure foundation of the state.” Those words were uttered by President Calvin Coolidge in a speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors on January 17, 1925.

As the 30th president of the U.S. (1872 - 1933), President Coolidge knew and stated clearly what many modern politicians, who suppose themselves more enlightened, refuse to recognize: the most important matter in government is the matter of character.

President Coolidge was not open to letting special interest groups, labor groups, lobbyists, or anyone else push him easily to legislate or create programs. He believed that if there was a reasonable expectation that free people would solve problems themselves, the government should stand aside and let them do it. He believed that people with character could and would solve problems on their own.

Character was the foundation on which Coolidge built when he made major tax cuts Character was the foundation on which Coolidge built when he slashed the government’s budget. It was a foundation of character that helped make his name synonymous with the fast-growing 1920s economy.

Character – moral excellence – was the basis on which Calvin Coolidge refused to participate in the onward march of an ever-growing government. On the basis of character, he actively resisted the same.

Fast-forward to the current political campaigns being waged in the United States, and you find that character plays no part. Not only is it given little mention, it also is given little part in candidates’ lives.

One needs look no further than the opening sentence of Coolidge’s inaugural address to find character. Rather than rant against the discouraging matters faced by his country, as modern politicians are fond of doing, Coolidge said, “My Countrymen, no one can contemplate current conditions without finding much that is satisfying and still more that is encouraging.”

Politicians of character are able to point out positive accomplishments, even when they must be attributed to another leader or a different political party. They waste neither time nor words bashing a politician who is about to leave office. They refrain from bashing their competition. Rather, politicians of character speak clearly and plainly about every positive plan they have for the nation. They focus on making sure every voter understands exactly where they plan to take the nation.

Politicians who exercise character have hammered out their personal convictions. They have the courage of those convictions, and are not afraid to tell the public honestly and fully what to expect of them.

Sadly, the focus in our current presidential campaign has turned not to character, but to eloquence.

Mr. Obama, speaking eloquently, fails to exhibit a concern about his character. He fails to show distress about the character of Congress. He gives no assurance that if he is elected, he will echo the words of Coolidge, “Character is the only secure foundation of the state.” Rather, in eloquent rhetoric, the man who has been dubbed a “rock star” tells us that the only secure foundation of the state is to let government take over every area of life for us.

Mr. McCain, speaking less eloquently, is also silent on the subject of character. He, too, fails to address the great failures of Congress to act on principle. Like Obama, McCain gives no assurance that a government under his leadership would be founded on character.

In Part 2 of this entry, we’ll look at some difference between a government founded on character and a government founded on the thinking of modern politicians.

That’s the view from my chair. What’s your view?

Character Education Lesson Plans - Powerful Enough?

Administrator — Thu, 01 May 2008 17:32:47 +0000

Many teachers are looking for character education lesson plans. Teaching character education is not their choice and they lack interest; they lack time; or perhaps they simply don’t know where to begin. Whatever the reason, they don’t want to prepare their own, so they search the Internet for ready-made character education lesson plans. They reach for convenience.

“Free” is a prerequisite word for many teachers. Their schools fail to realize the importance of character education and budget sufficient money for it. They believe this subject can be taught without expense. So their teachers want free character education activities; free character education posters; etc. They want, in other words, free character education lesson plans.

That is not a problem as long as the free plans are robust. The question is: are they?

Character education lesson plans need to be powerful enough to be effective. They need to grab the attention of students, and hold it. They need to bring students to a complete understanding of character and specific character traits. They need to create in students a thirst to build character into their individual lives. They need to make a big difference in the lives of the children and teenagers involved.

Good character education lesson plans, prepared by experienced, professional educators who themselves model the character they are teaching, can do those things. They weave character teaching subtly into exciting materials, coming in under the average teenager’s radar. They present character to younger students in non-threatening, enchanting stories. They make every age anticipate, rather than hate character education classes.

Quality character education lesson plans make sure every student fully understands the meaning of the character trait being presented. They define the trait in age-appropriate words. They explain clearly the objective meaning, leaving no room for subjective, private interpretation. They help students see that respect, for example, is the same for everyone. Honesty, for example, always requires the complete absence of deception in both words and actions. The character education activities and other materials included in such a lesson plan reinforce the meaning of the character trait.

Many character education lesson plans give definitions, but they often do not make those definitions clear. They do not define the trait objectively. They encourage students to sort out their own subjective understanding of character traits. Such lesson plans lack power. They are wimpish.

The best character education lesson plans do not stop with basic understanding. They go on to make students desire the character trait in their own lives. They motivate. They hold up the trait and make it sparkle. They show the benefits that are to be enjoyed if it is built into the life. What does it matter whether or not you are responsible? What are the benefits of responsibility? Lesson plans that fail to do this are not potent enough. They exercise insufficient influence on young people.

Finally, powerful character education lesson plans help students take the final step and begin to put the learned character trait into action on a regular, consistent basis. If this step is lacking, the study of character has become an exercise in futility. Students have been given knowledge without expectation. They have been taught a skill without expectation that they will use it and without help in learning to use it. We might as well show babies a video on how to walk and think we have taught them to walk. A lesson plan that is lacking in implementation of the trait is weak and pathetic.

If you are teaching character education or character building, whether as a parent or school educator, you need to invest time and effort into finding and using the most powerful character education lesson plans available.

That’s the view from my chair. What’s your view?

Character Increases High School Graduation Rates

Administrator — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:36:20 +0000

High school graduation rates have plummeted to a point below 50 percent in some U.S. cities. That’s according to the “America’s Promise Alliance”, which found that only about half of public school students in the nation’s largest cities receive diplomas.

Viewing the nation as a whole, the group found that only about 70 percent of U.S. students graduate on time, with a standard diploma. Annual drop-outs numbered about 1.2 million.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, founding chair of the alliance, said, “When more than 1 million students a year drop out of high school, it’s more than a problem, it’s a catastrophe.

Catastrophe?! A further catastrophe is that these drop-outs could have been avoided if someone had helped students build character along the way.

Character increases high school graduation rates.

Schools in the U.S. have long included a course in “character education”, so why have these students not built character into their lives? Certainly, some would not listen any better in character education classes than they would in other classes. But that answer is insufficient.

Character education programs have been neglected in our schools. Monies have gone to other, “more interesting” programs. Principals and budget committees have slighted character education programs. Character education programs have been relegated to grades K-3, with the thought that they are unimportant after that age. Teachers and guidance counselors who are assigned to use character education programs have circumvented responsibility, half-heartedly presenting anemic discussions that leave character education emaciated and powerless.

Good character education programs, presented by dedicated teachers who themselves model the character they are teaching, can dramatically increase high school graduation rates, however. Quality character education programs that are used at both primary and secondary levels can revolutionize students’ lives.

Students who are regularly and clearly taught the moral absolute of respect will begin to pay attention to teachers in school. Students who are fed a consistent diet of authentic responsibility will learn to apply themselves academically. Regular lessons in the importance of self-control will yield students who control urges that sabotage learning.

Character increases high school graduation rates by increasing student desire to do what is right. As the desire increases, performance also increases, and students complete their education.

High school graduation rates have plummeted, says the report, and a search has been launched to find ways to correct the situation. I hope that search results in strong, consistent use of the best character education programs available.

That’s the view from my chair. What’s your view?

Hillary Clinton Misspoke – or Did She?

Administrator — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:18:14 +0000

Hillary Clinton misspoke, she says, about the sniper threat when she visited Bosnia in 1996 – twelve years ago. Mrs. Clinton said that it was a rare thing for her to misspeak, telling her listeners on KDKA radio in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: “… Last week, for the first time in 12 years or so, I misspoke.”

Hillary Clinton misspoke – or did she? Might there be a more appropriate word than “misspoke”? Might you who are interested in character building have chosen to call it by something else? Let’s look briefly at her statement and the occasion about which she grossly “misspoke”.

Mrs. Clinton said, in a prepared speech, that she recalled landing at the Bosnia airport “under sniper fire”. Quoting Mrs. Clinton, “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

Instead of an airport ceremony, said Hillary Clinton, they ran. However, video footage of the visit shows an obviously relaxed Clinton leaving her plane, walking slowly as she talks and smiles with those around her. She participates in that ceremony at the airport, with several cameras running, and a large, boom mike held near her head. She greets, unperturbed, the waiting dignitaries. She stops to talk to an 8-year old girl. She smiles at the girl, and takes an envelope from her. Tranquilly, Hillary opens the envelope and looks at the poem it contains. She hugs the child, and they exchange calm kisses. Chelsea Clinton is also in no hurry as she bends, smiles, and speaks to the child.

The difference between Mrs. Clinton’s account and reality, you see, is like the difference between night and day. She could not have “remembered” coming under sniper fire if it never happened. She could not have remembered running for her life when she had, instead, participated in a tranquil, happy ceremony. Nevertheless, Clinton says she “misspoke” and her campaign managers say that she “said it slightly differently” in her most recent description of the event.

When you tell the truth “slightly differently” than it was, it is no longer the truth. It is a LIE.

Hillary Clinton did not misspeak. She did not make a mistake. It was not a “minor blip” as she later termed it. Mrs. Clinton clearly wanted to deceive us by embellishing the trip to Bosnia. She wanted to convince us that such a dangerous foreign situation qualified her further to become U.S. President. She wrote the words into her prepared speech, and did not forget the truth when she stood at the podium.

Hillary Clinton lied – on purpose.

Hillary Clinton has not learned, and does not practice, what even a small child can learn and practice. She has not learned the meaning of honesty. She has not learned to practice honesty consistently.

Honesty is not bending the truth to your own purposes; not telling something slightly differently than what you know happened; not calling such an action misspeaking. In the children’s book entitled Jeremy Rabbit’s Honesty Pie (© 2003), honesty is defined this way: “Honesty is knowing the truth, and always doing the truth, even when nobody is watching you.” The Rabbit Grandmother in the book tells her grandson, “Honest rabbits … refuse to do anything that will make someone else think something is so when it really is not so.”

Hillary Clinton would do well to read that book on honesty – to learn to act with authentic and complete honesty. Instead, she lies, and then responds to media questions with, “Lighten up, guys.”

Hillary Clinton is telling the world that honesty is unimportant. On that belief, she and I differ utterly.

That’s the view from my chair. What’s your view?

Character Checked by Nanny Cam

Administrator — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:52:13 +0000

The weekend news carried yet another story about a nanny cam capturing assault of a baby. The hidden camera caught this nanny more than once in the act of shaking a crying, five-month old baby girl. It later caught her smothering the baby to keep her quiet. At her job, the mother saw the assault and called her husband, screaming, “She’s shaking my baby, she’s shaking my baby!”

Character checked by nanny cam!

The baby’s parents did the right thing before hiring a nanny: checked the applicant’s references. The 60-year old woman’s references were good, and she passed the criminal background check. She passed a so-called “character check”, too, but no one really checked her character – until the nanny cam did it.

Many companies offering background checks claim that they check “character” as well as past history and criminal records, but how do they really check a nanny’s character? What, really, is character? It is common to say that character is the sum of what you are, but if that is true, how can we speak of “men and women of character” or say that a certain person “lacks character”?

I refer back to what I wrote in a previous blog entry.

Character is not automatic; not something we all have in some measure; not “what you really are”. In the “how-to” book entitled Character (© 2003), The husband/wife authors give us a clear definition: “Character is a consciously developed inner firmness that permeates the fiber of a person, causing him or her to firmly harness the energy of objective high moral values to the actions of everyday life.”

That is what a nanny character check should seek. That is what parents should look for in an applicant who wants to care for a baby or child. The question that should be asked is this: Does that person truly possess a “consciously developed inner firmness that permeates the fiber…, causing him or her to firmly harness the energy of objective high moral values to the actions of everyday life.”

The nanny cam discovered that the 60-year old nanny in question did not. She did not possess moral excellence. She showed no moral excellence in her care of the baby girl.

What did show on the nanny cam? A gross lack of character. Character does what is right even when nobody is watching – which the nanny thought to be true. Look at just a few of the vital character traits this nanny lacked.

A lack of the character trait, love. Love would do what is best for the baby, even if it meant personal sacrifice for the nanny. The nanny’s desire for quiet (to watch TV?) must be sacrificed for the good of the five-month old baby girl.

A lack of the character trait, self-control. Self-control would prevent shaking and smothering a crying child. The nanny wanted to control the baby girl, but could not control herself.

A lack of the character trait, responsibility. Responsibility would fulfill the duties of a nanny in the best possible way, no matter what that might cost the nanny personally. The nanny wanted to shirk the duty of discovering the need that caused the baby to cry.

A lack of the character trait, respect. Respect would hold in high esteem every member of the family that hired the nanny, no matter who was or was not watching. The nanny would respect the parents highly enough that she would handle their precious child with care.

A lack of the character trait, integrity. Integrity would hold the nanny true in action to how she presented herself in words. She would not pretend to be what she later proved not to be.

Character checked by nanny cam would reveal a lot about each of us. Many would be found lacking.

That’s the view from my chair. What’s your view?

Is Character Lacking in Political Figures?

Administrator — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:03:45 +0000

Let me begin by saying that this is not intended as an analysis of every political figure. Just as each one has distinctive physical features, so each has distinctive moral features. The question is this: Do the majority of our political figures model moral excellence or something less?

Governor Spitzer of New York state is much in the news as I write this. He is a man who once spoke out vehemently against moral degradation in his state and our nation. Before he became governor, Eliot Spitzer prosecuted many cases of moral ruin, including those that involved prostitution. Yet now we learn that Governor Eliot Spitzer, intense enforcer of moral values in society, was a participant in the very corruption against which he raged.

The media immediately began to revisit the moral values of President Bill Clinton, another political figure who failed as a character model. From there, the scrutiny shifted to his wife Hillary, potential candidate for the U.S. presidency, herself not a shining example of moral excellence. Other political figures also are being mentioned, each exposed for a lack of character. They protest, of course, that they are indeed men and women of character – have made a mistake in one small area – but are otherwise trustworthy models of character.

I beg to differ.

What is character? Does everyone have character in some measure? Is character something you grow into, or is it something that requires, consistent, conscientious effort?

According to the “how-to” book entitled Character (© 2003), it is neither automatic nor something that we all have in some measure. The husband/wife authors of that book define it this way in Chapter 2, page 14: “Character is a consciously developed inner firmness that permeates the fiber of a person, causing him or her to firmly harness the energy of objective high moral values to the actions of everyday life.”

Character is consciously developed inner firmness. When we look at political figures, do we see inner firmness that has been consciously developed? Sadly, we seldom do.

Character permeates the fiber of a person. Political figures cannot claim that they have character in “most” areas of life, but made a mistake in one small area. They cannot say they are men and women of character in most areas of life, but not in faithfulness and trustworthiness as regards commitment to spouses. Character permeates – pervades every part of – the life of a person.

Character causes a person to “harness the energy of objective high moral values to the actions of everyday life.” Our political men and women cannot claim that they have character when they base their lives on so-called moral values that they have sorted out for themselves. They cannot decide for themselves what is moral, immoral, and amoral. Those who have character base their lives on objective, absolute moral values. They make every action conform to the touchstone of those objective, absolute moral values.

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s story brings out many instances of a lack of character in political figures, but seldom do we hear of authentic character in those to whom we entrust our governments.

The reason, I believe, is that those who choose to go into the political arena frequently are those who care more intensely about personal glory and satisfaction than about moral excellence, i.e. authentic character.

Character counts in politics, just as it counts in every profession. Sadly, it is often lacking in political figures.

That’s the view from my chair. What’s your view?

Respect a la Hollywood mode

Administrator — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:50:37 +0000

You’ve probably heard of eating pie “a la mode” – meaning pie served in the current fashion or style. I’m thinking today about respect in the current Hollywood fashion or style. I use “Hollywood” to stand for the whole of the global entertainment industry: movies, TV, music, etc. How does respect look when it is exercised in the Hollywood fashion?

Respect a la Hollywood mode is more aptly termed disrespect by those who recognize the authentic article. Hollywood casts young people who exercise respect toward any adult as social misfits. They are not “cool” and cannot expect to be popular.

Respect a la Hollywood mode ushers an adult into the presence of royalty and scripts that person to speak rudely, refuse to bow, or otherwise show that he or she is as good as the royal person. The person of royalty has no value to those people. They see no reason to hold a king or queen in high esteem. If anything, they often act as though they have more value than the royalty in whose presence they stand.

In similar fashion, characters playing the United States President are often made to look bungling and stupid, while those who ought to be exercising respect toward the person as well as the office are cast as more intelligent, capable individuals. The President is shown little or no respect. After all, Hollywood seems to say, the highest office in the land does not merit high esteem. We ought not to hold this person in high regard and recognize some worth. The President has less value than we have, so we can and will act in a disrespectful manner.

Educators also are treated to large doses of disrespect in the entertainment world. Many nations have long given high honor to teachers, even after they retire from teaching. Young people are taught that the teacher is a person of value, and one to be held in high regard. The teacher is to be respected, both in school and in general society.

Respect a la Hollywood mode, however, despises teachers. It teaches children and teenagers that teachers are enemies, limiting freedom, assigning loathsome tasks, and hindering you from doing what you really want to do. Those who fully respect teachers are bullied, and often ostracized.

The world of entertainment is aggressive in its teaching that police officers do not deserve respect. After all, of what value is a police officer to people who do not want to obey the law? Police officers are to be mocked, tricked, and deceived – according to the entertainment industry.

Summing up, we see that Hollywood views respect for any person in any position of authority as distasteful. It views respect for anyone else, no matter their position, as objectionable. Respect asks us to view someone else as having more value in some way than we have. That is serious thinking. Respect asks us to take serious action – and the entertainment industry seldom wants to be serious.

The result is that, from childhood cartoons to R-rated movies and music, Hollywood sends a nearly consistent, strong message about respect: this character trait is for losers.

It is no wonder, then, that true respect is fading from society. It is no wonder that parents and teachers so frequently say, as American comedian Rodney Dangerfield used to say, “I don’t get no respect.”

The only way we will save respect before it is gone forever from society is to fight back. We must counteract the teaching of the entertainment industry, give young people a clear understanding of this character trait, and motivate them to want it in their lives. Only then can they exercise authentic respect.

That’s the view from my chair. What’s your view?