At the core of the Declaration is the profound assertion that each of us has an unalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Unfortunately, too many Americans believe they’re entitled not simply to pursue happiness, but to be happy. This breeds an “I deserve it” mentality and “whatever it takes” strategies to help them get or keep the things they think will make them happy.

But alongside our unalienable rights to pursue happiness are unalienable responsibilities to be good and decent people. There’s nothing wrong with wanting and going after money, possessions, power, or status, provided we do so honorably. The deeper question is whether the pursuit of happiness is an adequate life goal.

Helen Keller said, “True happiness is not attained through self-gratification but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.”

The men who signed the Declaration of Independence weren’t simply pursuing happiness. Instead, they pledged their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” to establish a government based on moral principles. This took character. And character is what life is really about.

According to philosopher George Santayana, “Character is the basis of happiness, and happiness is the reward of character.”

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

One quality of our democracy is that every citizen is a public official. Thus, the passionate advocacy of political convictions is not only a right, it’s a patriotic obligation.

What worries me, however, is the tendency of many basically good people to be overcome with self-righteous certainty that they’re right and that those who disagree with them are wrong.

Having grown up during the ’60s, I have ugly memories of the brutality and futility of close-minded ideological warfare about the Vietnam War.

The conduct and name-calling from anti-war factions was often ferocious and unfair. They called people who believed the war was justified warmongers, imperialists, or ignorant government stooges. Worse, some went beyond protesting policies; they belittled, condemned, and rejected the military personnel who gave and risked their lives in service to their country.

The other side was no better. Adamant hawks labeled war opponents traitors or cowards. They considered any dissent to be disloyal, even criticism of the atrocious slaughter of innocent civilians in a village called My Lai. They evoked the all-purpose shield of national security to suppress documents (the Pentagon Papers) that discredited government claims about the conduct of the war.

Patriotism shouldn’t take the form of arrogant, chest-pounding, flag-waving claims of superiority or the morally blind chauvinistic claim that we have an inherent right to do whatever is thought to be in our national self-interest.

Patriotism doesn’t require us to support whatever national policy our elected officials pursue, but it does require respectful and responsible discourse – on both sides.

Instead of name-calling and political posturing about the war in Iraq, we need honest, open, constructive, and sincere debate about what is right and sensible.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

These remarkable words are the heart of the Declaration of Independence and soul of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The notion that all people have inherent moral rights that cannot be taken away by a tyrant, or even a democratically elected government, has shaped our national conscience as well as our laws and traditions.

It was the moral core of the uniquely American democracy experiment that led French historian Alexis De Tocqueville to observe: “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.”

As we celebrate our glorious heritage on July 4th, we would do well to reflect on the values and ideals that make us good and the warning that our greatness grows out of those values. Thus, these moral principles not only define us, they confine us.

I talked last week about the arbitrary internment of thousands of innocent men and women of Japanese ancestry during World War II to remind us that, in the face of fear, we haven’t always had the moral strength to honor our ideals.

Ever since 9/11, we’ve faced a parade of seductive justifications and excuses to ignore our founding principles, including the presumption of innocence, the rejection of cruel and inhumane interrogation or punishment, and the right of every person to demand that the government prove in a court of law good cause for arrest and confinement.

So the question is: Are we strong enough and good enough to protect ourselves well enough without sacrificing our claim to greatness?

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Whether you’re a teacher, coach, parent, or boss with the power and duty to instruct, inspire, and discipline others, you’ve probably heard this challenge: Who are you to teach me?

Implicit in the question is the idea that if you’re not perfect, you have no qualifications or moral standing to teach, preach, or punish others. That’s simply not true.

Of course, inconsistencies between our words and personal conduct will undermine our credibility and give others an excuse to reject our message, but valid and valuable lessons can still be taught by imperfect people. A gymnastics coach doesn’t have to be able to do a back flip to teach it. Important lessons about right and wrong can be taught by those who don’t live saintly lives.

What’s more, people struggling to live up to their own standards can be even more effective precisely because they understand the nature and power of temptation and the ever-present possibility of bad judgment. I often comfort myself with this thought. Despite my preoccupation with issues of ethics and character, I know I’m no paragon of virtue. I frequently fall short of my moral ambitions.

For example, I want to be thin – especially when I’m not hungry! I want to be healthier as part of my responsibility to my family and others who care about or rely on me. Still, every day is a challenge, not because I don’t know what I should do, but because I love steak and bagels and donuts. Unfortunately, resisting temptation most of the time simply isn’t good enough.

We shouldn’t give up on our pursuit of perfection, but we also shouldn’t wait till we’re perfect to teach what we know and believe is right.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

• According to a recent study, five out of four people have trouble with fractions.
• If quitters never win and winners never quit, what fool came up with "Quit while you’re ahead"?
• If it’s true that we’re here to help others, then what are the others here for?
• Every good company wants employees to take risks…as long as everything turns out okay.
• No one ever says "It’s only a game" when their team is winning.
• If you can’t be kind, at least have the decency to be vague.
• Ever wonder what the speed of lightning would be if it didn’t zigzag?
• Nostalgia isn’t what it used to be.
• If ignorance is bliss, why aren’t more people happy?
• To vacillate or not to vacillate, that is the question…or is it?
• Be nice to your kids. They will choose your nursing home.
• If women can have PMS, then men can have ESPN.
• When blondes have more fun, do they know it?
• Remember, half the people in the world are below average.
• What happens if you get scared half to death twice?
• If a bus station is where a bus stops and a train station is where a train stops, why do companies have work stations?

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

One of the reasons is the way schools and parents deal with or ignore the underlying issues of integrity and character. For instance, one of the most popular things adults say to discourage kids from cheating is: “You’re only cheating yourself.”

Of course, cheating damages credibility and character, but it’s also flat-out wrong because it’s dishonest and unfair. Cheaters don’t just cheat themselves. They cheat everyone affected by it, including honest students who are put at a competitive disadvantage and college admission officers and employers who think students’ grades accurately reflect competence. What’s more, cheaters dishonor their families, teachers, and schools.

When we try to tell kids that when they cheat, they’re cheating themselves because they don’t learn the material, we have to remember that most kids who cheat think what they’re asked to learn is unimportant. They’re quite comfortable not knowing the value of X or the capital of Zimbabwe. As to mastering skills, cynical and worldly-wise students believe learning cheating methods is more useful than learning the material.

Finally, it’s dangerous to promote self-centered, cost-benefit calculations regarding cheating in a way that ignores or minimizes the crucial moral issues of honesty and honor. Nearly two-thirds of all high school students cheat because they’re not afraid of getting caught and because they get better grades by doing so.

To address the problem, we must promote virtues like integrity, not self-interest, and tell kids that whether they get away with it or not, cheating is wrong. Of course, it helps if we really believe that.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

This did not please the boys, who were anxious to get choice seats.

Nevertheless, I endured hostile glares from people in line and even an annoyed reaction from the cashier, who corrected the mistake. When I returned, Aaron, who was exasperated because the prime seats had been taken, asked, “Why did you have to do that? It was her mistake, not yours.”

I was about to launch into a lecture on integrity when my son, who was also irritated, looked at his friend and said, “What did you expect him to do?”

Many years later, this memory is an uplifting reminder of the impact we have on the character of our kids. Hearing from my son that he expected me to be honest and knew I expected the same of him was like a pat on the back saying I’d done okay as a father.

My son, still one of the most honest people I know, realized that honesty is neither a convenience nor a choice. To a person who values integrity, it’s a habit.

When it comes to parenting, it’s hard to know what’s working and what isn’t, but one of the best rewards for attentive parenting is seeing something good in our children and knowing we played a part.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Conflicting views of rights and responsibilities are unavoidable, but passionate disagreement and debate should strengthen rather than undermine our national commitment to peacefully and respectfully resolving differences. It doesn’t serve us well when our most cherished principles are assaulted under the banner of what some people call a “cultural war.”

The process of refining our definition of liberty in a manner that balances personal freedoms against various perspectives of a good society is continuous and endless. Every decade has seen momentous conflicts involving civil and religious rights, including prohibition, polygamy, pornography, capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion, and private homosexual conduct. In each case, court decisions pleased some and infuriated others.

I’ve disagreed with many majority decisions of the Supreme Court. Still, it’s unwise and essentially unpatriotic to attack the court system and vilify judges when we disagree with a judgment. And it’s arrogant to equate the intensity of our convictions with the likelihood that we’re right.

The issues that reach the Supreme Court are significant. But it’s vastly more important that we have and support a method of peacefully and thoughtfully resolving ideological rifts that threaten our ability to live together in respectful peace.

If we lose confidence in the wisdom or integrity of the judicial process and try to rig it so we’ll get the answers we want, we will all someday find ourselves on the other side of ideological tyranny.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Among them are prohibiting coercive interrogation and protecting the rights to a trial by jury, a speedy trial, attorney representation, witness cross-examination, and remaining silent. In addition, we require the government to prove a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This imposing array of prosecutorial hurdles is supplemented by habeas corpus, the right of every person to a court hearing to determine if confinement before trial is lawful.

Sadly, our commitment to the values underlying these legal procedures failed to withstand public fear and anger generated by the attack on Pearl Harbor. Under the banner of national security, more than 100,000 people of Japanese ancestry were confined in internment camps for three years without any hearing.

This is an important context to understand the controversy surrounding the recent split decision of the Supreme Court to grant prisoners at Guantanamo Bay the right to a habeas corpus hearing to determine whether the government has legitimate grounds to continue their confinement.

There are valid legal arguments about the applicability of the Constitution in this case, but the root of the issue is an ethical question about what we believe and what we stand for.

I hope we’ll have the courage to overcome our fears and stand by our historic commitment that every individual has the inherent right to be judged on facts, not fears, and evidence rather than suspicions.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

The image of spreading light is a powerful metaphor for both warmth and wisdom that inspires and motivates people who want to be a positive influence in the world.

It is captured in the proverb urging us to light a candle rather than curse the darkness and in Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s observation that “When a great man dies/For years beyond our ken/The light he leaves behind him/Lies upon the paths of men.”

There are two ways to bring light: ignite a flame that creates it or be a mirror that reflects it. As I begin today, my 12th year broadcasting these 90-second editorials, I acknowledge with both pride and humility the privilege to be both a candle and a mirror as I quote frequently from the profound thoughts of poets, philosophers, and others and invent or retell stories and parables.

That’s what a teacher does. I know from my mail that I irritate, and even infuriate, some of you – especially when I venture into an area thought to be political. I’ve been called “too liberal,” “too conservative,” “too religious,” “too secular,” “too righteous,” “too naïve,” and “just plain wrong.”

Fortunately, the sting of these accusations is soothed by occasional notes telling me that someone was inspired, encouraged, fortified, or comforted by something I said.

But my highest sense of satisfaction comes when I induce one of you to make an honest, objective, and rigorous self-examination of your character or most deeply held beliefs. Complacency about our own virtue and the tendency to confuse the intensity of our beliefs with the likelihood that we’re right are forms of self-righteousness that, along with ignorance and irrationality, perpetuate darkness in the absence of light.

Thank you for the honor of considering my thoughts, and please keep telling me what you think.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

In a split decision, the Supreme Court recently ruled that people labeled as “enemy combatants” confined at the military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, must be given limited access to federal courts. Before I talk about the ethical issues involved, it’s helpful to review another major detention situation.

In 1941, a surprise attack by the Japanese government at Pearl Harbor brought our country into war and engulfed the nation in fear and hatred. In response, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, asserting special war powers, issued an Executive Order requiring all persons of Japanese ancestry living on the Pacific Coast of the United States to be forcibly confined in hastily constructed “War Relocation Camps.”

Ultimately, about 110,000 men, women, and children of all backgrounds were indiscriminately imprisoned in facilities that often lacked plumbing and heating. The Order applied to all residents who were at least 1/16th Japanese. Detainees were confined without the benefit of any process to determine whether they were actually a threat to national security.

Three years later, though the war was still raging, a Supreme Court ruling induced the President to release all the detainees. They were each given $25 and a train ticket home.

In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed legislation that apologized for the internment, stating that the action was based on “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.” Surviving detainees were awarded $1.2 billion dollars in reparations. In 1992, President George H. W. Bush issued another formal apology from the U.S. government and added $400 million in reparations.

There are parallels to that Executive Order and our reaction after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Looking back, who was right – President Roosevelt or Presidents Reagan and Bush?

Is there anything we can learn from this chapter of our history?

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

* As a footnote, the 2001 national budget decreed that the former Japanese detainee camp sites are to be preserved as historical landmarks to “forever stand as reminders that this nation failed in its most sacred duty to protect its citizens against prejudice…and political expediency.”

In preparing a comment on the legal and ethical issues emerging from the detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists held at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, I was surprised at how hard it was to find positive quotations on American law and justice. After all, our laws and legal system, however imperfect, are among our most noble and admirable qualities.

Our greatest contribution to world civilization is the Constitution and Bill of Rights, documents deeply rooted in core moral values demanding respect for human dignity and the right to justice, due process, and maximum personal liberty.

Although the Founding Fathers did a magnificent job balancing public needs and individual rights, controversial judicial interpretations are inevitable.

Those who say they’re strict constructionists, for example, generally support laws outlawing obscenity, libel, and death threats instead of insisting that the First Amendment, which declares that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,” is absolute.

Similarly, while many people favor strict interpretation of the right to bear arms, they support Supreme Court interpretations limiting the right to exercise one’s religion by upholding laws against polygamy and animal sacrifice.

If sticking to the exact letter of the law is impractical or undesirable, therefore, what principles should guide the Court’s interpretation of laws that deal with claimed violations of civil and human rights by non-citizen detainees? Do such individuals have the right to challenge the legality of their confinement and harsh interrogation methods?

These are legal issues with huge political implications. They’re also ethical issues that will test our commitment to the underlying principles that define us – to ourselves and the world.

More on that tomorrow.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

If you were hiring a new CEO, what are the most important qualities you’d look for?

Surely you’d want a high level of demonstrated competence – knowledge, experience, intelligence, vision, communication, and relationship skills and the ability to motivate, manage, and solve problems. But what about qualities such as honesty, moral courage, accountability, and fairness?

Despite bold rhetoric about the indispensability of good character, many hard-driving organizations are willing to be flexible on character to get an exceptionally competent person.

Thus, many current scandals – in business, the church, and sports – have occurred because organizations compromised their principles by recruiting, retaining, or tolerating leaders with serious character flaws who generated costly accusations of wrongdoing and undermined trust, morale, teamwork, and loyalty.

I used to tell clients that competence and character were two separate aspects of intelligent employment decisions. Now I think it’s a mistake to disconnect them. Good character is an essential aspect of competence.

Long ago, Samuel Johnson said, “Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, but knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.” Warren Buffet updated that notion: “In looking for people to hire, look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. But if they don’t have the first, the other two will kill you.”

Since it’s easier to train a person of good character to do a job well than to develop character in a skilled but unprincipled employee, if you have to choose, hire for character and train for skills.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Although rising cheating rates in schools have signaled that the hole in our moral ozone is getting bigger, the media seem to have just discovered there’s a problem. The latest student trick they’ve uncovered is the use of the Internet and cellphones.

This drives me crazy because the more we focus on all the clever ways youngsters cheat, the more likely we are to ignore the fact that the biggest single factor in escalating academic dishonesty is the failure of parents and teachers to diligently teach, enforce, advocate, and model personal integrity.

It’s adults, not kids, who have the greatest responsibility to create an ethical culture that nurtures the virtues of honor, honesty, and fairness. Part of that responsibility is to commit to the integrity of exams and grades. We can thwart high-tech exam cheating by old-fashioned low-tech methods:

• Don’t let students bring anything into the exam room that isn’t essential to the test.

• If calculators are necessary, assure that they’re emptied of any improper information.

• Prepare alternative forms of exams.

• Don’t give the same test to different classes throughout the day.

• Have an attentive adult proctor each exam by continually walking among the test-takers.

What message do schools send when these simple procedures are ignored?

The truth is, we’ll never solve the cheating problem until those who have the opportunity to instill values and shape attitudes of young people engage in thoughtful, systematic, and comprehensive efforts to promote integrity and prevent cheating.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.