Archives 2007
Where are our war heroes? Our military is producing decorated but unheralded war heroes of whom we should all be proud. (728)AAP policy proposal on advertising ignores key player. The American Academy of Pediatrics blames advertisers for the problems kids face. Why is there no blame for parents? (713)
A tale of two letters: Debating the role of government, capital punishment, and abortion with the First Amendment. (671)
Is prosecuting juiced ballplayers the answer?
December 19, 2007
This time of year the baseball devotee seeks solace in the Hot Stove League. The chatter around the stove this winter should be the Detroit Tigers. Their off-season acquisitions position them to capture their first World Series title since 1984. Or, the Red Sox could remain the team to beat. It doesn't matter. The talk is about steroids, cheating, an investigation, and what to make of all three.
One columnist noted that former Senator George Mitchell's report itself looked like it was on steroids, bulked to a snooze-inducing 409 pages, which seems extensive until you remember that a politician led the investigation. In that light, it's plausible that Mitchell's report drones from start to finish without saying a thing.
But, you have to give credit to Mr. Mitchell for not shying away from naming names. His list of gassed-up athletes reads like a Who's Who of the national pastime. Or, in some cases, a “who's that?”
There were the known or highly suspected: the Giambi brothers, Gary Sheffield, and Barry Bonds. Most fans were at least somewhat surprised to find Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte on the list of offenders. There were also instances that make you wonder if, in fact, steroids work as advertised. Take the slugging Wally Joyner--who hit more than 20 homers only three times in 16 seasons--for instance, or the flame-throwing Paul Byrd.
Last season's comeback kid, Rick Ankiel, has seen his heart-warming reemergence sullied by allegations of steroid use. Still other wrongdoers make you scratch your head and reach for the “who's that” file mentioned earlier. Of what benefit were steroids to Ricky Stone, or Tim Laker, or Phil Hiatt?
Performance enhancers may have caused a few more Barry Bonds “big flies” to splashdown in McCovey Cove or added a mile per hour to a Clemens fastball. But they didn't help Bonds recognize pitches and make contact nor did they make Clemens throw the right pitch in the correct count to the proper location. Those skills result from practice alone, meaning that steroid use was altogether unnecessary.
It's interesting that neither Bonds nor Clemens have failed a drug test, which is the case for nearly everyone on the abuser list. The same can be said for the black-hatted Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, who weren't on Mitchell's list at all.
It makes you question the Mitchell report's worth and what course baseball should pursue in its wake. What action can and should Bud Selig take to repair the game's image, especially when the report itself favors letting bygones be bygones?
The steroid problem rests as much on baseball's management as it does the players. Until recently there were no hard rules regarding performance enhancing drugs, and no enforcement policy for whatever lame directive did exist. Therefore, it's arguable that juiced players were gaining an advantage permitted within the rules. That's no more cheating than a base runner who takes an extra step lead against a pitcher with a poor move. Fans bear some blame, too. Moving runners over just isn't as “SportsCenter” as the three-run homer.
“But steroids are illegal,” you say.
Fine; then it's a law enforcement problem. Charge the offending players in criminal court. If they're found guilty; send them to jail. Instead of the Gas House Gang they can form the Big House Gang. But, if you aren't willing to take that step you shouldn't preen and crow over the Mitchell report's seriousness.
Don't misunderstand, steroids should be banned. They cheapen the players, their accomplishments, and the game itself. More important, their use teaches young players that the road to “the Show” is paved with a syringe. However, baseball's hierarchy ignored doping for years. They have no moral authority to sanction players and little practical alternative to wiping the slate clean and starting over.
What if there was a civil rights violation and nobody cared?
December 11, 2007
In late September the small town of Jena, LA turned the nation upside down. Activists and media flocked to the Deep South for what was billed as the launch of a new civil rights crusade.
The initial reports from Jena were startling. We were told that it was a racist town with a racist school and a racist hierarchy. The District Attorney was panned as a small town Klansman, singling out black kids to satisfy his supremacist leanings. Nooses hung from a “whites only” tree, placed there to resurrect yesterday's injustices.
Such attitudes and happenings, if true, are unacceptable to most people. The problem arose when the initial reports from Jena turned out to be, at best, half-true.
The “white tree” was a myth; both black and white kids routinely gathered under its branches. The nooses were there, but not for the reason we were given. Teachers at Jena High had witnessed both black and white kids playing with the nooses on more than one occasion. Other people claimed the nooses were aimed at a rival school prior to a football game.
Whether Mychal Bell and the Jena 6 deserved to be charged as adults for the beating of Justin Barker is debatable. However, Bell's criminal history of assaults and damage to public property is undeniable. What's also undeniable is that Mychal Bell was used, but not by a racist DA and a good-old-boy system.
Just as soon as the national media was through painting Jena as the birthplace of Jim Crow and the race-hustlers had drained every second of publicity from Mychal Bell's legal troubles, they packed their cameras, bullhorns, and outrage and beat feet for the state line. Bell--for good, bad, guilt or innocence--was left behind. It made me wonder what would happen if a civil rights violation occurred and nobody paid attention. I didn't have to wait long to find out.
Barely two months after the Jena marches, nine teenagers beat a young woman and dragged her from a Baltimore city bus. Her friend was also assaulted, as well as an elderly passenger and the bus driver. Funny thing, there's been only scant coverage of the attack and no civil rights attention whatsoever. The victims were white, except for the bus driver, and the suspects were black.
Should we assume that the beaten woman's civil rights weren't violated? Shouldn't she, her friend, the elderly passenger and the bus driver have the right to go about their business without being beaten and harassed by a gang of punks?
The broadcast media had a field day with the Jena 6, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were everywhere. Why aren't they in Baltimore? Why are they so unconcerned with the civil rights of the Baltimore Four? The answer is quite clear.
Broadcast media outlets are driven by sensationalism. Whatever the motives for the Baltimore attack, they will never approach the emotional connection of perceived racial injustice in a southern town. Therefore, this situation isn't worth their time.
As for Jesse and Al, they are self-consumed. The only civil rights that concern them are the ones from which they can gain attention. They care nothing for the Baltimore Four or the fact that nine black teenagers are throwing their lives away. They cared nothing for Mychal Bell, as evidenced by how quickly they tossed him aside when the cameras stopped rolling.
We don't yet know the full facts from the Baltimore Four assault. But when the outrage broke in Louisiana we didn't have the facts either. One fact we do know is that most people will get along fine privately until self-promoting third parties become involved. Reality is revealed slowly. Maybe if we'll await facts instead of reacting to initial generalizations we'll get along even better.
What's hate got to do with it?
December 11, 2007
Love is said to be the strongest human emotion. It can drive us to do things we wouldn't otherwise do. Love can compel a person to make great sacrifices for the benefit of another. People will throw themselves in front of a moving vehicle to save their child's life or donate a kidney to a relative or friend, both for the sake of love.
If love is the most powerful human emotion, then hatred runs a close second. Hate can also lead people to commit acts they otherwise wouldn't consider. Hate can be blamed for driving Adolph Hitler to systematically eradicate 6 million European Jews and ignite a world war that consumed 55 million lives. A hatred for societal standards, or an overall hatred for human life, can fuel a serial killer. Ultimately, it can be said that hate drives all manner of vile and despicable treatment of our neighbor.
Love can be a beautiful and noble emotion. Since hate is love's antonym we know it will produce ugly and selfish behavior. Yet, they share the common denominator of being truly powerful human emotions. Therefore, neither should be a driving force behind the rule of law.
If a law is to be effective and universally applicable it must be free of emotion. We've already addressed how emotion, whether good or bad, can cloud human judgment and alter our behavior. It just stands to reason that man's laws, if coupled with man's emotions, will also reflect our biases and prejudices.
When that is the case, a criminal defendant may receive a more severe sentence when hate is determined to be an aggravating factor. Conversely, a second defendant may receive a lesser sentence when hate is said not to have contributed to the crime, even when the exact same crime has been committed.
Under these circumstances the victim has suffered to the same degree regardless of their race, sex, creed, or national origin. Hate crimes laws call attention to the racial component of a crime rather to than the crime itself. Therefore, they can only exacerbate the situation, inciting further outrage rather that soothing racial tensions, as their proponents claim.
Hate crimes laws thus allow charlatans to manipulate criminal acts for political advantage. As long as this continues there will remain racial tension and divisiveness. It is the intended result, for charlatans require a divided populace to maintain their prominence and power.
Friends, never is a violent crime an act of love. Even when there is a so-called crime of passion it is anger that fuels a momentary hatred and produces a violent act. Therefore, every violent crime--regardless of race--is a hate crime and should be treated accordingly.
It's doubtful that Mychal Bell and his pals beat Justin Baker as a token of esteem. Nine black teenagers didn't assault Sarah Kreager, who is white, out of loving kindness. And I doubt that the white goons who dragged James Byrd, Jr. down a Texas back road behind a pickup truck did so because of their deep respect for his value to the community. The victim in each case suffered to the same degree regardless of the violator's motivation. Why shouldn't the criminal be punished to the same degree of his victim's suffering, regardless of any racial components?
Hate crimes laws don't serve the cause of justice regardless of who is charged. They only serve to foster discord, with their sole value being to people who benefit from acrimony.
Before you jump on board with hate crimes prosecutions, ask your self this question: Would I rather be left alone by a bigot, or beaten senseless by someone who doesn't care if my ancestors came from Mars?
I'll take option one, and I'll bet you do, too.
Hi-Yo Silver! Bill Clinton lies again!
December 4, 2007
Do you miss the Clinton presidency? Don't fret. A gravely voice with a ready lie, a cloud of lust and hearty Hi-Yo Silver! Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear. Bill Clinton rides again.
According to the lead paragraph of a New York Times article, Mr. Clinton claims that he opposed the Iraq War prior to the invasion. The article's next paragraph points out that he never actually declared his opposition. Why the contradiction? Well, perhaps it's because Clinton wasn't opposed to the war at all, at least not then.
In fairness to Mr. Clinton, he didn't support the timing of the invasion. However, he consistently defended President Bush's position. In fact, in interviews cited by CNN, Clinton rejected the Left's argument that oil and imperialism prompted the Iraq War. He affirmed that Pres. Bush's top responsibility following 9/11 was to prevent Al-Qaeda and its allies from obtaining WMDs. “That's why I supported the Iraq thing,” Clinton said then. “There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for.”
Mr. Clinton's public assertions that Iraq and Al-Qaeda posed a threat to the United States can be traced back to his presidency. The administration clearly believed that Iraq had provided technical assistance to Al-Qaeda's quest for WMDs during the 1990s. Indeed Clinton so trusted his administration's intelligence that he ordered a Tomahawk missile strike against a Sudanese factory.
The plant was suspected of producing Empta, an acid used to manufacture VX nerve gas. When asked which countries used Empta to make VX an administration intelligence official responded, “Iraq is the only country we're aware of.”
If that's not enough, consider that several top Clinton administration figures acknowledged Iraq's involvement with Sudan's suspected chemical weapons facility and an Iraq-Sudan connection with Al-Qaeda on WMD development.
The historical evidence is clear; Pres. Clinton and his administration believed that Iraq assisted Sudan and Al-Qaeda on weapons projects, a fact confirmed by the missile strike against the Sudanese plant. He openly expressed support for President Bush's stance before the Iraq War began. How, then, can he now claim to have opposed the war from the outset, and why would he make such an easily refutable statement?
Let's remember who were dealing with. Clinton is the man that a sympathetic media once praised for his lying ability. That talent surfaces whenever needed, and it's needed now to facilitate his return to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Hillary's coronation as America's first queen hasn't been the formality the Clinton's expected. Polling data, if accurate, changes with the wind. But there is one certainty; the polarizing Hillary Clinton isn't the presidential shoo-in she was supposed to be. She, like her husband, either can't make up her mind or is fast and loose with the truth.
Sen. Clinton voted for the war resolution in 2002. Now she claims she was misled by Bush. That's quite a revelation for the world's smartest woman, to admit being duped by a man her supporters consider a dumb Texas cowboy. She has image, likeability and credibility problems not only with opponents and undecided voters but with pacifists within her party. Bill's flip-flop is a diversionary tactic launched to disguise Hillary's war voting record.
When Bill Clinton supported Bush five years ago his wife wasn't running for the Democratic nomination. Now that she needs the pacifist's vote, he is re-writing history to hide embarrassment and appease the base. For the Clintons, life revolves around personal image and political advantage. If the truth becomes collateral damage, well, it's a necessary sacrifice.
Prior to the Iraq War, Bill said what he needed to say to enhance his legacy as a forceful and dynamic leader. He's doing the same now to attain political power, betting that you'll again marvel at his unique ability to spin reality rather than focusing on reality itself.
More tolerance from the “religion of peace”
November 30, 2007
Whenever we think we've seen it all from the world of the Islamic fundamentalists, like a Saudi rape victim being sentenced to a year in jail for her part in the crime, they up the ante again. Let's turn our attention to Sudan--a genocidal country that has declared a de facto hunting season on anyone who isn't an Arab Muslim--where a British schoolteacher has offended Islam.
The situation indicates neither holiness nor decency within Islam, only the religion's frailty. How else can we explain the Muslim's perpetual offense from otherwise mundane events?
Draw a caricature of Mohammed and Islam is offended. Make a video and Islam is offended. Note that Muslims are the perpetrators of the overwhelming majority of suicide bomb attacks and Islam in offended. Let a woman reveal one cubic centimeter of skin and Islam is offended. Refuse to live in the 7th Century and Islam is offended. If you're a Westerner, draw your next breath and Islam is offended. I could go on, but you get the idea.
Funny, though. Blow up a railway station, hi-jack an airliner, or detonate a suicide bomb on the evening bus and Islam celebrates.
Gillian Gibbons taught 7-year-olds at a private school in Sudan. She became the latest to offend Islam's delicate sensitivities when her class teddy bear was named Mohammed. Under Islamic Law, this grave insult demands 40 lashes, jail and a fine. Fortunately, she received the “lenient” sentence of 15 days in jail and deportation. That's not enough for the righteous defenders of the religion of peace; Islamic justice demands much more.
The pious, devout Muslims say Gibbons must die for her “flagrant aggression” against Mohammed. Inflamed Sudanese Muslims, properly stoked with the “tolerant” kindling of Friday services, streamed from the mosques like fire ants from a flattened hill. They flooded Khartoum's streets proclaiming their message of peace. “No tolerance: Execution,” they demanded. “Kill her, kill her by firing squad,” they shouted, berating the “arrogant” Gibbons for teaching Sudanese children to hate Mohammed.
Perhaps the prophet should've dedicated a few lines of his writing to the bearing of false witness, for the charges against Gibbons are pure lies.
A student named Mohammed, not Gibbons, initiated this blasphemous atrocity, wanting to name the teddy bear after himself. Mohammed's classmates voted overwhelmingly in favor of his proposal and the bear was thus named. From this simple matter an entire city--nay, make that the radical Muslim world--is ready to kill a 54-year-old British schoolteacher.
You don't see adherents of other religions react so atrociously when their icons are insulted, which happens frequently and to a much higher degree.
Chris Ofili concocted The Holy Virgin Mary, a juvenile depiction of Christ's mother spattered with elephant dung. A photo titled Wrecked depicts the Last Supper with a topless woman in the place of Jesus, arms spread to imitate crucifixion. Yo Mama's Last Supper did likewise, with the fully-nude “artist”, Renee Cox, in the position of Christ. And who could forget Andres Serrano's photo of a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine, the artistic profundity of which was so eloquently reflected in the title, Piss Christ.
Christians never denied the offence these artworks generated. However, there was no arrest, trial, jail, or flogging. No Christian lynch mob demanded the alleged artist's execution. In other words, Christians didn't practice the “tolerance” we find within the “religion of peace.”
British diplomats have tiptoed around this situation as if they were crossing a minefield. Sure, Britain pressured the Sudanese government. They were also quite careful to affirm their respect for Islam lest it again be offended. But respect is an honor earned, not given. Judging from the latest example of Muslim belligerence Islam is doing precious little to prove itself worthy of the honor.
Putting a positive spin on the latest disaster
November 27, 2007
Live long enough and you'll experience a moment of confirmation. Maybe you've wondered if you should've married your high school sweetheart instead of your actual spouse. Then a chance meeting with the old sweetie confirms the superiority of your current state and you realize the wisdom of your decision. I recently lived this experience, although it had nothing to do with my wife or a by-gone girlfriend.
I read an article on quantum theory and it convinced me beyond the shadow of a doubt that I made a wise choice in never studying astrophysics. With that said a little background is in order along with the following disclaimer. The summation you're about to read is probably inaccurate.
Two renowned university professors have asserted that our universe is likely to die at a younger age because astronomers have viewed dark energy in space. This observance caused the cosmos to regress to a prior state in which its demise is likely to accelerate.
The key phrase is dark energy, and you may be wondering what the heck it is. I did too, so I looked it up. Einstein, a pretty sharp guy, introduced the concept of dark energy 90 years ago, representing it with a symbol that I can neither understand nor reproduce on a keyboard. Experts could form no consensus on the idea and it lay dormant until the 1990s. Even now scientist can't accurately explain dark energy, except that it's a repulsive force credited with expanding the universe.
The combination of this exhaustive research and my warped mind spawned a few equally exhausting and warped questions.
If the universe's life is shortened by man's observance how long would it have survived without observation? How can we know how long it would've lived without our observation unless we observed it previously, which by this theory would've also shortened its life? Can we accept the initial proposition without having answers to these latter two? Confused yet? Don't fret, so am I.
Professor Lawrence Krauss, one of the two noted scientists mentioned earlier, says his theory depends on what determines the universe's rate of decay and whether our observations can reset that determiner. However, not everyone agrees with Prof. Krauss' theory because it's dependent on the need for humans to do the observing, which itself is a bone of contention within the sphere of quantum theory. It's akin to the question we asked as kids: “If a tree falls in the forest and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound?”
Regardless, I'm sure that Prof. Krauss can substantiate his position with an impressive and incomprehensible maze of mathematical calculations that resemble something Albert Einstein would've produced after a dose of ipecac syrup. That sort of equation may as well be the script for Saturn's evening news to someone for whom high school algebra was a foreign language, like me.
Thanks to Prof. Krauss, not only must we worry about global destruction but also the universe's demise, both of which are man's fault. While we're offering SUVs and fossil fuels on the altar of environmental responsibility perhaps we should sacrifice a few observatories and telescopes to cosmic preservation. And while climatologists and cosmologists confidently forecast terrestrial and celestial apocalypse, their cousins in meteorology can't predict a thunderstorm brewing just beyond the horizon.
I have no idea what to make of Krauss' doomsday theory. But if man can hasten matter's demise simply by viewing it there may be an upside, at least in the short term. To test this theory I plan to take a long, hard look at Hillary Clinton, as nauseating a prospect as that may be. A few minutes spent staring at the Islamic Republic of Iran might not be a bad idea either.
To liberals, free speech is a one-way street
November 20, 2007
Suppose we were to conduct a survey asking average citizens to pick one freedom America enjoys that most nations don't. We'd likely receive some varied answers. Some people would declare the right to bear arms. Others might mention the ability to worship freely, an uncensored press, peaceable assemblage, or the protection against self-incrimination.
Some respondents would go beyond the obvious. They might mention the right to travel freely between the states, to own property, or to pursue their educational goals. Still others may cite the right to choose their profession and, thus, pursue their idea of happiness. All of these rights we still enjoy, by and large, unimpeded.
However, suppose we asked those Americans to name three freedoms instead of one. I'll bet the right to free speech would make 90-percent of the lists. What a shame that such an important and inalienable right is so misunderstood.
The First Amendment is a two-way street. For free speech to exist each side of a debate must recognize their opponent's ability to state their opinions. That doesn't mean that either side has a right to be believed--that right must be earned--but only the right to speak. Yet there's a faction in American politics that can't wrap their minds around this simple precept. It may surprise you to learn that it isn't the ideology routinely accused of stifling dissent.
Liberals are genuinely opposed to free speech, at least for anyone other than themselves. The Iraq War serves as a fine example. People who demand an immediate troop withdrawal are simply exercising their free speech. Conversely, when conservatives question the peace-at-any-cost position they're accused of repressing contrasting views. War protesters profess support for our troops while calling them Nazis and war criminals. If conservatives question the protester's accusations they're demonized for censorship.
Liberals maintain their right to express any opinion they please regardless of their accuracy. If you don't accept their views completely you're silencing their voice. The fact that you have a different view is inconsequential. Unfortunately, it's a tactic that works on the unobservant mind.
What would happen if liberals were blackballed within their profession for expressing political views on their own time? Evil business interests would be charged with thwarting free speech. Yet that doesn't hold true in liberal dominated industries, like entertainment.
Liberal celebrities host extravagant fundraisers for their political candidates. But let a star contribute to a Republican and he or she has committed Hollywood's version of hara-kiri. Actors and actresses must deny conservative or GOP leanings, or at the least decline comment.
In Tinsel Town homosexuality and bi-sexuality are embraced. Adultery, promiscuity, partying and leaking homemade sex videos is celebrated. But celebrities who experiment with political conservatism better stay in the closet. Otherwise they'll be relegated to hawking cleaning products on late night infomercials.
Free conservative speech isn't to be tolerated even at the Republican convention. Liberals are already planning their protest marches, human roadblocks and pubic disruptions. Sure, they can protest Republican policies. But the planned tactics aren't about exchanging ideas. The protests are about silencing conservative voices, intimidating convention participants and inhibiting debate. Otherwise liberal protesters wouldn't employ tactics the sole purpose of which it to deny conservatives access to the convention hall.
Then there are the words of Jordan Kushner, a protest sympathizer, who said of the convention, “People have as much right to the streets as the Republicans who are coming here. . . .” So, Republicans aren't people? Small wonder liberals don't acknowledge a conservative's right to unfettered dialogue.
Pay attention to the political discourse this election year. Note which side tries to debate ideas and which attempts to shout-down their opposition. You'll find that it's liberalism that sees free speech as a one-way street.
We're being gouged! Where's the outrage?
November 12, 2007
When the price of crude oil approached $100 per barrel you just knew the price of gasoline would soon follow suit. Gas prices held their ground for a time. But I wasn't surprised to find regular unleaded hovering just north of the magical $3 per gallon barometer at my last fill-up. The next step is the price-gouging charges, for when gasoline prices spike criticism of Big Oil is never far behind.
We heard similar complaints last summer following the iPhone's debut. People lined up by the thousands outside electronics retailers--forever proving P.T. Barnum's theory concerning the birth rate of suckers--to buy the latest electronic gizmo. Predictably, due to the great demand and the limited supply, over-eager consumers paid far more for their iPhones than the device was actually worth.
Wouldn't you just know it? Two months after the iPhone's unveiling the price dropped from $599 to $399. The initial buyers, Barnum's favorite sons, carped and whined about price-gouging. But the gadget-hungry consumers who complained about the inflated launch price should've been kicking themselves in the rear. They indeed paid the market price of $399 for their iPhones, plus an extra $200 for the fleeting prestige of being first on the block to own the latest techno-goodie. The same thing happened when the Playstation3 debuted last December, and it'll happen when the next “can't-live-without-it” device hits the shelves.
However, the price-gouging crusader's condemnations ring hollow. There is another commodity that far outpaces inflation and is fast becoming unaffordable for many Americans--higher education. Average college tuition increased more than 6.5-percent this year, and higher tuition is common at both subsidized and private four-year institutions.
Parents who sent their kids to private universities this year will pay an average of $30,000 including room and board. The price will exceed $50,000 at some schools. Just a few years ago, 2005, Richmond University's tuition rose more than 31-percent in a single year.
Public colleges and universities will predictably cost less, with an average outlay around $13,000 per year. But, as has long been the case, that discount holds true only if a student attends school in-state. A non-resident attending a publicly-subsidized school can expect costs on par with private institutions.
Activists and politicians rant and rave when the price of gasoline rises a quarter per gallon. They then score public points with legislative proposals to combat Big Oil's greed. The same thing happens when there's an increase in the price of heating oil, beef, power tools, you name it.
Yet I've heard nary a consumer activist criticize colleges and universities over tuition rates that rise disproportionately to inflation. Where are the charges of tuition-gouging and the condemnation of Big Education?
There are a few reasons why universities get a free pass for their skyrocketing costs. Grants, scholarships and low-interest loans soften the buyer's out-of-pocket expenses somewhat, and publicly subsidized community colleges remain an affordable option. But a far more compelling reason is that anti-gouging activists and pandering politicians share an overwhelmingly liberal ideology with the majority of university administrators and faculty. Quite simply, the activists aren't going to censure their allies.
Price controls and other legislative remedies are no more the answer to rising tuition costs than they are to rising prices in other industries and services. Tuition price controls will only compound the problem, ensuring a lower quality educational product with less availability. Still, a little consistency on the part of price-gouging crusaders would be refreshing.
The next time activists and politicians carp over a spike in the price of a dozen eggs or a gallon of gas, remember that their outrage is either inflamed or quenched according to the politics of those whose bread is being buttered.
Hillary Clinton tops all candidates in arrogance and deceit
November 7, 2007
How many times have we heard that Hillary Clinton is the smartest, strongest woman in the world? Ad nauseam, and for the life of me I can't fathom that conclusion. The more the Democratic Senator from New York speaks the less sense she makes and the weaker she appears.
Being the poll leader for a party's presidential nomination makes a person an instant target. Yet when Sen. Clinton's rivals take her to task over her debate answers, or lack thereof, she positions herself as the pitiful target of male bullies. If she's as strong and smart as she would have us to believe, why complain that her opponents are picking on the girl?
Hillary Clinton is strong and smart only until she must explain her views. Then she sidesteps the discussion like a recovering alcoholic avoids the Jack Daniels distillery. Even Kate Michelman of NARAL Pro-Choice America has commented on how Clinton ducks legitimate questions and complains when she's challenged.
Both opposing and neutral observers have noticed Clinton's bob and weave tactics for years. But, for a pro-abortion feminist like Michelman, who should be Hillary's staunchest supporter, to call attention to her lack of commitment is telling indeed.
Clinton's inability to specify her positions is disconcerting. But her willingness to cry foul when asked to clarify her stance is even more frightening. If she can't handle the heat of a debate within her own party, among her peers, what chance would she have when it really counts? If she's to negotiate Iran's nuclear program, an escalation of the Pakistani situation, Chinese trade, or Russia's alliances with Iran and Syria, will she complain of personal attacks like she did following the most recent debate?
Making a career of avoiding tough situations prepares you for nothing. Yet, when few people are watching Mrs. Clinton will reveal her true colors with a quasi-Freudian slip.
When discussing her universal healthcare crusade with the Associated Press Mrs. Clinton acknowledged that the only way her plan can work is to require every American to purchase insurance. Yet she rejected the idea of forcing Americans to opt in . . . for now. Sen. Clinton said, “At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed.”
“At this point” are the key words that allow her to dodge an honest answer. She has denied forcing Americans into her system while leaving the door open to do just that after the election. Is that smart? No, it's conniving! And healthcare isn't the only issue Clinton obfuscates.
It's no secret that Sen. Clinton voted for the Iraq War and that she believed Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and harbored Al-Qaeda. What is unknown is her position on Iraq today, if one indeed exists.
In 2005 she rejected an immediate troop withdrawal. Since then she has called for a 90-day timeframe for troop withdrawal and a withdrawal of troops while leaving troops in Iraq to combat terrorists. Most recently, in a September debate at Dartmouth, she wouldn't promise to withdraw the troops before 2013. How's that for confusing? And her statements concerning profits and private companies are eerily similar to the words and deeds of Hugo Chavez.
Everyone has the right to change their mind on an issue. I've done so myself. But Hillary's positions change according to the audience she's addressing. Even if you support her brand of socialism how can you believe she'll implement the parts you favor?
Sen. Clinton considers any request for clarification to be a vicious attack and dismisses unwanted questions with a wild, cackling laugh. She's not the world's smartest woman, and certainly not it's strongest. However, when it comes to arrogance and deceit she's riding at the front of the herd.
Will the real xenophobe please stand up?
November 1, 2007
When the DREAM Act, S. 2205, failed to gain cloture it meant that amnesty for illegal aliens was defeated for the third time this year. In its wake there are two things of which we can be certain. First, the defeat doesn't mean that some form of amnesty won't resurface soon. Second, those of us who oppose amnesty will again be subject to unfounded charges of bigotry and xenophobia.
The entire immigration debate has produced nothing but contradiction. Politicians promise more border agents, yet we jail existing border agents when they actually defend the border. Meanwhile, illegal aliens sue state and local law enforcement when those departments dare arrest aliens for breaking the law. The lunacy extends to the highest levels, where Mexico's President Felipe Calderon shouts, “Jump!” and President Bush responds, “How high?”
Pres. Calderon has been a vocal critic of any attempt to enforce our immigration laws. He views the most innocuous effort to secure the border as a degrading persecution of “undocumented workers.” Calderon has vowed to defend the rights of illegal aliens stating, “Mexico does not end at the border, that wherever there is a Mexican Mexico is there.”
Perhaps it an antiquated notion, but I thought an immigrant's purpose for coming to America was to become an American, not to remain a part of the country they left behind. But, I suppose that's a simplistic idea, certainly nationalistic and possibly xenophobic.
Frankly, I'm all for immigration and I'm confident that our immigration laws are a bureaucratic maze of red tape that begs for reform. Why would anyone think those regulations would differ from the others Washington administers? It is the blanket legalization of aliens who've proven their disdain for our laws, our language and our culture that bothers me.
I wonder, what kind of immigration reform America could undertake that would gain Pres. Calderon's approval? Perhaps we should offer the same benevolence toward foreigners and immigrants as does Calderon's magnanimous government.
According to Article 11 of the Mexican Constitution anyone has the right to enter, leave and travel freely inside Mexico. If you're thinking there's a catch, take a gold star. The right to travel freely is subordinate to government oversight when it applies to immigrants and “undesirable aliens resident in the country.” Furthermore, Article 33 grants Pres. Calderon carte blanche to compel any foreigner to leave Mexico without regard to legal status or due process of law.
Article 33 also prohibits foreigners from participating in Mexico's political affairs. In America, illegal aliens march through American streets to protest American policies and influence American politics. Aliens can unite with activist networks, like the National Council of La Raza, to influence American politics. Activists and their Congressional accomplices demand that illegal aliens be allowed to vote. If you complain you're a racist. Isn't that convenient?
That's not all; not by a long shot. Article 32 grants Mexicans priority over foreigners for all employment and government commissions. Non-natives cannot become commissioned military officers, crew a Mexican ship or aircraft, or take charge of any port or customs agency. If you aren't a native-born Mexican citizen you can forget about becoming a member of the Chamber of Deputies (Article 55), filling a cabinet post (Article 91) or being a Supreme Court Justice (Article 95). Article 51 states that only Mexican citizens can vote in elections.
Finally, according to Article 130, “To practice the ministry of any denomination in the United Mexican States it is necessary to be Mexican by birth.”
Now we know how Pres. Felipe Calderon's government deals with foreigners and immigrants, notwithstanding the physical and sexual abuses alleged to have occurred on Mexico's southern border. I'll bet that Pres. Calderon wouldn't be so hot-to-trot for immigration reform if the reforms resembled his government's constitutional practices.
The Church can be Christianity's worst enemy
October 31, 2007
It seems that those who proclaim Christianity the loudest are becoming the faith's poorest representatives. People who are publicly the most pious are often the first caught with their pants down, so to speak. From priestly sex scandals to the ordination of homosexual ministers to Larry Craig, people claiming the moral high ground continually bring a black eye to the faith.
This is often attributable to political or social charlatans who parlay the Christian message into votes or power. Others deny or hide embarrassing circumstances in the hope that the controversies will just fade away. In still other situations the message is compromised so the Church can fit in with worldly values. Perhaps the worst example is a church that pursues outlandishness simply to draw attention.
The latter is exemplified at Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS. Apparently, members have taken Paul's admonition that the Church “be not conformed to this world” to mean becoming arrogant antagonists.
You may be familiar with Westboro; it's the church whose members protest at soldier's funerals claiming that military deaths are God's judgment for America's tolerance of homosexuality. They've protested military funerals from Boston, MA to Bismarck, ND, and numerous points in between. Westboro's Shirley Phelps-Roper explained that they weren't protesting any soldier individually but the nation's sin as a whole, which happens to include the soldiers in question.
True enough, those soldiers sinned in one way or another, as has Mrs. Phelps-Roper, you, and I. However, gathering at a military funeral with signs that read “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “Thank God for 9/11” do little to promote the message of Christ, which is the purpose of the Christian Church.
There is no question that America has undergone a cultural metamorphosis, and not for the moral betterment. We now accept as normal the things that would've made our great-grandparents cut flips, all in the name of tolerance.
Babies are sacrificed on the altar of “choice” while the fallacious notion that animals have rights on par with humans is gaining acceptance. We have declared that nearly any mention of Jesus Christ in a public setting is unconstitutional, and yet we fawn over radical environmentalists who worship the earth. And that's not all.
Thanks in no small part to the liberal doctrine that humans aren't responsible for their actions we have relegated sexual intimacy to the status of a mere bodily function. Homosexuality is considered an alternative lifestyle. Adultery is praised for its open-mindedness and pornography for its artistic expression. There's even an organization, the North American Man Boy Love Association, dedicated to legalizing “consensual” pedophilia.
Worse still, offenders on all fronts are found inside the organized church. It's not beyond imagination that Westboro's vision of Divine Judgment will come to pass. But, Westboro's prophecies center on proclaiming God's judgment after the fact. It's not hard to predict what's already happened or to assign responsibility afterwards.
Christianity expresses a choice, either salvation through repentance or judgment for rebellion. It's a choice each person will make. Westboro's flamboyant practices have taken that Gospel message, already foolishness to most men, and twisted it into unrecognizable and incomprehensible nonsense.
Certainly Westboro's members have every right to express their ideas and they've done so without violence. Furthermore, the recent $10 million jury verdict against them, stemming from their protest at Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder's funeral, opens a Pandora's Box for trial lawyers intent on silencing less controversial congregations. Even so, for Westboro to promote their position by upstaging a funeral service is an exercise in self-promotion that drives people away from Christ's message.
Unfortunately, it appears that the church is again proving to be Jesus Christ's worst enemy.
A look at life and other oddities
October 29, 2007
The following are thoughts on the world around us.
Businesses conduct routine audits to ensure their operations are efficient. Likewise it's good practice for us to conduct a personal audit now and again. We may find a correctible discrepancy, or that we've strayed from a desired path.
Whenever a private property owner restricts someone's activities it's called a civil rights violation, and the activists howl. Yet when government restricts activities on private property it's called smart growth or open space, and the activists worship.
If we learn nothing else from the Larry Craig saga we should learn this: it is dangerous to listen to any type of personal music device while in a men's room stall. If you're enjoying the tune, you might tap your foot.
The United Nations is a government organization that benefits from expanding regulation. Oil companies are private organizations that benefit from shrinking regulation. Yet, if a scientist who questions global warming has received one dime from energy interests he is dismissed as a shill for Big Oil while the U.N.'s pro-global warming studies are accepted as irrefutable fact. Shouldn't U.N. studies be considered biased, too?
Wars aren't won by surrendering or refusing to acknowledge the enemy's existence. That's worth remembering when deciding the best way to deal with Muslim jihadists.
According to Britannica, Rev. Al Sharpton began preaching when he was four-years-old and became an ordained minister at the ripe old age of ten. That makes Rev. Sharpton quite a man. Jesus himself didn't address religious matters publicly until age 12, and didn't begin his ministry until he was 30.
When Jake Delhomme underwent season-ending surgery, the Carolina Panthers wanted a veteran quarterback to back-up David Carr. Since they signed Vinny Testeverde we can assume that neither Bart Starr nor Y.A. Tittle were available.
America needs a contemporary Samson to deliver us from the clutches of socialism. He can arm himself at any Democratic presidential debate, where he'll find enough jawbones to slay 10,000 men.
It is more beneficial, and more difficult, to focus on what is or can be rather than on what was or could've been. Generally speaking, successful and happy people have mastered the task.
There was a time when bums and vagabonds flocked to flophouses. Today the homeless and disenfranchised congregate at shelters. The changing terminology doesn't alter their circumstances, but they can claim greater self-esteem.
If the race card was a member of the playing deck it would be the joker. It has no intrinsic value, no place in a serious game, and its meaning is defined by the person playing it.
During national campaigns conservative candidates are routinely accused of wanting to poison the air and water. If it's true, it's a good reason to vote for conservatives. Anyone smart enough to survive without clean air and pure water is smart enough to lead the nation.
From the misplaced priorities department: a “please spay and neuter” magnet and an “I Care” animal welfare license plate on the same vehicle with a “keep abortion legal” sticker.
Maxim magazine erred in naming Sarah Jessica Parker the world's “unsexiest” woman. This is impossible as long as Rosie O'Donnell and Whoopi Goldberg are alive. On second thought, I may be wrong. To be “unsexy” implies that a person may have been sexy at some time. Neither Rosie nor Whoopi qualify.
Many of life's ill feelings could be averted if drivers would learn to park straight and within a single parking space.
The world is full of war, disease, tyranny, natural disasters and death, all of which try man's spirit. But to ask a Yankees fan to endure two Red Sox World Series championships in a single lifetime pushes the limit of human endurance.
Are schools becoming common sense-free zones?
October 23, 2007
Every so often something happens that you'd like to ignore, hoping it will go away, but you can't. That was my reaction to Kyle Walker, a Dennis Township New Jersey second-grader who was suspended from school. His offense was drawing a picture of a stickman holding a gun, which violated his school's zero-tolerance policy concerning guns on school grounds.
School officials declined to comment, and who can blame them? If I made such a decision I'd hide my face, too. And don't think that Kyle's case is the peak of foolishness; it's not.
Perhaps Kyle's suspension is born of contemporary psycho-analytical excess, wherein even the most innocuous act is considered a Freudian slip. But Kyle's drawing of a gun no more makes him a potential Dylan Kleibold than his other drawings of King Tut, ghosts and trees make him an Egyptian Pharaoh, a spiritual medium, or a lumberjack.
When I was that age, my friends and I routinely drew war scenes complete with sinking ships, exploding bombs, bazookas, mortars, grenades and machine guns. We suffered no adverse affects, other than a missed assignment or two, from depicting such weapons of mass destruction on school property. Not one of us killed our classmates, grew into a Hitler, or initiated World War III. In fact, the more artistic kids received praise for their drawings.
If Kyle's situation were unique it wouldn't be a big deal. But, as earlier stated, such lunacy isn't uncommon.
Several years ago four New Jersey kindergartners were suspended for playing cops and robbers. Presumably, school safety was compromised when the kids pointed their fingers at each other and shouted, “Bang, bang!” With such judgment as a barometer, I'm surprised that the kids who played the robbers weren't charged with a hate crime, since real robbers are victims of our unjust society and therefore not responsible for their criminality.
In Seattle, a 10-year-old was suspended for bringing a plastic, inch-long G.I. Joe gun to school. And Bemiss Elementary in Spokane suspended three boys for playing with similar G.I. Joe guns during their lunch period. Bemiss officials said the school didn't need “anything that's going to make kids feel unsafe.”
It seems to me that a kid who's frightened of a dinky plastic gun has far more problems than can be solved by school administrators, especially those at Bemiss. However, don't make the mistake of thinking such instances are unique to the more liberal, anti-gun areas of the country.
Maine's Joshua Enos is an accomplished trap shooter. Thus he submitted a picture of himself with an unloaded, open shotgun for his high school yearbook's alternative sports section. School officials rejected the picture but said he could pose with his trophies. The second offer was rescinded when officials noticed Joshua's awards had little guns on them.
Finally, but not exhaustively, a nine-year-old honor student from Bayboro, NC, was suspended for five days for having a shotgun shell in his pocket. The boy wore his duck hunting clothes to school on Camouflage Day and had overlooked the shell after his last hunt. No, he didn't bring his shotgun, and no one would have known about the shell had the boy not felt something in his pocket and pulled it out to see what it was.
The zero-tolerance theory has spawned a zero-common sense reality. Schools will suspend kids for drawing crude pictures of guns. Yet, schools can't expel foul-mouthed thugs who assault teachers, curse principals and disrupt classes because of the thug's “right” to an education. It's senseless!
School shootings are a frightening prospect for any parent. However, in light of the previous examples, scarier still is the lack of rational thought on the part of the educational bureaucrats charged with teaching the next generation of Americans.
Air America loses cash, listeners and its grip on reality
October 23, 2007
Randi Rhodes is a rather pretty, forty-something woman living the single life in New York City. She is the host of the Randi Rhodes Show on the inconsequential but somehow acclaimed liberal radio network, Air America. In fact, it's a relationship that calls into question what little may remain of Air America's credibility.
Miss Rhodes was injured recently while walking her dog along Park Avenue in Manhattan. Jon Elliott--her contemporary at Air America--took to his microphone and pronounced her injuries the result of “the right wing hate machine.” Mr. Elliott reported that Miss Rhodes was the victim of a violent mugging carried out by conservative thugs bent on silencing a liberal voice. His raving churned up the liberal blogs, which then ran with the story as if it were John's Gospel.
However, there was a problem. Elliott's story was far from anyone's gospel, John's or otherwise. Rhodes never filed a police report and never claimed to have been mugged. It turns out that she fell down and hit her head.
Despite Elliott's shrill charge of hate crimes, right-wing conspiracies, and threats meant to intimidate liberal voices, Miss Rhodes simply experienced a Gerald Ford moment. Air America issued a statement saying the hate crimes reports were unfounded and Elliott was forced to admit that he drew a conclusion without bothering to learn the facts.
This is par for the course, and not the first time Air America has eaten crow. In fact, crow has been a staple of the network's diet since its infancy.
Air America took flight in March, 2004 when investors believed the company had $30 million in reserve funds. Then reality struck. The network had only $6 million on hand and was over $2 million in debt within six weeks of its launch. Rex Sorenson, a founding partner, claimed the shortfall was due to investors who backed out at the last minute. What a convenient coincidence!
The network announced huge increases in listeners following the spring 2005 ratings period. However, the Christian Science Monitor reported that Air America was experiencing weak ratings even in liberal cities such as New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles. Perhaps the proof of which ratings spin is most accurate can be found on accounting's bottom line.
By the fall of 2006, Air America, which had touted their growing market share, was busy denying rumors of an impending bankruptcy. One month later the network filed for the bankruptcy protection it had earlier denied, citing only $4 million in assets and over $20 million in debts.
It seems that if Air America's ratings growth was as strong as they claimed it to be, they could've commanded enough advertising revenue to avoid a $15.9 million debt. And let's not even get into the maze of suspect loans the network received through the now-defunct Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club.
Since Air America has experienced a tough time getting its story straight on past issues, it's not at all surprising that Mr. Elliott would jump to wrong conclusions based on an emotional reaction. In fact, the emotional response is indicative of the primary criteria by which prominent liberals make their decisions and form policy positions. In that light, Mr. Elliott's uninformed tirade may be the first consistency Air America can claim.
Let's look at the score. Air America was born when its founders claimed to have cash they didn't have. The network claimed listeners that weren't listening and financial solvency while on the verge of bankruptcy. Now, in addition to being out of touch with these essential elements, they've lost touch with reality, too.
Just who was Al Franken writing about when he penned Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them?
Republicans again sound like Republicans. But will it last?
October 18, 2007
It seems like everything is driven by a chip these days, even politics. Of course, the political chip has nothing to do with Intel or Silicon Valley. The political chip is the SCHIP, or State Children's Health Insurance Program. What's more, it's a powerful chip that has driven a political party back to its roots, at least temporarily.
The SCHIP is a state-operated system that provides health coverage to uninsured children. While it's true that each state can design its own program, it must do so within federal guidelines to receive federal funding. You may wonder how a state program can remain a state program when it must dance to the federal government's fiddle. Well, it can't, which means SCHIP is a federal program concealed behind the legitimacy of a state system.
Today, thanks to the SCHIP, we have Republican legislators again questioning the federal government's reach, scope and authority. GOP congressmen are circling the wagons, drawing lines in the sand and discovering a courage and purpose not seen since 1994. They're forming ranks to protect a president who, perhaps for the first time, sounds like a Reagan disciple.
President Bush warned lawmakers--meaning Democrats--to trim their spending or face a veto, promising a fiscal showdown in Washington. George W. Bush, who never vetoed the ever-increasing budgets passed by the GOP Congress, has become an Oval Office Wyatt Earp and challenged Democrats to the budget fight at the D.C corral.
Speaking in Rogers, Ark, the president said Congress must be responsible with the taxpayer's money and propose spending that makes fiscal sense. The Associated Press reports that the White House now sees fiscal responsibility as a winning issue and a chance to label Democrats as the tax-and-spend party.