The Right Slant 2010

<body topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0> <table cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 border=0><tr> <td valign="top" colspan=2 height=95 BGCOLOR="#000000" TEXT="#F7F7FF"> <div> <FONT SIZE="6" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Vrinda" ><B>the</B></FONT><FONT SIZE="6" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Vrinda" ><I><B><U>right</U></B></I></FONT><FONT SIZE="6" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Vrinda" ><B>slant.com</B></FONT><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Vrinda" ><B>.......... never afriad to be </B></FONT><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#FFFFFF" FACE="Vrinda" ><I><B><U>right</U></B></I></FONT><FONT SIZE="4" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Vrinda" ><B>!</B></FONT><FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><B>   </B><B> </B></FONT><B> </B><B>|     </B><A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="therightslant.com"><U><B>home</B></U></A></div> <div> The Right Slant 2010   |   <A HREF="in_layman_s_terms.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="In Laymans Terms"><U>In Layman's Terms</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id21.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="4th Inches"><U>4th & Inches</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id25.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Favorite Quotes"><U>Favorite Quotes</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id170.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Published Credits"><U>Published Credits</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id193.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Right Slant 2009"><U>The Right Slant 2009</U></A>   |   <A HREF="id26.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Contact Me"><U>Contact Me</U></A></div> <div> </div> </td> </tr><tr> <td valign="top" width=190 BGCOLOR="#000000" TEXT="#F7F7FF"> <div> Back to the home page...<A HREF="index.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="therightslant.com"><U>therightslant.com</U></A></div> <bR> <DIV ALIGN="LEFT"></DIV> <div> Comment by email:</div> <div> <A HREF="mailto:respond@therightslant.com" TARGET="_top" TITLE="mailto:respond@therightslant.com"><U>respond@therightslant.com</U></A></div> <bR> <div> <A HREF="id191.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="The Quick Slant"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The Quick Slant</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id195.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="TEA Party Pics"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">TEA Party Pics</U></A></div> <div> <A HREF="id194.htm" TARGET="_top" TITLE="Guest Columns"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dcff000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Guest Columns</U></A></div> </td> <td valign="top" height=385 BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#080000"> <div> <B><U>The Right Slant 2010</U></B></div> <div> <A HREF="#texting_ban_is_unauthorized" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Texting ban is unauthorized</U></A>, unnecessary and misguided: Banning texting while driving need not become a federal case. (627)</div> <div> <A HREF="#tiger_woods_is_a_golfer_that_s_all" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Tiger Woods is a golfer, that's all</U></A>: A no nonsense look at the year's biggest non-story. (611)</div> <div> <A HREF="#on_palm_pilots_and_teleprompters" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">On palm pilots and Teleprompters:</U></A> Comparing Palins palm notes, Obama's teleprompter and political spin. (621)</div> <div> <A HREF="#the_incontestable_tenets_of_the__green_" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">The incontestable tenets of the “green”</U></A> church: Science is religion in the First Assembled Reformation Church of Environmentalism. (663)</div> <div> <A HREF="#want_to_make_the_bcs_worse__add" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Want to make the BCS worse? Add</U></A> government!: Government isn't the answer to college football's flawed championship system. (635)</div> <div> <A HREF="#news_flash_snow_is_cold_slick_and_icy" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">News flash: snow is cold, slick and icy</U></A>: How would we survive without reporters telling us the obvious? (1065)</div> <div> <A HREF="#spend__400_in_15_minutes__child_s_play" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Spend $400 in 15 minutes? Child's play</U></A>: The gravity of a petty theft calls attention to Washington's fiscal irresponsibility. (633)</div> <div> <A HREF="#a_cautionary_look_at_scott_brown_s" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">A cautionary look at Scott Brown's</U></A> victory: The MA Senate race is a good start, but a long way from the final goal. (698)</div> <div> <A HREF="#rep__weiner_we_aren_t_a_nation_of" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Rep. Weiner we aren't a nation of</U></A> whiners: Free people don't look to government for life's provisions. (659)</div> <div> <A HREF="#taxing_bonuses_is_flawed_policy_and_bad" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="Symb075c00b700dc00000000.png" HEIGHT="15" WIDTH="24" ALIGN="bottom" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0">Taxing bonuses is flawed policy and bad</U></A> precedent: Congressional control of wages and bonues can be fatal to liberty. (643)</div> <div> <A HREF="id196_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="texting_ban_is_unauthorized"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Texting ban is unauthorized, unnecessary and misguided</div> <div> February 24, 2010</div> <bR> <div> Driving is dangerous. That's easy to forget because we do it daily. It's common and completely comfortable for most of us. But comfort breeds distraction, even under ideal conditions. Insert text messaging and distracted driving increases exponentially.</div> <div> To lessen that distraction Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced the <I>Avoiding Life-Endangering and Reckless Texting by Drivers Act</I> (ALERT). The proposal will coerce states to adopt laws banning drivers from texting while behind the wheel.</div> <div> It's hard to argue that texting doesn't distract drivers from more pressing matters. Most of us have seen it happen. On the surface, ALERT sounds like a fine idea. However, to determine if Sen. Schumer's proposal is legitimate we must dig below the surface.</div> <div> Do we need the central government enacting anti-texting laws? Does Congress even have that authority? The answer is no to both questions.</div> <div> Twenty-five states already have some form of ban on texting while driving. Those laws passed without federal prodding. Additionally, Schumer cites the regulation of interstate commerce as authority for his bill. He reasons that texting devices are produced, conveyed and used in interstate commerce; therefore Congress can take action under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. However, Article 1, Section 8 allows Congress to regulate commerce only, not personal acts or the private use of products.</div> <div> Under Schumer's reasoning Congress could ban anything. Ready for a federal ban on applying make-up while driving? How about federal bans on tuning radios or changing CDs? Should Congress prohibit conversation with passengers, or traveling with children? All can be distracting and all can be considered interstate commerce under Schumer's misapplication of Article 1, Section 8. In fact, Congress can claim authority over anything with such an interpretation.</div> <div> Let's also consider Washington's bully tactics. If Congress has constitutional authority to enact ALERT it should do so outright. But no! Congress prefers to force state compliance by withholding highway funds, which is how ALERT accomplishes the texting ban. It is an authoritarian act and the antithesis of Congress' enumerated powers.</div> <div> Even worse is how Sen. Schumer is selling his bill. The Senator said people admit that they text while driving and have begged him to pass laws to stop them. The quote aired recently on the Keith Larson Show on 1110-AM WBT (Charlotte, NC).</div> <div> Frankly, Schumer's hyperbole is the biggest load of manure to ever touch a spade. It indicates the contempt he has for us and the depths to which he'll stoop to pass legislation.</div> <div> It's inconceivable that someone would ask their senator to pass a law to prevent them from doing what they can quit on their own. Anyone who knows they shouldn't be texting is smart enough to stop without Schumer's assistance. Additionally, passing a law to prevent drivers from texting misses the point of law altogether.</div> <div> Laws don't stop bad behavior, they identify it. There are laws against theft, rape and murder. Yet theft, rape and murder occur daily. The existence of laws does not prevent lawlessness, nor does law prevent people not inclined toward lawlessness from committing crime. Honorable people won't steal, rape, or murder even if those acts aren't criminalized.</div> <div> Punishment after the fact, not prevention, is all we can reasonably expect from the law. Sen. Schumer isn't so stupid as to believe his bill will prevent texting while driving, but he thinks we are that stupid.</div> <div> Laws simply determine acceptable social behavior. To legislate for the punishment of texting while driving is one thing. To pretend laws will prevent acts that are easily self-regulated is slavish and immature.</div> <div> A ban on texting while driving makes sense. Leave it to Charles Schumer to expand, corrupt and spin the idea until it makes no sense at all.</div> <bR> <div> A different edition of this column originally appeared at <FONT SIZE="2" COLOR="#0000FF" FACE="Arial" ><A HREF="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/banning_texting_while_driving.html" TARGET="_top" TITLE="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010"><U><U>American Thinker</U></U></A></FONT>.</div> <div> <A HREF="id196_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="tiger_woods_is_a_golfer_that_s_all"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Tiger Woods is a golfer, that's all</div> <div> February 26, 2010</div> <bR> <div> Tiger Woods has come clean, publicly confessing the worst kept secrets since John Edwards' love child. Tiger earned his humiliation and there's no reason to feel sorry for him. He made his bed--pardon the pun--and he can do whatever he does in it.</div> <div> However, the Woods saga isn't Pearl Harbor or the moon landing. So why has Tiger received such in-depth coverage? What purpose is there beyond the sense of fulfillment that some people receive from a celebrity's disintegration?</div> <div> I reviewed Tiger's press conference and found it totally predictable. There was the compulsory attempt to separate his family from media scrutiny, which is impossible. Public infidelity affects a family, kids included, even if you're the world's best golfer. That's reality. If Tiger cared about his family's well-being he should've kept his ball out of the rough.</div> <div> The typical platitudes were presented. “I have let down my fans.” “I am the only person to blame.” Tiger's speech was the prototypical I-got-caught-with-my-pants-down celebrity apology.</div> <div> Tiger has been reviewed, prodded and analyzed more than a man undergoing a complete proctologic examination (which he might enjoy, who knows?). Let's not waste any more time or energy in that area. Instead let's focus on what Tiger is, what he was made to be and what can be expected from him in the future.</div> <div> Tiger Woods is a golf pro, nothing more. He's rich because he can hit a ball into a cup better than anyone else on the planet and people will pay to watch him do it. Tiger didn't force anyone's admiration. He didn't make the public grant him the hero status he once enjoyed. What's more, his loose morals have no affect on you and me beyond what we'll allow.</div> <div> What about Tiger's role model status? Off the golf course that status existed only in the public's imagination. He is by no means the husband of the year. But being a personal role model isn't a professional golfer's purpose. Tiger's larger than life status is mainly the fault of a culture consumed with celebrity.</div> <div> The fact that the public made Woods a mythical pillar of virtue is more their fault that his. Sure, Tiger helped cultivate that false image, but he never made a single person watch him play. He never made us buy his sponsor's products and he never forced a single person to like him. Mr. and Mrs. Public, you did all of that on your own.</div> <div> If you're angry at Tiger's moral failings it's likely because you allowed yourself to believe he was something he wasn't. Now you feel foolish. We don't like playing the fool, do we?</div> <div> Despite his turpitude Tiger can be a role model if he's kept in perspective. There are few athletes in any sport with Tiger's drive and will to win. His competitiveness is unquenchable and his coolness rivals that of Michael Jordan, Joe Montana and--dare I say?--Jack Nicklaus.</div> <div> Woods can be a role model for winning attitudes and excellence in a chosen profession. Don't make him more than he is or can ever hope to be.</div> <div> Aside from the initial reports of Wood's affairs this whole story was much ado about nothing. Tiger Woods doesn't owe apologies to you and me. He owes apologies to his wife and children, the PGA Tour, his sponsors and, most of all, to God. But Tiger Woods has no tangible affect on you and me unless we grant him that power.</div> <div> In the future let's be more careful how we elevate people to mythical levels of ethics and virtue simply because they're rich and famous.</div> <div> <A HREF="id196_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="on_palm_pilots_and_teleprompters"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>On palm pilots and Teleprompters</div> <div> February 15, 2010</div> <bR> <div> In politics, spin is life. Politicians and their handlers will state their case even when it's apparent they haven't a leg to stand on. Too often, accepting the spin as fact or dismissing it as fiction depends on whether or not the hearer agrees with the political party that created the swirl.</div> <div> Sarah Palin's palm notes are a prime example of such a political vortex. Conservatives and Republicans--they aren't necessarily one and the same--rushed to her defense. This is a natural reaction. People will defend politicians who appear ideologically similar.</div> <div> The problem conservatives face with the Palin palm notes story arises from repeated criticisms heaped upon President Obama's use of the teleprompter. For Obama, the teleprompter is a techno palm note that keeps him focused during speeches. For conservatives, Obama's prompter is the butt of jokes and a sign of fraud. Therefore, a hint of hypocrisy exists when conservatives defend Palin for essentially the same act.</div> <div> The fact is that many, perhaps most, effective public speakers use reminders when behind the lectern. It can be the Barack Obama teleprompter or the Sarah Palin palm note. Or, it can be the small index card preferred by the great communicator, Ronald Reagan.</div> <div> Reagan would conceal the cards when he walked onto the stage. Once he began his address he would glance at the cards to maintain focus and cadence. Yet the 39<FONT SIZE="1" COLOR="#000000" FACE="Arial" >th</FONT> President was neither ignorant nor uninformed, and using notes certainly didn't render him an ineffective speaker.</div> <div> However, the palm notes do exacerbate an existing problem for Sarah Palin. Writing notes on one's palm is considered a grade school trick, which lends to the idea that Palin isn't prepared for the national stage. Too, Palin's delivery is more than a little irritating, not unlike fingernails on a chalkboard. Her folksiness and accent are fine, but she sounds whiny. A Palin speech doesn't inspire great confidence unless the political spin sways you toward that end.</div> <div> Left-wing pundits and the White House spin machine wasted no time seizing on Palin's perceived gaffe. If only they were so quick to identify and denounce Muslim fanatics who try to blow up jetliners on Christmas Eve. The “mainstream” media also ridiculed the Palin palm pilot. Yet when Robert Gibbs lampooned Palin before the media what do you think he did? He used notes. And would you believe he wrote them on his palm?</div> <div> Granted, Palin's crib notes conjure images of adolescence. Yet Gibb's palm note episode is much worse than Palin's. Whether Gibbs' intent was to ensure his accuracy or to take a pot shot at Palin is immaterial. Either way, his actions were far more immature than were hers. Gibbs' behavior was downright childish.</div> <div> For all the ideological spin surrounding Teleprompters and palm notes, conservatives are less hypocritical with their condemnations than are liberals. Why, you ask? No one claims that Palin's speaking ability spurred her popularity. For Obama, his entire persona centers on his speechmaking prowess.</div> <div> To hear supporters gush over Pres. Obama you'd think he is the greatest orator since Cicero. Obama's image was created around his speaking skills. He is intelligent, clean and articulate, or so we've been told. His speeches are an intellectual breath of fresh air. And he is all of that, while on the teleprompter. However, off prompter he stammers, stalls and searches for words just like the rest of us.</div> <div> Critics of Obama's teleprompter are on slightly more solid footing than critics of Palin's palm notes only because Obama is marketed as a solid speaker. Palin is not. But the criticisms and defenses offered from both sides of the matter prove that spin trumps substance in the political theatre.</div> <div> <A HREF="id196_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="the_incontestable_tenets_of_the__green_"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>The incontestable tenets of the “green” church</div> <div> February 13, 2010</div> <bR> <div> If discussing politics and religion should be avoided at all costs, then science must join the list. Much of today's “settled science” or “scientific consensus” is actually religion in its purest sense. The scientific faithful are proselytizing, pronouncing woe to anyone who questions their doctrine.</div> <div> Too many scientists are High Priests in the First Assembled Reformation Church of Environmentalism, or FARCE for short. They and their followers defend their god--the environment--with the same zeal that fanatical Muslims defend Mohammad.</div> <div> Actually, to grant FARCE church status is a bit kind; it is a cult. Non-believers can have rational discussions with Christians, Jews, Mormons, etc. The same holds for most Muslims, too. Avoid the Al-Qaeda/Hezbollah sect and you'll be fine. But you can't have a sensible debate with a cult follower. Fact, history, precedent, logic, common sense; none of it matters to the cultist. Therefore, it doesn't matter to the FARCE member.</div> <div> If you question a FARCE tenet, even to the slightest degree, you're a heretic. Publicly denounce FARCE's core belief--that mankind drives cataclysmic climate change--and you're a global warming denier. Blind obedience, without the slightest hint of individual thought or reason, is required.</div> <div> For example, the FARCE has declared that flat screen televisions are an environmental hazard. If you have one you're destroying the planet. Use a light bulb that hasn't been blessed by a FARCE priest and you're chief among sinners. And you don't want to contemplate your eternal destination if you drive an automobile that's not on the FARCE list of doctrinally acceptable vehicles.</div> <div> A quality common to cults is the demand for absolute compliance. Within faiths and religions you'll find divergent opinions. These become denominations. Denominations will hold to basic principles even while disagreeing about specific doctrines. Not so with cults.</div> <div> Environmentalists allow no disagreement. The “green” activist will ignore any evidence or argument that contradicts their belief system. Dissent is intolerable, even sacrilege, and ignored as if it never existed. And no, I'm not exaggerating. Let's look at the evidence.</div> <div> At the 2008 UN global warming conference in Poland over 650 scientists questioned the accuracy of man-made global warming science. The Petition Project--instituted by Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences--has collected over 30,000 signatures from qualified professionals questioning man's impact on climate.</div> <div> The FARCE will not tolerate such heretics. Apostate scientists have their character assassinated, their voice silenced and their scientific credentials dismissed out of hand. In short, they're excommunicated from the FARCE, which is the climate change community.</div> <div> A little common sense will land you in hot water, too.</div> <div> In California, regulators have proposed banning wood burning stoves and fireplaces. Wood smoke and soot, apparently, are health hazards and environmental contaminants. But unless I'm mistaken, wildfires burn California to the ground every other year and man has burned wood for about 1.5 million years. Let's take the matter of fire a little farther. The Indians-whom the FARCE considers to have been at one with the earth-burned wood.</div> <div> You'll waste your time confronting a FARCE disciple with this argument. You'd have a better chance getting a Jehovah's Witness into a Baptist church. The “green” apostle will simply charge you with wanting to destroy the earth. End of discussion. They'll never explain where you will live if you succeed in destroying the earth. Doesn't matter. Their doctrine is unquestionable.</div> <div> Other topics are verboten within the FARCE, too. Scientists have skewed global warming data and conspired to conceal the process. The IPCC's report on the disappearing Himalayan glaciers is decidedly flawed. Temperature monitoring data is manipulated to indicate warming trends. So what? Facts are lies within the FARCE.</div> <div> Nothing is valid that doesn't fit the environmental creed. Only the canon is real. Global warming exists, earth is doomed and heretics will be sacrificed on the nearest FARCE altar. Sound like a witch hunt? Cotton Mather couldn't do it so well.</div> <div> <A HREF="id196_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="want_to_make_the_bcs_worse__add"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Want to make the BCS worse? Add government!</div> <div> February 5, 2010</div> <bR> <div> I've found very little common ground with President Obama. His policies are statist, his attitude is condescending and his tone is arrogant. Yet I've managed to find one area of agreement with the President; I'm no fan of the Bowl Championship Series, either.</div> <div> Arguments favoring the BCS ring hollow. Will student athletes miss too much class time under a playoff system? Not really. Student/athletes involved in BCS games practice throughout December until their January games anyway. Players wouldn't miss significant class time even when traveling for Saturday playoff games. </div> <div> The Football Championship Subdivision has a four-week playoff. If missed classes are the issue, why doesn't it matter at those schools? What about March Madness and the College World Series? Are academics less important for those athletes than for BCS football players?</div> <div> Another pro-BCS argument is the bowl system tradition. That's a laugher if ever there was one. If college football is so dedicated to preserving the tradition and integrity of the bowl games, why isn't the Cotton Bowl played at the Cotton Bowl? Why aren't the Orange, Sugar, Cotton and Rose Bowl games played on New Year's Day? Why isn't the BCS Championship Game a part of the bowl system, like it was when the BCS began? Why have traditional bowl names been sacrificed to corporate sponsorships?</div> <div> I'm not against businesses sponsoring bowl games--revenue is revenue--or using the games to promote their brands. Just don't sell me the Champs Sports Bowl, the Outback Bowl, the Capital One Bowl and the PapaJohns.com Bowl and then crow about preserving tradition.</div> <div> Oh, that's right. Those aren't BCS games, are they? Then how about the Allstate Sugar Bowl, the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, or the FedEx Orange Bowl? Then there's my favorite “tradition”, the Rose Bowl Game presented by Citi, sponsored in part with bailout dollars no doubt. There's nothing like “tradition” is there?</div> <div> There's much to dislike about the BCS and college football's attitude toward a playoff system. Even so, there's more to dislike about government involvement in the matter, especially when it comes to mandating change. Here's where the President and I part company. Obama favors a government solution to the BCS. And why not? He favors a government solution to everything.</div> <div> Obama wanted college football to adopt a playoff system even before he took office. He even promised to “throw my weight around” toward that end. Thus the Justice Department is now considering investigating the BCS for antitrust violations. Perhaps antitrust charges have merit. The BCS does seem more interested in preserving the status quo and protecting major conferences than in promoting competition.</div> <div> However, politicians and bureaucrats are less interested in enforcing antitrust laws than in spewing rhetoric. There are calls for legislation to prompt a championship playoff. Justice Department officials have bandied the idea of a governmental commission to analyze the costs and benefits of a playoff system. This is populist pandering, nothing more.</div> <div> If there's any entity that should be held to antitrust laws it's government. But that's another topic. To be blunt, I'm aware of no constitutional basis for Congress to force college football to adopt a worthwhile championship system. Furthermore, why trust government to conduct a cost/benefit analysis?</div> <div> In a 2005 edition of <I>the Economist's Voice</I>, Edward Glaeser estimated that the federal government would spend enough money on Katrina relief efforts to provide each New Orleans resident with a $200,000 check. The 2010 federal budget will spend $31,000 per US household. Leaving government to conduct cost/benefit analysis is like allowing a fox to determine the value of chickens.</div> <div> President Obama is right; college football needs a playoff. But he is dead wrong in thinking it's government's job to make it happen. Frankly, it doesn't appear government is up to the challenge anyway.</div> <div> <A HREF="id196_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="news_flash_snow_is_cold_slick_and_icy"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>News flash: snow is cold, slick and icy</div> <div> January 30, 2010</div> <bR> <div> I'm thankful to be alive. For a moment I thought I had breathed my last. Snow has fallen, and if it weren't for the local news I'm sure I'd have assumed room temperature by now. From their expert, on-the-spot reporters I have learned that snowstorms produce icy conditions, slick roads and cold temperatures.</div> <div> Maybe I shouldn't joke about death. I could meet my end at a moment's notice. None of us are promised our next breath. So, for that next breath I am truly grateful. However, is there really a need for talking head reporters to tell us how to deal with every natural weather condition? To be brutally honest I don't need it. In fact, I consider news coverage of most storms as an insult to my intelligence. Let me give some examples.</div> <div> One reporter was “live on the street” in Salisbury, NC. He told me that I shouldn't venture out in the two to four inches of snow. First, two to four inches isn't exactly the storm of the century. Second, if roads were so impassable, how did the reporter get to Salisbury? Did he go by dogsled? Maybe a helicopter dropped him in on a cable, kind of like when Lucy Ricardo was lowered onto the cruise ship.</div> <div> After telling me the gravity of my situation, the newsroom staff joked with the reporter about the coffee shop patrons across the street, who came out to wave at the news cameras. How did those people get to the coffee shop? I've heard that some people live at Starbucks. But I always considered that a metaphorical statement. My guess is that these people drove their cars, which rendered as ludicrous the entire report about impassable roads.</div> <div> Another reporter positioned himself near the intersection of NC Highway 273 and I-85 in Belmont, NC. This guy came complete with props. He and his snow shovel proved that ice could actually be present in snow. Well how about that? Join him for his next jaw-dropping report, when he verifies the presence of water vapor in clouds. Please! The reporter shoveled the snow aside so viewers could see the ice patch he'd discovered. He scraped and scraped. He kept talking, but who could hear him? His shoveling obscured his every word. Good thing he had nothing worthwhile to report.</div> <div> Just when I thought it couldn't get worse out came the driving instructions. The shoveling reporter admonished a passing motorist for driving too fast for conditions, and then informed me that the offending driver was the type who'd be in the ditch thirty minutes later.</div> <div> That's a bit presumptuous. Who is this reporter is to determine the intentions or abilities of the car's driver? The car looked to be traveling no more than 20 MPH. It wasn't slipping, sliding or spinning in the least. And why say that the car would be in the ditch in thirty minutes? The reporter barely knew what was happening in the present, much less the future. That car could have slid into the grass at any moment. Or, its driver could've completed the journey without incident, just like untold numbers of drivers do every time snow falls.</div> <div> That reporter ventured into the cold and snow, violating the very safety instructions he conveyed to me, just so I'd know that snow can be icy and roads can be slick. Stay at home next time, pal. Sit in front of the fire. Drink some hot chocolate. You served no useful purpose whatsoever.</div> <div> If there's anything worse than a Nostradamus wannabe reporter who states the obvious it's a reporter who has no idea what's going on. The final reporter I saw, before turning the channel in disgust, combined those two characteristics into one mindless, wholly unwatchable segment.</div> <div> No remote report is complete without the perky blonde, and “Winter Blizzard Icy Blast 2010” (or whatever mindless moniker the media hung on this storm) is no exception. Let's call the perky blonde “Bunny.” It just seems to fit.</div> <div> Bunny was strategically perched on a highway overpass--bridges will freeze before the main roads, in case you didn't know--and kicked off her report by telling me that it's cold outside. Uh, Bunny, there's snow and ice everywhere. I think I can figure out I don't need my swim trunks today. Thanks anyway. Maybe you can return in August and tell me all about the summer's heat.</div> <div> If Bunny's report were a prize fight it would've been stopped right there. Unfortunately, there was no referee and Bunny wouldn't throw in the towel. At least she's persistent. Bunny next told me that sleet was falling and could be plainly seen hitting her face. “It feels like hail,” Bunny exclaimed.</div> <div> Bunny my dear, sleet can be difficult to see when you're looking through the living room window. It's nearly impossible to see on television. You'd have a better chance identifying stegosaurus DNA with a magnifying glass. However, I did learn one thing; Bunny has never been outside during a hailstorm.</div> <div> Believe it or not, that wasn't the worst of Bunny's report. Remember that part about not knowing what you're looking at? Well, Bunny's obliviousness to her surroundings became evident just before she signed off. She told me that the roads were slick (thanks for the tip . . . again!) but that there were many cars traveling the interstate.</div> <div> Bunny, switch to radio. On radio you can paint any picture you want and the listener will never know the difference. Television cameras have this tendency to show the situation as it exists. One car passed while Bunny talked about the high volume of traffic.</div> <div> I'll give the weather forecasters their kudos; they got this one right. The snow fell just as they predicted. But snow has fallen before, in much greater volumes, and will fall again no matter what Al Gore says. This isn't the storm to end all storms. It's not the end of the world. I'm confident in my knowledge that snow is cold and ice is slick; that roads can be slippery and that frigid air accompanies winter storms. I really don't need reporters to share that information. I can walk out the front door and see it for myself. Unless I slip and bump my head, chances are good that I won't die. Neither will you.</div> <div> <A HREF="id196_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="spend__400_in_15_minutes__child_s_play"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Spend $400 in 15 minutes? Child's play!</div> <div> January 27, 2010</div> <bR> <div> A few days before Christmas I read a newspaper report about a stolen debit card. Apparently the victim's wallet was taken from her purse, which hung from her shoulder, while she shopped. Such a theft is a shameful indictment on human nature, especially at Christmastime. But it's not at all surprising.</div> <div> The thief wasted no time in using the ill-gotten windfall. While the victim was submitting the police report a female suspect was making purchases at the same store where the theft occurred. According to the newspaper's account the thief spent $400 in 15 minutes.</div> <div> That's a fair amount of money. It may not be a leap-from-the-window loss, but more than most people care to lose. An employee would have to earn $50 per hour just to cover the 15 minute spending spree, based on the eight-hour day. That's an annual salary of $104,000. Not too shabby in these economic times.</div> <div> But this pickpocket went through $400 in 15 minutes. A worker must make $1600 per hour, $64,000 per week, over $3.3 million per year to earn the equivalent of what this thief stole. The CEOs of Home Depot, Motorola, eBay, and UPS don't earn that much, according to the Forbes 2008 list of executive salaries.</div> <div> The 500 CEOs on the Forbes list received a cumulative salary of $6.4 billion in 2007, making the $400 debit card theft seem like child's play. However, I'm not condemning CEO salaries. Although CEOs are routinely demonized, their earnings are child's play compared to the federal government's expenditures. Do you realize that those CEOs will have to earn that $6.4 billion each and every year until 2565 to offset 2010's federal budget of $3,550,000,000,000? That's $3.55 trillion. I think I smell pirates, and they aren't cruising the Somali coastline or the corporate boardroom.</div> <div> CEOs would fare a little better if they pooled their $6.4 billion to combat Congress' recently passed $290 billion increase in the debt ceiling, which will float Washington for about six weeks. CEOs need only to chip in their next 45 years worth of collective earnings to satisfy government's increased borrowing. The entire Forbes list can be funded for their entire working lives on what the federal government can spend in a month and a half.</div> <div> Let's see how these corporate “robber barons” stack up against other significant numbers. We'll begin with the national debt, which increases faster than the human eye can follow. According to USDebtClock.org the national debt grows by $1 million every 25 seconds, standing at $12.3 trillion. Now let that figure roll around in your head for a minute or two. How long would our CEOs have to work to fund the current debt? Only 1,926 years. And that's assuming the debt remains static, which it doesn't.</div> <div> In reality, the debt's growth rate will consume the collective salaries of the Forbes top 500 CEOs in just two days. As for the middle class, the debt's growth rate will erase a $40,000 annual salary every second.</div> <div> 2007's CEO salaries could pay off our Social Security obligations in 2,207 years, Medicare Part D in 2,921 years and Medicare in 11,616 years. Our unfunded liabilities exceed $107 trillion. That's 16,744 years in CEO pay. Worse yet, these unfunded liabilities could be satisfied only if you had 80 cents for every hour that has passed since scientists say the universe was born some 15 billion years ago. Sadly, those liabilities would increase by about $3 million before you finished writing your check.</div> <div> Somehow losing $400 in 15 minutes doesn't sound so bad now. The federal government can lose $36 million in that amount of time. Keep that in mind the next time a politician says the federal budget has been cut to the bone.</div> <div> <A HREF="id196_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="a_cautionary_look_at_scott_brown_s"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>A cautionary look at Scott Brown's victory</div> <div> January 22, 2010</div> <bR> <div> Who would've thought that someone with an “R” beside their name could win federal office in Massachusetts? If you had bet a C-note on Scott Brown's chances before Christmas the taxman would be knocking on your door. And now a Republican fills the seat where the ever-errant Ted Kennedy parked his fat caboose for nigh on to half a century. Amazing!</div> <div> Republicans are understandably euphoric. There is a joy and optimism not seen in the Grand Old Party since 1994. Early in the Obama administration I wrote that Democrats were repeating Clinton's mistakes, which led to that Republican Revolution. It is beginning anew.</div> <div> However, there is a problem with emotional highs; they wane. I hate to rain on the Republican parade, but a word of caution is in order. This game is far from over and the cause of limited government and individual liberty has a long way to go. With the Super Bowl around the corner a football analogy may be in order.</div> <div> Your team trails 24-20 with time running out. They have the ball on their own one-yard line. On the first play from scrimmage they gain eight yards. That's a good start. But cause for celebration? Not quite. They're still ninety-one yards from victory. If your team thinks that their eight-yard gain is the ballgame they'll go home losers just as surely as the sun rises in the East.</div> <div> That's about where we stand in restoring “a Republican form of government” (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4). If the Republican Party is the vehicle for attaining that goal--and that's quite an if--then we have been pinned on our own one-yard line, our backs against the wall with no room for error, since the 2006 and 2008 elections. We got there because Republicans forgot the reason they were elected.</div> <div> Republicans fumbled. They drank deep from the well of government excess, becoming intoxicated with the power that comes with spending other people's money. They forgot, or chose to ignore, the party's core beliefs. The Republican Party put itself, and the republic, on the one-yard line.</div> <div> Electing a Republican in Massachusetts exposes vulnerability in the opponent, a window of opportunity that can be exploited. Scott Brown's victory is a good start, an eight-yard gain. But not only do we remain ninety-one yards from pay dirt, we haven't a first down yet.</div> <div> Like I said, I don't mean to sound pessimistic or belittle the significance of Brown's win. Republican Senators from Massachusetts have become as rare as tripping over 20 pound gold nuggets. It's just that there are far too many experts treating this gain as victory. It's not.</div> <div> Yes, it will derail the healthcare power grab for a season. But we remain a long way from restoring constitutionally limited government, from reasserting state's rights, and from recognizing the value of the individual over the “collective good”. Complacency is a valid concern.</div> <div> Voters have short memories and experts are less than, well, expert. George H.W. Bush's victory in 1988, following eight years of Ronald Reagan, prompted “experts” to declare that Democrats would never again win the White House. Four years later we had Bill Clinton. In 2004 the “experts” declared the Democrat Party all but extinct. Two years later the Democrats took control of Congress.</div> <div> In 2008 the Democrats gained the White House and extended their congressional majorities to quasi-authoritarian levels. Some “experts” pondered the end of the Republican Party. Other pundits said it would take fifty years for the party to regain its feet. But Republicans have fared well in recent special elections.</div> <div> It appears that electoral winds are shifting toward Republicans. Is that a positive step? Or, does it merely mean that we may lose our liberty at a slower pace. Republicans had ample opportunity to scale back government and restore fiscal sanity between 1994 and 2006. How did that turn out again?</div> <div> Certainly Scott Brown's victory in the deep blue Bay State is a repudiation of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi agenda. But it is, at best, the opening play of what promises to be a long, hard drive. We're still 91 yards from the winning score.</div> <div> <A HREF="id196_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="rep__weiner_we_aren_t_a_nation_of"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Rep. Weiner, we aren't a nation of whiners</div> <div> January 20, 2010</div> <bR> <div> Was the Massachusetts Senate race a bellwether on government healthcare? Maybe so. Scott Brown made opposition to the Reid/Pelosi agenda paramount in his campaign. He won. And it's significant for a Republican to have won the seat Ted Kennedy occupied for 47 years.</div> <div> Does Brown's election mean that healthcare reform is dead? Not necessarily. Maine Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe remain Senate wildcards. If just one of them defects-and both have been known to “reach across the aisle”-some form of healthcare bill could proceed. Thus far both have held the line.</div> <div> This Republican solidarity is no surprise to Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), who doesn't think a GOP defection is likely. Prior to the election, Rep. Weiner said a Scott Brown victory would signal the death of healthcare.</div> <div> Mr. Weiner likely means healthcare reform will die. In that case I hope he is correct. But considering the leftist's mindset, Weiner may mean that healthcare will disappear altogether, as if it can't exist without government.</div> <div> Such flawed thinking about government is why we have a $12 trillion debt and more than $60 trillion in unfunded government promises. It is why the dollar is becoming play money and American businesses have difficulty competing. It is why we have a mortgage crisis and a housing bubble, and why we depend on a communist country half a world away to float our debt. In short, the idea that government can provide all things to all people is why we are on the cusp of national bankruptcy.</div> <div> No one needs the government's permission to receive healthcare. Each of us can do that on our own. Go to the doctor if you're sick; you'll be treated. If you lack insurance you can always pay the bill directly. Clinics also offer payment plans for patients who can't afford to pay their bills in full.</div> <div> What's more, you don't have to visit the family doctor every time you get a headache or experience post-nasal drip. Finally, hospitals and emergency rooms are required to provide essential medical care regardless of a patient's ability to pay. All of this could change in the name of “reform”, leaving everyone dependent on the federal bureaucracy.</div> <div> Dependence on the central government for daily and personal needs is the politician's vehicle to reelection. Dependency is an enslaving cycle that robs people of their initiative, motivation, dignity, self-respect and, finally, their liberty. Need food? Call on government. Need housing? Call on government. Need medicine? Call on government. Need healthcare? Well, you get the idea.</div> <div> Politicians like Anthony Weiner believe that all good blessings flow from government. In return, all power and authority returns to those who wield government's reigns. It's a tidy little circle, and the antithesis of liberty.</div> <div> Rep. Weiner, not all Americans are the pitiful, selfish, pathetic, whining beggars you need to maintain your House seat. Perhaps your district is comprised of such people. But that cannot be the case for the nation overall. If so, we are doomed as a nation and a people, for freedom cannot survive on dependency. Furthermore, centralized systems eventually collapse under their own weight.</div> <div> No Mr. Weiner, America isn't a nation of whiners, although we have our share. America wasn't established, secured, or built by people who waited on government programs. Ours is a nation founded upon the independent spirit of each individual.</div> <div> We can make our own decisions. We can reap our rewards and suffer our consequences--in healthcare and other matters--just fine without you, Mr. Weiner. Finally, healthcare will not die without your magic finger. In fact, minus government's manipulative hand, it will be much better and more readily available.</div> <div> Here's hoping that Mr. Weiner is correct about healthcare reform being dead. Here's hoping, too, that America will tell congressmen like Weiner that we're sick and tired of government meddling. We are not the whiners he believes us to be.</div> <div> <A HREF="id196_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> <div>  <A NAME="taxing_bonuses_is_flawed_policy_and_bad"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="1x1.gif" HEIGHT="1" ALIGN="bottom" WIDTH="1" HSPACE="0" VSPACE="0" ></A>Taxing bonuses is flawed policy and bad precedent</div> <div> January 16, 2010</div> <bR> <div> You'd be hard pressed to find anyone passing the hat for “Big Finance” these days. But why do people assume that financial institutions are inherently evil while government is inherently good?</div> <div> The mortgage bubble and resulting financial problems weren't a free market problem. They resulted from government manipulation. Yet in many minds government is seen as the savior while banks are the drunks at the Baptist picnic. For that reason alone Rep. Peter Welch's <I>Wall Street Bonus Tax Act </I>will garner some degree of support.</div> <div> Welch's bill (H.R. 4426) promises a 50-percent tax on excessive bonuses paid at banking institutions that received bailout money. It's a classic leftwing tactic. Welch plays the class envy card, reminding financiers that they owe their reemergence to “hardworking Americans.” However, I would remind Mr. Welch that most “hardworking Americans” opposed TARP--the plan that provided the funding--from the outset. Yet Congress passed it anyway.</div> <div> Hundreds of institutions became beneficiaries. Some have repaid the money; some haven't. But banks had to practically beg the Treasury Department for permission to repay their TARP debt. And political connections played a role in the distribution of TARP funds from the start.</div> <div> A University of Michigan study claims that banks in congressional districts where the representative sits on the finance committee were 26-percent more likely to get bailout funds. That figure is even higher if a bank's executive is on a Federal Reserve Bank board.</div> <div> Such backdoor shenanigans in Congress are nothing new. Representatives exchange favors with the well-connected every day. Therefore, how can anyone believe that in taxing bonuses Rep. Welch has any interest at heart other than his own?</div> <div> I'll win no popularity contest if I'm perceived as defending banks and their bonus packages. However, my goal isn't to exonerate or condemn banks. I'm here to defend the free market process. There is a better method than congressional meddling for determining which financial executives deserve bonuses. There's also much to fear when Congress uses the tax code to control compensation.</div> <div> First, Rep. Welch only wants to tax “excessive” bonuses. Who is he, or the federal government as a whole, to decide what is and isn't excessive? Basically, “excessive” means beyond a necessary or proper limit, which is an arbitrary concept at best.</div> <div> What may seem excessive in one circumstance can be quite routine in another. Once Congress seizes the right to determine appropriate compensation for bank executives it has established precedent to set “proper limits” on salaries for anyone. Who will be next? Barbers? Truck drivers? Play-by-play announcers? Should healthcare reform include wage controls in the medical field? Don't bet the farm that it won't.</div> <div> Such authority in the hands of government isn't just dangerous to our liberty, it is fatal.</div> <div> Does that mean I favor bonuses for bank execs? That depends. As stated, there is a better way to set wages. I prefer to see the free market, not pandering politicians who are seeking reelection, determine compensation.</div> <div> If you're unhappy with the bonuses paid at your bank you can do business elsewhere. If you stay, then bonuses must not bother you that much. In addition, government bean-counters shouldn't force, cajole, or lure banks into nonsensical lending practices. Banks should operate on sound financial principles, not politically correct notions about social justice.</div> <div> Good practice and due diligence are rewarded in the free market. Wise and prudent banks will prosper while depositors and investors will flee foolish institutions in droves. Government manipulation serves only to protect the irresponsible, defer risk and send the entire system tumbling like a house of cards.</div> <div> Government's market interventions have proven destructive. Allowing government an inroad to wage controls promises a similar, or worse, result. If Congress can punish banking executives for their compensation the door is wide open to do likewise to everyone.</div> <div> <A HREF="id196_m.htm" TITLE="The Right Slant 2010"><U>Back to Top</U></A></div> <bR> </td> </tr></table></body>