Being Red In A Blue State

Re:7

2011-06-03T07:16:00.001-07:00

http://www.azprocamps.com/indexz33X.php

Re:

2011-06-02T06:33:00.001-07:00

Copperheads ~ just another snake in the grass

2006-10-02T17:48:00.000-07:00

Democrats oppose the war, blaming the president and
the Republicans. The Democrats see the president as a
tyrant bent on destroying America using despotic
powers. The anti-war movement promotes desertion,
encourages enemy soldiers, and supports the actions of
prisoners of war against their jailors.

The statements above are nothing new. Weve heard it
all before. Its the same tired old song and, as
expected, Democrats get very agitated when such things
are said. The only remarkable thing about the above
statements is that they come from the 1860s and the
time of the Civil War. If youd care to check on the
facts, research the Copperheads and youll see for
yourself that the modus operandi of the Democratic
Party has a long and ignoble history.

Its true. Then, as now, the Democrats, in time of
war, were driven by partisan ambition rather than by
morals, justice, or whats best for the country.
Todays Democrats did not demonstrate or protest when
troops were sent to Haiti, Somalia, or Bosnia. They
did not demand to investigate the reasons for those
actions. It seems their pacifistic-diplomania
manifests only when there is a Republican in the White
House, and that begs the question, why is that?

John M. Stettner
Springfield, VT

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Bigots Don't Have To Make Sense

2005-10-14T08:31:00.000-07:00

What is truly sad is that the broader readership of
The Springfield Reporter doesnt object to Chuck
Gregorys bigotry. I hope that their silence doesnt
imply agreement. His statement that the Israelis
knew about an imminent attack [on the World Trade
Center on 9/11], canceled their lease and moved out
less than two weeks before was, at the same time, one
of the most infuriating and disheartening things I
have ever read.

He is referring to the Zim America Corporation, the
controlling company for the Israeli merchant marine
fleet, which had studied its position earlier in 2001
and by April had settled on Norfolk, Virginia as the
most effective venue for their operations. Their
lease was not broken, it was allowed to run out and
not renewed as of September 1, 2001, though a small
office was maintained for their shipping-tracking
computer systems - which were destroyed in the attack,
thus disrupting the entire merchant marine fleet of
Israel (dumb move for people who knew what was
coming). Mr. Gregory must be relying on the debunked
writings of Christopher Bollyn (American Free Press),
whos become the sole source for this element of the
wider 9/11 conspiracy theorists. However, I wouldnt
be surprised to learn he subscribed to Mohammed
al-Amir Atta, a retired lawyer and father to the
leader of the 9/11 hijackers, who, like Mr. Gregory,
blames the attack on the Israelis.

I read a lot. I spend a good deal of time researching
a wide variety of subjects. It is amazing the amount
of information out there and some of it stretches
ones credulity, requiring serious consideration of
which sources one chooses to accept and repeat. The
easy access to credible information fuels my ire with
Mr. Gregory. It would have taken almost no time at
all and hardly any effort for him to have learned that
of the thousands who died that day, over 400 were
Jews. It takes a sick and twisted mind to buy into
such a story whose origin has been proven to emanate
from Pravda and Al-Manar Television. It comes as no
surprise to me that Mr. Gregory would quote Pravda
and, I guess, given his protests in the center of
town, it should come as no surprise that hes a
mouthpiece for the pro-Palestinian channel for Arabs
and Muslims. I guess what bothers me is that it
doesnt seem to bother anyone else enough for them to
write in about it.

Its somewhat odd that Mr. Gregory has the ability to
feel everyone elses pain (I draw your attention back
to the woman whose private life he described so
vividly from one epithet she yelled at him during one
of his protests), yet hes unable to be touched by the
ruin of Larry Silverstein, another Jew linked to 9/11.
Granted, Silverstein is one of those rich people who
have more money than they should, according to Mr.
Gregory. Silverstein is also one of those
pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps, self-made
success-stories that Mr. Gregory told us never
existed. Mr. Silverstein earned his riches building
buildings like World Trade Center Number 7. He became
so enamored of the project that through a series of
good and bad events he ended up buying the WTC towers
on July 24, 2001 for $3.2 billion. The terms of the
deal were $616 million upon signing and $100 million
each year for the next ten years. And, yes, theres
insurance - he insured the towers for $3.5 billion,
however, the insurance company counts the event as one
claim, not one attack on each building. This being
the United States of the Twenty-first century, before
the dust settled at ground zero, the lawyers descended
on Mr. Silverstein. Mr. Gregorys kook theory doesnt
explain how Mr. Silverstein, a friend to many Israeli
officials, including Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu,
and Ehud Barak, got left off the list of those who
were warned.

As with most bigots, Mr. Gregory is long on blame but
disastrously short on responsibility. He wrote that
George Bush will go down in history as the first
president to lose an entire city in peacetime. What
his hatred blinds him to is the simple fact that
Washington, DC is a great distance away from New
Orleans and that the President of the United States
has no authority in local politics there. The Federal
government is barred from activating the National
Guard, thats the purview of the States governors -
its that pesky document the Constitution that Mr.
Gregory so frequently ignores. It wasnt George Bush
who squandered Federal money earmarked for levee
maintenance; that was Ray Nagen, the mayor of New
Orleans, who also neglected to force his people to
evacuate, who also neglected to provide transportation
for their evacuation. It wasnt George Bush who
trapped people in the arena without food or water;
that was the Governor of Louisiana. But then, Chuck
Gregory has never allowed the facts to color his
jaundiced view of the world, only his hatred. What
Mr. Gregory steadfastly refuses to admit to himself is
that New Orleans has been run lock-stock-and-barrel by
Democrats for over sixty years. If there was poverty,
unemployment, drug-trafficking, and corruption there,
it wasnt the fault of the Republican agenda...geared
to creating crises for the purpose of rewarding
Republicans.

Mr. Gregory can continue to shoot spitballs at me from
his comfortably blinkered corner, but Im just about
done with him. The lies he peddles are too simple to
refute with facts and his distortions are too bizarre
for serious consideration. His ranting reminds me of
the tirades my daughter spouts when she doesnt get
what she wants, but shes only
six-and-three-and-a-half-quarters.

Followup for Mr. Otis: As I mentioned above, I do do a
lot of research and I cant seem to find any reputable
historian who corroborates your claim that the
Capitalistic Rockefeller-Rothschild financial empires
did finance the Communist movement in Russia, leading
to the Bolshevik coup. Likewise, I found no evidence
whatsoever for a Capitalist Establishment funding
for the 1960s radical movements. That doesnt mean
they are not out there, just that I couldnt find
them; perhaps you could provide some real historical
analyses, rather than Adrian Krieg who is a leading
conspiracy theorist author. I was able to track down
your obscure reference to the Chinese in Panama, but
again I was unable to find any serious discussion of,
or even propositions for, a Chinese Red Army based
there. Finally, Mr. Otis, in the age of stealth
bombers able to fly around the world almost non-stop,
enter a theater of war, deliver a varied payload
capable of destroying anti-aircraft units, armored
vehicles, runways, installations, and personnel, and
then return home, why would you worry about the Panama
canal, especially given the existence of the Atlantic
and Pacific Fleets at either end of it?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Another Ride On The Chuck Wagon

2005-10-07T12:19:00.000-07:00

Lets do it again. Last week, Chuck Gregory wrote a
letter which opened with liberals are so accustomed
to being ignored and dumped on that they just get on
with life and concentrate on more important things,
like the pursuit of truth and justice. He then
pretends to compare the honesty of David Brock and
Brent Bozell III through the medium of their websites.
It is amusing to note that Chuck couldnt even get
those right: Bozells website is not www.aim.com,
which is AOLs Instant Messenger! AIMs site is
www.aim.org and, to compound Chucks error, Bozell has
nothing to do with AIM (you can go to their website
and look at the Who We Are and FAQ links). Chuck
seems to think that Accuracy in Media was founded in
the early Eighties by Brent Bozell, however AIM was
founded in 1969 by Reed Irvine and Brent Bozell III
founded the Media Research Center
(www.mediaresearch.org) in 1987.

However, since Chuck wants to contrast Bozell and
Brock, Im game. The exercise tells much more about
Chuck than it does either subject. There is simply no
integrity involved with the comparison, just as there
is not really any comparison. Had Chuck actually
selected a few reports and compared them side-by-side
(as I have often done with liberal-conservative
issues) the facts would have been clear for all to
see. Instead, using duplicity and sleight-of-hand
Chuck gives credibility where it is not due. Chuck
should have compared the books each has written
(Bozells Weapons of Mass Deception and Brocks
Blinded by the Right).

Weapons of Mass Deception is a quick and
straight-forward read that puts the lie to the
ridiculous claim that the media is controlled
conservatives, leans right, or is soft on Republicans.
One simply can not read the legion of specific news
stories itemized by Bozell and walk away with any
opinion but that the media is by-and-large leftist.
Far from being ignored and dumped on, liberals have
an eager and active promoter in the media.

On the other hand, Blinded by the Right is another
matter. Blinded by the Right is Brocks story of his
move from the Right to the Left. Remarkably, he
forgets to tell the story of his earlier move from the
Left to the Right, which would put his later switch
into better context. The book is totally subjective
and supported only by the reliability of the author,
David Brock, which begs the question: how good is his
credibility? Frank Rich (certainly not a
conservative) writing for the New York Times, noted
that by his own account, Brock has lied so often that
a reader can't take on faith some of the juicier
newsbreaks from the impeachment era in his book." For
instance, Brock promotes the liberal lie of the
virulent homophobia and anti-gay view of the
Republican Party in his chapter titled Out of the
Closet,wherein he writes about a turning point
episode involving David Horowitz, who also made the
move from Left to Right: Soon thereafter, Horowitz
uttered a hateful anti-gay slur to an editor friend of
mine whom Horowitz didnt know was gay. At the time, I
shrugged it off, not willing to face the truth about
my friends and supporters. Not until such epithets
were hurled at me would I realize I had been on a
fools errand in trying to carve out a place for
myself as an openly gay icon in the conservative
movement. Only then did I begin to see by allowing
myself to be used as a kind of gay right-wing poster
boy, I had been complicit in the bigoted politics and
rank hypocrisy of the conservatives." The first lie
here is that in the previous chapter, Brock described
how he was forced to admit his sexual orientation
under threat of outing by a liberal gay-activist
group trying to muzzle him for his conservative
writings. The second lie is the Horowitz comment,
which was denied by Chad Conway, the editor friend.
It should be noted that contrary to the fable of the
left, there is a vibrant and active homosexual segment
of the Republican Party.

Along the same line, Brock further exposes his lack of
credibility on page 121 where he describes another
turning point moment for his falling out and
eye-opening separation with conservatives at the 1992
Republican National Convention. The Republican
leadership, he says, virtually launched an antigay
pogrom...there was far less ideological affinity
between the GOP and me than when I had first come to
Washington. The party had left me and many other
libertarian-leaning conservatives back in Houston" The
problem here is that Brock, a San Francisco Bay Area
resident, lists Ronald Reagan as a personal hero.
That would be Ronald (friend of Jerry Falwell) Reagan.
The same Reagan who in 1984 (8 years earlier) stood
by Jeane Kirkpatricks anti-gay San Francisco
Democrats comments. So, it is hard to credit such an
epiphany as late as 1992.

David Brock has problems with credibility and it has
nothing to do with the Right, he was not twisted into
deceit by his conservative minders, as he would like
the reader to believe. Like most liars, Brock lies
even about little things. There as a fellow student
at Berkeley who he wanted to be close to, so he told
him he was adopted and he allowed the lie to continue
for years into their relationship. Brock wanted to be
editor in chief of the Daily Cal, the university
rag, so he concocted a lie about his opponent. After
college, when Brock worked on his Troopergate story
for The American Spectator, he violated his editors
hold on the story and leaked it to CNN. Brock notes
that when confronted, I came up with a clearly
implausible lie.

It should be noted that the Brock website,
MediaMatters, is slightly over a year old now, having
opened in mid-May of 2004 with, as the New York
Times reported, more than $2 million in donations
from wealthy liberals [and] was developed with help
from the newly formed Center for American Progress,
the policy group headed by John D. Podesta, the former
Clinton chief of staff. And Mr. Brock said he hoped it
could help provide fodder for fledgling liberal radio
talk shows being started across the country, including
those of the comedians Al Franken and Janeane
Garofalo. That would be Air America, the fledgling
liberal radio for those comedians that recently
stole $875,000 from the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club
of Bronx, NY. Brock also hired Katie Barge to manage
his researchers. The same Katie Barge who was allowed
to resign from Sen. Chuck Schumers (D-NY) staff last
month for her involvement in illegally using
Marylands Lt Gov Michael Steeles social security
number to get his credit reports. MediaMatters is
heavily funded by George Soros, a fact which Brock
denied until March of 2005 when, confronted with his
organizations financials, he was forced to admit it.
Admitting the relationship is important to put
MediaMatters organizational point-of-view and
statements into context; far from being unbiased,
their defenses of Moveon.org, AirAmerica, Center for
American Progress, and other Soros front groups show
who Brocks bosses are. This is critical considering
MediaMatters filed as a 501(c)(3) and may be in
violation of federal election laws.

Chuck states that there are moral and ethical
differences between liberals and conservatives. As
we can see, his champion, David Brock, is no paragon
of virtue and his morals and ethics are at best open
to interpretation. I am perfectly willing to consider
Brent Bozell III as a champion for my side and I would
encourage Chuck to dredge up whatever he can to try to
drag him down. Chuck describes Clarence Thomas, a
well respected jurist, as a neo-conservative lackey.
Well, Chuck, how about you putt your money where your
mouth is and give us some information to prove your
smear. Chuck describes Bozell as a right-winger who
thought that if you whine enough, people will start to
take your claims seriously. Well, Chuck, how about
you give us some examples of Bozells whining, it
seems to me youre the whiner here, full of gripes and
groans but not very much fact or evidence and as for
ethics and morals...well, lets remember who your
champion is.

______________________________________________________
Yahoo! for Good
Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/

They Said, I Said

2005-09-30T11:09:00.000-07:00

Ironically, to respond to Mr. Otis letter of three
weeks ago, I find myself in the insane position of
having to defend President Jimmy Carter.

I should start out by admitting that Mr. Otis is quite
correct: I am naively obsessed with good guys versus
bad guys. I hasten to add that I am not so naive as
to think that there are no black hats in the
conservative movement. A few weeks ago, I wrote about
a few Republicans who I think need to be spanked.
However, there is no need for me to speak too often to
that issue because there are so many voices in that
chorus that one more adds nothing to the cacophony.
In fact, those raised to decry the iniquities of the
left are like voices in the wilderness.

Take for example Chuck Gregorys obligatory
Bush-baiting and soft-sell on Al Gore two weeks ago.
Bush sabotaged the levies of New Orleans by not
funding them and, had Gore been President, he would
have allotted funds for their maintenance and been
castigated by evil Republicans as a wastrel. The
nonsense is so droll it has become unsurprising, if
not expected. However the facts, as usual, read quite
differently than the spin. While it is true that Bush
has consistently budgeted less than the Army Corps of
Engineers has asked for, Congress has always raised
the figure slightly, but still less than what the
Corps asked for. Even despite that, Corps civil works
projects in Louisiana have been better funded than
those in any other state in the union, to the tune of
$1.9 billion - note that California only got $1.4
billion.

What Chuck seems to have forgotten is that Al Gore was
the Vice President for 8 years and so we have a record
to look at and compare. What the record shows is that
the Bush Administration has budgeted more for
flood-control projects in the Big Easy than the
Clinton Administration did - Im sure that Al Gore did
his best to influence Bill to be more giving, but
failed...again. Bill and Als Excellent
Administration cut 98 flood-control projects and
terminated a $120 million project which would have
protected the West Bank (Harvey Canal) and its 140,000
lower-income black residents - but no one claimed Bill
and Al were racists. In 1999, Clinton budgeted only
half of what New Orleans officials requested for
flood-control - but no one claimed they wanted black
people to drown. In a completely Al Gore moment, Bill
promised to veto FY2000 appropriations for the Army
Corps, not because it spent more than he wanted, but
because it lacked a pet environmental project he
wanted - no, not levee maintenance, but rather a
project to save endangered birds and fish in the
Missouri River. As has always been the case, the
radical environmentalist agenda would save birds and
fish and let people drown - but that doesnt get
reported. What the record also shows is that during
the Clinton years, the Corps was encouraged to engage
in flashy, often unnecessary, construction while the
Bush team has been trying to redirect them away from
new construction and back to maintenance, which in
many instances was long overdue - but Bill was
responsible and George is inept.

Theres quite a hubbub over Tom DeLays indictment by
Ronnie Earle with precious little substantial
information being presented. If DeLay is guilty,
which an indictment doesnt even come close to proving
(especially this one), then he should be punished -
and frankly, more seriously than you or I would be for
the same crime, because he has more power than we do.
However, it has yet to be proven that he is, in fact,
guilty of anything at all. On the other hand, Ill
wager that most of you have no clue what happened to
Michael Steele. That would be Lieutenant Governor
Michael Steele of Maryland. Oh, by the way, hes a
Republican and considering a run for the US Senate
seat of retiring Paul Sarbanes. Senate staffers Katie
Barge and Lauren Weiner lifted Steeles Social
Security Number from public records and used it to
gain his credit report. ID theft is a federal crime
and this instance of it comes with a stay at a prison
of the States choice lasting up to 2 years. Did I
mention, Barge and Weiner work for Sen. Chuck Schumer
(D-NY) of the Schumer-Nelson ID Theft Prevention Bill?
That would be the obnoxious wind-bag Schumer who
blasted Choicepoint VP Don McGuffy with questions
like: Do you have a policy when someones identity
has been stolen...about notifying law enforcement
immediately?

Barge and Weiner stole the information in conjunction
with their work for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Committee (DSCC) which Schumer happens to be the
chairman of. Their theft occurred sometime in early
July and they were immediately fired and reported to
authorities....err, no, they were put on paid leave
through August 31. They were allowed to resign in
mid-September following an internal investigation.
Sen. Schumers office immediately notified Lt. Gov.
Steele in a timely fashion shortly thereafter. Barge
and Weiner are now being investigated by the Justice
Dept and the FBI, who were immediately notified
after the DSCC internal investigation. Somehow, I
doubt that the honorable Senator Schumer or the DSCC
will be subjects in the investigation, just as they
are not subjects in the news. Contrast the reporting
of this event with the reporting of DeLays indictment
or the rumor-mongering masked as reporting about Karl
Roves involvement in the Plame affair. Suggesting
that the press has a right slant or is conservatively
controlled is simply laughable.

Which brings me back to defending Jimmy Carter. Mr.
Otis references to David Rockefeller, Jimmy Carter
and the Panama Canal treaty is a thin skein of
distantly-related parts of a larger event in time.
Certainly, it is easy to fill in the blanks, draw
connections, see shadows and explicate a complicated
issue in simpler terms. Unfortunately, sometimes, the
world is just complicated. Many very large banks had
financial rods in Panamas fire. American and Latin
American relations were at a low point. Jimmy Carter
wanted a foreign policy win - God knows, he needed
some sort of success somewhere. However, it is not a
conspiracy that the movers and shakers rise to the
top in their professions and often come to positions
of power in politics. Id rather have a crackerjack
banker working Federal finance than a bang-up
bookkeeper, but Im probably just too naive.

The US State Departments website says:President
James E. ("Jimmy") Carter saw returning the Panama
Canal as key to improving U.S. relations in the
hemisphere and the developing world. I see no
historical reason to doubt that. In fact, much as I
hate to admit it, Jimmy Carter, who I think was one of
the worst Presidents ever and a moron in foreign
policy and military matters, hit the nail on the head
returning the canal to Panama, even considering the
continued US funding involved. By the 1970s, the
military justification of the canal was nonexistent
and the political potential of the deal, at the very
least, worthy of consideration. Unfortunately, within
a decade, Manuel Noriega would take over and any
political gain was lost, but thats not Carters
fault.

Now, according to the Trilateral or Neocon conspiracy
theory, the Bankers were behind the treaty as an
assurance of their investments in Panama. That is
simply a fools argument, as Noriega proves. If there
were such a super-power secret-society, Noriega would
not have been allowed to rise to power. Moreover, had
the banks wanted stability for their investments, it
would have been far easier to simply foreclose on the
entire country and take it over. Profits to the
conglomerates would have been far greater that way.

Sadly, despite Mr. Otiss very cogent writing and the
very fair and even-handed approach he takes to issues,
the truth about conspiracy theories (my own probably
included) is that they offer meaning and
purposefulness in a capricious, kaleidoscopic,
maddeningly ambiguous, and cruel world. They empower
their otherwise helpless and terrified believers.
There are more than 186,600 Web sites dedicated to
conspiracy theories in Google's database of 3 billion
pages...There are 1077 titles about conspiracies
listed in Amazon and another 12078 in its
individually-operated Zshop. (The Economics of
Conspiracy Theories Sam Vaknin, Ph.D.)

So you see, I find it hard to shed any tears over the
one-sided way in which I choose the targets of my
scribblings. However, if I have ever offended anyone,
I apologize with all my heart for any feelings I may
have hurt. I cant look at a magazine or newspaper,
flip through television news broadcasts, or tune
through the radio dial without being bombarded with
views from the left. Those few, albeit refreshing,
right-side pundits are just that...few. By the same
token, I find it hard to credit the conspiracy
theory that the media is leaning right or even
controlled by a right-leaning cabal. To give credence
to some neoconservative, masonic, knights templar,
illuminati, or trilateral secret society that seeks
world dominance is just so much 007 fantasy. It has
been making the rounds for hundreds of years and
probably a lot longer than that.

__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com

Nuclear Made Unclear

2005-09-23T10:10:00.000-07:00

I have always loved Superman. My fascination for
heroes probably influenced my reaction to the recent
movie The Incredibles. Almost any kid, when I was a
kid, could tell you that Superman fought for Truth,
Justice, and the American Way (sotto voce thanks to
George Reeves). Now, as an adult, still hanging on to
that spirit, I can totally relate to Mr. Incredibles
comment that after saving the world hed just like it
to STAY SAVED for a few minutes. I feel like that
sometimes. You would think that the truth would trump
the lies, but sadly thats just not true

An email crossed my path recently. It was an alarming
notice of the Vermont Public Service Boards hearing
on Entergys proposal about Dry Cask Nuclear Storage.
As is so often the case with alarmist emails, the
dire warnings were overstated and frightening
information was false or misleading. Why is it so
hard for activists to tell the truth?

Specifically, this email focuses on Entergys use of
the phrase temporary, passive storage. The email
objects to calling the facility temporary because
once high level nuclear waste is canned and put in
place, no one can say when it will be removed. Not
only is this claim illogical, its just foolishly
untrue. Because the spent fuel rods are canned, they
CAN be put in place, and because they are PUT in a
place, they CAN be removed. In fact, the reason the
proposal is being made in the first place, is because
the national nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada has become politicized. That point
is glossed over in the email, which explains that Sen.
Harry Reid (D-NV) is sponsoring legislation to keep
nuclear waste at the facility where it originated.
The email neglects to say that the issue was decided
in 2002 by both parties in both houses of Congress and
the legislation passed to the President, who signed it
into law.

Politics doesnt scare people very much, so to gin up
the fear factor, the email raises the specter of
radiation, claiming that it is, in fact,
self-energized and powered by radioactivity and
therefore not passive as Entergy claims. This
statement is base and misleading. Certainly the spent
fuel rods are radioactive, but the dry cask system
contains the radiation. The email plays fast and
loose with a description of the construction of a dry
cask, specifically suggesting that the irradiated
materials are open to the air, which is patently
untrue.

The email moves into rally mode with THE BUCK STOPS
HERE...IT IS NOW UP TO US. and after making the
obligatory let us demand call to action, it closes
with a brief paragraph just seething with terror: the
dry casks will contain...deadly fission products,
such as...Strontium 90...[and] Plutonium 139 which
will remain lethal for 240,000 years and sufficient to
make about 20 nuclear bombs. What utter ROT!

Nuclear reactors use Uranium 235, which is transformed
into Plutonium 239 (not 139). While it is true that
pure Plutonium 239 is the fuel for nuclear weapons,
what comes out of a reactor is not pure, it includes
isotopes of Plutonium 240, 241, and 242. A nuclear
bomb made with such contaminated Plutonium will not
work and it is not possible to separate the isotopes
out. Granted, the waste is still radioactive and
deadly with even minimal exposure; however the specter
of terrorists making nuclear bombs with this stuff is
just old-fashioned fear-mongering.

Strontium 90 is another, nastier, matter. Strontium
90 not a naturally-occurring isotope. According to
the Nuclear Energy Institute, there are three sources
for strontium-90 in the environment: fallout from
nuclear weapons testing, releases from the Chernobyl
accident in the Ukraine, and minute releases from
nuclear power reactors. It is chemically similar to
calcium and thus is easy to test for in bones and
teeth. An adult body differentiates Strontium 90 from
calcium (favoring calcium), but an infants body does
not.

The email specifies this isotope to take advantage of
a scare tactic thats been making the rounds for over
30 years. On July 27, 2005 the Brattleboro Reformer
ran an article titled Groups to study VY radiation
emissions. The article opened, at the behest of
local organizations, the Radiation and Public Health
Project will be examining the levels of Strontium-90
in baby teeth belonging to children living within a
50-mile radius of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear reactor
in Vernon. The article correctly identifies the
local organizations as the Citizens Awareness
Network, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the
Taprock Peace Center and notes that they are activists
in opposition to nuclear weapons and power, but
doesnt delve much further to reveal their
anti-capitalist nature or socialist agenda (and how
better to achieve that agenda than by undermining the
economy by denying it energy efficiency). However,
the reporter really drops the ball by not identifying
the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP).

The RPHP is a national activist group founded in 1985.
Basing their initial research on work performed at
the St. Louis Washington University in 1959, the group
has performed studies around the nation finding
Strontium 90 in baby teeth and linking it to nuclear
reactors and cancers, garnering them the nickname:
the Tooth Fairy Project. Their reports have been
thoroughly and completely evaluated and dismissed by
such organizations as the National Institute of
Health, the National Cancer Institute, the American
Cancer Society, not to mention, the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commissions Health and Safety Laboratory. The
American Academy of Pediatrics, hardly unconcerned
with infant health issues, described the RPHP studies
as unfounded and unsubstantiated. The Nuclear
Energy Institute describes Strontium 90 releases from
nuclear reactors as so small they would be
undetectable in comparison with the amount of
strontium-90 already in the environment from weapons
testing. These levels are well below government
limits. No credible scientific study has shown that
the levels of strontium found in the environment pose
a health risk.

That doesnt stop the activists. Truth does not trump
activism. They have an agenda and it drives them.
They proffer renewable energy, knowing full well
that the ideas they suggest are not viable for large
scale continuing energy production. Even the name
renewable energy is a misnomer: biomass is used up
in the production of energy, and solar and wind are
not supplies we have control over so we cant renew
them - either the wind blows or it doesnt and either
the sun shines or its cloudy, sometimes you produce
power, sometimes you dont. In fact, the only truly
renewable energy source is fissionable nuclear
reactions. So if the activists agenda isnt truly
energy independence and its not peace (they dont
protest North Korea or Irans nukes), the only logical
goal left is to keep us energy dependent on fuels that
sap and weaken our economy. History shows that
failing economies often produce more liberal and
socialist governments. It is not a coincidence that
many activist groups label themselves such-and-such
for Social this-or-that. They used to have to cloak
that, not so much anymore.

Many European countries derive a substantial amount of
their energy from nuclear reactors and the stockpile
the waste from them not at the reactors, but at
national repositories. PBSs Frontline did a report
on Frances nuclear program and observed that the
French were uneasy relying on OPEC and looked at the
nuclear option as no oil, no gas, no coal, no
choice. What the Europeans have done, that we
consistently fail to do in the U.S., is to educate.
The French authorities have worked hard to get people
to think of the benefits of nuclear energy as well as
the risks, Claude Mandil, General Director for Energy
and Raw Materials at Frances Ministry of Industry,
tells Frontline, Glossy television advertising
campaigns reinforce the link between nuclear power and
the electricity that makes modern life possible.
Nuclear plants solicit people to take tours an offer
that six million French people have taken up. In
Finland, Ahti Toivola, a nuclear engineer and
spokesman for TVO, Finlands nuclear energy operator,
noted that one of the most crucial factors in
fostering public confidence...was the medias
reporting of a lot of facts during the four year
debate. This enabled a very open and informed
discussion between stakeholders and the general
public. Another Finn, Timo Seppala, warns that
public opinion polls should not be the sole basis for
political decision making...the results are too
dependent on the framing of the question. He also
notes that politicians had to be more assertive in
driving the case for nuclear power. If the French
didnt make the case eloquently enough perhaps
Professor Risto Tarjanne of Lappeenranta University of
Technology will: nuclear had the lowest generation
costs of any power source and zero carbon
emissions...nuclear power would ensure the security of
a cheap energy source.

So, when Sen Harry Reid (D-NV), as the point-man for
the anti-nuke Luddites, defies both the House of
Representatives and the Senate (ostensibly the will of
the people), is he doing his duty as a representative
of the people, or is he politicking for the special
interest groups that line his pockets? With the
strangle-hold that OPEC has, are the Citizens
Awareness Network, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, the Taprock Peace Center, and the
Radiation and Public Health Project really educating
the public or feathering their nests by sowing
irrational fears? Are the media performing their
moral and ethical duty, the one that goes with that
Constitutional freedom they talk about, when they hype
the sexy sci-fi of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl
without putting the science in context with the
fiction, or are they co-conspirators with their
activist friends? There is a reason why Europe is
becoming independent of fossil fuels and the U.S. is
not and it isnt because, as the email says,
government muffed its chance to gain even minimal
protections for future generations of area people.

Please reply to jmstettner@yahoo.com or http://jmstettner.blogspot.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Polanski Twist

2005-09-21T10:55:00.000-07:00

Pedophiles are among the worst offenders of humanity.
The repercussions of a rape are like echoes haunting
the victim throughout the years of her life. The rape
of a child is worse, compounding the violation and
trauma, the heinous crime obliterates the 'innocence'
of childhood. Certainly a trite concept, but not the
less accurate for being true. Oliver Twist is the
classic story of child abuse. That the tale is retold
by the ultimate child-abuser, a pedophile, is a
sadistic twist of culture - a Polanski twist, if you
will.

Roman Polanski has directed the latest incarnation of
Oliver Twist, now in theaters. Roman Polanski is a
pedophile. He raped Samantha Geimer (nee Gailey),
then 13, in March 1977 during a dinner party at the
home of Jack Nicholson. The artful Polanski charmed
the thirteen year old with his old-world airs and
champagne then fed her a Quaalude. He seduced her
with fairy-tale Hollywood images of stardom to coax
her out of her clothes for nude photos to grace the
pages of French Vogue. The 43 year old Polanski
directed the girl next into a hot tub where he began
fondling her. Like the staging of a screenplay, the
scene moved to a bedroom. Despite her pleas to stop,
Polanski's fondling developed to groping all the while
interrogating her about her period and use of
birth-control. The old dodger proceeded to repeatedly
rape the teen in a variety of positions. In her grand
jury testimony, Geimer said she didn't fight "Because
I was afraid of him." Polanski agreed to a plea deal
but then fled to Europe rather than face a judge who
might void the deal and send him to prison.

Polanski has lived in French luxury for nearly thirty
years without the fear of extradition. He accepted an
Oscar for "The Pianist" in absentia rather than risk
being arrested on his return. Harrison Ford
personally accepted and hand delivered the Oscar.
Polanski sees nothing wrong with his behavior. His
opinion is expressed perfectly in his interview with
Agence France Presse of March 24, 2003: "Normal love
isn't interesting, I assure you it's incredibly
boring." This philosophy begs the question of his
recent successful libel suit against Vanity Fair.
Lewis Lapham reported a story with corroborating
witnesses that Polanski was trolling for sex on the
way to the funeral for Sharon Tate, his murdered wife.
Polanski claimed that "it was particularly hurtful
because it dishonours my memory of Sharon." He won
the suit because Lapham's timing was apparently off,
it seems, the episode happened after the funeral.
After her death, Polanski described Tate as "the
perfect woman," but before her death, he said "I can't
stand seeing Sharon blown up the way she is...This
pregnancy has made her such an insecure, nagging
b--ch." Tate was pregnant with his child when she was
murdered. What is undeniable is that within a week of
the funeral, Polanski was posing for a photo for Life
magazine at the door of the house where his wife was
murdered and he charged $5,000 for it. Polanski's
pedophelia is the stuff of legend and he considers it
normal. His autobiography describes how within a few
months of his wife and unborn child's vicious murder,
Polanski spent Christmas in Gstaad treating himself to
a series of sexual liasons with "girls from the local
finishing schools."

Polanski is now married to Emmanuelle Seigner and the
father of two children: a daughter, Morgane, the same
age as Samantha Geimer was when he raped her, and a
son, Elvis, who is seven. His 're-imagining' of the
Charles Dickens classic is a break for Polanski. His
films include Rosemary's Baby. Chinatown, Tess,
Frantic, and the aforementioned The Pianist. Polanski
admits, "My films always seem so unsuitable for a
family audience." With Oliver Twist, he "realised
that this was the way forward and I could do something
different. The Dickens story is a Polanski family
favorite and as he notes, "I have two young children
and want them to see a film of mine at the cinema."
But how could any parent trust Roman Polanski with
their children - it would be like asking Michael
Jackson to babysit. Oliver Twist has been released
internationally. In the UK it hit a snag, according
to the BBC: "Before the formal submission of the film,
the company was given advice that the strength of the
beating delivered by Bill Sykes (Jamie Foreman) to
Nancy (Leanne Rowe) was unlikely to be acceptable at
the PG category. The footage was reduced in strength
in the version submitted for classification." In the
United States is rated PG-13. Thus, despite his
professed intentions, Polanski's children would not be
admitted to the film. Quite frankly, it begs the
question, is this film really just another blow to
dull the sensitivity to violence in our children,
another chink in the armor of our ethical standards,
another step in legitimizing Polanski's point of view?
If Roman Polanski actually wanted to make a family
film, why didn't he shoot for the G rating? When was
the last time you actually saw a G rated film coming
out of Hollywood?

There is a director who is not quite so (in)famous as
Roman Polanski, his name is Carol Reed. In contrast
to the films of Polanski, cult-classics at best, Reed
directed some of the most recognized talents in some
of the most notable films. Reed was, according to the
New York Times, "the most lionized British director
this side of Alfred Hitchcock...[and] the first movie
director ever to be awarded a knighthood." His films
include Night Train To Munich with Rex Harrison,
Immortal Battalion with David Niven, The Third Man
with Orson Welles, Trapeze with Burt Lancaster, Mutiny
On The Bounty with Marlon Brando and Richard Harris,
The Agony And The Ecstacy with Charlton Heston and Rex
Harrison. Reed also directed such talents as James
Mason, Oliver Reed, Trevor Howard, and Bernard Lee.
Carol Reed also has the distinction to be one of a
very few directors to have made a successful,
blockbuster musical in the 1960s. Competeing with the
likes of Doctor Doolittle, My Fair Lady, Hello Dolly,
Music Man, Camelot, West Side Story, and Funny Girl,
Reed's musical stands out as the 20th century's last
musical to win the Best Picture Academy Award. If you
are looking for a Charles Dickens family film, Carol
Reed's Oliver! is your best bet. Why support a
pedophile and those who support him? If you have to
spend your money, bring home Oliver! for half the cost
of one movie ticket, enjoy it in the comfort of your
own family room, and tell Hollywood and Polanski that
they can keep their schlock and watch it themselves.

Conspiracy Theory 101

2005-09-14T11:03:00.000-07:00

Conspiracy theories abound. Personally, I hate them. I shy away from anyone who promotes one. The problem with conspiracy kooks is they always lack evidence. Sure, there are books on the various theories, reporters and academics spewing a screed to con the feeble-minded into buying their books. "But, comes a doubter, and the entrails aren’t right, the stars aren’t aligned, and we don’t do tests...," nor do ‘we’ provide much proof either. It seems only those who know the secret handshake are ‘in the know’ and everyone else is hoodwinked or blindly worshiping. I am especially skeptical of the ‘real, hidden, true story’ schtick. Like most people, I find that evidence works so much better than supposition and facts are more credible than innuendo. That there is an anti-capitalist movement, quite content to be mis-identified as anti-Bush, is not a theory. It is demonstrable with evidence and fact. When you cut through the rhetorical and theatrical static, they stand out. When exposed, they thrash about and scream like vampires staked out in sunlight.

The Bush haters, or more accurately, the anti-capitalists, operate on two levels. On the surface is the lie and the ‘bigger’ the lie the better. The lie is the way to reel in the gullible, to snag the loons to hold the placards. The popular movement usually overshadows the agenda; be it save the whales, protect the earth, anti-nukes, or anti-war. The real agenda appears as a side-line, among the links on the web-site, listed as a partner in the coalition. The ‘real deal’ is what they don’t want you to see. Most of the people in a given movement are simple folk who’ve been bamboozled with catchy slogans that tug on the heart strings. The leaders, the lieutenants giving the marching orders, the aparatcheks goading the faithful, and the party bosses on the street corners beating the drums are the ones who obfuscate. They don’t dare to identify the true agenda, or risk sending their ‘supporters’ running for the tall grass.

The current anti-war movement provides an excellent object lesson. In the early 1980s Medea Benjamin was an Institute for Food and Development Policy (IFDP) project coordinator. In 1988, she founded Global Exchange, ostensibly an international human rights organization. Benjamin assisted Leslie Cagan to create United for Peace and Justice (UPJ) in October 2002 and, in November 2003, helped Nermin Al-Mufti form the Baghdad-based International Occupation Watch Center (IOWC). Benjamin and Cagan coordinated with Jodie Evans to form Code Pink. So what? Just a bunch of nice ladies who care enough to spend their money trying to save lives. They’d like you to think so.

IFDP, while sounding humanitarian, was actively supporting the Marxist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua and Medea Benjamin’s work for it was to provide aid to the enemy of the United States. Benjamin is a committed anti-capitalist. Extolling the social justice of Cuba, which she has visited often, Benjamin said it was like she’d "died and went to heaven." She works closely with the communist Workers World Party which is committed to "fight against capitalism." Benjamin has been very vocal recently, saying things like: "the Muslim world sees the United States as willing to bomb but not willing to feed people," and notes her coalitions are "determined to stop the US from unilaterally dictating to other people...who their leaders should be," and states her group’s goal is "[to build] a world that rejects ethnic and religious divisions, celebrates diversity...[and] focuses on building a global community." What Medea Benjamin never, ever, says is that America donates more food and money around the world than any other nation; that Americans have fought and died in greater numbers than any other nation to free others from dictators; and that her idea of "heaven," communist Cuba, is the anti-thesis of her stated goals. In fact, Benjamin’s idea of a global community would "reject ethnic and religious divisions" by denying religion. To achieve her agenda, Benjamin has to lie about who she is, what she stands for, and what her goals truly are.

Leslie Cagan was coordinator of the National Mobilization for Justice and Peace in Central America and what she coordinated were anti-US marches in support of - you guessed it - Manuel Ortega’s Sandinistas. She also is a devotee of Fidel Castro. She was director of the Cuba Information Project for 7 years and spent two months in Cuba between 1969-70, "Just ten years into their revolution, the Cubans had taken control of their history...and there we were in Cuba, a whole nation under attack from the US." My father, who had escaped from Cuba saw it somewhat differently. Cagan organized the 1982 Central Park (NYC) anti-nuke rally. Cagan opposed the use of force to remove Saddam from Kuwait with the National Campaign for Peace in the Middle East. She was a member-in-good-standing in the Communist Party USA when it split in 1991 and she co-founded the Committee of Correspondence to continue her support for Gorbachev. In October 2002, Cagan founded United for Peace and Justice (the parent of Springfield Peace and Justice). Where was her concern for Peace and Justice for the Kuwatis, or for the non-communist Cubans and Nicuraguans, or is it only loyal comrades who deserve Peace and Justice?

Benjamin and Cagan helped Jodie Evans create Code Pink. Evans shares their world view. She is a director for Rain Forest Action Network (RAN), which was co-founded by Mike Roselle of ELF/ALF fame. Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and Animal Liberation Front (ALF) top the FBI Domestic Terrorist list.. RAN, ELF, and ALF are vehemently anti-capitalist. ELF/ALF activists go to Steve Kretzmann for training with his Ruckus Society. Kretzmann is also Code Pink coordinator and his Ruckus Society is a member of the UPJ coalition. Kirsten Moller was in IFDP with Benjamin and is now Global Exchange’s executive director, as well as an organizer for Code Pink. The public face of Code Pink is Sand Brim, their go-to-gal for news media interviews, but in the 80s, she was the executive director of Medical Aid. Brim used Medical Aid as a cover to provide a neurosurgeon to treat Nidia Diaz, Ortega’s Marxist Revolutionary Party Commander. Diaz liked to brag about the four US Marines and nine civilians her group recently killed.

That brings us to Nermin Al-Mufti, a co-director of IOWC, which purports to be "an international coalition of peace and justice groups" ideally headquartered in Baghdad, and with direct ties to Global Exchange, Code Pink, and a coalition member of UPJ. Al-Mufti has been identified by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan as a Ba’athist mouthpiece for Saddam Hussein who worked for the regime-run newspapers and magazines; Al-Thawra, Al-Qadisaya, and ALIFBA. Today, Al-Mufti earns a decent living touring American universities saying things like "How can you let your children fight Bush’s war? Please explain to me why this is happening? Why is Bush destroying cultural centers, houses, hospitals and museums? We do not understand this war. What does Bush want? Petrol?" and "They looted and burned all the universities, the hospitals. I used to cry...[It’s a] scheme to make the Iraqis lose their identity." Al-Mufti states that the IOWC exists to provide Iraqis an advocate against abuses "under [US] occupation, including the activities of international corporations and advocate for the Iraqi’s right to control their own resources, especially oil." Al-Mufti never reported that Saddam used oil-for-food contracts to bribe international corporations and ministers. The ‘oil-for-food’ money meant to feed starving Iraqis but used for Saddam’s palaces and military never appeared in her reports. She was unfazed by the insurgents use of schools, homes, hospitals, museums and mosques for weapons depots. She has denied the thousands of rapes in the well-known rape-rooms. She inflates the civilian casualties, but was silent about Saddam’s mass graves and his maiming or murder of dissenters. According to Al-Mufti, Saddam was a benevolent, kindly man who loved his people and provided well for them. Most Iraqis disagree.

All of the organizations and people mentioned are vehemently anti-corporate and anti-capitalist, and all have direct ties to the Marxist-Leninist, Socialist, or Communist parties. Their overarching thesis is that corporations are a threat to democracy and individuals rights. Their strategy is to redistribute wealth by increasing minimum wages, opposing trade, and legislating the growth of corporations. The means to accomplish this include assaulting big business, forcing white-collar layoffs, promoting ‘green’-energy while opposing nuclear energy, protesting the building new electrical power plants and oil refineries, blocking the opening of domestic oil fields, multiculturalism and segregation by oversensitive ethnic diversity, lowering the standard of education, rampant unrestrained welfare, deconstructing the stock market, the inflationary ballooning of minimum-wage, and incurring profit loss for businesses. In short, the dissolution of the American way of life brought to you courtesy of Social Justice.

In an interview with The Sunday Oregonian, Medea Benjamin noted that the timetable for "the movement" was a gradual shift of 20 years or more, which, despite the economic collapse, would bring forth a "healthier, more stable economy." Bush supporters believe in the same things he does: a strong America, a strong economy, personal ownership of property and the means to create wealth - that’s not worship, it’s common ground. The anti-capitalists hide their true agenda in anti-Bush sloganeering, defrauding their followers by political sleight of hand in much the same way that Lenin did to the Russian people who believed his promise of a better life. One encyclopedia describes communism as the antithesis of capitalism, achieved by the violent overthrow of society. Socialism, it said, accomplishes the same goal peacefully and incrementally over time. We know from history that neither communism nor socialism work; if they did, the activists would be emigrating to such countries. In those misbegotten systems the wealth is not shared equally, it is held by the party leaders. It is instructive to observe that Benjamin et al have made nice fortunes that are well-insulated from the global collapse they are trying to foster. If that’s not the typical Leftist "I’ve got mine, but you can’t have yours," I don’t know what is.

Bush Truths

2005-09-07T07:55:00.000-07:00

The main difference between the pro-Bush crowd and the anti-Bush crowd is not one of worship. Most people who voted for Bush and support him do not agree with him on every issue, so it is not a case of worship. Coincidentally, those who supported Clinton were often amused by how deftly he lied and got away with it - even Washington reporters often jested with each other about his mendacity. Clintonistas excused his lies, his adultery, his perjury, his suborning perjury, his renting of the Lincoln bedroom, and his vindictive headhunting because “character doesn’t matter” and if that’s not ‘worshiping,’ I don’t want to know what is.

The difference between the Bush supporters and Bush haters is two-fold: agenda and honesty. The folks who support Bush don’t fabricate fraudulent documents. Folks who believe in President Bush don’t lie. Terry McAuliffe said that “George Bush never served in our military in our country.” You don’t have to support the man, but that is a bald-faced lie. Bush learned to fly the F-102. He flew that plane on homeland security missions to intercept Soviet Tu-95 bombers. The F-102 was one of the most dangerous planes in our Air Force with a lifetime accident rate (LAR) of 13.69, while the average LAR falls somewhere around 4.94. The F-102 was almost obsolete when he flew, and 70 Air Force and Air National Guard pilots were killed in non-pilot-error accidents. The Bush haters say that serving in the ANG isn’t serving in the military. Or is it just when Bush served? ANG servicemen and women have served in overseas conflicts for decades. If that’s not serving, I don’t know what is.

The Bush haters resurrected the nearly 20-year old lie, fostered by none other than John Kerry, about the Bush family being tied to drug trafficking. In 1988, Bush Sr. put this to rest by challenging Kerry to ‘put up or shut up’ when he said, “it’s all been looked into, and I would challenge Senator Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, to show some evidence and stop leaking information that is not true.” Kerry didn’t rise to the challenge and the Boston Globe, his home paper, put the lie to death reporting that his “assertions are clouded by his inability to provide much documentary evidence of [Bush’s] involvement with the scheme.” Evem that didn’t stop Kerry and company from reviving the story two decades later and if that’s not lying, I don’t know what is.

George Soros said, “When I hear Bush say, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’ it reminds me of the Germans.” By which, of course, he meant Hitler and the Nazis. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WVA), who was a....I mean, who knows first-hand about racism and nazism, compared Bush to Paul Joeseph Goebbels. Granma, the Cuban Communist Party newspaper ran “Bush Family Funded Adolf Hitler” as their May 13, 2003 headline. All the Bush haters gobbled it up and repeated it ad nauseum. Of course, the truth is that Prescott Bush took a seat on the board of Union Banking Corp, which happened to be owned by the German family Thyssen, who did provide support to the early Nazi party. Bush rose to his position AFTER Fritz Thyssen was arrested and sent to a Nazi prison camp for speaking out against Kristallnacht. Bush and Thyssen never met, much less spoke nor did Bush invest in Thyssen’s company. Then there was Silesian-American Corp., in which the Bush family had an interest. Critics use that to suggest that the Bushes made money from Auschwitz. Silesian-American was a Polish company and Auschwitz was in Poland. What the critics omit is that the year before the death camp was built, the Nazis nationalized the company, effectively stealing it from it’s owners and investors. I can only guess from his objecting to Bush’s comment, that Soros is either ‘with’ the terrorists, or at least on the fence about who’s side he is on - but that doesn’t seem to occur to the Bush haters. And one other thing, Soros and Byrd never turn to Teddy Kennedy (D-MA) and chastise him about his father, Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr. who was in fact a Nazi sympathizer! If that isn’t two-faced, I don’t know what is.

How about the “War For Oil” lie? On September 16, 2002, the United Nations received a letter from Saddam Hussein including that phrase. The next day, Tariq Aziz spoke to international anti-war activists in Baghdad saying, “America...wants to control the oil in Iraq.” The Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party, MoveOn.org, Veterans for Peace, United For Peace And Justice, Global Exchange, Code Pink, and others immediately picked up the line. And just how are we fighting for oil? We didn’t take the oil fields of Kuwait or Iraq, though we could have if that were the idea. In fact, the same Bush haters have claimed we didn’t do enough to secure and defend the oil fields! So, they talk out of both sides of their mouths and then repeat the lies of America’s enemy while we’re at war, and still claim they support our troops. If that’s not siding with the enemy, I don’t know what is.

“Despite repeated warnings from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, President Bush and his administration hyped and distorted the threat that Iraq posed,” MoveOn.org has said. Where was MoveOn.org when Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Al Gore, John Kerry, Sandy Berger, the governments of France, Russia, England, Germany, and the leadership of the United Nations all said the same things or worse? Where were they when the United States Congress passed and Bill Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998? Where is their criticism of the various reports to Congress that cite the threat of Hussein’s latent hibernating weapons programs? It was Duelfer’s opinion that Saddam was an “even greater threat than we imagined” and Scott Ritter’s original testimony of September 3, 1998, noted that “once effective inspection regimes have been terminated, Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of it’s former nuclear, chemical, and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months.” If omitting all facts that disagree with a premise isn’t lying, I don’t know what is.

Fast-forward to today: hurricane Katrina is blamed on Bush for not stopping Global Warming, as if that psuedo-scientific scam began in January 2001; the magnitude of the catastrophe in New Orleans is Bush’s fault because he didn’t do enough to get the people to safety or provide enough aid, which begs the question of why those people didn’t heed the warnings they were given; Bush’s ‘war for oil’ has our National Guard in Iraq so there aren’t enough to provide aid to the stricken areas, as if 28,000 volunteers isn’t enough. The most egregious fib is that Bush engineered the event to further line the pockets of his big oil pals, which completely ignores the fact that the activists on the Left have opposed and stymied oil development, drilling, and the building of new refineries for more than 20 years! Take a lesson from California: when you don’t build power plants for decades, don’t be surprised when you run out of power - if that’s not a foolish energy policy, I don’t know what is.

The greatest lie is that these people are anti-Bush. The majority are actually simply anti-Republican/Conservative from a mindless adherence to the marching orders disseminated by the Left. However, the worst of the lot are anti-capitalists. Opposed to private ownership, they don’t believe in individual success, they’re the ones spouting the “it takes a village” mantra. This group never wants to be held accountable for the results of their actions, only their intentions. The anti-capitalists are committed to nationalizing the major industries and they’ve done such a great job with the education system and Social Security that I’m excited to place my livelihood and future in their hands, aren’t you?

Criticism for Republicans

2005-08-31T08:45:00.000-07:00

It has been said that I should criticize Republicans too, just to be balanced. While I don’t believe that to be true, I am going to do so because these Republicans really deserve to be chastised.

I don’t know if Pat Robertson is a Republican. I assume he is, but I don’t know the man, I don’t follow him, and I don’t subscribe to his belief-set. However, for the sake of argument, I’ll go out on a limb and just say he is a Republican. On Monday, August 22, 2005 Pat Robertson said of Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela: “If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it...It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war...We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability...We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." Robertson’s remarks ignited a firestorm of indignation from Venezuela, a media colonoscopy, and embarrassment for the citizens of the US. Within two days, Robertson was backtracking and ‘spinning’ to tilt. Clarifying without apologizing, the preacher said: “I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnaping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time.”

Well, you’d have to be truly stupid to believe Robertson’s pathetic ‘clarification’ and Robertson should own his comments. His backtracking is worse than his original moronic statement. Chavez is a communist and he does require consideration, but he certainly does not rise to the level of assassination. He could seriously damage our economy by withholding oil shipments. Apparently, many refineries are geared for Venezuelan oil and would require retooling at great expense to process crude from another region, not to mention the ‘downtime’ for refitting and finding a new supplier. However, such a move would destabilize the Venezuelan economy to a degree as well, though not so badly, as China would be more than willing to buy oil originally earmarked for the US. Still, the threat from Chavez is worth consideration but not extreme prejudice.

Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is a Republican. He is also a Viet Nam War veteran who earned two Purple Hearts. Sen. Hagel is quickly becoming a celebrity. AP reporter Douglass K. Daniel described Hagel as “a leading Republican senator and prospective presidential candidate” in a report about his appearance on ABC’s ‘This Week’ show on Sunday, August 21, 2005. What focused attention on Sen. Hagel were comments like these: “[We are] locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam...We should start figuring out how we get out of there, but with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur...’stay the course’ is not a policy...By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning.”

The media have been waiting desperately for a leading Republican to make statements such as these. There are two problems here: (one) Hagel is not a “leading Republican” and; (two) Hagel is wrong. Hagel is only a second-termer who has written no legislation of note. He does not chair any Senate committee, hold any position in the Senate leadership, and has no official responsibilities. Hagel is what mainstream Republicans call a RINO (as in Republican In Name Only) who more-often-than-not sides with his Democratic colleagues like Joe Biden. When Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel (NY) and Sen. Ernest Hollings (SC) proposed a new draft, Hagel joined them. Hardly a “leading Republican,” but the media needed him to be one in order to give him gravitas.

Hagel is right when he says “our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East” and most Republicans agree with that statement. All the Middle East dictators are quaking in their boots: Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are flooding Iraq with mercenary-terrorists in an effort to defeat the burgeoning democracy, while the visible success there promotes dissident opposition for them at home. However, as a Viet Nam Vet, Hagel’s experience should show him the clear and striking differences between that war and the fighting in Iraq. We are not “bogged-down” and we are most certainly winning. “When you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq” you see a dictatorial regime replaced by a fledgling democracy, free and fair elections, and a draft Constitution - how could that possibly be defined as “not winning?” Most damning for Hagel is that he IS a United States Senator and has the power to write, directly lobby others in Congress, and vote on legislation. If he truly felt that more funds, more armor, more weapons, or more troops were necessary in Iraq he “holds the purse-strings,” he could make that happen - but he hasn’t. Of course, Hagel is a “prospective presidential candidate” and his opinions and statements are colored and clouded by his aspirations, not by any concern for our troops or by any sense of honesty.

Another Republican deserving a stinging slap is John McCain. Senator McCain recently returned from a trip to Alaska where he witnessed snow melting in the summertime. That sight so shook him that he immediately jumped on the ‘global warming band-wagon.’ McCain told reporters: “We are convinced that the overwhelming scientific evidence indicated that climate change is taking place and human activities play a very large role.” McCain told AP reporter Dan Joling that “Americans will demand laws to decrease emissions, just as they demanded campaign financing reform.” Americans did not demand campaign finance reform, McCain created that issue as a horse he hoped to ride into the White House, but the absolute travesty of CFR was a lame horse that kept McCain out of the running. Similarly, most Americans are not demanding emissions controls. Sen. McCain may be “convinced that the overwhelming scientific evidence indicate” human-caused climate change, but most scientists are not. Make no mistake, the Climate Stewardship & Innovation Act, to be sponsored by McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), which will cap US emissions at 2000 levels, will require emissions reductions of at least 50%, as well as a similar reduction in energy use. The societal and economic costs of this will be disastrous and that’s just in the US; there will be ‘spill-over’ repercussions felt around the world. The worst part is that there is no guarantee that cutting emissions will help. Of course, McCain is also a “prospective presidential candidate” and his opinions and statements are colored and clouded by his aspirations, not by any concern for our environment or by any sense of honesty.

Both Hagel and McCain are political operatives pandering to an electoral segment, attempting to curry favor and garner votes. I could lump Senator Jon Voinovich in with them for his embarrassing blubbering about John Bolton on the Senate floor, on international TV, but that doesn’t rise to the level of scorn. I could take aim at Tom DeLay, but he hasn’t been indicted, much less convicted of anything. Congressman Cunningham has acted unethically, perhaps even criminally, he should be run out of town on a rail and probably will be shortly. Karl Rove would seem a likely target, except he hasn’t done anything wrong, despite all the hubbub. George W. Bush should have a tougher, more thorough, leadership position on illegal immigration and border security, but it is unfair to lay all the blame on him. Republicans are people too, flawed, and far from perfect; but when was the last time you read a scathing review and rebuke of Democrats written by a Democrat? The bottom-line issue is that it was the Democratic party which coined the phrase “character doesn’t matter” and they keep proving that they believe it.

Heroes Not Hostages

2005-08-24T08:44:00.000-07:00

On January 17, 2004 George W. Bush met with Staff Sergeant Michael McNaughton at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. McNaughton lost his leg to a mine in Afghanistan a year before. Both men have a passion for exercise and jogging so Bush invited McNaughton for a jog when he recovered. In April 2004, the Sergeant had his run with the President. “It rained a little bit. I didn’t care if it was storming or lightning all around, I didn’t care. It was nice to run with him,” McNaughton said, ”this goes back to my military training. I never once stopped something and said I can’t do it or quit. Just because I lost my leg, why should I start now?”

Army Specialist Chad Snowden was shot through the head in Fallujah on November 13, 2004. The sniper’s bullet entered just above Snowden’s left eyebrow and exited the right side of his head. By some grace, the damage was minimal and the medical care he received was great. Snowden plans to attend the University of Texas. In a letter to his mother, Spc. Snowden wrote that “he felt he was where he needed to be.”

On April 5, 2005, President Bush presented Sergeant Paul Ray Smith’s 11 year-old son with his Medal Of Honor: “With complete disregard for his own life, and under constant enemy fire, Sgt Smith rallied his men and led a counterattack. From a completely exposed position, he killed as many as 50 enemy soldiers as he protected his men...Sgt Smith continued to fire until he took a fatal round.” Birgit Smith had this to say: “Paul’s action two years ago speaks louder than any words ever could, for that was simply the man Paul truly was – always putting others before himself...I know the pain their families suffer, so I want to reach out to them and let them know their loved ones are not forgotten. Every one of our soldiers deserve the title of hero for they too have answered a noble calling.”

Army Specialist Casey Sheehan died in Iraq. His parents, Cindy and Patrick Sheehan, met with President Bush in April 2004. Now, Cindy is in Crawford, Texas, leading anti-war protests. Many anti-war groups support Cindy, but her family does not. Her husband has filed for divorce and her extended family has written an open letter to the media: “The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the expense of her son’s good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.”

Air Force Captain Derek Argel was killed when his plane crashed near Baghdad on Memorial Day. He was buried in Arlington Cemetery in early August 2005. The Veterans for Peace have placed his name on a cross in what they call “Arlington West,” a Santa Barbara beach anti-war display of crosses bearing the names of soldiers who have died in Iraq. The Veterans for Peace have moved their display to Crawford, Texas, to take advantage of the media hype for Cindy Sheehan. When Debbie Argel Bastian, mother of Capt. Derek Argel, learned of the display she wanted her son’s name removed, saying: “I’m livid about it...Derek would not want to be remembered this way.” As reported by the Los Angeles Times, “The group won’t remove Argel’s cross, but might move it out of the front row in deference to Bastian, said Lane Anderson, a Veterans for Peace member.”

Christy Ferer lost her husband, Neil Levin, in the World Trade Centers. Debra Burlingame’s brother was a pilot on American Airlines Flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon. Bill Butler’s son, Tom, was a firefighter. Dennis O’Berg’s son was a fireman, too. John Vigiano had two sons, one a fireman and the other a NYPD detective. If you’re guessing all their children died at the WTC, you are correct. On December 15, 2004, this entourage visited Walter Reed and Bethesda hospitals. Ferer summed up their message to the wounded veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq best: “We personally think you’re there avenging us and doing the right thing...There has been so much controversy about this war, so let me be perfectly clear - - this is the right war at the right time for the right reasons, and you’re our heroes.”

The protestors we see on the sidewalks with their “Bring Them Home” signs don’t really care about our soldiers. The activists with the “No More Hostages” placards were never overly concerned about the hostages of the terrorists - some went so far as to suggest the victims deserved their torture for going to Iraq in the first place. The black-clad “Mothers of Iraq” in their over-size costumes never protested the violent and all-too-frequent rapes of Iraqi women, they never demanded the closing of Hussein’s Rape Hotels. Where was the compassion for the children of Hallabjah when they were murdered?

These opportunistic ‘humanitarians’ are remarkably silent at human rights abuses occurring around the world when they aren’t American. Abu Grhaib was just a pleasure palace when Saddam Hussein was there cutting off hands, arms, and legs, or using a blow-torch to cook a prisoner alive, or drowning prisoners. Let an American strip a terrorist or put a dog leash on them and it’s a human rights abuse. To those who say “War Is Never The Answer,” I say tell that to the survivors of the Nazi or Japanese death camps. Since they are so adamant that war is not the answer, wouldn’t it be nice if one of them finally explained what their answer actually is?

It is ignorance and political agenda that drives the anti-war protestors. Intentionally avoiding any information that disagrees with a preconceived notion is ignorance. Sacrificing one’s integrity for political gain is agenda. The Veterans for Peace say all that needs to be said; their political statement is more important than the wishes of a veteran’s mother and more important than that veteran’s memory. ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend,’ is an ancient proverb. Likewise, ‘the friend of my enemy is my enemy.’ In his doctrine of preemption, President Bush made it clear that the United States would go after the terrorists and anyone who supports them. I am not suggesting that anti-war protestors be punished, they have the right to protest; however, they should not whine and complain when they are recognized as the supporters of terrorism that they are.

If the anti-war protestors got their way, the terrorists would win. Before the US withdrawal the coalition troops would be recalled and shortly after the US withdrawal, just as it happened in Vietnam, the terrorists will kill all opposition and install a Taliban-like regime in Iraq. Having defeated the US again, as they did in Mogadishu, at the Khobar Towers, and on the USS Cole, the terrorists will again begin staging attacks on US citizens around the world and within the United States. If the protestors win, our soldiers will not die on foreign soil, but they, their families, and the rest of us will die here on US soil.

Consider for a moment Specialist Crystal Terrell-Young, who was severely injured in a vehicle accident. Spc Terrell-Young was at Walter Reed at the same time Staff Sergeant Michael McNaughton. Spc. Terrell-Young was not serving in Afghanistan or Iraq when she was injured, she was serving in Bosnia. Unlike Saddam Hussein, whose threats to the US are very well-documented, Slobbodan Milosevic was a threat to no one outside of eastern Europe. President Bill Clinton had no problem unilaterally sending our troops to fight in that foreign war without authorization of the United Nations and without any coalition of nations. The anti-war protestors did not protest this action then, nor do they now. There are no candlelight vigils for the nearly forgotten soldiers there. Bosnia puts the lie to the anti-war protests and the respect and admiration the protestors hold for President Clinton exposes their political agenda.

Disclaimer: FOX News was not used as a source for any information or opinions in this letter.

I Just Don't Get It

2005-08-17T08:43:00.000-07:00

The ‘Cabbage Patch Kids’ are right, I “just don’t get it.”

I ‘don’t get’ the political exploitation of Cindy Sheehan and the ‘Campers For Peace.’ Bush didn’t kill her son, the terrorists did. The crowds chanting “We killed her son” are reprobates. “She just wants to discuss the loss of her son with her President, what’s so wrong with that?” Well, in case you missed it, she met with the President in April 2004 and after the meeting she said: “I now know he’s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.” Her husband Pat was moved by the meeting too and he said: “We have a lot of respect for the office of the President, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn’t have to take the time to meet with us.” The Sheehan’s and their three other children told their hometown paper, The Vacaville Reporter, that after meeting with Bush they found some peace and Cindy commented: “That was the gift the President gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together.”

The Sheehan circus is particularly disgusting when juxtaposed with the story of Bobby Glen Moon, Jr. Were it not for The Dickson Herald (a local community paper much like our Reporter) this story would have gone unreported - it has not been presented on any major news network. A Marine with the Corps Explosive Ordnance Disposal Battalion, Moon suffered blast trauma to his head leading to blindness and deafness. Doctors from Bethesda Hospital feel confident Moon will regain most of his sight and hearing. Moon is on convalescent leave and worries about what the military will do with him: “It’s an honor and I’m proud to serve my country...It’s still not apparent yet if they’re going to allow me to stay in the military. But I would like to serve out my contract. I love my job, I love being in the military.” Moon’s father is very proud of him, “It’s because of boys like him that since 9/11 they haven’t come over here and attacked us again...When I went to the hospital at Bethesda to see him a lot of other boys were there and they were proud and so dedicated...I didn’t know any of them that didn’t want to go back over there.”

I ‘just don’t get’ why the media glamorizes Cindy Sheehan, a war protester from before her son signed up, and ignores a true hero like Bobby Glen Moon, Jr. just like I ‘don’t get’ the anti-war protestors. I ‘don’t get’ the adamant proposition that WMD was the only justification for the invasion of Iraq when there is a preponderance of casus belli: WMD was just one of 24 “reasons” included in the resolution passed by Congress; then there’s the violated First Gulf War peace treaty; and the 12 years of violations of some 60 UN sanctions. That doesn’t even begin to touch on the human rights abuses - where were these protestors when Abu Grhaib was Saddam’s ‘snuff-film’ factory? Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International demand the closure of Gitmo, but what did they do for the Khurds killed in Hallabjah with nerve gas (one of those chemical weapons Saddam didn’t have) or the other 300,000 plus people murdered by Hussein and hidden in mass graves? Where were these anti-war protestors when Bill Clinton sent troops into Bosnia and why aren’t they calling for those troops to be brought home after six years and no success? It is a sink hole of hypocrisy that I ‘just don’t get.’

It is true that I ‘just don’t get it’ when Senator Patrick Leahy has to take a month to review the writings of Judge John Roberts, but blithely supports Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It is laughable for Leahy to suggest that Ginsburg, an important attorney for the American Criminal Liberties Union, was more “mainstream” than Judge Roberts. In any comparison of the careers of these two, Roberts is not only more mainstream, but he’s also less partisan. Roberts’ record shows a complete dedication to the law regardless of personal politics. Ginsburg’s record shows the exact opposite. Despite her using her legal position to promote an activist agenda, Ginsburg received nearly unanimous support from Senate Republicans and was not given the obviously partisan inquisition that Roberts is getting.

I ‘just don’t get it.’ Perhaps Republicans are held to a higher standard. Cheney tells Leahy to “go f*** yourself” after over a week of Leahy’s very personal political attacks. The comment only came to light when Leahy ran for the nearest news camera to cry about it. Cheney is lambasted and castigated for the personal interchange. Ohio Democrat Paul Hackett calls George W. Bush a “son of a b****” and Senator John Kerry says “Bush f***ed” the war up. Both Hackett and Kerry made their comments to national media, but unlike Cheney, who kept it personal, they get a pass. At a birthday party, Trent Lott compliments a fellow senator, who happened to be a segregationist, and Lott is ostracized and politically punished. On the floor of the Senate, on national television, Christopher Dodd compliments a fellow senator, who happened to be a former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle (klan lingo for a recruiter), and his comments are cheered. Yes, I guess there is a double standard, and I ‘just don’t get it.’

I ‘just don’t get’ the blind obeisance to the party line on the Left. When George W. Bush held back from appointing a 9/11 Commission, he was accused of all manner of cover-ups and foot-dragging, his calls for clarity and good investigation were rebuffed. As it turned out, the commissioners were split along party lines and appointed without regard to skill or experience, which is how a totally unqualified partisan like Richard benVeniste got appointed. It is also how a cover-up artist like Jamie Gorelick got appointed. “The commission is non-partisan,” we got told, but how is it then that Gorelick was allowed to continue as a commissioner after her “wall” memo surfaced? “It doesn’t matter,” they said, just like they said, “character doesn’t matter.” Now we know that it did matter: the wall Gorelick, at the direction of Bill Clinton, erected made it illegal (for you recent graduates, that means punishable by prison) to share information regarding on going investigations across agency ‘walls,’ thus hindering co-operation and ham-stringing counter terrorism efforts. The 9/11 Commission was charged with “connecting the dots” and getting to the bottom of our “intelligence failures,” but when the mechanism of that failure surfaced they ignored it and now when confronted with the evidence that they did, they deny knowing about it until that excuse is also proven false.

I ‘just don’t get’ the Clinton legacy. When Clinton visited the WTC in the aftermath of the first bombing and decided to prosecute the perpetrators as criminals he laid the foundation of our response to terrorist attacks for the rest of his administration. When he failed to react appropriately to the ensuing attacks and surrendered in Mogadishu, he cast the image of American weakness. The Clinton State department reversed the restrictions on granting visas from the requestor proving he deserved one to the government having to prove he didn’t. In 1995, Gorelick and Clinton left the barn door open and the planning for 9/11 was set in motion. The contested election of George W. Bush was not finished until January 2001 and his cabinet positions were not approved by Congress till June and July 2001. Blaming Bush for 9/11 is preposterous and I ‘just don’t get it.’ Since the publishing of their report, the 9/11 Commissioners have all been paid tidy sums for various book deals, interviews, and speeches and we still don’t have the definitive story of how this all happened, but we’re supposed to give them credit and credence and spend billions of dollars on their recommendations - I ‘just don’t get it.’

I ‘just don’t get’ all the doom-and-gloom armchair economists prognosticating the end of the world when the economy is doing so well. Two weeks ago Paul Putnam wrote a great piece about “Progress in Our Town.” Certainly, Putnam used extremely anecdotal and subjective observations, but still his premise is valid - Springfield has more business and more jobs. One need only look around at the new buildings being built, sure we’re not a ‘gold town’ but we’re not a ghost town either. Then there’s the job growth, with more than 2 million jobs created and record unemployment, in the face of the Left’s projections of massive unemployment and millions of lost jobs. They had the same information the Bush team did, how did they come up with their doom-and-gloom? I ‘just don’t get it.’ Likewise, the economy, while not as great as we might like it (is it ever?), is still by any measure doing well. The “Bush tax cuts” did not destroy us, but have brought on “an unexpected leap in tax revenue” as reported by the New York Times (not FOX News). Yes, Bush gave us deficits with even greater social spending, but on top of the wreckage of our military in the wake of Clinton/Gore’s ‘peace dividend,’ Bush faced the recession that the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Wall Street Journal, and CNN (note: I didn’t mention FOX News again), as well as most other leading economists now lay at the feet of Clinton/Gore. So, despite the tax cuts, the tax dividend, and the military and social spending the Bush Administration still gets to crow about reducing the Federal deficit by nearly 25% in 2004!

It’s true - I ‘just don’t get it.’ How otherwise intelligent persons can simply shut off all critical thinking, ignore the preponderance of evidence, and place political gain over the needs of the country is just beyond me. But then, I don’t really like the taste of kool aid. Go figure. I think I prefer my kind of not-getting-it to the black-and-white dogmatic ignorance of my critics, so I’ll just continue to not get it.’ Thank you very much.

Bolton

2005-08-10T08:41:00.000-07:00

The Senate of the United States failed to confirm John Bolton for the post of United Nations ambassador. President George W. Bush gave him the job just the same in a recess appointment. The leaders of the Democratic Party, Senators Harry Reid, Edward Kennedy, Charles Schumer, John Kerry, and Christopher Dodd, speaking for the large part of their party, described Bolton as “a flawed and weakened candidate” and “damaged goods.” Further illustrating the talking-points-memo mentality, they each managed to refer to the appointment as an “abuse of power” by the President.

“And now,” as Paul Harvey is wont to say, “for the rest of the story.” Before I get to the good stuff, let me dispense with the obvious and easy elements of this sordid tale. Nominee John Bolton had majority support and a simple majority is, and has always been, the deciding factor in appointment confirmations. The Senate Democrats filibustered this nominee. Let’s just forget, for the sake of argument, whether the filibuster was legitimate or not. When Harry Reid stands before the cameras and microphones to say that Bolton is “flawed and weakened” it is only because he lead the minority opposition to his confirmation and would not allow a vote to be taken. When Christopher “waitress sandwich” Dodd calls Bolton “damaged goods,” well, we have to consider the source. When Edward “Chappaquidick” Kennedy is sober enough to string three words like “abuse of power” together without slurring, that’s quite a moment. It’s a pity that John Kerry flunked poli-sci, or he could explain to Chuckie about Article I Section 3 and Article II Section 2 of the Constitution [for recent public school graduates, those are the parts granting the President the power to make recess appointments]. The proper response to the Democratic Senators is scorn and laughter. It IS an appropriate use of Presidential authority to fill the ambassadorship to the UN and to select the man of his choice. It WAS an unconscionable failure of the Democratic Senators to not do their job and vote especially for pure political gain. Furthermore, by appointing the man of his choice, President Bush has shown to the world at large and the other UN ambassadors specifically, that John Bolton is his man and speaks for him. No greater credibility could an Ambassador to the United Nations have.

What do you really know about John Bolton? Certainly you know that subordinates who don’t perform have been “taken to the woodshed” by him. There is the disproved rumor that he tried to force intelligence data to be skewed. There is also the oft repeated comment he made about the UN leadership: “If you lopped off the top ten stories of the UN, no one would notice.” Considering the performance of the United Nations, especially recently, what’s so wrong about that statement? The job of the United Nations is to promote peace and stability throughout the world. However, it was NATO that went to work in Bosnia while the UN looked the other way. Was it peace or stability that the UN was working on in Rawanda? How about that UN response in Darfur? The UN did a bang-up job in Mogadishu, Somalia. The Ivory Coast. Cyprus. Haiti. Those UN Peace keepers raping boys and girls in third world countries are sure working for their “piece.” The Oil-for-Food fiasco. Quite simply, the United Nations is a great concept in theory, but a really bad idea in practice: it is a truly democratic body where dictatorships are on an even footing with democracies and despots are given equal voice with elected governments. You might be surprised at how few free countries there are in the world and each of them is represented equally with the United States in the UN forum. It was only a few years ago, in May 2001, that the US was voted off of the UN Human Rights Commission while countries like Russia, India, Cuba, Syria, and even Iraq have been on it and even have held its chair! And in case you’ve forgotten, Kofi Annan and the governments of France, Russia, and China, (3 of the five permanent members of the Security Council) were all bribed (with UN Oil-for-Food money) to obstruct sanctions and vote against military intervention in Iraq.

Hoshyar Zebari addressed the Security Council on December 16, 2003 to say: “this Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable. The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over thirty-five years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure. The United Nations must not fail the Iraqi people again.” Zebari should know, he was a guerrilla fighter during Kurdish rebellions against Saddam Hussein and is now the Iraqi Foreign Minister. Left to its own devices the UN will not change, but a man like John Bolton could be a catalyst for change there.

There are things about Bolton that the Democratic Senators did not want the voters of the United States to know, things that many of the governments represented in the UN do know and respect. After the shooting war with the Hussein regime had started in March 2003, the Iraqis bought six GPS Jammers from our allies, the Russians. The jammers scrambled GPS signals thereby defeating our smart-bombs. It took over 3 weeks to locate and destroy them during which time our pilots and Iraqi civilians were exposed to greater danger. As Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton dealt with the Russians on the issue of the GPS Jammers and their other on going sanction-violating arms dealings with Saddam Hussein. In his no-nonsense (you could say brusque or abrupt) manner, Bolton faced down repeated Russian obfuscations and excuses, force-fed them the clear evidence of their dealings and got them to back off.

The State Department operates as a liason between the United States and other countries. This often creates a dichotomy for State Department officials: on the one hand, their mandate is to facilitate relations with other countries, while on the other, that mandate comes from the people of the United States. Its a little bit silly, but most citizens of the United States expect the State Department to work for them, not for the other countries. John Bolton is like most citizens and this caused friction with many career State Department employees - some of whom ran into conflicts with him over it and went on to testify against his nomination. One of those “conflicts” arose when the East Asia division of the State Department recommended more concessions for North Korea on its nuclear arms program and John Bolton, in his scrappy way, dug in against them and called for a hard-line with Pyongyang. Bolton had this foolish idea that the communists threatening our destruction couldn’t be trusted, especially after they did so well with the criminally foolish Carter/Clinton Agreed Framework of 1994.

Another quirky contest arose between the career State Department types and John Bolton when he wanted to speak out about Syria’s illegal weapons programs and its sanction-violating aid to Iraq. State didn’t want to jeopardize a burgeoning relationship with Damascus and tried to gag Bolton. Rather than play the game, Bolton went to speak to the House International Relations subcommittee: “Syria allowed military equipment to flow into Iraq on the eve of and during the war...Syria permitted volunteers to pass into Iraq to attack and kill our service members during the war, and is still doing so...its behavior during Operation Iraqi Freedom underscores the importance of taking seriously reports and information on Syria’s weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities.” So much for Syrian co-operation, yet many happen to believe that recognizing the enemy is better than being stabbed in the back. Syrian “volunteers” didn’t jibe with the Senate Democrats’ description of the terrorists as insurgents and Iraqi freedom fighters, so they avoided all mention of Bolton’s testimony from less than two years previous.

Someone said: “While Iran has consistently denied any program to build nuclear weapons, the IAEA has amassed an enormous amount of evidence to the contrary that makes this denial increasingly implausible. In what can only be an attempt to build a capacity to develop nuclear weapons, Iran has enriched uranium...and produced and reprocessed plutonium. It attempted to cover its tracks by repeatedly and over many years neglecting to report it’s activities, and in many instances providing false declarations to the IAEA...the real issue now is whether the Board of Governors will remain together in its insistence that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is illegitimate, or whether Iranian efforts to split the Board through economic incentives and aggressive propaganda will succeed.” Can you imagine such language - strong and resolute - at the United Nations? That statement came from John Bolton and he will take that clear-speaking attitude and put it where it might do some good. It is well beyond time that the thugs of the world were clearly identified and held under the spotlight.

The Proliferation Security Initiative is a new and innovative program involving many nations to take the fight to the proliferators of weapons. It involves actively interdicting and combating the weapons transfers as they happen. After decades of detente and discussion, sanctions and appeasement, it is a bold move and long overdue. The man responsible for the Proliferation Security Initiative is John Bolton. This is the fractious, arrogant, uncompromising individual that the Senate Democrats say is “damaged goods” and a “flawed and weakened candidate,” totally unacceptable for the post of Ambassador to the United Nations. To them, I say, “feh!” The monolithic USSR that Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jeane Kirkpatrick had to contend with and maneuver around in the UN no longer exists. Today’s UN is a more hands-on place. Rather than one large opponent pulling the strings of many little ones, there are many little opponents trying to puff themselves up to superpower status. What is needed is a roll-up-his-sleeves get-his-hands-dirty ambassador, someone who’s not afraid to speak up and speak out, to call a tyrant a tyrant.

Any real review of his record shows John Bolton is such a man. Had the Senate Democrats been more attuned to the needs of the country and less attuned to the demands of their funders in the political action groups, the Moveon.orgs, the NARALs, the likes of Ralph Neas and George Soros, they would have confirmed John Bolton or at least let him come to a vote. Having cleared the confirmation committee, Bolton was due a vote and it was purely partisan politics, the need to deny George W. Bush any successes, that stood in the way. In the end, the Democrats will have to answer for their obstructions at the ballot box soon enough and John Bolton goes to the UN anyway.

If it makes you feel better

2005-08-04T08:32:00.000-07:00

On my way out of Shaw’s the other day, I happened to notice the Bellows Falls Town Crier. I had never seen it before, so I took a moment for a closer look. I was in for a rare treat. In very small print beneath the banner line is printed “PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER USING SOYBASED COLORED INKS.” I couldn’t help myself from almost falling over in laughter. Very few statements could be more indicative of the blindness inherent in the environmentalist mentality.

I guess that the producers and readers of the Town Crier feel better about their paper for being so environmentally aware and concerned. I wonder if they realize that they are contributing to the destruction of the Amazon Rain Forest. While it is true that loggers rip into the Rain Forest, it is a false assumption that they strip it away. Loggers ‘cherry-pick’ only the precious hardwoods while leaving the vast majority of valueless trees standing. Far more destructive are the farmers who clear cut and burn down the forests for their ranches and farms. The fires they caused in 2004 alone sent into the atmosphere some 200 million tons of carbon emissions, which is more than twice the total emissions of Brazil itself. How this relates back to the Town Crier, and environmentalists in general, is that the largest export of Brazil, the crop consuming the greatest acreage of Rain Forest, is soy. So when I see all the environmentally-friendly and health-conscious soy-based products, I just have to laugh myself silly.

The level of junk-science in the environmental movement is another thing I can always count on to bring a smile and make me shake my head. Recently, ‘scientists’ like Ruth Curry from Woods Hole and Cecilie Mauritzen from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute have used modeling and analysis to project glacial melt and climate change into a fresh water conversion of the oceans. They “calculated that an extra 19,000 cubic kilometers of water flowed into and diluted the northern seas between 1965 and 1995.” By comparison, it is pointed out that the Mississippi dumps 500 cubic kilometers and the Amazon 5,000 cubic kilometers per year. So let’s compare: 19,000 cubic kilometers versus 165,000 cubic kilometers. Rational people might call that a drop in the bucket. In fact, they have to admit that “no significant change...has yet been observed,” but Curry warns that “given the projected 21st Century rise in greenhouse gas concentrations and increased fresh water input to the high-latitude ocean, we cannot rule out a significant slowing of the Atlantic conveyor in the next 100 years.” Of course, they predict, that this global warming trend could “plunge the planet into a global cooling event.”

How about the study from the University of Maryland Baltimore County by Dylan Powell? “Most people have heard of climate change and how rising air temperatures are melting glaciers and sea ice in the Arctic. However, findings from our simulations suggests a counterintuitive phenomenon. Some of the melt in the Arctic may be balanced by increases in sea ice volume in the Antarctic...We used computer-generated simulations to get this research result.” Of course, this study contradicts other global warming studies that suggests glaciers in Antarctica are melting faster than ever before. Powell’s study and the one’s he contradicts are all contradicted by the study done by Greg Holloway and Tessa Sou for the Institute of Ocean Studies, Sidney BC, Canada. Holloway and Sou did not rely on computer-generated data rather they used information collected by actual people on actual submarines performing actual studies on real Arctic Sea ice. Of course, the actual data does not support global warming, so that data is ignored for computer-generated data that does.

One recent solution for global warming reminded me of those wonderfully campy 60s sci-fi movies. Star Technology and Research, Inc president Jerome Pearson suggests a Saturn-like ring of debris, satellites, or space craft around the Earth to reflect some sunlight back into space, shading “the tropics primarily, providing maximum effectiveness in cooling the warmest parts of our planet.” One wonders if they’ve considered the consequence of changing the amount of sunlight reaching those areas where our largest forests exist and how that shade would alter the growth of those forests and further altering the role of those forests in creating breathable air. It also occurs, with common sense, that such a ring would reflect sunlight, much like the moon, providing a greater source of solar radiation throughout the night where one didn’t exist before. Which brings us to the next ‘great brain’ observation from the New Scientist. “Three top climate researchers,” the report says, “claim that greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere should have warmed the world more than they have. The reason they have not, they say, is that the warming is being masked by sun-blocking smoke, dust and other polluting particles put into the air by human activity.” In simple, clear language, the report tells us that global warming will be increase as we clean up air pollution. But wait, we’ve been told for decades now that global warming is being caused by air pollution. Of course, that’s over-simplifying, clear skies aren’t healthy, no, they’re the quickest route to global warming. And to make it even better, Meinrat Andreae, Peter Cox, and Chris Jones from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the UN, suggest with straight faces that as the skies clear and global warming proceeds, “soils and forests will stop absorbing carbon dioxide and start releasing it instead.” That would be quite a trick and I’d like to see it. What the Terrible Trio didn’t say was that humans and other animals will start breathing carbon dioxide instead of exhaling it! I mean, it’s just as likely as plants completely reversing their breathing cycle, isn’t it? Such credibility could only come from the United Nations.

We just can’t win. In the late 1800s the scare was global cooling and an approaching Ice Age. That was followed by a world so polluted as to be unable to sustain human life ‘as we know it!’ Then there was Nuclear Winter. That was replaced with global warming. Now we’ve got splinter groups running the whole gamut of destruction including a global warming trend that leads to global cooling. It isn’t as if there’s a consensus among scientists. Despite the environmentalist movement’s claims that “most scientists agree,” the simple truth is that most scientists do not agree, most are silent on the topic, many out of a fear of reprisals from the ideologically dedicated. Robert Roy Britt, reporting on the “Space Ring” mentioned above, noted that “those who are often called experts admit to glaring gaps in their knowledge of how all this works. A study [from May 2005] revealed that scientists can’t pin down one of the most critical keys: how much sunlight our planet absorbs versus how much is reflected back into space.” Now, you’d think that would be an important piece of information you’d want to “pin down” before you run off like Chicken Little.

That “Space Ring” is estimated to cost between $500 billion and $200 trillion. In comparison, Kyoto was projected to cost $150 billion world-wide. Consider how much is spent in research and conferences, not to mention political action and news reporting, on global warming and similar controversial environmental issues. Using the simple rubric of “follow the money,” it becomes easier to see the environmental movement for what it truly is: a vast effort to create credibility for people who would otherwise be laughed into obscurity and provide income and job security for people who would otherwise have nothing to do.

Where's The Beef?

2005-07-27T08:50:00.000-07:00

You may recall an old commercial, I think for Wendy’s, in which an old lady looks at competitor’s hamburgers and asks “Where’s the beef?” The comment became so popular that Walter Mondale used it in his presidential run. I think it’s fair to ask that question now vis-a-vis the current culture crisis going on in this country. So let’s look at some meat-and-potatoes issues.

Bush lied about Saddam’s WMDs, but Kerry was telling the truth when he said in January of 2003, “If you don’t believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me,” and Bill Clinton was telling the truth when he said, “I did not have sex with that woman...Miss Lewinski.”

Karl Rove exposed the identity of a secret agent who used her own cover name and that of her CIA front company to make a personal donation of $1,000 to the 2000 Gore campaign (that’s public info), who was identified by an FSB (formerly KGB) agent in Moscow over ten years ago, and (even more recently) was outed by the CIA itself in documents given to the Swiss Embassy in Havana and somehow passed to Cuban intelligence.

Bush promises that anyone who breaks the law will no longer work in his administration and Harry Reid demands Bush hold to his promise to fire anyone related to the leak.

John Bolton is righteously decried by Chris Dodd as unfit for the position of ambassador to the UN for his “kiss up/kick down” attitude but he welcomes Hillary Clinton to the Senate after she destroyed the career and personal finances of Billy Dale in order to give his job to a friend.

George W. Bush was derided for joining the National Guard and learning to fly dangerous high-tech fighter aircraft rather than go to Vietnam, but John Kerry got a pass for requesting a year-long deferment to continue his post-graduate studies in Paris.

Dan Rather and his media friends attempt to destroy Bush with forged documents claiming he was AWOL, but Brandon Hughey and Jeremy Hinzman are regaled as heroes for going AWOL, deserting their units, and defecting to Canada.

Sandy Berger steals top secret documents about Clinton’s involvement in 9/11 from the National Archives and destroys them, for which he is likely to get a stern talking-to and a $10,000 fine. Howard Harner steals about 100 Civil War letters and gets two years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid commented that Alberto Gonzales would likely win confirmation for O’Connor’s vacant Supreme Court seat and that Senate Democrats would not filibuster him. The same Harry Reid found Gonzales unfit to be Attorney General as did all but 6 of the other Democrats.

The Democratic National Committee said Bush lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, but they didn’t mention that the job loss started under Bill Clinton. Nor do they comment now that there are more Americans working now than have ever been and that the American economy has produced over 2 million jobs just his year alone and that unemployment has fallen to 5.0 %, which is better than at any time during the Clinton Administration.

John Kerry said during his campaign that the jobs being created in this country were “hamburger-flipper jobs” but the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed increased employment for construction workers and professionals in health-care and business management and showed little growth at all in lower paying job sectors.

Bush was criticized for cutting taxes while waging a war and ballooning the federal deficit but, as the New York Times reported, “an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.”

The revenue increase was “unexpected” by NYT perhaps, but not by anyone who pays attention. JFK did it and so did Reagan - lowering taxes increases revenues. As in each example, the prevailing liberal Democratic wisdom isn’t something you’d want to bet the farm on. So, where’s the beef?

Credibility

2005-07-20T09:05:00.000-07:00

Think back to the Kerry campaigns. We were told: “Bush is a moron” and that Kerry had released ALL his documents. Well, on June 7, 2005, nearly two years after the campaign ended and over a year after the election, Kerry finally releases more, but still not all, of his records. During the campaign, Gaddis Smith, professor of diplomatic history at Yale who taught Kerry, described him as “the one who stood out.” In June 2005, Smith was confronted with Kerry’s actual grades from Yale and he issued this correction: “I thought he was a good student. Those aren’t very good grades.” As a freshman, Kerry’s GPA was a skin-of-the-teeth C (a 71). That year the political genius who hoped to be President got four Ds: one in geology, two in history and the fourth in political science ~ so much for the political genius. As a sophomore, Kerry’s GPA was a D. His graduating average was a 76; surely not the “best and brightest” as advertised by his Democratic supporters and peers. George W. Bush, on the other hand, readily admitted being a poor student, was vilified as a “frat boy” by Kerry et al., but got only one D in all his four years. His graduating GPA was 77. Bush gets no points for good grades, but he does win this round for credibility.

The majority of the Democratic party has gone on the war path over Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. Charges of prisoner abuse and torture abound. The position of the party is that these prisons have caused terrorist attacks around the world and drawn foreign terrorists into the Iraq theater. Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, the second highest ranking Democrat in the country, has stated in plain language that Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and Bush’s war in Iraq caused the attacks in London. Rather than heap scorn on Pelosi and beat her from Washington with a switch, Democrats applaud her ludicrous and totally unsubstantiated assertions. Did the war in Iraq, Gitmo, or Abu Ghraib cause the 3/11, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, the first World Trade Center bombing or the 9/11 attacks? Obviously not. Has Nancy Pelosi read Osama bin Laden’s ‘declaration of war’ on the United States? Apparently not. Credibility again goes to the Republicans.

Durban, Pelosi, and the majority of Democrats lambaste the administration and the soldiers as torturers. They further claim that we must give “enemy combatants” rights and privileges under the Geneva Convention that they clearly are not due on the grounds that our soldiers will be at risk if they become POWs. Apart from being morally vacant, these charges are ludicrous on the merits. Long before Gitmo, the US Embassy in Iran was taken by force - an act of war - and American civilians, as well as military personnel, were held, interrogated and tortured for 444 days. That is how our POWs will be treated. In the Persian Gulf War, Major Rhonda Cornum was captured by Iraqi troops. She suffered severe injuries but that didn’t prevent her being sexually molested by an Iraqi soldier. That is how our POWs will be treated. In the current war in Iraq, Sargent Shoshana Johnson was shot in the ankle before being captured: “I was beaten. They slapped me and punched me in my stomach and back. I remember trying to block a blow from a rifle butt.” That is how our POWs ARE being treated. Also, in the current Iraq war, Jessica Lynch was captured and raped while unconscious from her wounds. That is how our POWs ARE being treated. Nick Berg, who was a civilian contractor in Iraq providing aid and support to the citizens of Iraq, was kidnapped and beheaded on video. This is how our POWs ARE being treated. Oops, no points for the Democrats again.

Rather than repeat Karl Rove again, I’ll quote the liberal actor Ron Silver: “There are pre-9/11 people and there are post-9/11 people.” The day before 9/11, Jennie Traschen, a professor at University of Massachusetts, gave a speech in which she described the American flag as “a symbol of terrorism and death and fear and destruction and oppression.” Shortly after the planes hit, another professor on the other side of the country, Ward Churchill, described the people working in the WTC as “the little Eichmanns” and noted they deserved what they got. Shirley McLaine’s response to the planes hitting the Twin Towers was to “melt their weapons, melt their hearts, melt their anger with love.” Richard Gere saw the hijackers as “a relative who’s dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion.” Norman Mailer admired the hijackers, observing that “Americans can’t admit that you need courage to do such a thing.” McLaine, Gere, and Mailer made their comments while the ruins still smoked and bodies were still being pulled from the wreckage. More recently, Michael Duffy, who co-wrote the discredited Time expose of Gitmo, had this gem: “So, you know...the hijackers – 19 of whom have died and we’ll never really get to know [them] – were children...convinced that this was a good way to spend their time...” When this genius was called on his bleeding-heart concern for murderous fanatics, he responded, “I don’t feel sorry for them. It’s the implication here that we somehow, you know, feel sorry for them. I don’t know where that comes from.” Go ahead, pull the other one. The reporters still have press-passes, the professors are still teaching, and the Hollywood elites are still well regarded. No calls for ‘sensitivity training,’ no hisses from the audiences; these people speak from the heart of their ideology. Give me a ‘mean-spirited Republican’ every time, thank you very much.

Speaking of ideology, exactly what is the Liberal Democrat ideology? The new rising star of the Democratic Party put it better than anyone I’ve ever heard. On July 9th, at a town-hall fundraiser at the Macedonia Missionary Baptist Church, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) said, “the Democrats at times have lost their way. We are trying to decide what our core values are.” It’s simply too perfect. He believes steadfastly in the ‘separation of church and state’ but holds fundraisers in a church, but that’s probably just a belief and not really a ‘core value.’ If you’re looking for someone with a finger on the pulse of the Democratic Party look no further than Doug Sosnik, who worked as a political director and strategist for Bill Clinton. Sosnik, way back in November 2004, said “the leadership of our party has a cultural disconnect. Our leaders – particularly Washington D.C.-based – don’t really have the same life, day to day, as all those people out there in those red states...We can’t figure out a better way to sell to those people.” John Edwards was quoted by the Washington Post on June 15, 2005, saying that the leaders of the Democratic party need "a core set of beliefs [that they are] willing to fight for, whether they're popular or not." Apparently, they were listening because the Boston Globe reported on June 30, 2005, that “House and Senate Democrats...have held a series of long, closed-door meetings over the past several weeks to find a common position and a sharpened political message on the Iraq War.” It’s not that difficult folks, if you had “core values,” your position would be clear. The article goes on to give a ‘Keystone Kops’ reprise of the various ideas the politicos have, from complete and instant withdrawal to increasing troop strength! Rising as the voice of reason, Hillary Clinton “warned that an intense, public debate over Iraq could bitterly divide the nation.” [Hint: the Washington Post reported on June 28, 2005, that nearly 88% of Americans believe the US must stay in Iraq “until civil order is restored - a goal most...acknowledge is, at best, several years away.”] Wesley Clark summed it up almost as well as Obama did: “It’s not realistic for Democrats to have a coherent voice.” Hey, I don’t make this stuff up. Republicans don’t need to have meetings to determine their core values, nor do they need meetings to corral the party and lock them into march-step. Republicans don’t sell to the voters, we just speak from the heart and be exactly who we are. It’s called credibility, or if you like, integrity.

Speaking of integrity, what is it with Democrats and ‘selective outrage?’ Democrats chant “Bush Lied” as if it’s some mantra, as if repeating it often enough will somehow make it true. Where are the Democrats chanting “Clinton Lied,” or “Chirac Lied,” or “Putin Lied,” or “Kofi Lied,” or any of the other over-a-hundred world leaders who said exactly what Bush said. It’s simply politically expedient to condemn Bush, not because he actually lied, but because he’s in the White House and they want him out. Clinton actually did lie and the Democrats told us that was OK - go figure. Tom DeLay is being pilloried for a variety of issues, most of which have already been essentially dismissed by the Ethics committee. The current flap involves a trip he took that was paid for by Jack Abramoff personally rather than by the National Center for Public Policy Research. It should be noted that DeLay reported this trip and the records show clearly that he had every reason to believe it was paid for by the non-profit. DeLay’s greatest critic is Nancy Pelosi who tried to hide her own disclosure of trips taken up to 7 years ago on Friday, July 1, 2005. The rule is that she should have filed within 30 days of the trip, but she didn’t - what was she trying to hide? How about a 1999 trip to Taiwan for a week for her and her husband costing over $4,640 paid for by the Chinese National Association of Industry and Commerce - anyone heard of Unocal? Then there’s Howard Dean. He’s a doctor right? On May 24, 2005, he told Tim Russert on national TV: “You know that abortions have gone up 25 percent since George Bush was President?” Of course, this was a flat out lie and worse because as a doctor he knew it was a lie. Kerry said the same thing before him, and Hillary before Kerry - say it often enough and it becomes true, right? How about Dean on war - - in a personal letter to Bill Clinton dated July 19, 1995, Dean “concluded that we must take unilateral action” in Bosnia on moral grounds. Of course, his morality changes in 2003 when it’s a Republican President going to war in Iraq. In 2005, Dean calls for immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq but doesn’t mind leaving them in Bosnia. Karl Rove recycles a rumor about the wife of Joe Wilson, who is NOT a covert agent, but an analyst, and IS widely known as working for the CIA and the Democrats are out with pitchforks and torches to destroy the monster. Where was this outrage when the Clintons had Paula Jones’ tax returns given to the press, or Linda Tripp’s personnel file from the Pentagon, or when the US District Court found that the Clintons criminally violated the Privacy Act to silence Kathleen Willey? A little closer to home, Democrats serially re-elect Patrick Leahy despite the fact that his exposure of top secret intelligence on national TV got an Egyptian agent killed. There’s a pattern here, can you see it?t6

Not all Democrats are without character, integrity, and credibility. There’s Zell Miller, for one. Given the track record of the party as a whole though, I seriously have to question the veracity of any self-declared Democrat. The leadership of the Party believes that to win elections they have to sell themselves and their message and when they lose they have to “figure out a better way to sell.” The rank-and-file brainlessly ignore the facts when they are clear for all to see and shamelessly repeat the talking points of the day. If this gets Democrats angry - GREAT! But before they drag out the pitchforks and torches, they should sit down with a pen and paper and answer the issues point for point; respond with reason and fact, instead of emotion and dogma. That would be the credible thing to do.

Krafty Words

2005-07-13T09:00:00.000-07:00

Mr. Kraft is worried about my credibility again and for that I thank him. He suggests that I turn off FOX and turn on NPR. He thinks that I should be critical of Republicans in order to meet some criteria of fairness and balance. If the truth be told, I was planning on treating him to a review of the various Republican ‘bad boys’ (as I see them). There are Republicans who philander, lie, cheat, and steal. I wasn’t gong to just blast Mr. Kraft and expose his feeble-mindedness. But, in the immortal words of John Wayne: “the hell I won’t!”

If the best Mr. Kraft (and my other critics) can do is to cry in their coffee about how one-sided my “attacks” are, then it is incumbent upon them to either own up to the fact that their side is exactly as I’ve described them, or respond to my “attacks” and prove me wrong. Months ago, Mr. Kraft called me on the carpet about my observations on the performance of the Springfield School District. He demanded an apology, but he never got around to disproving the statistics I quoted from the Town Report - statistics that came directly from the schools themselves.

Mr. Kraft’s assertion that NPR is more “fair and balanced” than FOX News is another bit of tired, liberal dogma that just makes me shake my head. It is highly doubtful that Mr. Kraft ever has watched FOX News for any length of time, much less long enough to draw a rational conclusion. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and NPR and the rest of the ‘mainstream media’ regularly lob broadsides against FOX. It is to their advantage to do so: news is business and in business you must obliterate your competition. As consumers, it is incumbent upon us to work through the advertising. Clearly, Mr. Kraft has failed to do this. If he had, he would have learned that Juan Williams and Mara Liason, both highly placed in NPR, are regular commentators on the Brit Hume segment. Despite being regularly cast as a conservative, Bill O’Rielly considers himself a moderate and his show never casts a Republican without giving equal time to a Democrat. O’Rielly is often highly critical of the Bush Administration. There would be no Hannity & Colmes show without the extremely liberal and proudly Democratic Alan Colmes. Despite being a Republican, Sean Hannity regularly invites his friends liberal Democrats Charles Rangle and Al Sharpton and gives them ample time to speak their minds. Before I ever let a partisan movie like “OutFOXed” make up my mind about where I get my information from, I’m damn-sure going to go out there and get both sides. I watched all the major news networks and listened to NPR for years before I settled in at FOX and I still get most of my news from a variety of independent sources including foreign news agencies.

It is intellectually vapid of Mr. Kraft to assert that my credibility is diminished because I focus on the failings of the Democratic Party and Liberalism without giving “equal time” to bashing Republicans. The majority of other contributors to the Springfield Reporter, from editorials to political cartoons, to letters to the editor, engage in “Bush-bashing” and anti-Republicans rants. Howard Dean says “Republicans have never worked an honesty day in their lives,” speaking about ALL Republican, not just the leadership as he tried to spin his comments later. Where is Mr. Kraft’s condemnation of these others? It is typical of the Left to slip into the “politics of personal destruction,” when they are challenged. Neither Kraft, nor anyone else thus far, has even attempted with any degree of clarity to debunk anything I’ve written. The response to anything critical of the Left is to make ad hominem attacks unrelated to the facts of the issue, to decry the unfairness of “giving so much space” to the critic, and to try the moral relativism of saying, “well, your side has done bad stuff, too!”

Mr. Kraft suggests I look to Watergate and I wish he would. For decades, Nixon’s name has been trashed, yet as we approach the time frame where history is gaining enough perspective to see clearly, it’s becoming much more obvious that what we’ve been led to believe (by Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Bob Woodward) just ain’t so. What do we know about Nixon? Well, when he lost to Kennedy in 1960 in an election rife with legitimate charges of Democratic electoral fraud, then-Vice President Nixon did not go to court and hold up the transfer of power for six weeks. Once he did gain office, Nixon did what earlier Democratic Presidents before him had done. President Lyndon B. Johnson, through Bill Moyers, illegally used the FBI to plant bugs on his political opponents Barry Goldwater (and his staffers) and Robert F. Kennedy. That’s Bill Moyers, who till recently was the power at the “politically balanced” NPR. We’ve learned that much of “All The President’s Men” is suspect and that the ‘reporting’ of The Washington Post was sketchy at best. The source of the information used to “bring down” the President was a disgruntled employee who broke the law to do as much damage as he possibly could. Moreover, that same “hero” then proceeded to do exactly what the “plumbers” did and was caught and convicted. Sadly, a Republican President pardoned him. It would be sweet justice if Mark Felt, Woodward, and Bernstein were tried for the Federal crimes they committed or at least for bribery - it doesn’t matter that the payoff of the bribe comes decades after the crime: should Felt get any money for his story, it would be the payoff. I wouldn’t suggest jail time, only the conviction because then he couldn’t get any money out of it. Somehow, I don’t think that Mr. Kraft sees this the way I do and the way that I believe history will.

I am sure Mr. Kraft would disagree with the following statements, but I believe them to be true. “September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries....There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated...Saddam’s government has contact with many international terrorist organizations...He could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups...if Saddam thought he could attack America through proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might not think it so irrational...The fact that Zarqawi certainly is related to the death of the U.S. aid officer and that he is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda...September 11 has forever changed the world. We may not like it, but that is the world in which we live. When there is a grave threat to Americans’ lives, we have a responsibility to take action to prevent it.” These are the same words George W. Bush has used in many statements since September 11, 2001, BUT this is not his statement. The quote belongs to Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) made on the floor of the Senate on October 10, 2002 and again on CNN on February 5, 2003 to Wolf Blitzer. At the end of June this year, the same person who made the previous statements said Iraq “had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, it had nothing to do with al-Qaida, it had nothing to do with September 11.” I leave it to the reader to determine the character of Senator Rockefeller - “the hell I will!” Only a moral reprobate who cares for nothing but his own aggrandizement could hold both of these positions. George W. Bush has never connected September 11 with Saddam Hussein except to point out that Iraq is the next front in the War on Terror. It is the trademark hypocrisy and shame of the Democratic leadership that they “banged the drums of war” when the tide of the country washed over them but with its ebb, they went right back to demoralizing rhetoric and self-aggrandizing accusations.

I could go on, but I’ve reached saturation for today. The reason I changed tacks and decided to address Mr. Kraft directly rather than indulge his childish notion of ‘balance’ is because I got up early this morning (July 7, 2005) to the news of the major terrorist strike in London, England. Why do I hold Mr. Kraft and the Democrat Party in such high disregard? I think I’ll let Michael Moore and Woody Allen speak for me. Shortly after 9/11, Moore told an audience: “There is no terrorist threat.” The Democratic Party enthroned Moore at their 2004 Convention and continue to buy his books and watch his movies. On June 28, 2005, Woody Allen added this gem to the political debate: 9/11 is “too small, history overwhelms it...The history of the world is like: He kills me, I kill him, only with different cosmetics and different castings. So in 2001, some fanatics killed some Americans, and now some Americans are killing some Iraqis...And in my childhood, some Nazis killed some Jews. And now, some Jewish people and some Palestinians are killing each other. Political questions, if you go back thousands of years, are ephemeral, not important. History is the same thing over and over again.” Of course, Allen didn’t have the balls to say this in America, he said it in Germany to Der Spiegel. I doubt his movies would suffer much if he had said it here. Karl Rove was right: “Liberals do not understand the significance of 9/11.”

In closing I should like to quote Dick Durban: “Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies.”

Lie of the Party

2005-07-06T08:59:00.000-07:00

Frankly, I’m at my wit’s end. I can’t imagine being a Democrat today. How do you look at yourselves in the mirror? Democrats tout themselves as the party of the people. Time after time, I hear, I’m a Democrat because they stand for the little guy like me. It’s a good slogan, if only it were true.

Your second-highest ranking political representative compares the United States to Soviet Gulags, Nazis, and the Khmer Rouge and you don’t call for his resignation! In fact, you lie through your teeth to defend him! Dick Durbin was reading a prepared statement, so Harry Reid’s excuse that his comments were extemporaneous does not fly. Nor did his “apology” retract the comparison - he only apologized to those people whose feelings he hurt. His comments were aired on Al Jazeera the day after he made them, so again his defenders lie when they blame Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity for promoting the backlash. These are your Senators, yet you do nothing about them. When Trent Lott made a stupid, relatively innocuous, and completely extemporaneous comment off the Senate floor, outside the confines of his Senate work, at a birthday party he was castigated and forced to step down by his own party. There is no outrage on the Left for Durban - you guys circled the wagons around him - meanwhile Durban’s words are used to goad and justify more attacks on Americans. So much for the “party of the people.”

Last week, my family went to Washington, DC on vacation. I can tell you from personal experience that Dick Durbin is either a complete idiot or a bald-faced liar. The Capitol sits at 1st and Independence Avenues. Ten blocks away, at 15th and Independence Avenue, stands the Holocaust Memorial Museum. A few blocks beyond that lies the World War II Memorial, a short walk beyond that, the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and, just around the end of the Reflecting Pool, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. It would take no more than a brief after-lunch break for Durbin to see his comments for what they are, but I don’t think he really needs it - I think he knows the truth and doesn’t believe a word he himself uttered. So why say them? Simply, he can’t regain power with the truth, so he lies. The Democratic Party has held all three branches of Government for almost as long as anyone alive can remember. They have been steadily losing that hegemony for over a decade. Now they hold dominance only in the Supreme Court. The truth wouldn’t help Dick Durbin, so he lied. So much for the “party of the people.”

Why not? Democrats have been lying for ages and it has always worked for them up to now. Democrats are for the little guy and against the big corporations, right? How is it then that all five liberal justices on the Supreme Court sided with government and big corporations and the four conservative justices stood with .the little guy? The liberal activists on the Supreme Court simply voided the restrictions of the Fifth Amendment as it pertains to property rights. Say what you like, but private property rights are unarguably the cornerstone of American liberty. Now, as conservative Justice Scalia said in dissent, “I can just take anyone’s property away and give it to whomever I like.” In celebration of the new powers granted to government by the Supreme Court, I move that the Town of Springfield condemn the property of William O. Moeser at 64 Chester Road so we can convert it from a private home to a new police station, or perhaps a homeless shelter. I am sure that Mr. Moeser would be thrilled to find a new home, since his interpretation of the Constitution as a living document to be interpreted “expansively” was just upheld. The “little guys” in New London, Connecticut, have just been sold down the river by the liberal agenda, their homes will be torn down to make way for a mall, all in the name of greater tax revenue for the city. So much for the “party of the people.”

I have been following this case for some time and heard about the decision while passing through Connecticut on the way to my weekend in Washington. I immediately got on the cell phone and called the offices of Bernie Sanders, Jim Jeffords, and Patrick Leahy. I implored the staffer in each office to express to their boss the urgent need to address this issue. I asked that each speak out on the floor of his branch of Congress. When I returned home, I learned - not much to my surprise - that not one of the liberal Democrat representatives from Vermont spoke out against this decision (yes, Bernie and Jim are Democrats - just look at their voting records). While my representatives were missing-in-action, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) stood up in the Senate to decry the abuse of power. So much for the “party of the people.”

On June 13, 2005, the Senate passed a resolution to apologize for lynching. What a crock! It is typical liberal-all-flash-and-no-substance rhetoric and a waste of time and energy. Throughout the judicial nomination and Bolton filibusters, the Democratic leadership was castigating Republicans for wasting so much time and distracting the Senate from the important work of the American people. With the obstructionist sluice-gates open the Senate rushed forth to pass this resolution that is SO important to America at this time. We’ve got energy and fuel problems, budget concerns, foreign trade issues, not to mention a war, but thank God we’ve now apologized for lynchings. I’ve got a news-flash for you - my family has never, ever been involved in a lynching and I don’t think it’s right for my taxes to be wasted on such NONSENSE! Lynchings happened, they were wrong, but the time to have apologized is long since passed and it’s time people were told to get over it and get on with their lives. Members of my family were slaughtered in the concentration camps (you know, like the ones that Dick Durbin said America is currently running) in Nazi Germany - I neither want nor need Germans to apologize for that. I have family that were murdered in Cuba by Castro’s illegitimate and illegal regime - I neither expect nor want him to apologize for that. Apologies don’t do a damn thing. The brutal truth, the actual history, is that till the 1960s, the Democratic Party (you know, those guys who filibustered Civil Rights laws) blocked all attempts to make lynching illegal. It’s a fact, look it up. So much for the “party of the people.”

It’s so easy for the Democratic Party to sweep their dirty laundry under the rug forty years later and simply produce a weak and limp apology for their heinous behavior. But that’s what the Democratic Party does best. After months of almost nonstop criticism of the Guantanimo Bay Prison, replete with baseless and erroneous reports in Newsweek, New York Times, and other media about abuses alleged by the prisoners (who are trained to manipulate the media by making false accusations), the Democratic critics finally went to see the place for themselves. ( Call me foolish, but I’d have gone to check it out BEFORE I criticized, but that’s just me.) Had these Congresspersons returned with horror stories of abuse and torture, we’d have heard about it ad nauseum. The fact is, these pathetic individuals returned cowed and quiet, softly expressing the fact that “this wasn’t the Gitmo that’s been described to us,” as one Representative put it. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), ever the loyal toe-the-liberal-line toady, could only muster the observation that “this proves we’ve made progress.” PATHETIC! The terrorists infesting Iraq videotape beheadings, demand ransoms, stage mass executions, car-bomb markets, make suicide bombers of retarded children - and they do all this to innocent civilians, not soldiers! But our noble and brave Democrats want us to “close Gitmo” so these people will treat our POWs better. News Flash: terrorist attacks and atrocities occurred BEFORE Gitmo was built and they’re going to continue whether it’s there or not. Is it that Democrats care more for terrorists than for Americans? No, I wouldn’t say that (unless I were angry); rather, Democrats are willing to take whatever position, no matter how extreme, in opposition to their opponent - which in this case happens to be Republicans and not terrorists. So much for the “party of the people.”

I am proud to be a Conservative and I’m proud to be a Republican. I recognize and admit that both conservatives and Republicans have done stupid, bad, illegal, and even unpatriotic things. When we find out, we Republicans punish them. That just doesn’t seem to happen on the other side of the aisle. Democrats excuse their offenders, occasionally with a mild rebuke or a ‘time-out’, but more often than not, Democrats circle the wagons and defend their reprobates with their politics of personal destruction. If she were a Republican, Hillary Clinton would have been ostracized and sent into obscurity. By contrast, the Democrats are likely to run her for President, yet her reputation for “kiss up, kick down” is much more serious than John Bolton’s. Senator Dodd (D-CT) said that barred him from “holding a high government office,” but he doesn’t move for impeachment of Senator Clinton and will likely campaign for her run as President. Where’s the headsman for Sandy Berger - you remember, he’s the Clinton-guy that stole top-secret documents ‘by mistake.’ How about Dan Rostenkowski? I just don’t get the appeal of the Democratic Party and I haven’t met anyone yet who can intellectually defend it. But, hey, it’s the “party of the people,” so let’s party-hearty and keep it goin’ till the sun goes down!

1776

2005-06-29T08:58:00.000-07:00

Recently, I’ve found myself wondering what our country would be like had our current media existed in earlier times. What would Tom Brokaw have had to say about Adolf Hitler? Would Dan Rather have examined Harry Truman’s past so unscrupulously? Would Peter Jennings have wondered what we’d done to deserve the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? Would Katie Couric have questioned James Monroe’s IQ and school records when he stated his Monroe Doctrine? Let’s take a moment and revisit the American Revolution CBS-style.

Dateline: March 5, 1770, Boston, Massachusetts: Today a group of right-wing conservative extremists prompted a mob attack on British soldiers guaranteeing the peace of Boston. In a shameless display of recklessness and without regard to the safety of the women and children among them, the rabble-rousers pelted the British with rocks, chunks of ice, and snowballs until the soldiers were forced to fire into the crowd. Most of the British platoon were bloodied while only four the rabble were injured or killed.

Dateline: December 17, 1773, Boston, Massachusetts: Last night the radical terrorist group known as the Sons of Liberty led a midnight raid on the Boston Harbor. In a racist and cowardly display these insurgents disguised themselves as Mohawk Indians. Under the cover of darkness they slipped aboard a ship loaded with tea and committed acts of vandalism. With a glaring disregard for the environmental damage, the right-wing liberation-fundamentalists spilled crates of tea into the harbor! The British Navy has been mobilized to take control of the harbor and set up a protective screen of ships at the harbor entrance. Furthermore, British troop numbers have been increased in Boston to the point of overflowing their barracks. Excess troops have been invited to bunk in colonial homes.

Dateline: April 18, 1775, Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts: In a startling dawn assault, misguided and misinformed locals fire on British soldiers in Lexington. Hoodwinked by those right-wing subversives, the Sons of Liberty, many simple farmers and townsfolk, calling themselves Minutemen, took up arms against our rightful sovereign in the body of his representatives, the British army. In an unprecedented display of treachery these Minutemen opened fire on a force of British regulars marching through town on a reconnaissance mission. When the British returned the volley the cowardly Minutemen broke and ran for cover. The British continued on their march to Concord. On their return to Boston, the British regulars were harried by growing numbers of insurgents shooting from behind trees and stone walls.

Dateline: May 10, 1775, Fort Ticonderoga, New York: Insurgents Benedict Arnold and Ethan Allen led an uneducated and disaffected force in an undeclared attack on Fort Ticonderoga. Taken unawares by an attack in an undeclared war, the British were forced to surrender the fort.

Dateline: June 17, 1775, Boston, Massachusetts: A force of extremist insurgents again threaten Boston by attempting to fortify Breed’s Hill. Courageous General William Howe, in defense of the loyal Bostonians, sent a force of 2000 British regulars to evict the insurgents. After three pitched battles the extremists were forced to retreat, but only after visiting horrible losses and wounds on the British troops.

Dateline: July, 1775, Boston, Massachusetts: In a move to escalate the impending conflict, right-wing extremist John Adams calls for a “Grand American Army” and recommends George Washington as its general, “a gentleman whose skills as an officer...would command the respect of America.” Contrary to Adams’ glowing praise, readers might recall Washington as the quiet, gentleman-farmer from Virginia. Far from an experienced officer, Washington is a lack-luster leader who’s military career is one of failure. He commanded a force in the recent French and Indian War and was given the simple task to protect a section of the Ohio River Valley from French encroachment. Not only did the French build a fort on Washington’s plot, Washington’s own fort, Fort Necessity, was repeatedly attacked and ultimately destroyed by the French. George Washington’s defeat at Fort Necessity caused most of the local indian tribes to go over to the French. As an aid to General Edward Braddock in an attack on the French fort he had previously been tasked to prevent from being built, Washington escaped with holes in his coat while his general died! With Washington for a general any insurgent army is not likely to be “Grand” much less successful.

Dateline: August, 1776, New York, New York: In a pitched battle of nearly equal forces, General George Washington is again defeated and routed by the British army. Washington and his band of insurgents were rescued at the last minute by the weather. Had it not been for a thick fog, Washington might well be a guest of His Majesty’s Gaoler this very day.

Dateline: July 4, 1776, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: In a daring move, the right-wing extremist upstart Continental Congress released their Declaration of Independence. Outlining their objections to the rule of our Sovereign, His Majesty King George III, this cabal of insurgent leaders seeks to legitimize their rebellious movement. What is lacking in their claims is the support of the people of these thirteen colonies. Recent polling reveals that only about 40% of the population are in favor of separation from England, while an equal number are undecided or neutral. In fact, one fifth of all people surveyed considered themselves loyalists! Clearly support for the insurgency is waning and this “declaration” is an obvious attempt to stir up more moral outrage and cloud the issues that really matter to the people: civil defense from French and Indian incursions, better living conditions in over-crowded cities, and modern European health care instead of colonial frontier remedies.

If you think I’m going over the top, consider the words of David McCullough, an author and historian of some note, from an interview with CNBC’s Tim Russert: “[If the American Revolution] had been covered by the media, and the country had seen now horrible the conditions were, how badly things were being run by the officers, and what a very serious soup we were in, I think that would have been it." Keep this in mind when reading their reports today. It should be widely recognized now that the Dan Rather National Guard documents were forgeries and the charges were false. The Newsweek Gitmo claims have been largely discredited as being massively overstated. Likewise, these new Downing Street memo charges are on the shakiest of grounds since Associated Press Writer, Thomas Wagner, reported that the British reporter, Michael Smith, not only retyped the memos but then destroyed the originals! This key fact has been scantily reported and may actually come as news to you. In another time the statements of Amnesty International would have cost them most of their American contributions and the ravings of Dick Durbin would have cost him his Senatorship. With the right to free speech and the freedom of the press comes a responsibility to speak and report honestly. A free press, free of government control AND political bias, is crucial to the exercise of democracy and where the press is not free or is biased democracy is usurped by oligarchy - the elites hold the power, shape the opinions, and disseminate the views they want the masses to have.

The study of history, specifically OUR history, is critical to understanding where we are, how we got here, and why we are here, not to mention where we will go from here. We don’t teach history any more, we teach Social Studies. In fact, we don’t actually teach any more, we simply provide students with points of view, much like modern news reporting. Could Dick Durbin escape ridicule from a constituency educated enough to understand his comments? Anyone remotely familiar with concentration camps, gulags, and “the killing fields” will have nothing but disgust for the man. However, in our culture where only the “now” is relevant and reporters have the carte blanche of readership ignorance to frame events as they please rather than as they are in context, he skates by unscathed. As Ben Stein observed so eloquently in 1968, “A human being who has not been taught to think clearly is a danger in a free society.”

Iraq - Vietnam

2005-06-22T08:57:00.000-07:00

I have been asked by several, mostly older, liberal friends, “Don’t you see any similarities between Iraq and Vietnam?” I always gave in to my knee-jerk reaction with an emphatic “No!” I have been wrong.

Sure, both conflicts involve engagements in small, foreign, third-world countries, but that’s a circumstantial similarity hardly worth mentioning. One would then be obliged to make the same comparison to the intervention in France during WWI and WWII - France is not much bigger than Iraq. The same point would hold true for the invasions of Germany and the rest of Europe - if you took each field of the conflict as a separate stage.

For as long as I can remember, I have had a nagging feeling that I was not being given the full story about Vietnam. Finally, I can put my finger on it. History is written by the victor. (These old adages are so amazingly true, it’s...well, amazing.) The history of the Vietnam War is no different. For decades, the story of that war has been told by those who won - the peaceniks, who have become the media and liberal elites. The more we start to hear from real sources, with first-hand knowledge untainted by political bias, the more that war stands out differently from the template presented by Jane Fonda, John Kerry, and Dan Rather.

I now see many similarities between Vietnam and Iraq. Both are part of a larger initiative - the war to defeat communism and the war to defeat terrorism. In Vietnam, the US was defending people from a vicious military coup staged by a minority bent on domination. In Iraq, the US is liberating people from a vicious militaristic dictatorship. Both locales have strategic and tactical value vital to American interests. In both instances, we are faced with a surrogate insurgency - in Vietnam our soldiers were really fighting the Soviets and in Iraq they primarily fight the Iranians, Syrians, Palestinians, and Saudis.

The most important and striking similarity between Vietnam and Iraq lies at home - the propaganda war fought on American soil for the hearts and minds of the people of the United States. Those same people who protested Vietnam - the ones who really won the war for the Viet Cong or (alternatively) the ones who really lost the war for America - are exactly the same ones who are protesting now. They didn’t wait for the war to begin this time, they began their appeals for unilateral surrender before the first shot was fired. Building on their past experience, they began staging the redefining of terms before our troops even hit the ground - “Attack Iraq/NO” - any military action became a “quagmire” and foreign terrorists became “freedom fighters” and “insurgents.”

The same elitists who blubber about the intrusive, draconian American government (Nixon then, Bush now), ignored Ho Chi Minh then and Hussein now. These same pinheads squeal about third world people not wanting or being ready for democracy - got news for ya: ALL people yearn for freedom and everywhere it’s tried, it works. In the 60's, it was the misanthropic CIA and FBI, today it’s the evil Patriot Act - I have yet to hear from anyone about even one instance where the Patriot Act has been used improperly.

Whenever I see the aged hippie crowd or the idealistic college kids on the side of the road with their “Support the Troops - Bring them Home” or “Get Out of Iraq Now” signs, I just want to throw up. Throw up my lunch, throw up my hands, throw up a storm of whupass on them. “One Death Is Too Many” - well how about 3,000? Or 300,000? 1,700 dead American soldiers IS a tragedy - one dead American soldier is a tragedy - but get some perspective: we lost 1,500 American soldiers in one day in WWII - in a TRAINING exercise! Have you asked a soldier how he feels about what he’s doing? Have you asked the Iraqis how they feel about what our soldiers are doing? I think they have a much better and more valuable point of view than some dipstick who’s idea of national service is brandishing a sign proclaiming “Peace Is Patriotic.” Peace is NEVER achieved by peaceful protest, never has been and never will be. Why is it these mental midgets feel we have to support the world on our dime, but when it comes to actually putting it on the line for the downtrodden and dominated they squeal like stuck pigs, race for the tall grass, and insist we mind our own business? They won’t ignore the neighbor next door who doesn’t use a seatbelt. Well, our neighbors, in the global sense, ARE our business because when their dispossessed become deranged they strap bombs to themselves and blow US up.

And don’t talk to me about Darfur or the Sudan, because thanks to the military cuts by dope-heads like Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Kennedy we can’t fight a two- or three-front war any more. We have to focus on the one, most significant front facing us at a time. If you’re going to say North Korea - don’t. North Korea is certainly a threat, but it pales in comparison to the Middle East. A friendly, stable, and democratic state in that part of the world is the most pressing issue, the most vital American interest there has ever been. Despite all the problems in Iraq, the initial stages of democracy there have encouraged or spawned democratic movements in the neighboring states. A democratic election in Saudi Arabia and a growing woman’s rights movement in Iran - do you think either of those would have happened otherwise? Terrorists are certainly supplied by North Korea, probably even financed by North Korea, but terrorists do not come from North Korea. Kim Jong Il is a traditional, run-of-the-mill psychotic dictator and we can deal with him in a number of ways. Frankly, North Korea would very likely not be a problem today had the anti-war crowd - trying to defeat us today - had not defeated us in Vietnam.

Immunizing the spreading virus of Islamofascism can only be accomplished by fostering the growth of democracy in the Middle East. Free people do not usually blow themselves up to protest an issue. Sure Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist - but he didn’t blow himself up. And he was one in how many billions of Americans? Certainly an aberration. The “blame-America-first” crowd you see with their banners and pickets, desperately seeking attention and affirmation (as well as their handlers in the media, Washington, and overseas) have their own agenda and it’s not an American agenda. Remember, history is written by the victors. Should they win, if we prematurely eject from Iraq and surrender in the War on Terror, then not only does America lose, but they get to write the history - they get to say “see, we were right, Iraq was a quagmire” and they get to affirm they were right about Vietnam. But, if we stay the course, if we remember and honor our dead from the two World Trade Center attacks, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, and many other attacks, if we persevere through these difficult times, we can breathe easier, we can dodge the terrorist bullet, we can write the history. And maybe we can intellectually revisit Vietnam without the knee-jerk sophistry of those who have a vested interest in the status quo of history. Maybe with perspective we can find out what really happened.

Iraq is this generation’s Vietnam. Let’s not lose this war at home to a parade of peaceniks and spit on the graves of our murdered innocent citizens and valiant soldiers!

Whose Rules?

2005-06-15T08:57:00.000-07:00

Senate Minority Leader Harry Ried (D-AZ) has repeatedly expressed the central problem in this country’s government at this time: “Breaking the rules to change the rules.” In psychiatry, this is a condition called projection. Simply put, someone suffering from projection transfers their issues or problems onto another person. The Democratic Party is suffering from projection and nowhere else is it more clearly seen than in the current problems of the nomination and confirmation process. The Democratic Senators are on both sides of the ‘confirmation fence.’

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on March 7, 2000: “it is an example of Government not fulfilling its Constitutional mandate because the President nominates, and we are charged with voting on the nominees...this delay makes a mockery of the Constitution.” Yet in April 2001 Schumer said “What we’re trying to do is set the stage...we expect to have significant input in the [nomination] process.” On April 30, 2003, Schumer (with Patrick Leahy) sent a letter to President Bush outlining a plan to the Senate and a committee of unelected citizens, judges and academics to provide the President with a pool of nominees for him to select from. Just last month, Chuck Schumer expressed a view that Senators weren’t required to vote on nominees, completely reversing his position of March 7, 2000. The only thing that has changed is that now a Republican is President.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said: “According to the U.S. Constitution, the President nominates, and the Senate shall provide advice and consent. It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.” That was May 14, 1997. On January 28, 1998 she said: “whether the delays are on the Republican side or the Democratic side, let these names come up, let us have debate, let us vote.” Just last month, Boxer contended that Senators had the duty to block nominees from a vote. The only thing that has changed is that now a Republican is President.

On June 18, 1998, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported...if we don’t like somebody the President nominates, vote him or her down.” In blunt language Leahy explained his job on Oct. 3, 2000: “Frankly, that is what we are paid to do in this body. We are paid to vote either yes or no - not vote maybe.” Over the next five years, Leahy has obstructed Presidential nominees in the Judicial Committee and on the floor of the Senate. The only thing that has changed is that now a Republican is President.

September 14, 2000 saw Senator Levin explain the job of a Senator: to “advise and at least vote on whether or not to consent...” Clearly, Levin believes a vote is intrinsic to “advice and consent,” but that opinion changed. Senator Sarbanes complained on March 19, 1997 that nominees couldn’t “...be considered by the Senate for an up-or-down vote. That is the problem today.” The problem today, eight years later, is that Senator Sarbanes won’t allow an up-or-down vote. Senator Biden (March 19, 1997): “everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.” Senator Kennedy (Feb. 3, 1998): “If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.” Senator Harkin (Sept 14, 2000): “I’ll just close by saying that Governor Bush had the right idea. He said the candidate should get an up or down vote within 60 days of their nomination.” The only thing that has changed is that now Governor Bush is President Bush.

The Senate Democrats’ claims of minority rights, diplomatic concerns, and extremist nominees are a canard. They know that few citizens pay close attention and they know that even fewer citizens are educated enough to know what the Constitution actually says. On May 1, 2001, Neil A. Lewis wrote a report for the New York Times titled “Democrats Readying for Judicial Fight.” Lewis reported on a retreat held by the majority of the Senate Democrats “where a principal topic was forging a unified party strategy to combat the White House on judicial nominees.” The usual special-interest crowd spoke about “the need to scrutinize judicial nominees more closely than ever.” Senator Daschle went so far as to warn his party against making any positive statements about nominees. The Democrats were expressly told to depart from Senate tradition and to disregard their Constitutional duty by the likes of National Women’s Law Center co-director Marcia R. Greenberger and Harvard Law professor Laurence H. Tribe: “They said it was important for the Senate to change the ground rules and there was no obligation to confirm someone just because they are scholarly or erudite.”

“Change the ground rules.” Isn’t that exactly what Harry Reid has been whimpering about? “Breaking the rules to change the rules,” Reid and other Democrats keep saying. In fact, Greenberger and Tribe have it completely wrong - and they know it! The Constitutional ‘advice and consent clause’ specifies that the Senate expressly has the obligation to confirm Presidential nominees if “they are scholarly or erudite” and have majority support. Senators can express their “advice and consent” by voting. If they feel the nominee is not competent they can vote against him or her. It truly is just that simple.

The Democrat claims of “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” are likewise so much manure. What is well known by all the Senate Democrats, but perhaps may be news to many common citizens, is that the Supreme Court, as recently as 1997, settled the issue of who has the power of nominations. In Edmond v. United States (1997) the Supreme Court maintained that Article II of the Constitution is “more than a matter of etiquette or protocol; it is among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme. By vesting the President with the exclusive power to select the principal (noninferior) officers of the United States, the Appointments Clause prevents congressional encroachment upon the Executive and Judicial Branches.” This was an expansion on Freytag v CIR (1991) wherein the Supreme Court found that Article II “also preserves another aspect of the Constitution’s structural integrity by preventing the diffusion of the appointment power [and] neither Congress nor the Executive can agree to waive this structural protection.” Given these findings, the April 2003 Leahy/Schumer plan to select judicial nominees by a committee, a similar plan floated by Senator Byrd in April 2005, and the requirement of the 14 Senate Moderates for consultation are all unconstitutional, illegal, and a violation of these Senators’ oaths of office.

The Bolton confirmation is another venue for Democrat obfuscation. On May 26th, Senator Dodd (D-CT) spoke for nearly half an hour expressing a laundry list of objections to John Bolton leaving no doubt whatsoever about his opposition to the nominee. Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, and almost every other Democratic Senator have given similar performances. They have no intention of voting to confirm John Bolton. However, in a “gang that couldn’t talk straight” moment, Dodd was interrupted by Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) who spoke for a very few minutes about a classified document that is being withheld from the Senate Democrats. It was Lieberman’s contention that this document was holding up the vote. Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) parroted Lieberman’s position, “We are willing to vote 10 minutes after we get back in session, if in fact they provide the information.” Despite her vitriolic condemnation of John Bolton only days before, Boxer told AP News, “we need information on this nominee that we’ve been asking for a very long time.” Dodd, in an interview on FOX News Sunday, clearly stated that Bolton is being held hostage for this information and could provide no reasonable explanation for why he needed it. There is no way that Bolton will be confirmed by the Democrats - documents or no, he will be voted down. If they have already decided, why don’t they vote?

The Democrats have been “breaking the rules to change the rules” for decades. When the Supreme Court frustrated FDR’s New Deal, he made them toe the line by threatening to arbitrarily create new judgeships and stack the court. In 1995, Lieberman, Harkin, Kennedy, and Kerry, Democrat Senators all, proposed and supported a measure that said “filibuster rules are unconstitutional” and would have ended filibusters forever. Hillary Clinton’s book deal advance got her a round of applause in 2000, while Newt Gingrich’s got him a Senate investigation and acrimony. Also in 2000, Al Gore sought to violate federal and Florida election laws in his attempt to steal an election. Rather than quietly tell Al to go home, his fellow Democrats ignored the law and tried to help him break the rules. In New Jersey 2002, the Democratic Party, with the connivance of the NJ Supreme Courts, violated both state and federal election laws allowing Frank Lautenberg to replace Robert Torricelli on the ballot. The rules just don’t seem apply to Democrats, so it should come as no surprise that they break those rules whenever they don’t like them.

A Living, Breathing Anarchy

2005-06-08T08:53:00.000-07:00

The Framers knew what they were doing. The were far better educated in government, ethics, and philosophy than are our politicians and judges today. Each word of the Constitution was debated and discussed. Justice James Wilson was a lawyer and judge, as well as a signatory of both the Declaration and the Constitution, and he suggested “the first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.” When interpreting the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson suggested we “carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” James Madison had a dire warning: “I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security...What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.” George Washington’s warning was prophetic: “If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or the modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way in which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation, for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

With almost unimaginable hubris, our modern academics, legislators and jurists, who “stand on the shoulders of giants,” have come to believe themselves to be the giants. Justice Earl Warren took the position that a Constitutional “Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of maturing society.” Justice Charles Evans Hughes went further: “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.” These opinions reflect a popular philosophy known as the “theory of social interests” which was advanced by Roscoe Pound. Oddly, Pound was not a lawyer - he studied at Harvard for only one year and held no law degree. That didn’t stop him from practicing and even teaching law in Nebraska. Amazingly, he became a professor of law and even dean at Harvard Law School! Despite his groundless background he became a leader of the new liberal movement for social justice. He charged his students, lawyers, and judges with “the same task that has been achieved in philosophy, in the natural sciences, and in politics. We have to rid ourselves of this sort of legality and to attain a pragmatic, a sociological legal science.”

In the decades since Pound, Evans, and Warren the concept of a “living, breathing Constitution” has taken root and like a pernicious weed as spread choking off the stability that the bedrock of law provided for over a hundred years. Because the law is not considered an anchor judges could decide in 1892 that the United States is “a Christian nation” (Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S.) and then change course in 1947 claiming “the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state. (Everson v. Board of Education)” In the modern era, the law is a weathervane, pointing towards whichever social project the judges favor: in 1896 (Plessy v. Ferguson) the court approved racial segregation in schools, but reversed that opinion in 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education), only to find that the Constitution did indeed allow racial segregation in 1971 (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed.). Of course, the Constitution is silent on racial segregation in education which means the Court should have deferred to the States in keeping with Articles Nine and Ten which provide unenumerated powers and rights to the States and the People.

An originalist, or constructionist, Judge James DeWeese wrote “the only life the law has is in it’s fixed meaning. If the law has no fixed meaning, it can not guarantee any fixed rights or duties.” An originalist harkens back to “sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation (Madison).” Such a judge could not find the right to abortion in the Constitution and would have upheld the States position that abortion is not contraception and should only be legal to save the life of the mother. An originalist would recognize that Article V provides for the death penalty without regard to the race, sex, or age of the criminal. An origianlist would have seen through the smokescreen of corruption and struck down the McCain-Fiengold Campaign Finance Reform Law as abridging the First Amendment freedom of speech. An originalist is the liberals’ worst nightmare because such a judge does not kowtow to special interest “and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform[s] to the probable one in which it was passed (Jefferson).” President Bush and the Republican party supports and nominates originalist judges in the hope that they can return the judiciary to the ‘straight and narrow’ course.

For a time, Presidents considered the American Bar Association’s ratings of judges in selecting nominees, but recognizing a transition from rating to ranting, President George W. Bush stopped that practice. Senators Leahy and Schumer insisted, in contravention of the Constitution, that they would “work to ensure they [ABA] play a role in the Senate confirmation process.” This should come as no surprise. For ages, the Left has been consulting with everyone except the Constitution in selecting nominees. Thanks to a leak of blockbuster memos, we now have a clear view of the confirmation process used by Senate Democrats. Less than one month after 9/11, Senator Durbin received a memo (Nov. 6, 2001) which scheduled a follow-up meeting “with leaders of several civil rights organizations to discuss their serious concerns with the judicial nomination process. The leaders will likely include: Ralph Neas (People for the American Way), Kate Michelman (NARAL), Nan Aron (Alliance for Justice), Wade Henderson (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights), Leslie Proll (NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund), Nancy Zirkin (American Association of University Women), Marcia Greenberger (National Women’s Law Center), and Jucy Lichtman (National Partnership)...the groups would like to postpone action on these nominations until next year, when (presumably) the public will be more tolerant of partisan dissent...they think Senator Leahy should use controversial nominees as bargaining chips...there will likely be discussion about how to respond effectively to recent Republican charges that the pace of judicial nominations is too slow.”

Senator Kennedy received a memo (April 17, 2002) outlining instructions from Elaine Jones (NAACP LDF) for Kennedy to “ask that the Judiciary Committee consider scheduling Julia Scott Gibbons, the uncontroversial nominee to the 6th Circuit at a later date...Chairman Leahy would like to schedule a hearing next Thursday on a 6th Circuit nominee because the Circuit has only 9 active judges, rather than the authorized 16...Elaine would like the Committee to hold off on any 6th Circuit nominees until the University of Michigan case regarding the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education is decided by the en banc 6th Circuit...the thinking is the current 6th Circuit will sustain the affirmative action program...LDF asked Senator Leahy’s staff yesterday to [reschedule] but they refused.” Senator Kennedy indicated he would comply and attempt to sway Senator Leahy. In case you missed it: Senator Kennedy is willing to let a court with half its chairs empty languish because a special interest group wants to engineer a decision of Constitutional law. In fact, this very issue had already been decided in the Bakke case and “affirmative action in higher education” was struck down.

A June, 4th 2002 memo to Senator Kennedy suggested that “groups should be encouraged to propose some specific nominees who can be moved forward before adjournment.” Senator Durbin got a memo the next day from a cabal of special interest groups outlining what strategies he should use on the floor of the Senate and what the schedule for confirmations should be. Senator Kennedy received a similar memo on June 12, 2002 which included this note: “it appears that the groups are willing to let Tymkovich go through (the core of the coalition made that decision last night, but they are checking with the gay rights groups).” It could be remarked that special interest groups have a right to speak their mind and that would be true. However, the essence and tone of these memos is not “speaking one’s mind,” it’s specific direction often in contravention of the Constitution, as well as against the interests of the people of America. If you don’t believe the memos carry weight, consider an email from Allison Hewitt of NARAL on April 2, 2003: “At any time Senate leaders may bring the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court to the floor for a full Senate vote. NARAL Pro-Choice America strongly opposes this nomination and will score this vote in the 2003 Congressional Record on Choice.” Do what we tell you or we’ll cost you in your next election. That’s how Senate Democrats decide who gets nominated, who gets obstructed, what is said about a nominee, when a vote his held, and how to vote.

The behavior of the Senate Democrats is disingenuous, unethical, and probably unconstitutional. The facts, which they obfuscate at every opportunity, simply do not support their position. As the Democrats know full well, Senators Lieberman (D-CT) and Harkin (D-IA) introduced a bill in 1995 to “change Senate rules” and eliminate ALL filibusters. The bill was defeated and had support from only 17 other Democrat Senators ~ including Ted Kennedy and John Kerry! When he lost the election, Al Gore’s first response was to turn to the courts rather than trust the election laws that “we the people” had instituted. When challenging abortion, the Left didn’t seek a referendum, they went to court. Education reform by the Left is instituted by the court system. When “we the people” go to the polls and state our will by election, the courts overturn us by judicial fiat! The liberal Democrat agenda rarely wins in election; instead, campaigns stay fluid and general, not specific. Surveys and studies show the propensity of this country for conservative values. The only path to long-term ratification of an agenda for the left is with unelected judges who are willing to “rid [them]selves of this sort of legality...to attain a pragmatic, a sociological legal science.”

Next week, concluding this issue: exposing the transparent lie of the Left.

How to Cook a Lobster

2005-05-18T08:16:00.000-07:00

How do you cook a lobster? You place the live lobster in a pot of cold water because it recognizes cold water and won’t try to climb out of the pot. Then you slowly, incrementally, turn up the heat. The lobster blithely boils to death because over time it never noticed the threat building up around it. In the Federalist #1 Alexander Hamilton, one of the writers and signers of the Constitution, warned that “...a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.”

Many of the rights that are considered fundamental in the United States today were not granted through the Constitution at all, but rather have been intuited, in effect, created out of thin air. Because our society does not teach it’s own history (specifically civics and the Constitution), we’ve done exactly what the Founders feared the country would do - we have given away our liberty. Americans have traded true liberty for the mere appearance of liberty. Few would argue that the most cherished of American liberties is the Right to Privacy. Maybe you know this, maybe you don’t, but the ‘Right to Privacy’ was not included in the Constitution in 1787, nor was it provided for in the Bill of Rights, nor was it added with an Amendment. What we recognize as the Right to Privacy was created a mere 40 years ago. In fact, there is no “Right to Privacy” and if you spend the slightest amount of time considering it, it becomes clear why.

In 1965, the Supreme Court heard Griswold v. Connecticut, a case concerning the state prohibition on the sale of contraceptives. The case was a put-up job by Planned Parenthood, wherein Executive Director Griswold of Planned Parenthood of Ct orchestrated a scenario to get herself arrested and convicted for violating the Connecticut law. It was she who brought the suit, not the married couple the contraceptives were provided to. Thus all the endearing concern for the sanctity and privacy of marriage was a smokescreen for Justice Douglas’ personal opinions. Finding that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees,” Justice Douglas created a “Right to Privacy.” In dissent, Justice Black observed Douglas’ fast-and-loose word games and concluded: “I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision.”

This wasn’t the first attempt, four years earlier, Planned Parenthood tried to win this argument. In Poe v. Ullman (1961) Planned Parenthood sued on behalf of a selection of people who might be harmed by Connecticut’s contraceptive prohibition. As there was no actual legal dispute to litigate the case was dismissed. However, Justice Harlan, taking the opportunity of the case, wrote a dissent which included a reference to an implied protection from an “unjustifiable invasion of privacy.” Such language is not within the Constitution, but it did provide Justice Douglas a starting point for his “penumbras” and “emanations.”

Poe and Griswold then become the foundation for yet another contraceptive case: Eisenstadt v Baird (1972). Justice Brennan relied primarily on the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment but also referenced the Griswold decision in deciding this case. Again engaging the smokescreen of the sanctity of marriage, Brennan focused on “the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted government intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” Curious language: “to bear or beget a child.” Poe, Griswold, and Eisenstadt all involved contraceptives, the means to avoid pregnancy, so why did Brennan include “to bear” when the case was only about ‘begetting?’ Incrementalism.

By 1973 Roe v. Wade had already come before the court twice and with this new right in their pocket the liberal majority on the bench was ready to move forward. Texas law held abortion a crime unless provided “by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” ‘Roe’ just plain didn’t want to have a child and it’s only a baby step from the right to decide “to beget a child” to the right to decide “to bear a child.” Despite pages of semantic hand-wringing on the part of Justice Blackmun, including the stunning admission that “the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy,” the document created to defend “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” was replaced by the personal feelings of a handful of unelected judges. As Bob Woodward describes in The Brethren “[Justice] Powell came quickly to the conclusion that the Constitution did not provide meaningful guidance. The right to privacy was tenuous; at best it was implied. If there was no way to find an answer in the Constitution, Power felt he would just have to vote his ‘gut’...” Like vaudeville magicians, the Justices, with nothing up their sleeves, were able to pull “a woman’s right to choose” out of the hat.

In 1986, Justice Blackmun again wanted to expand the right to privacy, this time to include homosexual sodomy. He failed and Bowers v. Hardwick became a powerful precedent for judicial restraint. In dissent, Justice Stevens wrote: “the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice.” Writing for the majority, Justice White noted that “the court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no recognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution...it would be difficult, except by fiat, to limit the claimed right to homosexual conduct while leaving exposed to prosecution adultery, incest, and other sexual crimes even though they are committed in the home.”

Such a short memory! Only ten years later in 1996 the court heard Romer v. Evans. At issue was a Colorado referendum preventing “sexual orientation” from being equated with race and religion in civil rights laws, which was passed by a 53% majority of the people. The court ignored it’s own precedent and decided the referendum was unconstitutional. Writing in dissent, Justice Scalia pointed out that “cultural debate” is specifically the purview of the people “to be resolved by democratic means.” Scalia went on to note that in 1986 Bowers upheld a state’s right to criminalize homosexual conduct and therefore it must be constitutional for a state to prohibit “bestowing special protections upon homosexual conduct.” In 2000, “Cultural debate” and “democratic means” were trumped again when Stenberg v. Carhart struck down a law passed by the elected officials in Nebraska which banned partial-birth abortions. Justice Breyer found that “the law lacks any exception ‘for the preservation of the...health of the mother.’ [and] ‘imposes undue burden on a woman’s ability’ to choose.”

Lawrence v. Texas was (June 2003) was a homosexual sodomy case very similar to the 1986 Bowers case. In deciding it, Justice Kennedy simply ignored the past and the law. Kennedy decided that “liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places.” But he didn’t stop there, Kennedy found that liberty “presumes autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate contact.” Justice Scalia provided rational legal dissent and prophetic vision when he observed that “if, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, [no law against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity] can survive.”

So it was that a bare five months later the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts turned American culture on it’s head and found that “barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of a civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community’s most rewarding and cherished institutions.” Ignoring the Massachusetts Constitution, the Constitution of the United States, and the tradition of this country, this court turned instead to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Canada for precedent and remedy.

Do we have a right to privacy? Well, no, not really. The husband who beats his wife does so in the privacy of his own home. Incest usually occurs within the privacy of the bedroom. Illicit drug use almost invariably occurs within “a zone of privacy.” Yet, no responsible person argues that such behavior is protected by some inviolable right to privacy. Laws are created by people to insure the good behavior, comity, and peace of society. “We the people” reserved the right and power to institute those laws by electing representatives who we would hold accountable to our will. When judges cease to rely on the Constitution and decide case law on their personal feelings, they cease to be judges and become legislators supplanting their will for the will of “we the people.” Activist judges subvert the very Constitution they swore to uphold and by which they derive their authority. That is the height of hypocrisy and the beginning of judicial tyranny.

Liberals v. Constitution

2005-05-13T11:19:00.000-07:00

The current circus in the United States Senate over the confirmation of Presidential nominees to various posts and specifically to judicial positions is cast in many lights. The reasons vary from week to week and often depend on which audience is being addressed. The bottom-line reason is quite simple and something the Senate Democrats dare not admit: not one element of the progressive liberal party platform of the Democrats would stand if the Constitution were the guiding principle of governance in this country.

On May 9, 2001, George W. Bush said, “every judge I appoint will be a person who clearly understands the role of a judge is to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench.” To leave no doubt about what he meant, Bush went on: “To paraphrase the third occupant of this house, James Madison, the courts exist to exercise not the will of men, but the judgement of law. My judicial nominees will know the difference.” A judge that recognizes the difference between “the will of men” and “the judgement of law” threatens every plank of the Democratic agenda. Such a person, serving for life, unassailable by political machinations and character assassinations, not beholden to campaign financing, can not easily be swayed. Such a judge would decide cases by what the Constitution actually says and not what they would like it to say.

Judicial activism is the heart of this issue. Judges who determine cases based not on what the Constitution says, but rather what they feel in their hearts, have usurped the role and authority of the Executive and Legislative branches imposing their personal beliefs upon the rest of the country in direct contravention of the guiding principle of “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” I could discuss “the Separation of Church and State,” a which does not exist within the Constitution (it is found in a personal letter mailed twelve years after ratification of the Constitution and written by a man who was not even involved in the Constitutional debates - he was in France), but I won’t just now. A review of the “right to privacy” or the “right to abortion,” neither of which are granted within the Constitution, quickly exposes the element of political bias inherent in judicial activism. But those are hot-button issues, so let’s take something more innocuous, such as interstate commerce.

Article I, section 8, of the Constitution grants the federal government the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States” - known in common parlance as the commerce clause. That seems fairly straightforward and reasonable. Under the Articles of Confederation, each individual state was completely autonomous and even printed their own money. That made interstate issues very murky and complicated. By ceding some of this authority to a centralized federal government many of those issues were ameliorated. From 1787 through 1936, the Supreme Court upheld the primacy of the people and states to govern commerce within their own boundaries, as specifically written in the Constitution.

Gibbons v. Ogden established in 1824 that Congress’ power was to regulate interstate commerce but not “commerce, which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States.” Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R. Co. found that “a pension plan thus imposed [by the 1934 Railroad Retirement Act] is in no proper sense a regulation of the activity of interstate transportation. It is an attempt for social ends to impose by sheer fiat non-contractual incidents upon the relation of employer and employee, not as a rule or regulation of commerce and transportation between the States, but as a means of assuring a particular class of employees against old age dependency.” In the1934 case Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, the Court commented that “if the commerce clause were construed to reach all enterprises and transactions which could be said to have an indirect effect upon interstate commerce, the federal authority would embrace practically all the activities of the people.” The balance of power was further clarified in 1936 when the Court decided Carter v. Carter Coal Company. The Court was crystal clear: “Much stress is put upon the evils which come from the struggle between employers and employees over the matter of wages, working conditions, the right to collective bargaining, etc., and the resulting strikes....and it is insisted that interstate commerce is greatly affected thereby. But...the conclusive answer is that the evils are all local evils over which the federal government has no legislative control.”

The imbalance of power between the branches of government and between the federal and state governments began in 1937 when the Supreme Court used National Labor Relations Board v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation to give the commerce clause real claws. The judges found that “intrastate activities that ‘have such a close and substantial relation to interstate commerce that their control is essential or appropriate to protect that commerce from burdens and obstructions’ are within Congress’ power to regulate (emphasis added).” Note that this decision is a complete 180 from Gibbons v. Ogden and Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, as well as, being in direct contravention of the terms of the Constitution. This was a stretch that, by judicial fiat, appropriated states’ rights and granted them to Congress.

The commerce claws were sharpened in 1942. An Ohio dairy farmer, Roscoe Filburn, grew wheat which he used to re-seed to grow more wheat, feed his livestock, make flour, and (if the harvest allowed) sell. Under the 1938 federal Agricultural Adjustment Act, Filburn was fined for exceeding his farm’s marketing quota and he chose to sue rather than pay. The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Wickard v. Filburn went like this: “It can hardly be denied that a factor of such volume and variability as home-consumed wheat would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. But if we assume that it is never marketed, it supplies a need of the man who grew it which would otherwise be reflected by purchases in the open market. Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce. The stimulation of commerce is a use of the regulatory function quite as definitely as prohibitions or restrictions thereon.” Thus, any farmer or businessman who consumes his own produce or stock affects the market and is in the purview of Congress to regulate. Apart from being absurd on it’s face, this decision again violated the Constitution and ignored Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States. The Court should have struck down the federal statute setting quotas on farmers citing Gibbons v Ogden.

The Supreme Court took the opportunity of Maryland v. Wirtz in 1968 to use commerce to ratify the Fair Labor Standards Act (which should have been struck down via Carter v. Carter Coal Company) by claiming “labor conditions in schools and hospitals can affect commerce” and ignoring Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton R. Co. Continuing the trend, Perez v. United States in 1971 makes the crime of loan sharking a federal crime even when it occurs at the neighborhood level. Justice Potter Steward dissented noting “a man can be convicted without any proof of interstate movement...the Framers of the Constitution never intended that the National Government might define as a crime and prosecute such wholly local activity through the enactment of federal criminal laws.”

The trend descended to the ridiculous in United States v. Lopez (1995) where the commerce clause was incurred to regulate firearms in school zones. It should be noted that the attempt failed and Justice Rehnquist found “the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity.” However, in dissent Justice Breyer outlined an exhaustive review of the facts that prove violence in schools has reached epidemic status and notes that “having found that guns in schools significantly undermine the quality of education in our Nation’s classrooms, Congress could also have found, given the effect of education upon interstate and foreign commerce, that gun-related violence in and around schools is a commercial, as well as a human, problem.” And if you thought it couldn’t go lower, in 2000 United States v. Morrison asked the Supreme Court to find that gender-based violence is covered by the commerce clause! Rehnquist said “gender-motivated crimes of violence are not, in any sense of the phrase, economic activity,” if it were, he added, all crimes would have to be considered federal crimes.

What kind of mind interprets a clause granting sovereignty over interstate trade as a mandate to prosecute sexual harassment? Where does this thinking come from? If judicial activism is at the heart of the liberal agenda, then incrementalism must be the heart of judicial activism. A word inserted in a ruling creates a right derived from that ruling years down the line. That right begets another. Those rights require the imposition of laws to protect them. Insidiously, step-by-step, the agenda is accomplished. What began as regulation governing trade across state lines grew to encompass labor laws, unions, minimum wage rights, farm production quotas, street crimes, even sex crimes. All of these issues are, by the letter and intent of the Constitution, the purview of the “We the People” via the representatives we elect to our state governments, not Congress, and certainly not unelected judges. It is the old rubric about absolute power. Unable to attain these goals at the ballot box, exercising control legitimately, the liberal agenda is accomplished through the court system. Which is why the Senate Democrats oppose President Bush’s nominees. Should they be confirmed, cases would be decided by what the Constitution actually says, not by what the liberal agenda wants.

Next week the more radical face of judicial activism and the question - is it really good for America?

To Thwart a Presidential Nomination

2005-05-11T10:43:00.000-07:00

The issue of judicial confirmation process currently plaguing the United States Senate is quite probably one of the most important legal issues taking place in our lifetime, if not the most important. As contentious as it is, as partisan as it seems, it is quite simply a critical constitutional crisis. The argument strikes at the heart of our system of government. It undermines the “separation of powers” clause of the Constitution and holds the potential for a legislative coup d’etat. It is under-reported and mis-reported because the issues involved require an understanding of our Constitution and political system that is severely lacking in the average citizen. This is because American History has been de-emphasized to the point that it is no longer seriously taught in our schools.

The Constitution of the United States provides that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for.” The Democrats in the Senate would like to equate “advice and consent” with “checks and balances,” but that is simply not the case. The concept of “checks and balances” refers to maintaining the sovereignty of the individual branches of government. The two most commonly cited “checks and balances” involve war and law. In the former example, the President has the sole authority (or used to, before Congress expanded it’s authority) to declare war, but Congress, which “holds the purse-strings,” decides whether or not to pay for it. The latter example goes like this: the legislative branch (Congress) enacts laws, the judicial branch (Supreme Court) interprets them, and the executive branch (President) enforces them, such that no one branch has the power to dominate the people.

That example is at the crux of this whole issue. The judicial branch has exceeded it’s authority. Judges have appropriated the power of the legislative branch and are using it to enact law. Judges are appointed in most cases, not elected. They do not speak with the voice of the people. When they legislate they do so not from an unbiased reliance on precedence and legality, but rather on their personal opinion, which is completely biased. Liberals prefer this approach because the hot-button issues they espouse do not win at the ballot box. Abortion-on-demand, partial-birth abortion, felon voting-rights, same-sex marriage, welfare for illegal aliens, miranda rights for foreign terrorists, and a raft of other issues are time-and-again defeated by voters only to be approved by activist judges. Conservatives oppose judicial activism for the very same reason. Conservatives would welcome any of those issues to be put to a democratic vote, but liberals recoil from that.

To return to the Constitutional issue, Michael J. Gerhardt, a liberal legal scholar, wrote: “by requiring only a simple majority of the Senate to approve a nominee, the Constitution sets a low threshold for confirmation relative to virtually all other significant legislative action...” Notice, Mr. Gerhardt compares “voting yea or nay” to deliberating legislation that may become “the law of the land.” If that isn’t disturbing enough, Mr. Gerhardt goes on to say: “as a practical matter, the requirement of a bare majority of the Senate for confirmation means that smaller factions cannot thwart a presidential nomination in the absence of special Senate procedures...” Now, contrast Mr. Gerhardt’s opinion with the point of view of Alexander Hamilton (someone who actually participated in writing the Constitution) writing in the Federalist No. 66: “it will be the Office of the President to nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves choose - they can only ratify or reject the choice he may have made.”

Hamilton’s idea of “advice and consent” is radically different and diametrically opposed to that of Gerhardt and the Senate Democrats. From the first inauguration of George Washington to the first inauguration of George W. Bush the traditional idea of “advice and consent” has been upheld. Surely, there have been shenannigans on both sides to torpedo this or that nomination, but never - I repeat, never - has the filibuster been used to “thwart a presidential nomination.” Democrats all across the spectrum of radio and tv talk shows are talking about the blocking of Clinton nominations and the “Frist filibuster,” but that’s the typical smokescreen. It is a fact that every Clinton nomination that got out of committee received his or her “up-or-down vote.” Some nominations were not allowed to get out of committee, that is also true, but that is not a violation of tradition or law and could not have been accomplished without the cooperation of some Democrat Senators.

Consider for a moment Gerhardt’s language - “in the absence of special Senate procedures.” There is nothing special about a filibuster. The filibuster has a long history. A filibuster also has a very specific set of triggers. Not one of those triggers involves nomination confirmations. The Senate Democrats could not perpetually stall these nominations in committee, nor could they defeat them, so they came to the floor where a simple “up-or-down vote” would see these judges confirmed. Only by invoking “special Senate procedures,” in other words, using the filibuster where it is not provided for, can the minority party stop these nominations. By filibustering, the minority is violating both the spirit and the letter of the law and the Constitution - something they swore an oath not to do.

As noted earlier, many Senate Democrats are making disingenuous claims about the importance of “checks and balances,” suggesting that their ‘minority rights’ would be infringed were they not allowed to “thwart” the will of the majority. This is an audacious canard. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision, or even the suggestion of a provision, for “balancing” political parties. The governing authority in this country is the one that wins the election. It is only through an egregiously failing education system that these Senators can make this claim and expect not to be laughed off the stage. What is at stake here is the Constitutional concept of “separation of powers.” The President nominates, the Senate confirms. What the Democratic minority is trying to accomplish is a theft of the President’s power wherein the President can only nominate Senate-approved candidates. As if that weren’t enough power, the Democrats’ goal is to further co-opt the judicial branch, by allowing for nomination and confirmation of only those candidates for judgeships who meet a very narrow criteria, specifically, those judges who will be activist or not oppose judicial activism. Judicial activism allows the liberal minority to extent to the judiciary the legislative power that was lost in the Congress. This would have the effect of converting this country from a republic to an oligarchy.

“Legislation from the bench” is neither conducive nor equal to “government by the people, for the people, and of the people” which is the hallmark of the United States. My next letter, should it merit printing, will address that element of the Senate Minority’s New World Order.

Cleaner Environment Causes Global Warming

2005-05-05T10:30:00.000-07:00

I just have to laugh. Using data from the Environmental Protection Agency, the American Lung Association has recently released it’s annual State of the Air report that states flatly that our air is cleaner. Citing improvements in emissions controls on coal-burning power plants and reduced vehicle emissions, the report has shown decreases in air pollution for over six years with this year as the best on record. Compounding the good news of the State of the Air report are studies of the report itself, it’s source information, and the way the data was processed. Improvements in air quality are understated because of tabulation discrepancies.

The good news just keeps rolling in. Reports like State of the Air are becoming commonplace. Best-selling novelist Michael Crichton (who has never been criticized for not doing his background research) writes State of Fear which is a broadside to the environmentalist and global-warming movements. Yet, in the face of actual improvements in the environment and cleaner air, the environmentalists take a dive off the deep end. “Clear skies end global dimming: Earth’s air is cleaner, but this may worsen the greenhouse effect” is an article by Quirin Scheirmeier at news@nature.com. The article opens with “our planet’s air has cleared up in the past decade or two, allowing more sunshine to reach the ground.” It goes on to explain how atmospheric pollution has been reduced making “the sky more transparent” and allowing harmful solar radiations to reach ground level.

Since the dawn of rational thought, man’s had one crackpot theory after another: flat earth, geo-centrism (the earth as the center of the universe), Global-cooling with an ensuing ice age, global warming with an ensuing ice age, and now the inherent dangers of “clear skies!” Talk about grasping at straws. I just have to keep laughing and wonder when will environmentalists get the message? Not that I think they should stop their efforts at cleaning up messes - far from it. I would just like them to recognize it’s not the crisis they’ve worked themselves into a frenzy over and stop trying to pick the pockets of people all over the world to pay for their hobby. Please, keep working but silence those among you with a political agenda.

Integrity

2005-05-05T10:26:00.000-07:00

Again, Chuck Gregory is a local fellow who tries to discredit me in our local paper.

Last week Chuck referred to “the figures of the Bureau of Labor Statistics” and gave the internet address: http://www.laborresearch.org/charts.php?id=8. Now, I probably spend more time surfing the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/) site than the average bear, so I was quick to notice his website isn’t that of the Bureau. Of course, you can imagine my shock and surprise to learn that “laborresearch.org” is actually the Labor Research Association, self-styled as “a New York City-based non-profit research and advocacy organization that provides research and educational services for trade unions.” Labor Research has taken information from the Bureau and re-packaged it for dissemination (and mis-information?) by labor unions. Why did Chuck use labor union data when he could have gone directly to the source and used Bureau of Labor Statistics information?

Chuck selected the highest point of real wages, which I should add occurs during the presidency of Republican Richard Nixon. Chuck was correct: real income dropped drastically over the ensuing years, however, that is a gross over-simplification and deserves a closer look. Through the Ford years (‘74 - ‘77) real income continued to drop as a voracious Democrat Congress gobbled up ever-increasing Gross Domestic Product and we lost $21 of wages. Democrat Jimmy Carter (‘77 - ‘81), in cahoots with a Democrat Congress, caused real wages to fall a shocking $33! The Republican Reagan Revolution (‘81 - ‘89) acted as a tourniquet to the still-Democrat Congress and the real wage hemorrhage slowed to only $10 lost. Under Bush I, the Democrat Congress still managed to bleed us another $10. When Bill Clinton (‘92 - ‘00) took the presidency, the Internet Tech Bubble was ballooning and despite the Democrat Congress, real income began an ebb-and-flow, up-and-down rally of $8 over 6 years. When Bill Clinton got the second Republican Revolution and Newt Gringrich brought the Contract With America to Congress, despite the Internet Tech Bubble collapse, we got a steady increase of $10 over 3 years. Which brings us to the first term of George W. Bush, who worked with the Republican Congress (which Chuck and the labor unions would like us to believe has been the worst ever} to bring real income steadily up each year, topping out at $4 above Bill Clinton’s (or Newt Gingrich’s, depending on one’s level of intellectual honesty) best. I will grant that 2004 shows a $1 drop from 2003, but that’s a far cry from the 20% that Chuck wants you to think Bush cost you. An admittedly simplistic, but fair, analysis shows that between 1973 and 2004, Democrat leadership has cost American workers $68, while Republican leadership recovered $14. Why is it that Chuck completely misrepresented this information?

Chuck Gregory wants us to believe certain things which he deeply believes in. He can’t prove his beliefs with facts and figures, so he disingenuously tries to hoodwink us with bogus documentation. When called on it, he lashes out with ad hominem slurs like neo-con and political hate speech like raising the specter of Nazism. I think that’s wrong. I think it’s really a question of integrity. Would a person of integrity try to pass off a labor union’s analysis of the Bureau of Labor Statistics data as actually being from the Bureau? I know I wouldn’t, would you? Would a person of integrity sink to name-calling and bashing? Chuck’s proclivity to rely on dubious or fallacious sources should put everything he says into question as should his lack of comity. I don’t blame Chuck for this, he is what he is. What I can’t understand is why Springfield is so silent. Where are you, Springfield? Is this man’s opinion truly representative of you all? Here is a man who takes every chance to compare people who disagree with him to Nazis, while claiming to be tolerant. Here is a man who denigrates people who go to church or work at WalMart as idiots in your newspaper, while staking out the moral high ground. Is there no one else who takes exception to this?

Pot Calls the Kettle Black

2005-04-27T10:22:00.000-07:00

Ethics is the branch of philosophy dealing with the rules of right conduct. An ethic is a principle of right or good conduct or a system of moral values. Given that, it is my responsibility to offer a correction: in my last letter to the editor, I stated that former Marine Sgt. Massey was presented to the Social Studies classes without an opposing balancing viewpoint. I was mistaken, apparently teachers Jeff Levin and Angelo Jardina performed that role. With all due respect to both gentlemen and recognizing the pointed questions Mr. Jardina put to Mr. Massey, I don’t see how a pair of teachers who the students have known at least all year can compare in impact and authority to a soldier returning from the frontlines. It is also my understanding that Mr. Levin invited Springfield Peace and Justice to bring Mr. Massey in, so I have to wonder about his ability to offer balance. I am also still left wondering how this obvious indoctrination was considered educationally valuable and why it was allowed to be presented in a school setting, but that’s an issue from another day.

Ethics is a charged issue and in the headlines currently. I’m referring to Tom DeLay and, of course, we know all about his ethics violations....or do we? Some things really should be kept in mind when discussing this issue. The grand jury in Travis County, Texas has not indicted DeLay though 3 of his associates were. The charges against several of the companies indicted in the case have been dropped after reaching dismissal agreements which included pledging financial support to the “non-partisan, balanced and publicly informative" LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. If you review the actual “ethics violations” in the House, you’ll find they just don’t stand up to serious scrutiny, as the Ethics Committee time and again admits by not finding him in violation of the ethics rules. Despite Nancy Pelosi’s statement “Mr. Delay has now been rebuked twice by the Ethics Committee for abusing his power,” the fact is the Committee “after a five-month investigation...voted unanimously to gently reprove” DeLay and gave him an admonishment, “the least severe punishment the committee can give,” according to Christian Bourge, a UPI Congressional and Policy Correspondent reporting for the Washington Times.

The Ethics Committee is a ten person panel comprised of 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats. It is highly partisan on both sides and is used to score political points more often than to actually maintain an ethical standard. In the case of a tie, an ethical complaint is left standing. Recent changes enacted by the Republicans and opposed by the Democrats would have required complaints to be adjudicated one way or another within 45 days or they would lapse. The Democrats shut down the Ethics Committee rather than abide the rules changes. With the Ethics Committee not serving, DeLay cannot clear his name. Denny Hastert, House Majority Leader, just recently offered to rescind the rules changes to bring the Democrats back to the Committee table to allow DeLay’s case to be heard. It remains to be seen if the Democrats will re-open the Committee. If they do, a simple party-line vote will still deny DeLay a clean slate. So it’s business as usual.

Why would the Democrats refuse to re-open the Ethics Committee? Well, if they do there are bound to be some uncomfortable questions asked. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), House Minority Leader, sent an adviser to Spain and Germany in April 2004 for nine days but the trip was paid for by a nonprofit organization that donates to her and that she helped to get Federal Transit Administration money for. Pelosi’s office stated that the trip was “within House rules,” which happens to be exactly the same thing DeLay has said. In fact, The Cincinnati Post reports that “PoliticalMoneyLine, an online tracker of money in politics, found that lawmakers have taken $16 million in privately paid trips since 2000, over half of it from nonprofits.” Similarly, Representative Bernard Sanders (D-VT), as has been reported in both the Bennington Banner and Brattleboro Reformer, “used campaign donations to pay his wife and stepdaughter more than $150,000 for campaign-related work since 2000.” Of course, there is no law prohibiting politicians from paying family, which is exactly what DeLay said. The Washington Post notes that “members of Congress are rushing to amend their travel and campaign records...paying old restaurant bills, filing missing forms and correcting erroneous ones...” - - - excuse me, ‘erroneous’ filings?

While it’s true that the House Ethics Committee doesn’t cover the them, Senate Democrats (many of whom have been highly critical of DeLay) have questions to answer as well. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has some questions to answer about The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002 which “promised a cavalcade of benefits to real estate developers, corporations and local institutions that were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees to his sons’ and son-in-law’s firms,” according to the LA Times. That’s only one of Reid’s deals. None of the DeLay associates who have been indicted deny DeLay had any knowledge or wrong-doing. Such is not the case with Hillary Clinton, who’s ethical issues are almost legendary. David Rosen, Hillary’s former finance chairman, has been indicted for not declaring proceeds from Hillary’s August 2000 Hollywood fundraiser. Two of her associates clearly implicate her and expressly indicate her knowledge of the deal. Peter Paul bankrolled the event and has said, “Hillary personally called the producer of the concert...she asked him to lower the fee that he was charging of $850,000.” Aaron Tonken describes his face-to-face with Hillary when he “told her about virtually every penny I’d spent on her behalf.” Unfortunately for Hillary (notorious for not keeping good records), “both Tonken and Paul kept meticulous records.”

I don’t loose sleep over philandering politicians. That’s almost a fact of life. I don’t even raise an eyebrow when Pelosi, Reid, and others lie with such facility. It almost doesn’t faze me when the mainstream media neglect to call the aforementioned on their whoppers. What truly bothers me, what makes me pace the floor fuming, what makes me grind my teeth, is the eager willingness of rank-and-file Democrats to over-look, forgive, forget, and white-wash the glaringly apparent mis-statements and out-right lies, un-ethical and sometimes even criminal behavior of their elected representatives. Democrats seem deaf, dumb, and blind when the pot calls the kettle black.

Peace at all Costs

2005-04-22T10:17:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, the Reporter ran a cover story on “former Marine Sgt. Jimmy Massey” and I can’t stand it anymore. Massey was invited into the school system to indoctrinate the students - it’s just that simple. He was “sponsored by the Springfield Area Peace and Justice” - no agenda there. He spoke to “Social Studies” classes, but was there an opposing or balancing speaker provided? Of course not. So, again, I’ll rise to the challenge and provide some balance.

According to Massey, he’s “here to let everyone know just how desensitized to violence you can get when you are part of any war effort. In a 48 hour period I’ve seen over 35 civilians killed, the youngest being only six years old. That’s war and that’s what’s going on in Iraq.” According to Gunnery Sgt. Mark Francis of the II Marine Expeditionary Force “what’s going on in Iraq” has a different tone. Francis asked to be sent toys for children. He explains that “on each patrol we take through the city, we take as many toys as will fit in our pockets and hand them out as we can. The kids take the toys and run to show them off as if they were worth a million bucks. We are as friendly as we can be to everyone we see, but especially so with the kids.” Now there’s a desensitized soldier! But wait, there’s more: “On one such patrol, our lead security vehicle stopped in the middle of the street...reported a little girl sitting in the road and said she just would not budge. As the vehicles went around her, I soon saw her sitting there and in her arms she was clutching a little bear that we had handed her a few patrols back...The rest of the convoy paused and I got out to make sure she was OK. The little girl looked scared and concerned, but there was a warmth in her eyes toward me. As I knelt down to talk to her, she moved over and pointed to a mine in the road.”

“Massey said the United States was committing genocide in Iraq.” This is the same claim that Massey makes in a report run by Al Jazeera, but it may come as news to people who actually live in Iraq. The Iraqi bloggers at http://messopotamian.blogspot.com graciously gave me permission to print their story: “the war toppled a monstrous regime of a bestial clan, and freed a hostage majority. Whatever other motive lay behind the intervention, this was a valiant act of chivalry. And when the American people ( as proved by their vote) and their president are willing to spill the blood of their children and the treasure of their land to help the Iraqi people regain their freedom and build their democracy, this comes from their respect and belief in the humanity of their fellow humans, regardless of distance and racial differences. Racism consists of ignoring the plight of your fellow humans. ‘We must not mess about with the problems of the third world, withdraw immediately and leave them to their own resources.’ they say. That mayhem and genocide can ensue does not seem to bother these ‘do-gooders’.”

Massey claims “Capitalism is being forced on others...We are forcing our will and life on other countries.” Again, I turn to the Iraqis themselves: “this infant democracy that is just beginning in our country will grow and become strong but it needs the helping hand and protection of its powerful friends who were the basic instrument of God’s mercy to bring it into being; especially at these times when it is still too weak and fragile. And make no mistake either, that if it were not for the powerful presence of the Friend, the monsters and wolves infesting the place would loose no time in completely dismembering, deavouring and interring the remains of the new born.”

“When one student asked him if he felt it was worth it, he answered, ‘No. You cannot support democracy through the barrel of a gun. That is the same as the Nazis did during World War II.” This tidbit is so loaded that I am going to come at it from a few points. First, I’d like to introduce you to George Perez, a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division. At 21, Perez lost his leg in action in Iraq. After lengthy recovery, he re-enlisted to rejoin his regiment in Afghanistan. Perez said, “I’m not ready to get out yet. I’m not letting this little injury stop me..” Obviously, Perez thinks it’s worth it. Second, as my 6-year-old has just learned, democracy was supported and won for this country “through the barrel of a gun” and it was the only way it could have been done. Thirdly, the Nazis did not support democracy, they were National Socialists, which is essentially exactly what Saddam Hussein was.

Massey speaks eloquently for the Springfield Area Peace and Justice. He espouses their ‘peace at all costs’ agenda perfectly. It is a shame on them that their agenda is so clearly in support of the terrorists and dictators. Pursuing their goals would have doomed the Iraqi people to indiscriminate rape and murder as has been documented time and again. That doesn’t seem to bother them. It leaves me wondering what their true goal is; it certainly doesn’t seem to be peace and justice or truth.

Truth to Power

2005-04-13T10:14:00.000-07:00

As my wife is fond of saying: “you can torture numbers to make them say anything you want them to.” That is why it is crucial to use as non-partisan, unbiased, and legitimate sources as possible. Personal opinions are fine, but aren’t reputable sources better than “take my word for it” statements?

Chuck Gregory claims “since the 1970's, real income has slid.” Not according to Nicholas A. Jones and James S. Jackson, Ph.D., who found “In 1970, the median income for Black households was about $22,000, while for white households it was $37,000. In 1999, African-American median household income was $27,900, the highest ever recorded, but still far less than for non-Hispanic white households $44,400..." (The Demographic Profile of African Americans 1970-71 to 2000-01 from The Black Collegian Online at http://www.black-collegian.com/ issues/30thAnn/ demographic2001-30th.shtml) So since 1970 income has increased and what’s more the gap between black income and white income closed from 59.4% to 62.8% - a modest increase, but an increase nevertheless. The US Dept of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis offered also disagrees with Mr. Gregory: “Per capita income–the average income received by persons grew 4.7 percent in 2004, more than double the 2.2 percent growth in the previous year, according to estimates released today by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. This is the fastest pace since 2000 when per capita income grew 6.8 percent. All states except South Dakota, Nebraska, and Michigan enjoyed faster growth.” (News Release: State Personal Income, Mar 28, 2005 - http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/SPINewsRelease.htm)

Chuck Gregory observes “the American life span is shortening.” Someone should tell the National Center for Health Statistics of the Center for Disease Control because they think our life expectancy is still increasing. The NCHS/CDC offers the National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 53, No. 6, Nov 10, 2004 where on pages 33 and 34 you will find Table 12 which shows the estimated life expectancy from 1900 through 2002. American life spans increase from 47.3 to 77.3 years - go figure (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/nvsr53_06t12.pdf). The Wall Street Journal is kind of mixed up too: “life expectancy in the U.S. is at an all-time high. Death rates from cancer, heart disease and AIDS are falling. The gap between white and black life expectancies is narrowing. Infant mortality rates are lower than ever.” (An Empty Uniform by Michael Gough and Steven Milloy, Feb 10, 1998) S. Jay Olshansky at the University of Illinois at Chicago agrees with Chuck, but he doesn’t blame Republicans. Olshansky thinks that obesity “would reverse the mostly steady increase in American life expectancy that has occurred in the past two centuries.” Notice, he thinks it would reverse the “steady increase.” On the other hand, Samuel H. Preston of the University of Pennsylvania is “projecting a continued increase in U.S. longevity, assume[s] that obesity will continue to worsen, but also account[s] for medical advances.” (Report: Obesity will reverse life expectancy gains, Mar 16, 2005 - http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/ diet.fitness/03/16/obesity.longevity.ap/)

Chuck Gregory suggests we all “read Susan Faludi’s books, Backlash and Stiffed.” But before you do, consider this quote from Brian Carnell’s Men are from Earth, Women are from Earth?: A Review of Cathy Young’s Ceasefire. Carnell notes that “Young’s analysis of Susan Faludi’s Backlash is simply devastating. Young shows Faludi’s book to rely almost from top to bottom on extremely poor scholarly standards, egregious misquoting of primary sources and a whole host of other questionable procedures. She even catches Faludi making a claim in Backlash that Faludi herself had debunked in an earlier newspaper profile!” (http://www.equityfeminism.com/ discussion/fullthread$msgnum=51)

It is a sad state when a grown man accepts any drivel fed to him and then repeats it to his community without the slightest attempt to check it’s veracity. I expect such from idealistic teens for whom all life is a crusade, but maturity means growing out of such behavior and becoming responsible - responsible not just for one’s actions, but for one’s speech, as well. A weak debater attacks the person of his opponent precisely because he lacks sufficient facts to buttress his position. Mr. Gregory sprinkles his ad hominem criticisms of me with the odd source-quote now and then, but (like his Faludi reference) they always seem to be from dubious sources. I encourage everyone to take up issues; a more issue-oriented society would be healthy. However, learn about your issues make them your own, take the time to make sure that what you’re repeating is actually true information and not politically-motivated propaganda or hate speech.

Culture of Life

2005-04-07T10:10:00.000-07:00

James Kraft is a self-styled "conservative Christian and Republican" and denies being a Democrat!

Last week James Kraft asked "where was George W. Bush’s ‘culture of life’ when, as Governor of Texas, he executed Robert Drew and mocked Karla Fay Tucker’s plea for mercy?" I don’t want to pick on Mr. Kraft, but it would be nice if he’d get his facts straight before he launches. George Bush was elected Governor of Texas on Nov. 8, 1994. His predecessor, Gov. Ann Richards, didn’t leave office till January 17, 1995. So it was late January of 1995, at the earliest, when Bush became Governor of Texas. Robert Drew was executed on August 2, 1994. For you recent graduates of public school, that is 168 days before Bush took office. It was Ann Richards, a Democrat, who refused Drew’s appeals for a new trial and executed him. There are some disturbing elements to the Drew story which might have warranted commuting his death sentence or even calling for a new trial. However, the simple fact is that he was an accomplice to senseless murder, did not go to the police after the act (as far as I can tell), and had to be apprehended. He also did nothing to assist the State in its investigation or prosecution.

It amazes me every time I hear the moans and cries for mercy for monsters. Karla Fay Tucker was a monster. She was so heinous that I won’t retell her horrors here (read for yourself, if you’re curious, at http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/tucker/background.html or http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/tucker/1.html?sect=5);
it’s simply ghastly. On Larry King Live, Mrs. Tucker avoided telling the details of her crime herself but did admit, "I not only didn't walk around with any guilt, I was proud of thinking I had finally measured up to the big boys." That she had sufficient time on Death Row to find God and become saved in Christ is commendable, but has no bearing on her sentence.

The ‘anti-capital punishment’ movement (Amnesia International... err... I mean Amnesty International, Innocence Project, Grassroots Investigation Project, etc.) is eager to talk about those already executed (Drew and Tucker). They quote "last words" and describe the executions in morbid detail. They present the bare bones of cases, give detailed reports of "inaccuracies" and "mistakes" in trials. Curiously, they provide no resource material on investigations, no trial testimony, no evidentiary material, nor any information relating to the laws pertaining to capital murder charges. In short, they tell moving stories of redemption or persecution, but leave out any information useful in coming to an educated opinion on the issue.
Typical of the ‘anti-capital punishment’ crowd are the specious claims of hundreds of innocents executed.

"A review of death penalty judgements over a 23-year period found a national error rate of 68%," says the ACLU Death Penalty Campaign statement. Reg Brown of the Florida governor’s office noted "The ‘study’ defines ‘error’ to include any issue requiring further review by a lower court.... Using the authors’ misleading definition, the ‘study’ does, however, conclude that 64 Florida post-conviction cases were rife with ‘error’ -- even though none of these Florida cases was ultimately resolved by a ‘not guilty’ verdict, a pardon or a dismissal of murder charges...[and]...the nearly 40 death penalty convictions that were reversed by the California Supreme Court during the tenure of liberal activist Rose Bird are treated as ‘error cases’ when in fact ideological bias was arguably at work." Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Paul G. Cassell observed that "after reviewing 23 years of capital sentences, the study’s authors (like other researchers) were unable to find a single case in which an innocent person was executed. Thus, the most important error rate -- the rate of mistaken executions -- is zero."

On Friday, Mar. 25, 2005, Good Morning America’s Charles Gibson played a phone interview with Jack Kevorkian who spoke from his Michigan prison, where he lives on death row. The good doctor had this to say about the Terri Schiavo issue: "What bothers me is the bit of hypocrisy in this. When the President and the Congress get involved because all life is sacred and must be preserved at all cost, they don't say the same thing about men in a death row cell. Their life is just as sacred." Mr. Kraft claims Bush has a disconnect between "an eye for an eye," and "turn the other cheek," but both Mr. Kraft and Dr. Kevorkian are confused about Christianity. Jesus was not trying to delete the Law of the Old Testament: "Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish them, but to complete them." (Matthew 5:17) Truly, "scripture says, vengeance is mine," but Paul goes on to say "if you do wrong, then you may well be afraid; because it is not for nothing that the symbol of authority is the sword: it is there to serve God, too, as his avenger, to bring retribution to wrongdoers." (Romans 13:4) Now, I’m not a Biblical scholar, but what I’ve read suggests that the word ‘authority’ means the State and the interpretation of the sword as the symbol which is more than just symbolic clearly indicates a death penalty. Likewise, "give unto Caesar" means more than just taxes.

That anyone would compare Kevorkian, Drew, or Tucker to Terri Schiavo is simply the basest of moral relativism. It is similar to trying to co-opt "Right-to-Lifers" with opposing abortion while supporting the death penalty. Only a moral reprobate would compare an innocent life with a convicted felon, murderer, or rapist.

George W. Bush’s "culture of life" shines in all the things that Mr. Kraft hates about him. "When he decided to unnecessarily invade Iraq, resulting in the death of perhaps 100,000 people," Bush ended a tyrannical rule where a 12-year-old boy named Taimour was shot several times before being bulldozed into a mass grave. He was one of a very few who survived an estimated 180,000 Kurdish deaths in the Anfal massacres. It was Bush’s "culture of life" that rescued Ibrahim, an activist opposed to the Ba’ath Party, who escaped while 13 of his group were murdered, two of them died under torture. Bush’s "culture of life" shut down numerous torture chambers and rape rooms into which hundreds of thousands disappeared screaming in the night. (For those interested see http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hrdossier.pdf which is a British report on Saddam’s human rights abuses.) As to "unnecessarily" invading, I would point out the violations of 16 United Nations Security Council Resolutions and the binding cease-fire agreement at the end of the First Gulf War. Of note also is the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 signed into law by Bill Clinton. These arguments of "unnecessary" and "illegal" war are fraudulent.

Mr. Kraft questions "the ‘culture of life’ among ‘conservatives’ when they threaten the lives of Howard Dean, Jim Jeffords, and now Judge George Greer," but for the life of me, while I won’t argue it may have happened, I can’t find any stories about it. Be that as it may, let’s take it as read that it happened, I ask: so what? High-profile figures like these regularly receive threats and the incidence of threat becoming act approaches zero. I find it notable that Mr. Kraft avoids mentioning the outrageous physical attacks on ‘conservatives’ that are not threatened but are actually occurring. William Kristol at Earlham College, Pat Buchanan at Western Michigan University, and Ann Coulter, among others just this year. According to Sun-Times columnist, Richard Roeper, "about 90 percent of pie attacks are launched by liberals against conservatives." Of course, a "pie attack" is not on a par with a death threat, however, as Earlham student journalist, Thomas Lifson, points out, "pie-throwing is a violent assault, capable of damaging the eyes...designed to intimidate speakers out of accepting speaking engagements...a crime against civil society," intended to stifle one’s freedom of speech. So much for the Left’s respect for free speech.

After all this, I have one simple question for Mr. Kraft and others who share his opinions: what is your "culture of life" and where is your sense of decency?

Double Talk

2005-03-30T09:53:00.000-08:00

In deference to Barbara Newport, I will strive for brevity, but that is all I will give her. If she’s got complaints about me on a personal level, she (or anyone else, for that matter) can contact me at my ever-available e-mail address. Otherwise, I’d rather see her attempt to address my facts instead of my personality quirks. It never ceases to amaze me how myopic and vicious Democrats can be. I have spent the last few months exposing the heart of the Democratic Party. Not one person responding to me has been able to contradict one item that I’ve presented. The record of the Democratic Party on Civil Rights for blacks and women, and most other issues, has been abysmal.

Chuck Gregory has ineptly but valiantly tried to hold his own, but like a bad marksman he keeps missing the target ~ or in this case, the point. At best, Chuck tries to excuse the Democratic Party’s bigotry and racism - ‘it was the Reconstruction’s fault’ is the best he can do. Yet again, Chuck neglects to address the point, which was that the Democratic Party stood in defense of slavery for a century before Reconstruction. He compounds his failure by trying to pull a fast one with history. The simple truth is that the Democrats in 1876 selected Governor Samuel Tilden (D-NY) as their nominee for President. A simple review of his record shows that Tilden pledged support for "white supremacy" and "home rule." Furthermore, an honest and full reading of the history of that election reveals that, while both parties engaged in massive voter irregularites, it was only the Democrats who used intimidation and violence to keep hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of blacks from voting which, as most historians agree, invalidates any statistical analysis of the popular vote: "had Republicans been willing to intervene in defense of black [voting] rights, Tilden would never have come close to carrying the entire South." ( A Short History of Reconstruction 1863-77, Eric Foner, Harper & Row, 1990, p. 245) Finally, the Republicans took the White House through a deal arranged with the Democrats. The deal gave political power in the South back to the Democrats, who "pledged to respect the civil and voting rights of blacks. These promises were soon broken and the white supremacist Democratic Party asserted total dominance of the South. By the 1890s, the Democratic hold on the South resulted in a complete denial of voting rights for blacks until the 1960s."
(http://www.americanpresident.org/history/rutherfordbhayes/biography/printable.html)
The deal was the only way to avoid re-opening the Civil War and conclude an election that was already far too ugly. In short, the Democrats held the presidency and the peace of the nation hostage in order to regain power - this has a familiar ring to it. Nice try Chuck, but no cigar. (FYI, Chuck, I studied history throughout my educational career, including college, and I continue to study it, which is why I can tell the difference between political agenda and serious historical analysis.)

Deception has for so long been a part of the Democratic make-up that it seems to have grown to include self-deception. The Democratic Party can’t see the forest for the trees. They think everyone is like they are. When Bill Clinton started his campaign with "it’s the economy, stupid," claiming George H. W. Bush was another Herbert Hoover, the Democratic Party followed along. Somehow they missed the fact that the recession had been over for months before Bill started, and that the economy was actually in good shape. Oddly enough, the same things were said about George W. Bush, and again the recession which he was blamed for was actually a carry-over from Bill Clinton. But then, it’s always the same from the Left: doom-and-gloom claims without the slightest shred of proof.

With Democrats it’s all in the language. For Bill Clinton, it all depended on what the word ‘is’ is and what you mean by ‘alone’ - he was never really alone with Monica, because there were so many other people in the White House at the same time! Having lost the presidential election (again), Democrats were beside themselves trying to figure out why. They turned to George Lakoff , professor of linguistics, who’s advice was, basically, ‘change your labels.’ One thing they latched onto was values. It’s a tough concept but rather than actually looking at their party’s core values, they just changed their labels. Democrats believe judges deserve a straight up-or-down confirmation vote, but then filibuster them all. Democrats don’t believe in litmus tests, but then require them of all appointees. Democrats aren’t pro-abortion, they’re pro-choice - pay no attention to their voting record on partial-birth abortions. Democrats believe the death penalty is inhumane and cruel, unless you’re an invalid who can’t move or speak, then there’s a "right to death with dignity." (Where’s that one in the Constitution?) Out of dozens of Democrat Senators in Congress, only two spoke out for Terri Schaivo’s life. They were both running for re-election, but that had nothing to do with it. By the same token, withholding food and water from terrorist prisoners in Gitmo is torture, but starving and dehydrating Mrs. Schaivo gave her euphoria.

It’s called "projection" when you...well... when you project your feelings, thoughts, beliefs, whatever, onto someone else. Democrats have been doing this for decades. It’s part of the self-deception. When Bush made campaign promises and kept them, Democrats were surprised. A politician keeping campaign promises was a new concept to them. FDR proposed the Social Security safety-net, but set the age to qualify two years beyond the average life-expectancy. He’s hailed as a visionary and a great humanitarian. Now that’s delusional. I have never seen a Republican bumper-sticker that "Clinton Lied, People Died," but while he was defending his lies the USS Cole was bombed, Blackhawks were falling in Mogadishu, Americans were dying, in fact some were dragged through the streets and hung from street signs. So many "Bush Lied" stickers, but to date no proof of lies.

I’ll never forget Alec Baldwin’s tirade on the Conan O’Brian Show where he went on for some minutes about how Democrats would be justified in stoning Henry Hyde, his wife, and his children to death. But that’s not vitriol, no. How about the commercials where Republicans burn churches? Or the one where that little girl suggests that a Bush re-election was like watching her father be dragged to his death again? Republicans just don’t work that way. The most frightening vitriol I’ve ever seen has come from the Left. I just don’t see the down-right meanness, so often ascribed to the Right, coming from the Republicans.

I’m not surprised that my letters get people riled up. Vermont is a "blue state" and Springfield is certainly a "blue town." Democrats call themselves the party of tolerance, but as with their other claims, it rings hollow. The "politics of personal destruction" became art with the Democratic Party and, time and again, when they hear something they don’t like they assault the speaker. To Democrats, it seems the truth matters much less than the fiction they’d like to believe.

So I said I’d be brief. I took a lesson from the Democrats - it all depends on what your definition of ‘brief’ is..

Swingin’ on a Star

2005-03-21T09:51:00.000-08:00

"Oh would you like to swing on a star; carry moonbeams home in a jar; and be better off than you are; or would you rather be a mule?; A mule is an animal with long funny ears; he kicks up at anything he hears; his back is brawny and his brain is weak; he’s just plain stupid with a stubborn streak; and, by the way, if you hate to go to school; you may grow up to be a mule."

Why would you want to be a mule? I guess it’s fitting for the Democratic Party, though. Consider the current strife they’ve created over judicial nominations. MoveOn.org is a political action group that was organized to oppose perceived obstructionism by the Right when they tried to hold Bill Clinton accountable for his acts of perjury. On March 16, 2005 MoveOn hosted the "Rally for Fair Judges" and in a complete turn around is encouraging obstructionism by the Left. As Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) tells it, MoveOn’s making "sure the country doesn’t sell out to special interest groups." Excepting, of course, the ones that support his party.

Barbara Boxer had this to say to the MoveOn crowd: "Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to 200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check-and-balance except that one confirmation vote? So we’re saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn’t too much to ask. For such a super-important position, there ought to be a super vote, don’t you think so? It’s the only check and balance on these people. They’re in for life. They don’t stand for election like we do, which is scary."

Sen. Boxer is like a fish: ‘to fool the people is her only thought and though she’s slippery she still gets caught.’ The Constitution provides "checks and balances" for the different branches of government, not for political parties. She is also engaging in pernicious class envy. What matters is not how much a judge makes, but how well she represents the will of the people and whether she understands the Constitution. What is most damning for her party is her tacit admission that the 60 vote rule they’re braying for is not required by the Constitution: "we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required."

The Constitution provides a role for the Senate in selecting judicial nominees in the "advise and consent" clause. It also provides in Article I, section 5, for the Senate to make it’s own rules: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish members for disorderly behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member." The language makes it clear that the Senate is only required to use a super-majority in one case: to "expel a member." Unless, of course, you prefer the "it depends on what ‘is’ is" argument and then it means whatever you want it to mean in any given situation.

While extended debate has always been the norm in the Senate, the "filibuster" really came into being in the 1840s when Sen. John C. Calhoun (SC) used an obscure rule to block anti-slavery legislation by ‘speechifying’ till the bill was dropped. Calhoun was pirating the legislature and the practice was given the name filibuster, a Dutch word for pirate. In 1917, the Senate adopted the rule of cloture which allowed a 2/3 vote to break a filibuster. In 1975, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MN) said, "we cannot allow a minority to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there" and the 2/3 super-majority was reduced to a 3/5 vote or 60 Senators. It is clear that the Senate can make and change it’s own rules and (as instructed by Article I, section 5) a 2/3 majority is not required for rules changes.

Democratic Senators braying about respecting "200 years of history" is like ‘carrying moonbeams in a jar.’ In the 51 years between 1949 and 2000 there were only 13 instances of a judicial nomination filibuster. In contrast, there were 14 judicial filibusters within Bush’s first term alone! Senate Rule 31 says: "when a nomination is confirmed or rejected, any Senator voting in the majority may move for a reconsideration." It is over 150 years old. According to Sen. Durbin, the "nominees...were rejected by the Senate" when, in fact, the Democrats used the filibuster as a substitute for a vote, thus violating Senate Rule 31, which allows for rejection of a nominee only by a simple majority vote.

Now Senate Rule 22 is really ‘swingin’ on a star.’ It allows for unlimited debate, provides for a vote of cloture (to end the filibuster), but also requires a 2/3 majority to amend itself, as well as other Senate rules. The problem is that Senate Rule 22 "is plainly unconstitutional" according to Lloyd Cutler who was White House Counsel for both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton (no conservatives they) as well as many other Constitutional specialists, because it demands a super-majority where one is not required. Rule 22 also seeks to bind a future Senate which further violates the provision in Article I, section 5 for the Senate to "determine the Rules of it’s Proceedings."

Just like the mule with his brawny back and weak brain, the Democrats speak strongly but just can’t remember what they’ve said. On June 21, 1995. Sen Edward Kennedy (D-MA) said, "Senators who believe in fairness will not let a minority of the Senate deny [a nominee] his vote by the entire Senate," but that’s not what he said at the MoveOn rally. That same day, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) asked, "why can we not have a straight up-or-down vote on this without threats of a filibuster?" The next day, Sen Tom Harkin (D-IA) urged his fellow Senators to not "hide behind this procedure. Have the guts to come out and vote up or down." On June 18, 1998, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said, "I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported...If we don’t like somebody the president nominates, vote him up or down. But don’t hold him in unconscionable limbo, because in doing that the minority of senators really shame all senators." Sen. Leahy has participated in over 15 judicial nominee filibusters. (Sen. Leahy, sir, have you no shame?) "I find it simply baffling that a senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination," Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) said on Oct. 5, 1999. Only few short years later, in 2003 Daschle was leading filibusters on Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen at the same time! According to Time Magazine, Estrada "has not betrayed much of anything in the course of his controversial nomination hearings," which, apparently, is enough to black-ball him. On Meet The Press, Tim Russert asked Daschle, "why not let the Republicans have a vote? You can vote no, but just give them a vote the way you thought they should have in 1999." Daschle’s response was, "Tim, that should be the rule, but sometimes there are, as you know, exceptions to the rule." No mule was ever so eloquent: ‘sometimes there are exceptions to the Constitution.’

In 2002, the American Bar Association said that the "protracted delays in the judicial nomination and/or confirmation process weaken the federal judiciary by depriving it of the judges needed to resolve disputes expeditiously [and] contribute to dangerously crowded dockets, suspended civil case dockets, overburdened judges, and understaffed courts." Judge Charles Pickering’s confirmation was successfully filibustered, but Bush appointed him to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as a recess appointment. Despite his sterling record on civil rights, the Democrats tried to ‘tar-and-feather’ him as an "opponent of civil rights." He did not pass the Left’s litmus test because he wouldn’t bend to the liberal special interest wind. In Judge Pickering’s opinion, "the bitter fight over judicial confirmations threatens the quality and the independence of the judiciary." The simple fact is, if you don’t subscribe to the liberal view, you need not apply.

In 1995, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) said, "the Constitution is straightforward about the few instances in which more than a majority of Congress must vote: A veto override, a treaty, and a finding of guilt in an impeachment proceeding. Every other action by the Congress is taken by majority vote...Democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock." Except in the case of those, "as you know, exceptions."

In a nutshell, it isn’t Republicans who’ve launched the Nuclear Option, but the Democrats. They are trying to hijack the judiciary because that is where the liberal agenda is legislated. It was Roe v. Wade, not legislation, that made abortion legal. School prayer and public religious displays are not the purview of ‘the people,’ but are decided in courthouses. In New Hampshire and New York City, the courts have decided how and how much we pay for education. Voters in several states have used the ballot box to make gay marriage illegal, only to be overturned by unelected liberal judges. The death penalty is legally provided for by Article 14 of the Constitution and is approved by many citizens, but liberal courts promote the rights of criminals over the will of the people. As an out of power minority, the Democratic Party has only one last means to power: the judiciary. In the last half century, Democrats have controlled the Senate, stacking courts with left-wing zealots. Under President Clinton alone they placed 367 judges. That’s power. That’s what they’re fighting for.

‘Now all the monkeys aren’t in the zoo; the Congress has quite a few; Ted, and John, and Hillary too; they could be better than they are; they could be honest and go far.’

[Swingin’ on a Star was written by Johnny Burke]

Largely Nonresponsive

2005-03-16T09:47:00.000-08:00

I wish that I could claim that I coined the phrase "largely nonresponsive" because it so clearly and ideally describes the Democratic Party, but I can’t. Wes Boyd, co-founder of MoveOn.org, said it, though not within the context that I would have said it.

Though it considers itself a massive grassroots organization, MoveOn is truly a fringe group of the far, far left of the Democratic Party, comprised of some 3 million people, most of them in their twenties, many in college. "The GOP is painting us as socialist radicals," claims Joan Blades, Boyd’s wife and co-founder, "and if you’d been reading any of their publications, you’d think that we’re a bunch of wildass lunatics." Considering MoveOn’s record, I can understand why: an internet petition to keep Bill Clinton from being impeached signed by 500,000; 6,000 international candlelight vigils to keep the US out of Iraq; backing Howard Dean as their primary front-runner and Dennis Kucinich as their second choice; and $60 million spent in advertising to defeat George W. Bush’s re-election. MoveOn’s top issues include the environment, military involvement in Iraq, campaign-finance reform, media reform, voting reform, and even corporate reform, but no mention is made of jobs, health care, education, or even terrorism. MoveOn is staging an ad campaign about Social Security with ads that, according to it’s Washington director, Tom Matzzie, target the president rather than the issue, which is typical, considering their ads during the election morphing the image of Bush into that of Hitler. Boyd sees MoveOn "as a broad American public...we assume that things that resonate with our base resonate with America." Contrary to what Boyd sees, Ed Kilgore, who works for the Democratic Leadership Council, points out that "there’s a built-in tension between the views of people who are part of MoveOn and contribute to it, and the people they’re trying to reach."
The goal of MoveOn is to control the Democratic Party: Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org said in a recent email "It’s our party, we bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back." Considering the fact that they strongly backed Dean for party chairman and he was given the job, I’d have to say they’re well on their way to realizing their goal. In the wake of the re-election of Bush, the Democratic Party felt the dis-connect with the American public, but failed to identify the break, correct it, and re-connect. The promotions of Harry Reid and Howard Dean are clear indicators of that. The party shares MoveOn’s myopia. MoveOn is remarkably unconcerned with who their ‘people’ really are. Demographics isn’t important to Wes Boyd, who notes that "when we talk to people in Washington, that’s the first question we’re asked...we’ve been largely nonresponsive."

"Largely nonresponsive." That about sums up the Democratic Party. Nicholas D. Kristof wrote an op-ed for the New York Times on March 16th in which he sings the praises of Hillary Rodham Clinton as the ‘Moses’ to lead the party to the promised land of winning national elections. Kristof’s logic is that it’s ‘responsive’ to follow one north-east liberal senator who won’t admit to being liberal and loses the election with another north-east liberal senator who won’t admit to being liberal. I just can’t wait for the coming election cycle.

Kristof’s piece is heart-wrenching in that he identifies the foibles of the Democratic Party but then doesn’t take ownership of them; rather, he tries to rationalize them. Number One on Kristof’s list is religion because "a Pew poll found that 60 percent of Americans pray" and Hillary’s "religious faith is longstanding." Was this the same ‘religious faith’ that led her to "bear false witness against thy neighbor" (that would be the 9th of the Ten Commandments) when she set the FBI on Billy Dale, or blamed "the vast right-wing conspiracy" for her husband’s lies and infidelity? Her ‘religious faith’ came in handy during her testimony when she swore her oath to God to tell the truth, but couldn’t recall what work she’d done for Rose Law Firm or find the records of such. Kristof quotes another poll "where 70 percent say that ‘presidents should have strong religious beliefs’." But it’s not ‘religious beliefs’ that matter, it’s moral and ethical values - it’s all in how you ask the poll question. The recently released private tapes show Bush is always Bush, private or public, whereas Kerry lies even to his private diaries, causing his biography to have to be re-edited and re-released. In the same vein, Hillary’s hidden face is legendary: the moon-lit beach dancing without music, the thrown furniture, the viciously vengeful nature. Kristof’s third point is that "the Democratic Party [comes] across as indifferent to people’s doubts about abortion or even as pro-abortion" and he quotes another poll which shows the party is wildly out of step with most of America. Of course, Hillary is "both pro-choice and anti-abortion" which I would guess means that she doesn’t think women should have abortions unless they’re pregnant.

Kristof admits that Hillary’s "negative ratings nationally were still around 40 percent at last count," but he ascribes it to ‘Hillary-hating’ and the dubious observation that "television magnifies her emotional reserve and turns her into a frost queen." It is so much more simple than that. He recognizes that Hillary would have a hard time in his own ‘middle America’ hometown, suggesting that "ambitious, high-achieving women are still a turnoff in many areas, particularly if they’re liberal and feminist." Of course, that’s backwards. Most of America is turned off by feminism and liberalism; ‘ambitious, high-achieving women’ have been a staple of the conservative movement for over twenty years - ever heard of Sandra Day O’Connor, Jean Kirkpatrick, or Condoleezza Rice? Kristof notes that "the makeover is working with New York State voters" without realizing that he’s hit the nail on the head - with the Democratic Party it’s always style over substance. Hillary is succeeding because of her "makeover," not because she really believes any of the positions she’s staking out, just as Bill Clinton was willing to concede many conservative positions while he was running for election. Hillary really is the perfect Democratic candidate because she is "largely nonresponsive" on the issues that really matter to most Americans, except when she’s running for election.

"Largely nonresponsive" also touches on a report in the March 13, 2005 New York Times which describes how "equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq’s dormant program on unconventional weapons." The Times also notes that "the threat posed by these types of facilities was cited by the Bush administration as a reason for invading Iraq." This report, which is not new (Duelfer, and others, reported the same thing over a year ago), begs the question that if "there were no WMDs" how could they go missing? Of course, it wasn’t the weapons that were stolen, but rather the means to make them. Still, I wonder when we’ll hear the apologies and corrections from those who cried "Bush Lied!" Though I strain to hear them, they still remain "largely nonresponsive."

Three Stooges

2005-03-09T09:43:00.000-08:00

Again, Chuck Gregory, James Kraft, and Glen Williams are locals who write in opposition to me.

There they go again. Hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil. Chuck Gregory can’t abide hearing anything that contradicts his own worldview, so I’m a neo-conservative lackey. James Kraft is unwilling to look at what’s actually going on, so I’m just wrong. Glen Williams doesn’t like strong language, so I’m a "provocateur" and the facts I present can be disregarded.
According to Chuck, I have failed to "put into context the Democratic opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights bill." Chuck explains that "the institutionalized Democratic racism which was displayed in Congress up until 1968 was caused by the Union triumph in the Civil war." I want to make sure that I understand this, Chuck, the Confederacy loses in 1865 and it takes 103 years to work out the frustration? Chuck goes on that"faced not only with the loss of the war but also with the prospect of freed, educated, politically powerful and property-owning Negroes [etc] white Southerners expressed their fear and hatred in whatever ways they could." Chuck offers not one piece of documentation to bolster what amounts to his opinions on how the events played out. Nor does Chuck offer any evidence of Republicans "show[ing] the same attitudes toward minorities that the Democrats displayed forty years ago." Chuck, you may not like it, but history shows quite clearly that the Democrats have failed minorities and has held them in slight regard since the party’s inception. Chuck’s thesis is that the Republican Reconstruction created Democratic racism. I fail to see how that accounts for the historical fact that those who would become southern Democrats held American independence hostage in the 1770s (100+ years before the Civil War) in order to keep black slavery, thus insisting that all men are not created equal. Just so we’re all clear about this, Chuck doesn’t deny Democratic racism, he just puts it in context. Chuck suggests that "in today’s Congress...the Republicans show the same attitudes toward minorities that the Democrats displayed forty years ago." It’s easy to say Republicans are racists, Chuck, but I challenge you to prove it. Some years ago, Republicans soundly ostracized David Duke when he ran for national office, but Democrat Senator Robert Byrd is re-elected to Congress time and again, despite his humble origins as a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan. Chuck, you don’t have to like history, but don’t try to revise it to suit your political goals, that’s just dishonest.

Mr. Kraft suggests that I’ve been "parroting the typical Republican anti-public education rhetoric" when I point out the problems that are clear to everyone. Was I mistaken or was it some worthy educational movie and not Polar Express that a class of Springfield students went to see? Were the numbers in the Town Report more "Republican anti-public education rhetoric" or did I misquote them? What exactly was the educational benefit to the Kwanzaa candles that Park Street Kindergartners made? Since when is quoting non-partisan documentation and respected education researchers "Republican anti-public education rhetoric?" It is a crying shame that Mr. Kraft won’t respond to the specifics that I pointed out but rather chose to hide behind the ‘typical Democratic rhetoric.’ Mr. Kraft, perhaps you should be less concerned with my credibility and more concerned with the credibility of the school system, or are you happy to "sit back and watch" that approach zero?

Glen Williams says I take "great license with logic, ‘facts’, and imaginings," but like Chuck and Mr. Kraft he doesn’t address the issues I raise. Did I imagine the international test scores of our students? Is the relationship between teacher and teaching illogical? Glen, I must say I’m very surprised at you. You seem to have quite a literary background yet you are stumped by how to "respond to the review of a critic who has not seen the movie, but creates his own version of what might have happened." The response is to describe what really happened or suggest an alternative version, but you don’t do that, possibly because you believe my suspicion was probably correct? Similarly, rather than address the issue I raise, you launch into an ill-conceived Bush-bash. Glen, I hate to break the news to you, but a majority of the country thought Bush did well enough to warrant being re-hired and (in case you missed it) current events throughout the world are proving Bush was right. I feel like a broken record, but it amazes me how often I have to repeat this: Glen, you may think I use a "bombastic approach," but that doesn’t excuse you from actually addressing the facts that I raise. You put ‘facts’ in quotes early in your response, but you don’t show how my facts are questionable. Exactly which numbers from the Town Report did I misquote? What facts did I get wrong or mis-interpret? "Teachers deserve respect" is not a "mindless bromide" and you only display your "professional" arrogance when you point out the "incredible number of wonderful professionals [who] retire without applause or thanks from a community that should have known better." Why should they get more plaudits than the town clerk, bank teller, grocery clerk, or secretary? Perhaps you don’t get it, Glen, but our children are not the best-educated kids in the world, they’re not even the second or third best. When do we recognize that problem? When do we fix that problem? How can we do either without finding out who and what is responsible? Now, Glen, you can go right on suggesting that "reasonable debate" means only ideas that agree with your own, but many people just don’t think the public school system is working. You are free to disagree with me, as you are free to question my logic and facts, but do it. Show me where I’m wrong, quote your sources, document your positions. What is most remarkable is that you don’t once factually contradict anything I’ve said.

Glen, you call for "a less bombastic approach," but I notice that you don’t hesitate to use bombast: "everything [you] know, think, believe and act upon, are universal truths," I yell "FIRE in a crowded theater," I ‘m a "voracious pundit provocateur," who uses "incendiary taunts," and "mindless bromides." In fact, Glen, in your 16-3/4 inch meandering you actually discuss education in less than 1-1/2 inch and even that is simply more "anecdotal" story-telling. I have anecdotes too, like the special-ed teacher I assisted who ordered me to falsify progress reports to insure his employment over summer vacation or the teacher who failed a student because she disagreed with him in class. However, anecdotes are subjective, so I don’t use them, instead I prefer objective facts. If you don’t like my facts, then don’t just put quotes around the word, actually have the intellectual honesty to contradict them. If you don’t like my conclusions, then provide alternatives. If you don’t like my interpretations, provide your own. Logic dictates that if one student fails, he probably didn’t do the work, but if most or all students fail then, logic suggests, the system didn’t do the work. Where’s the flaw in that logic, Glen? You were a teacher, Glen, so I understand your reticence to blame the system, but there are quite a few who aren’t. At least 38% instead of criticizing the system quietly send their children to private schools.

A little honesty goes a long way. If particular people want to delude themselves and suggest nothing is wrong with public education - fine, that’s their business. It becomes everyone else’s business when those people demand we all do the same. I deeply love learning and despise dishonesty. When I see failure praised as success, when I see political agenda supplanting public education, when I see angst and whining presented as reasoned discourse, I will speak up.

Chuck Roast

2005-03-02T09:36:00.000-08:00

Chuck Gregory is a local fellow who doggedly tries to respond to my letters to the editor in our local paper (of which most of these posts are made up of). The following is a response to his reply to my "horse's mouth" letter, posted previously.

I have to admit to a grudging respect for Chuck Gregory. It isn’t often that one person can be so totally convinced of his own omniscience that he seems to have no need to check his facts before opening his mouth to drool. It’s become almost routine for him to call me to task as his lead-in to opining on something he is almost completely ignorant about, completely misinformed on, or intentionally misleading his audience about. Is it possible that he truly buys into the crack-pot conspiracy theories?

I’d like to have Chuck explain how the “Republican Agenda” is at fault for the failure of the American Public School - it’s been run by Democrats for forty plus years now. Chuck says “the success of the public school system is absolutely tied to the social fabric.” Fine, Chuck, but who’s woven that “social fabric” for the last half-century? It’s been liberal Democrats and what a wonderful job they’ve done, wouldn’t you say? Chuck criticizes me for supporting school vouchers (which I have never done in print nor in his presence - more proof of his omniscience), suggesting that would be my response to a situation he describes wherein a “Union Street school principal had to forcibly put on the bus a child who didn’t want to go home.” Chuck implies that there was abuse at home. Chuck, as you well know but aren’t honest enough to say, that principal could have scheduled a meeting with the parents and, if he suspected abuse, could have called Social Services to report his suspicion (which is what I would have done). Chuck ignored the Vermont principal I gave as an example of schoolhouse sexual predators when he lied about “none of them [being] in Vermont.” Furthermore, in complete disregard for the rising evidence of schoolhouse abuse (which I cite from Carole Shakeshaft’s Congressional report), Chuck blames parents as the primary abusers of children. So what Chuck is saying is ‘ignore schoolhouse sexual abuse because it sometimes occurs in the home too.’ I think that’s an irresponsible attitude borne of the refusal to recognize a problem in a beloved social program. And he says I’m a shill :)

Chuck wants us to consider Finland as a model for our education system. I wish he would, Finland has a system very similar to what we used to have. With typical disregard for truth, Chuck uses only the information he likes, disregarding what he doesn’t. Lizette Alvarez reported for The New York Times in April 2004 that in Finland “spending is a paltry $5,000 a year per student...there are no gifted programs and class sizes often approach 30...All teachers in Finland must have at least a master’s degree [and] they are no better paid than teachers in other countries.” Some in America would call this ‘draconian cuts in education.’ Finnish students in early primary school are required to learn art, biology, civics, environmental studies, two additional languages, as well as the nationally recognized language (Finnish or Swedish), geography, history, mathematics, phys ed, and (God forbid) something they call religious knowledge. After ninth grade, Finnish students are strenuously tested and their test scores determine their future education, they are either matriculated into a college prep program or they take vocational studies. So, please Chuck, do not try to compare our Public Day Care System to a system committed to education.

Chuck notes that I consider Finland a socialist country, and I do, because it is. I fail to see Chuck’s point, other than that socialist countries do “it” so much better than we capitalist slobs (‘it’ being, I guess, everything). However, there’s a price to be paid for socialism, one which it’s proponents, like Chuck, are loath to admit. Helena Pentti, a Finnish Economist, wrote that “an employee on an average salary will pay approximately 35 percent in tax on their income.” Here in capitalist-employee-hell the average salary will pay 21 percent in 2004. Seppo Penttila, professor of Tax Law at the University of Tampere, Finland, notes that “Finnish taxes levied on earned income are extremely high by international standards, with the tax rate ranking among the highest of all OECD countries.” The reason the tax rates are so high is precisely because they have a socialist government that mandates untenable social programs, especially in the area of employment. It is remarkable how otherwise intelligent people don’t recognize the relationship between staggering taxation and soaring unemployment: when businesses are squeezed to pay overly generous workers’ compensations, they do not keep large work forces and are very slow to hire new workers to meet increased demands (which in turn depresses their ability to compete), and as a result many workers are left unemployed. Finland is a perfect example of this according to the Jan. 2, 2005 report from the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat), which placed Finland’s unemployment rate at 8.9% (where it’s been for over a year). In comparison, the US unemployment rate is at a low of 5.4% (a level lower than ever Bill Clinton managed). Chuck, if you’re going to take a position, at least take the time to learn something about it and don’t waste the time of our good readers with your ill-conceived political drivel.

I was shocked to see Chuck admit that “Bush may not have lied about Iraq.” It is a pity that Chuck couldn’t stay with the truth when he said Bush “certainly lied about his support for education.” No lies from Chuck are more easily exposed than these: “Bush vehemently fought a reduction in classroom size from 44 to 26 students when he was governor of Texas....abandoned his other initiative for Texas educational reform...[and as President] cutting funding for both” Head Start and vocational education. Classroom size in Texas was a result of a lack of teachers - there were 63,000 teaching vacancies, but only 41,000 could be filled. However, despite the scarcity of teachers, under Bush’s watch, according to Jay Greene’s New York Times article (Texas Education Miracle No Mirage) class sizes were reduced from 15.9 students per teacher to 15.2. Greene also reports that under Bush, per pupil spending increased. During Bush’s term as Governor, the percentage of teachers with masters degrees decreased. Conversely, the percentage of teachers with less than six years’ experience increased. Oddly enough, the NAEP scores for Texas during Bush’s term increased. According to David Grissmer, a researcher for Rand who did an analysis of Texas education, “Texas students ranked high nationally, particularly in the fourth-grade math, and black fourth graders in Texas made bigger gains than fourth graders in any other state on the math portion of the national test.” As for “cuts,” well, that’s the expected liberal spin where budget increases that don’t rise to the requested levels are called cuts - I don’t know about you, but when the boss gave me a smaller raise than I wanted, I didn’t call it a cut in pay.

Chuck doesn’t like it when I quote sources and document facts, he calls it a “smear technique.” Yet does he give his sources or document his daft claims? While he’s using pejorative language like “neo-conservative” (a label that means nothing), “smear,” “shill,” and “greedy parvenue,” I simply point out the facts that others have documented and studied. As I said earlier, I don’t have Chuck’s omniscience, so I don’t have the documented information at my fingertips to blame parents for the ills of the public education system as he does. Last I checked, most parents don’t work in the schools, so I find it hard to blame them for the failure of public schools, as Chuck does.

From the Horse's Mouth

2005-02-25T10:59:00.000-08:00

I don’t really want to beat a dead horse, but it seems that this horse isn’t completely dead yet, it’s not even mostly dead. The poor animal doesn’t realize it’s losing the race. Worse, it doesn’t even know there is a race. The American public education system was a thoroughbred race horse, a real charger, but after long abuse it’s degenerated to the point of being a nag. Last week, Congressman Bernie Sanders hosted a town meeting in Montpelier which, in the words of W-CAX TV, would examine “the recent escalation of attacks on public education.” The congressman wants to “explore what can be done to preserve an educational system that provides equal educational access for all children and young people.” Slated to be with him on the stage were various school officials, the chairman of the House Education Committee, and Vermont State Teachers’ Union president.

I did not attend the town meeting, but I don’t expect there were many original ideas discussed. I imagine it was the tired, hackeneyed litany of “the vast right-wing conspiracy” led by “the moralistic, bible-thumping, homeschoolers” who were manipulated by “the evil Emporer Bush and Darth Rove” into depriving our future leaders of the education necessary to see through their nefarious and insidious (that’s evil for you recent public school graduates) machinations. I’d venture Congressman Sanders hasn’t a clue what’s causing the “escalation of attacks on public education” and his choice of cohorts suggests that the goal was to gloss over the real problems and fluff off the blame. It sounds like a conference of the foxes who guard the hen house. I can see it: the House Education Committee explaining how increased property taxes are better educating the kids, school officials with organizational charts showing the flow of funds down through the system to each student’s desk, and the president of the Teachers’ Union clarifying the relationship between teachers’ benefits and better education for our children. If you want to know why there are more attacks on public schools, ask the people who are making them not the people responsible for creating the problems.

Is anyone but me outraged at being taxed to pay for failure? Are teachers to blame, you betcha! Yes, it is a student’s responsibility to learn and a parent’s responsibility to monitor their child’s education, but it is the teachers’ responsibility to teach and the lion’s share of that is inspiring the kids to learn. The “It-Takes-A-Village-crowd” have appropriated much of the authority of parents, but they won’t take the commensurate responsibility of it. Teachers demanded recognition as ‘professionals,’ but when the students fail, they deny culpability: “there’s too many kids in the class,” or “there’s not enough parent involvement,” or “the kids need to be medicated.” Last time I checked, professionals are fired when they don’t perform and the boss doesn’t accept excuses, but in a school system the rules of life don’t seem to apply.

Ours is an interconnected, interdependent community. We all do our part and contribute to the whole. Teachers are important and deserve respect. But are they more important than the garbage man collecting and hauling their trash away? Or the bank teller? Or the grocery clerk? Or the secretary at any given office? On inservice days parents must lose a day’s pay or pay daycare for that time, in addition to paying the teachers for the day! Most people who work in the private sector, are required to maintain any “continuing education” on their own time. Teachers, on the other hand, rate pay increases that far outstrip others equally qualified and educated who are not in the public employ. They are guaranteed health insurance that a secretary in an office would kill for. Teachers qualify for taxpayer funded forgiveness on portions of student loans, but parents who give up careers to keep a home or homeschool don’t, nor do parents who take jobs and sacrifice time with their families for less pay than teachers get. Last week, Kathy Pellett announced legislation she’s drafting to exempt retired teachers from taxes incurred from “working more than a specified number of days...allowed under the provisions of their pension.” Well, excuse me, but other retirees don’t get that benefit, Representative Pellett.

If you really want to understand the “escalation of attacks on public education” simply look at page 100 of the Town of Springfield, Vermont Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2004. The report tells us that “spring 2004 results on the Vermont State Assessments demonstrate overall improvement of student learning, especially in reading and writing.” But the numbers give the lie to that bit of sophistry. In the tenth grade, 41% of “students met or exceeded the standard of learning” in reading with basic understanding, 39% read with analysis and interpretation, 36% could write effectively, 63% could demonstrate mathematical skills, but only 38% understood the concepts, and only 32% were able to demonstrate mathematical problem solving skills. Science was assessed in 11th grade where only 45% could demonstrate scientific knowledge and skills. The state averages are right around 10% above or below our Springfield students - yes, those numbers are what Springfield teachers are producing. If these teachers were graded according to the work they’ve done, their best grade (63%) would be failing - I think that’s a C-, isn’t it? If they were reviewed in any professional office in Springfield, or anywhere else, they would not be getting a raise or better benefits, but just might find themselves receiving a pink slip.

If inexcusable performance were not bad enough, the teachers tell us that school choice is a bad thing while they take full advantage of it for themselves. “Across the states, 12.2 percent of all families (urban, rural, and suburban) send their children to private schools...but urban public school teachers send their children to private schools at a rate of 21.5 percent,” according to a 2004 study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. In Washington, D.C. it’s 28 percent, 35 % in Baltimore, and 44 % in Philadelphia as reported in The Washington Times and The Chicago Sun-Times. Granted, the percentage is probably not as great here in Springfield, but any public school employee opting out of a public school is sending a thunderous message to parents and it’s being heard.

I homeschool my daughter. I won’t suggest this for everyone, but I know that what I’m doing with her can be done in any classroom in any school. Time-tested, tried-and-true techniques of the three “R”s and repetition. Teachers have told us for years that “mindless rote repetition” doesn’t work - except it’s not mindless, never has been, and so it does work, but it’s not fun, it’s work. At six, my daughter has read - yes, by herself, with minor input from me - Usborne’s Myths for young children and retold them in her own words so I knew she understood, she reads chapter books and does addition with carrying and subtraction with borrowing in triple digits; she has studied basic Earth Science and can explain concepts like plate tectonics, the life-cycle of a rock, and the cycles of air and water. At the kindergarten level she has internalized these concepts because of the “mindless rote repetitions,” and understands the material because we’ve invested the time in learning about these subjects - that’s teaching. I think it’s important to note that in our classroom we don’t have inservice days or snow days, just simple straight-forward reading, writing, and arithmetic. If you want the “attacks on public education” to end, stop using our children and taxes for social experimentation and get the horse back in the race - get back to the work of education.

Indefensible Public Schools

2005-02-16T22:46:00.000-08:00

I was taken to task for slipping some “serious humor” into a recent article. “Serious humor” is making light of a serious subject. In discussing some historical figures and issues, I gave parenthetical explanations “for recent public school graduates.” One reader was so incensed that he feels I owe “the highly qualified and dedicated teachers in the Springfield school system, as well as the well educated graduates of Springfield High School a sincere apology.” Well, I have news for you - it ain’t gonna happen. When I’m wrong I will gladly, even gleefully, retract a statement, correct it, and apologize, but I won’t do so because some one’s feelings got hurt - especially when I’m right.

The facts of the matter suggest that schools in the United States are not performing adequately. We arguably had the greatest school system in the world, it was free for all, comprehensive, and produced a well educated citizen. This is no longer the case and hasn’t been for quite some time. I am a graduate of public school and I have worked in the public school system for many years in a variety of positions: student aide, teacher aide, special education aide, substitute teacher, and as a summer counselor in a High School immersion summer course known as Upward Bound. I dallied with the Education Dept while in college, so I know what it used to take to graduate with an Education Degree and I was not impressed (if you are a parent of a school age child I strongly suggest you take a few minutes and read the course requirements for an Ed degree).

My personal experience aside, a cursory perusal of the state of public education quite eloquently confirms my opinion. Most people reading this should recognize the acronym (for you recent public school grads that’s a word formed from initials, usually a name) ACT or, as it used to be known, American College Testing organization. ACT is a non-profit, non-partisan organization who’s goal is “to help individuals and organizations make informed decisions about education and work” by assessing “what learners have achieved through various stages of education, K-16,” through comprehensive testing, study and analysis. ACT released a report in Oct 2004 which stated “many high school graduates do not have all of the skills to succeed in college-level coursework or workforce training.” It is just that simple. Specifically, the report noted “only 22 percent of the 1.2 million high school graduates who took the ACT Assessment in 1004 achieved scores that would deem them ready for college in all three basic academic areas - English, math, and science.” Of those tested “only 26 percent [were] ready to earn a “C” or higher in their first college Biology course, and only 40 percent” in Algebra. I can see how this information is unpalatable, but I didn’t make it up.

American College Testing changed it’s name to ACT in 1996 because it was not just testing American students, it had globalized, but in fairness, let’s move on from ACT. The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) completed it’s triennial testing in 2004 and you’ll be pleased to know that Finland and South Korea have the best students in the world. Out of 39 countries the United States placed 24th - for you recent grads, that’s not even in the middle, much less in the running. PISA measures “the ability of 15-year-olds to solve real-life math problems.” Not too long ago, a recent Springfield High School grad working at a local store needed a calculator to figure my change, is it any wonder? The United States was closer to the middle in last PISA, so we’re not getting better. How would we when we lower the educational standards to raise the performance levels?

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has shown some promise, forcing many schools to perform, but even that is plagued by the very school system it is supposed to repair. The Center for Education Policy released a study demonstrating that “improved test scores are due to changes that 47 states have negotiated with the U.S. Department of Education that make it easier for schools to meet the law’s standards.” Read that again, please and notice that magic number. Forty-seven! Folks, there’s only 50 states in the Union. That means only THREE states have schools that are performing adequately. Any moment now some Bush-Basher is going to shred the paper frothing at the mouth and proclaim the failure of the schools is Bush’s fault for underfunding NCLB and cutting education spending, so let me be clear: in Bush’s first term, “the budget for the Department of Education has grown 58%” - check it out at FactCheck.org.

Is it any wonder why our children aren’t learning? You’d have to be blind, deaf, dumb, and completely disconnected to have missed the rash of school sex scandals. Jeffrey Owens was a middle school Spanish teacher at Camden School District in Oneida County, NY. Joseph Fischer was a Monessen High School (PA) teacher and football coach. Kathy Garrett was a special ed teacher in Seminole County, FL. Faron Grant Carpenter was a teacher of 4-year-olds at the Emmanuel Baptist Child Development Center in Farmington, NM. Christopher Casey was a third grade teacher at Castlemont Elementary School in San Jose, CA. Aaron Mohanlal was a middle school teacher at New Renaissance Middle School in Miramar, FL. Elizabeth Miklosovic was a teacher in South Haven, Michigan. Daniel Eugene Havlik taught at an Orange County (CA) middle school. Each of these individuals was engaged in sexual abuse or relations with students and these are only the ones from December 2004 that I bothered to keep track of. Just last week another three were caught. In case you think it doesn’t happen here, William L. Clark, principal at Plymouth (Vt) Elementary School was arrested in 1994 on a 1992 warrant for child molestation in Alaska. Hofstra University’s School of Education professor, Charol Shakeshaft wrote a report for Congress estimating “that almost one in 10 children, sometime between kindergarten and 12th grade, are targets of behavior ranging from unprofessional to criminal.” In January 2005, at Palo Alto’s (CA) Jane Lathrop Middle School career day event William Fried, a guest speaker, explained to 45 eighth-graders (i.e. 14-year-olds) that exotic dancing and stripping is a “viable and potentially lucrative” career worth upwards of $250,000 per year and that larger breasts “whether natural or augmented” adds to that figure: “for every two inches up there, it’s another $50,000.” Katie Couric just did a nationally broadcast interview of several students regarding their in-school sexual escapades and she wasn’t appalled, but rather flushed with excitement and reinvigorated. Seventeen magazine cavalierly reports that “55% of teenagers have tried oral sex” because (ala Bill and Monica) “they don’t regard oral sex as sex.”

I am not suggesting that all teachers are pedophiles, far from it. I believe the vast majority of teachers are good people and many are excellent teachers. If they would simply teach, I would probably have nothing to say, but there’s another agenda besides education in the school system. The NEA is one of the five largest Political Action Committees and one of the largest unions in the county. In 1996 it spent more than $39 million promoting it’s goals and has spent more each year since. The NEA lobbied Congress in opposition of tuition vouchers for private or parochial schools, in opposition to any Parental Rights Acts, and in support for taxpayer funded services for illegal aliens. According to it’s own resolutions, the NEA promotes education including “diversity of sexual orientation [because] it is the right of every individual to live in an environment of freely available information, knowledge, and wisdom about sexuality.” The NEA also vigorously opposes “merit-based pay” for teachers. “It’s contrary to a school working together and collaboratively,” according to CA Dept of Ed spokesperson, Jack O’Connell. Yvonne Chen, principal of Vaughn Next Century Charter School in Los Angeles, says “merit-based pay” has “helped turn the once failing school into an award-winning, blue ribbon center for learning while spending one-third less money per student than most average schools spend.” Schools regularly engage in education on a variety of other issues with partners like PETA where children are taught to “re-educate” their parents on animal rights and WorldWatch which teaches the children to “re-educate” their parents on global warming and the evils of automobiles. In Massachusetts, a middle school class was taken to Boston to watch the first homosexual marriage certificates being handed out because “it was an historic moment.” In Milwaukee children as young as 11 were excused from school to participate in a “get-out-the-vote” effort as if that were a civics lesson. In Manchester, Vermont, several years ago a teacher took a social studies class to see the Oliver Stone movie JFK as if it were a valuable and accurate portrayal of history and, more recently, a class from a local school here in Springfield went to the movies to see Polar Express - I fail to see the educational value, but maybe it’s just me.

What sums up the failures of the public education system for me and brings it right home to Springfield is my experience this summer. I was canvassing the Summer Festival registering people to vote. Recent Springfield High School graduates asked me how much the registration would cost, where they could register to vote for the national elections, and why they weren’t notified in the mail of upcoming elections. My favorite was one young lady who must have just come from her graduation. We were discussing the right and wrong of our intervention in Iraq, about which she had no clue. I tried to draw a parallel to WWII and when I noticed her vacant expression, I prompted her with a reference to the Holocaust, to which she replied pleasantly, “oh yeah, that’s when the Nazis ended that whole thing.” Yes, Virginia, there are many bright and committed students who graduate from public school, but unless you’re one of them don’t count on getting an education that prepares you for life.

Uncivil Rights

2005-02-16T20:48:00.000-08:00

For the shortest month of the year, February has some important days in it. February starts with Groundhog Day which is shortly followed by Ash Wednesday. The day of love, Valentine’s Day, is in February. It has both Abraham Lincoln’s and George Washington’s birthdays and the day we celebrate them on, President’s Day. Oddly enough, February is also the month Frederick Douglass was born. In fact, Douglass and Lincoln have birthdays in the same week, which was why Dr. Carter G. Woodson, a Harvard scholar, created Negro History Week in 1926. Probably unforseen by Dr. Carter, Negro History Week developed into Black History Month. Another special February day for black history, which seems to never get mentioned, occurs in just a few days.

On February 26, the House of Representatives bill of 1964 arrived in the Senate. The story of this bill is remarkable in many ways and deserves some reflection. The original House version was passed by a vote of 291 in favor and 130 against. The record shows that Republicans supported the measure in greater numbers than Democrats, and in opposition Democrats numbered almost twice as many Republicans. Senator James Oliver Eastland, a Democrat from Mississippi, was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a die-hard opponent of civil rights who had spoken often against such legislation. Somehow the House version was placed directly into the Senate calendar, thus by-passing Eastland’s committee where it was expected to be quashed. This bill would become a major battle in the Senate which was to be expected, considering the long, hard road it had traveled to get there.

The road began, if the movement can be tied to any one locus, with the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, which was written by the first Republican President Abraham Lincoln and hotly criticized by Democrats on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. Racism would keep blacks disenfranchised for still another hundred years, but in 1927 the Supreme Court decided Nixon v Herndon, making it illegal to hold “white primaries” and defining as unconstitutional state laws barring blacks from running in Democratic primaries. As a point of history, there were quite a few blacks already in Congress, but all of them were Republicans until 1935. Following the 1927 decision, the Democratic Party executive committees enacted rules that barred minorities, and those rules were struck down by the Supreme Court in Nixon v Condon in 1932. As a private group open to the public, the Democratic Party passed rules at the state level barring minorities and the Supreme Court banned those in Grovey v Townsend. The “Jaybird system” was created next by Democrats, organizing private clubs where slates of candidates could be selected by white-only voting and then transferred by sleight-of-hand to the party ballot, thus effectively barring minorities. The Supreme Court outlawed that in Terry v Adams. Stymied once again, the Democratic Party instituted literacy tests and other provisions that cumulatively became known as “Jim Crow” laws.

An interesting side note is that two founders of the NAACP, Ida Wells and Mary Terrell, were both Republicans. Surprising as it may seem today, it would have made sense then. The 1924 Democratic National Convention was held in New York City and hosted the “Independence Day Klanbake,” a KKK celebration culminating in the obligatory cross-burning. A minority of delegates proposed a condemnation of the KKK, but were not given time to speak. Not surprisingly, Democratic President FDR appointed two segregationists to the Supreme Court, Jimmy Byrnes and Senator Hugo Black (D-AL). Black was a proud KKK member. The New York Times reported on March 17, 1960 that South Carolina Governor Ernest Hollings “warned today that South Carolina would not permit ‘explosive’ manifestations in connection with Negro demands for lunch-counter services” and that Republican “President Eisenhower’s contention that minorities had the right to engage in certain types of demonstrations [was] confused [and had done] great damage to peace and good order.” On July 23, 1961, the New York Times told of a Democratic meeting including (hero of Bill Clinton) Governor Orval Faubus (AK), Ross Barnett (MS), Governor Ernest Hollings and other state governors. The meeting was held to organize the opposition to civil rights and the White Citizens Council was tapped to help at the grass roots. Between 1933 and 1964, Congress held no less than 26 major votes on civil rights issues which were supported 96% by Republicans and opposed 80% by Democrats. One such vote was on the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which was filibustered by the Democrats. Republican Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois broke the Democratic obstruction and the law was signed by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Democrat Senator Richard Bevard Russell, Jr of Georgia was in the vanguard of the opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Alongside Russell were Senators Eastland, Strom Thrumond of South Carolina, J. William Fulbright of Arkansas (another hero of Bill Clinton), Albert Gore, Sr. of Tennessee, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, and 15 others. They obstructed the bill on the Senate floor and Senator Byrd gained notoriety for long-windedness by filibustering for 14 hours. Again, it was Republican Senator Dirksen who broke the filibuster. According to the Chicago Tribune of May 31, 1964, “Without Dirksen’s efforts, this happy conclusion could not be anticipated, everyone agrees. If the Senate can be rescued from the morass in which it has floundered for nearly three months, the minority leader will rightly be given a major portion of the credit. The Democratic majority, huge as it is, would have been helpless without him.” For himself, Dirksen had this to say, “the time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied.”

The final tally of the votes in the Senate was 73 in favor and 27 against. There were 46 Democrats in favor, or 69%. There were 27 Republicans supporting the bill, or 82%. Of Democrats, 38% stood in opposition while only 20% of Republicans did. It is odd, in retrospect, how the Republican Party has come to be cast as the party against civil rights. South Carolina Governor Ernest Hollings became a U.S. Senator despite raising the Confederate flag atop his state Capitol. He has retained his Senate seat despite blaming a 1984 Presidential loss on “wetbacks from California,” calling blacks “darkies” and the Rainbow PUSH Coalition the “Blackbow Coalition,” and deriding Senator Metzenbaum as “the Senator from B’nai B’rith.” In 1993, Hollings described the African Delegation to the Geneva GATT conference as “potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they’d just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.”

Strom Thrumond was a racist who accepted campaign funding from the KKK and ran for President as a segregationist in 1948. In honor of his 100th birthday, Republican Senator Trent Lott paid him homage, “when Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.” Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd observed that “if a Democrat leader had made [such] statements, we would have to call for his stepping aside, without any question, whatsoever.” The hounding Lott received resulted in just that, he stepped down. As an homage to Senator Robert Byrd’s 17,000th vote, Senator Dodd said, “Robert C. Byrd....would have been right at any time...he would have been right at the founding of this country...he would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation. I cannot think of a single moment in this nation’s 220-plus year history where he would not have been a valuable asset to this country.” Robert Byrd was a recruiter for the KKK and both he and Christopher Dodd are still Senators to this day. Whatever happened to the “credit” that the Chicago Tribune thought should go to the Republican Senator?

Tidal Wage

2005-02-09T00:57:00.000-08:00

The more things change, the more they stay the same. “A number of Washington’s lawmakers have once again proposed to substantially raise the minimum wage employers may pay workers” - could be a headline from any recent newspaper, but it’s from 1988. The year before that, Sen. Edward Kennedy was pushing for an increase in the minimum wage because the current rate did “not permit full-time workers to provide the bare necessities for their families.” In 1938 Congress wrote the Fair Labor Standards Act, which mandated a minimum wage for only the few ‘low wage workers’ (i.e. less than 50% of all workers). By 1990, the Fair Labor Standards Act had encompassed over 90% of American workers. If the minimum wage is a tide, it is not one that “lifts all our boats,” but rather a neap tide leaving all our boats wallowing in shallows.

The concept of a minimum wage seems laudable: provide the low-paid workers with a liveable wage. But, what is a liveable wage? How do we determine what that should be? A liveable wage is a highly subjective thing, it’s based on a myriad of choices a person can make. The current figure from Washington is $5.15, while in Vermont it’s $7 per hour. A McDonald’s hamburger is just under a dollar or about 10 minutes work. A movie will cost you over an hour’s pay, if you don’t get any popcorn (which will set you back half an hour). A nice, but not extravagant, dinner for two (depending on your tastes) will take you at least 6 hours to pay for if you work for minimum wage in Vermont. Who can afford to live at $7 an hour? Well, no one of course, so why is the minimum wage not set at $15 or 20$ an hour? If the idea is to assist low-wage workers, why the reticence to really do it, why the half-measure? Clearly, because no one would accept a realistic minimum “liveable” wage, except those who would earn it.

Of course, it’s clear that $7 isn’t a liveable wage, so the talk in Montpelier is to raise the minimum incrementally to $8 within 2 years and (hopefully) bind future increases to inflation, creating a ‘self-adjusting system.’ Not coincidentally, both Florida and Nevada have already initiated a similar system and Michigan is the current battleground. On January 24, the Associated Press reported “labor unions pushing for an increase in the state’s minimum wage” in Lansing, Michigan. The AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union are pressing the legislature to raise the minimum wage and are threatening to engage in a grass-roots effort to put the issue on the 2006 ballot. It’s curious that labor unions would be pushing the minimum wage issue. With their legally guaranteed and protected bargaining practices, labor union members don’t work for minimum wage. It’s curious until you consider that the unionized pay rates are tied to the free market pay scales: a raise in the minimum wage means the base unionized wage increases with the raises rising up the union ladder. But that couldn’t be why unions push raises in the minimum wage, they do it because the really care about low-wage workers.

David Card and Alan Krueger, both Princeton University economists, wrote Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage in which they challenge the conventional economic wisdom on the minimum wage. That economic wisdom is that a minimum wage is a bad thing and that it stifles the job market and the economy. President Bill Clinton and his Secretary of Labor Robert Reich used the book’s conclusions as the basis for raising the federal minimum wage. Not a great surprise, considering that Reich’s chief economist within the Department of Labor was, none other than, Alan Krueger. (It should also come as no surprise that the greatest supporters of Bill Clinton were labor unions.) Since it’s release, Myth and Measurement has been carefully studied and debunked. Card and Krueger focused on aspects of the research which promoted their theory and disregarded results or neglected to analyze aspects that challenged their theory. In one part they did phone surveys of fast food restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, establishing that the increase in minimum wage would not affect employment, but they never looked at the actual numbers after the minimum wage increases which clearly showed a dramatic effect. The minimum wage increased in 1991, in 1990 teenage employment was 33.8% and in 1992 it was 29.1%. The effect is more dramatic when compared to neighboring Pennsylvania. Both states have parity in 1988 at about 40.5% teenage employment. By 1992, New Jersey was down to 29.1% while Pennsylvania fell to 36.8%. The difference being that New Jersey raised it’s own minimum wage on top of the Federal mandate and Pennsylvania held to the Federal rate.

Economic theory suggests that demand and supply are linked by price. Real life confirms the economic theory. When Florida suffers a cold spell, orange trees are damaged, fruit production is diminished, and the cost of oranges at the market goes up. Now, if the growers simply raised the price of the oranges to increase profit, shoppers would buy fewer oranges. In the same way, when the price of a job is artificially raised by governmental fiat, employers will provide fewer jobs. Life really can be that simple. “Employment is lower than it would have been if no minimum wage existed. This is the case even in periods of substantial economic growth...” according to the 1983 Report to the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the General Accounting Office. Minimum wage rose 46% between 1977 and 1981 and 644,000 jobs were lost in the teenage bracket alone as reported by the 1981 Minimum Wage Study Commission. In 1988 the Congressional Budget Office was chastised by the House Democratic leadership and had to rewrite a study because the report, as a Democratic staffer put it, “provided information that was not requested.” The information not requested was a CBO prediction that the minimum wage increase being proposed would result in a loss of 250,000 to 500,000 jobs.

Here’s a simplistic, but accurate, way to view the “wage environment.” The “wage envrionment” is the pool of all workers across the entire spectrum of an economy. Nothing exists in a vacuum. The beat of a butterfly’s wings in Thailand might very well contribute to the hurricane in Bermuda. Toss a pebble into the pond and the ripples encompass the whole of it. When McDonald’s gives the hamburger-flipper a raise, the increase in the cost of doing business needs to come from somewhere, either the flipper produces more, or the cost of the hamburger goes up. If the flipper’s production increases, it’s all good. If the flipper’s production remains constant (i.e. his wage is increased by fiat), the offset of increased wage must be met by other means, usually an increase in the cost of the burger. The cashier, who’s been on the job longer than the flipper, sees his raise and expects one too. The secretary eating her lunch at McD’s notices lunch costs more and asks her employer (an accountant, let’s say) for a raise. The accountant gladly gives her a raise, because she’s worth it (and he can’t run the office without her, so he can’t let her quit). The accountant raises his fee to his clients. His clients own businesses and they pass on the increase in accounting fees to their customers, not to mention the raises they give to their employees who eat more expensive hamburgers at McDonalds. The ripple of raises spreads through every sector.

Aside from the simple issue of raises and cost of living (because that’s what COLA is - thus-and-such costs more, so the wage-earner needs more to simply keep up), there’s the issue of non-linear increases. The accountant pays more to his secretary and becomes more attuned his finances, so he might go out to dinner less frequently. The other business owners whose employees eat at McDs do the same. Now the waiter at his favorite restaurant has fewer tips and the restaurant owner has less income. The owner of the restaurant lays off a waiter or two. The waiters still working would like to see that new movie, but movies are expensive, so they wait for Blockbuster to get it. The folks at the theater feel the pinch. One less candy counter person or projectionist. The reverberations truly are felt around the world in a global economy such as we have today.

Contrary to the claim that employers would rather have government programs for low-wage earners than pay a “fair” wage, employers realize that the government is US (including them). Employers balance fair pay with fair production. They fire (when the law permits) low producers and hire the best producers available. Low wages are an issue of the nature of the work involved or lack of education/skill-set and that’s where we as a society need to focus to resolve low wages. As a humanitarian tool to raise the standard of living for the downtrodden, the minimum wage is another abject failure of ‘The Great Society’ and America can ill afford it.

Ponzi Security or SSI and how they fooled us again

2005-02-03T09:55:00.000-08:00

Psst... Hey, you. Check this out. I have a great deal going here. What? You don’t like money? O.K. then, here’s the deal: I’m going to bring you in on the ground floor. You’re going to thank me for this later. Sure, it’s going to cost you some money, $5000 to be exact, but hey...don’t look like that. I’m telling you this is going to work, it’s working for me. You invest $5000 with me and I’m going to help you make $50,000 in ninety days. No, really. See, it works like this: we’ll invite 10 of your friends to invest in the business. Each of them will put in $5,000 and that’s your share. Then we get 10 of their friends to each invest. You’re not going to believe how fast this works - I got mine in less than ninety days! We’re all going to be rich!

Chances are none of you have had this conversation, but maybe some of you have. This is known by the FBI as The Ponzi Scheme, for Carlos Ponzi who made it really, really big for a while between 1919 and 1934 when he was finally released from prison and deported to Italy. Upwards of 40,000 people bought into his scams and passed to him somewhere in the area of $15 million.

Another scam is known as Airplane. Investors can buy a low-grade ‘seat’ and, by selling ‘seats’ to other investors, they move up to better classes and ultimately (theoretically) cash out with big bucks. In Missouri, they’ve given it a new twist describing it as “gifting networks,” the most recent being the “Original Dinner Party.” In this scam, entrants begin at the “salad level” and progress through the scam by bringing new people in and moving up the menu to the “dessert level.” As a genre, these scams are cumulatively known as Pyramid schemes because of the hierarchical nature of the scheme with one person at the top reaping the greatest benefits and many people at the bottom losing their shirts.

There was an enterprising fellow in the 1930s who saw great potential in ‘pyramiding’ and created a scheme that has survived to this very day. In his scheme 16 people would pay into an account for one person and that beneficiary could then live off the proceeds for the remainder of his life. Down through the decades, the novelty of the scam has worn thin and today only 3 people are paying into each account, but it’s still the most popular game going. It’s called Social Security Insurance.

It is interesting to me to note that Ponzi, Airplane, and Pyramid schemes are illegal everywhere, but when the government does it, it’s ok. In the same way, gambling and lotteries are illegal, until the government runs them! Supporting the elderly and those who are unable to earn a living is certainly a good thing. I could make arguments about the legitimacy and legality of taking money from one group to give it to another, but I’ll leave that for another time. What really moves me is the dishonesty of those who so vocally and viciously oppose George W. Bush.

The Democratic Party is simply dishonest and it’s high time Democrats should admit it. What is good for the country, and even their constituents, is just not what moves Democrats. When Democrats criticize “No Child Left Behind” you should understand one thing - the program isn’t what they oppose, it’s who put it forward. Hillary Clinton, acting for her husband, then Governor of Arkansas, attacked the problems hindering the school system of Arkansas. She headed a commission, held hearings, analyzed reports, and ultimately created a program to save Arkansas schools. What she came up with bears a striking resemblance to NCLB. She was hailed as a visionary and is considered “the most intelligent woman on the planet today.” When George W. Bush does essentially the same thing (and gets results, I might add) he’s a partisan “shrub” trying to undermine and destroy our education system. In the same way, Bush get’s no support from Dems on Social Security reform, not because it’s in good shape, but because Bush and the Republicans should never get any credit.

Democrats would like to cast Social Security as a system that needs only some “adjustments,” that it has “challenges,” that it is in no way heading for “bankruptcy.” Even Democrats recognize that by 2042 the program will not be able to fully pay benefits. When you go to your creditors and ask to resolve your debts for a percentage of your indebtedness, that’s defined as being bankrupt. Despite that, Democrats insist that Social Security is not a “crisis” and that Bush is fear-mongering and inventing a crisis. Democrats don’t like history (they created Social Studies to replace it so that people like me wouldn’t exist); what history tells us about Social Security is that it most certainly is a looming crisis: it was in 1998 when Bill Clinton, speaking at Georgetown University, described “the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security.”

The Democrats’ solution to the ‘challenge’ is to raise payroll taxes, but they won’t say that; instead they propose to remove the cap to the payroll tax. So, let me get this straight: you’ll raise the cap, take in more in taxes, but that’s not a tax increase! What they mean is that the ‘little people’ won’t pay more in taxes, only the ‘wicked rich,’ and we’re only making them pay their fair share, anyway - at least until the ‘little people’ get raises or the Dems need more funds. For more Democratic dishonesty, let’s exercise a little history again. Previous to speaking at Georgetown in 1998, Bill Clinton commissioned 3 separate panels to examine the “looming fiscal crisis in Social Security.” The Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform met between 1993 and 1995. From 1994 through 1996 the Advisory Council on Social Security held hearings. The National Commission on Retirement Policy worked between 1997 and 1998. Individual ‘private’ accounts were included in the reforms suggested by each panel! Al Gore was opposed to private accounts, but Bill Clinton favored them, as reported by former Assistant Treasury Secretary David Wilcox, former Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Douglas Elmendorf, and a former aide in the National Economic Council Jeffery Liebman. So, when Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Harry Reid call Bush’s plan for personal savings accounts “divisive,” “partisan,” and “conservative,” they are being totally and completely dishonest and worse.

Why didn’t Bill Clinton ‘fix Social Security’ when he had the chance? Wilcox, Elmendorf, and Liebman published “Fiscal Policy and Social Security Policy During the 1990s” in June 2001. In their conclusion they wrote: “President Clinton decided to pursue Social Security reform based on bolstering the Social Security trust fund rather than on creating individual accounts...this decision may have been influenced by the changing political dynamic in late 1998, as the possibility that the president would be impeached came clearly into view.” The Social Security trust fund is a pool of money that is very much like Clinton’s budget surplus. The trust fund doesn’t exist except on paper and never has. Clinton’s budget surplus never existed either, except on paper (does the phrase “10 year projected” ring a bell?), it was projected based upon taxes that would be paid in the ensuing ten years. It never became a reality because those taxes were projected from Internet- and technology-related business that crashed and burned and the economy went into a recession partly as a result of the collapse of that internet-bubble.

The most damning thing that Wilcox, Elmendorf, and Liebman say is that the Clinton “administration’s economic team was also aware of a significant group within the Democratic Party that downplayed the need for Social Security reform” back in 1998. We see that group today in Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Charles Rangle and other Democrats. The strongest leg of the Democrat party are Social Security recipients - people who live in thrall to those who hold the purse-strings. If Democrats relinquish control over these people, how will they go on telling them their benefits are threatened each election cycle? The Democrat resistance to fixing Social Security is purely partisan politics and the lust for power with complete disregard for the welfare of the people of these United States.

Are You Really A Democrat?

2005-01-27T11:53:00.000-08:00

I am a Conservative Republican [period]. I am proud to proclaim it. I know what I stand for and I know what my party stands for. But what about Democrats? Few Democrats proudly identify themselves as Liberal. In fact they consider it a pejorative label used exclusively in Conservative attacks. Random House recently released a pair of books outlining the history of each party. The Republican history was written by a well respected historian while the history of the Democrats was chronicled by a reporter who’s credibility is that he’s covered every campaign in the last 50 years, or some such. So, I wonder, what do Democrats really know about themselves?

Democrats claim to be “the party of the people” and suggest that they are uniquely qualified on civil rights. This is as far from the truth as one can possibly get. The Republican party was created in 1854 by abolitionists (that’s people against slavery, for you recent public school graduates) and the first Republican candidate for President was John C. Fremont, whose slogan was “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont.” He lost, but in 1860, the Republicans ran Abraham Lincoln (he’s the guy who ended slavery in the United States). Stephen Douglas was the Democratic nominee in 1860 and only the year before he said: “the Union can exist forever divided into free and slave states, as our fathers made it.” It was the Democratic party, in the bodies of the Southern Democrats with the support of their northern bretheren, that seceded from the Union and instigated the Civil War. In case you think this is old history, consider George Wallace who became governor of Alabama in 1962 at the height of the civil rights movement on the slogan: “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” He ran as a Democrat and (oddly) was endorsed by the NAACP (how does that happen?). To this day, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd (W.Va) is perennially re-elected to his seat in Congress despite the fact that he was a ‘Kleagle’ (recruiter) in the KKK and joined (by his own admission) because it “offered excitement” and was an “effective force [in] promoting traditional American values.” In his own hand, Byrd wrote in 1946 (after he allegedly quit the group): “the Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia [and] in every state in the Union.” Of course, 1946 is ancient history, but Byrd filibustered (for public school grads, that means ‘blocked the vote on’) the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, more recently, opposed the nominations of both Thurgood Marshall, Clarence Thomas, and Condi Rice - they’re all black. When Byrd used the phrase “white niggers” on national television in March 2001 not one single civil rights group stood up to decry him or suggest ‘sensitivity training” cause he’s not a racist (go on, pull the other one).

Democrats say they are for equality and women’s rights, but are they really? On June 4, 1919, the Senate passed the 19th,or Susan Anthony, Amendment which gave suffrage to women. The vote was 56 to 25 and broke down as 36 Republicans and 20 Democrats for and 8 Republicans and 17 Democrats against. More than two-to-one Democrats as Republicans against and almost twice as many Republicans for it as Democrats! Just as an FYI, the women’s suffrage movement claims it’s birth in 1848 in Seneca Falls, NY with Susan B. Anthony and a group of abolitionist ladies and, as noted previously, the abolitionists were largely Republicans. I am not going to get into the argument of whether “a woman’s right to choose” is a good or bad thing, but I will note that the proponents of choice never seem to credit a woman with the intelligence to choose not to have unprotected sex - go figure. However, it was Jimmy Carter in December 1977 who denied Medicaid funding for abortions and Bill Clinton who pulled Medicare funding for abortions in 1999 and (lest you forget) Bill also cut AFDC, food stamps, and Medicaid for many with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Democrats will hasten to point out that these events were orchestrated by Republican Congresses, but I would counterpoint that the legislation would not have passed without Democrat support and that the Democratic Presidents didn’t have to sign them. In the last Presidential campaign, Kerry and Edwards spoke often about the plight of women and how they were riding in to the rescue. This is a common refrain of Democrats - that glass-ceiling stuff - but the truth of the matter is both the Women’s Freedom Network and the Independent Women’s Forum have debunked gender wage discrimination and reported that, on average, men work 2,174 hours per year while women work 1,675 hours. The Democratic party does have some prominent women that the Republicans just can’t claim: Mary Jo Kopechne, Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broderick, and the Dodd-Kennedy ‘waitress sandwich.’ When a Republican, like Jack Ryan or Bob Packwood, has a sex scandal he (or she) resigns, usually in shame, but a sex scandal for a Democrat is resume enhancement.

Democrats are the party of Human Rights. The Republicans oppose the United Nations which the Democrats embrace. The United Nations that posted Libya, Syria, and Iraq to the chairmanship of the Human Rights Council while voting to oust the United States from it. Two liberal icons participated in that inhumane war known as Vietnam. One JFK started the war and the other so hamstrung the government that we lost it. Joseph Kennedy, JFK’s father, was a Nazi appeaser and sought peace with Hitler. Like father like son, Edward Kennedy last week compared Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo with Hussein’s torture chambers (where hands were routinely cut off and victims garrotted - all preserved for posterity on VHS) and rape rooms (where fathers and husbands enjoyed the violation of their wives and daughters) and found the Iraqis were better under Saddam! Anyone remember the Hutu/Tutsi celebrations in Rwanda that Bill Clinton ignored?

Democrats have the corner on honesty as long as you ignore Sandy Berger, Dan Rostenkowski, the late night tire slashings, Bill’s use of the word “is” et al, Hillary’s cattle futures, health-care stocks, and book deal, the Corzine funeral, the Torricelli campaign, David D’Amiano (sentenced to 2 years for extortion and bribery related to his work as fund-raiser for James McGreevey), and that’s just off the cuff and recent.

CORRECTIONS: Kurt Staudert was “shocked to see Condi Rice become belligerent with a Senator that calls her on past lies.” First, look up the word “belligerent” in the dictionary and then watch Rice again - she was the epitome of grace and decency. Secondly, it was Boxer who lied, not Rice - the October 2, 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (that Boxer said had only one casus belli) included no less than 16 reasons for carrying the war on terror into Iraq. She said she read it (I did), perhaps she missed the other 15 reasons. Bernie Sanders criticizes Bush on out-sourcing, but I can’t find anywhere support for his claims of what Bush might have bought. What I do note (and try to live by in my own life), is Bush’s advice: “buy more United States products.” The simple fact is, just like abstinence, this always works - if you refuse to buy products not made in the USA, you support US industry, US workers, the US economy, and yourself, it really is just that simple - so, where does Bernie shop?

CHUCK ROAST: Mr. Gregory up-chucked about Dr. Jeffery [sic - he couldn’t bother to spell it correctly] Runge, head of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. Gregory impugns Dr. Runge: “I don’t know what qualifications...Runge had....maybe the usual healthy contributions” and criticizes his record on car seats. The facts (readily available on a simple Google search) are that Dr. Runge was an emergency room physician who “has seen his share of victims of highway crashes,” has been highly critical of the automotive industry and especially SUVs with their tendency to ‘roll.’ He said he wouldn’t let his own daughter own one “if it were the last vehicle on earth.” “The Bush Administration was none too happy with his comments [but] it won’t be the last time the administration will hear unpopular words from him, according to Washington sources.” Failing to institute a national mandatory motorcycle helmet usage rule, Runge is trying to come through the back door via the Inland Transport Committee (an international road traffic safety group) of the United Nations - the decision is still out. As to car seats, Runge has corralled the major auto manufacturers into better standards, is widely recognized for his commitment and good work in the field, and created federal grants for state-level “child passenger safety programs” - Michigan was awarded the first grant of $247,800 in May 2002. Chuck, we are not having an “ongoing exchange” - you write some wildly inaccurate drivel and I am forced to correct you - that’s not a dialogue. As for Vermont Republicans, I know quite a few and believe me, you don’t speak for them. If it will get you to stop referring to me and my family in your letters, I invite you to go head-to-head with me in ‘dueling letters’ - we’ll agree on a topic and write about it. E-mail me if you’re game.

The Day Before Yesterday

2005-01-26T09:43:00.000-08:00

The world is changing. Once-fertile fields are becoming arid wastelands. Forests are shrinking and deserts expanding. Mighty rivers diminish while the oceans rise. Icebergs float off the coasts of Ireland. People across the planet suffer a variety of climactic calamities. In Central America whole villages are abandoned as crops fail. Widespread famine strikes Africa. Egyptians are reported as eating the dead, especially children. Global climate change threatens the end of civilization and humanity.

How can I argue with icebergs in Irish waters? The human tragedy makes a compelling example. The only question that I need to have answered is how industry, automobiles, and CFCs caused all this to happen 4200 years ago. You see, the dire events I described in the opening paragraph began to occur over 4000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the mass production and use of cars, and refrigeration’s exhale of chlorofluorocarbons.

A lake known as Faiyum, some 65 meters deep, evaporated. Birch forests in Iceland became grassland. Oak reappeared in White Moss, UK. Italy’s Lake Castglione receeded. The Mayan civilization and the Egyptian Old Kingdom collapsed due to drought and famine. The Nile flooding, which was the engine of Egyptian supremacy, ceased, season after season, for decades. The tomb of Ankhtifi, who died at the height of the catastrophe, contains hieroglyphs that translate as “all Upper Egypt was dying of hunger, to such an extent that everyone has come to eating his children.”

Independent scientific studies coincide in their conclusions. A study of volcanic ash trapped in icebergs shows them floating as far south as Ireland. When the icebergs melt the ash falls into the sediment where scientists can find it, study it, and date it. Archeological studies of the campsites of ancient nomads in the deserts of Egypt find charcoal from Acacia trees which when carbon dated give clear evidence of the transition. The mystery of the disappearance of the Mayan civilization mirrors the contemporaneous failure of the Egyptian Old Kingdom. Archeological studies throughout the world have documented this catastrophic global climate change.

Climate change is nothing new to the Earth. The Milankovitch Cycles are variations in the eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth. Contrary to common understanding, the Earth is not really stable at all. Tectonic plates slip and slide over the mantle causing earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanos. In the same vein, the planet itself fluctuates in how it moves through space. Alterations we would consider minuscule in our daily lives, in the life of a planet cause global catastrophe. To us that’s bad, to the planet it’s just another day in the life.

A change in the polar orientation occurred roughly 6000 years ago. The result was enhanced temperature variations. The atmosphere and oceans are highly sensitive to temperature, and currents changed (giving rise to El Nino - I bet you thought that was a recent development). This caused mass migrations as places like the Sahara changed from fertile fields to deserts and the rise of many of what we consider ancient civilizations as humanity perfected agriculture.

Just as people change and age, the planet has cycles, and even the sun changes over time. Our sun is a super nuclear reactor emitting magnetic radiation as well as light. That magnetic field affects what kind of radiations reach our planet. Alterations in that field and the rays that then bath the planet can be measured by the presence of certain isotopes (carbon-14 and beryllium-10) in marine sediment cores. The radiations do many things (including cloud formation) that affect the environment and weather. Fairly regular cycles of warming and cooling have been identified and in many cases directly related to events in human history; such as the fall of the Mayans and Old Kingdom Egyptians, warm periods promoting advances in ancient Greece, Rome, and Medieval Europe, cool periods destroying agriculture in Europe and China, and even the settling and depopulating of Greenland.

Much of what the environmental movement claims as true is demonstrably false. Deforestation: “If the same rate of deforestation continues for the next 20 years, which is highly unlikely, taking into account the series of measures in place to protect the forest, the loss would amount to 8% and not 42% as stated in the [Science magazine] article (Brazil’s Science and Technology Ministry)” and “new research in Brazil suggests that around 87.5% of the previously mapped area of the Amazon remains largely intact and, of the 12.5% that has been deforested, one-third to one-half is fallow or in the process of regeneration (Philip Stott, professor of biogeography, University of London).” Endangered Species: “About 1,600,000 species have been identified. Estimates of the actual number of species range from 2 mil to 80 mil. Non one knows the rate of extinction or the rate at which new species are arising. The best current estimate based on actual observations, and using an extremely high estimate of the likely increase in the extinction rate, is that about 7/10s of 1% of species may go extinct over the next 50 years. (Jon Jewett, Enviro-Skepticism).”

As in the environment, so it is in politics. The political defeat of their movement spells the end of their financing. Thus, the ‘greens’ claim a litany of half- and un-truths about the Bush environmental policy. The Bush Administration has proposed a plan in 2003 to reduce mercury emissions from power plants by 40% by 2010 and a further 30% by 2018. The 2002 Healthy Forests Initiative tries “to reduce the red tape forest managers must wade through before thinning forests” of the undergrowth that fuels forest fires and “restoring our forest ecosystems to health and providing good habitat for wildlife.” The President also instituted an emissions cap and trading plan for greenhouse gasses, while in the late 1990's, science-based risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis were introduced into legislation and were defeated by the Clinton Administration and environmental activists.

Given all the information readily at hand, why are there still so many people convinced that humanity is destroying the planet? The ‘Global Warming’ crowd a century ago was the ‘Global Cooling’ crowd. In the 70s they were the ‘Nuclear Winter’ crowd. I suspect, these were the same people who punished Galileo, ridiculed Columbus, and distrusted Pasteur. At every advance in human culture there are people who oppose it. The rank and file are misinformed and have not been trained in critical thinking, so they accept theories that sound good and seem to fit their world view. The leadership is another matter, though. I could tell you that they are anti-capitalist or anti-American, but there’s an easier argument to make. Employ the ‘follow-the-money’ adage and you’ll almost never go wrong. It goes without saying that ‘fessing up’ to the science would denude the tree of life of Worldwatch, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and their ilk. Telling the truth would dramatically impact donations, subscriptions, speech engagements, rallies, and the other streams of income. Humanity need not be held hostage by the environment to be a good steward of it.

Comedy Central

2005-01-21T07:54:00.000-08:00

The confirmation hearings for Condoleeza Rice have been the greatest object lesson of the differences between Democrats and Republicans. There comes before the august body of shameless blowhards (on both sides) a stately lady of color. Republicans see a woman of substance, exceedingly well-spoken and erudite, skilled and gracefully poised who happens to be black. Democrats see their worst nightmare: an educated black woman who defied the quota system, rose out of poverty despite their best efforts, and managed to avoid teenage pregnancy through faith and good judgement. The stage is set for tremendous entertainment.

Senator Dodd wants to know “How do you feel about torture?” He wants Rice to talk about what she believes constitutes torture and what she’s going to do to see to it that no terrorists are tortured by American soldiers. What I want to know is: what forms of torture Condi is going to authorize to get these terrorist thugs to reveal the information necessary to defeat their cohorts still at large. Sure, I think torture is wrong. Beating people to death is torture. Burning people alive is torture. Raping people is torture. Cutting someone’s head off is torture. Endless monologuing, mindless drivel, and questions that take 10 minutes to ask might be torture. Forcing someone to listen to Madonna is wrong, but it isn’t really torture. Neither is denying someone clothing. I can live with Americans using sleep deprivation - most people have a boss who does. Senator Dodd, why are you so hot to provide creature comforts to the murderers of American citizens?

Senator Kerry doesn’t want Condi to tell him we’re at war, he wants to know why nuclear materials control isn’t on the agenda and why we aren’t more aggressive in signing nuclear arms reduction treaties. No great surprise there. He wasn’t interested that we were at war during the elections, why should he care now? By the same token, he was all for scrapping our nuclear deterrent during the cold war and hoping the Soviets would do it too. “He was wrong then and he’s wrong now.” The consistency was nice, though, when Kerry made a point of expressing how well qualified Rice was before he voted against her confirmation.

Senator Boxer was in a tiff demanding to know why Condi had sent a letter deep-sixing a unanimous Senate resolution on the human rights of terrorists. “We had good words, eloquent words, and you had them struck out,” she whined. So what that they were duplicitous...err, I mean duplications? A good law is worth writing into law twice! As Rice pointed out, the terms were included in a previous document and the language the Senate used would have extended rights and privileges to terrorists that many citizens don’t even enjoy. What I’d like to know is why Senator Boxer doesn’t understand that terrorists aren’t signatories to the Geneva Convention or any other international treaties?

Senator Chaffee was very disappointed that Rice squandered the opportunity to take a stand against torture. Does Chaffee think that 9/11 was an unauthorized urban renewal project? Or perhaps, that beheading is a new weight-loss treatment? Perhaps Chaffee feels that the terrorists are really freedom fighters. I don’t care how Rice ‘feels’ about the use of torture. Her feelings are immaterial. The law governs what she can and can’t do. Only in Chaffee’s mind do her feelings carry any value. He want’s Rice to ‘feel their pain,’ I just want the terrorists to feel pain.

Senator Biden cluelessly wants to know “When, God love yah, will you tell us the whole story? And, for God’s sake, don’t listen to Rumsfeld, he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.” Didn’t he get the memo about separation of church and state? Psst, Joe, you can’t use the ‘G’ word. And, of course, we should listen to Joe Biden, cause everybody knows, he knows what he’s talking about. I mean he gets the first-hand reports from the field. He sees the troop deployment plans, troop strength reports, support materiel allocations, opposition estimates, mission evaluations.... right? Doesn’t he? I mean, he gets daily briefings, right? He knows what’s going on. Well, at least, he thinks he does and if that’s good enough for him, it should be good enough for us.

Senator O’bama was the only one that had a half-way decent question. He wanted to talk about the model in which we decide to leave off diplomacy and go to war. “Some tyrants are ok, our friends, and some are not.” It was a pity he squandered his opportunity in favor of Bush-baiting. Barak, good buddy, when a person controls the armed forces of a nation, uses them to attack his neighbors, rape, torture and murder his people, further destabilize the least stable area of the world, divert money from schools, hospitals, food-production, etc. to military spending, it becomes clear that that person is the winner of the who-do-we-attack lottery. I know he’s a busy man, but how did O’bama miss the 12 years of UN diplomacy and Hussein’s decades of armed thuggery before that. But then, he also missed the roll-call of nations in our coalition force and our “allies” that collaborated with Saddam.

The Senate confirmation hearings would have made great comedy if the Democrats didn’t seriously believe the simply laughable and anti-American things they do. Real comedy is much closer to home. Chuck Gregory, Springfield’s own town-jester, continues to entertain with his Socialist Comedy Revue. Last week he quoted an obscure socialist internet magazine allied with the Center for Caregiver and Patient Advocacy. I’d rather go to the source: Jose Pinera, the former secretary of labor and social security for Chile who oversaw the transition from “pay-as-you-go” to privatization. “Given the choice,” Pinera reports, “93% of Chilean workers chose the new system...The whole working population of Chile has a vested interest in sound economic policies and a pro-market, pro-private-enterprise government...The savings rate of Chile was 10%...It has gone up to 27% of GNP.” A very quick (and honest) Google search turned that up, as well as an article this very day (Jan. 19, 2005) in the Kansas City Star that discusses ‘the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly’ of Chile’s system. Of course, our own Moore-on-in-chief, has no interest in the truth, only in ‘the Ugly’. In the ‘World According to Chuck,’ I am the fear-monger who wants to “pauperize” America, but isn’t Chuck the one threatening dire poverty, refusing to fix Social Security now because it “won’t go broke for twenty years,” and promoting double-dipping your paycheck each week? In fact, the plan Chuck likes is to dive into your paycheck with ever-increasing payroll taxes to bolster a system of modern serfdom. Chileans pay better attention to their politicians now that they have a vested interest, we could learn something from that.

As a post-script, I’d like to reply to Rick Smith. Rick, in all sincerity, if you’re “not in a position to regurgitate numbers” on an issue, you should do some research. Michael Chrichton just released Storm of Fear, his new novel on global warming. Like you, Chrichton wasn’t an advocate of global warming, but felt that the possibility merited some awareness and action. By the time he completed his research, he understood that there is absolutely no merit to the theory. Another person you might want to read is Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish scientist and former leader in Greenpeace. In an effort to contradict and debunk Julian Simon, an opponent to global warming, Lomborg gathered his sources and researched the theory. The result was his book The Skeptical Environmentalist which exposes Greenpeace and the global warming theory as a complete fabrication based upon skewed research, faulty documentation, and outright lies. As for deforestation, consider these tidbits: the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization released a report showing global forest cover actually increasing from 30.04 percent in 1950 to 30.89 percent in 1994 and Canada, which the Greens reported was turning 200,000 hectares of forest into paper each year, was actually, each and every year, growing 174,600 more hectares of forest. Don’t believe everything you hear without checking it out yourself. While you are at it, you might want to actually look into Bush’s EPA and find out what they are actually doing, because it’s not what you think.

Five Pathetic Words

2005-01-14T07:58:00.000-08:00

The five most pathetic words in the English language are, by themselves, completely innocuous and harmless, but taken together they say more about the person using them than about the context in which they are used. Those words are: ‘we’ or ‘we’ll’, ‘to’, ‘just’, ‘agree’ and ‘disagree’ and would be combined as “we’ll just agree to disagree.” While appearing to be a pleasant exit from a sticky conversation or a civil or diplomatic resolution to what may become a heated disagreement, it truly is a pathetic shield for a weak position, an excuse for the intellectually dishonest. A mind is like a parachute. If it’s open, it works and saves your life. If it’s closed, it’s useless.

Early last week, there was a 60's-generation woman standing in the center of Springfield protesting the war. She held up signs saying “Support Our Troops: Bring Them Home” and “American Blood For Oil.” My wife happened to be passing by and stopped to talk with the woman. When asked to support her statements the woman responded, “This kind of thing should come from within...We fought for our independence, we should let them fight for theirs.” When pressed about various things like the mass graves, the prisons for children, and the institutionalized rape she became annoyed and replied “We’ll just agree to disagree.”

This woman has bought into a twisted urban legend designed to create mind-numbed zombies, like herself, who will go out and support our enemies. Yes, support our enemies. Protest is fine and has it’s place, but blind lock-step adherence to a philosophy of opposition is quite a different thing. I am sure the woman truly believes what she’s promoting, but belief is not enough. An inquiring mind would seek out some support for one’s beliefs. Belief without evidence is faith or religion. When you take a public position you should be able to defend it.

“Support Our Troops: Bring Them Home.” That’s a fine sentiment as far as it goes, but how does it work? I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that this woman was willing to send troops to Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban, though I don’t believe that is the case. So with the elections in Afghanistan now over, our troops come home never having entered Iraq. The intrepid UNSCOM inspectors continue the Keystone Kops routine of scheduling an appointment to inspect a weapons facility and show up the day after they’ve been cleaned. Saddam continues to skim millions off the Oil-For-Food program for himself. Saddam also continues to pay the families of suicide terrorists bounties of $15,000 and promotes anti-American sentiments. Ambassadors, ministers, government officials, and UN dignitaries continue to prostitute themselves for oil vouchers under the cover of that same program. Uday continues to rape the daughters and wives of men who laugh at a joke about Saddam, say something positive about the US, or fail to appear at a Hussein rally. Qusay continues to cane the feet of athletes who lose competitions. The Iraqi people continue to eke out an existence on meager rations, intermittent or non-existent electricity service, and school only for boys where they learn to worship Saddam, hate the West (especially the US) and field strip AK-47s. A few years later, maybe less, the UN lifts the sanctions against Iraq because that’s what they’ve been paid to do. At that point, Saddam reignites his weapons programs (this plan is well laid out in many documents confiscated from various ministries in Baghdad and elsewhere) with an eye towards achieving long-range missiles, biological weapons (which he used to wipe out at least 60 Khurdish villages), and nuclear weapons. Al-Qaeda and other terrorists have been forced out of Afghanistan, but found support and homes in Iraq, and after resettling, rebuilding, and retraining, are ready to continue the fight. The renewed jihad begins in earnest with the destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge and perhaps the Statue of Liberty, the demolition of an oil tanker at some port in the Great Lakes, the massacre of a middle school in the mid-west, and the detonation of a dirty atomic bomb in Washington D.C. But we’ll be able to hold our heads high knowing we supported our troops and brought them home.

“American Blood For Oil” is another canard and almost laughable, if it weren’t so widely accepted. America does not buy Iraqi oil. We are the only country that boycotts Iranian oil. The majority of our oil does not come from OPEC nations. After the oil crisis in the 70s we diversified to get our eggs out of different baskets, so to speak. As an aside, if this were being fought for oil, why did gas prices shoot up? American blood is being spilled for oil - oil that is going to Russia, France, Germany, China, and other nations that had been illegally and immorally dealing with Saddam via the corrupt Oil-For-Food program. It is simple ‘head-in-the-sand’ ignorance to overlook the overwhelming evidence of this. Had these countries not been in Saddam’s pocket they would have been in the coalition that invaded and we would still be having this conversation, because people who take these positions do not believe that any war is worth fighting.

“This kind of thing should come from within.” Bill Clinton sent troops to, Bosnia, Somalia, and even Haiti - where was this woman and those like her then? A popular uprising rose against Baby Doc - a ruthless and cruel man - but we sent US soldiers in to quell it! I’d like to set aside the political aspect here and look at the intellectual element of this comment. In Iraq almost all the weapons are held by the government (certainly all the sophisticated weapons) - one that won’t hesitate to use them. The government encourages and rewards informants, even within families, and employs neighborhood watchers. It is simply dishonest to suggest that a civil revolt could occur under such circumstances. I seriously doubt that such a thing could ever happen again in the modern world.

“We fought for our independence, we should let them fight for theirs.” Our war for independence took place over two hundred years ago. The weapon of the day was the musket which fired once every 60 seconds (if handled by a professional) and was rather inaccurate. The government we revolted against was thousands of miles away across an ocean and did not have instant access to us. We had assistance from the enemy of our enemy, France. A more accurate, but still wrong, comparison would be Ireland and Scotland, both, last I checked, still part of the United Kingdom. Our independence was not the odds-on favorite and can not truly be compared to any other - just look at the mess the French and Russians made of theirs.

Another common protest that ticks me off is “One Death Is Too Many.” How about 3,000 on 9/11 or 300,000 in mass graves? What is the critical mass at which there are enough deaths to do something substantive about terrorism and dictatorship? When asked, protestors are quick to avoid substantive comment and weasel out of the discussion with agreeing to disagree.

I never agree to disagree. I have taken the time to consider and research my positions and beliefs and I can support them. I am more than willing to change my mind if someone should be able to provide a better argument, so don’t think I’m closed-minded. If you’re going to try to change my mind, you have to be open-minded yourself, which protestors never seem to be. When you boil away all of the rhetoric, the position the protestors espouse is one that supports our enemy by giving them exactly what they want - an America too divided or limp to act in it’s own defense. The campaigns by the anti-war, anti-capitalist, and anti-American organizations are quite skilled at pithy but intellectually empty slogans and appeals to the heartstrings. Unfortunately, since the 60's, the emphasis on critical thinking has been stamped out in our schools and our people are left vulnerable. In the all-too-prevalent warm and cuddly PC urge to make sure no one’s feelings get hurt, too many are willing to “just agree to disagree.”

Up-Chuck

2005-01-07T07:57:00.000-08:00

For quite some time now, I have been holding back on responding to Mr. Gregory’s personal attacks on me. My parents taught me to ignore bigots, but there comes a point where that is just not productive. From his first letter through his most recent, Mr. Gregory has criticized me personally without once addressing the facts I cite, yet he accuses me of attacking the messenger. He has displayed his ignorance for all to see by making wildly inaccurate descriptions of me as independently wealthy, anti-semitic, and a religious fundamentalist. Anyone who has taken a moment to speak with me learns quite quickly that I probably do not rise even to lower middle-class, do not attend church nor subscribe to a particular religion, though I lean more towards Judaism, and that my mother was Jewish. But, you see, Mr. Gregory is an activist and to an activist, facts and the truth are less important than the positions one stands for.

When I criticize a political opinion or position I make my position clear. Mr. Gregory hides his. He supports big government, as well he should, for he is an employee of the government and derives his income at the expense of his fellow citizens, but we’d never know that from his diatribes. Mr. Gregory’s activism is also something he doesn’t mention when he up-chucks his misinformation. If he did, only other activists would pay him any heed. What compounds Mr. Gregory’s deceit is that he works in the social welfare area of our big government, which is arguably the most wasteful and over-populated area of it, so when I criticize big and wasteful government and it’s social engineering, I threaten his livelihood.. He responds with ad hominem, factless, opinion-laden attacks that are the essence of “the politics of personal destruction” as exemplified by Hillary Clinton. Mr. Gregory, I’ve been watching Hillary Clinton for over a decade now and you, sir, are no Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Gregory’s most recent up-chucking is arguably his worst, so let’s take a closer look at it. In his opening, after his obligatory swipe at me, he talks about John Frith, Giordano Bruno, the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Catholics of the early 17th century. His frame of reference is “what happens when religions acquire ‘freedom’.” What Mr. Gregory intentionally obfuscates in his attempt to excuse his own religious bigotry is that previous to the birth of the United States there was no such thing as religious freedom. There was tolerance in a few realms and a few reigns, but by and large one had to subscribe to whatever the prevailing state religion was or face the exigencies of it’s wrath. What Mr. Gregory does here is typical of the activist mentality: present factual information coupled with an intentionally erroneous conclusion. For the last forty years or so, this country, which was founded on religious freedom, has become increasingly unfriendly towards Christianity and it is people like Mr. Gregory who lead the charge. I am not surprised by his antipathy towards me, I expose his anti-religious zealotry. He is much like the Inquisitors who tried to destroy anyone who dared disagree with their version of orthodoxy. What should surprise me is his willingness to up-chuck his ignorance in a public forum, but it doesn’t when I recognize his source material.

Whereas I seek out legitimate scientists when I take a scientific position, Mr. Gregory allies himself with the Union of Concerned Scientists. There are reams of material about this group on the internet should you be interested to see who they really are. Firstly, they describe themselves as “Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions” and are a Washington, DC based lobbying and activist group. They are tied in with the Tides Foundation, the Ruckus Society, Greenpeace, and other psuedo-science environment fanatics. Michael J. Vandeman (Ph.D.) said of the UCS: “a name like ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’ is a very powerful aid, but will end up being a liability, if you don't live up to it, and practice good science. This implies maintaining a critical approach to information that you gather from others, many of whom have much to gain from their particular view and little to gain from the truth.” Spinsanity.org, a non-partisan fact-checking watchdog, recently took UCS to task for “offering less-than-convincing evidence” in the report on Bush’s alleged ‘misuse of science’. Jim Peron, Executive Director of the Institute for Liberal Values has this to say: “the [UCS] was mainly a Left-wing collection of opponents to American opposition to the Soviet Union.” He goes on to point out that their anti-nuclear activisim was led by a pediatrician, not a nuclear scientist.

The UCS, with several other environmental activist groups, engaged in an international scam about the health risks related to apples treated with Alar. Their information was intentionally incorrect but the public perception was damaged so badly that Alar was removed from use at dramatic costs to the apple industry and to the companies involved with the research and development of Alar. While consumers, laborers, growers, and industry paid the price, the activists went home smiling. Though they were discredited, they behaved as if they had been vindicated and thus the next time they popped up, they had credibility. Recently, the UCS produced a report that stated “while pickup trucks account for just 20 percent of U.S. vehicle sales, six of the 10 biggest gas guzzlers at the pump are pickups.” Take a moment to re-read that line. There is no logical relationship between the two statements, but it sounds important. What truly is important is that this report, which goes on to take pickups and SUVs to task over fuel efficiency and pollution, was released at the same time Garry Trudeau was satirizing SUV owners in “Doonesbury”, a New York Times reporter’s book on the threat of SUVs hit the shelves, and (most importantly) the House and Senate conference committee on fuel economy regulations was holding hearings. The bulk of the report was rife with opinion, unrelated factoids, and shoddy research - in a word: psuedo-science.

Let’s come back to the recent up-chucking. Mr. Gregory would like you to believe that the Bush Administration is “screening political appointees to scientific posts on the basis of their conformity to beliefs approved by right-wing religious fundamentalists” and offers as proof another report from the UCS. The UCS had this to say: “the quantity and breadth of these charges warrant further examination, especially given the stature of many of the individuals lodging them.” That’s the way they operate: it’s “the nature of the charges” and never the validity of the evidence or research. In each case, the scientist who was rejected gives a personal account of their interview and draws subjective conclusions about their rejection. Nowhere does the report seek the cause from the interviewers. All of them admitted to being unsupportive of President Bush and holding controversial positions on hot issues like stem cell research. I don’t know about you, but I would certainly load my science advisory panels with people who opposed me and held strong unscientific opinions on unresolved scientific issues. Mr. Gregory chucks out “Dr. Laura Blackburn” but the report talks about Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn, a minor issue, but, like the rest of Mr. Gregory and the UCS, it’s shoddy factual documentation. “Blackburn”, he tells us, “believes the dismissal was due to her disapproval of the Bush administration’s restrictive position on stem cell research.” Being a scientist, we can of course take her word for it. That she might hold an unscientific position on an important issue based on the merest shred of potential scientific evidence shouldn’t bring into question her credibility as a scientist.

John H. Marburger III, President Bush’s science adviser, wrote a 17-page rebuttal to the UCS report outlining point-by-point it’s “errors, distortions, and misunderstandings” but I think this comment from Marburger best sums up the Bush Administration position on disagreement within the administration: “I can say from personal experience that the accusation [of a political litmus test] is preposterous. After all, President Bush sought me out to be his science adviser...and I am a lifelong Democrat.”

What Mr. Gregory, and the UCS, fails to account for is ethics. The morality of science is an important issue. Because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should do it. By the same token, I don’t think that it’s wrong to expect the people in an organization’s employ to pull together and support the organization. The Bush Administration is not full of “Yes-men,” but, like every administration before it, must present a united face when speaking publicly. Comparing Bush to Hitler is at odds with reality, but then so is Mr. Gregory. Perhaps he believes that the scientific experiments of Dr. Mengele were valid, despite the ethical issues involved in experimenting on live humans. Mr. Gregory is free to be an atheist or whatever spiritual persuasion he cares to be. He is free to espouse whatever unsubstantiated psuedo-science he likes. It is a pity his intolerance won’t let him respect the rights of others to enjoy those same freedoms.

Science Fiction

2004-12-30T21:00:00.000-08:00

The recent tragedy in southern Asia was truly nightmarish. One commentator likened it to the recent science fiction film “The Day After Tomorrow”: “We never thought it could really happen.” Friends of the Earth director, Tony Juniper, points out that “here again are yet more events in the real world that are consistent with climate change predictions based on the most up-to-date scientific models.” His co-hort, director of Greenpeace UK, Stephen Tinadale, observed that “no one can ignore the relentless increase in extreme weather events and so-called natural disasters.”

There was a tsunami that destroyed coastlines in Hawaii in the ‘40s and on July 9, 1958 another tsunami measuring 1,700 feet tall (that’s 56 times higher than the one in southern Asia) wrecked Lituya Bay, Alaska. These tsunamis were caused by undersea earthquakes. Global warming, if it were a reality, does not cause or lead to earthquakes. Making this claim is fear-mongering, job security, and a means to insure ongoing fundraising. The mantle of the earth is a patchwork of tectonic plates. They move. They ‘crunch’ against each other, causing earthquakes. This has been going on since there has been a solid surface to the planet. It is completely natural and totally unrelated to humanity or technology. But this tsunami in Asia fits “the most up-to-date scientific models.”

This past summer saw a series of devastating hurricanes and the ‘greens’ said, ‘we warned you.’ However, global warming does not cause hurricanes. Those who really understand global warming theory, like Tindale and Juniper, knew that, but they did nothing to correct the misinformation. The theory goes that the greenhouse gases trap solar radiation causing heat, which melts arctic ice, raising and desalinizing the oceans. The Gulf Stream, which distributes warmth along its route, is disrupted by the influx of fresh and cooler arctic water, leading to a global cooling and a modern ice age (according to a study by University of Colorado reported in Nature). Put very simply, hurricanes are created by effects generated from the heat of both warm water and warm air. If global warming were a reality, we would expect fewer hurricanes or none. But the hurricanes fit “the most up-to-date scientific models.”

These out-of-control greenhouse gases are supposed to be destroying the ozone layer and have created at least one ozone hole. Firstly, there is no ‘ozone layer,’ it exists in the air from ground level to the edge of the envelope, though it is more prevalent in the air between 10 and 40 kilometers above ground. Ozone is created naturally by the action of solar radiation on oxygen in the air. If you test for ozone in Antarctica during the winter, when the revolution of the planet hides Antarctica from the sun causing a ‘night’ all winter long, you will find depletion or a hole. If you test in summer, when the sun shines, you don’t find a hole. Care to guess what season the study proving an ‘ozone hole’ was conducted during? Curiously, that little detail is left out of the presentation of the data. The naturally occurring annual ‘ozone hole’ over Antarctica was first studied in 1956-57. This is significant because we are told CFCs have caused the hole and they weren’t commonly used until well after that first study. Another detail is that CFCs are heavier than air and do not float very high into the atmosphere. But the ‘ozone hole’ fits “the most up-to-date scientific models.”

Shishmaref is a village about 100 miles north of Nome, Alaska, on the Bering Strait and CNN (among others) recently reported that this “Alaskan island falls victim to global warming” as it sinks below rising ocean levels. While it makes great headlines, this is sheer fabrication. A study of the annual mean temperatures in Nome from 1907 through 2001 proves it was colder in 1999 than it was in 1907. A visual study of the island itself clearly shows the cause of the erosion ~ and it’s not rising tides, but rather the completely natural phenomenon known as ‘longshore drift.’ The east coast of England has for centuries been troubled by longshore drift and whole villages have been washed away. The peninsula of Spurn Head in Yorkshire and the island of Findhorn on Moray Firth in Scotland exhibit the same symptoms Shishmaref does and no one suggests global warming. But Shishmaref fits “the most up-to-date scientific models.”

Arctic ice melt and rising sea levels is an anchor of the global warming theory and there have been numerous reports of the rising tides and evaporating arctic ice just this past year. Greg Holloway, Canadian specialist in Arctic Ocean Science, noted that “it’s more complicated than we thought.” While satellite photography and declassified U.S. submarine studies show a loss of surface ice in the last 20 years, Holloway found the missing ice by following the 50-year cycle of Arctic wind patterns. “The submarine sampled ice during a time of oscillation of ice toward the centre of the Arctic,” explains Holloway. “They went back during a time when ice was oscillating to the Canadian side.” The International Panel on Climate Change preferred the study based on flawed data and disregarded Holloway’s results. Arctic ice melt fits “the most up-to-date scientific models.”

An unamed environmentalist attending the recent EU Climate Summit noted that we ‘are experiencing the hottest summers since 1500.’ This claim begs the question: which industry caused the heat in 1500? The claim also buttresses the position of scientists like Robert Essenhigh, Ohio State Professor of Energy Conservation, who suggest that what we call global warming is “a natural geological process” of temperatures rising and falling in trends measured in geologic time, not decades, or even centuries. Frederick Seitz and 18,000 other members of the National Academy of Sciences observed that “research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.” But harmful greenhouse gases fit “the most up-to-date scientific models.”

All scientists do not agree with global warming theory. In fact, the essence of science is disagreement, i.e. the concept of questioning, studying, and re-questioning until the truth is revealed as scientific fact. The Earth is round. Though you can’t see it, air is there. Gravity exists. Global warming is still at best a theory and one that is still hotly debated despite the carefully crafted appearance of unanimity. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine sponsored a petition in 1998 stating that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” This petition was signed by 17,000 scientists. The Meteorologisches Institut der Universitat Hamburg surveyed 400 international environmental scientists and found 67 percent did not subscribe to global warming theory. More than 19,000 scientists signed the ‘Leipzig declaration’ proclaiming “the scientific basis of the 1992 Global Climate Treaty to be flawed.”

Stephen Schneider is a biological sciences professor at Stanford who sums up the case for global warming protagonists nicely: “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” The problem with global warming theory is that “the most up-to-date scientific models” are flawed. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick reviewed the original data used by Michael Mann that forms the basis for global warming theory and found “numerous errors in the data”. Further, after correcting the errors, “the most up-to-date scientific model” showed no significant climate change whatsoever. Untold billions of currency have been lavished on measures to alleviate global warming symptoms. When global warming is finally debunked and it’s advocates discredited, that funding will dry up, the grants to the environmentalists will be withdrawn, the donations to the activists will cease. The tried and true adage - ‘follow the money’ - applies. But that doesn’t fit “the most up-to-date scientific models.”

The Reporters You Have

2004-12-24T07:45:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, we heard about the Dec 8th town-meeting style Q&A in Kuwait where Spc. Thomas Wilson asked Sec Def Donald Rumsfeld, “Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?” Rumsfeld’s response, “You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have,” has earned him no end of recriminations. It’s a great story: evil corporate-CEO-type taken down by the lowly noble grunt, reminiscent of David and Goliath. The problem with this simple tale is that it is not true. Sure it happened, but there’s so much more to the story.

Many of you may already know that Wilson’s question was a put-up-job. He and another soldier were planted in the audience by a reporter, Edward Lee Pitts. Pitts knew that the Q&A was for soldiers and, while reporters were welcome to attend, the press would not be allowed questions. Pitts sought out willing accomplices, rehearsed the question, then (in his own words) “went and found the Sgt. in charge of the microphone for the question and answer session and made sure he knew to get my guys out of the crowd.” The nobility of Mr. Pitts pales a bit when it becomes clear that he has “been trying to get this story out for weeks - as soon as I found out I would be on an unarmored truck.”

Of course, the violation of journalistic ethics - creating a story, instead of reporting - is less important than the fact that our soldiers are unarmored. Or would be if that were true. Senator Dan Burton reported that of 19,000 Humvees in Iraq, only 4,000 were unarmored. The Army’s combat systems development and acquisition team reports that of the 830 vehicles in the 278th Regimental Combat Team (that would be Wilson’s unit), all but 20 had been armored before the Dec 8th Q&A. In a Pentagon briefing that has gone almost unreported, Army Maj. Gen. Stephen Speakes further explained that the orders for the armoring of those last 20 vehicles had already been given and the armorers “completed those 20 vehicles in the next day.” In other words, 97% of the vehicles had been armored and the rest were scheduled before Wilson asked his question and done the day after.

The reporting of this event makes Rumsfeld appear cavalier about the plight of our soldiers, which appearance the press is all to happy to fabricate and present, but is also not true. The Sec Def spoke both before and after his ‘sound byte’ about the problems surrounding the issue. Part of what he said was that it is “not a lack of desire or money but a logistics... physics problem.” Reporters aren’t interested in the finer details, usually because those details would support Rumsfeld and Bush. Ballistic glass is one of the ‘logistic/physiscs’ problems: four sheets of glass glued together, very thick and heavy but still as clear as normal windshield glass, it holds up against bullets and the shrapnel thrown up by roadside bombs. According to Rep. Duncan Hunter of the House Armed Services Committee, ballistic glass is just too heavy for the window frames of the military vehicles to support.

The press is also loathe to report on the Supplemental Funding Bill. You remember that one, the one that was ‘voted for, but then voted against’. That bill included the funding for the up-armoring costs. So when people tell you they did not support the bill, but still support the troops, don’t you believe it. The media also has notoriously short memory. It is almost as if reporters suffered from Alzheimers. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) remembers and reminds us, “eight years of Bill Clinton decimated the military to almost half of what it was in 1990.” Under Clinton, military “modernization stopped,” funding was cut back, and personnel diminished. Over the eight Clinton years the Army lost 4 active and 2 reserve divisions, the Air Force personnel dropped by 30%, the Navy went from 393 ships to 316, and the Marines lost 22,000 troops. Vice President Al Gore described his military as the “strongest in the world” despite the fact that the Pentagon gave 60% of the training schools and 20% of active divisions their lowest ratings for readiness.

Serving with Spc. Thomas Wilson in the 278th Regimental Combat Team is medical platoon leader Second Lt. Lance Frizzell. Frizzell tells a different story than Wilson. Frizzell posts a blog to the internet (http://iraq.billhobbs.com/) and had this to say about the armor issue: “One point overlooked by the (main stream media) in the furor created over ‘hillbilly armor’ is what would happen if the 278th hung out in Kuwait for an extended period of time waiting for official up-armor kits. Here’s the answer: The units we are scheduled to replace would be stuck in Iraq waiting to be relieved.” Frizzell goes on to point out “it’s time for these guys to go home. It’s time for us to take their place. Period.” As a soldier and medic in the field, Frizzell has a better frame of reference than even embedded reporters and has said, “Most soldiers I talk to say the worst thing about being deployed is nothing you personally experience over here, it’s the worry your family goes through.”

Reporters are perfectly within their rights to pose tough questions to people like the Secretary of Defense. But asking a hard question is quite a bit different than engineering a news event. Worse still is when the information reported to the readers at home is purposefully inaccurate and slanted to serve political goals. Many of the reporters who hog-piled onto this story have behaved shamefully, but because there are few who hold them up to the light, they get away with it. Our soldiers deserve the best in both equipment and support; it is reprehensible that they get used as fodder for the political machine.

Merry PC-mas!

2004-12-16T07:57:00.000-08:00

Merry PC-mas! ‘Tis the season to be jolly, but not too jolly lest ye upset someone who does not care to participate in your festivities. This is one of my favorite PC-mas songs:

rest ye merry gentlepersons
Let nothing you dismay
Remember
was born on some day
To save us all from bad choices
When we had gone astray
O tidings of comfort and joy,
comfort and joy!
O tidings of comfort and joy!
From our PC Parent
A special winged-being came
And unto certain farm-animal technicians
Bro't tidings of the same
How that in some city was born
The child of by name

Before you laugh, remember that it might hurt my feelings, so take care that I can’t see or hear you when you do it and that no one else can either, because they may tell me.

Ridiculous as this may seem, it may well come to pass. A few weeks ago I was watching Hannity and Colmes on Fox News. [aside: yes, I watch Fox and you should consider if you have ever actually watched it to decide for yourself, or just taken someone else’s opinion that it’s bad.] The show focused on the recent Cupertino, CA scandal. The guests included a representative from the Atheists of Silicon Valley and Michael Newdow, who some may recognize as the man leading a challenge to having “God” in the pledge of allegiance.

The atheist was trying to make the point that there is no place for God in our government. He was asked about the references to God in the Declaration and he claimed that the Declaration of Independence is not a founding document as it was written years before the government was formed with the ratification of the Constitution. As expected, he used the “separation of church and state” clause of the Constitution as his argument. When pressed he had to admit that the phrase never appears in the document. He tried to recover lost ground by suggesting that it is alluded to and buttressed his point with Jefferson’s personal letter that actually does use the phrase. He was asked about the next part of the statement and said, “that is a separate clause.”
Michael Newdow is fighting “for his daughter” so that her religious freedom is not infringed. His position is that she should not have to say “God” in the pledge. The fact that she likes the pledge as it is and attends church regularly is immaterial to her estranged father. Newdow’s claim was that religion is “divisive” because not everyone in the country believes in God and, for example, is offended by “In God We Trust” on our currency.

Alan Colmes rose to the defense pointing to the fact that the Constitution does not mention God, except in an offhand way in the First Amendment. Alan was asked where he thinks blessings come from, because, it was pointed out, the preamble of the Constitution includes the phrase “Blessings of Liberty.” He was caught in the conundrum. The founders may have been deists, as some argue, but that still means they believed in something and ‘blessings’ derive from some power greater than man.

Where is the divisiveness that gives rise to this myth? It seems to me that the divisiveness stems from the throats of that small segment pressing their views on the rest of society. It should be noted that altogether, a recent study determined, those opposed to “God” in school, on money, and in government amounts to about 8% of the population. I would suggest that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” means what it says: there will be no church of the United States. How that is separated from it’s rejoinder, “or prohibiting the free expression thereof,” is beyond me unless what you want to do is prohibit people from freely expressing their religion.

The Salvation Army does wonderful social good and helps many people. In an effort to avoid contributing to religious divisiveness Target and Toys-R-Us have barred the bell-ringers from their doorsteps. Who is Ebenezer Scrooge here? The church goers trying to help their fellow man or the politically correct? How is it divisive to display nativity scenes? The Grinch would be comfortable and feel at home in the ACLU and the atheists trying to steal Christmas from this country. Another important pillar of this country is ‘rule by majority’ which doesn’t mean the minority is oppressed. Far from it, the majority is required by law to protect the rights of the minority, but not at the cost of their own. This seems to be something we’ve forgotten.

December is a wonderful time of year. It opens with Hannukah, includes Christmas, and New Years. All three are celebrations thousands of years old. Contrary to popular opinion, the Mayo Clinic and other researchers have found that suicide rates do not rise during holiday celebrations when people are far too busy “because it may be easier to repress troublesome thoughts during these times of greater social interaction." This is not a season of divisiveness but rather a season where many people gather together and celebrate our common brotherhood irregardless of nationality, creed, or race. Happy Holidays “and God bless us everyone.”

Patriot Games

2004-12-15T07:58:00.000-08:00

Jessica Quindel, University of California at Berkley, believes that “Patriotic songs may exclude and offend people because there are so many people who don’t agree with the songs.” Last Saturday, I anti-war protestors in West Lebanon, NH purporting that “Peace is Patriotic”. I thought that perhaps I was unfamiliar with this new use of the word, so I looked it up. Webster’s New Riverside Dictionary defines a patriot as “someone who loves and defends his or her country.” Both the protestors and Quindel are emboldening our enemies, the terrorists, by reinforcing their image of Americans as limp and afraid of the sight of blood. The dictionary defines “consciously and purposely acting to aid the enemies of one’s own country” as treason. It’s really just that simple. Before you shout “McCarthyism”, consider that history has proven McCarthy right - Russia released KGB documents naming the communist agents who had been working in the United States, many of whom were Americans recruited by KGB agents. History has also proven that the Viet Cong were funding and directing some leaders of the anti-war movement in America in the 60s. We also know now that the ‘allies’ who opposed military action in Iraq were paid to do so by Saddam Hussein.

Speaking of terrorists, Shirley McLaine had a solution which she pronounced within days of 9/11, “Melt their weapons, melt their hearts, melt their anger with love.” She wasn’t alone, either. Richard Gere suggested we view the terrorists “as a relative who’s dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion.” The rubble of the WTC was still smoking and bodies were still being unearthed when these comments were made. Sheryl Crow at least waited a couple of years before explaining the problem to us, “war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow. I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.” The Nobel Peace Prize Crew has been waiting on Crow’s doorstep, but she’s “in a bar...drinking beer at noon” watching good people working.

Chevy Chase thinks, “sometimes socialism works...Cuba might prove that.” Steven Spielberg met Castro and thought it was “the eight most important hours of [his] life” and Naomi Campbell believes that Castro is “a source of inspiration to the world.” My father escaped from Castro’s revolution and I can tell you that only someone insulated by birth in a democracy could say such things. Like me, Andy Garcia is the child of Cuban escapees and feels his roots: “I obviously think about going back all the time, but it’s like asking a Jew to go visit Nazi Germany...I hope that one day democracy will exist and [Castro] will no longer be there.” Gloria Estefan is a Cuban emigre, the daughter of a political prisoner, and warns “Fidel has control over the money, over the people, he runs an oppressive and terrorist government.”

On the flipside, John Malkovich told Playboy, “America is crippled by fear. Twenty percent of the population is part of what’s known as the religious right and is crippled by the word ‘f**k’. Then there’s the Tipper Gore crowd. If Dr. Dre writes a song about bitches and whores, they don’t look for the genius in the work. America is a big, wild country where lots of bad things come to pass, and from the minute my children were born I was determined that they not grow up there.” Malkovich’s contributions to America (The Killing Fields, Empire of the Sun, Dangerous Liasons, The Sheltering Sky, Shadows and Fog, Beyond the Clouds, Being John Malkovich, and Shadow of the Vampire) no doubt, include some excellent acting, but consider the messages he promotes in these films. Johnny Depp commented on Columbine: “I mean, little kids going into school and shooting up their pals and killing people...I have a little girl who’s almost two years old. I don’t want her to grow up with that kind of thing in her brain.” However, Johnny had no qualms about making his ‘big break’ in Nightmare on Elm Street or returning in Wes Craven’s New Nightmare and it was ok to expose everyone else’s kids to From Hell or Secret Window. “I think the US is terrifying and it saddens me,” Tom Cruise says, “You have only to look at the state of affairs in America. I do worry about my children. As a parent you are always concerned. I just want them to be in a place where they are going to be strong enough to be able to make the right choices.” Of course, Tom’s a paragon of responsibility in Risky Business and Cocktail and abhored the violence of Mission Impossible I and II. Robin Williams’ quote speaks for itself, “we’re raising a nation of overweight, unintelligent people.” He’s only outdone by Roman Polanski (convicted pedophile avoiding US extradition and prison in France), “Normal love isn’t interesting, I assure you it’s incredibly boring.”

Our intentions don’t matter nearly as much as our actions do. Many people want to be judged not by their performance, not by the end results of their actions, but by what they intended, what they meant to do or say. How would the anti-war protestors respond were I to punch one of them in the nose? Would they embrace me with love and understanding? I think not. Would they excuse my behavior or call the police? America’s a nation founded on principles. A small but loud group has made it their life’s work to reverse those principles. There are countries that embrace their views, but rather than emigrate to one, they twist the words of our founding documents, insert their own meanings, and subjugate the majority to the will of the minority. The patriot works from within the system to elicit change, the enemy works from within the society to subvert the system. Patriots may not like what the system is doing but still support it. Though I believe their statements are untrue, unfounded, and irresponsible, I would still defend the right of the anti-war protestors to protest.

John Dickinson attended the early Continental Congress. He represented Pennsylvania along with Ben Franklin. Dickinson spoke eloquently and fought hard against rebellion and independence. He believed separation was wrong and reconciliation was possible. When the Declaration was approved and came for signing, he could not in good conscience sign it. He did not go into the street with a placard declaring “Peace is Patriotic”, but rather left Congress to join the army. He did not join the Red Coats and fight to maintain English sovereignty. Despite believing the colonials would be defeated, he joined the Continental Army and fought for his country. THAT is patriotism.

Peace is not Patriotic

2004-12-13T08:01:00.000-08:00

Recently, my family had occasion to be shopping in West Lebanon, NH. There was a group of war protesters on the side of the road. Five or six people carrying placards and standing in a small field of signs with slogans such as: “war is not the answer”, “how many must die”, and the obligatory “peace is patriotic”. I have never understood such outrageous balderdash. What an absolutely foolish notion! While it is politically correct to validate everyone’s feelings, I do not subscribe to the PC doctrine, but rather to the doctrine of fact and truth. Webster’s New Riverside Dictionary defines a patriot as “someone who loves and defends his or her country.” Clearly the protesters do not fit this definition. In fact these people are supporting the terrorists and our enemies. Many will not like what I just said, but that’s tough. Refute the point or remain quiet.

During the American Revolution a group of patriots were meeting in Congress. They were debating the merits of rebellion, the ability of the “rabble” we called an army to battle the Red Coat machine with any hope of success, and the nature of what the colonies might become if independent. There was little agreement on any issue and a lot of ‘horse-trading’. When it came time to sign their declaration it was decided no one could remain in Congress who did not sign. “We must all hang together,” Franklin is supposed to have said, “or we most assuredly will hang separately.” What is less well-remembered is the patriotism of John Dickinson of Pennsylvania at that moment. Dickinson opposed separation from England and had fought long and hard in Congress against it. When the vote went against him, he did not go to the streets with a “give peace a chance” placard. John Dickinson left Congress and joined the army - no, not the Red Coats - though he disagreed with the rebellion, he joined the rebel army to fight for his country.

The ‘peaceniks’ are never required to support their position. I’d give my eyeteeth for a reporter to pass on the touchy-feely, emotion-soaked, soft-ball observations and opinion-laden story-telling when reporting on a rally or protest, and instead ask the attendees what they stand for, what they stand against, and how their ‘love-in’ actually changes anything in the world. The undeniable and provable fact is that reports of these people reach the enemies of America, give them energy and embolden them to continue. Bin Laden believed, because of these people, that Americans would ‘roll-over’ in the wake of 9/11, and Hussein believed that America would never have the stomach to face bloodshed. Which is exactly what the protesters are proving.

The logic these people use is staggering. By their own rationale, we would be still be shouting “God save the Queen!” We would have respected the right of southern states to secede and form their own nation; I mean, it was only a war for market share and cheap labor, right? Kaiser Wilhelm wasn’t a threat to the United States, we should have minded our own business. Nazi Germany never attacked Americans, quite the opposite: Hitler wanted peace with the United States. So what that he was exterminating Jews, minorities, and the mentally retarded - it was a German or European problem! Of course, they never follow their logic through to it’s obvious resolution, perhaps because to do so would make their position untenable - I don’t know.

“Peace is Patriotic” is pretty much the same as saying “doing nothing is patriotic.” Worse, it amounts to saying “allowing genocide, rape, theft, and crime is patriotic” and I don’t believe they believe that, but how else does one describe Hussein’s Iraq? Many claim that we are the aggressors because we haven’t found any WMDs, to which I ask, where was it stated that that was our reason for going to war? Everyone believed he had them. The flouted UN resolutions authorized military action. The broken cease-fire agreement of 1991 authorized military action. The cynics point to oil as the cause for war, they have it and we want it. But that’s not what events have proven. We aren’t taking the oil, we’re looking to Anwar to produce our own. What has become clear is that the allies who opposed military action did so for oil. In fact, if it weren’t for France, Germany, Russia, China, and UN officials (among others) doing illegal under-the-table sales of military hardware for oil, in contravention of the Oil-For-Food, this war would have been much shorter, less costly in lives and money, and the reconstruction would probably already be complete.

Myth-Information

2004-12-10T07:53:00.000-08:00

Myth-Information

This country is facing it’s greatest challenge ever and it’s not terrorism. Nor is it the Federal deficit that we’re indenturing our children with. What we’ve sold our children’s children into servitude to is Social Security. For decades we have been told that the Social Security system is broken and must be fixed, but cowardly politicians have consistently played a fast-and-loose shell game with it. Congress just passed the Medicare Modernization bill with the Prescription Drug Benefit to placate and secure a voting block. Social Security/Medicare is not a “third rail”, but rather a downed power line and we’re all in for a shock.

Myth-tory

President Roosevelt created Social Security some seventy years ago and used the template laid out by Chancellor Bismark of Germany in the 1880s. The system provided a safety net for people unable to provide for their own costs resulting from sickness, accident, and old age. It was unrelated to any insurance or savings program. It’s called a pay-as-you-go system where workers pay into a fund that pays out to beneficiaries. There is no contractual right to funds “contributed”, but there is a legal right to benefits and there is no choice but to participate. Social Security is funded by payroll taxes and taxes on benefits. Medicare funding is more complex, combining payroll taxes, taxes on Social Security benefits, premium payments, and general revenue transfers. Early on, 12 workers paid benefits for one recipient. Today, each recipient is paid for by 4 workers. When it started the combined employer/employee payroll tax amounted to $60 per year.

De-Myth-tifying the Numbers

That $60 per year has become $13,400. In 2004 there are 156 million workers paying benefits to 47 million retirees, survivors, and disabled. The survivors and disabled make up about one-third of recipients. The tax revenues of Social Security are predictable and stable, amounting to about 12.71 percent of payroll in 2004 and projected to rise to 13.39 percent by 2080. Social Security expenditures are also fairly predictable: people will retire at given points in time and begin drawing out their benefits. As such, it is clear that by 2018 the expenses of Social Security will exceed the revenues. It hasn’t always been like that and the surplus revenues have been ‘saved’ in a Trust Fund. The Trust Fund is not a savings account, nor was it invested in financial assets. In fact, the fund was raided by both Republicans and Democrats and exists now as an accounting notation (read an IOU).

The Status of the Social Security and Medicare Programs report states “Since neither the interest paid on the Treasury Bonds held in the HI and OASDI Trust Funds, nor their redemption, provides any net new income to the Treasury, the full amount of any required Treasury payments to these trust funds must be financed by increased taxation, increased Federal borrowing and debt, and/or a reduction in other government expenditures.” Current recipients will take $12.7 trillion more out of the system than they will pay in taxes. Workers coming into the system in the foreseeable future will ‘contribute’ about $800 million more than they get in benefits. This leaves the Treasury holding the bag for $11.9 trillion.

The expenditure of Medicare is expected to be 2.69% of GDP in 2004. However, people live longer and medical costs increase each year. By 2022 Medicare will be 5% of GDP and estimates suggest 8% of GDP by 2038. Like Social Security, Medicare funding will not keep up. It will absorb 65% of it’s funding in 2004, 50% in 2019, and exceed 70% by 2042. We can expect participants in the system now to take $6.2 trillion and future participants $10.3 trillion more than the fund will have.

That shortfall will have to be covered by the general fund revenues. By law, the Federal government will have to transfer 3.6% of Federal income tax revenues to the system to cover the 2004 debt. In 2010 we can expect 8.6% of income tax revenue to be shunted to Social Security/Medicare and 50% by 2030. By 2070 Social Security/Medicare will gobble up all projected tax revenues in addition to the payroll taxes and other taxes already earmarked for it and leaving nothing to pay for any other Federal program.

Myth-takes

Our European cousins are usually held up as exemplars of social responsibility. European governments provide “them with better health, longer lives, higher literacy rates...and...annual four-week paid vacations.” But at what cost? Germany’s Federal Labour Agency reported on Dec. 2, 2004, “Germany’s unadjusted unemployment rate [at] 10.3%.” Financial Times reported France’s unemployment at 9.9% on Dec. 8, 2004. That same day the International Herald Tribune reported that “France’s unemployment insurance system has a cumulative debt of E10 billion, or $13.4 billion.” In fact, in the EU unemployment has been over 8% since 1990. How do you fund payroll-funded Social Security with such unemployment? Our European cousins are finding out that you can’t. Europeans pay exorbitant taxes, too. In Germany, Bloomberg reports, “Schroeder’s government has lowered taxes [and] cut welfare payments.” The sleight-of-hand tactic of pointing across the puddle is disingenuous. Notice no one who makes the case moves to Europe.

Myth-ing Links

It is clear that Social Security/Medicare is broken. It should be clear that the system is fundamentally flawed. There are an estimated 20% of recipients who really don’t need it and approximately 50% of all current retirees have employer-sponsored pensions. This system is unsustainable and can’t be mended. The only other option is to fix it. Solutions include: 50% increase in taxes, 33% reduction in benefits, Federal borrowing ballooning the national debt, 20% cut across the board in all government programs, or do something different such as personal retirement accounts.

Martin Feldstein, Harvard economist, estimated in 1997 a net benefit between $10 and $20 trillion to the economy if payroll taxes for Social Security were privately invested. Lower income workers would receive higher returns from private investment than they ever will receive from Social Security benefits. All variations on personal retirement accounts include provisions for covering current recipients and transitioning over. 20 other nations have privatized their Social Security systems and would not consider returning to one like ours. 10 other nations are currently considering their own transitions.

On School Indoctrination

2004-12-10T07:50:00.000-08:00

What a time of year it is! Busy, busy, busy. All that Halloween candy is just about gone. We’ve just (barely) survived an intensely divisive election season. We’re slogging through the post-election armchair-quarterbacking rife with opinions and dire prophecies. We were allowed to celebrate Thanksgiving again this year. It looks like we can still have Christmas in our homes. “God bless us, everyone.” Am I still allowed to say that?

Sure, it’s a joke, but in all seriousness, the answer isn’t funny, for in many places I am not allowed to say it. At the East Manatee Freedom Elementary School, Principal Gary Holbrook has nixed Santa, Frosty (and any other snowman), Rudolph, and even snowflakes, “...trying to be respectful of everyone.” His peer at nearby Braden River Middle School, Anthony DiBello, says “You won’t see any Christmas trees around here, we keep it generic.” In Manatee County all principals received a letter from the Anti-Defamation League, approved by school officials. The league is a group dedicated to defeating antisemitism and other discrimination and their “letter suggests ways to keep the holidays out of classrooms”. I have to wonder if the Vatican sent a similar letter would it be promulgated as policy or filed in the nearest ‘circular-file bin’. Such a letter might even provoke an outcry from offended school officials and perhaps litigation from the ACLU. Back in October, Puyallup (WA) school district informed parents that the school district would not observe Halloween. Karen Hansen spoke for the district, “Witches with pointy noses and things like that are not respective symbols of the Wiccan religion and so we want to be respectful of that.”

Principal Chuck Fradley at the Braden River Elementary School, adjacent to the Middle School, is having a Christmas tree, he says “You don’t want to take it away.” He should be commended for his courage. In every school across the nation children are expected to learn about Kwanzaa, a celebration invented in 1966 to promote the traditional African values of family, community responsibility, commerce, and self-improvement. Call me intolerant, but I think Christmas handles those values quite nicely while still managing to be inclusive of all races. Creating a ‘celebration’ out of wholecloth for a specific group of people based on their ethnic origin is the very definition of racism. Ben and Sherry Burkhart have a child in Glenallen Elementary School (Sarasota) and note that “if students sing about Hanukkah and Kwanzaa, they should be allowed to sing about Jesus, too.” Sherry Burkhart goes on to say she’s “just tired of Christianity being politically incorrect.” The state code for education in California requires 7th graders to learn the 7 Pillars of Islam and to experience it by kneeling and bowing to Mecca five times before they can pass to the 8th grade. In New Jersey, Shiba Pillai-Diaz taught 7th and 8th grade English until she was fired for refusing to remove a photo of George Bush from an American History display or add a photo of John Kerry. Steven J. Williams was a fifth grade teacher, until recently, in Cupertino, CA who taught about the references to God in our history and founding documents. It wasn’t a problem until earlier this year when the district decided “to uphold the First Amendment which mandates the separation of church and state” and would rather go to court than allow a teacher to teach.

Our schools are doing a wonderful job of indoctrinating children into multi-culturalism, but are failing to actually teach. In the fervor for multi-culturalism, the education system is failing our culture, ourselves, and our children. Imagine how much time was wasted in Manatee and Puyallup discussing the ins-and-outs of this “respectful” policy. Meanwhile, the Program for International Student Assessment study was testing our 15-year-olds’ ability to apply math to real-life problems. Out of 39 countries participating in the test, American students placed 24th. The Center for Education Policy director, Jack Jennings, notes that PISA only tests real life skills as opposed to calculus and algebra, the real brainy math. I know I’m comforted knowing graduates can do calculus but can’t balance their checkbook. Or I would be, if they actually could. The fact is, they can’t. Ron Morvai, Mansfield Senior High School principal opines, “math is not easy or fun...Math requires students to be disciplined in the learning process.” Morvai’s peer at the Mansfield Christian School, Cy Smith, blames parents and observes, “we may not demand enough of our students.” Tressa Reith is the principal at St. Peter’s High School and said, “when we have areas that require focus and concentration, we see kids sometimes become impatient.” Michelle White is a student at Ocean Springs High School (MS) whose mother teaches first grade. She comments on her mother’s challenges: “Most of her students are failing, and it’s not her fault. It’s a lack of parental involvement, and the children don’t have the money to be on the medication they need to be on.”

A Dec 6th report found that the number of schools failing to meet No Child Left Behind minimums this year has doubled. On the plus-side, the report shows that in at least 32 states schools meeting the minimums have increased, but the fine print notes that the improved test scores are the result of a dispensation of leniency from the US Dept of Ed and not really better students. 77% of schools in both Florida and Alabama, 49% in Hawaii, 46% in New Jersey, 44% in South Carolina, 36% in Alaska, 28% in Oklahoma and 25% of schools in Delaware have failed to provide the basic skills mandated in NCLB. How does this happen in a school system where teachers are in the classroom for six months out of nine and for the balance have in-service days honing their skills or no-school days (we can’t call them holidays)? Milwaukee, Madison, and Racine (WI) released hundreds of students from classes to participate in Wisconsin Citizen Action Fund’s get-out-the-vote program going door-to-door or manning phone-lines reminding people to vote. (They all winked at WCA’s endorsement of John Kerry.) This was teaching civics. Front page of the Eagle Times Nov 28, 2004 was a report about “Connected Math”, which, according to Don Hart, principal of Claremont Middle School, “is helping students connect math to real life.” Maybe in the classroom, but not in the real world. “Connected Math”, the article later reveals, is really “New Math” which has been pushed by the education system for nearly 20 years.

John McClaughry, President of the Ethan Allen Institute, wrote in this very paper (Nov. 24, 2004), that “sixty percent of all state and local government employees [in Vermont] work in the K-12 public educational system.” McClaughry goes on to say, “Nationally, public education employment relative to population grew by six percent. In Vermont it grew by 30%.” And our students do no better for it. The solution is not more money as a court panel in New York seems to think. They were already spending $10,469 per student per year four years ago! The National Center for Education Statistics reports that Vermont ranks 28 out of 50 for teacher salaries. The State Teacher/Staff FTE & Salary Reports note that “in FY 2002 the statewide average teacher salary is $39,165.54. In comparison, the US Census of 2001 reported the median income for a two income family at $51,407. The teacher earns 72% of the two-income family. At the risk of being a Neanderthal (for recent graduates, that’s a pre-historic man), the solution is to do what we know works. Keep teachers in the classrooms for the school year. Scrap the “Connected Math” and ‘Social Studies’ programs and return to the basics. They worked for me and I’ll wager for most people reading this. Stop excusing failed curriculums by blaming parents and medicating students. Insist that the education system do better with what it has. I was not born a Yankee, but the Yankee ethic works: “Use what you have to make it work.”

Separation Anxiety

2004-12-03T05:16:00.000-08:00

In the national (if not global) post-election counseling session to relieve the Post-Election Stress Trauma there is a lot of hand-wringing, teeth-gnashing, and blubbering going on. Many people are whimpering in abject depression and pathetic ire about “Biblical Morals.” The saddest part is that most don’t have a clue what a “biblical moral” is, so they make weird and obtuse statements about them. What may be sadder still is that the analyses are showing religion really didn’t play that great a role in this election. Values, yes, but religious values, no. Are values “more important than the deficit, healthcare, our schools, and even the war”? It’s a simple-minded question. The answer is, of course! Without a solid foundation a house will not stand, and values are the foundation of any civilization. It is our values that are the underpinnings of all social issues. What this election tells me is that Americans are rousing and speaking out against the dissolution of the moral fabric of their country. If you’re feeling left out or passed over, then perhaps you should examine your philosophies. Ours is a country that is at high risk of losing it’s way.

The First Amendment to the Constitution reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” It does not say, as so many wish it did, that there is a “separation of church and state.” In point of fact, there is no instance of “the separation of church and state” in any ‘founding’ document whatsoever and exists solely as the result of moral relativists and activist judges. The phrase “separation of church and state” comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote. Thomas Jefferson, for those who don’t know, is credited with writing the Declaration of Independence and was the third President of the United States. On January 1, 1802, he wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut who were worried by rumors that the Congregationalist denomination was to become the national religion. Jefferson was assuring them that the First Amendment would defend the church from the state, so as to avoid another Church of England. Not one of the Founders failed to recognize the value of religion. The wording of the Amendment was carefully crafted so as to prevent the state from corrupting the church and leave it free to promote Biblical values.

In January 1844 the Supreme Court heard Vidal v. Girard's Executors. The case involved a school to be built without ecclesiastic involvement. The argument revolved around whether or not a layman could teach. The Supreme Court held that the church could be excluded, but that, "...there is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality." In June 1961 the Supreme Court heard Torcaso v. Watkins which focused attention on religious tolerance. The Court noted that, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." In October 1961 the Supreme Court heard Engel v. Vitale. At issue was this prayer: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." It was argued that the First Amendment prohibited public schools from engaging students in prayer, even when non-denominational. This was the landmark case which removed prayer from schools on the grounds that the Constitution prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion.

Religion is a funny thing. There are many people in the country today who hold to alternative faiths: wiccans, new agers, pagans, just to name a few, even atheists. I include atheists because, despite what they’d like you to believe, atheism is probably the most fanatical fundamentalist religion of them all. At it’s simplest, Faith is belief without proof and the atheist must accept on faith that there is no God. The beauty of the system in the United States is that atheists are free to be atheists here. The weakness of our system is that atheists, and others, have been able to turn that freedom around and use it as a bludgeon against the predominant religion in this country and anything related to it.

The Boy Scouts of America have an oath to “affirm a duty to God” and be “physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.” They are not the Knights Templar or some other order of the Church. They are kids, boys, who work long hours to be the best that they can be, to be good citizens and supporters of their communities. A brother of mine was a Boy Scout and he was far from an altar boy. Being a good, civic-minded group isn’t enough these days. In Portland, Oregon, Nancy Powell (self-avowed atheist) has waged a 7-year legal fight against the Boy Scouts alleged the Scouts discriminated against her son. She is leading the charge against the school board to ban Scout literature (i.e. recruiting leaflets) from schools. By her side is ACLU legislative director, Andrea Meyer. In late November 2004, the Department of Defense caved to an ACLU suit charging the DOD with violating the “separation of church and state” specifically naming the Scouts as a religious group using Army bases (government property) for Jamborees and getting mentorship from military personnel.

Have you ever heard any court cases involving the display of a menorah or a Star of David? How about teachers protesting a classroom unit on Kwanza? It has become “de rigeur” for the lead-up to Christmas to see town after town be brow-beaten into removing Nativity scenes and crosses. This year Denver, Colorado has set a new low taking the 30-year-old traditional Parade of Lights and redefining it as an “international procession”. According to Michael Krikorian, a spokesman for Denver, the parade would not include “Merry Christmas” signs or traditional Christmas hymns. His explanation: “We want to avoid that specific religious message out of respect for other religions in the region.” It seems ‘O Little Town of Bethlehem “could be construed as disrespectful to other people who enjoy a parade each year.” To celebrate ethnic diversity the ‘Parade of (non-Christian) Lights’ will feature; German folk dance, a Chinese New Year Lion Dance (a ceremonial dance to bring good luck and dispel evil spirits), and the Two Spirit Society (a group dedicated to holy American Indians who also happen to be gay or lesbian). The Faith Bible Chapel in Arvada has been barred from the parade as it’s float would have “direct religious themes”.

The ACLU, atheists, the radical homosexual movement, and the proponents of moral relativism (such as people that see no difference between the US and the regime of Saddam Hussein) have waged a moral war. The battlefield is the United States Constitution. Victory will be an America where satanists are revered and pastors are reviled. It is already happening and this election was a clarion call. The American people are rousing and beginning to take back the country. “No law respecting an establishment of religion” does not mean there shall be no religion, does not mean that the state is anti-religion, as the ACLU would have us believe. Ask yourself, why does every state congress open with a prayer? Why were the ten commandments engraved in the Supreme Court? Why did the Founders, to a man, write that a government without religion would fail and be corrupt?

America is a profoundly religious country - even those of us who are not religious by nature. Our revolution was founded on the religious precept that “all men are created equal and endowed by God with inalienable rights”. The English had a revolution before ours which secured the aristocracy. The French followed our lead but their revolution was soulless, became a bloodbath, and failed. The Russians, the Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, one after another, each revolution founded on the primacy of man and floundered from a lack of God. God is intrinsic to freedom because God holds the ultimate accountability. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. The Boy Scouts know this. The Church teaches this. When we walk away from our values (be they Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Islamic, whatever) we surrender our freedom. Perhaps not immediately; Jefferson wrote his “separation of church and state” letter in 1802 and it has taken us 202 years to get to here. Where will we be in another 200 years continuing down this road?