Intemperate Thoughts

The Press’s Albatross?

2009-06-04T21:55:00.002-04:00

I watched in disgust as my President yet again scolded the United States of America on foreign soil. I expect this kind of treatment from the likes of Cuba’s Castro, North Korea’s Kim Jong-il or Venezuela’s Chavez, but I never thought I would live to see the day America’s own President would join the “I hate America” chorus especially in a totalitarian country American taxpayers prop up to the tune of billions every year.

As he did in speeches in Europe and South America, Mr. Obama started and ended his address to his Cairo audience with niceties but couldn’t help apologizing for what he perceives to be America’s endless shortcomings. The only thing different this time was the speech’s religious tone. When distilled this event was simply an extension of Obama’s World Wide Apology Tour.

For those who wisely chose to sleep in this morning allow me to brief you on our President's positions.

All nation states are equal. America is no better than North Korea, Russia or Iran. When we think ourselves or our system superior to other countries or economic systems, we hurt the world’s feelings. When we hurt the feelings of other nations, conflicts arise. Therefore, America will strive, at least under the Obama banner, not to hurt anyone’s feelings. (And recess will be at 2 PM.)

According to Obama, America was misguided when we freed millions from tyranny in Iraq. It didn’t matter that Saddam was evil, had reneged on the Kuwait ceasefire or that our planes flying the UN mandated no fly zones were being shot at on a daily basis. What we did was wrong and he would not make the same mistake. As for the War on Terror or as the Obama administration prefers to call it our “Overseas Contingency Operation,” it received a finger wag and little more.

What was played up and given validation was every Muslim terrorist’s stereotype about America. Yes, we tortured prisoners. Yes, America in the past had shown disrespect for Muslims. Yes, but for our meddling in 1953, the Iranian government could have survived. In our President's mind, always we are wrong and always are enemy’s anger is justifiable.

Continuing his downbeat theme our President headed toward the Wailing Wall and took his next shot. Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, was made the moral equivalent of the terrorists who are Hamas. Brushing over the fact that Hamas continues to bomb the innocent, President Obama called upon Israel to make additional concessions without one concern if by doing so it could cost Israel their very survival.

That did not seem to matter today. Today was a day to glorify Islam and those who practice it regardless of what an Islamic world could mean to freedom and liberty.

In summation, our new President sees America’s past as appalling, but now that he is in charge, it will be good. He sees Israel as a barrier to peace, but now that he is in charge, he will work diligently to force it to be good as well. In short, President Obama mirrors his wife's view. He too was never proud of America until he took over the reigns of government. America is now good only because he is President. What utter hubris!

My disgust for this pair aside, what I don't understand is why our mainstream media continues to worship at the feet of this community organizer. Oh, he is a glib and talented politician. He is a great showman and that is important but so is substance. After two years following this man around and analyzing his every word, you would expect some in the media to look for results rather than fawn over rhetoric. Unfortunately just as Brian Williams sought Mr. Obama’s favor on television last night; his colleagues seem willing do anything, say anything for his approval. This is the pathetic state of American journalism today.

I thought journalists were sophisticated enough to know disrespect for America is no substitute for a peace plan and groveling actually makes us look weak not strong in the Arab world. And where is Obama’s peace plan? The Road Map is dead. Hasn’t he figured that out yet? Haven’t the press figured that out yet?

Further, have our ink stained friends no understanding that terror organizations will use these speeches to recruit killers to help them dismantle that which they loath, western civilization? Do our scribes of record not understand a free press is part of western civilization and if it is destroyed they too stand to lose? Do journalists actually believe Arab Muslims want to make nice, that Saudi Arabia and Syria are our friends? Can they be this naïve?

Although I am sure the President’s apologies will be heralded in the salons on the upper east side of New York as brilliant, they will have real world repercussions. His words place our military men and women in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world in greater danger. Do the journalists slobbering over this man even care? Surely they are urbane enough to realize appeasement has always invited more not less conflict.

Why then do they continue to view everything Mr. Obama says and does as manna from heaven? What exactly does this man bring to the table other than an utter disdain for the country he now leads?

Could it be they have so much invested in Obama that it has become close to impossible to do their job? Has “He” become yet another entity too big to fail?

It was Chris Mathews, a card carrying member of the mainstream media, who spoke my fears best during a conversation with Joe Scarborough on the Morning Joe show. When asked to criticize Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, Mathews declined. When pressed why, his retort was, “I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work.” When the incredulous host asked him whether the job of a journalist was to protect a politician in office, Mr. Mathews responded, “Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.”

And what pray tell would happen should Mr. Obama be exposed to be less than what our press has touted him to be? What repercussions could follow for our friends in the Fourth Estate should Mr. Obama stumble?

For one, the mainstream media might have to face the fact their own templates regarding race and liberalism are wanting and that would be a blow for two reasons. The most obvious being it may force them to actually work instead of relying on stereotypical guides. And for another, no one wants to believe their life’s work was for naught.

The other problem with a failure of this magnitude would be some members of the mainstream media, perhaps even Mr. Mathews himself, might find themselves personally and professionally wounded. Their complicity in failure could be placed them under the public’s microscope. He might, for instance, be shunned by his colleagues (unlikely) or worse not invited to bloviate on camera anymore (a fate worse than death). Questions would be asked across the board about competence and cronyism. In short, some would fall.

For those who disagree and believed no journalist has ever lost their job supporting Democrats, there is the little matter of the economy to think about. Papers are on the brink of bankruptcy and there are just so many spots for overpriced news readers. Jobs are at a premium, important and high paying jobs. And one must remember the only loyalty in the news business is to the story and one’s own career. If Obama goes down, he will not go alone.

Obama is becoming the press’s albatross. They made him and are loath to break him. They have too much invested. So what’s a mainstream journalist, especially one who turned a blind eye, to do? Perhaps they are coming to the revelation it is easier to boost a fool than to admit their own pre-election failure and possibly lose their own jobs in the process.

But I doubt this strategy will work. Four year plans rarely do. This administration is beginning to make Jimmy Carter look like a genius and I would not be surprised if some in the media a couple of years hence begin mumbling the sentiments of the ancient mariner from Coleridge’s poem, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.

Ah ! well a-day ! what evil looks
Had I from old and young !
Instead of the cross, the Albatross
About my neck was hung.

An Economic Primer for Obamabots

2009-03-09T16:00:00.002-04:00

Welcome class.

Today’s lesson is for everyone who believes President Obama will deliver them to the Promised Land without a tax increase and for every teacher, journalist and/or news reader who passed up Econ 101 as an elective in college.

My brief lecture will tackle only one subject and a simple one at that...who is it who actually pays taxes.

This may sound simplistic, but bear with me. Nothing in this life is always as it seems. The obvious answer would appear to be the person who gets the tax bill is the person who pays the tax. At least that is what your government teacher, your favorite politician and every television news reader has led you to believe.

If you still have faith in the veracity of the above mentioned institutions, I may not be able to reach you. You may already be lost.

If, however, you have reached puberty, have an IQ over 70 and reside outside of academia, Washington DC and a newsroom ( I am certain most of you qualify), you have probably figured out by this time these three groups are not always the most reliable information disseminators. So it may not come as a surprise if I told you what these “authority figures” have relayed to you about taxes is only partially correct.

Ah, I see I have your attention. Yes, Betty, you have your hand up?

“How is it possible that I have been misled? The answer to your question is as plain as President Obama’s magnificence. Of course the person or entity receiving a tax levy would be the one paying for it and any other answer simply defies reality”.

Betty, I love your enthusiasm but you might want to wait for my explanation. You see, under our current tax system only the individual taxpayer really pays taxes.

“But, Mr. Mortensen, if that was true, that would mean there are no corporate taxes. The last time I checked they still pay taxes and rightly so. Why shouldn’t evil corporations, especially the ones who have been given big tax breaks in the past, be forced to pay their “fair” share? According to President Obama it was greedy CEOs and CFOs that put us in the precarious position we are in today. Why shouldn’t they be the ones who pay our way out of it? I know for a fact President Obama plans to increase their taxes. So, you see. You are wrong. Both individuals and corporations pay taxes.“

As much as I appreciate your righteous indignation, Betty, there is a dirty little secret that most Americans have not figured out. It has to do with how our society or any society that allows for the free flow of capital is structured. It is a secret your teachers either didn’t know or chose not to tell you. It is a secret every politician of either party would prefer you not hear. It is a secret your local news reader…well...they are excused because they appear to be simply factually challenged and it is un-American to condemn the handicapped.

Let me see a show of hands if you want to know what that secret is?
Wow! All of your hands are up. That’s great.

Okay, here is the secret…Corporations do not pay taxes!

Did you get that? If not, I will repeat it.

Corporations, even the ones you think are poisoning society with their products or are killing the Polar Bears, do not pay taxes. They never did and they never will. You could increase taxes on corporations twenty or thirty percent but it wouldn’t change the reality. Double their taxes, triple them and it would not matter. Oh, their products or services would of course be more difficult to sell because they would no longer be competitive and in turn they may have to lay off their workers or go out of business but they still would not have paid a single dime to Uncle Sam.

Want to know something even more shocking?

Other than how they affect his company’s productivity and competitiveness, your standard corporate baron doesn’t care about tax rates or taxes. So, if you are expecting or wanted to see hand wringing, tears of regret or corporate officers lying prostrate and self flagellating in front of their boards or stockholders, you will be disappointed.

Why?

Because taxes are simply the cost of doing business. No more, no less. They are one more variable cost that is added to the mix and these costs, all costs, are ultimately passed on in the form of price. The higher the tax the government puts on a company, the higher the final price for the product or service. Higher taxes translate to higher prices. It is just that simple.

Any questions? Yes, you in the third row next to the radiator? Bobby, isn’t it?

Good question, Bobby.

Did everyone in this class hear that? No? Well little Bobby wants to know if corporations don’t pay the taxes they are charged with, then who does? Who will ultimately pick up the tab for these increased taxes?

Well, class, the answer to that question is very simple and you will probably kick yourself for not figuring it out earlier. If you want to meet this sucker…err…I mean corporate benefactor…simply stand in front of the nearest mirror.

Stare into the reflective glass and meet the person who will be paying for the over six hundred billion dollar ($600,000,000,000) increase in energy costs the President is planning of leveling against corporations in the form of his cap and trade bill.

Stand in front of the mirror and it will reveal the person who will be shelling out a good chunk of “change” for the over one trillion dollars ($ 1,000,000,000,000) in spending for such things as pig flatulence research and rat museums.

Keep looking if you want to know who will be reimbursing the Saudis, the Chinese and our other “friends” for their loans so America can continue to exist with our fifty or so trillion dollar (~$50, 000,000,000,000,) long term debt.

What’s that? This wasn’t part of the bargain when you signed on to follow the new Messiah? You expected the world to change for “change”? Did you really believe Obama could achieve a cradle to grave Utopia powered only by solar panels and paid for by simply nailing the rich?

When President Cool told you ninety five percent of Americans would not be paying additional taxes, he was being …I shall try to put this nicely…a bit disingenuous. You may not be paying additional taxes via the Income Tax but you certainly will be paying a whole host of “corporate taxes” for his agenda.

But all is not lost. Just like those evil CEO’s who passed all of their taxes on to you, there will be a very easy way to avoid paying for your “fair share” of these corporate taxes as well. It is simple really.

When Obama’s grand design for the new America are finally in place, you will merely have to stop putting fuel in your car, turning on a light, flushing your toilet, buying a soft drink, using toilet paper, purchasing food, going to a sporting event, visiting your local pub, buying sneakers, buying formula, installing blinds in that extra bathroom, purchasing shampoo, watching television, using your cell phone, purchasing a Twinkie, …

Ring, Ring, Ring.

Well, there’s the bell. I guess that’s enough for today. Remember to complete your reading assignment tonight. As you all know or should by this time, it is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. We will have an open discussion during tomorrow’s class, if there is a tomorrow. For now, class dismissed.

Oh, one more thing, people. If you are having lunch in the cafeteria today, the lunch ladies are suggesting you steer clear of the Kool-Aid. Have a nice day.

Two Sets Of Rules?

2009-03-04T15:57:00.002-05:00

It was reported with much glee today that conservative talker, Rush Limbaugh, and the Republican Party national chairman, Michael Steele, had a dust up. The reports went on to say Mr. Steele eventually felt a need to apologize for calling Rush’s show “ugly”. Since this is a story that fit a specific journalistic template, the one that states any intramural brawl between Republicans is always news; it received very heavy play on television, radio and in print.

What was covered with less enthusiasm or not at all was the admission on Politico.com by President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, that he and two reporters from CNN have been plotting for months to use Mr. Limbaugh as a means of crippling the Republican Party. The man who once said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste” seemed rather proud of his effort.

If you were alive in 1971, you could not have missed the coverage of President Richard Nixon’s “Political Enemies Project”. His list of political opponents was made up of journalists, politicians and entertainers. The howls at the time from those who are today‘s journalistic leaders was deafening and rightly so. It is not only improper for anyone in our government to target private individuals for destruction or ridicule; it is also immoral and un-American. Admittedly, Mr. Limbaugh is a public figure and this effort by the current White House is far less sinister than the effort Mr. Nixon’s people perpetrated, but it does foreshadow willingness by this administration to step close to the line, if not over it.

People have the not only the right but the duty to speak their minds with out fear of being targeted by their government. So I am left a bit stupefied when the same people who charged the barricades forty years ago in defense of free speech and dissent seem to be not only silent about a possible Obama enemies list but may also be complicit in its implementation.

Where is the outrage or at the very least where is the so called “journalistic curiosity”?

Could it be my friends in the media are simply too busy writing stories about how our new first lady keeps her triceps in such good shape they no longer have the energy to tackle stories with a bit more substance?

In an effort to help my very busy buddies, I have compiled a list of questions they may want to ask the White House and the management of both CNN and ABC News, a list my fellow Americans might want then to ask as well.

1. How much taxpayer money has been spent by the White House in their effort to compromise Mr. Limbaugh?

2. Since this effort was solely political and the cost should not be born by the taxpayer. How much money has President Obama’s political team repaid to the US Treasury?

3. Is Mr. Limbaugh the only person Mr. Emanuel and his co-conspirators have been plotting against? If not, who else has been targeted, who has access to this list and what are their plans?

4. Who in CNN’s management knew that two of their highly paid commentators were plotting with the White House to embarrass Mr. Limbaugh?

5. If anyone in CNN’s management did know, why was this not reported?

6. Does CNN condone the actions of their employees and if not are they to be punished in some fashion or do they simply remain as on air talent without CNN taking any disciplinary actions?

7. It has been reported George Stephanopoulos of ABC News has also been talking with these three conspirators on a daily basis. What did he know, when did he know it, and what part, if any, did he play in this scheme?

8. Did Mr. Emanuel simply leave out Mr. Stephanopoulos’s name when he was bragging about this plot because the ABC host of “This Week” is the only Clinton war room alum whose job requires a certain amount of objectivity? In short, was Mr. Emanuel simply offering Mr. Stephanopoulos political cover?

9. It is obvious the management of ABC News was aware Mr. Stephanopoulos has been talking with the President’s chief of staff and his other Clinton war room buddies on a daily basis. They even reported it with some pride. What is their stance with respect to this conspiracy? Were they aware of this effort and if so do they condone it?

10. What did President Obama know and when did he know it?

11. And finally, my journalist chum may want to look in a mirror and ask the most difficult question of all. Have the rules of “journalism” changed so much since Nixon that these questions no longer matter? Have the regulations that used to govern the interaction between government and citizen changed in some fundamental way that a conspiracy of this type is now acceptable or is it simply that Nixon was a Republican and Obama a Democrat?

If anyone reading this actually believes the American people with get answers to these questions please contact me through this blog as soon as possible as I have a perfectly good bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying.

Why I Too Want Obama To Fail

2009-03-03T13:11:00.004-05:00

Many of my Democratic friends think our new President is the best thing since sliced bread. It is their belief he and his crowd are simply the same old Democratic Party operatives…only a bit more liberal. They couldn’t be more wrong.

This new administration is in fact dangerous. It may be due to naivete or it may be by design. Either way, I do not want them to succeed. I want America and Americans to thrive but for that to happen the plans these people have to remake America must be stopped.

Their stimulus package and first budget is little more than a wealth transfer from the productive members of our society to the nonproductive and a goody bag for bureaucrats. They are using class envy as an excuse to garner more power for their Party and for the State. They want people in fear. That’s how populism works. They want us to fight among ourselves so that they are left to their own devices. As Barack’s own chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, put it,”Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Does that really sound like an administration that is focusing on helping all Americans reach their potential or one that is focusing in on an opportunity to push their own ideology?

I believe this administration welcomes this recession. Like all good central planners, they need an enemy or straw man. It deflects scrutiny. They need someone or something to be used as a catalyst for change…their kind of change – a change they will claim needs to be done before the sky falls. They see this recession as a way to push their big government agenda such as government controlled health care and a cap and trade tax to combat non existent anthropogenic global warming. They care little about this country’s values or traditions. In fact, they care little about this country. If they did they wouldn’t be hell bent to remake it in their image. There are even some in the Democratic Party that see America as the embodiment of evil in this world. And although they may be in the minority, these celebutards and useful idiots are embraced by the Democratic Party elite. Have you ever asked yourself why?

Make no mistake, the main concern of the Democratic Party in recent decades has been and will remain the Party itself and its agenda for power. Their motto seems to be Party first, their own jobs second and country last.

This is not about bankers or brokers or doctors or the rich or excess or even the poor. This is about an assault on our very system, on our entrepreneurial spirit, on capitalism itself. The Democratic Party doesn’t believe in winners and losers. They believe this is unfair and want to change the natural order. That is why they are playing divide and conquer. They are doing this in standard Saul Alinsky mode with show trials on Capital Hill and personal attacks against their critics. They ignore their own culpability and point their fingers at anyone who does not share their radical agenda. They want you to forget the housing bubble started in the US Congress with their mismanagement of Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae and their resistance to real world regulation proposed by the Bush administration. And you honestly believe they are the solution?

What the Obama administration is doing is using the misery of others as an excuse to grab power for the Party and the State, one that believes it has a right to decide who wins and who loses in the market place. And unfortunately these power hungry politicians are being aided by a press who has long ago traded journalism for propaganda and who continue to confuse style with substance.

My yellow dog Democrats friends believe this is a good thing. They believe giving power to the Democratic Party translates into increased care. It is a tenet of their faith that Democrats care more about people than Republicans, Libertarians or Conservatives (and yes there is a difference between all three). In fact, Democrats believe caring is all that is needed…well… that and a ton of other people’s money.
Unfortunately, history does not bear out their assumptions and that is one of the problems. The Democratic Party has never been a party focused on results or for that matter history. They have always focused on the emotions of the moment.

Unfortunately, we live in times where results matter and cathartic emotion, while admirable, is not a solution. Our world today demands a thoughtful review of history to guide us as to what has worked in the past and what has not. Our very survival as a nation may depend on it. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party’s answer to the challenges that face us is to dust off the Marxism of the sixties and try to pass it off as something shiny and new. It is not. Collectivism has failed everywhere it has been tried. And worse, when it has been implemented, it has invariably decayed into oligarchy and political slavery. Cuba, USSR, East Germany and China all come to mind.

So count me as part of the chorus that wants this new administration to fail. If this is politically incorrect so be it. I want him to fail because if he doesn’t the American dream may become a nightmare. I want him to fail because I do not want to wake up in a European style socialist state where my main concern is how I can grab mine from the system. I want him to fail because when you remove failure as an option in life, the lessons of restraint and humility are never learned and you simply guarantee greater failure and misery. I want him to fail because he seems bent on rewarding bad behavior, punishing the productive and continuing the insanity of profligate spending. I want him to fail because I actually think it is venal to make policy by inciting panic and using fear as a political weapon. I want him to fail because I have always taken pride in the fact that Americans used to believe in personal responsibility and individualism, but this new President is only offering collectivism, division and scapegoats.

The Iron Lady of Britain, Margret Thatcher, once opined, “Socialism is fine until such time as you run out of other people’s money.” And folks, we are rapidly running out of money and when we do, we may well find ourselves not living beneath the flag of a Republic but under the thumb of a collection of oligarchs.

Put another way, as Ben Franklin was fond of saying, “He who would sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither.” I would add he who would sacrifice freedom for security will get neither. In short, I want this President to fail because I want to spare us all failure.

Saturday’s Big Lie.

2007-08-18T18:34:00.000-04:00

It was Adolph Hitler who first coined the phrase the “Big Lie” in his infamous book “Mein Kampf”. For those unfamiliar with the phrase, it refers to a propaganda technique that involves telling a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".

The oft-cited “Big Lie” theory appears to have been the Nazi dictator’s explanation for how people came to believe that Germany lost World War 1 in the field -- a "big lie" that Hitler attributed to Jewish influence on the press. And it was Joseph Gobbles, Hitler's minister of propaganda, who is alleged to have stated that if a lie is repeated enough times it would become widely accepted as truth. Sadly this technique has worked in times past and because it has, the “Big Lie” continues to have its adherents.

Although I am loath to equate Hitler or his ideas with any modern day political party, one has to wonder after listening to this past Saturday’s Democratic Party radio address.

This week's talk was provided by one Fawn Townsend, a self-described waitress and minimum wage earner from Raleigh, North Carolina. In her speech, Miss Townsend lauded the Democratic Party for listening to the cries of the American electorate and finally passing an increase in the national minimum wage. She gushed poetically about how this monumental achievement of the Democratic Party will cause a “ripple effect” across our economy and will help her and her friends to finally realize their American dream.

With her new found government mandated wealth, Fawn promised to buy a used car, move out of the house of friends where she has been staying and live independently. She also proclaimed this “raise” would allow her to take up the study of nursing. According to her, all this will be accomplished only because the Democratic Party was able to beat back those greedy Republicans and secure for her a raise of seventy cents per hour.

I applaud ambition and industry, but I am afraid what Miss Townsend is peddling is neither. What she is peddling is the “Big Lie”.

If one is to take Miss Townsend’s claims at face value then it becomes obvious she is the product of our government schools and is therefore incapable of basic addition or multiplication. My first advise to her, other than not to spend money she doesn’t yet have, would be to invest in a cheap calculator before heading to her local used car dealer.

What Miss Townsend seems to have missed was the fact that seventy cents ($.70) per hour over a forty hour work week will reap the new minimum wager an increase of only twenty eight dollars ($28.00) a week. That translates into a potential gross raise of $1456 per year before taxes and not $4,400 as she claimed in her address to the nation.

This is $2944 dollars short of what she is expecting. So much for that spiffy new convertible!

And I have more bad news for Miss Townsend. Because she earns her living as a waitress who enjoys tips, she won’t be getting any raise at all. In fact, she may wind up bringing home less money in her paycheck at the end of the day. This time her enemy is not mathematics but the fine print.

As a former restaurateur, I know waitresses do not make the national minimum wage. Tips are considered basic wages and waiters are an exempt class. Putting aside state law, her bosses are only required to pay her $2.13/hr and not the new minimum wage of $5.85. If one consults the National Restaurant Association’s web site, this hasn’t changed.

What will happen during her next pay period, if it hasn’t already, will be that her employer and the IRS will demand that she declare more in tips to cover the difference between her wages and the new minimum wage. In other words, she will have to declare at least $3.72 cent rather than the former amount of $3.02 an hour to be considered in compliance with the new law.

If she is the rare hospitality employee who always declares 100% of their tips, she will not pay the IRS one dime more than she was paying before this congressionally mandated largess became law. She will also not make one dime more either. In fact, she may not even get a paycheck at all. In my former restaurants it was the rare waiter who made more than fifty dollars for two weeks full time work. Most waiter paychecks were between zero and twenty dollars as a result of paying taxes on their tips.

So what does today’s Democratic Party’s address tell us all?

The first is that Miss Townsend may not be who she pretends to be and if she really is a waitress from North Carolina, she is either incredibly gullible or stupid. It takes a dim bulb not to realize from whence it gets its income.

But I don’t think she is stupid. Nor do I think she is a full time waitress. I believe her to be a shill for the Democratic Party. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out she either represents union interests or works for the Democratic Party directly in another capacity. All I know for sure is that restaurant servers live off tips not their meager paychecks so the woman either hasn’t clue or she is being deceitful.

Secondly, this address tells me the Democratic Party has greater problems than I originally thought. The self proclaimed “party of the people” should know what a paycheck really means to a tipped waitron in North Carolina. If they do, then this address is an indicator of their venality and the lengths they will go to lie to the American people in their quest for power. But if they haven’t a clue what realities face a hospitality worker in America today, then they lack the gravitas and understanding to be a national party.

And finally, if the polls are correct and at least fifty percent of the American people actually believe the minimum wage is the pivotal income barometer for the American Dream, then the “Big Lie” as a political propaganda tool has survived and is alive and well today.

An Open Letter to My Senator

2007-06-20T12:21:00.000-04:00

The Honorable Saxby Chambliss
Senator from Georgia
Washington, DC

Sir,

I am in receipt of your letter asking for more money and would like to thank you for thinking of me. We haven’t talked recently and it is always nice to get an attention-grabbing communication from an old friend.

I am sure you are aware our relationship has become strained of late. So it comes as a bit of a surprise to receive your request. In case my past thirty emails and twenty phone calls have not made my position clear, I hope the next few paragraphs will address what lingering concerns you may harbor.

In your letter you state that you are a “vocal conservative” and that is one reason I should consider giving you money again. My problem is you have been just that…a vocal conservative.

In case you are confused, I did not think I was voting for a “vocal conservative” when I helped elect you. I thought I was voting for a “real conservative”. One look at your voting record in the area of national fiscal policy and your efforts on behalf of immigration amnesty proved me wrong. You are simply a “vocal conservative” and if you haven’t figured it out, that is not a positive and it is the main reason why my answer to your current plea for funding will be no.

What’s that you say? You hope you can still count on my vote?

The answer to that question has become a bit dicey as well. To be honest with you, I’m not so sure. In fact, I am kind of hoping for some primary action.

If you must ask why, it is because I no longer trust you or the leadership in the Republican Party to represent my best interests or to look out for the long term welfare of my country. Sadly, there appears to be little differentiating Republicans from Democrats these days. Both parties seem all too willing to sell America and its security down the river in return for the extenuation of personal power, the vague promise of future votes and an easy ride.

In good conscience, I can not and will not be party to the destruction of the rule of law.

This was a gift paid for with the blood of patriots including those still dying for the cause today. I will not allow petty and lazy politicians to soil their memory in a rush to garner future votes from people who have started their American journey by thumbing their noses at this sacred principle.

If obtaining funds to further your career in Washington is your primary concern, may I suggest you seek contributions from those you actually represent. Ted Kennedy, Trent Lott, La Raza and a variety of large agricultural companies come to mind. If you would like a more detailed list, please do not hesitate to contact me. I am sure I could come up with a few more.

Why would you want my money anyway? Would not your “new friends” in Washington be upset if you took contributions from a “loud mouth”, “radio talk show listening” and “anti-immigration bigot” such as me?

You must remember, sir, you are now a United States Senator, one of Trent Lott’s boys and as a member of this most exclusive club you certainly can’t be seen mingling with or listening to the likes of the “ill informed” rabble that elected you. I mean what would Senator Byrd say and how could you ever expect to be invited to the next Kennedy wing ding in Hyannis Port if you actually paid attention to the grit eating, tobacco chewin' voters of Georgia?

Well, I must run as I need to go to the Post Office to drop off not only this short note but also my next estimated Income Tax payment.

Again, thanks for thinking about me and please know that the feelings you now hold for me are mutual. Wishing you well and hoping for your speedy retirement, I remain,

Your cordial servant,

George Mortensen

PS Thanks for the postage paid envelope you included with your solicitation. You just saved me forty one cents on my response to you! Who says government isn’t there to help us “little people”?

The I-Man’s Karmic Kafuffle

2007-04-10T15:06:00.000-04:00

I don’t like the Imus in the Morning show. I never have. I never understood the appeal of elite liberal media types and an assortment of political hacks groveling at the altar of a mean spirited, gum chewing, and foul mouth shock jock.

It is not that I am a prude or that I didn’t understand the joke. I simply don’t find this man or the way he treats people funny. I find him annoying and banal. His show and its adolescent humor are geared around only two things, Don Imus’s love of self and conventional liberal wisdom.

From my perspective, Don Imus is a man who thinks the only thing better than sliced bread is Don Imus. Although I do not know him, I will bet he has a very difficult time passing even the smallest of mirrors. Ironically his supporters call him the I-Man. It fits.

I have spent years trying to tune out the vain from my life and have no interest in tuning one in especially first thing in the morning. I do not find conceit funny. I do not find smugness interesting. I find the self righteous cheerless and annoying.

The show’s other irritating trait is its predictability. It lacks spontaneity. The only comedic ox ever gored is the one that is currently fashionable and “selling” in the privileged liberal salons of New York City. Aside from the perfunctory, drunken Ted Kennedy bits, the vast majority of the people or ideas skewered by Mr. Imus and his band of juvenile gofers are what you would expect, conservative ones.

Even some of this could have passed for humor if the I-Man wasn’t so rooted in stereotypical ignorance. I think it would generally come as surprise to this poor man if he found out the average Blue Stater is not a cousin lovin’, tobacco chewin’, war prayin’, heartless, brain dead fool.

That caveat offered, Don Imus doesn’t deserve the treatment he is receiving. He is getting the liberal shaft.

Was what he said wrong? It was stupid, rude and insensitive, but that is what liberals used to love about the I-Man. Crude is a ratings booster these days in progressive circles especially when it is directed in President Bush’s direction. So it can’t be he is in trouble simply because he said something offensive. That is what his audience has come to expect. Rudeness is at the very core of the moon bat left.

So why the brouhaha?

What the I-Man forgot was what the butts of his jokes have known for a long time. America has changed and the First Amendment has changed with it. The Constitution is a living document, don’t you know.

Saying anything, even slanderous things about conservatives is a right, crossing the grain and insulting anything or anyone considered on the liberal plantation is a crime.

It comes as no surprise to conservatives that free speech applies only to certain preferred ethnic groups these days. The fact “nappy headed ho’s” is an acceptable phrase when used by a black hip hop “artist”, but morphs into racism when uttered by any white person off the dance floor is nothing new. Americans, especially pigment challenged Americans, have come to accept this double standard.

We have also come to accept the fact Jessie “Hymie Town” Jackson, Al “Twana Brawley” Sharpton and any member of Congressional Black ‘No White People Need Apply’ Caucus have been granted media jurisdiction to offer the rest of us morality lessons. They get full rights, white males, even liberal white males, do not. The rules for us have changed. We have been shown our place.

Don Imus always claims to be one of us? Well, now he is finding out what that really means. He is finding out is that we “honkies”, even liberal ones, belong at the very back of the free speech bus.

But I don’t suppose this is the only lesson the I-Man is learning. His “friends” seem to be broadening his education is other ways as well.

Three days ago, the Evan Thomas’s, Al Roker’s, Chris Mathews’, Mike Barnacles and, yes, even the Al Sharpton’s of this world would have sheared their left gonad to spend time with I-Man in the morning. Now, most can’t wait to grab their rhetorical torches and pitch forks as they cry out for this man’s economic castration. Did the I-Man not know loyalty is not a liberal strong suit?

Three days ago, the most atheistic of Imus’s “friends” touted the need for and the virtues of forgiveness. Now, even the “Christian Reverends” of color can not seem to find redemptive language let alone absolution for a sinner. Did the I-Man not realize men who hate for a living do not offer pardons to those they hate because it is bad for business?

Three days ago, members of the media elite wouldn’t miss an opportunity to drop the I-Man’s name in conversation. Acceptance and acknowledgement by him was validation of their success, their right to claim leading edge status. I-Man’s friendship proved their worth. Now, he is a pariah not worth their time. Did the I-Man not understand liberals extend friendship only so long as a friend tows the current ideological line, that any deviance regardless how slight is cause for excommunication?

The good thing is the I-Man claims this has been a learning experience. I glad for him, but what should the rest of us take away from this karmic kafuffle?

Did we learn anything new about Don Imus in the last few days?

Not really. For all of his macho bravado, he turned out to be the little bully I always thought he was. When he showed disrespect for the wrong people and got challenged, he reverted to type. He became a frightened little boy who will do anything and say anything to keep his lucrative job. He showed himself willing to sacrifice his dignity and self respect for acceptance and money.

Did we learn anything about his liberal friends?

Again, not really, they too played to type. Once again they proved themselves hypocrites. Although they speak grandly about compassion, forgiveness and tolerance, they offer but lip service. When the rubber hit the road, few tendered their friend loyalty or offered him compassion or forgiveness. Their only interest was in their careers, the next big fund raiser or the next big story. They proved themselves to be as shallow and as vapid as their former hero.

In short, America has been treated to yet another victim oriented Kabuki dance featuring the same tired and tiring players. This dust up was but one more karmic kafuffle on this country’s journey to Calgary, one which all prominent players richly deserved and one I hope will soon fade

Like the Imus show itself, the performances by the actors on all sides of America’s latest racial rumble has been predictable and boring.

Obama – Race, Religion and the Press

2007-02-13T15:12:00.000-05:00

The press is in full gush mode having found yet another political hero to believe in, one they judge truly capable of bridging the gap between red and blue and black and white.

All hail America’s newest political messiah, Senator Barack Hussein Obama of Illinois!

The common wisdom is the Senator is a man of the people who holds a healthy distain for politics as usual. It is claimed he is a man of great faith who would lead this great nation down a new road, one lined with rose petals and prosperity. His only drawback is his limited level of experience. Yet this empty slate is beginning to work for him as reporters on all sides are rushing to fill up this man’s resume with their own dreams and aspirations.

There is only one problem. The good Senator’s slate is not quite as clean…

Oops… wrong word. Let’s say the good Senator’s slate is not quite as blank as our friends in the press would have us believe.

One only need to closely examine the resume the Senator has thoughtfully provided on his websites to get a better picture of the man a Chicago Sun Time’s writer has suggested “offers the perfect combination of intelligence, charisma, sincerity, humility, diversity and unity wrapped in a pleasant appearance that radiates hope”.

With all respect, I gave up voting for charisma a long time ago. I am not a child any longer and although I believe in the power of hope, I have yet to see hope alone end one war, put one plate of food on a hungry table or help one child become educated. When I entrust my vote to a candidate, I am less interested in the “maybe” than in what is already there.

I start my examination of any candidate by investigating the people with whom the candidate has chosen to associate and praise. I am interested in a man’s value system and the first place I look is to the church, synagogue, mosque or temple the candidate attends.

In Senator Obama’s case, this has become a rather touchy subject. Blogs and some punditry waded in when he first announced for higher office accusing him of a connection to or enrollment in a religiously intolerant Madrasah. This act some claimed was a general disqualifier.

The mainstream media rightly came to his defense and sited poor journalism. But this was not enough for them. They then embraced the politically correct. They turned one poorly sourced story into an excuse to end any investigation into the Senator’s religious beliefs. He was a Christian not a Muslim, enough said, move on.

Their knee jerk, PC response was reason enough for me to do just the opposite.

As far as the Senator being educated in a religiously intolerant Madrasah or not, I could care less. I find it immaterial. Men should be judged by the paths they choose to follow as adults and not those chosen for them as boys. Presently, the Senator claims to be a practicing Christian and a proud member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. I take him at his word.

That said, I was still interested in exploring his viewpoint and decided to look at his church’s website to get a better feeling for the man. I expected to find the usual copies of the last bulletin, a gracious welcome from the congregation to attend Sunday services and notes about weekly changes in the Sunday school program.

I was wrong. What I found disturbed me and sobered my view of the Senator considerably.

I discovered the Senator’s church and its congregation has embraced something called the "Black Value System" . Adherents of this system are required to disavow something called “middleclassness”, pledge allegiance to all black leadership who espouse and embrace the “System”, and must cleave to yet another amorphous scheme called the “Black Work Ethic”?

Excuse me?

Are you telling me the man who the press waves in our faces as a great racial uniter has bought into a value system based solely on the color of a man’s skin?

Albeit ironic, it gets worse.

Does the Senator really believe that our current “social system” is behind black on black crime as the Black Value System contends and that black youth are being placed in “concentration camps” as a result of America’s economic structure?

Does he believe the claim black youth are seduced captives of a socioeconomic system that “hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of ‘we’ and ‘they’ instead of ‘us’.”

And does this man who aspires to become this country’s leader agree with his pastor’s belief there should be a “non-negotiable commitment to Africa”?

And if so, what does that mean? In a time of crisis would his faithfulness be with the “mother country” or with the United States ?

In short, does the Senator actually believe the Black Value System is within the mainstream of American thought?

Unfortunately, I know I will never get a chance to ask him directly about my concerns and I doubt these questions will be asked by those who could. I am convinced the press will continue to raise their banners on the Senator’s behalf and shield him from questions about race and religion.

I am convinced they will regard his church’s far left tenets as harmless. After all, Marxist drivel and black victimology is about as mainstream as it gets for the members of today’s fourth estate.

Shouldn't Everyone in Hillary's Village Pay?

2007-02-04T15:19:00.000-05:00

Ben Franklin’s quip nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes, rings true for most of us. If you run a retail store you pay sales taxes on the money you collect. If you are a professional you become liable for corporate or personal income tax or both the very moment a client or a patient pays your fee.

Regardless of your job, you pay taxes. You pay a tax when you drive your car to work. You pay taxes when you buy a loaf of bread. You pay taxes when you go out to eat or when you go to the movies.

Politicians can’t seem to get enough of taxes. Recently, we have even seen one politician, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, call for the taxation of all of the profits of one of America’s premier corporations, Exxon Mobile. It would be not understatement to say that taxes are a universal fact of life and they are married to almost every income producing enterprise in America except one…politics.

Here is a question. How much do you think Hillary Clinton has paid to the federal treasury for the fourteen million dollars ($14,000,000) in cash the Friends of Hillary Committee now has sitting it the bank? What percentage of that loot is currently being earmarked by the Senator’s accountant for taxes? If you said zero, you would be correct.

If this committee were a shoe store in a state with a six percent sales tax instead of enjoying a political dodge, the store’s owner would have already been on the hook for eight hundred forty thousand dollars ($840,000) in furtherance of the “common good” or as Ms. Clinton is fond of euphemizing, in furtherance “of the children”.

Since campaign contributions are not taxable income to a candidate and do not have to be reported on the candidate's tax return unless they are “diverted to his or her personal use”, Senator Clinton’s nest egg would seem safe from the confiscatory clutches of the taxman.

Please pay close attention to the phrase, “unless they are diverted to his or her personal use” as I continue to ask a few basic questions.

How could anyone with even a modicum of common sense claim that using funds to obtain a government job is not a diversion of those funds for personal use? Is not a job something of value to the individual who holds it? Does he or she not derive monetary and other intangible advantages when he holds a government post? Therefore doesn’t logic dictate that any money dedicated by an individual that helps him or her obtain a particular job is money that has been diverted for personal use?

We are constantly harangued by our politicians on both sides of the isle they work in furtherance of fairness. We hear continually about the evils of money in politics and the lack of “transparency” in political campaigns. Isn’t it time our politicians literally start putting their money where their mouths have been for years?

After all, if Hillary Clinton is willing to take every penny a company like Exxon Mobile earns under the guise of fairness, doesn’t she also have some responsibility to give back to her community from her earnings? Wouldn’t that be fair?

If she truly believes there should be a social contract between America’s children and American enterprise, why would she want to exempt a small group of people who have shown extraordinary ability to raise real money from helping? Is it fair for her and the rest of America’s political elite to deny our starved national treasuries as well as our famished and battered children a needed fiscal shot in the arm?

I would also like to remind the “good Senator” of the side benefit of tapping into this rich resource. By offering some kind of legislation requiring money collected by politicians in the furtherance of their jobs be treated in the same manner as the money collected by the citizenry in the furtherance of theirs, the Senator might help silence those pesky critics who believe our Congress is but a collection of heartless tax and spend liberals who have little or no understanding of the burdens those levies cause?

Therefore, I urge the Senator from New York or, any other Congressman or Senator regardless of party affiliation to offer up legislation that would require a sales and use tax on all campaign contributions.

What’s that you say? I am a fool for believing such legislation would ever be proposed and if one were, would ever pass into law?

Fear not, I know I’m dreaming. After all, legislation requiring politicians to pony up is in direct conflict with the dirty little of secret of American politics…only the voters (please read suckers) pay! But an American boy can still dream for free, can’t he? Or are Hillary and her friends waiting in the wings to place a tax on that as well?

Never mind…I think I already know the answer to that question.

Making Sense of Senator Lugar

2007-01-30T13:36:00.000-05:00

Fresh from voting against the Senate resolution saying the addition of troops to Iraq was "not in the national interest", Republican Senator Lugar, a man generally considered a hawk on the war, weighed in today on the pages of the Washington Post in a piece entitled “Beyond Baghdad” to offer in more substantial terms his views of the war in Iraq.

Offering the Bush Administration advice as to how this country should precede in this troubled region, the good Senator laid out his hopes, fears and suggestions. Unfortunately, I am not sure if President Bush will find his counsel all that illuminating. I say this because he left me confused.

Now, I realize it is difficult to put the Iraq war into perspective in seven hundred words, so I am calling on the Senator to help me understand his position better.

Senator, you started your column by declaring “military action in Iraq”…“defies orthodox notions of victory and defeat” and continued by saying “we are not in Iraq to defend territory or even to destroy an enemy.”

My first question, sir, is to ask if you are sure you didn’t misstate your position? Are you telling me that you authorized this undertaking, sent men to war with your vote and do not even have a clue as to our objectives?

If we are not there to “destroy an enemy” then where are all the munitions going? Who are we killing and why? If we are not there defending territory for the Iraqi people against Islamofacists, then please explain to me why our new policy is clear and hold? If we are not holding territory, then what pray tell are we holding?

Are your simply confused or is there another agenda at work? Are you so cowered by political correctness you do not even dare speak the enemy’s name? Is it any wonder that success in Iraq is slow if after three years the former chairman and now ranking member of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee is confused about who we are fighting and what are objectives are?

But your confusion doesn’t seem stop there. In one breath you claim that a” democratic, pluralistic society” in Iraq “is still worth pursuing” and in the next you declare this undertaking “should not be our focal point”.

Excuse me? Which is it, Senator? You can’t have it both ways!

If the mission is to bring democracy and stability to Iraq, then that is the focal point. If you believe instead that we should be playing geopolitical chess with the region and using our army as pawns, then have the courage of your convictions. Admit the war was the wrong move, stop funding it and bring our men and women home. Do not play geopolitical games with their lives. It is neither your right nor is it moral!

Here’s another question. Are you now invested in defeat like the Democratic Party and their sycophantic friends in the press? If not then why did you offer the impression that defeat is imminent and that some amorphous “Plan B” be put into place? Of course, like your friends in the Democratic Party, you offer no clarity about this new strategy just the suggestion of “a potent redeployment of U.S. forces in the region”.

Oh, really, and where would that be Senator?

Democrat Jack Murtha wants to send them to Okinawa, where would you position them? To be potent wouldn't they need to be stationed close to the action? Name the Middle East country in which tens of thousands of our troops could hide while awaiting an invitation to engage Al Qaeda and the other Islamofacist groups. Where would our troops be out of harm’s way and what Middle East government would be a willing participant in this charade? And who would do the inviting? Would this invitation now be at the discretion of Iran and/or Syria?

Which begs another question, what about the safety of the Iraqi people, Senator? At this time in their history, are you suggesting we simply abandon them to sectarian violence and/or civil war? Or is your column merely a clever prelude to yet another non-binding resolution in the hopes of bridging the divide between our enemy’s collaborators in the Democratic Party and the weak and worried in your own?

Come to think of it, Senator, I really need no further explanation for your position. You and your Congressional pals have made yourselves painfully clear.

Once again this country is at war and once again our Congressional leadership has folded like a cheap suit at the first signs of their own political difficulty. You claim to support the troops. If so, then why not simply support their mission instead of trying to maneuver to a position that straddles the political fence.

You take umbrage at the Vice President’s claim that “withdrawal would show that Americans ‘don't have the stomach for the fight.’” The sad fact, Senator, is Vice President Cheney is spot on. If you are unable to see this then you are either politically blind or have learned nothing from this country's history.

You bemoan the loss of American prestige and charge the President of being "quixotic". Well, sir, I would rather my President be an idealist than a self serving defeatist. I would rather have a man with the traits of Don Quixote at the helm, than a frightened boy from a Senate whose standards waver at the first puff of a political ill wind. For your information, our international image is being tarnished, but this is not the result of our working toward or helping other nations achieve their freedoms. It becomes stained when we show the world we lack the commitment necessary to help all men regardless of race, creed, religion or background achieve the same inalienable rights we claim for ourselves. We lose luster when we as a people abandon courage and give into the easy fashion of resignation. We lose our souls when political expediency becomes more important than the rise of human dignity.

Senator, you had a chance to show the country there were still men of courage left in its legislative branch. Unfortunately, the only thing you accomplished was to show me and reinforce for the world, they may not exist.

Thanks for your two cents, Senator. That's about all they are worth!

The Infantile Generation

2006-11-10T22:00:00.000-05:00

Could someone please tell me what happened to my county? The landmarks remain familiar, but I don’t recognize the people anymore. I have become a stranger among those I used to consider amiable, fellow travelers if not friends and it saddens me.

When I was growing up there were disagreements between the political parties and the people that populated them but it would have been considered shameful and counterproductive to call your opponent a murderer and accuse a sitting American President of taking the country to war for personal profit. The American public would never have stood for such a lie or lunacy.

When I was growing up, American generals spent their time planning for our defense and scrupulously avoided public disputes with their civilian masters. Military men and women in those days knew the value of civilian control of the military and tried to steer clear of political affairs. They did not dare leak classified materials to the press in search of political advantage. It would have been unthinkable, even treasonable, for an American general to agree to testify for this country’s enemies in a foreign court against a sitting Secretary of Defense. It would have been even more unimaginable if this seditious activity were being celebrated by a national political party that actually voted for the war. In my youth, the American press would have berated such men at the very least as disloyal fools.

When I was growing up, manners were taught. The proper comportment of oneself was considered the mark of lady or gentlemen. Now, protocol and proper etiquette are considered passé or gender and ethnically insensitive. Vulgarity and debauchery by politician and celebrity alike are no longer given a cold shoulder. These actions now receive whispered if not outright approval. In fact, the cruder and more outrageous the behavior the greater acceptance it is given by today’s paragons of protocol. It is their belief that those who profess not to give into their baser urges are the fools and those who still cling to outmoded ideas such as belief in the sanctity of life are out of touch with reality. Today, America’s press and their heroes view the crude and tattooed as champion and the chaste as fools.

When I was growing up, the United States of America was the land of the free and home of the brave. I had no doubt. My father, my uncles and thousands of men of their generation stormed the beaches of Normandy, Iwo Jima, the Chosi Reservoir and other hostile environs. They didn’t want to. They didn’t enjoy it, but they knew that true evil could be stopped no other way. They did their duty. Millions died, sometimes thousands a day, to prevent the world from falling to fascism and communism.

And they were not alone. Their sweethearts and family at home dealt with rationing, blackouts and deprivation this current generation could not even image, let alone tolerate. They did so in good humor because they knew victory called for sacrifice. It would never have crossed their minds to speak treason and sedition during time of war. Their only thought was for the well being of their country and their loved ones in harm’s way. Surrender was not an option. Redeployment was another word for defeat. Difficulties were met with perseverance, setbacks with resolve, fortitude and greater effort.

Unfortunately, that America is gone. It exists only in song and memory. The "greatest generation" has been replaced by the "infantile generation" and some big changes have been made.

Our greatness as a country and a people started to disappear in the late sixties and early seventies during the Vietnam era when the heroes of World War II and Korea returned home and gave their children everything they wanted but the discipline to handle truth. It further dissipated when an American President broke the law and paid little price and continued to evaporate when another American President used the White House as his personal brothel and a funnel for money. Instead of being shunned, he was cheered.

America’s transformation wasn’t completed on November 7, 2006, it was merely punctuated. We still have a way to go and I am sure Tuesday’s winners will continue our slow march toward the fall.

The spoiled children of the great generation are now solidly in charge. Expediency and self deception have replaced courage and self examination. Impatience and speed are considered greater virtues than discipline and methodical workmanship. Self indulgence is thought to be a right and self denial is considered the mark of a fool.

The natural progression of life is to grow up and grow out of childish ways, to see the world as it is not as we would wish it were. I feel lost because most of my generation has yet to figure this out.

On Tuesday, the delusional saw victory for themselves instead of our enemies. Left unsaid and unthought-of were the men and women who died at our behest.

For those who have forgotten, our current war was not born in frivolity. There was no mystical Gulf of Tonkin incident. This war brewed for years. It was born as the result of a poor ceasefire and our abandonment of our allies in the region. It festered while our men and women in planes were being shot at daily over Iraqi air space. It came to a head after the death of thousands in New York, Washington, Pennsylvania and Afghanistan. This is a war both political parties in Congress voted for and when their frightened, vocal base squealed, they quickly abandoned.

For the second time in my life, those who have no stomach for truth have chosen to cut and run. And make no doubt about it, that was the decision made last Tuesday.

Our enemies have been correct in their assessment. We as a people no longer have the stomach for reality. We are easily defeated. All one needs to do is make us uncomfortable. Break a nail and we cry. Tuesday was not a vote for America; it was a frightened vote against America.

Once again, our men and women in uniform have been left out in the cold. And does anyone really care? Why would they? These same children of the sixties did it before and were rewarded for it. What has changed?

Having watched defeat snatched from the jaws of victory before I thought my generation and the Democratic Party would have learned the lesson of Vietnam by now. But they have not. They are not interested in history because they believe they are immune to it. History is not immediate and it does not stroke in the present, it does not pamper. And that which does not pamper does not interest the boomers.

But what really saddens me is that sixty percent of my peers couldn’t find an hour or even five minutes in their ultra important day to get off their oversized derrières to vote. Their Pilates class or their meetings over double mocha lattes were far more important that the life of their nineteen year old neighbor braving death in Iraq on their behalf.

I keep wondering when my generation is going to wake up and face the often difficult realities of this world, when they will stop thinking about their own self interest and begin to think of others as they have always claimed they have.

The sad truth is songs do not define a generation or a country, voting does. I keep wondering when my generation is going to grow up. If Tuesday is any guide, the sad answer may be never.

How Much Caring Can We Afford?

2006-09-23T11:53:00.000-04:00

Put aside the fact that former President Clinton acted less than Presidential during yesterday’s interview with Fox News’s Chris Wallace and forget that we have seen Mr. Clinton’s self-righteous indignation before when he denied ever having sex with “that woman”. Cleanse your mind of prejudices and listen to what he had to say. It speaks volumes about not only Mr. Clinton, but the Democratic Party and those people in America who continue to fawn over both.

In response to Mr. Wallace’s question about whether or not he did enough to stop Osama Bin Laden prior to the 9/11 attack, the agitated ex-President first tried to shift the blame to the current Administration and when that didn’t seem to work, he point his finger at the CIA and the FBI. When Mr. Wallace continued to press him for an answer, an angry Clinton summed up American liberalism’s fatal flaw.

Holding the banner of blue state emotion high, the former President proudly expressed his belief the successful capture of Bin Laden would have been nice but was less important than his motives. It was his good intentions, his very thoughts of positive action alone, regardless of outcome, that should be enough to warrant his administration gold stars.

If the last refuge of a political scoundrel is patriotism, then the final sanctuary for liberal failure seems to be the mantra, “I cared” or in Bill Clinton’s case, “I feel your pain.”

For example, there is little dispute the American black family is worse off after thirty years into the liberal’s war on poverty than at any time since slavery. The two parent black family is near extinction, education is viewed as anti-black by inner city youth and unemployment continues at record highs. Will the Democratic Party or American liberalism admit its failures and seek new approaches?

Hell, no!

Why?

Because they still care!

The American educational system and the children who have been trapped in its clutches are by all measures worse off today than before Jimmy Carter paid off Big Labor with the Department of Education. National test scores are pathetic, drop out rates are higher and violence in schools is rampant. Does this mean that the Democratic Party and their unionized brethren will admit the billions of dollars they taxed America for misguided schemes have been wasted?

Hell, no!

Why?

Because they still care!

America’s social safety net, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, is in trouble. The handwriting is on the wall. The growth of these programs will have America on the financial ropes within twenty years if substantial changes are not made soon. Are Democrats and the liberal groups backing them willing to make anything but cosmetic modifications to these programs?

Hell, no!

Why?

Because they still care!

And as the world is confronted with Islamofacism, what has been the response of the Democratic Party and their sycophantic media friends to this international threat? Have they enthusiastically backed President Bush’s call for this evil terror to be defeated? Have they worked diligently in a bipartisan manner since the butchery of America’s 9/11 and Britain’s 7/7 to lower the barriers to success installed in the name of political correctness? Have they abandoned their foolish claims that radical Islam and Western values are morally equivalent? Have they learned from their former leader’s example the futility of kicking the terror can down the road?

Hell, no!

Why?

Because they still care!

With a tip of my hat to the memory of Pastor Martin Niemöller and his famous poem, I offer the following observation:

First they came for the blacks and I did nothing.
I was not black. I thought they were there to help.

Then they came for the children and I did nothing.
I was not a parent. I thought they were there to help.

Next they came for the elderly and infirm and I did nothing.
I was not old or sick. I thought they were there to help.

This November, these caring people will come again.
This time they want me to trust them to handle the safety of my friends and family. I will no longer remain silent.
I now know they are not here to help anyone but themselves.

This time I will ask the question that I should have asked all along.
How much liberal "caring" can America afford before the weight of its smug, self-serving, self-righteousness crushes us all?

Journalistic Jihad

2006-06-13T14:37:00.000-04:00

The latest cancerous growth to escape from American journalism’s putrefying Petri dish is the alleged massacre of innocent civilians in Haditha, Iraq. As the tale goes when an IED explosion killed a US Marine during a routine patrol through the town last November, his comrades in arms were so upset they went on a killing spree the likes of which hasn’t been seen since Mi Lai.

There is only one problem. It may not have happened.

To date, not one Marine has been charged with any crimes in connection with this tragedy, let alone convicted. Not one complaining witness has stood before any bar of justice to offer testimony against these men nor have the Marines been given a public forum to defend their actions. In fact, the investigation into this tragedy has yet to be completed but this hasn’t stopped most of the mainstream media’s political pundits and arm chair generals from having already adjudicated an entire platoon of United States Marines guilty of mass murder.

From the salacious mouth foaming, a stranger to this country might guess trials and due process of law are passé, that George Orwell’s dystopian vision offered in his book, 1984, had come true. He might conclude that justice no longer lies not in the courts but with Ministry of Truth, aka the mainstream media. If Time magazine says a group of America’s best disregarded their training and soiled their values for a moment of gratification, then it must be so.

Well, this is one Winston Smith who just ain’t buying it!

Let’s start by examining both the video produced by the Hammurabi Human Rights Group which claims to document this massacre and the testimony of an Iraqi man who claims to be the doctor who performed autopsies on the innocent. Both have been touted by the broadsheets and broadcast as unimpeachable…that is until their story started to unravel.

Initially claiming the Hammurabi Human Right’s Group was associated with Human Rights Watch, Time Magazine has since been forced to concede this was not the case. It seems Human Rights Watch never even heard of this group before Time’s old Vietnam reporter, Tim McGirk, found this “group” and coaxed them into the sunlight.

Pretty convenient if you ask me!

Then there is the matter of the video evidence and the “budding journalist” (Times description not mine.) who was the videographer. Am I the only one interested in an explanation as to why this 43 year old concerned citizen waited four months to make his charges and why no one in this pro-insurgency community came forward at the time to point a finger at our soldiers? Does it matter that this “journalist” is also the founder of the Hammurabi Human Right’s Group?

And what about this organization? Am I supposed to lower my head in respect solely on the strength of its name? Can anyone tell me how it operates, when it was formed, what its agenda is or with whom they are politically aligned? Does anyone know about its funding sources? Can any journalist now slandering the Marines even tell me how many active members this organization currently has? According to one report yesterday, there are only two!

And what about that Iraqi doctor who claims to have done the autopsies? His testimony is central to Time’s proof a massacre occurred. He claims bullets not shrapnel killed the all of the woman and children. Have his autopsies been examined and verified? If not, why not?

Does this doctor, if he is one, have his own axe to grind with coalition forces? It has been reported that he was at one time detained by American forces and then released. Is this correct? If so shouldn’t we question his motives?

But the biggest question of all is why do the American media feel a need to take sides in this dispute rather than simply reporting it? Why would they trust the word of two Iraqi men over that of a platoon of United States Marines? And how in the light of this can they continue to claim with a straight face that they support our citizen soldiers?

Is our press so firmly committed to disappointment in Iraq, so firmly entrenched on the side of the anti-war left that they are willing to brush aside inconvenient questions and facts to achieve their political end? Are they so invested in failure that they would be willing to sacrifice the lives of these Marines to make a political point?

If these Marines are guilty of murder they should pay the ultimate price, but only after a complete investigation and a fair trial proves this to be the case. Until such time, the people who work in print and broadcast journalism should not only extended these men and their families the same amount of courtesy they have provided their accusers, but they should go beyond that. They should insure these Marines receive what the United States Constitution guarantees, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty! Are United State Marines entitled to anything less simply because the serve at the pleasure of a Republican President? I think not!

And, pray tell, what will happen if the investigations prove rumor to be lie. What if it turns out the Marines were defending themselves within the rules of engagement and that a massacre never occurred? Will the press apologize to these men if it turns out they were the victims of a disinformation campaign? Will any in the press pay a price for their slander and/or libel? Will they be relegated to a military stockade, as these marines have been for months, while those ignorant of the facts sit in moral judgment of them? Will their families be humiliated and stained by doubt as the Marine families have been? Of course not, and there in lies the irony.

By all indications, these yet to be accused Marines have shown no inclination to whine or escape responsibility. They await their trial like men willing to face their accusers and present a defense. Both they and their superiors do not believe they are above the law or common decency. Yet their gleeful accusers, the “bright” and “tolerant” media elite, seem to work constantly to insulate themselves from both.

The facts surrounding the tragedy in Haditha have yet unraveled, but thanks to the media we may never know the truth. They have not only shown careless disregard for the lives of the men and women who protect us daily, but they have planted the seeds of doubt.

Indeed, George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth is alive and its existence begs one final question?

If the definition of a terrorist is a person who is willing to sacrifice the innocent to achieve political victory, why shouldn’t I conclude that America’s mainstream media is a breeding ground for terror?

NBC Proves Me Wrong, Again

2006-06-03T00:27:00.000-04:00

If I didn’t already know most television producers and on air news personalities were in desperate need of psychological counseling, tonight’s schizophrenic behavior by Dateline NBC would have convinced me. Let me explain.

A couple of months ago, reporter Chris Hansen and the crackerjack producers at Dateline NBC were brainstorming a story and they came up with a doozie. They had come to suspect the Internet, a growing thorn in the side of the mainstream media, might be harboring a darker side, one they could exploit, one they intended to expose.

After what I am sure were weeks of meetings and late night bull sessions, they hatched a brilliant plan. Why not pretend to be a very young and naïve woman and enter into online conversations on any number of chat rooms with the express purpose of finding out if older men might be interested in “hooking up”.

Surprise, surprise, these intrepid “journalists” actually found a group of men interested in having sex with teenaged women and willing to act on their fantasies when given encouragement. When these “gentlemen” traveled to a location one can only assume was given to them by Dateline NBC, Mr. Hansen with the assistance of local police were on hand to humiliate, film and arrest them for the prurient pleasure of Dateline's audience.

“To Catch a Predator” has been a ratings success on Dateline NBC and has spawned multiple installments.

Initially, I thought the show very good and that NBC was doing a service. I assumed NBC was truly interested in bringing the people who prey on children to justice. I had a few reservations about whether or not their sting operation bordered on entrapment, but I believed NBC’s motives were pure and the safety of children was their main concern.

After last night's edition of Dateline, I am not so sure.

Taking a break from evil male pedophiles lurking in the bushes or toting beer through kitchen doors, NBC decided to treat America to a love story. Can you guess who they chose for the heroine?

If you said a pedophile, you would be correct!

With fanfare, the network offered an exclusive interview with Mary Kay Letourneau and her once child lover and now husband, Vili Fualaau. The fact that Ms. Letourneau abandoned her husband and four children choosing instead to seduce Mr. Fualaau when he was her thirteen year old sixth grade student was of only passing concern to NBC’s reporter, Josh Mankiewicz. What truly seem to matter during this salute to love were answers to such probing questions as “who is more romantic”, “who gets up first in the morning” (double entendre implied) and “who hogs the covers”.

When the interview was over and everyone wished each other well, I turned my television set off and took a shower. I felt the need to feel clean again.

I could not believe that a major network would devote an hour of primetime to these pathetic people and their tawdry affair as if they were the second coming of Romeo and Juliet.

But then again, what did I expect?

The same people who produced this work are part of a profession that has taken great delight in chipping away at every moral foundation they believe to be passé. These are people who take pride in exalting an adjudicated perjurer but who go out of their way to excoriate a man of faith? They are part of a community which claims to support our troops who are in harm’s way while at the same time working diligently to undermine their mission for the political gain of their friends.

The fact “journalists” have little respect for ethics, honesty or common decency should come as no surprise to anyone. But I thought there was some hope. I believed America’s mainstream media couldn’t get any lower, couldn’t troll the depths of depravity any deeper.

Last night, Dateline NBC and Mr. Mankiewicz proved me wrong...yet again.

The Education of Joe Gringo

2006-05-01T16:36:00.000-04:00

Joe Gringo lives in a nice neighborhood. In fact, it is the swankiest community in town. The cost of moving into his home was high and no one gave him anything. Joe and his neighbors worked hard and many years to achieve their success.

Then one day, the fence that surrounded the community came under disrepair. The homeowner’s association met, fees were raised, but there always seemed to be a more pressing emergency in need of the money. Because fixing the broken fence was never taken seriously, strangers began to trespass and eventually someone snuck into Joe’s house and hid in his basement.

Joe was aware of the intruder, but he was not frightened. The man appeared to be no threat to Joe’s family or at least Joe didn’t believe he was. He considered calling the police, but he rejected the thought off hand. His neighbors had similar problems but when they called for assistance, the police response was less than effective. Besides, Joe and his wife felt sorry for the poor man. It was cold outside and although his basement was not the Ritz, it was warm and safe. Instead of getting upset, Joe took pride in helping a fellow human in distress and gave his guest a pass.

Time moved on and Joe began to detect a few things that disturbed him. He noticed that his first aid kit needed to be restocked almost constantly and some of his more expensive prescriptions were dwindling faster than normal. He observed that books had gone missing from his library, the carpet was becoming thread bare and his wood floors were scuffed and cracking.

Keeping his home in pristine condition was becoming more expensive in both time and money and it didn’t take Joe long to identify the cause of his problem. It was his guest.

Joe was a little annoyed, but he still felt sorry for the poor man and he recognized there was a trade off involved. In exchange for shelter, medical supplies, books and other miscellaneous items, his guest had agreed to empty the hot water heater’s overflow bucket and make sure the crack in the home's foundation didn’t get larger. Joe and his guest worked out a payment schedule satisfactory to both sides and all seemed well. Joe was glad to be rid of these chores and his guest was grateful for the work.

After time, however, Joe and his family began to hear grumbling from the man downstairs. His guest was no longer grateful, he now was angry. He was annoyed because he was still living in the basement and he blamed Joe for his plight. He wanted a real bedroom and a nicer bath. He thought he was getting cheated in other ways as well. He wanted more input into the family’s affairs. He thought he should have a say as to how the family spent its money, because he didn’t believe that he was getting his fair share.

The man’s agenda was not the only thing that upset Joe. What he found more disturbing was the gatecrasher’s attitude. The trespasser wasn’t simply requesting these changes, he was demanding them. There was no longer a tone of gratitude in the man’s voice. It had been replaced with a shrill malediction.

Joe recognized that the status quo was no longer tolerable. Change was needed and he called his guest’s attention to the fact he wasn’t being held prisoner and he had not been invited into the family’s home. He reminded his guest he had been compensated for his efforts and the family had no intention of extending to him any additional privileges. Finally, Joe told his guest that if he was unhappy with his current situation, he could leave.

The guest became incensed at what he felt was Joe’s “insensitivity”. In frustration, the basement dweller took to the street and told Joe’s neighbors if his demands were not met, he would let the water heater bucket overflow and the foundation of Joe’s house crumble. He called his protector a racist and class warrior. He stated that he would no longer play by the old rules. He would do as he pleased, when he pleased and if Joe or his neighbors did not like the new arrangement that was too bad.

Annoyed, Joe called the community’s security force to have the trespasser removed from his home but to his chagrin, they claimed they were powerless to help him. They were at the mercy of the homeowner’s association and if Joe wanted to solve his problem, he should take it to them.

Dialing again, Joe found his association’s response even more infuriating. More interested in their own situations and political gamesmanship, his elected officials sympathized with his plight but eventually they told Joe they would do nothing.

They wouldn’t fix the gate because they had spent the money elsewhere and they certainly couldn’t throw every trespasser off the community’s property because there were simply too many of them. They suggested that Joe not rock the boat, that these things have a way of working themselves out. They tried to convince Joe not to think of his guest as an intruder or trespasser. They told him to treat the man like a member of his family. They ended the conversation by reminding Joe that the members of homeowner’s association were up for re-election soon and if they could put in a good word about them with his guest they would be forever grateful.

Hanging up the phone in disgust, Joe remained unsure how he was going to solve his problem, but he took two lessons away from his travails. He finally realized that his homeowner’s association was as incompetent as they were self-serving and his uninvited guest was an ingrate who no longer deserves the benefit of his compassion.

A Xenophobic Kafuffle

2006-03-02T17:22:00.000-05:00

If you are looking to verify that most of America’s politicians and almost all of the mainstream press are more interested in the perpetuation of their own power than truth, you need look no further than the kafuffle over DP World buying out P&O’s interest in a couple of American maritime terminals.

They have started a xenophobic stampede that even sober people have found inviting, but which I find nothing short of scandalous. Their case is fear based and the cornerstone of their reasoning rests on ignorance.

Can anyone who is against this deal tell me why? Just what are your specific objections? What do you think a terminal operator in America can or cannot do? Who besides me has worked for a company doing this type of work? What information are you privy to that I am not? What negative can you offer me about DP World other that it is owned by an Arab country?

Is your objection based solely on the fact that UAE has had dealings with our enemies? Well, if that is going to be the criteria for who can and cannot run our ports what shall we do with the Chinese, Singapore or for that matter the French?

France deals with our enemies every day. They have been known to handle their cargo and bank their funds. Is suspicion of foul play or past evil deeds a sufficient reason to bar all French companies doing business on our ports? Should all French containers be turned away on principle? If you say yes, and want to take this draconian stand then you better be prepared for a major upheaval on the American waterfront and in the American economy. You better have a plan when a lot of American jobs are lost.

Years ago, I worked for Pierside Terminals at the Transocean Gateway pier on Staten Island. Although no longer in business, this company “controlled” that terminal and two piers in Brooklyn. Its job was identical to what DP World will be doing. My question to the hysterical media and our weak kneed politicians is just what in hell do you know? When was the last time you even stepped foot on an American pier when it wasn’t for some self serving photo op? What piers have you worked and what is your expertise in port security?

Let’s look at the facts:

If you believe that we are ceding or selling American ports to a foreign government, you have been told a lie!

No American port is being sold to any foreign company or nation. All that is happening is that a foreign company, in this case a British one, is selling the leases they hold to run various terminals, not ports, to another foreign company, DP World of the UAE.

If you believe that DP World will be in charge of what comes into and out of their terminals, you have been told a lie.

Stevedoring companies do not control what comes into this country. Shipping companies are responsible for all cargo entering our ports. DP World will simply be responsible for the hiring of longshore gangs to off load and reload vessels and to guarantee the cargo enters and leaves the pier as specified by the shipper.

If you believe that DP World will have any sort of veto power or could compromise security in the ports in which they operate, you haven’t heard the whole truth.

Anything is possible, but this is highly unlikely. Not only will this company need to report to the United States Coast Guard, Immigration and Customs, but the duties of handling the cargo will be the province of the International Longshoremen’s Association. Have any of you dealt with these people? Have you asked yourself why the ILA is not speaking out against this deal? Do you honestly believe that these dedicated American union workers would sell out their country? Oh, and have you also asked yourself why the Coast Guard, Immigration and Customs signed off on this deal. (Yes they have, even though it is being misreported that they have not.)

If you believe this is a six billion dollar plot to take over control of what containers can come into this country, it is high time you remove the tin foil hat from your head.

No country or any other entity in their right minds would spend six billion dollars to cripple us when a couple of thousand dollars in the right hands would get the same job accomplished. If you think I am wrong just take a look what a few airline tickets and a couple of two dollar box cutters did to us on 9/11. If the UAE wanted to hurt us, wouldn’t it be easier to compromise our military ships in the ports they now control in the Middle East? If DP World were such a risk why do they get to handle more American naval vessels abroad than any other operator?

Are our ports 100% secure? Of course not! They never will be. That is a fantasy. Can we do better? We can always do better, but xenophobic hysteria is not the solution.

I find it ironic that the same people who claim that America is hated all over the world because of our supposed xenophobia and arrogance, our the very same people using chauvinism, fear and ignorance to keep the UAE from being treated like an equal. By denying the UAE legitimate international business rights in this country, they show their ignorance of the realities of international trade and damage our standing with an ally that has helped us in the prosecution of the War on Terror.

If we cede the structure of our shores to the likes of the clueless Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden, we only guarantee increased prices, decreased choices and a lower standard of living for all Americans. What’s worse, if we acquiesce to ignorance and allow irrational fear to be used as an emotional veto over this country’s foreign policy, we show ourselves to be fools and compromise our nation’s security in a far more severe way than the UAE ever could.

Cartoon Eulogies for a Cartoon Audience

2006-02-08T16:02:00.000-05:00

That former President Jimmy Carter and the Reverend Joseph Lowery used the funeral of Martin Luther King’s widow as a platform to make cheap political points doesn’t surprise me. The “born again” ex-president and the good reverend have an extended record of being clueless and classless.

Nor am I surprised these paragons of piety demand their fellow citizens embrace Christian ideals without feeling morally or intellectually obligated to follow their own advice. Both are ever quick to scold the rest of us for our lack of tolerance, but have a long history of withholding theirs from those with whom they politically disagree. They speak often of God’s compassion and forgiveness, but seem to infer that these gifts should only be reserved for dues paying members of the Democratic Party.

That these stalwarts of Christianity refuse to practice what they preach is not shocking at all. I lived under Jimmah when he was President and Governor and I was an Atlanta business owner when Joe ran the SCLC. One behaved like a knave, the other a fool. I’ll let you choose who played which role but one thing is for certain. The winds of change have often blown through these hollow men causing them to resonate loud, empty and angry noises.

What surprised me, what saddened me actually, was the reaction of the audience to the words of these two so called gentlemen. I was surprised by how much in common this attractive, educated, upper middle class crowd has with the obviously poor religious zealots now participating in the cartoon brouhaha playing out across the Muslim world.

Although better dressed and restrained from demanding murder as remedy, these American believers jeered their “enemies” just as loudly as their counterparts in the Middle East. They sat in a house of worship for six hours and cheered for hate. They cheered the partisanship. They applauded the lack of tolerance. They laughed at the concept of forgiveness and they mocked the notion of redemption. And like the dancing fools in a Palestine bazaar, they even celebrated their ignorance of their own history.

When “Christian” Jimmah wagged his finger at President Bush in disapprobation for the government’s wiretapping of the King family forty odd years ago, the crowd shouted its approval. Yet, when Senator Ted Kennedy, the brother of the man who authorized those wire taps stood to speak, they blissfully offered their loving endorsement.

When “walk about” Joe spoke to the evils of war and tried ever so bluntly and clumsily to tag the President of the United States with the imprimatur of liar and jailer of the poor, the throng went wild. Yet, when President George Bush, a man who has been responsible for helping free fifty million people from the yoke of despotism and slavery, stood to graciously and humbly remember Mrs. King, these champions for civil rights mostly sat on their hands.

I can’t help but wonder what Dr. King’s reaction would have been had he witnessed yesterday’s proceedings. I would hope he would have shared my sense of sadness. I would hope that he would have seen yesterday as a sign that the American people still have a long way to go to make America a truly civil society.

This country’s current civil rights challenges are no longer solely race based and our failures to achieve comity can not be laid at the feet of only one race or one political party as Jimmah and Joe tried to infer. That notion, like the men who profess it, is simplistic and demeaning. It is anathema to the legacy of both Dr. and Mrs. King.

The improvement and maintenance of civil rights is the responsibility of all men regardless of ethnic background, creed or ideology. No one is immune from this accountability and no one is above it, not even discrimination’s past victims. For the flowers of civil rights to fully blossom they need to be fertilized daily with hope, understanding, forgiveness and kindness. If they are only sprinkled with hate, distrust, ignorance, false witness and bitterness as they were yesterday, they will surely die.

The service to honor Mrs. King did little to push a positive agenda, but it was not a total waste of time for it should act as a cautionary sign. Wasn’t it Dr. King who warned us that fools and knaves will always be among us? And wasn’t it he, among others, who alerted us to the fact that there would always be a willing audience waiting for words that support the notion of self superiority?

Yesterday’s memorial service should have taught us all a few new lessons. It should have taught us that offensive and hurtful cartoons are not always drawn. Sometimes they are performed. Jimmah and Joe simply played their usual parts in providing us the proof.

But it was the audience who taught us a more profound lesson. Their reactions to these court jesters proved that there is very little difference between the man on the Muslim street and the man on Peachtree Street. They unwittingly provided evidence that even good people are susceptible to the insidious message of hate when they begin to believe in their own self righteousness.

Does America have its own Hamas Party?

2006-01-31T18:10:00.000-05:00

The terrorist group Hamas’s victory in the recent Palestinian elections should have removed all blinders from the eyes of those who actually believed that Israel has been negotiating with a partner for peace. So, too, yesterday’s cloture vote and today’s confirmation vote over the appointment of Judge Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court should have remove the virtual veil of bipartisanship the Democratic Party has been trying to peddle the American people for the last five years.

There was little comity in the votes of twenty five United States Senators in yesterday’s attempt to filibuster Judge Alito’s nomination and even less in the final 58 to 42 vote for his confirmation. Even the densest of voters (i.e. moderates) should be able to see that this political ploy was but a political temper tantrum. It should now be clear that the leaders of the Democratic Party and the party’s frontrunners for the 2008’s presidential race are more interested in their own personal political ambition or in embarrassing President Bush than working in a constructive and positive manner for the future of America.

The Democrats, led by America’s Senator from Switzerland, John Kerry, claimed his and the party’s wrath were reserved only for conservative extremists. They maintained the President was trying to stack the Court with a yes man for the Executive Branch and that Sam Alito was simply a tool of the neo cons. Judge Alito’s grace under fire during his confirmation process spoke volumes in dispelling this slander.

Don’t misunderstand me. I realize that it is the obligation and duty of the opposition party to question and offer advice, but when opposition is only based on the President’s ideology or as a result of personal animosity the American people, in their good sense, will invariably reject it.

Republicans disliked the philosophy of President Clinton’s choices but this did not prevent the vast majority of Republican Senators from voting for Clinton’s most objectionable nominee, Judge Ginsberg. Republicans recognized that elections have meaning and consequences. They respected the democratic process. They respected the voters. They realized that the Clinton Presidency came about in part because of their failure to offer voters what they were looking for. President Clinton won election and was entitled to his Supreme Court appointments so long as there were no clear and convincing ethical impediments in Ms. Ginsberg’s past. There were not and she was overwhelmingly confirmed with a majority of Republicans voting in her behalf.

The irony is that if the Democrats had offered something that could have swayed more voters to their side in 2004, they and not George W. Bush would have been in a position to appoint the two Court vacancies that have since arisen. In their pitiable pique over their own failure, their actions this week not only demonstrated the Democratic Party’s complete lack of respect or understanding of the judicial nomination process but their actions also took a swipe at every voter who participated in the last Presidential elections

No, I’m not surprised by the opposition to Judge Alito, but I am amazed at how clumsily it was attempted and the meanness of spirit with which it was voiced. To suggest that a man who has sat honorably on our Appellate Courts for over a decade was itching to return this country to back alley abortions, and was willing to revoke the civil rights and civil liberties of his fellow Americans was not only silly, it was disgusting and defamatory.

Hopefully most Democrats realize this as fact. But if they do not, if they still cling to the fantasies of detestation, then it is high time they start asking each other some very difficult questions for the good of this country.

Is the current Democratic Party so blinded by hatred for and envy of their political rivals that they no longer care about the negative effects this type of petty, pathetic play has on our Republic, the Senate or the nominees and the families of those chosen to serve? Do they not recognize a shameless act of political posturing for special interest group money by every one of the Democratic Party’s Presidential aspirants when they see it? Are they unaware that the politics of personal attack will not garner them one additional vote, one additional Congressional seat and that vitriol will only work against their own dreams? Are they deaf to the voice of the American voter or do they simply no longer respect their choices?

I believe in a strong two party system. I believe we need a viable Democratic Party if only to keep Republicans honest. Competition is at the base of our country’s strength. It is the reason we are the world’s only superpower. We need an energized Democratic Party, one that once again provides the voters with policies and programs in which they can believe and support.

What this country does not need is a political party full of bomb throwers whose existence depends on avenging old grievances and fighting worthless battles, a party willing to destroy the innocent in exchange for power.

What this country does not need is America’s own version of Hamas but I fear my old friends, the Democrats, are drifting that way.

Another Open Letter to Tim Russert

2006-01-15T11:45:00.000-05:00

Dear Tim,

I realize that our relations have been strained of late and not one to hold a grudge, I tuned into Meet the Press this Sunday hoping to see a new approach. I was looking for the more fair and balanced Tim I used to believe existed before it became mandatory for everyone in the mainstream media to participate in the hate Bush derby.

Alas, I was again disappointed.

Today’s show was simply a continuation of your new obsession to find some way, any way, to embarrass and/or denigrate the Bush Administration. When you were unable to nail the President and Secretary Rumsfeld using Paul Bremer, the former Director of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance for post-war Iraq, as your foil, you moved unto more Democratic friendly and fertile ground by examining racial strife in today’s America.

Putting aside the fact that you rarely include conservative African Americans in these debates and understanding your need (and that of the DNC and NBC) to view the founder of the Children’s Defense Fund, Marian Wright Edelman, as a racial saint, I simply want to know if being in the presence of such a deity is adequate cause for you to forget your job? Is it not part of a journalist’s duty to question ridiculous statistics?

Ms. Edelman stated that every 36 seconds a child is born into poverty. Her unspoken inference was that the vast majorities of these children is of African decent and live in the United States. After she made this pronouncement, you sadly nodded your head and as you are want to do with all of your liberal friends, you accepted her statistics without question.

I realize that it may see unreasonable to request intellectual honesty from anyone at NBC these days and especially when dealing with the issue of President George W. Bush but does that mean such discussions by necessity require the suspension of reality?

Can it be true that among their other failings NBC's reporters are not only hopelessly politically polarized but are also incapable of understanding basic mathematics?

Think about it. If, as Ms. Edelmen claims, a child is born into poverty in the US every 36 seconds, then it logically follows that every minute of every day 1.6 children are born into poverty. Extrapolating these figures, that would mean that every year 840, 960 children are born into poverty. If we take these figures and overlay the Bush Administration six year period it would mean that during George Bush’s watch 5,045,760 children were born into poverty in the United States.

Does anyone at NBC or Meet the Press actually expect their audience to swallow this figure as fact? Are you really going to tell me that a full 1.6% of the US population was not only born in the last six years but all of these babies were born into poverty?

Or was Ms. Edelman talking about the world? And if that was the case why didn’t you make this clear and ask what this particular statistic had to do with racism in America and President Bush?

Can you see my problem? Do you honestly expect your fellow American’s to get upset with Republicans based on this foolish woman’s raving? Do you think we are all as gullible and closed minded as your Democrat friends at Moveon.org and the rest of the moonbat left?

If you want to know why you and your beltway friends are losing market share it is because you seem incapable of independent thought. You follow liberal templates and Democratic Party talking points even when they lead you over the cliffs. Simply because NBC and their reporters find it politically necessary and career important to please leftists like Ms. Edelman is not reason enough for me to follow suit. So I’m sorry, Tim. I may have to miss a few more of your broadcasts.

When you decide to get off your Anti-Bush kick and make the grown up decision to look at all political players with a fair but jaundiced eye and not simply attack those who espouse conservative ideals, give me a call.

Until that time, I’ll be over at Fox having fun. See ya!

Stuck on Stupid?

2005-11-17T11:25:00.000-05:00

The other day during the debate over the Defense Bill for 2006, the Senate Democrats with Senator Levin in the lead offered an amendment that was designed simply to embarrass the President of the United States. Having spent a couple of months creating the myth that President Bush and a White House cabal sent the country to war by manufacturing and/or manipulating intelligence, the Democratic Party wanted to further their campaign to destroy George Bush by attacking his core achievement, the war on terror and specifically the war in Iraq.

They knew that requiring the Pentagon and the White House to issue a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq would play well with some war weary Americans. They also knew that their amendment was tantamount to a declaration of surrender, a call to cut and run and quite frankly, they didn’t care. They proved that they have little concern for the safety of America or well being of our troops. They thought only of themselves.

Am I calling them unpatriotic? Yes, I am and more. I believe they tried to wrestle foreign policy away from a duly elected President and that their actions bordered on treason. I believe they knowingly gave aid and comfort to our enemies. If this opinion is considered politically incorrect or out of bonds then that’s too damn bad. It is what I believe and I refuse to sugar coat the truth to satisfy anyone’s political sensitivities.

I believe today’s Democratic Party is driven by only two things and two things only, hatred for George Bush and revenge against those who they believe “stole” their power. They have no respect for the American voter. They will do anything, say anything and lie about anything to see George Bush humiliated and to return to what they consider their divine right to govern.

Thankfully, their current attempt at political assassination went down in flames, but Senate Republicansns deserve very little credit for the defeat. They were too busy trying to pass their own declaration of surrender. Worried about their reelections, Republican (a.k.a. the “Frist-Warner” courage machine) also offered the back of their hands to the President, our troops in the field and the Iraqi people. Only slightly less offensive than the Democratic effort, their actions were just as self-centered, self-serving and damaging. Unfortunately, this one did pass with only 19 Senators having the courage and the good sense to dissent.

Did Republican’s worry about the troops or how their amendment would look to the world? Nope, they did not. They too thought only to naval gaze. Political cover and not victory was their motive and after the deed was done they spent a half an hour patting each other on the back.

After watching this bipartisan exercise in venal cowardice, I wondered how my America, the country I love, could have fallen so far in my short lifetime. Someone or something had to be responsible for this sad collection of weak and frightened little men. When did America lose its nerve? When did we lose our patience, our intelligence and our hearts? When did we lose our way?

America was once a country where self reliance, intelligence and character was king. We are not that country anymore. Every year our government schools continue to grind out children who can’t find the Mississippi River on a map and who actually believe that Viet Nam is the small Asian guy who runs their local exotic food market. Instead of shrinking in horror and realizing that our current school system is now a danger to our society, we all brush off the problem and are content to showcase these fools for entertainment on the Tonight Show.

We all know that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are financially unsustainable as currently structured, but do we demand bold fixes from our politicians? No, we do not. We like the status quo. We don’t want to do the heavy lifting that may be necessary to fix the problem because our attitude is, “Let the next guy do it. I’m going to get mine.”

We are now a country where even shame no longer matters and in some quarters is considered a rite of passage and a necessary step toward celebrity. A recent poll indicated that we prefer a former President who lied to a court, lied to America, cowered when threatened by terror and used a stupid little girl for his personal sexual enjoyment instead of a President who cared enough to bring freedom to 50 million people.

We are a nation of twisted values and a strange sense of justice. Massachusetts, for example, continues to vote for a man who let a woman float dead for twelve hours in cold water so that he could cover his own political butt and our national press refers to this coward as the Liberal Lion of the Senate without even a whiff of sarcasm. West Virginians proudly cast their ballots for an octogenarian Klansman who still believe the KKK was a simple social club, New Yorkers vote for a carpetbagger with dubious ethical credentials because they think she will be able to steal more out of the national treasury than the next guy and Rhode Island continues to offer plaques, kudos and their votes to a plagiarist? And these are not isolated examples. The list is virtually endless.

As disgusted as I am with the leaders of both parties, I have finally come to realize that it is not their fault. They are not to blame for this nation's cowardice, expediency, indecision, indifference or impatience. They are merely a reflection of it. We, the American voter, allow it to happen. We continue to validate this venality every November by returning these same fools to their offices and perks.

It is not our politicians who should be blamed if we are losing the war on terror or if this nation is on the brink of bankruptcy. The problems in this country are not the fault of any political party. America’s politicians aren’t the ones that are stuck on stupid. In truth, our politicians are doing just fine. They want for little.

No, these weak and spineless men and women who claim to lead are not responsible. We are! We planted them, permitted them to grow and fertilized them with our child like adoration and votes. It is we and not they who have grown too complacent, too greedy, too fearful and too lazy to worry about our world, our children's future, our troops or doing what is right. Those we choose to represent us simply reflect our own lethargy. So if the average American really wants to know who is stuck on stupid, he need only pick up a mirror. We have but reaped what we have sown, no more and no less.

UnitedNations.com or UnitedNations.con

2005-10-09T14:51:00.000-04:00

As with most of the United Nations’ machinations, the meeting they arranged in Geneva recently in preparation for November’s World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia was effectively kept below the Mainstream Media’s radar. While most of these expensive and generally useless gatherings have little effect on the life of the average world citizen, this one and the World Summit itself are poised to become the exception. What is being planned by the E.U., Iran, Cuba and China among others is nothing short of a political coup and as usual the United States has been deemed both villain and target.

For those unfamiliar with the current set up, the internet and its top level structure are controlled by a nonprofit entity called The International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers or ICANN for short. Created in 1998, this corporation reports to the United States Department of Commerce and is charged with Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions. There work is demanding but they have kept order in what could be chaos. On their Board of Directors are citizens from Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, France, Germany, Ghana, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, Senegal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. You would think that the international makeup of ICANN would be enough to satisfy the international community, but you would be wrong.

For years, certain world powers have stewed about this arrangement. What particularly galls them is that the United States, the country that invented this world wide network, retains control. In a world increasingly jealous about the success of the American experiment, plans are now afoot to change this agreement and should they succeed, the internet and its power may be forever changed.

Initially, these international intellectual property thieves planned on transferring ICANN’s responsibilities to the United Nations. When this idea didn’t fly, our “allies” in the E.U. including Britain offered their solution. Transfer control of the internet from the United States to a newly formed international body, one outside of the UN’s direct supervision, to oversee ICANN. They claim this change is necessary because the internet has become far too valuable to the world economy and one country shouldn’t be allowed sole control of this valuable tool’s protocols. They further claim this transfer would have little effect on the average web surfer, that there are no plans to politicize the internet and that the user would still maintain control of the content produced.

Quite frankly, if you believe this, I have a bridge in New York City I’d like to sell you!

These changes are not being presented because of some international altruistic effort to increase the freedom of movement of information. That’s what the United Nations and this country’s other enemies would have you believe, but does anyone actually believe Iran, one of the countries pushing this idea, is in the vanguard of free expression? Does anyone trust that China’s only interest is pushing this adjustment is to democratize the spread of information? Does anyone subscribe to the myth that the internet will be in better hands if the great leader of North Korea, Kim Jong IL, has a say in its development? And who out there does not think that our friends in the United Nations and other international bodies will not use this new international commission to pressure ICANN for their own political purposes?

No, this effort is not designed to increase the world’s access to information. The reverse is true. This is an effort to corral free speech while at the same time reduce America’s influence in the world. This is intellectual and political theft in sheep’s clothing and if this current United Nations con is allowed to come to fruition, we all must be prepared for a new and, I fear, more restrictive and precarious cyber world.

Bush’s October Surprise

2005-10-03T14:52:00.000-04:00

The cat is finally out of the bag.

By naming a White House insider, Harriet Meirs, to be an Associate Supreme Court Justice, President Bush let the second judicial shoe drop and it fell like a ton of bricks…on his base.

While both conservatives and liberals were expecting a more reliably traditionalist pick, President Bush seems to have chosen loyalty over surety, diversity over experience. Whether the President made this pick from a position of weakness as radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh believes or because he is genuinely convinced Ms. Meirs is the most qualified attorney to take this post, one thing is for sure. The American people and the electoral process once again have been relegated to the back of the "inside the beltway" bus and are faced with a Supreme Court nominee whose judicial philosophy and approach to jurisprudence is unfathomable. One has to question why.

Elections are supposed to have meaning. Elections are supposed to be the process by which the American people can sort out contentious problems and advance their will on specific solutions. It is what gives these solutions legitimacy.

Although close by some standards, the American people in the 2004 Presidential election chose a more conservative approach to the Supreme Court. They did not vote for stealth, nor did they vote for loyalty. The choices were clear and hard fought. They voted for this President because they had grown tired of the Supreme Court acting as a super legislative body and President Bush assured them that he agreed.

Unfortunately, the President seems to have ignored the deep bench of reliable conservatives available and picked someone who is receiving more praise from the election losers than the winners. Many of this President’s supporters are not only disappointed, they are crestfallen.

Like many, I know little about Harriet Meirs. I know she has never been a judge and has no record in this regard. I also know that she was a partner in a large law firm, headed the Texas Lottery Commission and has been a loyal White House counsel for years. I don’t know whether she agrees with Justice Kennedy that international law should have a bearing on the Supreme Court’s judgments or if she believes that Roe v. Wade was decided appropriately or for that matter where she acutally stands politically. I know she has given money to both political parties and that this is normal for a go along, get along high profile attorney, but playing both sides of the fence is something that I have always felt to be smarmy and suspicious. I was taught to believe that a person should stand for something or they will fall for anything.

I acknowledge that my fears that Justice Meirs will legislate from the bench may not be founded. She may well acquit herself to be a powerful conservative and the election results may well be validated by this Presidential choice. I hope this is the case, but I am not overly confident. Only time will tell.

Unfortunately the burden now falls on the Republicans in the Senate to discover why this woman should sit on the nation’s highest court at this time. Their past track record, however, is not one I look to for assurance. Since the Scottish Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, and his Democratic counterpart Senator Leahy seem to agree this is a fine pick, I hold little doubt that this woman will not be confirmed. I expect by the end of November, the Senate will choose the go along, get along option and simply rubberstamp this enigmatic appointment. I am also sure that there will be a plethora of press conferences in which members of the Senate will pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves on a job well done, but today I issue a caveat to these legislative “giants”.

Should this woman turn out to be another Justice Souter or worse, another Justice O’Connor, this may not be the only October that is full of surprises nor will it be the only November in which candidates are confirmed or rejected.

The Press’s Quagmire

2005-09-26T18:05:00.000-04:00

Having to admit mistakes, regardless of their severity, is never easy. No one likes to admit what they did, spoke or wrote was incorrect or harmful because these admissions inevitably bring loss. This debit may take the form of injury to our stature, self esteem or the respect of our peers and it is simply human nature to avoid pain.

Yet, we are all human and, as such, we all make mistakes. We have all said something inappropriate or done something we are not proud to admit upon reflection. It is simply the nature of the human condition and admissions of guilt for our misdeeds offer us not only a way to make amends, but it also provides a way to cleanse our conscience.

Generally, fair minded people who have been the brunt of these mistakes will accept an honest and sincere mea culpa from those who have transgressed. Their relationship with the injuring party may suffer, but, then again, there are always consequences for our actions. Adults understand this, children need to be taught. Adults, albeit sometimes grudgingly, accept responsibility for their errors and apologize. Children and those who live in perpetual puberty sometimes need to be coaxed into this reality. It would seem that most of elite journalism today falls into the latter category.

The most recent example is the kafuffle instigated by Mr. Tim Russert, the moderator of NBC’s Meet the Press, when two weeks ago he allowed Aaron Broussard, a New Orleans’s Parish President, to use NBC’s airways to make unsubstantiated charges regarding the death of a 92 year old woman. Mr. Broussard claimed that this woman called authorities for five days after Katrina hit the Gulf and he insinuated that her death should be laid at the feet of the Bush Administration. His accusations have since been proven to be a lie and much to Mr. Russert’s credit, he brought Mr. Broussard back unto his show to clarify.

Politically typical, Mr. Broussard offered no apology for his outrageous and slanderous indictment and his disjointed ramblings further identified him as a fool, but more telling was that Mr. Russert also didn’t apologize to his viewers for his share in this debacle. He made no mention that he and his network erroneously accepted this man’s previous false testimony at face value nor did he accept responsibility for allowing blatant lies to pass as truth for two weeks. In fact, he once again let this shady politician ramble and obfuscate with only an obligatory “thank you for coming on and correcting the record” wrap up. It was definitely not Mr. Russert’s finest hour and if he doesn’t realize it, more the pity.

Unfortunately, Mr. Russert’s problem with apologies is not isolated. He is only one example in a long line of press luminaries over the last couple of years who can’t seem to bring themselves to admit they simply are human like the rest of us.

From the recent fiasco with the unrepentant Dan Rather to today’s demand by National Review’s Donald Lufkin for the New York Times to make amends for lies their premier columnist Paul Krugman made about the 2000 Presidential election, the mainstream American press has shown itself not only indifferent to their readers and audience but to truth itself.

The irony is that as they continue to erroneously claim that the Bush Administration is stuck in a political quagmire, their efforts to avoid responsibility for their own actions show that they are the ones who are stuck in a political swamp.

Oblivious to the signs around them, they continue to defend the indefensible. Stuck in the sixties, like the children they remain, they do a disservice not only to themselves and their profession but to America and truth as well.

An Open Letter to Mr. Tim Russert

2005-09-21T14:39:00.000-04:00

Mr. Tim Russert
Moderator - Meet the Press

Dear Sir,

You don’t know me. Although I am a New Yorker by birth and breeding, I realize that I am not of your elevated rank. I do not know Paris Hilton, have never lunched with Pinch Sulzberger of the New York Times and I am not on speaking terms with the Clintons. I am not invited to Washington parties, foreign embassy soirées or James Carville’s Thanksgiving table. I am one of those little people you like to talk about helping. You and your fellow journalists have always been most generous with your advice and concern for my plight in life. I thank you.

I apologize if this epistle is in any way too forward or makes you uncomfortable. This is not my motivation. Far be it from little me to question one of the mainstream media’s microphone Gods, but those pesky bloggers, whose attacks brought journalism’s great friend Dan Rather to his knees, are at it again. They have now come to question the accuracy of one of your stories. They are claiming that you have hyped the New Orleans’ disaster to make President Bush look bad and in so doing you have shown a complete disregard for the truth.

It seems these pajama-clad barbarians are now claiming that you and your program have been guilty of a very ugly partisan smear. They assert you knew or, at the very least should have known, that the tearful New Orleans’ Jefferson Parish President, Aaron Broussard, was less than candid when he wept openly on your program, Meet the Press, as he recounted the death of a 92 year old woman at the hands of George Bush. As you remember, this gentleman claimed that this poor woman called her son daily for five days pleading for rescue after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, but help never came. He went on to allege her life was swallowed by the flood waters in her wheelchair on the Friday after the storm struck because George Bush and his inept Republican cronies didn’t care. You not only didn’t challenge Mr. Broussard, but in fact, took this man’s accusations at face value.

After some research, however, these evil bloggers are now pointing out that Mr. Broussard’s story doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. They point out that this woman died on Monday and she never called her son five times as Mr. Broussard claimed. Further, they submit that the owners of the Saint Rita’s nursing home where this woman resided were offered assistance in evacuating their charges prior to the storm hitting but that they refused these efforts. Some of these bloggers are even insinuating that this stalwart of the Democratic Party might have actually made up the story in an effort to use the Katrina disaster for his own benefit and that of the Democratic Party.

Although I realize it is not my place to question a journalist of your high credentials, these silk-clad keyboard Nazis make a compelling case. Please tell me that you were duped. Please tell me you and your producers simply overlooked this rascal’s shaky reputation or that at least you investigated these charges prior to their airing. Please tell me that MSNBC’s September 19th online “explanation” claiming that this was only a “misunderstanding” will not prevent you from offering your Meet the Press audience a complete accounting and a televised correction. And, I am sure that you will also want to inform your audience why no mention of this “misunderstanding” has ever been aired on NBC or MSNBC.

Above all, Mr. Russert, please assure me that you and your colleagues at NBC and MSNBC are not playing fast and loose with the truth simply to improve the political fortunes of your friends.

Just say it ain’t so, Tim.

I await your answer with respect.

Your humble servant,
G. Mortensen
Little Person

Roberts Routs “Lefties” in Crucial Game

2005-09-15T16:40:00.000-04:00

The United States Senate Judiciary Committee, the American equivalent of Japanese Kabuki Theater, gathered for their big game this week to confront the Federalist’s newest hero, Justice John Roberts, to see who gets to sit on the Supreme Court as Chief Justice. The game was played under blaring klieg lights in the legendary Caucus Room of the Senate Russell Building, and although there was much hype prior to play, when the players hit the field, buildup was replaced by reality and the score was never in doubt.

John Roberts, with superior intellect and only a few baseball metaphors for support, won in a rout. Playing alone and without the aid of pen, legal pad, or reference materials of any kind, the dapper and unflappable Roberts handily defeated the vaunted Democrats with their fax totting water persons and the myriad of support garnered from multiple 501/C/3’s and other tax exempts.

In a score of 8 to 0, Roberts sent the “Lefties” limping to the locker room licking their wounds.

Confident prior to the game, Big Government’s team, the Democrats, including their highly praised pitchers Chuck “Camera Man” Schumer, Joe “Windy” Bidden, Pat “Leaky” Leahy, Ted “The Swimmer” Kennedy, and Dick “The Turban” Durbin, were surprised and, this reporter would say, even embarrassed as Roberts hit ball after ball over the fence. To paraphrase the Lefty’s diminutive shortstop, Diane Feinstein, who made a rare locker room appearance after the game, “We were surprised by Justice Roberts’s performance. I don’t know what I’m going to do!”

What staggered most fans of this perennial classic was that Roberts dominated almost every part of the game. Showing no signs of the jitters, Roberts beat his opponents with superior strategy, calm catching, effective defense, and powerful hitting. Curve balls, knuckle balls, spit balls and even the occasional wild pitch were tried by the Lefties’ hurlers, but to no avail. They proved no match for Roberts’ calm and comfortable play.

“That Roberts guy…he was totally in control. They never laid a glove on him,” offered an eighty eight year old man while watching from his bleacher seat in McDonough, Ga. “He murdered da, Bums!” screamed his wife in support.

Of course, those comments don’t tell the whole story. In a side trip to the opposing team’s lounge, the MoveOn or Else Tavern and the little known speakeasy, The Democratic Underground, I was able to view the other side of the coin. Their critiques were, as one would imagine, more mixed. Some agreed that the Democrat’s game was not up to snuff, others incredibly saw it as a tie and some of the more rabid Lefty’s fans actually put forth the suggestion that the game was rigged and were demanding a Supreme Court Czar or a Blue Ribbon Panel to oversee a Federal investigation.

Bolstering their sagging spirits, however, was the overall belief by most of the Lefty supporters that the big game has yet to be played.

“This isn’t the end. So they get this guy. Big deal! Where waiting for the O’Connor game,” one feisty Lefty fan offered. “That’s when you’ll see what the Democrats are made of! This was just the set up game!”

Well, this reporter must agree that this particular Lefty backer spoke with a kernel of truth, but if Justice John Roberts is any indication of the depth of the Conservative bench, the “Lefties” and their coach, Harry Reid, had better be very careful what they wish for and upon whom they pin their hopes for a championship.

Guess Who Gets A Free Pass?

2005-09-08T14:38:00.000-04:00

Just as night follows day, a bureaucratic muddle is invariably followed by an expensive Congressional investigation or an even more expensive “Independent” Commission and the untidiness that is Katrina will be no exception.

We have already heard cries for a bipartisan Congressional investigation from the Speaker of the House and the Senate’s Majority Leader. Along with them or more appropriately, in spite of them, the Democrats in the House and Senate are also demanding a full airing of the government’s dirty laundry but, as usual, there is dissention as to the make up of this exercise. The Republicans are content to have members of Congress and the Senate sit in judgment of those whom they believed bungled the evacuation and recovery. The Democrats, fearing this type of inquiry will dilute their influence and provide insufficient ammunition against George Bush, Karl Rove and other evil conservatives would prefer an independent Commission ala the 9/11 debacle.

In the end, partisan politics, dishonest media pressure and good old boy horse trading will prevail and the American people will probably be forced to pay for yet another “Blue Ribbon” panel. And as surely as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, it will be packed with the same unemployed politicians and party hacks whose loyalty will be directed more toward covering the butts of the Congressmen who nominate them than the truth.

Although it is essential to learn lessons from failure, the only problem with these bipartisan witch hunts is that the wrong people are always asking the questions and the wrong people are always forced to answer them. In short, once again, the people who designed the failure, who were responsible for the new and improved FEMA, who thought a museum in their district or a bridge to nowhere were far more important than the lives of Americans will get a pass and those who were displaced, inconvenienced, ruined and/or literally killed by state, local and/or federal government incompetence will only get the privilege of paying more money to cover these politician’s rear ends. Already Hillary and Harry are calling for more taxes and you can bet their sycophantic friends in the mainstream media will carry their cry loudly and often.

In a perfect world, it shouldn’t be members of Congress or their cronies who get to ask the questions, it should be the people who were displaced, the lives that are now ruined or those who have had family members killed by this calamity who should have that pleasure. It shouldn’t be Hillary or Harry or Dr. Frist or Denny or any other political hack that gets to shake their fists in mock indignation. It is the people of Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana who should be given the right to shake their fists for real. They should be the ones asking the questions and demanding answers of a Congress who is just as responsible as some petty bureaucrat, panicky state official or incompetent agency manager.

But this isn’t a perfect world and nothing will change. In the end, after we have squandered another ten or fifteen million dollars and watched as the preening peacocks on both sides of the isle exhaust their political possibilities, a few people might have to suffer some embarrassment and one or two might even lose their jobs, but nothing will be solved, nothing will have changed. The Congressmen and Congresswomen whose greed for power helped precipitated this emergency will continue to spend our money based upon their own re-elections requirements rather than the safety of the American people and once again, it will be business as usual.

That is…until another bureaucratic fiasco occurs and this insane cycle starts all over again.

A Katrina Thank You to the Mainstream Media

2005-09-03T22:34:00.000-04:00

I would like to start by thanking all of my ink stained and professionally hair styled brothers and sisters. You are truly my comrades!

Thank you for your dedication and your personal energy in this time of need. You have offered your best for the cause. Specifically, I want to thank you for your perceptive coverage of the hurricane that was Katrina! This has been and will continue to be an important event in our fight against evil. You know it and so do I!

I realize that this past week has not been without personal sacrifice on you part. I appreciate these last couple of days has been difficult. The list of horrors are too numerous to count. Some of you had to put your nail and spa appointments on hold, some had to postpone your arrangements with your personal trainers and some of you, God forbid, had to give up your dinner reservations to the finest eateries in New York, L.A. and D.C. Your sacrifice will not be forgotten. I applaud your dedication and I hope we can find a way for the government to properly compensate you for your losses.

That said, you have to know how important you are, comrades.

Without you, America might have actually just chalked up the foul up in New Orleans to decades of Democratic Party state and local officials. They might have believed that years of corruption, bribery, nepotism and incompetence may have contributed to this monumental failure. Without your brilliant spin, our fellow citizens could have bought into the premise that the Democratic Mayor of New Orleans was responsible for his city’s evacuation plans or that the Democratic Governor and almost invisible Ms. Blanco might have had some responsibility for the well being of Louisiana’s citizens. They could have even been led to believe that those who were told to evacuate had some personal responsibility for their own lives. Thankfully, you rode to the rescue and have managed to convince most of America this isn’t the case. You are my heroes!

We know the truth, don’t we? We know that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, John Roberts, Judge Bork, Condi Rice, Ronald Regan, Richard Nixon, Halliburton, Enron, the investor class and a host of other evil people should shoulder most of the blame for this debacle. They and they alone are responsible for this disaster. They were the ones who wanted to desecrate the sacred ground at Anwar and in so doing stirred the Gods of the environment. We and our people are now reaping what they have sowed. They are the ones who successfully prevented the full implementation of the Kyoto Treaty aren’t they?

Ah…if only that treaty had been signed, all of this messiness would never have occurred. If only Al Gore or John Kerry had been “designated” President just like the “Shrub”, New Orleans would still be standing today! If only…if only!

Then there is the matter of “their” response to Katrina. Boy, hasn’t the Bush crowd fouled that up!

Okay, so some of our friends may have acted poorly and by so doing, hurt response time. If some people felt a need to shoot, loot and rape their way to a better life, who are we to judge? We don’t judge, only conservative reactionaries do. Isn’t the response by these poor people simply a natural extension of the burden under which the neo-cons have placed them? Isn’t this an organic reaction to their afflictions and lack of government programs?

And, so what if the President doesn’t have the “legal” authority to bring Federal troops into any American city on a whim. We all know how stupid the 1878 law of Posse Comitatus is, don’t we? Leave it to “W” to stand on a technicality! Is he blind? Couldn’t he see the suffering? What does the law have to do with anything when our constituents are in distress? Little details like the law have never before stopped us. But what do you expect? Isn’t it just like that crowd to hide behind the Supreme Court?

That said, comrades, we have had a good week. We have the “Shrub” and his ilk ducking for cover. We have shown the World and our friends in the salons of Europe that we have not forgotten them. We are riding high, but we must remember that our fragile voters are upset. We must be on guard not to be too smug. We must not gloat. We must be ever vigilant against the unwashed, ignorant fly-over horde that threatens us.

With this in mind, I suggest that some of you need to do more. You must hold concerts with sympathetic celebrities to convince the people that we really care. You must have our leaders like Katie, Matt, Wolf, little Chris Mathews and others lead the charge to find more screw ups in the Bush Administration. And above all, we must come up with another multicolored ribbon to pin on our chests to prove that only we are concerned for the plight of the poor of New Orleans.

Again, thanks for your efforts. You’ve shown all of our critics what it truly means to be a progressive American in the year 2005 and the movement will be forever in you debt!

Democratic Decency

2005-08-31T14:53:00.000-04:00

Before the bodies are even collected from the Mississippi rubble or netted from the waters in the horror that is now the Gulf coast of America, some on the American left and their anti-American friends in both the media and abroad have already taken up sniper positions.

From today’s diatribe from Robert Kennedy, Jr. blaming the Governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour and President Bush for the hurricane to the publishers of Editor and Publishers claiming somewhat indirectly that the war in Iraq deprived New Orleans of needed funds for their levee system, the so called leftist elite in America have wasted no time belittling the human tragedy of Katrina and trying to turn it into a pathetic, self-serving political circus.

I have been told all of my life that Democrats care. Raised in the New York metropolitan area, I have been lectured to by the likes of the New York Times, Washington Post and the alphabet networks that Democrats were the party of the little people, the downtrodden and the elderly and for the most part the Republican Party consisted of the investor class more interested in money than people. In my youth, I was agnostic on the debate, but as I grew older and started my own businesses, I realized that such black and white delineations were far from accurate.

I grew to discover that there were honest, well meaning people on both sides of the isle. I was convinced that the major differences between the parties centered on approach and method but that both sides were interested in the well being of all. All men of good will, regardless of their political party affiliation, wanted to help the poor get a step up, the elderly face the future with more certainty, and offer those down on their luck a helping hand. The disagreements were only about money, priorities and the extent to which individual responsibility should come into play. The desired outcome was never in doubt.

Since the Presidential election of 2000, however, I have seen a drastic change. Although a few of the Democratic Party heroes of my youth have survived, the party as a whole has turned into something ugly. Just as I sit today and watch in horror what may be the death of the great American city, New Orleans, I watch in equal shock the disintegration of what once was a great American political party.

The Democrats used to have plans for America, big plans, now I don’t have a clue what they propose. Hate and obstruction seems to be their watchwords and power their only goal. What is worse is they don’t even have the common decency to hold their sniping before the last battered survivor of Katrina can be snatched from his shaky roof in the Big Easy.

America has always been a country with many competing interests, but always in our history when the chips were down, we managed to put our disagreements aside and stand shoulder to shoulder together to fight for each other. It is one of the qualities that have made this country great, but it seems that somewhere in their quest for power some members of the Democratic Party and their friends on the left have forgotten this basic tenet.

To them, a tsunami in Asia or a hurricane in the Gulf is now cause for political finger wagging and name calling. The freedom of millions from oppression in the Middle East is viewed with cynicism and greeted with cat calls and the American soldier, who simply answered the call of his country, is again mocked and called a cog in a mercenary army. We are even treated to the disgusting notion on Air America, the Democratic answer to conservative talk radio, that the evacuation of New Orleans was somehow racist and the hint that George Bush personally wanted the black voters of New Orleans to be flushed out to sea.

I am both saddened and disgusted by these developments and would like to remind those who would now use today’s human tragedy for political purpose, that you have not only forgotten common civility, but you have also forgotten what it means to be an American.

To quote Joseph N. Welch, chief attorney for the Army during the McCarthy-Army hearings of 1954, “You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you no sense of decency?”

Kicking the can and the voters

2005-05-27T16:53:00.000-04:00

For the past couple of days, the mainstream press has been all atwitter, praising the end of acrimony in Washington, DC. Politicians of both stripes are slapping each other on the back for a job well done and any American with half a brain is wondering if any of these people live in the real world or if they honestly believe the voters have no brains.

The “moderates” in the Senate fashioned a judicial compromise on the country. Fourteen Senators of both parties, fourteen percent of our elected officials in the “cooling saucer” that is the United States Senate have decided what was good enough for eighty six percent of the American population. They decided that elections do not matter, they do. They decided that they and only they know what’s good for America. They have decided that the people now up for judicial positions, who have had media attention, should get a vote. Unfortunately, the flip side of this compromise is that those who do not have any public relations face are on their own and at the mercy of every political jackal.

As scurrilous and hypocritical as this deal was, at least all of President Bush’s judicial nominees found out where they stand with these pompous, preening peacocks. The American people found out where they stood as well. The Constitution doesn’t matter. What matters are the Senate’s “rules”. What matters is comity in the old boy’s club, where principle can be jettisoned as quickly as a donor whose check has bounced.

Our Senator’s lives were becoming uncomfortable. Oh, the humanity! They might have actually had to make a difficult decision; they might have actually had to make vote that could have caused them some loss in popularity. So they choose their usual route. They hid behind closed doors, and decided to choose who the winners and losers would be. And then, like the self agrandizing little men they are, they all proceeded to race to the nearest camera to pat each other on their collective backs. To cover their dirty little tracks, they cried that without this compromise, the very foundations of Republic would have been in jeopardy. They congratulated themselves on saving America.

What utter hogwash! What utter hubris!

The Republic was not in any peril and all who claim this absurdity should be shown for the fools and/or knaves they are. Anyone with even a modicum of intelligence, who has been exposed to life outside current government schooling…hell... anyone who has taken the time to read the Constitution can see through this charade.

What really happened is that these “moderates” balked on their Constitutional responsibility and kicked the can down the road. In the process, they handed a victory to the forces of obstruction.

This deal was not about saving the Republic; it was about abortion politics and the coming fight for the Supreme Court, but the fools who fashioned it are either too stupid to know or too venal to tell the truth. It was about whether elections really matter and whether these “moderates” trusted the voters. It is obvious that they do not and to portray it any other way is ludicrous.

In the end, future judicial nominees of either party were sold down the river. The “rights” of those who wish to continue to obstruct the work in Congress were preserved, the media’s favorite Republican, John McCain, got in yet another swing at President Bush and the only winners, as usual, are those who would feed freely at the public trough for their own personal power and personal rewards.

The rest of us and the Constitution took it in the shorts!

Where art thou, Dr. Gibbs

2005-05-19T07:40:00.000-04:00

The old adage, be careful what you wish for because you might just get it, should be the watch phrase in the government’s rush to insure that all medical records are digitized.

To be sure, precision and clarity in medical reports is of paramount importance. In this age of voluminous drug growth and medical complexity, document accuracy could well mean the difference between life and death. It’s a noble goal to want to reduce medical mistakes caused by bad handwriting and to insure that drug interactions are kept to a minimum. But nothing comes without cost and not all costs can be measured in monetary terms.

My doctor and the group he works with have been leading advocates in this digital trend and with each visit to their office; their patients are treated to the greatest and latest in cutting edge technology. The only bow offered to the pre-computer age is the sign in sheet used on arrival and any day now, I expect to see this antiquated system being replaced with either a thumb reader or an optical scanner. Yup, everything is there, everything a well meaning Washington bureaucrat or politician could ask for, everything that is but eye contact and a human touch.

When I enter the office, I am no longer George Mortensen, I am patient 12945. I am no longer human; I am reduced to a collection of kilobytes displayed on a flickering screen. From the moment I enter to the moment I leave, no one looks at me; no one asks me how I feel. It’s not that they don’t care, they do. It’s just that their attention is elsewhere. Like children glued to a video game, they have become slaves to their flat panels and keyboards. Although I am sure they view me as important, I feel as if I have become incidental.

In the distant past, when a doctor examined me, it was just the two of us. He was forced to look at me and me at him. There was no escaping each other. The resulting nonverbal communication was just as important as what was said. He watched my every response to his questions to see if I was being candid, to see if I was hiding something that just may make his diagnosis easier. Now, there is a third entity in the room, one that gets most of his attention – a computer. Our dynamic has changed and our communication has become less intense. Now, we both can hide.

I am old enough to remember a time when most doctors practiced out of their homes. I am even old enough to remember house calls. I realize those days are gone. Due to growing complexity, a more intrusive government and the need for ever more expensive diagnostic tools, medicine was forced to become more efficient. Centralization, group practices and large staffs are now the norm. One would be hard pressed to find even a vestige of Thornton Wilder’s Dr. Frank F. Gibbs from "Our Town" practicing in any city today. But with these changes, medicine has gotten colder and more distant. It was tough enough to remember and care about the lives of thirty or forty families, it is impossible to do so for hundreds.

I pine for a simpler time, a time when my doctor truly knew me. I hope, but I am unsure, my doctor wishes for it too. But one thing is for sure, for all that ails modern American medicine, more computers aren’t the cure.

The Importance of Anniversaries

2005-05-09T14:01:00.000-04:00

Memorable dates, whether happy or tragic, are the backbone of history. Specific dates, although the millstone of many a young student, mark milestones in the development of both individuals and nation states. We remember dates for many reasons, the birth of a son, the wedding of a daughter, or the loss of a loved one. Anniversaries are backward glimpses against which we measure our successes and our failures. They give us an opportunity to see how far we have come and offer a hint as to how far we have yet to travel. Some anniversaries should be celebrated, others should be viewed with quiet reflection but all should teach us something about ourselves and the world we live in.

This past Sunday the world’s leaders gathered in Moscow to celebrate one such anniversary. On May 8^th, 60 years ago, the Axis powers of World War II in Europe were defeated. The world remembered the horrors of Nazi Germany and the great loss of life. It remembered the displacement of millions and the butchery that only man can bring to his small planet. Although tinged with great sadness, the gathering was also cause for celebration. We were reminded that in much darker days when the world seemed mad, good men, simple men and simple truths triumphed over evil but not without staggering cost. It offered an adumbration that appeasement is no substitute for courage and that truth must always prevail over the propaganda of the power hungry.

This commemoration was not limited to Moscow. Many of the great men and women who sacrificed during those years and who are thankfully still with us took a moment to remember as well. One such gathering was around a Mother’s Day table in McDonough, Ga. There, prompted by a simple question, an old Merchant seaman remembered where he was on VE Day. Although usually reticent to discuss those years, something, whether it was advancing age or a spark of memories, prompted this man to speak freely if not nostalgically. His two middle aged sons sat in quiet awe as stories of bravery, stupidity, courage, sacrifice and corruption flowed freely. They once again learned of a father’s commitment to principle, truth and honor and of a mother’s dedication to family. The day was sprinkled with laughter and a few tears, but over this simple table a new anniversary was born and with it a bond between the past and the present, a weld between today’s world problems and those of its past. The love for family was given a booster shot and the respect of sons for parents was strengthened.

Anniversaries are like that. They often come when they are least expected, but when they do they are the metrics of our lives, the passing signposts on our way to our own personal Calvary. The best teach, edify and mold us. Some are national in scope, some are private. All are important.

This Tuesday another anniversary will be confronted, albeit a less memorable one. Like many others, it offers insight and could act as a warning post if we pay attention. On Tuesday, May 10^th, John Kerry, the junior Senator from Massachusetts and the standard bearer for the Democratic Party in the 2004 Presidential race will celebrate the one hundredth day anniversary of his pledge on the television show Meet the Press to immediately sign form SF- 180 and release his full military records. To date, he has failed to do so and his moral bankruptcy should be a small lesson to all.

Anniversaries come and go and generally do so without much fanfare. It is not the date itself that is of import, it is what we learned from life's anniversaries that is.

Thank you, Manchester

2005-04-25T22:51:00.000-04:00

The other day I was privileged to yet again experience the real America, the one some have forgotten, the one I occasionally forget and the one the mainstream press is loathed to see.

I was invited to the former home of the mother of a famous southern author. It was a modest building nestled in a small, quiet southern town whose light by most standard measurements has seen brighter days. Yet, on this sunny day, this author’s fame and the town’s decline were distant thoughts. Not a single person assembled offered infatuation about the celebrity who grew up in this house. They did not gather to fawn or bask in some reflected glow nor did they congregate to bemoan the realities of this small Georgia town. They assembled to remember and grow.

It was a day that most Americans, if not the celebrity obsessed media, would understand. A group of friends divided by time, experience, money, and the vagaries of life took a moment to renew their bonds of friendship and their common simple heritage. It was a time to laugh at their small town with more than smattering of respect and to speak of simpler times long gone.

Old, worn scrap books were produced to the glee of those assembled. No one spoke of success, celebrity or failure. It was the grammar school trip to the local landmark that took center stage. It wasn’t economics, religion or politics they cared about. What mattered were the simple stories. Some of the tales were funny, some poignant, some even embarrassing, but unmissed by all was their importance. These fragile narratives were the true glue in their lives, their authentic history.

Many in attendance have traveled the world, some literally hold lives in their hands on a daily basis, some witnessed the horrors of war and some never left the comfort of Meriwether County. It mattered not. What was important was that they were together for a brief time to welcome home a former native.

My connection to this group was tenuous at best. I knew the woman who bought the house, who grew up with this now famous author and who was the kudzu queen for a day. She had spent her formative years in the shadow of “Ann’s Hills” and was both accepted and loved because she never judged and chose to return.

I, on the other hand, was an outsider, and worse a northerner. I still refer to the conflict of the 1860’s as the Civil War and not as the War Between the States. I grew up in the Bronx and went to High School in New Jersey. They didn’t care. As long as I was willing to listen, laugh and not judge, I was welcomed as well.

We live in a time where the press and the elites claim we are divided, that Americans can no longer see beyond their desires, religious beliefs or politics. What this day reminded me is that those who would divide us for power or policy have little clue to the real America. The little town and large people of Manchester, Georgia reminded me that the real America has its feet firmly planted in reality and those who would choose to stereotype or pigeon hole us do so at their own peril.

Thanks, Manchester, for a lovely Sunday.

Pope John Paul II, the unfashionable

2005-04-08T09:17:00.000-04:00

Upon the death of Pope John Paul II, the American press did something they always do when they want a story that fits their assessment on a delicate subject and also gives them sufficient political cover. They commissioned a poll.

Rather than offering their own judgment about the man who both confused and infuriated them, they wanted to know if the “faithful” gave this passing pontiff passing grades. They asked the usual questions, knowing full well the answers they would receive.

Did you like this Pope? Did you agree with him on birth control or abortion? Was he too traditional? Did you think him too inflexible?

The respondent’s answers were broken down by race, geography, time spent at mass and every other criterion that the pollsters could think of that might be of interest. The results were as interesting as they were meaningless.

Even a former President weighted in. While flying as part of the official United States delegation to the funeral of Pope John Paul II, former President Clinton was asked by reporters on Air Force One about his thoughts on the death of Pope John Paul II. Instead of issuing an innocuous and respectful response, former President Clinton, as is his tendency, chose to pass personal judgment.

Clinton complained that John Paul had again “centralized the authority of the papacy” and “had enforced a very conservative theological doctrine.” He when on to make his statement a bit more personal, offering his own historical caveat. “He like all of us – he may have a mixed legacy,” the former POTUS offered.

A mixed legacy? By whose standards, Mr. President?

There have been many who have wondered and opined about this pope’s legacy. In light of his achievements in Poland and around the world, his supporters wondered out loud if he should be considered for the rare designation, John Paul, the Great. His detractors have questioned this praise and have been somewhat critical of his papacy. No matter where you stand on this arcane debate, one thing is for sure. Great or not, Pope John Paul II was definitely unfashionable.

There seems to be no argument that Pope John Paul II was a brilliant politician and international tactician, but what our former President and his secular sycophants in the press seem to forget, or worse seem to ignore, was that he was so much more. He was also the spiritual leader of the Catholic world and much to the mutual chagrin of both press and Clinton; he remained immune to their polls and the passing fashions of their secular world. Unlike them, he was not interested in approval, power or position. He did not dwell on his legacy or make decisions based upon the wishes of man. He sought no earthly trophies, no Pulitzer, no Nobel Prize. Nor did he seek space on some dusty political honor roll. His sole interest was in spreading the gospel of Christ as his Church and his God gave him the right to interpret it and in explaining man’s need for spirituality to as many people as he could reach in a lifetime.

Yet for all their sophistication, President Clinton and the press are unable to fathom this basic truth. Look, they say. Your members are upset. They want abortion. They want birth control and female priests. They want the Church to be more hospitable to gays. Give the people what they want is the cry. And so, through their polls and their speeches, they hope to steer the Holy Seed in a more hospitable direction. They quietly lobby to change the agenda at the Vatican to better reflect their current political thinking and in so doing, they prove themselves fools.

It should be self evident to these “intellectuals” that the way Catholics interpret their faith is none of anyone’s business but their own. I am a Christian but not Catholic. John Paul spoke to a Church to which I do not belong. He spoke to a congregation of which I have only a passing understanding. I did not always agree with this Pope but my faith gives me no right to judge him or his Church and my ignorance gives me even less privilege to second guess his papacy.

To be sure, this pontiff was many things to many people but there is one thing that can be said of this man, he consistently resisted ethical fashions. He believed in something larger than himself, something intangible, and fought for it even when his beliefs were considered by the enlightened to be passé. Unlike President Clinton and members of the fourth estate, he did not spend his life with his finger in the air or measure his movements by fluctuating poll numbers. He had faith in his God, the future of his Church and in mankind. He was an optimist in world of pessimists, a gentle soul in a sea of the abrasive, a stalwart among the weak and impressionable.

Perhaps Mr. Clinton and his friends in the press can take a lesson from this remarkable man’s life. Perhaps while in Rome rubbing elbows with the millions of other men and women who have traveled there to pay their respects to a life well lived, they will finally understand that polls do not feed the faith of men and fashion, as Oscar Wilde once proclaimed, is a “form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.”

But then again, fools and the inconsequential are slaves to fashion.

Deus vobiscum, Karol Wojtyla

Terri’s lessons

2005-03-22T17:45:00.000-05:00

No matter where you stand on the real life and death issues that now swirl around Theresa Marie Schiavo, one thing is certain. We find ourselves at yet another cultural and moral crossroad. The story of her illness and its ramifications is a story filled with both the worst and best traits man brings to conflict. It is one that also provides a unique glimpse into the character of our institutions and the soul of America.

For clarity, I respect those who have made a personal choice not to prolong their life should they find themselves in a situation similar to Ms. Schiavo. I do not feel that the government should intervene when a person of sound mind and body has made this difficult and most personal decision. I especially believe this true when a person has done so responsibly in the form of a living will or by assuring that a medical proxy has been secured. If we are to truly value the religious beliefs of our fellow citizens and honor our national principle that the rights of the individual trump the rights of government, the way each of us chooses to handle our own death should be one of individual choice and not the governments.

Unfortunately, for all those involved in the Schiavo case, Terri did not make her wishes clear. I do not chastise her for her lack of planning as few, if any, twenty seven year olds have the foresight or even a thought about planning their last hours. At that age, we all think ourselves invincible. And so, by law, the decision was left to her husband, Michael Schiavo, a man who, though remaining legally married to Terri, has both morally and spiritually divorced himself from her. He has fathered two children with another woman, fought with Terri’s family over Terri’s malpractice settlement, and worked tirelessly to end her life whatever his motives.

Terri’s parents and siblings, on the other hand, dispute Mr. Schiavo’s claims that Terri verbally gave her consent and have presented medical evidence to the effect that their daughter is not in a persistent vegetative state. All they are asking for is guardianship and the chance to take care of their loved one for the rest of her natural life.

What we are left with is a classic he said, she said. Unfortunately for Ms. Schiavo’s parents, the law would appear to be on Mr. Schiavo’s side. I fully expect that in the near future, Theresa Marie Schiavo will succumb to her injuries but her death will not be in vain. In her struggle for dignity, Theresa Marie Schiavo has provided this country many lessons.

We have learned that our Court system is filled with arrogant and willful men who put their rules, their beliefs above the American people. When a Florida state court judge can stand up with impunity to the wishes of United States Congress in violation of law and is supported in his personal revolt by a Federal judiciary, we can no longer say that the people rule. Our lives and our fortunes are no longer in our hands, but in the hands of a select black robed few who seem to care more about their minutiae and their own schedules than the life of a dying woman.

We have learned that a full forty percent of the men and women elected to the House of Representatives do not have the courage of their convictions, that the people’s business is less important than their own self interest as one hundred and seventy four members were too frightened to even vote on the Schiavo legislation.

I can understand the position of members on both sides and I respect the fact that it takes courage to put your vote where your mouth has been. Where ever you come down on this debate, all of those participating in the vote deserve our respect. At least they fulfilled their job responsibilities. Those, who sat on the sidelines with their fingers firmly planted in the air, whether they are conservatives or liberals, deserve nothing but our contempt.

And the third and most disturbing lesson that Ms. Schiavo has taught her fellow countrymen is that we have become a lazy, self indulgent culture where all manner of death is defended at the expense of life and where the American people are becoming increasingly powerless to intervene even if they choose to do so.

I believe we entered this slope in January of 1973 when we allowed seven robed men on the United States Supreme Court to take the decision of life and death away from the voters and we did not fight back. At the time, some were pleased and some were angered by the Roe decision, but most of us were simply tired of the debate. We didn’t want to make waves, didn’t want to continue to argue. We wanted the wrangling over. After the tumulus sixties, we craved the return of some normalcy. So, when the Court first breached our rights, the American people freely abdicated their responsibility. Most were glad to be relieved of the decision and, sadly, this country has never been the same.

Far from the harmony initially promised, this decision has caused a deepening fault line in the American family and complacency toward death. We continue to relinquish our control to the whims of Congress and the arrogance of the Courts because it is easier than having to do anything. Where we once believed in self sacrifice, self reliance and self discipline, we now look to Congress or the Courts for deliverance from our sins.

Millions of children are aborted and we say, “It’s a woman’s right. It doesn’t affect me.” Terri is starved and we say, “It is the husband’s right. It doesn’t affect me.” But, it does affect us. When we choose to carelessly devalue anyone’s life, we devalue our own. In our smugness and pseudo-sophistication, we offer tacit approval for death’s victory and by so doing we tarnished our own unique contribution to humanity.

Yes, Terri Schiavo will die. So will millions of unwanted, unnamed children. So, shall we all.

What shouldn’t die is our belief that people should determine their own destiny and that government should be subservient to our interests and not the other way around. What needs to grow is a call for the reigning in of our imperial Courts and a demand for more principled leadership in our Congress. What needs resuscitation is the will of the American people to reclaim their own future instead of outsourcing it to political hacks and charlatans. What needs to be revived is the belief in the sanctity of each individual life.

These are the lessons the Terri Schiavo spectacle should have taught us but frankly, I doubt if the American people have even noticed, let alone, have the stomach for the fight required to bring about these essential changes.

I pray I am proven wrong.

Grab the tents! PBS needs money!

2005-03-09T16:32:00.000-05:00

Don’t feel good? Tired and don’t know why? Hate your boss? Hate your life? Hate those horrible television channels that offer only sex, politics, rap music or reality? Want to obtain a new “sense of joy”, control your stress, abate your diabetes, or find a solution to that messy “religion” thing?

Well, my brothers and sisters, there is an answer. The solution to all your problems is but a checkbook and a TV remote click away.

You say George W. Bush’s reelection, evil drug companies, right wing evangelicals and other annoying conservatives have caused you depression and skin problems, and you are at your wits end? Well, my children, simply tune into your local PBS station during pledge week and your favorite PBS marionette will offer you all the solutions you will ever need. Come to the PBS revival, where all things are possible!

I went to my local PBS revival meeting last night. It was a hell of a show.

In between the usual entertainment about the mating ritual of the now extinct dodo bird and a fifteen year old British comedy played in a rich cockney accent, I was treated to a plethora of preachers touting their prescriptions for virtually everything from improved liver function to spiritual soothing.

First under the tent was the world famous musical minister, John Tesh. His sermon was directed to all of the faithful who have grown weary of that annoying debate about religion and government but still feel a need to cover all bases. The pitch was simple. Give PBS your money and they would send you the right Rev. Tesh’s new CD— Worship at Red Rock.

Say amen, brother! Say amen, sister!

So effusive was the praise for this CD by the overweight, overwrought PBS hostess that I thought she honestly believed Mr. Tesh was the second coming. The only thing missing from her performance were wails of pain for the poor souls who face damnation for deciding not to send money and chubby cheeks stained by cheap mascara.

After viewing her presentation, I began to worry and have second thoughts. I am, after all, but a sinner and I am not a member of any PBS congregation. I have never given them money nor do I tithe. I fear for my soul but wasn’t Mr. Tesh preaching about another more venal form of religion on the government dime? You know…the C word. Wasn’t PBS in violation of their own long stated principle that gospel and government should be treated like oil and water, that the two shall never mix?

I soon came to my senses and my fears were quickly allayed. This was, after all, PBS. They are champions in the fight to ban all of the really ugly religions while simultaneously promoting the good ones. I reminded myself that I should not always be so literal and that many situations in life must be taken on faith. So why worry, I thought to myself. And besides, Mr. Tesh’s benign, non denominational, new age, mostly instrumental gospel music was guaranteed to never offend my blue state friends. I became reassured that it would be as bland, boring and government approved just like PBS itself. I stayed in my pew and waited for the next preacher.

Next up at the pulpit was the noted guru, world renowned (i.e. upper east side of Manhattan) nutritionist and all around good guy, Gary Null. I realized that Mr. Null’s methods and credentials have been questioned in the past, but his magnetic presence on the screen held my attention and besides my sleeping pill had yet to kick in.

Lest anyone be offended that this man was anything but what he claimed to be or was speaking heresy, PBS was quick to inform their worshipers that the Reverend Gary, like the Reverend John, was a long term friend of PBS. He even had his own ministry on some of the local churches..er..I mean... stations from time to time. The sister of ceremonies assured all that he was a brother in spirit and had the philanthropic tendencies of a saint. And because he was such an old and trusted friend to the PBS congregation, he was actually giving his works away at a major discount. But before I could shout, “Praise Be”, the mistress of ceremonies offered a caveat.

We could have Mr. Null’s books and/or CDs only if we provide PBS with a suitably fat “donation”. Although initially skeptical, I began to see the wisdom of the pitch while waiting for the electronic offering plate to be passed. After all, Mr. Null was offering me something truly precious. His insight, his work, would control my obesity, diabetes and arthritis. He was also going to clear up my acne and just about every other malady known to man. What right did I have to question this saint? Who was I to disagree with his sermon? This was the great Gary Null, a one time short order cook in Manhattan talking, for God’s sake! Wouldn’t we all pay a one time amount of $120 for amazing health? Isn’t that what a “real God" should provide his children? Aren’t we all tired of having to pump money into the pockets of those blood sucking, right wing legal drug pushers called “Pharmaceutical companies”? Shouldn’t we be willing to part with a small amount of our filthy lucre so that this man can continue his inspired nutritional missionary work unfettered by the demands of a foolish and greedy world?

While reaching for my checkbook, the Ambien I took before tuning in struck and it struck hard.

I never did add to the collection plate and, upon morning reflection, have no inclination to do so in the future. But I always enjoy a good revival.

I remembered another favorite television show that in my youth provided similar entertainment. Late at night, trying desperately to unwind, I would often tune into the now defunct PTL Club. The hosts, Jim Baker and Tammy Faye Baker, also took themselves very seriously, but that was part of the fun. They too promised better health and wealth for a “donation”, but instead of offering a yearly subscription to “The Wonderful World of Whales, Gay Marriage and the Environment” magazine, they offered a timeshare with fellow viewers. They offered their own little world. Come to think of it, so did PBS.

Yup, last night reminded me of the good old days when revival meetings really were fun and offered my soul a smile if nothing else. Although the smelly canvas tents and hard wooden benches are now mostly history, we have PTL and PBS to thank for not letting this great show genre die.

The only thing that has changed is we don’t celebrate that “old time religion” any more. No, that is no longer hip. It is simply passé.

Now, we celebrate the “new time religions”. With Jim and Tammy, it was the “Church of the Gold Faucets and Christian Only Condos” and with PBS it is the “Church of the Environmental Redeemer and the Politically Correct”

Can I hear amen, brothers and sisters! Can I hear a halleluiah!

Our Robed Masters

2005-03-02T15:35:00.000-05:00

March 1, 2005 was a horrific day for America. No one lost their lives but we all lost some of our rights and there should be no lingering doubt that the Supreme Court of the United States has lost its way.

No matter your position on capital punishment, the actions of a bare majority (5-4 decision) of Supreme Court in the Roper v. Simmons case were outrageous and before you shrug it off based upon personal rational for or against the death penalty, think again.

Something far more sinister occurred than a reprieve for a sadistic murderer and the reversal of a few laws. The rights and liberties of all Americans were not only eroded but they were effectively trampled upon by four very selfish men and one selfish woman. This legal gang decided to supplant their wants for their duty. They affirmed that their desires were more important that those of the people and that their personal morality trumps the legislative work in all states.

They told us in no uncertain terms that the Declaration of Independence which states that this would be a government for and by the people is no longer up to "evolving" standards. They told us that the United States Constitution will no longer be the sole document that restricts the Court's decisions. Now, national and international "consensus" and "evolving" moral standards must be considered. It mattered little to this small Court cabal that the ability to impose capital punishment on juvenile murderers in special circumstance was passed in nineteen state legislatures and that the legality of these laws had already been reaffirmed in Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989).

No, these five people knew better. They knew better than the voters. They knew better than the lawmakers the voters approved. What mattered to them is that these laws weren’t passed in all states and therefore there was no "national consensus". They and they alone decided that the principle of stare decisis and the tenth Amendment to the Constitution no longer matter. But then again, who really worries about stare decisis except members of the liberal pro-death society when dealing with abortion and who really cares about the tenth Amendment to the Constitution anyway?

Far more onerous was the newest disease to afflict these Court members, the belief that the laws the American people, decided on through a representative government, are no longer a sufficient standard or reason for their existence. Now, to be suitable, these laws should be in tune with "international opinion". Excuse me?

Can anyone point to a passage in the Constitution that declares the validity of our laws must meet some international standard? Can anyone offer any data, empirical or not, that actually defines what these standards are? Justice Kennedy, the leader of this gentle revolution, didn’t. He just knew. How convenient.

And, if we are now going to require some Euro Asian, Pan African, or whatever litmus test to gauge the validity of our laws, then how in the name of all things holy can we even justify this country’s very existence? Why don’t we simply concede defeat right now and beg our former colonial powers to offer their benevolent usurpation.

Yesterday was indeed a sad day for America. A small majority of the Supreme Court of the United States told us that our input, although interesting, is no longer the determining factor in the formation of good law. They told us that their personal beliefs and the values of their European friends will make that determination.

Yesterday, we were introduced to our new Masters as Justice Scalia pointed out in his dessenting opinion. They wear black robes, are all appointed and confirmed with life tenure, and they politely but firmly told us all to sit in the back of the bus and keep our mouths shut.

Classless company

2005-02-28T15:56:00.000-05:00

As a child, my parents were always after me to watch my manners. Although occasionally a reluctant student, I was educated in the proper way to dress, to eat and to sit. I was also schooled in the appropriate way to greet and interact with other people especially in social situations.

While I was taught to stand up for my beliefs, it was drummed into me that there was a time and a place for everything. The principle that the best way to maintain my own dignity was to show respect for other people regardless of their race, beauty, religion or political beliefs was ingrained into my social soul.

Should a disagreement develop during a social gathering, I was taught that a party was never the proper venue in which to adjudicate it. Class, my parents taught me, was the elegance of style, taste and manners. If you were insulting to your host or any guest at a party, it was…well…simply crass. In the past fifty odd years, I have tried to follow their advice and example and I must admit that it has always held me in good stead.

Last night, I was invited to a party, albeit long distance. It was billed as the party of the year. For weeks, friends with connections have teased me with every available detail. They showed me the guest list and which persons would be prominently on view. They even offered glimpses of the gorgeous gowns that would be worn and tantalized me with the special party favors some would receive. It all seemed so wonderful.

This wasn’t the first time I was invited to this party. It’s an annual event and I have been there before. In fact, I had been to this party every year since I can remember. Some years, I had a good time. The guests were funny, interesting and sincere. Other times, especially in recent years, I was bored out of my mind, but managed to hide my embarrassment for the host. This year’s party was different. For reasons unknown, this year my host went out of his way to insult me and I doubt if I will ever accept another invitation.

Although the decorations were as glitzy as ever and the fashion cutting edge, the manners of some of the guests left a lot to be desired. I guarantee you my mother would have cuffed me had I started a party by announcing “Sit your asses down!”

I’m no prude and I realize one faux pa does not an evening make, but when your host immediately launches into a screaming colloquy questioning his invited guests’ intellectual competence regarding their politics and another guest insults and mocks the religious beliefs of others to the applause and laughter of those assembled, I know I am in the wrong company.

I tried to have a good time. I came with the best of intentions. I was willing to set past disputes aside for an evening of fun, but it became painfully obvious that would be impossible. My belligerent host, Chris Rock and some obnoxious guests like Mr. Williams were in no mood to let bygones be bygones. They found a need to start a fight when none was necessary so I took the only course available to me. I changed the dial and left Oscar in the dust, possibly forever.

My parents were right when they warned me that you can dress people up, but clothes do not change the man. Class is something that doesn’t come on a rack; it is a quality that must be earned daily. Unfortunately last night, the current royalty of Hollywood showed very little understanding of this concept.

I wonder if my mother will excuse me just this once for not sending a thank you note.

The elevator pitch

2005-02-17T16:08:00.000-05:00

Political parties, like all institutions, require a belief system, a stated code of conduct if you will, to function properly. They require a simple forthright statement of policy that not only offers the outside world a well-groomed, attractive vision capable of magnetizing new supporters but one that can be used as a glue to bind the already committed in common purpose.

The Republican Party, for instance, has offered the same simple mantra for decades. Asked to describe their philosophy, Republicans claim to believe in freedom, liberty, and individual rights. They are for low taxes, less government, traditional values, and a strong national defense. Period, end of code!

These familiar guidelines have acted not only to attract new converts to the Republican Party but they are supposed to be the guiding principles for its leadership. Whether or not the Republican leadership is always true to the code is too complex an issue to discuss in this limited space but what is important is that they have one. The average voter gets it. It is simple, concise and understandable.

It can be argued that the Republican Party has branded itself very well, but what about the Democrats? Can anyone in two or three sentences offer a concise explanation of today’s Democratic Party principles and mission? Other that “we hate all things Bush”, I know I can’t.

Thankfully, some on the left have recognized this glaring deficiency. There is presently an undercurrent in liberalism that is convinced they continue to lose support not because of their ideas, but because they haven’t phrased them correctly. Some of these concerned soldiers of socialism have decided to offer their Democratic Party friends the benefit of their wisdom and a modicum of well meaning assistance in dealing with the Party’s identity crisis.

The liberal magazine, The American Prospect, which itself seems to have a problem in this area by claiming to be “an authoritative magazine of liberal ideas, committed to a just society, an enriched democracy, and effective liberal politics”, has started a unique contest. Tired of their ideological friends being beaten around the ears election after election, they are currently soliciting their readers to provide in thirty words or less the rock solid, bottom line statement that will appealingly define their movement. On their website they claim, “The Prospect staff will choose a winner by February 11, and he or she will receive a free one-year subscription to the Prospect, a copy of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s The Vital Center, an invitation to join our staff for a night out at our favorite haunt, and Robert Reich's voice on the home answering machine.” Robert Reich’s voice on my answering machine? Be still my beating heart!

As the editors put it, liberals need an “elevator pitch”. What is an elevator pitch you might ask? Well, to them it is a simple and concise explanation of liberal principles that one can offer a stranger during an elevator ride should there be a need.

From the selective entries on the American Prospect site, it would appear that the liberals and their Democratic Party friends have their work cut out for them. Disregarding some of the more snide and nasty entries, the only common threads that seem to run though most of the attempts is that more government is preferred over less government and government control is preferred over individual freedom. Now, I may be wrong, but this doesn’t appear to me to be very appealing message in today’s increasingly entrepreneurial world.

Because I want all people to succeed and because I believe a vibrant party system is preferable to single party politics, I offer these wordsmiths a few caveats. At their best, codes are brief, explicable and effective. At their worst, they are a jumble of mixed and dishonest messages that prove to be counterproductive. When you finally settle on a policy that makes all of you happy, be careful how and when you use it. I, for one, prefer silence on my elevator rides, and some jerk spouting political clap trap at me before my morning coffee will not encourage my willing participation in your movement.

Oh, and one other thing. It is all well and good to be committed to a just society, but it is more important to be committed to the truth. If you promise to do something, do it. Nothing annoys the base more than dishonesty. The American Prospect promised to announce their contest winner on February 11th. As of today, February 17th, no winner has been announced and if there is one, the editors of The Prospect aren’t talking.

Oh, well, back to the old drawing board!

Silent Scriveners

2005-02-08T13:38:00.000-05:00

I have been waiting patiently for over two weeks for someone in the mainstream media or, for that matter any media, to make a big deal about the comments Senator Kerry made during his recent appearance on Meet the Press on January 30th.

During that interview when the show’s moderator, Tim Russert, questioned the Senator about his claim to have made a secret Christmas trip into Cambodia and about the “magic” hat given to him at that time by a CIA special operative, the Senator replied, “I still have the hat that he gave me, and I hope the guy would come out of the woodwork and say, "I'm the guy who went up with John Kerry. We delivered weapons to the Khmer Rouge on the coastline of Cambodia."

Excuse me? You did what, Senator? Along with previously admitting to war crimes, you now claim to have engaged in a secret mission to run guns to the Khmer Rouge? Are you sure about that?

For those unaware, the Khmer Rouge was not our ally during the Vietnam War. In fact, we fought with the Cambodian government against them. They were the native Communists of Cambodia who, with the aid of the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong, fought a winning guerrilla war against their own country before turning it into the “Killing Fields”. Their cruelty and the destruction they brought upon the Cambodian people are legendary.

Only after American troops departed from Indochina, when a war flared up between former Communist allies, did America find itself tacitly rooting for the Khmer Rouge. To our shame, during Jimmy Carter's administration we did briefly offered them support and arms. It was grave mistake but this support did not exist while the Senator was serving in Vietnam. It occured while Mr. Kerry was a prosecutor in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. So, I found it startling and unsettling when the Senator told the audience that he personally delivered weapons to the Khmer Rouge in 1968, a full nine years prior to Carter's election.

I realize that it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up with the Senator’s assertions about his activities during those years. Even now, as he continues to stall signing form 180 which might possibly put some of his critics to rest, I remain somewhat conflicted about his service. But when the Democratic Party candidate for the Presidency of the United States freely admits to have been a gun runner for America’s enemies, I find it odd when not a single major news outlet has expressed alarm or even curiosity?

So far, the only mention I have found comes from the always funny and brilliant daily column, “Best of the Web” by the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto. In the past, Mr. Taranto would often refer to the Senator as “the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam”. Recently, he has changed this tag to read, “The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way delivered weapons to the Khmer Rouge.” While I appreciate the sarcasm and Mr. Taranto’s column, I am shocked by the dead silence offered by other members of the fourth estate and I am no longer shocked easily.

Now, it is quite possible that the Senator merely misspoke. Perhaps years of having to deal with Senate minutia or summers windsurfing in the polluted waters of the Back Bay has clouded his memory, but what is the press corps excuse? Are they so smitten with everything Democratic or antiwar that they no longer have the intellectual curiosity or honesty necessary to do their jobs with a modicum of professionalism? Have we finally gotten to a point where anyone who agrees with their world view simply gets a pass when he says something potentially damaging to his political career?

At the very least, one honest journalist with access should ask the Senator to clarify his statement but I will not be holding my breath. After all, today’s mainstream journalist views two weeks as a lifetime ago unless of course the subject of their scrutiny happens to be either conservative, Republican or, God forbid, both.

Who’s watching the hen house?

2005-02-02T16:21:00.000-05:00

Truth be know, when I attended college back in the sixties, I was separated from everything but my own foolishness, which unfortunately, I found in abundance. I rarely attended classes and did the bare amount of preparation and parroting necessary to slide through. It is a record of which I am neither proud nor one I often discuss.

As usual, the last to know about my stupidity were my parents. Imagine their shock when I arrived back on their doorstep, hat in hand, in the spring of my senior year after being unceremoniously tossed out of my University on my ear. Oh, I finally did manage to graduate using the seven year plan, but the drag I put upon myself during those years has followed me throughout life and career. As one would imagine, it was not a positive one.

I bring it up today as I ponder the actions of Professor Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado’s former Ethnic Department chair, the University of Colorado itself, the alumni of this prestigious institution and government of Colorado. Just as my parents hadn’t a clue as to my educational experience until it was too late, I wonder if the parents who have scrimped and saved to put their little darlings through college, and the entities in charge of these colleges have a handle on what exactly today’s children have been learning.

For those who have neither read a paper nor tuned into television news in the past few days, Professor Churchill has been the subject of a minor kafuffle regarding remarks he made about the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington. Shortly after the attacks, he published an article entitled; Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, where he lauds the accomplishments of the terrorist “combat teams”, refers to the victims of this attack as "little Eichmanns", and makes the point that America only suffered what it deserved.

At the time of its publication over two years ago not a word crossed the wires about this man’s work and no one at the University, in the media or in Colorado government raised a ruckus. Only when this fool was offered an honorarium to voice his disgusting views at a New York university under the watchful eye of some of the “little Eichmanns” survivors did the media, the University of Colorado’s Board of Regents, Colorado’s governor and others take an interest. Only now, as they face a media and public firestorm have they deigned to examine the body of this man’s work.

My question is not... why now? The answer to that question is pretty obvious to anyone with an IQ larger than single digits. My question is where were they before this little dustup?

Where was the examination of this man's scholarship before he was hired? Who was careless enough to hired this man in the first place? Did the person responsible share Professor Churchill's views? Does he still? Did the powers that fostered this man, promoted him and gave him tenure really believe that his main work Pacifism as Pathology, which lauds the sixties terrorist group, The Weather Underground, and ridicules political activists for giving up armed struggle was an appropriate scholarly effort? Who monitored his classroom to see if what he was teaching had any relevance during his long and illustrious tenured career at the University?

The questions grow even broader. How many more professors are preaching anarchy in the University of Colorado system? How many more terrorist sympathizers are there in our Universities teaching impressionable minds that America is the root of all evil and that armed terrorrism is a positive approach to world problems?

It is not enough as the Rocky Mountain News did today in calling upon the Board of Regents to rescind this man’s tenure and show him the door. All responsible authorities should be calling for more. They should be calling for a thorough examination of the hiring, tenure and subject auditing practices of all institutions of higher learning.

It is not enough to simply dispose of one rotten egg from one ugly chicken. It is high time we all figure out who should be watching the entire hen house and how this important and necessary mission should be accomplished.

Hate is no platform

2005-01-31T14:24:00.000-05:00

With the purple ink barely dry on happy Iraqi fingers, an unhappy Democratic Party leadership and some in the mainstream media are still looking for a way to salvage defeat from the jaws of victory. Unable to find a moment of joy in the first free Iraqi election in fifty years, these so-called defenders of the downtrodden blindly continue to howl that Bush lied and there is no end strategy in the Iraq occupation. They continue to move the goal posts for success hoping to witness President Bush stumble while offering only obstruction and no real plan of their own.

The brooding men and women in Democratic Party leadership positions and their willing sycophants in the mainstream press seem to go out of their way to accentuate the negative and turn a blind eye to the positive. Newsweek dismisses the brave Iraqi voter by giving the terrorist their cover. ABC advertises for a slain soldier’s parent to go on air to embarrass the President while the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, takes the opportunity of these elections to bay that Iraq is a quagmire, calling on America to cut and run. Presidential aspirant Kerry, after the Iraqi election sounding like he is still in campaign mode, cautions not to “over hype” the election and tells America only he knows the minds of foreign leaders. To him and them he claims this election was no big deal. And the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, laments “a gap between the President’s words and his deeds” even though President Bush promised elections in Iraq and delivered on that promise.

Am I the only one who thinks these people are losing their minds? Do they honestly expect Americans to share their disappointment because Iraqis went to the polls against their elite and out of touch beliefs? Do they honestly believe that the American people will dishonor their own dead and wounded by cutting and running from a cadre of thugs because we have suffered a few reversals? Do they care so little about the growth of democracy, the freedom of the Iraqi people and the security of America that they would have preferred to keep a despotic leader or worse, promote a civil war? Is this a party so blinded by their own ambition and hatred for their opponents they are now becoming incapable of rational thought? I fear it is.

I think Gov. Howard Dean, the leading candidate for the Democratic Party’s chairmanship, expressed the agenda of the new Democratic Party very succinctly when he stated at a recent Democratic Party forum in New York, “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for." For saying this he received neither scorn nor ridicule. By admitting his hatred for all things Republican, he received applause.

Well, Howie, Republicans stand for individual freedom. In fact, most Republicans and some Democrats are now standing for the freedom of all people around the world and that includes the Iraqi people. Are you telling me that you will oppose this noble effort when you are given the Democratic Party gavel because a Republican President took us to Iraq?

Republicans also stand for limited government and fair taxation. Do you hate this idea as well? Republicans are willing to make difficult decisions to save Social Security. Are you really willing to let a flawed program continue until such time as it runs out of money simply because you hate anything proposed by Republicans?

How about making suggestions of your own instead of simply obstructing or don’t you have any new ideas? Is the philosophy that states, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” really an intelligent enough blueprint to rebuild a political party? I hope not.

Yesterday, as they streamed toward the polls, the Iraqi people gave vision to the universal truth that all men thirst for freedom. Proudly waving purple fingers that marked them as voters but could also mark them for death, they proved their refusal to be intimated by a collection of thugs and terrorists. They showed their defiance to the crippling attitude of hate and pessimism.

Instead of sulking at the Iraqi’s and a Republican President’s success, Hating Howie and his Democratic Party friends should take heed of what really happened yesterday. The brave Iraqi people showed the world that hate is not a winning platform. In fact, they showed that hate will be actively and successfully opposed by all men and women of goodwill.

Never again?

2005-01-27T13:52:00.000-05:00

Today, world leaders gathered to mourn the holocaust dead and offer the world’s promise that the sixty year old nightmare that was Auschwitz will never again darken humanity. Unfortunately, it is a promise they cannot and have shown no real strength to keep.

I do not care if are a supporter of an American conservative, a French socialist, an unrepentant Marxist, or a bumbling bureaucrat comfortably enmeshed in a plush United Nation’s office. If you believe those who claim that mass murder, slavery and the denial of basic rights is part of humanity’s past and not it’s present, you are a fool. “Never again” as a goal is both admirable and necessary. “Never again” as a declarative statement is a flat out lie.

The destruction of humans to achieve political ends has happened through out history and continues to this day. What happened in Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Sobibor, and Treblinka, although an aberration, was not a one time horror. The only reason this carnage is infamous was due to its massive scope and because those who perpetrated it lost a world war. But, mass slaughter for political reasons did not begin nor did it end with World War II.

The sad truth is wherever man has put his tread; he has brought the capacity for great horror. Whenever freedom and democracy are in short supply, the potential for butchery has never been far away. At today’s commemoration, Vice President Cheney offered truth when he said, “"The story of the camps shows that evil is real and must be called by its name and must be confronted." Unfortunately, some of the leaders in attendance at today's ceremony have refused to even acknowledge evil’s presence let alone confront it. They have acted like a flock of pompous, plumaged ostriches and have placed their small heads in the sand.

Evil has many faces, many facets and many names. It can be found in a Haitian slum and in a palace in Saudi Arabia. Malevolence has raised its ugly head in the Darfur region of the Sudan, yet the world with few exceptions continues to look the other way. It has established a beachhead in Zimbabwe, but no one seems to care. It can be found in Tibet, but no one wants to get involved. It was in Iraq during the Saddam regime and remains there today in the form of a brutal insurgency, but these same leaders found it easier to condemn the liberator than the slaver.

Wickedness can even be found in the hearts and minds of the so-called moderate Middle Eastern leaders who continue to suppress human rights and human liberty to assure their place of power. And where are some of these brave souls who now wail for the holocaust dead? They remain in their warm and comfortable worlds offering little succor to the victims and no real condemnation of the victimizer. When President Bush in his inaugural called upon the world to remember there can be “no justice without freedom” and “no human rights without human liberty”, is it little wonder why he received mostly derision in return?

Call me a dreamer, but I believe the millions who died at the hands of the Nazis and those who fought and died to liberate millions more deserve better. They deserve a world full of leaders who truly remember, who truly want to put an end to man’s inhumanity to his fellow man. They deserve better than empty rhetoric from empty suits. They deserve better than politicians who fight harder to maintain the status quo than they do to prevent evil’s current and future victims. They deserve so much more than the cynical making the empty cry - “Never again”.

Mission Impossible

2005-01-25T16:08:00.000-05:00

I used to love the old television series Mission Impossible. When Peter Graves who played the dashing Mr. Phelps turned on his tape recorder, I fastened the seat belt on my sofa. For those too young to remember the program and who made the mistake of watching the movie versions, the original television series was simply great entertainment and, of course, it wasn't real.

At the beginning of each episode, Mr. Phelps would always be directed to an obscure location and invariably find a small tape recorder that outlined that week’s mission. At the end of the tape the mysterious director of operations would offer the same caveat. “Remember, Mr. Phelps. Should you or anyone at IM be caught or captured, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions.” Needless to say, Mr. Phelps and his intrepid gang were never caught and there was never any need to disavow anything.

As everyone knows, nothing in the real world runs as smoothly as Mr. Phelps’s band of merry marauders. Nothing designed by man ever runs perfectly and all human operations are fraught with error, and when things go awry, there is always someone willing to distance themselves from the consequences. In today’s political world, the person seeking the most distance always seems to be the candidate in charge.

Take for example, the Milwaukee Five. Five paid members of the Kerry Campaign including the son of a Congressman and the son of former city mayor slashed the tires of twenty cars the Wisconsin GOP had lined up to drive voters and observers to the polls. When caught this week by police, both the Wisconsin Democratic Party as well as the Kerry Campaign disavowed any knowledge of their actions.

Do I honestly believe no one in charge had any knowledge of their events even though these boys bragged about their misdeeds at party headquarters the next morning? I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and say possibly. Children do stupid things.

Then there is the story about Hillary Clinton’s former campaign finance manager being indicted. Of course, Senator Clinton claims complete ignorance of any book juggling but does anyone really believe that this bright woman was truly ignorant of her campaign finances? Once again, I will err on the side of caution and say maybe. Political knaves can be found everywhere and ambition often blinds.

As a former business owner I realize mistakes happen and that it is very difficult to observe the actions of all of your employees all of the time. Have I had employees who embarrassed or were rude to customers? Yes, I have. Have I had employees who have stolen? Unfortunately, yes. Was it my fault? Yes it was.

In all cases, I either hired the wrong person or didn’t provide the support, training or oversight systems necessary. And in all cases, I was personally embarrassed and tried to the best of my ability to make amends. Because of my experiences, I am reluctant to judge the mistakes of others too harshly or too quickly but unfortunately that is not the norm in politics today.

I venture to say that not a single politician, on either side of the isle, runs an error free organization. Yet, some seem to virtually salivate when a political rival or donor to the other side runs afoul of the law. Breaking bones to see who can get in front of the cameras first, these protectors of piety are only too willing to point the finger of blame, call for Federal investigations and writhe in anguish like virgins getting raped. It is the rare politician today who keeps his own counsel and waits for the wheels of justice to turn.

No one should ignore or excuse real malfeasance or criminal activity, but all who are quick to judge should remember two things. The first is the old adage, “there but for the Grace of God go I” and the second a proverb, “sweep before your own door first.”

Unfortunately, for most politicians including the two mentioned above, this type of reasoned approach to another man's trouble is the real Mission Impossible.

Revival on the Potomac

2005-01-21T13:20:00.000-05:00

From the classless and petty partisan coverage provided by Peter Jennings of ABC to the constant self-aggrandizing babble of Chris Mathews on MSNBC, the politically correct and effete punditocray did all they could do to rain on President Bush’s inaugural. As always, they worked on the minutiae and put a microscope to all visible flaws. No longer capable of grasping large concepts or the ability to dream, they have become an echo chamber reverberating with the howls of defeatism and cynicism.

I have come to expect this boorish behavior from the chattering class, but what was truly astonishing was their open contempt of the President’s inaugural speech. Some labeled it a callous plan to impose our will around the world but ignored the President saying that “America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom and make their own way.” Others saw it as a bellicose call to arms but were deaf when the President stated plainly that the end of tyranny “is not primarily the task of arms.” The vast majority of the critics simply declared it too ambitious, too arrogant, too naïve, too religious in tone or all of the above.

But, if one is to agree with these naysayers, he must also be willing to abandon and deny a universal birth right, to curse the very idea of America itself. For as startling as it may sound, the speech President Bush gave yesterday was but a longer version of identical principles affirmed a bit more succinctly on July 4, 1776 by the Continental Congress.

For those readers who have been educated under the yolk of political correctness and who have not been introduced to this work let me offer a quote:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

For the astute among you, this is instantly recognizable. It is derived from the American Declaration of Independence and contemporaneously this statement of principle also was viewed by critics as naïve, ambitious and arrogant. It, too, suffered from detractors who were incapable of vision or those who simply wished to maintain the status quo. Yet, the power of its truth and the effect it had on men of goodwill succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of its authors.

What we heard yesterday was nothing new, but something very old. In fact, it was as old as this country. It was the rationale for the Revolutionary War; it was the vision of a new world and although Americans gave birth to its generous philosophy, it is not our property. It belongs to all mankind.

As President Bush so eloquently declared, “Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.”

Contrary to his critics, President Bush offered nothing that should frighten. What he shared was a simple yet powerful revival of our legacy and an uncomplicated call to share the God given gift of liberty with a lost and frightened world.

Will it take time? Generations probably. Is it inevitable? Unfortunately, no. Is it worth the effort? You’re damn right it is!

Time for the children

2005-01-18T15:08:00.000-05:00

In the introduction to his 1776 pamphlet, Common Sense, Thomas Paine wrote as follows:

"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."

Of course, Olde Tom was speaking about the American colonies splitting away from the British Empire but these words could just as easily apply to the modest changes President Bush has offered with regard to the Social Security system. The initial knee jerk reaction of seniors, geriatric organizations and most of the Democratic Party to his modest proposal has been one of great tumult and the promise to obstruct any and all changes made to the program.

Although these interest groups have acknowledged the waning solvency of Social Security, aside from proposing tax increases and other more onerous “improvements”, they have assured themselves,though habit, that nothing is fundamentally wrong with the system. Sadly,nothing could be further from the truth.

Initially started as a widow and orphans fund, Social Security quickly morphed into a retirement supplement and from there, with the help of grifters from both political parties, into the premier pension fund for most Americans. Unfortunately, Social Security, as it exists today, is the world’s biggest pyramid scheme and like all such ventures its design will eventually doom it.

When this program started the Roosevelt administration did two things. First, they assigned the age at which these benefits kicked in only two years lower than life expectancy and secondly they formulated the responsibility to pay these benefits in a pyramid like structure. The initial idea was that many workers helping to support one retiree was not as great a burden on them or society than the old starving in the streets. Like most liberal dreams, however, it spoke to the heart and not the head.

Initially there were sixteen people responsible for the benefits of one retiree and all seemed too good to be true. It was. Now, the ratio is closer to two to one and dwindling quickly. Further complicating solvency is that people are daring to live longer. Instead of the expected two years of benefits, it is now closer to twenty and steadily growing. If the pyramid is to continue to stand, it needs a larger base and a much shorter payment schedule. Both are impossible.

But the fatal flaw with any pyramid paradigm is that no wealth is ever created. Money is simply transferred. One person needs to lose for another to benefit. The first to receive pensions paid little into the system and had years available to grow their individual wealth. Younger workers, especially those who now reside at the very bottom of the pyramid, do not have this luxury. They are faced with ever increasing confiscatory taxes to help maintain the plan’s solvency, fewer funds are available for savings and in the end they will be the ones who will become more dependent on a scheme that increasingly shows itself less likely to provide the benefits when they will be needed the most.

So what to do? Once again, America needs to take heed of what Thomas Paine wrote. Simply because we are in the habit of believing that Social Security was not structured poorly doesn’t make it so. Its foundation is and was fatally flawed. Further, this would be a great moment to swallow our national pride and start looking at some models that do work before it is too late. One such model can be found in Chile.

In 1980, Chile had a pension system very similar to Social Security. Unlike Americans, the Chileans didn’t view their crumbling system as the third rail of politics. They were wise and courageous enough to make fundamental changes before it collapsed around them.

In basic form, Chilean workers now have the right to take up to 20% of pre-tax money that used to be allotted for their Social Security and invest it with a private concern whose sole business by law is to invest this money all over the world. When the average Chilean reaches retirement age, he has three choices. He can take the money he invested and reinvest it into an insurance annuity that will continue to pay him a monthly check equal to 70% of his pre-retirement income; he can manage the money himself with the same proviso or a combination of the two. What extra money there is above the minimum amount used to guarantee a retirement paycheck can be taken as a lump sum, becomes a part of his individual estate and can used at the discretion of the taxpayer.

Those who paid into the retirement system for twenty years whose individual retirement savings are not enough to meet minimum pension standards set by law are supplemented by the Chilean government until such time as the taxpayers own money runs out. Should this occur or if the person does not have twenty years of payment to the system, the taxpayer then can apply for welfare but will receive lower benefits. It is a system that encourages savings, individual industry, grows wealth, limits the individual’s dependency on government and it is working.

Oh, and by the way, does it sound familiar? If it does it is because it is very close to what President Bush is now proposing with the exception that instead of allowing 20% of pre-tax money to go into personal accounts, he is only asking that 2% be allowed. The Bush proposal doesn’t sound so bold or radical after all… does it?

Well, whatever we as a society choose to do, whatever approach we take to once again fix the unfixable, we should hearken to the political rhetoric of past elections. Our politicians are very fond of telling us that most of their programs are for the children. If this is so, isn’t it about time we hold them to their promise? Isn’t it high time they really do something for the children of America? A good start would be to find a way to scrap the one program that robs them of their future and offer one in its stead that truly helps rather than bankrupts.

One thing is for sure. Young Tommy Paine hit the nail on the head. In this debate, time may well make more converts than reason, but there is a caveat especially where Social Security is concerned. We are running out of time.

Is this the way to win back eyeballs?

2005-01-14T20:18:00.000-05:00

Next Thursday, a duly elected President of the United States will once again mount the steps of the United States Capitol building and be sworn into office. Just as in year’s past, this ceremony will be accompanied by long speeches, a parade, celebratory pyrotechnics and lavish balls.

As is the modern custom, the vast majority of the monies needed to put on this soiree will be raised from private, not governmental sources. Of course, there is a cost that must be borne by the city of Washington, DC for security and the like, but in the past, little mention or concern was ever expressed by critics. It seemed a small price to pay for the peaceful transfer of power. This year, however, all that has changed and only a fool need ask why. It because the mainstream media of America hates President George W. Bush and will do anything and everything it can to tarnish his standing with the American people.

I have watched fourteen of these events in my short life. Some I enjoyed; others I did not. Truthfully, my mood depended upon whether or not my candidate was the one being sworn in. During those years when I was disappointed, I never begrudged my opposition his moment in the sun. Had I done so, I would have been guilty of poor taste and my displeasure would have sounded like sour grapes. More importantly, it would have been un-American. In this country, political contests are won and lost. The winner shines as is his right and good losers congratulate their opponent; show a brave face to the world and work hard to become the loyal opposition. Unfortunately, today’s mainstream media disagrees. They are more than willing to throw yet another fine American tradition into their liberal ash heap.

Forgetting the fact that what Americans choose to do with their own money is none of their business, members of the Fourth Estate in recent days have been quick to tell their viewers and readers alike that all this falderal is a waste of resources. Story after story from the likes of the Associated Press to CNN has dealt with what should be done with the 40 million dollars expected to be spent. Think of the tsunami victims they wail or consider how many armored Humvees this could buy for our troops in Iraq they cry with crocodile tears. CNN even offered other, more bizarre, uses for the money like paying ballplayer’s salaries. Oh yeah, now that’s a priority!

My question is where was their outrage when their candidates won? I heard no whining about President Clinton’s 30 million dollar inaugural tab in 1997, no weeping that this was a waste of money. On the contrary, fashion editors were a twitter to scope out Mrs. Clinton’s and Chelsea’s wardrobe and all of the media elites made sure they were the first in line to pony up $150 each for their inaugural ball tickets. (Which reminds me, this year’s tickets are a bargain at $125? They should be happy.)

For supposedly smart people, today’s elite journalists seem all too disposed to flout their stupidity. Do they really think these once every four year parties really matter to the taxpayers? Do they honestly believe that by parroting the talking points of their jealous Democratic friends they can change minds or align the masses to accept a more liberal agenda?

On the contrary, they will do neither. All they are doing is to playing to type. Their only accomplishment is to give credence to the howl of bias, the dark shadow of which they seem unable to extricate themselves. They continue to validate the beliefs of many that they are small minded, herd oriented, and ideologically driven.

What’s even worse is they continue exhibit the one trait Americans hate more than anything else, the one attribute that will continue to hasten their power loss.

Americans hate arrogant, sanctimonious sore losers.

Am I asking for too much?

2005-01-12T16:34:00.000-05:00

A few days ago, as I spun the channels of my television with my remote, I happened upon Hardball, starring Chris Mathews on MSNBC. Much to my chagrin, his guest for the evening was the decidedly unfunny Al Franken, the premier mouthpiece on progressive radio’s Air America. As usual, their conversation was political and decidedly anti- Bush, but like watching a train wreck, I soon became riveted by their conversation.

As they bantered about the presumed horrors perpetrated on the American people and the world by the current administration, Mr. Franken made an incredible statement. He said that when he deems to “entertain” the troops, he never tells them the “truth”. He never informs them that they are being used by a fascist government to suppress people of color or religious heroes of conviction. He admitted that he takes this particular tack because he does not want to be “misunderstood”. So, when in their presence, he magnanimously swallows his political pride and simply offers them humor. Well now, isn’t that special. What was even more exceptional was Mr. Mathews’ response. With an understanding nod and wink, “journalist” Mathews offered his unqualified approval of this dishonesty.

Specifically unsaid but understood was that these two men, like many of their progressive counterparts, have little respect for men and women in uniform. Their chat hinted that anyone who enters the military is either a refugee from a trailer park or an expatriate from the unemployment line. Choosing to remain prisoners of a sixties mindset, the fact that bright men and women with a future would ever choose a military career never entered their narrow vision. Although their arrogance and ignorance was breathtaking, their discussion did provide a bright spot. It offered a moment of candor. It offered the real and ugly face of modern American journalism.

No longer advocates for a broad unbiased analysis of the issues, many of today’s reporters, their papers and their programs, seemed geared in one of two directions — partisan advocacy or self aggrandizement. From the New York Times to Fox News, most journalists have abandoned the dispassionate reporting role envisioned by our Founding Fathers and taken up the mantle of political activist or worse, self promoter. From the left and the right, screaming matches are more prevalent than sane dialogue, ad hominem attacks and party talking points more customary than issue examination. Underlying all is their belief that most Americans are fools with no minds with which to think, no experience comparable to theirs, who need to be led.

Don’t misunderstand; all of these men and women have a right to their opinions. They have the right to shine or make complete fools of themselves. The American Constitution guarantees it and I will defend this right, but don’t they also have an equally important responsibility to offer their readers and viewers a bit more intellectual respect, a bit more honesty?

In our past, America was filled with papers and journalists who openly acted as house organs and advocates for one political cause or another and the Republic managed to not only survive but thrive. The key word here is openly, which means they were honest and respectful. The difference between the past and the present is today’s scriveners haven’t the same reverence for their audience or sufficient decency and courage to admit their bias as readily as their historical colleagues. Today, they all rush to claim the cloak of objectivity even at the cost of their credibility.

I suppose in as human endeavor as journalism is some bias will always be inevitable. People aren’t perfect and good intention is often sacrificed to ambition. But I can’t help thinking that the American people and especially the American military, deserve better than the current crop of correspondents.

I’m all for a free press. In fact, I need one to help me make intelligent decisions as I interact with my world. I simply would prefer a far more honest, courageous and respectful one. Is this too much to ask?

More Kool-Aid, ladies?

2005-01-07T16:15:00.000-05:00

Dakota Tribal wisdom says that when you discover you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. However, when the Democrats found they were perched on one after the November elections, they did not avail themselves of this sage advice. They remain in the saddle and continue to beat the poor animal.

Normally defeat at the polls is reason for sober reflection. Ideas, priorities, candidates and programs are examined for their structural integrity. Unattainable dreams are discarded, agendas are fine tuned and themes are tweaked if the loser doesn’t want to repeat the embarrassment. Only a fool or a zealot continues down the same path. Only a person with suicidal tendencies continues to drink the same party Kool-Aid when they know it is poison to the voters. Yet, yesterday, with Americans of all political stripes looking on, the Democratic Party took another cup of Kool-Aid.

What should have been a simple Congressional ceremonial exercise was turned on its head by a few Democratic Congresswomen bent upon giving the world the impression that American skies are filled with black helicopters. Although all reasonable people of both American political parties knew that the charges of massive voting irregularities in Ohio were exaggerated and without merit, the conspiracy laden far left of the Democratic Party demanded and received their moment in the Congressional sun. Raising their shrill voices to challenge the Electoral College vote submitted by Ohio, these tin foil helmeted soldiers forced a three hour discussion and a vote on the charges. Although they realized their cause was doomed, they did it solely to embarrass the President.

Lead by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca) and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio), this bi-chamber fraud inquiry in the end proved itself to be the fraud. Only a few anecdotal stories were offered during the three hour debates. No witnesses were produced, no depositions read and no real facts were offered into evidence. In the end, no minds were changed and the vote proceeded as planned. George W. Bush was officially re-elected President of the United States.

For supposedly smart women, they did a dumb thing. Instead of steering clear of an obvious political cow chip in the middle of their path, these women and their fellow travelers insisted on playing with it like spoiled children. The only thing they accomplished was to waste three hours of Congressional time and offer yet another glimpse into the sad priorities of the contemporary American left.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not at all upset. In fact, I rather enjoyed the spectacle and would like to thank these gals. For you see, this little temper tantrum validated my beliefs. It once again shined a bright light on why I believe today’s Democratic Party can no longer be trusted to run the Republic. It reinforced my reasons why I left their side years ago, why I doubt I will ever again pull the D lever on Election Day. The actions of these women and the acquiescence of their party’s leadership to this flimsy charade reminded me that hate is no substitute for policy, that cheap political gamesmanship has no place in post 9/11 America or at a time of war, and that the Democratic Party remains slave to its most radical elements.

So thanks, ladies. Keep up the good work. Oh, and if you are ever in town, why don’t you drop in. I’ll make sure there is plenty of Kool-Aid on hand. What do you prefer, grape or orange?

Advice to Mom

2004-12-31T13:34:00.000-05:00

With its world class restaurants, theaters and people, New York is one of the world’s great cities. I know this to be true because I’m a native son. Born in New York hospital and educated in her schools, I will always be grateful for what she taught me. She was and always will be my mother city.

But like any child, there came a time for me to leave her nest, to spread my own wings and experience the world. For a time, I lived in Chicago, San Francisco, and Kansas City before finally settling in Atlanta. Each of these great cities welcomed me with open arms; each had lessons of their own to teach. New York was a great starting point, but I have learned more and have been enriched immeasurably by my experiences in my adoptive cities. They taught me that living at home forever is a selfish thing to do, and it is also foolish. Not only does it put a strain on the parents, but it stunts individual growth, can cause dependency and it gives one a fairly narrow-minded view of the world.

In a way, corporations and governmental agencies share the traits of the average human. Take US automakers for instance. While ensconced behind the walls of their birth in Detroit, their desire to stay “home” caused them to lose touch with their customers. Virtually owning the car market forty years ago, their regional myopia and increasing familial bureaucracy almost caused their downfall. It wasn’t until they took their show on the road, opened their eyes to a broader world, did they begin to make a comeback, and exhibit the promise they always held but nearly squandered.

Today, New York harbors another child, a child who entered this world with great promise but who is now wasting away intellectually and spiritually. This child has become petulant, spoiled and dependent. Crying constantly about its meager allowance, it often throws temper tantrums and like most children these fits of pique are usually directed toward the parents. Selfish and demanding, this child does not offer respect for the property of others nor does it welcome the necessary rules of the home. It is far more interested in preening before an expensive mirror while it sulks in a comfortable glass enclosed room. The name of the child is the United Nations.

For every parent and every child change is difficult. All parents harbor the secret wish that their children not have to face the difficulties of life but this denies reality and it is high time for this child to grow up and hopefully live up to its potential. It must start by leaving the nest, broadening its world view and I have a suggestion where this huffy little adolescent should go – Haiti.

What better place to start? Warm, welcoming but with a myriad of problems, Haiti is the perfect proving ground, the perfect challenge for a youngster who thinks he knows everything. Here the UN’s unruffled dandies could live like the kings and queens they believe themselves to be while they prove to the world their usefulness. Let them tackle poverty, ignorance and brutality with a much shorter commute.

Oh, there may be an adjustment or two. There always is when one moves to a new town. There are fewer five star restaurants in Port-Au-Prince and I hear Haitian theater leaves something to be desired, but for a child to grow up certain sacrifices must be undertaken and one always needs to look on the bright side. Gone will be those pesky New York patrolmen who constantly ticket the Mercedes as well as those equally annoying rules of conduct they continually grumble about. Here they can run things as they please. Settled in their new digs, they can start fresh.

And think of the other advantages. They’ll be able to work on their tans at home instead of rushing to the slopes of Switzerland or the beaches of LaCôte d'Azur. There will no longer be a need to suffer the effects of trying to keep up with the Jones. In Haiti, no one seeks a new Louis Vuitton bag, expensive handmade English shoes or hand tailored suits from Hong Kong. Most Haitians are simply happy if they get a meal. They could pack light. All they would need to start would be a tee shirt, a pair of baggies and their well worn Berkinstocks. And think of the fresh air (well, if you stand upwind of the open sewer trenches). There is nothing like fresh air to give the soul a lift and help reset one’s priorities.

So my advice to my “Mom” is to kick this bratty sibling from the nest. Help buy him a ticket to this Caribbean paradise if you must, but kick him out all the same. It may just be the ticket to his salvation.

I know this sounds extreme and I know this is going to be tough, but sometimes true love really has to be.

Glass House Gratitude

2004-12-28T13:01:00.000-05:00

Roberto Benigni, the Italian actor and comedian is quoted as saying, “It's a sign of mediocrity when you demonstrate gratitude with moderation.” I wonder what he thinks of a man and an international institution who demonstrate their gratitude by slapping the benefactor’s face.

Less than twelve hours after the horror of the Sumatra earthquake and resulting tsunami that killed thousands and left millions homeless, Jan Egeland, UN undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, accused the United States of America of being “stingy” in our relief efforts. It matters little to this less than gracious man that America has pledged fifteen million dollars with a stipulation to reevaluate that pledge upward when the full extent of the tragedy has been determined. To Mr. Egeland, this amount of money, any amount of money, is not enough. Mr. Egeland even had the gall to speak for millions of taxpayers when he chastised the American and European governments by saying they "believe that they are really burdening the taxpayers too much, and the taxpayers want to give less. It's not true. They want to give more." I didn’t realize that one of the many talents harbored by the UN’s elite was clairvoyance.

What is especially exasperating is not the criticism but who offers it. During Mr. Egeland’s tenure, the United Nations has a less than sterling record. Take for instance the UN’s Congo operations, where United Nation’s workers are now charged with massive corruption and the systematic rape of children. Or perhaps we should revisit that wonderful “humanitarian program” euphemistically entitled “Oil for Food”, where Mr. Egeland’s “charges” received putrid groceries while some members of his own institution lined their pockets. Then there is the Darfur region of the Sudan where Mr. Egeland’s friends continue to threaten the government-backed ethnic militias known as “Janjaweed” but remain powerless to end the ethnic cleansing.

This may come as a surprise to this Norwegian-born ostrich, but the American people are the most generous community on the face of the earth. Unlike and unmatched by any country, America stands second to none in giving aid to the world whenever natural and manmade disasters strike. Had it not been for America after World War II, there would be no Europe, no United Nations. This year alone the American people offered 15 billion dollars in aid to Africa to help combat the Aids epidemic that has ravaged that continent. During the recent earthquake at the ancient city of Bam in Iran, Americans coughed up almost six million in aid. We do not care whether they are friend or foe. When innocent people are injured because of the vagaries of the weather, disease or man’s stupidity, America has always done its part and hopefully we always will. But, comments such as those enunciated by this United Nations spokesman can only have a frictional effect on the natural giving spirit of America.

My parents taught me to be forgiving, to turn the other cheek when struck. Generally, I have tried to live this way, but I refuse to be silent when a yapping little mutt like Mr. Egeland chooses to bite the hand that feeds him and the rest of his elitist ilk. He is an ingrate and before he opens his mouth to once again insert his little foot, may I suggest another lesson my parents taught me years ago:

“When you live in a glass house, you shouldn’t throw stones.”

I'm Sorry. Really, I Am.

2004-12-17T13:30:00.000-05:00

America is a great nation, filled with wonderful, gracious and forgiving people. Although far from perfect, we possess great qualities that have allowed us to grow and prosper. One trait that stands out is our collective belief in redemption.

We are all very aware that all men and women are flawed. Truth be know, we all own a few skeletons in our respective closets. Most of these sins are minor in nature and although it is impossible to turn back the clock, making our apologies to the aggrieved party goes a long way in healing what damage has been caused. In the past, for these requests for forgiveness to have been granted meaning they had to be accompanied by truth and sincere regret. Now, I wonder.

America has also become a society bent on cheapening everything. From clothing to computers to our moral compass, cheaper seems better. We’ve cheapen the meaning of life by our blind defense of a woman’s absolute right to choose as if the unborn, even those moments from birth, have no rights. We’ve cheapen physical love by denying its spiritual component and reducing it to simple sex. We’ve cheapened and weakened our religious institutions by allowing deracinated members of splitter groups veto power over our beliefs and our traditions. We’ve cheapened the family unit by no longer demanding or even aspiring for the assent of two parents. We’ve surrendered to the most vocal in our mist and now consider offering a growing diversity of amalgamations the same beatification. We have even cheapened the very words that have defined our redemptive character. From where I sit, “I’m sorry” no longer has much meaning.

You say as President you lied to the nation, had sex with an intern half your age, a woman whose well being was in your hands, and then lied to a Federal Grand Jury?

It matters little that you really aren’t ashamed or even upset. Why should you be? It was simply about sex. You said the words so all is forgiven. Oh, and if you write a book detailing why it was the other guy’s fault, we will flock to give you our money. You know our motto. After you say you are sorry just… Move On!

You say you were the head of a multinational body that was in charge of regulating purchases in the Oil for Food program and some of your members thought it better to line their pockets rather than the stomachs of starving women and children?

Simply say you are sorry. Don’t worry about making amends or concern yourself that thousands of people lost their lives as that will simply confuse the situation. Blame it on accounting failures, say you are sorry and not only will we forgive you, but we will increase your budget.

You say that while you were the head of New York’s police department you cheated on your wife twice, had a few shady dealings with known men of ill repute and didn’t pay your nanny her due?

Ok, here’s what you do. First, deny some of the allegations then pay what you owed for the nanny but above all else, tell us you are sorry. I’m sure there is a book, movie deal or a lucrative corporate contract just waiting for you around the corner. Remember Americans will forgive anything if you just say, “I’m sorry”.

You say you put handcuffs on a little girl, dragged her to the police station in front of her friends and teachers because she had the audacity to bring a pair of pinking shears to art class?

Alright, so you got a little carried away with this zero tolerance thing. No big deal. Say you are sorry. That’s all. It is just that simple! After all, she’s only a child. She’ll get over it.

Oh, my goodness. I just realized that what I have written may be insensitive and might be construed by some as offensive.

Umm, what should I do? Oh, I know.

I’m sorry, everybody. I really, really am. (Fingers crossed).

The Peterson Principle

2004-12-16T17:22:00.000-05:00

When my brother was shot between the eyes at point blank range during a robbery closing our restaurant years ago, the last thing that came to mind was media coverage of the crime. I was too busy answering the questions of law enforcement authorities, arranging a team of Atlanta’s top surgeons to save his life and praying for my twin’s survival.

While waiting for the results of my brother’s first surgery, I did manage to pick up the local paper. There in section D, sandwiched between the Food Giant advertisement and a coupon for tampons, was a two paragraph mention of his ordeal. No camera crews were sent to interview us. No one with microphones barred our passage. Two paragraphs in one afternoon edition would be the extent of our attention to the world of journalism.

I tell this story not because I am in any way upset by the lack of coverage. Quite the contrary, I was grateful to be left alone. I had enough on my plate. I relate this vignette to make a point and to postulate a theorem.

Having suffered through six months of the Lacy Peterson trial and wondering why this case and not another merited the hoopla, I believe I have stumbled unto the reason why some crimes rate first class coverage and the vast majority do not. I call my theory, the Peterson Principle.

Let’s start with the basics. Just like in real estate or any business, the primary concern prior to the mainstream media setting up the next tent city is location, location, location.

For a crime to make the cut, it must take place in a pleasing geographic area. New York, Washington, DC or Los Angeles are preferable, however, other less obvious locals are also acceptable. For example, Vail is up to standard as is Block Island and Martha’s Vineyard. Access to fine dining, five star hotels, high speed internet connections and suitable clothiers is a must. Without these amenities, the media will not come in sufficient numbers. Doubt it? When was the last time you saw a “show trial” broadcast from the middle of Texas, Alabama or Mississippi? If the story is graphic enough, salacious enough, they may keep you informed, but to set up a full scale “media city” with hot and cold running news flashes every quarter hour you need more than a great story. The first rule of thumb is that the trial must occur in a jurisdiction that does not crimp the lifestyle of today’s cable journalist.

The second section of my theory deals with the legal question debated. It must be simple. Today’s television reporters know their audience. They are convinced that we are incapable of complex thought and their ratings, their livelihoods, depend on keeping the predictably “attention-challenged” engaged. So a case like the Mathew Shepard torture in Wyoming or the “Blind Sheik” bombing in New York offering the involvement of national issues would never make minute by minute coverage. These cases were far too complicated, too involved with tangential issues. Simple is best and what is more effortless to understand than a single murder?

Third and fourth on the list is the defendant, aggrieved victim or both must have “pretty” value and money must lurk somewhere. It helps if the trial revolves around an aging star or a known corporate big shot (preferably one with a sour reputation) but at the very least, the defendant must be photogenic and white. Ideally, the central figure should be at least middle class or higher in background. After all, who would tune in day after day, minute by minute, if the defendant were fat, ugly, poor and a minority? Oh, there may be some interest if the crime involved one of the beautiful people, but only in passing. It is, after all, about the pictures and ordinary just won’t make the cut.

And lastly, a known, properly vetted, television oriented, legal mind must be representing the defendant. He or she must be willing to say or do something outrageous over many news cycles and must have a proper retinue to qualify. Of course, this is a little like trying to figure out which came first – the chicken or the egg. It is common knowledge that if the media decides to cover a particular trial, there are always surpluses of camera starved attorneys willing to work at almost pro bono levels to boost their firm’s “star” quality. But regardless of who spawns who, no “show trial” can make Broadway without a “star” attorney.

Well, that’s it – the Peterson Principle. To make the big time, to get today’s mainstream media to take the bait; you need location, murder, attractiveness, money and a media savvy attorney. Without these five elements, the criminals of the future will never be able to say, “I’m ready for my close up, Mr. Demille.”

Oh, and one other thing. My brother’s just fine now and we don’t know about you, but we can hardly wait for the Robert “Baretta” Blake trial to fill the void left by the end of The State of California v. Peterson. It should be a doozy! Don’t ya think?

Remembering Santayana

2004-12-14T14:44:00.000-05:00

Most Americans have a pretty good short term memory. Ask most of your neighbors what happened yesterday and almost all can remember what they ate, where they went and what they did.

When we talk about long term memory, however, Americans seem to lag far behind other nations. Talk to a Brit about the Battle of Britain and most can tell you who fought, how long it lasted and who won. Talk to the French about their revolution and they will rattle off chapter and verse. They may get some details wrong, but they do remember. Talk to a young American about the Viet Nam War and most of them wouldn’t even be able to find the country on a map. History has always been a long suit for Europeans, but not America.

Perhaps it is because we are a people who have always lived with a full view toward tomorrow instead an eye in the rear view mirror or perhaps history is a subject that most Americans care little about. What ever the answer, the wisdom of George Santayana remains as relevant today as it did in 1905 when he wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.”

I think of these words today as I watched the detractors swarm around the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. “Why do we send men to war unprepared? Why isn’t every Humvee properly armored?” they demand. “This callous man should go, if he can’t give our troops what they need now!” they shout.

And as I watch this absurd little play, I bemoan the fact the almost half of my fellow citizens swallow this hypocrisy. I can only assume they have forgotten their past. To those misguided souls who continue to listen to these voices of doom, a short lesson in history.

The same people who now demand perfection from Secretary Rumsfeld and worry about military preparedness are the same people who demanded the decimation of the military after the fall of the former Soviet Union. Aside from the fact the loudest critics didn’t even vote for the 86 billion dollar requested by Rumsfeld when we went to war in the Middle East, these pathetic politicians and their sycophantic friends in the press are the same voices who have for decades demanded in their speeches and columns that the military budget be slashed. These “brilliant” and “elite” minds believed in and fought for the Clinton approach to security. “Why pump our limited resources into an already bloated military?” they asked not too long ago. “Isn’t it about time we take our “peace dividend”? And so they did.

Terrorism was someone else’s problem back then. America had been through a tough Cold War and these avaricious toadies had little stomach for anything military. They were far more interested in spending taxpayer money in a way that would galvanize their greedy constituents and insure their own reelections. Had it not been for a few responsible Democrats such as Sam Nunn of Georgia, the carnage to our military would have been even worse.

Now, however, when it is expedient, they have once again changed their tune and have turned into neo-hawks. With each unfortunate death in Iraq or Afghanistan, they hover around the body like flock of vultures, their beaks pecking the words, “I told you so” to any within earshot, while they gleefully dance at the discomfort of their real enemy, Donald Rumsfeld.

Of course, none of these people have offered legislation to increase the military budget or have suggested positive approaches to increase production of the items they now feel deficient. No, that wouldn’t fit the plan. That wouldn’t fit their view of history.

All of which reminds me of yet another George Santayana saying, “Fanaticism consists of redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.”

Where's Mr. Perkins When You Need Him?

2004-12-10T14:37:00.000-05:00

Back in 1964, my mother hated Wednesday nights. Her aversion wasn’t due to a lack of television programming or because Wednesday signaled some metaphysical realignment of the universe. She hated Wednesdays because I forced her hate Wednesdays.

Looking back, it wasn’t Wednesdays that were the problem. It was Thursday. You see, on that day and every Thursday at precisely 2:30 pm in 1964, I had a deadline.

I was required to submit an essay on a specified subject to Mr. Perkins, the evil, despotic leader of the Ridgewood High School English department. No imagined devil he. He was my first editor. His scratched and red inked editorial comments always marred my pre-weekend Fridays. His hollow brown eyes surrounded by horned rimmed glasses and his ubiquitous comment, “words have meaning, Mr. Mortensen”, still haunt my nightmares to this day.

Back then, I hated to write. I was “uncomfortable” putting my thoughts on paper. To me, this was tantamount to torture and for allowing this Inquisition to occur; I caused my mother to suffer as well. Although convinced of my own sophistication at the time, I merely proved myself to be the child that I was in reality.

In the years following this boyhood “trauma”, the power of the written word and my own puny efforts at their attempt has brought immeasurable joy, understanding and humility to my life. Mr. Perkins was correct. Words, I finally discovered, truly do have meaning and authority. Their structure and juxtaposition can convey complex ideas with ease. They can be used to increase our knowledge and understanding of the human condition, of every condition. They have the power to make us laugh or cry. Unfortunately, words can also be used as weapons. A sly comment here or a pejorative adjective there can make what could have been an innocuous report virtually drip with disdain or praise.

I bring this up this story only to illustrate a point. In today’s urban and in most other so called urbane newspapers, words are being used as weapons. Acidic commentary, once the sole province of the editorial pages, has spilled into almost every mainstream news story. While claiming the moral high ground of unbiased reportage, staff writers increasing color their “news” with often inappropriate comments and self-revealing language. I am not the only one who has noticed this trend. It must be abundantly clear to all who love the language and it must be doubly clear to those who derive their livelihood from its use.

Have you ever noticed how almost every conservative is labeled as “right wing” but today’s “progressives” are rarely labeled as “left wing”? We read of Republican “firebrands” while their counterparts are referred to as Liberal “lions”. When stories of political malfeasance are discussed, the political party of the culprit is always mentioned if he is conservative but it is rare to have political party affiliation revealed when the crime involves a "good liberal". The list of examples is too omnipresent to catalogue with justice.

Although most of the blame, of course, goes to the writer, I believe the end product rests on the shoulders of their editors, their Mr. Perkins. They know, or should know, the affect of colorful adjectives and downbeat pronouns. They can not, nor should they be able to cry ignorance, or worse, put up a defensive posture when bias is clearly demonstrated. Their pens should move as swiftly and forcefully as Mr. Perkins’s did to remove unfairness, preconceptions and favoritism from the work of their charges.

In short, I wish today’s crop of “unbiased” editors could do as good a job educating their students that “words have meaning” as an underpaid, overworked and caring High School English teacher in a small New Jersey suburb did teaching me.

Then again, maybe I’m asking too much. After all, there could only be one Mr. Perkins and where ever you are, sir — thank you!

The Stoltzfus Scuffle

2004-12-09T10:03:00.000-05:00

Have you heard of the big brouhaha in Lancaster, Pa?

It seems that a small baker selling his goods at the Lancaster Central Market has produced what one Democratic Party politician considers an affront to public decorum. His crime? He has hung a picture of the President of the United States in his stall. Oh, the horror!

City Councilman Nelson Polite is demanding that David Stolzfus, the, proprietor of the Upper Crust, remove the two year old display because the majority of his constituents didn’t vote for George Bush and a few of his constituents have found the photo and the election results painful. This paragon of public service argues that since the City Market is publicly funded, no photos of a “divisive” or “uncomfortable” nature should be allowed. In the spirit of public protection, the Councilman has threatened to introduce legislation at the next City Council meeting that would ban all political items on city property. Thankfully, and to the credit of Mr. Stoltzfus’ stall mates including some Democrats, other vendors have begun to hang their own photos of President Bush in solidarity.

Leaving aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States for the moment, I would have thought with Lancaster’s city crime index 57% above the national average and an unemployment rate hovering around 6%, the good Councilman would have found better windmills with which to tilt, but perhaps not. After all, what is more pressing in America today than the political discomfort of the minority?

Since the election, major newspapers such a the vaunted New York Times and the venerable Washington Post have offered story after story of disappointed voters seeking help for their newly discovered and diagnosed disease — Post Electoral Stress Trauma or P.E.S.T for short. Psychiatrists from Boca Raton, Fl. to Marin County, Ca. have found their offices inundated with the afflicted. Anti depressant pill prescriptions are soaring, work efficiency is suffering and tears cover the blue state landscape.

To be fair, I am sure that this national epidemic was on the mind of Councilman Polite when he started this latest kerfuffle, but am I the only person in America who wonders how this jackass got elected? Does anyone question that his bid for reelection might be fraught with some difficulty?

The Democratic Party is now in search of the reasons for their latest defeat. While they busy themselves with religious dictionaries and disappointing demographic research, I offer them another hint.

If they are truly serious in their quest to reconnect with the American people, they could start by quietly requesting their more lunatic fringe, exemplified by the likes of Councilman Polite, simply stand up for American’s civil liberties instead of trying to reformat them to make their party members more “comfortable”. They could tell their more vociferous and distraught party regulars that discomfort is a fact of life and that most American’s hold little tolerance for sore losers.

Merry Christmas, Maureen

2004-12-07T07:56:00.000-05:00

It is the “holiday” season and, unfortunately, I almost find myself in harmony with Maureen Dowd, the bitter, aging spinster of the New York Times.

Almost? Then again, not even close!

Once a star of the “paper of record”, poor Maureen has grown to become one of the most acidic and negative voices on their opinion pages. Self absorbed and constantly whiny, I rarely read her anymore, but tonight, by chance, I did. Her analysis of Christmas entitled “Jingle Bell Schlock” demanded a response.

In this column, Maureen speaks of her revulsion of Christmas and the ballyhoo surrounding it. She makes fun of her family and their traditions. And, as much as I hate to agree, I somewhat share her feelings about this holiday. My reasons are, as usual, completely out of sync with hers.

From my read, Ms. Dowd seems to hate anything that brings a bit of joy to people, herself or her own family of which she freely makes fun. To her, this is but the season of greed and stupidity. Although saddened by her approach to life, she is entitled to her opinion. But I must be honest that I, too, am disappointed in this season. I don’t hate it, I’m just disappointed.

I’m disillusioned because I can no longer send a card that says “Merry Christmas”. I feel compelled to self-censor. I sent cards that said “Happy Holidays”. I hate doing this because it is not how I feel. I am disappointed because most of my friends have been cowered by the media and educational structure in this country to do the same. I’m saddened because most of my fellow citizens have forgotten what we celebrate and could care less.

Ms Dowd and the “newspaper of record” would prefer that all people of faith simply cool it, not invade their space. For years, I have been told by the New York Times and the “intellectuals” that dwell within its hollowed chambers that faith, any belief in a God is simply …well …simplistic. These Imams on the Hudson, would much prefer I adopt their religion — secularism. This they claim is the only true path. They have taken great pains to remind me that only those anointed by their opinion pages or their chosen political party are privy to the keys to the kingdom, to the secrets of life and should I choose to ignore their advice as to art, literature, cuisine, fashion, or any other cultural or economic driver, I will forever remain a rube, unholy in their eyes.

Christmas? Get a grip, they say. How stupid am I? Don’t I realize that is all about merchandising, sales and moving the product? Am I so dense that I do not recognize that this manufactured holiday (unlike Kwanzaa) is only about tourism, hotel occupancy and airlines travel rates?

Well, this Christmas, I have something to say to both Ms. Dowd and her employer. It has been a long time coming and I certainly do not want to be “politically incorrect” but here goes.

Bullshit — take a hike!

Your view of Christmas isn’t mine. To me, Christmas, Hanukkah or whatever you choose to believe this time of year is about so much more than the ravings of a lonely, dour woman and the crass commercialism of corporate America.

For Christians, it is a celebration of the birth of their savior. For Jews, the holiday commemorates the rededication of the holy Temple in Jerusalem after the Jews victory over the Hellenist Syrians. To both and others of lesser faith, it is an opportunity to get in touch with old friends. It is a time of remembrance and optimism not cynicism. I feel sorry that Maureen, her employers and, yes, even the venue for a “Miracle on 47th Street”, Macys, no longer feel the same way.

Oh, Maureen and I do have one thing in common. We both wish for abatement to commercialism. Maureen would be happy if we all simply remained silent during this time of year, that we no longer burden her with holidays. I wish for much more. I would like to see less presents for friends and more the presence of friends. I pine for more laughter and less grousing. I would prefer to see less plastic mice in Santa suits and more belief in Santa. I would much appreciate less New York sarcasm and more faith and hope. If this makes me a rube, then so be it.

Oh, and one more thing — Merry Christmas, Maureen!

What's In Their Water?

2004-12-04T18:06:00.000-05:00

Today, yet another thespian has jumped into the political fray, one whose past work I have enjoyed and whose acting talents I admire — Will Smith.

Although generally seen in light fares such as “Men in Black” and “Wild, Wild West”, he has also done some dramatic work in movies such as “Enemy of the State”. I enjoyed them all, but now I begin to question whether or not I can enter one of his movies with the joyful anticipation I used to hold for his performances.

On a South African website (why do they always need to do this overseas?), Mr. Smith has been quoted as saying the horror of 9/11 did not change him or his opinions. He then proceeded to compare the attackers in New York with “racist cops” in the sixties who he claimed were responsible for “civil terrorism”. Excuse me? What the hell is in the water in Hollywood?

To begin with, Mr. Smith wasn’t born until 1968 so he has limited personal experience with the political and social turmoil of the time. He was the second of four children born to the owner of a refrigeration company. Growing up middle class in western Philadelphia, it is hard for me to believe he suffered these atrocities himself.

Secondly, in case Mr. Smith has failed to notice, the realities of 2004 are worlds apart from 1960. Can anyone who lived through that period ever envision a day when it would be “normal” to have two African American Secretaries of State back to back and one of them a woman? In the sixties, that was a dream. Today, it is taken for granted.

True, there were communities then and unfortunately there still are a few today where police officers have acted in a racist and brutal manner but this brutality was rarely given state sanction. More importantly, this brutality was never given religious endorsement. There were no American religious leaders during that time offering fatwas or demanding jihad against blacks. America, as a nation, has worked damned hard to right the wrongs of our past and although we have yet to achieve a true color blind society, we are still trying.

Unlike America, radical Islam does not seek integration or strive for unity while celebrating diversity. They demand loyalty to their beliefs and will not be satisfied until the entire world finds itself under the heel of Sharia Law. They are willing to wantonly kill men, women and children to achieve these goals and are praised worldwide by the so called “holy men” of their faith. They strive for the eradication of all other faiths but their own. Unlike the cops Mr. Smith refers to, these terrorists are not rogues in their communities, they are heroes.

Why is a wealthy black actor, who owes his tremendous success to the very America he seems to have misgivings about, unable to see this striking difference?

Why do he and many of his peers in Hollywood feel a need to blame America first for the world’s ills but remain silent about the child murders of Islam?

Why do they insist on distancing themselves from traditional American values and then whine when their audience takes offense?

I can only guess that their inanity is caused by something in the water.

What's So Funny?

2004-12-04T14:18:00.000-05:00

It should come as no surprise to anyone that America is a litigious society. Perhaps it is the most litigious society in the world and the graduation of armies of barristers from American law schools since the sixties has done little to improve the situation.

Often these soldiers for the aggrieved have forced necessary and meritorious change on a stubborn nation. The struggles for Civil Rights and against egregious corporate corruption would have been virtually impossible without their skills. But something else is also going on. Today, the annual cost of civil litigation in America alone is 300 billion dollars a year. That’s 300 billion, with a capital B. Is all this suing really necessary?

I believe that most Americans are fair minded. I believe that they want and demand that a truly aggrieved person get his day in court, but what about those so called frivolous suits? What about the “funny” ones? We’ve all read them. Pick up any newspaper today, and the evidence is there.

You say that you burned yourself with a hot cup of McDonald’s coffee while balancing the cup between your legs and trying to add cream and sugar? Well, that’s tragic. It certainly isn’t your fault. The temperature of the coffee is to blame. What to do? Why, of course, sue Ronald and you get 2.5 million dollars. And we laugh.

You say you broke your “toches” when you fell from a ladder you placed on a wet and slippery surface while carrying a circular saw and your tool box to the roof? Oh, my. That won’t do. Hire a lawyer and sue the ladder manufacturer for not informing you about the dangers of his product. Hey great, you won millions. And we laugh.

When did we get to a point in our society when frustration, embarrassment and, yes, sheer stupidity of the plaintiff are grounds for legal action? What ever happened to the concept of individual responsibility? And a bigger question is why do we laugh at these stories?

Once common sense was regarded as a necessary burden to overcome if you wanted to sue someone. Old time juries were loath to reward stupidity. Not so in recent years. Today frustration, embarrassment or perceived insult is on a par with and occasionally trumps true harm. Juries, driven by emotion and ignorance, have awarded ever increasing damages against insurance companies and other businesses.

“They can afford it” is their clarion cry as if "business" was a separate entity completely removed from their lives. They justify their action by saying, “Oh, let's just give the little guy some money. What can it hurt? After all, these big corporations have the money and they should be required to 'share' it even if the guy suing wasn't particularly bright."

The truth of the matter is that companies do not pay for anything. Forget what you have been taught in government schools or by politicians, intellectually indolent professors and some members of the Bar. Companies never pay. They do not pay taxes, and they do not pay these judgments.

Customers, you and I, pay these bills. Everyone who purchases the defendant's products and/or services pays with higher prices. We all pay in the form of higher insurance rates and lower job creation. We all pay in the form of less creativity and innovation. We, the average consumer, pay these bills and more, no one else.

So, the next time you hear about a silly lawsuit and are inclined to laugh it off, stop for a minute and think. What’s so funny about a stupid and irresponsible person picking your pockets and limiting your neighbor's chances for a job?

Buy My Book And I'll Get Therapy

2004-11-27T13:30:00.000-05:00

In a cacophonous world, the old adage taught in my youth still remains true. The squeaking wheel will always gets the oil. All one need do is look to television and radio to find examples. Take, for instance, the very popular television show, “The Apprentice”.

If you haven’t seen it, the show revolves around a group of talented people who vie on a weekly basis for an unspecified “executive position” under what the sponsoring network touts is one of America’s premier businessmen, Donald Trump. If any of these people should fail to meet Mr. Trump’s weekly expectation, they are publicly fired and as a consolation prize they make the daily talk show rounds to explain their humiliation. (Ah, only in America can failure be a reason for exaltation, but that is another story.)

Starting from the bottom rung of life with only one or two New York City apartment buildings to his name, Mr. Trump has grown into a cottage industry. It matter’s little that he has faced bankruptcy in the past and even now his casino operations in Atlantic City are heading down the same road. What truly matters in America today, what truly is the defining feature in the drive to success, is the ability to promote one’s self.

I do not mean to demean Mr. Trump’s accomplishments. I do not know the man. I simply use his example to point out a problem faced by many people, myself included. Perhaps it was the way I was raised or perhaps it is my Norwegian genes, but I find I am out of touch with modern America. I was taught that humility should always take precedence over pride, that no one loves a boastful man. Up until now, this advice has proven true but I have reached a turning point, one that will require a new attitude and possibly professional help.

You see, my first book, Group 4, will be on shelves January 7, 2005 (although it is available for pre-orders now) and unless I manage to shake my squeamishness about blowing my own horn, it will remain there. An author has two responsibilities. The first is obvious. Write a book. The second is to move that book from the publisher to someone’s home. The first is done, but I fear the second.

So here is the deal. If you will be kind enough to purchase at least one copy of Group 4 now, I will promise you two things.

First, I promise you will be introduced to a fascinating world, one that did exist but no longer does, and second, I promise that I will spent a part of any proceeds I receive on the sale to purchase some therapy for my problem.

After all, isn’t about time “The Donald” had some competition? What’s more American than that? So, buy Group 4 today and strike a blow for the little guy!

I Just Hit A Fan, Can I Get A Raise?

2004-11-25T01:19:00.000-05:00

Why is anyone surprised by what happened in Detroit this week?

NBA players beating up on fans and visa versa. Isn't this what you have come to expect?

I haven’t a clue what happened and will make no judgment as to culpability. I was not there, did not witness it and I certainly no longer trust the media to give me the truth. What this incident did was to prick my emotions about professional sports and remind me of my ambivalence.

I realize few read these thoughts but I challenge anyone who does to tell me when the last time sportsmanship was ever touted or even mentioned by those involved in professional sports today. When was fan loyalty, team fidelity, the pure joy of the game or graciousness in the face defeat last celebrated on a professional level? When was the last time you heard your team's announcer, your favorite coach, and any player ever talk about the simple values learned from the athlete’s struggles? When was the last time you heard them congratulate their victor with humility?

What once were basic premises and foundations of the games we play are now considered passé. Winning is the only credo. A man no longer loses nobly, fights the good fight. Today, if he loses, he is simply a loser - the quest, the drive, the leaning, the artistry mean nothing. You win or you lose. Period! The fan? Forgetaboutit!

Professional sports are no longer about idealism. It certainly is not fan centric and it no longer represents what coaches used to tout as a condensation of life.

Today, sports are about people I do not know, wo care less about me, who make a ton of money playing a game and who whine constantly. Instead of offering me an escape from my troubles, it provides a soap opera about theirs. Instead of a break from my drudgery, it tenders a daily sharp, barbed reminder of reality. Who needs that? Who needs them?

To me, watching professional sports is no longer fun. Today’s athletes with their self absorption, fan condescension and distain for tradition have killed my love of the games. Once a great fan of baseball, I no longer care. Once, an aficionado of football, I now find it boring. What once provided relief and joy, I now find tedious.

Some may argue that I have been robbed of my innocence. I prefer to blame my disapproval on ...well ...come to think about it... let them play or fight. I no longer give a damn.

A Few Questions On A Slow Friday

2004-11-19T14:48:00.000-05:00

If America is as evil as some of its critics try to convince us, then why do we have an immigration problem?

If spending nine billion dollars of Federal tax money for a leaky tunnel, also known as The Big Dig, in Boston is such a great idea, then why is spending five billion dollars to help the people of Iraq claw their way out of the twelfth century such a horrible one?

If, as most elitists claim, the American Midwest, South and parts of the Southwest are truly “fly over” country, then just how should we categorize their communities? Should they be considered airports?

About 6.7 million state and local government employees are currently exempt from paying into the social security system, even though our wonderful federal politicians were shamed into participating in the system in 1983. If our current social security is such a wonderful program, why do these “public servants” continue to fight against joining?

When most large class action law suits are finally settled, why do the lawyers on both sides leave the table with millions and the victims with pennies?

In Britain and other countries, when one man sues another, the loser pays. He pays for his legal slight as well as the other side’s legal fees. Would it be so terrible if America borrowed this idea in an attempt to limit frivolous law suits?

Why when reading something negative about a politician in most of America’s premier newspapers, the culprit’s political affiliation is always mentioned when he is a Republican, but rarely when he is a Democrat?

How come CBS News, who claims they bring us the truth almost instantly every day, needs months to decide how Dan Rather and others at their own company got their hands on and broadcast false documents? If they are unable to investigate their own organization in a reasonable amount of time, what gives you confidence that they can investigate others in time for the six o'clock news everyday?

And finally, just who constitutes a celebrity and why should I care?

Got a few questions of your own? Leave them with me and I will be happy to share them.

Yo, Yo, Yo! That Ho Is Bitchin'

2004-11-18T16:01:00.000-05:00

Even though I shackled myself to my couch, I only managed to endure thirty minutes of the second annual Vibe Awards. Although the ceremony was billed as a “ special event dedicated to celebrating innovation, cutting-edge presentation and genre-expanding work in urban music”, I will be the first to admit that I just don’t get it. The final blow for me came when the gathered hipsters gave an award for the sexiest video vixen and one of the presenters referred to the winner as “the most bitchin’ ho in a hip hop video”. At that moment, fearing for my sanity, I turned the channel.

I do not and never will understand the lure of rap music. I do not and never will understand why the denigration of women, war on racial harmony and ridiculing the rule of law is something to be celebrated. I do not and will never understand why the theft of intellectual property is allowed to exist so long as you call it “sampling”. I do not and will never understand how a multimillionaire rapper can legitimately lay claim to victimhood. I do not and never will understand why these shows always seem to disintegrate into breeding grounds for violence. I do not and never will understand why it is cool to be a “gangsta”.

I suppose I am out of touch or too deeply wedded to the now patently arcane values of my youth. As much as I want to understand and sympathize with the modern plight of my fellow citizens of African American decent, I guess I am too old, too fifties, and dare I say it, too horribly white to ever understand what now passes for black urban culture. This hurts, because I grew up urban. But at some point in the last forty years, my meager intellect or my genes betrayed me. I no longer recognize what passes for the “urban experience” and I certainly do not recognize the musical quality of angrily screaming bad poetry to the beat of a bass drum.

What I do recognize is hate and envy when I hear it. What I do recognize is self promotion at the expense of self worth and dignity. What I do recognize is the power of money’s ability to cheapen and coarsen our society when its worship becomes life’s driving force. What I do recognize is that other than Bill Cosby, there is no other African American "leader" willing to condemn this so called “art form” , one that is leading America’s already struggling black youth further down a path toward self destruction and disappointment

I Am Somebody! Aren't I?

2004-11-12T16:00:00.000-05:00

The stories in the newspapers since the election of a possible liberal exodus from America are prolific. If these stories are to be believed, liberal Americans find themselves trapped in the enlightened Blue States feeling crowded by a sea of bible thumping, knuckle dragging Neanderthals living in the Red States. They are openly discussing taking their balls off the field of ideas and moving to other countries. Webs sites about emigration to Canada, Spain, France, and New Zealand now dominate their online excursions and their cocktail/dinner party conversations center on the climate and cultural advantages of their future homes.

One has to wonder why a mere election should cause such an overheated reaction. For decades the political power in Washington has changed hands with regularity and although there is always some disappointment, hatchets were buried and we went on doing the work of America. Why now does a single loss by one party generate such a frenzied reaction among some? True, America has been going through a tough patch and true, some would choose another course, but we have been through rough times before and never once have we heard talk of mass exodus. Why now?

Well, I have a guess what may be partially in play, why this time it may be different. I think we are beginning to reap what we have sown. I believe part of this manic, irrational behavior can trace its roots to the great “self-esteem movement” of the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. What started as a compassionate effort thirty years ago to insure that all children face their future with confidence has degenerated into a culture of entitlement. After much debate, the enlightened among us (i.e. some members of the Blue States and Red States) decided that the problem of self worth was simply too important an issue to be ignored. They argued that self identity was so important that never again should a person’s self worth be held “slave” to external pressures. They preached and continue to preach that self-esteem is a self-fulfilling, self-actuating proposition. You are who you believe yourself to be. Self esteem, they argued, is what we give ourselves and our well being should never again be held hostage by actions of others. They moralized that if we continued to follow the arcane belief that self-esteem is something that is earned and not intrinsic, then society would continue to falter. And so on every blackboard, in every rally, on every street corner for the past twenty odd years we have been hearing the hollow chant, “I am somebody.”

Of course, what these paragons of intellect failed to plug into their equation was one small, nagging fact. They failed to factor in the certainty that all people do lose, do fail and when setbacks beset us, we all suffer a blow to our self-worth. Their curriculum failed to include what happens when we falter and in failing to teach this certainty, they stole from their pupils a major strength, the ability to accept defeat with grace. Worse still, they forgot to teach their students the benefits of failure and robbed them of their ability for self examination and thus self improvement. Although they had the best intentions, they built their doctrine on a faulty foundation. Instead of offering the stability of reality, they taught them to rely on a castle in the sky.

The elite among us still remain faithful to this dogma, but thankfully, few people in the Red States bought into this malarkey. They were too busy putting food on their table, making sure Johnny and Suzie had clothes on their backs and the mortgage got paid on time. They didn’t have the time, energy or desire to whimsically worry about the great challenges that faced their children; they were far too consumed with the details. They ignored the newest theory, the latest celebrity child raising book or treatise emanating from the Department of Education that sought to explain their children. Instead, they used their life experience and common sense to teach their children their daily lessons. These gifts were past on in the old fashioned way - they were taught by example over the dinner table, in the confines of a car while heading to soccer practice or while sitting in their favorite pew on Sunday or Saturday. When their political beliefs were not supported by their peers, they did not whine or make idle threats. No, they simply looked for the positive and taught their children they could endure most anything even an errant politician or two. They are survivors with much greater problems. They have faced the fire of life and have been tempered by its lessons. They have set goals and even achieved some, and in so doing, they earned their self worth. Self esteem, they have discovered is too precious a commodity to be simply bestowed, it must be earned. And having earned it, they can deal with and learn from life’s disappointments. This is the lesson most parents in the Red States continue to teach their children.

Maybe, just maybe, this is the lesson our liberal and depressed fellow citizens in the Blue States should be contemplating rather than the average yearly rain fall in the pampas of Spain.

Ain't Nothin' Wrong With Kansas.

2004-11-05T14:59:00.000-05:00

While watching Chris Mathew’s show, Hardball, tonight, the host, Mr. Mathews, and one Mr. Thomas Frank, the author of “What’s the matter with Kansas”, seemed to agree that the Democratic Party's loss in America’s recent national election could partially be attributed to the belief that the Democrats may have lost touch with average American voter. As Homer Simpson would say, “Doh!”

Even thought they belabored the obvious, their conclusion seemed to center on what they claimed were undeniable "facts". Their standard bearer, Senator John Kerry, was profound, had sufficient nuance, and an abundance of brilliance, yet the “average” voter chose the lesser candidate. In an effort to understand this anomaly, they brightly declared that George W. Bush was able to win because he was in touch with the limited world view of an over worked, under educated, God addled populace. How could a moron like George W. Bush shellac a man with superior ideas and a superior background? Why it was simple they reasoned. It was because the Democrats had, yet again, chosen the wrong political matador. Had the Party chosen a man, like Dick Gelphart, a man born to the lower class, who had managed to prevail against all odds to become one of them all would have been right. He, of humble parents, would have made the connection between the fools of “fly-over” country and the “sophisticated” gentry of New York’s Upper East Side. Failure, they reasoned, was a function of the messenger and not the message. Had this man headed the ticket instead of a Boston Brahmin, Kansas would have seen the error of their way.

Beyond the arrogance and condescension of their position lurks one of the reasons why the Democratic Party continues to lose in national contests. They have forgotten that to Americans it doesn’t matter where you come from. Unlike our European brothers, we don’t care to examine historical credentials or worry about blood lines. What matters to Americans is who you really are as a person and what you can do. Americans, and even Kansans, are interested in results not a genealogic certificate. Unfortunately, Democratic Party leaders have forgotten American history and look fondly toward Europe for guidance, the same Europe, who after two hundred plus years, still hasn’t figured out why we chose to fight for our freedom rather than submit to their benevolent conceit.

Gee, come to think about it, do you think there may be a parallel between the European attitude then and the Democratic Party’s reluctance today to help the people of the Middle East obtain their freedom?

Just a thought.

Practicing What You Preach.

2004-11-04T14:58:00.000-05:00

“Jesus loves you,” playfully mocked Don Imus, MSNBC’s dour, liberal radio jock, in a conversation with Jeff Greenfield, CNN’s equally liberal senior political analyst, this morning while discussing the effect of evangelical Christians on American Presidential elections. To which, Mr. Greenfield replied (and I paraphrase), “In my neighborhood, that’s the guy who delivers the Mexican food.”

Funny? I don’t think so, but this exchange does speak volumes about America’s “tolerant” and “respectful” left. Is it any wonder why more and more Americans are rejecting the Democratic Party? Why do American liberals demand our respect for all manner of worship, activities and behaviors, but it is perfectly acceptable to them to mock evangelical Christians?

To the surprise of many, exit polls showed that the question of morals and values was one of the deciding issues in Tuesday’s election and I would venture to say that the fifty eight million voters who resoundingly handed President Bush a mandate for a second term all do not worship the same nor do all of their moral values follow a monolithic model. What does bind them together is their optimistic belief that all men are created equal and all men have the right to worship as they choose. What binds them together is the conviction that hate is not a viable option when determining the direction of our country.

If the Democratic Party and their pundits wish to expand their party’s base rather than to continue to watch its influence diminish, they would be wise to bear these truths in mind.

Does America Still Have Courage?

2004-10-29T14:57:00.000-04:00

This coming Tuesday, for better or worse, the world will see the real America. Gone will be the sloganeering and the bravado and an accurate picture of the soul of this country will emerge.
After this election, the world will be able to gauge whether in the United States hatred wins over reason, whether appeals to self interest triumphs the greater good, whether lies and indecision trump steadfast, albeit slow, progress in the war against terror and whether the American people still have the courage to do the right thing even if they must stand alone.

We are well aware that our European brothers, most of our neighbors and many around the world dislike President Bush and are reticent about this country’s new approach in foreign policy. They would much prefer an American President who doesn’t challenge them or force them to look at the new realities of this world. In my opinion, these critics are acting like children who refuse to take their medicine because it doesn’t taste well; they would prefer to ignore growing threats rather than inconvenience themselves. They want the world prior to September 11th. This new world makes them uncomfortable, it puts them on edge. And like that child, they would prefer to bury their head in the sand regardless of the ultimate outcome. So, it is left to America to act parental and do the right thing but the question is – will we?

I’d like to remind all who ponder this question that we have tried it their way. We spent the nineties carrying the water for the United Nations while ignoring the rampant corruption that exists within that organization. We exhausted ourselves soothing French peculiarities, German fears and Russian anxiety in the name of world unity only to have three thousand plus of our citizens die a fiery death. I believe we can no longer afford appeasement or to turn a blind eye to Islamofascist cruelty but that choice is not mine alone. My fellow citizens will weigh in on this debate with both feet and my views will either be vindicated or not. If you believe in the polls, the fight for America’s soul will be a tough choice. I find this disheartening, but it is where we find ourselves.

On Tuesday, America will choose either to continue a lonely fight or surrender. Will we put ourselves in the hand of a man of unwavering courage, or a man who will say anything, do anything to curry political favor? We will find out if we have the courage and the strength to do the right thing, or if we will join the child with our own head in the sand.

You know my choice. I await yours with more than a little trepidation.

A Fork In The Road To Freedom

2004-10-28T14:55:00.000-04:00

December 1, 1969 was a day I will never forget. I was alone in a strange city and I watched on a black and white television the first lottery drawing to determine the order of call for induction into the Armed Forces of the United States. It was the first such lottery since 1942. When my birth date in the form of a blue capsule was plucked out of a large fishbowl, all plans and all dreams were put on hold. All sureties no longer existed. I don’t remember all of the emotions that flooded my mind that night, but I will never forget my number. I pulled number 58, a number that virtually assured me a berth in the Army. As fate would have it, I never served, but others with my number did and some with my number died.

Those were difficult days and unless you have reached a certain age, you will never know nor will you ever understand the America with which I identify. Those much younger than me view this country through a different lens, a far cloudier prism. They will never know the real mood of America in the sixties nor will they ever know the optimism, gallantry and honor of the men I know who fought that war or who I knew prior to their deaths in that war. The views of my younger citizens have been colored by years of revisionist history and by men and women who themselves know little of that time and who care even less to learn.

Don’t misunderstand, I write neither to defend nor defame the war in Vietnam. I hold my own beliefs as to its justification or lack thereof, but this is neither the time nor space to espouse them. I write because America is once again faced with a difficult choice, a choice not too dissimilar than the one that faced us on that December day. Who we are as a people and our standing in the world is once again being tested. We have come to yet another fork in the road in our national journey and on Tuesday November 2, 2004, America will make a choice as to which path we as a nation should travel.

In my personal quest for an answer, I was reminded of a quote by Bertrand Russell, British philosopher, logician, essayist, and social critic. He wrote, “All who are not lunatics are agreed about certain things. That it is better to be alive than dead, better to be adequately fed than starved, better to be free than a slave. Many people desire those things only for themselves and their friends; they are quite content that their enemies should suffer. These people can be refuted by science: Humankind has become so much one family that we cannot insure our own prosperity except by insuring that of everyone else. If you wish to be happy yourself, you must resign yourself to seeing others also happy.”

Although I am no fan of the methods Mr. Russell’s chose to achieve his goals, his words are true. With this universal belief as my guiding point; I have made up my mind as to the road America should follow and my choice is clear. I will be voting proudly for the only man in the race who is willing to fight for the freedom of others regardless of the obstacles. I will be voting for a man who is intolerant of the suffering of others regardless of faith and will not stand idly by in comfort. I will be proudly voting for the only man in this race who holds honor, optimism and sacrifice in the pursuit of a larger good in high esteem. I will reject the cynicism of those who choose to divide us for political gain or because helping others achieve freedom is simply too costly.

I will very proudly vote to re-elect George W. Bush President of the United States!

The Mother's Milk Of Politics Has A Sour Taste

2004-10-27T14:52:00.000-04:00

Would you pay $5,000,000 to get a job that pays $158,100 a year?

If your answer to the question is no, then I would advise you not to run for the United States Senate because that is the average amount spent by winning candidates to obtain office. Am I the only one in this country who feels this is an utter waste?

For years, Congress has wrestled with campaign finance reform. Ever cognizant that their very careers hinge on the amount of money they can collect from the electorate, Congress invariably rigs the rules for incumbency and against challengers. Their latest effort, McCain Feingold, is by any measure one more failure in a long list of campaign election law. After this election cycle and the debacle with the so called 527 groups, I predict we will see yet another round of new legislation demanding new "reforms" during the next Congress. I hold little doubt that what they will come up with something just as unwieldy, undemocratic and unpredictable as their past efforts.

In my opinion, it is time for a new way of thinking based upon what is good for the voter rather than what is good for the politician. Although my libertarian bend causes me to look askance at any laws restricting money in campaigns, I feel if we must have them, then they should be simple and follow some basic common sense tenets.

Candidates for office should only be allowed to accept contributions from voters in their own electoral district and limits on those contributions should continue. The heart of my proposal would means only the people who can vote for the candidate can make contributions to his/her campaign. What better way to determine a candidate’s support from the governed? If a member of Congress could only receive financial support from his own voters, who do you think will receive that candidate’s loyalty?

A financial cap should be placed upon how much each candidate can loan to or spend on his own campaign.
"Public Service" should not be limited only to people of wealth. There are many bright and innovative people with limited resources who could perform in Congress just as well or probably better than our current crop. The best candidate isn’t always the one with the most money but you would never know this if you looked at the balance sheet of our current legislators.

All in-kind as well as direct support by other groups not headquartered within the candidate’s district and eligible to vote for the candidate should be abolished.
Why do we permit special interests groups to usurp Congress for their own benefit? I would not limit their right to lobby, but they should not be allowed to “buy” their way to legislative relief at the expense of the represented.

All contributions including in-kind efforts should be disclosed immediately after receipt and posted on the candidate’s website or in another public fashion.
Sunshine has always been the best disinfecting agent against political fraud.

Media outlets who hold government licenses to broadcast should be required to offer a limited amount air time to local, state and federal candidates for free.
If a media outlet is required to obtain licenses under the pretext that the airwaves are public, then shouldn’t they be required to do something in the public interest? The media constantly bemoans and wails against money in politics, but they remain the largest beneficiaries. If they want to claim that their main news responsibility is to inform the public, then they should put their money where their mouth is.

There should be a set campaign season and any activities related to campaigning outside of this period should be forbidden.
When do our politicians have time to work in our best interest if ninety percent of their time is taken up running for their next election? Isn’t it time they begin to earn their meager salaries?

Why Do We Encourage The Lazy To Vote?

2004-10-26T14:50:00.000-04:00

Well, it’s October. There is a welcomed, new crispness in the air, deciduous leaves are turning to colorful palettes and once again the cries from the politically motivated to register voters echoes through the hollow. Millions will be spent by both Republican and Democratic operations to register new voters and I wonder why? Why do we waste this money? Put another way, what is so great about universal suffrage?

The vast majority of Americans didn’t need Herculean efforts to show them their civic duty. They made the time to go to their local registrar’s office and signed the necessary forms to enfranchise themselves. It is a simple and easy process in most locals made even easier today by such laws as Motor Voter. Why then, do some need it handed to them on a silver plate?

If a person is too disinterested in his own rights to make the minimum effort to exercise them, then I say so be it. I am all for every concerned, well informed voter being able to vote regardless of whether or not they agree with me, but the last thing this Republic needs is an infusion of voters who are too lazy, too demanding and/or too irresponsible to take ten minutes of their time to register without special arrangements being made on their behalf.

Do you really want to trust your family’s future to the judgment of the lethargic? I know I don’t!

If Politicians Are Public Servants, Then What Are We -- Chopped Liver?

2004-10-18T14:48:00.000-04:00

I watched with growing amusement today as a candidate for political office used the argument that he had been a “public servant” most of his life and that this sacrifice on my behalf should be one of the reasons I should vote to put him in office. His speech reminded me that words have meaning and some use words to their own advantage without regard to their true connotation.

To begin, the very word “servant” implies submission. When was the last time you viewed your “public servants” at the DMV or local tax office as submissive? The word, “servant”, also denotes sacrifice. Do you honestly think that politicians and government workers sacrifice more than anyone else in working society? Are they compensated at lower levels than we are in our jobs? No, of course they are not. In fact, they are fairly paid for the service they provide or no one would work for the government.

Please don’t misunderstand what I am saying. I have no intent to use a broad brush to denigrate all politicians or government workers. Most are good, decent, hardworking people who provide a valuable service to our country and communities. What disturbs me is the claim that this accolade should be reserved only for them when in reality it describes most of our lives. Aren’t we all “public servants”?

Anyone who builds, mills, grows, sells, designs, fabricates, entertains, heals, mentors or does anything else in America today does so with the express purpose of providing the public a valuable service. In those efforts, all Americans sacrifice, all Americans submit to their customers. If they do not, they do not survive. So why should the praise associated with the phase “public servant” be reserved only for public sector workers and politicians? It shouldn’t, it belongs to all of us!

Shame? Move On!

2004-10-16T14:47:00.000-04:00

What ever happened to civil discourse?

I have never seen such anger, animosity and general incivility in my society than I do today.

Sadly, the more corrosive, the more caustic the speech, the more this society seems to embrace it, reward it. I give you rap music and what passes today for political speech as but two examples. Americans pour millions of their hard earned dollars into the careers and the pocketbooks of singers (I am being generous), who do little but denigrate women, exacerbate racial tensions, and mock the social fabric of this country. Politicians of all stripes and their supporters continue to sink lower in their verbiage. Instead of arguing issues that affect us all, they spend their time comparing their opponents to Hitler or calling them liars and the American people reward them with their votes. Why do we tolerate this debasement? What has happened to us as a people that we no longer are shocked by disgraceful behavior but we reward it and even demand it?

There was a time when a politician or businessman would have been pilloried for seducing a young man or woman in his charge. Now, it’s just about sex — move on! There was a time when a cheater would have been branded as such. Now, it’s just about competition — move on! There was a time when a foul mouth and a foul mind would have been shunned. Now, if you don’t like it—move on!

Growing up, my mother used to remind me that certain subjects were not for “polite company”. On the rare occasion that I did not heed this parental warning, both of my parents made darn sure to express to me their disapproval and, yes, their shame. Today, the very concept of “polite company” is a distant, vestigial memory and shame no longer acts as a deterrent for, in our well meaning albeit misguided efforts at diversity and inclusion, we have banished shame to the graveyard of the politically incorrect.

Webster’s American dictionary defines shame as a disturbed or painful feeling of guilt, incompetence, indecency or blameworthiness. But in a world where there is no guilt only excuses, no one is “allowed” to be tagged incompetent, indecency is in the eye of the beholder and very few are willing to accept the consequences of their own actions, this definition is no longer applicable.

Now, that is a shame!

Heading For The Labor Room

2004-10-14T14:40:00.000-04:00

Well, for better or worse, the final changes and editing have been made to Group 4 , my first novel, and it is now on its way to production. According to the publisher, I should be receiving the cover art within eight weeks and then it will be another month before publication. You can bet that I will be letting you know the exact release date as soon as I know.

While it is true that the process of writing can be lonely, few books are ever written alone. Group 4 has been no exception. The list of people who supported me, encouraged me, prodded me and challenged me during my journey is a long one. The space here is simply too short and my skills far too primitive to offer a proper thanks to all; however, I would be remiss if I didn’t at least mention the tip of this iceberg.

To my parents, George and Jule, and my sister, Leslie, for their unceasing support, understanding and patience, I owe a debt that can never be repaid. To Joe Evans, who pricked my conscience and memory, I offer credit for the story. To my other friends, Jim and Carol Kane, Brian Jud, Gerri Glass, and Jean and Jim Paddock, the readers on this project, you have my undying thanks for dealing with my insecurities and horrible punctuation. To Kevin Miller, editor and literary midwife, without whose bright eye this work would never have seen the light of publication, I offer my respect and friendship.

Last, but certainly not least, to my twin brother, Bill. For fifty six years he has been my best friend and business partner. Without his laughter, his intellect and his daily optimism, this book would never have been written. His faith in me is the foundation of my life and no words will ever be adequate in expressing my love and gratitude.

You're Hired

2004-10-05T14:38:00.000-04:00

Can I ask a question? How did the “government” get you your last job?

Did the President or a Congressman help write your resume? Were they holding your hand while you were calling perspective employers or standing by your side when you were knocking on endless doors? Sound silly? Well, it is. Of course, they didn't help. Whatever you have accomplished, you did on your own or with the help of family, friends or colleagues.

With this thought in mind, whenever I hear politicians claim that they “produced” jobs and that their opponent “lost” jobs, I will admit that I become frustrated. I become irritated not only with the politician who spouts such nonsense but also with voters who listen and believe this political mythology.

Although tax and economic policy are capable of creating an environment that will encourage certain industries and discourage others, the government in general and a politician in particular, does not and never has created a single job regardless of political party. Only wealth can create a job and only the private sector creates wealth. Government’s only ability is to spend money they derive from the governed and is therefore in no position to create a job. All jobs, even those within the government, are created and paid for by the private sector.

So the next time you hear any politician proudly extol his virtues as a job producer, be aware that he/she is either a fool or a liar.

Rolling In The Mud

2004-10-03T14:35:00.000-04:00

With less than a month before we Americans once again head for the ballot to elect a President, the American public has been treated to one of the most vituperative campaigns in my memory. Not even during the Watergate period have I heard such vitriol thrown around. Sounding more like unruly children on a playground than leaders of the free world, our political elites and their minions have shown themselves to be full of crass and devoid of class. Unfortunately, the candidates are not alone racing toward the verbal bottom. Our icons of the fourth estate are more than willing to roll in the mud as well.

The question is who is to blame for this degradation? Is it solely the responsibility of our “leadership” and their over eager zealots or is something more at play? I could easily single out a dozen factors and causative agents, but in truth these but nibble on the periphery of the problem. When it comes to pointing fingers, it is best we all stand in front of a mirror for I believe the American voter shares the bulk of the culpability.

Although we often bemoan the coarse nature of political dialogue and lament the lack of substance all candidates offer us, they are not to blame. We are! Like other playground children, we stand impotently on the sidelines watching the bullies, the foul mouths and the spinners play their games and we do nothing but complain.

The biggest misconception of our time is that politicians lead. They do not. They follow. Without our tacit approval, they have no power, no voice. So before you whine about how horrible and divisive our electoral process has become, we all must ask ourselves one question. What have we done today to make a change?

If the electorate truly wants civil discourse and an honest debate over real issues, we must demand it.

Save us from another blogger

2004-10-01T14:32:00.000-04:00

Though I doubt I will ever pose a problem for the likes of Mark Steyn, Glen Reynolds or Andrew Sullivan, I have decided to take a fling at this blogging thing.

Oh, and before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, I already know what you’re thinking. "Oh, give me a break! That's the last thing the world needs - another blogger." Well, you are probably right. The day is too short and the blogs too prolific for anyone to read them all and I well realize that one issued by a rank amateur offers even less appeal.

“Why make the effort, why shovel sand against the tide?” You might say. It’s a damned good question. The answer is not to be found in the head or the stars, it is in the heart and hence our lesson for today. Sometimes, it is simply more rewarding to follow your emotions rather than your head. I believe that on occasion, one should play Don Quixote and tilt at windmills. Where is it written that we should always do what we must at the expense of what we love?

America is a wonderful country, filled with remarkable people. Most of you work very hard to put food on the table. I know, because in thirty years as a restaurateur, I’ve met most of you – well almost. And during our interactions, I’ve learned a few things. One of them is that many of my neighbors, my friends and former customers simply do not spend enough time playing. Most of their lives orbit around responsibilities as they must. Because of this, personal fulfillment has become a blur in a spinning universe of clocks, cell phones, traffic jams and rushed meals. Time has become a measure of performance rather than a measure of life. I think we have it backwards or, at the very least, our priorities are off kilter.

Call me crazy, but I enjoy writing. I take pleasure in the puzzle that most call English. Now granted, this is not everyone’s idea of fun, but it is to me. I find writing relaxing even though I confess that I don't always succeed in its mastery. But, as I am about to enter the sixth decade of my life, I have decided to devote a bit more time playing. For if not now, when?

So my advice is simple but take it at your peril. Find something, some activity that makes you happy and make time for it. Life’s far too short and far too unpredictable to do otherwise. I have never once heard of a dying man wishing he could have spent one more hour at the office.