Diplomas For Sale

Photo Credit: The Diploma Store

The American system of higher education is on a rapid decline. The ongoing fall from grace is as tragic as it is unnecessary. Once the standard by which other international universities were measured by, it is now becoming the example of inadequacy and institutional underachievement. Only our superior financial and infrastructural resources are helping to inflate our academic values, but that is changing as well.

How did this descent occur? What is holding our higher education system back – preventing it from taking up residence on its once lofty perch? In a nutshell, the system is eroding from the inside out. It is imploding. The foundation upon which our education system was founded has been slowly and methodically chipped away by a relaxation of standards and a wholesale sell-out to market forces.

The intended purpose of the university system is not to fill one’s mind with facts to be regurgitated on command. Rather, it is to teach one how to think, as well as how to learn. In addition, an education should contribute to the development of both intellectual and moral excellence.

One need not look far to see that the modern university education leaves much to be desired. Although individual professors teaching at one school or another may hold high educational standards for their students, they are few and far between. Most university employees sent forth as professors are merely masquerading as such.

Ostensibly, a professor’s primary purpose of is to educate his or her students. This is written into the mission statements of the universities, and its part of the propaganda one hears from the university ambassador’s during college visits. However, one only needs to look at how the universities actually operate to see that it’s all just a hollow sales pitch. The “education” that a student actually receives is an over-hyped and diluted facsimile.

A major reason for the watering-down of education is the tenure system. To a wanna-be-professor, tenure is the goal – it means job security! To be granted tenure, a junior faculty member typically is put through a three tier review process whereby he/she is judged on their performance, over a period of five or so years, in three main areas: teaching, research and service. First, a candidate must be approved by his academic department. The department then recommends (or not) the candidate to a faculty review committee composed of senior faculty and college administrators. The final step in the process requires the approval of a high-ranking university official, typically a college dean, the university president or the board of trustees.

On paper, it looks like a thorough and well balanced system designed to separate the wheat from the chaff. In practice, it works quite differently. At most universities, especially those with research programs, junior faculty are saddled with heavy burdens. They are often assigned the most difficult teaching assignments – usually the large, introductory level classes that the senior faculty members don’t want. They must develop syllabi for these classes, prepare lectures, hold office hours, and grade large numbers of exams and reports. In addition, they can expect to be “asked” to serve on numerous academic and administrative committees. On top of that, they are required to establish a competitive research program, obtain extra-mural research funding, and train graduate students. With such an overwhelming work load, it is almost impossible to put one’s best effort into teaching. So they don’t.

Actually, they don’t have to.

Why don’t they have to devote themselves to teaching? To begin with, most senior faculty members won’t hold them to such a high standard. To do so would require that they meet the same standard themselves. Well surely the dean or board of trustees would intervene here to uphold academic standards, right? Ah…wrong. The university brass isn’t primarily interested in teaching quality. Their main interest lies in research. Actually, that is not true either. What they are really interested in is research money.

Top-notch research programs get extra-mural funding. The university itself skims money from this pot. Maybe skims is too delicate a word, shovels more be more appropriate. Universities “tax” these extramural funds at a rate of 40% to 60% on all purchases that exceed a stated nominal value. When one considers that granting agencies like the National Institute of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Energy (DOE) are awarding multi-million dollar grants, this turns out to be a nice chunk of change going into the university's pockets. Big research also attracts corporate sponsorship. This amounts to vast improvements in research infrastructure and lots of capital flowing into the university coffers.

The next time the university president claims that teaching is the priority at his college, ask him why professors with poor teaching records and lots of research dollars are being granted tenure, while those with outstanding teaching records and struggling research programs are routinely denied.

How does the university sell this piss-weak version of education to the public? That is the easy part. They give the public – in this case the students – what they want. The mantra is, “go to college, get good grades, and get a high paying job”. So that is exactly what the university gives them. And they are not shy about it either.

Whether or not a professor is actually an effective teacher or not is insignificant. The professor’s only has to look so on paper. That is, they need good teaching evaluations. In order to assure that occurs, professors have intentionally made tests easier to pass. It is quite common for a professor to hold a review session the evening before the exam, wherein he/she essentially tells the students exactly what they will be tested on. Grade inflation is also a tried and true method for assuring good evaluations. Students who take courses as non-majors are frequently graded on a different scale than majors, or they are taught a dumbed-down version of the course. Curving grades on the skew is also popular among the students.

If college education has become such a joke, why do students continue to go? The reason is that a college diploma still has some weight in the market place (probably due to the fact that high school diplomas are bigger jokes – but that is another issue). In other words, a college diploma has become a commodity. Students treat them as such, and universities sell them as such. Students flock to majors like medicine, engineering or business, not because they have a genuine interest in these subjects, but because careers in these fields have high salaries. Other majors like Philopsophy or English are deemed useless because they pay low salaries - assuming one can find a job in the first place. As such, a student is encouraged by his/her peers to shy away from these majors, unless of course one wants to become a professor and teach others to become Philosophy or English professors.

Penn State’s Smeal College of Business recently ran a public promotion campaign under the slogan, “The Next CEO: Smeal Today. Corner Office Tomorrow”. Banners bearing the slogan were draped all over campus. What message are they sending to prospective students? I think it is quite clear. A Smeal education will land you a high paying job.

It would seem to me that a supposedly well-respected institution of higher learning like Penn State would be more interested in promoting itself by touting the quality of it education or the virtues of its graduates, rather than boasting about the market value of its diplomas.

I guess that is how they set the sale price!

BioWillie Runs Off the Road

Burning the Rainforest - Photo Credit: NASA

Global warming! That seems to be the modern buzz word (or words). Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention these days has certainly heard something about this problem. While the causes of global warming may be multiform, there is an undeniable link between carbon dioxide emissions and the temperature increase. As such, most of the solutions being put forward are centered on decreasing the amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere.

Consumption of fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil are among to major industrial sources of CO2. As it now stands, fossil fuels are the major power source that keeps our economy running and helps to maintain our lavish standard of living at its current unsustainable level. One only needs a few cerebral sparks to figure out that we could reduce our CO2 output by limiting or eliminating the use of these fossils fuels. To do so would require an alternative source to take its place.

One of the most popular alternatives lies with the sprouting bio-fuels industry. In a nutshell, biofuels are essentially combustible forms of biomass-derived energy such as ethanol or bio-derived oils (biodiesel). On paper, these fuels have some advantages over fossil fuels, the main one being that they are so-called carbon neutral. That is, the CO2 released on combustion is equal to the CO2 the plants absorbed during their growth. That means - or is supposed to mean - no net carbon increase.

Sounds great! Right? Ah, not so fast Willie…


BioWillie Fuel - Photo Credit: MSNBC

In reality, biofuels are not all they are cracked-up to be. For example, biofuels are not carbon neutral. To say that they are is to ignore all the petroleum-based fertilizers used to grow the plants, it ignores the energy required to harvest plants, and the energy used to extract and process the oils. And these energy inputs are significant, as reflected in the cost of the biofuels produced.

Price competitiveness aside, one could validly argue that any additional cost of these biofuels would be more than compensated for by a decrease in carbon emissions. After all, that is one of the goals. For this reason alone, we should continue to promote their use.

Again, things are not as they appear.

A recent report in the journal Science shows that land-use changes, ironically encouraged by biofuel production, have actually resulted in an increase in carbon emissions. That’s right, an increase!

It seem fair to say that Biofuels Cause Global Warming!

As the price in the marketplace for biofuels has continued to increase, farmers have responded by converting forests and grasslands (which absorb CO2), into biofuel croplands. These biofuels “farms” absorb less CO2 than the grasses and trees they replaced, and the CO2 they do absorb will be released into the atmosphere upon combustion. And let’s not forget the CO2 released as a result of energy inputs during production. All told, it is now predicted that the so-called carbon neutral biofuels will lead to an unanticipated increase in carbon by 50%, if not more.

But that is not the whole story. Not all the source material for biofuel production is coming from newly converted forests and grasslands. Some is coming from farms that previously produced food crops. As a result, there is less food available as animal feed and food for people. And the food that is available is increasing in price to the point where it is becoming unaffordable. Just take a look at the commodities market over the last year, as the prices of soy and grains have sky-rocketed. People are going hungry and they are rioting in the streets. Most of the starvation and rioting is occurring among the poorest, who are affected the most. But I guess that is OK, as long as someone is making a profit. At least, that seems to be the standard in the west. And at least we don’t have to conserve.

Theoretically, biofuels seem like a good idea. I for one am for anything reasonable that will cut carbon emission. Realistically, biofuels are not a solution. They are like a patch or facade that simply hides the problem but does not fix it. Similarly, other alternative energy sources, like solar or wind power, also seem to have advantages. But they too have their inherent problems which I will discuss in a later blog post.

When you boil it all down, the real problem is one of gluttony and irresponsibility. I think we need to take a step back and look at ourselves in the mirror. Technology and our selfish consumptive habits got us into the energy/environmental problems we face today. Somehow, we blindly beleive that newer technologies will get us out. Experience proves they won't. What we really need to do is to begin to conserve energy, and live within our means.

So before you hop on Willie’s BioDiesel bus, make sure you know what road you are going to be driving on. Most of the roads look pretty bad. There's a good chance that Willie's Biodiesel bus is going off the road...especially if Willie is driving.

The Front Porch is Gone

Its springtime! Or nearly so. Birds have begun their annual migration - returning to their summer nesting sites. Hoping to catch some of my feathered friends on their way home, I went out bird watching. We recently had quite a bit of rain which helped to accelerate the melting of the snow. As a result, there is lots of water on the ground. Streams are overflowing, fields and meadows are temporarily masquerading as ponds. All in all, it makes for attractive stop-over points for birds, especially waterfowl and shorebirds, on their way through town.

Hoping to catch a glimpse of some migrating shorebirds, I drove through the Elk’s Club – the local country club - to get a closer look at the banks of Spring Creek. Unfortunately, luck was not with me that day. No shorebirds. Oh well…maybe next time.

Upon exiting the country club, I saw a relatively new development on the other side of Rt. 45. I decided to take a drive through and look around. The homes were HUGE, each having four or five bedrooms, and a similar number of baths. The homes were each garnished with cable TV, central air, finished basements, Jacuzzis, and natural gas fireplaces on each floor. Many even came with in-ground swimming pools in the back yard.

In all, there were about 20 or so houses, each on a lot that I estimated to be about two acres. As I was looking around, it struck me that there seemed to be something wrong or unnatural about this neighborhood. At first, I wasn’t quite sure what was awry. Then it dawned on me. The houses had no front porches. And I didn’t see any people walking around. Even more striking was the fact that there were virtually no trees, other than a few carelessly scattered saplings left by a landscaper. The houses looked really far apart and isolated.

Over the next few days, I happened by several new developments in the State College area. Although each new development had its own unique features, they were all more or less the same - big houses with tons of amenities, and no people walking around. And no front porches either. To be fair, some did have back decks, but those decks were fenced in and often were surrounded by some sort of trellis work and nifty landscaping to conceal their presence and to minimize the chances that one occupying the deck would have to interact with another person.

The more I thought about it, the more it seemed that this sort of self-imposed isolation is really the norm, rather than the exception. It seems that people nowadays are so caught up in their own lives and their own entertainment that they have lost touch with others. There is no sense of community.

My neighborhood - if that be the correct term - is no different. I live on a cul-de-sac with only about eight houses. I don’t even know the names of half of my neighbors. I have even bumped into some of them downtown and did not recognize them until my kids pointed them out to me. This is quite different from the way I grew up. As a child in the 70’s, I lived in Yeadon, a suburb of Philadelphia. We lived in a street of twin homes, with about 40 or so residences on our street. It is no exaggeration to say that I knew the names of virtually everyone who lived there. I even knew most of the people living on the adjacent streets, as well as streets clear across town where my friends or family lived. And everyone had a front porch. And they used them!

The best part about my childhood neighborhood was that people talked. Sure, sometimes it was gossip, and other times it was just shooting the breeze, but most times it was about life and families. We all knew each other intimately and cared about each other. We drank coffee together. We celebrated weddings together. We had block parties on the 4th of July when we closed the street, dragged out the grills (the old charcoal kind) and partied all day (and sometimes all night). We also were there to support each other when things were not so good. We helped neighbors mourn at funerals and supported them in their aftermath. We provided a shoulder to cry on when relationships went south. We lent financial support when people hit hard times.

Today, these kind of relationship do still exist, but they are few and far between. In most cases, the neighborhoods these days are not organic or home-grown. Most of the people living in my neighborhood, including me, were not born here, or even anywhere close by for that matter. We all came to Happy Valley from somewhere else - typically for a job. And many will pick-up and leave should a better job prospect present itself. When we retire, we will probably move out again and find someplace else to live where we don’t know anybody. After all, who needs people when we have all these fancy techno-gagdets around to distract us. Gadgets like computers, big screen TVs with 200 channels, DVD players, iPods, hot tubs, air conditioning, etc. We can order out for dinner. We can hire a landscaper to cut our grass. There is no need to go outside. We are self-isolating. Rather than building relationships, most people are more likely to have a response similar to one of these examples:

Who has time to go to Joe-what’s-his-names funeral? I never liked the bastard anyway. Besides, I have to go to work on Tuesday.

or

No, I am not going to the Jackson’s party. That dude is weird. He never says hi.

People seem content with the idea of not having to build relationships with their neighbors. And they seem equally pleased at not having to live up to the responsibilities that go with such relationships.

This is a tragedy in the making. The disintegration of community has led to many problems in our culture, such as loneliness and depression. Although we have more stuff to distract us, and more gadgets to make our lives easier, we are becoming more and more unhappy and discontented. Even worse, we are becoming disconnected from life. Divorce rates are high. Substance abuse is becoming commonplace. Our lack of respect toward each other is becoming acceptable. Rather than work our differences out, we fight or litigate. Our kids see us and they fight too. And they shoot each other and sexually assault each other. We pollute our environment like pigeons fouling their own nest. No one seems to like it, but we accept it as inevitable. Our culture is on the decline, as is our nation. If we don’t right the ship quickly, it will be dashed to bits on the rocks.

Birding in Taiwan

Black-faced Spoonbill - Photo Credit: Birding in Taiwan

I was in Taiwan in February for the Chinese New Year. I was visiting my in-laws in Kaohsiung county – where I ended up doing most of my birding, although I did manage to sneak in a field trip or two.

Finding a field guide was somewhat problematic. I read a few reviews on the web and asked around, and just about everyone recommended the "Field Guide to the Wild Birds of Taiwan" by Sen-Hsiong Wu. It is jointly published by the Taiwan Wild Bird Society and the Wild Bird Society of Japan. I picked-up a copy in Taiwan for about $30, as I was unable to find one here in the states. I am told that it is available through the ABA, but I did not check it out. Anyway, the paintings in the field guide are excellent, and the range maps are most useful. There are a few drawbacks to the book, the main one being that it is written entirely in Chinese – although the English and scientific names are given. In addition to Wu's book, I also used "A Field Guide to the Birds of Taiwan" by James Wan-fu Chang. I borrowed a copy from the Penn State library. It too is written primarily in Chinese, and the paintings are inferior to the Wu book; however, Chang gives brief habitat descriptions and status reports in English that I found helpful.

Anyway, here is a list of my observations. I grouped the observations by location, so there are some duplications.

Da Liao Training Area – This area was about a quarter mile from my mother-in-law's house in Kaohsiung county. Part of the area in used by the Taiwanese military for training, and the rest is an abandoned cemetery that has largely overtaken by grasslands and bamboo thickets. A very small pond was also present. There were also a few hardwood trees scattered about. Overall, it was about 2-3 times the size of Sunset Park in State College.

Striated Prinia
Plain Prinia
Light-vented Bulbul
Lesser Scimitar Babbler
Black-naped Monarch
Brown Shrike
Spotted-necked Dove
Artic Warbler
Grey Treepie
Brown-headed Thrush
Golden Mountain Thrush
Nutmeg Mannikin
Vinous-throated Parrotbill
Japanese White-eye
Grey-capped Woodpecker
Moorhen


Old Railroad Bridge Park, Ping Tung River – This area is a large wetlands area located in Fong Shan. It is adjacent to the Ping Tung River. Part of the area consists of a park and a baseball field and is pretty heavily used as a rec area, but the marshy portion has been set aside for the local wildlife, and is accessible by trails. It consists primarily of a few marshy ponds and riverside mudflats.

Light-vented Bulbul
Little Chinese Bittern
Grey Heron
Great Egret
Moorhen
Brown Shrike
Eurasian Tree Sparrow
Pheasant-tailed Jacana
Wood Sandpiper
Plain Prinia
Barn Swallow
Pacific Swallow
Spotted-billed Duck
Black-crowned Night Heron
House Swift
Moorhen


Dowtown Kaohsiung – We were visiting the Tzu Chi Buddhist Temple in downtown Kaohsiung. The temple was located adjacent to the Ai River. There was a small park and a river walk along the banks, so I grabbed my binoculars and took a short walk.

Eurasian Tree Sparrow
Collared Finch-billed Bulbul
Brown-headed Thrush
Light-vented Bulbul
Grey Wagtail
Pied Wagtail
Common Sandpiper
Little Ringed Plover
Asian Glossy Starling
Spotted-neck Dove


Zheng Wen River - We went up to the Black-faced Spoonbill Conservation Area in Cigu (near Tainan). The area is located at the mouth of the Zheng Wen River. Virtually the entire region is occupied by fish farms of one sort or another that are subdivided by short mud walls, much in the way that rice paddies are. Anyway, there were lots of places for birds to settle down, and lots of mudflats and shallow water for them to feed in.

Black-billed Magpie
Caspian Tern
Black-winged Stilt
Greenshank
Redshank
Kentish Plover
Green-winged Teal
Common Sandpiper
Common Snipe
Black-crowned Night Heron
Grey Heron
Great Egret
Little Egret
Intermediate Egret
Black-faced Spoonbill
Eurasian Tree Sparrow


Northeast Taiwan – We took a road trip up to the northeaster part of Taiwan to visit the Taroko Gorge and the Jhiben Hot Springs. During the trip, we stopped a number of places to eat, shop, etc. I took advantage of part of that time to do some birding.

Grey Heron
Cattle Egret
Great Egret
Little Egret
Intermediate Egret
Black-crowned Night Heron
Chinese Little Bittern
Ring-necked Pheasant
Moorhen
Common Sandpiper
Spotted-necked Dove
Eastern Turtle Dove
Red Turtle Dove
House Swift
Grey-capped Woodpecker
Lesser Skylark
Pacific Swallow
Barn Swallow
Black Drongo
Large-billed Crow
Grey-throated Minivet
Black Bulbul
Light-vented Bulbul
Styan's Bulbul
Blue Rock Thrush
Plumbeous Water Redstart
Plain Prinia
Yellow Wagtail
Pied Wagtail
Grey Wagtail
Brown Shrike
Long-tailed Shrike
Crested Mynah
Common Mynah
White-rumped Munia
Eurasian Tree Sparrow

Overall, I observed about 65 species – most of which were lifers for me. The highlight of the trip was the Black-faced Spoonbill. There were also a few disappointments. Taiwan has about 15 completely endemic species. With the exception of Styan's Bubul, just about all of them live in the mountains. On the day we were to make a trip up into the mountains, I came down with a case of rotovirus, comlete with its attending pleasantries. As such, I missed the chance to see many of the endemics, such as the Yellow Tit, Swinhoe's Pheasant and the Formosan Magpie.

Mitt Romney Has His “JFK moment”

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is currently seeking the Republican nomination for President. In today’s political climate, any Republican Presidential candidate holding out any hope of winning the election must have the support of the Evangelical Christians. The Evangelical vote is crucial because they make-up about 23% of the electorate, according to polling data from 2000 and 2004.

One would hope that, in our “modern times”, one’s religious denomination would not be a major factor in determining his/her electibility. Sadly that is not the case. This is a big problem for Mitt Romney. As you may know, Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints – otherwise known as Mormons.

Evangelical Christians have expressed great concern in sending a Mormon to the White House. Some of the so-called “concern” is based on unfamiliarity or rumors. For example, many Evangelicals (as well as the electorate at large) still associate Mormons with polygamy, despite the fact that this practice has been outlawed by the LDS church for generations. There is also a vague bias against Mormons because they come off to many people as being “weird”. However, bias of this type probably does not represent a major problem for Evangelicals. Rather, most Evangelicals base their opposition to Mormons on theological and doctrinal grounds.

In an effort to clear-up any confusion that may exist, Romney recently gave a speech at the Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University. The purpose of the speech was to dispel some of the concerns Evangelical Christians may have in electing a Mormon as President. The transcript of the speech can be found here.

On the surface, the Evangelical's opposition to Mormons may seem strange to many Americans. After all, both Evangelicals and Mormons share the belief that Jesus Christ is their Savior. Both groups believe that the Bible is the Word of God. And both share many of the same religio-political values.

So what’s the big problem with Mormons?

For starters, Evangelicals consider Mormonism to be a cult that has perverted Christian teachings. These differences are not issues of superficial importance, but concern matters of faith and doctrine, particularly as they relate to Jesus, salvation and the afterlife. Particularly troublesome to Evangelicals is the Mormon doctrine of Eternal Progression.

The doctrine of Eternal Progression can be summed up by the following LDS axiom: “As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become.” In other words, Mormons believe men can evolve (not in any Darwinian sense) into Gods.

The basic teaching of Mormonism can be summed up as follows:

Mormons believe that the cosmos is composed of innumerable planets which are ruled by countless gods who once were human like us. On one of these planets, a spirit child named Elohim was conceived. Elohim evolved into a god, and lives with his many wives on some planet near a star called Kolob. Elohim and his wives produced countless spirit children through endless rounds of Celestial sex. Two of his spirit children were Jesus and his brother Lucifer.



As part of celestial plan, earth was built and the spirit children were sent there to learn good from evil. The ambitious Lucifer wanted to take power for himself, but was overruled by a council vote in favor of Jesus. A furious Lucifer defected and took many spirit children with him and organized a revolt against the righteous, who were lead by Jesus. The spirit children who fought bravely against Lucifer and his demons were rewarded by being born into Mormon families on planet earth. To see this plan through, Elohim and one of his goddess wives took the forms of Adam and Eve – thus giving rise to the human race. To prepare the way for the appearance of Jesus on the earth, Elohim had to skedaddle back to Kolob in order to have physical relations with the Virgin Mary. Then Jesus the Mormon was born. To be honest, I am not quite sure as to the nature of these “relations” and how it worked out that Mary remained a virgin. Anyway….

Jesus then grows to adulthood, during which time he is said to have taken several wives, and by them fathering a number of children. Mormon founder, Joseph Smith, is one of his descendants. Following the crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus came to the Americas to establish the Mormon church. The records of these events were written on golden plates and buried somewhere in New York state. 400 years later, the plates were discovered by Joseph Smith, who brilliantly deciphered the plates by sticking his face in his hat and receiving a communiqué from God Himself.



According to the revelations given to Smith, a Mormon may become god-like himself by simply following a rigid set of financial and moral requirements, and by performing secret temple rituals. The rituals themselves must be carried out while wearing the Mormon underwear in order to be valid. Only then can one hope to prove their worthiness and thus become gods themselves. As gods, they can then rule over other planets and spawn new families throughout eternity.

There you have it. Anyone familiar with the beliefs of Evangelical Christians – or your everyday run-of-the-mill Christians for that matter – can clearly see where doctrinal conflicts arise with the Mormons. For Evangelicals, these differences are irresolvable. Evangelicals consider the Mormon beliefs to be downright illogical, far-fetched, and beyond ridiculous. Only one thoroughly brain-washed by a cult leader could believe such nonsense.

For starters, who in their right mind could possibly believe that we are the spawn of extra-terrestrial beings from the Kolob star system. Everyone one knows that God made Adam and Eve out of dust and spit (Gen 2:7). Adam and Eve gave birth to several sons: Cain, Able and Seth (Gen 4:1-25). Cain killed Abel. Being that there were no other unrelated women around, Cain and Seth must have had relations with their mother. That makes us the incestual spawn of our earthly (not extra-terrestrial) mother and brother, unless of course one of their unnamed sisters (Gen 5:4) was lying around. Either way, it all sounds pretty hot to me! In addition, this Kolob nonsense can be dismissed just using common sense. After all, we have all seen Spielberg’s E.T. and the pictures from the UFO crash at Roswell, and we don’t look anything like extra-terrestrials.

Moreover, no sensible person believes that God would actually reveal himself to Joseph Smith by talking through his hat. Everyone knows that the only way to communicate with God is to go out into the desert heat for 40 days and nights, eating only locusts and wild honey. When you finally become delirious and God is ready to speak to you, He will appear to you in the form of blazing shrubbery. Only then will you know that the voices you hear eminate from God Himself.

Evangelicals who know the truth are utterly astonished at what fairy tales some people actually believe. But then again, Satan is the great deceiver. After all, wasn’t it Satan who planted dinosaur bones here to dupe us into believing in Darwin? And wasn’t it Satan whose powers were the guiding force behind the Enlightenment of Europe? And wasn’t it Satan who invented the Big Bang theory of creation? Don’t people realize that astronomical theories like that can’t be true because the world is only 6,000 years old? If Satan can do these things, surely he would find no difficulty in the tricking the Mormon’s into believing their fantastical yarns.

What will the gullible believe next?

As for Mitt’s speech, I think he made a good delivery. He manufactured his “JFK moment”. But unfortunately for him, it probably won’t be enough to sway the Evangelicals. Mitt is a Mormon! Regardless of what he says he believes, underneath it all he will always be a Mormon. As such, many Evangelicals don’t even consider him to be a true Christian - like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, and Ted Haggard. And even worse, many consider him to be one of Satan's disciples. So Mitt, don't get your hopes up.



I guess my dream of seeing Donny and Maria singing Morning Side Of The Mountain at the Inaugural Ball will remain just that – a dream.

Surely Bush Supports the Troops...Or Does He?

The current war in Iraq has been going on for over five years now. Despite some setbacks after major combat operations ceased in 2003, the US military’s recent troop surge is making significant progress. That being said, there are still many Americans who are fed up with the war and would like to see it come to end sooner rather than later. Moreover, many of the Democrats and a few of the Republicans vying for their party’s respective Presidential nominations have some version of troop drawback or outright ending of the war as part of their Presidential platform.

The Bush administration’s vision of the Iraqi War is somewhat different. Obviously, the administration (and many Americans) would like to see the war come to a successful conclusion. In an effort to drum up support for the war here in the US, the administration and its supporters have resorted to a tried and true strategy – playing the patriotism card.

As an essential component of the patriotism strategy, war supporters have waved their flags, adorned their cars with bumper stickers and ribbons, arranged for photo-ops with soldiers, visited the troops in the field, resurrected the ghosts of past military heroes, and provided us with an assortment of catchy and heartwarming phrases. Perhaps the most well known of these phrases is “Support the Troops”.

As we have all know, Bush has, on multiple occasions, publicly stated his support for the troops. And I for one would like to take him at his word. However, one must bear in mind that actions speak louder than words. I think most reasonable people would agree with this axiom. That being the case, it would seem that the President has a real problem on his hands. As commander-in-chief, Bush is responsible for the actions taken by the military, including administrative decisions made by the Pentagon here on the home front. Some of those actions are downright disgraceful and reprehensible!

Military service in this country is not mandatory, as we have no laws allowing for conscription. On the contrary, service in the US military is voluntary, as it should be in all free democratic societies. Fortunately, many brave souls among us have put their personal lives on the back burner and stepped up to the plate to secure our safety and protect our national interests. We owe our soldiers a huge debt of gratitude.

Unfortunately, many of our soldiers never make it home alive. And still more come back profoundly and irreversibly changed. Many are critically wounded in the field. As a result of these injuries, many soldiers can never return to a normal life. They may be hobbled or handicapped. Many have lost limbs or their abilities to hear or see. Surely the military would want to reward these soldiers for their loyalty by providing them will top-rate health care, and making sure that these soldiers receive military benefits. Sadly, the truth is just the opposite.

Wounded soldiers are typically brought home and treated in an military medical facility, such as the Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington. To be generous, Walter Reed is a second rate facility, mostly due to inadequate funding. The facility dates to a time prior to WWII and is currently in need of a major retrofit. Anyone visiting Walter Reed should not be surprised to find out-dated equipment, paint peeling of walls and ceilings, and floors littered with mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, and stained carpets.

Soldiers who are not able to return to active duty are typically discharged from the service and sent home. However, they are sometimes treated and a vile and contemptible manner. Last month, the case of Jordan Fox came to our national attention. Fox was seriously injured in Iraq when his vehicle was blown-up by a roadside bomb. Fox was knocked unconscious, injured his back, and lost the vision in his right eye. As a result of his injuries, he was unable to fulfill his military commitment. One would think that the military would reward Fox for his loyal service and for the life-changing sacrifice he made in the name of his country. Sadly, they did not. Shortly after returning home, Fox received a letter from the military demanding that he pay back nearly $3,000 of his signing bonus. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case.

Many wounded soldiers are frequently denied benefits. According to a report in The Nation, US Army specialist Jon Town was injured while serving in Ramadi. Town was injured when a 107-millimeter rocket struck a target a few feet away from where he was standing. The rocket’s impact threw him to the ground, left shrapnel in his neck, and caused blood to spill out of his ears. As a result of his injuries, Town has struggled with deafness, memory failure and depression, and was declared not fit for combat and subsequently discharged. However, Town was surprisingly not given a discharge for his injuries. Rather, military doctors claimed his wounds were actually caused by a "personality disorder", which is considered a pre-existing condition. As such, the army was relieved of their responsibility to provide disability and medical benefits. And once again, Town’s case was not an isolated one.

Although Bush is not personally responsibile for these actions by the military, he is the commander-in-chief and it is his responsibility to stop it. If Bush really supports the troops as he claims to, he better man up and see that our military personnel are not treated like dogs in an animal shelter, and that they get the care in treatment they deserve.

America For Sale!

Over the past few weeks, I have been watching the presidential candidates of both major parties debating to win their respective party's nomination. Although I am registered as an Independent, I have a strong tendancy to lean towards those espousing conservative view points. As I do not wish to be equivocal, I am obliged to state that I hold no allegiance to those claiming to be Republicans. That is, I hold no objections to casting my ballot for any worthy Democrat.

I must say that the debates make me queasy. With the possible exceptions of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich (both of whom I respect, but do not support), none of the candidates possess the mettle to stand on principle. Candidates on both parties have their fingers up in the air - testing the direction in which the winds are blowing. Their positions on just about every issue ebb and flow with the political tide. The phrase, "I voted for it before I voted against it" is no longer the franchise of John Kerry. Sadly, it has become a cliché applicable to most politicians.

In addition to the vacillations of the candidates, the debates are lacking in substance. Many of the questions posed by the moderators are soft-balls. On those occasions when probing questions are actually asked, the candidates give nebulous and inchoate answers. Their answers are carefully crafted in such a way as to avoid defining themselves on any particular issue, while at the same time they subtly pollinate their replies with code words and dialectic phrases intelligible only to voters espousing one political philosophy or the other - but not both. In this way, the candidates make pretense of supporting each voter's position on any given issue (i.e. they talk out of both sides of their mouth).

While this sly tactic may be easily digested by the average voter who only hears what s/he wants to hear, political aficionados are not so easily fooled. One would expect - or at least hope - that the debate moderators were of this latter class. If that is the case, one would expect them to challenge the candidates to step out of the shadows and unveil themselves, but this is rarely done with any enthusiasm.

The debates are also being heavily influenced by the political agendas of the sponsoring networks. Last week's Republican debate sponsored by CNN and YouTube makes this case quite nicely. The advertised purpose of the debate was to give Republican voters a chance to cull the candidates vying for their party's nomination. Depite this, CNN compromised the debate by putting forth questions posed by several supporters of Democratic candidates. One such supporter is Keith Kerr, who is currently serving on a steering committee for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

The current front runners in the debates, despite what they say, do not offer any hope of real change. On the Democratic side, most of the talking heads are of the opinion that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. Clinton has the name recogniton, the money, and the supporting political machine to win the nomination. On the Republican side, no candidate has of yet been dubbed, but the leading contenders are Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney. Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee also has an outside chance. Among these candidates, none offers any real hope of change. Although they all promise a new direction in Washington, in reality they are all more likely to stay the course.

Certainly there are some differences. In general, the GOP candidate is likely to be more hawkish in regard to the Middle East. The Democratic candidate will likely lean more to a socialist policy in regards to issues like health care and social security. Those things aside, their is not really any hope for positive change inside the beltway because our elected officials are not faithfully representing the will of the people.

On the contrary, our representatives have prostituted themselves to the corporate agenda. They have laid their wreaths and burned their incense at the altars of tax loopholes, cheap exploitable foreign labor, economic imperialisms, international trade agreements, corporate bail-outs, and money leveraging. These issues are all sugar-coated and forced down our throats under the guise of patriotism.

I am about to give up all hope and faith in "our" country. Actually, upon reflection, I am quite suprised that I have held onto whatever vestiges of national confidence that I have blindly and desparately clung to up to the present.

It seems that virtues such as statesmanship and patriotism have become antiquated and oldfangled ideals.