John Wayne's Holster

John Wayne Hangs Up His Holster

2009-06-14T11:57:00.007-04:00

John Wayne has ridden off into the sunset!

I have decided to put this blog to rest. Since I started this blog in January of 2005, I have posted 184 blog articles (185 if you count this one). The original intent of this blog was to provide a forum for airing my views and provoking discussion on various topics, ranging from politics to culture. From that perspective, I beleive the blog was successful.

That being said, my political views have changed considerably over the past several years. I have evolved from a lower primate (card-carrying conservative republican) to something more akin to a shotgun marriage between a economic libertarian and a social liberal.

My views are still evolving.

As such, I have decided to shut down this blog, which reflected my former self and launch a new blog which will focus more on my social and environmental views and less on politics, at least on electoral politics (if that is indeed possible).

The new blog, Monkey Wrench Revival, can be found HERE.

After Forever

2009-06-03T16:17:00.008-04:00

Ozzy Osbourne

After a brief Facebook discussion with friends about Black Sabbath, I could help but post some lyrics. Here's After Forever, from Masters of Reality.

Forever After - Black Sabbath

Have you ever thought about your soul - can it be saved?
Or perhaps you think that when you're dead you just stay in your grave
Is God just a thought within your head or is he a part of you?
Is Christ just a name that you read in a book when you were in school?

When you think about death do you lose your breath or do you keep your cool?
Would you like to see the Pope on the end of a rope - do you think he's a fool?
Well I have seen the truth, yes I've seen the light and I've changed my ways
And I'll be prepared when you're lonely and scared at the end of our days

Could it be you're afraid of what your friends might say
If they knew you believe in God above?
They should realize before they criticize
that God is the only way to love

Is your mind so small that you have to fall
In with the pack wherever they run
Will you still sneer when death is near
And say they may as well worship the sun?

I think it was true it was people like you that crucified Christ
I think it is sad the opinion you had was the only one voiced
Will you be so sure when your day is near, say you don't believe?
You had the chance but you turned it down, now you can't retrieve

Perhaps you'll think before you say that God is dead and gone
Open your eyes, just realize that he's the one
The only one who can save you now from all this sin and hate
Or will you still jeer at all you hear? Yes! I think it's too late.

Student Defies Book Ban

2009-05-26T13:06:00.010-04:00

Source: Flickr.com

Saw this story while surfing - "Kid Keeping a Lending Library of Banned Books in Her Locker". This is the kind of thing that makes America great and gives me hope.

Here is an exerpt:

A school friend asked to borrow off him The Catcher in the Rye, one of the books in the banned list, and one thing led to another..." This happened a lot and my locker got to overflowing with the banned books, so I decided to put the unoccupied locker next to me to a good use. I now have 62 books in that locker, about half of what was on the list.

Full story can be found HERE

I found it odd that some of the listed books were banned, especially in light of the fact that I read several of them while a student at Monsignor Bonner High School in Drexel Hill, PA. Books such as Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, Catch-22 and Animal Farm. Several others I have read independently, including two of my favorites, A Picture of Dorian Gray and Slaughterhouse Five.

Here is a link containing a list of banned books. The list was compiled by the American Library Association, and contains some insightful commentary as to why some of the listed books are/were banned.

Stress Tests: Don’t Bank on the Results

2009-05-08T12:13:00.006-04:00

Image Source: Phil’s Favorites

Yesterday, the Federal Government released the results of so-called “stress tests (pdf). Ostensibly, the tests were designed to determine whether the nation’s largest 19 banks would be able to withstand an even deeper recession than we are presently experiencing. The results show that 10 of the 19 banks needed about $75 billion in additional capital to withstand heavier losses that would likely come if the recession worsened. The ten banks in question immediately put forward plans as to how they intend to raise the required capital, and further suggested that more bail-out money won’t be need (beyond the $700 billion already approved last year).

What, Me Worry?

Great! I suppose we can all go back to sleep now. The banks are all fine and there is nothing to worry about. Right?

Wrong?

The stress tests were lame. They are just another piece of misinformation designed to lull the public into a false sense of well-being – or complacency. For staters, as Money & Markets points out, the test results are based on a bank’s “self-evaluation - not only for loan loss estimates that can be derived from past data, but also for the future performance of trading accounts, which can be far more subjective”. And guess what else! If the banks don’t receive favorable grades, they can appeal the final results and ask for a better score.

The conditions of the tests, and the underlying assumptions upon which they were founded, were designed so that most banks would pass, and the others would have problems that could easily be addressed. According to Money & Markets, the Stress Test don’t fully consider the banks total exposure to derivates, particularly those backed by commercial real estate debts. To make matters worse, the test only assumes ONE YEAR of further decline. Moreover, that rate of GDP decline is assumed to be only 2%. Those are both bogus numbers designed to mislead. Most market forecasts are predicting a much longer recession, and the current rate of GDP decline is closer to 6%.

Martin Weiss, president of Weiss Research, Inc., conducted his own stress test, based on data provided by TheStreet.com Ratings, by the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and in first quarter financial statements. Employing more objective economic assumptions, Weiss concluded that 15 of 19 of the nation’s largest banks would FAIL. According to Weiss, “Our analysis directly contradicts the overall conclusion by the banking authorities that most bank holding companies are well capitalized.”

That’s quite a different picture!

When you look behind the curtains, the Fed’s Stress Test doesn’t really give a true picture of what could happen if things get worse. In other words, it was a farce. The results were essentially pre-determined. Increasing bank supervision seems to be a top priority for the Fed. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke basically said so himself. According to Bernanke, the purpose of the stress tests is to “provide a guide to improvements in financial supervision and regulation.” Foreshadowing this, Bernanke stated Wednesday, "We hope that the Congress will consider revising the provisions of Gramm-Leach-Bliley to help ensure that consolidated supervisors have the necessary tools and authorities to monitor and address safety and soundness concerns in all parts of an organization."

In other words, it’s a power grab! And the stress test was used to generate the results to justify it. As Texas Congressman Ron Paul stated, the tests are “propaganda”, they are “nothing more than a pretense that they can have central economic planning by manipulating money and credit through the Federal Reserve system.”

More Federal Control! Isn’t that how we got into this problem in the first place!

Moses: The Father of Fascism

2009-05-05T08:41:00.006-04:00

Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments

I read. A lot. It’s not that I have no social life, its…. OK, it’s true! I have no social life. What’s the big deal anyway. Back to my point. I read a lot.

One of the rags I read is World Net Daily. It’s mainly a right wing conservative website. Although I consider myself more of a libertarian, I do find some if its articles and a few of its columnists (e.g. Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter) worth reading, regardless of whether I agree with them completely or not. They, particularly Ms. Coulter, are entertaining if nothing else.

In addition to the political component of the website, there are strong fundamentalist Christian overtones in much of the website content. Although I don’t particularly enjoy having someone else’s faith pushed in my face at every opportunity, I realize that there are some folks who are so inclined. In fact, I would venture a guess that most of WND’s readership consists of Christian fundamentalists. I guess that’s OK. After all, no one is forcing me to read it. I can always find another rag to read.

As you may have guessed from WND’s description as a “right-wing, fundamentalist Christian” publication, they are not big fans of President Obama. A recent article by columnist Ellis Washington even made Obama out to be a fascist.

While I have no debate with WND over this moniker for the Commander in Chief, I find it quite ironic that it is a columnist at a Christian fundamentalist publication who has bestowed this title. Out of curiosity, I went to the WND search engine and dropped the terms “Obama” and “fascist” in the query box, and several pages of articles popped up!

Image Credit: The Indypendent

If that’s not the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what is!

Perhaps the editors and columnists at WND should go back and read the Bible again before throwing the “fascist” bomb around. Even a casual reading of the Bible, which serves as the basis for fundamentalist Christianity, reveals that it is rooted in fascism. In fact, it would not be much of a stretch to say that Moses, the supposed author of the first five books of the Bible, is the Father of Fascism!

For starters, Moses lays out his plans for building and maintaining a patriarchal society in the Bible. Accordingly, a woman is considered the property of a man, and her value lies in her ability to provide valet services and to breed. As for breeding, women must be pure (i.e. virgins), so that the male does no have to deal with the possibility of cuckoldry. Women who are not "pure as the driven snow" bring shame to their families, defile their father and husband, and are thereby not worthy of life. Here are a few gems outlining Moses' chauvinistic and misogynistic view of women, with links to the actual Biblical passages for your reference.

Genesis 3:16 16 To the woman [God] said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

Genesis 16:1-2 1 Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; 2 so she said to Abram, "The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant.

Leviticus 21:9 9 If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.

Deuteronomy 21:10-13 10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Moses also condones slavery.

Exodus 21:20-2120 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

Leviticus 25:44-46 44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.

There is also the whole notion of nationalism and racial superiority inherent in the Mosaic laws. Apparently, we are to believe that God loves us all, but he just loves his “chosen people” more. He loves them so much, that He has apparently set aside land for them. All the “chosen” have to do to claim the land is to drive off its current inhabitants, enslave those who may prove useful, and kill those who resist. Not exactly my idea of peace and love, but to each his own.

Deuteronomy 14:1-2 1 You are the children of the LORD your God. Do not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead, 2 for you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the LORD has chosen you to be his treasured possession.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14 10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.

Exodus 23:31-33 31 "I will establish your borders from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the desert to the River. I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you. 32 Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods. 33 Do not let them live in your land, or they will cause you to sin against me.

With these examples in mind, examples which are drawn from the texts upon which fundamentalist Christianity is rooted, the zealots at WND should be careful of just who they are calling fascists. But as the old saying goes, it apparently “takes one to know one”.

Easter is a Pagan Holiday

2009-04-20T19:59:00.015-04:00

The Sun of God

Two weekends ago, many Americans celebrated the Easter holiday by coloring eggs, hunting for easter eggs, and awaiting the arrival of the Easter Bunny. In addition to these festivities, Easter also signifies the arrival of spring. All in all, it makes for a joyful holiday.

For others, Easter is an exalted religious holiday signifying the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the promise of eternal salvation.

To each his own, I suppose. Or perhaps not...

Many self-righteous religious folks despise the fact that the Easter holiday has a secular dimension. They carp about the way “their” solemn holiday has been hijacked and desecrated by the godless heathen. They yammer that the secular traditions are nothing more than unadulterated pagan rituals.

Perhaps they are right! However, what they fail to recognize is that they too are celebrating a pagan ritual. Their so-called Christian rituals have been carefully primped and preened, thus concealing their pagan origins behind the pretext that they were heavenly ordained. In fact, the whole of Christianity, from the Immaculate Conception to the Resurrection, is all drawn from mythology and astrology. Christianity (and Judaism for that matter) is essentially a rehash or repackaging of the same allegorical traditions that have formed the centerpieces of various cultures for millennia.

It is even fair to say that Jesus Christ as a historical person probably never existed! After all, despite the suppossed importance of the Christ character in the first century, and the fuss he is said to have created for both the Romans and the Jewish clerics, there is no historical record of his existence. And as for the Nativity story, Christ’s ministry, the Passion, the Resurrection, the Ascension, etc, it’s all been done before by various other sun gods and other deities, such as Dionysius (Greece), Horus (Egypt), Mithra (Persia), Zoroaster (Persia), and Krishna (India) - just to name a few. The elements of their stories are all similar and share a number of common themes.

These pagan mythologies were co-opted by the Romans, repackaged, and sold to the early pagan communities as the Jesus story in order to unify the empire under a common or shared mythology. Read the stories of any one of these pagan gods and you will find that they were all sons (suns) of god, their births were announced by star, they were born of a virgin, they were miracle workers and healers, they were crucified, resurrected and returned to heaven, they were memorialized in a sacred cannibalistic ritual involving consumption of their body and blood, etc, etc. On top of all that, their births and deaths coincide with the astrological calendar to occur around the time of the spring equinox and the winter solstice.

There is nothing new or unique in Christianity!

In addition to all the astrological tie-ins, the stories presented in the gospels are beyond credible. Walking on water, raising of the dead, turning water into wine, feeding thousands with a few loaves and fishes, etc. No one in their right mind could believe such yarns. Some of the miracles themselves even contradict what is written in the bible itself. For example, Jesus is supposedly descended from the Royal House of David. The genealogy given in the gospels (Matthew 1:1–17) traces his lineage from David through his earthly father Joseph. Yet the gospel also claims that Jesus was born of a virgin (Matthew 1:16-25M). A virgin birth? Sounds like a claim made by many otherwise good girls and supported by an equal number of ostensibly pious lads.

Putting the powers of logic to work, one can readily see that these two passages, which are from the same gospel account, are contradictory. Either Joseph sired Christ, keeping the line of descent from the Royal House of David intact, or he didn’t. Christianity maintains the veracity of the virgin birth. That means that no member of the “royal swim team” made its way up the immaculate fallopian tubes. Therefore, Joseph can not be the father, and that there is no royal blood flowing through Christ’s veins. And no post-facto fulfillment of vague Old Testament prophesies (see Psalms 89:3-4).

When you boil it all down, Christ is rendered into nothing more than the latest version of the ever-morphing, new and improved, sun god. The supposed documented aspects of Christ’s life and times that are contained within the various gospel accounts are nothing more that fraudulent histories retrofitted onto a concocted fairytale. His alleged life story is just an allegory to describe the movement of the constellations and the precession of the equinoxes. As Acharya S suggests, a more appropriate title for Christ would be the Solar Avatar of the Age of Pices.

Some Impressions of Dubai

2009-03-18T18:00:00.004-04:00

Burj Al Arab
Photo Credit: Kellogg, NWU

I spent the first week of March in Dubai (UAE) visiting friends, watching birds (see the report here), and checking out the business climate. Due to my dress and accent, it was fairly obvious to most people that I was American. While a few people did give me the fish eye, I found the majority of people in Dubai to be warm and friendly. The presence of a large ex-pat population was undoubtedly a factor. However, even among Emiratis, my family and I felt welcomed.

Economic Growth

On the surface, Dubai has a thriving economy. It has enjoyed one of the highest levels of GDP growth in the world of the last several years. From a western perspective, one would conclude that the standard of living there surpasses that in the US – at least economically. The average price of a home there is comparable to that here in the states. Most families have two vehicles. And the average annual income is about the same. However, there are no income taxes in Dubai! Thus, the people get much more benefit from the fruits of their labor.

As far as personal freedoms go, Emiratis enjoy less freedom than we do here in the US, although I would not call it oppressive. For starters, there is no democratic electoral system. Each of the seven emirates is ruled by a Sheik whose power is hereditary. The Sheiks, in turn, are subservient to the Sheik of Abu Dhabi, the capital of the UAE. All laws are reviewed by a Supreme Council composed of the seven ruling sheiks and a appointed Council of Ministers. All the emirates have both secular and Sharia (Islamic) law for civil, criminal, and high courts. Islam is the de facto religion. While religious freedom is tolerated, non-Islamic proselytizing is illegal.

There is also significant to overwhelming social pressure to conform to Islamic standards in dress and personal conduct. Native woman are expected to cover with an abaya and head scarf. Ex-pats and foreign nationals are expected to dress modestly, although they don’t always do so. In truth, I found it quite comforting. One does not always need to be affonted by testosterone-raging Hercules wanna-bes on their way from the gym, or college age women with the pillows of motherhood leaping out of their blouses.

So, overall, the standard of living in Dubai is fairly good, at least for those who are financially comfortable. However, one thing I found worrisome was the cultural and economic stratification that is developing. As it turns out, most of the lower paying labor and social service jobs in Dubai are not provided by Emiratis. They are provided by foreign nationals - mostly from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and China. Go to any hotel, restaurant, or construction site, and you will be hard pressed to find an Emirati among the ranks. This is particularly true in the construction industry. Like all capitalist societies, the upper class extracts its comforts and pleasures off of the sweat of the exploited classes. (OMG, I sound like a communist!)

Construction Boom

Burj Dubai Tower
Image Credit: WeeklyDrop.com

Speaking of construction, Dubai has gained a lot of notoriety over the last few years due to all its construction projects, and there are a LOT of them. Projects from the Palms to the Burj Dubai (world’s tallest building) to the Lagoons. In fact, almost everywhere you look in Dubai there are construction projects underway. From one vantage point alone, I counted over 15 construction cranes in action. Due to the worldwide economic turmoil we are experiencing right now, some projects have been put on hold; however, there is still plenty of work going on.

Where is all the money for these projects coming from? The popular opinion is that the money is coming from Dubai’s oil; however, these does not seem likely to me. Contrary to popular opinion, Dubai is not an oil country. In fact, oil revenues account for only 6% of Dubai’s economy. Most of their money comes from tourism, trade, and commerce. That leaves the investment banks. They are the ones pumping the economy full of steroids.

If one were to take a quick view around the city, this fact becomes apparent. The city is dominated by western banks (Barclay’s, Citibank, HSBC, Credit Suisse) and western/asian companies (IKEA, Armani, Sony, Toyota, McDonalds). If you were to theoretically step out of your teleporter into the heart of Dubai with out knowing where you where, you would be certain you were in the middle of New York or Hong Kong (sand, palm trees, and ever-present mosques aside). I must say that I find these developments saddening. It seems as if the entire culture and economy in Dubai is coming under the sway and control of western interests – interests whose only concern is their own self-interest.

Environmental and Social Impacts

Jumierah Palms
Image Credit: Emirates Network

This boom in the commercial development of Dubai is not without its side-effects. Of particular concern are the Palm and Lagoon projects. There are, and will be, huge social and environmental repercussions.

The Palm Projects essentially involve the creation of artificial islands off the north coast of the Dubai – in the Arabian Gulf (don’t say Persian Gulf, nobody knows what that is). Sand is dredged from the gulf or excavated from the desert to build up the islands. Then high-rise condos, hotels, and apartments are put up. Developers then charge top dollar to buyers who want beach front property. In most cases, the buyers will be greatly disappointed, as the only view they will get is the back door of their neighbors home on the adjacent “palm frond”.

There is also the issue of the environmental impact. I visited the Jumeirah Palm Island while there. I took an opportunity to walk along the “beach” in my obsessive quest to watch birds. I was disheartened by what I saw, or more correctly, didn’t see. The beaches were sterile! There were virtually no birds to be seen. No gulls patrolling the coast. No stints combing the surf line. No terns diving for fish. There was also the hint of a stagnant marsh in the air. The only creatures we did see were a few starfish - several of which were dead, and a few bivalves. With several Palm Projects still underway, the prospects for a the ecology of the coast do not look good.

Then there is the Lagoons. Similar to the Palms, the goal of the Lagoons projects is to create more artificial waterfront property around which residential communities and commercial centers will be built. We drove by one of the soon to be developed Lagoon sites on our way to visit the Ras Al Khor Wildbird Sanctuary on the Dubai Creek. The sanctuary, located at the base of the creek, is home to over 5000 Greater Flamingos and a variety of other shore birds.

Flamingos at Ras Al Khor
Photo Credit: Gulf News

While admiring the Flamingos, I began to wonder about the Lagoons Project site we passed on the way. The construction site is visible from the sanctuary – in fact, it’s just upstream. To make the project go, the banks of the creek will have to be dredged and an artificial inlet will have to be put in to let water into the soon to be build residential and commercial areas. Roads will be laid down, buildings will be put up, and eventually cars and people will move in. I can’t imagine the adverse impact this will have on the wildbird sanctuary.

And what about the land where other Lagoon projects will be undertaken? Some of it is desert, some of it is of ecological significance, but the vast majority of it is presently occupied by residential areas. In other words, there are already neighborhoods with people living in them. What will happen to these neighborhoods and their residents? Can you say eminent domain?

The government is forcing the people to move out and find other housing. While it’s true the people are being compensated, they are not getting real value for their homes. This also does not take into account the social cost of the break-up of communities that have been living in the area for generations.

The recent worldwide economic crisis has also had an unforseen impact. People who were told to move from their homes began selling furniture and stripping their houses to get cash for their doors and windows. Since some of the projects are now on hold, the government did an about face and told the people to stay in their houses – houses that now have no furniture, no doors, and no windows. Those who already moved or purchased new properties are now stuck with their original property which they can not sell.

Conclusions

Overall, Dubai is a thriving state (emirate) with a potentially bright future - provided they don't follow the example of the west. With the impending collapse of the U.S. dollar, the massive construction boom in the Emirates, along with expanding markets in India and China, it seems that the financial center of the world is moving east. Dubai will undoubtedly emerge as one of its hubs.

For Dubai to avoid repeating the mistakes of the west, it will have to learn from our history and put appropriate safeguards in place. Unfortunately, Dubai does not appear to be doing so. Rather, they are following in our footsteps. Their economy is driven by credit. While I have no statistics to determine the level of personal debt, my converstations with locals lead me to believe it is significant.

Dubai must also take steps to avoid the loss of its culture, and its supplantation by western culture. Emirati culture is getting lost behind the facade of capitalism and consumerism. They are losing touch with nature and with their identity as a people. They are quickly become like westerns clad in a dishdash and a headscarf. Just how far Emiratis have strayed from their culture can clearly been seen by making a breif trip over the border in to Oman. Hopefully, Emiratis will do more to preserve and safeguard their culture... Insha'allah.

Audit the Federal Reserve!

2009-03-18T10:25:00.007-04:00

Ron Paul’s bill, H.R. 1207, to audit the Federal Reserve continues to gain momentum. Please write to your Congressman to urge them to support the bill. Here is a link to help you find all the current members of the US House of Representative.

Below is a copy of a letter I sent to my Congressional representative. Feel free to use it, edit it, write your own, or use a template available at RonPaul.com. The important thing is that you do something to get your Congressional Represeantative involved on your behalf.

Here is a copy of my letter,

Dear Representative Thompson,

We are currently faced with a slew of corporate and banking failures brought on by greed, selfishness and downright deception from Wall Street. Are we letting these companies go under, as they should in a free market? Or are we propping them up, thus rewarding their failure and mismanagement? Unfortunately, we are propping them up by bailing them out.

Where is the money for the bail-out coming from? The Fed simply sits back, makes a few key stokes on a computer, and literally creates money out of thin air. They then give this money to bad companies, and charge the principle and interest to ordinary people like the citizens of Centre County, effectively putting us and our children in perpetual debt. In the meanwhile, the bankers at the Fed are raking in profits on interest payments - on money they created from nothing. As if that were not bad enough, the bail-out money is going toward the paying of bonuses to the very people whose mismanagement and greed created all the problems in the first place.

For all this, the Federal Reserve is not even accountable. Despite the rhetoric from Washington, there is little or no transparency at the Fed. We do not even know who they are lending money to, and they won’t even tell us when we ask. Nevertheless, we are expected to foot the bill. Sounds like downright highway robbery, to me. It is about time this stopped.

We need more transparency and accountability at the Fed! As citizens, we have stood by for decades an allowed ourselves to be fleeced by our government via the Federal Reserves system. You, as our elected representative, can and must help! The Federal Reserve must be audited! If you or I were in a similar position as the Fed, we would be legally required to account for every dollar that passes through our hands. Why has the Federal Reserve never been held to the same standard?

Please co-sponsor or support H.R.1207.

Sincerely,
Joseph A.Verica

Depression 2009 - How We Got Here!

2009-02-27T16:19:00.002-05:00

This short video tells you all you need to know!

Ron Paul Ponders What Would Happen If the American People Knew the Truth

2009-02-13T13:22:00.003-05:00

Ron Paul on the House Floor

What If...The American People Learn Truth?

Turbines Give Me the Wind Something Terrible

2009-02-07T21:53:00.014-05:00

Wind Turbines Are Bad for the Environment
Image Source: Keepers of the Blue Ridge

I recently came across an article on the web stating that RWE Innogy - European energy supplier - is planning on building a 960 megwatt "wind farm" in the North Sea. The "farm" will be built 40 kilometers north of the island of Juist and cover an area of sea about 150 square kilometers. Construction is slated to begin sometime next year, with an estimated completion date of 2015.

To many worshippers at the alter of Al Gore, this may seem like a great thing. After all, wind power is touted to be the next great thing in the energy field. It will supposedly free us from the use of fossil fuels. On top of all that, it is "clean", and "green". In other words, it's environmentally friendly.

Or so they say.

Although I am no big fan of oil or other fossil fuels, and we be ecstatic to see a decline in or an elimination of their use, I don't think wind energy or any of the other alternative energy sources we are being pitched are going to solve much of anything. The whole thing is just a big scam to find more ways to waste more energy. And contrary to what the Goregoyles tell you, these forms of energy are not without their environmental impacts.

The whole naming of the above mentioned facilities as "wind farms" is misleading. There is nothing pastoral about them. There are no animals, there are no barns, there is no cultivation, and there is no husbandry of any kind going on. The misnomer is really just a way to soften the reality that the facilities are production plants. Perhaps the term wind industrial complex would be more appropriate.

Besides being noisy and unattractive, wind plants pose significant problems. For starters, the energy produced by wind power can not be stored. It must be produced on demand. It is alos unreliable. Winds are higly intermittant, with daily fluctuations between 50% to 100%. If the wind is not blowing, you get no energy. And on top of all that, it is inefficient, having a capacity factor of only about 30%. This means that you need a non-wind based back-up source of energy to meet the 70% short-fall.

Wind turbines also have a negative impact on the environment. Turbines generate a lot of turbulence which can have a significant impact on local weather patterns. It is estimated that it would require about 250,000 wind turbines to meet U.S. energy needs. Such a vast array of turbines would alter wind speeds and cause a local drying of soils in their vicinity, leading to increased evaportation and thus the need for increased irrigation.

Turbulence created by wind turbines at sea causes upwelling, wherein deep ocean water is drawn up to the surface. This, in turn, drives the surface water down to replace it. The overall effect of this is to alter the temperature flow within the water, which could potentially effect currents and the resulting weather patterns they influence. In addition, the drag created by the turbines has been shown in modeled systems to shift wind currents substantially in a manner that could impact the movement of storms.

Although wind facilites have been promoted as "green", in that they generate no greenhouse gases, this in not the same as saying that they don't lead to an increase in greenhouse gases. Many of the land-based wind turbines are located on mountain ridges, where winds are typically high. The construction of the turbines themselves requires a significant amount of forest clearing (pronounced - deforestation) for the access roads and turbine pads, not to mention that needed to make space for above-ground powerlines and trenching for underground power lines. This, in turn, results in less carbon dioxide uptake by the trees that are no longer there. You do the math.

Wind plants are detrimental to wild life. Many turbines, particularly those on mountain ridges, are positioned along vital migration routes for birds. Because birds typically migrate at night, the flashing lights on the turbines act as an attactant. This results in collisions with the turbine blades, and the killing of tens of thousands of birds every year. In Northern California, the Altamont Wind Turbines alone kill up to 1,300 birds each year. Bats don't fare well either. There is also the matter of habitat fragmentation resulting from forest clearing.

Birds Don't Fare Well Near Wind Turbines
Image Source: Keepers of the Blue Ridge

When you add it all up, wind energy does not turn out to be the free lunch that its proponents make it out to be. There are significant environmental and ecological costs. There is also the matter of the economic costs due to decreased in property values and the tax increases that are required to subsidize the wind facilities, but that is another matter.

One could always make the argument that, despite these costs, we would still be better off than we are in our current situation with fossil fuels. Perhaps. But then again, perhaps not. According to a study on the Point Petre Wind Plant in Canada, the amount of carbon saved by a single turbine is canceled out by a "18 wheel truck traveling at 60 mph". This is not to say that any offset in carbon emmissions is waste of time.

The real issue is that the promotion of alternative energy sources completely misses the point. It glosses over the real problem - that we use and waste way too much energy! It is also not clear that the use of alternative energy sources will have much of a positive impact, as world energy consumption in increasing, not decreasing. Wind power and its alternative energy cousins turning out to be nothing more that supplemental energy sources. As such, they are just adding to the problem. We should really be focusing on more efficient forms of energy and, more importantly, energy conservation.

As it stands now, all this wind power stuff give me the wind something terrible.

I'm Mad As Hell and I'm Not Gonna Take It Anymore

2009-02-07T15:13:00.007-05:00

“Harold Beale” from Network (1976)

I think anyone growing up in the US in the 60’s and 70’s will recall the personality that was Dr. Timothy Leary. Leary’s famous quote, which more or less summed up his philosophy, was “turn on, tune in, and drop out”. Ostensibly, the phrase was to promote experimentation with LSD. Actually, it was aimed at encouraging people to detach themselves from the conventions of society. Many self-annointed “responsible” people dismissed Leary’s advice as the ravings of a madman. However, what these “responsible people” don’t realize is that they have plugged-in to something that is much more insidious – the corporate/government media, otherwise known as the public relations industry. Perhaps they would have been better off taking the ticket to ride.

As Noam Chomsky states in Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind, the goal of the public relations industry is “the conscious control and manipulation of the habits and opinions of the masses”, the intended purpose of which is “to maintain power structures and authority structures”. In other words, we are being brainwashed into accepting the version of reality that the ruling corporate class imposes on us. They do this so that they can continue to exploit our labor and extract our wealth. And I must say, they are quite good at it – so good, that they have us believing that it is the way things are naturally supposed to be.

Over the weekend, I rented a DVD from my local video store that satirized this quite nicely. The movie is called Network. Here is an edited summary of the movie from IMDb:

In 1975 terrorist violence is the stuff of network nightly news programming and the corporate structure of the UBS television network is changing. Meanwhile, Howard Beale, the aging UBS news anchor, has lost his once strong ratings share and so the network fires him. Beale reacts in an unexpected way… In doing so, [he] becomes a major TV icon and one of the most valuable assets to the Communications Corporation of America (CCA), the company that is gradually taking control of UBS. As a result he is given his own show as 'the mad prophet of the air-waves'. He appears live on television every week-day evening to tell the real truth to the people of America. The programme is a huge success but Beale uses his power to make startling revelations about CCA, leaving the company executives with a serious problem.

Here are a few scenes from the movie:

Harold Beale is Mad as Hell.

TV is an Illusion.

Inevitably, Beale reveals too much about the way things work, and needs to be brough in line. This is attempted by the UBS execs.

Beale Sees the Face of God - Corporations run the world.

Eventually, Beale is assassinated...

I found the movie to be both eye-opening and disturbing, not because it revealed to me anything I was not generally aware of, but rather, because the events the movie satirizes are playing out all over again in the present time. The corporate media is controlling us with a campaign of fear and disinformation. In doing so, they have paralyzed us as citizens. They trample our rights, violate our humanity, and extract our wealth. Although we may bitch and moan, we nevertheless roll-over and allow them to have their way with us. We content ourselves with the false notion that we are free, when in reality, we are not. Deep down, we know this to be true, but rarely give more that a passing thought to it. To assure that we don’t do so, the ruling class placates and appeases us with the modern equivalent of bread and circuses – endless entertainment, fantasy, drugs & alcohol, sexual license, etc. I could go on, but I think one just needs to look around to see that this is true.

I think it is time we were all "MAD AS HELL

New Hampshire Has It Right!

2009-02-03T17:20:00.009-05:00

Live Free or Die!

The secret is out! The Federal Reserve Bank is a fraud. It is neither Federal nor does it have any real reserves. It is a privately owned multinational bank operating under the neglectful oversight of the United States Treasury. The Fed loans money to the government who must then pay it back! Plus interest! Under such a set-up, there is no incentive on the part of the Fed to be fiscally responsible. To the contrary, it is in their best interest if the govt borrows and spends recklessly. This way, the Fed collects more interest. This has to stop! Under the Constitution, the power to coin money belongs soley to the government, and not to a any private enterprise. But to our government, it seems that the Constitution is "just a goddamned piece of paper".

Finally (and thankfully), people are getting fed up! The Fed creates a fiat currency out of thin air. The more they print, the less the "money" is worth. Now, our money is practically worthless. The world is starting to give up on the dollar as well. Putin is calling for the end of the dollar as the world reserve currency. China no longer wants to buy our 30-year Treasury Bills (i.e. they don't want to loan us any money to pay for our bail-outs). As a result, the Fed says they will buy the T-bills (talk about a Ponzi sheme). In the end, we the taxpayer, and our children are going to end up footing the bill for all this.

It seems that some states have had enough. New Hampshire just introduced a bill to its state legislature calling for the nullification of federal legislation and to federally assumed powers not specifically granted by Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution (remember that goddamned piece of paper Bush mentioned). The NH bill specifically calls attention to the counterfeiting scheme that the Federal Reserve bank has been running since its creation in 1913.

In essence, the bill is a clear reminder to the federal government that it could potentially be stripped of those powers that it unlawfully assumed and now forcefully impose on the states - a power grab that can be traced back to Abe Lincoln and others of his ilk.

I am not sure how much chance this bill has to pass, but I certainly think it is a step in the right direction. People need to understand the nature of the enslavement we are under by the Fed. Only when they are educated can we hope to see anything get done. I will also be interested to see how much attention the media pays to this bill.

For those interested, the full bill can be viewed here

UPDATE
Three other states - Arizona, Missouri, and Washington - have followed suit and submitted their own bills reasserting state sovereignty. The links are as follows: AZ, MO, & WA

All He Does Is Catch Touchdowns!

2009-01-31T15:18:00.009-05:00

Cris Carter

I saw this article today on ESPN about the 2009 Class of Pro Football Hall of Fame. I read through the list of the guys that got in, such as Bruce Smith, Rod Woodson, and Derrick Thomas. No real suprises there. I kept reading the list - Randall McDaniel, Bob Hayes, Ralph Wilson. Yeah, I guess those guys deserved it as well.

I continued reading... What? Is that it? Must be some mistake - some typo. Where is Cris Carter? After all, it's a no-brainer that he gets in.

I surfed around a little at other news outlets. Surely one of them got the story right.

You gotta be kidding! Carter didn't make it? THis guy clearly deserved to be in the Hall. Like the immortal Buddy Ryan said, "All he [did was] catch touchdowns". His career stats speak for themselves. He is 2nd, behind only Jerry Rice in receptions. He should have been a first ballot guy.

Here are his stats:

Reception: 1,101
Yards: 13,899
Touchdown: 130
Pro Bowls: 8

On top of all that, Chris Carter is an example of the kind of guy the NFL should be promoting. He had early troubles in personal life while a member of the Philadelphia Eagles. This eventually led to his release from the team by then Eagles coach Buddy Ryan. Carter credits Ryan with helping the turn his life around, something which Carter clearly did. He went on to have his best years as a Minnesota Viking.

Carter is a great guy and a class act. He was a great football player on top of all that. It is a joke that this guy is not already in the Hall. I am sure this will be rectified next time around.

Gun Control and Its Hidden Agenda

2008-12-12T10:47:00.005-05:00

Image Source: Patriot Underground

Here is an exerpt from a great article on the hidden agenda behind gun control by Texas Congressman, Ron Paul:

Gun control advocates tell us that removing guns from society makes us safer. If that were the case why do the worst shootings happen in gun free zones, like schools? And while accidents do happen, aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows, or military bases. It bears repeating that an armed society truly is a polite society.

The fact is that firearm technology exists. It cannot be uninvented. As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those that wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Gun control makes violence safer and more effective for the aggressive, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government.

Read the full article here

Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial: Celebrating 200 Years of Tyranny

2008-12-06T13:13:00.028-05:00

Abraham Lincoln: Tyrant
Image Source: RJ Norton

I was watching Book-TV on C-SPAN the other day when a program on President Abraham Lincoln was aired. Turns out that this coming February will mark the 200 year anniversary of the birth of our 16th President. In celebration of such, C-SPAN is showing a series of programs focusing on Lincoln and his legacy. In addition, C-SPAN will also be airing coverage of events sponsored by the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission (ALBC).

As a history buff and an American, I decided to check out some of the programs that C-SPAN and the Lincoln Bicentennial Commission were putting on. Many of these programs are available as podcasts or archived videos on the above-mentioned C-SPAN website. I also checked out the ALBC website to see what they were all about. Thus far, I have been very disappointed at what I have seen and read. The whole bicentennial celebration amounts to nothing more than a myopic, romanticized puff-piece on Old Abe. Moreover, it is a waste of our tax dollars by the ALBC.

According to the ALBC’s mission statement, their goal is to emphasize how Lincoln’s thoughts and ideals have served “as a catalyst for strengthening freedom, democracy and equal opportunity for all”.

What? The name of Lincoln in the same sentence with the words freedom and democracy? Are they kidding?

Perhaps I should not be surprised. If one where poll the average American on who they thought the best President was, one could receive a variety of answers. Many will say George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. Others may opine that it is Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Regan. A few many even suggest that it is George W. Bush (now I understand the need for reality TV programs like A&E’s Intervention). However, the most popular answer is Abraham Lincoln.

Among friends that I have questioned, Lincoln also came out at, or near, the top of the list. When I asked why they admired Lincoln so much, some said it was because he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation and freed the slaves. Others said that it was because he saved the country by preserving the Union. And others were not sure why.

I say that people don’t know much of their Lincoln history. They have apparently focused too much of Lincoln’s prosaic double-speak and over-looked what he actually did. They have also become intoxicated on Carl Sandberg’s rosewater drivel and taken it at face value. That’s like taking Johnny Cochran at his word on O.J. If one were to take an unbiased and unedited view of Lincoln’s political career, with the historical record as the back drop and the Constitution as the guide posts, one would inevitably see that most of what are taught about Lincoln is myth. In reality, Lincoln was one of the most ambitious and despotic tyrants ever to occupy the White House.

Lincoln had an agenda. It was to establish a strong central government in the United States. To be fair, the agenda did not start with Lincoln. It started with Alexander Hamilton, and was later championed by Henry Clay and the Whig Party. Their platform called for protectionist tariffs, government subsidies, and a centralized banking system.

Henry Clay

Unable to stably establish (read: impose) their policies via Constitutional means, they sought to subvert the Constitution and cram their system down the throats of Americans by whatever means necessary, including brute force. Modeling himself after Clay, Lincoln and the fledgling Republicans picked up the Whig torch and used it to ignite the conflict (Civil War) that would allow them to foist their agenda on the country. Unfortunately, they succeeded. The bailouts and fiscal problems we are experiencing today in this country are all part of Lincoln’s legacy.

To set the record straight, let us examine the legend and legacy about Lincoln and expose them for what they really are – myths.

Lincoln Preserved the Union
A popular belief among many is that Lincoln fought the Civil War to preserve the Union. On its face, this seems true. As a result of the Union victory, the United States was geographically maintained, but as a union? How can one forcefully coerce another to remain part of a federation, and simultaneously maintain that it is united? Sound more like Lincolnian double-speak to me.

The South had every right to secede, as many Northern states has contemplated before. The right to do so is clearly indicated in the Declaration of Independence. In reference to the tyrannical government of George III and England, Jefferson stated, “…when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security”.

What Lincoln actually did was prevent the South from exercising its right as a free and sovereign state to secede from a Union that was plundering them via its imposition of heavy tariffs, the proceeds of which were used to subsidize industrial interests in the North. Lincoln’s agenda was not union per se, but rather, to prevent to loss of revenue that the country extracted from the South. It was revenue the North needed to fuel its industrial economy. The South had protested these tariffs for decades, but to no avail. In his First Inaugural Address, Lincoln even threatened to use military force to collect the tariffs in the South refused. It must be pointed out that this was BEFORE the Civil War.

Lincoln as Constitutional Protector
This is perhaps the biggest myth of them all. Far from being its protector, Lincoln had a long track record of trying to subvert the Constitution so that his Centralizing Agenda could be imposed on the country. His actions during the war clearly illustrate that he respected no Constitutional bounds. There were no limits which he would not exceed in order to accomplish his goal. For those interested, I would encourage you to Google this topic or simply read one of the following books: The Real Lincoln, by Thomas DiLorenzo, Lincoln Reconsidered, by David Donald, or The South Was Right, by James Kennedy. Here are a few examples from these sources:

Lincoln invaded the South without Congressional approval.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for the duration of his Presidency. As a result, Lincoln literally had thousands of people, northerners and southerners alike, arrested and imprisoned with out trial for simply opposing his views. Those imprisoned included newspaper publishers, as well as members of Congress, such as Clement Vallandingham, who Lincoln later deported. In addition, Lincoln has several democratically elected members of the Maryland House of Delegates arrested and imprisoned, without a trial, for having secessionist sympathies.

Lincoln suppressed free elections. In 1861, Maryland was still undecided as to secession or neutrality in the war. The legislature had discussed convening in Annapolis to discuss the matter. Lincoln threatened to have the town bombarded if they did so. As such, the legislature decided to meet in Frederick. To prevent this, Lincoln ordered that only Unionist members of the legislature be allowed to attend. Members of the pro-secessions Peace Party were to be prevented from attending, by arrest if necessary. As a result, the members of the Baltimore contingent of the legislature were arrested, as were the mayor of Baltimore and Maryland Congressman Henry May. Those who made their way through and voted for the Peace Party were subject to arrest, and many had their ballots tossed.

Lincoln suppressed free speech. Lincoln declared martial law in many parts of the North, under which he had thousands of anti-war demonstrators arrested for the protesting. Moreover, Lincoln censored telegraph communications from both the North and South. Lincoln denied mail delivery to newspapers, such as New York’s Daily News, Brooklyn Eagle, Freeman’s Journal and the Journal of Commerce, which opposed his policies. Other newspapers were censored, such as the Chicago Times, Dayton Empire,Baltimore Gazette,Philadelphia Evening Journal,New Orleans Advocate,Wheeling Register, and Louisville Presbyterian, just to name a few. And several others has their offices and printing facilities destroyed by federal soldiers.

Lincoln condoned and encouraged the total war polices of his Generals, such as William T. Sherman and Phil Sheridan - who both ordered their men to confiscate, burn and pillage the private property of Southern citizens.

The list goes on…

Lincoln the Emancipator
Lincoln is often credited with fighting the Civil War to free the slaves. As the Chinese would say, this is 狗屁 (pinyin: go pi; literal: dog fart; translation: BS). The fact is that Lincoln cared very little about the issue of slavery, but he did realize the power he could wield if he appeared to be concerned. But don’t take my word for it, take Honest Abe’s words.

During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln stated, “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two…”. Throughout his Presidential campaign, Lincoln promised to uphold the Fugitive Slave Act by returning escaped slaves to their owners. Asked about what he would if emancipation became a reality, Lincoln stated on numerous occasions that he would favor colonization of slaves back to Africa, the West Indies or Central America. In his First Inaugural Address, Lincoln stated, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

What about the Emancipation Proclamation? Didn’t Lincoln intend to free the slaves with that document? Answer: No! Don’t believe me, then go and read it. In reality, the EP was nothing more that a hollow and disingenuous foray by Lincoln intended to drum up support for the then-failing Union war effort under the pretense of some noble or higher moral calling. A casual reading of the document reveals that the EP applied only to slaves in so-called rebel territories; and some states, such as Maryland, Kentucky, West Virginia and many parts of Virginia were specifically exempted. In states loyal to the Union, the EP did not apply. Even Lincoln’s own Secretary of State, William Seward, commented on the duplicity of the EP was stating, “We show our sympathy…by emancipating slaves where we can not reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”

As anyone who has the ability and willingness to look beyond the romanticized mythology surrounding Lincoln can clearly see, he was not a great President. Not even a good or mediocre one. In reality, he was a consummate politician, full of ambition and a lust for power. The ends he went to in order to attain that power and impose his toxic agenda knew no limits. As a result, he set this country on a collision course with its demise, which we are all witnessing in the flesh today.

In the simplest terms, his was a tyrant! And as the saying goes…

Sic semper tyrannis!

I'm Not Wasting My Vote This Election!

2008-10-22T12:59:00.011-04:00

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

I wasted my vote in 2004. I am ashamed to admit it, but I voted for Bush last time around. Actually, to be more precise, I voted against Kerry. I learned something very important as a result.

Don't compromise your principles!

I did! I guess I got what I paid for.

I won't make that mistake again. That's why I am voting for Chuck Baldwin.

Here is an exerpt from an article by Chuck Baldwin that sums up my feeling rather nicely.

[A] wasted vote is a vote for someone you know does not represent your own beliefs and principles. A wasted vote is a vote for someone you know will not lead the country in the way it should go. A wasted vote is a vote for the "lesser of two evils." Or, in the case of John McCain and Barack Obama, what we have is a choice between the "evil of two lessers."

Albert Einstein is credited with saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. For years now, Republicans and Democrats have been leading the country in the same basic direction: toward bigger and bigger government; more and more socialism, globalism, corporatism, and foreign interventionism; and the dismantling of constitutional liberties. Yet, voters continue to think that they are voting for "change" when they vote for a Republican or Democrat. This is truly insane!

Don't waste your vote on Obama or MaCain. Go vote for Chuck Balwin on November 4th.

Paper Is Not Money...

2008-10-22T09:14:00.009-04:00

...it’s only money because we’re forced to use it!

Here is an exerpt from a speech given by Ron Paul back in 1983. It is just as relevant today, as it was back then. You can watch a video or read the complete transcript of the speech here.

There is no other power greater than the power over money, the power to create and contract the money supply, the power to control the purchasing power of your money.

Throughout history, this has proven to be the most sought after monopolistic power of man. It has become more sophisticated over the decades and over the centuries, more sophisticated now and more international in scope than ever before. So I see the issue of power and the control over money as being something that we cannot ignore, we must address.

I believe closely associated with this is the issue of morality as well. By what moral right we have to create purchasing power out of thin air? Whether it’s done by the creation of credit or Federal Reserve notes or whether it’s the creation of SDRs on an international scope. By what right do they do this?

Hear the speech or read the transcript here.

Congress: Leadership When We Need It Most!

2008-09-19T20:45:00.011-04:00

An Empty Congress...

The United States is in the midst of its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The fall-out from the sub-prime mortagage crisis is just starting to be felt. Ripples are beginning to move through the economy.

So far, one of the country's most successful investment firms (Bear Stearns) went belly-up, as did two of the biggest names on Wall Street (Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers). Then, the country's biggest mortgages lenders (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) were nationalized. A few days later, the country's largest insurace company (AIG) had to trade 79.9% of its shares for a punitive loan from the Fed that will keep it alive just long enough for all its organs to be harvested. And two days ago, the country's oldest money market fund (The Reserve Fund) "broke the buck".

What's next?

The auto industry is not doing so hot. The Big Three automakers (General Motors, Ford and Chrysler) are already sniffing around Washington for $50 million in low-interest federal loans. Then there is the airline industry? They have not completely recovered from 9/11 and more recently have been hit hard by rising fuel costs. I suppose we will end up bailing them out too.

Of course, with all these bail-outs, the taxpayers are going to end up footing the bill.

Surely our elected leaders will step forward to stand-up for the people they claim to represent. After all, it is in difficult times such as these where America shines brightest. Isn't it?

Who will step forward? Anyone? Anyone at all?

crickets chirping...

What exactly is Congress planning on doing to help solve the economic crisis were are in? As it turns out, the Congress says that it will likely adjourn next week. Yep, their packing they are bathing suits and heading to the beach.

Harry Reid's Message to Taxpayers

When asked about the Congress' plans, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) stepped forward like the true leader he is, and boldly stated stated, "No One Knows What to Do"..."The [Banking and Financial Services Committees] is where the action is anyway."

And what are the "committes" doing about the problem? They passed the buck too. They turned it over to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke.

In other words, our elected "leaders" have turned over the responsibility for solving the biggest financial crisis since the Depression to a handful of unelected bankers whose primary loyalty lies with the Fed and its stock holders (i.e. - the guys that orchestrated the sub-prime mess in the first place).

And what do you know, Paulson and Bernanke already have a plan. Imagine that!

What is their plan, you ask? BOHICA!

Their plan is to "remove illiquid mortgage securities from companies' balance sheets." That's banker-speak for shifting the responsibility for all the bad loans to the taxpayer. That's right, we are picking up the tab yet again. And we are not talking about pocket change either. As Paulson himself said, "We're talking hundreds of billions [of dollars]". It will more likely be trillions, but then again, whose counting?

Personally, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It's the same thing all over again. All the profits these now-defunct companies made along the way where pocketed by the banks and the CEO's. Now that they coffers are empty and they have debts coming out the wazoo, they have all fled the scene. Of course, they took their severence packages and their corporate bonuses with them.

And if I haven't mentioned it already, the taxpayer has to step in and pick-up the tab. Meanwhile, the bankers/CEO's are sipping champagne on the beach somewhere. And Conress it apparently getting ready to join them on vacation.

And who said there were no real leaders left in America?

Vultures Clean-up on Wall Street

2008-09-17T21:14:00.007-04:00

Photo Credit: Safaris Pictures

Another day, another take-over by the Fed!

This time its AIG (American International Group) - the world's largest insurance company.

The Fed announced yesterday that it, "will provide a two-year loan, take 79.9 percent of the New York-based company's stock and replace its management..".

And like the script goes, the taxpayers will pick-up the tab for the loan.

The government is lending AIG the money at a rate of about 11.5 percent. According to Marco Annunziata, an analyst at UniCredit SpA, " the 'punitive' interest rate on the loan makes it extremely clear that this is not a subsidy extended to keep the company afloat but rather a stranglehold that makes AIG unviable while ensuring that its obligations will be met. This is to all extents and purposes a controlled bankruptcy"

A controlled bankruptcy? In other words, the loan will give the company just enough time to sell of its assets, most likely at fire sale prices.

Expect the regular players (Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citibank, Barclay's, etc) to be involved. They will descent on AIG like vultures on a rotting carcass.

It's Harvest Time... on Wall Street

2008-09-15T15:50:00.007-04:00

I stopped at the bank during my lunch break today. While waiting in line for a teller, I was watching the news on the flat screen TV mounted on the wall. I was hoping to catch-up on the latest develeopments in the on-going meltdown on Wall Street. To my suprise, that news was trumped by an (apparently) even BIGGER story.

O.J. is on trial!

Is this what we have come to in this country? On the heels on the largest bail-out in the history of the United States, two of Wall Streets most storied companies implode, and CNN decides to air gavel to gavel coverage of another O.J. trial. What the...

In case you missed it, one of the nations oldest investment banks - Lehman Brothers - filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Monday morning. It's the largers bankruptcy filing in US history. The firm crumpled under the weight of $60 billion in bad real estate deals.

Merrill Lynch also got caught-up in the sub-prime mortgage mess, and was bought out by Bank of America for pennies on the dollar. Bloomberg.com reports that Merrill Lynch suffered "$52.2 billion in losses and writedowns from subprime- mortgage-contaminated securities". As a result, their stock value has dropped more than 80% since January, 2007.

As if this news were not bad enough, there is more sub-prime-related trouble on Wall Street. AIG, the nations largest insurer, is scrounging for about $40 billion in capital to meet its day-to-day operating costs. CNN-Money reports that AIG has lost "nearly $18.5 billion in the past three quarters - primarily due to a plunge in the value of credit default swaps tied to subprime mortgages". Now Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan appear to be stepping forward to lend AIG money to keep them afloat.

All three of these companies are ranked by Fortune 500. In addition, AIG is a Dow Jones company. It's losses can only serve to drive the Dow further down into bear-market territory. Surely, these are reasons for investors to be worried.

However, not everyone is worried. The banks tied-in with the Fed (BofA, JPMorgan, GoldmanSachs) are dancing in the streets. For them, it's harvest time!

Not to be a conspiracy nut, but it seems odd to me that the big banks tied to the Fed have not suffered much during the sub-prime mess. It's begging to look like the unfolding of a grand scheme. Back in 2001, the Fed lowered its funding rate to 1%. The goal being to increase the money supply and encourage lending. Lending, in turn, encourages spending. This was all supposed to spark a post-9/11 boost which the country sorely needed.

With so much money now available to lend, bankers were not too picky on who they actually lent the it to - thus the sub-prime loans. The Fed-linked banks knew these loans were risky, due to the higher probability of default. They then packaged the risky loans with a few good loans and sold them off as asset-backed securities (ABS) - transferring the risk in the process. These loans were also repackaged and sold to Wall Street, who in turn sold them to investors. It was a trickled-down scheme that would have made Jack Kemp do a double-take.

As we all know by know, the bottom dropped out of the sub-prime lending scheme when the original borrower began defaulting in mass. The losses retraced their way back up the lending chain, leaving bankruptcies in its wake. Of course, the banks linked to the Fed were off the hook. They already took their money and ran. The losses suffered by other lenders, such and Freddie & Fannies, were transferred to the public in the form of tax-funded bail-outs and devaluation of the dollar. Those companies that haven't quite breathed their last, but are having trouble meeting operating costs are being bought-out at fire sale prices.

After all, it's harvest time!

The United States of America: the Land of Privatized Profits & Socialized Losses

2008-09-10T20:26:00.014-04:00

Bankers Take the Money & Run

As I am sure you all heard over the weekend, the government announced the take-over of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (hereafter, F&F). While the ultimate cost is not yet known, financial analysts estimate that is could be somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 to $500 billion.

It’s the biggest bail-out in the history of the US!

We all knew it was coming! The audacity of the move is shocking nonetheless.

You can read all about Treasury Secretary Paulson saying the move “protects” the taxpayer , or that it “puts them first”.

Sounds great! Now I can sleep at night knowing the government has come to the rescue. On second thought, maybe I should sleep with one eye open...

Here’s how the government's bail-out works. When reading this, please keep two things in mind. When they say the “government” bailed-out F&F, they don’t really mean the government. It was really the you and me - the taxpayers. And when they say the Federal Reserve Bank, be wary. If they are referring to the taking of profits, then they do actually mean the Fed; however, if they are talking about covering losses or picking-up the tab, once again they mean you and me - the taxpayers. Got it?

The Fed pumped about $100 million in capital into each company to keep them solvent. In return, they received $ 1 billion in senior preferred stock. In the process, common and preferred stock holders were essentially wiped-out.

What does all this mean? For starters, the Fed didn’t have the money to cover all the bad loans. However, that is not a problem when you hold the purse strings of the treasury and have control of the printing press. The required money was simply printed, effectively transferring the cost to the taxpayer. I guess that’s what Paulson meant when he said the deal put the taxpayer “first”.

The deal also means big profits for the Fed and its member banks, such as Citibank, Chase Manhatten, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Bankers Trust Company, National Bank of North America, and the Bank of New York.

How do they profit? That’s where the senior preferred stock comes into play. One needs to keep in mind that not all the loans F&F made were bad ones. In fact, most were good loans, with borrowers who continue to pay on time. Holding senior preferred stock means that the bankers can continue to collect the interest on these loans.

That’s right, the bankers will continue to collect the interest on the good loans! The taxpayers cover the losses for the bad loans.

When you boil it all down, the bail-out is nothing more than a socialist scheme where earnings are privatized and losses are socialized. It’s the modus operandi of the Federal Reserve System. It’s the same thing that happened in the Penn Central Railroad bail-out, the Chrysler bail-out, the Continental Illinois Bank bail-out , the Lockheed Aircraft bail-out and the New York City bail-out, just to name a few. In all these cases, the taxpayer was forced to foot the bill for the irresponsible businesses practices of corporate America.

Does that sound like free-market capitalism or democracy to you?

President Clinton Makes His Case Against McCain

2008-08-28T12:28:00.014-04:00

Photo Credit: BBC

It’s convention season again. Ho hum.

I usually don’t watch the conventions. I don’t find much substance in them. Most of the speeches are nothing more than ballyhoo, hollow platitudes, and empty promises. That being said, every once in awhile, one can actually glean something useful from a speech.

Such was the case last night, when President Clinton spoke.

Knowing that he was scheduled to speak, I decided to tune in. Despite my philosophical differences with President Clinton, as well as the Democratic Party, I had a feeling that his speech would be worth listening too. He is always an engaging speaker. As such, I decided to lend Mr. Clinton an ear.

Most of his speech, like all convention oratory, was fluff. He didn’t do much to persuade me that Obama is the "man for the job". He told us the Obama is “intelligent” and “curious”. Surely, they are admirable qualities. But sufficient for the Presidency? We were also told that Obama has superior policies on the “economy, taxes, health care, and energy”, but we weren’t told what those policies were.

Then again, convincing me to vote for Obama was not his purpose. He was the attack dog. His mission was to convince us of why we shouldn’t vote for Senator McCain.

He convinced me!

Actually, convinced is not the right word. I probably should have said that President Clinton reaffirmed my convictions. I wasn’t planning on voting for McCain anyway.

Fluff aside, there was one shinning moment in Clinton’s speech, not including the revelation that he is in love with Joe Biden. It came in the latter half of his speech, when he put the spotlight on what the Republicans have to show for the last 8 years in the White House. President Clinton stated:

American workers have given us consistently rising productivity. They've worked harder and produced more. What did they get in return? Declining wages, less than ¼ as many new jobs as in the previous eight years, smaller health care and pension benefits, rising poverty and the biggest increase in income inequality since the 1920s. American families by the millions are struggling with soaring health care costs and declining coverage. I will never forget the parents of children…who told me…that they couldn't afford health care and couldn't qualify their kids for Medicaid unless they quit work or got a divorce. Are these the family values the Republicans are so proud of? What about the military families pushed to the breaking point by unprecedented multiple deployments? What about the assault on science and the defense of torture? What about the war on unions and the unlimited favors for the well connected? What about Katrina and cronyism?

Clinton then took a short interlude and told us what a great guy Senator McCain is, before telling us he is not that great, and we shouldn’t vote for him. He then continued on his diatribe against the Republicans, stating:

[The Republicans] took us from record surpluses to an exploding national debt; from over 22 million new jobs down to 5 million; from an increase in working family incomes of $7,500 to a decline of more than $2,000; from almost 8 million Americans moving out of poverty to more than 5 and a half million falling into poverty - and millions more losing their health insurance.

Then more fluff….

I think President Clinton summed-up the immense mountain of problems that the next president will inherit. Knowing that many (but not all) of these problems were the result of Bush’s failed policies, combined with the fact that McCain is offering more of the same, is enough to convince me to vote for someone else.

But not enough to vote for Obama!

His policies are the same, only different. We are being offered a false choice between two candidates whose main interest is gaining power for their party. It's a reflection of the sad state of political affairs in this country. Both parties have their hands in the pockets of corporate America. Both are enslaved to the lobbyists and special interest groups that finance their campaigns and line their pockets. The average citizen is left out in the cold. When you boil it all down, it doesn't make much difference whom one votes for. The results will be the same, only the means will be different.

There is really not much to look forward to in November. No real hope for change.

Is Spongebob running?

Aspiring to Mediocrity

2008-08-27T16:16:00.005-04:00

My Uncle Dan taught me a lot of lessons about life – lessons that I will never forget. Sports provided the venue for a fair number of those lessons. Learning how to win gracefully, learning not to be a sore loser, giving it your all. These are things that apply to life, just as well as they do to basketball, football or even whiffle ball.

Another vital lesson I learned was the importance of challenging yourself. You will never get better if you don't challenge yourself and overcome obstacles. Or as Uncle Dan used to say, “You want to become a better player, then you have to play against people that are better than you!” This is one of the most important lessons one can learn.

When kids grow-up and venture out into the real world, they are always going to come up against people who are better than they are in one particular way or another, be it in the work place, their social life, the gym, or in the routine events of daily life. When confronted with obstacles, they can either face the challenge, or fold up their tent and go home crying for mommy. Sadly, many Americans are teaching their kids to pack it in and go home.

I saw this story a few days ago on ESPN about a 9 year old kid who was banned from pitching in his Little League games because he was better that the other kids. Apparently, the kids on other teams were not having any fun because they would always lose. When the boy’s coach told him to go out and pitch despite the ban, the opposing coach had his team walk off the field, thus forfeiting the game.

Unfortunately, this event is not an isolated one. Rather, it is a microcosm of an oft-repeated and all-too-common happening in the lives of our children. Kids are being brainwashed with the idea that winning is the only reason to engage in any activity. The competition and the striving seem to have lost their meaning. The proverbial playing field is being artificially leveled so that outcomes are more or less the same.

Competitions are frowned on in schools, because that means someone has to lose and have his/her feelings hurt. All the kids at birthday parties have to be given bags full of snacks, toys, and other party favors, otherwise someone may feel sad because they didn’t get any presents. At school talent shows, everyone gets a blue ribbon and a certificate just for walking in the door.

It's as if all inputs are equal.

I'll let you in on a little secret. THEY'RE NOT! And don't be suprised when you get out in the real world and your shortcomings smack you square on your face.

Unfortunately, our children are not being taught this lesson. They don't know how to deal with disappointment, or how to handle set-backs. Or more importantly, how to find something positive in the disappointments and set-backs that they all eventually must face. As many successful people will testify, the most valuable things they learned about themselves, or the things that spurred their greatest triumphs, were revealed to them through the mistakes they made and the defeats they suffered along their journey.

In short, our kids are being told that only winning is important. And if you can’t win, then it’s not fair, so don’t play. Its an attitude that produces spoiled, mediocre children who “grow-up” to become maladjusted and mediocre adults.

And we wonder why the US is falling behind the rest of the world.

China’s Future Path Is Hopefully Not to the West

2008-08-26T09:03:00.023-04:00

Photo Credit: Chinese-flag.org

I got together with some friends last night to watch the closing ceremonies of the Olympics. Despite the horrendous presentation offered by NBC – not to mention all the commercials – the ceremonies were quite impressive. China laid out its vision for the future.

Taken together with the Opening Ceremonies, China has successfully used the Olympic stage to announce to the world that it is an emerging world superpower with a solid foundation. It remains to be seen what direction China will go. Will they be like Japan (1964 summer games, 1972 winter games), and emerge as an economic superpower committed to democracy? Will the follow the lead of Germany (1936 summer games), and become a closed, oppressive, and nationalistic government? Or will they forge their own unique path? Time will tell…

If recent trends in China continue, I think China will emerge as a more open government. Certainly, China in the second half of the 20th century was controlled by a brutal and oppressive communist regime. But with the death of Mao in 1976, followed by the dying out of the old guard, a slow but steady transition in Chinese politics has been on-going for the last 30 years. During that time, China has transitioned from a highly centralized government-controlled economy to a thriving market-driven economy.

Certainly China still has its problems – some of which are quite serious. The Chinese people do not enjoy the same freedoms that many in the west take for granted. There are still restrictions on the press, free speech and religious practice. There are also a variety of human rights issues in regard to Tibet, treatment of religious and political prisoners, and policies toward Darfur. But some of these things are changing, albeit slowly.

Many in the west expect the changes to happen overnight, but that is not being realistic. One can’t take a country from the failed policies of communism and Mao’s cultural revolution, and expect it to adapt to free markets and an open government overnight. Russia tried it, and it was an utter failure. It doesn’t appear to be working very well in Iraq either, despite the US’s best efforts to impose it upon her. Taking note of these lessons, China must proceed cautiously – and it seems they are doing just that.

One must also keep in mind that China may not want to have an economic and political system modeled after the west. President Hu Jintao himself suggested that China will persue a different path, as he laid out the blueprint for China’s development. Speaking at the BOAO Forum for Asia, President Hu stated, “There is no ready or unchanging path and model of development that suits all countries in the world. We must explore and improve our development path and model in keeping with China's national conditions.”

While China admires the economic growth and prosperity we enjoy here in the west, she loathes our social liberalism and its attendant moral bankruptcy. As such, China will take the necessary steps to prevent these problems from becoming her problems. The closing ceremonies at the Olympics illustrated this point quite nicely. The ceremonies not only laid out China’s vision of the future, but they served as a warning to China of what she could become if she is not careful. This warning was inadvertently issued by London, the host of the 2012 summer games.

What does London (and by extension, the west) have to offer? Following China’s display of its rich cultural heritage and its ambitious roadmap for the future, London put itself on display for the world to see. First, they sent-up London mayor Boris Johnson, who staggered to the podium, with his coat unbuttoned, and his knuckles dragging on the ground, to receive the Olympic flag. Next, they rolled in a double-decker bus surrounded by androgynous pedestrians clamoring to climb on board. And what cultural icon should pop out the top of the bus? A likeness of William Shakespeare? Perhaps Issac Newton? How about Ernest Shackleton? Maybe even a Beefeater? No, these guys were apparently unavailable. The best that London could come up with was Jimmy Page – an ex-booze guzzlin’, -coke snortin’, -heroin shootin’ has-been rocker, whose favorite past-times are satan worshiping and stuffing mudshark and red snapper into women’s...(yes there)...(and also there). What does Mr. Page have to offer? Just a Whole Lotta Love - a misogynistic ode that is euphamistically about his penis. Now that’s culture! That’s class!

Jimmy Page

With this warning in mind, and thousands of other examples like it, China will not model itself after the west. I think it is more likely that China’s will develop a system more akin to that of Singapore, with a mix of economic freedom and social control.

At least I hope so!

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, 1918-2008

2008-08-07T06:59:00.017-04:00

The world suffered a great loss over the past weekend with the death of Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn. Here is an exerpt from a WashingtonTimes article on Solzhenitsyn's legacy. The full article can be found here.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who died Sunday of heart failure at age 89, was a titan in Russian literature and politics of the 20th century. He survived the Stalinist purges, World War II, eight years in the gulag, a successful battle with cancer, and communist denunciation. After spending 18 years exiled in America, he made a triumphant return to his homeland in 1994.

His life reflects the tragedy of 20th century Russia, which suffered the turmoil of wars and revolution. Sixty million people were killed by the communist Soviet regime. Some 27 million died in World War II.

Solzhenitsyn was arrested and imprisoned for eight-years in a labour camp for critical comments he made about Lenin and Stalin in a personal letter to a friend. His experience in the Soviet gulag system was documented in a number of his books, such as One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and The First Circle. However, it is for his novel The Gulag Archipelago, for which he is best known. Collectively, these works revealed to the world the horrible truth about Soviet totalitarianism.

Following his release from prison, Solzhenitsyn was forced into exile and stipped of his Soviet citizenship. He eventually took refuge in the United States, but never accepted the western lifestyle as his own. In fact, he was a rather harsh critic of west in general, and the United States in particlar. His commencement address to the Harvard class of 1978 is scathing, but paifully on target. In my opinion, it would make a nice addition to summer reading programs for all high school students.

It is no understatement to say that Solzhenitsyn contributed greatly, more so even than Reagan and Thatcher, to the collapse of the Soviet Union. I think Solzhenitsyn's role in the demise of Soviet communism is best summed up by a statement from the New York Times Russian languange blog, where one writer under the pen name Xaliavschik stated:

"[Solzhenitsyn] smashed the Soviet regime. After he published The Gulag Archipelago and displayed the underbelly of the union, nobody in the world (among thinkers and intellectuals) believed in the prospects of communism."

Solzhenitsyn was laid to rest yesterday in a Moscow monastary. Hopefully, for Russia's sake, and for her future, he will not be forgotten.

Bush - All Hat and No Cattle

2008-08-07T00:25:00.023-04:00

While watching the International version of CNN on Taiwan cable TV, I noticed that the Olympic torch has finally arrived in China. I guess that means the games are about to get underway.

Another thing I noticed is that all the coverage of the lead-up to the Olympics is focused in China's human rights record and Beijing's terrible air pollution problem. At the forefront of the protests are the issues of China's restrictive policies regarding the personal freedoms of its own people, its oppression of Tibet, its genocidal crackdown in the Darfur region, and its policy toward Sudan.

Personally, I find all this politicking before the games to be ridiculous and hypocritical. Politicians with their fingers in the wind are trying to win the favor of the electorate, and gain positive favorability ratings, both at home and abroad. President Bush even chimed in, stating:

America stands in firm opposition to China's detention of political dissidents, human rights advocates, and religious activists. We speak out for a free press, freedom of assembly, and labor rights not to antagonize China's leaders, but because trusting its people with greater freedom is the only way for China to develop its full potential. And we press for openness and justice not to impose our beliefs but to allow the Chinese people to express theirs.

Bush's talk of human rights, labor rights, and freedoms smacks of hypocrisy. That is not to say that Bush is incorrect about the state of affairs in China. In fact, he is right on target. China's record in these areas leaves much to be desired. One only has to view Amnesty International's report on China to see that.

The point is not an issue of China's human rights record. It has more to do with the fact that Bush is the one putting the spotlight on the issue. "W" needs to clean-up his own back yard before he starts pointing over the fence. Perhaps he should reference the bible that he claims to love so much before making such remarks. If Bush will recall, the gospel (Matt 7:3) states, Why do you see the speck that is in your brothers eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

Bush speaks of human rights violations in China, but thinks nothing of maintaining secret prisons, or killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq simply to gain a strong foothold on access to the regions oil reserves. Bush's suport for the tyrannical and oppressive Saudi regime is another case in point.

Bush speaks of labor rights in China, but thinks nothing of allowing US corporations to exploit the undocumented foreign workers that pour over the Mexican border every day. He thinks nothing about the allowing the importation of cheap goods produced overseas in the sweatshops of Asia.

Bush speaks of the denial of various freedoms (speech, press, religion, free association, etc) in China, yet continues to a trade with China on a balance that is heavily in their favor. Did I mention that Bush also maintains favorable relations with the Saudis?

Despite all his rhetoric, Bush is planning on attending the Olympic games. Now there's a man with convictions for you! Bush can talk the talk, but apparently he can not muster up the courage to walk the walk. The man is all hat and no cattle.

So much for all his cowboy swagger.

Bankers Need a Kick in the Fannie

2008-07-29T03:31:00.015-04:00

Today's Bankers Are Like Mr. Potter (It's a Wonderful Life)

Here in Taiwan, Typhoon Fung-Wong is blowing through town. As such, my plans of climbing Ali Shan in search of Formosan Magpies have been rained-out. So here I am in front of my computer listening to the Steve Miller Band while trying to catch-up on the news back home.

I stumbled on this report in the UK Telegraph stating that the US House of Representatives just approved a deal to bail-out the mortgage giants, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Coincidentally (or perhaps not) Steve Miller's Take the Money and Run is playing in the background.

While I am outraged at this latest example of corporate welfare, the bail-out deal does not suprise me. As an American, I have come to expect such things.

All this Freddie & Fannie stuff can be traced back to the sub-prime mortgage fraud, the bursting of the housing bubble, and the criminal actions of the banking industry.

The banking industry lowered its loan requirements so that it could lend more money (i.e. collect more interest payments) from borrowers. Apparently a borrowers ability to repay was not fully taken into accout. I suppose the slogan of the bankers was "No income, no job, no assets....No problem!" On the surface, this seems like gross negligence on the part of banks, as they would have to assume a higher risk of default by these so-called "sub-prime" borrowers. In order to make it all work, the banks transferred their risk to third parties in the form of mortgage-backed securities (MBSs), structured investment vehicles (SIVs), and other forms of packaged debts. The bankers pocketed the money.

What happened to these sub-prime loans? For starters, many of the loans were provided as adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) with long mortgage periods. With ARMs, borrowers frequently make low initial payments, but must assume a risk of a possible rise in the interest rates. Many sub-prime borrowers purchased properties with ARMs with the hope of selling those properties later at a higher price. But then, the housing bubble burst, and the value of many properties tanked. Many borrowers defaulted on their loans, leaving investors and some creditors who bought up the packaged debts on the hook.

You may be asking yourself how the bankers duped investors into buying these junk loans. They did so by packaging the junk with other "good" loans. They then colluded with securities ratings agencies to give them high ratings (A-AAA ratings). It's a process akin to making scrapple. Sweep up all the scraps, bones and cartilage, mix in a few pieces of real meat, throw in some spices for masking, grind it all up so that the individual components are indiscenrible, then sell it as USDA-approved grade A steak.

So, what to do now? With the current and looming loan defaults, someone is going to loose. Its either the investors and creditors (i.e. the big campaign contributors), or the little guy (i.e. me and you).

The Feds could let Fannie and Freddie go bankrupt, or take them over and sell off their assets. This would probably wipe-out some investors and creditors. But we must remember, they assumed that risk when they purchased the junk loans in the first place. The ripple from this would most definately shake-up the banking industry. Investors would lose faith in the solvency of banks, and would sell-off their investments and withdraw their cash. Banks that made bad investments or were poorly managed would go belly-up. In essence, this puts the banks (but not the bankers - they have already pocketed their cash and fled the scene) on the hook for irresponsible loan practices.

Alternatively, the Feds could present a "sweetheart" deal to the semi-private corporations, effectively bailing them out. Essentially, the Federal Reserve would simply turn on their printing machine, crank out a few billion extra dollars, and loan it to Freddie and Fannie at rates you and I would love to have for our own mortgages. This would give the loan giants enough money to remain solvent - at least for now. Incidentally, it would also add a few billion to the national debt, but whose counting. Oh yeah - I almost forgot to mention. This deal puts you, the taxpayer, as well as your childfren and grandchildren, on the line. You'll be making the interest payments.

Whom do you expect the government will choose?

I know. It's a stupid question. I just thought I would ask. As expected, Congress has already decided that it will be you and me.

The answer to the "What Would Jesus Do?" question would be to hold the fradulent bankers, and securites rating agencies accountable. Seize their assets and sell them off, drag them in front of a judge, and send them to prison. But Congress doesn't have the courage to do that. Doing so might hurt somebody's feelings, or, even worse, result in the loss of a campaign contribution.

And who said statesmanship was a thing of the past?

Taiwan's Betel Nut Culture

2008-07-13T10:17:00.018-04:00

Areca Palm Plantation

Every culture has its vices. Taiwan is no differnt. Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol are common past-times here. Although prevalent, these vices rank well behind betel nut chewing in popularity.

Betel nut is essentially the Asian version of chewing tocacco. The locals call it bing lang. The name betal nut is misleading, as the nut itself is not derived from the betel plant. It is actually a small nut from the areca fan-palm nut.

To prepare bing lang, the palm nut is cut down the center and packed with a concoction of limestone or coral paste.

It is not uncommon to supplement the mixture with spices or tobacco. The nut is then wrapped in a small piece of betel leaf, thus giving the treat its popular name.

What exactly is the attraction to chewing bing lang? Part of the attraction is that the nut itself. It contains a mild stimulant that has a subtle effect akin to drinking tea. Users report that ,betel makes you feel strong. Your chest feels broader, your inhalations deeper, your back straighter; and an almost electric invigoration seems to run through your bones." In my own experience, betel chewing gives a mild head rush followed by a envigorating feeling of being on the top of my game. And salivation goes into over-drive. Within a few minutes, my mouth was filled with what felt like a quart of slobber. All in all, I felt pretty content.

While masticating the fibrous bolus, I began to think, "Who ever came up with the idea to mix these odd ingedients together and chew them?", and "What is the purpose of each component?" A bit of internet research, and an interrogation of my brother-in-law who turned me on to these phenomenon lead me to the following info. The alkaloids in the nut are responsible for encouraging salivation. The slaked lime mixture aids in the extraction of the alkaloids and stimulants from the nuts. Spices are added for flavor. The betel leaves are derived from a vine related to pepper. The leaves contain aromatic compounds and are also beleived to increase salivation. Apparently "betel drooling" is part of the pleasure derived from chewing.

Knowing and experiencing this, I can understand why betel chewing is the vice of choice. In fact, it is popular in many countries in southeast asia, and many Pacific islands. One statistic I read estimated that approx. 10% of the world's population chews the nuts. That beign said, betel chewing seems even more popular in Taiwan. Just about every truck driver, construction worker, food vendor, and merchant had a dolop stuffed in his cheek. I was even more suprised to learn that areca palm is the second largest cash crop on the island. Why has betel chewing arisen to be the cultural phenomonon that it is.

Perhaps the answer lies in the laps of the betel nut girls.

To drum-up business, scantitly-clad teens are hired to hawk nuts by the roadside. To get an edge on the competion, the betel nut girls essentially display their "finer charms" in glass booths that line the main thoroughfares. It's a culture unique to Taiwan.

One website describes the betel nut girls as, "a fast-living, fast-talking and fast-selling tangle of live wires". That seems apt to me.

Bing lang does have its down side. Because of its cash draw, many locals have illegally planted the palms on steep mountain slopes. Because the tree themselves have a relatively shallow root structure, mud slides are not uncommon, especially during typhoon season. Government officals have also expressed concern that the betel nut industry gives the island a bad image. Recently, direct flights between the mainland and Taiwan have been reestablished. Nantou county officals were afraid that the so-called scandalous appearence of the betel nut girls would scare away mainland toruist. As such, they forced to girls to dress "more appropriately". One Taiwan blogger quipped that the mainlanders would be shocked to discover that Chinese woman actually have secondary sex characteristics. Other negative issues are linked to public health concerns. Bing lang chewers spatter the reddish liquid on city streets and walkways, leading to unsightly and unsanitary conditions.

The chewers themselves often have grossly discolored teeth, as well as eroded and bleeding gums. Long-term use is linked with oral cancer.

Although officials have made attempts to ban or limit the practice, it is unlikley they will succeed. Native Taiwanese and Pacific islanders have a long history of chewing betel nut that goes back thousands of years. Betel proponents argue that infering with this ancient practice would be akin to cultural prejudice. Moreover, betel chewing is a vice largely confined to blue-collar or working class peoples. Restrictions on the practice would similarly be taken as class snobbery by the legislature. Taiwan also has a fairly large areca palm lobby composed of growers and sellers. They argue that many families depend on the income gained from nut harvests and sales to meet basic needs. As such, the bing lang culture does not look like it will go away any time soon.

Taiwan - Just Like the US, Only Different

2008-07-03T05:24:00.042-04:00

Sunrise at Yushan (Jade Mountain, Taiwan)

Travelling offers one the opportunity to see how people from different countries or cultures go about life. For me, it is always interesting to veiw my own culture through the lens of another. There are always lessons to be learned.

I am currently spending the summer in Taiwan. The main purpose of the trip is to visit family members and explore opportunities of (possibly) putting down some roots here.

During my time here, as well as during several previous vists, I have made a lot of observations. Actually, I spend a great deal of my time observing, as my Mandarin language abilities leave much to be desired. But I am slogging away at it, and making (very) slow but steady progress.

The island has a long and complicated history. Taiwan has historically been inhabited by Malay and Polynesian peoples. Many other peoples have also made Taiwan their home. Mainland Chinese have emigrated to Taiwan over the years for one reason or another - typically to escape oppressive governments or to search for a better life. The Japanese ruled the island several times as well, with many Japanese settling here. As such, Taiwan has a fairly rich demographic and cultural composition. That being said, the character of the island is overwhelmingly Chinese.

In many ways, Taiwan is similar to the United States. In many more ways, it is not. I think it is fair to say that modern Taiwanese admire the western (i.e. US) lifestyle. To ensure that lifestyle, Taiwan has modeled its economic system after the US. As such, the goings-on on Wall Street and inside the beltway affect Taiwan almost as much as they affect the US itself. According to a popular local saying, "when the US get a cold, Taiwan sneezes."

Taiwan's economy is a capitalist system strongly driven by exports. Unlike the US, Taiwan enjoys a large trade surplus and has averaged about 8% real GDP growth over the past three decades. Although the government still maintains some control over the economy, the current trend is toward a hands-off or laizee faire approach. This deregulation may result in the same kind of trouble for Taiwan that the US banking industry is going through.

If the worldwide economy does experience a downturn, I think Taiwan will fare better than the US. For starters, I have seen a much stronger work ethic among the Taiwanese than I have seen in the US. In addition, the people here do not have the same "entitlement mentality" that many Americans have. In other words, the Taiwanese are not going to sit around and wait for the government to bail them out. Moreover, the Confucian family principle still remains strong here. People generally put the needs of their family and country before individual needs. It is not uncommon for two or three generations of a family to live under the same roof. And people take care of their parents and grandparents when they are old or sick, rather than shipping them out to nursing homes and such for someone else to take care of.

Overall, the country is pretty safe. Certainly, Taiwan has its share of crime, especially since marial law was lifted in the late 80's; however, compared to the US, its rate of violent crime is low. During my time here, I have rarely heard police sirens. And about the only time I have ever seen a police officer, he was standing by the roadside holding a radar gun.

Speaking of roads and radar guns, driving in Taiwan can be hazardous to your health. Surely there are road signs, traffic lights, and such, but no one seems to notice them. Red lights are taken as mere suggestions. Double yellow lines painted on the road simply indicate where the middle of the road is. Drivers are free (apparently) to drive on either side of it, or straddle it if they so choose. Making a left turn is more akin to a game of chicken or a test of wills. J. Edgar Hoover must have developed his aversion to left turns during a visit to Taiwan. Crossing the street is an adventure. Of course, crosswalks are present at most intersections, but these are not reminders for motorists that pedestrians may be about. Rather, they seem more like reminders for pedestrians to keep their eyes peeled for vehicles whose break pedals are wired directly to the horn.

Traffic concerns aside, the condition of the roads in Taiwan is quite good. With the exception of some rural or moutainous areas, the roads are maintained quite well. Traffic jams are sometimes encountered, but by New York or San Francisco standards, they are not that bad. About the only time of year one can expect major delays is during the Chinese New Year and the Double-Ten holiday.

Environmentalism is a mixed bag here. The large export industry of Taiwan is driven by industrialization. Industry in turn generates a lot of pollution, especially in the south where a great deal of industry is centered. Although Taiwan does have an EPA, it does not appear to be as effective as it should be. Industrial pollution in Taiwan is pretty bad. In Kaohsiung county, the air quality is among the worst I have ever experienced. The water quality is not great either, but I must say that it is getting better. The Love River in Kaohsiung was notoriously famous for its stench - a funk that gave Cho Dofu (aka Stinky Tofu) a run for its money. However, the government has recently done a great deal to clean the river up. That being said, reports of the governor retrieving a crab from his pocket after swimming in the river was ridiculous. And as far as the river's fetor goes, I don't think Chanel stockholders will lose sleep if someone starts marketing a Love River fragrance line.

In other areas, environmentalism is alive and well. Formosa Plastic's plans to operate a steel processing plant near the Cigu Estuary was turned down due to the potentially negative impact on both the endagered Black-faced Spoonbill and Pacific Humpback Dolphin. Recycling is also widespread in Taiwan. Just about every neighborhood has a recycling center, many of which are staffed by volunteers. And just about everything is recycled.

On the cultural front, Taiwan would seem a bit odd to the average westerner. Karaoke Bars (aka KTV Bars) are everywhere. The bars are pretty fancy as well. They are not your typical American dive with a microphone and projection screen TV. KTV bars have private rooms with plush sofas, flat screen LCD TVs, and state of the art karoake machines. They provide high-class waitress service where one can order cocktails, mixed drinks, finger foods, sushi, etc. But like the US, most people can't sing. Perhaps the private rooms is a blessing in disguise.

While we are discussing music, I should also mention that, suprisingly, the Carpenters are immensely popular here. I heard them so many times on the radio that I think their lyrics are permenantly stuck in my head. If I hear Yesterday Once More once more.... Hip Hop music is also popular here, but not the Snoop Dog or Dr. Dre variety. It's Chinese rappers apparently mimicing American hip-hop. It's a pretty good facsimile, but comes off more like Jackie Chan donning an NBA jersey, low riding pants, a backwards Yankee's hat (Chien-mien Wang is home-grown), and lots of bling. But unlike the US, Chinese character tatoos are not all that popular here.

The food in Taiwan is excellent. But don't try ordering General Tso's Chicken or Egg Foo Young. Nobody knows what that is here. When you explain to them what it is, they laugh and wonder how westerners can eat that crap. As far as variety goes, anything goes. The locals have a saying, "If it can walk, crawl, fly or swim, it can be eaten. And that is not far from the truth. As for quality, most restaurants here serve good quality, great tasting food. Even your roadside vendors sell food that is better than some five-star restaurants in the US. And to be fair, some are worse than rat-infested KFCs. Speaking of KFC, it is very popular here. So are Starbucks, McDonalds and Pizza Hut. McD's even delivers.

On the negative side, people waste a lot of food here. It is fashionable among the young professionals to entertain large groups of friends, ordering immense amounts of food that no party could hope to finish. It's sort of a way to flaunt your wealth, or at least paint the facade of wealth, to your colleagues.

Politics here is also highly polarized - even more so than the US. Part of the country wants to declare independence from mainland China. They resent everything the ghosts of Chiang Kai Shek and Chiang Ching Kuo, and the KMT party (aka China pigs) stand for. The other part of the county respects the contributions of the KMT party and wants to maintain the status quo with China. Neither can apparently see eye to eye with the other. It is not uncommon to see fist fights - actually slap fights - in Taiwan's parliament. And the woman can (and do) dish out the slaps as well as the men.

Smoking here, like mostly everywhere else, is also popular, but not nearly popular as chewing betel nut. This cultural feature is so fascinating, that it deserves its own blog article. As such, I will follow-up this post with a betel nut post.

Lastly, issues of privacy or personal space are treated much differently here than in the US. For the most part, they are not issues. Siblings often share bedrooms, not just with each other, but with their parents and/or grandparents. And there are few (if any) secrets in a Taiwanese home. Houses in the cities are typically so close, that neighbors often know the goings-on in each other's homes. It is not uncommon for neighbors or relatives to invite themselves over to your house, unannounced, late at night. When they come in, they expect to fed. And the hosts do not feel imposed upon. It's the way things go in a tight-knit community built on Confucian principles. I guess Hillary was right, it does take a village.

Personal space issues don't end at the village gate either. While visiting the Science and Technology Museum in Kaohsiung, I had (in my mind) my personal space violated. I was in the men's restroom relieving myself of several cups of green tea. Seeminly out of nowhere, a little old lady with rubber gloves and a scrub brush started cleaning the urinal to my left. When she finished, she stood next to me, apparently waiting for me to finish so she could get on with her work. I thought this was an anomoly, but it happened to me again at a restaurant a few days later.

Anyway, those are some of my observations of Taiwan. In many ways, Taiwan is like the west. In fact, it has (unfortunately) modeled itself as such. I fear that if Taiwan continues on this path, they may find their way of life eroded until they are left with the selfish, valueless, ethically bankrupt moral relativism of the west. In fact, this has already begun to happen. Cartoons in Taiwan often show crude behavior, such as public urination or abuse of women. Drug and alcohol abuse are increasing. Young people are becoming less family centered and more focused on personal happiness - at any cost.

Fortunately, Taiwan is also different. Traditional asian and family values are still strong in the culture. However, these values are being diluted in the quest for all things American. In my opinion, Taiwan would be better off to model themselves after other asian countries (Singapore comes to mind). Or better yet, create a uniquely Taiwanese identity grounded on Confucian principles.

Still Think the Iraq War Is Not About Oil?

2008-06-19T11:33:00.009-04:00

Photo Credit: INFORSE
“The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," .” ~ Dick Cheney, 1999, CEO, Halliburton.

GW Bush is an oil man. That’s his thing, although he has not been very good at it. GW is also a politician. That’s his other thing, and he hasn’t been very good at that either. Not to be deterred, Bush resorted to the so-called “double-negative” principle (i.e. two negatives resolve to a positive), combining his chosen paths in the hope of achieving something.

Fast forward to 2001. Bush got himself elected President (sorry Al, although it may seem like an inconvenient truth, GW won the election fair & square). Oil money played a big part in his campaign. For example, Exxon Mobil donated $1.2 billion, and BP Aamco donated $0.8 million. Shell Oil has also spent a few dollars on Bush over the years. As such, Bush owes them a big debt of gratitude (debt being the key word). But how to pay them back? Hmmm?

Fast forward again. This time to 2003. Shock and Awe is underway. The US has invaded Iraq.

Ostensibly, the war in Iraq was/is about a lot of things, such as: removing Saddam Hussein from power, stabilizing the region, finding WMDs, safeguarding the world from terrorism, fighting them over there instead of over here, liberating a repressed people, bringing democracy to the region, etc, etc. At some level, a few of these things are true – but not really. None seem sufficient to justify a war of the present scale.

One thing the war was not about, so we were told, was OIL!

'It has nothing to do with oil -- literally nothing.' ~ Donald Rumsfeld, Nov. 14, 2002.

In reality, no one in their right mind believed that. Of course the war was about oil (and money). Obviously, the administration could not come right out and say it. It had to maintain the façade that the war had some more noble, albeit quixotic, goal.

Now the truth comes out. Iraq's Oil Ministry has just announced that no-bid contracts are about to be offered to four Western oil companies (Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP) to service Iraq's largest fields. Well I'll be...Isn't that a coincidence. Those companies were also BIG donors to the Bush campaign.

Spokesmen for the oil industry maintain that the forthcoming efforts were designed to “help rebuild Iraq’s oil industry. An Iraqi oil ministry spokesmen added, “the no-bid contracts were a stop-gap measure to bring modern skills into the fields.”

The rationale for awarding the contracts is “ to increase oil production by half a million barrels per day”. The revenue (some of it anyway) will be used for reconstruction.

Wow. Sounds really selfless. This must be that compassionate conservatism thing we have been told to expect. The oil companies are really going to go to Iraq to help the nice people get their lives back together. Will someone please pass me a Kleenex?

How stupid do the administration and the oil people think we are? Well, I suppose the answer is quite obvious. Doesn’t anyone read their history books anymore (1, 2)? If anyone thinks the oil companies are going to go in, set things up, and then go back home, they must have just fallen off a turnip truck.

Since the discovery of oil in the Middle East (1920s), western oil companies have maintained their imperialistic presence in the region. And they made lots of money doing it. It didn’t take the Middle East long to realize they were being exploited, and shortly after WWII, they began to nationalize their oil industries, much to the dismay (and lost revenue) of the west. The west made a number of attempts to regain their access to the region’s oil. Coups were orchestrated, leaders went missing or were assassinated, and western-supported puppet regimes were established.

Then, in the 1970s, it all blew up. OPEC began price gouging, raising the price of oil 700%, to an outrageous $22 per barrel, and thereby spawning the energy crisis. Not wanting to miss the party, Saddam cashed in and nationalized Iraq’s oil industry. Saddam also had designs on gaining a foothold on the majority of the regions oil. With this aim in mind, he sought to re-annex Kuwait in the early 90’s. The west had enough…

Entrance, stage right: George W. Bush.

In a nutshell, all of our dealings with Iraq, from Desert Storm, through Shock & Awe, to today, have only really been about one thing - re-establishing western hegemony over the region’s oil.

It appears the things are proceeding according to schedule.

Patriotism: The Last Refuge of Scoundrels

2008-06-18T15:09:00.007-04:00

Photo Credit: Prairie Pictures

Woo-hoo! It’s the 4th of July! Well, almost.

As the nation prepares to celebrate its 232nd year of Independence, we must stop and remind ourselves of the great price our forefathers paid to secure the freedom we enjoy today. In most of the towns and cities across the nation, there will be flags hung out on the front porch, picnics in the back yard, parades down Main Street, and concerts & speeches in the town square. Most of the revelry will focus on our history. The founding fathers will be resurrected, and the talk will focus on patriotism.

That got me to thinking (always a dangerous thing). What exactly is patriotism? And what role does it play in our present lives?

According to Merriam-Webster, patriotism is defined as a “love for or devotion to one's country.” Sounds like something we should all aspire to.

I should think most Americans would like to claim to have at least some level of patriotism - however shallow that may be. Singing the National Anthem at the ball park is swell and everything, but I don’t think that doing so necessarily makes one patriotic. Nor is blindly supporting the actions of our government.

It seems to me that patriotism requires more than that. If one truly loves one’s country, he/she will demand that his/her country champion a higher standard, and hold it accountable when it violoates that standard. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn summed it up best, stating, “Patriotism means unqualified and unwavering love for the nation, which implies not uncritical eagerness to serve, not support for unjust claims, but frank assessment of its vices and sins, and penitence for them.

If only such men were alive today.

Instead, we have a Congress composed of careerist politicians who act as agents for corporate interests, be they national or global. Acting as such, the Congress has betrayed those who voted for them – those people whom they maintain they represent. The Executive Branch of our country is no different. Here again, corporate interests reign supreme. The Oval Office has been reduced to a lobby for moneyed interests.

This betrayal of America is evidenced by the sell-out of American workers through so-called “fair trade” treaties like NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, tax-payer funded bail-outs of both the automotive and airline industries, the bilking of investors by the cancellation of K-Mart stocks, the tax breaks giving to large corporations, the deregulation of the banking system, the surrender of our monetary system to a private interest - the Federal Reserve System, tax payer-funded government subsidies to private corporate interests. The list goes on…

And now we have this on-going war in Iraq. Certainly, one could make some argument that military action in the region was in the best interest of our National Security. Saddam was a destabilizing force in the region, and he conspired to assassinate former President Bush. Taking him out seemed prudent. And I supported the action. Well, now Saddam is gone. The lice-ridden would-be-king was dragged from his spider hole and hoisted up to the rafters like a piñata. Mission was apparently accomplished. Yet, we are still there. And still nation-building.

Maybe national security was not the real issue after all. Perhaps securing access to oil was the issue. As was creating a more stable political environment for corporate ventures. All this was and is being funded by the taxpayer, and paid for with the blood of our soldiers and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Meanwhile, the oil industry and corporate interests rake in the profits.

Going to war is no small feat. It requires a lot of support from the citizenry to get the Congress to authorize such action. So just how did the current administration garner the public support that made going to war possible?

For starters, they orchestrated a brilliant campaign that turned the notion of true patriotism on its head. The flag was dragged out, displayed prominently, and waved freely. Falconers released their trained eagles to soar over public gatherings while the band struck-up its repertoire of Sousa marches. Emotional speeches memorializing past heroes, warnings of imminent dangers, and pleas for immediate action were made against this star-spangled back-drop. It was a performance that would have made Himler envious. Anyone questioning the motives or objectives of the government was cast as unrealistic or cowardly – even a traitor. In a nutshell, the expression of true patriotism was made to seem, well - unpatriotic.

Nazi Luftwaffe Commander, Hermann Goering summed the strategy up best, stating, “Naturally the common people don’t want war…But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.”

So that's patriotism for you. Blind allegiance to one's country. Unquestioning support to official policy. Right or wrong, the best nation on earth.

Well, I love this country too much to follow the lemmings over the cliff. I consider myself as American as John Wayne and apple pie. But please, please, please, do not call me a patriot!

Father of the Year

2008-06-18T00:14:00.024-04:00

I'm Not A Real Father, But I Play One on TV

I was surfin’ the web this afternoon trying to catch up on the news. I stumbled upon a headline in the New York Daily News which quoted country music has-been Billy Ray Cyrus saying that he was “surprised” by the photo of his daughter, Miley Cyrus' (aka Hannah Montana), that recently appeared in Vanity Fair.

The provocative photo portrays the 15 year old Cyrus apparently topless and wrapped in a silk bed sheet.

Although one has come to expect images such as these depicting celebrities in suggestive poses that reveal their soft-core charms, one must not forget that Cyrus is a child. What makes it worse is that her father and her manager were on the set the day of the shoot. Proud papa Billy Ray even appears with his daughter in some of the photos.

When asked about the controversial photos during a Today Show interview, her father stated, “I wasn’t there at the time”. Referring to the subsequent publication of the sleezy photo, he added, "I was surprised when I saw it ... but, hey, that's life. Stuff happens."

He sounds real concerned, doesn’t he….

There are two questions that immediately come to mind.

First, what exactly were you surprised about Billy Ray? Annie Leibovitz was shooting the photos for crying out loud. She is well known for taking controversial photos of scantily clad celebs. She took the now famous “last photo” of John Lennon (Rolling Stone, Jan, 1981) appearing naked and clinging on to Yoko Ono, the infamous photo of a naked and pregnant Demi Moore (Vanity Fair, Aug, 1991), and more recently photos of Angelina Jolie naked in the bath tub, along with nude shots of Scarlett Johansen and Kiera Knightly (all in Vanity Fair, Feb, 2006). And in case you didn’t know, that’s the same Vanity Fair in which your daughter’s photos were to appear.

Suprise!

Second, why weren’t you on the set for the entire photo shoot? Annie Liebovitz was shooting the photos for crying out loud (see above). You were apparently there long enough to have your own photo taken in the embrace of your daughter. I guess once you got your own free promo, you didn’t have time to hang around.

Look dude, you had your shot at fame with “Achy Breaky". Your 15 minutes was up along time ago. Now you are pimping your daughter to promote yourself on your second lap around the track. You don’t seem to be the least bit worried that your 15 year old little girl is being marketed as a lap dance.

What kind of message are your trying to send her? Whatever it is, it seems like she is receiving it loud and clear! In case you didn't know, there are already revealing photos of Miley in her underwear floatin’ around the web. I also found this one. And this one. She apparently took some of them herself. And while were on the subject, you might as well know about these pics too. Here’s one of her playing tonsil hockey with a gal pal. And here’s another charming one taken after a few beers.

Sadly, Miley seems to be well on her way to becoming the next Paris Hilton, or Britney Spears. How long will it be until we get a glimpse of “Sasquatch” when she is getting out of a limo? When can we expect the first trip to the trendy and fashionable rehab? But like you said, “…hey, that's life. Stuff happens.”

So... I guess that’s okay with you, as long as it helps sell your CDs. And it looks like its working too. I just checked Amazon and I see your Greatest Hits (er, Hit) - CD has shot up the sales charts and is now ranked at a towering #139,147.

Way to go dad!!!

Celebrating 40 Years of Hypocrisy

2008-06-11T16:36:00.012-04:00

Photo Credit: Bennetton Talk

This year (2008), the Catholic Church is celebrating the 40th anniversary of the publication of Humanae vitae - a papal encyclical released by Pope Paul VI which outlined the “Church’s teaching on birth control and the sanctity of human life as properly contained within the marital relationship”.

Essentially, HV reaffirmed the Church’s position that the use of all forms of artificial birth control, such as condoms, are immoral. They justify their position on the grounds that such acts are contraceptive. According to HV, contraception is defined as, “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (HV 14). In other words, every conjugal act must be open to the possibility of creating life.

Since the time of its publication, HV has often been the center of a great deal of controversy and criticism, from both Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Many feel that the Church has no right to intrude on activities that take place between two married persons in the privacy of their own bedroom. Others feel that it is precisely these kinds of issues where the guidance of the Church is sorely needed. In recent years, secular opposition has increased in light of the spread of HIV, as well as other STDs.

I will leave the argument about condoms and the spread of AIDS for another time. That is a completely different issue that is focused on disease prevention, and more often than not occurs in a context outside the marital relationship. Arguments about contraceptives and extra-marital affairs will also not be addressed here – at least not directly. Similarly, post-conceptual means of birth control, for which there can be no moral justification, will not be discussed.

The issue that I would like to address is that of the use of artificial contraceptives within the confines of marriage. Essentially, the Church teaches that, “…each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.” (HV 11). Having said that, the Church recognizes that there is more to sex than just having kids. Accordingly, the so-called “marriage act” has a two-fold significance, the unitive significance and the procreative significance. As such, “…the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life.” (HV 12).

Okay, fair enough. The Church has clearly stated its position, and backed it up with sound principles based on natural law. Or have they?

Certainly, I think one could argue that any sexual act, even within the context of marriage, that treats the sex partner as a mere object, or a vehicle by which one obtains self-pleasure, is immoral. Similarly, a relationship that treats a spouse as an incubator for growing children should also be viewed as such. But what about a loving relationship wherein a couple wants to limit the number of children they conceive, either for economic or health reasons. Or perhaps to devote the proper amount of time to the children they already have. Is it really responsible parenthood to continue to churn out child after child after child? Or is a couple wishing to limit their family size supposed to avoid all manners of sexual relations in order to remain moral?

In order to address this problem, the Church has created “something” that, in my opinion, is a loop-hole. They have cloaked this escape chute with shallow academic sophistry. As such, they have severely contradicted themselves and exposed the inherent errors in HV’s core teaching. That “something” is Natural Family Planning, or NFP.

NFP essentially states that, “…married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth.” (HV 16). This clearly is a contradiction of HV 12, which expounds on the so-called inseparable nature of the unitive and procreative aspects of the marriage act. Moreover, by limiting sexual intercourse to naturally infertile times, one is clearly intending to avoid conception. In other words, such acts, by their very nature, are contraceptive. There are no two ways about it!

Self-righteously, the Church responds to such criticism of NFP by maintaining that it is natural, and therefore good. Because no artificial barriers are used, it is said that those practicing NFP still remain open to the possibility of conception. However, it should be pointed out that Church proponents of the NFP have long promoted its use over other artificial means by pointing out its superior effectiveness of 98-99%. Condoms and other artificial means, as have been shown by multiple studies, are less effective than NFP. Under these terms, it can be logically argued that sex with condoms or diaphragms remains more open to the possibility of conception than sex as prescribed by NFP guidelines.

Those not wishing to engage in the “nature” argument have claimed that the Church’s teachings on NFP are misunderstood. They point out that NFP is not intended for routine use by couples, but rather should only be used for “just reasons”, whatever that means.

I think it should be readily apparent to any unbiased reader that these responses from the Church are nothing more than syllogistic slights-of-hand. The Church can dress the issue up any way they like, but the intentions of both the artificial and "natural" actions are the same. The means don’t justify the end. The whole story is reminiscent of the way the Church repackaged divorce, and resold it as annulment.

That being said, I think something about the nature of the argument gets lost when statistics and numbers start get tossed around. The focus of the original argument is birth control, and whether its use is to be considered licit or illicit. If the Church wishes to remain consistent, then the answer is quite clear.

When you boil it all down, the goal of NFP, like that of condom use, is to avoid pregnancy. As such, if the use of condoms and such devices is illicit, then the practice of NFP must also be deemed illicit. If on the other hand, the Church recognizes that couples may have legitimate reasons for limiting the number of children they wish to conceive, then they must make allowance for contraceptive methods that are practiced within the confines of a loving relationship and that do not harm existing life.

Diplomas For Sale

2008-04-30T01:15:00.023-04:00

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

2008-04-24T11:48:00.012-04:00

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

2008-04-08T22:21:00.012-04:00

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.

Mitt Romney Has His “JFK moment”

2007-12-09T22:19:00.004-05:00

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?

2007-12-01T21:42:00.002-05:00

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!

2007-11-30T14:59:00.002-05:00

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.

A False Sense of Security

2007-05-31T08:19:00.003-04:00

Mycobacterium tuberculosis
Archaeolog

The Department of Homeland Security was created by President Bush following the 9/11 attacks. The goal of the Department is supposedly to protect the US against outside threats. As part of the overall strategy, one of the things that was supposed to happen was that security at the borders and on our airlines would be heightened. I guess the idea was that people deemed to be threats to American citizens would be denied access to our airlines and not be allowed to cross our borders.

While I understand that accomplishing these goals is a difficult task, I am forced to conclude that the government is not doing a very good job. Sure a few planned attacks have been thwarted and I am sure a number of dangerous people were prevented from boarding flights or entering our country. For example, a flight carrying pop icon Cat Stevens (aka Yusef Islam) was diverted to Maine and Stevens was denied entry to the US because officials realized that he was on a no-fly list. Wow, that’s awesome. A 70’s folk singer who sings about peace and love was not allowed to enter the country to explore the possibilites of signing with a Nashville-based recording company.

Now I feel safe!

This incident raised two obvious questions. First, what was Cat Stevens doing on the no-fly list, and second, if he was on the no-fly list, how in the hell did he get on a US-bound plane to begin with?

Now we have another example of Homeland Security in action. It seems that a Georgia man with a deadly antibiotic-resistant strain of tuberculosis was recently put on the no-fly list due to the possibility of infecting others. Despite this, the unidentified man was able to fly from Atlanta to Paris on May 12 for his wedding. While on his honeymoon in Rome, he was again contacted by CDC officials and told not to return to the US and to surrender to Italian health authorities for isolation and treatment.

Again, despite being on the no-fly list, the man was able to board a flight from Prauge to Montreal on May 24.

Once in Canada, he simply drove across the border at the Champlain, NY crossing.

So let’s recap. A guy with a contagious deadly disease is on the no-fly list. Yet he is able to board and fly on two trans-Atlantic flights, and then drive straight through a border checkpoint undetected. Undetected despite the fact that he had his passport checked several times.

Now I really feel safe!

One really has to wonder about the success that the Bush administration is claiming due to the fact that there has not been a major terror attack in this country since 9/11. Is it really due to the success of Homeland Security or simply because terrorists are still in the planning phase for a major attack. After all, 8 years passed between the first World Trade Center bombing masterminded by Ramzi Yousef in 1983 and the bin Laden orchestrated attack on 9/11.

Let’s be real, if a guy on a no-fly list can still get into this country when we know exactly who he is, and despite the fact that he had his passport checked at least three times, how can we be expected to believe that the government is going to be able to stop those who truly mean to do us great harm. And let’s also not forget that this guy got through a checkpoint at the Canadian border. We have guys there checking and they still can’t stop people. How many more potentially dangerous people are coming across the Mexican border where we don’t appear to be checking many people at all?

I think I am going to start sleeping with one eye open.

Is G.W. the New Jimmy Carter?

2007-05-30T09:17:00.002-04:00

I recently came across this article in the New Yorker about the current state of the Republican Party. I found it pretty eye-opening. What particularly caught my attention was the following paragraph about statements made by former Speaker of the House and possible 2008 Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich (R-GA).

Here is the paragraph:

Newt Gingrich is one of those who fear that Republicans have been branded with the label of incompetence. He says that the Bush Administration has become a Republican version of the Jimmy Carter Presidency, when nothing seemed to go right. “It’s just gotten steadily worse,” he said. “There was some point during the Iranian hostage crisis, the gasoline rationing, the malaise speech, the sweater, the rabbit”—Gingrich was referring to Carter’s suggestion that Americans wear sweaters rather than turn up their thermostats, and to the “attack” on Carter by what cartoonists quickly portrayed as a “killer rabbit” during a fishing trip—“that there was a morning where the average American went, ‘You know, this really worries me.’ ” He added, “You hire Presidents, at a minimum, to run the country well enough that you don’t have to think about it, and, at a maximum, to draw the country together to meet great challenges you can’t avoid thinking about.” Gingrich continued, “When you have the collapse of the Republican Party, you have an immediate turn toward the Democrats, not because the Democrats are offering anything better, but on a ‘not them’ basis. And if you end up in a 2008 campaign between ‘them’ and ‘not them,’ ‘not them’ is going to win.”

Reluctantly, I have to agree with Newt. I think Bush has really mismanaged the country in his second term. The war in Iraq had no exit strategy – probably because Bush never intended to leave. The fact that we are currently building and/or maintaining 14 military bases in the region is a pretty good indication of that. Incidently, the bases are almost all along oil pipelines. And I thought Bush said the war was not about oil. Hmm?. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the war even if oil were a motivating factor. I just think Bush should have been up front and planned the war accordingly. That way, we would have been better prepared.

Then there is spending. Bush’s spending habits would make LBJ blush. Bush is spending like a drunken sailor. Actually, he’s worse. At least the sailor is spending his own money. Bush is spending ours. And the money we don’t have he is borrowing. As a result, we are currently $8.8 trillion in debt. And the debt is rising. Japan and China are currently financing most of our debt – about $900 billion. If they decide to sell off their Treasury holdings, our economy could go belly-up. Then there are the issues of our trade imbalance with China and Bush’s failed Medicare Prescription Drug Bill.

Let us not forget about the border. Illegal aliens and potential terrorists are flowing across both our northern and southern borders like shit through a goose. And Bush is doing nothing to stop it. In addition to threats against our national security, the illegals are costing US tax payers aproximately $15 billion per year due to their unfettered access to welfare and other forms of assistance. But because US businesses want cheap labor to do the jobs that Americans supposedly don’t want to do, Bush has turned a blind-eye to the issue.

Gas prices are another issue. Yes I have heard all the spin about gas prices rising slower that the price of milk, and the arguments about gas prices not really being that high when you adjust for inflation, etc. But I don’t buy it. The fact is that gas companies are driving up prices by controlling production. They also claim that their refining costs are high and their capabilities are low due to the fact that a refinery has not been built in this country since the late 70’s. While I am a free market person, and believe that oil companies deserve to make a profit, I don’t think the current business practices of the oil companies is legal or ethical. They are essentially operating in collusion to keep prices (and profits) high. In other words, they comprise a cartel. And these guys have Bush in their pockets, so don’t expect changes any time soon.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. The bottom line is this, the GOP is straying from their conservative principles and betraying their political base. As a result, they are putting themselves at risk of losing the White House in 2008, just like they lost control of the House and Senate in 2006.

Why?

Well. It’s like Newt says. It’s not because the Dems are offering anything better. It is just that the GOP doesn’t have much to offer. As a result, the conservative vote is going to get split a number of ways which will probably usher Hillary or some other Democrat into the White House.

Ron Paul: More Conservative Than Rudy or McCain

2007-05-18T19:37:00.003-04:00

Texas Conressman and GOP Presidential hopeful Ron Paul has taken a lot of flack – and is grabbing a lot of headlines - for comments he made during the recent GOP Presidential debate. As I am sure anyone following politics is aware, Paul, who is against the war in Iraq, stated that the 9/11 attacks were partly the results of grave missteps in US foreign policy. Former New York mayor Rudy Guiliani took excpetion to Paul’s comments, jumped on his white horse, and demanded that Paul withdraw his statement. Of course, Paul did not.

Although I felt Paul may have been overstating his views, I can not deny that they do hold some merit. I wanted to know more about Paul, so I did a little research into his record and his position on the major issues. I must admit that I am pretty impressed with him.

Paul is a strict Constitutionalist. According to his official website, “Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies.” As such, he strongly supports states rights, is opposed to both Presiential autonomy and judicial activism. This philosophy underlies his positions on almost all the major issues.

So specifically, where does Paul stand on the issues? Below is a brief summary. Those interested in reading more details about Paul’s political positions can look here, here, or here.

War in Iraq
Paul is not an isolationist, but he believes that the US should be more cautious when entangling itself in the affairs of other nations. As evidenced by his exchange with Guiliani during the recent debate, he believes that short-sighted foreign policy decisions have consequences or “blowback”. As for the war in Iraq specifically, he is against it. The record shows that he was one of the few Republicans that voted against use of military force in Iraq in the first place. Although Paul favors withdraw of the troops, he is against setting a timeline to do so.

Immigration
Paul wants to secure the borders now! He has put forward a six point plan that includes:physically securing the border (a fence), enforcing visa laws by deporting those who overstay their visa, no amnesty, no welfare for illegals, ending birthright citizenship, passing immigration reform.

Abortion
Paul is an obstetrician and is opposed to abortion rights. However, Paul does not believe their should be any federal legislation regulating abortion. As a Constitutionist, he believes it is a state – not a federal – issue.

Second Amendment
Paul is a strong supporter of the right to bear arms. He believes is is necessary to place a check on government tyranny, not to allow self-defense.

Same Sex Marriage
Like abortion, Paul believe that marriage is a state issue, and therefore voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Instead, Paul has expressed support for the Defense of Marriage Act which essential says that each state should independently define marriage and the federal govt could not force one state to accept the marriage definition of another.

Taxes & Spending
Paul favors tax cuts. Call it supply-side economics, trickle-down economics, voodoo economics or whatever. Paul believes in some version of that economic system. Tax cuts allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy. They help create jobs. However, the govt. has to behave more responsibly when cutting taxes. Currently, the US is almost $10 trillion in debt, yet spending is on the increase. So in addition to tax cuts, Paul wants more fiscal responsibility.

In my view, Paul is one of the most conservative candidates among the GOP hopefuls. He is certainly more conservative that the two front-runners, Guiliani and McCain. But due to his stance on the war in Iraq, many of the talking heads in the media sho are drinking the GOP kool-aide (e.g. Hannity, Malkin, etc) do not like him. In fact, during a recent interview on The Big Story With John Gibson, Michelle Malkin went as far as to state that "Ron Paul really has no business being on stage as a legitimate representative of Republicans"

I strongly disagree!

Although Paul does not currently seem to have a realistic chance at winning the nomination, he will certainly draw the attention of the strong conservatives who make-up the party’s base. This could spell trouble for Guiliani or McCain – trouble they don’t want. In fact, it already seems that the GOP are already revving up the smear machine to discredit Paul by painting him as an anti-Semite and a racist.

Despite this, Paul is making some ground. In the recent GOP debate, Paul made a pretty good showing. A FOX News poll conducted after the debate showed that 25% of the views thought Paul won, compared to 19% for Guiliani and 4% for McCain. In addition, the AP reported that “Paul finished second among GOP candidates in money raised in New Hampshire and Montana in the first quarter of 2007. He also raised the most money of the second-tier candidates in 14 other states, including Florida and Texas.”

So while Paul’s supporters shouldn’t get their hopes up yet, there is a good chance he might hang around for awhile. And anything can happen in politics - so I wouldn’t count him out just yet.

My Take on the GOP Presidential Debate

2007-05-17T06:44:00.002-04:00

In case you missed it, the Republican candidates for President squared-off on Tuesday in a debate hosted by FOX News (watch it here). I will not go into to a break-down of the debate, as there are plenty of web sites and blogs that have already done. Rather, I would just like to offer a few observations and address some potential fall-out.

Going into the debate, former New York governor Rudy Guiliani and Arizona Senator John McCain were battling for the lead in the polls. Other candidates were still trying to break into double digits in the polls.

Although their were no real suprises, the pool of candidates should begin to thin after the debate. Going into the debate, there were ten declared candidates: Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, former New York governor Rudy Guiliani, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, California Rep. Duncan Hunter, Arizona Senator John McCain, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo and former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson.

The three front-runners (Guiliani, McCain and Romney) all fared well. I think Romney gained the most, as he presented himself well and was strong on the issues. McCain started slow, but seemed to gain momentum as the debate progressed; however, he did begin to reveal that he is a Beltway insider. This could go either way. It may hurt him if voters perceive him as unprincipled or left-leaning. On the other hand, it may help him if he is seen as a someone who is willing to reach across the aisle to get things done. Guiliani also fared well, but has a real flaw. Traditional conservatives do not support his views on abortion or gun control. However, Rudy is doing his best to make the election about national security. On that issue, he is head and shoulders above the rest of the field. But will it be enough to make voters ignore his liberal position on other issues?

Who were the losers?

Brownback, Gilmore, Tancredo, and Thompson all had poor performances and did not appear confident or “Presidential” to me. Brownback in particular looked particular weak to me, appearing more like a politician who gave carefully measured answers. In my opinion, these guys won’t be in the race much longer.

Who imporved their standing?

Both Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter performed very well in the debate. Both appeared presidential and were strong on the issues. The problem for both of these guys comes down to fact that they are not well known to voters outside their home turf. Fund raising is also an issue, as the three front-runners have bigger piggy banks. While I think these guys will hang around for awhile, they will eventually drop out for the above mentioned reasons.

Ron Paul is another story. He was definitely burr under the saddle in the debate. Reflecting on his left-leaning or libertarian views, some questioned if he was seeking the nomination for the right party. His views on 9/11 were also prety contoversial and evoked the only real fireworks of the debate. Paul claimed that “blowback” from American foreign policy played a large role in provoking the 9/11 attacks. Guiliani took exception to those remarks and challenged Paul to withdraw them - which he did not. Frankly I think Rudy was grandstanding to divert attention from his left-leaning positions mentioned above.

Now some Republicans are trying to silence Paul. Accordingly, “Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis said he will circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from more debates”.

In my view, this would not be a good move by the GOP. For starters, although I think Paul overstates his views, I think he does has a legitmate point concerning our foreign policy mistakes - but I will save that topic for another posting. Regardless of how I feel about Pauls’s views, I think they will make for a good debate and will force the candidates for be more forthcoming on their positions.

Over the course of the next few month, the current pool of candidated will begin to thin. There is still a possibility that Newt Gingrinch and/or Fred Thompson will enter the race at some point, but until that time comes, I will avoid discussing their views in any detail.

Stay tuned!

Junior Bolts DEI

2007-05-10T17:08:00.002-04:00

Could Dale Jr. Take the Wheel of Daddy’s No.3 Car?
Photo Credit: All Posters

Across the pond, Tony Blair announced today that he is stepping down as Labour Party leader and British prime minister effective June 27th. In the US, President Bush announced that he will seek an agreement with Congress on benchmarks to measure progress in Iraq.

But the BIG story of the day is that Dale Earnhardt Jr. has announced that he will leave DEI racing at the conclusion of the current NASCAR season.

As those of us that follow NASCAR are aware, DEI was founded by Dale’s father, the late and legendary Dale Earnhardt. Dale Sr. always foresaw his son taking the reign of his company at some point. But following his death in the last lap of the Daytona 500 in 2001, contol of the company went to Teresa Earnhardt, step-mother to Dale Jr.

Dale Jr. - NASCAR’s most popular driver, and arguably one of its most talented - is currently in the last year of his contract with DEI. He has been working on a contract extension. As part of the negotiations, he was seeking contolling ownership (51%) in DEI – something his step-mother was unwilling to concede.

Although Junior concedes that both he and his step-mother have the same goal – winning the NEXTEL Cup points championship – they do not have the same vision as to how to get there. As a result, Dale Jr. is jumping ship.

Now the speculation starts. Where will he go next?

Although Dale Jr. currently owns and operates Junior Motorsports, from which he runs a Busch series team, that seems unlikley. JRM may not have the resouces to compete on the NEXTEL cup level, and Dale Jr. has already expressed his concerns about growing the company too quickly.

Most racing insiders believe he will join ranks with an established team running a NEXTEL series program. Due to Junior’s preferences for taking the wheel of a Chevy, the most attractive candidates are porbably Hendrick Motorsports or Richard Childress Racing. Perhaps even Joe Gibbs Racing.

Hendrick is arguably the best Chevy team in NASCAR,and would be a good fit for Junior. But they are already fielding four teams and therefore may not have any room for him in the garage. Childress on the other hand does have some room. In addition, they own the rights to the No.3 car driven by Dale’s legendary father. If Dale Jr. were to join forces will RCR and take the wheel of his late father’s car, he would undoubltedly become the reigning king of NASCAR – at least as far as marketing goes. But that would only bring comparisons and might be too much pressure.

Another place for Little E to land is with Joe Gibbs Racing. He is a good friend with Joe Gibbs. If he does join JGR, he could team up with Tony Stewart. They have both helped each other out in the past during restrictor plate races. There is one potential problem that could prevent a deal with JGR from going down. Junior wants to keep Budweiser as his sponsor. Gibbs is an evangelical Christian and has a policy of not accepting sponsorship from companies that sell alcohol. So if Junior wants to team up with JGR, somethoing has to give.

If he goes to an established team, he certainly won't feel light in the wallet. He is going to cash in big time. He may even become the highest earning free agent in sports history. He would probably fare better on the track as well since the distractions of the DEI negotiations would be behind him. Although he made the cut for the chase last year, he never really was in contention for the title. The year before that, there was some domestic trouble in the garage and he failed to qualify. The clost he has come was a few years back when he finished 3rd.

Hopefully he can focus on racing now and bring home the NEXTEL cup title.

Jason Whitlock on Don Imus

2007-04-13T22:01:00.002-04:00

Don Imus
Photo Credit: Newsday

I usually don’t post articles others have written, but I have to make an exception here. I wanted to post something on the Don Imus controversy, but I don’t think I could say it better than Kansas City Star columnist, Jason Whitlock. Mr. Whitlock is right on target!

As Andrew Sullivan likes to say, here's the money quote.

I ain’t saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don’t have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas.

It is us. At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent.

Rather than confront this heinous enemy from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves.

Read the entire article HERE!

Ahmadinejad's Act of Desperation

2007-03-23T17:38:00.002-04:00

Photo Source: Wordpress

Early this morning, 15 British Royal Navy personnel from the HMS Cornwall were seized, at gun point, by troops of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

According to Britain's Defense Ministry, the British troops has just completed a "routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters". Upon completion of the inspection, which was part of a routine smuggling investigation, the US Navy's Fifth Fleet maintains that the British troops were "surrounded and escorted...into Iranian territorial waters", whereupon they were detained.

To me, the timing of this incident is no coincidence. The United Nations Security Council is due to vote of possible sanctions against Iran for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. The sanctions would ban "Iranian arms exports and freeze the assets of 28 additional individuals and organizations involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs".

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed the possible sanctions as "a torn piece of paper" that would not stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. He continued, stating, "If all of you [Westerners] get together and call your ancestors from hell as well, you will not be able to stop the Iranian nation."

The reality is that Ahmadinejad is worried about the possible effects that sanctions would have on his politcal power. Ahmadinejad's control of Iran is tenuous at best. Currently, he is ruling the country through the radical mullahs, who in turn, maintain local control of the people by fear and violence. But Ahmadinejad and the mullahs have to walk a thin line. If they push the people to hard, they could be forced to deal with an insurrection, whcih could lead to furhter destablization - if not an outright overthrow - of their radical regime. Ahmadinejad is very well aware this. He knows that any possible sanctions against Iran could turn the heat up and cause the political situation in Iraq to boil over.

Thus, the latest political stunt. Ahmadinejad is hoping to provoke the Brits, and perhaps even her allies like the United States, into a conflict. That would create a difficult situation for the U.N. Security Council when they go to vote on the possible sanctions. The Iranian President is scheduled to address the Security Council prior to its vote. If he can successfully draw one of the Council members into a clash, that would create a conflict of interests for the Security Council, which may cause them to withdraw or delay any resolution calling for sanctions.

The Brits and her allies need to remain calm and resolute in this situation. Iran should be given a deadline to release the British sailors. If they fail to meet the deadline, Ahmadinejad should have his visa to visit the United Nations retracted. In addition, the proposed sanctions should be imposed and enforce. Moreover, the Brits and the United States should actively begin to support opposition forces within Iran.

Fetal Sonograms and the Real Pro-Choice Agenda

2007-03-21T20:34:00.003-04:00

Just a lump of tissue? Sonogram of a baby at 9-weeks

A South Carolina state House committee has approved legislation that would require women seeking an abortion to view a sonogram of their child before going forward with the procedure.

A companion bill in the South Carolina Senate would require abortion providers to use an ultrasound to determine the gestational age of the unborn child and to review the sonograms with the mother.

The goal of these bills, according to Rep. Greg Delleney (R-Chester and York Counties), is “…to save lives and protect people from regret and inform women with the most accurate non-judgemental information that can be provided."

Lenna Neill, CEO of Piedmont Women’s Center believes the ultrasound requirement would be helpful because many women who seek abortions do so because they are scared and find themelves in a crisis situation. The decision to have the abortion is usually made in haste without a full understanding of what is actually being done.

Pro-choice groups were angered by the proposed legislation because they feel it would interfere with a woman’s constitutional right to have an abortion. They believe that the proposed legislation is actually a tool by which pro-lifers can intimidate women who already have decided to have an abortion. “This is not a place for interference by politicians," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America

Sounds to me like Rush Limbaugh had someone like Nancy Keenan in mind when he coined the term feminazi. A feminazi, you will recall, is “a woman who gets mad when another woman is talked out of an abortion.”

In reality, the radicals on the left are distorting this issue. In no way will the law restrict and woman’s right to choose. The law would only require that women be given sufficient information to make a wise choice. If after viewing the sonograms, they still wish to proceed with the abortion, they are free to do so.

The left’s opposition to the South Carolina legislation puts their hypocrisy on display and exposes them as agents of double-talk. In public comments on abortion, the pro-choice crowd claims that they long for the day when abortions will be less frequent (1, 2, 3, 4). Yet any time a state attempts to pass a law requiring parental consent, waiting periods, counseling about alternatives and potential side effects, or sonograms, the left organizes opposition to the proposed bill.

Seems to me like all the “desire for less frequent abortion” talk is just that – talk. It is nothing but a sugar coating to make their selfish agenda more palatable for the general public.

The truth of the matter is that the radicals who determine the so-called “pro-choice” agenda do not actually want fewer abortions. They believe abortion is necessary to liberate women from a life of servitude. Abortion, they believe, gives a woman the right of self-determination (1, 2, 3).

Although the left will not admit it, the self-determination argument has turned out to be a lie. In reality, most women who seek abortions are doing so out of desperation, rather than as daring act of self-expression. Moreover, as Frederica Mathewes-Green points out, Roe v. Wade did not give women more options, rather “it made one option nearly inevitable”. And let us not forget, someone dies each time an abortion is successfully performed.

I personally applaud South Carolina for putting this bill forward. The governor of South Carolina has indicated that he will sign the bill. Hopefully, other states will follow their lead.

Both Barrels Blazing

2007-03-21T07:39:00.001-04:00

Bush Comes Out Shootin’

The Democrats clearly have an agenda, and its to weaken and undermine the President at every opportunity. This agenda has been clear since the Dems took control of the House and Senate after the mid-term election. Unfortunately, the President has done little to thwart them. Until now!

Recently, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been under intense fire from the left for his role in the firings of eight US Attorneys.

Those calling on Bush to oust Gonzales believe the firings were part of a White House approved purge of prosecutors deemed unenthusiastic about the President's goals. Some of the fired attorneys echoed these opinions. David Iglesias, the former U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico, believe partisan politics was the motivating factor for his termination. He claims he was fired because he “[would] not play ball with two members of the Republican delegation…in New Mexico. I did not give them privileged information that could have been used in the October and November time frame."

The Justice Department maintains that the attorneys were fired for “performance issues”.

A recent poll shows that 62% of those responding believe that the President should replace Gonzales. The lack of public support for Gonzales has led some in the President’s own party to join in the frenzy.

And the left smells the blood in the water!

They want a full-scale investigation into the matter, and have set their sights on other members of the President’s counsel – particularly Karl Rove. Dems in the House want to authorize subpoenas for administration officials to force them to testify on the matter under oath.

The President has rejected the idea, saying it would compromise his ability to receive candid and objective advice from his counsel. Bush proposed to have his top aides speak about the firings of federal prosecutors privately - not under oath. The Dems have rejected that offer.

After putting up with this nonsense for the last few weeks, the President has finally had enough. Yesterday, he released a statement on the matter in which he defiantly rejected the calls to turn the matter into a “show trial” and a “partisan fishing expedition”. He challenged the Dems to put the interests of the country ahead of their own political agendas.

Although I think Bush should have done this long ago, his actions are better late than never. Its about time the President has shown some resolve and leadership. He needs to put a stop to the Dems efforts to undermine his party. Otherwise, the GOP will pay dearly in the upcoming elections.

***UPDATE***
A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides...

A House Built on Sand Has No Foundation

2007-03-17T14:17:00.002-04:00

Is McCain Presidential Material?

Although the election is still more than a year away, many politician have already thrown their hats into the ring for a chance to succeed GW Bush. On the left, the race appears to be between Hillary and Obama. On the right, its Guiliani and McCain.

In the coming months, the voters are going to have to chose which candidate is going to represent their party. The voters want a candidate that most closely shares their political ideology. Beyond that, they will be looking for a candidate with strong leadership skills. They will also be looking for someone who stands up for what they believe in.

So exactly who is John McCain and what does he believe in? In general, he would best be described as someone who is a luke-warm conservative who shoots from the left. That being said, he is not as far left as Guiliani. That is something that may be in his favor if it comes to a head-to-head match-up between he and Rudy.

That being said, McCain also has a weak side. He lacks the charisma and leadership that Rudy seems to emanate. Moreover, McCain has a knack for testing the wind before deciding what he believes in. That is not going to far well with a lot of voters who will perceive him as being unprincipled and weak.

On Friday, McCain was on the campaign trail in the mid-west. He was fielding questions from reporter during a bus ride through Iowa. One of the reporters questioned McCain about his position on the "…the distribution of taxpayer-subsidized condoms in Africa to fight the transmission of HIV." McCain responded with an awkward pause before summoning his press secretary to his side to find out just where it was he stood on the issue.

What? Are you kidding?

Actually, I am not. McCain did not seem to know how to answer the question. Following a rambling serious of non-commital statements, McCain stated, " I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before."

The reporter then began pushing McCain on related issues, asking him about his general position on contraceptives and abstinence. McCain again hedged on his answer stating, “ Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

What? You think…?

Or maybe he does no where he stands but was reluctant to answer truthfully after licking his finger and sticking it in the air.

Either way, McCain’s gotta do better than that. After all, the guy is running for President. How can he expect people to put their faith in him if he doesn’t have the cajones to tell us what he beleives in? Or even worse, maybe he is not sure where he stands?

McCain has some time to get his act together, because this incident will probably pass by unnoticed by most voters, who seems to have the attention span of a kid who watched too much TV as a toddler.

But I noticed!

As I am a registered Independent, I guess I have no say in the matter because I can not vote in the Republican primaries. I do however vote Conservative, so I may eventually have the opportunity to put my two cents in. At this point, I have not decided which candidate I would support. But I do know a few things. For starters, my candidate won't be a liberal. And they won't be named Guiliani or McCain.

Some Poetry for St. Paddy's Day

2007-03-17T13:00:00.001-04:00

An exerpt from Easter, 1916 by W.B. Yeats.

Too long a sacrifice
Can make a stone of the heart.
O when may it suffice?
That is Heaven's part, our part
To murmur name upon name,
As a mother names her child
When sleep at last has come
On limbs that had run wild.
What is it but nightfall?
No, no, not night but death;
Was it needless death after all?
For England may keep faith
For all that is done and said.
We know their dream; enough
To know they dreamed and are dead;
And what if excess of love
Bewildered them till they died?
I write it out in a verse -
MacDonagh and MacBride
And Connolly and Pearse
Now and in time to be,
Wherever green is worn,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

Does Couey Have A Date With Old Sparky?

2007-03-14T21:44:00.003-04:00

Old Sparky

I am not a big fan of the death penalty. There have been too many cases where DNA evidence has exonerated people on death row. One has to wonder how many people have been executed in the past for crimes that they may not have committed.

That being said, there a clearly some cases where the death penalty does seem to be the appropriate punishment. For example, I don’t think you will find too many people this side of the ACLU who would argue that mass murders like Ted Bundy or Timothy McVeigh should have been spared the death penalty. Those guys got what they deserved.

Now we have the case of John Couey in Florida. Couey, you may recall, was charged with abducting 9-year old Jessica Lunsford from her home, sexually assaulting her, and murdering her by binding her hands with wire, placing her in a plastic bag and burying her alive.

Truly, a heinous and unspeakable act!

Last week, the jury found Couey guilty of the above stated charges. The evidence was overwhelmingly against him. It only took them four hours to reach a verdict.

Today, the jury recommended the death penalty for Couey. I certainly hope that the judge follows the jury’s recommendation. There is no doubt that Couey deserves to die. It should be noted that the jury’s decision was not based on circumstantial evidence. Couey was found guilty beyond any doubt. Jessica Lusford’s body was found buried behind the trailer where Couey was living. Both Couey and the victim were linked to the crime scene by fingerprints, as well as DNA evidence from her blood and his semen. Although it was not a factor in the jury's decision, it should be mentioned to the skeptics out there that Couey confessed to the crime, but that evidence was thrown out by a judge because he was questioned without the presence of a lawyer.

Pending the judge’s decision, it is likely that Couey will face death by lethal injection, which is now the preferred method of execution in Florida. However, Couey could choose the electric chair if he wishes. If he does, he may have a date with Old Sparky - Florida’s infamous electric chair that is notorious for malfunctioning. Reportedly flames shot out of the heads of two convicts during their respective executions in the last 1990’s, similar to the scene in Steven King’s novel The Green Mile. That may seem like cruel and unusual punishment, and in almost all cases I would whole-heartedly agree. But in Couey's case, I would be willing to make an exception.

I hope he chooses Old Sparky. That way, he will get what he deserves.

China’s “Missing” Girls

2007-03-12T22:29:00.001-04:00

Last night, I watched a National Geographic documentary called China’s Lost Girls. I must admit, the documentary was pretty moving. Basically, the documentary focuses on the consequences of China’s “one-child policy”.

During the cultural revolution, Chairman Mao encouraged Chinese to have as many children as possible to fuel the social and economic development of Chinese society. As a result, the Chinese population exploded, increasing from about 400 million in 1949 to almost 700 million by the late 70’s. Today, China’s population is 1.3 billion.

In an effort to curb population growth, Deng Xiaoping (Mao’s successor) established the so-called “one-child policy” in 1979. Basically, the policy set a limit on one child per couple in urban areas, and two children in rural or farming areas. Tibet has no limit. Although the policy is Draconian, it has been somewhat effective in curbing population growth. However, it has resulted in a number of unintended, but tragic consequences.

Culturally, male offspring are held in higher esteem in China, as reflected in this ancient Chinese poem from the Shih Ching (Book of Songs):

"When a son is born,
Let him sleep on the bed,
Clothe him with fine clothes,
And give him jade to play...
When a daughter is born,
Let her sleep on the ground,
Wrap her in common wrappings,
And give broken tiles to play..."

The reasons for the male preference are multifaceted. For starters, males are desired in order to carry on the family name. Males also tend to stay at home after marriage, whereas females leave home and move in with their husband’s family. Because males remain at home, they are better able to take care of their parents when they become old or sick. This is particularly important due to the fact that China does not have a well-developed social security system.

The combination of the one-child policy, coupled with the cultural preference for males, has resulted in a great deal of violence and neglect among China’s young girls. Sex-selective abortion of females has become common in China, despite the governments attempts to discourage it. Due to the availablity of cheap and mobile ultrasound scanners, women can (illegally) determine the sex of their child in utero for as little as $50.00, and then have an abortion. Those women unable to get ultrasounds simply wait for their child to be born. If it is an undesired girl, she may be neglected, abandoned or killed.

As a result, the demographics of the Chinese population are now skewed heavily in favor of boys. The normal ratio of boys to girls is about 105 to 100. In China, it is now about 115 to 100. In some rural areas, it is even greater, approaching 150 to 100. Demographers estimate that there are approximately 20 million girls “missing” from the Chinese population.

This imbalance is creating serious social issues that will only become worse as the bulk of China’s children reach adulthood. Many men simply won’t be able to find a mate and start a family. Frustration and violence will follow. In fact, violence against women in China is already increasing. Prostitution is on the rise. Even worse, many men have resorted to kidnapping and human trafficking in order to “obtain” a wife.

China maintains that they are working to solve this demographic problem, but their actions indicate otherwise. Last week, China, as well as India and several other countries, lobbied against a US-sponsored UN resolution that sought to eliminate prenatal sex selection and female infanticide. As a result, the resolution has been withdrawn.

Sean Hannity: Fair and Balanced?

2007-03-11T21:55:00.001-04:00

Sean Hannity

Let me start by saying that I like Sean Hannity. I used to watch him almost every night on Hannity and Colmes before I downgraded my cable TV subscription. Now I listen to him on the radio most afternoons. I would say that he and I share similar opinions on a great number of issues.

Like him or not, Hannity can be brash and arrogant. I also think it is fair to say that he is self-righteous. He supports the GOP position, right or wrong. In doing so, he exposes himself to the charges of being a hypocrite. There is no doubt in my mind that Hannity is drinking the GOP Kool-aide!

For example, Hannity loves to bring up the fact that Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) was a former Klansmen and had referred to African-Americans as “niggers” in the past. Likewise, in an attempt to discredit Bill Clinton, Hannity has repeatedly played audio tapes of Clinton’s brother Roger using the N-word as well. In reference to Roger Clinton, Hannity has gone as far as stating, “Could you imagine a Republican hanging out with somebody that ever spoke like that, as such a bigot like that...”

Seems to me that Mr. Hannity doesn't have any problems hanging out with conservatives of like character. Just last week, Hannity gave Ann Coulter a platform on his show to rationalize her characterization of former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) as a "faggot". Hannity tried to make the point that the backlash against Coulter was “selective moral outrage”. Well, he may have a valid point there, but it doesn't change the fact that he is displaying a do as I say, not as I do mentality (i.e., a double standard).

Hannity also likes to make a big deal out of the fact that he is an Orthodox Catholic. He always seems to find some place in his dialogue to to mention this every time a moral issue is the topic of conversation. He does so give the impression that the points of view he holds are dogmatic - and that is fine with me. But if Hannity is going to do this, he must be consistent or all his arguments founded on such grounds will crumble.

There is some evidence that this is already starting to happen. Just last Friday, the Rev. Thomas Euteneuer appeared on Hannity & Colmes to make his case that Hannity was a cafeteria Catholic and a heretic. The issue in question was Hannity’s public support for artifical birth control – a position that the Catholic church is opposed to. While not quite calling for Sean to be burned at the stake, Fr. Euteneuer did go as far as to say the he would deny Hannity the Eucharist lest he repent.

You may be thing that lots of people hold a similar opinion, but they would not necessarily be considered hypocrites. So, why is Hannity’s position a problem?

In a nutshell, its because Hannity is not being true to his principles. He selectively applies them when they support his political position, and side-steps them when they do not.

Andrew Sullivan recently posted a column highlighting Hannity’s double standard. Hannity falls back on his belief in Catholic teachings to support his opposition to homosexuality, among other issues. The Catholic church’s opposition on gay sex is rooted in the fact that such relations are not open to procreation. As Pope Paul VI points out in Humanae Vitae, this is the very same basis for the church’s opposition to artificial birth control.

Basically, Hannity is using this particular teaching of the church to support his opposition to gay sex, but rejecting or ignoring this same teaching because it does not coincide with his beleifs regarding birth control. Seems to me that Hannity has a problem here.

Frankly, I don’t care what religion Hannity (or anyone else) chooses to follow. That is personal decision that only he can make. The issue here is one of consistency. Hannity has to decide just what it is he beleives in, and apply those principles to all facets of his life. If he wants to use the bible and his religion to support his political views, then he must do so in all cases. Not just in those cases where the two are in agreement.

Afterall, he is trying to be fair and balanced, right?

Is Rudy the GOPs Best Hope?

2007-03-07T20:38:00.001-05:00

Uniter or Divider?

Although the 2008 Presidential election is still over a year away, the campaign trail is heating up. It seems that just about everyone in Washington with a pulse and a bank account has formed a Presidential Exploratory Committee. Despite the large slate of candidates from the two major parties, some feel that the nominations may be wrapped up already.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton seems to be the shoe-in for the Democratic nomination. Only one real question remains. Who will be her running mate?

On the other side of the aisle, many traditional conservative candidates have thrown their hats into the ring, such as Senator Sam Brownback (Kansas), Governor Mike Huckabee, (Arkansas), and Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colorado). However, none of these guys seem to be making any headway. Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich is still lurking in the shadows, but as on now, he has not declared his intention to run.

The two guys everyone seems to be talking about are Arizona Senator, John McCain and former New York mayor and 9/11 hero, Rudy Guiliani. But neither of these guys could fairly be described as strong conservatives. Nevertheless, it appears that one of these guys is going to get the nomination.

If the primaries were held today, Guiliani would probably get the nod. In fact, a recent editorial on Townhall.com by Ben Shapiro makes the point that it is Guiliani’s nomination to lose. The preference for Guiliani is also borne out in a recent Rasmussen poll, that shows Guiliani leading all Republican candidates with a 70% approval rating.

When matched head to head with Hillary Clinton, Rudy again comes out on top (52% to 43%).

Sounds like great news for the GOP, right?

I wouldn’t get my hopes up just yet. It is still early. A lot can happen between now and the primaries. In addition, Rudy is not a clean candidate. Yes, Rudy is strong on defense, and the way he conducted himself on 9/11 will be a strong feather in his hat - for both liberals and conservative voters alike. But Rudy also has a dark side which may hurt him as we get closer to election time. Many conservatives, particularly evangelical Christian conservatives, are going to have some major problems with Rudy’s character and his position on some of the issues.

For starters, Guiliani has been divorced, not once, but twice. That may not seem like a big deal to some, but for evangelicals it is. And its not just the fact that he was divorced that is at issue here. Guiliani began having a public affair with his present wife, Judith Nathan, while he was still married to his previous wife, Donna Hanover. Moreover, his divorce with Hanover was public and ugly.

And let’s not forget his former business partnership with former New York City police commissioner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty to ethics violations. Although Rudy was not implicated in any of Kerik's legal problems, his ties to Kerik do not fare well for him.

Guiliani also holds some liberal views on key issues that are vitally important to conservative voters. Rudy supports gun control, conservatives support the NRA. Rudy supports a woman right to choose, conservatives want to overturn Roe v. Wade. Rudy is soft on immigration, conservatives want to build a fence and send the national guard to the border. Rudy supports same sex civil unions, conservatives want to protect the sanctity of marriage. Did I mention that Rudy wears drag? The list goes on…

This raises a serious issue about Guiliani’s ability to win. The GOP, if Guiliani is their candidate, better hope that conservatives think it is more important to keep a liberal democrat (Hillary) out of the White House, than to have a strong conservative in it. That may very well happen, as Ms. Clinton is a very polarizing personality. But then again, it may not! The GOP must be wary.

If conservatives, particularly the evangelical wing of the party, vote according to their conscience, that may very well split the Republican vote between Rudy and some other third party candidate. Can you say President Hillary?

Distancing Ann Coulter

2007-03-07T18:36:00.001-05:00

Homophobe or Insensitive Bore?

In case you haven’t heard, Ann Coulter is pretty controversial. Coulter has elevated herself as a spokeperson for the conservative movement. As such, she has a fairly large following – as well as a fairly large group of detractors.

Ann Coulter has been described by some – on both sides of the aisle – as a bomb-thrower. Coulter relies on making provocative and controversial statements to draw attention to her agenda. Her books and articles typically employ sarcasm, humor, and insults to drive home her point. There is no topic to sensitive for her.

Sometimes Coulter goes a bit too far. Last week, she was addressing the American Conservative Union's Political Action Conference. At the end of her speech, she made the following derogatory comment about former Senator John Edwards:

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word "faggot," so I'm kind of at an impasse - I can't really talk about Edwards."

She made a similar remark about former Almost President, Al Gore, during an appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews last summer, calling Gore a "total fag".

In regard to the John Edwards insult, Coulter appeared on Fox’s Hannity & Colmes on Monday to defend herself. When asked about the incident, Coulter insisted that it was just a "school-yard taunt" meaning "wuss". She continued, stating,

"C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean."

OK!?

I am not going to argue the point of whether Coulter was joking or not. Andrew Sullivan has already done that. In the end, it really doesn’t matter. The fact remains that she has done a great deal of damage to the conservative cause.

Republican candidates must now carefully distance themselves from Coulter, becuase she apparently remains popular among potential voters on the right, as shown by this World Net Daily poll. Even worse, the candidates who shared the CPAC stage with her that night are being forced to apologize for her comments. The fact that they even have to address them casts them in a negative light merely by association. In addition, Coulter's comments give many so-called “fence-sitting voters” an uneasy feeling about the conservative agenda.

Many on the left have painted conservatives as a group of racist homophobes. Coulter’s comments lend creedence to this view point. This could have the effect of causing some undecided voters to swing toward the left – something the right simply can not afford, particularly after the last election where they lost control in both houses of Congress.

CO2, Myopia & Global Warming

2007-03-05T21:40:00.001-05:00

Who Is Repsponsible for His Predicament?

Believe it or not, I actually watched the Academy Awards last week. I was obviously bored out of my skull. To my surprise, Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth actaully won an Oscar. And to think, I didn’t even know the Academy had a category for science fiction.

All jokes aside, An Inconvenient Truth is being misrepresented to the American public. Global warming has become more of a partisan political issue that a scientific issue. An Inconvenient Truth leads one to believe that there is a consensus among climatologists that increases in carbon dioxide due to human consumption is the cause of global temperature increases. That is not the case! While no credible scientist will deny that global warming is real, there is still debate among climatologists regarding the cause. In other words, the science is not settled!

Although increases in carbon dioxide levels are correlated with the increase in global temperature over the last few decades, the cause-effect relationship between the two is not irrefutable. On the contrary, the earth has had previous warming and cooling cycles, and in some cases, the warming of the earth actually preceeded increases in carbon dioxide. In addition, global carbon dioxide from industrial sources increased dramatically in the years following World War II, yet global temperatures fell for four decades.

Other lines of evidence suggest that increases in solar radiation may have a greater imapact on global temperatures. Increases in solar flaring are correlated with decreased cloud formation. As a result, much of the solar radiation that would normally bounce off the clouds back into space is instead allowed to pass into the earth’s atmosphere, leading to increased temperatures. Moreover, a forthcoming documentary entitled The Great Global Warming Swindle argues that increased carbon dioxide levels may actually be the result of temperature increases, rather than their cause.

Does this mean that carbon dioxide levels have no effect on global temperature increases? No, I don’t think anyone is saying that. Nor are they saying that solar radiation is the cause. The main point is that we should not have a undeviating focus on just one potential cause when there could be multiple causes for global warming. To narrow-mindedly focus on carbon emmisions could result in even more devastating problems, such as prolonging endemic poverty by slowing third world develpoment.

The Lost Tomb of Jesus?

2007-03-05T19:54:00.001-05:00

The Lost Tomb of Jesus?

Last night, the Discovery channel aired a docudrama called The Lost Tomb of Jesus, wherein it is claimed that the burial tomb of Jesus and his family have been found.

Within the tomb, ten ossuaries (bone coffins) were found, six of which bore inscriptions stating whose remains they held. Based on analysis of the inscriptions by epigraphers, docudrama director and journalist Simcha Jacobavici believes that the ossuaries contain the remains of Jesus of Nazarath, as well as those of the Maria (Jesus’ mother), Mariamne (Mary Magdelene, Jesus’ wife), Judah (the son of Jesus and Mary Magdalene), Yose (Jesus’ brother), and Matthew (a relative of the Virgin Mary).

Jacobavici enlists the help of archeologists, statisticians, epigraphers, and forensic scientists to help his make his case. The two main lines of evidence Jacobavici puts forward are stastical evidence and DNA evidence.

For the statistical evidence, Jacobavici enlists Dr. Andrey Feuerverger, Professor of Mathematics and Statistics at the University of Toronto. Essentially, Dr. Feuerverger analyzes the possibility that people with the names inscribed on the ossuaries would occur within one family. Although the names (Mary, Jesus, etc) were more or less common during the first centuty, the liklihood that the occurred in one family are roughly 600:1. Coupled with the appearance of these names in the New Testament and other gnostic writings, Jacobavici claims that the remains in the ossuaries are most likley those of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.

For the DNA evidence, Jacobavici enlists a New York forensic crime lab. Bone fragments were removed from the ossuaries said to contain the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Mitochrondrial DNA (mtDNA) was extracted from the samples to determine whether of not they were maternally related individuals. The tests results show that the two samples came from individuals who had different mothers. Archeological studies have shown that is it highly uncommon for unrelated individuals to be buried together in the same tomb - unless they were married. From this Jacobavici claims that this means that Jesus and Mary Magdalene must have been married.

While the docudrama provides compelling evidence that should be further looked into, Jacobavici falls fall short of proving his case beyond a reasonable doubt. For starters, the statistics on name frequency are being misinterpreted. They rest on the assumption that all the individuals in the tomb were life-time contemporaries. There is no evidence to support that assumption. In additon, it assumes that Jesus’ family had a tomb, and it is among the 1,000 or so tombs discovered to date. Again, there is not evidence to suggest that they did. Even Dr. Feuerverger admits that the 600:1 figure is only valid is the assumptions the statistics are based on are also valid. Without these assumptions, the probablility that this is the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth is much lower, perhaps as low as 10%.

The interpretation of the mtDNA is even more troubling. Nuclear DNA which makes up our chromosomes, is inherited from both of our parents. mtDNA on the other hand is inherited through the egg cell, and therefore is contributed only by the mother. Comparison of the mtDNA extracted from the “Jesus” and “Mariamne” samples shows that these two individuals were not maternally related. This is all it says. Nevertheless, Jacobavici states that this is evidence that Jesus and Mariamne were marrried. To be fair, that is one possibility. However, there are other possibilities that are being discounted. Mariamne could have been married to one of the other males found in the tomb. Alternativley, the they could be a paternal cousins. They could also be totally unrelated.

When you boil the whole thing down, it seems that Jacobavici has an interesting story with some potentially compelling evidence. However, the evidence that he has is circumstantial. Furthermore, the evidence relies on statistical assumptions that are in no way proven to be valid assumptions.

There were also many lines of evidence that Jacobavici did not persue. For example, why not test the DNA of the other individuals found within the tomb. Were “Jesus” and “Yose” related to “Maria”, as would be expected if she were their mother? Was Judah related to Miramne? Jacobavici could have also gone back to the original bones that were removed from the ossuaries and buried by the Israeli Department of Antiquites. From these he could have obtained DNA samples – perhaps even nuclear DNA samples. This would go a long way in lending support to his case. But as it stands now, Jacobavici is left with a weakly supported case. It doesn’t mean that he is wrong, but that he has just not proven his case with sufficient evidence.

In other words, all this "Jesus family" stuff is just wild speculation at this point.

Sports and the Bedroom: Who Really Cares?

2007-02-07T20:12:00.001-05:00

Earlier today, word was leaked that former Penn State and NBA basketball player John Amaechi was coming out of the closet and announcing that he is gay. Amaechi originally planned to make the announcement on ESPN’s Outside the Lines program in conjunction with the release of his biography, “Man in the Middle”.

Perhaps it is not surprising, but Amaechi was a major topic of talk radio today, and probably will be for the next few weeks. Some are critical of Amaechi because his is outing himself after his retirement. Those critics apparently feel he should have done so during his playing years. Others feel that Amaechi could not have come out during his playing career because of repercussions he would have gotten from the sports public and his teammates.

Hopefully, someday, we as a society will be beyond this.

The timing of the leak/announcement is ironic in light of recent events that have occurred here on Penn State’s campus. Women’s basketball coach Rene Portland just settled out of court with a former Lady Lion, Jennifer Harris, who claimed Portland kicked her off the team because she was perceived to be a lesbian. Terms of the settlement were not made public.

To me, all this stuff is ridiculous. I don’t see what difference someone’s sexual orientation, whether innate or chosen, has to do with that person’s ability to play sports. As long as your actions don’t affect other people, you should be free to do as you choose.

If I were a WNBA fan (and I am not), I wouldn’t care if you put Patrica Ford or Peppermint Patty out on the court. And I don’t care who’s lawn she is mowing, as long as she can shoot 3-pointers and pull down ten boards a game.

Same goes with men's sports: the NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, etc. Do your job when you are on the field, and do what you want in the privacy of your own bedroom. All this non-sense we are hearing from other athletes about sex and showering is a bunch of crap. Whether they realize it or not, most of them probably play or have played on a team with a gay teammate. And no one that I have ever heard of has had "moves" put on him, and there hasn't been a run on the market for soap-on-a-rope.

The bottom line question is this - can the player perform on the field? If so, then let him/her play.

The Saint of 9/11 - Fr. Mychal Judge

2006-12-06T21:21:00.001-05:00

I recently watched a documentary on Fr. Mychal Judge, O.F.M (Franciscan). As many of us will recall, Fr. Judge was the chaplain of the NYC Fire Department. Fr. Judge was killed by falling debris on 9/11 while administering Last Rights to a fallen fireman at “Ground Zero”.

The documentary is entitled Saint of 9/11 - The True Story of Father Mychal Judge. The documentary essentially cover Mychal Judges whole life, but its main focus is the battle between his calling as a priest and the hidden darkness residing deep within his spirit – and most importantly, how he overcame that dark side to become a true messenger of Christ.

Fr. Judge was a untiring herald of the neglected and forgotten. He donated a large part, if not all, of his income to the poor. Every year he would take money from his own pocket and purchase coats for the homeless people he encountered during his ministry. In contrast (and opposition) to the conservative core of the Church, Fr. Judge was a champion of those shunned by the Church, such as gay Catholics. In the early years of the HIV/AIDS crisis, most people, including doctors, nurses and clergymen shunned infected people. Fr. Judge did not. He comforted them, embraced them, and brought God into their lives before they died.

What makes his story all the more fascinating is the human element that underlies it. Like all of us, Fr. Judge had his share of demons that were wrestling for control of his soul. Throughout his life, he struggled with his sexuality and alcoholism. But he did not let it interfere with his mission. Fr. Judge was sober for the last 23 years of his life, and he was celibate.

The sexuality issue was the one thing in the documentary I found unsettling. It seemed that the producers had an agenda in promoting Fr. Judges sexuality, as they spent way too much time reminding us of it. The fact is that Fr. Judge was celibate!

Fr. Judge rose above his demons and touched peoples lives in the way that Jesus did in the New Testament. Surely those who knew him must of seen God's face through his works.

A Day Late and a Dollar Short!

2006-11-13T20:44:00.001-05:00

As I am sure most of us are already aware, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld resigned last week – the day after the GOP got “thumped” at the polls. I am sure some will differ with me, but overall I think Rumsfeld did a fairly good job during his tenure with the DoD. That being said, the situation in Iraq is in dire need of new leadership and a new direction. I don’t think many will argue with me on that one.

Bush himself recognized this, but somehow he was a bit slow to act. Perhaps a bit stubborn as well. Had Bush replace Rumsfeld a few weeks ago - before the mid-term elections - he may very well have saved more than a few seats for the GOP.

The past weeked on Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer interviewed White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten. Asked why Bush did not make the change prior to the election, Mr. Bolten stated that “…[the President] was determined not to inject an important national security decision into the electoral process just a few days before the election, because that would have sent a terrible signal to our troops, to our allies and to our enemies.”.

Sounds like spin to me. If that is indeed the case, then why change after the election? Isn’t the President still sending the same kind of signal to our troops, allies and enemies?

In all likelihood, the President made decision to remove Rumsfeld at the suggestion of James Baker and the Iraq Study Group. It is no secret that Mr. Baker is not a member of the Donald Rumsfeld fan club. In a recent New York Times article Baker states “…that neither Mr. Bush’s “stay the course” message nor what the White House calls the “cut and run” approach of critics offers a way out”. Moreover, in his book, “Work Hard, Study and Keep Out of Politics”, Baker points out many of the “costly mistakes" made in the Iraq war, but he lays the blame for those mistakes at the door of the Defense Department (read: Rumsfeld), not the White House.

When you consider that the decision to remove Rumsfeld was most likely made weeks before the election, it seems even more ridiculous that Bush did not make the move sooner! Bush may very well have cost his party the majority control.

If the last two years of his Presidency turns into a lame duck session - as some think it will - he can go stand in front of the mirror if he is looking for someone to blame!

As You Sow, So Shall You Reap

2006-11-09T21:04:00.001-05:00

Now its official! With Tuesdays mid-term elections, the Democrats have taken control of both houses of Congress. They hold a 229-196 advantage in the House of Representatives and a 51-49 advantage in the Senate.

Many Republicans are in disbelief. It was thought by most of the pundits that the Dems would gain control of the house, but most thought the GOP would maintain the majority in the Senate. The fact that both houses were lost should serve as a big wake-up call to the Republican Party!

Looking a little closer at the elections, several things become apparent. For starters, the Dems have a big mess to clean up. As they will soon find out, it is not much fun walking in behind an elephant. Perhaps the biggest thing to keep in mind it this - Conservatism did not lose! Republicans lost!

I say that for several reasons. First, many of the Democrats elected on Tuesday were not strong liberal Democrats of the Kennedy or Pelosi mold. Rather, they were conservative Democrats of the Joe Lieberman mold. Incidently, the Independent Joe Lieberman defeated the Dems chosen candidate Ned Lamont in Connecticut. Second, eight states had some sort of referendum regarding the protection of “traditional marriage” up for a vote. In 7 of 8 states, those referendums were passed. Similarly, 11 states had proposed restrictions on the governments ability to seize private property for public use. In nine of those states, property rights were protected.

I also believe that the recent vote reflects more about the peoples dissatisfaction with the current Presidential administration than peoples affection for liberalism. It is not the Dems offer a better plan - in fact they have none. This vote was about change for the sake of change.

In other words, the recent loss at the polls by the GOP is due largely to the arrogance of its leaders and the fact that many Republicans have betrayed the conservative principles that got them elected in the first place. It seems that the Republicans were trying to be all things to all people. They were trying to move to the middle to make themselves more “presentable” to a wider range of voters.

Well I got news for them. I didn’t work!

Take a look at the GOP’s behavior during the Bush years. They have rejected the cornerstones of the party’s philosophy. The GOP has long prided itself in reducing taxes, shrinking the government, controlling spending, and maintaining a strong national defense. Those are the principles Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich represented. But sadly, they are not the principles of George W. Bush or the current Republican leadership.

Bush has increased the size of the government, and the GOP went along without much of a fight. While Bush did reduce taxes, he has increased spending in a major way. And this was all done during a time when we are at war and expeditures are higher than usual. Military spending aside, Bush has spent money like a drunken sailor – with the major difference being that the money Bush spent was ours. At least the sailor is spending his own money.

Bush’s spending habits are the antithesis of everything the GOP has prided itself on. In fact, Bush has outspent Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society. Even when you adjust LBJ’s numbers for inflation, Bush still wins hands down. To be fair, the Senate Appropriations committee has to share some responsibility for the increase in spending with all their earmarkings, pork-barrel projects, and bridges to nowhere. However, that committee is chaired by Thad Cochran (R-MS) and is controlled by the GOP. Moreover, Bush has signed off on everything they slid across his desk.

National security is another issue. While many, including myself, will argue that the war in Iraq was necessary, most will agree that the Bush administration has failed miserably in managing the war. On top of that, they have left us virtually unprotected at home. Our borders remain open, allowing the passage of millions of illegal aliens who are placing an unbearable financial burder on our country. In addition, other unseemly characters are also passing through like shit through a goose. These people mean to do this country harm. Many citizens in our country have been trying to get the Bush administration to do something to check the flow of illegal immigrants. Instead, Bush is pushing a workers amnesty program while the border still remains open. Bush was finally dragged kicking and screaming, and agreed to build a fence. But in case you missed it, the money to build the fence is not to be found.

I could go on, but I think the point has been made. The GOP lost because they betrayed their principles and arrogantly patronized their base. Now is gut-check time. They still have a chance to regain some of their lost power in the 2008 elections, but that will require them to get back to their roots. If they don’t, you can count on the Dems increasing their power and running the show for a long time to come.

What To Make of the Ted Haggard Tryst?

2006-11-07T22:17:00.001-05:00

Ted Haggard is a homosexual and he snorts crystal meth!

So what!

Mr. Michael Jones, a gay prostitute, claims that he sold crystal meth to Pastor Haggard and engaged in “drug-fueled gay sex” with him.

Wow! Sounds pretty hot!

While Haggard admits to purchasing the crystal meth, he denies the gay sex charge. Haggard suggests that only a massage was involved. Jones, on the other hand, claims the relationship was sexual and lasted for at least three years.

As far as the drugs go, Haggard states that he never actually used the crystal meth. He claims that he purchased it out of curiosity, but later discarded it.

OK, whatever. And Bill Clinton never inhaled, right?!

To be fair, it should be mentioned that Jones failed a lie detector test. Not that it necessarily means anything as far as the legitimacy of his story goes….

Personally, I could care less about the lifestyle Haggard leads. It’s his life! Although, I think he should probably seek another line of work. It also seems – from the perspective of Evangelicals – that Haggard might have a few demons that need exercising.

All the Evangelical BS aside, there is something important that needs to be pointed out here. Contrary to what the left would lead you to believe, Haggard is not a hypocrite.

Sure he preached about the evils of drugs and homosexuality. And I believe that he thinks they are wrong! The fact that he himself got caught engaging in those activities does not make him a hypocrite.

It only makes him a sinner!

I am sure most of us have deliberately done things that we knew were wrong. I know I sure have – and more than once!

Did someone say crystal meth?

So why are the media making a big deal about Haggard’s moral shortcomings?

I am sure the fact the he is an Evangelical preacher had something to do with it, but there is more to it than that. Perhaps it is no odd coincidence that Jones’ allegations come the week before election day, when several states have so-called “gay marriage” initiatives on the ballot. In fact, Jones admits that the timing of his release (of the story) was intended to influence voters!

Wow, that part of the story was not widely reported!?

Personally, I don’t see any reason why two guys (or girls) can not have civil unions that would grant them the same rights and privileges as married couples. However, I do find it cowardly and disingenuous that some last minute political stunt – the so-called “October surprise” - has to be pulled in an attempt to sway the votes.

But I guess that’s politics for ya!

WHO Seeks to End Female Genital Mutilation

2006-11-01T22:05:00.002-05:00

Male circumcision is a cultural practice that has been going on for thousands of years. It essentially involves the removal of the foreskin. Historically, circumcision was performed for a variety of reasons. In various cultures it served as a "sign of submission to a deity, a rite of passage to adulthood, a mark of defeat or slavery, or an attempt to alter esthetics or sexuality".

Circumcision has also been performed on females. The reasons, however, are quite different. It is rooted more in a males desire to dominate or control females. In practicing cultures, females must be "pure" or virgins in order to be acceptable for marriage. The men in these cultures, on the other hand, do not have to be pure. In fact, in many cases, the men are quite experienced, and may even have venereal diseases at the time of marriage.

The practice of female circumcision is quite grusome. It involves the removal of the clitoris and the majority of the labia. The wound is then stitched so that the remaining labia will heal together, essentially creating a wall of flesh extending from the anus to the urethra. A matchstick or some similar object is typically put in place to create a hole though which urine can flow. How considerate!

The "circumcision" can be performed with a knife, a pair of scissors, a piece of glass, or perhaps a sharp stone. On top of that, it is typically done without the benefit of anesthesia and frequently leads to a variety of painful complications - both short-term and long-term.

When you consider what is really being done here, it is readily apparent that the term circumcision is really a misnomer when it is applied to females. Genital mutilation seems more appropriate. If males were subjected to the same thing, it would be the equivalent of lopping off the glans (the head), then slicing open the scrotum, tucking the trunk inside, and stitching the scrotum back up – all without any pain killers. Of course, a small hole would have to be placed in the scrotum to allow urine to drip out.

Many countries have laws forbidding genital mutilation. The only effect of these laws is that they appear to have driven the practice underground. As such, female genital mutilation is still commonplace today in many parts of the world, particularly in those regions where muslims or animist religions dominate. It is also common is the west in regions where practicing immigrant populations are concentrated. It even happens in the US.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has recently undertaken an educational effort to put a stop to this barbaric practice in counties where it is a common practice. Let’s hope that they are successful.

Some Parents Are Taking the Fun Out of Youth Sports

2006-10-25T23:01:00.001-04:00

Growing up, I played a lot of sports. And I played on a lot of teams. I played baseball in my hometown little league. I played football and basketball in my church CYO league. I played tennis at the swim club. I played street hockey almost every winter day.

Those time were great. We had a lot of fun. Most of the time I was never aware of the score because I was having so much fun. The games we lost were also fun – so long as we didn’t lose too badly.

In all the years that I played in organized youth sports (1975-1985), I NEVER saw or heard of any parents getting in fights with coaches or refs over any issue. And I have played some games were refs were partisan – some even took cash to assure the "right" outcome. Our coach told us not to worry - just go play and have fun. So thats what we did!

I recently read this article about a father from Philadelphia (my old stomping grounds) who pulled a gun on a coach because his son was not getting enough playing time. The son, incidently, is in the first grade!!!

And this is not the first time I have heard this kind of story. Parents are fighting – even killing – coaches or refs who don’t play kids or make bad calls.

What is going here!? These are kids who just want to play. Like m, most of these young kids are probably unaware of the score in their games. Most probably don’t even know all the rules – and don’t care to know either. They just want to play.

The parents on the other hand think that their kid – who probably can’t even tie his own shoes – is going to be the next Michael Jordan or Joe Montana or Wayne Gretzky. Many are probably frustrated that they sucked so much at sports as a youth. Now they want to live vicariously through their children.

Get a life!

Let the kids play. If the parents want to live out their grid-iron fantasies, let them join a beer league. After a few practices – and a few ass-kickings – most will quit and resign themselves to watching sports on TV.

Japan’s Sovereign Right to Self Defense

2006-10-17T19:49:00.001-04:00

Following the surrender of the Japenese in WWII, the Allied Occupation, led by the United States, drew up a new constitution for Japan. The goal of the constitution was to replace Japan's imperial system with a liberal democracy. As part of the Constitution (Article 9), Japan was required to renounce war forever.

Article 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Some, including many Japanese, believe that the situation requires a change. Certainly times and the world have changed dramatically over the past 60 years.

Even under the new constitution, Japan has maintained a so-called Self-Defense Force. The goal of the SDF is a purely defensive one. What is currently being debated is just exactly constitutes a “defensive” action.

The nature of the threats affecting Japan have certainly changed, particularly since the end of the Cold War. Today, China and North Korea (and to a lesser extent Russia) represent the major regional threats to Japan. All of these countries possess nuclear capabilities. It should also be mentioned that China, and North Korea in particular, are destablizing factors in international relations with East Asia - which represents about 20% of the global GDP.

There are also other very real concerns posed by rapid globalization. Now formerly remote threats can spread rapidly around the world. Such threats include terrorism by failed states, disruption of sea lines of communication, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Since 1947, the United States military has acted as Japan’s defender. With the United States military actively engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq – and perhaps soon in Iran or other regions, it is reasonable to assume that the US Military may be stretched too thin to provide adequate defense to Japan.

As such, it is Japan’s best interest to begin to assume more of its own defensive responsibilities. That will require an constitutional change under Japanese law, but in reality, the situation has already begun to change.

Over the past 10 or so years, Japan has undertaken a massive military build-up. Japan currently has one of the world’s most formidable blue-water navies. Her fleet is considered by many to be on par with the US 7th fleet. Japan's Maritime Defense Force includes over 50 advanced destroyers, including four Aegis-class destroyers equipped with missile defense systems. In addition, Japan has four escort flotillas with helicopters.

Japan also possesses or is developing an extensive missile defense system. In addition to the destroyers mentioned above, the Japan Defense Agency will have at least 16 Patriot Missile systems by 2010. In addition, Japan has or will have 11 radar systems, including four FPS advanced radar sytems.

Its air defenses are also quite formidable. Japan currently has 117 advanced F-15 fighters (second only in numbers to the US), a similar number of F-4 fighters, 74 F-1 fighters, troop and equipment transports, and advanced surveillance (EWAC) aircraft.

Some have questioned the necessity of maintaining such a large and formidable defense forces, but in light of recent events, particularly in the China and North Korea (I am presently preparing an article on this topic), Japan has little choice if she is to maintain her sovereignty and security.

Where Have You Gone Butch Davis?

2006-10-17T01:07:00.001-04:00

In case you missed it, Miami trounced FIU Saturday by a score of 35-0. But that was not the big story coming from this game. The big story was a brawl – yes, a brawl. And I am not talking about a brawl in the stands between drunkards. I am talking about a brawl on the field between the players.

Then again, if you have been casually following the University of Miami’s football program over the years, you probably assumed the players were involved.

I think this is a travesty. The Hurricanes have the talent to contend for the National title on an annual basis. But they are squandering that potential by poor recruiting decisions and a lack of accountability for their players – both on and off the field. 'Canes fans deserve better.

Brawling, thuggery and general unsportmanship have become the moniker of the Miami football program. It goes all the way back to Jimmie Johnson’s days on the Miami sidelines. Recall the off-field problems Johnson had to deal with at Miami. And of course there was the taunting and arrogance of the Miami team that JJ lead to the 1986 National Championship Game against Penn State. Fortunately, JoePa gave JJ and his thugs a spanking in that game, defeating the UM 14-10.

Miami’s problems have continued over the years. Just last year, Miami players brawled with LSU players after the Peach Bowl. Part of the credit – or more appropriately the shame - must go to the ‘Canes boosters who have encouraged and promoted the so-called bad-boy image. The UM must also bear some responsibility for tolerating it.

Last Saturday’s third-quarter brawl with FIU was sadly just another embarrassing chapter in the Miami Hurricane’s legacy. Someone - whether they be from the NCAA or the Atlantic Coast Conference or the University of Miami - has to put their foot down and put an end to this mess.

Unfortunately, that does not appear to be happening!

I have heard no official statement from the NCAA. To be fair, they may be giving the ACC or the University the opportunity to act first.

OK, so what do the ACC and UM have to say?

ACC commissioner John Swofford swiftly leveled a one-game suspension for all 13 UM players involved. That’s right! ONE GAME!!!! As Swofford stated, "These suspensions send a clear and definitive message that this type of behavior will not be tolerated…"

Surely, you jest!?

These penalties are joke – and a very bad one at that!

The UM then stepped up and announced Monday that one player was suspended indefinitely. As for the rest of the players, UM President Donna Shalala said she was “satisfied” with Swofford’s decision.

This just in: Expect more problems with the University of Miami football program!

In reality, just about every major college football program has experienced its share of problems – both on-field and off-field. How universities choose to deal with these problems is the difference! You either step in and effectively deal with the problem. If that means eliminating the culture leading up to the problem, or removing the problem-maker, then you do it. The goal is to make sure that the problem doesn't happen again. Or if making money and winning football games is the short-term goal, you take the UM approach and simply turn the other way or settle for a slap on the wrist - virtually guarenteeing that more of the same will happen again and again. In the long-run, your football program will implode.

In my opinion, UM is missing a golden opportunity to turn their football program around and shed their bad-boy image. They need to take a number of steps to ensure that this happens – and they need to do it now!

For starters, the players who actively participated in the brawl should be suspended for the remainder of the season or dismissed from the team. Next, UM needs real leadership at the top. Donna Shalala and Larry Coker must go. While I don't beleive the Coker actively calls for or condones this kind of behavior, it is clear that he has lost control of his football team - regardless of what he says. This is not the first time that Miami has been involved in this type of incident on his watch. As for Shalala, she needs to step aside. I don’t know what kind of administrator or leader Shalala is, but if the “leadership” she is displaying in this brawl incident is any indication, she is not a very good one. Miami needs someone to come in and put a new face on the football program. They need a zero-tolerance policy for poor sportsmanship – and that starts with bringing in a no-nonsense coach.

It seems that only Butch Davis was able to run a clean program down there. Maybe the university should consider bringing him back!

Eagles Are Again the Class of the NFC East

2006-10-09T06:09:00.001-04:00

102-yrd Interception Return by Lito Sheppard Seals the Deal Against the Cowboys

After last years’ playoffs, I predicted that the Philadelphia Eagles would win the NFC East this year, despite finishing with a 6-10 record last year and getting swept in their division.

Although we are only five weeks into the season, the Eagles appear the be the class of their division once again.

Many of the pundits are picking Dallas. Some are picking the Giants or Redskins. I just don’t see it happening. I see the same things in those teams this year as I saw last year. The Redskins have no offense other than Portis – and the rest of the team may have taken a step back. Dallas has a lot of talent, but they are also very inconsistent on both sides of the ball. The Giants are also inconsistent and have problems in the secondary. Tiki Barber also seems to have lost a step. Eli Manning on the other hand is getting better and may be a force to be reckoned with in the near future. The big problem with the Giants is a lack of passion and a major lack of discipline. They seem to take major pentalties at key moments of the game.

The Eagles on the other hand look good to me. Their offense in the #1 offense in the league to this point – gaining about 418 yrds/game. Donovan McNabb is having a Dan Fouts-like season, heaving the ball for 1600 yrds and 11 TDs. Their top receivers (Brown and Stallworth) are banged up, but the rest of the receiving corps have performing susprisingly well. In the five games this year, a different receiver has stepped up to lead the team. And T.O. is not missed. The Eagles are also running well. The key for the running game is to keep Brian Westbrook healthy and to keep Correll Buckhalter from fumbling the ball.

The defense is playing fairly well, but they must play better. Currently they are giving up around 335 yrds/game. They have had a lot of injuries to start the season, but they seem to be getting healthy now. The loss of Jevon Kearse is big. He was a great pash rusher. Now someone else is going to have to step up. The secondary also has a few guys that are banged up. Rod Hood is still nursing an injured heel. Lito Sheppard is still hurting, but he returned from injury yesterday and played extremely well.

Fortunately for the Eagles, their first half of their schedule is relatively easy. They should go into their bye week with a record of 7-1 or maybe 6-2. They will have some time to heal up before hitting the meat of their schedule.

In the second half, they have four divisional games (Dallas, Giants, and two against Washington). They also face Indianapolis (A), Carolina (H) and Atlanta (H). This is where we will find out just how good the Eagles are.

My prediction is that the Eagles will finish 11-5. I think the Eagles have a legitimate shot at making it to the NFC Championship Game. If they do, they will probably face Seattle or Chicago. Both of those teams will be touch to beat. Among those three teams, the Bears are playing the best football right now. Seattle is not playing well now, but I think they will turn it around.

How will the Eagles finish? Superbowl? Probably not!

What's Lurking Behind Armitage's Lame Admission?

2006-09-15T21:26:00.001-04:00

No, that's not Lex Luther. It's Dick Armitage

Bob Novak is angry! Well, actually, Bob Novak is always angry, but this time he seems to have a legitimate reason.

Recently, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage admitted that he was the source who revealed the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to Novak in 2003.

I am sure most readers with a pulse are familiar with the Plame case, so I will not go into detail on the subject here.

Following the publication of Novak’s article (July 14, 2003), a federal investigation was launched to see who was responsible to exposing Plame’s identify as a CIA agent to the public. The left was pointing their fingers at high profile targets in the Bush administration in an attempt to out the culprit. In the process, many have had their reputation raked over the coals, in particular, Presidential advisor Karl Rove.

One has to wonder why Armitage did not step forward sooner and fess up. After all, he claims that the revelation was inadvertent. And if Plame was not in fact a covert agent, the "accidental" revelation would most likely not have risen to the level of a punishable offense.

So why the silence? According to Armitage, Fitzgerald "asked me not to discuss [it], and I honored his request."

Wait a minute! Something sounds fishy here.

Several months elapsed between Novak's article and Fitzgerald's request of silence. Armitage could have pulled the rug out from under the whole investigation before it even got started if he had just stepped forward then. I wonder who kept him back? Fitzgerald is probably wondering too.

According to most accounts, Fitzgerald knew from almost the very beginning that Armitage was the source of the leak. Yet, he allowed Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Scooter Libbey, and others, to be flogged in the court of public opinion.

Why?

To the casual views, it appears as if Fitzgerald was not actually conducting a bona fide investigation, but rather, was setting up a perjury trap – hoping to snare someone from the Bush administration. Maybe even the President himself. At least, that is what Ann Coulter would have you believe. Well, maybe she is right - at least partially.

While I can not rule out the perjury trap idea, it seems to me that there is something more to this. While not driectly saying so, Novak's recent venting in his syndicated columns (1, 2) seems to suggest that there is. Novak claims that Armitage is being misleading when he states that disclosure of Plame's identity was inadvertent.

Novak states:

First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he ‘‘thought’’ might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson.

Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column.

Novak continues:

Armitage’s silence the next 2 years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source. When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s request, that does not explain his silence three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald’s appointment on Dec. 30. Armitage’s tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive.

When one takes all these facts into consideration, it seems that there is indeed something more to this whole investigation, other than being a perjury trap. It seems that Armitage was put up to the task of leaking the information to Novak.

The question that remains is obvious. And it is probably what Fitzgerald was after. And that question is this:

Who put Armitage up to this?

Corporate Executives Are Pillaging Their Companies

2006-09-05T22:39:00.002-04:00

Cartoon by Cagle

CEOs and other corporate executives are taking their companies to the cleaners and ripping off share-holders!

The median base salary of CEOs in the US is about $650,000.00. And that figure doesn’t include all the bonuses and perks.

If you throw in the annual bonus, the median salary increases to almost $950.000.00.

Tack on the benefits, and you are looking at a figure over $1.1M!

And that is the median! The top 20% of CEOs get $1.5 to $2.0 million or more!

The other executives (CFO, COO, etc) are making similar salaries.

And in many cases, their companies are loosing money while the executive parking lot is lined with BMWs and Mercedes-Benz’s.

Now if that enough…. These figures do not even include their stock options! That is where the execs stand to make a killing! According to a 2004 Congressional Study, the average executive compensation (salary, bonuses, benefits, stock options, and other perks) was $9.6 million. All of this comes at the expense of the little people – the stock holders and employees.

And in taking profits on stock options – the execs in many companies cheat!

Many companies offer stock options to their executives. But what many people do not realize is that the corporate executives are cheating the system to essentially steal money from their companies – and thus from the stock holders and employees. People like you and me!

How do they do it? Stock options essentially allow the holder to buy shares in a company at a fixed price. In order to lock-in their profits, the date at which the options are awarded to the executives (but not the regular employees) can be back-dated to precede a rally in the stock price, thus guaranteeing the holder of profits.

It is like that scene from Back to the Future when Marty McFly (Michael J. Fox) brings a sports almanac from the 80s back to the 50s. Biff Henderson (his nemesis) steals the almanac with the goal of betting on games which he knows the outcome in advance.

Most people call that stealing! But in the corporate world, it is just the way that the corporate top dogs conduct business.

Back-dating is not the only problem! The corporate execs also engage in practices colloquially known as “spring-loading” and “bullet-dodging”, two nuances on the back-dating scheme. With these shady practices, the grant dates of stock options are set to precede corporate announcements of good news, or to follow announcements of bad news. In both cases, it is done in anticipation of a rally in the share price. Again, the executives are locking in their profits, i.e., stealing.

I don’t know about you, but to me these crooked practices smack of insider trading.

But there is potentially some good news on the horizon. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, has scheduled a hearing on these abuses in executive compensation. Hopefully, something can be done to right this injustice. The hearing will air live on C-SPAN.

I will keep you posted on developments.

Israel Beefs Up for Inevitable(?) Battle With Iran

2006-08-29T20:35:00.001-04:00

Dolphin Class Submarine

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made no bones about his desire to have Israel “wiped off the map." Iran is also continuing its plans to enrich uranium which they claim is for peaceful purposes.

[My inner monologue] Let me see. Iran is sitting on top of huge sea of oil. Yet they claim to need uranium for energy production.

OK. Sure. If you guys say so.

In reality, Iran has no intention of enriching uranium for energy production. Everyone knows it is for building atomic weapons. They are asking for all sorts of concessions – just like Kim Jong-il did – before they agree to stop. But they are just stalling for time. They have no plans to halt their uranium production until they have the nuclear weapons they need to make them a legit player in Middle East politics.

Not to mention that they would love to drop a few nukes on Israel.

So what should Israel do?

Israel should not – and will not – sit idly to wait and see what happens. They must make preparations to defend themselves against a dangerous and unpredictable enemy who is hell-bent on destroying them. And that defensive strategy may very well include a preemptive first strike. I mean, who in their right mind is going to keep their hands at their side when they know a 2-by-4 to the head is coming their way? The best strategy is not to wait, but rather to strike first!

As such, Israel is preparing for what appears to be an inevitable clash with Iran. Sure, diplomacy is still on the table, but to be honest, it doesn't appear to be very promising. The U.N. Security Council has set August 31 as the deadline for Iran to halt uranium enrichment. If Iran refuses, which they most likely will, then economic sanctions may be leveled against her. But at this point, it appears that the threat of sanctions will not materialize, as Russia has stated she will not support such a resolution. I don’t suppose that fact that Russia currently sells weapons and defense systems to Iran has anything to do with their position.

The next few days may very well determine how the Iran situation plays out. But because of the unpredictability of Iran's radical leadership, Israel must remain on the defensive. To that end, Israel is in the process of creating a new command to deal exclusively with Iran. In addition, Israel recently purchased a number of so-called “bunker buster” bombs from the United States, and two nuclear-capable submarines from Germany. This is in addition to the three (or more) nuclear subs that are presently in Israel’s fleet. Let’s not forget that Israel already has the sixth-largest stockpile nuclear arms.

If diplomacy and/or sanctions do not prove successful, expect a war with Iran. Israel will be involved. And so will the United States. Perhaps others.

Unfortunately, the Iranian people stand to be the most severly affected if a war breaks out. Iran's radical leadership doesn't seem to realize what it is up against. If Israel is attacked, she will respond like a wild dog unleashed. She will be a force to be reckoned with. And Israel will undoubtedly have the support of the United States - either directly or as a military advisor and weapons supplier. It's a battle that Iran can not afford to fight. But that may not factor into the decision of the Iranian "leadership", as President Ahmadinejad has stated that he is willing to sacrifice "half of Iran" to accomplish his goal of wiping out Israel.

Darwin and Hitler: Soulmates?

2006-08-22T19:31:00.001-04:00

Soulmates?

Christian Fundamentalists are in an ideological battle with science over Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Thus far, the fundies have not succeeded in getting Darwin tossed and creationism placed into the science curriculum of our public schools.

Unable to defeat the message, they have decided to go after the messenger. The fundies have taken a page right out of the politicians playbook! In this case, they have started a smear campaign to attack a man who has been dead for almost 125 years. Of course, we are talking about Charles Darwin.

Darwin’s 1859 publication, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”, revolutionized the way people thought about how man came to be.

Prior to 1859, the biblical version of creation wherein man was created in the image of God held favor. With the publication of Darwin’s theory, many began to question to factual nature of the biblical account.

Now, the Christian fundamentalists have launched a media campaign designed to discredit Darwin and, by proxy, his theory of evolution. The shots are coming from all directions. Ann Coulter has taken a few shots, both in her book Godless and her syndicated column. Not to be outdone, other authors and filmmakers have also chimed in. In thier books and made-for-TV documentaries, they have gone as far as saying that Charles Darwin should share the blame with Hitler and the Nazi’s for the millions murdered in the Holocaust.

In addition to the Holocaust, Darwin is also being blamed for the rise in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, eugenics, and even the Columbine massacre.

Now that’s a smear campaign if I ever saw one!

Darwin was a naturalist who developed a theory to describe what he and many others saw in the natural world. He was not a politician and certainly not a genocidal megalomaniac. While Hitler may used the underpinnings of Darwinism to provide the foundation for the ideas laid out in Mein Kampf, that does not prescribe culpability to Darwin for the Holocaust. Using that logic, one would be forced to conclude that God himelf, being the inpiratation for the Bible, is responsible for all the evils carried out in His name.

This whole campaign to demonize Darwin is absolutely ridiculous! Both the fundamentalist Christians and intransigent zealots that pose as scientists must share the blame for this. In their stubbornness and close-mindedness, they have failed to see evolutionary theory for what it is. As such, they have made this battle an all-or-nothing affair.

In reality, there in nothing about evolution that is incompatible with the biblical version of creation. All that is required to synchronize the two accounts is accept that evolution may be the means by which God created man.As Cardinal John Henry Newman said in 1868, “the theory of Darwin...may simply be suggesting a larger idea of divine providence and skill.”

Well, if that’s the case, then why doesn’t Darwin’s theory address God?

To put it simply, God is not a measurable entity and therefore is not a suitable subject for scientific analysis. As Francis Collins of the Human Genome Institute states, “Science investigates the natural world….But if God exists, God must be outside the natural world and so science really is silent in terms of answering that question.”

As such, scientists who cite Darwin as evidence that God does not exist are really extending themselves beyond their area of expertise. Making such statements suggests that they don’t really understand the limitations of the scientific method. To put in bluntly, the scientists don’t know what they are talking about.

Likewise, fundamentalist Christians who cite allegorical scriptures as fact - scriptures that were largely handed down as traditional folk stories (for God knows how long) prior to be put down as the written word - are equally as ignorant.

Women Must Be Submissive and Silent

2006-08-21T20:32:00.001-04:00

Dismissed Sunday School Teacher, Mary Lambert

1 Timothy 2:11-14 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

Citing the first epistle of Timothy, The First Baptist Church of Watertown New York dismissed 81 year old Mary Lambert from her position as Sunday school teacher. She had taught there for 54 years.

According to a statement issued by the church’s Diaconate Board, "…the Board's decision to remove [Lambert] from a teaching position was multifaceted and the scriptural rules concerning women teaching men in a church setting was only a small aspect of that decision." The statement continues, "Christian courtesy motivates us to refrain from making any public accusations against her."

When asked by a local reporter what the other “facets” of the church’s decision were, Pastor Timothy LaBouf would not reveal any details, but he did acknowlege that there has been a split within the church.

Okay, so it seems that there is a power struggle or a battle over what path the church should take in the future. Rather than settle the issue like a grown-ups, LaBouf and the church board have decided to be spiteful and take punitive actions against a woman who has given her life to her church.

Doesn’t sound very Christian-like to me!

I, for one, am a little skeptical of the pators’ forthrightness. Why was Lambert’s gender not an issue for the previous 54 years – but suddenly it is now? And in what appears to be a contradictory statement, LaBouf maintains that the fact that Lambert was a woman was only a “small aspect” of the decision to remove her. Well if that is the case, then why even bring it up? Surely the pastor must have known he would be igniting a firestorm.

Sounds to me like LaBouf is cowardly hiding behind the scriptures. He is using them as a substitute for an apparent testosterone deficiency. If the Diaconate Board has a serious disagreement with Ms. Lambert as to how the church is to be run, then let them come forward and say so. If the differences are serious enough to make Lambert unsuitable as a teacher or warrant her removal from the church, then let them do so on those grounds. Don’t issue some medieval or patriarchal statement that women should be “silent and submissive” and “not worthy of having authority over a man”.

Are we still living in the Dark Ages?

I guess I just don’t see what advantage having male genitals gives men when it comes to proclaiming God’s word. It certainly does not make them smarter. The Old Testament has plenty of female prophets, and Jesus included women among his disciples. Perhaps LaBouf should go back and read Genesis 1: 27, “So God created man in his own image…male and female he created them.”.

Maybe LaBouf can answer this question for me. Is one part of God’s image inferior to the other?

Hydrogen Cars – Betting on a Three-legged Horse?

2006-08-18T00:05:00.001-04:00

General Motors Hydrogen-Fueled Sequel

Many automakers are currently testing some version of a hydrogen fuel cell automobile, mostly due to funding support from President Bush’s $1.2 billion hydrogen initiative which he announced in his 2003 State of the Union address. General Motors recently announced that it has a “drivable version” of its Hydrogen-Fueled concept car – The Sequel.

The hydrogen fuel cell technology is attractive to consumers and the environmentally conscious due to its sustainability and its near zero level of hydrocarbon emissions (it emits water vapor). But hydrogen fuel cells are not without their problems – the major ones being their “high cost, relatively short range (approx. 300 miles) and a lack of fueling stations”.

There is also competition from ethanol – the so-called E85 fuel. E85 fuel is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. While not as clean as the hydrogen fuel cells, it does reduce emissions by about 80%. E85 also has a lot of other advantages in its favor that make it the more likely choice as the fuel source to eliminate our ~~dependence on~~ addiction to oil.

The major advantage is that the conversion from gasoline to E85 can be done much easier than the conversion to a completely different fuel source. Switching to hydrogen cars would require a total revamping of production and distribution systems, major renovations of every gas station in the country, and the design and production of new cars. We are talking about a multi-trillion dollar impact on the economy!

Switching to E85 would not be nearly as painful. Most of today’s gas stations will be able to handle E85 with minimal retrofitting. And auto makers can tweak their current car designs to adapt them to E85 at a cost that will add only $200.00 to the car’s retail price. And like hydrogen fuel cells, ethanol is sustainable.

But its production is not without problems. This is the one hurdle that the E85 proponents must overcome.

Most of the fuel ethanol currently produced comes from corn or sugar cane. This has raised some ethical concerns as it is cutting into a food resource. According to Fortune Magazine, “the grain required to fill a 25-gallon…gas tank with ethanol…could feed one person for a year. If today's entire U.S. grain harvest were converted into fuel for cars, it would still satisfy less than one-sixth of U.S. demand.”.

That’s a lot of potential food that could go a long way in feeding a hungry world! And it doesn't come close to meeting demand or curbing our consumption of oil.

Moreover, because lots of corn and sugar cane have been used for ethanol production, it has decreased the amount available for food. This in turn has caused the commodity prices of those crops to rise. For the poor, rising commodity prices could translate into malnutrition or starvation.

Fortunately, there is some good news. Ethanol can now be made from a variety of sources, such as prairie swithcgrass, corn husks and tillers, wood chips, and even manure.

There is also another problem with E85. “Big Oil” is not that interested in it. And they more or less run the gas stations. So if they don’t market and distribute it, there will not be many places for consumers to conveniently obtain it.

Like nature, the marketplace abhors a vacuum. If there is money to be made, someone will step up to the plate. And that “someone” might just be Wal-Mart. And if the price of oil continues to rise, that will certainly compel consumers to look for more affordable alternatives.

Alternatives like ethanol!

More On the Cease-Fire

2006-08-18T00:01:00.001-04:00

Israel won!
Israel lost!
Hezbollah has been dealt a major set-back!
Hezbollah is more powerful now that before!

Actually, all this conjecture is premature. The war is not over. The cease-fire will be short lived.

For the cease-fire to last, Hezbollah must disarm. They won't! And Lebanon said they won't force them to. Israel will not accept those terms - and they have stated such!

Now a so-called "peace-keeping" force has moved into Lebanon. And at least seven countries have committed troops to Lebanon.

This could play right into the hands Israel and the US. If they had tried to build a coalition before the war to help oust Hezbollah, they would have gotten few or no takers. Now, under the guise of keeping the peace, they have seven nations on board. These nations will, in effect, maintain a buffer zone for Israel to the north. This will allow Israel to focus on the region around the Golan Heights and Syria - the next theater in the war.

I won't be suprised if fighting in the region breaks out again before the end of the year. Iran might even get in the mix if the IAF or the US decide to take out some of the nuclear capabilities.

Long Live the King!

2006-08-16T10:53:00.002-04:00

Rock Idol Elvis Presley Dies at 42

By Larry Rohter and Tom Zito
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, August 17, 1977
(© 1977 The Washington Post Co.)

Elvis Presley, who revolutionized American popular music with his earthy singing style and became a hero to two generations of rock 'n' roll fans, died yesterday in Memphis, Tenn. He was 42.

Shelby County Medical Examiner Dr. Jerry Francisco said last night an autopsy indicated Presley died of "cardiac arrhythmia," which he described as a "severely irregular heartbeat" and "just another name for a form of heart attack." He said the three-hour autopsy uncovered no sign of any other diseases -- though Presley had in recent years been treated at Baptist Memorial Hospital for hypertension, pneumonia and an enlarged colon -- and there was no sign of any drug abuse.

Presley’s body was discovered at 2:30 p.m. Memphis time by his road manager, Jerry Esposito, in a bathroom in the singer’s multimillion-dollar Graceland Mansion. He was rushed to the Baptist Memorial, where he was met by his personal physician, Dr. George C. Nichopoulos, and pronounced dead.

Read the rest of the article HERE

Cease Fire! – For Now

2006-08-14T21:51:00.001-04:00

Both Israel and Hezbollah have accepted the terms of a cease-fire.

And both sides are claiming victory!

Both are partially correct.

Hezbollah is claiming a "strategic, historic victory". Israel’s goals were to eliminate Hezbollah's ability to strike her and to remove Hezbollah from power. Neither goal was accomplished. The fact that Hezbollah is still in power in Lebanon and can still target Israel with its missiles is a victory in and of itself.

Israel on the other hand, has destroyed much – but certainly not all – of Hezbollah’s infrastructure in the south. And Israel still occupies much of southern Lebanon. Although she has not completely accomplished her goals (see above), Isreal has made significant progress and has by no means lost the battle. And the fact that a UN "peace-keeping" force will be assisting the Lebanese in regaining control of the south – assuming it is successful – is a big feather in Israel’s cap.

So now there is a cease fire. But how long will it last?

Probably not for long!

Israel still maintains a presence in southern Lebanon and has no immediate plans for leaving so long as Hezbollah is perceived as a threat. In an address to the Knesset today, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert vowed to “…pursue [Hezbollah] everywhere and at all times…”.

That doesn't sound like a recipe for peace.

Where does Hezbollah stand on the cease-fire? Yesterday, the spokeman for Iran’s foreign ministry, Hamida-Reza Asefi, stated that attacks on Israel would continue as long as "occupation lingers". According to Hezbollah council member Ahmed Barakat, Hezb still possesses thousands of rockets and other "surprises" for use in the days following the implementation of the UN cease-fire.

Taken together, the positions maintained by both Israel and Hezbollah do not exactly evoke images of white doves and olive branches. Its more like two fighters going to their corners between rounds.

Here at home, President Bush is declaring victory for Israel. According to Bush, “There's going to be a new power in the south of Lebanon”.

Perhaps. But I wouldn’t lay my wager down just yet.

Israel certainly has military superiority when it comes to its Air Force (IAF) and its arsenal of missiles. Not to mention its nuclear capabilites or the "bunker busters" it recently purchased from the US. But when it comes to a ground war – a guerilla campaign on Hezb’s home turf – they enjoy no such advantage. I think they will find it difficult, if not impossible, to uproot Hezbollah without the help on the Lebanese people. And considering the approx. 1,000 civilian casualties inflicted on the Lebanese by Israel, Israel has not exactly won over their hearts.

Certainly, the UN can play a major role here in trying to implement a peaceful settlement. But I wouldn’t count on it. The UN has no backbone. For starters, they give Hezbollah and Israel moral equivalence. Under such terms, it is unlikely that they will be able to negotiate a solution which Israel will accept. And Hezbollah will not accept any terms that require their disarmament or an abdication of power

The bottom line: The cease-fire will be short.

And don't rule out an expansion of the war into Syria - and possibly even Iran if the US gets involved.

Israel's Right to Self-Defense

2006-08-10T06:17:00.001-04:00

Israel and Hezbollah are locked in a deadly battle. While many soldiers have been killed on both sides, the majority of the casualties have been civilians. And of those, over 90% have been Lebanese.

Judging by the pictures and stories flashed across your TV screen during your evening news broadcast, one would be led to believe that the Israelis were the aggressor in this campaign. Moreover, Israel is also portrayed as being cold and heartless in their "targeted" strikes against innocent civilians. And it seems that many Americans are buying what the media are selling.

To quote Pink Floyd, “Hello? Hello? Hello? (fading) Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me. Is there anyone home?

Let’s face reality here!

Hezbollah and its patrons (Syria and Iran) have publicly expressed their desire to ”wipe Israel off the map”.

Israel has made attempts at making peace. In 2000, following its conflict with the PLO, Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon. And earlier this year, she withdrew from Gaza. What have the results been? Renewed attacks by Hezbollah and Hamas! Attacks that are being backed by Iran and Syria.

So what should Israel do? Turn the other cheek? They already did that (see above).

Maybe Pope John Paul II hit the nail right on the head when he stated, “War is a defeat for humanity.” But I don’t see any other viable options for Israel. The US has tried to bring international pressure against the agents of Hezbollah, but have gotten a luke-warm response. Surely, Israel can not be expected to placate their enemies in the manner that Chamberlain placated Hitler. She can not wait until nuclear missle rain down on Tel-Aviv. She ~~should~~ must stand up for herself! Now! And that is precisely what she has done.

For that, Israel is being demonized. The evening news flashes pictures of demolished Lebanese cities. Apartment building reduced to rubble. Innocent Lebanese civilians – women and children – dead in the streets. As if this is what Israel wanted.

Why is there scant mention in the media of Hezbollah's goals and tactics? They hide behind innocent civilians – human shields! They place rocket launchers in residential districts, they locate their offices in the basements of apartment buildings or next door to schools. They are cowards!

But when Israel strikes, she is demonized as a baby-killer!

Hezbollah are terrorists! Anyone remember the 241 dead US marines they murdered!?

Israel is the shining example of a free democracy in the middle east.

But somehow the West can not seem to recognize the difference. Victor Davis Hanson gets right to the point when in his recent National Review article wherein he states, “…the amoral Westerner cannot exercise moral judgment because he no longer has any.”

It’s the 1930’s all over again!

The Truth Behind the Mel Gibson Controversy

2006-08-08T20:38:00.001-04:00

A shocked Mel Gibson attempts to strangle an unsuspecting Jesus after discovering that he is a Jew

Iraq is on the brink of civil war. Iran is enriching uranium for a bomb. There is a regional war going on in the Middle East which could escalate into a wider conflict. Despite these facts, the “Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite” nonsense seems to be the story that is really capturing the media’s attention.

In a drunken tirade during his arrest for DUI, Gibson said, "F*****g Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world," and asked the arresting officer, "Are you a Jew?"

Granted, these are ignorant statements that border on anti-Semitism. But so what!

Doesn’t it seem kind of strange that the media are making such a big deal over a few ignorant statements. And let’s remember, there were only statements! Statements for which Gibson issued an apology. But rather than take his apology at face value, Mel has been branded as an avowed anti-Semite.

Where is the forgiveness? Has anyone considered that maybe the ideas that spewed forward from Mel’s lips could be a legacy from his childhood. Something he knows is wrong, but has been struggling to overcome?

Whether that scenario is true or not – or whether Gibson is truly sorry - seems unimportant to the media. That's because the whole controversy really has little or nothing to do with Mel Gibson personally. The goal of the “Mel is an anti-Semite” campaign is nothing more than a veiled attempt to discredit his movie, The Passion of the Christ. The Passion was very unpopular among some Jews because of the unfavorable light in which the Jewish elders were portrayed. Several pundits made this point when the Gibson arrest first hit the front pages, but their voices were drowned out by all the cries of anti-Semitism.

But now, the truth is starting to come out, such as this article by Tim Rutten that appeared in the LA Times over the weekend. In the article, Rutten reveals what is really behind all the attention that Gibson is receiving. Rutten writes:

…why hasn't the press reopened the discussion of Gibson's financially successful but controversial movie, "The Passion of the Christ"? When it was released two years ago, there were some who argued that...Gibson's narrative was studded with the kinds of anti-Semitic caricatures once associated with medieval passion plays.

So there you have it. Its an agenda about saving face.

Rutten then goes on a mini-smear campaign to defame Mel. He starts by attacking Mel’s conservative brand of old-school Catholicism by suggesting that all traditional Catholics are consumed by a “pervasive… antagonism toward Jews and Judaism”. His logic seems to be that Mel is a traditional Catholic, so he must be the same.

Its guilt by association.

Rutten goes on to attack Gibson’s father Hunter, who has made controversial statements about the Holocaust before, by suggesting that is was “largely a myth”. Mel is then criticized for not publicly denouncing his father’s beliefs. Perhaps Rutten missed it, but Mel was interviewed a few years back by Reader’s Digest about his position on the Holocaust. Mel does not deny that the Holocaust happened. In fact, he clearly states that he personally knows people who survived it and that he himself believes that it did indeed happen. This issue for him comes down to a “numbers game”. How many million Jews actually died in the camps?

Since when does questioning the accuracy of history make one anti-Semitic?

Rutten also criticizes Gibson’s primary source material for The Passion, namely the Gospel of Matthew, which he refers to as the "most problematic of the four Christian passion narratives".

Problematic? I wonder what leads him to that conclusion? Is it because he believes the Gospel to be false? Or is it because it paints an unflattering picture of the Jewish elders in their bloodlust to have Christ crucified?

Sounds to me like Rutten has a problem with Catholics. But I digress...

It seems to me that the media are really blowing this out of proportion. This is not news. It is servicing an agenda. Frankly, I think this will backfire on the media. Its the boy who cried wolf.

There are legitimate cases of anti-Semitism that the media could/should focus on. Instead, they choose to focus on the Gibson case - probably to take advantage of Mad Max's celebrity.

Although I find Mel's statements derogatory, they don't really qualify as anti-Semetic. Which of course raises another question? Just what is it that qualifies someone as being eligible for a free membership in the Anti-Semite club? Does one have to burn down a synogouge? Do they have to be a Nazi or a Klansmen? Or is it merely criticizing someone who happens to be Jewish? Is it denying the Holocaust? Is it accepting that the Holocaust happened but questioning some of the details? Or is simply not liking Neil Diamond sufficient?

Oh, I almost forget. Mel worships Jesus who incidentally happens to be a Jew, for Christ’s sake.

Cuba Libre?

2006-08-07T00:04:00.001-04:00

Fidel Castro speaking to his brother Raul

Cuba Libre? Don’t bet on it!

There has been a lot of speculation regarding the fate of Cuban President (Translation: Dictator) Fidel Castro. Fidel recently underwent surgery for (reportedly) gastrointestinal bleeding brought on by stress. Rumors have even begun to spread that Fidel is dead.

Okay? Whatever.

Fidel relinquished the Presidency to his brother Raul who is currently the Cuban defense minister. This is the first time that Fidel has surrendered power since taking control of Cuba in 1959.

Upon hearing the announcement of Fidel’s medical condition, Miami’s displaced Cuban population became ecstatic. They took to the streets in celebration of Fidel’s hopeful demise. Apparently they think that they will be able to return home following the transition to power.

I wish it were so!

Unfortunately, that most likely will not be the case. For starters, it appears that Fidel is not dead, and his abdication is only temporary. Even if he were to take a “dirt nap”, his brother Raul appears to be next in line to take over. And by most accounts, little brother is no choir boy.

Raul has his brutal side. STRATFOR (a well respected private intelligence company) believes Raul will be more repressive than Fidel. He has played a leading role in the suppression of Fidel’s political opponents for almost 50 years! According to NewsMax, Raul supervised the execution of over one hundred police and military personnel of the deposed Batista government. Although that was over 50 years ago, many analysts believe that Raul would continue to govern with an “iron fist”, mostly due to his lack of charisma and suspect political abilities. In support of this, the New Media Journal is reporting that the Cuban military is already reposition units throughout the country to quell any dissention or uprisings that may occur.

On the bright side, Raul is no spring chicken. He is 75 years old. In addition, there is no guarantee he will take over following Fidel’s eventually death. In fact, many believe that if he were not Fidel’s brother, he would not even be in consideration for the next in line. Others who are contending for the ascendancy to the “Presidency” are Vice President Carlos Lage, Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque, and National Assembly President Ricardo Alarcon. It is not clear (to me) how these leaders would rule, but being that they are all communists, chances are that there would be little change in Cuba’s governmental philosophy. Barring US intervention, of course. But that seems unlikely. The US has lots of other seemingly more important issue on the table right now (Iraq, Iran, Mexican Border, Middle East War, etc). And Cuba currently does not represent much of a serious threat.

So don’t make any plans on getting drunk in Havana any time soon!

Mel Gibson to be Crucified?

2006-08-01T17:34:00.001-04:00

I am a big supporter of Israel, as anyone who has read my previous blog entries can testify. However, I am NOT a big supporter of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). To me, they rank right up there with the NAACP as a bunch of whining, self-victimizers. The ADL's lastest antics over the Mel Gibson tirade are a case in point.

Actor Mel Gibson was arrested early Friday morning for driving under the influence (DUI). According to published reports, “deputies clocked [Gibson] doing 87 mph in a 45 mph zone”. An empty tequila bottle was found in Gibson's car, and his blood alcohol level was 0.12 (CA legal limit is 0.08).

Sounds to me like he was inebriated.

To make matters worse, Gibson embarked on a verbal tirade, wherein he made a variety of derogatory remarks, some of which were against Jews. Gibson reportedly stated ""F*****g Jews... The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world," and asked the arresting officer, "Are you a Jew?"

Gibson, who has long battled with bipolar disorder and alcoholism, issued an apology for his remarks, stating, ”There is no excuse, nor should there be any tolerance, for anyone who thinks or expresses any kind of Anti-Semitic remark. I want to apologize specifically to everyone in the Jewish community for the vitriolic and harmful words that I said… I’m not just asking for forgiveness. I would like to take it one step further, and meet with leaders in the Jewish community, with whom I can have a one on one discussion to discern the appropriate path for healing…”

Great! Now we can move on with life and deal with more important issues, right?

Ah, not so fast there Antonio. Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, called Gibson's apology "unremorseful and insufficient."

Seems to me that Foxman is implacable and unforgiving. I suppose he has not yet exacted his pound of flesh. Perhaps Foxman wants Gibson to be turned over to Ciaphas the High Priest, so that he can bring him before Pilate. If Pilate gives the ADL the thumbs-up, Gibson could be scheduled for crucifixion as early as next week. The crucifixion would obviously take place at San Quentin prison, with the actual act of driving in the nails being performed by prison employees, thereby cleansing the hands of the ADL of any culpability in the matter.

Okay, let’s be serious for a moment. Truth be told, this is yet another episode of the ADL trying to draw attention to itself. This has little to do with Mel Gibson - his so-called tirade was pretty lame, by bigotry standards. The ADL is simply taking advantage of Gibson's celebrity to publicly flex their muscle. If anything, this is more of a vicarious attack on Gibson’s father, Hutton Gibson, who has a reputation for making anti-semetic statements. The same thing happened a few years ago when Mel Gibson was accused of anti-semetism because critics felt that his film, The Passion, unfairly blamed the Jews for Jesus’ crucifixion. Gibson rightfully denied the charge, as his film only reflected what is actually written in the gospels. But to his credit, he edited the film prior to its release to remove a part of the script that the ADL felt was inappropriate.

So let's take a step back and view this episode a bit more clearly. This whole thing is being blow way out of proprotion. It is not a big deal. The guy was drunk off his gourd and made a few ignorant statements. He said a few things that were lurking around in the back of his mind. Thankfully they don't have thought police to follow the rest of us around and dig into the bowels of the minds. We should also be thankful that someone did not have a tape-recorder on hand the last time we made remarks that could have been construed as disparaging of others (which for me was yesterday). If they did, they could certainly have a field day on my account.

Or maybe Mel is not really that fond of Jews after all.

Who cares?! Get over it.

What a Misogynist Culture We Live In!

2006-07-25T18:16:00.001-04:00

Girls today mature at an earlier age than those of only a generation or two ago. Yet it seems that society offers little or no protection for them. On the contrary, society – particularly Hollywood and Madison Avenue – exploits girl’s sexuality. From movies, to MTV, to ads in popular teen magazines, to TV commercials, and even cartoons young girls are brainwashed with the idea that they have to have a certain body type and wear skimpy revealing clothing and act in a sexually outward way in order to be accepted by their peers – particularly by those of the opposite gender.

Children in their primary school years have already developed negative images of girls in their class who are overweight. The popular girls are the skinny ones who wear short skirts. And the really popular ones are those that get to wear make-up and earrings to school. I am talking about 9 and 10 year old girls!

The problem has really gotten out of hand. Historian Joan Brumberg, in her book The Body Project claims that over half of all girls are dissatisfied with their bodies by the age of thirteen. Evidence of this dissatisfaction shows itself in the a variety of ways. Girls begin dieting as early as 8 or 9 years old to get that “perfect body”. Many girls develop eating disorders such as bulimia or anorexia. Teenage girls are increasingly resorting to cosmetic surgery to alter their appearance. And by cosmetic surgery, we are not just talking just the outwardly visible things like botox injections, face lifts, breast implants, liposuction, and the like (as if they were not bad enough).

Girls are now so distraught over the fact that their bodies do not look the way society tells them that they are supposed to, that they are resorting to things like vaginal labioplasty to give themselves “designer vaginas”. When I first came across this topic while surfing the net, I thought to myself, "This must be a joke". I was shocked to find out that it was not a joke at all. In fact, the clinics that offer the procedure have pages of pictures of so-called abnormal vaginas, apparently in an effort to convince you that yours may be another one. On top of that, they even accept credit cards and offer financing plans to help you pay for it. What the…?

It’s not just a girls appearance that is being targeted. It is also how she acts. It’s not cool to be smart or to be like the Walton’s, you have to be cheap and slutty to be popular these days. Rather than aspiring to be an upstanding woman like Condi Rice or Hillary Clinton, today’s girls would rather be like Pamela Anderson or Paris Hilton. I think Ariel Levy hit the nail right on the head when she states that, “Our popular culture has embraced a model of female sexuality that comes straight from pornography and strip clubs, in which the woman's job is to excite and titillate - to perform for men”

The women’s movement also has to take some responsibility for this. They were so interested in promoting freedom and liberation for women that young girls got lost in the mix – collateral damage so to speak. They celebrated the sexuality and power displayed by such modern day icons as Madonna, while failing to realize the inherent dangers it posed to young girls. Again, Ariel Levy gets right to the point, “…women have bought into this by altering their bodies surgically and cosmetically, and - more insidiously - by confusing sexual power with power, so that embracing this caricaturish form of sexuality becomes, in their minds, a perverse kind of feminism”

The image our society holds of women must change – for the sake of our children. But don’t rely on most men to change it, because they won’t. The sad fact is that our young boys (and men for that matter) are being taught by society that being a misogynist pig is not only acceptable, but its even desireable.

And don’t rely on the women’s movement to change it either. They strayed from the goals of their founders a long time ago. They have aligned themselves too closely with political interests, who themselves have sold out to the moneyed interests. And there is a lot of money to be made in the exploitation of women. The reality is that the women’s movement has betrayed itself.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton must be turning over in her grave!

It is really up to women to change it themselves – at the grass roots level. And that starts at home by fostering a healthy image of women in their daughters – as well as in their sons. Fathers must also reinforce this idea, by their words, as well as their actions. People also have demand more from the public. Money talks – and boycotts work. Make Hollywood and Madison Avenue hurt in the wallet, and they will respond.

Cosmetic Surgery Has Gone Too Far

2006-07-23T21:18:00.001-04:00

Does someone you love have sagging jowls or bags under the eyes? Does that someone need a tummy-tuck? Or perhaps they have some wrinkles that could easily be smoothed over with a botox injection. Or maybe some cellulite that needs to be hosed out. If any of these problems sounds familiar to you, they can easilty be solved with a single phone call to ~~a cosmetic surgeon~~ - um...err…the veterinarian. That’s right, the veterinarian.

Now you can take Spot and Fluffy to have these procedures done. And at a fraction of the cost that human cosmetic surgeons charge. I know – it sounds totally ridiculous, but this is America! But actually it’s not just the US. Apparently, cosmetic surgery for pets is growing in popularity across the globe. So much so, that now it is causing problems at dog shows, as trainers are claiming that the other dogs are "supplementing" to gain advantages during competitions. And you thought Major League Baseball and Barry Bonds had problems.

But it gets even more ridiculous than that. If you are a responsible pet owner, you have probably taken Rover down to the vets to get him neutered. After you bring his home, you notice he is a little less active than before. He lies around a lot, eats more often, and is gaining weight. He just doesn’t seem the same. You also notice that when he walks around, he no longer has that “manly bounce” he used to have. He looks sort of “different”.

Now you can get that fixed too. It seems a guy in Independence, MO is offering prosthetic testicular implants for pets. And they are quite popular, as there are over 100,000 pets sporting these phony man bits.

The aptly named neuticles come in a variety of shapes and sizes - so you can find that perfect pair to match your loved one's personality.

Rover showing-off his handsome newly inserted K9 man tackle.

Some owners even claim they help improve their dog's self-esteem. Now just what was it that P.T. Barnum said?