The Unknown Pundit

People, learn what irony is!

2006-01-05T14:22:00.000-06:00

Over the last several years I've noticed that so many people mis-use the word "ironic" when describing a coincidence of some sort. It's really become a pet peeve of mine.

Irony usually does involve a coincidence of some sort, but the facts about the situation is what makes it ironic or not.

For instance, recently I saw a story on TV about two golfers whose wives had both delivered premature twins just a few months apart. The babies were delivered at the same hospital and treated by the same medical team. The announcer called it "ironic" that the twins were born under the same circumstances at the same hospital. That's not ironic. It's just a coincidence. For it to be ironic, there would need to be some dark humor somewhere. But there is none here.

Irony is a chiropractor wearing a neck brace. Or a liability lawyer being sued.

Or that O. Henry short story about the comb and the watch. I can't remember the title of the story, but in it a poor man sells his watch to buy a comb for his wife who has long beautiful hair. Unbeknownst to him, his wife had her hair cut and made into a watch chain for her husband to use. So now he has a chain and no watch, and she has a comb but short locks of hair. This is the essence of irony.

Another illustration of irony I can think of off hand comes from a Family Guy episode that parodied the Y2K fears. In the episode, the citizens of New Quahog destroy all their guns because guns are bad and only cause trouble. After the last gun is tossed into the fire they are immediately overrun by a swarm of mutated Stewies. As part of the story, the episode has a scene during the marauding Stewies where one character says to another "Remember how I was trying to explain irony to you the other day?" and is attacked before he can finish his thoughts. Of course, the thought was how ironic that the folks destroyed their guns just when they needed them most.

So irony is a unique set of circumstances that contains some sort of dark humor. Aggravatingly, too many people label unusual coincidences as ironic when they are not.

Of course, the irony here is that they are describing circumstances or situations as ironic when they aren't.

I love irony.

The Eyes of Texas are Upon You

2006-01-05T13:07:00.000-06:00

The University of Texas Longhorns are college football's champions due to their thrilling victory over the University of Southern California Trojans in this year's Rose Bowl game. Final score - Texas 41 - USC 38.

What a game.

While Texas' come-from-behind victory is what made the game so thrilling, the game was won (or lost) in the first half last night. Texas led the game at half time 16 to 10. USC moved the ball efficiently throughout the first half but only scored 10 points. USC was in scoring position several times but was thwarted by (1) the failure to convert a short 4th down play, relinquishing possession to Texas deep in Texas territory (2) the ill-advised Reggie Bush lateral that was dropped and recovered by Texas, again deep in Texas territory (3) a Texas interception of a Matt Leinart pass at their own goal line, turning the ball back over to Texas at their 20 yard line.

Had USC been able to hang on to the ball and score some points on all three of these possessions, the outcome last night would have been a USC victory. Those turnovers cost USC anywhere from 9 to 21 points. In the second half, USC outscored Texas 28 to 25. Had they put a few more points on the board in the first half, they would likely have won another championship.

But you still have to tip your hat to Texas. They were down 12 points with about 6 minutes left to play in the game and they were able to score 15 unanswered points to claim the title.

Ironically, in a game that featured so much offense (especially in the 2nd half), it was the Texas defense that gave Texas the chance to win the game.

USC had a 4th down and 2 yards to go for a first down with the ball at the Texas 47 yard line. USC coach Pete Carroll decided to go for the 1st down instead of punting. The Texas defense rose to the occasion and stuffed the LenDale White run just shy of the first down. Texas took over possession of the ball on their own 45, with just over two minutes to play and two time outs in hand.

Texas was able to move the ball down the field, helped by a USC face mask penalty that allowed Texas to avoid a 4th down conversion situation early in the drive. After that, Texas moved down the field and scored the game winner on a 4th down play on a rush by the incomparable Vince Young with 19 seconds left in the game. USC got the ball back and moved it into Texas territory but simply ran out of time.

While I certainly understand the Coach Carroll's decision not to punt, it's not the one I would have made. I would have punted the ball and made Texas march 80+ yards down the field to beat me. Instead, Texas was given a shortened field, only 55 yards away from scoring. The decision to go for the 1st down is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of situations. If USC gets the first down, it's likely lights out for Texas and an "atta boy" for Coach Carroll. But USC didn't get the first down, and now Coach Carroll will be second guessed on his decision from now until the end of time. Of course, even if USC punted Texas still might have scored anyway, but most won't think of that and will think Coach Carroll blew it.

Finally, what can one say about Texas QB Vince Young's performance in last night's game? Superlative is what it was. The Texas QB rushed for 200 yards on 20 carries and threw for 267 yards, completing 30 of 40 passes. He rushed for three TD's, including the game winner, an 8 yard rush on 4th down and 5 from the USC 8 yard line. USC fielded the last two Heisman Trophy winners in Matt Leinart and Reggie Bush, and both had fine games. But it was Vince Young who showed everybody what a truly unique and gifted athlete he is.

What a game.

Parade coverage

2006-01-03T14:59:00.000-06:00

I watched some of the Tournament of Roses Parade yesterday. I enjoy seeing the beautiful floats, the marching bands from all over the nation and the world, and I enjoy the horse teams and their ornate saddles and rigs.

What I don't enjoy is inappropriate comments from the announcers.

I was tuned into HGTV watching the parade when host Rob Weller made a bone-headed comment. It rained during the parade and he was telling the audience how the rain had been light until just a few hours before the parade started. At about two hours before the parade started, it was "Wham. Bam. Thank you, ma'am." and the rain really started coming down much harder, per Mr. Weller.

Now I'm hardly a prude, but that phrase just seems out of place when covering something as wholesome as the Tournament of Roses Parade. So come on, Mr. Weller, let's not do that again.

College Football Mania

2006-01-03T14:17:00.000-06:00

Word on the street is that college football junkies have already reserved their spots in rehab centers around the country, in preparation for the ending of the college football season following tomorrow night's Rose Bowl game.

I've certainly enjoyed the games I've viewed over the last several days. Let's just hope the Rose Bowl game between Texas and USC lives up to all the hype. I think it will.

One thing though. Let's stop all this nonsense that USC is going for its third straight National Championship. USC did not win the National Championship two years ago, LSU did. USC was ranked #1 in the final AP poll for that year, but that no longer counts. LSU finished #1 in the BCS, and that is the national championship. The whole Bowl Championship Series (BCS) was put in place so that a true national champion can be crowned. Prior to the BCS, the national championship was based on the UPI and AP polls after all the bowl games were played. It was mythical.

The fact that the AP puts out a poll is irrelevant since the invention of the BCS. To claim a national championship based on poll that is no longer relevant is just bad form by USC and its supporters. The fact that the BCS is flawed is irrelevant too. The major conferences wanted a championship, and they got it with the BCS. The Pac-10 (which USC is a member) was one of the major conferences to that signed onto the BCS, so it should tell USC that they were not co-champs two years ago.

Happy New Year

2006-01-03T14:13:00.000-06:00

With the passing of the Christmas holiday, the "War on Christmas" will be in a state of cease-fire for at least a while. For that, it truly is a Happy New Year.

Spy stuff - Michael Barone

2005-12-27T10:41:00.000-06:00

Here's a column from Michael Barone (the best political analyst in the country today) about the spy "scandal". The more you read about this, the more clear it becomes that this is a non-issue, and all the carping is really just more political "gotcha games" from Washington, DC.

Hat tip - Real Clear Politics.

More spy stuff AKA DC Gotcha Games

2005-12-25T07:46:00.000-06:00

Well, it is Christmas morning, and I'm heading out across the winter plains of southern Illinois to visit my family. But that doesn't mean I can't do a little net surfing before I leave.

Check out this analysis of the spy "scandal" at justoneminute.

As Mickey Kaus says, another spy scandal and Bush's approval ratings will be at 60%. LOL.

Another hat tip to the Instapundit.
_______________________________________________________

Editor: Does this guy Reynolds ever sleep?

UP: No, actually he is an android. That's why he does all that high-tech shilling over at his site, he has a vested interest in nano-tech and stuff.

Editor: Really? I didn't know that.

UP: It's the only explanation I can think of that explains his prolific number of posts. He's like Data on ST:TNG, except he has normal Caucasian skin coloring.

No Knock Entry - Bad Policy

2005-12-24T19:52:00.000-06:00

Clayton Cramer relates a story about police trying to enter a home without a warrant here. (Hat tip Instapundit.) Surprisingly enough, this wasn't a drug raid but rather a weapons issue. Unlike the Cory Maye case, among many others, no one was hurt.

The more laws there are on the books, the more law enforcement you will need. It never ceases to amaze me how cavalierly many, if not most, of my fellow Americans call for more and more laws. We used to call our policemen "peace officers", but nowadays they are called "law enforcement officers". A few generations ago, the idea was to let everyone do as they pleased so long as they didn't bother other folks (i.e, violate others rights via violence or theft). Those days are long gone, as many of the laws passed over the last few generations are laws that criminalize the potential for (perceived) bad behaviors, but the behaviors aren't really criminal in of themselves. Because many of the "crimes" we now have don't violate another citizens rights, they go "unreported". Thus the need for "law enforcement officers" to go out and find out who those miscreants are and "enforce" the law on them.

What do I mean by those few sentences above? A couple of examples may help explain what I mean.

Strict gun control laws presume that the gun owner may do something bad with his gun. Can't have that, so make owning the gun illegal or difficult to do so legally. So the crime is no longer using a gun immorally, but merely possession of the gun itself. The law turns otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen. And of course, the laws do nothing to actually stop criminals from committing crimes, it just adds another charge if they are caught after the fact.

The same rationale is used to justify drug prohibition. Some small percentage of drug users will face some dark days due to their abuse of some drugs. Can't have that, so just make possessing the drug a crime. However, of the million or so drug arrests each year, only a fraction of those arrested are real addicts with real drug problems. And rehab is what they need, not jail. The vast majority of those arrested are ordinary folks who use drugs the same way others do alcohol or are trying to make a quick buck in the lucrative, prohibition-spawned black market. Again, the law turns otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen.

With laws that criminalize ordinary human behavior, whether its a weakness for intoxicating substances or the desire to be able to defend one's hearth and home, is it any wonder that there is so much cynicism, anger, and hate in this country?

No political home

2005-12-24T13:48:00.000-06:00

It's been an interesting year for me politically. I've been a Republican since 1980, the year I first really starting paying attention to politics, replacing my 1976 vote for Carter with my 1980 vote for Reagan. Since that time, I've occasionally voted for a Democrat in local or state elections, but never for any federal office.

Over the last 25 years, I've felt pretty much at home there. But for most of that time, I've had some major disagreements with the majority of Republicans with regards to the "social" issues. Not all of them, to be sure. But mostly with the ones concerning vices laws. I came to believe that the libertarian view toward these laws was the correct view.

So, for the past 20 years I've reconciled my libertarianism with the authoritarianism of the social conservatives in the Republican party. In the last few years, however, that's become more difficult.

What happened?

As I wrote above, the first split happened long ago over the Republican's support of drug prohibition. Being both a casual drinker and recreational marijuana smoker in the 1980's, the hypocrisy of the drug laws stood out like Mt. Everest. So that was my first real split with the orthodoxy of the Right. But I stayed put for other reasons.

It remained that way until just the last 3-4 years, when I started perusing the political forum sites of the Right. Some of the things I've read at these sites posted by "grass roots" Republicans showed me that some Republicans can be just as reactionary as anything on the Left. I'm not saying all Republicans are hateful, but judging from some of the things I read on the net, some minority truly are.

A few other things have happened over the last couple of years that's caused me to distance myself from the Republicans on the social issues. Here they are, in no particular order:

The Lawrence v Texas case. Many Republicans were upset with the SC's ruling that struck down the state law that criminalized homosexual intercourse, and thus counted it as a loss in the "culture wars". I think of the decision as a victory for personal freedom, regardless of how I feel about the morality of homosexual behavior.
Abortion. While I've always believed that most abortions are immoral, I was never an ardent pro-lifer and I respected the arguments coming from the abortion rights side of the issue. I was finally moved to the pro-choice side by, ironically enough, something I read at National Review's online site last year. One of their regulars was wondering what the punishments for abortion would be if it were to be made illegal in the future. The response from another regular was 2-3 years imprisonment plus fines for the abortionists, with no punishment for the woman getting the abortion if she testified for the state. No word on what the punishment should be if she didn't testify for the state. All these years I've heard the pro-life folks call abortion murder, but the punishments proposed are not those for murder. This told me that even ardent pro-life people don't really think abortion is murder, just wrong.
Birth control. Ironically enough, again it was something I read in National Review (dead trees edition) that once again pointed out the authoritarian leanings of the Right. Earlier this year, there was an article in the magazine re-visiting the Griswold decision from 1962. That court case overturned a Connecticut state law that banned the sale of contraceptives. As I was reading the article, not only was the author critical of the court's reasoning, he went on to make the case that there was nothing wrong with any state passing those type of laws. I couldn't believe my eyes.
The 2005 elections. Don't get me wrong, I voted for Bush and I'm glad he won. Unfortunately, the social conservatives mis-read the results, and now they feel more empowered than ever politically. Not a good thing, from my point of view.
The utter nonsense of this whole "War on Christmas" controversy. I just can't see how Christianity and its mission is served by picking political battles that INVOLVE religion. Politics is bad enough without bringing religion into it. Nobody wins here.
The War on Drugs. For past twenty years or so I've been an opponent. But while pondering this issue this past year, I realized that this policy is not only wrong logically, but that it is wrong morally and therefore unjust. People argue about the issue like we do about taxes, in the abstract. But while taxes threaten my wallet to one degree or another, they don't put me in jail. But drug prohibition puts people in jail when they aren't deserving of imprisonment. Sadly, too many politicians, Democrat and Republican, find it all too easy to jail or fine any minority (behavioral in this case) if it will help their chances to win office.

In summary, I've come to realize that many Republicans are much more authoritarian than I'd noticed. I'm not sure how I missed it.

What we have in America today are two statist parties. They both crave power, they just have slightly different agendas for the use of that power.

For many years, I thought all the moral preening done in politics came from the Left. But over the last few years, I've seen that it comes from the Right too. I'm repulsed by it from both sides. So for the first time in many years, I really don't feel at home in the Republican party, and it is because of its social conservative faction. I'm not one, and never will be.

I guess I truly am a centrist. I find some things I like and much I dislike in the policies of both parties. If the Democrats would ever get their act together on taxes, national security, and the size and scope of government....

Well, one can dream, can't he?

22 Congressmen Hate Christmas?

2005-12-24T13:15:00.000-06:00

More news from the front in the "War on Christmas". Here's a laughable piece from the laughable Newsmax.com site.

It seems this whole "War on Christmas" brouhaha has caught the attention of some Congress critters (surprise), so one member of Congress introduced a resolution"protecting the symbols and traditions of Christmas" . It passed overwhelmingly (surprise, again), with only 22 "No" votes against it.

Note the headline of the piece, "22 Congressmen Hate Christmas". But does a "No" vote on a resolution of this sort really mean that the person casting the vote "hates" Christmas?

There might be several reasons one might cast a "No" vote here, and none of them would mean that the person hated Christmas. Perhaps they think the resolution is frivolous. Perhaps they think Congress has better things to do with its time. Perhaps they see the resolution as pure political pandering. Perhaps they think this type of resolution is dangerously close to "endorsing" a particular religion and therefore a bad idea.

Perhaps they are like me and "All of the above" would suffice as valid reasons to cast a "No" vote here.

I'm a Christian, and I would have voted "No". In our free country, I believe the Lord can take care of himself and his people without some meaningless Congressional resolution. However, I guess that would make me a lousy politician.
__________________________________________________________

Update: This story was posted yesterday (again) at freerepublic.com here.

I guess I really am a centrist, in that I took hits from both sides. I pasted an excerpt from what publised above. Here was the first response made about my comments by another poster:

Perhaps, and far more likely than any of those, is that they are God-hating and Christmas-hating liberals. How many pro-lifers among the 22? How many supporters of actual marriage vs. lavender make-believe?

When another poster thought my criticisms of this vote was a blanket condemnation of the Bush administration, he posted this to me:

Fabricate an issue, any issue, local talk radio morons jump on it because it fills time between commercials and, what da' you know, it becomes a national farce worthy of Dr. What his name's, minions in the House abandoning real congressional issues to worry whether the aged greeter at Walmart says Merry Christmas instead of: ''did you know that Walmart screws me out of my meal breaks and makes me work overtime off the clock?'' Hey, with these clowns the King-in-Chief and the Vice-King, in the exercise of their Divine Right to do as they damn well please and to hell with the law, must be rationalized irrespective of how silly the attempt at justification may be.

Ain't life under this adminsitration's fist great???

I wrote this in response:

It's not the administration that bothers me on this issue. It's the fact that many conservatives are merging their politics and religion, and using Christmas as a front in a political battle. It's unseemly to me. As someone posted on another thread, many Christians seem to walking around with a bunch of chips on their shoulders, just hoping and waiting for someone to knock it off. Sad, really.

I guess he didn't like my take on this, so he wrote this back to me:

Stuff it !!!!

So I managed to get criticisms of my thoughts from both the Left and the Right. And these are just some of the highlights. LOL

Merrry Christmas.

Fairy Tales

2005-12-24T12:28:00.000-06:00

I imagine that almost everyone has heard the fable about "The Boy who Cried Wolf". It's the story of a shepherd boy who kept raising false alarms about a wolf threatening the sheep he was watching. He thought it was funny to make all the adults come running when there was no threat. As the story goes, finally a wolf did arrive to threaten the sheep, but when he cried for help, no one came. He'd raised so many false alarms in the past that he'd lost his credibility.

It seems that some folks never learned the moral of this story.

Glenn Reynolds links to this story in The Boston Globe about a college student that claimed he was visited by agents from the Dept. of Homeland security after checking out Chairman Mao's "Little Red Book" from the library. As it turns out, the story was completely false.

Why did the student lie? Who knows. My guess is he's politically Left on the scale and he thinks America is now under the thumb of BusHitler. This was his way of calling attention to what he thinks about the current administration in DC.

Sadly, this student is not alone. Over the past few years, there's been several stories about individuals (students and professors) defacing their own dorm rooms and cars with racial epitaphs, claiming they were the victims of racism. These turned out to be hoaxes. I guess if you can't find a fire, you just have to start one yourself.

It would serve us all well if we take to heart the story of the boy and the wolves that weren't there.

Merry Christmas Everyone!

2005-12-24T12:22:00.000-06:00

As a neutral observer in the "War on Christmas", I wanted to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and joyous holiday season. Left or Right; believer, atheist, or anything in between; my best wishes to all of you. Sincerely.

Everyone should read Mark Steyn

2005-12-22T17:43:00.000-06:00

Here's another gem, this one about Iran, from the prolific Mark Steyn. His insights are usually spot on, and, man, this guy can really turn a phrase.

Spielberg's Munich

2005-12-21T14:41:00.000-06:00

Here's a very interesting article over at the American Thinker site by Kate Wright discussing the new movie Munich by director Steven Spielberg (hat tip Powerline).

The film is about the murders of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic games in Munich and the Israeli government's decision to track down and assassinate the perpetrators. Click here to read it.

More on the spying "scandal"

2005-12-21T10:46:00.000-06:00

Click here to see an editorial from Judge Richard A. Posner about domestic intelligence issues in today's Washington Post. A lot to ponder from the honorable judge.

Key excerpt in the opinion of yours truly:

These programs are criticized as grave threats to civil liberties. They are not. Their significance is in flagging the existence of gaps in our defenses against terrorism. The Defense Department is rushing to fill those gaps, though there may be better ways.
The collection, mainly through electronic means, of vast amounts of personal data is said to invade privacy. But machine collection and processing of data cannot, as such, invade privacy. Because of their volume, the data are first sifted by computers, which search for names, addresses, phone numbers, etc., that may have intelligence value. This initial sifting, far from invading privacy (a computer is not a sentient being), keeps most private data from being read by any intelligence officer.

Folks, getting back to first principles here, but one of the main reasons for any government to exist is to protect its citizens from enemies. This data mining is just the government doing its job in these perilous times.

Contrary to popular belief, this has been going on for decades. Most of the caterwauling coming from around the nation is being done by those that see their political fortunes rising if they can sink the Bush administration on this. As always, I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I say, that they would do such a thing.

Update: As mentioned in my last paragraph, this stuff is nothing new. Radio talker Neal Boortz writes about it here.

Statistics in the news-be wary

2005-12-21T08:24:00.000-06:00

This morning, I was perusing a thread on freerepublic.com where a poster made the claim that 2 out of 3 women are molested or raped by the time they reach the age of 18. Several other posters challenged this claim, but she wouldn't budge. The poster making the claim stated that she heard the stat on a talk show broadcast over a Christian radio station, so it must be true.

Anytime I hear some sort of statistic that doesn't sound true, I'm reminded of the sage words that radio talker Dennis Prager has said time and time again on his program. To paraphrase Dennis, everyone has an agenda, unfortunately, the truth isn't always a part of the agenda.

Some of you may recall a series of TV ads from a few years ago making the claim that 1 out of 10 Americans were starving. The first time I saw the ad, my male bovine fecal matter meter pegged in the red zone at total BS. As it turns out, my BS meter was correct. A reporter investigated the claims made by this organization. It turns out that this organization asked people taking their survey if they ever went to bed hungry. And guess what, 10% of the respondents answered in the affirmative. Do I have to point out that going to bed hungry on occasion is not the same as starving?

Obviously, truth wasn't part of the agenda here. Raising funds was the agenda, the truth be damned.

Another example I recall was a radio ad from the early 1990's claiming that over 500,000 children go missing each year in America. Again, my BS meter zipped to the red zone. And again, it turns out that my BS meter was correct. The truth is that there are over 500,000 missing persons REPORTS filed each year for missing children. The children were missing in the sense that mom and dad didn't know the whereabouts of their child for a short period of time. For the vast majority of these reports, the children don't stay missing. The actual number of children that stay missing is only a few thousand each year (and most of these are non-custodial parent kidnappings). Of course, when a child does meet some sort of foul play, it is terrible, but the actual numbers are a far cry from over half a million.

In this case, it was a business selling child safety guides to parents. Selling kits was the agenda, the truth be damned. To it's credit, the company did change its ads and clarified the 500,000 number in later ads.

Given these two examples, what are we to make of the claim that 2 out of 3 women are molested or raped before they are 18 years old? It seems likely to me that the definitions of molestation and rape being used by the researchers here are very broad. It could be that the researchers included consensual acts like necking at the movies as molestation. Perhaps boys bumping into a girl's breasts in a crowded school hallway is considered molestation for this report. As for rape, this report probably considered a girl's regret for having consensual sex as rape, as it is not uncommon for a woman to regret sexual activity afterwards when they don't have strong feelings for their sex partner. They regret having sex afterwards, and blame the man for this. Regret becomes rape.

So the 2 of 3 number may be "true" by these (likely) broad definitions, but not true by a narrower definition of rape (forced, non-consensual sex) and molestation (non-consensual, inappropriate touching). I'll see if I can find out more, and update this post if I do.

The moral of the story? Everyone has an agenda, but the truth may not be part of the agenda, as Dennis says. And, sadly, sometimes that's the case even when it involves Christians and Christian radio stations.

The NIMBY's of ANWR

2005-12-20T18:35:00.000-06:00

The NIMBY's of ANWR --

1. Is a new FPS game for the XBox 360?
2. Is a new children's book series written by Madonna?
3. Describes people who don't want oil drilling in a remote, isolated portion of Alaska?

If you chose 3. you win the prize, which is continued free access to this blog.

For those that don't know it, NIMBY stands for "Not in my back yard". Only in this case, we have people that don't want drilling in a state and a location within in that state where 99.9999999% of us will never ever never go visit. Perhaps we need a new acronym for the folks that oppose drilling for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). Let's see, NIMANWR just doesn't roll off the tongue, does it?

Well, George Will has some things rolling off his tongue, er, PC about the ANWR drilling and it showed up in the Washington Post the other day. Read it here and wonder why such a "no-brainer" as drilling in the ANWR has yet to happen.

I blame GWB.

(Hat tip vodkapundit.com)

Hello, Occifer.

2005-12-20T15:49:00.000-06:00

Hello, Occifer. What's the problem? - Hiccup-

Came across this article by Max Borders via tcsdaily about the problems with using blood alcohol standards in policing our roads. Readers might want to take a peek.

Part of the problem with analyzing and talking about these type of issues is the moral issues that many attach to these things. People that have a moral aversion to drinking bring a certain amout of bigotry to this issue.

For example, if I'm in my car at 11:00 PM on a Friday and I'm hit by another car, and neither me or the driver of the other vehicle have been drinking, it's just an ordinary accident.

Take the same time and situation and say the other driver had had a few beers, and instead of it being an ordinary accident, I become the victim of a "drunk driver". A whole new dimension is added here because this other fellow quaffed a beaker or two of brew a while earlier. Now, assuming the other driver drank enough beers to substantially impair his driving, it would be correct to say that I was a victim of a drunk driver. However, what if the beers consumed that evening didn't impair the other driver? How should he be treated before the law?

It's certainly true that very high levels of blood alcohol content certainly impair one's ability to operate a vehicle safely. But for the vast majority of weekend revelers, they don't reach those high levels of BAC.

I always like to do the math on these types of things. Are there drinking related accidents somewhere every weekend? Sure there are. But how many people are out and about on Fridays and Saturdays making merry with alcohol? How many millions of miles do these revelers drive every weekend? Across the nation, millions, perhaps tens of millions of people are out at bars, night clubs, parties, fraternal organizations, sports venues, etc., making merry with alcohol. And you know what? About 99.9999999% of them make it home that evening and live to make merry another day.

If alcohol consumption makes drivers impaired, you'd think we'd have thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of accidents each weekend. But we don't.

Part of the issue here is that people don't understand risks and risk analysis in these type of things. For example (pulling numbers from thin air here for example purposes only), let's say that anytime I get in my car and pull onto the street, the odds of me having an accident on that trip are 2000 to 1 against me having an accident. That doesn't mean that I will have an accident when trip 2000 rolls around, just that the odds of me having an accident are very low for EVERY trip.

Now, let's say that I've had a few glasses of wine before pulling out on the street. My odds of having an accident have increased, but the question is by how much have the odds worsened. If I've only had a couple of glasses, the odds of me having an accident might be 1950 to 1 against me having an accident. Have the odds worsened? The answer is likely "yes", but not by much. Now, if I've finished off 2 bottles of wine before entering the street, the odds of me having a problem on the road will likely be a lot worse, say 400 to 1 that I will not have an accident. Have the odds worsened? Yes? But the odds are still in my favor, but not nearly as much.

For too many people, the fact that some drinkers do have accidents means that all drinkers will have accidents sooner or later. But that's not the case. I might drink 2 bottles of wine on a thousand separate occassions, then drive afterwords and never get in an accident. In other words, odds are just that, odds. It doesn't mean a particular outcome will happen.

Another example, flipping a coin. The odds are 50:50, right? Yet you may do 1,000 flips and record 600 heads and 400 tails. Does that mean the odds are 60:40? No, the odds are always 50:50 for each flip of the coin. You might do another 1,000 flips, and the total for the 2,000 flips might be 975 heads and 1,025 tails, but the odds for each INDIVIDUAL flip are still 50:50, heads or tails.

Now, getting back to DUI's. As Radley Balko notes on his blog, most serious accidents involving DUI's show that the drunk driver has a BAC of 0.14 or higher. Does that mean that every driver with a BAC of .14 or higher will have an accident? No, it only means they are more likely to have an accident as compared to those drivers that have a BAC lower than 0.14.

I guess my point is this. A tragedy is still a tragedy, whether the driver that caused the tragedy is at 0.14 BAC, 0.12 BAC, 0.06 BAC, or 0.0 BAC. The aversion some of us have to alcohol colors our assessement of these things. You combine that with a misundstanding of odds and risk and all you get is just another example of moralizing, and not analysis.

This is type of thinking is very similar to the thinking people have that support drug prohibitions. They reason that because some users DO become addicts, it is inevitable that ALL users will become addicts, therefore no one should use drugs and prohibition is warranted. That's just not the case folks.

The Wire Taps

2005-12-20T09:40:00.000-06:00

Once again, the usually reliable Wall Street Journal gets it right in their editorial over the surveillance of international calls of terrorist suspects. You can read it here.

Here's a one interesting excerpt from the editorial:

The mere Constitution aside, the evidence is also abundant that the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions. They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties. Far from being "secret," key Members of Congress were informed about them at least 12 times, President Bush said yesterday. The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about them.

They close with this:

The NSA wiretap uproar is one of those episodes, alas far too common, that make us wonder if Washington is still a serious place. Too many in the media and on Capitol Hill have forgotten that terrorism in the age of WMD poses an existential threat to our free society. We're glad Mr. Bush and his team are forcefully defending their entirely legal and necessary authority to wiretap enemies seeking to kill innocent Americans.

Amen.

The Grinch and the "War on Christmas"

2005-12-19T09:17:00.000-06:00

I was channel surfing Friday night and came across the last half or so of the animated Christmas classic How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Watching it, I couldn't help but think about our current Christmas controversies and the so-called "War on Christmas".

As most are familiar with the story, I won't go into the whole thing except the very ending. In the story, after the Grinch has stolen all the presents, decorations, and food from Whoville, he expects the citizens of Whoville to be miserable on Christmas Day. But, on the follwoing morning, when he hears them rejoicing anyway, he learns that Christmas is in the heart and that the presents, decorations, and feasting are only symbols of the joy, not the joy itself.

Many Christians are upset about some of the things that have happened regarding religion and Christmas in the public square over the last few decades. Perhaps these folks should take another look at this timeless story and review their political priorities.

I have a few questions:

Is it really that important to you that there be a creche on government property during Christmas time?
If a creche isn't there, how does that affect you or your church's Christmas celebrations?
Is politcal strength the same as spiritual strength?
How do these political battles over Christmas serve Christ and his message of salvation and redemption?

I posted a couple of other musings on all this here and here. When the government says its citizens can't celebrate Christmas in their own homes and churches, then we have a problem. Until then, keep your powder dry.

King Kong - RACIST!!!!

2005-12-16T13:42:00.000-06:00

You know, sometimes a banana is just a banana. And sometimes a story about a giant ape is just a story about a giant ape, and not a metaphor about white supremacy and European colonialism. Here's a column by James Pinkerton touching on these themes in Newsday. (Hat tip Ann Althouse)

I think one of the comments posted to Ann's blog said it best:

As for racism: If some tweedy guy is saying that a gigantic ape represents black people, I think that says more about his racism than the movie's.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Go check out the reviews for King Kong here at rottentomatoes.com.

"War on Christmas" Satire

2005-12-16T09:36:00.000-06:00

Here's an amusing piece from Chris Davis at the National Ledger website.

Ladies and gentlemen, Christians have struck the first blow in the "War on Christmas". Hilarious.

More on the Iraqi elections

2005-12-16T08:40:00.000-06:00

Here's an interesting editorial from today's WSJ on yesterday's Iraqi elections. Note that email registration may be required.

While the entire article is informative and interesting, this excerpt really caught my eye:

Another mark of success is that no one really knows which parties will emerge victorious. In that sense, the vote was more genuinely competitive than the average U.S. Congressional election.

Ponder that second sentence for a moment. It really is true. Both parties have gerrymandered so many safe seats for themselves over the decades that the outcomes of most elections in most districts is a foregone conclusion.

I think it was author and columnist Jacob Sullum who commented recently that he found it rather ironic and hypcritical that our elected representatives would pontificate about steroids affecting the competitive nature of sports, when these same representatives do everything in their power to make sure their own elections are as uncompetitive as possible.

More WOD nonsense

2005-12-15T22:44:00.000-06:00

Here's a beauty from the folks at the ironically named Accuracy in Media. It's written by stalwart right-winger Cliff Kincaid. You can read it in its entirety here.

Kincaid's story tells about a rapist/murderer that was a pot smoker. I'll not bore you with Kincaid's purple prose other than this is supposed to be exhibit A in why marijuana, let alone any other drug, should not be legalized. Folks, I've read some male bovine excrement in my day, but this ranks right up there with the best (worst?) of it.

The fact of the matter is that there are bad eggs in every demographic group. There are bad white people and bad black people, there are bad poor people and bad rich people, there are bad men and bad women, and yes, there are bad drug users. This guy Joseph Smith is one of those and he deserves punishment for what he did to his victim. He would deserve it whether he'd never touched a joint or whether he's smoked thousands.

But is it fair of Kincaid to extrapolate this man's crimes to all drug users? Of course not. When someone drunk on alcohol commits a vicious criminal act, do we condemn all consumers of alcoholic beverages as bad people? Of course we don't.

Kincaid sets up his own strawman arguments and then knocks them down. For instance:

The case itself has gotten enormous publicity, of course, and some reports have noted that his lawyers tried to get the jurors to avoid use of the death penalty on the ground that he was using either heroin or cocaine when he destroyed the little girl's life. But we could find only a few accounts about his use of the "soft" drug, marijuana, that we have repeatedly been told has no relation to one's use of harder drugs later in life.

No Mr. Kincaid, what you've been repeatedly told is that marijuana smokers are more likely to use other drugs as compared to those who have never ever never smoked marijuana ever at all, ever. However, it does not mean that they WILL go on to use other drugs. All this correlation really proves is that someone who is willing to accept the risks associated with marijuana use is more likely to risk other drugs, that's all. Most marijuana smokers never move on to other drugs, but some do. As for those folks that do move past marijuana, the vast majority don't wind up killing and raping a young girl like this dirtbag did.

Here's why this marijuana/harder drugs correlation is meaningless. If I were to say to you that beer drinkers are, say, 20 times more likely to drink hard liquor than those who don't drink beer at all, no one would bat an eye. Why? Because it only makes sense that someone who already drinks beer might take on the greater risks of hard liquor as compared to those who won't even sample a beer now and then. So is it really any surprise that pot smokers are more likely to do other drugs as compared to those who don't do marijauna at all? Not in the least, but propagandists like Kincaid would have you believe otherwise.

Folks, we have about 40K violent deaths every year in this country. We have around 30 million users of "illegal" drugs annually. Do the math. If marijuana usage is supposed to lead to violent criminal acts, wouldn't the number of violent deaths be several times the number I quoted?

In fact, I would argue that the 40K number would be much lower if drugs were legalized. How's that you ask? The criminalization of drug possession has created a lucrative black market run by ruthless, greedy thugs. They will do anything to keep making their money and will resort to violence and murder to protect themselves and their profits. A fair number of that 40K are the direct results of drug prohibition. Remove prohibition and that number drops by several thousand, perhaps 10K or more.

Sadly, Kincaid's screed is what passes for reasoned debate from so many WOD supporters. What's even more sad is that many folks will fall for Kincaid's so-called "logic", lapping it up like ambrosia from the gods.

Iraqi elections

2005-12-15T19:12:00.000-06:00

Well, it's another amazing day in world history as Iraqis go to the polls to elect their government. Freedom loving people the world over should rejoice. Sad to say, there are many Americans not happy about this day, as it puts President Bush's policies in Iraq in a favorable light. Go figure.

The Mudville Gazette has a post here on Iraqi news coverage of elections now and then (hat tip instapundit).

Hooters in the news

2005-12-15T11:41:00.000-06:00

Once again, the restaurant chain Hooters finds itself in the news. Here's an editorial from the Daily News in Philadelphia, opining on a former Hooters waitress' sexual harassment suit against the chain. I have to say, I find nothing to disagree with in this particular editorial.

Let's be honest here, Hooters is a restaurant chain that makes its money by selling decent pub grub and cold brews, all served by comely young waitresses dressed in tight t-shirts and short shorts. The mode of dress of its wait staff is well known to one and all. The name of the chain gives the game away, as hooters is a slang term for a woman's breasts (as anyone who has watched a few episodes of Married With Childern can atest to).

Any waitress that expects to work in a sexually neutral atmosphere should not take a job at an establishment named Hooters. End of story. I'm hungy now, where's the nearest Hooters?

Cory Maye update

2005-12-15T10:52:00.000-06:00

Radley Balko provides a comprehensive post about the Cory Maye case here. I first posted on the Maye case here, linking to Balko.

I've reviewed Balko's latest post and nothing there changes my opinion that Maye acted in self-defense. As I ask in my earlier post, were Maye's actions reasonable under the circumstances? It seems to me they were.

Here's something from Balko's update that I found interesting:

Smith was arrested without incident. Significant quantities of marijuana were found in his home. Both Maye's current and former attorneys say Smith was never charged for drug possession or distribution. District Attorney McDonald says he doesn't remember Smith being charged or convicted. Maye was never charged with a drug crime. So the only criminal charge of any kind to come out of this raid was the murder charge against Maye. (emphasis added)

Note that Smith was the neighbor in the adjoining duplex apartment.

You can see from the above that is was the police action, under the WOD mandate, that got Officer Jones killed and Maye convicted as his murderer. It's not the drugs that are the problem here, it is the misguided war on drugs that led to all this. Absent the WOD, Officer Jones is still alive, and Maye is still at home taking care of his family.

I freely admit that my opposition to the WOD colors my opinion of this case. You see, I think the WOD is the biggest injustice being perpetrated on people in this country to day. This case is more proof of that.

Even if Maye himself was a marijuana smoker, it was the war on drugs that caused him to grab a gun one evening to defend himself and his daughter against what he thought was a criminal home invasion. The injustice of siccing law enforcement on people like Maye and those that supply their habits has led to more injustice. In this case, the tragic death of a young police officer and the imprisonment of Maye, sitting on death row.

I have to ask the questions again. Is stopping people from doing drugs worth Officer Jones' life? Is it worth Cory Maye's life? Is using "illegal drugs" any different than getting smashed on beer, wine, or whiskey? If not, why are we treating "illegal drug" users differently from alcohol users? Isn't it obvious that when the law treats morally equal behaviors differently, injustice, by definition, is created?

I'll have more WOD posts in the future.

McNabb vs. Mondesire

2005-12-15T10:20:00.000-06:00

Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb has received some harsh criticisms from J. Whyatt "Jerry" Mondesire, the head of the NAACP in Philadelphia in an article in the Philadelphia Sun. You can read Mondesire's entire article in the body of this story here in the Philidelphia Daily News. One caveat here, Modesire is not speaking for the NAACP, but for himself only.

My take? Well, like the comments at the bottom of the linked article, Mondesire does score some points as to McNabb's play. I my own opinion, McNabb is a slightly better than average QB on a very solid team. And the Eagles record prior to this year's disasterous season speaks for itself, with four straight NFC Championship Game appearances and a trip to the Super Bowl earlier this year. There's many an NFL franchise that would gladly trade places with the Eagles over this same period.

As for Mondesire's assertion that McNabb is playing the race card? I don't see it. It's a shame really. McNabb seems like a pretty decent guy just trying to do his best for his team like most pro atheletes. The only person I see playing the race card here is Mondesire himself, using his stature as the head of the NAACP to blast a QB when he's down and hoping his position in the NAACP will lend credibility to it. Shameful.

Hollywood hurting?

2005-12-14T09:59:00.000-06:00

Tammy Bruce gives her opinion why movie theater box office receipts are down here.

While left-wing preachiness in movies certainly does keep many viewers away from the theater, I suspect it's the competition movies face with other mediums as a major factor for fewer folks going to the show.

Prior to television, movies were the main supplier of popular viewing entertainment. Even with television, movies still held their own for some time, mostly from habit by the movie going public. However, once cable television came on the scene, more people in more places had more viewing choices right in their own homes. Beginning in the late 1970's, cable was being installed in nearly every city, town, or village in the country. During this same time period, cable programming began to expand with cable only content like ESPN, superstations like WTBS, and premium channels like HBO. Of course, satellite TV has continued this trend. Nowadays, most homes have dozens, of not hundreds, of channels of programming to choose from.

Add to this the new mediums of VHS and DVD, and people can watch uncut, uninterrupted movies in their homes for a lot less than a night out at the cineplex. Many people own wide screen or projection TV's these days too, creating a more movie-like home viewing experience.

People will throng to the theater to see larger-than-life stories on the larger-than-life big screen of the theater. But most movies don't qualify as larger-than-life. Ordinary dramas, comedies (romantic or otherwise), melodramas, and most thrillers are nothing special on the big screen, and whatever viewing pleasure they provide is not lost when viewed on the smaller screen.

A review of the biggest box office draws over the last several years bears this out. The LOTR movies, the Potter movies, Gladiator, Seabiscuit, Star Wars, Spiderman, among others, are all larger-than-life spectacles. While they are still enjoyable on TV, there's no substitute for seeing these movies on the big screen of the theater.

In short, people go the movies to be entertained. Most don't want to be preached to when they buy their movie ticket. Movies that are not much different from ordinary TV fare will do smaller box office than those that thrill us in ways TV viewing can't. Everyone better get used to it.

No reprieve for Tookie

2005-12-13T05:45:00.000-06:00

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to let stand the death sentence in the case of Stanley "Tookie" Williams. You can read about it here.

I commend the Governor on his decision. Mr. Williams murdered four people and does not deserve any mercy from the people of California.

Of course, Mr. Williams and his lawyers were clever in conducting their campaign to get Tookie off of death row. Tookie's main claim to clemency was some children's books he authored while in prison where he discourages youngsters from joining street gangs. From this, his lawyers were able to recruit the usual Hollywood liberals to his cause.

The fact of the matter, however, is that those books were likely written by his lawyers, not Tookie himself. Another little known fact about those books is that only a few hundred were ever printed. But the mere fact that anti-gang literature could be attributed to a gang leader was enough to get many on the "spare Tookie" bandwagon.

I take no joy in Tookie's demise. While he is responible and accountable for his own misdeeds, he and others like him are the creation of the black power movements of the 60's and 70's which were legitimized by white liberals. The lives of countless numbers of young black men have been wasted by their acceptance of the belief that behind every white face is a white KKK hood. On top of that you can throw in the War on Drugs that creates a lucrative black market and the mob violence it generates, and the creation of men like Tookie Williams is inevitable.

Yes, Tookie deserves to die for his crimes. However, if we truly wish to end the cycle of violence that plagues many of our cities, we will bring an end to the misguided and ill-conceived War on Drugs.

UPDATE: There was no stay of execution granted for Williams by the federal courts. He's been executed for his crimes.

Another WOD "victory"

2005-12-09T21:27:00.000-06:00

Those that know me personally or have visited here before know that I oppose the War on Drugs (WOD). This story from Instapundit last Thursday is one of the many reasons why I take the position that I do.

The story recounts the events one tragic evening that lead to the death of a young police officer and the arrest, trial and conviction of the Mississippi man who shot him. The shooter, Cory Maye, sits on death row, convicted of murder.

The basics are that police raided Maye's duplex apartment at around 11:30 PM around two years ago. Maye, not knowing it was the police breaking in, grabbed a pistol and fired at Officer Jones who had charged in. Only after firing did the other officers identify themselves as police. Maye immediately slid the gun away from himself after he learned it was the police. This is Maye's version of events, as the officers claim to have identified themselves before entering.

Radley Balko of The Agitator blog has all the details in the following posts, in chronological order:

Dec. 7 - Cory Maye
Dec. 8 - Cory Maye, Ct'd.
Dec. 9 - Maye
Dec. 10 - Cory Maye's Prosecutor Responds
Dec. 10 - Cory Maye's Testimony
Dec. 10 - Cory Maye: Getting a Few Facts Straight
Dec. 10 - Mississippi Case Law on Capital Murder
Dec. 10 - Questions for Prosecutor McDonald
Dec. 11 - Maye, Self-Defense, and Paramilitary Drug Raids
Dec. 11 - Prosecutor McDonald's Answers to My Questions
Dec. 11 - Maye's Representation
Dec. 11 - Reader Responses
Dec. 11 - Blogosphere Reaction
Dec. 12 - More from Prosecutor Buddy McDonald
Dec. 12 - "You don't really love your daughter, do you?"
Dec. 12 - On Announcement
Dec. 12 - The Search Warrants

As you can see, Mr. Balko has been rather busy here.

While I'm certainly sorry that Officer Jones was killed that night, it seems to me, given all the facts surrounding this incident, that Cory Maye acted reasonably under the circumstances.

Put yourself in Maye's place that evening. You are sitting at home asleep in a chair. You are startled from your sleep by someone entering your duplex apartment. Fearing for your safety and that of your daughter, you grab your gun. A person enters your daughter's darkened bedroom and you open fire. After firing, someone yells "Police!" and you stop shooting and give up your weapon. If you don't know the intentions of strangers entering your house, would you have acted differently than Maye?

Here's an excerpt from Balko's Dec. 11 post Maye, Self-Defense, and Paramilitary Drug Raids :

And therein lies the problem with hyper-militarized, highly-weaponized drug raids. Citizens on the other end of these raids are expected to behave perfectly rationally. They're supposed to be cognizant, alert, and aware that it is police, and not illegal intruders, who are storming their homes. At the same time, police typically justify the tactics used in no knocks -- including raiding late at night or just before dawn, and deploying dangerous "flashbang" grenades designed to confuse and bewilder a house's occupants -- for the precise reason that they catch drug suspects off guard, and disorient them. How, then, can they turn around and say that the innocent victim of a no-knock who shoots back should have known better?

The residents in these raids are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. If you act to defend yourself in one of these raids and are injured or killed by police it's considered your fault. Conversely, if you injure or kill a police officer in one of these raids acting in self-defense, it's still your fault. Folks, when the police behave like the bad guys, bad things are going to happen.

Whatever happened to the notion that a man's home was his castle? Two words, the toilet. Before the advent of these "no knock" or "knock and enter" raids, the police announced themselves and waited at the door. While waiting, the occupants could quickly flush the contraband down the toilet. The police then are let in and no evidence is found. Thus the advent of these types of raids. As blogger M. Simon once put it, authorities have decided that securing the evidence (if any) is more important than the safety of the residents or the police.

One man lies dead, and another awaits death. The reason? Because a majority of us some how can't live with the idea that some folks like to use drugs recreationally, like millions do with alcohol. The injustice continues.......

Fearless Prediction 2

2005-12-08T19:55:00.000-06:00

The movie The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe will get very good reviews, though many reviewers will harp about the Christian allegory present in the story.

It will do great box office because:

It is the movie adpatation of the first book in a series of well known and beloved children's fanatsy adventures and has a large following
Large numbers of Christians will flock to see the movie due to the well-known Christian symbolism in the book
It will appeal to the non-Christian as a rousing fantasy/adventure ala The Lord of the Rings trilogy

Editor: This really isn't that fearless of a prediction.

I know, neither is my prediction for Brokeback Mountain, I just wanted to re-use the title.

Editor: Oh. Okay. I'm cool with that.

Thanks.

Fearless Prediction

2005-12-07T21:08:00.000-06:00

The movie Brokeback Mountain will get mostly rave reviews but do poorly at the box office. The controversial subject matter will make most reviewers go ga-ga over the film, but the movie will not draw in many viewers as most movie goers will not be interested in seeing a film about two bisexual cowboys.

Home PC is back up

2005-12-07T21:05:00.000-06:00

Yippee!!!! A friend of a friend was able to get my PC unclogged. So now I'm back in business. Look out world..... LOL

Home PC is down

2005-12-07T10:46:00.000-06:00

No posts from your humble author for the last couple of days, as my home PC is not working properly. I hope to have that resolved in the next couple of days.

Return of the King....Kong that is

2005-12-03T01:45:00.000-06:00

After his triumph with The Lord of Rings movie trilogy, New Zealand director Peter Jackson returns to theaters this month with his remake of the 1933 classic King Kong. It looks like Mr. Jackson is going to create more box office gold with his re-telling of the Kong story.

I've seen the previews and you can too by clicking here. You will be blown away. Well, I was anyway.

What I especially appreciate is the fact that Jackson filmed this as a period piece, set in the 1930's like the original. It's much more dramatic to see the great ape do battle with bi-planes than with modern jets, as was done in the forgettable 1977 King Kong re-make.

Looks like it's going to be a fun 3 hour ride down at the cineplex this holiday season.

Can't Jackson make a movie shorter than 3 hours? - Editor

Probably, but do you really care?

I guess not, I just hope my bladder can take it. - Editor

Me too. See you at the movies.

More culture war nonsense - Part 2

2005-12-02T21:18:00.000-06:00

This story from worldnetdaily.com reports that some social conservatives are up in arms, believing that President Bush made a joke at the expense of Jesus during the White House Christmas Tree lighting festivities.

Here what President Bush said as reported in the article:

The lighting of the National Christmas tree is one of the great traditions in our nation's capital. Each year, we gather here to celebrate the season of hope and joy – and to remember the story of one humble life that lifted the sights of humanity. Santa, thanks for coming. Glad you made it.

It seems that some Christians thought President Bush was demeaning the birth of Jesus by saying "Santa, thanks for coming." immediately after alluding to the birth of Jesus in his previous sentence.

They would be right except for the fact that there was a brief pause before President Bush began actually speaking to a man dressed as Santa Claus. Here's the full text:

Each year, we gather here to celebrate the season of hope and joy – and to remember the story of one humble life that lifted the sights of humanity.

<<"brief pause">>

Santa, thanks for coming. Glad you made it. I know you've got a lot of commitments this time of year. By the way, we have a lot of chimneys at the White House if you're looking for something to do.

PEOPLE!!!!! He was talking to an actor dressed as Santa for goodness sakes!

I've been hard on the soccons (social conservatives) over the last few days, however, I have to show a little love to them as some of the folks over at freerepublic.com didn't fall for this faux Christian slam. Way to go.

Still, a few freepers did grumble that President Bush did not mention Jesus by name. Again, people, lighten up.

George Walker Bush is not the President of Jesusland; nor is he the country's elected spiritual leader; nor is he the Pope. He is the President of the United States of America. That means he is the President to ALL Americans. That's right, saint or sinner, Christian or Jew, black or white, male or female, young or old, rich or poor, straight or gay, Bush supporter or Bush opponent, GWB is serving as President to all of them. He can't play favorites, especially in the area of religion.

Isn't it enough that he referred to the birth of Jesus in his comments? This wasn't a church service, this was a civic ceremony. Don't you understand that mentioning Jesus by name in a political, civic ceremony might be interpreted as Christian evangelizing by some, and seen as improper? Do you think it would be a good idea politically for GWB to insert an evangelical message in his statements? Are you so insecure in your own faith that you need the public affirmations of politicians to make you more secure? Do you enjoy trying to rachet up the tension in the "culture war"?

One of the freepers commented that it seems many Christians these days are walking around with a hundred chips on their shoulders, waiting for any little thing to knock them off. I'm sad to say I have to agree with that assessment.

Trying to right the Right

2005-12-01T21:04:00.000-06:00

In some of my recent posts to this blog, I've been quite critical of the political Right, and specifically the self-described social conservatives.

Let me give the reasons for this:

When I criticize social conservatives, I'm not challenging their moral views. I understand that social conservatives truly believe in Biblical moral teachings and that we would have better society if everyone lived as they do. With that said, what I am taking exception to is the idea that it is proper to impose those views on the whole via majoritarian politics. The question is whether it is fair and proper for the faithful to expect the unfaithful to live as if they are part of the faithful. From my understanding of the Bible, it is not fair, and in fact, we (the faithful) shouldn't expect the unredeemed to live as the redeemed. My criticisms is my effort to show them the error of their ways.
I'm convinced that all this moral posturing in the political arena isn't good for Christianity and its mission to bring the Gospel to the masses. Social conservatives need to understand that religion, including Christianity, hasn't always acquitted itself well throughout the annals of history. Ordinary folks, many religious themselves, get nervous when they see other religious people combining religion and politics into one orthodoxy. They begin to see you as zealots, and zealotry combined with government power is a dangerous thing in their minds. In short, the moral political crusades of the social conservatives may make them feel good, but it's turning others who fear moral political crusaders against Christianity.
I'm also convinced that the moral objectives of the social conservatives are detrimental to the long-term political prospects of the Right. Many centrist, moderate voters like the conservative policies of low taxes, strong defense, limited government, and the free market economy. But most are not enthralled by the social policies espoused by the social conservatives. They see it for the religious orthodoxy that it is, and it flies in the face of freedom of religion as they see it. In other words, they are reluctant to hand the reigns of power to people they regard as religious zealots.
Lastly, I'm convinced that the "morals" laws already on the books have led and continue to lead to massive amounts of injustice in our country. These laws receive wide bi-partisan support because religious people support these laws without question. As mentioned above, it's wrong for the redeemed to expect the unredeemed to live a holy life. The morals laws (vice and drug laws) currently in force are not fair to the unsaved and brings the power of the state to bear on these people unjustly. Christians should be hard at work trying to bring redemption to the sinner, not jailing them for not living like Christians. Christians, of all people, should not be the source of any injustice, especially to sinners.

So there you have it. I'll be going into these themes in more detail in future posts. I want the libertarian Right to be successful politically, but I believe it won't be as long as the social conservatives remain intransigent in their moral crusades, driving away the moderates of the Left and Right. I also want Christians to be successful in helping their fellow Americans live a better life via moral persuasion, and forego the improper use of government and the stick that it carries.

No more Lionel Barrymore

2005-11-29T21:03:00.000-06:00

For the past several decades the most prominent Mr. Potter that showed up around this time of year was Lionel Barrymore playing the nasty Mr. Potter in Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life.

But over the last few years, Barrymore's Mr. Potter has been supplanted by a much different and younger Mr. Potter. Harry Potter that is.

That's right, I recently sat through the latest Harry Potter movie, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. And like the first three films, it's a winner. Our trio of young wizards are another year older, and as they get older, their adventures become more and more threatening. Of course I'm referring to teen angst and budding romances for Harry, Hermione, and Ron. There's also the not-so-small problem of a reborn Lord Voldemort. Good stuff all the way around.

If you like to suspend your disbelief for about 150 minutes and immerse yourself in a fantasy world of wizards, wonder, romance, and danger, then see this movie. If not, well, don't go see the movie. You won't hurt my feelings at all.

Spoiler Alert!!!! You've been warned.

My only quibble with the movie has to do with the second of the three tests Harry and the other champions have to accomplish as part of the Triwizard Tournament being held at Hogwarts. Harry and the others must go underwater to retrieve something precious to each them that has been hidden underwater. It turns out that the "precious" items are four people, each precious to one of the four contestants. One of the four contestants can't complete the task and she resigns. Harry winds up saving his "precious" in the person of Ron Weasley along with the little sister of the contestant that was forced out.

The storyline seems to indicate that if Harry or any of the others failed in their task, the end result would be that the characters put in the water would be left there to die. Is this really the case or did I miss something? If so, I think parents would be wise not to send their wizard children to Hogwarts. Quiddich injuries are one thing, but to die as bait in a Triwizard event? That's beyond the pale.

Pete Rose

2005-11-29T20:34:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, Stephen Green at Vodkapundit posted his thoughts on Pete Rose and OJ Simpson and whether one, both or neither should be in their respective sport's Hall of Fame. You can read about it here.

Here's my take:

Gambling = human weakness

Murder = human evil

Everyone knows that Pete Rose broke a longstanding rule of baseball, that thou shall not bet on baseball. However, there is the spirit of the law and the letter of the law.

The spirit of the law against betting on the game was to prevent players, coaches and managers from engaging in acts that were detrimental to true competition on the field. The sport was concerned that players, coaches and managers might do things differently during a game if they're betting on the game vs. what they would normally do if they didn't have a bet on the game. Perfectly understandable. They didn't want decisions or actions taken that weren't done in the spirit of open and honest competition, ala the White Sox in 1919.

Pete Rose certainly violated the letter of the law. But did he violate the spirit of the law? Did he ever do anything as a player or manager that was purely self-serving for his gambling on a game he was involved in? Did he do anything that violated the spirit of open and honest competition on the field of play? I don't know. If he did violate the spirit of the law, then he's been rightly denied his place in the HOF. But if he didn't, I would have overlooked his violation of the letter of law and allowed his ugly mug a place in Cooperstown.

I guess I'm a softie, but I believe that following the spirit of the law is more important than following the letter of the law. Sue me. (You are so sued. - editor)

As for OJ, well, even though the jury somehow didn't see it, there's no doubt in my mind he murdered two people. He shouldn't be in the HOF in Canton.

UPDATE: Friend or Foe of Christmas Campaign

2005-11-23T18:14:00.000-06:00

I wrote about this just the other day in this post.

These folks obsessing over "Merry Christmas" vs. "Happy Holildays" should rename the Friend or Foe of Christmas Campaign to something more in line with the attitudes of the people supporting the campaign. After reading various threads over at freerepublic.com here, here, and here on this topic, I think the campaign should be renamed this:

Wish me a Merry Christmas, or else! Damn it! Campaign

I think that catches the vibe of these folks pretty well.

Happy Holidays! Oops, er, Merry Christmas, everyone!

Damn it!

There's a new mental disease

2005-11-23T16:43:00.000-06:00

Some of you may be familiar with the political disorder know as BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). It's symptoms include the inability to make or follow a logical argument, calling anyone that disagrees with them a fascist, racist, or any other insult handy, and hatred of all Republicans, and that goes double ChimpyBushHitler. The disorder seems to be transmitted by web sites like like democraticunderground.com, moveon.org, and the dailykos.com.

Alas, there's a new disorder similar to BDS that seems to be afflicting some folks over on the Right side of the political spectrum. It's called CPC (Conservative Persecution Complex). It's symptoms include obsessing over holiday greetings, calling anyone that disagrees with them a commie, godless sinner or any other insult handy, and a hatred of all things Democrat, and that goes double for Hitlery Clinton (aka She whose Name must not be uttered). This disease seems to be infesting the freerepublic.com web site and has for quite some time.

As you can see, both disorders share certain symptoms. Other shared symptoms include but aren't limited to:

1) Each considers the other evil.
2) Each considers the other's politics to be totalitarian.
3) Neither seem capable of accepting that the other's views are arrived at in good faith.
4) Neither seem to want to actually persuade the other to see things their way.
5) Neither seem able to comprehend that their extremist rhetoric does nothing to further their cause.

The cure is for these two disorders is:

1) Understanding that a person's political views are shaped by their basic worldview. It's only natural that people of differing worldviews would have differing political views. You can only change a person's political views by changing their worldview.
2) Understand that because people do have different worldviews, there are always going to be political disagreements.
3) Accept that the other side holds their positions in good faith.
4) Be a little humble about your own views. While you believe your political views to be correct, there is that possibility that you just may be wrong, and the other guy right.
5) Try to persuade the other side, instead of castigating them.
6) Stop the name calling. Disagree without being disagreeable. Calling each other extremists all the time does nothing to further your causes.

Here's hoping everyone will be cured of these two insidious disorders. Remember, a free country is a terrible thing to waste.

Strawmen everywhere

2005-11-22T22:03:00.000-06:00

Strawmen litter the landscape of public discourse in this country.

What is a strawman? It is an argument made in support of a position that seems hefty, but really isn't. In fact, it's really as light as straw, hence the term "strawman". And nearly everyone has a strawman argument somewhere in their repertoire, they just don't realize it.

Here are a couple of examples of strawman arguments, one from the Right and one from the Left.

1. There are some conservatives who say they would agree to end the War on Drugs if no tax money would be spent on rehab for drug addicts. Sounds principled to most conservatives. But if they are really concerned about the public treasury, isn't it obvious that it cost billions of dollars more annually to try to enforce a total prohibition against all drug users versus providing rehab treatment to the fraction of drug users that truly qualify as addicts and might actually benefit from a few weeks in rehab?

Nationally, it is estimated that the War on Drugs costs taxpayers between $35 to $50 billion every year. In contrast, it would costs around $15 billion to treat 1 million hardcore addicts with a 3 month stay in rehab. So the "I'll agree to ending the War on Drugs only if no money is spent on rehab" objection is really a strawman argument.

While there are around 30 million drug users annually, most are infrequent users. And of the 12-15 million that are regular users, the vast majority are not addicts. My own rough estimate is that we have around 0.8 to 1.5 million hardcore addicts in this country. We could probably treat them all for around half or less of what we spend to chase down all users and lock them up.

If a person really wants to save the taxpayer's money, he should support ending the War on Drugs. Period.

2. Many anti-war people cite the mounting death toll of military personnel in Iraq as their reason for not supporting the war effort and wanting to bring the troops home now. But prior to the war starting in 2003, many of these same people said they couldn't support the war because they feared that as many as 35,000 to 50,000 military personnel would be killed in the first six months of fighting. The total deaths from fighting in Iraq just surpassed 2,000 in the last few weeks, and the fighting started well over 2 years ago. One might expect that these people would be relieved that their worst fears weren't realized. Yet they still fret over the casualties even though the numbers are way below what they expected.

The truth of the matter is that these folks were against the war in Iraq no matter what the death toll. Whether the casualties ended up being one or one million, they would have been against the war. This fact makes their "don't go to war because the casualties will be too high" argument a strawman argument.

These are just two of the strawman arguments that are out there. I'll post more as time goes by.

How would you like your sacred cow burger cooked?

2005-11-22T19:21:00.000-06:00

Well, if you are like me, you like your sacred cow burger cooked well done, with BBQ sauce, bacon, and cheddar cheese on a sesame seed bun. You like to put the left-overs in the refrigerator and eat them later the same day. You like to take the bones of the sacred cows and grind them into fertilizer and spread them over the pasture. You like to take the hide of the sacred cow and turn it into a matching set of leather boots and jacket.

Of course, a dinner salad and baked potato go along rather nicely, too.

If you like your sacred cows cooked the way I do, then you too must be a fan of South Park, the show that cooks sacred cows to a crisp on a regular basis.

This week's episode was a classic. Scientology took it on the chin from the South Park team. Tom Cruise and John Travolta, two of Hollywood's most noted Scientologists, get some ribbing along the way.

There's just too much to cover in this episode, so I'll give you my favorites.

In the show, one of the show's regulars (Kyle, as I recall) is deemed to be the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard, the hack science fiction writer that founded this "religion" in the 1950's. As he has no knowledge of Scientology's truths, the leader of the church explains to him the events that occurred 75 million years ago. As this leader narrates these events, the program goes into a montage of those events.

What happened 75 million years ago, you ask? It seems there was this evil dictator in an over-populated galaxy. He froze billions of beings and shipped them to pre-historic earth and dropped their frozen bodies in volcanoes. The spirits of these beings tried to escape from the earth, but our evil dictator was prepared for this. He had devices placed above the earth that forced the spirits to stay on earth. Those spirits are called Thetans, and they plague us to this day. If you have any problems, it's because of the Thetans. And only Scientologists can help you overcome these Thetans.

What made this bit so juicy was that while these events were being narrated and depicted on screen, the phrase "This is what Scientologists really believe" was super-imposed on the screen the entire time. Too funny.

Toward the end, Kyle decides he is not going to play along with the fraud being perpetuated by the Scientologists and publicly denounces them in the press conference they've arranged for him. When Kyle breaks away from them, the Scientologists tell him they will sue him. It goes something like this:

Leader: We're going to sue you.
Kyle: Fine, sue me.
L: Okay, we will.
K: Good.
L: You are so sued.
K: Then sue me then.
L: We will sue you.
K: Sue me.

Back and forth, back and forth......

After this, the credits begin to roll. Every name in the credits is John Smith or Jane Smith, so as not to get sued. Hilarious.

Click on this link to see the schedule for South Park on Comedy Central.

I know. I know. The show can be very crude and rude. But it also has the most biting social commentary found anywhere on television.

Ah, the smell of sacred cow burgers. Delish.

The (Lack of) Compassion of the Conservatives

2005-11-21T21:10:00.000-06:00

First, my apologies to Mel Gibson as the title of this post is a a little word play taken from the title of his powerful, heartfelt movie The Passion of the Christ. With that said, the title seemed appropriate given that so many social conservatives seem lacking in compassion for those that truly are in unfortunate circumstances.

Case in point is this story I ran across on freerepublic.com this afternoon. For those not familiar with freerepublic.com, it is a news and forum website founded, maintained, and financially supported by grass-roots conservatives. Registered members can post links to articles on the Internet as well as post comments about the articles and respond to the posts of other registered users. The comment sections to the posted articles are commonly known as "threads" in Internet slang.

The story linked to above is about a 27 year-old Belgian man confined to a wheel chair. He's quadriplegic and can't talk, eat, or walk but is normal mentally and communicates through a computer. One other thing he can do is get an erection. He can function sexually.

For several years now, his mother has been paying prostitutes to come visit her son about once a month. I don't believe any further details are necessary here.

This man would like to have sex more than once a month, but his mother can't afford that. His story has made the news because recently his mother has petitioned the Belgian government for money to pay for weekly visits from the prostitutes as reimbursement for medical expenses, which they've so far rejected.

Now I fully realize this all sounds absurd. But what would you do, my dear reader, if you were a parent in this situation? What if it was your son? Would you even pay for a prostitute? Given this young man's severe physical limitations, his chances of finding a woman who would be willing to spend her life with him are rather slim. Should he be condemned to a life devoid of any sexual gratification because of his physical limitations?

While these types of situations are thankfully rare, they do occur. Sadly, the "compassionate" conservatives that took the time to write a post on this story could only mock or show disgust at this man's situation.

There are currently 68 posts to this article and only two posts show any compassion for this man's plight. First, there's this post early in the thread from RichInOC:

This is one of those stories that really shouldn't be funny...but is.

Then, towards the end of the thread, wouldntbprudent does a little better when he writes this response to the post above:

And it's also the other way around: it really should be funny . . . but isn't. :-;

That's it for the compassion on this thread. Impressive, wouldn't you say?

The following items are representative of the other 66 comments:

1. ROTFLMAO! What more can you say?

Note: ROTFLMAO=Rolling on the floor, laughing my ass off

2. Could a Moslem citizen of Belgian therefore demand 72 virgins?

3. My brain needs soap after reading that.

4. It is tempting to dismiss this piece as something from The Onion, but sadly enough it is true. This is what happens to a once Catholic country that allows itself to be pulled down into the gutter with the worst of the eurotrash.Even money says they give in within six months.

5. And then they can pay for his medical treatment after he contracts AIDS or an STD.

6. LOL! Good catch. I'm MARRIED, and sometimes I don't even get sex once a week. Maybe I should sue my wife for depriving me of my basic human rights!

7. It is frequently said on this site that a country that can't control its borders will not be a country for very long. I don't disagree, but I would add that a country that publicly funds pocket-pool is in even more trouble.

8. If there is legal sex for handicaps then only handicaps will have legal sex...

9. Never bring a 'hand' to a 'prostitute' fight.

10. I am actually speechless. These people are mad, mad, mad.

11. The guy can't feel anything from the head down, but he NEEDS sex? This WANT is just that, a want. This is just an attention seeking issue, a poor useless cripple who can't have sex, both physically and finacialy. I guess adressing the finacial aspect is his way of "having sex". Paying some cheap hooker to flog his dead useless member for a half hour isn't having sex. I guess it's called visual/mentaL sex.

Don't these eleven posts just drip with sympathy, compassion and understanding for this unfortunate soul's plight? Well, no, actually they show zero compassion. Nada. Nil. Remember that there are 55 other posts that mirror these 11. Click on the link in the second paragraph to read the article and all the comments, if you have the stomach for it.

Now I can appreciate the humor some of the folks posted. But is it too much to expect a "but seriously, folks" followed by some words that would at least show a smidgen of sympathy?

And sample post eleven is, well, just disgusting.

Granted, this is a very unusual situation, so most of us have never pondered it before. I understand that a person morally opposed to prostitution might be reluctant to have it paid for out of public funds. I also understand that it would be difficult for most of us to even think about securing the services of a prostitute for a disabled son. But it sure would have been nice if a poster or two would have at least acknowledged the complex moral issues surrounding this family's situation.

But none of them did. I hope they all had a good laugh or something.

The social conservatives of the Right may know the Bible backwards and forwards, but very few of them actually understand much of it. Futhermore, I'm certain that reactions here to this man's plight would be fairly representative of a large portion, if not a majority of social conservatives. The sad thing is that most of them are probably rather nice decent folks in their daily lives and habits. But when it comes to certain political and/or moral issues, many of them become self-righteous ideologues, condemning anyone that deviates from their orthodoxy as just plain evil. Just like the far Left does. I can't be a part of that.

That doesn't mean I'm becoming a Lefty. Far from it. I guess I'm now one of those despised RINO's that social conservatives talk about (RINO = Republican in name only). Or even worse, a libertarian. So be it. At least I don't mock the sex life of a disabled man in a wheel chair.

You know it's TV sweeps week.....

2005-11-21T01:44:00.000-06:00

....when the local news advertises a big feature news story on escort services (SEX SELLS), like station KMOV-Channel 4 did the previous weekend. Larry Conners, the station's anchorman, seemed to be channeling Claude Rains in Casablanca as he narrated the promotional spots for the story. Larry was shocked, shocked I say, to report that escorts operate right here in Saint Louis, in 2005 no less, thumbing their nose at the law and making way too much money while doing so.

Come on, is any one really surprised that the world's oldest profession is still being practiced right here in good old Saint Louis? Does anyone really care? I don't as I certainly don't consider prostitution to be a crime in and of itself.

Is it sinful? Yes, based on any reasonable understanding of Judeo-Christian teachings. Is it criminal? Hardly, as sexual intercourse between consenting adults that doesn't involve force or fraud cannot, by definition, be criminal.

I say legalize it and require regular medical exams of prostitutes. As for soliciting on the street, that can either be prohibited or zoned to specific areas and times in non-residential areas. Otherwise, leave the prostitutes and their customers alone. Legalization will make it safer for the prostitutes and their customers, aid in controlling STD's, weed out violent pimps and organized crime, and eliminate police and law enforcement corruption.

However, the biggest benefit would be no more titillating stories during quarterly sweeps weeks informing us that, unbelievable as it may seem, un-saved people still do un-saved things. Even in 2005.

One more thought, who is the bigger prostitute here? Is it the women who sell their bodies to a man for pleasure? Or is it the TV news organization that just happens (now I'm shocked) to do a story about escorts during "sweeps week" when local TV ratings are measured, affecting the station's advertising revenues for the next quarter? It's a toss-up, at best. However, I do know which one is the more honest of the two. Sorry Channel 4, you lose in the honesty sweepstakes.

More culture war nonsense

2005-11-20T17:30:00.000-06:00

Is anyone else besides me weary of the so-called "Culture Wars"?

Here's a story in the San Francisco Chronicle reporting that Rev. Jerry Falwell has added his support to, now get this, the "Friend or Foe of Christmas Campaign", sponsored by the Liberty Counsel, a "conservative legal organization". The story gives the details of a network of lawyers that will work to counter the ACLU's crusade to prevent various governmental entities from engaging in non-secular actions (i.e.. religious displays on public property, carols being sung in public schools, etc.).

Friend or Foe of Christmas Campaign? Is Christmas really in that much danger? Even if you believe as I do that the ACLU and others have gone overboard in their never-ending efforts to remove religion from the public (governmental) square, isn't "Friend or Foe" a little too much "in your face"? Why not call it the "Friends of Christmas Campaign" or the "Stop the Insanity Campaign" or something less confrontational? Doesn't anyone at the Liberty Counsel understand that such a confrontational slogan plays right into your opponent's hands?

Everyone on both sides here needs to take a deep breath and relax.

Let me talk to both sides here. First, I want to address the ACLU and their supporters. Look, I know you mean well, but the nation survived for nearly 200 years with public displays of Christmas and Christmas carols being sung by school children, so why don't you just give it a rest. Furthermore, millions of non-Christians have immigrated to this country in the last 50 years. They seem to have no problem with the dominant Christian culture, why do you? Typically speaking, it is nations dominated by Christians that are the freest in the world. You tend to view Christians as if they are the Mongol hordes. Christians are rightly proud of what they founded here on these shores and what it has become. Our country isn't perfect and it never will be, but compared to the rest of the world, it is a mighty nice place to be. You might want to give them their due every once and a while.

Furthermore, your tactics lately seem more like blackmail. I know how you work. For example, some city or county has a cross on its seal, you demand that the governing authority remove said symbol under threat of a costly law suit, governing body often caves in to your demands to save tax payers money. It is pathetic.

If you really want to do something about civil liberties, why don't you turn your attentions to the War on Drugs. There are tens of millions of people at risk of arrest for behaviors that are the morally no different than buying or selling alcohol, but to my knowledge your organization has done precious little work in this area (medical marijuana being a notable exception). The War on Drugs is by far and away the biggest rights violator in this nation. Nothing else comes close.

If Christians ever start burning heathens at the stake in this country, I'll be right along side you to fight them. But from my vantage point, your crusades seemed designed to give offense, not right real wrongs. Your organization is akin to the fable about the boy who cried "wolf", you see dangers were danger isn't present. One of these days, you may be right about a danger to our liberties, but because your efforts to date have merely marginalized you from the Christian majority in this nation, your warnings might not be heeded when they need to be.

Now to my Christian co-religionists. Don't be so confrontational with those that disagree with you in these matters of public policy. The fact of the matter is that the more confrontational you become, the more you feed their paranoia. I'm not saying you mustn't engage them in the courts, although it's not a bad idea. But if you must engage them, do it with a light heart. And if you lose, don't worry about it. Remember that it is the job of Christians to spread the Word. It is not the job of the public schools or the government in general to spread Christianity. People will still celebrate Christmas as they choose whether or not a religious carol is being sung at the local public high school or if there is no creche on the lawn in front of city hall. Is it silly for the ACLU to worry about these things? Yes it is. But if it is silly for them to worry about it, it is for you too.

One more word to my Christian friends. Get over this obsession with "Merry Christmas" vs. "Happy Holidays". It is selfish, childish, petty and beneath you. If an employee at the local department store wishes you "Happy Holidays", take it as the well wishes it is meant to be. Politely respond with a "Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays to you, too", and give the well wishes right back to them. Please understand that a stranger does not know your religious affiliations or beliefs and is merely being polite to a stranger.

Also, remember that the late December/early January time frame has been referred to as the "Holiday Season" for a long long time now owing to the fact that the Christmas holiday, New Year's day, and Hanukkah, (and now Kwansa) all occur during this time short time frame. Thus the term "Happy Holidays" was coined to encompass this entire time of year. It is a joyous time of year for Christians, and many non-Christians are happy for us as we celebrate the birth of Jesus even if they themselves don't celebrate the birth of Christ. Be generous of spirit and don't seek offense in the words "Happy Holidays" because no offense is intended. "Happy Holidays" is a wonderful phrase for all of us. So lighten up, Francis.

Denny Crane?????

2005-11-20T17:21:00.000-06:00

I'm not sure, but I think Fox play-by-play announcer Thom Brennamen referred to Arizona Cardinals head coach Dennis Green as "Denny Crane" late in the Rams-Cardinals game today. Of course, Denny Crane is the name of the character played by William Shatner on Boston Legal, on another network, as they say. Kind of funny. Maybe I misheard Thom, but it sure souned like "Denny Crane" to me. Heh.

BTW, the Rams lost.

Abortion and the Supreme Court

2005-11-19T18:23:00.000-06:00

With the passing of William Rehnquist and the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, President Bush gets to nominate their replacements. John Roberts has already been sworn into the position of Chief Justice while Samuel Alito awaits his confirmation hearings in January.

Of course, this means that the political fireworks have already begun and will continue through the Alito hearings. The source of the fireworks is primarily over abortion.

As Yogi Berra would say, it's deja vu all over again.

For long a long time, I laid the blame for these abortion fireworks at the feet of the Left. Their insistence that judges be made to swear allegiance to the Roe ruling seemed a threat to the independence of the judiciary. While that is still true, I have to be honest and say that the pro-life side's open campaigning to overturn Roe (via the appointment of judges) is what set the Left off in the first place. In other words, while Roe may started the fire overall, the Right started the fire in the Supreme Court battles by politicizing the issue, the Left just throws gasoline on that fire.

I wouldn't begrudge the pro-lifers their strategy of trying to overturn Roe via nominating anti-Roe judges if that was their only option. But the fact of the matter is they do have another option, amending the Constitution.

It really is ironic. One of the pro-life arguments against the Roe decision is that it excluded the voice of the people in the abortion issue. Yet there is a way to include the voice of the people via the amending the Constitution, and they refuse to try.

The reason the pro-lifers don't want to try for an amendment is because they know it will likely fail. The reason it would fail is because, despite their claims to the contrary, most voters think abortion should remain legal. An amendment might be possible if the pro-lifers would compromise and allow unrestricted abortions in, say, the first trimester of pregnancy. But they won't so any amendment is doomed to failure.

And so the abortion quagmire continues. When will it end? Who knows. It might go away if Roe is upheld once or twice more in the next few years. It might go away with time if Roe were overturned, returning the issue back to the states. Socially liberal states would allow abortions with few restrictions while socially conservative states would likely restrict abortions to one degree or another. And abortion rights activists might start a campaign to amend the Constitution to guarantee abortion rights should Roe be overturned.

The bottom line is that this issue is ripe for compromise and most Americans would be satisfied with a compromise that allows unrestricted abortions early in the pregnancy. I think there are many abortion rights supporters that would accept this. However, the pro-life side will not, so the abortion rights activists aren't going to either. Like I said, quagmire.

And I'm weary of it.

GWB and the Supremes

2005-11-19T09:42:00.000-06:00

There's a lot of ground to cover here, so here goes:

First, Sandra Day O'Conner's retirement pending confirmation of her replacement. Justice O'Conner will not be missed by me. Not because she was considered a moderate or a swing vote. My criticism of Justice O'Conner is mainly that she had a tendency to sometimes make rulings based more on policy preferences than on underlying constitutional and statute law. This rarely leads to clearing up an issue, and rather tends to muddy the water and prolong the issue. The affirmative action votes she made in Michigan cases a couple of years ago are an example of this. She somehow reasoned that it was fine to use race as a determining factor for the law school but not for undergrads. Or maybe it was vice versa. Either way, it was logically inconsistent and typical of her "split the difference" jurisprudence on way too many occassions.

As for Chief Justice Rehnquist, may he rest in peace. He gets praise from me for trying to put some teeth back into the Commerce Clause. I think history will judge him as a fine justice, while not particularly influential as a Chief Justice.

Now on to the nominees.

From what I've read and seen of John Roberts, he is a fine selection and will prove to be a fine Chief Justice. He has a top-notch legal mind and a humble judicial temperament. Way to go, GWB. Shame on you Senators that voted against this obviously well qualified jurist.

Harriette Miers. Harriette Miers? What were you thinking, GWB? When she was announced as the nominee for the O'Conner seat, I gave her the benefit of the doubt. I'd never seen her mentioned on any insider's listing of potential nominees, so I took a wait and see position. I waited and what I saw was not impressive. I think she did the right thing by withdrawing herself for the seat.

To explain this nomination, I tend to agree with those who say GWB was trying to (a) avoid a nomination fight in the Senate, (b) reward a long-time friend, servant, and supporter with a plumb appointment to the Court, and (c) appoint a Bush loyalist to the Court. None of these reasons are particularly good reasons to appoint Miers, but they don't disqualify her either. Rather, it became clear as her hearings date approached that she was not up to the job. End of story.

Now for Judge Alito. Alito is another fine jurist in the Roberts mold. Sharp legal mind with a restrained judicial temperament. I've read several stories on the web either penned by liberals or feature quotes from liberals that know him, worked for him, etc. and they have nothing but high praise for the man. He will be confirmed in early 2006 with about the same margin of approval as Roberts recently received.

In summary, President Bush has nominated two fine, eminently qualified jurists, with the Miers stumble in between.

Lot of catching up to do

2005-11-19T09:37:00.000-06:00

Well, it's been a few months, but I'm going to try to make regular posts.

Yeah, right. (editor)

I understand your skepticism. Only time will tell. Let the blogging begin.

The Constitution takes it on the chin... again

2005-06-06T18:15:00.000-05:00

Well, the U.S. Supreme Court's medical marijuana decision was announced today. Unsurprisingly, the Court upheld the Controlled Substances Act as it related to the plaintiffs in the suit before the Court. The three dissenting justices were O'Conner, Rehnquist, and Thomas. At least we have 3 justices that understand the constitution. The court's four liberals voted as expected, confirming the over-reach of federal power via the Commerce Clause used by Congress to stick the government's nose into just about everything imaginable.

So what about Kennedy and Scalia? Given Kennedy's views on Lawence v. Texas that overturned sodomy laws, I half expected that he would side with the plaintiffs. Why that didn't apply here is a mystery to me. He, like many others, probably just accepts the premise that law makers can criminalize what is in people's bloodstreams. We've been doing it for so long that it may just be a settled issue for him.

As for Scalia, he's a social conservative's dream justice. He purports to be an originalist when it comes to interpreting the constitution. And he is for the most part. But if ruling on a case would invalidate policies he favors, he'll find a back door to use to rule the other way. He did so today. Clearly Scalia is a drug warrior.

What is clearly true is that there is, for all intents and purposes, no limit to what the federal government can do. This was a bad day for those of us who think liberty, freedom, and limited government is what this nation badly needs. Members of Congress, the President, and the USSC all take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Most have violated that oath at one time or another over the last 100 years. This ruling proves that once again.

More abuse of rape laws

2005-05-05T02:10:00.000-05:00

Reading the story from Florida brought to mind a California rape case that made it to the Supreme Court in that state a couple of years ago. You won't believe this one.

It seems that a few years ago, a man and his girlfriend were doing something they'd done many times before. They were making love. During the course of their afternoon delight the man did something that angered his girlfriend. It made her so mad that she wanted to end their delight right then. He, thinking she's over-reacting, didn't stop right away. However, after a minute or two he did catch on that she meant it so he did stop.

Get this, the next day she files rape charges against him with the police. He must have really made her mad.

Pretty bad don't you think? It gets worse. The prosecutors decided to pursue the charge. The man was convicted and sentenced to prison.

He appealed his conviction on the grounds that failure to stop engaging in sex after consent has been granted cannot, by definition, be rape. The court however, disagreed and this man remains in prison. There was one dissenter among the justices. Ironically, it was the only woman on the court, Janice Rogers Brown.

Justice Brown agreed with his argument, stating that even charging this man with rape makes a mockery of justice.

Justice Brown was spot on. Real rapes are terrible crimes and the perpertrators should be punished severely. This case wasn't rape, it was a lovers quarrel. If there was any crime committed here, it was by this man's partner, falsely accusing him of a crime. Disgusting. And the prosecuter that brought these charges should be disbarred.

I know of at least one innocent man falsely imprisoned.

And they (used to) call it puppy love....

2005-05-04T22:19:00.000-05:00

Here's a story I came across on freerepublic.com the other day. It's from the Naples Daily News (see link below):

Mother's pursuit for justice catches man with girl

The woman's quest for justice began three years ago when she learned an 18-year-old high school senior was having sex with her 15-year-old daughter, a sophomore.

The woman and her husband first decided to keep that man, William Young, away from their daughter. They called the high school, Barron Collier, and the authorities. A criminal charge against Young followed. Then a no-contest plea.

The case ended in an outrage, in the view of the mother, with a judge letting Young off with minimal punishment while blaming state legislators for underage sexual conduct.

The judge sentenced Young, now 20, to a year in jail — six fewer years behind bars than the minimum allowable under state law for the charge, lewd battery.

"We were very astonished and let down by the justice system. We followed all the laws and put our faith in the justice system to protect our daughter, and it let our daughter down," the woman said.

Neither her name nor that of her daughter will be published because of the nature of the charge.

The sentencing was almost a year ago. Young got out of jail in December, and he didn't stay out long.

The mother, whose family lives in North Naples, hired a private investigation agency to get a bodyguard for her daughter, now 17, if Young threatened her. The agency suggested they follow Young instead.

And within two weeks, the woman would give the court its second chance at Young.

After his yearlong jail stint, he began three years on sex offender probation. The terms prevent unsupervised contact with a non-family member under 18.

But soon after he left jail, Young repeatedly was caught on videotape by the private investigator. Young was alone with his girlfriend.

She's 16.

He started dating her when she was 14. She was writing him love letters several times a day while he was in jail for the lewd battery. The prosecutor has copies of them.

So with the violation of probation charge, Young is back in jail, back on the hook for the sentence he avoided in July 2004 — a minimum of just over seven years in prison, and up to 15 years.

The matter is back before Collier Circuit Judge Lawrence D. Martin, in whose court the mother felt the greatest sting of frustration and anger since all this began, she said.

In sentencing Young so far below the state guidelines, Martin not only minimized the crime but blamed the state Legislature for contributing to it, transcripts of the hearing show.

"I understand the Legislature has a perfect right to set these guidelines. But I cannot see how the same Legislature that goes along with handing out birth control and giving sex education on the one hand and is basically an aider and abettor of these types of offenses can then turn around and say the perpetrator deserves 98.8 months," Martin said.

Martin then added that there would be "several of our good members of the Legislature who would wave goodbye to their sons as they go off to prison if we really enforced this law."

Martin said Young accepted responsibility for his actions by pleading to his charge. And he was relatively young at the time of the offense. So that merited the lesser sentence.

Assistant State Attorney Steve Maresca, who prosecuted the case, appealed. Maresca noted Young was sentenced not only on the lewd battery charge but two other pending felonies, grand theft and burglary.

Young pleaded no contest to breaking into a car and stealing $350 cash. He committed those while on bond for his arrest in the sex case, court records show.

Maresca won part of the appeal Friday, with a higher court reversing Young's sentence for the burglary and grand theft counts.

So in addition to the violation of probation charge, Young will face resentencing on those two charges and could face up to 5 years in prison on each.

The story continues in the Naples Daily News (registration required - try bugmenot.com for a login).

Where to begin? First off, let me say that I support laws that punish rape. As to statutory rape laws, I'm not so sure. That's not to say that there aren't men of less than honorable intentions out there who are willing to use there charms on women, young or old, merely to satisfy their sexual appetites. But are statutory rape laws the best way to protect young girls? Perhaps they are, especially for pre-teen girls.

On the other hand, perhaps statutory rape laws lead to a false sense of security for parents with regards to the safety of their daughter's virginity.

Before you start swearing at me, go back and re-read the last sentence above and mull it around a little bit. Didn't work, hey? Let me explain. With statutory rape laws on the books, some parents might delay explaining to their daughters the facts of life because they believe fear of the law will prevent members of the opposite from trying to engage in sexual congress with their daughters. They believe they can then let their daughters spend all sorts of unsupervised time with members of the opposite sex believing they are safe. They delay in getting down to the nitty gritty about boys until their daughters reach the legal age for sexual consent. This leaves their daughters unprepared when responding to the sexual advances that older men or even boys their age might make, resulting in more sexual consentual sexual activity, not less. And when I say the facts of life or nitty gritty, I'm not just talking about where babies come from. I'm talking about judging the intentions of men here. You know, the old fashioned things like honor, commitment, family, honesty, decency, etc.

To look at this another way, ask yourself how would parents protect their daughters from lotharios, young and old if statutory rape laws did not exist? What can they do? There are several things. Here's a list:

1. At the right age, explain to them that some boys will have honorable intentions and others won't. Explain why it is important to know the difference
2. Don't allow unchaperoned dates until a certain age and until you've met and know the boy
3. Monitor your daughter's apparal - don't let her dress like a tramp
4. Insist on meeting the boys she's interested in - get to know them
5. Attend church in order to instill good values
6. Limit phone time with boys, and girls for that matter
7. Don't let them spend time together alone and unsupervised
8. Monitor your daughter's reading a listening materials

To put all this another way, let me just say this. Risk is a virtue. That's right, risk is a virtue. What does that mean? When exposed to risk, people will normally act in ways to minimize the chances of the risk becoming reality. They are forced to become proactive. When people don't perceive the risk or they think the law will protect them from it, they are likely to be less proactive. All the things above are proactive things a parent can do.

But many parents don't do those things because they think the risk is much lower. Why do they think that?

One factor is that they think the sex education courses in our schools teach sexual morality. Nothing could be further from the truth.

They think statutory rape laws will protect their daughters sexually. Of course if they don't learn about the intercourse, then charges can't be filed.

In short, they are hoping their own children will act wisely while counting on the law to force other people's children act legally.

So what about this case? Looks like the two became an item when she was 14 and he was 17 or so, her a freshman and he a junior. The article tells they had sex when she was 15 and a sophomore and he was 18 and a senior. We also know that she corresponded secretly with him after his conviction while he was serving time. I imagine both have had sex ed courses.

Let me cut to the chase here. It seems to me that in this case the mother is using the law to get the boy out of the way because she couldn't stop her own daughter from seeing him. And she's afraid she will want to see him again in the future.

I'm not saying that the mother is wrong to be concerned about her daughter's behavior. However, if her goal was to keep her daughter from having sex with him couldn't other things have been done to accomplish this without filing charges? Perhaps Jane's parents could have talked with the two of them to express their concerns and set boundaries for Jane and William. Perhaps they could have included his parents as part of this, too. The parents could have told Jane and William that they could see each other away from school as long as they were chaperoned by them or William's parents. In other words, they could have given William a chance to prove his intentions toward Jane going forward.

While not shown above, the article goes on to say that William does have a juvenile record, but doesn't say what they were. While that might explain her urgency to end the relationship, it still doesn't change the fact that Jane continued to chase after William even after his no contest plea. Is it right to punish William for sexual offenses, even if he's a bum, if Jane chooses him for her own? We know he did break into a car and steal some cash, so that does tell us something about him, but the mother was on his case before this ever happened.

I would be interested to know what the mother thought of William before she learned that he and Jane were sexually intimate. Did she like him? Did she not know that Jane and he were seeing one another? What did she teach Jane regarding boys, sex, and intentions? Even if the mother did everything right with Jane's upbringing, should William be punished for sexual crimes because Jane rejected or ignored her mother's teachings and wishes?

Let me also add that the judge's comments were spot on regarding this case. Kids today are bombarded with sexual messages from a variety of sources and from a very early age. They are taught values-neutral sex education in our schools. Some folks champion free condom givaways to high school students to prevent pregnancies and STD's. Much of our popular culture (movies, tv, pop music) champions sexual intercourse as the only true way to express one's love for your signigficant other. You can't even watch TV without being bombarded with ads hawking drugs to treat erectile dysfunction. To many adults and teens, sex is love and love is sex. Love as a series of behaviors that elevate both the man and the woman in the relationship is foreign to a sizable number of people these days. It's all about the sex to them. No wonder there are so many sexually active teens these days.

Nope, statutory rape laws did nothing to protect Jane because Jane didn't want to be protected. Jane acted unwisely and now Jane's mother is using the statutory rape laws to punish William for acting illegally, as if Jane had no part to play in all of this. How sad for all.

Render unto Caesar

2005-04-15T21:12:00.000-05:00

Well today is April 15th and we all know what that means. Ugh!!

I tuned into The Dennis Prager Show today and taxes was the topic in the first hour of his broadcast. Dennis thinks high tax rates are immoral and being of the political and philosophical bent that I am, I do not disagree.

One of his callers disagreed with Dennis and talked about an episode in the Bible where Jesus said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." (Matthew 22:21). To the caller this meant that a tax, no matter how injurious to the payer is to be paid, no matter what. Jesus said it after all.

But is that really all there is to that passage? When one reads the entire eight verses of this passage (Matt. 22:15-22) we see that the Pharisees where trying to lay a trap for Jesus in their question about the propriety of Roman taxes. They were hoping to elicit a response that could land Jesus in trouble with the Roman authorities. But Jesus knew what they were up to and answered the way he did.

Basically, Jesus dodged the question. In today's vernacular, we would call Jesus' answer "spin". He knew there might be consequences if he were critical of Roman taxes so he deftly avoided making any statement that might cause him trouble.

I have to be honest here. These thoughts about what Jesus said about taxes comes from Charles Adams' excellent book For Good and Evil - The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilisation. I bought this book some years ago when it was first published and found it to be interesting and informative. Mr. Adams writes about taxes from acient Egypt to the current day, and covering just about everything in between from Rome to the Middle Ages to Spain, France, and England during the age of discovery, etc. The whole book is just one long history lesson, and a good one at that.

Me and the Oscars

2005-02-24T20:18:00.000-06:00

Mystery novelist and screenwriter Roger L. Simon comments on NY Times columnist Frank Rich's latest screed. Mr. Rich, brilliant logician that he is, blames President Bush and blue nosed Republicans for the decline in Oscar viewership (FCC problems don't ya know). Of course, Mr. Rich tends to blame anything wrong in the world, as he sees it, on Republicans and conservatives. I think Mr. Simon and the rest (the comments to his post) get it pretty much right.

As for me, I stopped watching the Oscars years ago for basically two reasons.

The first reason is that I can't stand looking at some of the garbs these men and women wear to these events. Don't these people own a mirror? Ugly gowns and dresses for the women and ugly jackets, shirts and slacks for the men. And don't get me started on some of the hairstyles. I look at these "beautiful people" and all I can think of is the old story about the Emporer's New Clothes.

The second and main reason I don't watch (or care about, for that matter) the Oscars is that Hollywood is too politicized. For the last 30 years or so Hollywood has prided itself on making "important" movies. In order to be considered for an Oscar, the movie usually needs to be "important". For a movie to be "important" in Hollywood, it has to take a Left-wing world view on things. So most of the movies that get considered for Oscars tend to be movies that I find appalling from a socio-political perspective. The "important" movies are, for the most part, decidedly Left-wing, made by people that are themselves, for the most part, decidely Left-wing. There are exceptions, to be sure, but by and large these "important" movies make me ill and leave me with a cold feeling.

I'd rather watch the Cartoon Network. The Family Guy is a riot!

Must see TV - Battlestar Galactica

2005-02-21T09:01:00.000-06:00

In my book the SciFi Network has scored a big hit with its re-working of the old ABC-TV series Battlestar Galactica.

You remember the original series don't you? Sure you do. That's were some human colonies in some faraway galaxy are betrayed by one of their own to their enemy, the robotic Cylons. With the traitor's help, the Cylons unleash a devastating attack on these human colonies, wiping them out. However, a few thousand humans do survive and, with the Galactica as their lone guardian, go on an unknown voyage through space to find the legendary lost colony, living on a planet known as Earth.

The new series contains all those same elements. Only it does them better. Sure the new series adds some new twists and changes here and there. From where I sit these changes are an improvement over the old series.

For instance, in the old series the Cylons were a dying reptilian race that saved itself by becoming robots or cyborgs. In the new series, the Cylons are the robot creation of the humans. But there's more. For reasons that aren't clear, the Cylons rebelled against their human creators. And they were able to evolve. In the new series some of the Cylons can pass for humans. This change adds a whole new element to the story, as humanity's remnants have to worry and deal with Cylon saboteurs in their midst.

And what beautiful protagonists those human like Cylons make. First there is Number 6 played by the blonde stunner Tricia Helfer. In flashbacks we see how she seduced Dr. Baltar into betraying his fellow humans. If James Bond had had to face this alluring she-devil in her Majesty's service, he would have not survived his first movie. The other Cylon femme fatale is Lt. Sharon Valerii (callsign Boomer) played by the lovely Grace Park. Her character is much different from Number 6. The Number 6 character is always acting to advance Cylon goals whereas Lt. Valerii at times seems to not know that she is a Cylon, but she does things for the Cylons without remembering them, or so it seems so far.

While these new elements do add to the series appeal, the biggest improvement to me is just in the overall mood of the remaining humans. The sense of loss these remaining humans feel is palpable. The worlds they've known for generations are gone forever. There's less than 50,000 of them left. They face an enemy that wants not just victory over the humans, but wants the total destruction of the humans. They face food, water, medicine, munitions, and equipment shortages. They do have hope, a planet called Earth, but they don't know where it is or even if it exists. But without that hope the fleet would disintegrate and all would be lost, so they hang on to that hope.

Are there problems with the new series? Well there are some, but my quibbles are minor. In the new series the Starbuck and Boomer characters are now female (and Boomer is a now a deep cover Cylon agent to boot). The female officers on the Galactica are addressed as "Sir" instead of "Ma'am", which seems a bit silly to me. They say "frack" a lot, but since this is a substitute for the real f-bomb, I'll cut them some slack on it.

My one quibble that does rise above the others is the presence of a news media remaining in the fleet. It just doesn't ring true. Sure it is possible that on air reporters and journalists would be part of the survivors. But the networks and news organizations that they worked for would be gone. Their audiences are dead and gone, except for those survivors in the fleet. Given the situation, I think that any surviving journalists would have banded together to form a small network that worked closely with the remaining government authorities in getting important information out to the fleet. They could still be adversarial when needed, but given the dire straits all the survivors are in, it wouldn't happen very often. In the show however, Presidential annoucements are staged with a small group of reporters shouting questions at her, just like in Washington, DC, the only difference being that the number of reporters are smaller. As I said earlier, it just doesn't ring true.

These few quibbles aside, I heartily recommend you watch Battlestar Galactica. It's a gripping, gritty, and thought provoking science fiction drama. It does have some adult themes, so parents should watch it first to judge for themselves if it is suitable for their children. It's likely fine for children 14 years or older. Kudos to Executive Producer Rick Moore and his cast and crew for putting together this outstanding series. Click on Battlestar Galactica to learn more about the series. Happy viewing.

Career change coming

2005-02-21T00:57:00.000-06:00

I'm excited about a possible career change coming down the pike. I've been a pencil-necked accounting geek for 20 years now and I'm ready to give up the debits and credits.

The first 10 years were pretty good, starting off working for one of the large CPA firms for several years followed by several years working for a software development company. In between those two jobs were growing pain years spent in retail (1 year), waste management (5 months), and a company too weird to describe (2+ years).

Since that time, my career has faltered. It's been a combination of some bad choices on my part and situations beyond my control. In the last 10 years I've worked for 5 different companies. I've been fired once, quit once, and I've been laid off three times. I've been on unemployment three different times. I've had several periods totaling well over one year when I haven't worked at all. I've done temp work several times for months at a time during the last 10 years. This chain of events has really soured my outlook towards my accounting career. I've probably haven't looked as hard in my current search as I normally would have because I've been afraid I'll find myself in another dead end job, laid off and looking for a new position within a year or two.

The good news is that this may all change very soon. I'm currently going through the interview process with an accounting recruiting/placement firm. I cleared the first hurdles on Thursday and Friday with a phone interview on Thursday and an in-office interview on Friday. I go back on Wednesday of this week for some more stuff. The interview/hiring process should be done in about a week. So if all goes well, I could be on the payroll by the first of March.

So I it looks like the unknown pundit is going to hang up his spread sheets and become a salesman. A friend of mine says being in the revenue stream is where it is at in business. He's already been there a few years. I can hardly wait to join him.

Juiced?

2005-02-20T23:31:00.000-06:00

For some time now, steroid use in sports has been making the news. Even more so now, with Jose Canseco's statements that he and many other players used steroids. For the last several weeks, sports writers, team owners, politicians, etc. have been chiming in, condemning the practice and calling for (you guessed it) more rules, reform, laws, etc.

I for one have had enough.

I really don't care what Canseco or Sosa or Giambi or Bonds does to themselves. If they took steroids, fine with me. They are big boys (pun intended) and own their own bodies.

Our sports media seem to be under the impression that if one takes a steroid injection, then presto change-o, big beefy muscles just bust out all over, like David Banner turning into the Hulk. I've got news for all our so-called sports journalists. Steroids don't work that way. You still have to exercise, you still have to lift weights, you still have to hit the machines, etc. Otherwise the injection is all but useless.

Steroids work to help the muscles to repair themselves faster than the muscles would otherwise after a workout. Steroids don't make you stronger, they enable you to build muscles more quickly and efficiently and make it easier to maintain those bigger muscles once you've attained them. Seems to me this is a good thing for a busy athelete on the go with work, personal appearances, and family to attend to.

This whole brouhaha over steroids is just a continuation of our current national insanity known as the War on Drugs. I'll be writing more on that subject in other posts to this blog.

For the league to come down on steroid use is a bit hypocritical in my mind. No doubt many insiders in the league looked the other way on steroid use as fans flocked to the ballpark and TV sets to watch the likes of McGwire and Sosa chase Roger Maris' single season home run record of 61 dingers. They've benefitted from Bonds incredible achievements over the last several seasons. They've known (or at least suspected) all along but didn't care because these sluggers helped their bottom lines. But now that it is out in the open due to leaked grand jury proceedings and Canseco's allegations, the league is compelled to tout the standard War on Drugs bromides -- drugs are bad, and steroids are a drug, and therefore they are bad, etc..........

As for the media, well they thrive on controversy.

Some of the sports commentators are all aghast because they see steroid use de-legitimizing the accomplishments of these atheletes alledged to have use steroids. They point to the achievements of the likes of Mays, Mantle and Aaron and say that their status and records are being eclipsed by undeserving heirs using steroids.

Let me point out a couple of things. First, the steroids don't help you hit the ball. As I said earlier, they aid in muscle development, nothing else. The muscling up seen in these players could be acheived without steroid use. We should ignore the accomplishments of these atheletes because they may have muscled up more quickly and easily using steroids?

Secondly, the conventional wisdom in baseball used to be that big muscles were a hindrance to a players swing. The ideal prototype a couple of generations ago were players like Musial, DiMaggio, and Williams, all long, lean, lanky players. Conventional wisdom also used to think that to hit a ball a long way, one needed to use a heavier bat. No one considered that bat speed was important to generating power at the plate. If players of yesterday had known how important bat speed was to generating power at the plate, they might have been muscling up back in the 1940's and since. They might have been using lighter bats but they didn't because they didn't know better. It seems to me that we are wanting to penalize modern players because sports medicine and sports physics have surpassed the knowledge of years past.

Of course critics of steroid use will say that steroid use is too risky. Is it? I won't opine on that here, but instead refer you to this article from Reason. Read it if you dare.

http://www.reason.com/0301/fe.dp.pumped.shtml