In the midst of this tsunami disaster, liberals in the US and the UN keep harping on this idea that the government of the United States must lead the charge on giving to the damaged countries because the country's GDP is so large. But this is a fundamentally flawed argument which presupposes BIG GOVERNMENT. Put another way, the notion that the US government should give a high percentage of the country's GDP means that the government would own a huge chunk of the GDP. That's socialism! The reason US GDP is so large is precisely because the government is not large. And our citizens give plenty via private donations.

History has proven over and over again that free enterprise, unencumbered by governmental interference, especially burdensome taxation, trumps socialism every time. The reason is that human beings are more productive when they enjoy the fruits of their own labor. Socialist Russia was a grossly underperforming economy. Poland, which has fully transformed into a free enterprise based economy was likewise unproductive but is currently enjoying a tremendous economy. Sure the US government could give more, if it was socialist and taxed the heck out of its citizens. Of course the GDP would be much smaller and even though the percentage would be higher, the amount given would be smaller.

And where is the understanding that what we have pledged so far is a preliminary number. We are, very prudently, not simply throwing money at these countries. We are performing triage and will give whatever it takes to get these countries back on their feet. But if we rush in and just throw money around, the stories of corruption and theft will be long and plentiful. Take the trouble to give a homeless guy a couple sandwiches and he'll have something to eat. Give a homeless guy $20 and he'll get drunk. It is far easier and quicker to pull twenty bucks from your pocket than it is to stand in line to buy some sandwiches but it accomplishes far less.

So liberals, please shut your mouths, or at least open them only to admit once and for all that what you are all about is socialism.

This is according to a new government funded study conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

So what do we do about this?

We already have laws against driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol. But it seems that laws do nothing to stem the tide of impaired driving.

Should we hire more police? Well, this would only result in more people being put in jail. 20% of young adults is a large demographic, do we put that many people in handcuffs?

While there may be some people who choose never to drink alcohol, the facts are that most people will drive after having a drink. This doesn't make us "bad human beings" and nor does it mean we should all be put in jail. Actually, state laws don't prohibit people from driving after drinking. It only prohibits them from driving if they had TOO MUCH to drink.

The Yahoo article that I linked above made a great statement:

Johnston added that while teens growing up in the 1980s were exposed to heavy media campaigns against drunken driving, that's not true for today's teens. He warned of "generational forgetting."

This is precisely the root of the problem. We just don't take responsibility anymore. We've largely become a nation of dependents, where we sit around expecting government to do something for us. We seem to have lost our sense of responsibility.

Frankly, I'd like to see all DUI laws repealed. If drunk driving is on the rise, then certainly the laws are having no effect. On other hand, those heavy media campaigns of the 1980s, along with Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" message did a lot more to curb substance abuse than any of the laws did. And we can pay for it by not having police set up those sobriety check points.

The United States government is committing $35 million to aid recovery efforts from the Tsunami. But that money is in taxpayer funds. The question is how much are Americans contributing in private donations, either as money, food, clothing, medical supplies, or labor?

It's impossible to measure because there are so many charitable organizations, and so many charitable Americans.

Folks in other parts of the world, as well as liberals here in the United States complain that our low taxes is an example of Americans being "stingy". They have it completely backwards.

Low taxes is a sign of high charitable spirit. When a country is forced to levy high taxes, it's because there's not enough people donating on their own. The United States is fortunate to have the most charitable people on Earth, and hence doesn't have to levy high taxes on its people.

It's people in countries like France, Norway, Germany, and others, who are so greedy, that their governments are forced to levy high taxes. The lower the taxes a country levies, the more charitable its people.

If you, like me, want to help the victims of the recent tsunami but hesitate to give money to the Red Cross for any reason, you're probably looking around for a charity which will actually put your money to work specifically for these victims. Here's one you might consider:

Doctors Without Borders

Doctors Without Borders allows you to designate your contribution to the tsunami/earthquake victims and you can make your contribution via credit card or directly from your bank account. This organization will provide real relief to those who are being affected right now. There is a monumental amount of work to be done and healthcare is perhaps the most important one as desperately dehydrated children drink dirty water and disease begins to spread.

If you've already made contributions to an organization, great but if you are hesitating for any reason and you don't feel comfortable with one or more of the large international charities, rest assured that Doctors Without Borders will put your money right to work in very important ways.

Air Marshals are telling a frightening story about the state of their agency. Apparently the head of the agency has instituted a dress code requiring Marshals to wear suits or sport coats. Some Air Marshals report passengers thanking them for their service. It seems the marshals are easy to spot since passengers have no difficulty identifying them.

A job posting on Monster.com states in part, "Federal Air Marshals disguise themselves as ordinary travelers to maintain a low profile and blend in with passengers aboard high-risk routes worldwide on US carriers." Obviously the job posting is incorrect and the person who posted it should be fired immediately since he or she is unaware of departmental policy. This sentence should be changed to read, "Federal Air Marshals dress in a manner similar to G-Men on TV. Your wardrobe must make it obvious exactly who you are so passengers begin to feel comfortable the minute they see you."

Why in the world would we want Air Marshals to stand out? The same job posting notes "It is impossible to cover all flights." Obviously if we readily admit that all flights are not covered, it would be important to have the marshals blend in so a potential terrorist is left guessing whether there is a Marshall aboard or not.

The same line of thinking that has gone into the dress code would have undercover police officers wear uniforms. Perhaps we could identify the specific flights on which there are Marshalls and charge more for them. This could fund the entire agency. Those who choose to fly on unprotected flights would get a lower rate but be taking their lives into their own hands. Maybe we could sell cards with pictures of the Marshalls (and a stick of bubblegum) so everyone would come to know exactly who these folks are. Maybe certain planes could have signs painted on them reading "this plane includes a federal Air Marshall who is packing heat."

The person who thought this up should be terminated immediately. No, I don't mean fired from his job. I mean he should be executed and let's do it before he procreates. The human race cannot afford to allow such a COLOSSALLY STUPID individual to have offspring.

The Associated Press conducts a poll each year from its own members, on what events produced the biggest news stories. Of course, being that the AP has a distinct bias against conservatives and Republicans, its list of top news stories is has a liberal slant. I wanted to list them all out, and provide some of my thoughts:

1. Presidential Election - without a doubt, the number one source of news all year long.

2. Iraq War - agreed, right up there with the Presidential Election

3. Florida Hurricanes - I tend to disagree that this should be way up at #3. The hurricanes were indeed big news this year, but it was largely limited to August and September, and while its after effects were far reaching, those effects really were not news material.

4. Abu Ghraib Scandal - I disagree on this also. What took place at Abu Ghraib was not newsworthy itself. I mean, who really cares that murderers were embarrassed on camera? It was the liberal media, such as the AP, that decided to spin this into a headliner.

5. The 9/11 Commission Report - This was newsworthy, but it wasn't big enough to make it to the top 10 in my opinion. I'm simply basing this judgement on how much media attention this issue got. It simply didn't get enough to warrant #5.

6. Gay Marriage - I agree this should be on the top 10, because even to this day gay marriage continues to make headlines.

7. Death of Arafat - Strongly disagree. The death of Arafat did make top billing when it happened, but it quickly petered out afterwards. The search to find a new PLO leader is making more headlines than Arafat's death.

8. Reagan Dies - I don't quite agree. It certainly was a very emotional event for all Americans, but this was not a top news story of 2004. News of his death and the ensuing funeral was largely limited to a few weeks of coverage.

9. Russian School Seizure - I disagree. I think this was perhaps a top news story for Russia, but not in the United States. Once the ordeal was over, it really wasn't mentioned anymore.

10. Madrid Bombings - I disagree. It wasn't something that stayed on American news headlines for all that long.

Here are my suggestions for the top 10 news stories of 2004, based on what topics received the most media attention:

1. Presidential Election
2. Iraq War
3. Scott Petersen Trial
4. Gay Marriage
5. Global Warming
6. Kobe Bryant Rape Trial
7. Michael Jackson Child Molestation
8. Public Defamation of George Bush
9. Job market, unemployment
10. Dan Rather Memogate

It never takes the environmental wackos long to say really stupid things in the wake of any disaster. AFP reports Human activities contributed to tsunami's ravages: environmental expert.

But what kind of BS are they spewing? The report says "Human activities, notably the building of coastal resorts and the destruction of natural protection, contributed to the enormous loss of life from killer tidal waves that hit the shores of the Indian Ocean after an earthquake, an environmental expert said." It goes on to claim that coral reefs and mangroves would have provided protection by slowing the force of the wave.

Absolutely no bloody way. These tsunamis killed people 3,000 miles from the epicenter. Shallow water merely jacks waves like this higher. It does nothing to stop or even mitigate it. A tsunami warning system would have saved a huge percentage of those who died. And presumably the world will help build one. Maybe Kofi Annan can contribute some of his ill-gotten gains to the building of such a system.

So let's cut the BS and concentrate on helping those people who did not perish while making the next "event" less hazardous by having a warning system in place.

Envirowhackos, keep your mouths shut, if you can't say anything constructive.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to All!

I have heard a number of sound bites in which the speaker prefaces his comments with, "If we win this war, blah blah." What is that supposed to mean? If we win this war? Why would anyone doubt that we are going to win this war? We are going to win, of course.

You might hear reports that there is this insurgency thing and they're beating our brains in. Everyday, it seems, more and more American soldiers are dying. But let's look at this rationally. Every couple of days there is some sort of attack by these terrorists. Every couple of days? In a country as large as Iraq? That is really a miniscule showing by our opponents. Just to put things in perspective, the population of Iraq is something like 22 million. The population of New Jersey is something like 8.5 million. So Iraq is about 3 times the size of New Jersey. The CDC reports that in 2002, roughly 500 people died from poisoning in New Jersey. By multiplying the 500 annual figure by the factor of 3 (Ratio of Iraq > NJ), that would be about 1,500 incidents of death by poisoning. How many terrorist attacks were there in Iraq? I hope you get the point. Poison is a bigger threat to folks in New Jersey than terrorism is to folks in Iraq. Unless somehow terrorism wins the intangible war.

Terrorism works partly because the news coverage makes it feel as if the attacks are coming from all angles, all the time. But the reality is the number of attacks is relatively small. I'm not in any way showing disrespect for the brave soldiers who have lost their lives in our cause, nor am I diminishing the fear created by these terrorist events. But they do not demonstrate an extremely well-organized, sizeable opponent. By common standards they are sparse. In a country of tens of millions with an arsenal floating around of literally hundreds of thousands of weapons as well as, perhaps millions of pounds of explosives, wouldn't we expect many more and larger attacks? There is no question that we must defeat the terrorists (or insurgents, if you like). We will because they are not representative of the whole of Iraq as their numbers clearly show.

What is missing from the equation here at home are the stories of what is going right in Iraq. Sure there are drips and drabs but the news media is, by and large, not giving us the whole story. Why is that? I don't know for sure but maybe they are predisposed to showing bad news. If it bleeds, it leads is the typical mantra of the news industry. It just simply isn't enough right now. The news industry is in crisis. If they want to win our hearts and minds they are going to have to do a much better job.

Reporters stationed in Iraq need to stop cowering in the basements of hotels and stop covering the terrorist event of the day, week or month. They need to get out there and look around at what is really going on, then report it to us. They also need to put this thing in historical perspective. We are sick and tired of the Vietnam-War-styled coverage. We demand better. They are going to have to give it to us or perish.

No winning athlete enters the field of play thinking anything less than, "I am going to win." No business person makes his commute thinking anything less than, "I am going to succeed." No person drags his tired butt out of bed thinking, "I just cannot make it. I'm a loser." Winners are confident. Winners, be they athletes, princes of industry, journalists or the average person making it to work each day, never consider not winning. The United States has always been a winner in one form or another. We cannot tolerate a losing mentality. We won't tolerate a losing mentality. Nor will we stand and listen to folks who do nothing more than point out the problems without offering solutions.

Winners are aware of problems and they offer bona fide solutions. Losers stand on the sideline pointing out the shortcomings of winners. We are a country of winners. We honor winners on the field of sports, business, combat, politics, and everthing else. We do not tolerate losers. We demand winners.

Now, repeat after me, "The United States is going to win the war in Iraq. The United States is going to win the war in Afghanistan. The United States is going to win the war against terrorism. We must win all these wars or perish as a people, as an ideology, as a country. We will win."

A feature story of emagazine.com (The Environmental Magazine) is:

"Too Darn Hot
Global Warming Accelerates the Spread of Disease
Heat stress is probably the most obvious thing people think of when the idea of global warming comes up. A heat wave in Europe during the summer of 2003 killed more than 10,000 people in France alone. Many of the dead were elderly; the group most likely to live alone and most susceptible to heat-related health problems."


Now how ridiculous is this? What has global warming to do with the day to day weather in one place on the planet. Very little. Let me say that again. Global warming has nothing to do with the temperature in France or even Europe as a whole for a day, a week, a month or even a year. Global warming is the phenomenon in which the average temperature across the entire globe is going up over a long period of time. Global warming is an issue based on fact. But the causes of it are very much in question.

Yet we continue to see this garbage propagated by these poorly educated, lacking in higher intellectual capabilities, namby pamby enviro-terrorists. They do an excellent job of worrying the weakest amongst us, the elderly. I suppose that would make them, um, predators.

One has to wonder why these folks have to rely on such obvious falicious appeals to the emotion. It must be because they do not feel comfortable using facts to convince us. And that is because the facts do not support their basic premise.

The President and Congress are hard at work discussing what to do and what not to do about the social security system's midlife crisis. The media is yet again failing at its mission to educate the public on the facts of the crisis and possible solutions. People are living longer now than when the system was created, a lot longer. Outflows exceed inflows and will never catch up. Return on the trust is non-existent. There are a limited number of solutions and each has significant drawbacks. But the potential failure of the system is the single most important issue we face and one which must command our attention and intellects.

The President has made his proposal based on the suggestions of retired Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (Democrat – New York). Senator John Kerry and then President Bill Clinton made similar proposals to what President Bush is proposing but these were made in the good old days when the pillaging of the military budget and the bubble of the stock market resulted in large budget surpluses. We have no such luxury now. There is a good deal of political posturing and squabbling going on because there really is very little larger on planet Earth than the U.S. social security system. And many are afraid that a Republican President might actually fix the damn thing.

The media has done a poor job explaining the situation and the possible alternatives for fixing the system. The Washington Post notes that "efforts to educate the public about the idea (Bush's partial "privatization") and convince them of the merits are at best incomplete." But whose job is it to educate the public? The nuances of this plan are fairly simple. It is the job of the President to lead by setting the agenda and then driving Congress to write the law. I’m not suggesting that the President’s job is over but it certainly has little to do with educating the public. It seems to me that if there is a purpose to having a free press, it is precisely to educate the public. So if the Washington Post is saying anything, it is saying “we are not holding up our part of the bargain.” It is unfortunate that the media has expended so much effort to report the political squabbles. But, I suppose, this must be what they think sells newspapers. But it is time to quit squabbling, and get to work.

Many view the promise of social security benefits as sacred and the system itself as untouchable. There exists an almost insignificant notion that perhaps the system isn't quite as bankrupt as Bush would have us believe. Many lawmakers have expressed dislike of Bush's proposal to make a very small portion of the social security taxes (the term "contributions" incorrectly implies a degree of choice) part of a personal account which could be invested in the financial markets. But let's call a spade a spade. The proposal would basically create two systems within the existing one, the new one being defined contribution. Why is that fundamentally the wrong direction in which to go?

I can recall many decades ago participating in a defined benefit program. I received my periodic statements and was pleased to see that if I were to remain an employee to the age of retirement, I would receive almost as much as I was currently making each year. I didn't think very much about inflation or about the amount of money my employer would have to put away each year to keep me whole well into retirement. But this defined benefit system had a number of assumptions built into it and had huge expenses paid to actuaries who dutifully calculated the point of my expected death, the amount the system would actually pay, and how much in assets would be required to support me.

At some time in the 1980s, the average age of people dying started to go up a little too quickly for the actuaries to keep up with and many organizations began to feel a pang of fear caused by the notion that the cost of their retirement systems might actually cause them to go out of business. This coupled with slow returns on investments made many seek out alternatives in a big hurry. Benefits consultants were quick to promote plans for defined contribution plans. This sort of system was broadly adopted and today it is rare to participate in a defined benefit plan. Basically, the federal government by looking at defined contributions is just 20 or so years late!

So why did business and other organizations move to defined contribution systems rather than just ask employees to pay for their defined benefit plans? The answer to that is very simple, it's too complicated. The amount of money required to make a specific payout, based on actuarial calculations, in retirement moves around almost constantly. Some years there are happy surprises. Most years, employees would have to borrow money quickly to contribute to their plans. It is just not possible to predict a year by year return rate on investments. Couple that with the greater uncertainty regarding mortality, and it becomes impossible to calculate a smooth contribution schedule. Businesses could not afford defined benefit plans and neither could their employees. Change was required for solvency and sanity.

The same fundamental issues are true for the current social security system. The average age of mortality for the American public has not remained constant. It has moved up quite a bit over the past several decades and the advances in medical science have made a retirement age of 65 almost a joke. The entire social security system is based on the notion that half of all participants will be dead before they are eligible to receive benefits. But since, under current mortality rates, most participants will live for quite some time, the system has to go bankrupt eventually.

There are only so many options available to fix the inevitable collapse of the social security system. The age of eligibility for benefits could go up. The amount of benefits could go down or eligibility limited in terms of assets or income. Taxes could go up. The system could be changed from defined benefit to defined contribution. There are not a lot of options. Put succinctly, we need to either increase income or decrease output.

Many politicians as well as the AARP become apoplectic at the suggestion that the eligibility age should be increased. But this doesn't fit reality. Folks are able to work far longer into their lives than ever before. Anecdotally speaking, I know of at least two people in their mid to late 70s who are currently working part time and not just for the money. They work partly for the money, partly because they can and partly because they just want to do something. And folks older than 65 can frequently still work. One 70 year old woman I know had cataract surgery and wound up throwing away the glasses she had used for well over 20 years. She may not be able to take on Kobe Bryant in one on one but she can read small print better than I can. She is perfectly lucid and can handle any office job as well as just about anyone at any age.

Anyone who knows anyone on social security realizes that the amount of benefits does not provide for luxurious living. Limiting eligibility would have the effect of transforming the system from a retirement system into essentially a welfare system which it was never intended to be. Taxes could go up but, at 13+ % they are already rivaling the regular income tax as any person who is self-employed could quickly tell you. The option of a transforming the system from defined benefit to defined contribution seems to be a no-brainer. As said earlier, almost all organizations already know this is the only way over the longer term.

While we, as a nation, rapidly approach retirement age, we need to take a careful look at our financial posture and make hard decisions about just how well we are going to live in retirement. We need to examine our lives and make hard decisions about how much we have to put away and how aggressively we manage our finances. The days of frittering away money and putting off retirement worries are over. We no longer have time for politics. We must start planning and acting on a plan or face the prospect of eating cat food. Reality sometimes sucks but it also rules.

Last week, Norma Smith stepped outside of her home and noticed something missing from her front yard, the baby Jesus.

Norma had set up one of those nativity scenes where the figures light up at night. Sometime later on, she discovered the baby Jesus missing. It was nowhere to be found. Moreover, the person responsible for doing this had the foresight to bring a knife or a pair of scissors, because the cord was snipped off at the plug.

Obviously, a light-up baby Jesus is useless with a snipped plug, and especially without the other figures. So, this wasn't a theft for profit. Norma's husband was quoted as saying that, "It was a political thing, there was a message in that."

I disagree. Let's call it what it is, a hate crime.

Someone out there hates Norma for having expressed her Christian beliefs in public, and sought to discourage her from doing so by vandalizing her nativity scene. The coward didn't even have the guts to confront Norma in person about it.

To describe this as "political" is to diminish the severity of the act, or worse, legitimize the person that did this. That person tried to take away Norma's freedom to express her beliefs, and we cannot allow that to be diminished. My fear is that the local police department is treating this as a petty theft, which means the criminal is going to get away scott free. If they treat this as a hate crime, then the criminals will be apprehended.

Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that only a plastic baby-Jesus was stolen. It is our freedom of expression that is being stolen.

Time Magazine named President George W. Bush its person of the year on Sunday. A little over a month ago, we speculated on who or what Time Magazine would name person of the year. Bush was the obvious choice. But I would like to nominate as the number two "person of the year" the effort to re-elect Bush.

I'm not nominating Carl Rove, the Republican Party, or conservative media, be it old or new. Rather, all of the people and events of the political campaign from both sides of the aisle are nominated. The collective events which led up to Bush's election had a huge impact on the American people and demonstrated to the world what the United States was all about.

For one thing, the emotion of this particular election forced Dan Rather, 60 Minutes and CBS News to show the world, and more importantly the American people, once and for all that the notion of media bias was not merely some sort of invention by conservative talk hosts such as Rush Limbaugh. CBS aired a segment on 60 Minutes that should never have seen the light of day. Interestingly, the segment, the commercials of the Swift Boat Veterans, John Kerry's "reporting for duty" and other discussions about Vietnam had little real impact on the election and may have put that divisive war to bed forever. So CBS spent whatever appearance of independence it had to air an uusupportable story that nobody cared about one way or the other.

Secondly, it became somewhat more clear that Americans were far more conservative than anyone truly expected. It was easy for Democrats to claim that they were somehow beaten by some sort of evangelical conspiracy but it was a far more complicated equation than that. I have often heard that a conservative is nothing more than a liberal who has been mugged but New Yorkers largely disproved that notion when the city and state which is the most likely target for terrorists voted for the candidate whose clearly established track record was anti-military, anti-war, pro-U.N. Even if one argues that John Kerry might somehow have been able to capture Osama bin Laden, it is impossible to ignore his record in the Senate which lacking in any clear signature national defense accomplishment. Yet New Yorkers still voted along classic party lines to support the Democratic candidate. Presumably the rest of the country saved New Yorkers from themselves again.

But the biggest apparent result of this election season may yet be the changes on the Democratic Party itself. The hidden fractures between ultra liberals, more pragmatic and moderate wings of the party, young members, the artistic coastal elites, etc. may yet reshape the party into something it hasn't been in many, many decades.

In short this campaign has changed the country almost as much as September 11, 2001 or any other event we have ssen in recent decades.

A federal judge awarded an ISP one billion dollars in a judgement against spammers. The ISP had sued spammers under an Iowa law which allows judgements of $10 per spam message. Also RICO was invoked which tripled the awards. The spammers did not even show up in court to defend themselves.

This sort of acton gives at least a spec of hope in the war against unwanted e-mails. And it demonstrates that economic self-interest often can far surpass government based enforcement agencies in the ability to solve a problem.

I have a lot of respect for William Kristol but his article about The Defense Secretary We Have, Donald Rumsfeld plays into what I most dislike about the media in general. The media has a tendency to break everything said by governmental officials down and cast it in an almost obsessively negative light. What is lost is the entire context in which the clip was said and the overall meaning of the overall statement.

There is no question that Donald Rumsfeld said, "You go to war with the Army you have ..." but this was said as an almost apologetic postscript by the Secretary. And he was speaking the truth. It is easy to realize that if the Secretary simply received absolutely everything he could ever possibly want in terms of the military apparatus to go to war, that apparatus would be impossibly expensive. You do go to war with the army you have. Of course everyone knows that. But often what everyone knows doesn't easily come to mind. Wise people are often considered wise precisely because they tell us what we already know. Rumsfeld was simply closing his discussion with a pearl of wisdom.

Kristol's article doesn;t really harp on the "army you have" comment but rather fixates on something else. Rumsfeld also said, "the Army has been pressing ahead to produce the armor necessary at a rate that they believe--it's a greatly expanded rate from what existed previously, but a rate that they believe is the rate that is all that can be accomplished at this moment." This Kristol criticizes as demonstrating poor leadership abilities. Specifically Kristol says:

"So the Army is in charge. "They" are working at it. Rumsfeld? He happens to hang out in the same building: "I've talked a great deal about this with a team of people who've been working on it hard at the Pentagon. . . . And that is what the Army has been working on." Not "that is what we have been working on." Rather, "that is what the Army has been working on." The buck stops with the Army."

Well, who exactly is working at it? Kristol is upset because Rumsfeld is pointing a supposed finger at "the army" and, again supposedly, away from himself and his immediate staff. It is as if his comments were some sort of Freudian slip. Should Rumsfeld have said Union local blah blah blah is working at it? Should he have said the United States is working at it? How precise does an official working an impossibly difficult job have to be with his language.

Let's briefly look at the context in which this all took place. The Secretary is to address troops in a combat zone. The organization of the military has identified their single greatest problem which is a lack of armor on vehicles. This problem has become apparent over several months and, as any organization would, the military is working to solve it. The soldier posed his question and Rumsfeld not only acknowledged the existence of the problem, but also acknowledged that this was a specific topic of discussion between himself and the military brass he met with earlier that day. Then he went on to explain that the right people are working hard to resolve the problem. Great! So then he closes by saying we wish this wasn't a problem or, in other words, "You go to war with the army you have."

I have no problem with the totality of Rumsfeld said that day. I think the man is wise, in charge, and has accomplished several tasks which were at one time described as impossible. Have we completed the job? Certainly not. But we are just as certainly led by a capable individual whose accomplishments speak for themselves. Let's not micro-manage our leaders.

The editorial page of USA Today published a piece entitled, "Good economic times roll for high rollers, that is", suggesting that good economic times are here, if you're a business owner.

The recovery is showing up in stock values, corporate profits and other measures at the upper end of the economic spectrum. But in data more meaningful to most Americans, things don't look so rosy. Employment has trickled up during the past year, but still stands at 400,000 fewer jobs than in 2001. Productivity gains and outsourcing mean some U.S. jobs are gone for good.

The Op/Ed piece went on to say:

Left unchecked, this type of disparity builds resentment. Until the captains of industry find ways to share more of the wealth with those in the trenches, they risk a political backlash against the policies that have made them wealthy.

The last sentence above is the most interesting.

The commentator essentially says that tax cuts and deregulation have made Americans and business owners wealthy. That is to say, if we had higher taxes, and if we had more restrictive regulations, then there wouldn't be so many wealthy people. The rich would not be as rich.

But first, let's get one thing out of the way. Anyone in the United States can choose to become wealthy. That is, even the most poorest person in the country can become wealthy beyond their belief, if they are willing to put in the effort. We've all heard the story of Arnold Schwarzenegger, who started out in America working in construction as a bricklayer, spending his free time in the gym, and saving his money to pay for bodybuilding competitions. And we've all heard many other rags-to-riches stories. Anyone can choose to become rich, if they're willing to put in the effort.

What USAToday admitted, perhaps by mistake for their own sake, is that if we didn't have such high taxes, and so many restrictive regulations, then working class Americans would be able to rise up out of the trenches and become business owners themselves. That is, the small guy American would find it easier to become self-reliant and easier to turn an idea into a business.

As long it remains difficult to become wealthy, liberals will have plenty of working-class Americans to champion. That's why liberals complain that tax cuts are unfair; it's unfair to them, not necessarily to Americans.

It's the old "Jesse Jackson" syndrome. Jackson champions the poor African Americans, but when those people are empowered to become self-sufficient, or even wealthy, they no longer need him. Hence, he opposes tax cuts. Anything that helps Americans become wealthy is a weapon threatening to make liberals extinct.

An excellent commentary published by Investors Business Daily, about the State of Massachusetts moving to tax its citizens to provide college tuition to illegal aliens.

And while it may seem unfair to punish children for the illegal actions of their parents, it's also unfair to say the child of a law-abiding citizen of Des Moines must pay $18,767 to attend the University of Massachusetts while an illegal alien from Mexico gets to pay the in-state rate of $8,034 -- in effect a $10,000 subsidy paid by Massachusetts taxpayers.

One the one hand, we have liberals complaining that the Bush Administration is allowing corporate executives to shut down American factories, and ship the jobs overseas.

And then on the other hand, we have liberals implementing social programs designed to import cheap labor from Mexico, providing them with low-cost education so that they gain job skills, and then using them to put Americans out-of-work. Reverse outsourcing.

Because America is rich with opportunity and resources, those living in less-fortunate countries are sure to flock here. And I welcome folks from other parts of the world to come here and enjoy the freedom we provide.

But giving illegal aliens the fast-track to prosperity, while Americans are forced to work for every penny they get, achieves what goal? And keep in mind, these are ILLEGAL aliens.

If we reward illegal aliens this way, then we only open the flood gates, putting not just thousands of Americans out of work, but millions. Companies like Dell and General Electric no longer have to ship jobs to Mexico, they'll just hire the Mexicans who live here.

My fourth grader daughter came home from school today to tell me about the three divisions of government in the United States. She noted that Congress writes the laws, the courts take care of applying the law, and the president takes care of running the government. She also noted that her teacher had told her, "Congress has the responsibility of declaring war but Bush does whatever he wants."

Obviously we are requesting clarification from the teacher. She could not have said that, could she? I cannot imagine such politically charged rhetoric containing such factual inaccuracies can be a part of any publicly funded education. We'll wait for a response from her before seeking a "correction" but if she, as I suspect, did say this thing, this is just another drop in the political brainwashing we are subjecting our children to. This can in no way be tolerated.

Listen to your children. At the end of the school day, ask them what was discussed and how it was discussed. It is beyond absurd that we must spend so much time correcting teachers and explaining why they are at best wrong and at worst biased. But we must.

A well written article by Steven Plaut entitled "Usurpers" discusses exactly who is the rightful occupier of Israel and Palestine, and shows that there really isn't a rightful occupier.

So why exactly do the anti-Zionists assert that a thousand-year old claim by Arabs, never Palestinian Arabs, has legitimacy, while a 1,900-year claim by Jews to the land should be rejected as absurd, even though the United Nations granted Israel sovereignty in 1947? The anti-Zionists say it is because the thousand-year-old Arab claim is more recent than the older Jewish claim. But if national claims to lands become more legitimate when they are more recent, then surely the most legitimate of all is that of the Jews of Israel to the lands of Israel, because it is the most recent!

The way I see it, the only people who can claim legitimacy to a piece of land are those who are capable of defending it. Whether you defend your home with a gun, or you defend it with the law, Defense is the only test of legitimacy.

John Kerry, today, asked county election officials in Ohio to allow his lawyers to inspect some 92,000 ballots in which voters chose not to cast a vote for President.

Bush won Ohio by a margin of 119,000 votes. Kerry admitted that the 92,000 votes in question won't change the outcome of the election.

So, if Kerry is not asking for a recount, and if he's acknowledged that he cannot win the State of Ohio, why he is even bothering to look at these 92,000 votes?

The article linked above gives the following explanation:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry issued a statement last week saying reported voting problems should be investigated to ensure there are no doubts in future elections. His campaign does not dispute that Bush won the election, but supports the recounts.

Ok, so he's doing this to "ensure there are no doubts in future elections". But wait a minute, didn't Kerry already concede that he cannot win Ohio? So exactly, what "doubts" is he referring to in this election?

On one side of the coin, he feels there is no doubt that Bush won Ohio, and yet on the other side, he has doubts about the Ohio vote. In his concession speech, the day after election day, he stated:

In America it is vital that every vote count, and that every vote be counted. But the outcome should be decided by voters, not a protracted legal process.

Noble enough. But what happened to it? Why he is now dragging lawyers into Ohio to inspect people's ballots? My sense in this is that Kerry is just unsure of himself, perhaps feeling sorry for having conceded the election, when his fellow Democrats are still fighting. Maybe he felt that giving a concession speech was the noble thing to do, particularly in a time of war. Maybe he thought he should encourage Americans to accept the outcome and unite as one. At least he thought so.

Maybe it didn't pass the "global test".

In case you didn't know, Global warming has already hit Latin America! The unusually intense hurricanes which hit Latin America and the Carribean this year are early symptoms of global warming according to a report sponsored by Mexico and the UN. The paper also says, "More than 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in Latin America and the Caribbean come from Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela and Argentina."

The only problems with this paper are that "global warming" is not a localized issue and even if there were carbon in the air over one particular spot, that air would be moved rather easily and quickly by normal winds, not to mention tropical storms. I suppose the writers of this paper believe that carbon in the air not only causes temperatures to rise but also acts as a sort of magnet for tropical cyclones?

This paper ought to turn the meteorological world on its ear. Previously meteorologists believed that tropical cyclones formed over water and had their intensity determined by water temperatures and high pressure areas near the inter-tropical convergence zone. Previously meterologists thought that an increase in global temperatures would cause the number and intensity of tropical cyclones to decrease. Previously meteorologists have said that the only remarkable thing about this past hurricane season was that the cyclones seemed to follow very similar tracks and hit land more frequently than usual (although not that much more frequently).

One is left wondering why tropical cyclones which form over thousands of square miles of ocean would be impacted by the amount of smog over Mexico. One wonders why the UN would spend money to produce a paper which flies in the face of most published scientific research.

Can you blame anyone for home schooling their kids these days?

The AP is reporting that a
ten year old year was arrested and cuffed for bringing scissors to school. The school says scissors are considered potential weapons and are, therefore, forbidden. The police said they had determined she hadn't committed a crime and had released her. The school, of course, suspended her for five days. The mom of the girl said, "she cried and cried." School administrators noted that while the measures were harsh, they were necessary to regain control over an unruly school.

Please, please give me a %$#^ing break!

Who are these people running our schools. Kick them the bleep out. They make sure there is no mention of Christian or Jewish morality. They make sure a ten-year old can't bring scissors to school. Yet our kids are NOT BEING EDUCATED, are being bullied, aren't being exposed to common religions in the U.S., are being fed lies about other religions, U.S. foreign policies, the environment, President Bush.

These unionized yahoos must go. Kick them out not only of your school but out of your community. Send them all to the jungles of Cambodia.

Fire all the school administrators at the next election. Find ways to get rid of your worst teachers even if they have tenure. No tenured teacher would return after a good tar and feathering.

Go to PTA meetings and scream until you are hoarse. Take the schools back. Show them we're not going to take it anymore. Stop taking crap from teachers and school administrators.

The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that a mother broke the state's privacy laws by eavesdropping on her daughter's telephone conversation with a teenage friend suspected of committing a crime. This is great fodder for starving news rooms and talk shows. It made Matt Lauer's morning show. The issue, at least as the media sees it, is the parents are not allowed to spy on their own children. But is that really the substance of the court's finding? Hardly.

The facts in the case are a theft was committed, suspects were identified, and a sheriff asked a woman to keep her eyes and ears open because he knew that the woman's daughter was a friend of one of the suspects. The woman eavesdropped on a telephone conversation between her daughter and the suspect, overhearing that the boy knew where the item stolen in the robbery could be found. The woman took notes and reported the conversation to police.

Any (presumed innocent) person having a telephone conversation is entitled to privacy. If that person is truly suspected of committing a crime, the police and the courts have a mechanism for listening in to telephone conversations which might incriminate him or her. That mechanism involves showing probable cause and obtaining a warrant for tapping the phone. If the police had done their work in this case, maybe that's what would have happened. But it is totally unacceptable for the police to deputize a civilian for the sole purpose of eavesdropping where they don't otherwise have permission to tap the phones.

I'm a law and order guy but the police need to adhere to some minimum standard of obeying the law, themselves. Parents should feel free to continue to monitor, even, whenever necessary, eavesdrop upon, their children. I'm not an advocate for distrusting one's children and I think listening in on all telephone conversations is a bit heavy handed. But there certainly are situations when it is reasonable for a parent to monitor their children this way. There is nothing in this case which should make one hesitate to do so.

MoveOn.org has put the Democratic party on notice that we bought it and now we own it, it being the Democratic party. Apparently MoveOn doesn't like the influence of corporate money on the party's politics. They say they have proven that "corporate money" isn't needed by the party. But who is kidding who??? MoveOn is largely funded by businessman George Soros. In other words, MoveOn is funded by corporate concerns. Why does one businessman think he can call all other business people "corporate" and somehow he isn't "corporate?"

In any event, we conservatives respect and even applaud MoveOn's claim. We do hope they have bought the party. We hope their agenda becomes the Democratic party platform.

Now, on to other business. Can someone please start another major political party so we can keep the Republicans honest? Obviously, at this rate, the Dem.s will not be able to muster anywhere near 47% in future national elections.

A study of the effects of wolf reintroduction hypothosizes that the presence of wolves causes elk to avoid areas around streams. The absence of elk around streams seems to encourage the growth of vegetation which in turn stop erosion and cool the water allowing fish to breed better. It is too early in this study to draw any particular conclusions but this hypothesis does seem reasonable.

So what could this possibly tell us? Perhaps deer hunting would work as a way to encourage deer to stay away from humans. Deer might possibly learn to stay out of areas where humans are because they would gain the experience that humans are their natural enemies. Perhaps the same would occur with respect to bear populations. I live in an area where the sight of a dead deer beside the road is an everyday occurence. One often hears the tree-huggers complaining about deer hunts near such small cities as Princeton, New Jersey. Maybe a deer hunt would change the dynamic and reduce insurance costs. And maybe some of the positive impacts cannot be discovered until such a hunt is permitted.

As any conservative knows, liberals generally lack any sort of common sense. Liberals would say that while conservatives are pragmatic, they lack any legitimate moral underpinnings. Liberals say conservatives are not only stupid but morally repugnant. Conservatives say liberals are namby pamby, do-gooders who accomplish exactly the opposite of what is morally right. For example, liberals generally advocate entitlements including welfare as a means of re-distributing wealth in the most just way. The problems they see are that those who are wealthy must have become so by cheating or because the economic deck is loaded against the poor somehow. The result of their welfare policies has historically been to create a dependent underclass that can never move up the economic ladder on their own. The accomplishment is the polar opposite of the goal.

An interesting study in liberal ideology is the recent success of a group, In Defense of Animals, which advocates greater space for elephants in the San Francisco Zoo. The group wanted elephants to be permanently banned from the zoo ostensibly because they don't like the idea of any animal being kept in captivity. I can understand the emotional feeling that one gets when viewing a caged animal. One thinks if I were in there I'd go crazy, so it must be wrong. Or, we take the worst dregs of our society and put them in cages like that. So why are we taking this beautiful creature and caging it?

The concept of a zoo is a little weird in that it is a place where humans take something they admire, remove it from its natural habitat, and place it in a cage so they can look at it. Perhaps God looks down at us and wonders what we were thinking when we developed this prison to lock up his most beautiful and innocent creations. On the other hand, must folks who consider themselves to be wild animal advocates probably had their first view of a lion, tiger or bear in such an animal prison. They were able to see the beast as beautiful probably, mostly because they were not otherwise threatened by it. Growing up anywhere in the United States not having access to a zoo, one is likely to be largely ambivalent to wildlife from Africa. Sure there are the nature shows on PBS and elsewhere but it is not nearly the same experience as seeing (and smelling) the real deal in person.

But let's extrapolate the In Defense of Animals success in San Francisco. Let's say they accomplish their goal of wiping all zoos from the face of the United States, if not the world. If this were to happen, after a few generations most Americans would become ambivalent to the Earth's wildlife. Ultimately who in this country would want to send money to a conservation group in Africa trying to prevent the extinction of cheetahs? Who would be interested in funding any sort of programs to even study exotic wildlife? The simple answer is very few people would ever again care about these magnificent beasts.

To those who have conciously avoided buying French wines, it looks like you are bginning to succeed. French wine makers are hurting and
staged a protest due to the declining market for their product. The U.S. cannot take credit for all the decline in demand for French wines but exports are definitely down. Keep it going. Enjoy California (even if it is a blue state) wines this holiday season!

"Fahrenheit 9/11" has been nominated for the "People's Choice Award." You can do something about this by Voting For Another Movie. May I suggest a vote for "The Incredibles" which was very entertaining and right out in the open about being a work of fiction. If you haven't seen, "The Incredibles," you should. Grab one of your children and drag them to it. If you don't have kids, take someone else's kids. If you haven't seen "Fahrenheit 9/11," don't bother. You're not missing anything worth your time. If you must see it, make sure to view an illegal copy of the DVD. No reason to give any of your money over to that faker.

With so many left-wing groups and individuals challenging government's involvement with religion, based on the argument of "Separation of Church and State", I sought to do some research on exactly what this famous phrase means.

It turns out that there is no mention of this anywhere in any federal documents.

The only thing that comes close to saying this is the Constitution, specifically, the First Amendment, which reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Does this mean that all government buildings, either federal, state, county, or city, are prohibited from displaying the Ten Commandments? Read the words carefully:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

In other words, there is nothing to prevent a judge from displaying the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, so long as he is doing so on his own accord. It would only be unconstitutional if Congress actually passed a law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments.

Second, the First Amendment specifically names "Congress" as being prohibited from making such law. It doesn't name the states, counties, or cities. This is because certain states and regions were founded on a specific religion. The entire Rhode Island colony, for example, was founded by Roger Williams, a clergyman. Several other regions throughout the Colony was founded on a specific religion. This is why only Congress is prohibited from favoring a religion, while state and local governments are free to do so.

So where does the phrase "Separation of Church and State" come from?

It comes from Thomas Jefferson. In 1802, he wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, reassuring them that the United States would not adopt an official religion. The Baptists heard a rumor that the Congregationalists would gain recognition as the official religion of the United States, and thus Jefferson wrote this letter to dispel the rumor. In this letter he stated:

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

Note that Jefferson stated, "the whole American people". Here he is referring to the Constitution. He did not name all governments, state or local, because it was not the intention of the Founding Fathers to dictate what the States could do with religion.

I think this perhaps explains why liberals and progressives want to prohibit schools from teaching the Constitution. That is, kids would realize that "Separation of Church and State" doesn't actually exist.

Michael Crichton has released a new book called State of Fear. The world renowned fiction author set out to write a novel which combines a little something about terrorism as well as global warning. I haven't read the book yet - I think it became available today - but he was interviewed on NBC's today show and said he set out to learn everything he could about global warming. He was, as Matt Lauer put it, in the "mainstream" in his belief that human caused global warming was a real phenomenon that threatened our existence. But when he looked long and hard at the underlying data, he became convinced that it is a myth. So his novel's focus was shifted to how information is manipulated in the modern world.

I've always enjoyed Crichton's work and look forward to reading this one.

I had the extreme displeasure of listening to Sean Hannity and Sam Donaldson going at it on the radio yesterday. I missed the first bout which would have provided a reference point but as I understand it, Sam and Sean had an argument prior to the election. The argument yesterday centered on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth vs. John Kerry.

The discussion began cordially enough but at one point the two commentators began a heated discussion regarding Kerry's Vietnam War experience. At first Sam made a few statements which were intended to bolster his standing as a "Journalist." He said that Bush had won a strong victory and indeed may have a mandate although he did not win in a landslide. He made a few other comments which were not in any way biased and then said something along the lines of "but John Kerry is a bona fide war hero."

Sean argued the same line he has been arguing since the Swiftees first appeared. He said he believed them and noted that whereas Kerry had a dozen vets backing him up, the Swiftees had something like 60. Sam went off about how none of the 60 were actually there with Kerry. Sean said one was and several were in the adjacent boat on the occassion in question. Sean also raised the issue of Kerry's claims about atrocities. Sam broke down into a tirade in which he said something along the lines of "When I was born there were still Civil War veterans alive. ... You weren't there Sean. I was. ... American troops did commit atrocities. These have been documented ...."

The comment about the Civil War was perhaps the most ridiculous comment I have ever heard on the subject. First of all, Sam, I don't know how old you are but I'll hazard a guess that you are in your sixties. To err on your side, I'll give you 75 which would mean you were born in 1930. My great-great-grandfather fought in the Civil War at the age of 21. He was born in the early 1840s so when Sam was born he would have been around 90 years old. Now I don't doubt that there were Civil War veterans on the planet while Sam was in diapers but common, it isn't as if he was able to have deep psychological talks about the war with someone who was there. Besides, what difference does this make anyways? Sam made the comment in the heat of the battle in a way to say, hey, I'm older than you so I know more than you. He was saying something along the lines of, "you kids don't know squat about war. I know about war. So don't second guess me."

But Sam didn't stop with I know more than you. He said, "I was there." Where was he? Was he on the boat when John Kerry was earning his medals? The Swiftees were there too but he argues that they weren't on the boat so their position is wrong. He asserts on the one hand that having been in-country qualifies him as an expert while those in the same precise area at the same precise moment are discredited because they weren't, in Sam's eyes, close enough.

And Sean, for his part doesn't really know if the Swiftees said what they said purely out of political motivation the same way that Dan Rather did what he did purely out of political motivation (sorry folks, that one's not debatable). But more to the point, the Vietnam War is far less relevant to a political discussion today than it was in the early part of the campaign when Bush was being attacked by all the org.s and James Carville. That's all behind us now. It is time to Move On.

Sean is young and passionate about his conservative agenda. He needs to learn which fights are over, and, might I add, won. Sam Donaldson has got to get a grip on his journalistic self. If he wants to continue to hide his left-biases, he really needs to learn how to do a better job of debating without betraying them. He started out fine but blew it rather quickly. He has to realize that all us dim-witted, bible toting, conservatives are actually smart enough to figure out his biases based on the totality of his statements.

In short, guys, listen to what yourselves!

The AP is reporting today that two Republican Assemblymen in California are proposing to change the way California doles out its electoral votes when deciding Presidential elections.

In general, the proposal will allow each congressional district in California to give its electoral vote to the candidate receiving the most votes in that district. California currently has 53 districts. Two additional electoral votes will be awarded to the candidate who wins the State overall.

It's not clear how John Kerry and George Bush would have fared under this proposal in the last election, because there are no statistics on how voters voted within congressional districts. However, Kerry won the popular vote in California at 54% verus Bush's 44%, so let's assume Bush would have received 24 of California's 55 votes.

This is bad idea for Republicans, and a bad idea for states. Even though this proposal would allow Republicans to take away the Democrats' hold on California, it would set a precedent paving the way for other states to follow suit. And in a scenario like this, it will weaken the Republicans chances to control the White House.

If all states switch over to a system where electoral votes are divied out on a granular basis, either by congressional districts, counties, or percentage of votes, it takes away the power of states to influence elections. Instead, it gives that power to the people. Perhaps that sounds like a good thing, but it is not.

A decision by popular vote means that presidential campaigns need only focus on large urban areas. It means that the small rural states become ignored. Consider that in the U.S. Senate, the tiny State of Rhode Island has just as much power as the giant State of California. But in the U.S. House of Representatives, tiny states like Rhode Island, Hawaii, Wyoming have virtually no power, while big states like California, New York, Texas control most of the House.

What these two California Assemblymen are proposing is to shift the balance of power away from states, and give it to the big states. This means California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania will control the President.

As a side bar, take a look at my previous blog entry, "Colorado Amendment 36 Applied Nationwide", which shows that Republicans are weakened in a scenario like this.

A New York elementary school bus driver was fired for engaging in political discussion with the students she was transporting. Seems she quoted a statement by Mel Gibson regarding embryonic stem cell research and followed this up with something like, "tell your parents about this." The school said that employees are instructed "political and religious discussions should be confined to a classroom setting where different viewpoints can be presented." For this reason they had to fire her.

I suppose I could agree with the school that the driver had broken a school policy if I didn't bother to stop and think about this. My second instinct is to disagree with them based on freedom of speech. Why should the school be able to control a bus driver's speech? Isn't that unconstitutional? But we are beginning to tread on some tricky ground here. Freedom of speech is a sacred and perhaps our most important right as Americans. But this freedom is not absolute. One cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. And freedom of speech is generally even more restricted in the workplace. Employees while at work do not have the absolute right to discuss non-work related issues at all. Here is a good article on Freedom of Speech in the Workplace.

But freedom of speech isn't really the issue here. The statement the bus driver made was a statement of fact which is not subject to interpretation. Embryonic stem cell research has not resulted in a cure for any human disease in 23 years. Well maybe all of this isn't factual. It has never, ever resulted in a cure. There are no differing viewpoints on this. Perhaps more importantly, I wonder how a statement of fact, even if the speaker is wrong, is political or religious in nature. Did the school read the driver's mind and make a determination that her motivation for making the statement was political or religious? Had the driver said that the initial exit polls for the presidential election were incorrect would her statement have been determined to be mathematical in nature and therefore restricted to only math classes? Had the driver said the grass is it is a beautiful day out today, would the school have sanctioned her for engaging in scientific discussion outside the school's science lab? If the driver had said George Soros and Michael Moore want George Bush out of office, would even this have been a political statement? Probably not.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the bus driver got everyone aboard the bus, stood up, and announced, "The following is a political announcement. Embryonic stem cell research is morally repugnant. It has never found a cure for anything. Therefore, we should put a stop to it. Tell your parents to vote for only conservative politicians so we can end this madness." Would the school have been justified for firing the driver? Perhaps. Maybe they could even have fired him on the grounds that he broke this express policy although a much deeper factual inquiry would be necessary. The courts would want to know if this policy was a written one that had been distributed to the driver as well as all other employees of the school system. Lawyers for the driver would probably want to know if that policy was followed completely, 100% of the time. If the driver's side could produce one or two examples where an employee spoke a political opinion and wasn't fired, the school would pretty much be screwed. However, in this case remember, the bus driver made s statement of fact not of political opinion. I'd say this school system and its taxpayers are pretty much assured of having to open their wallets wide. And that is a good thing.

Another school issue, a much more serious one, involved a history teacher who had the determination of classroom materials taken away from him because he dared to use actual historical documents which contained references to "God." These evil documents such as the Declaration of Independence reflected the sensibilities of those who wrote them. These men took great pains to word the documents just right. They included the word God because the folks who wrote them believed that what they were doing in forming this country was indeed God's work. But that's beside the point. The teacher in question was a history teacher. Should he have cleansed these documents by removing all references to God? This case is just beginning so keep an eye open for news. The teacher is capably defended by the Alliance Defense Fund. So most likely this will not be allowed to just fade into the background.

Conservatives are working hard to "take the courts back." While this is undeniably important, we must remember to also take back the schools. We cannot allow this madness of censoring people for making statements of facts or for using relevant historical documents to continue. We must vote out administrators who engage in these actions. We must stand up and let those who earn their living in these schools know that the days of their calling the philosophical shots are over. We must remind these folks exactly who their employers are. We must remind these employees that we do in fact have the option of removing our kids from these schools, banding ourselves together and forming home schooling co-ops. And finally, where we cannot take back schools, we must remove our children. This country cannot afford to allow a bunch of union protected, liberal ideologues control the future of our children or our country. It is they who must stop engaging in inappropriate political and religious behavior!

Harvard Law has added itself to the growing number of institutions of higher learning which now bar the U.S. military from recruiting on campus. Harvard and many other schools bar the military because they believe it discriminates against gays via the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy developed under Clinton. The Solomon Amendment allowed the military to deny funds to colleges and universities that restrict military recruiting or ROTC on campus. Th military threatened to apply this law and most universities, if not all, backed down. Recently, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law on the grounds that it restricted free speech.

Presumably the case is not over yet but I wonder what this says about the institutions themselves. Harvard and many other institutions initially wanted to bar recruiting to protest the policy but backed down because they didn't want to give up the money. Is Harvard in such tough financial straits that they can not exist without DOD money? Is the DOD the key source of financing for 'private' universities in this country?

Regardless of the final outcome of this case, if this country's institutions are unwilling to go forward without government funding, then perhaps government ought to hold greater sway over what these institutions do in their day to day operations. I'm totally against governmental control of higher education but on the other hand, I'm against the kind of liberal propaganda that seems to rise daily out of American Universities. It is very difficult to entertain "independent thinking" rising out of the mouths of welfare recipients. Perhaps these institutions ought to cut the umbilical cords and establish independence.