Perhaps the only experience I've had in watching someone die was my father-in-law.

He was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, in May of 1996. By January 1997, he died.

He chose to try chemotherapy, but it caused him so much pain and discomfort, that he decided to stop taking it. His doctors said that chemotherapy would not cure him, but only prolong his suffering. Thus, he accepted his fate.

I'd say that in the final two weeks of his life, his soul had already left his body. I say this because he was saying things that clearly, he would not have said in the weeks before, when he still had some sense of mind left.

In those final two weeks, he could move, he could make sounds, he could even talk. But, he was clearly not himself. It's hard for me to describe, and I really don't want to describe it, because I don't want to ruin the dignity of the man he was. Suffice it to say, if you knew him, you would have been shocked. Quite simply, shocked. Cancer does not just take away your life, it takes away your soul.

When I see Terri Schaivo on television, with her eyes open, moving her head, or even muttering sounds, it means nothing to me. Experience tells me that human beings can do this, without actually being present within their bodies.

In the last week of his life, my father-in-law remained in bed, unable to take water, and unable to take food. He became very thin. His breathing became more "machine like". The rise and fall of his breathing chest, was the only indication we had that he was still alive. We knew by this point, there was no "waking up" for him. When his chest stopped moving, we knew he died.

And now, with Terri Schiavo, to hear her parents identify her passing as murder, is selfish. Yes, it is SELFISH. Brother Paul O'Donnell and Father Frank Pavone, all SELFISH.

How can anyone say with any compassion, that a brain-dead woman would want to remain on life support, for quite possibly another 30 years? If you have any doubts that she was brain dead, see her CT Scan, and the testimony of 7 neurological physicians.

The only answer I can see, is that the parents want her alive for their own satisfaction. My own mother, would not keep me on life support for so long.

I often hear the argument that is an issue of "right to life". What life is there for Terri Schiavo? Keeping her body alive, is tantamount to torture. One would be better off serving a life sentence in prison.

I'm also sickened by the Republican Party, and the Fox News Channel, for trying to take Schindler's side on this issue. And I consider myself a conservative! I watch Fox News a lot, and I can't believe that every news personality on that channel would actually want to remain on life support if they were in Terri's shoes.

Below is a copy of an e-mail that's been making its way across the Internet:

TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED the 1930's 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's !!

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing and didn't get tested for diabetes.

Then after that trauma, our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paints.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags.

Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.

We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.

We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.

We ate cupcakes, bread and butter and drank soda pop with sugar in it, but we weren't overweight because WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.

No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 99 channels on cable, no video tape movies, no surround sound, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms..........WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

We made up games with sticks and tennis balls and ate worms and although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes, nor did the worms live in us forever.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them!

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!

This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!

The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.

We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!

And YOU are one of them! CONGRATULATIONS!

You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated our lives for our own good.

Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't it?!

If I can add some things to this list:

• On Halloween, we went trick-or-treating without being accompanied by adults.



• We used to ride our bicycles and skateboards without helmets. If we got hurt, we shook it off, and got back on.



• When we were kids, we used to take our BB guns into the canyons and ravines and shoot birds and squirrels. Today, if you give a kid a toy gun, all the PC moms raise Hell.

Can any of you folks out there add to this list?

News from the Associated Press says that the U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill that would spend $37 million to widen the street where Wal-Mart's headquarters is located:

Wal-Mart spokesman Jay Allen said the company wants Eighth Street improved so the 10,000 workers at company headquarters will have an easier time getting to their jobs. In the time Wal-Mart's headquarters has been at the site, the company has grown at a much greater rate than the street has been improved.

So my question is, how much is Wal-Mart is kicking in for this project?

Actually, why is the federal government paying for this, and not the City of Bentonville? This is a city street for crying out loud!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those wack-jobs that protests every new Wal-Mart store being built. I support Wal-Mart. But this is not something that federal money should be spent on. The City of Bentonville should be paying for this. It's probably just a small gesture of thanks it can give to Wal-Mart.

The AFP has an article about some new controversy brewing in Europe on whether couples undergoing invitro-fertilization should be allowed to choose their baby's sex.

A parliamentary committee triggered charges that it was playing "Frankenstein" after saying couples undergoing fertility treatment should have the right to choose their baby's sex.

But what got to me was another paragraph further down in the article that said:

However, some fertility experts believe it is the moral right of individuals to exercise freedom of choice in areas which most closely affect them so long as no one including the child is harmed.

I want to ask the question, does freedom include the ability to choose your baby's sex? Can that really fall under the heading of "freedom of choice"?

Under normal circumstances, humans don't have the ability to choose the sex of their children. We let Nature manage the ratio of males to females. But, is it an issue of freedom, that we be allowed to grab the reins from Nature?

I guess, one has to define what freedom is, at least in context with society and government.

On one side of the coin, I should have the freedom to take someone's life, if I feel it would entertain me. But that would be counterproductive towards maintaining a peaceful society. Hence, we define freedom as respecting the freedom of others.

In China, they established a law limiting married couples to one child. As a result, couples were aborting fetuses that were determined to be females, because Chinese society places greater preference to males. There also happens to be a large number of unwanted Chinese girls waiting to be adopted by Western families.

What would happen in the United States if all couples could choose the sex of their children? Would the gender balance end up the same as if Nature were allowed to manage it? Or, would we end up with way too many males, and not enough females?

What if a black man and a white woman, were given the ability to choose the ethnicity of their child? Would the black man concede that a white baby has a greater probability of becoming successful in its adult life?

Freedom is a not blank check, where we can do anything we want. Freedom must be tempered so that we maintain a peaceful, and healthy society. Being allowed to choose your baby's sex, is not an issue of freedom. It's an issue of disrupting the balance of Nature.

The latest news that drew the disgust of Britons everywhere is that Camilla Parker Bowles will become Queen, assuming she marries Prince Charles and that the Prince becomes King.

Apparently, the Royal subjects are blaming Camilla for having ruined the marriage of the Prince and Lady Diana.

Oh Please!

That marriage was doomed from the start. The foolish pride of the British Monarchy is what forced Charles to marry Diana. Charles had always wanted to be with Camilla since they were kids. Why didn't they just marry to begin with?

The funny thing is that Charles had always been something of a wuss, never wanting to make his mother angry, never wanting to rock the boat. And in those days, most people liked Charles.

But now, he's standing up for what he wants, he's standing up to his mother and doing what he wants to do. Funny, but wouldn't the commoners appreciate a King who could stand up for himself? Yet it seems that Britons are disgusted by this. After all, it was Diana who set the example for standing up to the Queen. It was Diana that fought for what she felt was right. I guess Prince Charles just can't win.

Well, I'm not a Briton, so I have no right to say who should and should not be Queen. But I would like to see them restore things back to the old days, when rivals would wage battles for the Throne. He who could weald the sword and take the King's head, won the right to rule England.

Maybe what Britons need is to dump the Windsors, and get a different family in there.

A quote from the parents of Terri Schiavo struck me as selfish. As described by the Associated Press:

In the emergency Supreme Court filing, Bob and Mary Schindler say their 41-year-old daughter faces an unjust and imminent death based on a decision by her husband to remove a feeding tube without strong proof of her consent. They allege constitutional violations of due process and religious freedom.

"Without strong proof of consent"? Do they expect Terri's husband to provide strong proof of consent?

And where the heck did "constitutional violations of due process and religious freedom" come from?

So let's analyze this more carefully. Pulling the feeding tube from someone is a violation of religious freedom. Hmmm. They've completely got me stumped on that one.

As for the violation of due process, what, are we supposed to hold a court session, with arguments on behalf of the parents and husband on whether the tube should be pulled? Well look, if the parents want to court to decide, I think the parents will lose. The same article quoted above goes on to say that:

...Court appointed doctors have declared her as being in a vegetative state with no hope for recovery.

That pretty much seals it. Even a judge would agree that if he or she was in a vegetative state, they'd want to be taken off of life support.

Never mind that Terri can smile, or move her eyes, or do other things. If she is a vegetable, then she is a vegetable.

If we need to make any modifications to our laws, it is that the spouse automatically gets the power of consent in cases like Terri's. Let's just avoid all future lawsuits and Congressional actions right now, and make it simple.

If you are a New Jersey voter who is reviewing the upcoming election of governor, you need look no further than John Corzine. John Corzine is a co-sponsor of the Climate Stewardship Act of 2005, a bill that would be economically disastrous for New Jersey but thankfully has no chance of passage. Additionally Corzine says he will "do what he can" to hold down taxes but the budget deficit is a big issue that must be resolved. So Billionaire Corzine wants to single handedly crush New Jersey's economy while raising taxes.

You need look no further than Corzine and then when anybody, and I do mean anybody including the likes of Bozo the Clown, runs against him, vote for the clown.

If the phony balogna green house gas horse manure doesn't tickle your fancy, doesn't make you angry, follow our boy's other Senatorial misdeeds and you too will come to realize that this guy should be left to enjoy his billions any way he wishes. He doesn't need our billions to screw with.

Do you want to know how your elected representatives in the House or Sentae are voting on a day to day, issue by issue basis? Do you New Yorkers want to see if Hillary's words comport with her actions? How do you feel about congressional action on the Terri Schaivo thing? Do you wonder if your rep was in or out of the club?

If you want to follow the votes of your representatives via e-mail, try VoteNote.com. This site allows you to look at past votes, review upcoming legislation and even to write your representatives to voice your opinion.

Rush Limbaugh and several other conservative talk show hosts are speaking out against the "pseudo-conservatives" like you and me who are obviously misguided and uninformed with respect to the Terri Schaivo case and the congressional action recently taken to allow her parents to use the federal courts in an effort to have her feeding tube reinserted. Rush calmly explained the constitutional basis, as he sees it, for congressional action and supposed that would-be conservatives who felt either that Schaivo's should not have the tube reinserted or who felt congress had overstepped a boundary are namby pamby pseudo-conservatives. Rush went so far as to claim these folks are trying to prove to some unseen liberal audience that they are enlightened or compassionate or sophisticated.

Well, I am a conservative who doesn't give a rat's ass what any liberal morons think of me or my intellect. I am neither afraid of my convictions nor trying to appear enlightened. The way I see things is:

1) A person should have the right to do with themselves what they want provided that they do not infringe upon another person's rights. This excludes abortion as that necessarily involves another person's life. But it does include not wanting any of the ever-increasing aray of medical keep alive technology we see. When it is only a small matter of time, when there is no hope of recovery, I want my body to decide when I die, not some medical board, not the courts, and certainly not congress.

2) When a man leaves his family, a woman leaves hers, and the two are joined together as one, they begin life as a new family. The previous family no longer has a claim to either as a part of their family in the sense that Terri's parents and siblings claim to in this case. I tell my wife more about myself, my wishes, my desires, than I have ever told my many siblings and parents collectively. They cannot represent me in the same sense that my wife represents me. She knows what I want. They do not.

3) If I should find myself in a similar circumstance as Terri, I would not want a feeding tube to sustain the life of my body. I have told my wife this in no uncertain terms. Should I be in that position and somehow parties step in to force a feeding tube, I have asked my wife for her solemn vow to end my life via whatever means available including an overdose of insulin or any other available drug. This is the supposed crime Mr. Schaivo committed but has not been acted upon by any law enforcement agency. He is the kind of monster I would want my wife to be.

4) I will have a living will to prevent the sort of nonsense that has occurred in the Schaivo case. But if I should be struck down this moment before I put pen to paper, I would hope to God that my wife be allowed to do the right thing and no relative nor medical board take an opposing point of view and push me into the national media spotlight.

5) Congress can do virtually anything imaginable in the name of protecting the constitutional rights of any individual. It is merely limited by an analyst's ability to frame the right argument. That is the principal reason we have courts. Courts primary responsibility is to see that laws, including the constitution, are followed through upon. To simply state that congress has the constitutional right to enact any law in order to protect the rights of one individual, is precisely the same didactic used by the left many times to justify such ludicrous proposals as welfare or universal health insurance coverage. This is a sophistry heretofore reserved for the left. Let's leave it on the left.


I want the government out of my life to the greatest extent possible. I want government to be limited to protecting these United States from enemies within and without but I want them making decisions against the husband in favor of the siblings and parents about as much as I want them financing abortion on demand! I don't want the government telling me to buckle up or it is gonna cost you or that my 10 years old needs to be propped up in a car booster seat. Hell, if you can't keep my water and air clean, what gives you the high ground to dictate whether I wear a seatbelt or when I should be allowed to die. Government has demonstrated that it is incapable of discerning when to do what most of the time. As such, we formed this government to be as small as possible and as unobtrusive as possible. That is what the conservatives used to stand for before they began ballooning up spending and governmental deficits. I understand the need to wage war in Iraq. I understand that national defense costs money. But these guys cannot do their job well. They certainly cannot determine when Terri Schaivo has no potential to recover from being a ragdoll that seems to smile as a result of unknown stimuli or whose eyes involuntarily follow environmental changes in light as when her mother puts her face in front of Terri. Government needs to butt out of this case. But it is too late for that,

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others, please get off your high horse and if you won't listen to us, listen to yourself, then listen to the lib.s, then listen to yourself again, and so on. You are beginning to sound like the left with different words stuffed in the fill the blanks spots of your pre-written script. It is tedious at best and disingenuous at worst.

We are not "siding with the lib.s." We are not trying to sound sophisticated. We are speaking our hearts and minds. You ought to at least listen since we are aligned with you.

If Terri Schiavo were in Texas, she would have been, depending on your point of view, "allowed to die" or "killed" due to a law signed by then Governor Bush in 1999. That law would give her husband complete discretion except when the husband wants to keep the wife alive and a physician, in consultation with a hospital bioethics committee, concludes that the patient's condition is hopeless. Put another way, in Texas, there is no serious question or substantial doubt where there is a competent spouse standing as surrogate for the other spouse. And there is a presumption in favor of death when doctors collectively say there is no hope of recovery as is the case today in Florida.

It seems as if we have a contradiction in fundamental principles that cannot be easily explained away.

The Tampa Tribune reports that Republicans see the recent congressional action in behalf of the parents and siblings of Terri Schaivo as a way of broadening the party's hold on power. I may be in the minority on this but I believe this is a huge mistake. I jumped on the conservative bandwagon because I am an advocate of small federal government, principled morality, strong and proactive national defense, reduced entitlements, etc., etc. The action taken by congress and the President, to me, clearly overstep the natural boundary between federal supremacy and states', no to mention individuals', rights. I believe some polls indicate that more than half of all Republican leaning voters are against congressional action in this case. If this is playing to the "base" (evangelicals and the like), it is a risky business.

I just heard on WOR Radio News that now the Justice Department may be looking into the Schaivo case. I think this is an abuse of power just like whenever a state court finds someone innocent and then they are tried again for federal civil rights abuses or "hate crimes" for the identical offense.

This kind of action amounts to totalitarianism. This is the people in power throwing off their promises to us and taking over the government to enact whatever their current whim is. For example, a state may have particular law about anything but if a majority of late night Representatives and Senators agree they don't like the law, they pass a law in direct contravention of this state law and convict a person of some crime when the act was not illegal when committed. This is out of control.

I hold very conservative political and philosophical views but when I see this kind of garbage, I want very much to send the party responsible a clear and cogent message with my vote. If this continues, you will be reading my criticism of every conservative congressman's voting record. This must stop now or we may just as well hold the coronation of President Hillary today!

To those on the right, in regards to those of us who voted for you and sent you money, WE ARE NOT ALL EVANGELICALS. In fact a majority of us are ordinary people who hold conservative views. And you are directly offending many of these conservative views.

Attention anybody at the ACLU, I just wanted to let you know there is a man in Florida, being defended by public defenders, whose case is right up your alley. The details are here, but his name is John Evander Couey. He is charged with having abducted a beautiful little girl named Jessica Marie Lunsford, raping and then murdering her. Oh, I forgot to mention he admits that he did these things.

He ought to fit right in with your work with NAMBLA, you sick bunch of evil jackasses. You guys like to defend any monster who wants to destroy innocent children under some sort of theory of, I don't know, what is it, isn't it freedom of something or other, right?

You guys don't agree with the idea of putting these guys on a list of sexual offenders, right? I'm in total agreement with you. I think we should execute these people and not let them walk our streets.

For more information on where you can protect your children by finding the sexual predators in your neighborhood, see Sex Offender Registry. Some of the information is out of date due to homes burning down and that sort of thing.

The case of Terry Schiavo has caught the attention of congress and political thinkers throughout the land. Too bad for Terri. This case has become the central focus of those who claim they advocate life over death in all situations and those who claim to be moral relativists. Unfortunately the pro-abortion and anti-abortion sides are using this issue in an attempt to further their causes. The pro-abortion crowd typically speaks of allowing death to be the answer unless some unspoken level of "quality of life" can be had while the anti-abortion crowd speaks of, as President Bush said, "where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life."

One common theme that seems to come up between the right and the left whenever these hot button issues pop is the guiding principle vs. situational ethics debate. The right is said to be overly rigid because it holds to certain firm moral absolutes, typically stemming from Judeao-Christian ethos. The left is said to be too spinelss because they like to look at any situation as unique and lack moral certainty in almost every case. Abortion comes into the picture because the right considers it to be murder of an unborn child while the left considers it to be the termination of a pregnancy wherein the "as yet unformed" person has little hope of achieving a modicum of quality of life. Ironically, the right tends to advocate the death penalty while the left thinks this is cruel and unusual. Such is life in the deep philosophical foundations of the two political poles.

When "Doctor Death" held our imaginations, the case was different than it is now with Terri Schiavo. Doctor Kevorkian "assisted" suicide in circumstances in which some gravely ill person who did not know how to end their life, was given the means to accomplish the task. But in these cases, the question was a little less about morality and more about state laws prohibiting anyone from assisting another to commit suicide. In Terri Schiavo's case, we have a husband who says he was told by his wife that she didn't want to be kept alive via artificial means. The husband is not attempting to assist in a suicide but rather trying to prevent the medical measures medical science has developed over the years to keep alive a person that would otherwise have died.

The problem is we, as a society, have great difficulty enumerating the point at which a human being is being kept alive artificially. There has been a great deal of discussion as well as medical analysis and even videos, each purporting to demonstrate the Terri Schiavo, the person, is or is not inside her body. As time goes on there is more and more discussion one way or the other. Terri is obviously alive and she can smile and communicate, blah, blah blah. Terri is obviously brain dead and all we are seeing is autonomic nervous system activity, blah, blah, blah. I do not presume, as SO MANY ON BOTH SIDES DO, to claim intellectual superiority and absolute knowledge one way or the other. I have to admit that it does seem to me that she is not alive inside her body unless she is trapped there, as a prisoner, unable to communicate her pain or her wishes.

I am a conservative who believes in the existence of Truth (with a capital T), God (with a capital G), principled morality - not situational ethics, and I believe we should always have a presumption in favor of life. But I should probably end this discussion now and GO TO WORK ON MY AND MY WIFE'S LIVING WILLS. I never want to find myself in this situation. I do not want to be kept alive against my will when all I can do is wiggle my head from side to side, roll my eyes and smile like a rag doll. My wife, with whom I choose to spend my natural life, knows my wishes. My parents and siblings do not. In fact, I would never even have occassion to speak of such things with them as I often do with my wife.

Situational ethicists do not admit it but they must have fundamental absolute underpinnings in order to have any ethos at all. Absolutists do not admit it but nothing occurs in a vacuum and sometimes circumstances must be included in the analysis. Nothing is absolute. Nothing is just plain relative.

I still don't get how in this country an issue like this can become a federal case. I thought a state would have the last word on something like this. Also, I didn't think it was appropriate to write laws in response to a particular circumstance. I thought once a thing happened, the laws that were on the books at the time a thing happens were always applicable.

What is the federal government going to do next? Is the federal government going to rewrite the law books whenever a situation arises which offend the majority's ethos? Is the federal government going to step in whenever it feels the state can't adequately handle the situation or when the outcome is adverse? We are on a slippery slope here. Congress never moved so fast before on issues that impact all of us every day. There is something offensive about that.

The Associated Press, among many others, is reporting Wisconsin-Milwaukee basketball coach Bruce Pearl was a Boston College graduate who filled in as the school's eagle mascot for an NCAA tournament game in 1981. Pearl freely admitted this even before his team upset BC in a second round NCAA Championship Tournament game. Earlier today I saw an ESPN broadcast which purported to show Pearl acting gofy while wearing the mascot costume. The ESPN anchorman noted that the goofy things you do while in college can actually come back to haunt you.

I used my cable system's advanced options, playing and replaying the click, until I was able to triangulate the image enough to calculate the person inside the mascot outfit's height within 1.467 inches. The height of the individual was too short to have been Pearl. In fact other items in the background clued me in that it was actually another game when Pearl was most likely an ordinary fan in the stands. So I documented my discovery and shipped the information off to CBS News because it is CBS, not ESPN, who is the key broadcaster of the NCAA tournament. CBS declined to broadcast my findings for a couple reasons. First they questioned my integrity because I am a season ticket holder for a Big East school, Seton Hall, which did not qualify to participate in the tournament. Secondly, they felt the substance of ESPN's tape reflected the truth: "While the tape may not be genuine, the goofy actions of the person in question clearly reflect the goofy actions we believe likely would have occurred during the incident. We therefore stand by ESPN's story as respresentative of the truth."

I write this comment into the permanent record of this blog because I feel that an institution, such as ESPN, which holds itself out to be THE REPRESENTATIVE SPORTS NETWORK should be held to a higher standard. Also, I will likely not be able to blog the first couple days of April!

On a more serious note, Congratulations to Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Bruce Pearl. If you guys can handle BC so easily, you really can beat anyone. Believe!

During the course of a two hour interview with the Associated Press, Ward Churchill said "It's not about me, and it's not about 'little Eichmanns,' either." He thinks the whole mess he finds himself in is really about academic and intellectual freedom. He still just doesn't get that what upsets many of us goes far beyond the offensiveness of his words. What is so upsetting about his comments is the total disregard for the truth and a completely fallible line of reasoning used to reach his absurd conclusions.

I don't begrudge a man, particularly a college professor, for holding unpopular opinions. We certainly need differing points of view in our educational institutions especially those founded on principles of sound logic. But when the foundation of a particular line of thinking is so flawed, I wonder what business the guy has drawing a salary at taxpayer expense. I wonder how we can allow our children to be force-fed such a completely offensive line of reasoning.

Churchill wants us to believe that the folks working for bond trading firms and the like are somehow supporting the government and, therefore, the ideology of the United States. They are thereby guilty of any supposed atrocities committed by the countriy's government.

To say that the people who were murdered on September 11, 2001 were culpable for crimes committed against Iraqi civilians in the first Gulf War, is akin to saying that Ward Churchill is guilty of killing immeasurable numbers of children. Let me, like Ward, explain my logic:

- Ward Churchill is a college professor
- College professors support the world's educational system.
- The world's educational system produces nearly 100% of the world's scientists and engineers.
- Engineers and scientists are responsible for nearly 100% of the world's technology.
- Technology is what has created the world's factories.
- The world's factories and the products they produce are responsible for causing pollution.
- Pollution is responsible for killing countless children.
- Ward Churchill is responsible for killing countless children.

My little diatribe is composed of the logical fallicy of GUILT BY ASSOCIATION I learned as a college FRESHMAN in a required course. A college professor today is no more guilty of causing pollution than a garbage collector in nazi-controlled Poland was guilty of killing 6 million jews and 14 million others. This is the flawed line of thinking Churchill's flock embraces when he spews his ignorance.

It is inexcusable for a full college professor, paid a six figure salary out of our pockets and entrusted with the intellectual development of our youth, to commit such a logical crime. We must hold him personally responsible for the dumbing down of America!!!!

Here's my thought for the day:

If Congress wanted to actually accomplish anything, if they actually wanted to learn anything by speaking to baseball players and officials, why was this meeting held in public sight? All of these players could have felt free to speak to the issues if the meeting had been closed. That way, the extent of the problem might be better understood by our lawmakers today. As it is, nothing was accomplished by anyone yesterday.

Ah, yes. It is that time of year when I become a situational ethics guy and support anyone arrested for gambling! It's time to engage in bracketology and get out your dance card.

Here's my ten thoughts on the NCAA tournament:

1) They should invite every Division I team. Why? There would be more games to watch. The same 16 will be left standing anyway.

2) There is no way the ACC should get two #1 and one #2 seeds. It is definitely a good league but when the two bottom feeders from the Big East joined the league and finished in the middle of the pack, one has to wonder just how deep the league really is.

3) The Big East will not produce the national champ this year. The odds are with me on this even if that hasn't played out that way in the women's game. I guess I can predict that the women's champ will also not come from the Big East. Go Rutgers!

4) Either Florida is that good or Kentucky is way overrated. Donovan may be a genius.

5) Watch out for OK St. The twins are good but so are the guys they play with.

6) Pacific, West Va., GA Tech, or even Texas Tech could easily pull "upsets." In fact, if one of these teams is in the final four, nobody will be surprised. In other words, the St. Louis Region is BRUTAL. Too bad for Washington.

7) The Tar Heels have an easy first week but the third game holds the greatest peril for them regardless of whether that is against Nova, New Mex., or Florida.

8) Duke should also have an easy first week of work but the next one will be tough. Williams and Shavlik (the dirty player) Randolph better keep themselves out of foul trouble.

9) I can pick the sweet 16 with decent accuracy but after that, I am truly a loser.

10) This is by far the most interesting sports championship on the face of the Earth.

No, I won't predict a champion. Dee Brown is a tremendous player but there are at least 15 other teams which could take it all. I will enjoy watching regardless of who wins.

The Washington Post reports Senate Democrats Want To Retain the Right to Block Judicial Nominees. "If they, for whatever reason, decide to do this, it's not only wrong, they will rue the day they did it, because we will do whatever we can do to strike back," Senate Democratic leader, Harry M. Reid, said last week. "I know procedures around here. And I know that there will still be Senate business conducted. But I will, for lack of a better word, screw things up."

What in the world is going on here? The Dem.s speak as if it is routine for the minority party to filibuster judicial nominations. It is not. Historically speaking, this is brand spanking new AND unconstitutional."

Judicial votes are decided based on a simple majority. To stop a filibuster takes 60 votes. There are a number of circumstances in which it is appropriate for the minority party to filibuster. Judicial nominations just do not happen to be one of them. Specifically, the Consitution speaks to the President's and Senate's role in appointing judges. The President "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate ... shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for."

There is nothing in the Constitution, in Senate history, or anywhere else which indicates it is appropriate for the Senate to filibuster judicial nominations. It is time for the minority party in the Senate to realize that we know they are pushing the envelope far beyond what we can reasonably expect of those WE PUT IN OFFICE TO REPRESENT US.

The Constitution is the foundation. Senators who do not obey it will be identified and fought hard against in their next races. We have lost patience with this ridiculous behavior.

No, this article is not about expressing an opinion on the bankruptcy bill criticized by Kennedy. It is about the plain and simple fact that the vote was held in the senate and 99 senators voted, overwhelmingly for it. The one missing vote? Hillary Clinton! Hillary was unable to pull herself from a hectic schedule in order to take the time to actually vote. Either the bill was unimportant (99 senators would disagree) or Hillary just cannot find the time to do the job for which she was elected.

A California judge ruled that California's ban on gay marriage offends equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional. Her we go again. Judges across this country are going nuts invalidating laws. They are invalidating budgets, demanding funding changes, promoting a convenant heretofore historically reserved exclusively for a man and a woman, they are attempting to take control of every facet of governmental responsibility based on some theory of self-granted supreme power.

If a judge can say this or that is unconstitutional, he can vest total control of everything in himself. That is not the way this country was designed. It is an abuse of power we can ill afford to tolerate.

It will be interesting to see what happens when gays challenge states where state constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage have been passed based on those amendments offending the federal constitution. When that happens, we are going to have a revolt in this country like we have never seen. The seeds have been sown.

Reuters reports African Leaders Back Tech Tax to Help Poor Nations. Geneva, Switzerland is the first to implement a 1% tax on the profits of its technology suppliers.

Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade said, "the only way to fill in the digital divide is to empower the South with information technology equipment, telephones, fax machines, the Internet and to ensure training on how to use them." Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika said "It is imperative that international measures be taken."

In other words, the only way to make sure everyone is at the same level is to take away from all thems that gots and just give it outright to thems that don't. We should tax the hell out of every successful business and take those profits out of their respective economies (a sure fire way to create recession) and then give it over to a bunch of corrupt dictators so they can piss it away on whatever they like. That's not only wrong headed, but also it runs counter to every decent philosophical thought this universe has with respect to Charity. Give a man fish and he can eat. Teach a man to fish and he will always be able to feed himself.

Understand that the movement to tax technology in order to give charity to poor nations is not simply a blip out there in Switzerland. This is a world wide movement being pushed by the UN. If you don't think they are coming for your money, think again! But there is just no way on God's Green Earth that thinking people are going to allow all they have created while working 100 hour weeks to be simply taken away and given to countries that cannot stop their idiotic power struggles long enough to do a decent day's work in order to feed themselves. It ain't gonna happen.

I don't know about you but I started up my business while working 60 hours a week at a "regular job" and commuting another 20. I stayed up until ungodly hours of the night, sometimes not sleeping at all, to make something out of nothing. I taught myself HTML while riding the train to work. Likewise, my lunches were spent experimenting with web site design. Now that it is my sole source of income, I'm not about to turn over even 1% of my profits to anyone. I'm not going to buy computers, not to mention telephone or broadband service and training, or anything else, for a bunch of people in Africa who don't have to really sweat for what they are receiving. I'll teach a man how to fish if he demonstrates a willingness to work hard even when his hands are all cut up. But don't take money away from me so somebody I don't know can buy better equipment than I have.

No taxation without representation. No world tax for which I (we) receive no benefit. Let's put an end to world socialism now.

A study by a group affiliated with Columbia University shows the media was more negative in its coverage of Bush during the runup to the election. But note that Fox was included in the study. What would the figures have looked like had Fox not been included? Also, as in any field like the news, there are people with integrity. What would the results of this study been had Fox and news outlets that were not overly biased been ecluded. The answer demonstrates the clear bias against Bush in the election season. And why exactly were they so biased? Because John Kerry had shown himself to be such a capable leader of this country? Give me a break!

Right now our nation's continued existence depends absolutely on the media getting its act together and eliminating the bias that pervades the institution.

Maybe that's a bit strong. We may be able to survive a bias media. But we'll have to put them out of business to do it.

Last Saturday, March 12th, bikers from around my neck of the woods rolled out to the corner of Mission Trail and Diamond Drive, in Lake Elsinore, California, to show appreciation for Paula Graver, a woman who has stood on the same corner for the past two years holding up a sign that says "Honk If You Support Our Troops", and waving her hand at all the cars that drive by.

Members of two different motorcycle riding clubs, "Run for the Wall" and "Iron Horses Riding Club", the latter of which I ride with, were there not only to show Paula that we still appreciate what she's doing, but to remind the folks driving not to ignore her and to keep honking their horns.

There was a Korean War veteran there in a wheelchair, whom I could not get the name, but I shook his hand and thanked him. Standing next to him was a young Marine, looking as young as Marine could ever be. There were several vets on hand to trade stories. The rest of us were just there to make the event bigger and louder.

Lake Elsinore is not a very big town as far as Southern California goes. Folks who live there, know their police officers by first name. The local high school sports teams usually dominate the front page of the sports section. This is a town where the local Single A baseball game is the highlight of the evening.

Folks who drive in from nearby Orange County make quick notice of the mobile home parks, the empty lots, and the biker bars. Lake Elsinore does have its problems of blight and bad roads. But it still has the "Heart of America" that seems to be missing in the metropolitan areas.

It's easy to get confused when you live in the big city. I guess that's my concensus. You often lose sight of what's right and wrong, simply because what you thought was wrong, actually has its own group of supporters. Some of them even have staffs of paid lobbyists. But in a town like Lake Elsinore, folks like Paula Graver haven't lost sight at all.

There is another video on tolerance being shipped to a school near you.   I wonder why all of a sudden, in the wake of the movement to recognize gay relationships via the institution of marriage, we are seeing all this material promoting "diversity."   There is no crisis of hate right now in the United States.   So what is all this about?

Speaking about the video, a senior officer at the anti-defamation league, distributors of the video, said, "We know at ADL that people are not born as little haters, we learn to hate. And just as we learn to hate, we have to unlearn to hate."   That's right, children aren't born as "haters!"   It is the fault of all us evil heterosexual parents.   That's why I had to explain to my, then 5 year-old, child how not every kid is skinny or blond or blue-eyed or even white skinned after her first day of school.   The truth is kids are suspicious of anything that isn't exactly like themselves and their family.   Kids are instinctively suspicious of any new circumstances.   In other words, kids are born prejudiced and well they should be.

The term prejudice has been corrupted to now mean "An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts" or "a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation."   But where did these negative connotations come from?   they are part of the corruption of words and indoctrination of the left.

The truth is that prejudice really means to pre-judge, or put another way, to judge something before all the facts are known.   Prejudice can be a good thing like when one decides not to swim in that funky smelling water because one suspects it might be polluted.   Later one discovers that the funky smell is indicative of a healthy body of water and this particular body is not polluted.   Prejudice or pre-judging often saves your life.   The corruption of the term is a deliberate attempt to create an "open" and "accepting" generation of youth just as several previous generations were indoctrinated in socialist ideas.

I can recall as a youth being indoctrinated with a number of notions which I now know to be false.   During the Vietnam War, the notion put forth by my teachers was that everyone was against the war except the politicians and big business interests that benefit from selling to the military.   Everyone else is against it, they said.   I can also recall being repeatedly fed the idea that there is no fundamental ideological difference between the political parties.   The "common wisdom" went there are differences between candidates but no difference between the parties.   If you think Richard Nixon is a liar, you vote against him.   If you think Ford is not very bright, you vote against him.   Interesting choices, huh?   How about if you believe Democrats advocate entitlements, vote for their candidates and if you don't, don't?   No, those words were never spoken.   Another "common idea" often indoctrinated was, "of course everyone, except a few special interests is for "protecting the environment."   We all want to live in a clean world.   The thought that maybe the enviro-whackos were full of it was never spoken.

That is how indoctrination works.   It isn't violent mind control where one is forced to watch videos thousands of times to drive a point deep within the brain.   No, it works as a suggestion offered softly by a teacher once each day for 12-20 years and then supported by the liberal media institutions.   Let's advocate all the good wholesome things like acceptance and diversity.   After all, we are all different.

The truth is that liberal/progressive ideologues have control over our educational institutions.   While politicians are interested in winning the next election, ideologues are interested in changing the landscape on a long-term basis.   They indoctrinate our youth much the way the communists indoctrinated their children.   The Nazis did similar things often encouraging the children to rat out their parents for holding ideas incongruous with the ideology of the system.   Liberals know how powerful indoctrination can be.   They created several generations of folks who believed the whole liberal platform was what "thinking people" thought.

The liberal indoctrination of the nation's youth involved the telling of huge lies.   The current indoctrination in favor of gay rights is another huge lie.   If we stay vigilant and call their bluff at every turn, we can put a stop to this.   These are not strong people.   We must keep our eyes on the larger prize and put down this liberal indoctrination now.   It is my prejudice that our society cannot tolerate another generation indoctrinated in lies.

ESPN is all ablaze about congressional subpoenas issued in connection with baseball's steroid shame.   I just want to say that I am morally opposed to any congressman or woman using anabolic steroids, HGH, or any other performance enhancing drug to improve their job performance in the public's eye!

Mastercard is warning financial institutions against processing payments to tax-free Internet cigarette companies.   The company is requiring institutions to make sure there is "documented evidence that Internet companies are complying with all federal, state and local laws, including the collection and payment of sales taxes." Makes sense, right?   Wrong!

Who the heck is Mastercard or its financial institutions to determine which entities have sufficient taxable presence (nexus) to be "deputized" by any given state to enforce sales tax laws?   This is an extremely complex issue which is often grappled with by lower state courts, state supreme courts, and even the United States Supreme Court.   Try wrapping your arms around these cases just for starters:

• National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue
  

• SCRIPTO, INC., v. CARSON, SHERIFF, ET AL.
  APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
  

• QUILL CORPORATION, PETITIONER v. NORTH DAKOTA by and through its TAX COMMISSIONER, HEIDI HEITKAMP CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA
  

Now you should be well steeped in the concepts of taxable nexus under the Commerce Clause of the United States Federal Constitution!   So are you ready to be the final arbitor of who has taxable nexus?   Hardly.   That is why the courts around this country are jam packed full of nexus cases.   And what happens when the company under examination consists of 300 discreet legal entities?

What Mastercard is requiring of its financial institutions is almost impossible.   But that won;t bother many institutions.   They simply won't do this.   And they will be in the right.   It is not up to private individuals and business institutions to enforce state laws but merely to follow them.   New York State Attorney General (and Governor hopeful) Eliot Spitzer applauded Mastercard's bold step and urged other companies to follow their lead.   What a jackass!

I wonder if Mastercard and others will take steps to make sure other mail order organizations are similarly compliant in every jurisdiction and not just for sales taxes.   They should make sure these organizations are 100% compliant in terms of all taxes including income and property based taxes, not to exclude abandoned property, local business licensing organizations, the Michigan Single Business Tax, all taxes based on gross receipts as well as corporate net worth or capital.   While they are at it, they can make sure all corporations are qualified to do business where appropriate and continue to be in good standing.   While they are at it, they will have to make sure every interenet seller is 100% in compliance with all state laws.   They can start with Barnes and Noble, Dell, Amazon, as well as every solitary seller on ebay.

Let's get real!

Hillary is out stumping more than ever these days.   At one recent gathering she claimed "Research shows the presence of women raises the standards of ethical behavior and lowers corruption."   OK Hill, let's see the research.

"I regret that the government in my country is making it more difficult for women in this country to receive safe [abortions]."   She added that 68,000 women die every year due to unsafe abortions.   Again, let's see the basis for these claims.

This is vintage Clinton.   Make a claim that sounds right even if it is a total fabrication.   Later, one of those rightwinger idealogues will refute what she has said.   The truth will be quite a bit different than HYill's claims but no matter, she is able to change the minds of a few folks evertime she lies.   And those who she has reached will never hear the refutation.   This is the essence of Hillary Clinton.   And that's good enough for the New York elitists who are so full of themselves that they do not know the emperor's clothes are invisible.   But it is not good enough for those of us out here who will be impacted by the cows chips she spews.

Follow every word she says.   But check every claim.

Reuters reports the Bush administration is revitalizing the countries counter-intelligence strategy.   U.S. counterintelligence efforts will go on the offensive and seek to strike blows against unfriendly intelligence efforts by other nations.   This again demonstrates Bush's propensity to act rather than react, to be offensive rather than offensive after than defensive the fact, to lead rather than simply be an administrator.

I have never been a huge George Bush fan.   But the guy continues to impress me.

Hey Syria,

We are watching you very closely.   It is your move.   You are no Iraq.   You are no Iran.   You are the current seat of international terrorism.   THE SEAT!

It is your move.   It is not ours.   Go ahead and make a move but please consider that if you make the wrong move, it is CHECKMATE in 4 moves.

GET OUT OF CHRISTIAN DOMINATED LEBANON.

(That's right folks, Lebanon is majority Christian, once you subtract the "foreign workers" or in other words Syrians who were moved there to solidify Muslims in the majority. It is not a Muslim country.)

One of the issues going around the U.S. Senate is raising the minimum wage.

Question: If employers are forced to give pay raises to its minimum wage earners, who pays for that?

Do the employers pay that?

Not really. If a restaurant is forced to pay more money to its employees, then it's going to raise the prices of its meals in order to sustain its profit margin. Or, its going to reduce the quality or quantity of the food it serves. Manufacturers would have to raise the prices of its products. Service providers would have to raise the prices of its services.

So, who pays for a raise in the minimum wage? The consumers do.

But as it turns out, minimum wage earners are consumers too.

So at one end, minimum wage earners will earn more income. But at the same time, the cost of groceries, gasoline, services, utilities, will all increase along with it. It's clear that raising minimum wage really doesn't help minimum wage earners one bit.

But it actually ends up hurting a different demographic.

My next door neighbor, for example, who has four kids, relies solely on his income from the Navy. His income is currently well above the minimum wage. Yet, his family still struggles to keep from going broke. His wife stays home to raise all four kids, so she doesn't earn an income.

If Congress passes a raise in the minimum wage, his family would be forced to pay more for their groceries, gasoline, services and utilities. But he won't get a raise in income because he's already earning well above the minimum.

The solution is to instead reduce the employers' costs. If employers paid less in taxes, less in benefits, less in social security matching, and less for their raw materials, then it could afford to pay its employees more. In fact, it could lower the prices of its goods and services, so that consumers would have more money to spend.

Our Congress needs to instead find ways to help employers reduce their costs.

Are you a Democrat?     Ok   then   I   will   speak   slowly.     I   will   use   short   sentences.

Key   Democrats   are   calling   Federal   Reserve   Chairman   Alan   Greenspan   a   political   hack.     They   are   doing   this   to   make   you   think   he   is   on   the   Republican   side   in   the   discussion   about   social   security.

That   is   absurd.     I   suppose   they   want   you   to   think   he   made   up   his   mind   after   27   years   of   service   under   both   parties.     I   suppose   he   was   a   political   hack   when   he   raised   interest   rates   during   the   Presidential   campaign   last   year.

In   addition,   Senator   Kennedy,   the   noted   intellectual,   says   that   raising   the   retirement   age   would   cause   interest   rates   to   rise.

Who   do   these   people   think   they   are   fooling?     I   suppose   it   is   you   Democrats.     I   suppose   it   is   all   the   super   bright   people   living   in   the   crowded   cities   of   the   northeast,   west,   and   midwest.     I   guess   these   people   are   easily   fooled.

If   you   are   a   Democrat   and   do   not   understand   what   I   am   saying,   please   write   to   me   as   soon   as   you   figure   out   how   to   use   the   e-mail   thingy.

A recent segment on the Laura Ingraham radio show discussed a rally held at Pace University in Manhattan in which Chuck Schumer, speaking about Social Security required the crowd to chant "fix it don't nix it." The rally had such noted speakers as Her Most Royal Majesty, self-described moderate, Hillary Clinton and other key Democrats. The objective of the speakers was to reach out to young Americans and convince them not to support Bush's planned restructuring of the Social Security System.

I have my own chant I would like you folks out there at Pace to try. Please repeat after me (but change the pronouns appropriately:

You'll Pay and I'll Play
You'll Pay and I'll Play
You'll Pay and I'll Play
You'll Pay and I'll Play
You'll Pay and I'll Play

After you pay for 44 years (21-65), I'll be dead, having immensely enjoyed my retirement - social security only a small portion of my retirement income - and I'll be leaving the system bankrupt for you! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

It will of course be your own fault. If you rely on Chuckie and Hillary to tell you the truth, then you suffer the consequences!

Ward Churchill will not be fired according to University of Colorado President Betsy Hoffman. To be fair, he will not be fired only for the "inflammatory comments" he made in his "little Eichmans" speech. The university does not wish to censor his or anyone else's free speech. Certainly it is understandable that a university would not want to fire someone in order to censor his taking advantage of a freedom that is central to our democracy. What is not understandable, however, is how they can choose to employ a man who gets things so wrong in a position requiring him to educate young minds with his inaccurate information.

Let's recap, Churchill claims to be native American yet the tribe from which he claims descendancy has stately flatly that he has not proven any such heritage. Genealogy is an academic subject with acceptable levels of proof and a standardized approach to determining truth. Churchill continues to claim he is a member of the Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians but as we pointed out, the tribe does not recognize him as having fulfilled his obligation to prove Cherokee heritage. "He was trying to get recognized as an Indian. He could not prove he was an Indian (Cherokee) at all," said Ernestine Berry, who was on the tribe's enrollment committee and served on the tribal council for four years.

Moving on from Churchill's false claim of native American heritage, he espouses the notion that al Qaueda attacked the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 because they were trying to right the wrong of what America did to Iraqui civilians in "Desert Storm." Here he is plainly ignoring the fact that this was a war of liberation in which the worl came to the rescue of Kuwait which was illegally invaded by a despot attempting to take over their neighbor's natural resources. If a person believes the U.S. and all the others were wrong to repel invaders of a sovereign nation, they must necessarily also believe Iraq was right to invade Kuwait. And that is a free speech issue. Churchill has the right to be an advocate of monarchal repression, empire building, and genocide. But he does not have the right, while holding such beliefs, to de paid to educate others in those false beliefs. His right is limited to not being arrested and incarcerated unless his believes result in treasoness activity.

If the entire world were to believe the Earth was flat and we came to a technological point at which we were able to launch a rocket into orbit, photograph the round Earth and show the world the true shape, Ward Churchill would be allowed to continue to claim the world is flat. He could not be jailed in the United States for his idiocy, although most likely there are several nations including China where they would incarcerate him. But we would not allow him the "academic freedom" to teach children such moronic ideas. But Ward Churchill continues to teach a thought process in which he believes a utopian society would be one in which the world would consist of tiny groups of people all living in harmony and taking care of their subsistence needs only. He ignores human nature not to mention the value of what very large communities of people can do. He ignores the fact that the natives of North America - science has proven that these were not the first people here - were technologically inept, not even inventing the wheel or similar labor saving device.

Churchill's ideology is overly simplistic, archaic and wrong. We do not allow simpletons to teach our children. He should be fired.

AP reports Dan Rather is trying to defend his reputation in his way out.

The article quotes Tom Bettag, a former Rather deputy who is now executive producer of ABC News' "Nightline"

"With the passing of time, that immediate sourness will pass and people will say, `God, Rather did that for 40-plus years,' When you get paid a lot of money, like a basketball player, people don't realize how hard it is. The amount of effort he poured into what he genuinely believed was a public trust was stunning."

and Alex Jones, director of Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy:

"It is going to loom large," said "Over time, this is something that will be put in better perspective, especially if he has another chapter in his career."

What is wrong with these people. Do they not understand that Dan Rather's fall from grace was because he manipulated facts to achieve a political agenda? The rest of us out here in the real world can see this as plainly as the prairie sky on a clear, dry day!

The truth is that decades and centuries from now, Dan Rather will have earned himself a place in the history books. The subject in which his name will be indelibly recorded will be the near collapse of Journalism. The material for college freshpeople (PC for first year students) will discuss a period between the Vietnam War and the War on Terrorism in which Journalism received a HUGE blackeye due to the irresponsible actions of a relative few high powered network newsies. Rather's name will the section but others will be mentioned. The subject will discuss how it is absolutely critical that a truly free, objective press is necessary for a democracy to flourish. That very system of government was actually threatened by the actions of these supposed journalists when they spread untruths to the public in an attempt to sway elections. Thankfully the general public, in the form of a new media, discovered Rather's and others' transgressions and made them generally known. Network News ratings as well as the circulation of such left leaning newspapers as the New York Times fell precipitously in the years following the Rather scandal. This in combination with other events caused the whole institution of Journalism was gradually saved through the efforts of new media and the nation's universities came gradually and grudgingly to understand that a new day had dawned.

Can we finally agree that we are best served by a real retirement of Dan Rather for good? Unfortunately this has not occurred. Rather will continue to be employed (in a high level position!) by CBS News. You can still not count on hearing the truth when you turn your dial to CBS.

Courage!

This is not Dan Rather reporting!

GaijinBiker, who writes a great blog called Riding Sun, which I've been reading more frequently, put together an interesting analogy between investors who short sell stock, and get burned in the process, with liberals who short-sell the Bush Administration, and just got burned recently.

Liberals were predicting a bloody drawn out war against Afghan forces. They predicted another Vietnam with Iraq. They proclaimed that elections in Iraq needed to be postponed. Instead, we have Democracy developing in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have the Lebanese rising up against the Syrians. We have the old guard in Palestine getting kicked out.

And where are the people who sold Bush short? They're left looking for something else to complain about.

I often hear this 4% number kicked around with respect to the proposed reform of social security.   I have heard one radio commentator state flatly, only 4% of your "contributions" would go into private accounts and the other 96% would stay in the system.   I believe this is an error.   I think the correct statement is 4% of your income (normally subject to SS tax) would go into private accounts.   In other words it is just shy of one third not 4%.   This is because you pay a tax of over 12%.   You do not pay a tax of just over 6%.   Your employer structurally pays half but, believe me, he or she knows full well that the business share is part of the cost of you.

The one third thing will probably stir up the AARP crowd whose participation in the reform would be nil.  : That's right.   Let's say it again.   Anyone over 55 would not experience ANY change under the proposal.   Zero Impact.   This is all about people under 55 and not about other people.   You must be extremely self-centered and absorbed to not get that through your head.   If you are over 55, this WILL NOT change anything about your life, ever!

Democrats are busy stirring up the masses about this because they realize they are on the ropes and taking heavy punches from Republicans.   Everything they have said for two years regarding foreign policy has been wrong.   As time passes, the case is more and more clear that they have been WRONG, WRONG, WRONG to criticise this sitting President about how he is conducting the war on terror.   They know this full well.   But just as Kerry and others attacked the President during the campaign under a very thin disguise of merely debating what is good for this country, they are now attacking social security reform because they cannot allow Bush to do the right thing with respect to domestic policy, especially an entitlement.   That is all there is to this.   There is no rational argument against the proposal and they know this.   What there is, is a way to stir up the unsophisticated masses by spewing lies and damnable lies.

Common people, buck up.   Do your homework and study this thing!   That is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY as participants in a representative democracy.   You are obligated to discover when your representatives are bullshitting you.   I'm standing here from the highest perch I can find and telling you they are bullshitting you.   No go out and see if I am right.

A raging Brick, New Jersey teacher is all the rage on radio and TV talk shows.   But police are looking for missing ten minutes of tape prior to the rage incident to see how the kids provoked the teacher.

In my mind the guy (teacher) lost control and should be counseled about it.   The kids on the other hand should face discipline for their misbehavior.   End of story.   No national media coverage.   Hannity and others say this is somehow demonstrative of what is wrong in the educational system in America.   But this is not some inner-city school or one with a 50% dropout rate. Brick Township High School scores pretty well in standardized testing.   Average SATs are aroung 1000.   That's better than most of the school systems on Long Island where Hannity calls home.   I wouldn't put my kids there but that's because my school system scores around 1100.   To repeat, the actions of these kids are not demonstrative of what ails American education.

As a kid growing up in New Jersey, I have always been of the opinion that kids come from Brick are punks.   Kids from neighboring Toms River or Ocean Township aren't quite as edgy as Brick kids.   I don't know why.   Maybe its because Brick is a touch more urban than these other towns.   Then again, it isn't really a city.   Maybe kids from Brick are just punks and there is no explanation.   That's just my opinion (and everyone else on Earth I know) but I live kind of close to the place.   Nuff said.   No need to give punks from Brick any more air time.

We don't really know that there were no WMD in Iraq.   We may never know if there were or were not.   Likely Saddam left to his own devices would have developed a nuke and handed it over to al Quaeda.   But I'm willing to drop the argument and acknowledge ulterior motives.   I felt we needed to go to war in Iraq in order to make an example out of dictators and rogue states in the Muslim world generally.   So now I've gone and admitted that I was a liar.   But I must be forgiven because I lied to you to achieve the proper goal and I didn't think you were up to the task.   I lied to you to protect you.   So sorry!

Now go and enjoy the world as it is now constructed.   The terrorists are weak.   One day they'll be gone.   Iraq is worried we are going to invade them.   We need that in order to fence them in cause they are nuts.   Again I am sorry that I lied to you in order to rein in the bad people in the world.

Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan is talking about Tax Reform so you better listen!

The conversation is spurred by President Bush's hope to reform the federal tax code, a worthy though perhaps unattainable goal.   Before any actual reform takes place, the discussion centers around what type of tax system we would like t