This story made me laugh:

Someone called authorities Thursday after seeing a boy carrying something long and wrapped into Marshall Junior High.

The drama ended two hours later when the suspicious item was identified as a 30-inch burrito filled with steak, guacamole, lettuce, salsa and jalapenos and wrapped inside tin foil and a white T-shirt.

The fact of the matter is that this boy made the burrito as part of a media project for school.

While some might say that in these times when school shootings are dramatized by media, it's better to be safe than sorry. But in reality, this boy was in danger of being killed. Had he held in the burrito in the wrong way, he could have been filled full of lead.

In our zest to prevent school shootings, we're actually putting innocent kids in danger. But I don't blame the law enforcement; they simply responded to a call. I blame the media for hyping up these events, and scaring the crap out of us all.

Accuracy In Media reports that the hot movie this week, "The Interpreter" is political propaganda meant to boost the UN's image.

I was at first a little suspicious of this claim but I do have to admit that what Hollywood and the entertainment segment of the television industry often do is to slip in political opinions in very insidious ways. For example, in "The West Wing" a liberal President is always shown as the fundamentally wise man who always knows the philosophically correct answer to just about everything. He is moral, though never judgemental. The story itself has little to do with today's politics but the portrayal of "smart people" as always socially and politically liberal says it all.

Right now the UN's very existence is in doubt. If you feel otherwise, my guess is that the UN has always been there during your lifetime and this convinces you that it always will. (If you are convinced that the UN is here to stay, please feel free to leave these pages and perform research on the demise of the League of Nations.) The scandals which are rocking the UN will likely not be the seeds of its demise but the investigations into those scandals are another matter. Through these sessions of deep self-analysis we see the group of pretentiously benevolent people for what they are, a bunch of self-absorbed criminals driven by self preservation. When government falls to the level of pre-occupation with self enrichment and preservation, it is doomed to fail. Not that the UN is government per se but it does perform quasi-governmental functions. It simply is no longer enough for Kofi Anna to go. The whole organization is corrupt and must be revised before it is worth saving.

There is nothing Hollywood can do to save the UN. But you should still be made aware of the motivations of those who have your attention.

Enjoy the show!

You gotta hand it to Eliot Spitzer, the New York State Attorney General. The guy just seems to have that knack for making headlines. His latest attack is against "Pop-up Slimeware". Just about anybody in the busines can explain to you that this insidious software trick runs the risk of ruining the free information part of the internet. Most of the sites you surf to find information on everything from what "quick sand" really is to discovering if your symptoms might indicate a fatal disease, rely on advertising to pay their costs with a little profit left over. Many of these ads pay the site owner only if the clicker makes a purchase when they get to the other side. Slimeware or Scumware, as it is often called, often circumvents the ads placed by these sites which allow you to find all sorts of answer for free. Sites which cannot make money in this fashion will ultimately have to either charge for their information or disappear.

So Eliot is fighting the good fight. But what strikes me most about this guy is the uncommon ability to find these sorts of oddball issues which almost always get him press. One time he is fighting mutual funds who make sales to their friends 2 minutes after the closing stock market bell. The next time he is looking into gambling at Native American sites. But he always seems to get there first. The guy has some sort of weird light around him just like Rudy Guliani did.

Watch out Republicans.

Eliot who? Eliot Ness? No Eliot Spitzer.

Do you remember the episode of the sitcom "Taxi" in which Rev. Jim spends a bunch of money to create possible the world's first home theatre? Alex is very upset that Jim would waste so much money on ... television. Jim has his several TV sets tuned to various shows including a debate in the Delaware legislative body in which the official name for citizens of Delaware is to be determined. Delawarians vs. Delawarites. Alex becomes emotionally involved in the debate and so the debate over Jim's decision is over.

I just read that Indiana has passed a law to adopt Daylight Savings Time. That seems mundane enough until you realize that the vote was 51-46 and was called "one of the most 'heroic' votes in his 20 years in the General Assembly." Apparently the first vote was 49-48 against but because the state requires 51 votes to defeat a bill, another vote was taken. One legislator switched sides because the issue had become too partisan. You just cannot make this stuff up. I wish I had been able to observe the debate on this thing but, even though I can often see the British House of Commons on CSPAN, I still am not able to pickup Indiana legislative debates. Too bad for me!

I know, I know. You didn't come to this political blog to read some idiot's ramblings about professional sporting events. But if politicians across the country can make baseball analogies or subpoena the leading sports figures to talk about steroids, I think I can at least express a little of my inane sports drivel.

In case you hadn't noticed, it is now NBA playoff season. The regular season bores me to tears because the game has gotten away from its roots as a team sport. NBA baketball is truly an extreme sport - its players are extremely good. A tremendous high school or college player has very little chance of making the NBA, let alone seeing significant minutes or even starting. You can see why fairly quickly if you happen to watch a regular season game. The play is much faster. Even the biggest, slowest players can run pretty well and the fast ones, well they are truly like lightning. The vertical leaps of professional basketball players are extraordinary when compared to any other level in the sport. Almost everyone can shoot well. So why are the games so boring?

My problem with watching a pro game is the style of play. I think it has to do with the overly quick shot clock. The game goes something like shoot, defensive rebound, run up the floor 2 passes, shoot, offensive rebound, score, inbound, up the floor, two passes, shoot, score, inbound, up the floor, pass twice, shoot, defensive rebound. The game lacks the subtlety of football with its differing plays intended to locate and exploit defensive weakness. It lacks the team play of the college version where ball movement is always the most important aspect. College teams do not have the depth of extraordinary players the pros have. They make up for this by actually executing plays in a manner which makes even an average college game a "nail-biter." The average regular season pro game isn't usually even decided until the final two minutes of play and even then it usually boils down to one guy running up the floor and making a shot at the right point relative to the game clock.

Pro playoffs are an interesting contrast to the "regular season" which should probably be called the preseason since more than half the teams make the playoffs. You really do not get to see team play until the playoffs. But as teams begin to get eliminated one element becomes more and more obvious, the teams that actually play like teams often move into the next round. That is what made watching Detroit win the whole thing last year so exciting. I don't think they had the most physically gifted team on the court. But they played well together, looked for beneficial matchups, and generally played the nuanced style that makes a champion. I look forward to some decent play while the baseball preseason (first 50 games) takes shape.

I was glancing through the Wall Street Journal this morning when the confluence of two stories plus the few feeble thoughts in my oversized, underpowered brain occurred. I was reading about how the Federal Reserve thinks inflation is a bigger risk than an economic slowdown and, then, about how fuel costs are likely to continue to drag significantly on economic growth. Then I remembered how after a huge economic run up, Gerge Bush, the elder, failed to win re-election, at least in part, because we were in the downslope of economic cycles when the election was held.

The truth is Presidents can do only a precious little to spur the economy. They are subject to the cyclical nature just like the rest of us. They can commit huge blunders like Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter did. But aside from some tax reductions or spending increases, there is little in their quiver to make a huge impact.

I can remember Nixon freezing wages and my mother, a social liberal, telling me that this was roughly akin to communism. I can also remember the economy spinning out of control like the space ship in "Lost In Space" under Jimmy Carter. Reagan did some good things by cutting taxes for purchases of business machinery but he also did some harm when he enacted the passive activity loss limitations. Clinton more or less lucked into the internet bubble economy which, believe it or not, had far-reaching effects but he also championed Internal Revenue Code Section 197 which changed the whole dynamic of corporate large-scale acquisitions. George, the son, did some good things by eliminating the marriage penalty and giving us all a couple bucks which he insisted we spend.

Getting back to Bush the elder, it occurs to me that had the economy been roaring during the election, there is virtually no way the guy could have lost. He was seen as a great man after we removed the invading Iraqis from Kuwait. He was a genuinely nice guy who had done nothing wrong. But when people want jobs and they become economically desperate, they will do anything to change the regime here at home. The polls reflected economic concerns as George's figures fell after the war as Americans looked to the economy.

No politician wants to spend the entire campaign talking about how he is going to fix the economy he has been unable to fix for the past couple of years. John Kerry tried to convince us that George the son's economy was bad. George would have no part of it and neither would the economic facts. That's pretty much what happened.

So let's say we are in a new day. Republicans like the taste of power. They also are deeply afraid of the socialistic ideas being espoused by the left so they realize they must get an even tighter grip on power. In short, even though they want to win even more seats in congressional mid-term election, they have their eyes on winning the presidency in 2008. Ideally they'll get a guy in there who can repeat since most modern presidents do an 8 years stint. They are willing to take their chances in the mid-terms since they think they'll do pretty darn well there anyways. The red and blue by county map demonstrates that well enough.

As I said, Economies move in cycles. Up today, down tomorrow. If you want to be up tomorrow, what choice do you have but to try to push it down today? Given the choice of having a better economy today vs. having a really good economy in the fall of 2008, which do you think the Republicans would choose?

I know someone who was rather uptight about the partial eclipse on the day of Pope John Paul II's funeral. I kind of laughed at that but maybe I was wrong. Check out this story entitled, "Doomsayers Say Benedict Fits World End Prophecy" and see if it doesn't at least make the hair on the back of your neck stand.

I am most superstitious on a baseball diamond - I never step on the line and I do believe in "rally-caps." I don't let the end-of-the-world types get to me. But reading this story made me think about one thing, why is it that there is never a decent scary movie anymore? "The Others" was pretty good although I understood what was happening before the punchline came. And I admit "The Sixth Sense" prevented me from sleeping much of that night I first saw it. But aside from these, I cannot think of the last time I really had the bejesus scared out of me. If a bunch of (perhaps or maybe not) nuts can come up with this stuff, why can't film writers? Common Hollywood! Can't you guys jump on this thing and really make me frightened?

Here's a good editorial in the LA Times which asks,
are Democrats treating us all like children? The piece starts out with a Georgia proposal attempting to reduce voter fraud by requiring photo ID. Minority politicians want to squash this proposal because they believe it will cut down minority voter turnout! The editorial goes on to briefly examine a few other national proposals including school vouchers and "private accounts" in the social security system. It wraps up by concluding that Democrats are actually marxist college professors in disguise. That's a hard conclusion to argue against.

Did you see the President's press conference last night? No? You didn't miss much. I only caught some of the Q & A session and it was a bore. Not his finest hour for sure but what made me switch the thing off was the same tired old questions from reporters. Each and every question I heard had more to say about the reporter's opinion than anything else. And the President's answers were really nothing new.

One question was asked about bringing religion into the nation's political debate. Who did that? I never heard the administration ever say they wanted to bring people's faith into the discussion. I did hear members of the religious right say they want religion to be an important factor. But what are they supposed to say? They don't?

Aside from religious people who would like to have their values a major part of any philosophical or political discussion, the only other people who seem to be screaming about religion are those who want to make sure it doesn't get brought up. But it remains unclear to me how people's core beliefs are supposed to somehow be checked at the door when they enter the political fray. Not to belabor the point but our whole civilization, let alone its politics, is founded upon certain moral absolutes, certain core beliefs which are founded upon religious faith and the millenia of writings thereunder. This country was, to be a little more accurate Mr. Gore, partly founded upon the notion that a state mandated religion was offensive. It was not founded upon the principle that religion is bad nor the idea that religion has no place in our lives. But that was only one issue which crawled under my skin.

There were some questions about social security. This is an important issue. The President has made it a key component of his second term agenda. The system is not in good shape. Obviously this has stirred a huge amount of controversy and Democrats have declared the possibility of elective private accounts to be dead on arrival. Tim Russert and most of the media did likewise this morning. But what are these folks suggesting as a fix. There are only a couple choices here. Leave it alone, completely revamp it, put fingers into the leaky holes. Bush is suggesting that we put a few fingers in some key holes and then completely revamp a piece of it. What are the other guys saying? Leave it alone?

Leaving social security as it stands today will result in younger Americans becoming the butt of a huge practical joke in about 40-50 years. Ha, ha, ha! Money for retirement? There isn't any. You believed us? Ha, ha, ha. What a moron! What an ignoramus! Remember Bugs Bunny with the buzzard? Yi yi yi!

So, let's get down to it folks. Democrats are now building a nice record which says BUSH IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG ON EVERY SINGLE ISSUE. We may not know what to do instead of his proposals but his suggestions are always wrong, every time.

Do you know anybody who does stuff like that? I have been the boss of a few employees over the years who make trade by telling people why it is that their ideas are wrong - why they won't work. They never have ANY solutions. They make no constructive contributions to the group effort. The only thing they can do to contribute is prove that their hands are always working. Look at me, I'm working. That's not leadership, that is a guy shoveling dirt from one pile to the other. Every time I have encountered such an individual, I have quickly terminated them because they are the kind of bad seed which will ultimately bring down my organization. That's where we are today in American politics. The President speaks and 100% of Democrats and the leftist media object, often with a single voice.

So I ask you, is this the America of the Democratic party's design? Is this the America Al Gore would like to build? Is this the America of network news? Is this the America we are destined to have?

You can't do that this way because... You have to solve the energy thing but you can't build nuclear facilities because ..., you can't drill for oil because ..., you can't build more refineries because ..., you can't do this because ..., you can't do that because ... Maybe, just maybe, social security is goind down. I'm not really sure. But you can't do that because... You can't do this because...

STOP IT. You're fired. Now does anyone, ANYONE, have any freaking solutions? Because we do have lots of problems.

Reuters is Reporting that Rush Limbaugh's case will not be heard in the Florida Supreme Court. What the article fails to mention, however, is quite telling. Reuters fails to mention that the reason Limbaugh is actually fighting this fight is because the police who grabbed his personal medical records somehow leaked information to the media.

This is an outrage. When a governmental agency is able to confiscate your personal private records and use those records in an attempt to ruin you, the situation is dire and every American should take to the streets in protest. This is roughly akin to the tactics used by totalitarian regimes the world over. We cannot allow this to just slip by. The Florida Supreme Court's decision is ludicrous and most likely reflects their disdain for Rush's criticism of the judiciary in this country. Hopefully he will be able to obtain relief at the next level if that is available to him although they may also decline to hear his case.

Next up maybe a sitting President will be able to pull all the missing records of a John Kerry type opponent and "leak" them to the media. Maybe that's where we need to go before we realize things are completely out of control.

I own up to being a conservative most of the time. Sometimes I can more appropriately be characterized as being a moderate. I offer apologies to Rush Limbaugh and similarly minded people over acting as a political moderate but I have often been told that Truth is generally not found at the polar ends of the spectrum. The middle road is often not so much of a compromise as it is an acknowledgement that extremes are often both wrong. What I'm trying to do here is set the table for an admission. I've already owned up to the fact that while I am mostly politically conservative, I dislike country music and I am not a religious fundamentalist. Now I must confess the ultimate sin, I do not own an SUV! Not only that I dislike SUVs and often dislike their drivers.

Let me explain why I dislike SUVs and their drivers so much before you draw incorrect conclusions.

Do I dislike oversized cars because they are singularly responsible for driving gas prices up? Maybe - but it is a free country and gas prices are determined by the free market. If I choose to drive a smaller, more fuel-efficient car, I pay less at the pump than that guy over there in a Hummer. Maybe he can afford the price of gas. His car sure cost plenty. But I hold no animosity against anyone because they have more money than I do.

Do I dislike oversized cars because I cannot see over or around them when I want to pass their sorry, slow butts on the highway? Yes. I do dislike them for this but most of the time it doesn't cause too much stress as I seldom drive the freeways. I think, at this point in the SUV history, many of those who regularly drive the freeways during their daily commutes operate SUVs as a defense mechanism. I know I would not drive a moped to anyplace where I hade to drive amongst tractor trailers moving at 70 mph. That may be extreme but I think most people drive these creatures just to be able to feel safer than they would be when their line of sight just lines up with the SUV in front of them's tailpipe. But that isn't my gripe.

A few folks with whom I have spoken claim that the SUV is still some sort of status symbol but I disagree. You can get one new for under 20 grand and if you stoop to buying a "pre-owned" model, you can do far better than that. So when some guy drives into the Seven Eleven in an SUV, my first thought is not, "hey this guy's got money." Even middle class kids with no money drive these boats.

The real reason I dislike SUVs has more to do with where I live. I live in an area which seldom gets any large volume of really bad weather. Also, being relatively close to Manhattan, there are tons of train tracks on my usual routes to most places. What absolutely pisses me off is when I drive behind a caravan of SUVs, we inevitably get seriously backed up at train tracks. This is because the drivers of SUVs, unlike those professionals who drive in the TV commercials, tend to gingerly inch their ways over the tracks so as not to be shooken or stirred too much. I, with my low-to-the-groud standard sedan typically never change speed at train tracks. The typical experience goes smething like ba-bump and not even my coffee spills.

So what's up with the SUV driver? Is he or she causing gas prices to go up? Yes. Artificially? No. Is he or she an unsafe driver? Sometimes, but no more often than most other drivers. Does his or her vehicle make it unsafe for me to drive? Probably. Is it that I envy his or her extreme wealth? Nah. Is it because most people who drive these flaming things are total wimp bags who can't get out of my bleeping way? Absolutely!

Here's a very brief op/ed piece in the LA Times which asks, is it time for a third political party. Note that the question is asked by a "staunch Democrat."

The short answer to the question? YES.

Have you seen the plethora of polls regarding the so-called nuclear option? Philadelphia Inquirer political analyst, Dick Polman, suggests that 'Nuclear' fallout could turn against Democrats.

I saw one poll which concluded Americans were against any rule change in the Senate which might end the filibustering of judicial nominees. Then I saw another poll which overwhelmingly stated the opposite. That wasn't the real news. The real news was the questions each of the polls asked. The first one, which suggested Americans are against changing the rules, was so slanted that I could hardly believe my eyes. I don't have the precise words but it went something like "should George Bush be able to force his judicial nominees through without thorough debate?" The second poll, favorable to Bush, simply asked if Bush should be able to get his judicial nominees voted upon.

So the real news is that there is not a poll out there which accurately reflects how Americans feel about limiting filibusters on judicial nominations. But you gotta wonder. Why are Democratic leaning pollsters asking such slanted questions? The only two possible answers are 1) they are trying to frame the public's opinion or 2) they are running extremely scared.

There is a growing singular voice in left leaning media which suggests that Republicans are coming apart at the seams because the nefarious far-right conservatives (religious right / religious zealots) are pissing off all the moderate conservatives (everybody else). I don't see things that way. I'm not part of the religious right, I'm part of the pragmatic right. I voted against Kerry because he is a loser who never accomplished anything aside from making a lot of friends in his own party. What I see is a Democratic party which has no answers of their own for any serious questions, continues to "just say no" on absolutely every Republican idea whether that idea is more liberal than conservative or not, and acts to obstruct the President at every turn. Living in a blue state and having voted, on occassion, for Democratic candidates at some points in the past, it befuddles me to see such ridiculous behavior. I guess this is what happens when Howard Dean, foreigner George Soros, Michael Moore, and Moveon.orgie run the party. It should have come as no surprise given their behavior during the war-time presidential election.

We need at least two political parties in this country because that allows us to keep tabs on the party in power. These tactics are going to backfire on the Democrats and they are now beginning to see that. They are running scared and their cohorts in the liberal media are leading the way. It was fun to watch for a while but even a good citizen of Rome grows weary of the lions always winning.

I stand corrected. I posted a blog piece which suggested the economy is in good condition. Today I see in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) that the economy softened in the first quarter. I guess I have to admit that the lib.s are right. The economy is not growing the way they would like to see it.

The punchline is that the softening was to a 3.1% growth rate. That is a healthy clip although slower than it has been for a couple years. The downtrend most likely has more to do with rising interest rates than anything else and reflects the Fed.s desire to achieve sustainable growth rather than out-of-control growth. Out-of-control growth feels great for a while but, like anything else, there is always a hangover involved. I prefer an economy gaining muscle gradually to one pumping up on steroids. How about you?

The House of Representatives today passed a bill known as the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (H.R. 748). This bill makes a criminal of anyone...

"...who knowingly transports a minor across a State line, with the intent that such minor obtain an abortion, and thereby in fact abridges the right of a parent under a law requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision, in force in the State where the minor resides, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

How about punishing the parents? If an underage girl is pregnant, and is getting into a car with an adult, and is transported to another state, and the parents have no idea that she's pregnant, and have no idea that she's getting into a car with a stranger, and have no idea that she's going to another state, DOESN'T THAT REFLECT POORLY ON THE PARENTS???

If this were to take place, PUNISH THE PARENTS! Don't punish the guy driving the car!!

For crying out loud! Do these legislators understand where the problem lies? If the parents were doing a responsible job of raising their daughter, then we wouldn't be talking about abortions.

Think about this. Republicans are claiming to solve a problem, by criminalizing the guy driving the car (Oh gee, doesn't that make sense!). They should be punishing parents for having a pregnant teen-ager.

This bill is fucking stupid!

An editorial in the Los Angeles Times claims "privatizing social security" is a bad idea because:

1) Most social security taxes are immediately paid out to beneficiaries.
2) Changes in projection assumptions would dramatically change the moment in time when the system becomes insolvent. It is possible that social security won't go broke for a long time.
3) Privatization will not make the system solvent - "transition" costs will pay off the current and future IOUs.
4) Privatization will not change the financial instruments within our economy - it's a zero-sum game.
5) Privatization would do nothing to change the savings rate within the economy - again it's a zero-sum game.
6) There is no theory which explains how it is that retirees would be able to extract more money from the economy via private accounts unless they take money from someplace else - it's a zero-sum game.

What the author of this piece is forgetting is that economics is not a zero-sum game. Simple addition and subtraction does not begin to explain things. Liberals tend to think of the economy as the huge bundle of resources, products, services and cash. The bundle is a fixed size and weight. That is an overly simplistic view of one of the most complex elements of human activity. That's not how it works.

Economists have spent huge amounts of time examining how dollars spent in different ways by different kinds of people cause different results. For example, that piece of GDP which is businesses spending to buy or build long-term assets does not cause the same result that piece of GDP which is consumers spending dollars to go out to dinner. The business spending reverberates throughout the economy creating jobs and trickling out here and there. The restaurant dollar does not get spent nearly as many times hence. Likewise government dollars do not reverberate the way business long-term spending does. Think of it this way, if we gave all our money to the government and the government was in charge of spreading it around the economy, the results would look something like the old Soviet Union, China before capitalism, or even Cuba. The overall economy would be a smaller, lighter bundle of stuff. Not only that but it would be shrinking rather than growing. The lessons the Pilgrims learned, the lessons of the failure of Communism, are that private property does matter and it is most certainly not a zero-sum game.

Social Security is a tax. Money flows from you to the government which decides when and where it will spend it. Currently, government takes from you gradually over your whole productive life and gives back to you gradually over your remaining natural life. If you die early, you get less than you put in. If you die later than the average, you may very well get more than you put in, although not much more. That is a fool's bet we usually only engage in when we buy private life insurance. But at least the decision to buy life insurance is a choice. You have no choice with respect to social security taxes. They are a certainty.

What Bush is trying to accomplish via the "privatization" is a sort of weaning the government off of its addiction to your money. You see, social security taxes aren't all spent for retiree benefits. Much of it is used by the government to fill current spending holes. The whole mess is essentially bundled together into a single budget. You don't know that because of the obfuscation we have endured for years. But the government considers all money collected to be fungible. There is no lockbox!

So maybe you buy into this zero-sum game thing anyways. Maybe you are too confused to think the thing through. OK. Think of a real world example. Take a person making $1,000 each week which they promptly spend. Now make that person place $100 into a lockbox, earning no income. At the end of 30 years, you will give that person a piece of the $156,000 you have collected you locked away and they will be better for it since they weren't otherwise saving anything when you started. Now, instead of putting that money into a lockbox, put that money into any interest bearing financial instrument and you wil discover that there is more money to distribute when the person retires. Great, but how does that impact the whole economy. It doesn't unless you have 200 million of these people who are investing in companies so those companies can purchase long-term productive assets. Then you have done something good for not only the one person, but the productivity of the economy as a whole. We have shrunk governmental spending and increased private sector spending which is what Bush is after.

Economics is not a zero-sum game. "Privatizing" social security is a move away from Communism / Socialism and results in productivity growth for the United States.

Hey, have you given any money lately to the ACLU? You have? Cool. I bet you thought you were supporting a really cool cause like to protect people's civil rights, free speech, or the right of the press to protect its sources. Maybe you thought you were gonna support Ward Churchill's right to say whatever comes to mind. Maybe you thought gay boyscouts would be only fair. But guess what, you're contributions are supporting the ACLU's pro bono efforts to make sure that those "dirty old men" who kidnap, rape, and kill other people's children are afforded the "right to associate freely" and spread techniques on how to go about kidnapping and raping children. I do not think the NORTH AMERICAN MAN/BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION advocates killing its victims after sodomy. I think, though I'm not sure, they advocate smoking a good cigar or cigarette after a nice tussle with your 10 year old son. After that, I think, but again I'm not sure, they suggest holding onto the child so you can have sex with him again and again. You can let him go later, after your bored with this sex partner, by dropping him off in another state so as not to raise suspicion.

So what the hell am I getting at? Your ACLU contributions are going to support the right of NAMBLA to associate. They are doing this in a case in which the parents of a small boy who was kidnapped, molested, and murdered by a guy who considered himself to be a member of NAMBLA. The guy is currently in prison, but don't worry, his sentence isn't very long - he'll be out soon, and his parents are suing NAMBLA. Luckily they have found an attorney who is just committed, if not as well funded, as the ACLU. The ACLU is absolutely committed to do whatever they can to preserve NAMBLA's right to exist and associate freely.

You are helping to pay for the protection of dirty old men's right to kidnap, rape and murder your sons. Go ahead, make a donation.

I assume everyone has seen the tape of the 5 year old girl who acted up in class and got put in handcuffs by the police. Actually that's an incomplete analysis. The girl was way out of control. She was downright violent. I've never seen a 5 year old that out of control. One version I heard indicated that she was also placed in legcuffs inside the police cruiser. Excuse me, but give me a f%^$#*% break!

I can envision the circumstances in which it would be appropriate to shackle a 5 year old. Let's see, if the girl were 5 foot 5 and able to bench press 150 lbs., then maybe, assuming that she was somewhat efficient at martial arts or perhaps involved in amateur boxing for at least a full year, maybe then it would be OK.

I have a serious problem with the school even needing to call the police but some folks tell me that is because no worker in any school can even think about touching or restraining a child without also considering his or her desire to be sued by the child's parents. This is a travesty of our legal system or protection of our weakest by the system but if that's the case, that's the case. Teachers, principals and others are not allowed to restrain children at all. OK. So then the principal or vice principal is unable to restrain this obviously needy, possibly disturbed child and therefore removes the child from circumstances in which she might hurt others. I gotcha so far. And I'll go along with the notion that the police must be called in because no individual at the school is able to calm her down. But where exactly do the handcuffs come, let alone the legcuffs, into the picture. Every police cruiser I have ever seen has a back seat from which the doors cannot be opened and which has no sharp edges or anything else that can cause a person any injury. It is kind of standard protocol. So why did the police not simply put her in the car and wait for the parent to arrive?

As I understand things, even when the mother arrived, the police did not allow the girl out of the cuffs and car into the mother's custody. The police informed her that they were still "investigating" the occurrence. Even when the mother became agitated, they refused to let the girl out to see her mother. This strikes me as patently illegal. I don't think there is any doubt about the wrongness of this occurrence but the courts will ultimately sort all that out. For now, what we, our schools and our police forces need is a protocol for dealing with this circumstance. I don;t want each of our police departments to send their officers out to sensitivity training. I just want somebody to lay out the rules regarding what should have been obvious. That way, we can never have this sort of moronic result again.

Please do not give me parenting advice. Instead I want you to write it into law. Tell me exactly what to do because you, the government, know exactly everything I should know about parenting. And please put me in jail if I screw up even once.

There has been some talk about the negligence of the parents in this horrible thing which occurred in Georgia when 2 and 3 year old girls disappeared from their home and were later found drowned. I do think the circumstances should be investigated to make sure we do not have another infanticide but, absent such a finding, I do not think that we as a society need to look for an appropriate punishment for the parents. They've already suffered the worst imaginable punishment.

Any parent who has lost a child knows that it is not at all like other losses. The loss of a child is emotionally crippling. It is not merely the loss of a loved one, it is the loss of oneself. The mother of these two girls will never be whole again. She has had the, by far, most important things in her life ripped from her arms. I can only speak for myself but I know in my heart that if Almighty God, himself, were to come to me and say "I am taking one of your children or you," I would say "take me" in less than a single heartbeat. I think most parents are like that.

Any of us who has had one 2 year old knows how tiring it can be. Having two so close in age is very difficult. I am not condoning this mother's lack of care for her children but since there does not seem to be abuse in this circumstance, I have to assume that she is a normal, average parent. We all know of examples of bad parenting. We often do not agree with the parenting styles of others. But to say that we should look for punishment in a case of parental negligence is roughly the same as putting a person in jail for assault because they broke their arm doing some stupid trick on a skateboard. Parents are their children. Their children are they. There are certainly circumstances in which bad parenting can become criminal but when a child escapes from a non-abusive home, even twice in a couple hours, there is no criminality.

We cannot punish this woman for parenting stupidity. She has paid the ultimate price. If you disagree, I doubt you are a normal parent.

The Great New Wonderful, a movie about NYC folks living in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack, which stars Maggie Gyllenhaal, is apparently one you may want to choose to miss. This film is currently at the Tribeca Film Festival. The movie's star said America holds some responsibility for the attacks. Wonderful! Another genius actor with superior knowledge of world events wants us to self-examine after we've been bullied by a bunch of thugs. Hey Maggie, worry about your career and leave the deep intellectual, philosophical points to those who have the brains to think. You read lines and pretend you are somebody else. Stick to that.

The disturbing thing is she is by no means the only person who thinks this way. Obviously there are those like Ward Churchill and his minions who feel the United States is inherently evil and deserves whatever befalls it. But to be so cowardly as to suggest that we need to examine why they attacked us until we can find blame in ourselves is roughly akin to "battered woman" syndrome. Every victim of domestic violence can examine exactly what transpired and eventually find the blame in themselves. That is what makes the syndrome so damaging. A five year old lays in the hospital bed with broken leg, ribs, skull and finally concludes that he should have been more quiet when dad came home drunk and broke from the all-night poker game. Is that what we want for this entire country?

We support Israel and even their enemies on occasion but we do not embrace Whahabbism as the government mandated religion of the United States so we are wrong? Maggie and all you other unlistening folks need to understand that this is the fundamental underpinning of al Qaeda. They believe they should attack ALL INFIDELS. That's it. Any other motivation has to do with the desire of Middle Eastern Muslims to drive all Jews into the sea. That's the other big one. There has been very little, if any at all, rhetoric suggesting that the United States system of government or capitalism are the reasons behind any of this. But you battered women and communists just love to think and think and think until you can find a reason to blame the system of government, our economic system, or something else in our core psychology for a bunch of fundamentalist fascists wanting to murder us. Get over yourselves and your sophomoric intellectualism.

I think we're all sick of listening to the rhetoric on both sides of the aisle. Let's have a vote on UN Ambassador nominee, John Bolton. The Senate's role is, constitutionally speaking, supposed to be to advise and consent. The advise portion of this particular nominee should be over by now. The debating society should hold a vote and if he is not the right guy, I'm sure he will be defeated. If he is, let's get on with things. The UN is in a big mess right now. We need to stop talking and get to work.

My favorite lefty newspaper, the Baltimore Chronicle, notes that the media seems to be in some sort of funk wherein they report only on All Pope, All the Time. I have to agree. There is very little in depth coverage of the important issues of our times. And in our times, the issues are rather important. Where is the honest coverage of the issues important to the entire world? The installation of a new pope, while certainly important to a good portion of the planet is hardly worth the time and effort put into it so far. What little news is actually being covered is only being covered from a political biased point of view. This is as true for the right as it is the left. I wonder where is the honest and in-depth coverage about global warming, AIDS and other health crises, wars in Africa and political chaos in some of the former soviet republics, yada, yada, yada. Have all the liberal media pundits become so full of dispair over John Kerry's abject failure to get himself elected? Are they all in psychotherapy because we no longer believe much of what they say? Come on guys, buck up and get to work. Just tell us a little more of the truth and we'll love you again!

A month or two ago we criticized the plan to tax high tech sales and send the money to Africa in order to bring those who live there into the modern, high-tech world. That seems ridiculous enough on the surface to me but during my travels around the news portion of the web, the idiocy of this was really driven home. Sending money to Africa for high tech equipment and training is almost as absurd as offering full college scholarships to anyone in a persistent vegetative state. Africa has so many health issues that this analogy is entirely valid. According to Reuters, approximately 800,000 people die each year of malaria on the African continent. The WHO says, "The burden on health systems, absenteeism among school children and diminished or lost worker productivity, all contribute to make malaria a significant contributor to low economic growth in endemic countries, estimated at costing African countries about $12 billion." When you combine this with other health problems such as AIDS (4 million new AIDS infections occur annually in Africa and more than 2 million die each year), diarrhoeal diseases, tuberculosis not to mention other diseases, the picture begins to get more clear. What Africa needs is not computers but aid targeted at fixing the continent's health crisis.

Here's an Op/Ed from the New York Times which briefly compares the U.S. system of social security with the privatized system in Chile. It is required reading for anyone concerned about the future of our system. This simple analysis makes me imagine a person retiring at 65, 25 years from now, with both parents still alive. Most likely our theoretical 65-year-old is going to need all the extra money he or she might make under privatized accounts in order to support his or her parents. Those parents would be living on a meager social security check thanks to the reduction in benefits made in the 1980s in order to keep the system solvent. If further cuts are made in the future, many fewer seniors will be able to keep cats and dogs as pets although they'll still be buying at least as much pet food.

I can recall when I first began understanding that everything had a price. I am old enough to remember $2,000 automobiles, $.45 cigarettes, less than $.40 gallons of milk, penny candy, dime phone calls and even 50 cent gasoline. These prices are being drudged up from deep within my memory so forgive me if I don't recall precisely when they were this low. I think it was in the early to mid 1970s. But one thing is clear in my mind, all of these things have increased by a factor of more than 6 - 10 with the exception of gasoline.

Right now, you can get an automobile for around $10,000 but the one I am thinking of is barely a car - it seems more like a motor cycle with a little aluminum stretched around it. I wouldn't drive one of those. I'd be afraid of dying in an accident with a ground hog. $16,000 seems to be the best you can do for anything even remotely worth driving. I wanted something that would let me pass some of these SUVs when their drivers stop at train tracks so as to not shake up the vehicle too much. I paid $20,000 for a basic model with a V-6, after I bargained the dealer down to wholesale by making my purchase on the last day of June and taking immediate delivery of the car. Had I not taken this approach I might have paid invoice for about $21,500.

Cigarettes have increased, mostly due to taxes, to around $5.00+ per pack. Of course nobody, including me, should be buying cigarettes but that's another story.

Milk varies by area but, since I am still in the general area of my youth, I'll use my area's figure, which is generally over $3. Candy seems to begin around $.50 but that isn't the single piece of bazooka bubble gum of my youth, I don't have a reasonable comparison but to ballpark it, I think candy has gone up by a factor of around 7.

The other night I had to run out to get milk, candy, cigarettes and some sundries. I know my family should make only one run to the store each week but milk is milk and it is often impossible to avoid the luxury of running out to the store every now and again. I forgot my mobile phone and since I also forgot my list, I had to use a pay phone for the first time in a decade because I didn't want to waste the gas driving back home. I was one or two miles away and was astonished to see the call would cost me $.50. That's only a factor of 5 but it is in the ballpark of 6-10.

After I went to the store, I stopped in at the local gas station to kill another bird with the same stone. At first I was annoyed because the station was busy. I actually had to wait behind another car before I was served. I don't like waiting at gas stations especially at night. I guess that started way back when there were actually long lines at the pump, early in my driving career, and it was often necessary to go at off hours to wait less than an hour. Then I saw the prices for gasoline and I got really annoyed. A gallon of low test was more than $2.25. That's a more than fourfold increase!

While I was waiting to be served, I started glancing at my grocery receipt and somewhere between the milk and cigarettes it hit me that gas really has been the item least affected by inflation. I started thinking about how much milk, etc. had gone up since my young days when I first became aware of prices. It finally struck me that gas prices are really ridiculous.

Paul Krugman of the New York Times has an op/ed today entitled "The Oblivious Right" in which he puts forth the notion that President Bush is unable to see reality because he only talks to a few people who hold the same views he does. Krugman calls Bush's plan to "privatize" social security a "terrible political blunder." He also wonders why conservative Republicans claim the economy is solid when Krugman claims that to most Americans the economy is in horrendous shape.

Krugman bases his opinions about the economy and social security on polls. Thank goodness the nation's leaders do not. What we are hearing from this guy is the same old tired rhetoric we have been hearing from liberals for nearly four decades. The fact is, Paul, old boy, despite what you may think, the economy is in tremendous shape considering the hit it took on 9-11. Actually that's not a completely true statement. That was true before 2 million jobs were added. Now it is true to leave off the 9-11 reference. Paul, old boy, economies run in cycles, as in up and down. It was truly amazing that, after the run down under Carter, the economy was able to be shook upwards by Reagan. But since then you have to realize that things have been damn good. Perhaps the people answering slanted poll questions do not agree but they are wrong.

As for social security, I really wish the left would spend half as much time trying to find a real answer to the very real crisis as they do spend criticizing Bush's answer. As it is, all we know from the left is that the thing isn't broken - translation, we'll just increase taxes to keep the thing going when we run into trouble. No thanks guys. We're not that f&^%ing stupid. We can do math better than you think and understand that we are already slaves to the state. We are unwilling to let this garbage go any further. Fix it or nix it.

And Paul, please stop reading important information with those muddy glasses. It colors you opinions and makes everything you say smell bad.

I heard an interesting comment yesterday on the radio which I would like to pass along. I'll try to explain it but most likely I can't do it justice.

I have often been distrustful of the term "compassionate conservative" mostly because I was indoctrinated by liberal teachers. These teachers led me to believe that the central principal of conservativism was a laissez-faire attitude in every aspect of life. I thought conservatives were uncaring, selfish rich guys who just wanted to be left alone so they could get richer. They were onconcerned with other people in general and wanted to hold down minority groups because they would empower and enrich themselves. My teachers pretty much told me this directly but even when they were not, they took care to highlight every anecdote which might also convince me.

This fellow on the radio noted that at the very least most of us do honestly care about our fellow human beings. We do not generally take actions against anyone who is different just because they are different. If for example, we live in a lilly white neighborhood of southern baptists and someone who is not lilly white, southern or a baptist moves in, we typically do not form a posse for the purpose of throwing the invader out. There are instances of this to be sure but it is not a commonplace occurrence. Most often absolutely nothing happens.

There is a lie propagated by the left which claims a sort of moral high ground on issues of tolerance and acceptance. Liberals want us to believe that if we do not think exactly like they do, we are racist bigots. But this speaker had a slightly different view. He said the difference between conservative and liberal tolerance is the conservatives in our example are largely ambivalent toward the non-white newcomer as they are largely ambivalent towards the rest of their neighbors. They live their lives and let the newcomer live his. Liberals on the other hand want everyone to stop what they are doing and not only come forward to affirmatively embrace the new neighbor but also to drop what they are doing so they can take sensitivity courses.

This strikes me as the "many of my best friends are (insert gay, black, jewish, muslim, handicapped or whatever)" syndrome. We must have sensitivity training because the newcomer, so obviously inferior, needs all of us to affirmatively accept him. It isn't enough that we consider him just another neighbor. We must embrace him because he needs that. If we do not take extra steps to demonstrate our acceptance, he will always assume we are bigots. Isn't this condescending? Doesn't the newcomer see our lack of genuine acceptance?

I know I live in a largely lilly white, although not southern baptist, town. And I am largely ambivalent to the majority of my neighbors. I have my friends as well as a few people I really do not like in any way. But I don't know most people who live in my town and so don't care one way or the other about them. If a Muslim or whatever family moved into my immediate neighborhood, I would probably go just a few extra feet but no further out of my way to meet them. I think most Americans are the same way. So why are we so stupid that we allow these liberals to convince us that we must take sensitivity training?

Dog owners in Turin, Italy face ever more harsh penalties if they don't treat their pets right. Abandoning or torturing a dog is already an expensive offense in the city but new laws require dog owners to walk their pets three times each day or face a 500 euro fine. One wonders where their laws stand on ensuring that children get a precise amount of exercise. Maybe as time passes, we'll see some "progressive" laws which require a specific dietary regimen coupled with a prescribed daily exercise plan.

My point is that throughout the world we keep seeing instances where governments are overstepping their boundaries by trying to control specific behaviors. We even see this in the United States where fairly old children are required to sit in these ridiculous booster seats practically until they are old enough to drive. Bike safety helmets are great but when my local government mandates that my children must wear any specific device lest I be charged with being an abusive parent, that crosses a line. They cannot prevent me from allowing my kid to jump on an unprotected trampoline but I am not so stupid that I would allow my children to do so.

Government has a difficult enough time trying to get its specifically mandated job done. If they cannot accomplish their own tasks, why should I allow them to determine my every move?

State and local law enforcement agencies are ramping up efforts to enforce immigration laws in order to achieve their goals of keeping the peace. Immigrants rights groups are criticizing the practice because they believe that if local law enforcement keeps an eye open for illegal immigrants, this will cause illegals to not report crimes committed against them. But all these law enforcement agencies are doing is taking a close look at those who already populate our jails or are under investigation for serious crimes. What can be the harm in that? We know we have an illegal immigration problem in this country. This policy will do little to solve that as those who are here illegally but commit no crime will be completely ignored. And are we supposed to foot the ever-growing prison bill to support criminals who shouldn't even be here in the first place?

According to the Associated Press, environmentalists are mulling the future of their movement because they are losing the battle for public opinion. Environmentalists believe they have not done a good job of explaining what is at risk for Americans and the rest of the world. They remain convinced that if we only knew what they knew, we would be on their side. But we've been listening to them for a very long time yet not seeing the truth in their message. Initially we did see that waterways were polluted unnecessarily, that our air was needlessly dirty, and that factories were polluters mostly because we did not hold them accountable. But most people do not see an absolutely pristine environment as a desirable end, in and of itself. Rather they see human beings as inhabitors and users of the environment. Most people are just not willing to give up everything else in order to achieve a pristine environment.

According to linguistics professor George Lakoff of the University of California, Berkeley, the issue is more about the form of the message rather than its content. Note that Lakoff claims there is a "right-wing ideological political movement that's extremely powerful and well-funded" which has gained control over the American mind. I believe both Lakoff and the environmentalists are missing the boat in as much as they are focusing on how they are saying things rather than what they are saying. They may have a decent view of environmental vistas but they cannot see the rest of the planet which includes a couple billion people who want some degree of economic success.

Like some modern day "Chicken Little" environmentalists keep insisting to us that the sky is falling. They become impatient when we ignore them and use louder and louder voices to announce the impending doom. Now they are thinking of changing the message because we are too stupid to understand their wisdom.

The rocker who calls himself Bono is ripping Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin for failing to live up to his promise to increase Canadian foreign aid to 0.7% of the country's GDP. Bono had been a staunch supporter of Martin but has decided to try to bring him down because of the broken promise. It is a relief to listen to him try to bring down a liberal Canadian politician since he most often aims his venom at the United States and conservative politicians.

But how much credibility should we give to a guy named Paul David Hewson who chooses to call himself Bono after the name of a hearing-aid store in North Dublin? Is he not just another one of these crackpot famous dudes who wants not only to do something good lest he be seen as overly vane, but also to keep himself in front of the public's eyes no matter what?

Some recent quotes shed light on his thinking.

"Let me share with you a conviction. God is on his knees to the church on this one. God Almighty is on his knees to us, begging us to turn around the supertanker of indifference on the subject of AIDS."

"I am just trying to figure it out. Everybody wants to make an impact with their life, whether it's small scale with friends or family-that's really big, is the truth-or whether it's on a grand scale, in changing their communities and beyond. I just want to realize my potential."

Africa seems to be Bono's chosen cause but when you take a close look at his words, you can see that it is less about his cause and more about himself. "I just want to realize my potential" pretty much says it all. Everybody wants to make an impact but I'm famous so as a spoiled brat I can do or say anything I want so I CAN REALIZE MY POTENTIAL.

But I kind of have to agree with Bono when he says, "There's nothing worse than a rock star with a cause." We listen to music as a way of leaving our mundane lives or adding to them. I know I don't buy a CD because I want to become enlightened. And when Bono says,

"In Ireland, people have an interesting attitude toward success, they look down on it. In America, you look at the mansion on the hill and think, 'One day that will be me.' In Ireland, people say, 'One day, I'm going to get that bastard.'"

we should all recognize that the United States is that mansion on the hill. Bono is trying desperately to get that bastard. And since he is a bright guy who never wants anyone to become suspicious of his motives, he is simply trying to be even handed here.

I had the unfortunate opportunity to flip around the TV dial this morning before I got busy. CBS Sunday Morning, while certainly not my favorite show, isn't always bad so I left the station on for a minute. After 5 minutes of commercials I was met with a quick bio of wonderful Jane Fonda. It was a fluff piece and I couldn't help wondering if CBS and the leftist media are trying to come to Jane's rescue. You see Jane's book is not doing nearly as well as her workouts tapes did so many years ago. CBS focused on what makes her life interesting with only a brief mention of her "political awareness," as they called it, during the Vietnam War. They marvelled at this acting gig or that, even referring to her as sexy in the portrayal of a prostitute. Ridiculous.

The trouble is that Jane is really just an actor and like so many actors, her political awareness is and always has been extremely limited. During Vietnam, she was young and quite stupid. She isn't so young anymore but her youthful actions are what many Americans remember. Her stupidity during Vietnam might well be written off as youthful but let's not forget that she was an adult at the time. Our prisons and cemeteries are full of persons who did stupid things during youth. Adults are not afforded the same kind of leniency that those under the age of majority are. Jane made her indelible mark long ago. Nothing CBS or any other biased news/media outlet does can change that.

I took half of yesterday off because I was feeling burned out. I curled up on the couch and began flipping through a couple hundred channels but there was nothing much on. News channels carried the same fundamental stories they have been carrying the past couple of weeks. Sex offenders blah blah blah, senate nuclear option blah blah blah, Tom DeLay blah blah blah, etc. etc. so I kept flipping. Usually when I am in this kind of a mood I resort to nature shows because the narrator usually speaks softly and that coupled with the sounds of nature lets me drift off to sleep after which I feel better. So I checked out National Geographic channel, PBS, etc. What I found was a bit dismaying. There were a ton of shows whose objectives were to tell stories about how global warming is causing catastrophes all over the globe. Asthma in the Carribean, outbreaks of tropical diseases at alarming rates, and melting of the tundra in Alaska, to name but a few, all were examined at length. These are all real phenomenon. I have no doubt of the veracity of the scientists who are studying the effects of global warming.

What troubled me was, regardless of which channel I was viewing, the whole thing was tied neatly together as being caused by carbon emmissions in general and those of the United States in particular. Mention was made of the United States failure to join into the Kyoto Protocol. The only conclusion possible was that the United States is entirely to blame for the environmental catastrophe which is coming. While, as I said, I have no doubt there are things happening around the globe, I failed to see the connection between factory and automobile emmissions in the U.S. and the environmental phenomenon. Because these shows jumped to unproven conclusions, they broke down into tying anecdotes together with pure conjecture to reach a therefore wrong conclusion.

Don't take me wrong here. I'm not saying that man's burning of fossil fuels is not to blame. I'm saying that this has not been proven. I always distrust "conventional wisdom" and whenever I encounter supposedly scientific information which untilizes logical fallacies in support of a conclusion, I begin to distrust the whole analysis. Those who would like to prove that the United States (and by reference capitalism) are the causes of thousands of children getting asthma in the Carribean region are just going to have to do a better job if they are to convince me.

But then again, they are not trying to convince me. They are trying to convince the masses who don't bother to think the thing through. Now that is smart TV!


(If you'd like to get past the anecdotes, here is a good place to start:

The Cooling World

If you are a complete novice to the notions that perhaps the globe is not warming or perhaps it has nothing to do with mankind, check out this site on a regular basis:

Junk Science)

I happened upon an opinion written by Jason Sorens entitled, "Libertarians Versus Conservatism", in which Sorens tries to place libertarians upon a higher road than conservatives.

But I think he has it wrong, and I think his critical error is best illustrated in this passage:

Modern conservatism comes out of the 1950's anticommunist movement. On the one hand, it proclaims respect for the Constitution and for the system of limited government devised by the Founders; on the other hand, it celebrates an aggressive U.S. foreign policy and a powerful bureaucracy that gives the federal government the resources to intervene, through aid or invasion, in any part of the world.

He credits conservatives as having a respect for a strict interpretation of the Constitution (of which is born the term "conservative"). However, he faults conservatives with promoting "an aggressive U.S. foreign policy and a powerful bureaucracy..."

A conservative, by definition, is simply one who respects the law as it is written, and by which it was intended to serve, that is, a very strict or conservative interpretation of the law. That's all it is, period. But the term "conservative" as it is used today, has very a broad application, depending on the person using it, and the context it is used in. For example, a Republican is often said to be a conservative. A Christian is often said to be a conservative. A NASCAR Dad is often said to be a conservative.

When you start bringing in political parties, religions, and sporting events, then really, what is a conservative?

If I were to save a tree from being cut down, people would label me a "liberal". But if I were to cut the tree down, I'm a "conservative".

Sorens makes the mistake of treating the word "conservative" as if it had an exact meaning. Officially, it does, as I explained above. But in the way it is used today, it really doesn't. Whereas, the term "libertarian" does have an exact meaning.

In short, a libertarian is one who places freedom above all else. Simply put, that's all it is. Others will argue that libertarianism is also about small government, personal responsibility, and privacy. But if you really think about it, these are just by-products of absolute freedom.

Those who consider themselves conservatives don't necessarily place freedom above all else. For some, the needs of the unborn are more important than a woman's right to choose. For some, the need to limit marriage to that of a man and a woman is more important than preserving personal freedom.

In terms of "agressive U.S. Foreign Policy", Sorens' confusion is further complicated by associating the protection of American interests with political ideology. Let's first make one thing clear, Americans are Americans above all else. That is, I'm an American first, and a libertarian second. Protecting American interests is not something associated only with conservatives.

Secondly, you can't have freedom if you're not prepared to fight. In other words, freedom is only obtained by breaking the chains that bind you. Obtaining freedom requires the spilling of blood. Throughout all of history, no other means ever resulted in the freedom of people.

Preserving freedom requires the same. Thus, having an agressive U.S. Foreign Policy is not something limited only to conservatives. It must be supported by libertarians, liberals, and anyone else who proclaims to support freedom.

So what is a libertarian? In the context of people in the United States, a libertarian is someone who gives freedom the most weight when making critical decisions. But it's also someone who understands that protecting America, and protecting each American individual comes first. We must first protect ourselves, then protect our freedom. That's a libertarian.

Good economic news for Americans, er New Yorkers. Wages in general are not up in real terms but some are. The New York Post reports government jobs in New York actually pay better than private sector jobs. Great news! Just great!

Since they pay better, maybe all jobs should be government jobs. Wouldn't that just be wonderful? If everybody had government jobs instead of private jobs, nobody would ever need to get fired. We could all just live in perfect harmony. No more nasty profit incentive. It would be just great.

We could wipe out unemployment and the hardships it causes by giving a government job to everyone. No firing for any reason. Universal health coverage. Everybody earning about the same amount. I really like this idea. It's just peachy.

Maybe we could make it so each could contribute according to his means and each would receive in accrodance with his needs. Why hasn't someone tried this before? They have? I didn't know that. Oh, that's right. It was Russia and China, the communists. I forgot. Oh that's right too, that system didn't work! All it does is bring everyone down. I thought this was too good to be true.

Here's an interesting editorial in, of all places, the L. A. Times entitled "To Dems, It's 1974 Forever," written by Yale professor, David Gelernter. It is required reading for all conservatives and moderates. You four or five hundred liberals out there need not bother since it is critical of your way of thinking.

Florida is nearing passage of an act which would drastically increase the sentences of those who commit sexual violence against children as well as subjecting them to lifetime GPS monitoring. The bill has broad bipartisan support, as you might have expected, and is likely to pass.

Florida state Senator Nancy Argenziano, who sponsored the Senate bill, said to sex offenders at large, "You better start fleeing the state because we aren't going to put up with you anymore." On one hand I enjoy Argenziano's anger and tough talk. On the other I wonder how many of Florida's 40,000 registered sex offenders will find their way to my state or even my neighborhood.

It is time to form a national policy on this. If it includes required lifetime GPS monitoring of these animals, that is fine with me. But the fed.s need to at least facilitate cooperation between the states. One or several states treating pedophiles as harshly as they deserve will do little to solve the problem and keep our children safe. In the meantime, you may want to make sure your state is one of the harsher ones!

Remember the TV show "Lost in Space?" The Captain would chart a trip and everyone would enter those glass tubes which would fill up with gas putting the occupant into a state of suspended animation. Pretty far-fetched stuff. It seems as if this isn't quite as far-fetched as we thought! Scientists have been able to place mice into suspended animation by forcing them to breath hydrogen sulfide. Little did we know that Will Robinson was breathing in what smelled like body gas. It kind of gives you a different take on the whole show. Imagine what it must have smelled like in the ship for days after they woke themselves!

Scientists are working on perhaps applying what they have learned via the mice experiments to human beings. One possible application would be to provide those on organ-transplant lists more time to wait for a donor. Similarly those who were injured in accidents might be put into suspended animation at the scene until they could be transported and repaired in surgery. There are other medical applications too as buying time is usually a good thing but one's imagination can run wild with the possible uses and abuses of this sort of thing. It is not much of a stretch to imagine Michael Jackson putting himself into a state of suspended animation until such time as plastic surgery advances enough to give him the look he really really needs. One wonders if he were to put himself in such a state before the indictments came down, would he be awoken from the state in order to face charges? If he were ultimately found innocent could he sue the state? If they left him in the state for the duration of the trial, he not wanting to take the stand, and he were found guilty, could he ask to remain in that state while doing his sentence? Could any convicted criminal ask to serve his time in a state of suspended animation? Would we want sex offenders to be in such a state until such time as we find a "cure" for their evil disease?

Well the theoretical possibilities of having such technology are endless. I'm just musing here. But, in any event, move over cryogenics. It looks like you have some competition!

National Geographic is taking part in a project to map human migration genetically called The Genographic Project wherein blood samples of volunteers and indigenous people will be analyzed to create a genetic map. There has been some criticism of the project by a few indigenous people's groups. Said one representative of The Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism, "What's to stop some company from taking information from the Genographic database and using it for commercial purposes without compensation to the original donors?"

There is a unique kind of violence which occurs wherever and whenever academia and science come into contact with business. Genealogy, the identification and study of the history of past and present members of a particular family, demonstrates an interesting part of this