Have you heard the story about a Pittsburgh coach who asked a seven year old to throw a ball at an autistic child on his team. The team was in a playoff game and the coach didn't want to have to play the autistic kid because he thought the team had a better chance of winning the game without him. The facts in the case are best suited for a court of law but what strikes me as strange is the sports media's reaction to it.

A broadcast I listened to had a lengthy discussion about sports parenting, as well as the excessive competitiveness of kids' sports in general and baseball in particular. The fact is that most children in America play some sport at some time. That means every parent in the country is at some point a "little league parent." This being the case, why is it unusual to have a criminal case of any sort? Participation in youth sports is basically about as common as a trip to the shopping mall or any other aspect of life. We do not characterize crimes committed at the mall as "shopping attacks." We do not characterize assaults which take place at fireworks displays as "fireworks related." Why should we impeach youth sports as bringing out the worst in everyone just because of a few criminal incidents?

Can you imagine, assuming the story is true, the mental state of the coach as he told the kid to knock the autistic player out of the game? The thought must have occurred to him in a moment of madness. He tried but was unable to control himself. This sort of thing happens every moment around the planet as human beings try to exercise self-control or, failing that, commit terrible crimes. It does not even matter a little that this occurred in a youth sports setting. Sports are totally unrelated to the ability of a human being to control himself and not assault another. This individual's alleged mental weakness would eventually have manifested itself in some manner regardless of his involvement in youth sports. He might have paid the toughest kid in the neighborhood to beat up some kid for riding his bicycle on the guy's lawn. Or he might have assaulted some poor driver who rear-ended him in a traffic jam. The possibilities are endless. The guy's inability to exercise self-control would have eventually resulted in a crime.

As an aside, the coach is said to have offered the kid $25 to hit the autistic kid. He then is reported to have welched on the offer after the game. If that is true, we're talking about the type of individual you don't often encounter! We're talking about the worst sort of human being, a cheat, an assaulter, and a liar, all wrapped up into a single person walking around our streets.

We build prisons specifically because we acknowledge that not everyone can control themselves in all circumstances. We put people away because it is evident that they are so uncontrolled that they are a danger to others. The circumstances of loss of control are typically not a mitigating factor unless they are very extreme. We do not examine the nature of shopping at the mall when we analyze an assault there. We don't really care about the stresses some guy faced when he murdered another. We simply assume the guy is a violent criminal and then wait expectantly to hear how long he'll be put away for. Youth sports are just another of the many everyday circumstances in which crimes may or may not be committed.

Some of the discussion surrounding this event tries to find blame in excessive competitiveness in youth sports. The nature of sports is that there is always a winner and loser. Somebody is always better at a particular skill than others. One team always wins, another loses. There are pressures to find success at sports but they are no stronger than those pressures to succeed in school or any other sort of endeavor. If this guy were successful and his team won their playoff game, maybe they would have gone on to play another and another. Eventually they would have either won the national championship or lost at some point. But the guy would not have achieved lifetime success regardless of outcome. Quick, what is the name of the coach whose team won the Little League World Series last year? I don't know it. Do you?

My point is that this guy allegedly engaged in an assault of the worst type - on a kid, on a handicapped kid - and that happened on a sporting field. The two aspects are totally unrelated. The mind of the guy snapped, if you will, and it just happened to be in a youth sports setting. It would have "snapped" somewhere anyway.

I see the sort of uncontrolled behavior that can lead to criminal assault just about every day I dare to venture outside my home. I see it on the roads, at the mall, at the movies, at sporting events, everywhere. What is unique about youth sports is somehow we don't expect to see it there. That is erroneous thinking.

The AP is running a story (see link below) today that echoes what we have been saying about African aid. According to one economist, James Shikwati, director of the Inter Region Economic Network, an African think tank,

"When aid money keeps coming, all our policy-makers do is strategize on how to get more. They forget about getting their own people working to solve these very basic problems. In Africa, we look to outsiders to solve our problems, making the victim not take responsibility to change."

I don't think I have much to add to this uncommon common sense. This is the central theme of conservatism. Give a man a fish to eat and he is likely to return for more. Teach him to fish and he is likely to eat well for quite some time. Making any human being dependent upon another enslaves him. So basically, the liberal doctrine of taxing the well-off in order to give to to the needy is wrong. It is extremely unusual when the recipient of such charitable largess acknowledges that he is better off without it. When this happens, we should listen closely.

Story Link:
Why Africa Goes Hungry

It looks like some states are moving forward with forcing all convicted sex offenders to wear GPS tracking devices around the ankles.

The issue of repeat sex offenders committing crimes again after being released from prison has been reported so heavily in the media, that it's put lawmakers under heavy fire.

After a registered sex offender was charged in March with killing 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford, Florida legislators quickly mandated tougher prison sentences for people who commit sex offenses against children and required lifetime GPS monitoring after serving time.

Missouri Sen. Matt Bartle liked the Florida legislation so much that he copied and expanded it to include repeat sex offenders who commit crimes — such as exposing oneself to a child — that would otherwise be punishable by seven years or less of imprisonment.

So, am I the only one who is seeing this as an oxymoron??

If they're so fearful that sex offenders will recommit their crimes, then why did they let them out of prison?

Government's primary responsibility is to protect the poeple. Moreover, government is responsible if these convicts recommit their crimes, simply because government has CUSTODY of them. Government decides when it is safe to return sex offenders into society, therefore, our elected officials should be held accountable if they recommit their crimes.

That's why the sensible approach is to keep dangerous people behind bars, for as long as they remain dangerous.

Perhaps what's missing in our corrections systems, is a comprehensive evaluation of these convicts throughout their sentence. Sex offenders should not be allowed to "pay for their crimes" by simply doing time. Each one should be studied to determine if he or she is actually rehabilitating. Moreover, there should be psychiatric therapy taking place.

Only when a convicted sex offender can demonstrate that he or she has been rehabilitated, and our corrections officials have 100% faith that he or she is no longer a threat to society, should they be released. And in that case, let them have peace, and not track their whereabouts. Everyone else stays behind bars.

This way, much fewer sex offenders will return to society, and only those with the highest degree of faith will return. This means that the number of repeat offenses will drop dramatically. And, we won't have to spend any money on these silly tracking systems and registries, and moreover, people will stop getting paranoid about it.

Finally something about base closures which makes almost total sense. The US is set to close bases in Germany and bring home (or reassign) 6,100 military personnel stationed there. We still will have tens of thousands stationed in Germany but ultimately that number will drop to around 20,0000.

Do we really still need soldiers stationed in Germany in this day and age? We have a big air base there and should keep it. And I suppose you need to have people there should we need to defend it. But 20,000? Every base we have outside this country is like a printing press for the locals. We send huge piles of US dollars to Germany by having so many troops there. I'd like to see most of that come to an end.

Have you ever been frustrated by the materials your 6 year old brings home from school? I know I have. They are filled with veiled references to the liberal agenda. They speak of children from third world countries who don't have shoes or food. They set out many of the premises liberals have tried to ram down our throats in order to have us believe them as fact. The planet is warming dangerously because big business doesn't care. We live in a world community where everyone must cooperate. Hug a tree. Protect the helpless animals. People have different opinions - there is no right and wrong. Some families are just different. Some families have two mommies or two daddies. But that's OK, that's normal.

If you have wanted to introduce some more conservative concepts to your young child but are not quite sure how to do it, I think I may have a way for you. World Ahead Publishing is set to release "Help! Mom! There are liberals under my bed." The book is currently offered at $12.99.

This illustrated story is targeted at children age 6 and up. It tells a story of two brothers setting out in business and how the harsh world of liberal politics interfered with their plans. It contains many references which are not quite veiled but these will be way above your child's head. It successfully introduces topics such as taxation and charity in a way which makes sense to children. It delves into some of the points of view of liberals who claim to have our best interests at heart. I found it quite entertaining and while not quite suited for my 8 and 10 year olds, I think it is just right for 6 and 7.

I had the interesting experience of watching CNN briefly today. The lead story was Senator Bill Frist's position change on embryonic stem cell research. The CNN show "Inside Politics" categorized Frist's position as advocating the federal government "lifting of restrictions" on embryonic stem cell research. Lifting of restrictions? The Bush administration is the first American administration to put federal money into stem cell research. And the government is not restricting the research. It has placed limits on federal funding of it. Why must CNN and other media outlets continually mischaracterize Bush's position?

As an aside, the commentator on CNN was unable to restrain himself from smiling as he spoke of Frist's "flip flop." He was so smug, so joyful about it. It was sickening to see a guy so slanted. I quickly changed the channel.

I'm not an evangelical. I do not oppose embryonic stem cell research because I see it as being linked to the pro-abortion alliance which so dominates the Democratic party. I'm against it because it has thus far shown no promise. I don't want my money sent down that hole any more than I wanted it to support other medical research which makes other people rich. Why do they assume that every conservative person in this country is from the "bible belt?" Their mistakes cause them to be insulting.

Liberals may be in for a surprise come the the mid-term elections. The strength of the conservative movement may come into clearer focus then. I can hardly wait.

Here's an important news bulletin for anyone in Russia: American Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is the name of a private business. It is not the name of an organization of the American government which broadcasts TV. The American government cannot stop them from airing almost anything. That isn't the way things work here. In this country, private citizens control the government. The government does not control private citizens.

Recently the Russians formally protested ABC and Ted Koppel's Nightline broadcast of an interview with Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev which included discussion of Basayev's "courageous" attacks carried out against defenseless Russian elementary school children last year. These "brave" rebels shot children dead after they permitted them to sit in their own feces while working on total dehydration. These "honorable" actions taken in defense of the poor defenseless people of Chechnya obviously emboldened Koppel to do the "right thing" and air their propaganda errr opinions.

Koppel noted the Russian protest during the broadcast and added something along the lines of freedom of speech not being an issue when a popular person states a popular point of view. Right Ted, that's how we all see things. But maybe there's another way to look at it. Maybe the entire population of Russia is still completely out of its mind with grief and rage, and maybe they just think its wrong to broadcast anything these cowards have to say.

Koppel is a jackass and ABC is idiotic for airing his verbal excrement. I hope they are ashamed of themselves. Does this talking head with the peculiar hair and the silly manner of speaking honestly think anybody is behind him on this?

Here's an important news bulletin for ABC, Koppel, and the Russians. None of this matters because nobody is watching Nightline. The sooner Nightline and, this brainless wonder, Ted Koppel are off the air, the better. It is a waste of valuable airtime. I'm sure some info-mercial selling a detergent that works or a way to get in shape can fill the time slot and the world will be better served.

One final thought on this: To the Associated Press whose story entitled "Russia Upset by Chechen Warlord Interview" I read about this, Basayev is not a "Chechen Warlord." He is undeniably an al Qaeda terrorist leader. Can we please call a spade a spade? If you need to modify what you call him to remove "terrorist," there are a number of terms you can try which are far more accurate than "warlord." Try these: "coward," "child killer," "weakling" "swine"

The New York Times is criticizing the "Take Back The Memorial" folks in an editorial published today. They claim these folks are ignoring or twisting the facts in order to make their argument to preserve the WTC site as a simple memorial to those who were killed there. They also say the group's position that "ground zero must contain no facilities 'that house controversial debate, dialogue, artistic impressions, or exhibits referring to extraneous historical events' is un-American. Un-American? What on Earth do they mean?

During the most recent presidential election there was an undercurrent of the philosophical differences which exist between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe in the Bush doctrine of hitting back hard against those who did harm you, those who might harm you, and those who aid the ones who did or might harm you. The conservative view is pragmatic and action oriented. Liberals prefer a more "thoughtful" discourse which, of course, must include analyzing historical events in a scholarly fashion to place things in their proper perspective. The liberal view is filled with idealism and inaction. But just as the muggee should not analyze the mugger's motivation while the gun is pointed squarely at his back, the United States not engage in introspection and self-critique at this particular moment in history.

The conservative element in the media has shown that liberals would like us to feel guilty about our international policies leading up to September 11 and see these as contributing to the proliferation of international terrorism. They replay speeches of Democratic Senators, Representatives and others, like Michael Moore, blaming the US for the hate which apparently dominates the Muslim world. Conservatives do not have to work particularly hard to demonstrate the liberal view since much of this is readily available. They use liberals own words in speeches and writings on the subject.

Liberals would like us to believe that their thoughts and opinions are complex, nuanced, thoughtful ones. Their's is a world of near constant introspection, of thinking things through before taking action - the right action. This sounds great but is seldom practical in application.

Human intellect has been analyzed to a tremendous degree as scientists attempt to fashion artificial intelligence. The element of the human intellect which baffles science is the ability to make decisions and take action based on incomplete information. Human beings run the full spectrum between those who act on too little information and those who never act because they are too busy analyzing. I think it is fair for each of us to introspect a little. When I do, I fully acknowledge that I often make mistakes but the biggest mistakes in my life have been those moments when I analyzed too long to take any action. Liberals tend to err on the side of excessive, even obsessive, analysis.

What does it mean to be "American" in the Times view? In order to be American, we must constantly question everything we do by asking how it impacts everyone else on the planet. What has characterized the United States of America has, historically speaking, always been pragmatism. Americans do spend some time thinking but they always take action. They never allow excessive introspection to get in the way of doing something. We have our political and philosophical institutions precisely because those who founded our country were not afraid to undertake the grand experiment of representative democracy. They were not afraid to fashion a constitution where none had ever been tried and true before. They used their intellects to develop a master plan but they did not have the luxury of time in which to compulsively analyze every possible situation and outcome. Had they done this, the nation would have failed. Instead they debated briefly and took action.

The memorial at the WTC site is a memorial to those who were murdered there. It does not have to be "the perfect memorial" to world events. I'm sorry anyone ever spoke of a "freedom center." I suppose when that sounded like a good idea, we were all still grieving. It's a stupid idea. The place needs to be a "plain" memorial. To endlessly debate the inclusion of information which is not directly related to the reason we are building something there - somebody knocked it down - is uniquely un-American, in fact it is downright uncivilized. Let's get on with building a memorial to those who were murdered. You all can build a history library/museum on another day, in another place.

It was 99 degrees with nearly 100 percent humidity when I went with my wife and kids to see "The March of the Penguins." This was the second time for them and my first. They saw it on a local "small" screen and wanted to see it on a larger screen. I just wanted to go anywhere that was air-conditioned. The theatre's system was strained, pumping out at maybe 80 degrees because it was so hot outside. Not much relief there. But by the time I left the theatre, I wished I had worn long pants and perhaps a sweater.

"March" is your typical Discovery / National Geographic Channel documentary. But it is a good one. And the life cycle of the subject Penguins is so bizarre that it deserves our attention. Penguins, obviously, are birds which swim in the water. That is perhaps the most normal aspect of their lives. Their procreation is so fragile, the environment in which they exist so extreme, it is a wonder of nature that they have managed to survive at all.

I don't want to give away much about the film even though it is not a drama with a lifting action, climax, and then the fall. But you really have to see it and I don't want to go into details which are better perceived in person. The thing that will strike you is how human beings were able to endure in this environment long enough to bring you this film. For that alone, it is worth seeing.

If you don't care much for "nature films," perhaps this won't be your cup of ice. But if you are hot and want to do something, anything, to break the heat, this will undoubtedly do it for you.

Every year around this time folks get a little stir crazy. The kids have been home from school for a month or so. Little League has ended for most kids. Graduation parties and Fourth of July fireworks are a distant memory. The beach, lake or swimming pool was great for the first few days but now that has worn off. Vacation is still a week or two away. Kids are stuck into a cycle of staying up too late (hopefully reading) and waking up later and later unless mom or dad cracks the whip. We all need something, anything to break the doldrums. Thankfully right about now the local, county and state fairs are setting up all over the country.

Fair are always some of the best fun of the summer. Parents sit around at rows of picnic tables sipping over-priced, cheap tasting beer or sangria. The kids run wild with snakes of ride tickets falling out of their pockets. Much to the joy of the 10 - 14 year olds, parental supervision is sparse. Older kids sneak off behind trailers for a first kiss with a summertime beau. The calls of the game operators fill the air and tired toddlers cling to stuffed animals made in China which will undoubtedly fall apart in a few days time. Everyone stays up too late and ingests too much sugar. It is a great way to break the boredom.

Our county fair has an added attraction this year. A level 2 convicted sex offender! This fellow has a caricature sketching booth at a couple of local fairs. He was convicted almost 20 years ago of aggravated sexual assault on a girl under the age of 13. His victims were children who worked for him in his caricature business. He's done his time (6 years in "the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center") and now is registered with the state. In his words, "That was so long ago. I'm not a pedophile. It was a mistake. If I don't do this, I'll be on welfare."

Throughout this country there are, I suppose, thousands of these kinds of events drawing perhaps tens of thousands of people who work the rides, games and booths, and millions of unsupervised or lightly supervised children. Our county fair has dozens of rides, more games and perhaps twice as many booths as rides and games combined. I would guess that more than 300 people work the fair, perhaps more than 400. To oversee these people, 5 local government staff employees are assigned, 1 for the rides and 4 for the booths. The county adjoining my county discovered that this fellow was a registered sex offender. My county did not. Other locals happened to discover this fact.

Fair workers tend to be the sort of people who live on the fringe of society. They are not highly educated, well-adjusted individuals who have simply decided they loved fairs so much as children that they wanted to make a career out of the business. They do not work fairs so they can spend long winters with their families getting quality time with the children and overseeing their homework. That being the case, we really need to do more to make sure our children are safe. I could suggest new, tougher laws but I'm not so wet behind the ears to suppose these would actually be enforced. What I am getting to is, we really must watch over our children more. Don't avoid your local summer carnival out of fear but don't sit there getting mildly drunk while your children are out of your sight. Danger lurks in all the dark corners.

"Hey friendly man, what funny pictures you draw."
"The better to lure you in, my dear."

Steve has frequently noted on this log that some of the biggest greenhouse gas emitters are the birds and the bees, the flowers and the trees. In other words, the life we are trying to protect by putting a halt to global warming is precisely the culprit causing it - if we can be so bold as to claim the cause behind global warming is greenhouse gases, a conclusion many feel is premature. In California they are concerned with the gases dairy cows emit. The state has an experiment going on in which a few cows are kept inside a tent, watched by cameras, and the air quality is measured by super sensitive devices. The findings will be used to write and update regulations for dairies.

The scientist in charge of the testing exclaims, "We're not talking about flatulence." This is not fart science. It turns out he is right. Cows eat what they eat, then they throw it up into their mouths and "chew their cud." Very appetizing to imagine but that's what they do. As it turns out, while a cow chews its cud, methane, methanol and ethanol are released. Methane is a greenhouse gas and the other two are key contributors to air pollution.

My guess is any animal which chews its cud (there are several) does essentially the same thing. And those that do not probably release the same chemicals via their poop. The point is we do not really know what is causing the Earth to warm because the Earth is a complex dynamic thing of which we really know very little. We have been here precious few years and "been aware" even fewer. We contemplate reducing the burning of fossil fuels out of fear. We contemplate measuring the emissions of animals out of fear. We do not know in any absolute sense and then take rational actions to reverse an absolute negative. We simply channel most of our efforts out of fear of the unknown, perhaps unknowable.

Equilibrium is a funny thing. Some say it doesn't even really exist - everything is in a continual state of flux and when that flux is moderated, we call that equilibrium. The Earth is about as complex a thing as humans have ever studied to any significant degree. Yet we still do not understand much about it. We are considering messing around with its equilibrium and possibly bumping it into a less moderate "range of equilibrium" because we are afraid that one day we will all die. One day we will all die, just not all at once. We cannot act out of a fear of the unknown, out of a fear of death. We must act out of knowledge which, if not absolute, is at least close to being firm.

If you'd like to read the AP article which discusses the "cow experiment," please clock here. This link was valid as of this writing and will be removed once it goes dead.

A group called Take Back The Memorial which is protesting the building of any monument on the WTC site which does not simply honor those who died in the attacks has started a petition online. They are seeking to gather 1 million signatures by September 11, 2005. The group is afraid that the memorial at the site will 1) honor anyone other than those who perished here and 2) attempt to explain why the evil doers did what they did. I have heard many discussions on the topic and am concerned that some of those involved in the planning of the memorial have less than honorable intentions. I have heard references to the inclusion of materials discussing the "plight of Muslims" or references to native Americans or Jews killed in the Holocaust.

I may be a simpleton but, to me, this thing just be exclusively about those who were victims on that day in that place. There is nothing to add. There is no solid reason to include any sort of "freedom center" where anything which does not explicitly memorialize the victims. We do not include discussions regarding French colonization of Vietnam at Vietnam memorials. We do not include discussions of organic nationalism at WWII memorials. Tombstones typically include only a brief epitaph - never do they include lengthy discussions about the bacteria, diseases, or type of accident which killed this person and how those circumstances might be averted by future generations.

The group's position is quite simple and best explained by the words of the petition itself which follow:

"To Governor George Pataki, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation:

We, the undersigned, believe that the World Trade Center Memorial should stand as a solemn remembrance of those who died on September 11th, 2001, and not as a journey of history's "failures" or as a debate about domestic and foreign policy in the post-9/11 world. Political discussions have no place at the World Trade Center September 11th memorial, and the International Freedom Center honors no one by making excuses for the perpetrators of this heinous crime. The memorial should be about what happened that day, about the brave heroes who risked their lives so selflessly, and about the innocent lives that were lost... nothing more."

The petition can be found here. Please take a moment and if you agree with these folks' purpose, please sign it.

In my opinion the term "profane" means to do anything in a thoughtless, careless way. As human beings, we must always think before we act. There must be purpose in everything we do. We are still in the thinking stages of the act of crafting an appropriate memorial to September 11, 2001. Let's not act in a manner which is profane or accomplishes anything other than our purpose of honoring the victims.

I have said before that when I was in school my teachers told me that we would be out of oil by now. They were wrong but it is a fairly simple exercise to conclude that some day we will in fact be out of oil. I suppose one day we will also be out of coal. These are not infinite resources unless we are able to find a planet where life once existed or which otherwise has some substance from which we can get energy. But even then, one wonders if that would be any sort of solution since it would be hugely expensive to bring that energy here. So there has to be an answer somewhere in front of us. It has to be right on this planet. But where is it?

Some argue for using "renewable" sources such as fuel made from agricultural products. These fuels would be manufactured from plants grown. They would be "green fuels." The proponents of this method say things like, "Look at Brazil, they already power something like 60% of their motor vehicles via fuels derived from agricultural products." Isn't this the very same Brazil who draws the ire of green enthusiasts throughout the world because they cut down their rainforests for agricultural expansion?

Others argue for more research and investment in solar power. This area has been around for a long time and some folks have been working at it for their whole lives. Sure, someday some breakthrough will happen and then we'll get 1% of our planet's needs. Until then, it is not realistic to expect that sunlight will cure our ills.

Another common cry is "wind power" in the form of both small and huge windmills which convert the movement of air into electricity. That sounds wonderful until you have a 600 foot tower in your yard, town, or county, or you are faced with these as you sit on your beach vacation. But brushing aside inconvenience or lack of beauty since there is nothing quite as inconvenient as a power outage in July or as ugly as the prospect of not being able to heat your shower in January, just how feasible is wind power? It is a very small percentage of total energy produced today but it seems reasonable that all the places where the wind really blows hard could power us. But the one thing I never hear in this discussion is, where does this energy come from.

Energy from wind obviously comes from wind. The wind comes from the rotation of the Earth, sunlight, and differences in temperature between land masses and water. The wind is pretty much as old as time. But energy harvesting is not a zero sum game. If we really built enough windmills of all sorts to actually harvest all the planet's energy needs, one wonders what the world would look like. I imagine there would be windmills everywhere. And I know from my brief experiences sailing on boats, one windmill is likely to block (or really absorb) the wind that is available to the next one down the line. And if we are harvesting huge amounts of energy from the wind, what impact does this have on the wind in general. Obviously the world is a big place and maybe I'm being a little off base here. But we are told by green advocates and others that the world's atmosphere is not sufficiently large to absorb all the carbon we have been spewing there. We are also told that the ocean are not big enough to withstand our large-scale fishing operations or the effluent from our cities. How can it be that our fragile, small atmosphere can withstand the removal of huge amounts of energy, yet remain the same. It just doesn't compute.

So what are we left with? Just to stay green for a little while, the obvious choices are harvesting the power contained in lightning, hurricanes and the like, or one of the old favorites, geothermal power. I've never heard anything about harvesting lightning, or other "bad" weather phenomenon. I think that's because it is too difficult. Lightning is actually hotter than the surface of the sun. Hurricanes are hugely powerful weather systems that just don't go where we want them to. But all of that aside, there has never been any sort of assessment of what things these phenomenon do to the planet as a whole. If we were able to harness lightning, is that a good thing? Hurricanes are supposed to act as the world's cooling system transferring excess heat built up to other places. Interrupting their natural occurrence couldn;t be a good thing. So that leaves geothermal power.

Geothermal power is caused by the heat created at the Earth's hot liquid core. We see all sorts of geothermal energy released when volcanoes spout their stuff. But again, we seem to be stuck with the problem of this power being far too hot to reasonably harness it. And what are we going to do, drill a new volcano in order to harvest the power in a large-scale operation? I don't think so.

I could conclude this discussion with comments about the wonders of nuclear energy. But the other day I read someplace that if we were to use nuclear fission exclusively, there is only enough fuel for about 50 years so that one is out the door. That really only leaves fusion which is really in its infancy. Unlike Steve, on this blog, I do not suppose that the world's energy problems can be solved exclusively via private means. I think that if fusion were to be successfully researched, it would have to be with large-scale governmental funding. So I leave you with my biggest question, why are we spending money for stop-gap technologies which simply cannot cure our ills? Why are we not channeling money into something more promising?

What do these people have in common:

1. A journalist for a big newspaper in New York City
   
2. A school teacher in suburban Georgia
   
3. A single, unemployed, high school dropout 24 year old mother of 4
   
4. A senior grandmother of 12, receiving her AARP materials at her home in Tennessee
   
5. A UPS driver in Arizona
   
6. An IRS agent stationed in Washington state
   
7. A white male, old money Harvard professor of sociology
   

What these folks all have in common is they will most likely vote, if they are registered, for Democratic candidates. Their politics are almost exclusively described as liberal. Aside from that they have little in common with each other that they don't also have in common with every one else in the United States.

Similarly the demographics of the membership of the AFL-CIO share less in common with each other than they do with other people who may not be union members. Yet they are banded together because they are union members. But this organization does not simply restrict its actions to things which benefit workers. Instead it takes unrelated political positions and distributes propaganda. Some of their work is directed at protecting employment related "rights" or to further political ends in favor of labor. But more than half the efforts taken by this country's labor unions is pure liberal doctrine without regard to whether that doctrine is in furtherance of labor's desired ends. This week we are seeing the fracture of the union of unions. You've undoubtedly seen news reports informing you that several unions have quit the AFL-CIO. The reasons given have mostly to do with the affiliation's inability to accomplish anything benefiting these unions' memberships.

I could go on for a while here about how the union affiliation break up is going to have dire consequences for the Democratic party but I'm not so foolish as to believe that somehow all the teamsters or service workers will now somehow vote Republican. But I wonder about the issues these labor organizations as well as other groups like the AARP have pushed forward over the past many years.

Why should a grandmother in Tennessee be concerned with abortion on demand or whether schools teach abstinence vs. use of contraceptives? Why does the teacher in Georgia care about CAFTA? Why would the UPS driver be deeply concerned about universal socialized medicine? What does the IRS agent care if auto makers are moving jobs offshore? Does the journalist really care about the War in Iraq any more than anyone else? Does the dropout child-mom stay up at night worrying that seniors will have their social security benefits cut? Does the Harvard professor worry that women's rights may be eroded because there is a conservative movement going on?

The answers to all of these questions are that these people do not care about 90% of their chosen political party's positions. They may care a little about some of them but they don't care any more than anyone else regardless of political affiliation. Yet the unions and other organizations have become proponents of these same irrelevant issues. Sometimes their attention takes their collective eyes off their very reason for being. When that happens, these organizations begin to fall apart.

People will join any organization which advocates something very important to them. They like being affiliated with an organization which demonstrates an ability to accomplish good things that which are relevant to their daily lives. But when that organization extends to irrelevant things, those same people begin to lose interest. When the organization completely loses sight of the reason its members joined, membership will drop. And when the membership contributes its own hard earned cash which is then mostly used for things totally irrelevant, mass exodus is sure to ensue. That is what we are seeing with the splintering of the AFL-CIO.

Jane Fonda is beginning a bus tour of the U.S. to protest the "War in Iraq." She says "I have not taken a stand on any war since Vietnam. I carry a lot of baggage from that."

Which wars was she opposed to which she feels she should have protested? Was it the pre-dawn vertical insertion? The brief invasion of Panama in which we took out Noriega? Really which ones does she feel guilt about not protesting? There haven't been many operations for the U.S. military since Vietnam and the ones she missed were pretty much too brief to "protest." Should she have come out against U.S. partcipation in Kosovo? That would entail protesting against the UN's weak efforts to stop a genocide. That would have involved protesting against the administration of a Democrat. She would never have done that. She's a staunch Dem.

Now she wants to protest the "War in Iraq?" Its too late, Janey. There isn't a "war" going on there. We're involved in some pretty crappy stuff but it cannot be described as a war. And pulling out now would be immoral.

So please tell me, what the hell is Jane Fonda talking about? And who the hell cares?

Yup, that's exactly what it is. Assembly Bill 4306, sponsored by two Democrats, quite frankly says:

1. a. Smoking by an operator of a moving motor vehicle on a public road or highway shall be unlawful. For the purposes of this act, "smoking" means the burning of a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or any other matter or substance which contains tobacco.

Fines will range between $100.00 and $250.00 if caught.

Ok, we all know this is a trampling of our freedom to live our lives as we want. But let's take a look at some comparisons:

1. The American Automobile Association (Triple A), did a study that showed that adjusting a car radio or CD-player accounted for 11.4% of accidents, while smoking only accounted for 0.9%.

2. Democrats see no problem trampling on the rights of people to smoke cigarettes, but complain that enforcing our immigration laws is a trampling of human rights. Which is worse, stopping the flow of terrorists, or reducing the number of smoking-related car accidents?

3. Democrats complain that American farmers and workers are unable to provide their families with the basic necessities because Republicans are sending jobs overseas. So who will be hit hardest by this new law, the smokers, or the tobacco farmers and cigarette workers?

Democrats love legislation that targets smokers, because it hurts the tobacco companies. Democrats love to hurt the tobacco companies, because they like the idea of the "little guy going after the big guy". It's about those frivolous lawsuits filed by cancer-stricken smokers trying to blame the cigarette makers for their habit. This law simply bolsters the notion that "Democrats are looking out for you".

Since the data shows that more than 10 times the number of car accidents are caused by people fussing with their car-audio systems, then why don't Democrats seek to make car-radios illegal? It's because Democrats have enjoyed a long relationship with the entertainment industry.

You see, it really is about politics.

PETA Kills Animals is a fairly new website debunking the myths behind People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies, and consumers, which owns the website, claims that more than one million people have visited it since they erected a billboard in Times Square three months ago.

PETA's mission, of course, is to stop people from eating meat, and to stop people from adopting animals as pets. PETA believes that animals are better off dead, than having to live of life of "exploitation" as a family pet, working animal, or entertainment animal.

This is why PETA makes a practice of euthanizing animals they acquire.

Last June, local law enforcement officers in Bertie County, North Carolina arrested two PETA employees caught euthanizing perfectly healthy and adoptable puppies in the back of a van, and dumping their bodies into a grocery store dumpster. These employees now face criminal charges.

The Center for Consumer Freedom, through their "PETA Kills Animals" website, points out that PETA has killed more than 12,400 dogs, cats and other animals between 1998 and 2004, and states that they killed nearly 80 percent of the animals they took in.

Meanwhile, PETA tells the public that they are out to protect animals, and they are fighting for animals rights. Moreover, they use this platform as the basis to collect donations from the public. Yet in reality, they are actually killing perfectly healthy, adoptable animals, simply because they don't want to see them living as pets.

There are some guys out there who have a little problem. It seems they may have made a deal they don't want to honor. Well, they want to honor all their deals but the one about filibusters kind of went a little too far. So they're looking for a way out. The only one which allows them to save face is the one about extraordinary circumstances.

Maybe I'm reaching here. Maybe these guys are not looking to get out of their bargain. Maybe it is their "friends" who want to provide the information which will allow them to filibuster. They need to find those extraordinary circumstances so they are looking under every rock.

I expect they'll find "something" sometime soon. I'm not sure what it will be. Maybe Judge Roberts illegally weighted his balsa wood race car when he was a cub scout. Maybe he wrote a love letter to a girl which his secnd grade teacher intercepted. Maybe he was nasty to somebody on the street once. I don't know what it will be but they will most likely find something.

I just wonder if what they'll eventually find will really matter as far as judging the man's ability to sit on the highest court goes. I rather expect not. And if that special something is not the sort of thing which gives you and me pause, just think of the time and effort which has gone into this wild goose chase. Don't these folks have better things to do with their time?

US Senator from New Jersey, Limousine Liberal Poster Child, and candidate for Governor of New Jersey, Jon Corzine is attracting some attention from bloggers. Here is a really good one known as Enlighten New Jersey which is closely scrutinizing Corzine's record as well as examining his words on the political trail. We cannot keep track of every politician but I'm glad this one is keeping tabs on the man who bought his Senate seat in one of the most egregiously unfair political stunts I have ever seen. The guy is an absolute jerk but most of New Jersey's poor, inner city minorities vote Democrat without so much as reading the name of the candidates. They never realize that a major reason they are poor and living in the inner city has much to do with the fact that the very Democrats they are voting for work very hard to keep them that way. I doubt this will ever change but having even an ounce of hope is better than having none at all. Maybe some day New Jerseyans will wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe some day New Jerseyans will stop voting to keep their stable of corrupt, patronage job supported, do nothing Democratic elected officials.

Howard Dean claims that Republicans incorrectly paint Democrats as the pro-abortion party. Dean thinks the party needs to reach out to anti-abortionists. So what I want to know is if he will keep saying this in public. If we can say that the Democratic party is not pro-abortion, what have they got left as an issue? Gay marriage?

Before we plunge into the pool and begin to judge the record of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. in order to determine if he is fit for the Supreme Court, it is enlightening to engage in an analysis of the psychological make-up of lawyers and other people. I have known, been friends with, and worked with and against many lawyers in my lifetime. While most of us like a good contest whether that takes the form of a sporting event or a heated argument over some arcane philosophical point, lawyers live to argue. In fact, most lawyers prefer disagreement to agreement. They live for the opportunity to stretch their intellects and make an argument, sometimes bordering on sophistry. I dare say that if every legal question were easily resolved, most lawyers would find something else more challenging to do.

Early in their educational careers lawyers discover this love of argument and thereafter they discover law. Lawyers frequently claim to "love the law" but I think it is more a love of the intellectual act of examining law and gaining an understanding of where the grey areas lie. Law is intriguing but constitutional law is all-engrossing. There is a purity to constitutional law that cannot be found in other areas. Because it is at the same time so simple and yet complex, one can easily be drawn into a life of complete dedication to the examination of it. But like anything else in this life, there is room for precious few constitutional scholars. The few who are able to successfully compete well enough to stake a claim to this territory are intellects of the highest order. Of these a few get to actually clerk for a Supreme Court Justice. John G. Roberts, Jr. is one of these few.

I don't claim to know everything about Judge Roberts' core beliefs or much about him in general. Over the next weeks, we will undoubtedly hear much about opinions he has written and positions he has taken. I have to assume he is a conservative though many have said he is not a strict originalist. He actually eschews simple labels saying once, "I don't necessarily think that it's the best approach to have an all-encompassing philosophy."

We'll hear that he wrote arguments for or against this and that but we have to remember that when he made arguments, he was employed by someone whose philosophical position he represented. His arguments do not necessarily represent his core beliefs. The decisions he made from the bench are perhaps more relevant to understanding his core beliefs but something happens when a judge is elevated to the highest position of his chosen profession. They often find slightly different philosophical foundations are at the core of their belief system. People may not change a whole lot during a lifetime but constitutional lawyers are, above all else, open to intellectual growth. You just cannot pin down a future Supreme Court Justice by his past.

It is easy to fall into the trap in which we believe whoever is nominated by a politician falls easily into this category or that. The media likes to create the image that this guy is for abortion and this guy is against it. Similarly politicians on the right and left further this simple concept via their public comments. The truth is a judge nominated by the right will usually feed the ire of the left and vice versa. This is not always true but whenever there are fundamental differences in party philosophy, they become more evident in confirmation hearings like this. With much of the media still on one side or the other, we are likely to hear only one side of the story if we watch only CBS news or read the New York Times. These folks have an axe to grind and grind they shall. We'll need to examine as many sources as possible before we can get at anything like the truth.

The sources we choose cannot consist of several different liberal media outlets. We will need to compare what CBS or the Times is saying with what Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, etc., etc. are saying. It sounds like a lot of work but it is necessary before we can actually be educated on the issue.

We are the ultimate electors. We decide who shall be in the offices who make the decisions about who should sit on the highest court and who should not. We have a moral duty to watch this confirmation process and judge Judge Roberts for ourselves. Then if we have strong feelings one way or the other, we are also duty-bound to let our elected representatives know our feelings on the matter. We cannot afford the luxury of simply allowing the Democrat or Republican from our home state do whatever the party tells him or her, he or she should do. Our elected representatives must be our proxy. And if we do not tell them what we think, how will they know?

To what extent are you willing to hand over to one or two people you have never met the power to determine so much about your country? Don't be afraid. You are smart enough to judge a Judge. And once you judge him, let your representative know.

New York State Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer, has made a career of apparently standing up for the little guy and prosecuting white collar criminals. He has been at times the most feared law enforcement guy around, making mutual fund and insurance cheats quake in their boots. He has been portrayed by the media as a man of integrity. He has already been coronated as the next likely governor by liberal journalists all over New York. Now comes a report that Eliot may have pocketed $25K in return for leniency from one of these corporate crooks. Maybe Eliot is not quite that packed full of integrity. My guess is this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

New York City police are set to begin searching bags randomly in the city's subway system. Mayor Michael Bloomberg was quick to point out that officers will not engage in racial profiling. Bags will be selected at random and anyone who does not wish to submit to a search will be allowed to "turn around and leave" rather than submit.

Here's a hint for Bloomberg and the NYC police force: If you come across a swarthy, Asian looking male aged 20 - 45 looks nervous as he clutches his cheap but new backpack and decides not to submit to a search, then quickly turns around and leaves in a hurry, there is a chance he might be the one you're looking for. I would want to talk to him before taking care of the other business - the white, dressed like an administrative assistant, 55 year old white or black woman with the thick New Yawk accent who hands over her expensive case with a smile!

Honestly, how is this policy supposed to work? Why even bother searching any bags at all? If you had a policy like this, why would you want anyone to know about it, least of all the bad guys?

Put yourself in the place of a bomber getting ready to explode some device in the subways. If you read the reports regarding NYC's plan, after you got control of yourself and stopped laughing, you would come to the conclusion that things just got easier. Prior to this, you might have wondered if you could pull off such an attack. What would you do if a police officer unexpectedly approached you. Maybe he would search your bag. NYC police are fairly intimidating. You might crack under the pressure. Now you know you have nothing to fear.

Reuters reports a group of teachers in the UK wants to remove the word "fail" from use in British classrooms. One term which has been suggested as a replacement is "deferred success." Now that's a hoot!

This story reminded me of one sadistic but very fair college professor I once had. My professor had the wisdom to recognize that "in real life people do often fail." He told us, most of us, if not all, would experience failure at some time in our lives. We should recognize that failure is the norm. It doesn't make much difference how often we fail or how badly but how we deal with each failure that will determine our relative success. He suggested that he should hand out failing grades to most of us since most of us had not achieved mastery over the subject matter. He was right. Then again, he was known as an easy grader so must of us did not take what he said to heart.

Over the past several months I have seen several stories about how a kid's baseball team in Ohio was removed from its league because it had become too good. No other team could beat them. So naturally the league's solution was to disband that team. I have also seen other stories, particularly in the educational setting, which have discussed ways in which children should avoid being told they had done something less than wonderful. This plays into the mindset which thinks kids become failures solely because they need greater confidence. I fall into the category of those who think this is utter nonsense.

We live in a society that is a little games-crazy. Children and adults love to play games of all sorts. TV is filled not only with the usual deluge of baseball, football, basketball, etc., but also with "reality" TV shows which consist of games of every imaginable type. There are games to find a spouse, win ballroom dancing competitions, eat the most disgusting thing, etc. We love games of all kinds. We love games period.

The one simple fact of games is that in every one there is always a winner and a loser. The more competitors there are, the more losers there are while the number of true winners remains one. Not only that, when we get reasonably good at a particular game, we seek out better and better competition. Playing games against those who are not up to our skill level is extremely boring. We crave the challenge of trying to beat the unbeatable competitor. We are willing to torture ourselves in order to get the shot at beating a great player. We seek out situations in which losing is almost guaranteed in order to better ourselves. We build our entire lives around this reality. We push our kids into difficult sports and other kinds of competitions not because we realistically think they have a chance to be the ultimate victor but because we want them to view competition the way we view it, as good clean fun. We recognize that when our children "lose," they really win because they earn to persevere, to improve, to strive for higher goals.

So what's up with the folks who would like to remove the term "failure" not just from our schools but really from our children's lives? What is it they think they are accomplishing? The reality is that they are not in any way preventing real failure. Kids and adults alike know when they have not achieved success. These people are actually preventing success by "deferring failure" or the recognition of it until a point at which the losers can not learn from their mistakes.

Here's a new conservative blog called Nixon's Ghost which is a lot like this blog. It is just starting but it includes political commentary as well as some general interest stuff. Take a look. I think you will enjoy this gentleman's observations about Madonna as well as his astute observations about President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court and the confirmation process.

At the gate it's "Don't Acknowledge Defeat" "Irrelevant Argument" "Misdirection" and "Lets Make A Deal" followed by "Strict Constructionist" "Abolish Abortion" then "Stalling Lib"

Around the first turn it's "Strict Constructionist" "Abolish Abortion" and "Stalling Lib" but "Swimming Senator" is making his presence known

Now moving up through the pack is "Make A Choice Soon"   He's neck and neck with "Lets Have A Moderate"   "Stalling Lib" is still threatening

Through the back stretch it's "I Will Nominate"   and "Make A Choice Soon" but here comes "Lets Have A Moderate" she's not going away

Now it's "I Will Nominate" and "Lets Have A Moderate"   "Abolish Abortion" is dropping back

Now here comes "Somewhat Conservative Judge"

"I Will Nominate" and "Abolish Abortion" seem finished

At the final turn it's "Somewhat Conservative Judge" but here comes "Stalling Lib" and "Lets Have A Moderate"   They're neck and neck

At the wire it's too close to call with "Somewhat Conservative Judge" "Stalling Lib" "Lets Have A Moderate" and, out of nowhere, "Hidden Agendas"

Folks, this race is too close to call. Hold onto your tickets awaiting final results.

So what can we conclude about Aruba all these weeks since Natalee Holloway disappeared? For one thing, if you let your kids go there after high school or college graduation, or for spring break, you are out of your bleeping mind. If you permit your kid to go there without you at this point, you just aren't thinking.

It is patently obvious that there are boys there just waiting to try out their date rape drugs on your daughters. These boys hang around the clubs just looking for something, someone on which to sew their oats. Natalee was not into drinking or drugging. That has been made clear by all who knew her. Maybe she had a beer that night. And quite possibly somebody put something into it. How else can we view the reports that she was falling down drunk before her disappearance? What is there about a last night in Aruba after probably several graduation parties and several other nights in Aruba that would make a kid drink all of a sudden? Nothing.

Next, it is also patently obvious that the local authorities can do virtually nothing to protect your child. Investigators blew this right from the get-go. They allowed crucial time for the perpetrators, whoever they are, to destroy any evidence. And anything missed in the crime coverup was destroyed by the elements. Heck, they couldn't even manage to do a decent search for the girl if she had been alive in the days following her disappearance. I would assume at least that would be done. I would be absolutely furious to learn they hadn't. They didn't do a reasonably diligent job of this and that is the bare minimum.

It is less obvious but somewhat apparent that the Dutch authorities there do what they can to protect their own. They had these boys immediately and believed they had the right people. But they let them go to cover up whatever evidence remained. What other conclusion can be drawn from the events as they actually transpired? They just had to be protecting their own. That is hardly the Utopian beach paradise thing to do. They get to live their thanks mostly to our dollars. They have a duty to protect us when we are there. They have a duty to search for us when we are missing. It's a small place. We send a lot of dollars there. They owe us to expend those dollars for our safety because we pay them.

The two items from this that are most obvious and indisputable, without American dollars there, the place becomes just a poor island; and there are many other beaches your children and you can visit for some fun in the sun at that time of year. Don't plan you vacation in Aruba. Go someplace else.

Labels: Natalee Holloway

You've heard of the Ghandi defense? That's the technique where you allow the other guy to whack you in the head over and over again in the hopes that he may become either physically or mentally exhausted from beating you. Now we have the new technique of the "porky pig defense." That is where politicians take the dollars that are meant to protect you and use them to feed their need for dollars for their constituents.

We've said it before and we'll undoubtedly have to say it again, pork barrel politics must stop at the homeland security border Today in the Asbury Park Press there is an article discussing how New Jersey elected officials are taking pork back to their districts. The current Washington administration is Republican but after the dollars are divided up by state, the officials of a given state have a lot to say about where those dollars go. In New Jersey where much of the state is Democratic but where there are pockets of conservatives, the Democrats are making sure those homeland defense dollars are finding their way into their Democratic strongholds.

Some Republicans are now asking the federal government to come and take a look at the process. I hope they do as these dollars will ultimately be a major factor in deciding where the next attack takes place. Any politician who looks at homeland defense dollars and sees pork chops, ought to be exposed as such. Actually, my personal opinion is that if an official is found to be taking these dollars for politically motivated reasons, I think we ought to hold an old fashioned tar and feathering. Then we can literally ride them out of town on a rail.

How big of a problem are we talking about? One newspaper report claims that 93 percent of the state's first-responder grants were given to Democratic districts. The Asbury Park Press article claims "Democratic districts received $21.3 million of the money distributed through the state since 2002, while Republican areas got just $1.6 million. This year, lawmakers from each party requested about the same amount of Homeland Security funding for their districts, and Democrats received more than $7.8 million while Republicans netted $523,454." This is a very serious problem indeed.

USAToday openly dares to ask the question Can Hillary be elected commander in chief? Its answer? Certainly. The article paints her record on defense as short but firmly pro-military. It supposes that she would make a good, strong commander for the military. Come off it!

The Democrats certainly realize that one of John Kerry's main problems during the past election was that he was perceived as too weak of a man to lead our nation's defense forces. There was the little issue of his Vietnam protests but even without that, Americans are suspicious of anyone who appears to waffle in reaction to poll figures. Kerry unquestionably was a waffler.

I know I personally feared having a guy who spent too much time with polls. The Democrats probably realize that and will work hard to have any potential presidential candidates not seem too bendable. The Democratic party, of course, includes the so-called mainstream media, one of which with openly liberal viewpoints is undeniably USAToday. USAToday has an agenda. Apparently right now it is to paint Hillary as militarily hawkish.

Many suppose that Hillary's experience which most qualifies her to lead this country was as a close advisor to her husband. If we are going to imagine her as commander, it is fair to assess how the Clinton administration handled international and military issues. What she says in public is largely irrelevant from this point forward. We easily picture her running for president so it is no far reach to picture that everything she has said since the last election is aimed towards that goal. In short, we cannot trust her words. We must look at other things to determine if she will be a capable leader of this nation's military. We must examine what her advisors will look like and what stances she is likely to take if she were in the office. Senate records don't begin to answer those questions.

To me, the major difference between Vietnam and Iraq has to do with what I feel is the measuring stick of when the US should and should not go to war. It is not sufficient basis to go to war when a sovereign country is kidnapped by an ideology adverse to US interests. Obviously World War II Germany, Japan, and Italy were kidnapped by such ideologies. But similarly Cuba and many other countries have ideologies overtly adverse to this country's interests. Yet we do not call for an invasion of Cuba. There are other impediments to such a war but ideology alone is not enough. In Korea and Vietnam, we went to war, although not directly, with the Soviets and Chinese. But these conflicts were far more complex and somehow managed not to cross the line into direct threats against our country.

Further, it is insufficient for an ideologically kidnapped country to be overtly militaristic. We may have been at war, though not overtly, with the Soviet Union for many years but neither their ideology nor their overt militarism were sufficient to cause us to enter a shooting war. Similarly, China has a system which was for many years at odds with capitalism and democracy, and it was overtly militaristic. Obviously a war with China would have been disastrous for the US and the world at large but nothing would have caused one short of specifically hostile actions. The place where the line is crossed occurs where an ideologically kidnapped country which is overtly militaristic engages in hostile actions, either covert or overt, directly against this country or its military. In Afghanistan we acted because the hostile actions were aimed squarely at US civilians. But, in my opinion, we should have acted even if they were exclusively aimed at our military.

Under Clinton, we read for several years in the New York Times about a kidnapped country called Afghanistan. That country was kidnapped by the Taliban who were ideologically allied with Al Qaeda to such an extent that it was difficult to tell one from the other. Afghanistan was quite obviously a playground for Al Qaeda. There is no question that our military and intelligence services knew quite well that Al Qaeda was training there in numerous para-military bases. Al Qaeda covertly engaged in hostile actions against our interests and even against our military during the Clinton years. Yet our response was limited to what might be called international terrorism in the sense that all we did was, somewhat clandestinely, fire off bombs inside a sovereign nation in order to assassinate our enemy's leader. Clinton took the bold step of pulling up a ship or two within firing distance and firing missiles into the darkness. He was not willing to put American lives at risk in order to fight this menace. And this he did against an ideologically kidnapped sovereign nation who covertly acted directly against our military. The response was insufficient.

Hillary's cabinet and advisors are likely to look quite a bit like her husband's. I dare say they might look exactly like his except to the extent that a few may have died, retired or changed allegiances like Dick Morris did. It is highly unlikely these folks will have changed their temperaments or become more bold on defense even in light of the September 11 attacks. Remember, most people will make identical decisions when faced with similar circumstances. You don't really get to go back and remake your decision process in this life. If you made a decision in one set of facts, you are likely to think similarly in a different, analogous fact pattern. Direct attacks, covert or overt, are likely to draw similar responses as they did under Bill. If this is what you view as the correct course, then please by all means vote for Hillary should she run.

If you think that perhaps Bill Clinton's reaction to, for example, the USS Cole was as much a cause of the September 11 attacks as anything else, please do not read any articles which suggest that Hillary would make a fine leader of the military. Instead focus on what happened under her husband's leadership. She had as much to do with that as anyone. And those who were at her husband's side when he decided to fire missiles at the desert are likely to be her closest advisors the next time we are faced with such a crisis.

I've been reading daily reports of his race results, in this quest for a seventh-straight Tour de France win. Not only am I in awe of his physical capabilities and mental focus, but in his demeanor too.

First, this is a guy who battled back from cancer. I'm not sure that point has been stressed enough.

Second, Armstrong doesn't use his celebrity or his sport as a stage for political commentary. I'm not even totally sure what his opinions are, and who cares anyways?

Third, this is a guy who still gets booed by the French when he makes his appearances on the Tour. Even during races, he gets spat upon, has beverages dumped at him, and foul language shouted at him, and he just stays on course and blasts through to take the event the French hold so dearly.

And does he publicly shout back at those who abuse him? No, he just tries to make friends with them. "I can't say enough good things about it (France). I genuinely love this country, the culture, the history. I don't know what else I can do.", as he was quoted in a recent article. "Of course, four or five people a day seem to know it all and have a lot of nasty things to say. But ultimately, I think we have a fine relationship."

Of course all Americans have opinions, but there aren't many with the same level of class as Lance Armstrong. I don't care what his opinions are, America needs more guys like Lance.

There is a bill in Congress which would grant "native" Hawaiians federal recognition as an indigenous people. There is some dispute over whether "native Hawaiians or Hawaiians at large are in favor or opposed to it. One poll indicates that Hawaiians in general are opposed to it but this poll's validity has been questioned. Some "native" Hawaiians claim the bill "debases our sovereign heritage and our right to self-determination." Some plan to testify before Congress in opposition to the bill. I don't actually have an opinion on the issue per se but I wonder where we draw the line on indigenous people and how we define the term.

One definition of indigenous I found defined the term as "Originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment." According to Webster's NewWorld Dictionary, indigenous means "existing, growing, or produced naturally in a country; belonging to, as a native." Native is defined by Webster's as "belonging to a locality or country by birth."

It is fairly clear that Hawaii was "invaded" by the U.S. over 100 years ago. "Native" Hawaiians are more readily indentifiable than many "native" Americans due to the amount of time during which "indigenous" tribes and others have mixed. But it is also fairly clear that at some point in the past there were no "indigenous" peoples on the Earth because there were no people. Whether you ascribe to the notion that humans came forth from the Garden of Eden or simply stepped out of the swamp, leaving their gills and single celled cousins behind, at some point all people moved to where they now claim home.

So how do we define "indigenous" in practice? Can European-Americans look forward to the day one thousand years from now when, assuming they can prove their genealogy, they will be able to claim lands their ancestors gave up under a variety of circustances? At what point will I, or my descendants, be able to claim this status?

In a totally unrelated matter, how long will it be before we will be able to gamble during our Hawaiian vacations?

The International Union for the Scientific Study of Population is set to tell the world this week that by 2050 there will be 9 billion humans on the planet. "We must think about how we share the world's resources to be able to satisfy the demands of the three billion extra people ... This growth is going to occur particularly in the countries of Asia and Africa which need to be supported and to develop much more than they have during the 20th century," says the president of the union's conference organizing committee. "Even though (world population growth) is slowing, it remains strong, and rapid urbanisation, particularly in developing countries, can only increase the pressure on the environment and very likely increase existing inequalities in consumption and well-being" the IUSSP said in a statement.

Why do these people not see the irony in their statements?

Most population growth is occurring in places where there is not enough food to feed the existing population. Africa, as we have heard all to often lately, needs as much aid as the world can give it. According to Nationmaster, about 60% of the world's population already lives in Asia. The rest of the world is supposed to spend significant energy and resources to try and figure out how we can more equitably share the world's resources.

The logical extension of this bizarre concept is whichever country has the highest population growth should receive the greatest amount of aid. Those countries who do not experience such growth should tell their citizens that they will have to do with less because other countries are growing more quickly. This is like rewarding a welfare mom for having more and more children while increasing taxes on those who decide not to have more children.

Natural law tells us that when any population has extra food, it will experience growth. When populations have less food, birth rates drop. This principle is as true for humans as it is for single cell creatures, other mammals, reptiles, etc. The only real exception is human populations in societies such as Europe and the U.S. where we are far too intelligent, educated and liberated to be fruitful and multiply, or countries such as China who mandate one baby per couple as part of their communist ideology. The rest of the world generally grows in accordance with its available food supply. If a country is experiencing growth, presumably its food supply is sufficient. By handing a greater and greater percentage of the world's food supply to countries which experience growth, we are setting the stage for eventual mass starvation.

These countries and continents with the largest growth rates yet not enough food are essentially working towards the day when they will starve the rest of us. If the world is supposed to divvy out food and other resources based upon population, is not growth a form of gluttony?

Finally the manner in which the world parcels out its food supply is essentially the foundation of what we think about when we speak of economics. Economics is the way individuals, societies, and even the entire world determines how it will divide up and use scarce resources. Economic systems have been studied for as long as human beings have been aware of the concept. Various systems have been experimented with including capitalism and socialism. History tells us that while centralized planning sounds great, it simply does not work. Capitalism, while certainly not perfect, seems to be the most equitable resource distribution system. Not only that, centralized planning has historically always resulted in decreased production, less efficient use of resources, and destruction of the environment. Capitalism's record is far better, though not perfect. Yet when these scientists speak of ways to distribute scarce resources, they inevitably are advocates for centralized planning. When will they learn their lesson?

It has become increasingly clear to Democrats that the American public is not behind their mish-mash platform advocating gay marriage and adoption, as well as abortion "rights;" allowing convicted felons to vote; promoting affirmative action in all walks of life; protecting the "constitutional" and "Geneva convention" rights of those whose sole mission in life is to kill western civilians and topple their economic and political systems; and defeat conservatives at all costs because they are opposed to the things created when we thought a "great society" was possible even those things have proven to accomplish nothing. For this reason Democrats have a new mantra, "let's go after the 'sensible moderates'" They recognize that most Americans are not ideologues. Most Americans do not spend their daily lives voicing their opinions about "the issues." Most Americans are pragmatists. They like what works. They have little patience for those on the far side of anything whether it be politics, artistic sensibilities or even personal hygiene. The Democrats now are beginning to realize they have lost the war using conventional ideological tactics so now they are going after fighting via psychological means.

The Democrats have the greater number of conventional forces, journalists. Today all over the country there are op/eds and apparent "news" articles espousing all sorts of opinions regarding the next nominee for the Supreme Court. This is the next battle ground in the quiet civil war which has been waging for more than a decade in this country. Today in the New York Times, for example, there is an op/ed entitled The Right Kind of Justice" makes specific reference to the "nation's sensible center."

In waging this psychological war, the left is using language to describe their side such as:

• well-established legal doctrines
  
• basic rights that Americans have come to cherish
  
• consensus candidate, pragmatist
  
• justices who are independent
  
• robust reading of the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution
  
• guardians of the nation's liberties
  

and to describe conservative views:

• radical ideologue
  
• extremist
  
• obliterate the constitutional rights
  
• ideological tool to take the country backward
  
• tie Congress's hands
  

But let's be clear about a few things, the left is just as interested in promoting judges who adhere to their political agenda as they are to see justices who do not, defeated. They are not interested in moderates per se. They are merely interested in anyone who is not on the other guy's team. If they cannot get their own, they want to make sure the other guy can't get his. If the political shoe were on the other foot, I expect we'd see the same kind of action taken by Republicans and conservatives. It is a natural defensive move. It is a move borne out of the inability to take to the offensive.

As you make your way through your Sunday papers this day, keep your eyes open for this sort of battle tactic. If you get several papers, you will see numerous examples of it. But keep in mind that neither the authors of these pieces nor the liberal ideology behind it is interested in you or your philosophical leanings. They are simply trying to sway you to their side.

If you have fond memories of the original Willy Wonka movie and are hesitant to see the remake, please d