A Layman's Point of View

The Real Meaning of Christmas

2011-12-23T21:56:00.008-05:00

CNN.com iReports has a story this week about how atheists celebrate Christmas. Excuse me? They don't. This got me thinking again about the secularization of Christmas. Whether I am preaching to the choir or merely shouting at the rain, I just need to get this off my chest. In reality, I'm responding to the CNN article in here because I'm pretty sure they would never print this.

1: Holidays have religious origins. Christmas is a Christian holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. Period.

2: If you celebrate the fact that Jesus was born, even if you don't accept His divinity but merely see Him as a prophet or a just a good man with a good heart and good messages worthy of being revered...then, in my opinion, you understand the true meaning of the holiday in some way. If someone you know and love celebrates Christmas and includes you and you respect their beliefs, you also "celebrate Christmas."

3: If Jesus has no part whatsoever in your celebrations...then you aren't "celebrating Christmas." Even if you are doing good deeds, decorating, exchanging presents, getting together with friends and family, singing carols, sending cards, etc. it's not "Christmas." You are certainly celebrating something, and that's fine, don't stop, but you can't REALLY call it Christmas.

4: If item 3 describes you, you aren't a bad person or a hypocrite...you just have different beliefs. That's fine. So say you celebrate the Winter Solstice, Yule, or even Festivus. But Christmas isn't just "something to do" because everyone else seems to. It means something to people. Please respect that.

5: Many of the trappings of Christmas (tree, Santa, Yule log, presents, etc.) were absorbed from local religions supplanted by Christianity over the last two millennia (Yule, Solstice, Saturnalia, etc.). Christians know this. We've been using them for a long time...but we don't own them and they aren't what the holiday is about anyway.

6: Christ may not have been a Capricorn...possibly a Taurus or Gemini. Christians know this too. There are many theories about why Dec 25th was chosen but it's been that way since 386AD. There's no way, short of someone going back with a time machine to check, that it's going to change dates now. Get past it.

7: Freedom of religion does not mean freedom FROM religion. There is nothing about using public lands used for Nativity scenes, a White House Christmas Tree, Merry Christmas in congressional letters, "under God," etc. that violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. Nothing!

8: The 1st amendment specifically and ONLY imposed limitations on Congress. Not the president, Supreme Court, states, towns, etc. However, congress and the federal government are allowed to acknowledge religion and recognize its importance to people. It just can't push one over another.

9: Following on #8...Christmas as a national holiday MAY violate the establishment clause...too bad...but it might. But maybe if it had never been a national holiday, we wouldn't be in this whole secularization of Christmas mess in the first place. It would simply be a Christian holiday and we could celebrate it in peace without all the controversy.

I am not the perfect Christian. I don't go to church regularly - or even often. To me, religion is a very private thing and it works best for me that way. But, I still believe, pray and remember what the holiday is really about. If I say Merry Christmas to a non-believer, it's not meant as an insult. Please accept it as it was intended...warmly. If you're a non-believer and you say Merry Christmas to me, that's not wrong, either. I would think you were just being nice if I know you are a non-believer.

But...if you don't want to include Jesus in your celebrations, even if only in your heart, you are not "celebrating Christmas." You are perfectly free to do whatever you like during this time of year, attend celebrations and enjoy everything everyone else is doing. These are all good things. But...you are not "celebrating Christmas." Have the courage of your convictions to call your celebration something else. Please don't attempt to redefine Christmas as something in purely secular terms because you don't understand it or want to be part of it but don't like the "rules." It's still a holiday to many people with a specific meaning. Even if the only place we celebrate it is in our hearts, we do still celebrate the real Christmas.

Merry Christmas to all! Believers and non-believers alike!

Not What the Constitution is for...

2010-05-15T00:28:00.003-04:00

OK, this posting is going to piss off some conservatives, but too bad. Right is right and wrong is wrong. And, it is wrong to seek a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I am not even going to approach the argument as to whether or not such a thing, in and of itself, may or may not be wrong. That is not what this post is about. What I'm talking about is the Constitution. Let me explain...

Several years ago, when my son was in middle school, he was learning about the Constitution and, I could see, having some problems. I decided to ask him some questions to see what he had learned. The first one I asked was "Well, tell me, what do you think the Constitution is?" He readily answered, "It's the document that gives us our freedom." This was the problem he was having. It wasn't that he didn't understand the Constitution. He didn't even know what it was! Unfortunately, it's a common problem shared by many people.

So, I answered my son by saying "No, freedom is our birthright. The Constitution is the document that protects our freedom by strictly defining and limiting the powers of government." It's an important distinction and one that should never be forgotten. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the citizens of our nation from government intruding on our lives, liberties and our pursuit of happiness. This doesn't mean that people can just do whatever they want; that would be anarchy. Civilization requires rules.

So, to my point, I am strictly opposed to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage because it's not the purpose of the Constitution to regulate people's behavior. That is what laws are for. The Constitution is for regulating the government's behavior. We misuse the Constitution and risk setting a very dangerous precedence when we propose to turn the Constitution against the very people it was designed to protect.

Be Careful What You Wish For...

2009-07-30T17:11:00.001-04:00

Well, the public asked for it, and eight years later their wishes were granted – a president they could share a beer with. As President Obama meets tonight with Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge Police Dept. and Prof. Henry Louis Gates Jr. for a beer, talk continues to ensue about the issue of race in America. Personally, there is no doubt in my mind that there is an issue – the apparent wish of well-known figures such as Obama and Gates to inflame a simple misunderstanding into a nationwide racial slur. Apparently, Gates, upon being asked to provide identification before the arrest, became aggressive and verbally attacked the officer, even going as far as referring to Crowley’s mother. When Gates finally exited his house, a measure requested by Crowley for his own safety, he continued to act in a manner ill befitting a man of higher learning, leaving the officers no choice but to place him under arrest. In the first place, this should never have been an issue! Gates was completely within his right to enter his home, but when the police arrived, the proper procedure would have been to cooperate, show identification, explain the situation, file a report, and let it go. Instead, by his actions Gates has opened the door for comments by others, such as “I believe the Cambridge police acted…stupidly.” President Obama's statement alone, especially after he had already admitted to not knowing all the facts, shows to some degree a desire to make a larger issue of this than necessary. Even Obama’s “apology,” in which he stated that he “calibrated his words badly,” does nothing to defuse this situation. And the last resort of diplomacy? A beer at the White House. Seriously people, this is not even an issue in which the President need be involved.

Is all this really necessary?

2009-06-27T16:09:00.005-04:00

I don't mean to diminish the contributions to popular music made by Michael Jackson, nor the devotion of his fans. But, aren't we going a little overboard when, on CNN .com last night, almost every section (except travel & SPORTS) has a link to at least one story about Michael Jackson?

Please see below:

CNN.com HOME
Presley: Jackson died 'as he predicted'

WORLD
'Jackson's troubles overshadowed success'

U.S.
Battles over Jackson's kids, assets may loom

POLITICS
House holds moment of silence for Jackson. Are you kidding me?!? How about a moment of silence for their lost dignity and credibility?!? What about Ed McMahon and Farah Fawcett?)

CRIME
Jackson's legal woes likely to live on

ENTERTAINMENT
BET Awards to pay tribute to Jackson

HEALTH
Jackson had history of health problems

TECH
Jackson dies, almost takes Internet with him

TRAVEL
Nothing
(What? Not even about booking flights for the funeral?)

LIVING
Michael Jackson - Essence: His clothes, hats and hair -- an unforgettable style

FORTUNE
Jackson's tour: What might have been (Fortune Magazine)

SPORTS
Nothing

TIME.com
Did Drugs Kill Michael Jackson

Must have been a really, Really, REALLY pathetically friggin' slow news week!!!

I Hate Euphemisms

2009-05-17T22:49:00.002-04:00

In one of his HBO specials from the 1980s, I remember watching George Carlin rant about how euphemisms had invaded our language. He gave examples like "handi-capable" instead of handicapped, or "minimally exceptional" instead of stupid. One of the best examples was the change in the name of the condition ascribed to soldiers whose nerves had been fried from too much combat. In WWI, it was called "shell shock." In WWII, it changed to "battle fatigue." By Korea, it had morphed further into "operational exhaustion." Each time, Carlin would comment on the increasing syllable count and the decreasing connection with sufferer or cause.

By Viet Nam, it had finally settled into "post-traumatic stress disorder." "Still eight syllables," commented Carlin, referring back to operational exhaustion, "but we've added a hyphen...and the pain is completely buried under jargon!" He finished his rant by saying "I'll bet you if we'd of
still been calling it shell shock, some of those Viet Nam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time. I'll betcha. I'll betcha."

This phenomenon is still happening. You have to listen to see it's all around us and getting worse. Employees are now associates. Lay-offs are reductions in force. On the humorous side. Prostitutes are called sex workers and their pimps are called gatekeepers. Nowhere, however, is it more prevalent, and dangerous, than in the discussion of border security.

Follow me on this...

First, they were called "illegal aliens" - simple - direct. They're not Americans, and they've broken our laws getting or staying here. Then, in the early stages of the PC movement, they became "illegal immigrants" - a little softer, after all, aliens evokes images of little green men, not people. Next they were known as "undocumented immigrants." Eight syllables now, and the crime is has been almost completely stripped from the phrase. In fact, calling them undocumented instead of illegal actually makes it sound like it's our fault, doesn't it?

Finally, thankst to the careful twisting and turning of politicians on both sides of the aisle, some lawyers, the ACLU and the media, they are now officially "undocumented workers." Down a syllable, but it highlights the reasons some of them came, and the crime is completely buried under propaganda. Undocumented workers. I'll bet you if we'd of still been calling them "illegal aliens", then border security might have gotten the attention it needed at the time.

And I might not have to "press 1" for English...

And unemployment might be a little lower...

And the 9-11 terrorists might not have been able get in.

I'll betcha.

I'll betcha.

Hillary Clinton is a Whiny, Childish, Spoiled Brat!!!!!

2009-04-23T22:10:00.005-04:00

I had to say it. Our Secretary of State is an unprofessional, undisciplined, pompous, sarcastic loudmouth. NEVER, in my life, at least, has a high-ranking member of a sitting administration been so petty and displayed behavior as disgraceful as personally insulting a member of previous administration, let alone a former Vice President. You expect this from private citizens, bloggers, newspapers and even candidates. But not someone who's job it is to be the nation's top diplomat. That's diplomacy??????

I'm so glad she got verbally spanked by Rep. Dana Rhorbacher when testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. I hope President Obama gives her a good talking-to about acting like an adult now that she's sitting at the big-person's table.

History Repeating Itself?

2009-03-01T13:11:00.005-05:00

In the summer of 1976, my family was on vacation at a dude ranch in Westchester, NY during the Republican National Convention. I was only 10-1/2, but I remember watching it eagerly in our room (bunkhouse?) with my Dad. I was already interested in politics at that point and not afraid to run counter to my parents' opinions on some things.

On the choice of President, Dad and I stood on opposite sides. I wanted Gerald Ford to get the nomination. He wanted some guy named Ronald Reagan. He said "Reagan was governor of California and did a great job, and has some great ideas on America and how we should do things at home and abroad." "No way," I said. "Ford has done a good job since being sworn in, and I think if given four years of his own, he would be really great! Besides," I added, "Reagan won't get the nomination...Ford's the incumbent."

Well, we all know what happened. Ford got the nomination, but the "four years of his own" were not to be. The country was jaded and still reeling in skepticism and anti-Nixon bias from Watergate. Ford was Nixon's VP and then went on to pardon his old boss after assuming his job. The GOP didn't have a chance. Jimmy Carter swept into office on the promise of reclaiming America's honor abroad and our pride within. Optimism abounded and liberals were in heaven. Then he started making foreign policy decisions and influencing the economy. The result was run-away double digit inflation, double-digit interest rates, an actual weakening of America's position abroad, increased threats from the Soviet Union and radical Islamic terrorists and an internal slump in pride and morale.

Then came the 1980 presidential campaign. Reagan rode the wave of discontent and gloom created by Carter into office in a landslide victory. The strength, dignity, smarts and economic policies he provided gave us everything Carter promised but couldn't deliver...and more. The thing is, Reagan probably couldn't have won, either, in 1976, because the popular desire for change was too great. If Reagan had gotten the nomination and lost in 1976, he probably wouldn't have been re-nominated in 1980 and we would have missed out on one of the best presidents this country ever had.

Thirty-two years later, Dad and I were once again on opposite sides concerning the choice of a Republican nominee. When the initial slate of prospective candidates had whittled down a bit and our mutual first choice bailed out, I supported John McCain. He wanted some guy named Mitt Romney. He said "Romney was governor of Massachusetts and did a great job. Besides, he's a savvy business man and has some great ideas how to get our economy working again and also on dealing with other countries." "No way," I said, "McCain has done a good job in the senate and I think he is ready for the presidency. Besides," I added, "Romney won't get the nomination... McCain's a war hero."

Well, we all know what happened. McCain got the nomination, but "ready for the presidency" or not, it was not to be. The country was jaded and still reeling in skepticism and anti-Bush bias from Iraq and Gitmo. McCain supported Bush on these and other issues and went on to defend those positions in his campaign. The GOP didn't have a chance. Barak Obama swept into office on the promise of reclaiming America's honor abroad and our pride within. Optimism abounds and the liberals are in heaven. Now he has started making foreign policy decisions and influencing the economy. The result...TBD...

If history is destined to repeat itself, it appears Dad may have been right...just four years ahead of schedule...again!

Stay tuned........

The Country Needs New Glasses

2008-11-25T00:15:00.001-05:00

The election is over. We have our President-elect. I didn't vote for him, but he will be my President, too. As I learned years ago, you don't have to respect the man (or woman, someday, I'm sure) but you have to respect the office. Let me be clear that I am speaking professionally and that my respect for Mr. Obama isn't in the negative, it just hasn't yet been earned. I hope that someday, in spite of my doubts and reservations, that Mr. Obama does things that will also earn my respect for him as a leader.

All that being said, I am bothered by what I have seen in this country since the election: poor winners. As much as the Democrats and Liberals have decried what they perceived as divisiveness by the Republicans and Conservatives over the past 8 years, they wasted no time diving in to the deep end of the "us and them" pool since their candidate won. Isn't this behavior supposed to be wrong...for everyone? Isn't it hurtful?

I have seen anti-Sarah Palin sites and postings, George Bush count-down clocks, impeach Bush movements. I even saw someone say someone else's opinion about the country's treatment of President Bush was wrong. And the language: hateful, vitriolic, aggressive, threatening, insulting, vulgar, base, crass...you get the point. Is this what the country has to expect for the next four years? A malignancy of discourse so repugnant and offensive that it scarcely seems worth writing, let alone reading? Is this what we have become?

Some will say it's President Bush's fault for starting it. That's it - the little kid's argument from the playground: "he started it." But, as adults, aren't we supposed to end it by not giving in to the need to spit back. I can hear it now - the religious mockery with people saying "Bush reaps what he sowed" but tell me, honestly, what rights did you lose under President Bush? What freedoms were taken? How did the President lie to you and about what? Remember - a lie requires deliberate intent to mislead...can you prove that? How? And conspiracy theories don't count. Do you have hard evidence of intent and action. Would it stand up in court? Acting on bad information isn't lying - it's just being wrong.

Look, what we had wasn't perfect, but neither is what's coming. Neither one hates this country and both want the same things - a safe, secure, prosperous and happy country. It's only methods that differ, not intent. As citizens, we just vote for the one we think has the ideas we believe will work.

I hope those of you who elected Mr. Obama will be brave enough to look at him through the same smudged and dirty glasses you used on Mr. Bush. Be as critical, and cynical, and quick to condemn. Hold his feet to the proverbial fire every minute of every day of his administration - be it four or eight years long. Use the same yardstick to measure him to that you used to measure the current President. Be the first to post everyone of his verbal gaffs on You Tube (c). That's the stuff real courage and loyalty are made from.

Then, in your free time, put on the other glasses - you know the ones, the rose-colored ones though which you watched Mr. Obama rise to glory, and look back at things President Bush did. You may find that he wasn't the ogre you pretended he was. Instead, he was just a man dealing with one of the most difficult times in our country's history the best way his education, experience and conscience told him.

Personally, I have already resolved to be a loyal opposition to Mr. Obama. I will praise when warranted, criticize when necessary and work very hard to make sure I don't let rhetoric cloud my judgment about which is appropriate.

Should I Stay or Should I Go???

2008-11-03T00:22:00.002-05:00

In 2000, Alec Baldwin & Kim Basinger (among other celebrities) stated that if George Bush were elected president, they would leave the country. In 2004. Sean Penn made the same promise. Now, in 2008, Tina Fey, who has made money and increased her marketability as an actress, has states that if McCain and Palin are elected, she's leaving Earth.

It's interesting that I never hear Republican's or Conservatives saying that they'll leave if their candidate isn't elected. Perhaps it's because we know that regardless of who wins, it's still our country. In this case, it may also be because if Obama does win, we'll all have a lot of work to do to clean up all the messes he'll make.

Something to Lighten the Mood

2008-09-29T21:15:00.003-04:00

OK, so we're all worried about the economy and the Wall Street bail-out. Should they...shouldn't they? I have a friend in the financial business that keeps me informed of the "word on the street" but still there is a lot to be said for perspective. His position from where he sits could be over-dramatic or mine, from my window in the "cheap-seats" could be laisse-faire.

A lot of people at work are comparing notes on where their investments are, how stable or not, how much they dropped. I don't do that. In spite of my blatantly outgoing nature, there are some things I do keep private. So, if you would like to keep people from pestering you about your investments and stay out of the economy war-story swap-a-thons, just tell them what I say.

"I use the investment firm of Mason Talon and Winchester. I have mason jars buried in the yard, a zipper on the side of my mattress and a shotgun next to the bed. I'm all set!"

It works every time.

Follow-on Debate Question

2008-09-27T00:00:00.004-04:00

I have a follow-on question for Senator Obama.

Senator Obama said (and I paraphrase) that he wants to drill for domestic oil and gas, repair roads and bridges, build windmills, create a solar power infrastructure, create bio-fuel refineries and build nuclear power plants. I presume that since he also wants to create jobs, one thing he is looking at is bolstering our sagging manufacturing industries by having the US make more goods, especially in light of the environmental scares associated with buying everything from toxic China.

Senator Obama also said he wants every child to go to college in this country. Well, if he achieves that goal, just who does he suppose is going to do all the drilling, repairing, building and manufacturing? People with college degrees don't do those types of jobs. Or, maybe, that's what he wants all the illegal aliens for.

It's a sad state of affairs when a nation, its leaders or prospective leaders only measure success by the attainment of a college degree. It is this misconception, that everyone must go to college, that has helped fuel the decline of our nation's manufacturing infrastructure, trades and service industries. Not everyone is suited for college. That statement is not meant as a derision of the intelligence or talent of people who don't attend college. Instead, it is a recognition of the diversity of talent that abounds in our nation.

Some people will find their success along a path that does not include college. To force them to do something that stalls, inhibits or prevents them from realizing and contributing to their fullest potential because it doesn't support someone's personal measure of success is narrow minded and short sighted. It cheapens them, and it also cheapens those do attend college.

Everybody ought to feel as though their job is important enough for them to wear a tuxedo or formal gown to work, even if it is wholly impractical to do so. Our leaders need to recognize that and not make pursuing a life without college as somehow beneath a person's dignity.

When the Party's Over!

2008-09-10T00:38:00.006-04:00

The CT legislature has been considering a measure that would allow seventeen year-olds vote in primaries if they will be eighteen by the time of the general election. Some are for this, some are against. Those in favor cite fairness, those against use the "rules are rules" argument.

My position??? Sure, why not?!?

Now I know what you're going to say...I'm giving in to liberals. Perhaps they may think so, but I'm not giving in to anyone. I said "sure, why not" because it doesn't matter. These are primaries. Political parties are nothing more than private clubs trying to pick which of their members they wish to financially endorse for a particular political office. Let people vote at 10 in primaries. Hold contests for kindergarteners and let the one that draws the best picture of the White House pick the nominee. Survey Outer Mongolia while you're at it for all I care. It doesn't matter one bit whose opinion they get on who to nominate, as long as only citizens 18 and over vote in the general elections.

Facetious, you say? You betcha!

Illegal, not one damn bit.

The sad fact is that political parties have placed constrictions on elections by shutting out potential candidates. The Constitution does not mention political parties. In fact, the word "party" only appears four times in the entire document, but is used in a legal context, referring to a person, defendant or claimant. Now, that does not deny political parties the right to exist or to nominate one of their own for any political office.

It does, however, make plain that political parties are outside the normal workings of government and aside from their right to exist, have no specific or granted authority within the establishments of government. Some people think that the Speaker of the House or President pro tempore of the Senate is supposed to be from the party with the largest representation in each chamber. Uh-uh. It just always turns out that way because partisanship has become so prevalent in our government.

Remember the warning George Washington gave in his farewell address about the rise of political parties:

"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796

So, what does all this mean?

It means that parties may use any means they see fit (so long as they do not violate other established laws) to determine who they wish to nominate and support for office. If they want to allow seventeen year-olds to vote under certain restrictions, I say go for it.

If we want to see an end to partisanship, at least in presidential elections, one way might be for there to be a Constitutional amendment requiring that Presidential elections may not be set up along party lines. People running may belong to any party they desire, of course, but there can be no more "and the Democratic/Republican/Green nominee is..." If something like that were the process now, then the slate of candidates might look very different this year, indeed! You'd probably see Romney, Huckabee, McCain, Clinton and Obama all opposing each other - as well as a whole host others. Wow...REAL choice...what a concept.

I would also love to see a two step election process. The first election would be likely be an electoral split between several candidates. The second election would be a run-off between the two candidates who get the largest number of electoral votes in the first. Imagine that! It could actually be a final election where it's Hillary vs. Obama or Romney vs. McCain. Again, I say, why not - if that's how it turns out?

Again, real choice to decide. Oh, if only...

A Question of Experience

2008-08-30T09:24:00.006-04:00

Kudos to John McCain for his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. I think it was a good pick. Obviously, if you consider the campaign to be a chess game, then this was brilliant because it completely nullifies the "firstness" of the Democratic ticket. But I like the choice for reasons other than Governor Palin's gender.

First, I like her history of bucking the trend in the GOP because it has become stodgy. She is an individual who sticks to her beliefs, and though many are along already established GOP lines, she is definitely not, pardon the expression, a member of the "old-boy network."

Second, she is a constitutionalist. I respect that she looks at the constitutionality of legislation and not her personal views - case in point the legislation on providing partner benefits to gay couples. She's against gay marriage, but upon consultation, her Attorney General said legislation banning benefits would be against the Alaska constitution, so she vetoed it. This may not be popular with many hard core Conservatives, but it's fair and that is what a President needs to be.

Next, I think it was a smart pick because Ms. Palin does not need to confront any prior statements attacking her running mate, as Mr. Biden will (or should). By picking someone outside the Presidential race, McCain has avoided controversy and created a unified ticket from day one. One of the worst things that can happen to a candidate is to start their run as an apologist for themselves.

Lastly, and maybe most important...of all four people running on the Dem & GOP tickets, she actually has the most practical and relevant experience to the job of President because she has been a chief executive twice. She was a mayor, albeit of a small town, then Governor of a state. She has had to deal with legislative bodies, sign or veto bills, confront lobbyists, provide balance between the branches - all the things presidents have to do. If the Republicans win in November, she will have the perfect position from which to build on that experience.

Given Senator Obama's abysmal attendance and voting record, how can he really attack her on experience, anyway? Oh, I can see the slogan now:

"Why wait for a tragedy to get an inexperienced President? Save time and elect one from the start! I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message"

Right...that'll work!

Words of Wisdom...

2008-08-15T23:10:00.003-04:00

Ever since last Friday something my contemporary history professor in college said has been going around and around in my head. This was in 1986...when we didn't realize we were in the bottom of the ninth of the cold war. The goings-on of the Soviet union was always a hot topic and being in an engineering school, most of us were pretty conservative. To the best of my recollection, his exact words were:

"Russians don't behave the way they do because they're Czarist or Bolshevik or Communist. They behave that way because they're Russians."

'Nuff said!

A Numbers Game

2008-08-11T07:05:00.007-04:00

(Note: Most of this I have said before...but it bears repeating.)

The three branches of our government, about which we were all taught in grade school (one hopes), consist of 545 people:

Legislative Branch: 435 Representatives & 100 Senators

Executive Branch: 1 President

Judicial Branch: 9 Supreme Court Justices

This coming election day, 470 (or 86%) of these people are up for re-election.

Why are we spending all our time worrying about only one?

Constitutionally, the President is pretty impotent in that he can do very little without the advice and consent of Congress. Sadly, people have forgotten about our representatives in the House and Senate, bypassing them completely and placing all their hopes, praise and blame on the President. But that is not how our government is supposed to work. By design, that was intentional - why do you think the the Legislative Branch (congress) is in Article 1 and it is so long whereas the Executive Branch is discussed second in Article 2 and it is so much shorter? The President is only the leader of our republic - our union of sovereign states. He or She is not directly responsible to us - our Representatives in the House are. The leader of our Democracy is really the Speaker of the House - currently Ms. Nancy Pelosi of California.

Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. If the President seeks Congress' input, and we haven't been writing or calling our representatives regularly supplying it, then all they have to go on is their own opinions. While that may be appropriate at times for Senators, it is not for representatives. But, how many people even know who their Representative in the House is? If we, as citizens, aren't stepping up to our responsibilities and don't force our government to work the way the Constitution dictates, then we share the blame with our Representatives when abuses occur.

The remedy is clear. First, we must clean house - literally. All 435 members of the House of Representatives should be seriously challenged for their jobs, and many should be replaced. Let's give another meaning to the percentage up for re-election and really think about 86ing the dead wood! Second, we need to make sure the newly elected President and Congressmen, regardless of who they may be, truly understand the Constitutional limits of their jobs. Third, we as a citizenry need to become more vocal and remind those who we elected to represent us for whom they really work and that we are constantly watching.

Down The Rabbit Hole

2008-08-08T23:30:00.003-04:00

It seems Congressman Kucinich is no longer alone in Wonderland. Recently, certain members of the U.S. Congress have followed him down the rabbit hole of partisan politics, led by Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. In the past month, Ms. Pelosi, and several of her peers, have not only attacked the President, but have also essentially turned tail and fled the House to avoid having to so much as debate the controversial issue of offshore drilling. What is it you’re afraid of, Ms. Pelosi? Staging a walkout has most likely just strengthened the resolve of your Conservative peers and their supporters.

In addition to not making tactical sense, Ms. Pelosi’s action has also shown a sad lack of character which is essential to the position she so happily occupies. How can there possibly be any issue which is so hot that it can’t even be touched by the supposed representatives of the people? I’m curious as to how many liberals actually support the cowardly action of the Speaker and their representatives.

No leader in America should have the right to singularly deny open debate on an issue. The Constitution was created supremely for the purpose of eliminating the ability for one person to have absolute power over which issues are debated, yet it seems that this point of our history has escaped Ms. Pelosi's attention.

As the nation barrels on toward the November elections, I'm sure the authors of the document fundamental to forming today’s government would be spinning in their graves hearing how it is being misquoted and misused day after day by those sworn to uphold it.

Kicinich in Wonderland!

2008-07-26T23:18:00.012-04:00

Dennis Kucinich is truly living in Wonderland. Sadly, as I read the comments on CNN regarding the Congressman's latest attempt to introduce articles of impeachment against George Bush, it seems that many Americans have joined him. Repeated cries of "Impeach Bush" smack of everything from ignorance to revenge to desperation. Fortunately, they have little connection to reality and at least the majority of the Congress understands that. But, as I said, one of the things this call smacks of is ignorance and sadly, many Americans have not even read the Constitution - the very document they claim the President has violated. I know this because if they had read it, not only would they know that the President hasn't violated the Constitution, but they would also know that things like healthcare, abortion, gay marriage and education are not within the authority of the federal government to regulate - instead they are the responsibilities of the states.

Next, I mention revenge - specifically for the impeachment of President Clinton. Well, as I have said many times, President Clinton was not, I repeat, WAS NOT impeached for having an affair. He was also not impeached for lying about the affair in his famous "I did not have sexual relations" speech. President Clinton was impeached for the crime of perjury. If you consult a dictionary, perjury is defined as "the willful giving of false testimony under oath or affirmation, before a competent tribunal, upon a point material to a legal inquiry." The fact that he gave false testimony about the affair is irrelevant. He could have lied about what he had for breakfast that morning. It doesn't matter. The point is he lied, under oath. That is a felony. As a lawyer, he should be well aware of the definition of perjury...even if he doesn't know the exact definition of the word "is." He also willingly obstructed the investigation. Another impeachable offense.

Lastly, I mention desperation. People are so emotional about Bush that they will do anything to see him out of office - even make up claims. But, President Bush has committed no crimes against US laws or the Constitution. All his actions have been taken with the full advice and consent of the Congress - per the requirements of the Constitution. If they hadn't been, he WOULD have been impeached long ago. There is no evidence he knowingly used false reasons for invading Iraq. All the intelligence we had from our own sources as well as those of other countries pointed to Saddam Hussein working hard to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. In fact, Hussein admitted as much in his ~12,000 page report to the UN - he said he destroyed the programs. So, if he destroyed them, he must have had them in the first place. The problem is that his say-so that he destroyed them wasn't enough. The UN resolutions required verification and Hussein didn't cooperate fully - in some cases, barely at all.

It's ironic, actually. We went into Iraq in the first place to support 14 UN resolutions calling for Iraq to disarm. The UN is the Demo-libs' baby and we're supposed to kowtow to it's alleged wisdom and authority. So why do people get all in a tizzy when we decide to put teeth behind the UN's resolutions? The resolutions did say (to paraphrase) destroy and verify or else. Well, we finally provided the or else. We weren't alone, either, you know. Is the UN calling for war-crimes trials against the US or any of its leaders? Not that I've heard. After all, only they can truly try someone for global issues and general crimes against humanity...not us. I mean, we don't run the world. We may fund, feed, clothe, medicate, rescue, rebuild and defend much of the world, acts for which we get little or no credit or praise whatsoever, but we don't run it. However, the Demo-libs think we are trying to. And because of their anger that their golden boy fell from grace, they will continue to cry impeachment anytime a Republican President says "boo."

Personally, I think the "party of the people" should stick to what it has historically been best at:

* raising taxes
* increasing spending
* raising the rate of inflation
* chasing businesses and jobs overseas with over-regulation
* limiting the free speech of its opponents
* keeping minorities down and buying votes with impotent social programs
* usurping the rights of the states to govern themselves
* allowing run-away public excesses of otherwise private behavior
* limiting citizen's rights to protect themselves
* stealing citizens' homes in the name of eminent domain
* protecting murderers from execution while allowing late term abortions

Surely, with all these things on their agenda, they should have little time to add the folly of inappropriate impeachment proceedings.

Thoughts on Nancy Pelosi

2008-07-21T09:17:00.007-04:00

If you go to the Department of Energy website, you can download US Government data on gas price averages. Just looking at the data every year from Bush's first inauguration to today (ignoring intermittent ups and downs), you will see the following:

22 Jan 2001 $1.51
21 Jan 2002 $1.15
20 Jan 2003 $1.50
19 Jan 2004 $1.64
24 Jan 2005 $1.90
23 Jan 2006 $2.38
22 Jan 2007 $2.22
21 Jan 2008 $3.07
14 Jul 2008 $4.08

So, what does this show? It shows that during the first 6 years of Bush's presidency, gas prices rose only $0.71 total, or an average of about $0.12 per year. Since January 2007 when the Democrat led 110th Congress took over with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, gas prices have risen $1.86 in 1-1/2 years, or an average of 1.24 per year...10 times Bush's 6 year average and over 2.5 times Bush's worst yearly average of $0.48 (2005-06).

Similarly, unemployment took a precipitous rise following Ms. Pelosi assuming the leadership of the House. This after President Bush and the three previous congresses had fought the number back down following 9/11. Additionally, although the Consumer Price Index has experienced discrete ups and downs every 4-6 months over the last 16 years, there was no discernable trend other than increasing magnitude of fluctuations. However, since June 2007, the graph shows a definite increasing trend.

Prices and indicators fluctuate and things could change dramatically for the better in the next 6 months, but the data doesn't trend that way. Are these the result of Bush's bad policies finally taking effect or is the fact that they happened immediately or shortly after Ms. Pelosi became Speaker an indication of a national lack of confidence with congress - as is indicated by the lowest ever approval rating?

I think before Ms. Pelosi calls the President a total failure, she should see to her own record of leadership. If President Bush is a total failure as the leader of our republic, then the data shows that Ms. Pelosi is an utter abomination as the leader of our democracy.

A Question for Mr. Gore

2008-07-19T23:08:00.010-04:00

I have some questions for Mr. Gore.

What if, even if everyone follows all of your suggestions to the letter, we can't stop global warming?

I ask because in spite of our best efforts and intentions, it is entirely possible that we may not be able to stop the environment from changing. In that event, shouldn't we have a back-up plan? Something like, I don't know, how to live on a warmer planet? Take energy, for example. We know how bad things are now with everyone worried about heating oil prices. What will happen when the problem of staying warm in the winter becomes dwarfed by how to stay cool in the summer? What about mass migration of termites North into warmer climes where wood framed houses are the norm? How about mosquitoes? You think they're bad now?

I think I know why Mr. Gore, the great humanitarian, isn't bothering to tell us what to do in case the worst happens. Because he doesn't believe the worst will happen. Mr. Gore is a con artist. He is also a the worst nightmare of all of us who work in scientific fields. He's a layman with an agenda trying to explain scientific principles to other laymen. He is dangerous.

See my previous posting A Perspective on Global Warming.

What about this scenario, instead?

What if Mr. Gore knows the worst really won't happen. But, if he tells us it will, and scares us enough into actions (regardless that they may have no real effect on the climate), when nothing does happen, he's a hero. And he'll ride that wave into the White House, or at least the history books. It's fool proof. The problem is that most people (laymen or not) are not fools.

A conspiracy theory? Maybe. But I could swear I've heard this before. Oh yeah, now I remember. It's the same thing liberals have been saying about President Bush and the possibility of another terrorist attack. They say it's all hype and he uses scare tactics to maintain his power base.

There is one difference, however. The planet doesn't hate us and hasn't specifically said that it wants us dead.

There Can Be No "No-Show" Voters

2008-03-16T11:10:00.000-04:00

Recently the talk among Republicans is how many who don't like John McCain
have decided they will boycott the general elections altogether and stay
home. Well, if you're going to do that, why not take it all the way and GO
to the polls and vote for Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama. After all, either
way the result is the same. Let's do a thought experiment and check it out:

* 100 people can vote, 50 Republicans, 50 Democrats
* 25 Republicans don't like their nominee, so they stay home
* The Democrat wins 50 to 25.
* If the 25 who stayed home voted for the Democrat instead, the margin
would be 75 to 25.

Either way, the Democrat wins, so they might as well just show their true
colors and go out and vote for the Democrat. However, if they think about
it for a minute and compare the good and bad between both party's
candidates, they may realize something important. Although Sen. McCain was
not their first choice (or in my case, not the second or third, either),
they may realize that he far better supports a majority of what they stand
for than does the Democratic candidate. At least that's how I came to my
decision to support the gentleman from Arizona.

I started out supporting Fred Thompson. Then, after he withdrew, I hovered
between Romney and Huckabee. When it appeared McCain had secured the
nomination, I thought about the possibility of supporting Senator Obama
(Senator Clinton was never even an option). So, I watched a couple of the
Democratic debates. What I saw, forced me to take a serious look at both
candidates and I did a side by side comparison. What I realized was that
although I disagreed with McCain on some issues, I disagreed with Obama on
more. The result? I will be supporting John McCain for president.

I strongly urge those Republicans thinking of sitting this one out to
consider, very carefully, the consequences of their actions. Not showing up
could very possibly lead to the election of a candidate with whom they
disagree much more than Senator McCain. If that happens, they must bear the
responsibility for anything a Democratic president does the same as if they
had voted for him/her themselves.

Think it over!

You may disagree with Senator McCain, but remember: sometimes you get to
vote for the candidate you want; sometimes you need to vote against the one
you don't want more!

Thought For The Day

2008-03-10T22:28:00.005-04:00

The age of social conscience, social justice and concern

seems to have coincided with the age of crime, pornography,

mugging and international terrorism. What started out as

a liberalization of restrictive social conventions seems

to have developed into a dictatorship of license.

- Prince Philip of Great Britain -

Questions for Environmentalists

2008-03-09T22:08:00.001-04:00

I have some questions for environmentalists...

1: Do you know what is the proper amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...by
percentage? Does anyone?

2: How much has atmospheric CO2 increased over the last 50 years? 100
years?

3: How do you know the majority of the additional CO2 is man made?

4: What part does the interaction between the atmosphere, solar radiation
and the Earth's magnetic field play?

5: What are all the variables that affect the global average temperature?

6: How do you know that CO2 is a cause of increased global temperature
instead of an indicator of it?

7: If reducing atmospheric CO2 levels fast enough to stop global warming
isn't possible, shouldn't we also be thinking of ways to adapt to living in
a warmer world?

8: Is it true that just breaking the soil to grow corn for biofuels releases
vast amounts of trapped CO2 into the atmosphere?

9: What can be done to reduce the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico caused by
pesticides washed down the Mississippi River from the Midwest?

10: Wouldn't the dead zone increase if farmers grow even more corn, which
requires large amounts of pesticides?

11: The ice caps are getting thicker. Wouldn't the increased pressure cause
them to move faster towards the sea and therefore cleave of more frequently?

12: I used to hear that everything we used to get from whales can be made
synthetically, but where would we be allowed to build the chemical plants?

13: People won't adopt new technology if its too expensive. Bringing prices
down requires increased efficiency - which requires time - sometimes
decades. Wouldn't it be wise to find cheap, domestic sources of oil in the
mean time and continue to improve it?

14: France is almost completely powered by nuclear energy. It sounds like
they've figured it out. Shouldn't we model their system to help reduce our
dependence on oil?

Just thought I'd ask...

Primary Seconds

2008-02-05T19:46:00.000-05:00

Disgruntled.

Disenfranchised.

Ambivalent.

Those adjectives, contradictory and mutually exclusive as they may be, begin to explain how I feel on Super Tuesday. Oh, I voted, alright, but I didn't actually vote for anyone today...and I won't be voting for anyone in November. Nope, today, my vote was against someone, as it will be in November.

You're confused? Think how I feel! The problem I am facing is that with Fred Thompson out of the race, there are no candidates for whom I can muster any great enthusiasm. I know who I don't want for one or more reasons. But, when I remove those people from the equation, what's left leaves me feeling like I just ate a three course meal made entirely of air...I not only want more...I need more.

Not one of the candidates really speaks for me. With two of them, it's actually painful to listen to them say anything (one from each party). Another says some things I like, but his chances make the perverbial "snowball's chance in hell" seem like a sure thing. So, I'm left with luke warm enthusiasm as I prepare for a general presidential election where I cannot play wide-receiver or punter. Instead, I'm just a tackle - my only job to sack the other team's QB before he can pass.

I know defense has it's place - they're important, too. But I've been doing that so long. The last really enthusiastic vote I cast for President was my first in 1984, for Ronald Reagan. Since then, it's been down hill. I'd like to think we've hit bottom, but people can get pretty banal, so it could get worse.

God help us if it does.

Logic for the Death Penalty

2008-01-07T22:16:00.001-05:00

Someone with whom I worked once presented a truly insightful analogy on the reason he supports the death penalty. I offer it now for your consideration.

"When someone has cancer, they go to the doctor and the tumor is removed. Now, does the doctor place the tumor in a Petri dish, wait for the tumor to become nice cells and then put them back in the patient? No, he destroys them. Murderers are cancers on the body of our society. Once convicted, they should be executed."

This makes complete sense to me. Obviously, we need to be sure - not just beyond a reasonable doubt - but 100% sure. And the crime must warrant death - self defense, accidents, negligence don't qualify in my opinion. But violent, pre-meditated, in the commission of a crime, or of a police officer - for these things justice should be swift and certain. While I wouldn't deliberately try to make the killers suffer during the execution, if it happened at times...I wouldn't cry, either.

The President is not a Monarch

2008-01-07T15:34:00.001-05:00

I have been trying to write on this subject for months...maybe years...but each time I try, I get so frustrated I just put it aside. With the Presidential campaigns in full force, now, I have to say something. So here goes...

Attention Americans everywhere...READ THE CONSTITUTION!

The President of the United States is not a monarch, and was never meant to be. The President is also not the most important person in our government. Years of gradual abuse and misuse of the office, lack of proper use of checks and balances, lack of active participation by the majority of citizens and finally the media's love of one-stop-shopping for heroes and scapegoats have fostered and cemented in the national consciousness the fallacy that the President is somehow solely responsible for the state of our nation and lives. Balderdash!

Sadly, people routinely overlook Congress, or merely see them as secondary to the job of governing. Somehow, they forget what we were all taught in our history classes; things like all money bills originate in the House, or that a vote of the Senate is required to formally declare war. For example, if you ask people who the leader of our nation is, they will most likely say, and rightly so, the President. I say rightly because the President is the person who represents us to the rest of the world. He is our "front-man." But, if you ask them the slightly different question, "Who is the leader of our democracy?" they will also probably say the President and that is the wrong answer. The leader of our democracy is the Speaker of the House of Representatives - a position currently held by Ms. Nancy Pelosi of California.

The Constitution provides for the President to be elected by a blending of popular and state consensus. As such, he (or someday, she) is the leader of our union of sovereign states, our Republic. Our democracy is vested solely in the House of Representatives. It is there that officials are elected based on population alone. Most people don't realize this so it should be no surprise that they don't even know who Ms. Pelosi is. Worse, they also don't know who their prime conduit to the Speaker of the House is...their elected representative in the House. Ask 100 people who their Congressional Representative is and I believe most will not know the person's name, let alone how to contact them. How utterly sad.

The point I am trying to make is important for two main reasons. First, that the President is not the be-all and end-all of American politics and government. The other branches of our government are just as important and as Americans, we need to utilize those avenues to seek the changes and results we feel necessary. The power to enact legislation begins with us and flows to Congress. Laws in this country are supposed to be made for the common good, certainly not to secure a power base or win an election. Second, be VERY VERY wary of the promises made by ANY Presidential candidate. Often, the things they discuss are not theirs to promise in the first place. The president may suggest legislation, budgets or resolutions, but these things go nowhere without Congress.

Additionally, you will find that many of the planks of their platforms are not even the job of the federal government. According to the 10th Amendment, if a responsibility isn't specifically given to one of the three branches of the federal government, or if is specifically denied, then it belongs to the states or the people only. Therefore, such issues as abortion, healthcare, education, stem cell research, welfare, family values and gun control, among others, are not the responsibility of the federal government, let alone the President, and candidates shouldn't even be talking about them. These issues require attention, to be sure, but they are the responsibility of the states only.

Too long the federal government has been meddling in affairs to which it has no right. Our government was created as a republic so the states could maintain their sovereignty over most matters and in order to prevent the central government from wielding too much power. The fault for the change in direction from the original ideals of 1787 rests with no one but ourselves. We, as a citizenry, have become complacent. I suppose it's easier to follow a single leader than worry about several.

But that's a lazy approach to citizenship. In truth, our government really has four branches. We are the fourth branch. And if one branch passively surrenders its responsibilities, rest assured that one or more of the others will be willing to step in and assume them. Politics, like nature, also abhors a vacuum. Our general lack of knowledge about the workings of our government is a poor excuse for giving away our individual rights, or those of our states.

So, please, read the Constitution, word for word. Discuss and debate it with others. It's certainly more important than Britney or Paris and I'm sure you'll find it more interesting. Then, when you vote in the primaries, caucuses or general election for President, make sure the candidate you choose isn't just saying things you want to hear. Make sure they really understand the job for which they are applying - not just its powers, but also its limits!

More on this to come...the rant has only just begun!

The Primaries - My Predictions

2007-12-28T23:33:00.001-05:00

So, only 6 days left until the primaries officially start. Then we'll finally start the weeding out process. One by one, the weak, or at least weak-hearted candidates will start to fall away. I predict it won't be too long before there are only 3 or 4 candidates left on each side.

For the Republicans, those four will be Giuliani, Romney, Thompson and maybe Huckabee. Although I realize he's ahead of my man, Fred, in the polls, I just don't think McCain has the temerity to stick with it to the convention. He looks tired - whether it's of the campaign or politics in general I can't say.

Among the Democrats, I think it's obvious that the big three will be Clinton, Obama and Edwards. I don't really know too much about that side of the race - it's kind of like paying attention to only the American or National League during baseball season. But what I do know says these three appear to be the only real contenders.

If you are interested, there is a website that appears to give a comprehensive and fairly impartial listing of the candidates positions on a wide variety of important topics. Go to http://www.issue2008.com/.

It's good reading.

Be well and remember to vote!

The Debate...Hmmmmmmmmm

2007-11-29T00:02:00.001-05:00

Well...that was interesting. I watched the debate...the whole thing. As a
result, I walked away with several distinct impressions and opinions.

1: I went into the debate supporting Fred Thompson and I still do
afterwards. I like where he stands on the issues, I like his approach to
the job - following the constitution and I like his presence. I saw nothing
this evening to change that position.

2: I do not want Mayor Giuliani or Governor Romni to get the nomination. I
felt they were camera and mic hogs, they didn't answer questions, but just
gave monologues about their records. They felt the debate was there for them
alone...I, I, I and me, me, me. Grow up gentlemen, there were eight of you
there.

3: On that note, I don't feel the distribution of the questions to the
candidates or the placement of the candidates on the stage was fair to the
less popular or well known ones. I really wanted to hear more from them and
CNN should have given all the candidates get equal air time.
Representatives Tancredo, Hunter and Governor Huckabee all made very good
points on the few questions sent their way. Granted, their actual chances
for President are slim, but what they have to say needs to be heard because
they form part of the entire set of Republican principles.

4: Senator McCain may say some good things...but in general he always sounds
tired and annoyed to me. We have had almost seven years of a President with
many good ideas who couldn't give them away even if they came with free gold
bars because he is one of the poorest public speaker I have ever seen in my
life. We don't need that again.

5: I do not want Representative Paul to get the nomination. I disagree with
his stance on the war on terror. However, I appreciate, greatly, his
determination not to run as an independent candidate. Doing so would divide
the Republican Party and could possibly put Hilliary in the White House. I
made the mistake of contributing to that in 1992 by voting for Ross Perot.
I hope that doesn't happen again.

6: I liked the answers to the question about if Roe v. Wade were to be
overturned. That decision was not a bad one because it allowed abortion but
because the Supreme Court illegally usurped the authority of the states. It
also isn't the president's job and that point was made very clear. The
constitution won here. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, debate would be hot
- and that's a good thing. In the end, however, abortion would remain legal
- almost unchanged from what it is now. It would just be the states
deciding how and when...as is their right under the constitution.

7: Regardless of who wins the GOP nomination, I will vote for them - even
Giuliani, Romney, McCain or Paul. Sometimes a vote isn't as much for one
candidate as it is against another. I do not want Hilliary Clinton to be
president...at all...ever. Someone asked me if my only possible choice was
either Obama or Hilliary, which would I pick? I said Obama because at least
he is for some things. Hilliary, aside from being abrasive, is for nothing
and against everything. Also, the dynasty needs to end. We need new blood
in the White House and I do not want Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. 20 years of
those two families is enough!

That's my Layman's Point of View!

Your Papers, Please???

2007-11-15T22:46:00.001-05:00

OK, there are days I feel like I have been living under a rock. Today is
one of those days. I JUST found out that in order to purchase Sudafed, I
would need to show my driver's license and sign a log book. Moreover, the
log book will be maintained by the pharmacist for two years. All this to
combat the crystal-meth problem. Well, I have no problem trying to take a
bite out of the drug problem in this country. Having grown up in the 70's,
people are amazed that I never experimented with drugs...not even pot.
That's right, I never just "not-inhaled," I never tried it at all. As a
parent, I'm even more in favor of stopping drugs. But something about this
law smacks of too much government control.

There have always been pharmaceuticals that could only be purchased from
behind the counter, presumably to keep them out of the hands of kids.
However, if this medicine could be potentially be used to make something so
dangerous, why allow its sale at all? Take it off the market. It wouldn't
be the first time the FDA pulled a drug from the shelves. At the very least
revert it to prescription status - those have always been tracked by doctors
and pharmacies anyway. The way it's being done now is too invasive.
Americans don't want to "present their papers" every time they turn around.
Maybe it's just the government's way to get people to wean themselves off
the stuff. Pharmaceutical companies are already producing cold medicines
with alternatives to pseudoephedrine in response to the law. It's a good
business decision.

The most confusing thing about this is making it part of the Patriot Act.
What is that all about? Isn't that for fighting terrorism? I like the idea
of making it easier to gather information on potential terrorists and to
share that information between intelligence agencies. But I don't think the
Patriot Act was ever meant to be an all-encompassing, cure all, "just
because we can add it here" thing. Where's the relevance? Including the
Sudafed restriction only gives more fuel to the fire that President Bush is
power hungry and illegally spying on private citizens.

When I hear about stuff like this law, even if it's a year or two too late,
it makes me long for 2008 all the more. I'm not saying I want Bush and
Chaney impeached - because that would give us Pelosi. And I'm sure that
when viewed through the prism of history, the "Dubya" will be vindicated and
seen as smarter on some things than currently perceived. Nevertheless, I am
at times relieved that he only has a little more than a year left in office.
After seven years, I am getting tired of defending him from critics when he
keeps "leading with his chin."

My Personal Veteran's Day Remembrance and Tribute

2007-11-11T21:44:00.001-05:00

During World War II, many families had multiple sons serving. My family was no exception. My father is the youngest of thirteen children, born to Italian immigrants who came through Ellis Island in 1905 with their first three children in tow. They settled in the coal-mining region of North-central Pennsylvania before eventually relocating to the North shore of Long Island in 1929. By that point, all the children had arrived...my father was two years old. On December 7, 1941, my father was about two months shy of his 15th birthday. His eight older brothers, however, ranged in age from 21 to 40. When war was declared and the call for soldiers came, five of them answered.

My Uncle John, the oldest to enlist at 34, worked for a construction company and enlisted in the Navy. His skills were put to good use in the Sea-Bees where he quickly attained the rank of Chief Petty Officer. The story goes that, when he was preparing the beachheads in the opening hours of the D-Day invasions, he got his helmet shot off and picked up the nearest one he could find. Unknown to him, it was an officer's. When another officer told him he needed to find another helmet, Uncle Johnny, I am told, politely refused and suggested if it was so important, that the officer find one for him. My family stayed with Uncle John at his house in Montauk Point a couple of times when I was young. Eventually, he retired to Vero Beach, Florida, where he lived to 95, passing away quietly in 2002.

The next in line was my Uncle Sammy, my Godfather. Uncle Sam was 31 when he was drafted into the Army during the first wave of the draft in 1940. He was discharged in 1941 after serving his year, but was recalled in 1942. Uncle Sammy was an MP and stationed in Iran where he served as his unit's cook. Uncle Sammy always had a kidding, wisecracking side to his nature that we all loved. I'm sure he developed that in order to defend against the inevitable tormenting cooks in the military receive. I remember many Saturday afternoons over at his house just visiting, as we would often do. We also had a few family reunions there in the 70's - that was a crowd! Uncle Sammy passed away in 1982 of leukemia. It was tough to see someone so vibrant get sick like that and it especially hurt that I was not able to donate platelets because I was only 16. Ever since I turned 17, I have been donating blood as often as I can in his memory, and made my first aphaeresis donation this year.

My Uncle Albert, nicknamed Shadow, was 27 at the time the war started. He was in the coast artillery serving in New Guinea. According to my Dad, when he wasn't manning the guns, he was one of his unit's resident mechanics, fixing trucks and jeeps. At some point later in the war, he had a brief reunion with Uncle John, possibly in Borneo, as that was a staging area for the proposed invasion of Japan. I have seen a few pictures of Uncle Albert but, unfortunately, I know the least about him because we never met. He passed away in 1950 at just 36 from complications due to malaria. I did, however, grow up knowing his daughter and her family, who were always at every family event. When we went down to Long Island a few months ago for another uncle's birthday, she was there with her husband. Though it had been years since we'd seen each other, it was as if no time had passed.

Uncle Roy was about 25 in 1941. He served in the Air Transport Command and was stationed in England and Scotland. He was a flight engineer and acted as gunner on a few bombing raids. His only son was several years older than my sister and me, so by the time we would visit him and Aunt Selma, the only other "kid" in the house was their mini-schnauzer Suki. Uncle Roy was always the most quiet of my uncles - it was a dignified sort of quiet. One very vivid memory I have was at my High School's Homecoming parade and game in 1984, the year after I graduated. The class of 1934 was honored on its 50th anniversary, and Uncle Roy attended. When the honorees, then approaching 70, were called up to be recognized during the half-time festivities, Uncle Roy stood out. He was tall and dignified, sharply dressed, without a cane, or even a limp - perfect military bearing! Uncle Roy lived to 83 years of age and passed away in 1999.

The last of my uncles to serve was Uncle Tony, born in 1920, who was in the 82nd Airborne. The story with him was that when his unit parachuted into France one or two days after the D-Day invasion started, he was one of the lucky ones who landed on the right side of a hill. On the wrong side was a Nazi machine gun nest. His unit also helped in the rescue at the Battle of the Bulge, along with Patton's tanks and other infantry divisions. Uncle Tony was seven years older than my dad was, and as such, had to deal with a younger brother tagging along all the time. His nickname for my dad was "Gink." When one of his friends finally asked him what that meant, he said, "The little sonofabitch is following me again!" Uncle Tony carried on the large family tradition and had nine kids - bringing my total first cousin count to 31 on my dad's side. After being sick for some time, Uncle Tony passed away early last year at 85.

My dad has an article hanging in his apartment...a clipping actually...from the local paper, the Long Islander (founded by poet Walt Whitman). The story is about how my grandmother joined the ranks of other local women with multiple sons serving in the armed forces. At the end, it mentioned her youngest son, Frank Jr. who planned to enlist in the Army Air Corps as a pilot cadet when he was old enough. That day never officially came. Because he had five brothers already serving, he wasn't allowed to leave High School early. So, even though he was sworn in earlier in 1945, he actually reported for duty six days after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

By that time, the Air Corps didn't need any new pilots, so they said they he could go home or pick some other field. Many of his friends in the same situation chose to go home, only to wind up back five years later for Korea. Dad, however, stayed and went to radar school. He remained in the Air Force (switchover in 1947) until 1948, leaving as a Corporal (Airman First Class). So, technically, that makes it six brothers who served during World War II. Dad says he really didn't serve in the war because he doesn't feel his time compares to his brothers' or others who were there during the real hostilities. But, the state of emergency was in effect for a few years after the war and anything could have happened. So, I give him credit for the time even if he doesn't feel it's deserved. Dad is still going strong at 80. In 1976, he and I made plans to celebrate the Tri-centennial together. I'll be 110 and he'll be 149.

Other members of my family also served.

My Uncle Jack was married to my father's next older sister, Catherine, and served in Korea. It was his 80th birthday we just celebrated recently on Long Island. Most of my Saturday evenings during the '70s were spent at their house after church, watching TV or just talking and hearing stories. Christmas and New Years was usually at their house - informal - open house - but always tons of great food. It was the house my father grew up in and the walls were covered in pictures and full of memories and stories.

My father-in-law, Wayne, is 79 and graduated High School at 16 in 1944. He trained as a pilot in P-51s toward the end of the war and was recalled toward the end of the Korean war to train in F-86s. Wayne was born in Kansas and eventually settled with his family in Southern California. He always has a lot of great stores about someplace or other he's visited or worked during his years in civil engineering.

Today, I thought about all of them, Uncles John, Sam, Albert, Roy, Tony and my father, Frank, Uncle Jack and Wayne. I am very grateful they all came home safely. Even though not all of them saw actual combat, I can't ever forget the sacrifices they were willing to make for the rest of us. I am writing this because it's important for stories like theirs to be told and retold. These men are more than just veterans from a long-ago war. They are my family and I honor and thank them for what they did.

Baseball Woes

2007-10-28T23:39:00.001-04:00

I was just watching some highlights of the 1969 world series. Maybe I'm
just waxing nostalgic, but things WERE different then. For example...

First, you got to watch the game. Today, you get to see only what the
network deems important, No longer do you follow the pitcher back to the
mound to see his expression or body language between pitches. Instead, you
see replays of each pitch and play in the field. It used to be that instant
replays were for really great moments, like Swoboda's catch. Today, every
pitch is treated like the play of the game and repeated 3 or 4 times. You
see it from left field, then the dugout view, then behind the plate, and
lest we forget the toe-cam just fwd of home plate. I'm surprised they
haven't strapped cameras to the bellies of trained pigeons. Of course, some
of the more wealthy teams would just hire military-type unmanned aircraft to
hover over the plate.

Second, the announcers just announced the games. They didn't ramble on
incessantly and feel it was necessary to spew every statistic about a
player. More than let the viewers watch the games, they actually let the
viewers HEAR the game...the WHOLE game. In those highlights, you heard the
roar of the crowd...crack of the bat, or alternatively, the ball hitting the
catcher's mitt. You could get your own thoughts going about the game
because you weren't being bombarded with stupid and useless chatter. Now,
you can barely think. It's almost better to shut the sound off.

Third, and most odd, I thought. There were these areas of the field that
were darker than others. Places where it looked like the stadium lights
weren't working. If I didn't know better, I'd say they were shadows where
the stadium's upper deck blocked sunlight from reaching the field. But that
couldn't be, because we all know that baseball games are meant to be played
at night! Especially World Series' games. But these games really looked
like they were being played about 4 or 5 in the afternoon. Unheard of! I
mean, so what these were two East Coast teams, you still need to push the
games late enough to let the West Coast watch, don't you? OK, sarcasm
aside, the games today are just to damn late! Enough said.

Baseball doesn't care about it's fans anymore...only the money. The greed
starts with the players and their salaries and goes right into in the front
office with advertising and broadcast rights. It's what happens, I guess,
when you let accountants run ball clubs. They care more about the bottom
line than the base lines. That's why sports stadiums are bearing corporate
names. How sad? How much money do these people need? Don't they realize
there is a generation of kids who have been priced and timed out of ball
games? 20 years from now, when today's kids have kids, they won't be
interested much anymore, and they won't pass the love of the game down.
Where will they be then? This is why, although I have been following the
Boston Red Sox in the series, I really don't care to watch much. It's my
own form of protest. I much prefer local, minor league ball, like the New
Britain Rock Cats. Reasonable games and prices, good fun, no greed or BS.
Major leagues have become too elitist. I just don't have any time for them
anymore.

Unanswered Questions...

2007-10-28T22:56:00.001-04:00

So, I'd like Fred Thompson to run for President, and win, of course. Maybe
I'm so impressed I'm even considering donating money to his campaign.
Maybe. But, what if he doesn't run? Suppose he doesn't get the nomination,
or worse, he just throws in the towel (not likely, I admit). What happens
to the money he's collected? I assume he doesn't just get to keep it, but
what does he have to do with it? What are his options?

Does it go to...
* Charity?
* Another candidate?
* The GOP general fund?
* The party's nominee?
* A future Thompson campaign?

Who decides? It's a simple question. But I can't find answers. And the
Fred08 website doesn't respond readily to e-mails, so they haven't told me.

Does anyone have an answer?

Is Nothing Sacred?

2007-10-24T20:01:00.001-04:00

So, I go the market and one of the things I am asked to get is a "sweet" for
desert. "Something Halloweeny." I go down the aisle with all the Halloween
candy and get some choice goodies. On the end-cap, I see the sides of boxes
that make me pause...candy canes. I turn the corner to be faced with a
four-foot wide, seven foot high display of candy canes. I shake my
head...candy canes out before Halloween? Well, I say to myself, at least
it's just candy canes. I turn to back down the candy aisle and am
dumbfounded by what I saw next. All along the middle of the aisle, across
from the Halloween candy at which I was just looking, were Christmas
decorations. My back was to them the whole time. Christmas trees, or
rather "Holiday" trees. Come on, can't you even wait until after Haloween
is over? Let me enjoy one holiday before you start inundating me with the
next!

Fred's Saying What Needs to be Said

2007-09-17T00:02:00.001-04:00

I've heard the complaints and read the articles complaining that Fred
Thompson is saying a lot with out saying much. What some people don't
understand is that he is saying very important things - things that need to
be said. Instead of talking about abortion, gay marriage or some other
polarizing, hot-button issue, he has chosen to focus much of his time and
energy a much more important issue, specifically, restoring the roles and
responsibilities of the President, Congress and Supreme Court to those
defined by the Constitution.

Fred is big on Federalism. I, for one, am glad to finally hear a candidate
talk about this. I firmly believe it is the lack of respect towards and
adherence to the basic design of our government that is really at the heart
of many of our problems. To begin with, the President is not a king. Now,
many people would answer me by saying that they know this. If that's the
case, then why do they continue treat him like one? Why is every President
and candidate besieged by questions about issues over which the office of
the President has absolutely no authority?

Let's think about this. The <http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm>
Constitution is very specific about the roles and responsibilities of the
three branches of our government. A President's word is by no means
absolute and is usually subject to the "advice and consent" of the Senate.
He/she alone does not have to power to raise or lower taxes, create or
overturn laws, declare war, peace or alliances or find people guilty of
crimes. A President may and, according to the Constitution, is expected to
make suggestions to Congress regarding budgets, taxes, laws and treaties.
Often, this happens on an almost daily basis, but at the very least, it is
Constitutionally required at the yearly State of the Union Address.

For things such as declaring war and appointing most federal officers
(cabinet members, judges, etc), he must basically ask permission. With
respect to military action, a President may take limited, immediate action
to defend America, its citizens or interests, or in retaliation for some
attack but a prolonged military engagement or war itself requires the
Senate's approval. So, what this boils down to is a job 90% of which
consists of suggesting, advising and asking permission. Only 10% of the
President's job is autocratic, such as the aforementioned limited military
action, granting reprieves and pardons, dismissing federal officers or
employees, or making temporary recess appointments to fill vacancies. For
the really big stuff, it's "mother, may I?"

So, why is the President held publicly accountable for poverty, inflation
and taxes when it's the House of Representatives that controls the money?
Why is he to blame for a war or lack of protracted action when the Senate
must approve of it? Why is the continued existence of a bad law or failure
to pass a new one assumed to be part of the President's job when it really
belongs in the hands of the Congress to create them or, in limited cases,
the Supreme Court to overturn them? Three groups are to blame: the public,
the press and the candidates.

Regardless of what these groups may actually know of the President's
responsibilities, by and large, they ignore it. Instead, they revert to the
sheep and shepherd mentality of one person in charge of all. Maybe it's
human nature to always want to follow a single leader. It sure makes it
easier to blame someone when things go wrong. But in the President's job
description, the words "official scapegoat" or the like don't appear
anywhere. Nevertheless, people whine and gripe, the press publishes and
editorializes, and candidates pander. As a result, we usually elect our
Presidents on promises they are completely impotent to uphold once in
office.

The most important thing a citizen or candidate can do is to read the job
description of the office for which they are voting or running. If the
candidate is talking about things that don't relate or making promises they
can't guarantee, the voters should look for another candidate and the
candidate should look for another job. Fred Thompson has read the
President's job description. Now it's the voters' turns. Read the
Constitution and listen to the candidates. You'll be surprised how few
really know what is expected or allowed by the job for which they are
competing.

But, Fred does!

A Somber Anniversary

2007-09-12T00:45:00.001-04:00

Yesterday morning my company, like most American's companies, had a moment
of silence to remember the victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks,
and the soldiers now fighting overseas. Ours was at 8:46 AM, the time the
first plane struck. It's hard to believe it's been six years. Honestly, it
feels like it's been longer...much longer. It seems like history -
something you learn about in class that happened long ago to other people.
Sometimes, I equate it to learning about the attack on Pearl Harbor. I know
better, but I can't shake the feeling of remoteness. Ironically, just
like six years ago, I was sitting in a training class at 8:46 AM. You'd
think the added sense of deja-vu would have made me feel more connected to
the day, but it didn't. After some serious thought I realized why I feel so
far removed from that day...one word...complacency.

I suppose it's natural to feel somewhat complacent about something that
happened six years ago. I mean, it wasn't yesterday. But to feel so
completely distant from it, like I remember hearing about it rather than
remembering it, makes it very surreal. It wasn't surreal for my friend who
got off his morning train at the WTC station at 8:46 AM to confusion and
fear, only to emerge on the street into a war zone. Or for my other friend
who, while coincidentally looking out of his office window at 7 Liberty
Plaza at 8:46 AM actually watched the first plane hit. It was very real for
my cousins, also, both NYC firefighters who showed up later that afternoon
for their regular shifts to continue fighting the blaze and, for weeks
afterward, assist in the rescue and recovery efforts. All four of them,
gratefully, for me and more importantly, their families, survived.

All the while, here I was, safely tucked in Connecticut, a long distance
spectator. Now, six years later, that distance seems so much greater.

The signs of that day are all around us. From security lines at the airport
to terror alerts to metal detectors to Al Qaeda videos to the war itself.
No where was it more obvious than in Washington, D.C. This spring, my
family took a vacation there. It was very sad to see a city specifically
designed for openness and accessibility hiding within itself behind jersey
barriers. Gone are the days when you could just walk into the Capitol or
the National Archives, or wait in line for a same day tour of the White
House. I don't know if we'll ever get that innocence back again.

Maybe that's really what I'm feeling - a loss of innocence - and with it
went all the expectations of safety and security I grew up feeling were mine
just because I was an American. That could be why I feel so detached from
the events of September 11...it's complacency born of a forced realization
that we are targets. Maybe I feel this way because I've so convinced myself
that we can never and have never truly been safe that I think what happened
was just natural or inevitable. Hey, it's going to rain again some day, why
get all excited when it happens and melancholy looking back? It's part of
life. But things like 9-11 aren't, or at least shouldn't be. Not for us, or
anyone.

People say we have lost our liberties over the past six years, but I think
what we've really lost is our sense of freedom. We're scared, so we hide
and stop doing things the way we used to. We guard ourselves more, close
ourselves off more. We mistrust and grumble. We immerse ourselves in
pop-culture because the reality of the world is too scary, and we think that
maybe, just maybe, if we hide from it and divert our attention, it won't
catch up with us. Imagine that...a nation of 300 million suspicious,
possibly paranoid, reality-TV watching shut-ins. No wonder we're at each
other's throats...we have cabin fever. We keep fighting and looking for
someone or something to blame for how we feel, but we're aiming at the wrong
targets.

The President isn't our enemy, neither is Congress, nor the Supreme Court,
nor the Patriot Act, nor the soldiers, nor Republicans nor Democrats nor
minorities nor whatever. Complacency...that's the enemy. These other
things are parts of our culture, something too many of us have been
avoiding for too long. Oh, we talk, or rather, argue politics, for example,
but are we really involved in it? Do we really understand it? How long has
it been? Twenty years? Thirty? One hundred? We talk about fighting the
war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but what about the war here. The war for our
freedom starts here.

We need to start fighting ourselves - not each other like we have been - but
our individual selves. It's time we fought the complacency within each of
us that keeps us shut off and became involved again in our lives and our
country. Instead of watching our neighbors, how about watching out for
them? Rather than protesting something going wrong, how about celebrating
or working to further something that is going right? Why spend money on the
latest fad: save it or invest it or donate some to charity. Become involved
in your community and/or church. Don't snipe at the political opposition,
engage them in a thoughtful debate, taking the time to listen and consider
their point of view.

In the end, we'll probably find more freedom and security by doing these
things than we have known for a while. And maybe we'll put an end to that
awful complacency that tells us that what happened six years ago in New
York, Washington and Pennsylvania was just inevitable and that we had it
coming. If we gain anything from 9-11, it should be to always remember that
such things were, and forever ought to be, the exceptions, not the norm.

A Different Perspective

2007-09-11T23:08:00.001-04:00

Sean Hannity used to (and may still) interview people on the street every
Thursday afternoon on his radio show. The segment was called "Man in the
Street" and had as its main purpose demonstrating how ill-informed many
Americans (especially liberal and younger ones) are about their country,
leaders and history. At the same time, it showed how well versed so many
are in pop-culture, sports and gossip. These well done segments were both
entertaining and enlightening, and quite scary. It's sobering to hear
person after person not recognizing photos of George Bush, Dick Chaney or
Condoleezza Rice but having no problem recognizing Michael Jackson or
Brittany Spears. Truly frightening!

Sean would frequently express worry that these people were cancelling out
the votes of Republicans - a sentiment I shared - until yesterday. You see,
my mind inverts things...thoughts...constantly rolling them over and over
and providing different ways of looking at them. Yesterday, while I was
driving home, this thought must have gotten the Tony Robbins
positive-thinking treatment because I suddenly realized that I am actually
cancelling out THEIR votes. WOW! What a difference? In one flash, I went
from victim to crusader - Defender of the Right (pun intended) and all that!
I was pumped.

So, now armed with this new perspective, I have gone from worried to
hopeful. After all, there can't possibly REALLY be more Americans believing
the liberal-wing nuts instead of ascribing to conservative principles. With
that, my new mission is clear - get our numbers talking. To any
conservatives out` there who feel that you have no say, start writing
letters, speaking to friends, and making your voices heard. The Republican
Party needs you to be silent no more!

Fred Gains Ground!

2007-09-11T22:38:00.001-04:00

Well, it was only a matter of time. Fred Thompson is now (statistically)
tied with Rudy Giuliani for the lead among the GOP candidates. While I
don't place much stock in polls as final determiners, this one does show
several things: first the general dissatisfaction Republicans have with the
other candidates, and second, the potential Fred Thompson has to win this
race. Let's face it, he was second without actually running, now after only
a week, he is tied with the leader. With this kind of momentum, the
possibilities are looking pretty good.

Now, to keep things moving, Senator Thompson needs to push for his 1-on-1
debates - and lots of them. He should start with Huckabee since he was the
first to accept, then keep working through the crowd. Hey, while he's at
it, debate some Democrat contenders also. There's nothing in the rules that
says he can't. I know other polls show Hilliary and Obama leading over
Fred, but the people just need to see the man in action.

Why Don't People Think Anymore?

2007-09-09T12:06:00.001-04:00

I was on my way home from work and came to a "T" intersection with a stop
sign for me - the side road. I needed to turn left, so I stopped at the
line, then pulled up to see around the corner in both directions. Just then,
a driver that wants to turn right pulls up on my right a bit ahead of me and
blocks my view so I can no longer see right, but he can see left. So I pull
a little further ahead, restoring my view and blocking his. And this
numbskull has the nerve to shoot me a dirty look.

DUH!

If I'm turning left, I need to be able to see both directions. And if it's
safe for me to turn, then it is, by default, safe for the dumb-dumb next to
me to turn also. But just because it's safe for him to turn right, doesn't
mean that there isn't a car coming from that direction preventing me from
turning left.

Why don't people think??? Is it that hard to work out the logic, and maybe,
also apply a little consideration in the process?

The Huckabee - Thompson Debate...Let's See It!

2007-09-08T10:34:00.001-04:00

Senator Fred Thompson said in an interview after formally announcing his candidacy that he would prefer a Lincoln-Douglass style of debate rather than the current multi-player, sound-byte oriented style. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has said he accepts the challenge. So let's see it! This would be a welcome change from the current debate style and if it occurred often enough with the players shifting, it would give voters a great opportunity to really see the lesser candidates and hear real discussion on the issues.

Again, one-on-one, single topic, hour long. Real discussions - real answers - I'm all for it.

So...when's it gonna be, Fred?

Senator Craig, Stay Resigned

2007-09-08T10:14:00.001-04:00

I maintain my position on Senator Craig's restroom incident - that the
police officer was over-zealous, the transcript was ludicrous and one sided,
and that he shouldn't have plead guilty and shouldn't have resigned.

Having said all that, now that he HAS resigned, he should not do an
about-face. I say this for the same reasons I say he shouldn't have plead
guilty and shouldn't have resigned in the first place...it made him appear
weak-spined. Now, waffling on whether or not to stay in office only makes
him appear more so.

This isn't an indictment of Senator Craig's career, service or general
character - no doubt the recent events have sent his life and mind spinning.
However, he needs to stick by his decision to resign - there can be no
turning back.

Senator Craig, go ahead and fight your legal battle over the guilty plea -
and best of luck there! But as for your Senate seat, go gracefully. Doing
so will allow you a final measure of self and public respect.

Put Your Standards Where Your Mouths Are!

2007-09-04T00:23:00.001-04:00

Once again, important issues are being pushed off the front page in favor of
selections from the seedier side of life. The main-stream press and high
blogsphere are having field-days with Senators Craig and Vitter. While
Senator Craig's guilt looks in-question to me, Senator Vitter's has been
confessed. Still, do these things need to be discussed to the extent to
which they are? Day after day, the same stale sound bites followed by the
same tired analyses. Why? To sell papers or ads and keep us interested.
Hey, sex sells, and no one knows that better than a journalist. When it
comes to influencing public opinion, the press puts Madison Avenue to shame.

It isn't just sex, however, that sells. Financial misdealings, money in the
freezer, war records (or lack thereof), birthday party wishes, drugs,
partying children, plagiarism. The list goes on. I'm not condoning
immoral, unethical or illegal behavior, but all the coverage does make
innocence rather irrelevant. People are tried and convicted in the press
and the not-guilty never seem to get separated from the guilty. Certainly,
the press never attacks vindicating and apologizing with the same zeal they
attack accusing. Why? Again, guilt sells, innocence bores. To some caught
in the crossfire, it doesn't seem fair, but that's the way life goes, I
guess. Especially in politics.

While it's true that we want our elected officials to be people of high
merit, we can't expect them to be any less human and fallible than
ourselves. People make mistakes and within reason, we need to try to
forgive, or at the very least, be somewhat understanding. Lets not forget
that elected officials are also fellow citizens. Just because they chose to
serve doesn't mean they should forfeit all rights to privacy. And let's
face it, illegalities and ethics issues aside, many of the things discussed
are private matters - best left out of print and off the record. Some of
the issues brought to light are just ridiculous. It's one thing to try to
defend against something worthy of a fight, but how do you defend against
the absurd? It makes me realize the truth in the saying "Anyone truly
qualified for a political office doesn't want it." Can you blame them? If
we want people to continue step forward and serve, they need to have some
assurances that they will not be convicted solely on accusation - especially
stupid ones, and if they do make some mistakes, that they'll be given the
chance to apologize and/or make amends.

But if people who are supposed to serve the public trust are to be held to a
higher standard, where does that leave journalists? Aren't they, too,
supposed to serve the public trust? Don't they, too, have a responsibility
for fairness, restraint, honesty and integrity? If they are going to
question other's ethics and morals, shouldn't theirs be subject to similar
scrutiny? So to the people of the press, before you ask your next
accusatory question or write your next career ending article, ask yourself
"is it worth it?" "Who else will be hurt by what I say or write and do they
deserve it?" "Is it journalism, or sensationalism?" "Am I serving the
public trust or just trying to sell papers and maybe win a Pulitzer?" More
importantly, ask yourself if you are truly qualified to stand in judgment of
others. Ask yourself if you could pass a similar personal test. Do you
truly have the moral high ground? It's time you apply the same standards to
yourselves that you apply to others. Subject yourselves to that through
which you put others. I, for one, don't believe you have the stomachs, or
empty closets for it.

Don't Go To The Bathroom In Airports!!!

2007-09-03T22:42:00.001-04:00

The word is out! Don't go to the bathroom in airports or you may be arrested for lewd conduct.

Senator Larry Craig resigned from his senate seat because an over-zealous police officer held his interpretation of events over the Senator's and decided to played judge, jury and executioner all at the same time. He called the senator a liar. How did he lie? I listened to the tape of the questioning between Senator Craig and the officer...it was ludicrous! "You touched the bottom of the stall between us." "Your foot touched mine." "Your palm was up." "I see this type of stuff in here every day." Whoa...sounds incriminating to me! Let's lock the sicko up and throw away the key!!!

I'm talking about the cop, actually...not Senator Craig.

If the Senator did anything wrong based on what I heard on that tape, it was giving up too damn quick. Explain something to me. How can the police officer say he was NOT trying to entrap people, but then say he sees this type of stuff every day? Sounds like a prolonged sting peration to me. Either that, or the officer has some explaining to do about his OWN intentions in the restroom. How great would it have been if the conversation went as follows?

Officer: Your foot touched mine

Craig: No it didn't, yours touched mine.

Officer: And your hand reached down. And I saw your ring.

Craig: Why the hell were you looking under my stall?

Officer: I saw you looking into the stalls while you were waiting.

Craig: Were you checking me out even before I sat down? You really need a new hobby.

Officer: I'm disappointed in you, Senator.

Craig: I'll bet. It seems you had hoped for a livelier afternoon. But you're really not my type. I like women - my wife, in particular.

Officer: Never mind, wise ass, just go catch your flight (sound of ripping ticket)

Craig: Thanks, officer. By the way, you should know it's probably illegal to solicit sex in a public restroom. They probably have bars for this type of thing...

Obviously, I don't know the officer's intentions, and have no real basis for making any accusation, but this invented dialogue shows how absurd this incident is, and how easily one side can dominate a discussion, putting the other on the defensive and making them sound guilty.

Welcome, Fred!

2007-09-03T16:32:00.001-04:00

Well, now we're going to see a campaign. Fred Thompson will be announcing
his candidacy this Thursday, and I can't wait! I'm not deluding myself into
thinking that just because he is entering the race that he has it locked
up...far from it. But, he has a good chance and I hope he gets it. Even if
he doesn't get the nomination, he is definitely going to shake things up and
get Republicans focused on more important issues. Given the problems we've
been having lately, we need that focus badly.

So, welcome, Fred. Make it count!

Please run, Fred!

2007-06-28T01:17:00.001-04:00

I've made my decision. I want Fred Thompson to run for President of the United States of America. I know there are people who are going to argue this with me, but I have good reasons. Mostly, I agree with him on many issues. Notice I said many, not all. I don't believe it's possible to fall in line totally with a candidate's beliefs. I agree with President Bush on many issues, but certainly, not all. However, when choosing a candidate to back for public office, we must weigh our options against all the issues currently in need of attention and make our choice. Most often, we must compromise some desires in order to get most of what we want.

Here are just a few examples of where I agree with Senator Thompson:

1. Illegal aliens should not be given any preferences just because they happened to make it in to the country and evade capture long enough. They certainly do not deserve the rights or benefits of a citizen or resident alien, nor especially protection under our laws. Remember, they flouted our laws to get in here in the first place, Now they (supported by the ACLU and Democratic party hierarchy) want those same laws to wok in their favor when it suits them? I don't think so. A sovereign nation has the right to control the flow of people into its borders and to deal with those who enter illegally.

2. Tax cuts stimulate the economy. Every time taxes get lowered, people save more, invest more, spend more, work more and general revenues to the government actually increase. Every time taxes go up, people stop saving, investing and spending...tax increases, unemployment and inflation follow. This is not theory, it's economic and historic fact.

3. The death penalty works, and is fair. We must not as a society or nation dictate to states how to prosecute criminals. Local judges, not federal ones, must be allowed to make local decisions based on locally passed laws. Pressure groups like the ACLU and Amnesty International must not be given federal forums to lobby against issues rightfully belonging to states.

4. Abortion is not a national or Presidential issue. It should be left to the states. Rowe v. Wade was not wrong in its support for legal abortion, but rather in it usurpation of state authority over how to best manage this delicate and personal issue locally.

Detractors say "he's an actor playing the role of President." To that, I say..."So what?" These same arguments were made a generation ago about President Reagan. They have as little relevance now as they did then. Let's face it, actors have always been involved in things outside sound stages - often with great success. Does that mean that we should not pay attention or support them?

* Are Oprah Winfrey's efforts to help the poor in Africa to be chided because she is an actress?
* Should we have not contributed to hurricane Katrina relief just because Sean Penn said we should?
* Were Tom Hanks' efforts to promote human space flight shallow because he played an astronaut in a movie?

Certainly not! Celebrities actually have distinct advantages in politics: knowing how to handle the media; being able to sell themselves and, as follows, their ideas; being able to speak clearly and engagingly in public. These are some things our current President lacks in abundance - and I say this even though I voted for him twice. President Clinton, on the other hand, could sell flannel long johns in the desert, make you feel honored for the chance to buy them and eager to put them on. Had he not not run for public office, President Clinton might have made it big as an actor or salesman.

Some people will say he was a lazy Senator. To this, I say that having your name on as many pieces of legislation as possible is more about self aggrandizement and less about active legislating. Supporting a bill by voting for it is doing the job he was sent to do. Some say he made his money as a Washington insider, and now wants to play the outsider. Well, he is an outsider because his approach to running for and being president would be outside the normal pattern of behavior for most candidates or Presidents - low key, firm, and approachable. He also has a better understanding of the tactics of lobbyists, having been one himself, and is better suited than most for handling them.

Besides all that, I just feel like I can trust him. I feel completely comfortable with the thought of him as President. I haven't felt that with any candidate since 1980 and 84 (Reagan).

While I am still learning about all of Senator Thompson's positions, I have heard enough to know I like what he is saying. Most candidates, regardless of party, want the same end results for our nation and citizens: liberty, prosperity, security and happiness. What we really vote for is the method, or path, we want to take to get there. In the end, we vote for who we feel will lead us where we need to go in the most efficient and/or appropriate way. I believe Fred Thompson is that person.

So, Fred, won't you please run for President?

NASA Needs PR Help!

2007-06-11T22:53:00.000-04:00

A few words of explanation about Science and Engineering:

Science is about investigating, discovering, explaining and understanding. Engineering is about imagining, planning, creating and inventing. Scientists probe the mysteries of the universe and look for the laws that govern how things happen. Engineers use those laws to make things happen on command. Scientists ask "Why?" Engineers say "Because!" I'm a mix of the two. With a BS in Aerospace Engineering and a MS in Mechanical Engineering under my belt, I have worked in a variety of fields. Sometimes I've been an engineer, sometimes a scientist, sometimes both. Both jobs are tough, but they can also be very rewarding...much like writing. One thing engineers and scientists don't always do well, however, is selling their work.

Discovery and invention require money. Without it, ideas die, and gadgets just gather dust on shelves. No one organization I can think of suffers from this dilemma more than the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, better known as NASA. Born 50 years ago from the former National Advisory Council for Aeronautics (NACA), NASA was to be the agency that would lead America to the stars. In just 12 years, we went from rockets that blew up on the pad, to the moon...six times. It looked like there were no limits. But that was thirty eight years ago. Today, we are stuck in Earth orbit going around in circles at 17,500 miles an hour. Such is the current state of our space program. The reason? NASA is suffering from PRDS - Public Relations Deficiency Syndrome.

Here's an example. To date, over 100 extra-solar planets have been discovered. Recently, one was found possibly approaching the size and composition of Earth. What do the scientists always say when interviewed? "This can help us figure out how the universe began?" I know I'm a techno-weenie and supposed to be really into this stuff...but...SO WHAT? What good is this to us? Is NASA planning on starting their own universe somewhere? Maybe the government is looking to license the technology, or franchise it out in "Universes R Us" stores. Maybe do-it-yourself kits, like Tinker Toys® or Legos®.

I understand the implications such information holds, and the possible benefits. And the general public, by-and-large is not stupid, many of them get it, too. But, as the people who have to foot the bill, we need, want, expect, and are entitled to more. If NASA wants to put us in space again, then they must gather public support for it and the reasons must be more compelling, and promise more tangible pay-offs than just knowledge. But as smart as these rocket guys are, they just don't get it. NASA needs to explain things in ways that address specific problems.

For example:

- Perfecting methods to discover extra-solar planets can help develop methods for future spacecraft navigation.

- Being able to detect and view Earth-sized objects around distant stars increases an interstellar ships chances of detecting and avoiding interstellar material that can damage it.

- Long range detection methods will also improves our ability to find Earth-bound objects much farther away - giving us more time to react.

- Being better able to determine the composition of distant planets and atmospheres allows us to better search for resources on our own planet, and monitor our environment.

- Putting men back on the moon could lead to permanently manned manufacturing facilities which would not contribute to the pollution of our atmosphere, water and land.

- Lunar-based telescopes could be bigger and more elaborate than those in orbit, allowing improved capabilities for the first few bullet items above.

- Manned space exploration would increase the need for on-ship recycling of all manner of waste into usable materials that don't pollute. This would trickle down to Earth and help us control our waste.

- Large scale manned and unmanned exploration will prompt major improvements in clean and efficient energy sources such as fuel cells and solar power.

There, that wasn't so hard was it? And I don't even work in the space business. Imagine what those guys could think of if they try. Maybe they already have, but they just need to find their voices. This isn't lip-service, either. There are true, real and highly tangible benefits to the Earth for space exploratin. But, as the Mercury Astronauts realized in the movie "The Right Stuff," "No bucks…no Buck Rogers." If NASA wants to go anywhere and do anything, they need to step up and start talking to the American people about what's in it for them.

It sounds like Michael Griffin needs to plan a trip to Madison Avenue before the moon!

Emotional Guardrails

2007-06-10T08:44:00.001-04:00

I've been quiet recently. Mostly, my paying job has kept me very busy. However, at those rare moments when I found myself with both the time and energy to write anything happily coinciding, I have been at a loss to know what to say. Quite frankly, it all just seems so ridiculous. Here is one example of something that has been bugging me for some time. I am tired of being confronted...no...assaulted with instructions on how I am to behave. Be courteous...don't offend anyone...consider the other's opinions...and my favorite...the incessant safety reminders. The list goes on. These "emotional guardrails" are meant to provide a safe and secure environment in which we may live peacefully together and walk happily hand in hand, smelling the thornless roses and kissing the stingless bees.

The problem with this type of sappy, happy-slappy stuff is that while it may be fine for kindergarten right before milk and cookies and nap time, it doesn't make it in the real world. Life is messy, dangerous and people can be downright mean. It's bad enough our schools have sterilized our children's environments to the point where they can no longer take a punch, literally or figuratively, but now they are trying to do it to adults as well. You can't just tell people to be careful and hope they never fall. They will fall...and when they do, it's going to hurt.

When I was growing up in the 70's, I was fortunate enough to have parents from the Greatest Generation. They knew about tough...they knew because they lived it. My parents gave me advice and warnings, and then sent me on my way knowing I would fall, get hurt (emotionally and physically), embarrass myself and fail. When things happened, they weren't automatically fixed for me. Most often, my parents would explain why the thing happened, then tell me to go make it right. This approach gave me scars, again, both emotionally and physically but I wouldn't trade them because they helped thicken my skin - something sadly lacking in many people growing up today.

I'm certainly not advocating that people start engaging in reckless, dangerous, discourteous or hateful behavior. Far from it. What needs to happen, however, is that as best as we try to get along or be safe, we need to be prepared for failure, how to deal with it and, most importantly, how to get past it. We also need to understand that sometimes, the failures come from outside our immediate sphere of influence. Sometimes we and those with whom we are immediately associating are trying our best. Sometimes, it's someone or something else causing problems. We need to be prepared for those situations, too.

We live in a world with many people who don't share our concerns or dreams, and on a planet that doesn't know or care that we are even here. Both our fellow inhabitants of Earth, and even the Earth itself can cause us pain. Again, life often is messy, disorganized, chaotic and, yes, downright dangerous. We can't always change other people or the planet to suit ourselves, and we will be forever debating the merits of trying. But, we can change ourselves. Alongside things like courtesy, respect, caution and compassion we can and must adopt in ourselves and instill in our children the additional characteristics of determination, perseverance and
resilience.

Immigration Reform is Fine - But How About Government Accountability?

2007-05-27T12:11:00.001-04:00

Recently, I've been researching and compiling my family's history. On a popular genealogy website, I found information about my grandparents & great-grand parents dating back to the mid-1800's. It has been a lot of fun. My mother's family immigrated from Germany and my father's from Italy. One interesting similarity I proudly noted is that the records I found always said "Date Immigrated," rather than "Date Snuck In."

The distinction between these two phrases is clear: There are no such things as "Illegal Immigrants." Immigration is a legal process supported by the Constitution, codified in laws, and {supposedly) enforced by the government. People who come here without following the rules are criminals. Why has this point been missed by our elected officials? The government was wise to put a set of milestones for the government of Iraq into the war funding bill. How about a set of milestones for OUR government in the immigration reform bill?

First, the government should be required to show measurable progress toward improved security - and that those steps are working. Not just checks in the box. Why not put the National Guard on the Canadian and Mexican borders? We use the Coast Guard to patrol our nation's wet borders. Certainly it's appropriate to use soldiers to also patrol the dry ones. Second the government must also show that it is actually starting to enforce the laws already on the books, and the new ones it is passing. Otherwise, they aren't worth the paper on which they are written.

We've too long in this country given the government (Democrat or Republican controlled) a pass on doing the job we ask it to do, or that it has promised to do. We've been settling for excuses and lip service rather than results. We are the bosses and they are accountable to us. It's time they start proving they are worth all the time we spend electing them. They need to be accountable for their responsibilities - especially when it comes to something like security.

Portions of this post were part of a recent letter to the editor of the Hartford Courant.

A Chance for Compromise

2006-11-09T22:45:00.001-05:00

A lot of people are worried. I hear the same gloom and doom from hard core Republicans about losing the majorities in the Senate and House in this week's elections that I heard from Democrats when Republicans swept into office six years ago. I don't understand why, though, because this situation is totally different. First, this was not as much a democratic sweep, where the needle shifted far left, as it really was a minor perturbation. The balance has shifted left of center, but just barely. Second, the Republicans still have George Bush and a more conservative Supreme Court than six years ago.

In reality, I see this as a good thing. Here's why...

If we forget about the fact that a good portion of the Democrats that were just elected are fiscal and social conservatives, and just go with the fact that the Democrats now have the majority, then OK, they can pass darn near any bill they wish, and propose any tax increase they want. But George Bush still has his veto power and isn't afraid to use it. Further, the Democrat's majority is no where near enough to override the vetoes. So, what that really means is that for the next two years no piece of legislation is likely to be enacted unless both sides of the aisle agree to it.

True compromise, at last. Both sides are looking out for their party's interests, are involved in the decisions and neither side gets to whine about the results. That will be nice for a change!

To the winners: Congratulations - you got the job now serve us well.

To the losers: Better luck next time.

To the whiners, detractors and critics from around the world, hear this:

I am tired of terms like "Regime Change," "Taking Control," "Losing Power" or "Seizing Power." This country is a republic with a representational democracy and our government has had continuity for over 200 years. The overlaps we have between the term lengths of the different branches of government are what gives us that continuity. What you have just seen is not a coup. It's the way we transition responsibility in the United States and we are proud of it. Let's get some things straight: We don't kill or exile our leaders when they leave office; We don't redesign our government every time political majorities change; We don't rewrite our constitution just because it suits us, or you. We are Americans and we are, on the whole, a bit more politically mature than that. Like us or not, we have the oldest and most stable constitutional republic/democracy on the planet and that says something.

Why I Voted For Joe Lieberman

2006-11-07T21:54:00.000-05:00

Tonight I voted for Joe Lieberman for Senator. Why? I'll tell you.

It wasn't for his staunch conservatism. Being a hawkish democrat doesn't make him a conservative.

It wasn't for his charisma or eloquence. His public speaking skills and droning voice are only slightly less likely to make me cringe (or sleep) than are President Bush's - and I voted for Bush - twice!.

It wasn't his voting record - either the liberal votes he cast or how few he actually showed up to cast compared to other Senators.

It wasn't his loyalty. Let's face it, his third term as Senator was a consolation prize for him not being elected Vice-President. We weren't his first choice. (Accordingly, he wasn't mine, either.)

It wasn't his ability to keep a promise."18 years only"

No, it was none of those reasons. It was simply this: Joe Lieberman is a known quantity. Be he good or bad, we know how to deal with him. Schlesinger, for all his good ideas or positions is, sadly, unelectable. Lamont, the man against everything and for nothing, was to me an unacceptable choice.

I hate it when my I find myself using my vote as a preventative measure rather than a step forward. But, in politics as in chess, sometimes you get to advance, and sometimes all you can do is block. So, I realized the only way to keep "little Neddy" out of office was to keep "ol' Joe" in. Joe's no prize but thankfully, in my opinion, he's no Lamont, either.

Keeping my fingers crossed...

Making Your Mark In America

2006-04-11T22:34:00.000-04:00

I just saw a TV commercial for Mitsubishi (Motors). Their opening line was "It's been 25 years since we made our mark in America..." Well, maybe for the car company...but...I seem to remember their AIRPLANES made quite an impression on Dec 7, 1941.

How quickly they'd like us to forget!

Why Is This Such A Surprise?

2005-12-18T17:57:00.000-05:00

President Bush acknowledged using provisions within the Patriot Act to authorize wire taps on American citizens suspected of having links with terrorist groups. Now, Democratic lawmakers are all in a tizzy, calling for hearings, investigations and more. Can anyone explain this to me? Bush asked for these special provisions following September 11, and congress approved them. Why is anyone surprised that he actually usedthem as intended? I can only think of a few reasons why they are so upset:

1: They never expected him to use them, in which case they are stupid.

2: They never wanted him to use them, in which case they don't care about national security.

3: They planned for him to use them just so they could criticize him later.

Any of these three would be consistent with the current Democratic Party policy machine. More's the pity...

Morgan Freeman Talks Straight on Racism

2005-12-18T15:51:00.000-05:00

I have always had deep respect for Morgan Freeman. As an actor, I think he stands out from the crowd with few equals. As a human being, he always impressed me as an intelligent, thoughtful person with a deeply held sense of personal integrity. I have never known much about his politics, and I'm sure that just as with most people. he and I wouldn't agree on everything. But he is one celebrity who I always thought it would be an honor to meet because he is a true gentleman. When I heard what he said on 60 Minutes, my respect went up even more, if that's possible. Way to go, Morgan!

Back in the late 1970s, I would watch the news with my parents on the weekends. On Saturdays, the 10:00 news on WNEW (Channel 5) was only 1/2-hour and at 10:30PM, the station presented another 1/2-hour show called "Black News." One Saturday night, I remember calling the station (I was only about 12 at the time) at about 10:35PM and asked them why they had that show? The producer said it was to highlight news in the black community. I said, "Oh, so that means the first half hour was White News?" I heard a long silence on the other end of the phonefollowed finally by "Um, no...but..." I thought it was a fair question.

The only way to end racism IS to stop talking about it. It's takes practice to look across a crowded room and not point someone out as "the white/black/oriental guy next to so and so," but it's important to try. If the our differences aren't important enough to be criteria for how we treat each other, then they aren't important enough to keep talking about! It's true that we shouldn't be as overly sensitive to labels (I AM white, after all), but it's really our similarities that are more important to brag about. I had an article published about this in a local Op-ed page two years ago. If you're interested, you can read it here.
Cheers to Morgan Freeman for so beautifully standing up for his rights as an American sans hyphen!

I'm In The Wrong Business

2005-12-15T00:16:00.000-05:00

For the last several nights, I've received phone solicitations from my undergraduate university looking for donations. Most of these calls have been during the dinner hour. For most of the calls, I had not been home, but two nights ago, I was. And I was eating. And it was 6:30PM. I took the call. Someone, presumably an undergraduate student, Identified himself and asked for me by name. I told this kid that yes, I am so-and-so and asked if he was aware that this was most people's dinner time and told him that I wasn't interested. I then hung up and went back to my meal. I was rude, yes. But I had had enough.

Look, let's say I go to some major department store near my home and buy a refrigerator. I finance it and pay it off after a few years. Since that time, I have moved, and even though the first refrigerator was immensely useful to me, having stored my meals and enabled me, in part, to get where I am now...I bought another, more advanced refrigerator from another major store.

Years later...the first fridge is paid for, the old store closed its branch near my old home, and doesn't even sell refrigerators anymore. But I still get these calls asking me to help the store expand its headquarters or help other people buy other appliances. Now, to be fair, I am allowed to come back and watch other people shopping for those appliances free of cost (called auditing)...which could be cool. And I receive mailings updating me on other former customers and am occasionally invited to dinners. On the downside many of the sales reps are politically liberal...but...I digress.

Alright, enough analogies. The point is that I graduated 18 years ago and paid off my student loans. My campus was bulldozed and made part of an expanding mall and my degree program was canceled. For all intent and purposes, the school I graduated from doesn't even exist any more. And yet, the calls keep coming. Give it up already. What other business...and yes...colleges and universities ARE businesses...tries to get away with this? Surely, not one I would be lucky enough to own. A nice job if you can get it, though, I guess.

Pragmatism

2005-12-10T08:23:00.000-05:00

"The pessimist sees a glass that's half empty. The optimist sees a glass that's half full. I see a glass that's twice as big as it has to be." George Carlin

See that third option? That's me. I'm a proud pragmatist - with a touch of cynicism and a dash of sarcasm thrown in for good measure. When I look at a subject, I'm guided less often by emotion and more often by a desire to seek out a root cause or to ask a question thathasn't been asked. A perfect example is the assault on Christmas.

It's been in the news more this year than any other. From "Holiday Trees" to "Season's Greetings" it's all so hypocritical and stupid. The way I see it, it's not as much anti-Christian or pro-secular as it is poor marketing. I mean...if you own a business and go so far as putting up decorations and offering goods which are obviously associated with the modern celebration of Christmas, then you obviously want my money.That's one reason I hate malls at this time of year. The greed is so blatant.

Maybe at one time there was some element of good will and spirit to it. Now, the decorating is all clearly done to empty my wallet. And it used to be confined to after Thanksgiving. When I was growing up, I wouldn't see decorations in stores until after you cracked the wishbone. Now...they're up BEFORE Halloween. That's right, ghosts and goblinsright beside Santa and Nativity scenes. It's disheartening.

Look...it's all about sucking up, right? Remember that shopping scene in Pretty Woman where Richard Gere tells that annoyingly insincere salesman that "I think we need some major sucking up here." That's my point. Do you really expect to get my money by luring me into your store with Christmas decorations then trying to wash the meaning rightout of the season? WRONG.

Charm me. Woo me. At least try to make me believe that you actually give a darn about what I think is important. If you want our money at this time of year, call it Christmas.

A "Perspective" On Global Warming

2005-12-10T01:07:00.000-05:00

Beware of Junk Science. Let me take you through a thought experiment...

Imagine you are driving up a steep hill and find yourself behind someone pushing a stalled car up that hill. You see it's a pretty good size SUV, and yet one man is pushing it not much slower than he can walk unencumbered on level ground. You think to yourself "That man is pretty strong!" You may also conclude that pushing an SUV up a hill isn't as tough as you might have expected, if only one man can do it - regardlessof his individual strength.

Since you've got some time, you run a few numbers in your head and determine that each of his steps moves the car three feet and burns so many calories of energy. You conclude that given his probable weight, and the distance to go, he will arrive at the top of the hill in 25 minutes about 3 pounds lighter. All this is from your vantage point of being behind the man pushing the SUV. But what if you look at itdifferently?

Well, if you were to look at it from the side, you would also see his three equally burly friends PULLING the car by a rope attached to the front bumper. From this perspective, the impact of the man in the back drops significantly. While he is still contributing to the effort, he is only doing 1/4 or less of the actual work. This little scenario demonstrates the importance of understanding all the variables contributing to a problem, and one of the reasons why I don't subscribeto the current hysteria of global warming.

The problem with the global warming fad is that I don't believe the "scientists" really understand the phenomenon they are studying. I also don't believe they are looking at all the contributing factors, nor are they properly weighting the ones they are counting. If they were, then the correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperature rise would be closer. In actuality, I have seen reports that global temperature rise more closely matches the fluctuations of solar activity and its interactions with the Earth's magnetic field - factors most of the"scientists" ignore or underestimate.

Also, many temperature readings used by the "scientists" are taken in or around population centers or at airports. Large numbers of people and large areas of concrete are going to produce local temperature spikes. But, temperature readings taken by satellite over the Earth's
oceans...4/5 of the planet's area, do not support the panic. The average global temperature may be rising, but not as fast as the fear-mongers would have us believe.

As an engineer, I understand the difficulty of making computer simulations of complex, multi-variable systems. The atmosphere is a very complicated system...so complicated, in fact, that the best models we can make of it still do not predict the weather with any significantly higher accuracy than 50 years ago - before computers and satellites. We've only begun to scratch the surface. We don't yet evenknow what we don't know about it.

CO2 emissions, ozone levels, solar radiation and the planet's magnetic field are all contributing factors. But we don't yet know what all the variables are. And I resist the political agenda that wants to push the idea of "bad humans...bad humans." While I have no problem with the
idea of working to reduce emissions and look for alternate, clean fuel sources, there are significant hurdles. The two largest being cost and efficiency.

What ever new energy system is introduced, people need to buy into it by buying it. So, they need to be able to afford it. If it's wonderfully efficient, but too expensive...then it will be relegated to a precious few and companies won't waste their time working on it too fast. Similarly, if it's cheap but inefficient, the same problem occurs...no one will buy it. Fuel cells have been around since the 1960's, but are too expensive for significant private use. Solar power has been aroundquite a while also...but it is still too inefficient.

Replacing oil will take time, and as that happens...slowly...the pollution of the atmosphere will go down. When that happens, if we still see the global temperature rising, what do we blame it on then if not our cars and factories? Maybe ourselves. After all there are 6billion of us...exhaling CO2 24/7. Hmm...let's see...

If I assume an average person's lungs holds 2 liters of CO2 per breath...

And an average person might breath 15 times a minute, or 900 times an hour or 21600 times a day...

That's 43200 liters or 43.2 cubic meters of CO2 per day, per person.

Multiply that by 6 billion, and that's 259.2 billion cubic meters of CO2 per day or ~107 trillion cubic meters per year.

Now, factor in population growth, and all the other mammals on the planet pumping out CO2 (and more mammals as well) and the numbers sound down right daunting. How soon before we fill up the atmosphere with CO2? We need to do something about all this rampant exhaling!!!!!!!!!

BREATH RATIONING!!!!!!!

Pretty stupid, huh? This is the stuff of junk science and media hype....not serious research and responsible journalism. Back in the early 1970's, many scientists believed the Earth was actually cooling and we were headed towards another ice age. I admit I need to read more on exactly what the Bush Administration's position on this is, but based on what I have heard, I don't think it is too far askew from reality. They don't entirely dismiss the problem...but they do want to make sure the science is sound, and they don't want to buy into the hysteria.

Worrying about the economy is also part of the President's job - if he didn't, the press would nail him for that, instead. Besides, our country is hardly the greatest offender...just look at China, Africa and what the locals are doing to the rain forests.

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old and has gone through repeated cycles of global heating and cooling - even within recorded history. This may be just another which, from our our limited perspective in time, we may never understand fully. In many ways, the planet doesn't even know we are here and will do as it darn well pleases. So, do your part as best as you can; slow down, turn off unneeded lights, support research into fuel economy and alternative fuels...but breath easy and relax. We'll get away from oil soon enough for the planet, if not the environmentalists. Until then, we need it and should not be afraid of it.

Reflections

2005-12-09T11:29:00.000-05:00

Well, today it happened. I crested. I'm at the top of the hill...and the other side beckons. Yes, I have turned 40. It's not so bad...and it doesn't hurt any. It's just weird. I mean, me? 40? When I was growing up it was so far away. Now it's here. It's all very surreal.

So, now that I can look back on 4 complete decades, am I happy? Well, I'm not where I expected to be when I was 15 or 20. Who really is? But I like where I am, very much! If I count my blessings, I can include among them:

I'm still here and healthy.
I have wonderful people in my life - whether family, friends or co-workers.
I've done a lot of neat things, and am not planning on stopping any time soon.

Yes, life is good and I'm a lucky man! And it's snowing on my birthday...what a great present...thanks, God! I plan to spend time today watching "A Charlie Brown Christmas" because we both premiered on the same day 40 years ago! So, as I sit at home relaxing, watching the snow and enjoying a warm fire and time with my family, I want to share with you a poem I wrote back in high school. Enjoy!

*********************************

Silent Now
(written January 28, 1982)

The world is silent now,
Muffled by this blanket of white
That seems to hide everything
From eyes that should know better.
The pain, the sorrow, the death
Are blotted out by this sense of pureness.
So peaceful it seems,
So quiet,
So shy.
It reminds us of what we are.
And it reduces us, and all around us, to that fact.
Itâ€™s lovely out there,
So quiet,
So calm.
I wish it would stay forever.

*********************************

P.S. This is, quite coincidentally, my 40th posting. How perfect is that?

A Simple Solution?

2005-11-30T19:05:00.000-05:00

So...the debate on abortion is back in the Supreme Court. This time, there is a concern over parental notification for minors. The pro-choice side wants the law re-written to say parental notification shouldn't be required if the girl's life or health is in jeopardy. The pro-life side says doctors can get a court order to get around notification.

Quick analysis...both sides are right...and wrong. Parental notification is ALWAYS required for minors. But, waiting for a judge to issue a court order can impose a dangerous delay. So...what to do?

Well...DUH!

Allow doctors to provide the abortion if it is a medical necessity without needing a court order, and THEN they MUST notify the parents afterwards. See...everyone is happy. Health is not put on hold, and parents find out. It's the same as if your kid was on a field trip or in an accident and needed immediate attention and you weren't around to consent.

Jeesh...do I have to solve EVERYTHIHNG?

A History Lesson

2005-11-20T23:42:00.000-05:00

Time is a river, and history, our boat. We may be able to have some effect on the boat's course, but, in many cases, the river will take us where it darn well pleases. We credit or blame many people throughout history with having done this or that thing. What is interesting is if we care to look a bit closer, we see that the event was historically inevitable. The person remembered for it was simply lucky or unlucky enough to have gotten there first.

History credits Columbus with having "discovered" America. A better phrase would be re-discovered. In truth we now know that the Vikings were here 400 or so years earlier, being apparently the first to arrive after the people we call the native Americans. They, however, found the land not to their liking, and went home. There is evidence to suggest that the Chinese actually arrived in 1421, but the proof was lost because the emperor who sent them was deposed while they were enroute. Upon their return, they never got credit and none of their countrymen followed.

Columbus got the credit because people from Europe did follow, and the race to colonize was on. But, if he hadn't been successful, or hadn't come at all, someone else would have, probably within the next 20 years. Europe was going through a resurgence. Exploration was all the rage. History was ready for where time was leading it. It was inevitable. Things downstream might have looked a bit different, but, America would have been discovered and settled at about the same point in history.

Sir Isaac Newton discovered the Calculus...or did he? Ask some, and they will credit Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a contemporary of Newton. Who did or didn't isn't as important as the fact that it was discovered then. Newton, either because of better standing within the academic community or better press, or both, got the credit. But, if he hadn't discovered it, again, it was inevitable. Two men, at the same time, working on the same ideas...time was ready for Calculus.

Charles Darwin is known as the father of the Theory of Evolution and the concept of Natural Selection. But was he really the only one to discover the mechanisms of the natural world? Ask a biologist about Alfred R. Wallace. You might discover that he, too, was developing a theory on natural selection, at about the same time. Darwin, however, beat Wallace to the presses and his name is now forever linked with that discovery.

These are but three high profile examples. Delve deeper into history, and you will find that it is replete with similar stories. Our actions and events may be brought about by free will, but when taken as a whole, humanity moves in ways that are oddly predictable, at least in hindsight. Further contemporary examples would be the first flight, discovery of the double-helix of DNA, personal computers, and on and on. Time creates opportunities for many innovators. History remembers the fastest, even if the race was only won by a few seconds.

Politics is no exception to these rules. Its path is sometimes even more inevitable than other fields of human endeavor. Democracy would have re-emerged into the world roughly 200 years ago with or without America leading the way. All the forces of politics, society and economics were rushing headlong in that direction. In our country, had not a civil war brought slavery to a close, then further northern industrialism and simple social pressure along the lines of the temperance movement might have. It just might have taken until the 1870's or 80's for the slaves to see emancipation. The waves of immigrants in the late 1800's might have also had an effect on the viability and logic of slavery. Whatever the cause, it was doomed to die out roughly when it did.

Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Mikhail Gorbachev share the credit for ending the Soviet Union. They had the temerity, stubbornness and courage to bring about change. But, the USSR was a faulty lid on an over-pressurized cooker. Had not these three people emerged on the scene when they did, pushing and pulling the wall down, someone, or something else would have caused the same effect. It's possible the hammer and sickle might have seen the new millennium, but they'd have never celebrated their centennial. When I look back and read some of the internal things going on during it's 73 year lifetime, I'm sometimes surprised it made fifty.

It's like the chicken and the egg. Did the people make the events great, or was it the other way around? An now, to tie it all together. The war in Iraq was inevitable.

If George W. Bush was not elected president, Iraq would have been invaded. There was simply no way around it. Gore would have been president and had to deal with the UN resolutions and inspectors, and he would have gone in. He would have used his numerous statements as Vice President as rationale, and probably have blamed the former president Bush for not doing it right the first time, but he would have gone in.

If the attacks on September 11, 2001 had not happened, Iraq would have been invaded. It might have take a few more years for it to have happened, but Saddam Hussein's arrogance and disregard for others would not have gone unchecked. His days were numbered. Not by us, but by history. If we didn't take him out, the British would have. If not them, then the Russians. Regardless of who led the charge, Saddam Hussein's reign would not have seen the close of the first decade of the 21st century.

If John Kerry had defeated George Bush in 2004, he'd be defending our position in Iraq and bemoaning the negative press and the lack of reporting on the progress being made. Oh, he'd say he's doing things better, but he would be constrained by events to act much the same way President Bush is today. He's a politician, and when placed in a certain position, he would also have to become a realist.

You can blame a president for being a poor public speaker, or for having no morals, or for being naive, or lots of things. But, some things they do are just inevitable because they are right and/or their time has come. Given similar circumstances and pressures from without and within, different people will often choose the same course of action. Even if they claim it was for different reasons.

Saddam Hussein was not singled out because George W. Bush was president. He just happened to run out of time WHEN George W. Bush was president.

I'm Back...Or Rather...Will Be Soon

2005-10-27T23:28:00.000-04:00

OBE - A new term I learned at work which means Overcome By Events. That's what my life has been like the last month. No bad events...just life. Anyway, I'll be back writing shortly, so please keep stopping by. And look for some changes to the site also between now and New Years. I have some ideas for a few subtle improvements.

In the meantime, please do visit the sites listed on my blogroll. They are putting out some good stuff.

Be well,

A Layman's Point of View

In God We Trust!

2005-09-14T23:10:00.000-04:00

In retrospect, it almost seems prophetic that only one day after Supreme Court nominee John Roberts stated in his confirmation hearings that a judge should not legislate from the bench (I paraphrase), another judge did just that. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that saying the pledge in public schools is unconstitutional - primarily because of the phrase "under God.".

Maybe he was trying to get his last ups before the rules started getting enforced again. Because, what is actually unconstitutional is a judge making a law, which is what this man did. It's ridiculous. It's abhorrent. Fortunately...it also won't stand! The line has finally been crossed...brace yourselves for the storm about to hit. The people of this country will not let this ruling survive. It's one thing to take away their homes...that's bad enough. It's another thing to take away their right to publicly affirm their belief in God. Ultra left-wing liberal fanaticism and societal mass-intimidation has just peaked, my friends, and I'd say it's days are now numbered.

We need the extremes in this country, both left and right, because they help us maintain our focus. Most of what we have regarding laws are the products of hard-fought compromise. I remember a friend in 7th grade who wouldn't say the pledge because he was a Jehovah's witness. Fine - that was his choice and right. At least he stood out of respect for the rest of us.

Please read my posting from December 15, 2004. What's old is new again!

Oh, and I hope Michael Newdow got paid in chickens or something for his legal services, because I'd hate to offend his sensibilities by forcing him to take money emblazoned with such a blatantly coercive slogan as "In God We Trust."

September 11, 2001

2005-09-11T22:47:00.000-04:00

REMEMBER!

Rehnquist's Legacy

2005-09-04T11:18:00.000-04:00

Those of us who have lost parents can appreciate what Chief Justice Rehnquist's family is going through. My thought's and prayers go out to them during this time of mourning. His death is also loss for the nation. Since 1969 from the US Attorney General's office, to the supreme court beginning in 1972, the Chief Justice's family shared him with the nation. For this, I am grateful. He was a champion of judicial restraint in a time of increasing activism in his own, and lower courts. His candidness and direct approach on the Supreme Court's rulings will be missed by the country.

His loss creates not just a second vacancy on the court, but actually, also a third. President Bush now has to fill two Associate Justice positions, and the vacancy left by Chief Justice Rehnquist. While he could nominate someone from outside the court directly as Chief Justice, filling two positions at once, I believe he should, and will nominate from within. While this will present the nation with months of speculation, nominations and, finally, three confirmation hearings, I believe it is the right approach.

The best way to honor Chief Justice Rehnquist's judicial legacy is to fill his vacancy with someone who shares his view of the constitution and the court's role. To do this, President Bush need look no further than Associate Justices Thomas and Scalia. This nomination should occur first, and quickly, as the president suggested in his press conference this morning. It would be neither imprudent nor inappropriate for the Senate to conduct confirmation hearings for a new Chief Justice nominated from within before conducting the confirmation hearings for John Roberts or a second Associate Justice.

I am in the middle of reading Mark R. Levin's book, "Men in Black." If you haven't read it yet, you should. If you haven't heard of it, find out here. I can't say I agree with every one of his interpretations on the Supreme Court's rulings, but his basic premise is hard to dispute - judicial activism is leading the Supreme Court away from the role intended by the founders. Throughout the book, Justice Rehnquist's opinions are referenced as examples of a judicial originailism and restraint. He was a voice or reason and will be missed by a grateful nation.

RIP: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist

2005-09-03T23:37:00.000-04:00

Chief Justice William H. Renquist, who served on the Supreme Court for almost 34 years, passed away this evening at 80 after a long struggle with cancer. During his tenure, he was involved in many landmark cases and helped shape the current face of the court. Frequently, he was among a conservative minority trying to stem the tide of judicial excess. He was surrounded by his three children when he passed away.

Links:

Michelle Malkin
Fox News
New York Times

In Katrina's Wake

2005-09-01T08:45:00.000-04:00

For the past few days, I have been watching, listening and reading the reports of the damage and loss in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. To say I am saddened and shocked is an understatement. There is absolutely nothing I can use as a basis for comparison in my own life. It actually hurts to watch.

My heart goes out to all the victims and survivors. My prayers are with them and the rescue workers as they struggle try to put their lives back into some semblance of order.

Please, to anyone who reads this if you're interested in helping, please do it smartly. I was reading the on the Red Cross web site that "in-kind" donations must actually be handled carefully in order to not overwhelm relief workers and make sure they get to their intended recipients. Who would have thought - but it makes sense. Check out the following link.

About Donating Goods to the Red Cross for Areas Impacted by Hurricane Katrina

If you see a a call for in-kind donations, please check to make sure that they have their own distribution structure in place, or have linked with a local one prepared to receive and distribute the goods.

Gifts of cash can be made at: Red Cross Online Donation Form - be sure to select "Hurricane 2005 Relief" from the box to target your gift.

I haven't heard anything yet about blood donations in response, but if you do, I encourage you to donate. It is an often overlooked resource, and often in short supply. I have been donating blood for 22 years and find it very rewarding.

My best to all of you, and keep the people affected by Katrina in your thoughts.

Sugarcoating A Crime

2005-08-18T22:48:00.000-04:00

I am confused by something. I was watching Hannity and Colmes earlier. Sean Hannity was in El Paso, Texas with the border patrol and the Minutemen. The topic of the show was, obviously, border security. My confusion is in the different terms used to describe people who sneak across the border. Sean Hannity calls them illegal aliens. Alan Colmes calls them undocumented immigrants.

Let's stop with the euphemisms, OK? There are no undocumented immigrants. An immigrant is someone who comes here by applying for the right. As such, they are documented throughout the immigration process. The people caught by the infrared cameras bypassing the rules and breaking our laws may very well be undocumented, but they are NOT immigrants. They are illegal aliens.

Mr. Colmes, my ancestors came to the United States from Germany in the 1870's and from Italy in 1906. They followed the rules and obeyed the laws. They learned the language, contributed to society, paid taxes, and fought in our wars with distinction. THEY, sir, were immigrants. Do not insult their memory or their honor by grouping them with people who show blatant disrespect for our country. Do not slander them by elevating criminals to their level just because you find the truth too distasteful to speak.

Get a backbone, sir. You would call the Minutemen criminals before you would call the illegal aliens the same. What is wrong with you?

A Reason to Explore - Our Very Existence

2005-08-06T23:18:00.000-04:00

For those who thought my blog was only political...surprise. I am an engineer. I spend each working day like all engineers...improving yesterday's technology and creating tomorrow's. When the MSM disparages, misrepresents, over emphasizes the bad or just plain screws it up regarding science and technology, the hairs on the back of my neck rise up.

Media scare tactics and gloom-and-doom tirades are the bane of my existence. They can kill progress fast because at best, they only tell partial truths. Unfortunately, the press loves junk science because it sells. As with all subjects, they feel whole story...the truth...just isn't always as interesting or worth telling.

Every now and then, someone from outside the MSM gets it right. The link below is one such case. It is an essay by Dr. Robert Zubrin, formerly of NASA, now a leading proponent of increasing our manned exploration of space, and making Mars the next destination. I have read this before, but am doing so again in the wake of the latest shuttle mission and the press hungrily looking for the chinks in NASA's armor.

A New Martian Frontier: Recapturing the Soul of America

Please do read it and comment. All the whiners and cowards and nay-sayers out there - especially in the MSM - who want to shut off funding to NASA don't, won't or can't see the point...or don't care. We need this - our continued vibrancy and existence as a nation and species depend on it. Anyway...I digress too much...just have a look.

I will be talking more about science and technology in the future, too. Don't worry, though...politics and history are still passions...and they'll still be discussed here.

Amendments I'd Like to See

2005-07-30T00:29:00.000-04:00

Things are hopping politically and if you're interested in the goings on in government, whether executive, legislative or judicial, there should be something juicy to follow. With this as inspiration, I've decided to draft a few Amendments to our Constitution. I am not deluding myself into thinking they'll ever be ratified, but I can dream, can't I?

(Please forgive me if my language isn't 100% constitutionally perfect.)

On Legislative Responsibility
Congress has been running amok for years...no decades...no maybe well over a century. They need to be told to self regulate how they draft legislation. If they miss, then the President needs the line-item-veto to put things back on track.

Congress shall add no amendment to any proposed legislation which is not relevant to the said bill. All legislation regarding pay and benefits for Congress shall be submitted for consideration only as a bill, and may not be an amendment to any type of proposed legislation. Congress shall endeavor in all earnestness to remove all irrelevant and inappropriate amendments from pending legislation prior to voting and submitting to the President. The President shall have the power to enforce this amendment by vetoing individual amendments from legislation he intends to approve if the amendment is determined to be irrelevant and/or inappropriate.

On Presidential Nominations
"No one truly qualified for government wants the job." Thank the MSM and sniping, backbiting, mud-slinging politicians for this fact. Well, this proposed amendment might help, in part, by sharply reducing the amount of time a Presidential nominee is exposed to the political elements. Recently I was reading a book of biographies of all the Associate Justices and Chief Justices of the Supreme Court. Congress often approved them within a week of being nominated. What a wonderful world that would be...Congress getting things done in a timely manner.

The President shall make all nominations to federal offices by noon (local time - Washington D.C.) on non-holiday Mondays while Congress is in session. To ensure expediency, the Congress shall approve all nominations without exception by five in the evening (local time - Washington D.C.) on the second Friday following the nomination. The President may not nominate someone for federal office if sufficient time in the legislative session does not remain for a full debate and voting cycle. All votes on nominees will be simple yes or no votes, with a simple majority being required for ascension. All regular rules of legislative conduct apply, but Congress may censure any or all of its members who deliberately seek to unreasonably delay or disrupt the proceedings of advise and consent. Legislators may not apply any political, religious or ideological requirements to nominees. Judicial nominees my not be questioned as to how they would vote on specific legislation.

On Elections to Congress
OK, enough is enough...let someone else have a chance already! This proposed amendment was inspired, in part, by Hillary Clinton's hijacking (yes, I said it) of a New York Senatorial seat. Career fat cat and dead wood politicians also inspired it - regardless of on which side of the aisle they resided.

No person may be elected as a Senator more than twice, nor may any person be elected a Senator more than once if that person served more than half the term of another Senator. No person may be elected as a Representative more than six times, nor may any person be elected a Representative more than five times if that person served more than half the term of another Representative. A person who has served the maximum time allowed in either the Senate or the House of Representatives may also then run for and serve for the fully allowed time in the other house. No person may be elected to either the Senate or House of Representatives from any state if that person is not a current resident of that state and has not lived in the state for at least three years prior to taking office. If a person is a resident of a state but also serving in the military during the three years prior to taking elected office, that person may only be in actual residence for two of the three years (in any combination) prior to serving.

On Elections to Federal Offices
Come on, people, let's not be greedy. This proposed amendment was also inspired by Hillary Clinton's usurping one of my home states Senatorial seat and her obvious disregard for it given her intent to leave it cold one day. It was also inspired by Senator Lieberman's dual run for Senator and Vice-President in 2000.

No person may run for two elected federal offices at the same time, nor may a person currently holding any federal elected office run for any other federal elected office unless the terms of the two offices do not overlap more than one month... Where the terms of office do overlap more than one month, the person must resign the first office in order to run for the second.

On the Election of the President
OK...let's close the barn door BEFORE the horse escapes again! The citizens do not elect the President, because he/she is not our president, directly. The President is the leader of our Republic - our union of sovereign states. As such, we don't use a direct popular election. Rather, we have muddied the water with the Electoral College, so each state receives electors for president based on the total number of congressional representatives plus senators.

The problem is that the electoral span between the largest and smallest states was only nine votes in 1788 whereas now it's fifty-two. This huge disparity disrupts the compromise the delegates made in 1787 and returns us to a popular vote in all but name. When the election is very close, well, we see what happens. Under the proposed amendment below, George Bush would have received 78 electoral votes in 2000 and Al Gore only 61. This system would return the power to elect the president back to a split between the state and population. It would also prevent a tie, and help persuade candidates to campaign in more than just the heavily populated states. Eight votes isn't too wide a spread - so every state counts.

The electoral votes of the various states shall apportion as follows: No state shall have less than two and no more than ten electoral votes for president. The electoral votes shall be normalized to the most populous state and rounded to the neatest even number representing the ratio of its population to that of the most populous state. The District of Columbia shall have only one electoral vote for president. The various states shall assign their total electoral votes to only one candidate. The electoral votes are legally bound to the winning candidate in that state and may not be arbitrarily or deliberately assigned to any other candidate. The ceremonial position of elector is hereby abolished.

Since When is This Backtracking?

2005-07-19T21:42:00.000-04:00

Today during a press conference, the president answered questions about Karl Rove and the continuing investigation into who leaked information about the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Bush's comment (as reported on CNN.com) was:

"I think it's best if people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts. And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

This was reported today on CNN.com under the headline "Bush appears to shift course on CIA leak." In it, the president is accused of back-pedaling on his June 2004 statement that he would fire anybody who was responsible for the leak.

Um...how?

Oh, yeah, because he wants to wait until someone is proved guilty BEFORE punishing them. That's right. Silly me. We're supposed to shoot first and ask questions later if a conservative politician wants to wait until all the facts are in, but look the other way if a liberal is under suspicion.

The MSM doesn't care about the news, or informing the people. No longer is it "All the news that's fit to Print." Instead it should be "All the news that's fit to distort, exploit and misrepresent." Grow up!

Oh, and while we're on the subject, how about the disrespect the MSM paid to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh? Wasn't this a joint press conference? I think it was inappropriate of the press to ignore the prime minister and divert the attention of the conference to other non-related subjects. India isn't some backwater, third-rate nation. And even if it was, it was rude and inexcusable of the press to push the prime minister to the side. And the president should have told them so.

How to Spot a Liberal

2005-07-13T12:58:00.005-04:00

I am not politically correct, or always tactful. But, I feel that if someone is acting stupidly, they need to have it brought to their attention. Otherwise, how can they ever change? Following are two real life encounters with liberals - nearly 10 years apart - where I was able to give them something else to think about...

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Encounter 1: The Mock Senate Hearing

In the spring of 1982 when I was in 11th grade, my American History teacher decided to hold a mock Senate hearing to teach our class about the way legislation is drafted. He picked a topic which was in the news - whether or not to have a peace time draft. Each student was assigned a role, either a senator from the Senate Armed Services Committee, or a lobbyist. I was to be a senator from New York.

While I am not specifically advocating a draft now, I didn't and don't see one as necessarily evil - especially if needed. My senator, however, was dead against it. So, ever the actor, I was true to the part and opposed the draft, despite my personal feelings. My teacher was surprised because he always referred to me as his personal Joe McCarthy. My nemesis in the class, a very liberal girl, got her dream role - a lobbyist from the ACLU.

On the second day of the hearings, my nemesis testified - saying that a draft was completely unconstitutional. In fact, she felt it violated a citizen's rights to make them serve in the armed forces at all, for any reason what so ever! I hated sitting there - keeping quiet and not arguing with her. I think I perforated my lower lip from biting it so hard. One of my friends who knew I was conservative asked me how I kept my cool. To this day, I still don't know.

The encounter came during the break that followed. The class broke up - all of us meandering around the room - the teacher standing in the corner by the door, just watching. I saw my nemesis talking to a friend, her purse on the desk in front of her - a ten dollar bill sticking partly out. I walked up to her desk, looked at her, then the purse, took the ten and began to walk away.

She went berserk. She grabbed me and said "Give it back!"

I said "No, it's mine now" and broke away. (All the while, our teacher is just watching from the corner). She followed and hit me - HARD - in my shoulder and yelled again for me to return it. That's when I turned on her.

I held up the ten in her face and said "What, are you gonna fight me for this?"

"Yes!" she said and she pushed me again.

Then I said "Oh, you'll fight me for this money, but not for your freedoms? Babe, your priorities are all screwed up!" I threw the ten in her face and walked away. As I looked into the corner of the room, our teacher (a US Navy & Viet-Nam vet) was just shaking his head and laughing.

LESSON 1: Liberal extremists don't always understand what is really important. As such, they rarely fight the fights worth fighting and often come across as hypocritical - leaving themselves wide open to quick-thinking conservatives.

(Note to kids - DO NOT DO WHAT I DID! I was lucky I didn't get in serious trouble!!! Given the chance to do it again, I would have found a way to do it differently.)

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Encounter 2: The Political Survey

Back in the late summer of 1992 during the home stretch of the presidential elections, my wife and I were moving house. To save on expenses, we rented a truck and did it ourselves. While loading the truck, I was approached by a college student conducting a political survey. Bear in mind, I was carrying large, heavy boxes from my house to the truck. Below is the conversation that took place to the best of my memory:

Student: Hello sir, I am a college student, political science major, and I was wondering if you would mind answering a few questions about the upcoming elections.

Me: Well, (grunt, groan) this really isn't the best time. I'm kinda busy. (I put the box in the truck and returned for another)

Student: (following) That's OK, I can walk next to you. I won't get in your way at all. It's only about 10 questions.

Me: (reaching the truck with the next box, I put it in the truck and looked at him, breathing hard) You're a Democrat, right? "Progressive," liberal, support Bill Clinton, hated Reagan, right?

Student: Yes, that's right, how did you know?

Me: A Republican would have offered to carry a box!

The student left without asking any questions.

Lesson 2: In my experience, activist liberals seldom practice what they preach, like REALLY helping others. They'll watch you carry the box, even tell you HOW to do it, but won't really lift a finger to help. Case in point - Al Gore circling the globe warning us about "man-made" global warming all the while emitting more CO2 in a day than many families emit in a month.

1000 hits! Thank You!

2005-07-11T08:40:00.000-04:00

Today I reached 1000 hits. Well, OK, a portion of them are mine
(visiting, editing, etc.), but the vast majority are not. So, thanks to
everyone for stopping by and reading - and also tracking back -
something I have just gotten into myself. It's been fun so far and I
look forward to more.

Regards,

A Layman's Point of View

Why Do They Hate Us?

2005-07-09T09:36:00.000-04:00

From the moment the first airplane struck on September 11, 2001, people here have been trying to understand why it happened. What could posses people to do this to others, let alone to themselves? As if our grief wasnâ€™t enough, we were also filled with a thirst for answers that seemed beyond satiation. We joined to mourn, console each other, and begin the long search for answers.

It didnâ€™t take long for sorrow turned to self-recrimination. People started asking â€œWhat did we do to deserve this?â€� and â€œAre we being punished for something?â€� Surely, no one would do this without provocation. Eventually, however, introspection turns to accusations and the victim is put on trial in the court of public opinion. It happened here four years ago and it will happen in England. Just give it time.

All we can do for the UK right now is to keep them in our thoughts and prayers, and be there as friends, as they were there for us. For America, however, it may be appropriate to examine the why. Let's look at our behavior as a possible cause. Do we bring these attacks on ourselves? Do we do things that anger Islamic extremists? If we look through the eyes of our attackers, yes, of course we do. We do many things, everyday, on purpose, even proudly, which anger people all over the world.

Our society and its principles exist in such stark contrast to so much of the rest of the world, we can't avoid it in many cases. We have a free and open society. Our culture moves fast and to those on the outside, it can appear chaotic and reckless â€“ sometimes even amoral. Our Bill of Rights is seen as threatening to oppressive, fundamentalist governments and groups.

Our laws are based on ancient religious principles, yet we use those laws to guarantee people of all faiths (or none) equal treatment and respect. Rather than kill each other, many different faiths live side by side in peace. Religion is accepted, supported and even encouraged to some extent, but the ultimate decision as to how to or if to worship is private. In spite of this, our societies are essentially secular. We work very hard to keep a clear distinction between religious and public law.

We guarantee individuals equal treatment under the law, regardless of their race, gender or status. Even today, many nations consider this a dangerous concept. Our respect for women, for example, contributes to global animosity. The lines between genders have been all but completely erased in many cases. When women in rigidly controlled countries see this and ask: "Why canâ€™t I have this, too?" their governments cringe.

Our foreign policy also bears some scrutiny. For example, we preach separation of church and state, but openly support a religious nation - namely Israel. We say we respect the sovereignty of nations; yet openly oppose those with governments that conflict with our national interests and ideals. We donâ€™t just pay lip service to our ideals, either. We have gone to great lengths to protect and defend them for ourselves and others when we saw them being denied. We have the power to do it, with almost total impunity, and yet, we hold back, in many cases. Add to this that we rush to aid victims of tragedies and natural disasters â€“ regardless if they are our friends or not. The appearance of hypocrisy is staggering.

So, to make no small point of it, yes, we have done and still do many things to cause many nations around the world to hate and fear us. As American's, it would be hypocritical of us to admit otherwise. Having acknowledged the obvious and owned up to our actions, we must now ask: â€œHave we actually done anything wrong? Here again, the answer is also obvious...it's no.

We are imperfect, and we make mistakes, but overall, our aim is true and right. We do stumble sometimes on the way toward our goals, but thatâ€™s only because they are lofty and difficult to reach. The ideals on which our nation was founded are noble, and worthy of the striving for and acting upon. If our quest for freedom for ourselves and others around the world angers some, then they need to also look to themselves.

Thereâ€™s an old saying that you canâ€™t please everybody. Itâ€™s time we stopped trying. Our freedoms may come at the expense of always making a good first impression, but I submit that the problem may lay in the eye of the beholder. The entire world doesn't have to like us or agree with us, but they have to live with us as much as we have to live with them. The responsibility for getting along is not ours, alone.

The above post contains excerpts from the July 7 post - "Terror Attacks in London." It has been submitted for editorial publication.

Terror Attacks in London

2005-07-07T23:26:00.000-04:00

You know what it's like getting up in the morning from a deep and comfortable sleep? The alarm goes off and you're jolted awake. You hit the snooze button and lie there. You tell yourself you'll get up in a few minutes, but without fail, you fall asleep again. Then the second alarm goes off. It's softer, not quite as dramatic, but still startling. And the message is the same...that it's time to wake up.

September 11 was the free world's alarm clock. We were jolted to our very core. And we were awake. In spite of our best efforts, however, we got comfortable and fell asleep again. This morning's attacks in London were the world's snooze alarm. The death toll was lower, and the material damage less, but the effect on people with consciences was no less devastating. Even one death is too many.

Sometimes I think religion and politics have very little to do with any of this. It just seems as though there are people in this world who want to kill us just because they can. Well, let's stop them, if for no other reason than just because WE can. They need to learn that the rules of living in a civilized society apply to them, as well. They don't have to like us or agree with us, but they do have to live with us. The responsibility is not ours, alone!

In the mean time, let's all keep the people in London (and the UK) in our thoughts and prayers. Now is when our friends need us to be there for them, like they have been there for us.

Independence Day Reflections

2005-07-04T10:11:00.000-04:00

Today, as we celebrate our nation's independence, it's important to respect the culture out of which that independence was born. The men who fought, debated and crafted our free country were a complex mixture if persistence, intelligence, foresightedness and religious conviction. Those who followed had respect for the men and gratitude for their gift. We who are the inheritors of that gift should not forget this.

I can think of no better way to spend the day than to enjoy it with my family. But, as always, I plan to watch the musical 1776, re-read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Defense of Fort McHenry, the poem by Francis Scott Key which became the lyrics to our national anthem. I attached it below for your reading pleasure. I always find it's imagery stirring. Back then, words were to writers what paint was to an artist. When you read it, pay attention to the last stanza. Then, as now, it is relevant.

Happy Independence Day from A Layman's Point of View!

**************************************************

The Defense of Fort McHenry
â€œThe Star Spangled Bannerâ€�
Francis Scott Key
20 September 1814

Oh, say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, now conceals, now discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner forever shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Priorities

2005-06-27T23:00:00.000-04:00

When I was growing up, one of my dad's favorite sayings to me was "You need to get your priorities straight!" I would like to, now, pass that little pearl of wisdom on to the ACLU, or American Civil Litigation Union. As a group dedicated to the defense of the Bill of Rights and civil rights, in general, they really need to do some serious soul searching about what is really important. I say this because it has been over 100 hours since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of private land grabs, and yet, the ACLU has said nothing about it. Instead, they have spent their time working on the following:

Governmental Protection for Flag Burners
In spite of all you have seen and heard, there is no Constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression. We have freedom of speech and freedom of the press - in other words, of the spoken and written word. While our rights to freedom of assembly, freedom to petition and freedom of religion give us a great deal of latitude toward the afore mentioned freedom of expression, the framers did not, in my opinion, ever intend to completely open the door to all forms of expression.

In our time, as in years past, actions speak louder than words. Ideas, however forceful, can suffer greatly in the face of deeds. Some forms of expression are dangerous, like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. Some are hypocritical (as well as immoral and illegal), like killing an abortion doctor. And some are outright treasonous, like burning the flag and spitting on soldiers. The founding fathers were nothing if not insightful. They new the dangers of opening some doors too far.

Guaranteeing Citizen's Rights to Enemy Combatants
Civil rights guaranteed by the American Constitution apply to American citizens first, legal residents second, legally visiting aliens next. Nowhere were the rights guaranteed by the Constitution meant to apply to foreign citizens and soldiers intent on doing us harm. I fully agree that as a nation, we need to take the high road when dealing with military prisoners. The isolated abuses at Abu Gharaib and (if any) at Guantanamo were/are wrong. But what is more wrong is to place the lives and rights of those prisoners above the lives and rights of American soldiers and citizens. Let's not forget, however, that it was the military that blew the whistle on itself in Iraq...not the ACLU.

Rights of a Murderer vs Rights of the Unborn
It never fails to amaze me that ACLU places the right to life of a convicted, even confessed murderer over the right to life of an innocent unborn child. I recognize that there are extenuating situations in both cases, but the ACLU's stance on these two issues are hypocritical, immoral and indefensible. I do not completely agree with the Catholic church's stand on capital punishment, but I do understand it, and respect it because it is consistent with their stand on abortion. I can even understand supporting capital punishment and limited abortion ( as I do). The ACLU, however, has it all backwards.

Connected with these are the ACLU's opinion that children should not be required to notify their parents when seeking an abortion. There is also protecting the ability for twelve-year-olds to get condoms from their school nurse whether their parents approve, or not. The ACLU puts these under the overall category of reproductive freedom. What freedom is there, however, for the aborted fetus? In most cases, the life of the murderer is beyond repair, whether the fault of society or parents. The unborn, however, is a clean sheet of paper, full of promise and potential. Whatever your position on abortion and capital punishment, you can't deny that the ACLU values the life of the guilty over the innocent.

Conclusions
I didn't even mention the ACLU's work on selective religious freedom, legalizing drugs, protecting illegal immigrants, etc. And still, not a word in defense of the citizens of New London about to be evicted from their homes. According to the ACLU, it isn't a violation of civil rights if person B wants person A's land and only has to promise the city more taxes in order to get it. Clearly, the ACLU's priorities are all screwed up. Dad would have a field day with them. Instead of supporting and defending civil rights, they support and defend excess, irresponsibility, indiscretion and treason. Yeah, that makes sense.

How the news SHOULD have read on June 23, 2005...

2005-06-26T10:31:00.000-04:00

Washington DC, June 23, 2005
Today, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the actions of the city of New London, CT in the case of Kelo v New London, violated the 5th amendment property rights of the homeowners in the Fort Trumbull section of that city. Chief Justice Rehnquist issued the following statement: "We find it deplorable that any municipality would consider the potential tax revenues of a new development to outweigh the right to be secure in their homes that citizens ought to expect. Closing factories and laying-off or relocating people from one facility to another in order to increase revenue may be acceptable corporate practice. Governments, however, are not businesses concerned with the bottom line to the exclusion of all else."

The Chief Justice continued, "The neighborhood in question was not a blight on the city, but rather, a thriving working class community. Some residents can trace back generations in the same houses. But, regardless of the state of the neighborhood, ownership under such actions may not be transferred to another private party. Public use means city owned and operated for the free use of all citizens, or for their direct measurable benefit. If this court consented to this action, no one's property would be safe. All that would be required is for someone with enough means or influence who is envious enough of another's property and greedy enough to try, to say they want that land for their use and will buy it by promising huge pay-offs to the city - some of which, no doubt, would end up in the pockets of city officials. This smacks ofnothing short of totalitarianism, and this court will have no part of it."

Acting on this ruling, the District Attorney for the city of New London issued arrest warrants for the Mayor, Planning Commissioner, and several other city officials. Those arrested are being charged with violating the residents civil rights. Meanwhile, in the city's Fort Trumbull section, the party started shortly after the decision was announced, and has continued into the evening. The fireworks over the Thames River can be seen for miles in all directions. Every face bears a broad smile andevery porch bears at least one American flag...

Oh, if only......

An Eerie Silence

2005-06-24T22:52:00.000-04:00

A day and a half.

Not a peep.

Can you believe it?

It's been a day and a half and since the Supreme Court declared all home and property owner's rights null and void. A day and a half...and yet not a word from the ACLU. NOTHING! No posts on their website. No public statements. Nothing in the press. The silence is, in fact, quite deafening.

Um, excuse me? Isn't it their job to defend the Bill of Rights? Isn't it them we are supposed to call when government tramples our liberties? Oh yeah, that's right, they only challenge decisions made by conservatives. They only oppose laws that have the support of two thirds or more of the population. Heaven forbid they disagree with their embedded mole on the federal bench (aka Justice Ginsburg). It wouldn't do to bite the hand that feeds them. Politics as usual...one hand washes the other, and freedom suffers in the process.

I called the CT ACLU yesterday on my lunch hour. I got no answer so I left a message. Since I occasionally get an editorial published, I identified myself as a journalist, and asked about the ACLU's opinion on the New London decision. I figured they would most definitely have a reaction, or at least a prepared statement and I could use it in an article. I made sure I was courteous, and not baiting. I sincerely wanted to know what they felt.

Seriously, I expected the ACLU to be upset, since this was a clear violation of constitutionally protected rights. I thought, finally, here's a chance to bring conservatives together with the ACLU on a cause both sides would feel is worth fighting for. But nothing. Almost thirty-six hours and no reply. It seems like they are too busy making sure the MILITARY PRISONERS at Guantanamo Bay are getting three squares a day while they curse and throw excrement at the guards.

Well, we had nice weather the last two days, they might have been on vacation. I suppose I can give them until Monday afternoon.

The Crime of the Century

2005-06-23T23:54:00.000-04:00

I have some news for Senator Richard Durbin: Forget Gitmo. If he wants to see Hitler and Stalin like tactics in the US, he need look no further than the 5 Liberal members of the US Supreme Court. I started reading the text of today's decision. At 58 pages, it's likely to take a little while. Before that, however, I quickly reviewed the U.S. Constitution. I say reviewed because I have actually read the document. I wonder if Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Kennedy & Stevens ever have. If so, they would have seen the 5th amendment...and the 4th...and also the 14th - all with clauses dealing with the property rights of citizens. I thought Supreme Court justices were sworn to uphold the Constitution. Instead, the DC-Five pissed all over it!

I wonder if this means I don't have to pay property taxes anymore since apparently I don't really own my house, but rather the town does. Oh, what's the use, they'll just call it rent, instead.

Page-Ten News

2005-04-10T22:04:00.000-04:00

Last week, the Connecticut Senate approved civil unions for homosexual couples. The House is expected to vote on it soon, and I've heard predictions in both directions. A lot of energy and publicity has been expended on this issue from both sides. If you ask me, it all seems like way too much for something that should be a page-ten story.

People's positions on civil unions vary. If asked where a person stands, he or she may give answers based on religious, social, political or financial reasons. I have tried hard to come up with an opinion on this issue, but I just do not have one. In spite of all the coverage telling me I should be for or against it...I realized I just do not care. I have heard all the arguments, and from where I sit, it does not affect me. My life will not change for the better or worse with the outcome.

The sanctity of my relationship with my wife has nothing to do with another couple's relationship, be they same sex or not. Similarly, I do not feel that my country will be committing a great social injustice if civil unions do not exist - I will not feel some great sense of indignation or lacking. Let homosexuals marry...don't let them marry...either way...I truly believe my life will remain unchanged. I see neither harm nor benefit to society or myself. Therefore, I will not endorse the cause, nor join the battle against it. I will just sit back and watch.

I do, however, reserve the right to comment.

This whole issue has been handled very badly by those in favor of civil unions and/or gay marriage. In their desire to bring their cause to fruition, homosexuals (with the all to willing help of the MSM) have actually done themselves a very large disservice. They would have been much better off if this whole issue had remained page-ten news. I firmly believe that if civil unions had stayed well off of the front page, they might very well already exist. At the core, it comes back to one of my favorite topics: ignorance over tolerance. In spite of their beliefs, homosexuals need to accept that they are greatly in the minority. As such, they must remember that not everyone agrees with them. Also, right or wrong, not everything is equal by default - and there's a better way to ask for something.

Whether or not they have an opinion, most heterosexuals I have spoken with are just plain tired of hearing and reading about this issue. I believe most heterosexuals don't care if someone is gay because they don't think about it. Why? Because thinking about it forces them to confront what "gay" means and that makes them feel uncomfortable. Now for a newsflash - that's OK. Nowhere is it written that people must be comfortable with everyone else's lifestyle. In fact, it's human nature that we won't be.

By the same token, most heterosexuals are also uncomfortable being confronted by the particulars of another heterosexual's sex life. As Americans, like it or not, we have socially inherited certain Puritanical tendencies. One is that sex is private, and not a subject for public discussion or consumption. Another is conformity - or at least the appearance of it. Today's society is certainly more open and everything from our advertising to our jokes can have sexual influences. But if you actually start to talk openly and honestly about your sex life, you'll find that you can clear a room pretty damn quick.

In short, most heterosexuals just don't want to hear about it. Hell, we don't even want to know or think about it. And since most people are heterosexuals, that means most PEOPLE don't want to know or think about it. So, I have a word of advice to the vocal minority (and I believe they are a minority) among homosexuals. It's OK to be true to yourself, but have some respect for the sensitivities of the rest of the country. Keep it discreet, don't shove it in people's faces and don't play the poor martyrs. And if you win this fight, accept it gracefully, with quiet dignity and don't rub people's noses in it. Since I don't believe civil unions are a God-given or constitutional right, but rather a social concession, a sincere "thank you" might go a long way.

To the MSM...grow up! Even if no one else is on to you, I am. You don't care any more for this cause than I do. You only want to stir the pot and sell papers or get ratings. If you really did believe in it, you wouldn't endanger it by making it a lead story. At the very least, can't you can find something else to talk about, already? Please?

Kudos to the NFL - Were you watching MLB?

2005-02-06T21:50:00.000-05:00

Well done, NFL. I'm not a big football fan, but since it's the Patriots are playing, I had to watch. And more importantly, kids could watch, too. Not only was the half time show exciting, and rated G, but, and this is the part I would like Bud Selig to remember, the game started and ended at a reasonable time!

Sports are a part of American culture. So is capitalism. Wouldn't it be nice if they could always play nice together? It's bad enough that our kids are increasingly assaulted with commercialism. But when one aspect of our culture denies our children the opportunity to enjoy another, it's just wrong.

Major sporting events like this should be timed so they finish well before the end of the day on which they started, regardless of on which coast they are played.

Have I made myself clear, Mr. Selig????

I Remember Reagan

2005-02-06T20:44:00.000-05:00

I remember January 20, 1981 like it was yesterday. I was fifteen, sitting in Geometry class in 10th grade. It was right after lunch and an announcement came over the school intercom: â€œRonald Reagan was just sworn in as the 40th president of the United States and the hostages have just taken off from Tehran!â€�

In one breath, the tone for the next eight years was set. Because of him, the world took the United States seriously again. I was glad that Ronald Reagan was my president. Even with no end to the cold war in sight and terrorism on the rise, I felt safe. Someone was really looking out for our best interests. I was proud that my first presidential vote went to him in 1984.

Some people say there will never be another president like Ronald Reagan, that he was one of a kind. I hope they are wrong. I would like to see politics full of people like Ronald Reagan, whether I agree with them or not. It would be refreshing to hear intelligent debates about important issues and ideas instead of the the usual political sniping.

People of Reagan's character are not as rare as people think. But, the path to politics leaves a trail of battered bodies. The media is quick to elevate people and relentless in its desire to tear them back down. As a result, those most qualified rarely seek office. The best way to honor Reagan's legacy is to attract people to politics who can restore its honor and integrity. We the citizens can help in that effort by insisting upon a responsible and accountable media.

Happy Birthday Mr. President!

Action Figure Abducted in Iraq

2005-02-02T21:03:00.000-05:00

Can you believe this one? It appears the terrorists in Iraq are actually holding an action figure hostage, and threatening to behead it. Admittedly, it is good news that it's not a real soldier in this photo. But some poor child, somewhere in the Middle East, is probably crying and wondering what happened to his/her action figure. The best comment I heard on this was from a co-worker:

"I think Barbie should hop in the Corvette and mount a rescue mission. Ken probably wouldn't be much help, though"

I'm waiting for them to claim they shot down an aircraft, only to have it turn out to be a plastic model (the raised letters and flashing will probably still be visible).

Too much...

Iraqi Elections

2005-01-31T01:31:00.000-05:00

At last report, approximately 8 million Iraqis chose to stare fear and intimidation directly in the face. In doing so, they took the first collective step towards taking control of the country, and their lives. The world was busy listening to biased news reports, fanatical insurgents and doubting governments. The cynics were expecting, even hoping for failure. But they forgot about the Iraqis.

The people of Iraq proved that the promise of freedom is stronger than the threat of violence. In numbers that surpassed most people's expectations, they came out to vote, proudly displaying blue index fingers. Their goals are admirable. Their courage is inspiring. Their actions are impressive. Those of us watching must respect what we have witnessed, and not fail to support them on their road to a better future.

I really hope Saddam had a TV in his cell this weekend.

Random Ramblings

2005-01-29T10:37:00.000-05:00

So many thoughts...so little time. I frequently get writer's block, which explains my infrequent postings, but seldom do I get thinker's block. I finally decided to put these ideas down and maybe they'll spur some comments - if anyone is reading, that is. Maybe I'll work some of these into full articles someday. If not, then at least I've purged my mind and made room for the next wave of mental fodder. Since I've never done a brain dump like this yet and some of the thoughts go way back...it's likely to be the longest. Here goes...

1: On Bill Clinton's Impeachment
I didn't really care when I heard about Clinton's dalliances in the Oval office with Monica Lewinsky. I sure wasn't surprised that he fooled around. And it seemed a little premature for people to call for his removal from office at the beginning. After all, the fact that he did it just confirms that he's a philanderer. When he lied about it to the American public, that just confirmed that he was a liar.

But when he lied under oath to a federal grand jury, he became a perjurer...and he violated his oath to "support and defend the Constitution." He may as well have handed the document to Miss Lewinsky to wipe up the mess given the appalling lack of respect he showed it.

At the end of it all, it was amazing to follow the Senate proceedings. Imagine Clinton's luck; he was impeached for perjury but tried for adultery.

I've been wanting to get that off my chest for a long time!

2: On Legislative Reform
I figured out how to stop congress from tacking pork onto important legislation - it's called a relevancy law. Congress needs to adopt regulations so amendments to pending legislation must actually have something to do with the parent bill. I'm sure the various committees are supposed to see to this, but as we all know, back room dealing keeps the barrels a-rolling along. This isn't a party issue - it's endemic to politics.

So, lets create, through constitutional amendment, a new check and balance. Since we know we can't expect congress to police themselves by mandating self imposed relevancy, give the President the line item veto for the purpose of assuring relevancy. If congress challenges any line item vetoes, give the Supreme Court the task to see if the President has used it appropriately.

3: On The Electoral College and Voting Reform
The Electoral College is broken and needs to be fixed. Not abandoned...but fixed. A friend of mine said we should have one vote per state. While this goes straight to the idea of a true republic of sovereign states, it abandons any popular representation. This was the whole argument that prompted the great compromise between Hamilton and Franklin. The founders recognized that the President heads a union of states, not the people directly. But they also realized that one vote per state would be a very tough sell to the larger states. The electoral college was a clever blending of the popular and equal representation.

The problem is that back when it was created, Virginia was our most populous state and had 12 electoral votes. Delaware was the least populated and had only three. The difference of only nine electoral votes assured that the small states had some say as to the election of the president. Today, California has 55 electoral votes but Delaware still has only three. This is a disparity the founding fathers certainly did not foresee.

Today, the smaller states have less influence on the destiny of their country than they did 200 years ago. Any idea of balance in favor of the smaller states is gone. We essentially have a popular vote. Add to this the candidates' habit of ignoring the smaller states altogether (understandable but annoying) and the need for a fix is obvious. In a perfect system candidates take the time to visit all the states, and every state's votes count, and everyone votes. Oh, and a nice to have is that the electoral votes can't be arbitrarily changed by the electors. Short of that, here's my idea.

Re-apportion the electoral college as follows. Abandon the current system where the number of electors for each state equals their number of representatives plus senators. Apportion the votes based on a weighting of the states' populations on a scale using only the even numbers from 2 through 10, and give Washington DC one vote. Using this system, there can never be a tie, and the equity is finally restored along the lines the founding fathers had originally intended.

As an example, in the 2000 election, George Bush had ~50+% (271) of the electoral votes to Al Gore's had 49% (266). Using this new system where all states have an even number of electoral votes between 2 and 10, and DC has one, the results are conclusive. George Bush would have had 78 electoral votes, or 56% and Al Gore would have received 61 electoral votes, or 44%. No contest there.

Since we are a union and not a single country (remember - state does not equal province) it is perfectly acceptable for the president to be elected without a majority of the popular votes, as long as he wins the majority of state votes. One more thing that would also help is to prohibit reporting of official election returns until after all polling stations in the country have closed. We can't stop private polls, but given their inaccuracy in the recent election, they shouldn't cause problems. This could go quite a way to increasing voter confidence and turnout.

4: On A National Language
This one is simple...and it has nothing to do with prejudice or fair play. It is purely economic. How much extra are we paying (wasting) in infrastructure in order to support more than one language. I'll bet if someone takes the time to add it up, it's $ignificant. Any takers? We must standardize on English since most people speak it anyway...and save money.

5: On Junk Science
What happens when incomplete research meets irresponsible journalism? You get the bane of modern technological progress (and a pet peeve of mine): Junk Science. Why is there so much of it around today? It exists for one reason only - because it sells papers. All you need is some scientific research taken out of context and inappropriately apply it to the latest social concerns, and you have everything you need to stir the masses and bring progress to a screeching halt. Making matters worse is the outright stubbornness of researchers who refuse to accept their initial theories or conclusions may be in error.

The first problem is that the general public does not understand science very well. Most advances, contrary to popular misconceptions, take years of slow, methodical progress. Each step along the way brings more questions to be answered. After a time, a refinement is discovered, or sometimes, a new method is developed altogether. Along the way, however, society usually benefits from the ongoing developments. I am an engineer. Technology is tough enough without the bureaucracies of corporate America and the US Government. Progress takes time.

To paraphrase the professor for my undergraduate Aircraft Design classes, "You can't push state of the art to fast without prohibitively raising costs." And as any good capitalist knows, if no one buys an electric car or solar cells because they are too expensive, what good are they?

6: On God Given Rights
I like how southernersâ€™ unique way with words when making a point can very often make you think, and in doing so, teach, as well as persuade. One southerner who is very good at this is a friend of mine. He is about 20 years older than me, which puts him beyond the age giving a damn if something he says doesnâ€™t meet with popular approval. Heâ€™s done a lot, and seen more. He is also a Libertarian so when it comes to things political, he makes no pretenses. To paraphrase: â€œThe government is here to serve us, not manage us. Get off my back and get your hands out of my wallet! Iâ€™ll take care of myself, thank you.â€� Hmmmâ€¦something noble in that philosophy, I think.

One day at lunch, my friend was commenting about something in the news where some group or another was complaining about unfair treatment, and saying they were being denied their â€œGod-given rights.â€� With a huff and growl, he said, â€œAw shoot, they want their God given rights? Fine! Iâ€™ll strip â€˜em nekkid and toss â€˜em in the woods to fend for themselves. Thatâ€™s their God given rights. Everything else is a privilege, paid for by the blood and sweat of someone who came before them.â€� How incredibly profound â€“ and completely correct. We are not as much a free nation, as we are a privileged nation.

OK, that's enough for now...more later.

Condoleezza Rice Confirmed

2005-01-26T22:52:00.000-05:00

Congratulations to Dr. Condoleezza Rice on her confirmation as our new Secretary of State. Though the 13 "no" votes was one of the largest oppositions to any Secretary of State nomination, her final approval from 85 senators was overwhelmingly positive. In the end, law makers on both sides of the aisle put her qualifications over party politics.

Dr. Rice will have to confront many issues at the beginning of her tenure: the election in Iraq, phasing out coalition involvement, rebuilding strained U.S. relations abroad. I share the president's confidence that she is more than up to the task. The issue the press may force her to address first, however, is the fact that she is the first African American woman to hold the position. In my opinion...who cares? She's a great choice for the job...with a resume most people could only dream of. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned. But the media will describe her from that point of view for a while, just as they did for Colin Powell at the beginning. Here's a sampling.

Associated Press: 5th Paragraph (used also by CNN, NY Post, MSNBC, ABC News, et al)

Fox News: 3rd Paragraph

Washington Times: 2nd Paragraph

BBC World News: 7th Paragraph
Interestingly enough, this appears under the interim heading "Ability and Experience"

Yes, it is meaningful and noteworthy because it is a social and cultural milestone. And I'm sure that to some extent, private to her, she is rightfully proud of it. But, I am willing to bet that Dr. Rice would much rather be remembered for doing a great job rather than for just the fact that she got the job. I know it has been, and will continue to be, the same for other first time minority nominees to high profile positions. It's just a shame, that's all.

Why can't the press say "She's a highly qualified person" without all the racial, religious or gender based descriptions. It's as though the media feels minorities aren't qualified to be judged on the same scale as everyone else. We spend way too much time in this country focusing on how we are different, and not enough time focusing on how we are the same. Perhaps the words of USMC Aviator and Lieutenant General Frank Peterson best express my feelings:

"Achieving the first black/only black is a status, but is also
a double-edged sword. Because it says if this is still important,
we still have a long way to go."

No WMDs...So Why The War?

2005-01-16T23:47:00.002-05:00

So, we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq. Well, I must say I'm surprised, but also relieved. Now, at least we have an answer. But, all this begs the question; Why did we go to war in Iraq?

We didn't go to war because we thought Iraq might have chemical weapons. Their existence is an historical fact, as is the use of those weapons.

We didn't go to war because we thought Iraq was developing nuclear and biological weapons. That fact was substantiated by Iraq's report to the UN. You can't destroy programs that never existed in the first place...can you?

We didn't go to war because we suspected a link with Al Queda. If there was no link, how could members of Iraq's government have met with Al Queda operatives in Sudan in the 90's?

We didn't go to war because Saddam Hussein had called for the assassination of former President Bush. President Clinton used a cruise missile to express our displeasure with that.

So...why? Why this war? Why now?

Because the United Nations, an organization of which both the United States and Iraq are members, called for Iraq to dismantle its WMDs and any programs it had to develop them.

In fact, the UN issued over a dozen resolutions to that end. The resolutions also called for verification. One even warned of serious consequences if the resolutions were not followed.

But, you say, Iraq issued a 12,000 (approx) page document listing all its weapons and programs and certified they had been destroyed, as ordered. Yes...yes they did.

But...they refused to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors who were sent to Iraq to verify that the weapons and programs had, in fact, been destroyed. Remember...the deal also called for proof. Mr. Hussien's say-so was not enough.

So, we didn't go to war because Iraq had WMDs or programs to develop them. We went to war because we could not verify that they had been destroyed. Well, since we couldn't find any, now we have our proof that, apparently, they were.

It seems that if Mr. Hussein had voluntarily given the UN's weapons inspectors 1/10th the access that our military took by force, he could have saved everyone a lot of trouble...and saved a lot of lives, also.

The world leader really to blame for this war and the deaths it has caused on both sides is the deposed one awaiting trial at an undisclosed location in Iraq.

Michelle Malkin Under Fire

2005-01-12T18:18:00.000-05:00

Once again the very worst of liberal America has reared its ugly head. It seems that minorities are only supposed to be successful if they climb the liberal ladder; their voices should only be heard if they join the cry of oppression from "the man." How sad.

Congratulations to Michelle Malkin for having the courage and self confidence to publish a sampling of the hateful, prejudiced, and by the way, obscene, e-mails she has received. It is good to see that she can rise above this with her dignity and self respect in tact.

Why is it some people must stoop to being vulgar and base in order to express displeasure with someone else's political views? Don't they realize how infantile they sound (or read) when doing so? I only wish she had put their names there as well so these people's friends, families and neighbors could see the type of people with whom they associate.

Bigot, thy name is now liberal!

Keep on writing Michelle!

Read Michelle's Blog Here

The Tsunami - A Lesson In Human Nature

2005-01-05T23:50:00.000-05:00

I have been watching and listening to the coverage of the tsunami and the ensuing relief efforts. Much has been written, as well, about this tragedy. My heart goes out to all the victims and their families. Nothing anyone can say can ease your pain...only the passage of time can do that...hopefully. What I want to say is that it is at times like this when certain aspects of humanity are revealed.

First, at difficult times like this, I am always pleasantly impressed by the generosity of my fellow human beings. Regardless of the who and where, people have been uncompromisingly generous. Money and support have been pouring in from around the world. It proves one thing I have always believed...people are essentially good, compassionate and just. We all have our personal faults and shortcomings, but as a species, we prove our mettle and our worth again and again.

Second, times like this also bring out the worst in some people. Unfortunately, I am not surprised by this truth of the world. I am saddened by the reports of those trying to turn a quick buck from this (or any) tragedy. I am also, in no uncertain terms, angered by those who would use this horrible event as an opportunity to divide people. Rather than gratitude, we hear accusations of stinginess. Instead of accepting the fact that nature understands our needs and fragility even less than we understand its, we get finger pointing and blame.

To suggest, even for a moment, that anyone but the most deranged and twisted mind would allow this to happen had they the power to warn or prevent is, in my mind, unconscionable. Not only does it defy my previously mentioned beliefs about the basic nature of humanity, it also defies logic. There is no rationale to support this point of view, or explain why someone would ascribe to it. Let's not increase the world's suffering by adding controversy and suspicion to misery.

Last...a lesson. I frequently quote from my dad, and to close this post, I will do so again: "It's a shame that we always make time to visit people when they have died, but never enough time to do it when they are alive." So go - make contact. Call or visit someone special in your life. Make it more than one person. Reach out, and even reach back, to those you haven't seen or spoken to in a while. And follow through - don't make it a one time deal. Keep in touch. If this past week and a half shows us anything, it is that life is precious and fleeting.

Make people a daily priority.

To The Greatest Generation - We Need You Again

2004-12-20T21:41:00.000-05:00

My father is a WWII veteran. Although he was drafted too late to see any combat, he served from 1945 through 1948, during the state of emergency. He shared the mindset of all those who went to fight overseas - including, especially, five of his older brothers, and numerous friends and neighbors.

I consider myself very fortunate to have grown up as a child of a WWII vet. I especially feel fortunate to be on the tail end off the baby boomer generation. I had the grounded principles of my parentsâ€™ generation to guide me, without the distractions of the sixties to derail me. I still look to my father for advice. He is not perfect and I donâ€™t always agree, but he is wise, intelligent, witty, compassionate and honorable. He is the best man I know.

While I was growing up, I remember my father writing many letters - some of them quite exceptional. He would write letters to newspaper editors, senators, representatives and presidents. He also read a lot, and listened a lot and thought a lot. My father did not see politics as tiresome or distracting. He enjoyed the debate and felt it is every citizenâ€™s responsibility to be involved in the running of our democracy. As I grew up, I respected his views and opinions and followed him onto his conservative soapbox.

Times moved on, kids grew, married and moved out, grandchildren arrived, his wife passed away, but still he stayed interested. His involvement, however, steadily dropped off and he stopped writing. Maybe he felt he had made his contribution. Maybe he felt no one was listening. Maybe he felt he could no longer make a difference. Well, he is not alone, and I am not surprised.

Today's society is riddled with self-assured arrogance - most of it from the middle to upper end of my generation. Whether the topic is political, social, environmental, technological or economic, itâ€™s very disheartening that fanatical voices get all the press. I don't suppose it would matter if someone else did speak. The squeaky wheels out there have had the floor for so long now; they don't feel obliged to listen.

Well, they should listen...to their parents. They should listen to the people who sacrificed more for this country in six years than any generation before or since. They should watch how these people conducted their lives, and learn from their examples. They should question the people who taught them to question, and explore their views through the eyes of familiar wisdom. And they should do it fast, because they won't be around forever.

But it isn't a one-way street. The Greatest Generation needs to speak up. They gave us a great gift six decades ago, but they fail their children if they don't continue to provide us council in how to wisely use that gift. Our society doesn't lack only moral leadership; we lack a certain amount of maturity.

The excesses of the sixties are primarily to blame. The idea that questioning authority is an obligation rather than a privilege is one example. Another is that "because I could" has become an acceptable excuse for doing the wrong thing. No one is perfect, not me, not you. But we no longer have perfection as a target, unreachable though it may be. Maybe our parents could help put us back on track.

So, let's reopen the dialogue. I charge those out there from the Greatest Generation with the task to start writing letters again. I challenge those from my generation, and others, to lay down your stubbornness and listen. The greatest gift my parentsâ€™ generation gave us was the continuation of our freedom. The greatest gift they can give us now, is their collected wisdom. The greatest gift we can give our children is to pay attention.

Freedom of - not from - Religion

2004-12-15T20:40:00.000-05:00

I have a new name for the ACLU: the American Civil Litigation Union. Well let's face it, that's all they seem to do these days. If you offend someone, and by someone I mean a minority or liberal, or both, they will sue you until you either submit, apologize, resign, pay up, or any combination thereof. It seems that their goal is social engineering via intimidation. One of their most recent crusades has been to completely remove from our government and society any references whatsoever to God or religion.

To effect this extrication of the deity, the ACLU has attacked our currency, the Pledge of Allegiance, public religious displays by any level of government, and now The Declaration of Independence. They contend that even referring to or mentioning God publicly is offensive to some. When done by an elected official or in any "official" capacity, the ACLU says it violates the separation of church and state clause of the US Constitution. The funny thing is, the Constitution has no separation of church and state clause. There is only the First Amendment, the first part of which states:

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

It all sounds pretty straight-forward, but, maybe I've missed something in those sixteen words. I guess I better go through them bit by bit, just to be certain.

CONGRESS:
The legislative branch of our government. It is comprised of the 535 elected members of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Congress does not include the President, Supreme Court, members of any federal, state or lower courts, governors, mayors, state legislators, local councilmen, businesses, etc.

SHALL MAKE NO LAW:
It means CONGRESS is prohibited from drafting, constructing, passing or even considering a specific law.

RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION:
If we take ESTABLISHMENT to be a verb, then it refers to the setting up or imposing of a national religion. If we take ESTABLISHMENT as a noun, then it refers to a specific religious group.

OR PROHIBITING:
Or making illegal, implicitly or otherwise

THE FREE PRACTICE THEREOF:
A citizens right to freely practice his/her freely chosen religion.

Although written 217 years ago, the language still seems pretty clear, even when scrutinized under the microscope of today's legalese. In short, the US Congress is expressly prohibited from legislating a specific religion upon the citizenry, legislating about a specific religion, and interfering with citizens' rights to practice whatever religions they chose.

It does not, anywhere in those sixteen words, prohibit the US Congress from REGOGNIZING that religion exists or that people are religious by nature. Congress is also not barred from recognizing that God exists, from mentioning God, or from allowing or even participating in religious activities. All that may be drawn from the clause in the Constitution is that Congress may not favor one faith over another.

It may be argued from this that neither Christmas nor any religious occasion should be a national holiday. Given how advertisers and the media have absconded with Christmas and turned it into a secular, materialistic free for all, I'm not sure that would be a bad thing. However, it would still not preclude a national Christmas tree at the White House, or for that fact, a national Menorah in the Capitol Rotunda. All these and more should be welcomed and respected.

According to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey, 80.2% of Americans identified themselves as belonging to some faith. It's time for us Americans to make it known that as the clear majority, we will not allow our children to forget the reason why the original settlers came to these shores almost 400 years ago. We must not allow the few who complain to push the rest of us into belittling the beliefs of the founding fathers. As forward-thinking as those men were, they still placed a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence It is time for the non-religious, secularist minority to add another adjective their title...SILENT.

Though you may live in a technically "secular" nation, it it only so out of fairness to all religions. Never forget it was founded on Judeo-Christian principles by pious men and is populated with religious citizens who want to practice their faiths unhindered by the few who, by rights, may chose not to participate. In short, grow up, stop whining and learn to deal with it. After all, there are four of us for every one of you. Finally, it is time for the ACLU to realize that the civil rights and freedoms it claims to hold dear and champion apply to everyone, including the majority.

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion. In fact, quite the opposite. It means that we may cherish our individual faiths, and still respect the faiths of others. I would be as proud to see a Nativity on my town green as I would a Crescent and Star, or any other symbol of faith. These are clear expressions of the freedom we all have a right to expect. It is abhorrent for anyone to feel they must hide their religious expression for fear of offending someone else. It is inexcusable for any government - local, state or federal - to validate such intolerance and oppression by catering to it.

A version of the above article was published in the Waterbury Republican-American, January 2005. It is based on a previously published letter to the editor of the Hartford Courant, January 2002.

Political Cartoonist Whining

2004-12-14T22:07:00.000-05:00

By now, I should be used to the particular brand of editorial tripe published on a daily basis by the Hartford Courant, but today, they have actually surprised me. This morning's cartoon by Bob Englehart's depicted Bush Advisor Karl Rove reading a newspaper story about the poisoning of the Ukraine's opposing presidential candidate and musing "Why didn't I think of that?"

Just when I think the fanatical left has gone as low as they can, they prove me wrong and sink one step lower. To call it tasteless is an understatement. Reprehensible isn't even strong enough. I think my first reaction may been on the money:

"WAH WAH WAH...my candidate lost!
WAH WAH WAH...it's a right-wing conspiracy!
WAH WAH WAH...the Republicans are all a bunch of big meanies!
WAH WAH WAH!"

Oh, grow up already! Rank and file Republicans are shaking their heads. Rank and file Democrats are probably embarrassed. Mr. Englehart and the Courant's editorial board should be hanging their heads and apologizing. To actually believe that this is the way rational people think - whether on the political right OR left - is laughable. To have actually printed it - is sad.

If you really WANT to create broad-spectrum inter-party hatred, you are on the right path. But I ask you, after all the people you have turned against one another in order to elevate sales have finally killed eachother off...how will you stay in business? I mean, puppies need someone to buy your paper and lay it on the floor so its true usefulness can be realized.

Garcia Revisited (The Other Message)

2004-12-09T23:21:00.000-05:00

"In all this Cuban business there is one man stands out on the horizon of my memory like Mars at perihelion." With these words, Elbert Hubbard sat down one night in 1899 after a supper conversation with his son and penned one of the most widely read treatises in the world on the subject of work, "A Message to Garcia." To summarize: During the War of 1898, President McKinley needed to get a message to the leader of the insurgents in Cuba, a man named Garcia. The task of delivering this message was given to Colonel Andrew S. Rowan. Rowan took message, set off for Cuba, disappeared into the jungle, and emerged three weeks later on the other side having successfully delivered the message. Hubbard's son proclaimed Rowan as the true hero of the war because he did his job - period. He did not ask any ridiculous questions or try to get someone else to do it. He simply accepted the task and relied upon his own talents and ingenuity to see him through.

Mr. Hubbard used Rowan as an example of what happens when a job is done right. He described the frustration employers in his day faced, daily, trying to inspire subordinates to give a decent days work. He related cases of blatant employee indifference, laziness, and abject stupidity, which those in charge were forced to endure in order to produce the goods and services society needs. Praises went to he who did his job when tasked, never questioning, but rather relying upon his own intelligence and initiative to do the thing. "The toe of a thick-soled Number Nine boot" was alternatively proffered to the rest. Since human nature has not changed significantly in the last century or so, the problems about which Hubbard wrote still exist and are not likely to disappear in the future.

All this attention paid to the common-man, the backbone of the American labor force. Hail the loyal worker - but - what about President McKinley? Surely his actions are also worthy of praise, are they not? He demonstrated the other half of what must happen for a job to go right. He gave Rowan the task - period. He allowed Rowan the freedom to deliver the message the best way he knew how without offering a lot of intrusive advice. Neither did he try to do the job himself and use Rowan as simply a front man, or worse, a scapegoat. Too often those in charge feel they must control every aspect of every task they assign either out of fear or the inability to accept that someone else can perform the task as well as they. Hats off to the leader who is not insecure, but able to give authority to a subordinate and not constantly interfere with the progress of the job.

While the bane of some employers is subordinate apathy and sloth, I suggest these conditions may also be symptoms of micro-management, the cross-borne by many employees. In todayâ€™s work place, multi-level management is the rule and MBA's are running amok. That internal spark which made Rowan a hero and was so admired by Hubbard is now being squashed over and over by the corporate "mini-crats" who seek not productivity increases or quality improvements as much as protection for their own fiefdoms, perks and year-end bonuses. From their walled cubicles and corner offices, these self-appointed demigods of middle management rule with iron fists veiled by impotent lip service and backed by unspoken threats of lay-offs. They stifle initiative and independent thought, trumpeting to all that they, and they alone have the information required to do the job, they only lack the time to go through the motions themselves.

Were Rowan alive today and working for one of the corporate overlords of whom I write, he would not only be charged with delivering the message. He would also most assuredly be told when to leave, what mode of transport to use, the route to take, when he is expected to reach Garcia, and the maximum he can spend during the excursion. Additionally, he would be expected to check in daily with his immediate supervisor and send weekly status reports to three or four other sub-overlords who are bored and require this information to make them feel important and productive. Under these circumstances, it is doubtful if the message would ever reach Garcia. Most likely, Rowan would run out of funds half way to his objective or be given so many side tasks along the way he would lose concentration and wind up killed by the enemy.

I know an employee who was conducting research. His manager said, "I want you to learn as much as you can about this technology and achieve this advancement." A month later, the employee learned of a process, which, if utilized, would quite possibly bring about the advancement. As required, he mentioned this in his weekly report and happened to inform his manager in passing. Did the manager say "good work," or "thank you for the information?" You can bet your life he did not. This manager was of the particular breed of dinosaur so impressed by his own achievements in the same technology (which were by this point almost twenty years out of date) he felt the employeeâ€™s idea a waste of time. He refused to listen to a full explanation of the process, but rather, insisted upon a simpler, less costly approach (which ultimately proved unacceptable). For justification of his rationale, he cited his profound wisdom and displayed his dusty, yellowed certificates.

Bear in mind, the employee was spending full, eight to ten hour days researching the technology, talking to other people currently in the field (mostly PhD's) and conducting experiments. To his manager, this assignment was but one of hundreds to leave his desk. As it happened, the manager heard about the process eight months later through what his mind felt were "acceptable" channels. He summoned the employee to his office and insisted this remarkable new process, about which he just heard, be investigated immediately. "This could be it," he said, and sent the researcher off to his work, thoroughly confident in his own ability to lead the befuddled masses. The delay caused the advancement never to be realized before dwindling research funds were diverted to "more important projects."

The United States Military, an organization heavily vested in the leader-follower hierarchy is often wrongly assumed to demand blind submission to authority. In fact, officer candidates are given extensive training in leadership dynamics. I specifically remember, from my own experience at Air Force OTS, being told the following: "When you give authority, give it totally! Nothing makes less sense than assigning a job and constantly following the person around, peering over their shoulder and meddling in the progress. If you have that little faith in your decision or the other person's abilities or if this is necessary because the person is constantly messing up, you should never have passed the job along in the first place. You have to trust that your people know their jobs better than you do. More importantly, you have to let them do their jobs." I never forgot this lesson and when I found myself in my first real leadership position, I made certain I did not forsake it - much to the chagrin of my four supervisors.

It seems amazing, but this simple notion does escape many people. Look at the federal government, big business, schools, and charitable organizations...even some churches. Surprisingly enough, this little lesson eludes the "heads" of the most basic human hierarchical structure - the family. My wife quite aptly brought this point to my attention early in our marriage. With the birth of our son, I became chief earner and my wife has became a full-time mother/house wife. Part of our division of labor gave my wife charge of decorating. While discussing this subject, I became quite adamant about insisting my personality be reflected in the decor, not stopping to realize or trust my wife had considered this already. Almost word for word, she recited the OTS speech from above. If I did not know better, I would swear she was reading my mind.

If you ever come to a point in your life where you find yourself as a manager of others, for their sake and for rightâ€™s sake, do the following: give them a goal and maybe a time limit, then, by all that is right, take your leave of them. Let them do their job. Let the person/people decide HOW to do what you ask. Do not insist they all become your clones. Allow them the freedom to use their own God-given right to think. If not, you help doom our civilization towards an end where corporate power brokers rule the landscape and little MBA's run around wildly looking for someone to manage, much like Diogenes looking for his honest man.

What Have You Done For Me Lately?

2004-11-29T23:32:00.000-05:00

The modern Democratic Party claims it will fight for minorities. Well, it sure seems that way. Democrats never miss a photo-op or sound bite, and they make a lot of promises, and they take every opportunity to attack Republicans for their record on civil rights. Although Democrats talk a great game, when was the last time you actually heard of them doing anything for minorities? Letâ€™s review some history.

The Democratic Party evolved from the Federalists of the late 18^th century. The Federalists were the group at the Constitutional Convention who were vocally in favor of a strong central government, and rights only for the landed gentry.

Although they supported the basic tenets of personal liberty as did the Anti-federalists - the Jeffersonians - they actually opposed adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.

Two hundred years ago, Southern Democrats supported the institution of slavery and vehemently opposed any attempts to regulate or weaken it. At the 1840 Amistad trial, then Democratic president, Martin van Buren, forced the case to the U.S. Supreme Court in the hopes the mutineers would not be freed. It was a proto-Republican ex-president, John Quincy Adams, who successfully argued in their defense.

Republican Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves in 1863 by executive order and made possible the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th amendments to the constitution that guaranteed the freed slaves equal rights under the law. During the ensuing Reconstruction era, however, Southern Democrats did all they could to slow the amendmentsâ€™ implementation. That didnâ€™t stop the first African American governor, P.B.S. Pinchback, a Republican, from being elected in 1872.

The Republican Party began its public support for womanâ€™s suffrage in 1896, and backed the first woman successfully elected to Congress in 1917, Rep. Jeanette Rankin of Montana, three years before she could even vote.

In 1957, President Eisenhower ordered troops into Little Rock, Ark, to enforce desegregation of public schools. In 1972, President Nixon promoted and later signed Affirmative Action into law. In 1981, President Reagan appointed the first woman to the US Supreme Court and in 1983, he signed the bill creating the Martin Luther King Day holiday. President Bush appointed African Americans to two of this countryâ€™s highest-ranking positions, Secretary of State, and National Security Advisor. He also nominated several minority judges to federal benches, but curiously, Senate and House Democrats blocked these nominations by filibuster.

This is certainly not an indictment of Democrats in general or even all elected Democrats, but rather of the party hierarchy and its policy machine. For example, Harry Truman began the integration of the US Armed Forces in 1948. John F. Kennedy put teeth behind many existing civil-rights laws during his administration, and Lyndon Johnson nominated the first African American to the U.S. Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall. These acts were all commendable, but sadly, were decades ago and historically isolated. The fact is that Republicans have been far more consistent in their support for minorities. Were Truman and Kennedy alive today, some argue they might even be Republicans instead.

Despite its outward appearance of inclusion, the modern Democratic message to minorities is one of fear, separation and exclusion. It is mass population control in order to gain and maintain a political power base. What the Democrats are really saying to minorities is: â€œYou are incapable of doing for yourselves or standing on your own. Your differences have put you on the outside of society looking in. Stay with us, weâ€™ll protect you and give you what you, otherwise, couldnâ€™t possibly get for yourselves.â€� By taking this position, the Democrats have, for political reasons, pushed the minorities to the sidelines, and want to keep them there.

Minorities deserve better than condescension...they need action. Instead of doing for minorities, Republicans want to remove obstacles and allow minorities to do for themselves. Instead of giving special treatment, Republicans want to eliminate entitlements that ultimately erode self-respect. Republicans prefer a full-immersion, color-blind society where each person achieves and receives according to their ability to contribute and willingness to participate. The Democrats fear this because with every advance in civil rights they lose something that they can blame on Republicans and use to frighten potential voters.

The modern Democratic Party claims it will fight for minorities. In truth, it seems all they really want to fight for are minority votes. When it comes to actually working for minorities and their best interests, history shows Democrats leave that to the Republicans. When deciding how to cast their votes, minorities would do well to ask not what the Republicans have done for them lately, but ask what the Democrats have really done for them ever!

A version of this article was previously published in the Waterbury (CT) Republican-American, June 2004.

Righteous Indignation

2004-11-29T22:07:00.000-05:00

President Bush could learn something from my father about how to deal with hypocrites. After all, he has to deal with so many in Congress, the media and around the world. A little help might be useful, right? My father has a great tactic he likes to use with such people...he confronts them with their contradictions head on.

When I was 7, I was playing ball with the other kids in my neighborhood. I was playing centerfield and a pop-up came my way. I raised my mitt, but caught the ball on the tip of my right middle finger, instead. Well, It hurt and in my pain, I let fly a certain four-letter expletive. (No, not that one, the other one. After all, it was only my first time.) Anyway, when the other kids heard what I had said, they grabbed me by the arm and took me down the street to tell my father.

Of course, I was scared. My father had rules and I was sure I was in big trouble. When he came out, the oldest boy in the group, Kenny, thrust me forward and told my father what I said. My father looked at the group for a moment, then down at me. "Francis, go inside and I'll talk to you in a minute." I went in, but waited inside the door where I could still see and hear.

Dad looked at the group of ten or so kids, then chuckled and folded his arms. Then he did something surprising. He got mad at them. "You bunch of little hypocrites! Who are you to criticize anyone's language? I've heard you all say things that would make sailors blush. I don't need a bunch of "Dead End Kids" telling me how to raise my son. His punishment is none of your business, now go home before I call your parents and tell them about your filthy little mouths!"

I remember the sound of feet running fast off the driveway. I quickly ran from the door and went to sit in the den, awaiting my punishment. When Dad came in, he was mad, maybe more at the other kids than at me, but I was still scared. He sat down and asked me what happened and I told him, with tears in my eyes. He gave me a lecture, and said, "OK, go to your room until dinner. No playing and don't do it again!" I also lost one week's allowance.

Now, pay attention to the lesson. My father didn't punish me because a group of neighborhood miscreants told on his son and he had to save face. Neither did he punish me because he was afraid of what the other parents on the block would think. He truly didn't care. He punished me because I knew better, and I broke a rule that was based on my father's own personal barometer of right and wrong for a 7-year old.

The incidents at Abu-Ghraib prison were wrong and the soldiers who committed them should be punished. But, we shouldn't do it out of a sense of embarrassment or shame, neither should we do it because the world is watching. France, Germany and Russia, and many other nations have enough blood on their hands and should see to their own offenses. We also shouldnâ€™t punish the soldiers because the terrorists are upset. We, in America, have a national barometer for right and wrong, based on laws. Those soldiers violated it...end of discussion.

The lesson is that it's OK to call a hypocrite one to his face. It's OK to get mad. It's also OK to express it. With all due respect, it's time for a little righteous indignation form the president. After all, the 9-11 terrorists didn't walk into the world trade center, put hoods on 3,000 innocent civilians and parade them around naked, now did they?

This article was previously published in the Waterbury (CT) Republican-American, June 2004.

Why Ignorance May Truly Be Bliss

2004-11-29T13:15:00.002-05:00

Periodiclly, I go through times of deep introspection. Lately, I have been focusing on my fundamental principles and belief systems. As a result, I have reached an epiphany. I have decided I no longer want to "tolerate" other ethnicities, religions, races, genders, or lifestyles. Here's why.

Check any thesaurus and you will find some or all of the following synonyms for tolerate:

stand, bear, abide, put up with, endure, stomach, stand for, allow

One thesaurus actually defines tolerance as "the capacity to bear something unpleasant, painful or difficult." Clearly, according to these synonyms, that which is being tolerated has a negative connotation.

The problem with the politically correct concept of tolerance is its inherent misuse of the word. When did tolerate become synonymous with "treat fairly or equally?" The more I thought about his, the more confused I became. This spin violates the meaning of the word as I always understood it and just does not make sense. One can tolerate alcohol, or the cold or heat, or even an obnoxious person. However, it hardly seems right or fair to tolerate someone for just being different.

Instead, it sounds a lot like prejudice.

So, no, I do not want to be tolerant. I think I would rather be ignorant. That may sound odd at first, but think about it. The same thesaurus lists synonyms for ignorant as unaware or uninformed. If our true objective is that all people should be treated equally, ignorance makes more sense than tolerance.

Openness is a wonderful concept. However, we pay too high a price when it comes at the expense of courtesy, discretion, modesty, or privacy. In truth, I do not care, or need, to know the personal or intimate details of most people's lives. I certainly do not want them thrown in my face to advance media ratings or political motives. Like most people, I judge others as individuals, not as representatives of a specific group. The differences I am expected to tolerate play no part in how I treat someone. Although I may recognize the differences, I seldom focus on them.

Putting word games aside, the answer is simple. We must abolish the "us" and "them" mentality and focus on similarities. After all, when people first meet, they hardly stare each other up and down pointing out differences. Instead, they look for common ground, a shared friend, or interest...something on which to form a connection. We should be building our future as a society and a nation in the same way.

Today, however, we are so focused on differences that it is all we ever talk about anymore. I have heard it referred to as diversity sensitivity. The expectation is that by emphasizing differences, people will get along better. Unfortunately, this is seldom the case. History shows that prejudice, hate, and violence thrive in environments that are difference-centered. Today's headlines are full of examples: Arab and Jew; Protestant and Catholic; black and white; Serb and Croat; gay and straight; the list goes on.

It amazes me that many of those with influence in our country cannot see this simple and obvious truth. Sadly, because of short sightedness, personal agendas, or plain ignorance, they continue to make things worse. Our nation's founders knew better. They chose our first motto with great foresight and purpose: "E pluribus, Unum," "Out of many, one."

We may quibble over methods, but if we look at it objectively, our similarities far outweigh our differences. Essentially, our goals and desires are all the same. More than 100 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt rightly spoke out against what he called "hyphenated-Americans." The only ones who stand to gain from dividing people into opposing groups are those making up the categories. The rest of us suffer from their lack of vision.

If our differences are not important enough to be criteria for fair treatment, then they are not important enough to mention all the time. While they enrich our culture and can provide unique perspectives to help solve some problems, we need to be careful how much attention we pay them. Only by taking full advantage of our many similarities, can our nation and our society grow, prosper, and finally achieve the stability it needs to endure.

I only hope the PC crowd can learn to tolerate my ignorance.

A version of this article was published in the Waterbury (CT) Republican-American, October, 2003.

One Nation, Indivisible

2004-11-26T23:40:00.000-05:00

Ok, the election is over, so why all the whining? I hear Jessie Jackson is now convening a public meeting of ministers in Columbus, Ohio to call for an investigation into election improprieties. Not the recent elections in Ukraine, or Afghanistan, but here. Excuse me? Reverend Jackson, this is not some third world country, struggling to grasp the workings of a democracy. This is the United States. We hold elections, someone wins, someone loses, and life goes on. But, if you ask Mr. Jackson and his like, they will tell you we live in a divided country.

Well, I don't see this. I'm sure there are some people who do, and some who want to perpetuate the myth for political reasons, but it just isn't true. Politicians may squabble and pundits may bicker, but nobody I have met, whether right, left, middle or indifferent, feels this way. No Democrats I know wanted to leave just because George Bush won. And neither I, nor any Republicans I know, would have left had John Kerry won. Why? Because rational people don't think this way. There are 545 primary members of our government...not just one. Thankfully, most people know this.

Our nation works for many reasons. We place our faith in the system and it's ability to self-right itself. We believe in the offices of government more than the individuals who hold them. But the one reason I believe to be most important is that the government isn't more important than the people or than real life.

So, to all those Democrats who really want to leave, please do. To all those Republicans who feel the same way had Kerry won, please join them. If I could afford to pay all your passages, I would. America doesn't need fair-weather citizens. So, don't stay on our account. The sooner you go, the sooner the rest of us can get back to work...together.