The flap over the GOP YouTube debate continues and expands, as many of the video questions chosen by CNN have been found to be Democrat activists. Aside from the obvious dishonesty of the questioners presenting themselves as "undecided voter" or "Log Cabin Republican", CNN and their leftist supporters are missing (or mis-reporting) the point.
That point being it's not that the candidates are afraid of answering "tough" questions. It's about the double standard. It's about the predisposition of the CNN folks who chose the questions that Republicans are redneck war-mongering mean bigoted homophobes. They chose questions in an attempt to "expose" the candidates as such.
Even more to the point is the double standard. If you want to put on these left agenda-driven questioners in the GOP debate, where were the questions from Republican party activists at the Democrat YouTube debate?
Let's talk equivalency.
If it's fair game to bring Dem gay activists on the GOP debate asking their questions, why not have a Republican activist asking the Democrat candidates where they stand on Gay Marriage, and whether businesses and religious organizations should have the right to discriminate based on moral behavior standards?
How about a questioner asking the Dems to explain when exactly abortion crosses the line and becomes infanticide? Or whether they would counsel a young pregnant woman to get an abortion or enter an adoption program?
Maybe a question about whether they would support police raids on private residences to confiscate handguns, a la Washington DC?
Even a similar question as asked by the guy waving the Bible. Where do you Dems stand on religion and morality, and what place (if any) does religion play in American society?
The point is simple, but somehow the media seems to miss it.
What else is new?
Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Debaters
I caught the entire debate last night. CNN learned at least one lesson on the You-Tube format and cut out the stupid and outrageous stuff from the Democrat version. But apparently they couldn't help themselves in the sense of putting on some rather poor choices I suspect mirror their own attitudes.
They got caught on the gay general who hammered the candidates on "don't ask, don't tell". It turns out he's from Hillary's campaign. They compounded the dishonest presentation by letting the general expound further after the candidates gave what I thought were reasonable responses. Except Romney, who was so afraid of saying the wrong thing that he came off as an insincere buffoon.
The guy with the guns was funny, but I suspect may have been a set-up designed to suggest Republicans are a bunch of stupid rednecks. And the guy waving the Bible was simply insulting. Actually, I thought as many as half of the questions CNN chose were very questionable, possible put-up jobs. It's hard to believe they chose the one with the question about the stars & bars. In general, there were too many non-serious obnoxious questions from obvious enemies of the party.
My personal opinion is that Romney didn't do so well. He seemed insincere and calculating to me.
Rudy was his usual self, promising to do for the country what he did for New York City. Problem is, New York City is hardly a place most Americans (including me) would consider a reasonable model for the rest of the country. For me, New York, Miami, and Los Angeles are as close to being their own separate countries as they can be. I don't especially want the rest of America to look like New York City.
I thought the strongest performances came from McCain and Huckabee. They were earnest and seemed honest and passionate about their beliefs. McCain did a great job of projecting a confidence in his ability to win in Iraq and deal with the threats of terrorism. Huckabee was very personable and affable, and was terrific on the WWJD question.
Ron Paul must have gotten the message, toning it down a bit so he didn't come across quite so crazy. I was finally able to see what makes him attractive to his enthusiastic base of supporters.
I still really want to like Fred, and can't say he did badly. He seemed fairly comfortable and plain-spoken, but still doesn't really show much passion for the race. He's a guy I'd be happy to vote for in the general election, but he doesn't seem to give people a lot of reason to support him enthusiastically in the primary.
Hunter and Tancredo were all but ignored. They could be the greatest candidates in the field, but CNN seemed determined to keep them in the shadows. Tancredo still seems the one-trick pony, all about the immigration issue. Maybe he's served his purpose in highlighting the issue and can go ahead and retire from the race. Hunter seems like a good guy, but we get far to few chances to learn much about him.
I've got to think that the race is not between Rudi and Romney, but maybe between McCain and Huckabee. It will be interesting to find out whether I'm right.
They got caught on the gay general who hammered the candidates on "don't ask, don't tell". It turns out he's from Hillary's campaign. They compounded the dishonest presentation by letting the general expound further after the candidates gave what I thought were reasonable responses. Except Romney, who was so afraid of saying the wrong thing that he came off as an insincere buffoon.
The guy with the guns was funny, but I suspect may have been a set-up designed to suggest Republicans are a bunch of stupid rednecks. And the guy waving the Bible was simply insulting. Actually, I thought as many as half of the questions CNN chose were very questionable, possible put-up jobs. It's hard to believe they chose the one with the question about the stars & bars. In general, there were too many non-serious obnoxious questions from obvious enemies of the party.
My personal opinion is that Romney didn't do so well. He seemed insincere and calculating to me.
Rudy was his usual self, promising to do for the country what he did for New York City. Problem is, New York City is hardly a place most Americans (including me) would consider a reasonable model for the rest of the country. For me, New York, Miami, and Los Angeles are as close to being their own separate countries as they can be. I don't especially want the rest of America to look like New York City.
I thought the strongest performances came from McCain and Huckabee. They were earnest and seemed honest and passionate about their beliefs. McCain did a great job of projecting a confidence in his ability to win in Iraq and deal with the threats of terrorism. Huckabee was very personable and affable, and was terrific on the WWJD question.
Ron Paul must have gotten the message, toning it down a bit so he didn't come across quite so crazy. I was finally able to see what makes him attractive to his enthusiastic base of supporters.
I still really want to like Fred, and can't say he did badly. He seemed fairly comfortable and plain-spoken, but still doesn't really show much passion for the race. He's a guy I'd be happy to vote for in the general election, but he doesn't seem to give people a lot of reason to support him enthusiastically in the primary.
Hunter and Tancredo were all but ignored. They could be the greatest candidates in the field, but CNN seemed determined to keep them in the shadows. Tancredo still seems the one-trick pony, all about the immigration issue. Maybe he's served his purpose in highlighting the issue and can go ahead and retire from the race. Hunter seems like a good guy, but we get far to few chances to learn much about him.
I've got to think that the race is not between Rudi and Romney, but maybe between McCain and Huckabee. It will be interesting to find out whether I'm right.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Sports Fans Mistreated
The two examples this season of spiraling greed of sports executives is in the NFL and the Big 10. Both have launched their own cable networks which are mostly unavailable to the public. Indiana University basketball fans can't watch their beloved Hoosiers, who are now on the Big 10 Network. The second biggest game of the NFL season tonight can't be seen by most fans of the Packers and Cowboys, because it's only shown on the NFL Network.
The Big 10 and NFL blame the cable companies, who they say have greedily refused to carry their new networks on their "basic" television packages. The cable companies say it's the Big 10 and NFL who are the greedy ones, demanding something like $.80 per subscriber while they demand the channels be added to the basic package.
Like every other sports fan, I grew up watching the NFL and College basketball on free network television. Advertisers paid the stations for the right to show me their wares during time-outs. Everybody made money, and the leagues built huge fan bases.
But they got greedy. Cable channels, notably ESPN, entered the picture, and suddenly you had to have a cable subscription to watch your favorite teams play sometimes. Fewer and fewer games play on the "free" network channels.
The result I expect is going to be a loss of the fan base that has been the golden goose for the NFL and Big 10 all these years. Having only seen part of 2 Hoosier basketball games so far this season, I find myself starting to lose interest in the team I've followed since I was a kid. Likewise, the NFL will see angry and disaffected fans begin to find other interests.
Anyone that's upset over the money grabs by the NFL and Big 10 should act in this simple way: Stop watching. Don't subscribe. Don't give in to their attempt to grab your wallet and just avoid these new networks. Send the message that you will not play the game, and your support for the teams and leagues is not for sale.
I think the NFL and Big 10 should be forced to back down. But are the fans strong enough?
We'll soon find out.
The Big 10 and NFL blame the cable companies, who they say have greedily refused to carry their new networks on their "basic" television packages. The cable companies say it's the Big 10 and NFL who are the greedy ones, demanding something like $.80 per subscriber while they demand the channels be added to the basic package.
Like every other sports fan, I grew up watching the NFL and College basketball on free network television. Advertisers paid the stations for the right to show me their wares during time-outs. Everybody made money, and the leagues built huge fan bases.
But they got greedy. Cable channels, notably ESPN, entered the picture, and suddenly you had to have a cable subscription to watch your favorite teams play sometimes. Fewer and fewer games play on the "free" network channels.
The result I expect is going to be a loss of the fan base that has been the golden goose for the NFL and Big 10 all these years. Having only seen part of 2 Hoosier basketball games so far this season, I find myself starting to lose interest in the team I've followed since I was a kid. Likewise, the NFL will see angry and disaffected fans begin to find other interests.
Anyone that's upset over the money grabs by the NFL and Big 10 should act in this simple way: Stop watching. Don't subscribe. Don't give in to their attempt to grab your wallet and just avoid these new networks. Send the message that you will not play the game, and your support for the teams and leagues is not for sale.
I think the NFL and Big 10 should be forced to back down. But are the fans strong enough?
We'll soon find out.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Why Hate?
Maybe it's just that I've been paying more attention now, or I just didn't recognize it in the past, but it seems that hatred is at an all-time high both in quantity and intensity.
It's hard for me to imagine, because I honestly don't hate anyone. At least using my own definition of hatred, which is despising an individual so thoroughly as to actually wish them ill.
Sure, there are a few people I've met in my life that I've disliked. Mainly because they were absolute jerks. My approach is very simple - I just make sure to stay as far away from them as possible. On one or two occasions the jerks have been co-workers, but even then I seemed able to distance myself from them except for when I was forced to interact. Then I refused to allow anything but brief conversations about the business at hand.
It's very strange to me that so many people seem to nurture a murderous hatred of George W. Bush. How can one hate so viciously someone they've never even met, and only know based on the image conjured of him by the news media?
Among public figures, I have to admit that I expect there's a special place in Hell reserved for one Bill Maher. He's one jerk I hope never to meet in person. But I do pray for him, because aside from being a jerk, I think he's just terribly misguided.
Those who hate the president accuse their conservative counterparts of hating his predecessor no less viscerally. I'd have to disagree - I never heard the most rabid of conservatives openly hope for Bill Clinton's assassination like the Bush haters do. Personally, I thought Clinton should have done the right thing after the Lewinsky mess and resigned. I was profoundly disappointed in what he did and how he demeaned the office, but never hated him.
Some people irritate me. They anger me, disappoint me, exasperate me. But I don't hate them for it. At most, they just make me sad; more for them than for myself.
Instead of hating each other, why can't we just disagree? I think we can disagree with each other strongly and vigorously without coming the the H word. Maybe now and then we can learn a little about each other.
Some of us will never like each other, but that beats hating each other.
It's hard for me to imagine, because I honestly don't hate anyone. At least using my own definition of hatred, which is despising an individual so thoroughly as to actually wish them ill.
Sure, there are a few people I've met in my life that I've disliked. Mainly because they were absolute jerks. My approach is very simple - I just make sure to stay as far away from them as possible. On one or two occasions the jerks have been co-workers, but even then I seemed able to distance myself from them except for when I was forced to interact. Then I refused to allow anything but brief conversations about the business at hand.
It's very strange to me that so many people seem to nurture a murderous hatred of George W. Bush. How can one hate so viciously someone they've never even met, and only know based on the image conjured of him by the news media?
Among public figures, I have to admit that I expect there's a special place in Hell reserved for one Bill Maher. He's one jerk I hope never to meet in person. But I do pray for him, because aside from being a jerk, I think he's just terribly misguided.
Those who hate the president accuse their conservative counterparts of hating his predecessor no less viscerally. I'd have to disagree - I never heard the most rabid of conservatives openly hope for Bill Clinton's assassination like the Bush haters do. Personally, I thought Clinton should have done the right thing after the Lewinsky mess and resigned. I was profoundly disappointed in what he did and how he demeaned the office, but never hated him.
Some people irritate me. They anger me, disappoint me, exasperate me. But I don't hate them for it. At most, they just make me sad; more for them than for myself.
Instead of hating each other, why can't we just disagree? I think we can disagree with each other strongly and vigorously without coming the the H word. Maybe now and then we can learn a little about each other.
Some of us will never like each other, but that beats hating each other.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Projection
A little psychological term I picked up in college, projection is a defense mechanism whereby someone accuses another of a negative attribute or behavior she actually exhibits.
There seems to be a lot of projection in our modern political dialogue.
Let's examine a few:
Conservatives who support capital punishment are heartless barbarians.
I'm still waiting for an explanation about why the most strident voices against capital punishment are equally as strident in their defense of a "woman's right to choose", even to the point of where a fully-developed human infant's brains are sucked out just before delivery so the mother doesn't have to raise the child. How does it work - "Save the murderers, kill the babies"? How about "Save the environment, abort a fetus".
Conservatives "steal" elections by "disenfranchising" Democrat voters.
I've been trying to figure out what that means, and the closest I can get is this: Laws like the one passed here in Indiana that require voters to produce a valid identification before voting disenfranchise Democrat voters who are filling in for people who have moved away, are dead, or never existed in the first place. Then of course there are the illegal immigrant and convicted felon disenfranchised Democrat voters. Who exactly is "stealing" elections?
Conservatives, especially talk radio, are responsible for the divisiveness and uncivil discourse in American politics today. It's conservatives who have no tolerance for other points of view. Rush Limbaugh is the poster child for this argument.
Tell you what: Listen to Rush Limbaugh just once, then turn on Bill Maher or Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews. Then tell me who is more uncivil; who exhibits more raw hatred and disgust for the other side? Be honest.
Conservatives hail from the Flat Earth Society.
I guess the charge is that conservatives hate science, apparently because they're religious nutcases. Al Gore recently said that anyone who questions his highly touted "scientific facts" about global warming is no more worthy of media play than someone who believes the earth is flat. Interesting, given the fact that even the climate scientists on Al's side have admitted that he's vastly overblown many of his "facts", and completely made up several others.
Interestingly, the people who claim to put so much faith in science and reason rise up in righteous indignation if anybody in the scientific community releases a study that seems to prove one of their sacred liberal beliefs isn't true. The latest story on stem cells, for example. Darwinian evolution. That men and women are actually different in several measurable ways (*gasp*).
It's so interesting how science is only touted by these folks when it serves their agenda. Oh wait - I thought that was supposed to be the other side that does that!
Moving on to reason, that just may be the biggest joke. Those who profess to use reason and a dispassionate analysis of the factual evidence seem to be most likely to abandon reason for emotion. Those on the far left (Marxists, in case you don't know who the far left are) choose to ignore the abject failures of Marxist society, believing they will simply implement it better than the others.
Bush is spying on Americans.
Aside from the fact that there's no evidence any innocent American has been illegally wiretapped, it's another great example. Anybody remember the FBI Files scandal, euphemistically called "Filegate", from the Clinton era? By the way, it was Hillary that set up the illegal office where FBI files were obtained on all of the Clinton's political enemies to use against them. Plus there was the case of Newt Gingerich's cellphone conversations being tapped by Democrat party operatives and shared with Hillary to use against him.
Strange how everybody but Hillary got prosecuted for that stuff.
There are more, but here's the last one:
Bush has shredded the Constitution.
That's amazing, coming from those who would impose a big-brother socialist society on the rest of us, telling us what we are allowed to drive, eat, smoke, even think. Those who want a Supreme Court that disregards the constitution to implement anything they can't achieve through democratic means. Those who would erase all references to God and repeal the first and second amendments as quickly as possible.
Our word for today, children, is Projection.
There seems to be a lot of projection in our modern political dialogue.
Let's examine a few:
Conservatives who support capital punishment are heartless barbarians.
I'm still waiting for an explanation about why the most strident voices against capital punishment are equally as strident in their defense of a "woman's right to choose", even to the point of where a fully-developed human infant's brains are sucked out just before delivery so the mother doesn't have to raise the child. How does it work - "Save the murderers, kill the babies"? How about "Save the environment, abort a fetus".
Conservatives "steal" elections by "disenfranchising" Democrat voters.
I've been trying to figure out what that means, and the closest I can get is this: Laws like the one passed here in Indiana that require voters to produce a valid identification before voting disenfranchise Democrat voters who are filling in for people who have moved away, are dead, or never existed in the first place. Then of course there are the illegal immigrant and convicted felon disenfranchised Democrat voters. Who exactly is "stealing" elections?
Conservatives, especially talk radio, are responsible for the divisiveness and uncivil discourse in American politics today. It's conservatives who have no tolerance for other points of view. Rush Limbaugh is the poster child for this argument.
Tell you what: Listen to Rush Limbaugh just once, then turn on Bill Maher or Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews. Then tell me who is more uncivil; who exhibits more raw hatred and disgust for the other side? Be honest.
Conservatives hail from the Flat Earth Society.
I guess the charge is that conservatives hate science, apparently because they're religious nutcases. Al Gore recently said that anyone who questions his highly touted "scientific facts" about global warming is no more worthy of media play than someone who believes the earth is flat. Interesting, given the fact that even the climate scientists on Al's side have admitted that he's vastly overblown many of his "facts", and completely made up several others.
Interestingly, the people who claim to put so much faith in science and reason rise up in righteous indignation if anybody in the scientific community releases a study that seems to prove one of their sacred liberal beliefs isn't true. The latest story on stem cells, for example. Darwinian evolution. That men and women are actually different in several measurable ways (*gasp*).
It's so interesting how science is only touted by these folks when it serves their agenda. Oh wait - I thought that was supposed to be the other side that does that!
Moving on to reason, that just may be the biggest joke. Those who profess to use reason and a dispassionate analysis of the factual evidence seem to be most likely to abandon reason for emotion. Those on the far left (Marxists, in case you don't know who the far left are) choose to ignore the abject failures of Marxist society, believing they will simply implement it better than the others.
Bush is spying on Americans.
Aside from the fact that there's no evidence any innocent American has been illegally wiretapped, it's another great example. Anybody remember the FBI Files scandal, euphemistically called "Filegate", from the Clinton era? By the way, it was Hillary that set up the illegal office where FBI files were obtained on all of the Clinton's political enemies to use against them. Plus there was the case of Newt Gingerich's cellphone conversations being tapped by Democrat party operatives and shared with Hillary to use against him.
Strange how everybody but Hillary got prosecuted for that stuff.
There are more, but here's the last one:
Bush has shredded the Constitution.
That's amazing, coming from those who would impose a big-brother socialist society on the rest of us, telling us what we are allowed to drive, eat, smoke, even think. Those who want a Supreme Court that disregards the constitution to implement anything they can't achieve through democratic means. Those who would erase all references to God and repeal the first and second amendments as quickly as possible.
Our word for today, children, is Projection.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Atheist Oppression
Lately I've been hearing and reading about prominent atheists and their crusade against Christianity. Just trying to understand the point of view, I have discovered their true agenda is the destruction of religion.
The basic ideas I'm hearing from them are these:
Christianity is the source of most of the violence today and throughout history.
Christianity is a fable, there is no God, and those who adhere to a Christian faith are akin to ignorant unenlightened closed-minded superstitious fools.
Christianity is about denying people a fulfilling life through silly and arbitrary behavioral rules. Christianity also attempts to refute and deny scientific facts, and tries to keep children ignorant and away from scientific education or discovery.
If Christianity could be eliminated, people would somehow become more enlightened and educated, the world would be a less violent place, and everyone would enjoy true equality.
Let's see if I can address these point-by-point:
Christians are violent? OK, keep pointing to the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition. Reading history, I seem to find much more violence by other than Christians than those two tired old examples. Check out the Inquisition, and despite the fact it was certainly not a bright spot for the Church, it was a very short-lived and isolated event that in fact killed a very small number of people.
Why is it so en vogue to attack Christians as violent, absent any actual examples of violence done in the name of Jesus Christ? Stranger still, the same people on that bandwagon don't seem to have a problem with Islamic terrorism, which is a real and observable phenomenon of our time.
How about atheists? How many people were killed by atheist states in the modern era? By communists in China, VietNam, Cambodia, the Soviet Union, and so on. The treatment of people when atheists take over the government would seem to suggest there's a great deal more to fear from atheists than any Christian.
The idea that Christianity is a fable is strange. There's more evidence of the existence and execution of Jesus than most other historical figures, both in biblical and Roman accounts. It's hard to deny the man existed, even if atheists insist on arguing the point of his resurrection and divinity.
The flat statement that God does not exist is never made from a place of logic, as the atheist spokespersons try to suggest. Just listening to them talk, their rhetoric is full of anger and invective. It suggests to me that they are not approaching their activist agenda out of a desire for reason and logic, but rather out of some terrible anger over some abuse or slight they must have experienced at the hand of someone claiming to be a Christian.
These atheist activists are crusading to destroy the Christian faith because of a deeply held antipathy toward those who espouse the faith. It would seem to me that a dispassionate atheist would have more of a live-and-let-live attitude, or perhaps strongly support science education in schools. They run over the cliff when they extend their agenda to pushing for government denial of the First Amendment.
As for the arbitrary behavioral rules, I'd suggest they are not arbitrary at all. Christians know that the entire moral code set out by the faith is based on how we treat each other. Adultery isn't wrong because it's about sex; it's wrong because by definition the act is one of deceit that harms the adulterer's partner. Prohibitions against extramarital sex in general are based on very real outcomes, nearly all of which are devastating. Disease and pregnancy, for example.
Which leads to abortion. I've come to decide that the rage of atheists against Christianity's stand against abortion has at its heart a human reaction to having an evil act reflected back. If someone who has aborted a child comes to understand that the abortion is tantamount to infanticide can't live with herself. So one psychological response is rage against those who would suggest such an idea. They already know the truth, but like petulant children, scream loudly to drown out those who would state that truth.
The anti-science argument is another matter. I know that there are those in the evangelical community that hope to get something called "intelligent design" included in the curriculum of science classes that teach Darwinian evolution. I haven't read enough about "intelligent design" to know what it is for certain, but it seems to suggest that the questions of origins that aren't adequately described by science just might be found in the idea of a creator.
If there's an area I can agree with atheists, it's that science is science and should be taught as such. That said, I think Darwinian evolution should be taught with an honest airing of its many flaws and gaps. It seems to me that some atheists have an agenda as strong or stronger than those pushing the "intelligent design" idea, presenting Darwin as fact and purposely ignoring its gaps and flaws.
The Left is feeling empowered these days, confident that they will win control of the Federal Government next year. That seems to have led to many voices coming out to trumpet their agenda for the new liberal government. Those goals seem to include a deliberate suppression of Christianity, which has already been evidenced by the House's bill to designate homosexuals as a protected class, equivalent to racial minorities. It happens to be in direct conflict with the rights of religion to hold such behavior as immoral.
But the oppression doesn't stop with religion. Overweight? The new government will force you to exercise and eat better and lose weight, or you might lose your access to healthcare. Smoke? Better quit, or you will be denied access to healthcare. Drive an SUV? Not for long. Even more extreme - the China protocol is favored by many on the left; population control through government enforcement of one child per couple (but of course the couple can be of any gender pair).
Could it possibly be true that the majority of Americans will unwittingly vote for all this government intrusion on their lives? So it seems.
The basic ideas I'm hearing from them are these:
Christianity is the source of most of the violence today and throughout history.
Christianity is a fable, there is no God, and those who adhere to a Christian faith are akin to ignorant unenlightened closed-minded superstitious fools.
Christianity is about denying people a fulfilling life through silly and arbitrary behavioral rules. Christianity also attempts to refute and deny scientific facts, and tries to keep children ignorant and away from scientific education or discovery.
If Christianity could be eliminated, people would somehow become more enlightened and educated, the world would be a less violent place, and everyone would enjoy true equality.
Let's see if I can address these point-by-point:
Christians are violent? OK, keep pointing to the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition. Reading history, I seem to find much more violence by other than Christians than those two tired old examples. Check out the Inquisition, and despite the fact it was certainly not a bright spot for the Church, it was a very short-lived and isolated event that in fact killed a very small number of people.
Why is it so en vogue to attack Christians as violent, absent any actual examples of violence done in the name of Jesus Christ? Stranger still, the same people on that bandwagon don't seem to have a problem with Islamic terrorism, which is a real and observable phenomenon of our time.
How about atheists? How many people were killed by atheist states in the modern era? By communists in China, VietNam, Cambodia, the Soviet Union, and so on. The treatment of people when atheists take over the government would seem to suggest there's a great deal more to fear from atheists than any Christian.
The idea that Christianity is a fable is strange. There's more evidence of the existence and execution of Jesus than most other historical figures, both in biblical and Roman accounts. It's hard to deny the man existed, even if atheists insist on arguing the point of his resurrection and divinity.
The flat statement that God does not exist is never made from a place of logic, as the atheist spokespersons try to suggest. Just listening to them talk, their rhetoric is full of anger and invective. It suggests to me that they are not approaching their activist agenda out of a desire for reason and logic, but rather out of some terrible anger over some abuse or slight they must have experienced at the hand of someone claiming to be a Christian.
These atheist activists are crusading to destroy the Christian faith because of a deeply held antipathy toward those who espouse the faith. It would seem to me that a dispassionate atheist would have more of a live-and-let-live attitude, or perhaps strongly support science education in schools. They run over the cliff when they extend their agenda to pushing for government denial of the First Amendment.
As for the arbitrary behavioral rules, I'd suggest they are not arbitrary at all. Christians know that the entire moral code set out by the faith is based on how we treat each other. Adultery isn't wrong because it's about sex; it's wrong because by definition the act is one of deceit that harms the adulterer's partner. Prohibitions against extramarital sex in general are based on very real outcomes, nearly all of which are devastating. Disease and pregnancy, for example.
Which leads to abortion. I've come to decide that the rage of atheists against Christianity's stand against abortion has at its heart a human reaction to having an evil act reflected back. If someone who has aborted a child comes to understand that the abortion is tantamount to infanticide can't live with herself. So one psychological response is rage against those who would suggest such an idea. They already know the truth, but like petulant children, scream loudly to drown out those who would state that truth.
The anti-science argument is another matter. I know that there are those in the evangelical community that hope to get something called "intelligent design" included in the curriculum of science classes that teach Darwinian evolution. I haven't read enough about "intelligent design" to know what it is for certain, but it seems to suggest that the questions of origins that aren't adequately described by science just might be found in the idea of a creator.
If there's an area I can agree with atheists, it's that science is science and should be taught as such. That said, I think Darwinian evolution should be taught with an honest airing of its many flaws and gaps. It seems to me that some atheists have an agenda as strong or stronger than those pushing the "intelligent design" idea, presenting Darwin as fact and purposely ignoring its gaps and flaws.
The Left is feeling empowered these days, confident that they will win control of the Federal Government next year. That seems to have led to many voices coming out to trumpet their agenda for the new liberal government. Those goals seem to include a deliberate suppression of Christianity, which has already been evidenced by the House's bill to designate homosexuals as a protected class, equivalent to racial minorities. It happens to be in direct conflict with the rights of religion to hold such behavior as immoral.
But the oppression doesn't stop with religion. Overweight? The new government will force you to exercise and eat better and lose weight, or you might lose your access to healthcare. Smoke? Better quit, or you will be denied access to healthcare. Drive an SUV? Not for long. Even more extreme - the China protocol is favored by many on the left; population control through government enforcement of one child per couple (but of course the couple can be of any gender pair).
Could it possibly be true that the majority of Americans will unwittingly vote for all this government intrusion on their lives? So it seems.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Rights and Wrongs
Apparently the US House passed a bill banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. What a terrible idea.
No, I don't say it's a terrible idea because I think gays should be treated badly. I think it is a terrible idea because it infringes on rights and freedoms of everyone else.
Let me illustrate:
Giving gays the right to sue employers who chose not to hire them or promote them because they perceive a discriminatory bias will lead to harassment lawsuits against companies all over the country. It will become a popular tactic used to damage or bankrupt businesses the radical gay activists don't like.
The law will now force employers to provide all benefits they offer to married couples and children to gay partners. Which means discriminating against all their employees that cannot get benefits for dependent parents, brothers, sisters, or others.
Most importantly, small businesses owned by sincere Christians who believe homosexual behavior is immoral and disordered will be forced to hire open gays and provide them with benefits. It's the same to people of faith as being forced to hire and give special treatment to any person of low morals.
Then there are churches, parochial and Christian schools, Christian bookstores, and related businesses that have at their core a commitment to high moral standards. They'll be insulted by a callous government telling them they cannot make moral judgements in their hiring decisions.
It's no different than passing a law telling business owners they may not discriminate against openly promiscuous applicants. Employees who compromise on some moral issues are more likely to compromise on others. That is as true of a heterosexual man who has been married 4 times and continues with serial affairs in the office as an openly promiscuous gay man.
If the government can force employers to hire this special class, then why not protect other classes? How about overweight people, who are openly discriminated against in our society? Why not short people? Ugly people? Stupid people? I could go on and on ...
Common sense is dead. And morality died with it.
No, I don't say it's a terrible idea because I think gays should be treated badly. I think it is a terrible idea because it infringes on rights and freedoms of everyone else.
Let me illustrate:
Giving gays the right to sue employers who chose not to hire them or promote them because they perceive a discriminatory bias will lead to harassment lawsuits against companies all over the country. It will become a popular tactic used to damage or bankrupt businesses the radical gay activists don't like.
The law will now force employers to provide all benefits they offer to married couples and children to gay partners. Which means discriminating against all their employees that cannot get benefits for dependent parents, brothers, sisters, or others.
Most importantly, small businesses owned by sincere Christians who believe homosexual behavior is immoral and disordered will be forced to hire open gays and provide them with benefits. It's the same to people of faith as being forced to hire and give special treatment to any person of low morals.
Then there are churches, parochial and Christian schools, Christian bookstores, and related businesses that have at their core a commitment to high moral standards. They'll be insulted by a callous government telling them they cannot make moral judgements in their hiring decisions.
It's no different than passing a law telling business owners they may not discriminate against openly promiscuous applicants. Employees who compromise on some moral issues are more likely to compromise on others. That is as true of a heterosexual man who has been married 4 times and continues with serial affairs in the office as an openly promiscuous gay man.
If the government can force employers to hire this special class, then why not protect other classes? How about overweight people, who are openly discriminated against in our society? Why not short people? Ugly people? Stupid people? I could go on and on ...
Common sense is dead. And morality died with it.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
A Sour Mood Previewed
The local elections this week in Indianapolis may have some relevance as a micro-level demonstration of the sour mood among American voters in general.
In a classic "throw the bums out" move, Indianapolis residents kicked out Bart Peterson and voted in a Republican majority to the City Council.
It's an angry city, to be sure. Property tax reassessment made many homeowners in greater Indianapolis exceedingly upset, with some claiming increases up to 200 and even 400 percent. That on top of a hike in their local income tax rate combined to produce an angry mob of voters prepared to force change.
It makes me think that on the national level, maybe change will drive next year's elections more than party affiliation. Could it be that the press is wrong, as they so often are, in predicting a landslide for Democrats next November? Maybe the landslide will be seen more in an anti-incumbent vote regardless of party affiliation.
I think people are sick of the parties, and are simply looking for candidates that give them straight talk and offer real solutions instead of the standard meaningless pablum the incumbents have so carefully cultivated over the years.
Got a Democrat in your district who supported amnesty for illegal immigrants, tax increases, and votes in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi? If challenged by an articulate, reasonably intelligent Republican, he or she might be surprised to find him(her)self unemployed next year.
Got a Republican in your district who participated or didn't visibly oppose the pork when his party owned the congress, aligned with the President on illegal immigration, or favored corporate interests over his constituents? Likewise, a Democrat could unseat even a seemingly entrenched lawmaker.
For President, I'm no longer assuming Hillary's a lock. Obama seems to be gaining on her, and the Republican candidate has yet to emerge.
When I hear someone say they will vote for Hillary, I try to just ask why. The reasons I hear are pretty simplistic: She's a woman (usually the reason given by women), and she's not George Bush. So let's suppose the GOP candidate gets out there head-to-head with Hillary and communicates clearly on common-sense solutions to issues, at the same time exposing Hillary as a poll-driven animal without any real principles (except, perhaps, getting and keeping power for herself). He could win.
Of course, the only candidate who has a chance to win is the one who has the best common-sense solutions to very difficult problems. Oil prices, Iraq and Iran, Terror, Illegal Immigration, Taxes and Spending, Healthcare, Social Security. Lots of incredibly tough problems out there for the next President, who I suspect will have to begin the term with the country in recession.
Is there somebody running who will be best to deal with so many large and difficult problems? I'm not sure there is, but I do think there's a tremendous opportunity from somebody to step up and prove it to the people.
In a classic "throw the bums out" move, Indianapolis residents kicked out Bart Peterson and voted in a Republican majority to the City Council.
It's an angry city, to be sure. Property tax reassessment made many homeowners in greater Indianapolis exceedingly upset, with some claiming increases up to 200 and even 400 percent. That on top of a hike in their local income tax rate combined to produce an angry mob of voters prepared to force change.
It makes me think that on the national level, maybe change will drive next year's elections more than party affiliation. Could it be that the press is wrong, as they so often are, in predicting a landslide for Democrats next November? Maybe the landslide will be seen more in an anti-incumbent vote regardless of party affiliation.
I think people are sick of the parties, and are simply looking for candidates that give them straight talk and offer real solutions instead of the standard meaningless pablum the incumbents have so carefully cultivated over the years.
Got a Democrat in your district who supported amnesty for illegal immigrants, tax increases, and votes in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi? If challenged by an articulate, reasonably intelligent Republican, he or she might be surprised to find him(her)self unemployed next year.
Got a Republican in your district who participated or didn't visibly oppose the pork when his party owned the congress, aligned with the President on illegal immigration, or favored corporate interests over his constituents? Likewise, a Democrat could unseat even a seemingly entrenched lawmaker.
For President, I'm no longer assuming Hillary's a lock. Obama seems to be gaining on her, and the Republican candidate has yet to emerge.
When I hear someone say they will vote for Hillary, I try to just ask why. The reasons I hear are pretty simplistic: She's a woman (usually the reason given by women), and she's not George Bush. So let's suppose the GOP candidate gets out there head-to-head with Hillary and communicates clearly on common-sense solutions to issues, at the same time exposing Hillary as a poll-driven animal without any real principles (except, perhaps, getting and keeping power for herself). He could win.
Of course, the only candidate who has a chance to win is the one who has the best common-sense solutions to very difficult problems. Oil prices, Iraq and Iran, Terror, Illegal Immigration, Taxes and Spending, Healthcare, Social Security. Lots of incredibly tough problems out there for the next President, who I suspect will have to begin the term with the country in recession.
Is there somebody running who will be best to deal with so many large and difficult problems? I'm not sure there is, but I do think there's a tremendous opportunity from somebody to step up and prove it to the people.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Do I Ask too Much?
Spending a week in Canada was sort of frustrating, since the only news I could see was CNN. But I can't stand it for very long, because inevitably I begin hearing the talking points direct from the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
Lou Dobbs is a notable exception. He's mad at both parties, and continues his quixotic crusade against outsourcing, offshoring, and illegal immigration. Issues where of course he has virtually no support from either political party.
Otherwise, the rest of the talking heads get tiresome as they spin each and every issue as somehow screwed up by George Bush, and only solvable by Queen Hillary and her Democrat comrades. I feel like I'm watching something from the old Soviet Pravda.
I don't care if all the reporters are socialists or communists. All I ask is that they at least make an attempt to tell the complete story and offer the opposing (definition: non-Democratic) point of view now and then.
Let's be honest. Next year's election is about deciding a few very simple principles for America:
Either we will find our healthcare provided by a federal government bureaucracy or the status quo. Nobody's going to fix the problems, so unfortunately those are the only two available options.
Either we will continue to keep terrorism on the run or they will begin bombing our cities. Maybe with nukes.
We'll either find ways to increase oil supplies and bring down prices or the problem will reach crisis proportions. The latter is about an 80% probability, as far as I can tell right now.
Either our taxes will go up a lot or just a little. A lot seems more likely.
We will probably be in recession. The only question is how long will it last, and how painful will it be. The parties will just blame each other. Democrats will pretend like increasing taxes will help. Republicans will propose reducing taxes but will be rebuffed.
The illegal alien problem won't be solved. Even though somewhere north of 70 percent of Americans are outraged about the lack of attention paid to the problem by elected officials. They still won't do anything to solve it, unless you call legalizing all the illegal aliens solving it.
Hillary as president will be controlled by the Chinese, Labor Unions, Trial Lawyers, illegal immigrants, gays, and socialist minorities.
The Republican president will most likely be controlled by big business, the drug companies, the insurance companies.
Nobody will represent us average working folks.
I'm angry. I'm cynical. I'm disappointed. I feel more like voting against every incumbent than electing anybody in particular.
Lou Dobbs is a notable exception. He's mad at both parties, and continues his quixotic crusade against outsourcing, offshoring, and illegal immigration. Issues where of course he has virtually no support from either political party.
Otherwise, the rest of the talking heads get tiresome as they spin each and every issue as somehow screwed up by George Bush, and only solvable by Queen Hillary and her Democrat comrades. I feel like I'm watching something from the old Soviet Pravda.
I don't care if all the reporters are socialists or communists. All I ask is that they at least make an attempt to tell the complete story and offer the opposing (definition: non-Democratic) point of view now and then.
Let's be honest. Next year's election is about deciding a few very simple principles for America:
Either we will find our healthcare provided by a federal government bureaucracy or the status quo. Nobody's going to fix the problems, so unfortunately those are the only two available options.
Either we will continue to keep terrorism on the run or they will begin bombing our cities. Maybe with nukes.
We'll either find ways to increase oil supplies and bring down prices or the problem will reach crisis proportions. The latter is about an 80% probability, as far as I can tell right now.
Either our taxes will go up a lot or just a little. A lot seems more likely.
We will probably be in recession. The only question is how long will it last, and how painful will it be. The parties will just blame each other. Democrats will pretend like increasing taxes will help. Republicans will propose reducing taxes but will be rebuffed.
The illegal alien problem won't be solved. Even though somewhere north of 70 percent of Americans are outraged about the lack of attention paid to the problem by elected officials. They still won't do anything to solve it, unless you call legalizing all the illegal aliens solving it.
Hillary as president will be controlled by the Chinese, Labor Unions, Trial Lawyers, illegal immigrants, gays, and socialist minorities.
The Republican president will most likely be controlled by big business, the drug companies, the insurance companies.
Nobody will represent us average working folks.
I'm angry. I'm cynical. I'm disappointed. I feel more like voting against every incumbent than electing anybody in particular.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Game Results
Just to update the results from Friday night. Columbus North defeated the third-ranked Center Grove team 23-7. Reports from the game were that the score is much closer than the real game, which it's said could easily have seen North with a score in the 30's.
On paper, this team should not face another major challenge until the Semi-State game. But of course it's never wise to take games for granted in the playoffs. Plus, there are reports that several players got banged up in the Center Grove game, so some may not be available for this Friday's sectional championship game.
Turns out I can't make it to this week's game either - I won't get back from this week's trip until after the game's over, most likely.
It's fun to follow anyway.
On paper, this team should not face another major challenge until the Semi-State game. But of course it's never wise to take games for granted in the playoffs. Plus, there are reports that several players got banged up in the Center Grove game, so some may not be available for this Friday's sectional championship game.
Turns out I can't make it to this week's game either - I won't get back from this week's trip until after the game's over, most likely.
It's fun to follow anyway.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Friday Night Football
There's nothing quite like high school football on a Friday night. Tonight in Indiana it's round 2 of the sectional playoffs for the 5 classes. Too bad I won't be able to catch a game in person, but hopefully I'll be able to pull in a game on the radio as I drive this evening.
Of particular interest for me is the hometown Columbus North team visiting Center Grove. Center Grove is ranked third in the state, and North 6th. Each has one loss, each to a different top-10 team. North's loss was at the state's #1 team, Pike, and Center Grove's loss was by a touchdown to the defending state champions, the dominant Warren Central.
It's difficult to handicap this game, because the two teams play in different conferences and have few common opponents. Center Grove would appear to have an edge in tonight's game, if only because the game's being played on their home field.
Columbus North has a big, strong, and dominant offensive line. Their main running back, Alex Turner, has over 1200 yards rushing for the year. Turner has had some injury issues, but his replacement, sophomore running back Austin Streeval, has been nearly as effective for almost 450 yards this season.
Mike Hladik is a tall 6'4 quarterback with a good arm, throwing for a bit under 1,700 yards for 17 touchdowns with only 2 interceptions for the season. He spreads the ball among several receivers, the most productive of which is Brayden Barthlow, with over 600 yards and 7 touchdowns on 34 catches.
The defense is solid, especially against the run. They've shut down the running game of almost every team the Bulldogs have faced all year. The defensive front are big, strong, and quick, and very good at pressuring opposing quarterbacks.
Overall, Columbus North has something like 19 senior starters, all of whom bring experience from last season's final four team. This may be the best team to ever play at Columbus North High School, regardless of whether they can win tonight and advance to the Sectional Final.
The weaknesses of North's team are few but important. Pike was able to win largely by stacking 9 players at the line of scrimmage to stop the run, daring North to use the passing game. It worked for Pike, but did not work for subsequent teams that tried the same strategy. Either the Bulldogs did a good job learning from the Pike loss, or the other teams just didn't have the athletes Pike brought to the strategy. I think perhaps a little of both is true.
Mike Hladik can be impressive with both his accuracy in shorter passes and his strength in long completions down the field. However, he has been known to have trouble with his accuracy in big games. When playing against a strong opponent, Hladik has a tendency to let the adrenaline take over, which results in overthrows of open receivers.
The weakness in the passing game isn't limited to Hladik's nerves, though. An equal or possibly higher percentage of blame can reasonably be assessed his receivers. Hladik's passes are often dropped by the receiving corps, especially in the big games. At the high school level, one of the hardest things to teach receivers is to focus on making the catch first and foremost. The tendency to think about the move to be made on the defender or running in for the touchdown causes a drop in concentration on the catch, thus the frequent drops by North receivers.
The weakness in North's defense has been against the pass. Most teams have not been effective in the passing game against North because of the pressure the front line can put on the quarterback. Sacks are common, as are rushed and deflected passing attempts. But against Pike, North's defensive line were well blocked by the opponent's offensive line and were unable to put their customary pressure on the quarterback. Pike won the game with the pass, and did very little rushing.
North's defensive backfield are tough tacklers and big hitters, but struggle in pass coverage. Whether Center Grove can exploit this or not remains to be seen. Center Grove, from reports I've seen, is mostly a run-oriented offense.
On a rainy friday night near Indianapolis, I think the game will be decided by the big guys up front. If North's run defense remains stout against what's sure to be a strong Center Grove running game, then maybe North's passing game can be the difference.
I'll have to be satisfied with the local newspaper's description of the game, since I won't be able to see it or hear it on the radio. I hope for a Columbus North win, so I can catch their next playoff game (if I can be in town for a change).
Of particular interest for me is the hometown Columbus North team visiting Center Grove. Center Grove is ranked third in the state, and North 6th. Each has one loss, each to a different top-10 team. North's loss was at the state's #1 team, Pike, and Center Grove's loss was by a touchdown to the defending state champions, the dominant Warren Central.
It's difficult to handicap this game, because the two teams play in different conferences and have few common opponents. Center Grove would appear to have an edge in tonight's game, if only because the game's being played on their home field.
Columbus North has a big, strong, and dominant offensive line. Their main running back, Alex Turner, has over 1200 yards rushing for the year. Turner has had some injury issues, but his replacement, sophomore running back Austin Streeval, has been nearly as effective for almost 450 yards this season.
Mike Hladik is a tall 6'4 quarterback with a good arm, throwing for a bit under 1,700 yards for 17 touchdowns with only 2 interceptions for the season. He spreads the ball among several receivers, the most productive of which is Brayden Barthlow, with over 600 yards and 7 touchdowns on 34 catches.
The defense is solid, especially against the run. They've shut down the running game of almost every team the Bulldogs have faced all year. The defensive front are big, strong, and quick, and very good at pressuring opposing quarterbacks.
Overall, Columbus North has something like 19 senior starters, all of whom bring experience from last season's final four team. This may be the best team to ever play at Columbus North High School, regardless of whether they can win tonight and advance to the Sectional Final.
The weaknesses of North's team are few but important. Pike was able to win largely by stacking 9 players at the line of scrimmage to stop the run, daring North to use the passing game. It worked for Pike, but did not work for subsequent teams that tried the same strategy. Either the Bulldogs did a good job learning from the Pike loss, or the other teams just didn't have the athletes Pike brought to the strategy. I think perhaps a little of both is true.
Mike Hladik can be impressive with both his accuracy in shorter passes and his strength in long completions down the field. However, he has been known to have trouble with his accuracy in big games. When playing against a strong opponent, Hladik has a tendency to let the adrenaline take over, which results in overthrows of open receivers.
The weakness in the passing game isn't limited to Hladik's nerves, though. An equal or possibly higher percentage of blame can reasonably be assessed his receivers. Hladik's passes are often dropped by the receiving corps, especially in the big games. At the high school level, one of the hardest things to teach receivers is to focus on making the catch first and foremost. The tendency to think about the move to be made on the defender or running in for the touchdown causes a drop in concentration on the catch, thus the frequent drops by North receivers.
The weakness in North's defense has been against the pass. Most teams have not been effective in the passing game against North because of the pressure the front line can put on the quarterback. Sacks are common, as are rushed and deflected passing attempts. But against Pike, North's defensive line were well blocked by the opponent's offensive line and were unable to put their customary pressure on the quarterback. Pike won the game with the pass, and did very little rushing.
North's defensive backfield are tough tacklers and big hitters, but struggle in pass coverage. Whether Center Grove can exploit this or not remains to be seen. Center Grove, from reports I've seen, is mostly a run-oriented offense.
On a rainy friday night near Indianapolis, I think the game will be decided by the big guys up front. If North's run defense remains stout against what's sure to be a strong Center Grove running game, then maybe North's passing game can be the difference.
I'll have to be satisfied with the local newspaper's description of the game, since I won't be able to see it or hear it on the radio. I hope for a Columbus North win, so I can catch their next playoff game (if I can be in town for a change).
Thursday, October 25, 2007
It's Bush's Fault of Course
Why am I not surprised.
The California wildfires are slowly dying down or being extinguished. Evacuations seem to have gone as smoothly as can be expected, plenty of shelter and supplies have been made available to those who need them (and taken by many who don't), and things will return to normal soon.
But the partisans can't just leave it at that. The Left, through their willing media outlets, are working feverishly to find angles allowing them to blame George W. Bush.
Among ideas they've been floating:
The fires happened because of drought that happened because of Global Warming which Bush refuses to acknowledge or do anything about.
This is turning into another Katrina. (This one isn't working very well, because it clearly isn't)
Key military resources, personnel and equipment, aren't available to assist because they're in Iraq. (Actually not true, and the National Guard hasn't even been requested, and probably won't be needed.)
Bush is heading to SoCal today, where he will be treated politely but will be a distraction and just get in the way. This according to California's Lt. Governor, who also holds a prominent spot on the global warming and Iraq bandwagon.
Probably the worst thing said on the Right, at least that I've heard anyway, is that the fires are made much worse than they have to be because of the idiocy of California's environmental regulations that won't allow anyone to clear dead wood and brush or do other sensible things to reduce the risk of out-of-control wildfires.
It's been said that some right-wingers have been blaming illegal immigrants for setting the fires. I haven't encountered that. But it seems a far cry to compare a few right-wing bloggers to ABC, NBC, and CBS reporters involved in the left-wing fingerpointing.
If there's one positive that we can all look forward to in next year's presidential election, it's that we can finally escape the pinata the Left has made of George Bush. Unfortunately, if a Republican wins, he will immediately be hoisted by the Left as the new pinata. Then again, if Hillary wins, conservatism will be outlawed.
A poor choice.
The California wildfires are slowly dying down or being extinguished. Evacuations seem to have gone as smoothly as can be expected, plenty of shelter and supplies have been made available to those who need them (and taken by many who don't), and things will return to normal soon.
But the partisans can't just leave it at that. The Left, through their willing media outlets, are working feverishly to find angles allowing them to blame George W. Bush.
Among ideas they've been floating:
The fires happened because of drought that happened because of Global Warming which Bush refuses to acknowledge or do anything about.
This is turning into another Katrina. (This one isn't working very well, because it clearly isn't)
Key military resources, personnel and equipment, aren't available to assist because they're in Iraq. (Actually not true, and the National Guard hasn't even been requested, and probably won't be needed.)
Bush is heading to SoCal today, where he will be treated politely but will be a distraction and just get in the way. This according to California's Lt. Governor, who also holds a prominent spot on the global warming and Iraq bandwagon.
Probably the worst thing said on the Right, at least that I've heard anyway, is that the fires are made much worse than they have to be because of the idiocy of California's environmental regulations that won't allow anyone to clear dead wood and brush or do other sensible things to reduce the risk of out-of-control wildfires.
It's been said that some right-wingers have been blaming illegal immigrants for setting the fires. I haven't encountered that. But it seems a far cry to compare a few right-wing bloggers to ABC, NBC, and CBS reporters involved in the left-wing fingerpointing.
If there's one positive that we can all look forward to in next year's presidential election, it's that we can finally escape the pinata the Left has made of George Bush. Unfortunately, if a Republican wins, he will immediately be hoisted by the Left as the new pinata. Then again, if Hillary wins, conservatism will be outlawed.
A poor choice.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Talkin' Football
Watched the Colts and Jaguars last night, and was struck by how the commentators spent more time talking about the New England Patriots than the Colts and Jags.
The hype has been huge around the Patriots, who are not only undefeated, but haven't really been challenged so far this season. They've had a negative issue involving stealing signals from their opponents using videotape. But they fixed a problem from last year with their sub-par receiving corps by signing Randy Moss and Wes Welker. (Randy Moss signing with the Patriots has to be unfair. I wonder if they're cheating on the salary cap a la the 49ers?)
Anyway, I have a few observations:
How many people do they actually need for a Monday night football telecast? Between the studio hosts, the special commentators at the stadium, the actual game announcers, and the two sideline reporterettes, they must have a whole army of people needing face time. It's a wonder we ever got to see the game itself.
They appear to give the Colts respect, but it's obvious that every one of the talking army is drooling over the Patriots. They are fervently hoping that the Patriots stomp the Colts in Indy two weeks from now so they can continue their "best team ever" hype. Some of them even held out hope before the game that the Jags would win, so they could cross the Colts off the list and focus just on their heroic Pats.
I wonder just a bit whether some of these guys might be thrilled more by having something to talk about. Two dominant and undefeated teams on a collision course makes a great storyline for them, I suppose. It's just that they've already scripted their ending to that storyline (Patriots beat Colts and proceed to another Super Bowl victory).
Not only do they seem to be favoring New England, but I also get the sense they really dislike the Colts. The occasional snide comment about Peyton's commercials pops up, along with suggestions that the Patriots just had a "down year" last year. Some seemed disappointed, while certainly surprised, that the Colt defense was able to shut down Jacksonville's running game.
I have no idea how the Colts will fare against the Patriots two weeks from now. I won't even try to predict a victor or even guess at how many points will be scored in the game.
But I will be watching closely to see how the commentator army reacts. If the Pats win, will I be right about them all predicting an undefeated season for New England on the way to a dominating Super Bowl victory? If the Colts win, will it be attributed to a New England injury or bad play call or bad officiating? If the Colts win, will they start talking about whether the Colts can go undefeated?
I think I know the answers, but will be interested to confirm them.
As far as the Colts going undefeated, it won't happen. Not because it can't. But because they will choose not to go undefeated. For proof, just look at the past. The Colts had a legitimate chance to go undefeated for the season a couple years ago. But when they solidified first place in their division and homefield through the playoffs, they took out their key starters and lost two of three.
Now I'm wondering if it's wise to rest your starters that long. I think it can lead to rust, throw off timing, and maybe even get the starters a bit soft and complacent. But we can be sure that the Colts won't take any risks once they have met their goals for the playoffs. And that means they'll play a game or two with backups and most likely lose those games.
The simplest thing commentators can say this year (which they have said), is that we will probably see Indy and New England in the AFC Championship game, and that game will be the de-facto Super Bowl. because whatever team the NFC puts into the Super Bowl will probably have no shot against either of these teams.
Barring injury or disaster for one or both teams, of course.
The hype has been huge around the Patriots, who are not only undefeated, but haven't really been challenged so far this season. They've had a negative issue involving stealing signals from their opponents using videotape. But they fixed a problem from last year with their sub-par receiving corps by signing Randy Moss and Wes Welker. (Randy Moss signing with the Patriots has to be unfair. I wonder if they're cheating on the salary cap a la the 49ers?)
Anyway, I have a few observations:
How many people do they actually need for a Monday night football telecast? Between the studio hosts, the special commentators at the stadium, the actual game announcers, and the two sideline reporterettes, they must have a whole army of people needing face time. It's a wonder we ever got to see the game itself.
They appear to give the Colts respect, but it's obvious that every one of the talking army is drooling over the Patriots. They are fervently hoping that the Patriots stomp the Colts in Indy two weeks from now so they can continue their "best team ever" hype. Some of them even held out hope before the game that the Jags would win, so they could cross the Colts off the list and focus just on their heroic Pats.
I wonder just a bit whether some of these guys might be thrilled more by having something to talk about. Two dominant and undefeated teams on a collision course makes a great storyline for them, I suppose. It's just that they've already scripted their ending to that storyline (Patriots beat Colts and proceed to another Super Bowl victory).
Not only do they seem to be favoring New England, but I also get the sense they really dislike the Colts. The occasional snide comment about Peyton's commercials pops up, along with suggestions that the Patriots just had a "down year" last year. Some seemed disappointed, while certainly surprised, that the Colt defense was able to shut down Jacksonville's running game.
I have no idea how the Colts will fare against the Patriots two weeks from now. I won't even try to predict a victor or even guess at how many points will be scored in the game.
But I will be watching closely to see how the commentator army reacts. If the Pats win, will I be right about them all predicting an undefeated season for New England on the way to a dominating Super Bowl victory? If the Colts win, will it be attributed to a New England injury or bad play call or bad officiating? If the Colts win, will they start talking about whether the Colts can go undefeated?
I think I know the answers, but will be interested to confirm them.
As far as the Colts going undefeated, it won't happen. Not because it can't. But because they will choose not to go undefeated. For proof, just look at the past. The Colts had a legitimate chance to go undefeated for the season a couple years ago. But when they solidified first place in their division and homefield through the playoffs, they took out their key starters and lost two of three.
Now I'm wondering if it's wise to rest your starters that long. I think it can lead to rust, throw off timing, and maybe even get the starters a bit soft and complacent. But we can be sure that the Colts won't take any risks once they have met their goals for the playoffs. And that means they'll play a game or two with backups and most likely lose those games.
The simplest thing commentators can say this year (which they have said), is that we will probably see Indy and New England in the AFC Championship game, and that game will be the de-facto Super Bowl. because whatever team the NFC puts into the Super Bowl will probably have no shot against either of these teams.
Barring injury or disaster for one or both teams, of course.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Motives Move Distrust
The chasm between two political extremes is built fundamentally on distrust. That distrust causes each side to believe the worst in what motivates the other side to hold and protect their beliefs.
The Left fears Christians, strangely even more than they fear radical Islamists. The fear seems to come from a vision of the country ruled by some version of the KKK, which persecutes non-Christians and especially atheists. Which tosses women who have had abortions in prison. Which imposes Christianity on schoolchildren. And somehow - I'm not sure where this one comes from, but it seems to be there - persecutes and openly discriminates against racial minorities.
The right fears a left-wing totalitarian communistic government. Like Communist societies seen in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and now Venezuela, free speech is muzzled, religion is outlawed, children are indoctrinated in atheism and sexual deviance in schools. That homes will be taken away and given to the socialist elites, while everyone else is forced to live in government-assigned high-rise housing. Government confiscates all private property and nationalizes all businesses, instituting a national wage that's the same for everyone. Each person is assigned a job by the government, and must apply for government permission if they wish to travel.
Are there people on the right who dream of implementing the Left's nightmare? Maybe, but I've never met one. What about on the Left? I think there may be some.
The truth, I think, is that there's a sort of bell curve on political beliefs. The vast majority of the people are somewhere between slightly left or slightly right of center. As long as that holds, I don't think either side has too much to fear from the other.
That said, I judge the Democrat front-runner, Hillary Clinton, to be much further left of center than most people realize. That concerns me, but I suspect that will be revealed during the inevitable debates between the conventions and the election. On the other hand, the Republican field isn't really that far right of center; in fact, it appears that Giuliani's further left than many people realize.
Interesting that the Republican field sits right around the middle of the bell curve, while the Democrats all fall well to the left. It seems that protestations against the "right wing" are rather baseless, at least when measured against the field of presidential candidates.
On a side note, I'm noticing there seems to be a growing movement among conservatives behind Mike Huckabee. Wouldn't it be interesting if we actually elect a second president in the same era from the tiny town of Hope, Arkansas?
The Left fears Christians, strangely even more than they fear radical Islamists. The fear seems to come from a vision of the country ruled by some version of the KKK, which persecutes non-Christians and especially atheists. Which tosses women who have had abortions in prison. Which imposes Christianity on schoolchildren. And somehow - I'm not sure where this one comes from, but it seems to be there - persecutes and openly discriminates against racial minorities.
The right fears a left-wing totalitarian communistic government. Like Communist societies seen in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and now Venezuela, free speech is muzzled, religion is outlawed, children are indoctrinated in atheism and sexual deviance in schools. That homes will be taken away and given to the socialist elites, while everyone else is forced to live in government-assigned high-rise housing. Government confiscates all private property and nationalizes all businesses, instituting a national wage that's the same for everyone. Each person is assigned a job by the government, and must apply for government permission if they wish to travel.
Are there people on the right who dream of implementing the Left's nightmare? Maybe, but I've never met one. What about on the Left? I think there may be some.
The truth, I think, is that there's a sort of bell curve on political beliefs. The vast majority of the people are somewhere between slightly left or slightly right of center. As long as that holds, I don't think either side has too much to fear from the other.
That said, I judge the Democrat front-runner, Hillary Clinton, to be much further left of center than most people realize. That concerns me, but I suspect that will be revealed during the inevitable debates between the conventions and the election. On the other hand, the Republican field isn't really that far right of center; in fact, it appears that Giuliani's further left than many people realize.
Interesting that the Republican field sits right around the middle of the bell curve, while the Democrats all fall well to the left. It seems that protestations against the "right wing" are rather baseless, at least when measured against the field of presidential candidates.
On a side note, I'm noticing there seems to be a growing movement among conservatives behind Mike Huckabee. Wouldn't it be interesting if we actually elect a second president in the same era from the tiny town of Hope, Arkansas?
Friday, October 19, 2007
Disturbing News
Sometimes I want to stop watching and reading the news. Like yesterday, for example.
The sum total of disturbing stories get me down. They make me wonder if these items are just isolated cases based on a few insane people, or if they're an indication of how far we have fallen as a society.
The stories from yesterday that I found particularly disturbing:
Pete Stark, a congressman from California. What he said publicly on the floor of the House yesterday may reach an all-time low for partisan rhetoric. What makes it even worse is that so far nobody from his party has disavowed his hateful comments. Speaker Pelosi actually praised him.
Portland Maine deciding to provide birth control pills to middle-school students without parental consent. Girls between 11 and 14 now can get the pill from the school nurse, who will help her hide the fact from her parents. Explain to me how anybody, anywhere, would be OK with that? No wonder our public schools are such a disaster.
Al Quaeda tried to blow up Benazir Bhutto when she finally returned to Pakistan from exile. They missed her, but killed well over 100 innocent people. Most likely, bin Laden himself is in Pakistan, but nobody has the courage to root him and his band of renegade thugs out. The question that should be asked is whether Musharraf really cares whether Bhutto is safe to return to Pakistan?
Not to mention, of course, my frustration with the mainline television networks who manage every story to drive their propagandist agenda. That being to elect Hillary president next year, of course.
The sum total of disturbing stories get me down. They make me wonder if these items are just isolated cases based on a few insane people, or if they're an indication of how far we have fallen as a society.
The stories from yesterday that I found particularly disturbing:
Pete Stark, a congressman from California. What he said publicly on the floor of the House yesterday may reach an all-time low for partisan rhetoric. What makes it even worse is that so far nobody from his party has disavowed his hateful comments. Speaker Pelosi actually praised him.
Portland Maine deciding to provide birth control pills to middle-school students without parental consent. Girls between 11 and 14 now can get the pill from the school nurse, who will help her hide the fact from her parents. Explain to me how anybody, anywhere, would be OK with that? No wonder our public schools are such a disaster.
Al Quaeda tried to blow up Benazir Bhutto when she finally returned to Pakistan from exile. They missed her, but killed well over 100 innocent people. Most likely, bin Laden himself is in Pakistan, but nobody has the courage to root him and his band of renegade thugs out. The question that should be asked is whether Musharraf really cares whether Bhutto is safe to return to Pakistan?
Not to mention, of course, my frustration with the mainline television networks who manage every story to drive their propagandist agenda. That being to elect Hillary president next year, of course.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Vandals
The high school football site I maintain was vandalized this morning. I discovered it by chance, really, when I just happened to click into the site and find a bogus "Art Department" page where the football website should have been. Turns out they trashed every page, so I reloaded the site.
I'm trying to get in touch with someone at the school to change the passwords and hopefully at least slow down the vandal. Hope they don't come back and wreck it again in the meantime.
Wonder whether it was some kid from an opposing school, or maybe even a student from the same school who likes to hack and vandalize.
Come to think of it, wouldn't it be cool to get the same vandal to trash some really obnoxious sites? Like redirect, say, MoveOn.Org to RushLimbaugh.Com? Sounds like fun.
Not that I'd actually condone such behavior, of course.
I'm trying to get in touch with someone at the school to change the passwords and hopefully at least slow down the vandal. Hope they don't come back and wreck it again in the meantime.
Wonder whether it was some kid from an opposing school, or maybe even a student from the same school who likes to hack and vandalize.
Come to think of it, wouldn't it be cool to get the same vandal to trash some really obnoxious sites? Like redirect, say, MoveOn.Org to RushLimbaugh.Com? Sounds like fun.
Not that I'd actually condone such behavior, of course.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Envirinsanity
A new little word I made up to represent the current state of rhetoric, especially as it relates to Global Warming.
Al Gore gets the Nobel Peace Prize for his mostly false and misleading global warming advocacy movie. What does his movie possibly have to do with peace? What does this say about the Nobel prizes in general?
So a huge segment of the population takes it on faith that the planet has a fever. And it's our fault. Not only the general us, as in the earth's human population, but specifically us, as in pampered, energy-hogging Americans.
I'd be willing to make a bet that 10 years from now, serious scientists, if there are any left, will look back on these times of global warming hysteria and laugh at how stupid and naieve we were.
The creatively offensive term for people like me these days is "global warming denier". Notice it evokes "holocaust denier", which of course is a roundabout way of calling anybody who questions the global warming religion or its high priest Al, a Nazi. Real friendly folks out there on the left these days.
Hey, I'm all for practical and responsible conservation. Clean air and water are important to me. I just don't subscribe to the notion that we must turn to a lower living standard and socialist government control to accomplish them.
I could respect the greenies if they were advocating little ways we all can help reduce pollution. If they want to encourage everybody to voluntarily conserve energy wherever they can, no problem. Where they run off the rails is with their advocacy of setting up energy quotas, or "carbon footprints", and essentially levying big taxes on people who use more than their allotted quota. That's government oppression.
Then there are the other popular measures being advocated. They sound good on the surface, but not so good if you do just a bit of research.
Energy Independence: What does that mean, really? That we no longer need to import oil from countries that hate us? OK, so how do we do that? The same people shouting loudest about this topic won't allow any more oil exploration in US territories. We've got plenty of coal, but they won't allow that because it's dirty. Nuclear is a very clean energy option, but they hate nuclear technology out of fear of a Chernobyl event.
So what are they pushing instead? Wind? Not all that terrific an alternative - check it out. Solar? We've been trying that for 40 years, and still can't get it to work. Ethanol? Tell me what makes sense about taking our food and converting it to fuel that isn't really that efficient and doesn't actually reduce pollution all that much.
Don't get me started on the hybrid cars. It seems to be a hugely successful marketing campaign that has tricked a huge segment of the population into paying more for vehicles that do nothing to improve the environment.
I'm struck by the lack of curiosity among most people on this and nearly every other important topic of our age. Why are so many happy to accept whatever they're told by celebrities and a politically orchestrated news media without so much as checking to see if there's another side to the story?
That's the bigger question.
Al Gore gets the Nobel Peace Prize for his mostly false and misleading global warming advocacy movie. What does his movie possibly have to do with peace? What does this say about the Nobel prizes in general?
So a huge segment of the population takes it on faith that the planet has a fever. And it's our fault. Not only the general us, as in the earth's human population, but specifically us, as in pampered, energy-hogging Americans.
I'd be willing to make a bet that 10 years from now, serious scientists, if there are any left, will look back on these times of global warming hysteria and laugh at how stupid and naieve we were.
The creatively offensive term for people like me these days is "global warming denier". Notice it evokes "holocaust denier", which of course is a roundabout way of calling anybody who questions the global warming religion or its high priest Al, a Nazi. Real friendly folks out there on the left these days.
Hey, I'm all for practical and responsible conservation. Clean air and water are important to me. I just don't subscribe to the notion that we must turn to a lower living standard and socialist government control to accomplish them.
I could respect the greenies if they were advocating little ways we all can help reduce pollution. If they want to encourage everybody to voluntarily conserve energy wherever they can, no problem. Where they run off the rails is with their advocacy of setting up energy quotas, or "carbon footprints", and essentially levying big taxes on people who use more than their allotted quota. That's government oppression.
Then there are the other popular measures being advocated. They sound good on the surface, but not so good if you do just a bit of research.
Energy Independence: What does that mean, really? That we no longer need to import oil from countries that hate us? OK, so how do we do that? The same people shouting loudest about this topic won't allow any more oil exploration in US territories. We've got plenty of coal, but they won't allow that because it's dirty. Nuclear is a very clean energy option, but they hate nuclear technology out of fear of a Chernobyl event.
So what are they pushing instead? Wind? Not all that terrific an alternative - check it out. Solar? We've been trying that for 40 years, and still can't get it to work. Ethanol? Tell me what makes sense about taking our food and converting it to fuel that isn't really that efficient and doesn't actually reduce pollution all that much.
Don't get me started on the hybrid cars. It seems to be a hugely successful marketing campaign that has tricked a huge segment of the population into paying more for vehicles that do nothing to improve the environment.
I'm struck by the lack of curiosity among most people on this and nearly every other important topic of our age. Why are so many happy to accept whatever they're told by celebrities and a politically orchestrated news media without so much as checking to see if there's another side to the story?
That's the bigger question.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Football
My indulgence is Football. The best part about this time of year is plenty of football. I like it all, from high school to college to the NFL.
The local high school teams are both very good again this year. Columbus North was tripped by Indianapolis Pike a couple weeks back for their only loss so far, and East's only loss is to their crosstown rivals. I enjoy going out to the high school games, not just for the football, but for the overall atmosphere.
Think things have changed over all these decades of high school football games on autumn Friday nights? Not much, as far as I can tell. The parents in the stands rooting for their kid (whether playing football or a band instrument), middle-school kids wandering in packs trying to be "cool" (or whatever word passes for "cool" these days), high schoolers trying to impress each other. I don't see any real difference from xx years ago when I was one of those junior-high kids or a football player on the field. Take my generation and drop them into the Columbus North football stadium and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
I enjoy seeing the senior players, playing as hard as they can to make their last few weeks as an athlete memorable. And the young players, itching for a chance to show what they can do under the lights with the varsity. The marching band, with their intricate marching patterns and enthusiasm for their music. What better chance is there to experience real life and real people getting together for an event they can all share.
It's my favorite pastime to catch the high school team, my favorite college teams (Notre Dame, Indiana, South Carolina, maybe Purdue), and the Colts every weekend as the leaves turn and the weather gets colder.
The local high school teams are both very good again this year. Columbus North was tripped by Indianapolis Pike a couple weeks back for their only loss so far, and East's only loss is to their crosstown rivals. I enjoy going out to the high school games, not just for the football, but for the overall atmosphere.
Think things have changed over all these decades of high school football games on autumn Friday nights? Not much, as far as I can tell. The parents in the stands rooting for their kid (whether playing football or a band instrument), middle-school kids wandering in packs trying to be "cool" (or whatever word passes for "cool" these days), high schoolers trying to impress each other. I don't see any real difference from xx years ago when I was one of those junior-high kids or a football player on the field. Take my generation and drop them into the Columbus North football stadium and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
I enjoy seeing the senior players, playing as hard as they can to make their last few weeks as an athlete memorable. And the young players, itching for a chance to show what they can do under the lights with the varsity. The marching band, with their intricate marching patterns and enthusiasm for their music. What better chance is there to experience real life and real people getting together for an event they can all share.
It's my favorite pastime to catch the high school team, my favorite college teams (Notre Dame, Indiana, South Carolina, maybe Purdue), and the Colts every weekend as the leaves turn and the weather gets colder.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Censorship
It was only yesterday that I caught up with the current dustup over Rush Limbaugh and "phony soldiers". In a mind-boggling move, Harry Reid put through a resolution condemning a radio talk show host for calling soldiers who are against the Iraq war "phony soldiers".
Since when does congress introduce resolutions to slap down people outside of government for something they said? In this case, Limbaugh is outraged and is shouting from the rooftops that he never said what Reid and the Democrats accuse him of saying. As far as I can tell, he's right - the entire kerfluffle is based on a false story. Notice that not a single Democrat on this particular Limbaugh destroy mission has even attempted to contact him directly to hear his side of the story; they have tried and convicted him without any interest in the facts.
The bigger story here is about censorship. Even if Rush did say that all soldiers who personally oppose the war or are Democrats or have green eyes are "phony soldiers", so what? As I recall, people like Jack Murtha, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, and Harry Reid himself have said far more insulting and damaging things about our troops than that. If the standard is to pass resolutions condemning private citizens for saying mean things to people, then I would suggest resolutions must be passed against most Hollywood activist actors, activist entertainers, Bill Maher, and the entire Air America talk radio host lineup. Nearly all have made far more inflammatory and insulting statements about the troops, the President and Vice President, Condi Rice, Don Rumsfeld, and just about every other Republican in government.
The best that can be said about this event is that it's simply a Democrat political ploy to attempt to create a story that cancels out the "General Betray Us" ad from their puppet masters at MoveOn.org. I hope that's as far as it goes, but fear it might go farther.
Despite their protestations to the contrary, Hillary has already taken credit for establishing the group that "exposed" Rush's seemingly insulting comment about "phony soldiers". The organization, basically a website called Media Matters for America, defines its mission statement as:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
They seem to want to be the left's answer to mediaresearch.org , which is a conservative website dedicated to pointing out liberal bias in the news media.
There are some very important differences between the two groups. While Media Research is about educating people about media bias, Media Matters is an activist group demanding action to shut down what they consider lying conservative propagandists. Media Research does not solicit funds for political action, nor do they exhort their visitors to demand action from legislators. Media Matters is all about such political action.
Most importantly, both groups claim to be independent media research organizations. Media Matters is not; they belong to Hillary Clinton and MoveOn.org.
Think of it this way: An organization dedicated to silencing conservative voices, particularly focused on Talk Radio, which is the primary home for those voices, is financed and given their direction by a candidate for President of the United States. I think that's very dangerous.
People scoff at the discussions of instituting the "Fairness Doctrine" for Talk Radio. When it firzt came up, I did too. But now I'm not so sure. Regardless of what you might think about the bombastic Limbaugh, his right to say whatever he wants to anyone who cares to listen is protected by one of the founding rights and principles of our country - freedom of speech. For the first time in my lifetime, I am actually seeing a serious effort by a political party to silence him.
I don't care which side of the political aisle you align yourself - if the citizens of the country don't stand up and demand politicians stop trying to silence people they don't like, our freedoms will be lost.
Since when does congress introduce resolutions to slap down people outside of government for something they said? In this case, Limbaugh is outraged and is shouting from the rooftops that he never said what Reid and the Democrats accuse him of saying. As far as I can tell, he's right - the entire kerfluffle is based on a false story. Notice that not a single Democrat on this particular Limbaugh destroy mission has even attempted to contact him directly to hear his side of the story; they have tried and convicted him without any interest in the facts.
The bigger story here is about censorship. Even if Rush did say that all soldiers who personally oppose the war or are Democrats or have green eyes are "phony soldiers", so what? As I recall, people like Jack Murtha, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, and Harry Reid himself have said far more insulting and damaging things about our troops than that. If the standard is to pass resolutions condemning private citizens for saying mean things to people, then I would suggest resolutions must be passed against most Hollywood activist actors, activist entertainers, Bill Maher, and the entire Air America talk radio host lineup. Nearly all have made far more inflammatory and insulting statements about the troops, the President and Vice President, Condi Rice, Don Rumsfeld, and just about every other Republican in government.
The best that can be said about this event is that it's simply a Democrat political ploy to attempt to create a story that cancels out the "General Betray Us" ad from their puppet masters at MoveOn.org. I hope that's as far as it goes, but fear it might go farther.
Despite their protestations to the contrary, Hillary has already taken credit for establishing the group that "exposed" Rush's seemingly insulting comment about "phony soldiers". The organization, basically a website called Media Matters for America, defines its mission statement as:
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
They seem to want to be the left's answer to mediaresearch.org , which is a conservative website dedicated to pointing out liberal bias in the news media.
There are some very important differences between the two groups. While Media Research is about educating people about media bias, Media Matters is an activist group demanding action to shut down what they consider lying conservative propagandists. Media Research does not solicit funds for political action, nor do they exhort their visitors to demand action from legislators. Media Matters is all about such political action.
Most importantly, both groups claim to be independent media research organizations. Media Matters is not; they belong to Hillary Clinton and MoveOn.org.
Think of it this way: An organization dedicated to silencing conservative voices, particularly focused on Talk Radio, which is the primary home for those voices, is financed and given their direction by a candidate for President of the United States. I think that's very dangerous.
People scoff at the discussions of instituting the "Fairness Doctrine" for Talk Radio. When it firzt came up, I did too. But now I'm not so sure. Regardless of what you might think about the bombastic Limbaugh, his right to say whatever he wants to anyone who cares to listen is protected by one of the founding rights and principles of our country - freedom of speech. For the first time in my lifetime, I am actually seeing a serious effort by a political party to silence him.
I don't care which side of the political aisle you align yourself - if the citizens of the country don't stand up and demand politicians stop trying to silence people they don't like, our freedoms will be lost.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Why Do They Self-Destruct?
Ricky wants to come back. Ricky Williams, that is - remember the running back Mike Ditka bet his coaching job to draft for New Orleans? The same guy who got traded to Miami, then decided to take a year off. Then when he came back, his heart wasn't in it and he got booted out of the NFL for drugs.
Now apparently he's a new man. I suppose running out of money can do that to you.
The bigger question with Ricky, as with all sorts of celebrity types, is why? Why do people who seem to have the world at their feet often mess it up?
For Ricky, the message was clear - if we catch you smoking weed again, you're out. The logical response would seem to be to cut all drugs out, because why throw away millions of dollars playing football on some giggle weeds? But Ricky apparently had no logic, and he promptly was caught and kicked out.
I would think that the NFL wants more than just his word that he's cleaned up his act and is ready to be a good boy. If Ricky can prove that he's been clean for the past 12 months or more, maybe that could buy him a chance to try out for an NFL team again. I think the Dolphins can decide first whether it's their team he'll be trying out for.
If I were the NFL commissioner, I'd probably do this: Allow Ricky to return to the league next season beginning with training camp. If he is tested regularly and stays clean all that time, he will be cleared to join the Dolphins, or they can trade or release him as they see fit. Assuming he makes a roster next season, he will be subject to routine drug tests that he must pass to continue playing. One failed drug test equals permanent suspension.
Think he could pull it off? Based on others like him, I sort of doubt it. But wouldn't it make a great story if he could get back in the league, play at his former all-star ability, and become a spokesman for the anti-drug message?
Miracles do happen now and then.
Now apparently he's a new man. I suppose running out of money can do that to you.
The bigger question with Ricky, as with all sorts of celebrity types, is why? Why do people who seem to have the world at their feet often mess it up?
For Ricky, the message was clear - if we catch you smoking weed again, you're out. The logical response would seem to be to cut all drugs out, because why throw away millions of dollars playing football on some giggle weeds? But Ricky apparently had no logic, and he promptly was caught and kicked out.
I would think that the NFL wants more than just his word that he's cleaned up his act and is ready to be a good boy. If Ricky can prove that he's been clean for the past 12 months or more, maybe that could buy him a chance to try out for an NFL team again. I think the Dolphins can decide first whether it's their team he'll be trying out for.
If I were the NFL commissioner, I'd probably do this: Allow Ricky to return to the league next season beginning with training camp. If he is tested regularly and stays clean all that time, he will be cleared to join the Dolphins, or they can trade or release him as they see fit. Assuming he makes a roster next season, he will be subject to routine drug tests that he must pass to continue playing. One failed drug test equals permanent suspension.
Think he could pull it off? Based on others like him, I sort of doubt it. But wouldn't it make a great story if he could get back in the league, play at his former all-star ability, and become a spokesman for the anti-drug message?
Miracles do happen now and then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)