Bill's Blog Archive

Every abortion entails two acts, i.e., terminating a pregnancy and killing a fetus. The procedure called “partial-birth” abortion highlights the fact that the latter is not always necessary to accomplish the former. Rightly or wrongly, the Roe Vs. Wade decision established a “right” to terminate a pregnancy based on the “right to privacy.” However, there is nothing in the decision that would suggest a right to kill a fetus if it isn't necessary to terminate the pregnancy.

The bill signed into law by Pres. Bush was meant to prevent the unnecessary killing of potentially viable fetuses. It does not proscribe late term abortions that terminate a pregnancy without unnecessarily killing a viable fetus. Abortion proponents prefer to shift the focus from the horrific procedure and the unnecessary killing to the issue of “late term abortions.” This was demonstrated by the Journal's recent “Speak Up” poll which framed the question as, “Should the federal late-term abortion ban be overturned by the courts?” There is no “late-term abortion ban,” there is only a ban on a certain procedure for the reasons I stated.

The Roe Vs. Wade decision says, “For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop testified before congress that the “partial-birth” abortion procedure is never necessary to preserve the life or the health of a woman. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons stated, in a letter to Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH) that “partial-birth abortion....has no medical indications. We can conceive of no circumstance in which it would be needed to save the life or preserve the health of a mother.” The American Medical Association has taken a similar position concluding that partial-birth abortion is “not an accepted medical practice,” and that it has “never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development.” Dr. David Stevens of the Christian Medical Association has noted, “inflicting pain on developing infants such as that incurred during a partial-birth abortion would never be countenanced by any medical review team for human experimentation.”

So, while it may at times be necessary to terminate a pregnancy to preserve the life or health of the mother, it's difficult if not impossible to explain how killing a viable fetus, after pregnancy is essentially terminated, could ever effect life or health, unless “health” is so loosely interpreted as to include the “trauma” of being burdened with an “unwanted” child. That is, in fact, how abortion proponents want “health” defined. That is the only basis for their objections. However, based on the above information, Congress did not need to expressly exclude instances where “health” is an issue - the experts say it never is!

But some far left-wing judges have accepted the pro-abortion side and blocked the law from being enforced. Their decisions effectively expand “reproductive rights” to include the “right” to be unencumbered by “unwanted” children, even when those children have nothing to do with “bodily autonomy.” Such a “right” could logically be extended to completely born children, and some abortion proponents actually support a “right” to wait until a child is delivered to decide whether it is “wanted” or not.

These judges are not following the Constitution, they are re-writing it. But this is the only kind of judge that is “fit” to be on a federal bench, according to our own senator, Charles Schumer, who is leading multiple filibusters in the senate to block Pres. Bush's nominees to the bench. What a filibuster accomplishes is to make it necessary for a super-majority of 60 senators to confirm a nominee. The Constitution specifically defines seven instances where a super-majority is required, and “consenting” to the president's nominees is not one of them. Schumer's filibuster is clearly unconstitutional, but senate rules apparently never foresaw senators being so partisan that they would use the filibuster for such a purpose. It seems appropriate that Schumer would resort to unconstitutional tactics, since He's trying to rid the courts of judges who actually follow the Constitution.

Another ‘Liberal’ Contradiction (Oct. 13, 2003)

Have you been following the Kobe Bryant saga? It's hard not to, and as much as I want to ignore it, I just can't seem to help being constantly updated.

There's a lot that can be said about it, and most of it is being said, but there is one aspect that no one seems to want to touch. I'm referring to the relatively new concept of “No means no,” which is playing a big part in the controversy. This, of course, is in reference to a woman's “right” to lead a man up to the moment of comencement of intercourse, and then change her mind, and he has to stop in his tracks.

Like the “right” to abortion, this is an extension of an old stereotype of women which says they always have the perogative to change their minds. That's an interesting point, but not what I'm getting to.

Here's where the contradiction comes in. Whenever we on the right suggest that “abstinence” be taught to young people as a way to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, we are laughed at and told that teenagers simply aren't going to abstain from sex - it's just too strong an urge for them to resist! But here we see these same people saying that a man has to be in such control of his sexual urges that he he can turn them off at the peak of his arousal whenever the woman leading him there changes her mind.

This is not to say that a man shouldn't respect a woman's last-second misgivings, but those on the left, who want felony rape charges leveled against a man who fails to turn it off, should be forced to address this contradiction. There's no reason they should be able to get away with talking out of both sides of their mouths this way. If a man can turn it off at the most inopportune moment, then anyone should be able to resist their urges before they get to a point of almost no return.

By the standard the left wants placed on men regarding their sexual urges, anyone can practice abstinence successfully, so they have no legitimate reason for opposing it. Let's stick it to them.

Rush Takes One-Two Punch (Oct. 05, 2003)

Conservatives across the country were saddened this past week by seemingly credible allegations that Rush Limbaugh has an addiction to prescription pain killers and has obtained many via the “black market.” This came (suspiciously?) on the heels of a controversy involving supposedly racist comments he made on an ESPN football talk show.

There is no doubt that ‘liberals’ would love to silence Limbaugh. Local scoundrel Maurice Hinchey is pushing for a “fairness doctrine” which would force TV and radio stations to “balance” a show like Limbaugh's by providing equal air time to an opposing view. This is nonsense, of course, since we all know that Limbaugh's program, and programs with like-minded conservatives, don't come close to balancing, on an air-time basis, the constant stream of left-wing propaganda spewed by the “mainstream” media. Skunks like Hinchey think that stations might think twice about airing ‘conservative’ programs if they have to also air ‘liberal’ shows that nobody would listen to. Have you ever listened to ‘liberal’ talk radio? It's unlistenable.

So the question arises, is this an orchestrated campaign to shut Limbaugh up? And there is another question, too: is Rush being treated fairly in the media? To he first question, I don't have an answer, but I'd certainly have to answer the second in the negative.

Rush's comments on ESPN weren't the slightest bit racist, but the media have done their best to try to make them appear so. The gist of the comments are this: Donavan McNabb of the Philadelphia Eagles is “overrated,” and the media that overrates him do so because of his skin color. While this is a criticism of a black person, the criticism is based on the black person's performance compared to the performance of his peers. It's possible that Limbaugh doesn't like McNabb because of his skin color, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support that possibility. Accusing every criticism of a black person as “racist” is as despicable a form of racism as the worst “Jim Crow” law. So unless there is other evidence of actual racism, it must be assumed that a criticism of a black person comes from the same motives that criticism of a white person (by a white person) would come from.

As a sports commentator, Rush Limbaugh's job was, in part, to criticize players' performances. So in saying McNabb was “overrated,” he was simply doing his job. But his comments went further than that - he criticized the media! He accused them of the insidious racism of condescension.

It's interesting to see how the media have played it. To illustrate, I give you an example. The Poughkeepsie Journal has a daily “Speak Up” feature where the ask a question requiring a Yes/No answer, and ask for a vote and a short explanation. On Friday, the asked if Rush Limbaugh should have been fired for his remarks. I phoned in a No vote with the remark that he shouldn't be fired for telling the truth about the media. The next day, the printed responses included one about not being punished for telling the truth, but excluded the part about the media. Was this simply because of space limitations? Possibly, but other evidence suggests that the media have tried to skew the controversy to make it seem like Limbaugh was criticizing blacks in general instead of criticizing the media in general. You'd be hard pressed to find an instance where anyone in the media have responded to the real gist of Rush's comments, rather than attacking him as a “racist.”

Now regarding the “drug” allegations, I'll probably have a lot to say when we know more about it. But there is one aspect I'm going to keep a sharp watch on. It's the allegation that the accuser has an audio-tape of a “drug” transsaction with Limbaugh. At this time, it's unclear, assuming such a tape exists, whether it was the result of an official investigation or something else. What we know to date seems to suggest the latter. Experts on such investigations say that normally, when a tape is made and a drug transfer occurs, the suspect is immediately arrested with the drugs in his possession. This didn't happen. Also, it's being reported that the National Enquirer is advertising that it has the audio available for download. If this is true, and I haven't been able to determine this one way or the other, it would indicate that the alleged audiotape is not part of an official investigation.

This brings me to another point. Remember Linda Tripp. Remember how she was vilified for surreptitiously recording conversations with Monica Lewinski. Do you also remember that the ACLU ran advertisements attacking Tripp for invading Monica's privacy? If it turns out that these tapes are authentic, but made by a private individual without official authorization, don't expect the ACLU to come out in Rush's defense. That would require integrity.

Spreading Lies (Sep. 28, 2003)

A recent letter to the Poughkeepsie Journal written by vocal pro-abort Camilla Wygan made some very specific charges against pro-life picketers at the abortuary in Beacon. Some of those charges were:

Ms. Wygan has a right to express her opinion, but she doesn't have a right to slander people. Whether or not her charges are based in truth is a matter of conjecture for most readers, but many of them could be proven or dispelled if the intended audience of the charges had the opportunity to witness the “riots.”

Pro-life activist Neal Horsley recently proposed that webcams be installed outside abortuaries, and predictably, the pro-aborts mounted a vehement protest. Their stated objection is that it violates the “privacy” of women having abortions, but I have to wonder if their reasons for their objections might go a little deeper than that.

One of the side benefits of real-time images of abortuary entrances would be that it would prove conclusively whether or not the claims about anti-abortion protests at the sites are true. Abortion proponents have consistently characterized anti-abortion protests much Ms. Wygan did in her diatribe. Like most leftists, they avoid debating the issue by attacking the people espousing opposing views. And as long as the general public has to rely on the “mainstream” media, they'll never be able to discern the veracity of the attacks.

We can argue about the “privacy” issue all we want, but privacy shouldn't be a shield to protect liars. As long as the public is in the dark about what really occurs at abortuaries, the pro-aborts can get away with telling them anything. Webcams would show the truth. They may or may not be useful for “shaming” women away, and we can argue about whether this is an appropriate tactic, but the constant stream of unsubstantiated charges is an issue that must be addressed. Webcams are a possible solution.

Media Indicted (Sep. 24, 2003)

Just yesterday, I asked my wife if she's read anything positive about the situation in Iraq, and she answered that she hadn't. Today, I found this commentary by Jim Marshall, a freshman Democratic congressman from Georgia: (click here)

I suggest you print it and circulate it through your newsroom, and perhaps forward it to your wire services. It is a damning indictment of your negative non-coverage, which, in my opinion, is most likely purposeful. You in the press seem to hate Pres. Bush so much that you'll endanger national security, and throw away the Iraqi liberation if it will serve to get a Democrat elected president.

An example of your anti-Bush reporting is in today's story describing Bush's appearance at the U.N. It characterized Bush as “unapologetic,” but in reality, the person who should be apologizing and isn't (for his unilateral threat to veto an 18th resolution on Iraq) is French President Chirac. But nowhere in the story was he described as “unapologetic.” Why not? Because that would suggest that Bush's Iraq policy was correct, a concept even the Dali Lama, one of the world's foremost advocates of “peace,” has an open mind on (a story curiously given little media attention in the U.S.).

Bass-ackwards Thinking (Sep. 23, 2003)

Geraldine Ferraro was interviewed on the “Religion on the line” radio program on WABC, today, and her remearks epitomized the screwed up thinking of “liberals” today.

As you would have expected, she told how her Christian upbringing led her to support “liberal” policies that help the poor, etc. But when defending her pro-abortion voting record, she invoked the “separation of church and state” argument which, of course, is totally inappropriate, in addition to having no constitutional basis.

True to form, she was completely oblivious to the contradiction between these two position, as well as the fact that neither makes much sense. Their logic is totally backwards.

The contradiction is that she has no problem with her Christian beliefs leading her to force others to conform to her definition of charity, but when it comes to the government protecting unborn children, it's there she draws the line.

But this kind of thinking is severely lacking in insight. When you look at the two issues, i.e., helping the poor, and protecting the unborn, it is individuals who best help the poor, and government that best protects unborn life. When government takes on the task of helping the poor, the poor take on an air of entitlement, which is good neither for the giver nor the recipient. And when it is left to individuals to protect the unborn, you end up with people like Paul Hill on death row.

So who's really to blame? I say the Churches are at least partially culpable. While some of them do speak out against abortion, how many avoid stressing that charity is an individual responsibility, and not one imposed on others by force of law? But the question also has to be asked, is it moral to use the power of government to force others to conform to your view of “helping?” I say it's about time churches started addressing this question, but I doubt many have the courage.

An Open Letter (Sep. 18, 2003)

This is an open letter in response to the letter in the Poughkeepsie Journal written by Steve McGinley of Salt Point.

I found your letter to the Poughkeepsie Journal interesting, but not particularly enlightening. What I found interesting was the inappropriateness of your arguments.

The most glaring error is that you try to equate stoning a person to death with “denying” a person the “benefits” of marriage, or at least that's the impression it's apparent you're trying to make (why else did you say your letter was in response to articles on “gay marriage”?). In the example you give, when Jesus refers to “judging” and “condemning” the woman, he's not saying they should not “judge” or “condemn” her action as wrong. He's saying they should not stone her to death. That is clearly demonstrated by Jesus telling her to “leave [her] life of sin.” What is that if not “judging” her in the same sense that the letter writers you condemn are doing? And as you condemn those of us who oppose “gay marriage,” are you advocating that we be stoned to death? I certainly hope not.

You also cite a passage from Romans Chap. 2, which says, “. . . God's kindness leads you toward repentance.” You must understand that true repentance includes giving up the “sin” being repented. But whenever it is suggested that a homosexual give up his practice, that person is condemned as a “homophobe.” So what it seems you are saying is that if there is any such thing as “sin,” there are no consequences for it - God will forgive the “sinner,” even when the “sinner” refuses to renounce his “sinful” ways. On top of that, the rest of us are not allowed to pass judgment on the “sinner” or the “sin.”

I count myself among those opposed to government sponsored “gay marriage,” but I don't use the Bible to justify my position, nor does my position have anything to do with “judging” the actions of homosexuals. It comes from the question, “what is the benefit to society to justify the cost?” In order to answer that question, you have to also answer the question of what is the purpose of government's sponsorship of marriage (and the attendant “benefits”) is. The pertinent question is not, “why should marriage be denied to homosexuals?” That's like asking why farm subsidies should be denied to people without farms, or the child tax credit be denied to people without children.

Tough Decisions (Sep. 15, 2003)

Last night, the History Channel ran the program “Hiroshima: The Decision to Drop the Bomb.” Although the History Channel usually seems to present a pro-America view of history, this show was, in my view, particularly slanted against Truman's decision to drop “the bomb” on Japan. It spent a lot of time dwelling on the horror that descended on the Japanese, and painted the U.S. action as unnecessary and even criminal.

The program did, however, spend a few seconds presenting the view that dropping the bomb was necessary in order to convince the Soviets that we had the will to use this terrible weapon. I've often wondered how the Cold War would have ended had Truman not made that momentous decision. Would Stalin have believed that he could launch a nuclear strike against the U.S. and not fact retaliation? Frankly, I'm glad we don't know the answer to that question, but I suspect that he would have.

Our government justified the act by claiming it saved many lives which would have been lost in an inevitable invasion, but history casts doubt on that rationale. The Japanese were already trying to end the war, and most likely would have made some sort of “peace” without the bomb being dropped, but would that “peace” have been permanent? I suspect that unless we completely vanquished the Japanese, as we did Hitler's Reich, the “peace” would more have resembled what we still have in Korea - armed conflict would be stopped, but hostilities would not. The war in Europe ended when the Allies completely over-ran Germany. Had we not gone to that extreme, and instead settled for a negotiated peace, I suspect that the aftermath of the war in Europe would have quite different.

This suggests to me that while “the decision” may have been made for reasons other than what was given, and should be viewed by civilized people as an atrocity, it almost certainly saved the free world from nuclear annihilation. This brings me to a quandary.

Must civilized nations reject uncivilized action when it is necessary to save civilization? This is a crucial question, particularly in light of our present war on terrorism. If the only way to fight terrorists is to suspend, at least temporarily, some civil liberties, should we rather go to our graves knowing we took the “civilized” route to get there? If you listen to the Left, you have to believe that they'd rather die than have captured terrorists denied Constitutional protection meant for common criminals. This is particularly curious considering how their predecessors, including some of the people currently leading the charge, used to chant “Better red than dead.”

So suppose that when we found out that Saddam Hussein was paying large rewards to the survivors of suicide bombers, we, or the Israelis, made sure that the survivors never got the chance to enjoy their ill-gotten gains. Suppose that instead of being rich heroes, they ended up as disembowelled corpses strung up in the center of their home towns. That would undoubtedly be an “uncivilized” response to terrorism, but just might prevent future attacks.

After seeing pictures of the devastation wreaked on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I have to come to the conclusion that we cannot allow this to happen again. If it takes “uncivilized” action to prevent it, so be it.

‘Liberal’ Hypocrites (Sep. 11, 2003)

If you believe the “liberal” pundits and writers of letters to the editors, you'd think the “Patriot Act” is the greatest threat to liberty since FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. But if you pay close attention to their diatribes, you notice that their complaints are long on invective, and short on specifics.

I'm sorry, but it's ludicrous to think that people not having health insurance is of more concern than the very real possibility of nuclear, chemical or biological terrorism. This isn't like the days of the Cold War when we knew where the threat was coming from and where to aim our retaliation. The deterrence of MAD (“mutually assured destruction”) is no longer relevant. If a terrorist group acquires a nuclear weapon it will attempt to use it, and the probability of success is frighteningly high.

But while ‘liberals’ seem to view any inconvenience in the name of fighting terrorism as anathema, they ignore or even applaud the serious infringements on liberty imposed by their socialist schemes. Unlike them, I can give specific examples, starting with the unconstitutional wealth redistribution and privacy intrusions perpetrated by the graduated income tax used to pay for their vote-buying ‘welfare’ schemes.

Then there is the threat posed by their pet project of replacing our health care system with socialized medicine. We should have been warned years ago when helmets were mandated for motorcyclists justified by the “cost to society” as a result of head injuries. Now, they're going steps further, attempting to ban or onerously tax smoking and “junk food” using the same rationale.

Meanwhile, businesses are forced to hire based on “diversity.” Political Correctness defines “hate speech” and seeks to ban or punish it. Property rights are trampled in the name of saving “endangered” species. I could go on and on.

Like their condemnations of “legislating morality,” “liberals” aren't really concerned about infringements on liberty when its for their own causes. And the fact that they seem to view denying Bush credit for fighting terrorism more of a “cause” than protecting the nation from terrorism makes me wonder what bodily orifice they have their heads in. Hypocrisy, thy name is “liberalism.”

It's the Stupid Economy (Aug. 23, 2003)

I find it amusing to see the left lambasting Pres. Bush for “destroying” the allegedly great “Clinton economy,” and “squandering” the budget surpluses.

Let's assume for a moment that Clinton really had something to do with the robust economy that occurred on his watch. Let's pretend that he didn't take office during a recovery from a small downturn which he helped to prolong by talking it down. Let's forget that the current slump started during the last year of his presidency.

The question, then is, should anyone on the left want to take credit for a burgeoning economy? What is the U.S. economy based on, other than excessive consumption, planned obsolescence, and consumer debt?

The left preaches “conservation” as the solution to all of mankind's woes, but if this nation actually started practicing conservation, it would send the economy into the dumpster. Those of us with memories prior to the '60s do remember a time when conservation was actually practiced. The in-charge generation were survivors of the great depression. They learned to repair things instead of throwing them out. They didn't discard something just because there was a newer model out. They waited until they had the money before making a purchase.

This all sounds like the left's dream world, and it's one area where I agree with them, except I have to wonder if they really agree with their own rhetoric. If they did, why would they want credit for the results of all they decry? It doesn't make any sense.

Running the World (Aug. 13, 2003)

A meeting of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, the “liberal” group that bills itself as an alternative to the Federalist Society, concluded with this chilling quote from Judge Louis Oberdorfer, a Carter-appointed federal judge: “If you do it right, you people here will become law clerks and the law clerks will become judges and the assistant secretaries and you'll run the world.”

There you have it, folks. It's official, the goal of “liberals” is to “run the world,” and the means to that end is control of the judiciary, the least democratic branch of republican government. If you needed an explanation for the Democrats' desperate, unconstitutional use of the filibuster to block non-“liberal” judicial appointments, this is certainly it. It all makes sense when you consider how so much of the “liberal” agenda has been enacted by judges over-ruling the will of the people.

If lawyers and judges “run the world,” instead of public policy being determined democratically based on what is best for society, we'll have a system where group grievances trump everything. This principle is amply demonstrated by the way “civil unions” were forced on the state of Vermont. There was no public debate on the benefits to society of such a scheme. The only consideration was that homosexuals were somehow “discriminated” against by not being able to “marry.” And, of course, this came about because of “liberal” judges cramming their “liberal” agenda down the throats of the Vermont legislature - one small step in their campaign to “run the world.”

One thing is for sure. If we allow judges to “run the world,” they will certainly “run” it into the ground.

A Study You May Never See (Aug. 10, 2003)

I received this followup from "Linda:"
The source is the New England Centenarian Study. We're doing a story that discusses it on one of our Web sites (www.sageke.org). It will be posted on Wednesday. I'm not sure if the data have been published yet, but you could try doing a MEDLINE search for Thomas Perls--he's the author of the study.

I come from a family of six children. My mother, who will be 89 next month, had my youngest sister on her forty-first birthday.

Both of my parents were staunch Republicans, but not all of the family followed in their footsteps politically. Their second child, my immediate elder, started a “liberal” wing of the family, and her first-born is a died-in-the-wool, pro-abortion leftist. She graduated from Brown University with a political science degree, and works for “Science” magazine as an editor. If you're wondering why a science magazine would have a political science major as an editor, you haven't been keeping up with the way “political correctness” has infiltrated the “science” establishment.

But that aside, I was surprised when, out of the blue, my “liberal” niece, Linda, asked how old my mother was when she had my youngest sister. She said she had just read a study purporting to find that women who have children after the age of forty have a four times greater chance of living past one hundred.

I suspect that Linda wasn't thinking about the political ramifications of such a study when she mentioned it - she was probably only thinking about her beloved grandmother. But when I asked her to reveal the source of this study, they probably dawned on her. So far, she has declined to disclose where her information came from.

Because of how I learned about this alleged study, I'm convinced it exists. But because of its nature, I'm also convinced that powerful political forces, starting with NOW, PP and NARAL, will conspire to squelch it.

The aforementioned organizations have this in common - “choice” equals abortion. To them, the words “Choose life” are anathema. They claim to be for “choice,” but you'd be hard pressed to find them supporting any choice but abortion, and a pregnant womans age is a prime reason they give for their version of “choice.”

Obviously, they have a strong incentive to see that this study doesn't see the light of day. Since the “mainstream” media are strongly in their camp, they have a good chance of succeeding. It remains to be seen, but I predict that the media will not report on this unless alternative media find it and run with it. Let's hope that they do.

Of course, if I can ferret out the source, I will report it. Just remember where you heard it first.

Who's the Victim? (Aug. 3, 2003)

You may have noticed that I haven't posted stories on the Kobe Bryant fiasco. If you're living in a cave, you may not know that Bryant, a basketball player on the Los Angeles Lakers, was accused of rape by a hotel employee in Colorado. Since this site focuses on issues overlooked and/or distorted by the “mainstream” media, there really hasn't been any reason to cover it here. However, there are a few aspects of this case that I feel need to be discussed.

First, there is the issue of the “rape shield” law meant to protect the anonymity of the accuser. While I understand, somewhat, the rationale of protecting rape victims from public embarrassment, this case exposes a serious flaw in that policy. It assumes who the victim is, and that is a violation of the doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty.”

When a case, such as this, revolves around the core issue of who is lying, once you make a legal assumption that the woman is the victim, you've judged the accused guilty without a trial. Bryant has admitted to having sex with the woman, but claims that it was consensual. According to published reports, the woman went to his room voluntarily. Does that mean she invited him to have sex with her? Not really, but you have to admit that some men would see it that way.

We know that “date rape” does occur, but we also know that some women will make false rape accusations. They do this for many reasons. Sometimes they do it for blackmail, sometimes for revenge, and sometimes out of misunderstanding. Some studies, in fact, have suggested that as many as half of such “rape” charges are false. In this case, the fact of sexual intercourse between the accused and the accuser is not in question. The only real question is, was it consensual?

When the law automatically treats the woman as the “victim,” it is making a judgment that a rape did occur. But in a case such as this, the question of whether or not a rape actually occurred is the central issue, and is the major decision a jury must make. If the woman is lying, Bryant is a victim in as strong a sense as the woman would be if her accusation was true. But if he is found to be innocent, it is doubtful that the woman will suffer any negative legal consequences whatsoever. This is simply wrong!

Next, there's the small matter of Bryant's initial denial of any sexual contact. Prosecutors and pundits have pointed to this as an indication of his guilt, but wait! Haven't we had it drummed into our heads that everybody lies about sex? In fact, isn't that what men are expected to do? How soon we forget!

And then there's the notion that a woman can invite sex, enter into it, and then change her mind, and if the man doesn't immediately stop, charge him with rape. While I agree that in such a situation, the man should respect the woman's wishes, to treat it as rape is simply ludicrous. One of the very first stereotypes of women I ever learned was that they always have the perogative of changing their minds. So how is it that this stereotype can be codified into law? It's hardly different from the “right” to abortion, isn't it?

The Silent Majority (July 24, 2003)

When I read a newspaper, after skimming the front page, the first place I go is to the letters to the editor. Lately, I've become disappointed and disallusioned.

It seems as if right-thinking people have gone into hibernation. Almost every day, there's a letter condemning “exploitation” of animals. Every day brings out another lying diatribe against our president and Republicans/conservatives in general.

What's wrong with you people? Are you afraid to speak up? Are you afraid of being called “homophobe,” “racist,” “intolerant,” or any of the other insults lying leftists use to stifle open debate? Or are you so satisfied with the way things are going, you think nothing more needs to be said?

If your excuse is the latter, you need to get your head screwed on straight. Things are not going well for the good guys. Democrat propaganda is being parrotted by the “mainstream” media as if it were gospel. Our president is being trashed by people who view opponents of their party as more evil than evildoers out to destroy “their” country. The homosexual agenda is being forced on us and our children by renegade courts, and the left is making a concerted, unconstitutional, undemocratic attempt to control them.

Meanwhile, the “silent majority” goes about its business, seemingly oblivious to what's happening. We here in the Hudson Valley have a forum, right here, to share ideas and strategies, yet hardly anyone takes advantage of it.

If you're a right-thinking individual, and you read what I put up on this site, you can't help but be outraged. Yet, judging from the (non)response I've received, and the lack of letters in the paper, you'd think everyone is completely satisfied with the way our society is heading. You'd think no one cares whether Democrats, who think socialized medicine is more important than stopping terrorism, demagogue their way back into power.

Come on, people. Speak up! Your country needs your voice as well as your votes.

Like No Tomorrow (July 16, 2003)

Have you ever thought that “liberals” like to spend as if there's no tomorrow? Judging from their positions on the war on terrorism, I'm beginning to think the don't care if there is a tomorrow.

Benjamin Franklin once said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” “Liberals” never have qualms about giving up liberty when it's at the expense of their social agenda, but when the subject is terrorism, even a hint of a loss is unacceptable to them.

This, of course, turns Franklin's wisdom on its head. The “little temporary safety” he was talking about fits exactly what the “liberal” agenda promotes. But when the subject is international terrorism with the aim of the destruction of our nation, I'm sure even Franklin would agree that some compromises must be made.

The possibility that these terrorists could get their hands on a nuclear weapon is terrifying! When the threat came mainly from the Soviet Union, we could take solace in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The Soviets knew (thanks to Harry Truman) that a nuclear attack on the United States would trigger a response they could not accept. But when the threat comes from lunatics who would put a nuclear weapon on a truck and drive it into a city, there is no deterrent - the lunatics must be rooted out and destroyed before they can wreak their havoc.

It's hard to imagine what the aftermath of such an attack would be. If the person in the White House was Howard Dean or John Kerry, e.g., there would be no response. Since they object to Pres. Bush's actions not backed by 100% unassailable evidence, we'd have to assume that without such evidence, they would not react, and after a nuclear detonation, all evidence would be vaporized. The U.S. economy would be destroyed while a Democrat president sits on his hands.

I realize that no one wants to think about this, but unless we do and take it seriously, as Pres. Bush obviously does, the probability of it happening is unacceptably high.

The American people must understand the danger we are in. If we don't, and fall for the Democrats' demagoguery, there may not be a tomorrow.

Thought Police (July 13, 2003)

Note: The following was sent as a letter to the editor of the Poughkeepsie Journal.

The letter from Frank Welsh which appeared July 13 pointed out how the Doonesbury “comic” strip distorts the National Rifle Association's position on automatic weapons. The same day, Doonesbury made the ludicrous claim that “liberals . . . respect all points of view.”

To show just how ridiculous this claim is, I refer to a letter from Joseph D. Ross Jr. which “responded” to a letter from me. My letter suggested that before we make drastic changes to the institution of marriage, we make sure we understand what the purpose of marriage is. Mr. Ross, in typical “liberal” fashion, lambasted me for “discrimination,” “bigotry,” and “homophobia.”

Contrary to what “liberals” like to pretend, this isn't respecting all points of view. It's the exact opposite, and it is typical. What it amounts to is a form of intimidation. Mr. Ross represents what is coming to be known as the “PC Thought Police.” Whenever anyone makes a point which is not in line with current “Political Correctness,” that person is given a “ticket” in the form of an intimidating insult. Since no one likes to be insulted, many people will conform to “political correctness” to avoid future “tickets.”

Mr. Ross, I'm tearing up your ticket and throwing it back in your face. You won't be able to silence my arguments against your twisted point of view by insulting me.

With Competition Like This . . . (June 15, 2003)

I don't believe that any president, even one as honest and resolute as George W. Bush, should be granted a second term without competition. But looking at the current crop of competitors, I have to say that the country might be better off if they kept their mouths shut.

There was Howard Dean on the stage saying, "Mr. President, I'm tired of our country being divided by race. Mr. President, I'm tired of our country being divided by gender. Mr. President, I'm tired of our country being divided by income." Mr. Dean, it's your party that's doing the dividing! Why are you shouting at the president?

Then there's the French-looking Sen. John Kerry (who, by the way, served in Vietnam) who drives a motorcycle without wearing a helmet. (Remember how Jerry Ford was accused of playing football without a helmet?) Being a former motorcyclist who was forced by law to wear a helmet, I find this particularly appalling behavior for a Democrat.

You see, before government made you wear a seatbelt in your car, it made motorcycle riders wear helmets. Sure, people have a right to be stupid, but not when society has to pick up the cost, or at least that's how the government nannies framed the argument. How does government "pick up the cost?" Through socialized medicine, and that, today, is primarily a Democrat issue.

But John Kerry is a U.S. senator. As such, he doesn't have to rely on HMOs and insurance plans like the rest of us. He has the best medical care available to him and it's at taxpayers' expense. I have to wonder, when Kerry crashes and crushes his skull, if he'll pay the medical bills with his own (or his wife's) gazillions. It just doesn't seem right that a man who thinks he's qualified to be president should be taking such risks with taxpayers' money.

The Intent of Marriage (June 7, 2003)

Note: The following was sent as a letter to the editor of the Poughkeepsie Journal.

A recent letter-writer courageously questioned the wisdom of "gay marriage," and I'd be surprised if she didn't receive a lot of hate-mail in response. She touched on the purpose of marriage, which should be the central issue in the debate. I would shrink the focus further to the government's compelling interest in sponsoring marriage.

If there is none, then the best solution to this dilemma would be for the government to get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses. But that's certainly not the case. The interest of government in marriage is the protection of care-givers who sacrifice their earning potential in order to care for children while another "brings home the bacon." Without marriage, the one earning the "bacon" would own it. The care-giver could be left completely out in the cold with no assets in the event of death or desertion of the supporting spouse. Since a non-earning care-giver builds no retirement nest-egg, marriage protects her (or him) from old-age destitution by giving her (or him) a legal claim to the assets of the other.

These "benefits" come at a cost to society, but society has agreed to pay that cost because it's in society's best interests. When we extend these "benefits" to include people outside the scope of the intent of marriage, we are making the intended beneficiaries pay, thereby diminishing the intended benefit.

I'm sure this letter will elicit hate-mail aimed in my direction. Please send it to <my e-mail address>.

Global Cooling? (May 19, 2003)

I was curious to see just how abnormal this year has been so I started looking for historical data. At the National Weather Service website, I found some tables of record temperatures by day of the month for our area for all the years from 1874 through 2002.

Knowing that the "greenhouse effect" has the greatest effect on minimum temperatures, I decided to split the data into two periods, i.e., prior to 1938 and after 1938, to see how they compare. I've always been skeptical of the "global-warming" alarmists, but I was astounded by what I found. If "global-warming" were an actual phenomenon, you would expect that the low minimum temperatures would be found mostly prior to 1938, while most of the high minimum temperatures would be found after 1938. But what I found was exactly the opposite, and it wasn't even close.

I realize that this is not necessarily indicative of global trends, but it is every bit as (or perhaps even more) valid as when Al Gore pointed to a glacier and said its retreat was an indication of "global-warming."

To Be a "Liberal" in Good Standing . . . (May 18, 2003)

Is Gambling a Vice? (May 7, 2003)

Bill Bennett is a good man. Bill Bennett gambles. So what? Newsweek magazine says that Bennett, who talks about virtue, has a "vice." But is gambling a vice?

Granted, gambling can be a vice, but it isn't necessarily. If we're talking about "discretionary" money, i.e., money not needed to pay bills, what's the real difference between spending it on a movie or sticking it into a slot machine? Considering the quality of today's movies, I'd say that the latter might be a better choice. At least you have a chance of going home with something of value.

Don't get me wrong, here. I believe gambling can be a serious problem for some people, and one of my pet peeves is our government supporting it and even enticing people into it (Hey, you never know!").

So the question arises, is Bennett a hypocrite for preaching virtue, while engaging in vice? Well if gambling is unconditionally a vice, as Bennett's detractors are intimating, then maybe they can explain why our government is promoting this "vice" with lotteries, betting, etc. If they're right, the disclaimers in some lottery ads, e.g., "Bet with your head, not over it" are meaningless.

And consider this. Suppose that, instead of being a gambler, Bennett was found to be an alcoholic or heavy drinker. Would "liberals" be so quick to jump on alcoholism as a "vice," considering their efforts to have alcoholics classified as "disabled?" Would they give him a pass, saying he was helpless to the "demon rum," the way they dismiss the personal responsibility of all other alcoholics? And let's not forget that there are "liberals" who would have us believe that gambling is an affliction akin to alcoholism. Are any of them willing to give Bennett a pass? Don't bet the milk money on it.

Who's Stealing From Whom? (May 3, 2003)

The headline reads, "Enron tries to reclaim tax on inflated profits." The story is that Enron, and other companies caughtin accounting scandals where profits were artificially inflated, want tax refunds, since the "profits" they paid taxes on weren't profits at all. The outrage is almost universal.

What was the most damning accusation made against these companies? It was that they caused people to lose money from their retirement (stock) funds. To generate real outrage, you have to have a victim, and any run-of-the-mill rich stockholder won't do. People saving for retirement will do.

So now we have a situation where these same people with Enron stock in their retirement portfolios are being denied money that is rightfully theirs. But since the money being denied them is held by the government, the outrage is being directed at the companies, rather than the real villains, i.e., greedy politicians who tbink they have to spend every penny they can set their eyes (or sticky paws) on.

Corporations aren't faceless entities, they are people, and you can meet those people by going to a company's stockholders' meeting. When the government wrongfully takes money from a corporation, it is taking it away from those stockholders, and many of them are ordinary, "working" people trying to save a little for their retirement. In the cases of Enron and others like it, those stockholders have already been victimized by crooked executives. Now they're being victimized by the government. If the "profits" didn't exist, the government wasn't owed on them. If the taxes weren't owed, they should be refunded. It's that simple.

Disctinctions Without Differences? (May 1, 2003)

Note: The following is being sent as a letter to the editor of the Poughkeepsie Journal.

In a cartoon titled "Distinctions without a difference," Sen. Santorum is mischaracterized as saying, "I don't hate homosexuals, I hate it when people engage in homosexual acts." Below the cartoon, a column by Leonard Pitts Jr. excoriated Santorum as a "bigot." Meanwhile, Democrats were calling for Santorum's resignation from his leadership position in the Republican Party.

Just a few days previous, though, we heard Sen. Hillary Clinton claiming that the Bush administration was guilty of calling anyone "unpatriotic" who opposed the war in Iraq, a charge which, like most of Clinton's words, was false. In that speech, she shouted "We are Americans, we have the right to participate and debate . . ." What she left out was that in her view, and in the view of her Democrat colleagues, only those on the left have a right to debate - any arguments against their "politically correct" positions are classified as "hateful," "bigoted," "racist," "homophobic," "misogynistic," or worse, as the Santorum controversy clearly shows. People making such arguments are viciously attacked. If they have radio or TV programs, their sponsors are pressured to drop their sponsorships, as was the case with "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Savage. Sometimes, the same people who engaged in those attacks, such as Susan Saranden, claim their right to speak is threatened when someone makes the slightest criticism of what they say.

If the "mainstream" media, including the Poughkeepsie Journal, were "Fair and balanced," just think how different that "Distinctions without a difference" cartoon might have been. We might have seen Sen. Hillary saying, "I'm not unpatriotic, I just hate my country." Maybe not fair, but it would be balanced.

One Body, Two Murders (April 19, 2003)

If you're living in a cave, you may not have heard about this case. Laci Peterson, 27, was eight months pregnant when she vanished from her Modesto, California home on Christmas Eve. This past week, her body and the body of her unborn son were recovered from the San Francisco Bay. Last night, it was announced that her husband, Scott Peterson, was being charged with murder. Not just one murder, but two!

I'm confused! Isn't it true that an unborn child is part of the woman's body? Isn't that what a woman's "constitutional right" to an abortion is based on? If that's true, then how can Scott Peterson be charged with two murders when he only killed one person? The child can't be another person if it's an integral part of the woman's person.

The conclusion to be drawn from the contradictions in this case (and many others) is that a person is only a person if its mother says it's a person, at least until the moment of complete birth. This goes against all common sense. Your "personhood" can't be dependent on the whims of another person, but that's what "liberalism" would have us believe. If Laci Peterson had wanted to kill her child on her own whim, she would have been completely within the law, which would consider her child part of her body, i.e., her person.

According to the basis for abortion on demand, the death of Laci Peterson's unborn child should have no more legal ramifications than the death of her gall bladder. If you doubt that, just talk to a "reproductive rights" activist. They'll tell you that a fetus is the equivalent of any organ in a woman's body. But this type of case exposes the obvious truth. San Francisco may be the most "liberal" city in what is probably the most "liberal" state in the United States, but even there, the truth can't be hidden. Whoever killed Laci Peterson committed two murders. So how would it not be murder if she had killed the child herself?

The Protesters' Real Motives (April 4, 2003)

Note: The following was sent as a letter to the editor of the Poughkeepsie Journal.

The "anti-war" protesters are claiming that the case against Saddam is dishonest, but what about their motives? If they are so opposed to war, why weren't they in the streets while Clinton was bombing Kosovo? They claim that Bush's policy of "preemption" is unprecedented, but that's not true. Clinton's Kosovo adventure was a classic case of preemption, whether his objective was to stop human rights abuses, or to keep the civil war from spreading. If they approved of military action to stop human rights abuses, why are they ignoring Saddam's?

They say the U.S. is wrong to take action without U.N. approval, but Clinton never got approval from the U.N. for any of his military initiatives. His Kosovo action was under the auspices of NATO, a defensive organization. Since none of the member nations were under attack, any action they initiated would have to be considered preemptive.

They bemoan the danger to civilians caused by the war, but were silent when Clinton was bombing Kosovo. In that campaign, attack aircraft were required to stay above 15,000 feet in order to protect the pilots - Clinton didn't want the political fallout from U.S. casualties. But this tactic greatly increased the numbers of civilian deaths. Where were the protesters then?

All this leads me to believe it's the protesters who aren't being honest. Judging from many of the letters in the Journal, I'd say much of the protest is more anti-Bush than anti-war.

Free Speech Hypocrisy (April 2, 2003)

The left in this country is very selective in its defense of free speech. This selectivity is blatantly evident in Hollywood. When a few celebrities made anti-American statements, it understandably angered some of the people who shell out their hard-earned dollars to keep the "stars" in luxury villas, limousines and private jets. When some of these people made it clear that they would no longer patronize the products of the blow-hards, the studios, fearing loss of revenue, put pressure on the "stars" to tone down the rhetoric.

The Screen Actors Guild responded by issuing a statement saying, "Some have recently suggested that well-known individuals who express 'unacceptable' views should be punished by losing their right to work. Even a hint of the blacklist must never again be tolerated in this nation." But Hollywood and its staunch defenders of free speech have been strangely silent about other people whose "right to work" has been threatened by their friends on the left. When "feminists" tried to intimidate sponsors of Rush Limbaugh's radio program to drop their sponsorship (and put Limbaugh out of work), no one on the left came to his defense. When the same tactic was used by homosexuals against Laura Schlessinger, again, dead silence from the left. And now they're doing it to Michael Savage. Is the Screen Actors Guild coming to Savage's defense? Of course not! His speech is not to their liking.

Barbra Streisand said, "How dare the media call people who speak out against the war unpatriotic." This shows how hypocritical they are. She rightly claims that she can say whatever she wants to say, but wants to deny others the right to criticize what she says. I have news for Ms. Streisand - I have just as much right to call her "unpatriotic" as she has to make her vicious attacks on our president.

Wanted - Dead or Alive (March 23, 2003)

When the Poughkeepsie Journal provides extra space for a college professor to air his views, there should be some expectation of having the professor contribute a scholarly essay. Such was not the case in a recent Valley Views column by a Vassar College professor.

To try to make the point that the United States is now the "bad guy," he says, "Look at any cowboy movie -- America's clearest and most cherished version of how we face down evil. It's simple: We know the bad guy is the bad guy because he always shoots first. The good guy, restrained by justice, won't shoot first. Enlivened by this same justice, it somehow makes him quicker on the draw." He goes on to say, "Built into every gunfight is the premise the bad guy is compelled to shoot first because he is a coward; the good guy's courage spurns the advantages of injustice. Well, guess what -- this is true in real life too. Because justice matters."

I don't know what western movies this guy's been watching, but I don't recall any such lessons from any I've watched. And why is he using glorified fiction to make his point? Would he cite lessons from "Father Knows Best" as the ideal male-female relationship? I doubt his feminist professor colleagues would appreciate it if he did.

But back to his western paradigm, does he really think that the west was tamed by the good guys always waiting for the criminals to shoot at them before they shot back? I recall seeing, in those movies, a lot of "Wanted - Dead or Alive" posters, and I don't think anyone was too concerned which side the bullet entered when they payed the reward.

The good professor says of his analogy, this is "true in real life too." But is it? We have a word for cops who let the bad guys shoot first. That word is dead. The cops, that is the good guys, are trained to shoot when threatened with lethal force. They are not trained to wait until the bad guys shoot first. Of course, when the dust clears, the "bad guy" had better be holding a gun and not a cell phone.

The professor tries to make another point, again using the "western" as an example. "One other lesson from the westerns:" he says, "The human shield always deterred the good guys. When the bad guy put an innocent person -- especially a woman or child -- between himself and justice, there was always justice delayed. Because good guys just don't shoot innocent people."

Again, I have to ask, what movies has this guy been watching? True, the "good guys" generally don't intentionally kill the hostages, but knowing that the hostate's life is in mortal danger anyway, he'll take a shot if he thinks he's got a clear one. In the movies, it always works, but in real life, there are real risks. Occasionally, the hostage gets injured or killed. In war, it's called "collateral damage," and unfortunately, it's inevitable. If the "good guys" are frozen into inaction for fear an innocent bystander might get hurt, we'd never be able to put a bad guy in jail. Even drawing a weapon entails risk, so maybe the professor would have the good guys put away all their weapons forever. He also draws a lousy analogy - in the present situation, the "human shields" are purposely putting themselves in a position to protect the criminals.

Perhaps if the professor hadn't been so focused on making the United States into the "bad guy," he might have been able to draw some lessons from his poor choice of examples. But like so many Democrats (what are the odds that, being a Vassar professor, he's not a Democrat?), his hatred of President Bush gets in the way of rational thinking.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussien is a criminal who earned his "Wanted - Dead or Alive" status. Have we forgotten how our prisoners of war were treated in the '91 Gulf War? Was anyone in the Iraqi hierarchy prosecuted for those crimes? If we have no other reason for going after him, his treatment of our service men and women should be more than enough. Saddam needs to be brought to justice, and the time is now. He shot first. Let's not give him another shot.

Letter to Sen. Schumer (March 14, 2003)

Note: I sent the following letter to Sen. Schumer from his website (his e-mail address does not work). It might be helpful if he received a large number of similar letters.

I writing an article on the confirmation process involving Miguel Estrada, and I have heard you claim that he's refused to answer questions put to him.

Please provide me a list of the questions you've asked Mr. Estrada, as well as the responses you received. Also, please provide me a list of all questions you asked judicial nominees submitted by Pres. Clinton as well as the answers they provided. Please send your response to the address below.

Journal Falls for Urban Legend (March 8, 2003)

Note: The following was sent to John Penney, Editorial Page Editor of the Poughkeepsie Journal.

Your editorial yesterday, March 7, 2003, "Mall arrest was outlandish," seems to have missed the mark. According to information in the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal (scroll to "Birth of an Urban Legend"), the media story missed (or intentionally left out) crucial information. According to the police report, mall security "received complaints that [Downs and his son] were stopping other shoppers," and when security asked them to leave, they refused. The real story wasn't about the mall censoring anyone, it was about an "anti-war" protester disturbing the peace.

I'm really surprised that you fell for this story. I thought it smelled fishy the first time I read it.

Democrats Attacking the Constitution (March 1, 2003)

Note: The following was sent as a letter to the editor of the Poughkeepsie Journal.

In June, 2000, Patrick Leahy, then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, "The Constitution empowers the president to nominate officers of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is clear-cut, straightforward language. It does not empower anyone to turn the process into a protracted ordeal of unreasonable delay and unrelenting investigation." But that was then and this is now.

Now, Leahy and his Democrat cohorts, including our own Senators Schumer and Clinton, are doing exactly what they previously said they didn't have the power to do. They are engaging in an unprecedented filibuster to block the nomination of Miguel Estrada, a man who unanimously received the American Bar Association's highest recommendation, to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

Their "unrelenting investigation" has descended to demanding personal notes from his tenure in the Solicitor General's office. All living former Solicitors General have gone on record saying this is an improper request. It is not a result of any allegations of wrongdoing, it is nothing but a "fishing expedition" and an excuse to deny the nomination which would easily pass with bipartisan support if a vote were allowed.

It would be great if we had senators who represented New Yorkers other than those on the extreme left-wing. But we don't, so all we can do is wait until the next election. I hope all New Yorkers, especially Hispanics, remember this attack on the Constitution when the next election rolls around.

The Wrong Culprit? (Feb. 25, 2003)

Get ready for a wild ride. I don't know if what I'm about to say is based on sheer paranoia, or something more sinister, but when you're looking for slugs, you want to turn over every rock.

Something that struck me, and quite a few others, about the "anti-war" demonstrations, was how often the name of Mumia Abu-Jamal shows up. Jamal, in case you don't know, was convicted of killing a Philadelphia cop and sentenced to death. We're still waiting for that to happen.

If you start looking into the "anti-war" organizations, you'll find that a lot of them are inextricably tied to - you guessed it - the militant movement to free Mumia Abu-Jamal. That piqued my curiosity, so I started looking into this "Free Mumia" thing.

Having just switched to broadband, I've been reveling in the ability to "surf" at blazing speed. So off I went looking for stuff on Mumia Abu-Jamal. It didn't take too long to come up with something that almost seemed like a fist popping out of my screen to knock me on the floor - "Mumia 911!" What I found was that this term was first applied to "MUMIA 911 - National Day of Art to Stop the Execution." That day was Sept. 11, 1999! A google search for "Mumia 911" (in quotes) returned an amazing 848 hits! Obviously, this was not a minor event.

But I wasn't done looking yet. I started going to some of the 848 sites, and after not too long, I found one that sent a chill up my spine:
http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/rap_comp/mumia911/911remix.911.txt
It's a rap "song" titled "Mumia 911" and one stanza is titled "Dead Prez." Then there's this stanza:

[Pharaohe Monch]
When you take the attempted assassination of Mumia Jamal they set em up
I come to find out, Tupac they wet 'im up
Pharaohe, standin behind my fucking curtains
with a double-barrle rehearsin
Ready for war now for certain
Uh, biological warfare suits
Black gas masks, black boots, half-assed niggas become troops
My tons of global warriors is booty now
Plenty thug niggas is fruity now

Till some real niggas organized theyselves and went and got'er
Lotta crackers verbalize if Mumia dies, fire in the skies

Fire in the skies? Double-barrle [sic] rehearsin? Did we miss something? Consider these coincidences. The 9/11 attacks hit New York City and Washington D.C.. Philadelphia is almost exactly midway between these two cities. Flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville, PA, is almost universally suspected of having been heading to Washington, but was it? We're pretty sure that the hijackers that hit the World Trade center used the Hudson River to find their way to New York City. What was the hijacker/pilot of flight 93 trying to find? Is it a coincidence that Shanksville is right next to the Pennsylvania turnpike? They were heading in a generally eastward direction. If you follow the turnpike east from Shanksville, you get to Harrisburg, the capital of Pennsylvania, the state that sentenced Mumia Abu-Jamal to death. If you draw an arc from Washington to Harrisburg to New York, the center of that arc is almost exactly at - you guessed it - Philadelphia!

Jamal is a Muslim. The hijackers were all Muslims. And then there's the final "coincidence." The governor of Pennsylvania is appointed to head the Department of Homeland Security. Is this a wild ride or what?

Close Indian Point (Feb. 24, 2003)

If we didn't know it before, 9/11 should have taught us that airplanes are a weapon of choice for terrorists. Sure, they might fly one into a nuclear power plant, but they also might blow one up in the air which might come falling down on your house. Is there an evacuation plan that will warn you and allow you to get safely away from your house before the airplane falls on it? Heck, there isn't any kind of evacuation plan for airplanes falling on houses, let alone one that takes terrorism into account. We need to shut down all air traffic, too, at least until there's an evacuation plan that can be proven to save lives.

And then there's the matter of all the nasty chemicals that are being transported by rail and highway. If you live near a highway or a railroad track, have you ever been informed of what the evacuation plan is in the event of a terrorist attack involving deadly material in transport? No? Then we need to close down all the railroads, and keep all hazardous materials off the highways.

And what if there's a nuclear explosion in New York City? Is there an evacuation plan that takes this doomsday event into consideration? Has it ever been tested? Looks like we need to close down New York City and get all the people relocated elsewhere (Chappaqua would be a nice spot). You just can't be too sure.

The best way to react to terrorism is to recoil in terror. That's what the terrorists want, and appeasement is in vogue these days.

There Oughta Be a Law (Feb. 13, 2003)

In case you haven't watched it, the TV show "Mr. Sterling" is fairly good, even though its themes are undeniably "liberal," as you'd expect from the "mainstream" media. It's about a young idealist, the son of a very popular, retired Democrat politician, who is appointed to fill the seat of a senator who died in office. Only after he gets to Washington does he reveal that he isn't a Democrat. No, he's not a Republcan, either, but we're straying from the point.

In one episode of the show, the fictional Sen. Sterling is struggling to compute his income taxes. After spending many, many hours at the task, he introduces a bill making it a requirement that every member of Congress do their own taxes without assistance.

Of course, this fictional bill was quickly laid to rest, since the senator really only offered it to put pressure on his colleagues to force a compromise on another bill. But wouldn't that be a great idea, and something that "oughta be a law?"

I am right now in the middle of computing my own taxes, and frankly, these people have to be nuts to expect average Americans to do this themselves. My taxes would seem to be fairly simple. Normal income, a few typical deductions, and a few dollars from the sale of stock. You'd think that last item would be quite simple - subtract what I paid for it from what the proceeds were, and add a percentage of that to my tax bill. Guess again!

First, the needed form isn't in the tax package, so I have to go to their website to download one. Not a big problem, but wait until you have to fill it in! It refers you to five other forms plus another form and your last year's return. Of course, it doesn't give you a clue whether or not these forms apply to you, and of course, they aren't supplied in the tax package. If you got it from the library, you'll have to make a return trip to get all the other forms it sends you to. They most likely don't apply to you, but you never know. If I didn't have a computer, I'd have to waste gasoline traveling back and forth to the library to get all these forms. Does that mean the IRS is supporting terrorism? I'm getting sidetracked.

I didn't mention how difficult it was to find the right form from the website. First, I tried the obvious. The page has a place to enter a "search," so I typed in "capital gains." I got a long list, and the one on top (the one you'd expect to be the most commonly used) looked like it was what I wanted, based on the description. I printed it out, and there wasn't anything on it to clearly indicate that it didn't apply to me, so I tried to fill it out. I was about ready to send some dog droppings to the IRS when I discovered my error, and went back to get the right form. This time I went to a different page. When I brought up the forms page, it had a scrolling list of forms - a long list, and there wasn't any really good way to pick out the right one from the list. I didn't realize how long the list was until I got frustrated and downloaded the entire page to my computer so I could use some "computer magic" on it. Now I was able to count how many forms there were. You'd think a hundred would be a lot, right? Two hundred would be twice as bad! But what I found was that there were eight hundred and forty eight forms you'd have to scroll through to find the one you want. I'm tempted to order one copy of each of the forms and publications on the list. I wonder how many trucks it would take to deliver them all.

By the way, while I was mucking through the wrong form, I got to the last line and it referred me to "Schedule G, Form 1041." So off I went looking for it. Guess what! It doesn't seem to exist! I searched through the entire list of 848 forms and if it's in there, they hid it well. I couldn't find it.

Well I made a little progress today, but it looks as if I'll be at it for a while longer. I just can't imagine any member of congress doing this and not being completely outraged. Where is a real Sen. Sterling willing to inflict this pain on the Washington elites who foist it on us? There oughta be a law!

What Did Kofi Annan Really Say? (Feb. 09, 2003)

The Washington Post headline reads, "Annan Warns Bush Against Unilateral Attack on Iraq." A CNN story says, "U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan on Saturday urged the U.S. to seek international consensus before taking military action to disarm Saddam Hussein."

But is this what he Really said. I heard a good part of the speech, the part that is being quoted, and I got an entirely different impression of what he was saying.

"This is an issue not for any one state alone, but for the international community as a whole," Annan said. "When states decide to use force, not in self-defense but to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations Security Council," he said.

"When there is strong U.S. leadership, exercised through patient diplomatic persuasion and coalition-building, the United Nations is successful -- and the United States is successful," he said. "The United Nations is most useful to all its members, including the United States, when it is united and works as a source of collective action rather than discord," he said.

I understood him to be speaking to the security council. He was telling them to live up to their responsibilities to keep the U.N. from becoming irrelevant. His words about "consensus" and avoiding "discord" seemed to be aimed more at countries like France and Germany than the United States. Pay particular attention to that last sentence. It is being interpreted as being directed at the United States, but it clearly is not. He was talking about the U.N. Being useful TO the United States. The words are clear as day.

The question I have is, why are the "mainstream" media reporting this speech as a warning to Bush? None of the exerpts they use in their stories support this any more than they support the view that he was "warning" the Security Council to "face up to its responsibilities."

Where Is the Bias? (Feb. 04, 2003)

When Dutchess County District Attorney William Grady was asked to investigate the local Planned Parenthood facility for possibly covering up sexual abuse of minors, he apparently took the advice of Steve White, executive director of Planned Parenthood of the Mid-Hudson Valley, who said anything that Life Dynamics or STOPP says is "tainted" because of their biases. Life Dynamics, you may recall, is a pro-life organization that conducted a 'sting' operation which seemingly exposed a propensity of Planned Parenthood to cover up statutory rape.

It's typical of Planned Parenthood to respond with a 'bias' charge, since it deflects attention away from the cover-up issue. But would an unbiased District Attorney fall for such a ruse? The fact that Grady fell for it, in itself, doesn't tell us much, but when considered along with his past actions, it brings his own biases into question.

On Jan. 22, 2001, Helen Westover was peacefully picketing with a picture of an abortion victim, when she was accosted and arrested by Town of Poughkeepsie police. The prosecution that followed was vigorous, and DA Grady was up to his neck in it. But was it warranted? A subsequent $50,000 judgment in favor of Ms. Westover says it wasn't. So the question arises, would an unbiased DA have embarked on a course of action so blatantly in violation of the U.S. Constitution? I suggest this case calls Grady's motives into question, and brings under suspicion any further determinations he makes relating to this issue.

Grady claims that Planned Parenthood would be violating the law if it reported suspected cases of child sexual abuse without the consent of the victim. "For them to initiate a call to law enforcement under that example without the victim's consent would amount to professional misconduct on their part," he said. But that argument contains a serious flaw. The underlying premise of statutory rape laws is that a minor is legally incapable of giving consent, so "consent" in this context would seem to have no real meaning and carry no weight.

Now the question needs to be asked, is the word of a biased DA something the public should rely on? If it turns out that Grady is wrong in his legal determination, is he fit to remain in office? That's a question all Dutchess County residents may soon have to ask themselves. Fifty thousand dollars is a piddling amount compared to the damage being done to the victims of child sexual abuse.

Equal Opportunity or Equal Results (Jan. 31, 2003)

Unless you're living in a cave, it would be hard to miss the renewed interest in Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education programs or activities which receive Federal financial assistance. From the "news" coverage, you might come to the conclusion that the Bush administration's review of enforcement procedures is just another attack on women - the "liberal" media like to portray every "conservative" position as an "attack" on something.

Putting aside all the rhetoric, a real need for reform becomes apparent. As Linda Chavez wrote in a recent column, "The purpose of Title IX was to ensure that girls have equal opportunity to engage in school sports activities if they chose, not to guarantee that every school produces as many female athletes as male." Another way of putting it would be that equal opportunity does not require equal results. But the way Title IX is presently being interpreted by the feds, equal results are the only measure of compliance.

This myopic view ignores the reality that boys are more interested in sports than girls are, so if equal quotas of male and female athletes are demanded, more boys who want to participate in sports are going to be denied the opportunity. In this case, demanding equal results demands unequal opportunity. This goes against the nominal intent of the law.

Lost in the debate is another tidbit of information that was cursorily alluded to in an article in the Poughkeepsie Journal. The male to female ratio in college attendance has shrunk to the point where girls outnumber boys by 56% to 44%. If equal representation is our goal, where are the activists demanding a 50-50 split in college admissions? If equal results are the only measure of equal opportunity, the present over-representation of girls on college campuses is prima facie evidence of sex discrimination in admissions.

There are, of course, other explanations for why more girls go to college than boys do. One might be the hostile atmosphere engendered by misanthropic "Womens' Studies" programs on many campuses. Another might be that boys are quicker to recognize that colleges have, in large part, become nothing more than propaganda organs for the Left.

All things considered, it is clear that Title IX needs overhaul. Let's return the focus to opportunity, and expose quotas for what they are - bludgeons for militants who are more interested in advancing their pet causes than they are in equal opportunity.

Sharpton's Inferno (Jan. 22, 2003)

As I write this, news of a fire at the campaign headquarters of Al Sharpton is breaking. The fire is being described as "suspicious."

We can be sure that charges will be flying in the media, and most of them, no doubt, will be directed at "racist" Republicans. We can also be quite sure that the "mainstream" media will amplify the charges uncritically.

But a critical analysis would almost certainly point the finger of suspicion at Democrats, not Republicans. It isn't the Republicans who are alarmed at Sharpton's candidacy. In fact, most Republicans are rubbing their hands in glee. They know how uncomfortable Sharpton will make the Democrats, particularly Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. Recently, Sharpton was asked how he's going to respond to queries about his involvement in the Tawana Brawley affair. He answered that he's going to ask them to treat him the same way they've treated Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, i.e., the way they've avoided questions about Chappaquiddick and the Clinton scandals.

There's also the very real possibility that Sharpton himself is behind it. What better springboard to a campaign of racial politics could he employ?

Please don't take this as an accusation against anyone. I don't know any more about this than you do. But when the media start casting suspicion, keep in mind who would have the least to gain by such a despicable act, and that would be the Republicans.

Another Red Herring from the Left (Jan. 21, 2003)

After Pres. Bush made his historical speech against racial quotas at the University of Michigan, the Left, predictably, counterattacked by claiming that Bush was admitted to Yale based on discriminatory practices, and therefore Bush is a hypocrite for opposing discrimination. This argument, like just about everything the Left says, is bogus. In fact, it's a red herring, and I'll explain why.

As president of the United States, Mr. Bush is sworn to defend the Constitution, and racial discrimination by the government is clearly unconstitutional.

But contrary to what the Left would have us believe, the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination in any form by citizens and private organizations. The Constitution was never meant to dictate to citizens, its purpose is to define and restrict the powers of government. Therein lies the fallacy behind the Lefts protestations.

The University of Michigan, the subject of Bush's speech, is a government entity, and therefore subject to constitutional restrictions. Yale University, on the other hand, is a private institution, and therefore constitutionally outside the control of government (would that it were so). The federal government constitutionally has no power to dictate to Yale University what standards it must apply in its acceptance procedures.

When a president swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," that oath isn't waived if it might result in some personal embarassment. And it wouldn't matter if Yale's alleged discrimination in favor of Bush was unconstitutional (and it isn't), he'd still have to uphold his oath. I understand how that concept could be forgotten after eight years of the previous administration.

Getting Even (Jan. 17, 2003)

The media made a big story out of a day-care worker pulling a child's hair to teach her a lesson. I remember when such a story wouldn't see the light of day, but that's another issue.

This story reminded me of the affirmative action debate currently being waged. Let's suppose that the worker, instead of pulling the child's hair herself, had told the other child to pull the hair-puller's hair to show her what it felt like. You might not like the idea, but you'd have to acknowledge a certain justice in it. But now let's suppose that instead of letting the first victim pull the hair-puller's hair, let's wait a few decades, and then tell the victims grandchild to pull the hair-puller's grandchild's hair to teach her what her grandmother felt.

Sounds silly doesn't it? But that's pretty much what affirmative action seems to be about. They're really not talking about equality of opportunity. Listen closely to what they're saying and it's clear that it's mostly about getting even. And it's not even about injustices to the current generation, but about past injustices. Certainly, we have to acknowledge that such injustices existed, but they don't tell the whole story. Hundreds of thousands were killed or wounded in the war to end slavery. But whenever you mention that in the context of affirmative action or reparations, you're told the war was about "states' rights," not about slavery. But when you're talking about the Confederate battle flag, then the war was about slavery. Go figure!

Right Track, Wrong Train (Jan. 7, 2003)

President Bush is making a sensible and fair proposal to reduce or eliminate the tax on corporate dividends payed to stockholder. This is a good proposal, but not the best way to achieve his objective.

The nominal purpose of this proposed tax break is to stimulate the economy and eliminate an unfair tax, but the best way to achieve these goals is not to eliminate the tax on the receivers of dividends, but to apply the tax break to corporaions which pay dividends.

The problem with #1 is that a lot of the dividends are already sheltered from taxation by virtue of being paid into retirement accounts. Present tax law, however, requires that payments from sheltered retirement accounts (IRAs, 401Ks) be taxed as ordinary income. So even if the tax on dividends is removed, the money paid as dividends would still be subject to tax when a retiree withdraws money from the account. To get around this, the tax laws would have to be revised in such a way that figuring the tax on withdrawn money would be an accounting nightmare. H&R Block might like this approach, but anyone who figures their own taxes is going to hate it.

It's also somewhat doubtful that corporations would be more inclined to pay dividends. While it would make dividend-paying stocks more attractive, there really wouldn't be much more incentive for corporations to pay them, except on the expectation that it might increase their stock price. Letting corporations account for dividends as a before-tax expense would have a much greater influence on their decision, in my view.

So let's applaud Pres. Bush for attacking this unfair double taxation, but let's also suggest that it be done in a more sensible way. Sure, it would be attacked by class-war Democrats as "corporate welfare," but they're already attacking the present proposal as a "tax break for the wealthy." Taxing at the corporate level would, in reality, be more fair, since it wouldn't discriminate against retirees.

Defending Evil (Jan. 5, 2003)

In a column published Jan. 5 in the Poughkeepsie Journal, DeWayne Wickham defends Sen. Patty Murray's paean to Osama bin Laden. (I have been unable to find the column online) "Unfortunately for the nation, Murray's comment didn't get more attention," Wickham suggests. He goes on to say, "The question she raised is quite compelling ..." He ends the column, "As the nation tumbles deep into this political abyss spawned by the deadly terrorist attacks he ordered on this country, there is little interest in determining why bin Laden is so well-liked - and the United States is so despised - in the Islamic world."

In aftermath of Sen. Lott's apparent expression of nostalgia for the bad old days of segregation, I didn't hear or read a single Republican or conservative (and CERTAINLY no Democrat) ask me to try to understand segregations appeal. To understand some things, you only need to understand good and evil. Segregation is one of those things, and terrorism is another. Bin Laden is a terrorist, that's all I need to understand.

By the way, Sen. Murray didn't JUST say we should try to understand why bin Laden is so popular, she included a back-handed condemnation of the United States in her bluster. "How would they look at us today if we had been there helping them with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?" she asked.

Maybe I'd be tempted to dismiss her as just another dumb senator with foot-in-mouth disease, if it wasn't for that last bit. And frankly, I don't understand why anyone would want to defend her, particularly someone as astute as you.

Saying What We Think (Jan. 3, 2003)

"[Trent Lott] just embarrassed [Republicans] by saying in Washington what they do on the back roads every day. How do they think they got a majority in the South anyway? I think what they are really upset about is that he made public their strategy [to suppress black voters and appeal to white racists]." --America's first black president, Bill Clinton

One thing you learn about "liberals" is that when they start making accusations about others, it's usually to divert attention from their own sins. So let's take a close look at Clinton's words and see if we can figure out what they're trying to hide.

The big thing that jumps out is that he's got it all wrong about Republicans being "embarrassed." Virtually every one I encountered was either outraged or dumbfounded. Where does Clinton get the idea that they (we) were "embarrassed?"

First, we have to ask how do people act when they're embarrassed? Usually, they try to ignore the source of embarrassment, or pretend it didn't happen. But that's not how Republicans reacted. Even Pres. Bush made a very strong statement against Lott's mental lapse. But that is how "liberals," and their media allies, reacted to Sen. Patty Murray's anti-American paean to Osama bin Laden.

Is it all starting to fit together yet? Could Bill Clinton be trying to hide his own embarrassment at the Democrats exposing themselves as anti-American and sympathetic to terrorists? Well he did once say he "loathed" the [U.S.] military.

The Real Segregationists (Jan. 2, 2003)

Listening to "liberals" accusing Trent Lott of nostalgia for the bad old days of segregation makes me laugh. Never mind that Lott's legislative record is impeccable on the real racial issues. You'd think, from the leftist hysteria, that Lott, and indeed all Republicans, pine for the days of Jim Crow.

What makes the situation so laughable is that there is a segregationist faction in the U.S., but while the accusers are pointing at Republicans, their other fingers are pointing back at themselves, and for good reason. Here are some examples of what the real segregationists are up to.

In order to understand all this, you have to realize that to a "liberal," it's more important what you say than what you do. That's how Bill Clinton got away with treating women like dirt. He always said the "right" things on women's issues.

More Legislating Morality (Dec. 19, 2002)

New York Governor George Pataki, Republican (in name only), has just signed a law further restricting the rights of property owners for the purpose of forcing them to abide by the morality of the left.

It certainly can be argued that refusing to rent to a person or couple because you disprove of their "lifestyle" is immoral, but when that argument is turned into law, it steps on the rights of property owners to do with their property what they want.

Where are all the "rights" people on this? Where are all the opponents of "legislating morality?"

Lott Should Resign (Dec. 11, 2002)

If you're a regular reader here, you probably noticed a criticism of the media for dwelling on Trent Lott's "racist" comments while it ignored similar comments made by Democrats. I'm not retracting any criticism of the media. I believe it is unconscionably biased, but that doesn't mean Lott should get off scott free, any more than Robert Byrd should have.

When you're the party that supposedly stands for what is right, you can't excuse your own sins because the other guys get away with it. You have to do what is right - what is best for the country and what is best for the party, in that order. I've read and re-read Lott's comment, made at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday bash, and I can't see how it can be interpreted as anything but nostalgia for the bad old days of forced segregation. Here it is one more time:

I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either.

If Lott were just any old senator, an apology would suffice, at least until his next election. But he isn't any old senator, he's the Senate Majority Leader. Any senator who supports him in that position will be tarred with the same brush. In January, when the new Congress is sworn in, they'll have a new election for Majority Leader. If Lott is a true leader, he won't put his fellow Republican senators in a spot where they have to vote for or against him. He should make it clear now that he is not running for Majority Leader next term, and let the maneuvering begin by potential successors.

Should he resign from the senate? Certainly not. That's for the voters of Mississippi to decide.

Letter to the Editor (Poughkeepsie Journal) (Printed Dec. 7, 2002)

Over the last year, a pro-life organization called Life Dynamics reported that it had conducted a ''sting'' operation. They say they called more than 800 Planned Parenthood facilities, having a woman pose as a 13-year-old girl pregnant by her 22-year-old boyfriend. At no time did she suggest that her parents might become abusive because of her sexual activity. The results were shocking. The PP employees overwhelmingly agreed to conceal the crime, many of them actually coaching the girl to lie about, or conceal, the age of her boyfriend. All these calls were recorded.

You can choose for yourself whether or not to believe that all Planned Parenthood clinics, including Dutchess County's, are participating in this alleged coverup. But if you choose to disbelieve, be willing to ask Dutchess County Planned Parenthood how many cases of statutory rape they have reported. If the answer is none, as I suspect, you can reasonably assume three explanations:

I believe No. 1 is simply beyond belief. Numbers 2 and 3 are almost equally damning. If they plead ignorance, they are admitting they do not inquire about the paternity of the fetuses they kill. If that's the case, they have no cause to ever refer to their victims as ''unwanted.''

Another question you might ask is why the Poughkeepsie Journal has refused to report this potentially explosive story.

Figures Don't Lie (Dec. 2, 2002)

The Left has become very adept at spinning any "conservative" initiative into an attack on someone. So I shouldn't have been surprised at the column, by E.J. Dionne Jr., which appeared in the Poughkeepsie Journal Sunday, Dec. 1. The column's headline read, "Right wants to tax and spend poor's money."

Dionne attacks a Wall Street Journal editorial which points out that as more and more of the tax burden is transferred to the "rich," the percentage of people paying little or no tax is growing, and since these people vote, they represent a growing constituency which has no incentive to vote against politicians who want to continually increase spending. But Dionne chose to misrepresent the Wall Street Journal's position to make it look like they were pushing for more taxes on the poor.

Dionne did, however, cite one thing accurately from the Wall Street Journal editorial. It reported that taxpayers with incomes over $500,000 pay 28% of all income taxes! He glosses this over as if it's insignificant, but it's not.

The Wall Street Journal got their information from the IRS. You can access the same information (in an Excel spreadsheet) by clicking here. There's some real eye-opening stuff in it. For instance, those people paying a whopping 28% of all income taxes comprise only about one-half of one percent of taxpayers! And what if they weren't making all that money, what would the rest of us have to pay to make up the difference? Let's go to the spreadsheet to find out. Using the latest data (from tax year 2000), we find that returns with Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) between $50,000 and $75,000 pay an average of $6778. If that one-half of one percent paying 28% of taxes were suddenly reduced to poverty and the rest of us had to pick up the slack, we'd find that that $6778 would have to rise to a whopping $10,932 to make up the difference (assuming the proportionality of all income groups remained the same).

That last statistic is particularly disturbing, considering it makes up an electoral majority, and that was the point of the Wall Street Journal editorial which Mr. Dionne twisted into knots. And don't expect the Poughkeepsie Journal to report the truth that Dionne tried so hard to obfuscate.

Knee-jerk Journalism (Nov. 23, 2002)

All "environmental" regulations are good, any relaxation of regulations is bad. That's the message conveyed by the editorial in the Poughkeepsie Journal today.

I find it hard to believe that the Journal's editors are so knowledeable that they can thoroughly analyze the impact of a change in environmental regulations overnight. But this "analysis," with the headline, Bush clean air decision stinks," comes on the same day the paper reports on the EPA regulation changes.

They base their criticism on attacks made by Sen. Schumer, hardly a subjective source, and his echo, Sen. Hillary Clinton. They point out that the coal and oil industries contributed to Republican campaign coffers, but make no mention of similar gifts to the aforementioned politicians.

The truth which partisans like Schumer and Clinton try to obscure is that Republcans breathe the same air as Democrats and drink the same water. Republicans fish in Adirondack lakes. Republicans are every bit as interested in clean air and clean water as anyone else is. The difference is that Republicans don't assume that every regulation is beneficial, just because it has "Environmental" in its title.

All too often, we see the results of "environmental" regulations and laws being counterproductive, sometimes even harmful to the environment. This is why the knee-jerk approach, exemplified by the Journal's editorial, must be avoided. Thoughtful analysis isn't done overnight.

The Reproductive Rights Hoax (Nov. 4, 2002)

Imagine a U.N. conference on the world food supply. Now suppose that the participants in this conference made a big issue of "land use rights," meaning that owners of land should have the right to do whatever they wanted with their land. OK, so it would ensure land owners the right to grow food on their land, but it would also ensure the right for them to do whatever else they wanted with their land, including turning farmland into tract housing, or scrap yards for used SUVs.

Knowing that the purpose of the conference was to protect the food supply, you'd be justified in suspecting the motives of those supporting "land use rights." So should we suspect the motives of participants in a "Population Conference" who turned it into a platform for "reproductive rights." The Bush administration wisely recognized this as nothing more than promotion of abortion as population control, and you should too. You see, "reproductive rights" would necessarily include the right to have as many children as you wanted, and that is certainly not what the population control freaks have in mind.

Think about everything you've heard from the "Pro-Choice" crowd. They tell us that if we aren't willing to pay for a poor woman's abortion, we're denying her her "reproductive rights." But if she's only looking for an abortion because she can't afford another child, anyone not willing to assume support of the child is also denying her "reproductive rights." This, of course, can be extended to include as many children as she wants to have, and it doesn't matter why she wants to have children. Maybe she just wants a steady stream so that she'll always have baby-sitters for the new ones.

So it's very clear that real "reproductive rights" could be antithetical to the aims of a population conference. So why do they tout them as if they weren't? Because Bush is right. "Reproductive rights" are nothing more than a pro-abortion bludgeon to beat people with who oppose abortion - you oppose abortion, you oppose "reproductive rights." It's how the adolescent Left gets its way.

Real Election Reform (Nov. 1, 2002)

Did you know that candidates for political office can say anything about their opponents, whether it's true or not? Let a soap company make false claims in ads about another company's soap, and the law will come down on its head. Well, maybe that's how it needs to be. If political ads are going to be subject to a "truth" test before being aired, who is going to enforce "truth?" The sad truth is that no one can be trusted with such a task.

So what's the answer? There is no complete answer, but here's something that might help. What if every radio and TV ad had to be preceded by a disclaimer explaining that "truth in advertising" laws do not apply to political ads? I'm convinced that a great many people actually think that the lies they hear in these ads are truth. These dimwits need to be educated, and such a disclaimer might do it.

Leftists Playing Dumb(Oct. 29, 2002)

The Left obviously knows about the "erosion" of "rights." They cite its spectre every time any sensible restrictions on abortion, e.g,, are proposed. So their pretense of not understanding the Right's arguments against ballistic "fingerprinting" are a bit more than disingenuous.

That last one is the killer, as far as I'm concerned. I also find it atrocious that the Left is using the "tragedies" of the "sniper's" victims to advance their agenda of disarming law-abiding American citizens. They certainly know what they're doing, they recognize the technique when it's employed against their pet agendas. But for them to acknowledge their hypocrisy might be too much to expect. After all, if there is one thing lacking in Leftists, it's honesty.

And, of course, we can't expect the media to honestly report on the debate. After all, the media are controlled by Leftists.

Democrats Stiff another Black (Oct. 10, 2002)

Carl McCall is complaining that the Democrat National Committee (DNC) is not coming through on promises for financial support for his campaign. This is very odd, since the chairman of the DNC is Terry McAuliff who was hand-picked by Bill Clinton. Perhaps Clinton was too busy basking the glory of being inducted into the Black Hall of Fame to notice that a well-qualified black Democrat, running in his "home" state, needed help. Or perhaps this is just another example of how Democrats treat blacks - long on promises and short on results.

The only question remaining unanswered is, why do blacks continue to vote for Democrats in overwhelming numbers?

Retro-Choice Strikes Again (Oct. 4, 2002)

According to Bob "The Torch" Torricelli's campaign ads, his record is 100% for "choice." Does that mean he's for school choice? Not really. Does it mean he's for choice in how our Social Security funds are invested? Nah! Maybe he supports the choice to own a gun to protect your family. Are you kidding? What about taxpayers' choice of which "needy" people to give money to? Get real! Governent decides that, according to leftists like "The Torch."

No, the only real "choice" these leftists are for is the "choice" to negate the consequences of bad choices, which is what the abortion issue is all about. I like to call it "retro-choice."

So why should we be surprised at the shenanigans of the New Jersey Demorat Party? It's just "retro-choice" taken to a new level. The Democrats in New Jersey made a choice - to put Torricelli on the ballot and ingore all the corruption. It didn't work out the way they planned, the voters weren't as willing to turn a blind eye as the party hacks had calculated. So why should they have to live with their bad choice? Women don't have to, why should they?

Never mind that the Forrester campaign had already spent large amounts of money on a campaign aimed at Torricelli. That's Forrester's tough luck. Never mind that Forrester only had a few days to formulate a case in New Jersey's Supreme Court. The Democrats probably had this planned long ago, including all the legal arguments.

It's not fair, but so what? The only thing that matters is that Democrats maintain control of the Senate. Torricelli admitted it in his withdrawal (actually concession) speech. They made a bad choice and it was probably going to cost them big time. They already have "retro-choice" as a legal principle, so why not use it when they need it? It all makes perfect sense.

The Reparations Issue

Judging by the letters in response, I believe the Poughkeepsie Journal did a disservice with its reader survey on reparations to descendants of slaves. When one response is, "they should go back to Africa," the question arises, who is "they?" Is the respondant referring to all blacks, which could be interpreted as racist, or is he making an understandable response to what he believes is extortion.

I would agree with the latter. Nowhere, in any of the arguments presented for reparations, is there any indication that it would solve anything. Proponents never seem to promise that once reparations are paid, they'd consider the slate clean. Anyone who has been the target of an extortionist knows that paying off once doesn't preclude the extortionist from coming back again and again for more and more.

If the issue really is about something "owed," why don't those demanding payment demand it from all parties involved? The United States inherited the slavery issue from the British Empire Why aren't they demanding reparations from the British? It would be more appropriate than demanding money from descendants of people who fought and died to win the slaves' freedom. And what about the slave traders' African accomplices? Why are they exempt? The answers to these questions are tied to the real reason for the reparations demands. It's not about settling an old debt, it's really about maintaining race as a dividing force, upon which race hustlers, like Al Sharpton and Je$$e Jack$on can feed and maintain their lavish lifestyles.

When you get right down to it, the race issue will never be solved until blacks are willing to offer forgiveness, and real forgiveness cannot be bought. An apology by whites is meaningless because the perpetrators are all dead. Whites can't undo the past, but blacks have the power to heal their own wounds. As long as they allow demagogues like Sharpton and Jack$on to keep those wounds open and festering, they will never be satisfied. A reparations check will do no more good than affirmative action quotas.

Less Liberals, Less Crime

It's amazing what you can learn by reading advice columns. Take this for instance. Recently, the column in the Poughkeepsie Journal ran a letter from a woman who wanted to know if she should report a crime. She had been accosted by a man with a knife who wanted her to give him her car keys. When she reached into her purse for the keys, she found a gun which she brandished, and the man ran off.

The gun was not licensed in the state where this happened, so the woman was justifiably afraid that if she reported the crime, she might be in trouble herself. That was good thinking on her part, because in some places, she'd have been in much more trouble than the guy trying to hijack her car.

But that's not the point I want to make. The letter made me wonder how many other crimes go unreported because the intended victim scared the perpetrator off with a gun.

In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, John R. Lott Jr. makes the case, as the title proclaims, that people who are armed are less likely to be victims of crime. The results of Great Britain's disarming of its citizens bears this out, as crime has soared now that an armed victim has more to fear from the law than the criminals do.

"Liberals," of course, don't want facts to get in the way of their agenda, and facts that remain hidden are facts that they don't even have to bother trying to refute. Intended victims of crimes, afraid to report the attempted crime for fear of being prosecuted for the act of self-defense, are such facts. As far as "liberals" are concerned, they never happen, and the tougher the gun laws, the less likely they are to "happen." And they don't even have to take blame for crimes which would be perpetrated if some people weren't bold enough to defy their stupid laws.

Marriage Can't Fix This

Kathleen Parker usually writes a pretty good column, even though she's on the wrong side of the "choice" issue. So when I read the headline over her last column, which appeared in the Aug. 11 issue of the Poughkeepsie Journal, I was expecting a good article.

The headline read, "Marriage may be man and child's best hope," which sounds like something which could lead to a good argument. Unfortunately, she never actually made it.

She used as a lead-in, the story about the Pennsylvania woman whose former boyfriend wanted custody of her unborn child, and got a temporary restraining order from a judge, who later reversed himself, preventing her from having an abortion. As Parker circled the issue, it became clear to me that the argument she was trying to make is impossible to make. Marriage doesn't make this situation any better. In my view, it could make it worse. Had the man been married to the woman, he would have had not a single additional "reproductive right" to custody of the child. The law doesn't give a damn whether or not a man is married to the mother of his child, she, and she alone holds all the cards. If she wishes to kill the child, he is legally powerless to stop her!

After Parker makes a passing reference to this, she tries to cover her bases by noting that it's not fair that men have no say in the matter, but are forced to pay child support based solely on the woman's "choice." She says, "Under my dictatorship, this would be disallowed. If a woman can make the choice to abort or have a baby without the father's consent, she can do so without his financial support. Fair is fair." Fair to whom? Certainly not fair to the child, but then, "choice" isn't about children.

If she proved anything, Ms. Parker did demonstrate how making abortion a "right" has created more problems than it solves. I don't think that's what she was trying for, though.

The Source of Our Rights

In a letter to the Poughkeepsie Journal, Camilla Wygan stated, "Our rights as American citizens, including the right to privacy articulated by Roe vs. Wade, do not come from God. They come from the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the next 17 amendments." She's partly correct. The "right" to an abortion did not come from "God," it came from seven men in black robes. Nothing in the Constitution grants a right to kill unborn children, nor is there mentioned the right to "privacy" upon which Roe Vs. Wade was based!

But is she justified to say that our rights come from the Constitution? One needs only to read that document to come to an opposite conclusion. Starting at Amendment I, we read the following: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The rights it addresses are not granted by this amendment. The language clearly implies that the rights already exist! The amendment merely prohibits the government from interfering with them.

Where, then, do our rights come from? The founding fathers settled that matter when they wrote the Declaration of Independence. Their declaration was revolutionary in more than one sense. For the first time in human history, a "self-evident" truth was made a foundation of government - that human rights are not granted by a king, or by a church, or by a court, or even by democracy - they emanate from our "Creator."

One does not even have to believe in "God" to appreciate the fact that our government recognizes an authority higher than any man as the source of our rights. As long as we believe it, no human can take our rights away. When we stop believing it, tyranny is just around the corner.

The Price of Liberty

Leftists have exhibited great vigilance and skepticism regarding perceived losses of liberty allegedly necessitated by the "War on terrorism." For that, I have no quarrel with them, but I have to ask of them, where were you when it wasn't you who was the suspected future perpetrator?

For instance, now that the FBI has been authorized to monitor web sites for possible terrorist activity, this is seen as a new threat to our liberty. but, when the subject was a web site listing the names of abortionists, they not only demanded it be monitored, they demanded it be shut down!

The FBI's new quidelines were enacted in response to a "new" direction for the FBI. In addition looking for evidence of actual crimes, they now have the added responsibility for gathering information needed to PREVENT crimes (i.e., terrorist acts). But is this actually something new? Not really.

The federal government has been profiling certain individuals as suspected future perpetrators for some time. They've done it in the form of what has been dubbed the "FACE" law, which profiles all pro-lifers as potential murderers and bombers, and treats them accordingly. And where were all the leftists when these liberties were being trampled on? They were on the sidelines demanding they be enacted.

Then there's the matter of the Kyoto Treaty. This abomination has the potential of being the most destructive instrument against individual liberty in the history of the U.S. Again, where are the leftists on this issue? Right up there cheering it on.

Boy Scouts Vindicated (Letter to the Editor)

The following letter was published in the Poughkeepsie Journal on May 8. The interesting thing about it is that while the subject of the letter was clearly about how the "scandal" vindicates the Boy Scouts, the Journal editor put a headline over the story saying, "Homosexuality is real Catholic issue."

I applaud letter writer W. Dukehart for courageously stating what is becoming increasingly obvious, that the "scandal" in the Catholic clergy is not one of pedophilia, but of homosexual priests molesting teenage boys. What is also apparent, but being studiously ignored by the "mainstream" media is that this "scandal" is complete vindication of the Boy Scouts and their policy against homosexual scoutmasters.

Columnist John Leo wrote, "Most sexual victims of priests are teenage boys - perhaps 95 percent, according to one estimate." Defenders of the homosexual agenda say there are far more heterosexual cases of child molestation than homosexual, but this does not take into account that there are perhaps fifty heterosexuals for every homosexual. The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal reports, "Current research conducted by psychologist Eugene Abel finds that homosexual predators 'sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring five times greater than the molestation of girls,' and that non-incarcerated homosexual child molesters 'admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender.'" It goes on to say, "Dr. Judith Reisman says, 'The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering. Abel's data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal in heterosexual [assaults on girls].'"

The Boy Scouts deserve credit for their courageous stand. Now we know they were right all along.

Boy Scouts Vindicated

If you are looking for the silver lining to the cloud hanging over the Catholic clergy, it is this. The scandal provides complete vindication to the Boy Scouts of America in their battle with the "politically correct" homosexuality normalization forces. The "mainstream" media, as active participants in the PC agenda, are obscuring the truth by using gender non-specific words whenever reporting on molestation incidents where the victim is a male, but according to a column by John Leo, as many as 95% of the reported cases of molestation by priests have teenage boys as victims.

The pro-homosexual minions try to obscure the facts by pointing out, truthfully, that most pedophiles are heterosexual. This is a red herring argument, and after being out in the open for a while, it just stinks. Pedophilia, being a psychological disorder, can be expected to be present in homosexuals in about the same proportion as there are homosexuals in the general population, so if 3% of the general population are homosexuals, you could expect only about 3% of pedophiles to be homosexual, and obviously, that's a much lower number than the number of heterosexual pedophilies. But that's not the major problem in the Catholic clergy, and that's not the problem the Boy Scouts face. The bulk of that problem isn't one of "pedophilia," as Leo points out, but molestation of teenage boys. Homosexual men don't molest (or engage in "consenting" relationships with) teenage boys because of a psychological disorder like pedophilia. They do it as a rational response to the threat of AIDS! Younger boys are less likely to be infected.

The book, "Goodbye! Good Men - How Catholic Seminaries Turned Away Two Generations of Vocations from the Priesthood" - by Michael S. Rose, describes Catholic seminaries as places where a "gay culture" drives away healthy, heterosexual men. We can only guess what would happen to the Boy Scouts if they opened their ranks of scoutmasters to homosexuals. Might homosexuals take over there, too, and drag the Scouts into a raging sex scandal? If it happened, though, you can bet that the media wouldn't be making such a big deal out of it.

So far, I've not seen any major commentators making this point, but sooner or later, the point will be made. When it is, rest assured that the response will be fierce and vocal. Nothing brings out the name-calling and insults like an obvious truth that exposes "politically correct" propaganda.

A Level Playing Field

The following was sent to the Poughkeepsie Journal as a letter to the editor (April 3, 2002):

What would you say if elections were held at the Social Security offices, and Social Security recipients had to go there on election day to get their checks? The election turnout would be unfairly skewed in favor of senior citizens' interests, wouldn't you agree? The rest of us would most likely be up in arms at this situation, I have no doubt.

So why do we allow a stikingly similar situation to exist in our school budget votes? Whenever I go to a budget vote, the auditorium is packed with parents. Is it a coincidence that schools schedule programs for parents on budget election days? I sincerely doubt it!

There are signs posted outside polling places prohibiting electioneering on the premises. How do we know that no one in that auditorium is urging the parents to get out and vote for the budget? It's impossible to enforce the election laws when the schools use this ploy to get a vote favorable to the teachers union.

As senior citizens find their school tax bills far outpacing fixed incomes, they soon find themselves forced to sell their homes. Education is important, but so is the welfare of seniors. If we pay teachers tons of money while driving the childrens' grandparents to Florida, are the children really benefitting? If you agree with me that school budget votes need a level playing field, please e-mail me and visit web site "Mid-Hudson Valley Perspective" (www.mhvperspective.com).

Who is Responsible?

Marc Moran, Regional Director Region 3, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New Paltz, sent a letter to the Poughkeepsie Journal which appeared June 29, on the subject of MTBE contamination of groundwater. Near the end of the letter, he says, "DEC also is aggressively pursuing remediation of the pollution, and is working to bring the responsible parties to justice." What a joke! We can be sure that whomever is "brought to justice", it won't be the government bureaucrats who are ultimately responsible for this disaster. In case you're wondering what MTBE is, it's an additive to gasoline which the government mandated, supposedly to reduce air pollution. Of course, the government, in rushing to do something, didn't take the time to learn the dangers of this chemical, but even if they had, you'd have to wonder if it would have changed anything. Consider the rush to do something about Hudson River PCBs. People up and down the river are warning them of the dangers, but we all know that the decision has already been made, dredging will go forward. When things go bad, when PCBs and other chemicals get stirred up and sucked into water systems, whom do you suppose will take responsibility? Do you think Gov. Pataki will? No, he and all the rest will be too busy pointing fingers at anyone else they can blame. Count on it!

The Patients' Bill of Goods (a.k.a. Patients' Bill of Rights)

If you've been paying attention to the "liberal" media's demonization of HMOs, which is in sharp contrast to surveys which show that most people are satisfied with them, you have to wonder what their ultimate goal is. Is it, you might ask, to make private insurance so expensive and over-regulated as to make the take-over by the government more palatable? Perhaps that is in the minds of the more devious, such as Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, but I think there is a more basic political motive.

The scheme's main sponsors are most adamant about making employers vulnerable to lawsuits arising from alleged withholding of care. Arguments emphasizing the disincentive to employers for providing health insurance are brushed aside as if they are meaningless, despite the fact that simple common sense tells us that's exactly what the end result will be. So who will benefit from such a chain of events? Unions, of course, and from whence does the Democrat Party gain huge amounts of funding and support? Unions, of course!

Unions, you see, have the leverage to force employers to shoulder the risk. Small businesses, which are largely non-union, will feel the brunt. They can't afford the risk which will accompany health care coverage for their employers. Many will be faced with a choice of not providing coverage, going out of business, or being taken over by larger, more likely unionized companies.

If Congress made health insurance costs tax-deductible, those small businesses could simply give their employees the money they currently pay for health care and let them buy it themselves, letting the companies off the hook. Of course, a Congress under the control of unions isn't likely to allow that to happen. The small businesses, however, won't have much choice but to make changes, and if they drop coverage and employees find themselves paying for insurance out of their own pockets and paying taxes on the money, they will find themselves targets of unionization efforts. Many will be successful.

Female Hormones Out of Control

Remember the good old days when feminists told us that women and men are exactly the same, and that treating women differently in the workplace, e.g., because of "female hormones", simply wasn't acceptable? Now along comes this "mother" who drowns her five children like a litter of unwanted kittens, and everyone is blaming "post-partum depression". I say, balderdash! If depression was the culprit, that woman would have killed herself after killing her children, but she didn't.

There seems to be a very real possibility that this woman, possible with the collusion of her husband, planned the whole episode as a path to wealth and fame (what everyone aspires to these days). Last week, Sean Hannity interviewed the author of a book which claims that many psychotropic drugs being prescribed today are causing bizarre behavior in the people taking them. Someone reading that book might see a way to extract zillions of dollars from a drug company. I'm not saying that's what this couple did, but I will say that their behavior, particularly the husbands, leads me to serious consideration of that as a possible explanation. I know that I, as a father, would not be so quick to offer support for a wife who had just killed off all of our children, no matter what she blamed for her behavior.

In any event, they're almost guaranteed a book deal worth millions, and the woman has a darn good chance of getting off scot-free. I'd say the chances of her doing any serious jail time are approximately nil.

Letter to the Poughkeepsie Journal - sent June 21, 2001

Not long ago, a study was published claiming that at least some homosexuals could be converted to heterosexuality. Predictably, homosexual activists attacked the study, and the "liberal" media largely ignored it. Why were pro-homosexual "liberals" so opposed to the conclusions in this study? The answer is simple. If homosexuals can be converted to heterosexuality, the opposite is probably true also. Homosexual activists, in their quest for normalization of their "lifestyle", have based their attack on the Boy Scouts, e.g., on the notion that homosexual scoutmasters cannot convert heterosexual boys to homosexuality. If this is shown to be false, the Scouts' position takes on a whole new life.

So along comes a new study, again mostly avoided by the "liberal" media. This study, by two University of Southern California sociologists, concludes that children with homosexual parents are less confined by gender stereotypes and are probably more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves. The researchers said children with same-sex parents "seem to grow up to be more open to homeoerotic relations." The Boy Scouts seem to have a valid point!

Perhaps the supreme irony of all this is that while homosexual activists claim that their "sexual orientation" cannot be changed, their own attacks have been directly against the "sexual orientation" of heterosexuals, whose sexuality is expressed in both an attraction to the opposite sex and an aversion to same-sex sexual contact. But these activists and their "liberal" allies condemn an integral component of the heterosexual "orientation" as "homophobia", and seek to eradicate it. In the mean time, one of the most beneficial organizations in the country is made to look like the bad guys. (FYI, both New York senators voted against protecting the Boy Scouts from discrimination in the use of school facilities)

Why Did Jenna Do It?

Unlike the hands-off treatment afforded Chelsea Clinton and Al Gore's children, the coverage of Jenna Bush's mis-adventure was made into a media circus. When the double-standard was pointed out, the universal response was that when Jenna broke the law, she made it news. Did anyone ask Jenna why she did it? If so, I haven't read anything about it, and since I can't interview her myself, I can only surmise why a 19 year-old daughter of a president might do something so foolish as use a false ID to buy a drink. The fact that she wanted to buy a drink isn't much different from the desires of other under-age college students, so let's look at the question of why she would use a fake ID. Unlike Chelsea Clinton, Jenna Bush does not look that much different from legions of other college-age girls. If you saw her in the mall, you'd probably dismiss her as just another girl in the mall. When my young daughters want to buy a drink and are asked to produce ID, the ID they produce is unremarkable. It shows their age which the bartender verifies and then serves them their drinks. Their ID doesn't label them as anyone newsworthy. Not so for the children of newsmakers. They cannot do anything requiring an ID check and remain anonymous.

Maybe, just maybe Jenna was more interested in hiding her identity than her age. Unfortunately, we'll probably never know the answer.

Editors, Read Your Own Paper

June 8, 2001 - There was an interesting contrast on the editorial page of the Poughkeepsie Journal today. In the editorial column, there was an emotional appeal to the Bush administration to re-instate the drinking water arsenic standard imposed by Clinton's executive order just prior to his leaving office. Right next to that was an excellent column by Thomas Sowell on the unintended consequences of "feel-good" legislation. If you read Sowell first, you should see the Journal editorial as an excellent example of what he's writing about. There is absolutely no consideration of any 'unintended consequences" which might arise from enacting the Clinton standard. There is no thought whatsoever to the very real possibility that people, faced with the high costs of upgrading a public water supply, might abandon the public system and drill private wells, bypassing the regulations (and testing) altogether. The Bush administration wisely decided that the possibility of such inintended consequences warranted further study of the standard. For that they were pilloried by the "feel-good" crowd, Journal editors included.

Revisiting the TWA Flight 800 Disaster

The story hasn't made it into the mainstream press, but the mystery surrounding the flight 800 explosion and crash is back in the news (see May 31 story). Considering the way it was "concluded", it would be almost unimaginable that the story would have ended there. The explanations given by the FBI were simply not believable. First, they stated that they didn't know what caused the crash, but they definitely ruled out a criminal act. That's crazy! If they don't know what caused it, they certainly don't know everything that didn't cause it. There is no sane rationalization for ruling out a criminal act if you don't know the cause!

Then there's the matter of what they said was the most likely cause, i.e., some kind of spontaneous combustion in a fuel tank. A very reputable expert in fuels and fuel combustion has stated unequivocally that spontaneous combustion in a fuel tank could not have occurred. There have been millions of miles of jet aircraft flights without a single instance of spontaneous combustion in a fuel tank. You would think that under those circumstances, the government would have taken great pains to convince us that such an event was at least possible. You would have expected some kind of demonstration. There was none. Why not? Could it be because a demonstration would not have worked? I believe that the answer to that is yes.

If you conclude, as I have, that we were lied to, you have to wonder why. I'm still wondering but I haven't come to any conclusions.

Ethnic Stereotpes are Unavoidable (May 18, 2001)

Have you heard or seen the promos for the upcoming TV docu-drama on Anne Frank? I have, and as an American of German descent, I suppose I should be offended by the negative stereotype of Germans presented in this and every other movie and documentary about the Nazi era. Maybe, in order to not offend anyone, future productions of this genre should portray Nazis as some generic nationality, maybe even including blacks and asians. This makes as much sense as the current objections to HBO's production of The Sopranos. When Andrew Cuomo weighed in against the show, it was a pretty good indication that the charges of anti-Italian prejudices were pure baloney, and that's exactly what they are. That's because while it is true that not every American of Italian descent is a mafioso, it is true that to be in the Mafia is to be an Italian. Likewise, not all Germans are or were Nazis, but we can't get around the fact that the Nazis were Germans. In order to accurately characterize Nazis, it is necessary to portray them as they were, i.e., Germans. The only way to get around this negative stereotype of Germans would be to never again make a movie, a documentary or a book about the Nazis. Apparently, the Andrew Cuomos would decree that no one ever again make a movie, a documentary or a book about the Mafia. That's simply unacceptable.

Dems Caught in Another Lie

A few days ago, the Democrats in the U.S. Senate staged a boycott of the judicial nomination process. They were walking out, they said, because ofa long-standing tradition which allowed a single senator from a nominee's home state to veto that nomination, and the Republicans were not honoring this tradition. Sen. Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated emphatically that such a tradition did not exist. He said that, while a negative recommendation from a nominee's home state senator was always given great weight, no single senator was ever given such power. You might be tempted to classify this dispute as one of those he said-he said things, where you just don't know whom to believe. In this case, however, we do know whom to believe because there exists proof that this "tradition" did not exist as the Democrats claim, and that proof was widely reported in the press (and of course, they'll conveniently forget it).

Do you remember John Ashcroft's confirmation hearing? Do you remember the great hue and cry over the nomination of Judge Ronnie White which Ashcroft was accused of scuttling? The interesting thing about that case was that, while Ashcroft, as a senator from Judge White's home state, did oppose the nomination, and while Ashcroft did manage to convince other senators to vote against White, he did not have veto power over the nomination. If he had, the nomination would never have come up for a vote!

This dispute isn't about tradition and it isn't about fairness. The only thing this is about is the Democrats doing everything they can to sabotage the Bush presidency. It's getting to the point where people should be ashamed to be associated with these liars.

Who are They Kidding? (May 9, 2001)

Imagine a black man walking through a white neighborhood. Imagine someone calling 911 and reporting a black man walking through the neighborhood. Imagine the police show up, observe (or say they observe) the man committing some minor offense like spitting on the sidewalk. Now, try to imagine anyone believing the man was arrested for something other than the crime of being black in a white neighborhood!

This is pretty much the situation Helen Westover, of Mid-Hudson Stop Planned Parenthood (STOPP), found herself in while protesting against abortion in the Town of Poughkeepsie. Now she's getting her day in court, and it's hard to imagine any impartial judge not being able to see through this transparent and unconstitutional attempt to muzzle abortion protest.

On Jan. 22, Helen was picketing along Burnett Boulevard and someone called the police to complain about the graphic nature of her signs. The complaint wasn't about "disorderly conduct", the crime she was arrested for and charged with, it was about speech that the complainant didn't want seen in the light of day. The person was upset about the impact Helen's placard might have her eight year-old child. But isn't "impact" what free speech is all about? The child is very soon going to be subjected to sex "education' which is going to teach him that having sex is his "right" along with the "right" to avoid or negate the consequences. Of course, the "consequences" will be glossed over which is why Helen's placard showing an aborted fetus has become necessary to the complete education of all our young children.

Forget Trading With China

During the recent "crisis" with China,several people voiced the opinion that it was important to maintain trade with that country. Sean Hannity, for instance, said that once they get a taste of capitalism, the march to freedom will be unstoppable.

Sadly, I have to disagree with Mr. Hannity, as much as I normally agree with him. One only need look around this country to see that freedom is not something held as dearly by the masses as we would like to believe. Freedom frightens people! There are far too many people who don't want to be responsible for their own fate and would rather rely on government. If people really wanted freedom, politicians would campaign and win on it, but unfortunately, they have to campaign on how much security they're going to "give" the voters.

Even our own revolution was only supported by about 1/3 of the populace at the time. And in Russia, democracy and freedom are having a hard time taking hold because people remember the security the Communist regime offered them.

China doesn't want trade with the U.S. to better the lot of its people. It wants trade to provide money for its army, and any money the people get will be meant to reinforce the government's hold on them. We're not going to be doing the Chinese people any favors by propping up the Communist regime, and that's exactly what free trade with them will do.

I Told You So!

I've been saying for some time that there was a good possibility that the "foot-and-mouth" epidemic is the work of militant "animal rights" whackos. Now comes evidence that I was right all along. On page 4A of today's (April 12) Poughkeepsie Journal is a story about how the president of PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) is saying that an outbreak of the disease in this country would be "good for animals". She further said, "I openly hope it comes here." You would think this would be front-page news, wouldn't you? But when I went looking for this story on the internet, I found it on the ABC News website dated April 2! It took ten days to make it to page four of the Journal, and it has received scant attention anywhere else.

What I find particularly troubling about this is the way anti-abortion activists have been treated by the law and the media, compared to these criminals. We have even seen abortion protesters prosecuted as racketeers, but here we see an actual case of a group engaging in criminal activity, with the express intent of imposing their will through terrorist tactics, and they're treated almost as if they are heros.

There is a big difference, though, between abortion opponents and the PETA crowd. You don't see any anti-aborts willing to kill the children they're trying to protect. The fact that PETA would even consider this disease as a "good thing" is proof, as far as I'm concerned, that they're not really interested in saving animals, they're only interested in controlling the behavior of the rest of us. If they were really interested in the animals, having them die of a horrible disease would not be preferable to being slaughtered for food.

Here We Go Again!

If you've been a frequent visitor here, you could hardly have missed the articles and columns which suggest that the nation's current energy problems could lead to a resurgence of nuclear power. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that because nuclear power is making more and more sense, the anti-nuclear Luddites will be re-doubling their efforts to prevent another nuclear power plant from ever being built. My first hint was today when I heard a promo for the History Channel. Guess what they've suddenly decided to show and promote? None other than the old anti-nuclear propaganda movie "China Syndrome"! You can be sure that this movie will very soon be showing in a theater or network near you. Count on it!

This Controversy Misses the Point

In the Poughkeepsie Journal's daily opinion poll the other day, a solid majority came out in favor of forcing Catholic hospitals to abide by a new state law forcing employers to include contraception in their health insurance benefits. I'm sure you've heard the arguments about "separation of church and state", and it amazes me how anyone who values our constitution cannot be swayed by them, but I think they miss the point, which is that the state has no business demanding that such a "benefit" be afforded to anyone. Health insurance is supposed to be to pay for treatment of health problems and for health maintenance. Using birth control is a lifestyle choice. I can understand why insurance companies might want to provide it for economic reasons (it costs them less than childbirth and pediatric care), but there is no good reason for government to legislate to force them to pay for it. If people wish to make that lifestyle choice while working at a Catholic hospital, there's nothing in the world stopping them from making it. The hospitals don't tell their employees how they can spend their paychecks.

The masses been brainwashed into accepting the fact that peoples' "choices" must be respected and accepted. Now we're coming to the next step, that "choices" must not only be accepted, but subsidized! I have to wonder: what, do you suppose is the next step?

Will Hillary Follow in Pat's Footsteps?

One of Pat Moynihan's periodic laments was regarding the negative "balance of payments" New York's taxpayers experience with the federal government. He always made a great point about how New Yorkers weren't getting money back from the feds in proportion to what we pay. It's a fair complaint, bot NOT coming from someone who believes in income redistribution. If it's "fair" to take money from rich individuals in greater proportions, why isn't it "fair" to treat rich states the same way? New York is certainly a richer state than, say, Arkansas, so why shouldn't New York's riches be redistributed to poor states like Arkansas if the "liberal" Democrat philosophy defines "fairness"? So I'm going to be watching Hillary very closely to see if she carries on Moynihan's crusade. In fact, I'm hoping the press brings up the issue and demands an answer from her. It would be very interesting to hear if she'd take a stand against New York's taxpayers, which would be the only way she could be consistent with her opposition to tax cuts "for the rich".

Revealing Lies and Half-Truths About Bush's Budget

The Democrats are rolling out the big guns in an effort to defeat Pres. Bush's aggressive agenda. Nothing covers up your own failures better than the failures of your enemies, so what better method can the Democrats employ than to sabotage Bush to cover their own lack of leadership. Their method is to lie and distort, so our best weapon is the truth.

Let's look at these half-truths individually. First, I totally agree with #1 (except that I don't think a tax cut "costs" anything). But while they won't admit it, the Democrat's projections actually underscore a benefit of the tax cuts. The budget projections don't fully account for the increased revenue resulting from the tax cuts. They don't like to acknowledge the fact that the Reagan tax cuts resulted in revenues DOUBLING because of the increased economic activity that the tax cuts produced. When you calculate the taxes that would have been paid (at the higher rate) on the increased national cash flow, and call that a "cost" of the tax cut, then sure you can say the "cost" will be higher than what Bush is saying, but without the tax cut, that extra cash flow wouldn't occur. Don't expect the Dems to admit to any of this, though.

Second, distortion #2 neglects to mention a very important fact, one which Pres. Bush touched on in his speech but, in my opinion, not forcefully enough. The way the debt is structured, it would be impossible to retire more of the debt than Bush plans to without engaging in what many would call "immoral" behavior such as calling in notes before they are due. The debt is held by people who rely on the interest for their savings for college and retirement. Much of it is long-term. If the government decided to retire all of the debt, it would have to announce that all of those savings bonds you have in your safety deposit box are retired and will no longer pay interest. Can you imagine the pandemonium such a move would cause?

Junk Science Vs. Junk Science

In a letter to the editor, Andi Weiss Bartczak, Ph.D. tries to make a case that GE is waging a "propaganda campaign" aimed at convincing the public that workers exposed to PCBs have no elevated risk of cancer, and that their supporting data is "junk science". The writer claims to be a "toxicologist" and argues that, "In junk science, the corporate funding source decides on a conclusion that will serve its own business goals."

There was a lot missing from the letter and a lot to question. Missing was any mention of "peer review", and any hard evidence that the study was flawed.

Why were only the dead studied? Since the workers' average age is in the 50s, cancer survivors could be ignored and known inaccuracies on death certificates (cancer deaths are often attributed to other factors) meant further loss of victims.

Does the term "non sequitur" come to mind? What does the workers' average ages have to do with anything in that paragraph? Answer: nothing! The writer complains about using only death certificates because "cancer deaths are often attributed to other factors." What other method would the writer suggest? If all cases of cancer in the workers was documented, what would they be compared to? There is no requirement that cancer cases be reported to anyone, but there is a legal requirement that all deaths be reported including a cause of death. Although it may be true that the cause of death stated on a death certificate is not necessarily totally accurate, statistically, errors which would affect such studies can be expected to be relatively equally dispersed through all control and study groups. I believe using death certificates is a fairly standard way of doing such studies. I could be wrong, but nothing in the letter refutes that.

"Why did Dr. Kimbrough include in the ''exposed'' group everyone who ever worked in the same building as the workers who were literally up to their elbows in toxic PCBs? Because when you are trying to determine whether exposure to PCBs causes damage, including enough people who were not exposed to PCBs will make any effect seem to disappear. "

While admitting that the workers' exposure was extremely high, he wants to eliminate those who weren't "up to their elbows" as if they had no exposure at all. That would be highly unlikely in my opinion. I can't imagine that those who were not "up to their elbows" didn't get exposed to at least the level of people eating an occasional striped bass taken from the river. If including those who weren't "up to their elbows" was enough to make the "effect seem to disappear", the "effect" must have been very minuscule to begin with.

And then there's the question of who hired Dr. Bartczak. He didn't even allude to what his interest in this is, and if he did, why we should believe him. There's also the observation that while Dr. Bartczak wants us to take seriously because he's a "toxicologist" and a Pd.D., we have to remember that the people he's accusing of "junk science" are also Ph.D.s and toxicologists.

If you're really interested in learning how "junk science" is used and abused, I recommend you visit www.junkscience.com.

Clinton Did More for Blacks than Lincoln?

It's "President's Day", so the Journal asks people who their favorite president was. There's a picture of a young black woman, and her words are astounding! No, her favorite president isn't "Ol' Massah Lincoln, emancipator of the slaves", it's none other than William J. Clinton. And what did he do to elevate himself above the "Great emancipator"? Well just ask Abena Kumi.

Did Clinton actually do anything to better the lot of black Americans? Apparently to Ms. Kumi, talk and "effort" are all that matter, actions mean nothing. I suppose that if Abraham Lincoln had only talked about freeing the slaves, he'd be a hero too.

Having it Both Ways on Tax Cuts

In his column which appeared Tuesday in the Poughkeepsie Journal, David Broder makes a pitch for "triggered" tax cuts, i.e., tax cuts which will automatically go away if the "surplus" de-materializes. At first glance, such a proposal makes a modicum of sense, but it shouldn't to anyone with as much experience observing the Washington scene as does Mr. Broder.

The reason this scheme is so attractive to so many politicians is that it would allow them to take credit for tax cuts which will then, predictably, disappear. They will disappear because politicians require discipline, and this scheme takes discipline away.

The strongest argument for tax cuts, albeit one you're not likely to hear too often, is that keeping the money out of Washington in the first place makes Congress's choices harder. Without a "surplus",to spend more money they have to raise taxes or increase the debt, and neither choice is politically desirable. But the "triggered" tax cut scheme lets them have everything without a price. They get credit for cutting taxes, but then, when spending goes out of control, they don't have to do anything politically unpalatable to get the money, the "trigger" gets it for them.

If you want fiscal discipline out of Congress, write your representatives and tell them, "No triggers!" Make them spend money the hard way, that's why we pay them the big bucks.

Why the Petty Theft?

You look at the Clintons walking out of the White House with national property in their pockets and you have to wonder why they would stoop to something so petty. If you're still scratching your head, obviously, after eight years of these creeps, you still haven't figured out how they've been able to get away with so much for so long.

Once you've figured out their modus operandi, it all becomes apparent. You see, folks, what the Clintons have been doing is to create numerous small scandals to obscure the big ones. By filling the news with story after story of Clinton misdeeds, they've been able to create the illusion of being victims of a "vast right-wing conspiracy". They've managed to convince the uninformed that no one could possibly be guilty of all the Clintons have been accused of, so it must be all made up!

When you see them sneaking out with silverware in their pockets, pay no attention to the silver. Look for the big stuff. It's sure to be there.

Same Old Whining About "Campaign Finance Reform"

Not surprisingly, the Poughkeepsie Journal's spread (Feb. 11, 2001) on the high cost of campaigns focused on ways to suppress campaign spending. This is not surprising because limiting the ability of candidates and their supporters to spend money to disseminate their messages would give the media even more power than they already have to control the flow of information to the citizenry.

I believe that all the fuss about campaign spending misses the point. Excessive spending isn't a problem, it's a symptom of bigger problems, in my opinion. One of the most significant problems is that for the most part, voters are woefully uninformed and uneducated in politics, and schools do little to address this problem, Many voters seem to base their vote mainly on name recognition or the favorable or unfavorable impression the get about a candidate from the media. That's why you see so many sign's around election time saying, "Elect So-and-So". They don't tell you a thing about the candidate, but they get the name out there on the hope you'll recognize it and pull the lever under it.

Another problem, in my opinion, is that once someone gets elected to represent us, he goes off to a far-away place, e.g., Albany or Washington, and we hardly hear from him until it's election time again. By then, he has to build up that name recognition thing again, so up go the signs and on go the vacuous TV spots. And since he represents such a large area, you probably don't really know anything about the person, and you're not likely to bump into him at the supermarket or hardware store. What are the odds that a person who represents half a million people is going to have the time to talk to you? Not very good.

So I say, before we start undermining our basic freedom and limiting peoples' ability to express themselves (and giving the "liberal" media even more power), let's start addressing the underlying problems, and maybe the symptoms will clear up. The education problem is probably the most pervasive, but beyond pointing it out, I'll leave that discussion for another time. While I don't claim to have all the answers, I do have some suggestions which should at least be included in the discussion:

The Rich Don't Need Tax Cuts (Say What?)

Tudby's Department Store is having a big sale. They're taking 25% off all prices in the store. But you go to the store's management and tell them that their sale is unfair and they should cancel it. Why would you do such a stupid thing? Because you're a Democrat! You've only got one hundred dollars to spend so you can only save twenty five dollars, while others with more money to spend can save more. It's just not fair that those other people can save more than you, so no one should be able to save anything - the sale should be cancelled!

The Democrat's whining about "tax cuts for the rich" and "the rich don't need tax cuts" are about as dumb as the scenario I just described. But not only is it dumb, it's also somewhat hypocritical, when put into historical perspective. You see, I'm old enough to remember when employers didn't all pay their employees based on "equal pay for equal work". Many would pay a family bread-winner more based on "need". But then along came feminism, and it was noticed that the "bread-winner" who was earning more was most often a man, and that just wasn't acceptable any more.

I shouldn't be so foolish as to suggest that the "liberals", whose manifesto is "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", are hypocritical in embracing the argument of "need" in opposition to tax cuts. I do, however, see plenty of hypocrisy in people, many of them in Hollywood, who join the Democrats and have much more than they need, while we don't see them giving away their excess. To paraphrase a Democrat nay-sayer, we don't see the Hollywood types buying mufflers for poor people's cars while they drive around in their Lexus's.

Is President Bush a "Uniter"?

If you witnessed Ted Kennedy's harangues in John Ashcroft's confirmation hearings, you had to wonder how Ashcroft fits into President Bush's stated agenda of bringing people together. It sure seemed that anything that created that level of acrimony couldn't contribute to uniting anything. But if you thought that, you were wrong. I believe Bush understands that extremists on the Left, such as Kennedy and Leahy, will never cooperate with a "conservative" president. Uniting them with his "conservative" base is an impossibility, but what is quite possible is bringing "conservatives" and "moderates" together into a coalition against the far left. After the display of blind hatred by Sen. Kennedy, the invitation to the White House by Bush was a brilliant coup. There is no doubt now in any "moderate's" mind where the rancor is emanating from.

Internet Twins: Missing the Obvious

In a column which appeared recently in the local "liberal" rag, Ellen Goodman laments what appears to be a new trend, i.e., selling babies on the internet. Ms. Goodman brilliantly detects the "corrupting influence of money" in these emerging schemes, but she misses the obvious, because, you see, Ms. Goodman is a major contributor to this trend. How can I say that? I say it because it is natural to assume that when you tell women that their baby is their PROPERTY, as abortion proponents, Ellen Goodman included, have been doing for decades with their "It's my body!" mantra, we should expect it to be taken to it's ultimate conclusion. If a baby is your property, what's stopping you from selling your property?

More hypocrisy from the Left on Chavez

Okay, I admit I'm confused. I can't figure out what the Left is attacking Linda Chavez for. Is it because she gave shelter and money to an illegal immigrant? Is it that she didn't turn the poor woman into the INS? Aren't these the same people who insist illegals be given all the "services" provided to citizens, including education, shelter, food, health care, and that the agencies providing these "services" be prohibited from reporting the recipients to the INS?

I'm coming to the conclusion that using "hypocrisy" and "the Left" in the same sentence is a gross redundancy. Let's just start calling them "Democrites".

More hypocrisy from the Left on Ashcroft

A caller to the Sean Hannity Show said that John Ashcroft shouldn't accept the job of Attorney General because of his opposition to abortion. The theory she advanced was that since he is opposed to abortion, he cannot enforce the laws guaranteeing a woman's "right" to abort her child. This is pretty much in line with what other abortion proponents either say or imply when they lash out at the nomination of John Ashcroft.

Never mind that while Ashcroft was Attorney General of the state of Missouri, there is no record of him refusing to enforce laws he disagreed with. If there were, that would be grounds for rejection of his nomination, just like it would be grounds for rejection of the appointment of a judge.

The state of New Jersey has had a death penalty for many years, but has not had a single execution since its enactment. The blame for this lack of enforcement lies in the state's judiciary. Whenever a death penalty case comes before the Supreme Court, the court finds some excuse to put aside the judgment of the lower court. Is there a hue and cry from the Left against this blatant refusal of New Jersey's Supreme Court to uphold the death penalty law, i.e., the "will of the people" of the state of New Jersey? Of course not, and you never will because the Left loves it when a judge imposes the will of the Left by ignoring the law of the land.

John Ashcroft opposed the nomination of Judge Ronnie White because Judge White had a history of imposing his own will, i.e., opposition to the death penalty, over the law. Ashcroft opposed Judge White for exactly the same reason as the Left is opposing Ashcroft with one big difference. Judge White's actions demonstrated his willingness to ignore the law, Ashcroft's never did.

Global court is a a dangerous idea

If Bill Clinton leaves a legacy beyond Lewinski, it will be the ceding of national sovereignty to various causes such as "global warming", U.N. peacekeeping, and now this dangerous "global criminal court" scheme.

Bill Clinton's philosophy of governance is that compliance with the United States Constitution is optional. It is unconstitutional for U.S. military personnel to be under the command of anyone but the Commander in Chief, but that didn't stop Clinton from assigning our soldiers to U.N. military commanders who are not under the command of the president of the United States. It is also unconstitutional for United States service men and women to be subject to anything but the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which must be administered in accordance with our constitutional protections. A global court will not operate under the United States Constitution. Its decisions will not be subject to review by our Supreme Court. By signing this treaty, Clinton has once again thumbed his nose at our national sovereignty and our Constitution.

George W. Bush has vowed not to send this treaty to the senate in its present form. He would be well advised to never send it to the senate in any form. World government equals world tyranny, and this treaty, in any form, is another step toward world government.

Re: Letters to the Editor, Poughkeepsie Journal, Dec. 20, 2000

Typical of Gore-supporting letter writers, Jeff Dahncke wrote, "Al Gore won the popular vote. It seems, if all the votes were counted, he won Florida's election as well." Jeff doesn't understand that if all the votes across the country were counted, Gore may have lost the "popular vote" too. There were a million absentee ballots in California alone which were never counted, and hundreds of thousands of "undervotes" across the nation. If Bush can't claim Florida because of "uncounted" votes, where does Jeff get the authority to say Gore won the "popular vote"? Sylvia Day wrote, "The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court ... tainted both the court and the presidency." Sylvia seems to have forgotten the decision by the totally Democrat Florida Supreme Court which precipitated the U.S. Supreme Court decision. Sylvia forgets that even the Chief Justice of the Florida court decried the Florida court's decision as unconstitutional. Then there was Joseph Rivas who wrote, "...the will of the American people has been usurped. It is time to do away with the Electoral College." We can only hope that Joseph doesn't get his wish. Without the electoral college, we'd have had recounts and challenges in every voting district in the nation. It would have been an awful mess, and we'd be no surer of who won than we are today. We could, however, be quite certain that vote fraud would have a greater impact on who our president was.

My advice to these letter-writers is this: Get over it! The election was so close that the margin of victory was smaller than the margin of error in our error-prone voting system. Without the U.S. Supreme Court's action, a true constitutional crisis could have resulted. Be thankful that our republic lives on.

Gore should be impeached

Albert Gore, as vice president of the United States, is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States.Violation of that oath is an impeachable offense. It appears that the Supreme Court of the United States, in its final ruling, has determined that Gore's strategy to "win" the presidency was unconstitutional. You might ask two questions:

In answer to the first question, consider what the U.S. Supreme Court did. It determined, by a 7 to 2 margin, that the scheme which the Florida Supreme Court decreed was unconstitutional based on its violations of the equal protection clause. And what was that scheme? It was everything that Al Gore demanded. It was a scheme to execute hand counts in selected counties where, by using subjective and diverse standards, enough "votes" for Gore could be "found" to "overcome" Bush's margin of victory. What the U.S. Supreme Court did, in essence, was to declare that Al Gore initiated and executed an unconstitutional strategy to "win" the presidency. For that, Gore should be impeached and convicted.

So why, you might ask, should we bother to impeach him? After all, he'll be out of office on Jan. 21. The answer is found in the Article I, section 3 of the Constitution, where it says what the consequences of impeachment and conviction can be, i.e., "...disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States..."

OK, I admit I'm not completely serious about this, but not because the punishment wouldn't be appropriate. I do believe that our Constitution is such an important document that people in government who don't take it seriously should be made to pay a high political price. What I really wish is that the people of this country also took the Constitution so seriously that my idea wouldn't seem so outlandish.

A Rogue Court in Florida

If anything, the aftermath of this election shows that the Bush position on judicial activism is crucial to the survival of the country. What this rogue Florida Supreme Court has done is absolutely insane. Even after being told by the U.S. Supreme Court that the LEGISLATURE has plenary (i.e., complete or absolute) power over the election of electors, they expanded upon and overrode their own previous decision, saying that not only were they throwing out the legislature's deadlines for handcounts, they were throwing out their OWN! It's now obvious that the judiciary has been infected with a disease, one which makes it believe it can do whatever it wishes, that it can twist the law to obtain whatever ends it desires. It's time to bring this sick judiciary down! Impeachment isn't enough punishment (but it'd be a good start).

Why electricity deregulation is a dumb idea (Dec. 8, 2000)

California leads the nation. So goes the axiom. Some of the changes originating in California have been good, some bad, but few, in my opinion, have the potential for severe damage as the trend toward electric deregulation.

Ann Landers advises, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", so we have to wonder what was broken in a system that provides an essential element (cheap, reliable electricity) of our modern society. When you consider what's at stake and what the potential damage is, you'd almost have to conclude that proponents of electric deregulation have an agenda which includes destruction of our way of life. I'll save that discussion for another day.

Before the push to deregulation, electric utilities operated as monopolies under a regulatory scheme where a government agency told the utilities how much they could charge for electricity, and demanded that the utilities maintain a reliable source of power, both in the present and in the future. That meant that the utility had to have enough present capacity to meet peak demands with sufficient "rolling reserve" to sustain the loss of any on-line generator. The utility was also charged with projecting future demand and developing future power sources to meet it. This may not have been the most efficient scheme, but history shows that it was efficient enough to ensure an inexpensive and reliable source of electricity for everyone.

Deregulation now demands that electric utilities divest themselves of their generating capacity and maintain a monopoly only in the distribution of power. This means that the utilities will have to rely on the free market to provide the power you and I need. As much as I'm in favor of a free market, in this case I don't think it's such a great idea. One problem is that electricity, unlike other commodities, is consumed the instant it is made. If it's not being made when need it, all the money in the world isn't going to provide it to you. Another problem is that since all electricity flows over common distribution lines, there is no way to distinguish between the electricity generated by the various suppliers or to selectively control its consumption. This is significantly different from the situation resulting from telephone deregulation. There, if your long-distance carrier doesn't have a line available to carry your call, your call won't go through. When you're connected to a common electric distribution system, though, when you turn on your arc welder, the power's either on for you and everyone else on the system, or it's off. There is no way the system can sense whether your chosen supplier has enough generating capacity to power your arc welder, nor is there any way to prevent you from turning it on when there is not enough capacity from your supplier to feed it. The most significant problem, perhaps, is that the free market has no mechanism for forcing producers of electricity to build generating capacity that may never produce a single kilowatt of electricity to sell. It's not surprising that California, which led the nation into the abyss of electric deregulation, is the first to experience the almost inevitable power shortages.

There are other arguments against deregulation too. Look at New York for instance. The state has some of the highest taxes in the country, which are levied on industries and the people who work in them. Electricity can be produced in neighboring states more cheaply, because the companies producing it and their employees don't pay as much tax in those states. But what do we gain when we get our electricity a few mils/kilowatt cheaper, but lose the tax revenue generated by the local power station and all the people that work there? How is the reliability enhanced when the power has to go over longer supply lines to get to your house?

I also foresee some unexpected consequences of deregulation. As our power supply becomes less and less reliable, people are going to start relying on sources other than their local electric utility. We are going to see homes and apartment complexes with their own generators. There will be some benefits from such a scheme, such as use of waste heat for home heating and air conditioning, but there will be tremendous inefficiencies too, such as the need to transport fuel or build distribution pipelines. The impact on the environment could be significant. Monitoring the environmental emissions of all those generators will be a monumental task, and just manufacturing all those little power plants will produce a major environmental impact.

When you get right down to it, electric deregulation is a dumb idea. To top it all off, there's been a virtual media blackout on the issue. When did you see an in-depth discussion of this issue in your local newspaper? I'll bet you never have, and maybe it's time to start demanding that they provide some.

(Authors note: I worked for Consolidated Edison Co. for 27 years and am presently retired)

A Note on Statistics (Dec. 7, 2000)

In the Seminole County trial yesterday, the Democrats presented a statistician as a witness, who then proceeded to make projections of voting patterns based on statistical sampling. Unless you've had some training in statistics, there are probably a couple of important concepts you don't understand when someone tells you that a statistical projection (such as a public-opinion poll) has a "margin of error" of such-and-such a percent. What is almost always left out is what statisticians refer to as a "confidence level". What they should really say is that the projection has a certain margin of error at a given confidence level, for instance, a poll of 500 respondants might have a margin of error of +/- 4% at a 95% confidence level. They could calculate a margin of error for any confidence level, but a margin of +/- 0% would have a confidence level approaching 0%, meaning they (or you) can have no confidence in the result falling within the margin of error. Conversely, to get to a 100% confidence level, the margin of error would have to expand to almost +/- 100%. The 95% confidence level is generally used when calculating a margin of error, but is rarely stated when the results are circulated by the media.

Good vs. Evil (Dec. 4, 2000)

Back before the election, most Republicans were taken aback by a statement made by Al Gore in which he characterized the election as a choice between "good and evil", and he went on to say that good will win out over evil. I doubt he understood at the time just how prescient that statement would be.

Whether you see Gore as "good" or "evil", if you're honest you'd have to admit that there was a "good" way to contest the election and a not-so-"good" way. The good way would have been to have all the votes in Florida counted by hand and then accept the results. The way Gore and his lawyers chose, however, wasn't meant to discern the true vote count, it was meant to "find" enough Gore votes to turn the election without "finding" enough Bush votes to prevent that outcome. They attempted to accomplish this by requesting handcounts in only selected counties where the "undervote", if votes could be divined from them, would in all probability add votes disproportionately to the Gore column. The Bush team didn't understand the ramifications of this strategy until it was too late to request handcounts, even if they had wanted them. It was bad enough that Gore pursued this strategy, but he insisted on perpetuating a myth that it was intended to count "all" the votes. Of course it wasn't, but that didn't stop his allies in the media from repeating the myth as if it were true, or from pretending that the "found" votes showed that Gore was actually "gaining" on Bush.

So now we've finally come to a point where a judge has made a decision on continuing the selected handcounts, coming down hard against them. That was bad enough for Gore, but in his decision, Judge Sauls specifically talked about the disparity which would be caused by the "selective" recounts, how the originally uncounted votes in some counties wouldn't count, where they would in the counties where handcounts were performed. It struck me, when I heard this, that Gore might very well have won the election if only he and his lawyers had employed the "good" strategy and requested a state-wide handcount. Gore forfeited his chance to "win" the election by employing a strategy to "steal" the election. It's a lesson we can all teach our children.

Campaign Finance Reform Ironies (Dec. 2, 2000)

I've never been a fan of campaign finance reform, so I was amused by the delicious ironies afforded by the 2000 election. The first irony involved the candidacy of Pat Buchanan and the Reform Party. Remember how campaign finance reform was one of the Reform Party's pet projects back when it was Ross Perot's party? Campaign finance reform, to most of its supporters, involves some form of government financing of elections and control of or elimination of private financing. One of the first "reforms" that was instigated had to do with a check box on our income tax returns, where we can designate a small sum to go to campaign financing. Candidates parties have to have gotten a certain percentage of the previous election's votes to qualify for the funds. When Ross Perot got a significant number of votes in 1996, the Reform Party became eligible for federal campaign cash in 2000. So what happened? Along comes Pat Buchanan and hijacks the party to take the money. Talk about being hoisted on your own petard!

Then we had Al Gore singing the same tune. There's no doubt that he might have won if Ralph Nader hadn't convinced some voters that voting for him would get him some of that federal money. But the election was so close that a lot of people who might have voted for Nader voted for Gore instead. But enough did vote for Nader to keep Gore from winning. So Gore lost because of "campaign finance reform", and Nader didn't get enough votes to get the money next election anyway. To me, that's really a "win-win" situation.

Truth in Fiction

I've given a lot of attention to Bernard Goldberg's book, "Bias", about the media's (particularly CBS's) "liberal" bias. John Leo, in a recent column made particular note of the media's "pro-choice" bias. So when CBS ran promotions for an "NYPD Blue" episode about an abortion "clinic" being fire-bombed, I fully expected the show to be a typical attack on pro-lifers.

The story started out predictably. After the attack, the clinic operators told the police stories about how they are routinely "harrassed" by pro-lifers (funny, but I didn't hear anyone use the term "anti-choice"), and how the police should be dragging in all the anti-abortion activists for questioning. But when the detectives asked for a list of patients, the operators refused, citing "privacy". Eventually, a clinic worker surreptitiously gave the police a patient list, and when the police started looking into it, they found several people less than happy with the goings on there. To make a long story short, the bomber turned out to be the husband of a woman who had an abortion at the clinic. He was not associated in any way with any pro-life groups, he was just understandably outraged by the fact that the abortionists at the clinic had killed his child without so much as his knowledge.

Okay, it's only a story, but in the "liberal" media, it was ground-breaking. The proponents of abortion on demand love to don the mantle of "reproductive rights", but their dirty little secret is that in their view, men have no reproductive rights whatsoever. But that's certainly not something they want publicized.

My assessment of the show is that it violated pro-abortion orthodoxy in three ways:

It's important to note that contrary to pro-abortion claims about pro-life activists being responsible for all the attacks on their abortuaries, the truth is that in many (80% last I heard) of the attacks, the perpetrator is never found. There's a good chance that a major reason for this is that the authorities are steered in the wrong direction, and this is exacerbated by the abortion industry's refusal to divulge information about its clientele. This could lead one to believe that the abortionists may not want the cases solved. If they're unsolved, they can blame them all on pro-lifers, and the media will generally support that fiction. It's certainly better for them to have an unsolved case that they can use for propaganda, than to have it found out that the abortions themselves provoked the attacks.

Unconstitutional Reform

If Congress were debating a constitutional amendment to repeal the Bill of Rights, I would expect the editorial board of the Poughkeepsie Journal to come out four square against the amendment. But we all know that if our rights are going to be taken away, it's not going to be all at once, it's going to be little by litte, chip by chip.

So why, I ask, does the Journal come out in favor of a bill that many, if not most of the people who know what's in it, say contains unconstitutional restrictions on free speech? Unconstitutional laws are like pregnancy, a woman can't be just a little bit pregnant. A law is either constitutional or it's unconstitutional, and any legislator who votes for a law that is in any way unconstitutional is violating his oath of office. It doesn't matter if most of the law is constitutional and good and sorely needed. We can't allow our rights to be chipped away, little by little under cover of "reform".

Three cheers to Representatives Kelly and Sweeney for supporting the Constitution and voting against the so-called "Campaign Finance Reform" bill. Mega-boos to Representative Hinchey and Senators Schumer and Clinton for their votes to subvert our constitutional rights.

Ted Kennedy's Group-Think

Following the Super Bowl victory by the New England Patriots, Massachussetts senator Ted Kennedy said, "At a time when our entire country is banding together and facing down individualism, the Patriots set a wonderful example, showing us all what is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and sacrifice for the greater good." Did you know that our country was "facing down individualism?" I didn't. I fact, I always thought the foundation of our country was rugged individualism.

Kennedy said more about the agenda of the Left than about reality, but unfortunately, his agenda is becoming more and more the reality in this once great nation. Think, for a moment, what is at the core of "liberalism". They want everyone to think of themselves as members of a group instead of as individuals. There's a group for Blacks, a group for women, a group for homosexuals, a group for labor, a group for Latinos, a group for the handicapped, and on and on and on. Each group is made to feel victimized so they will continue to band together to seek redress for their grievances.

Democrats vs. Black Christians

On January January 3, Mid-Hudson Valley Perspective (www.mhvperspective.com) reported on a new Democrat strategy to further divide the United States by linking Christian fundamentalists to Islamic extremists and the Taliban. On January 4, the Poughkeepsie Journal ran a column by Norman Lockman with the headline, "Muslim and Christian fanatics preach the same kinds of hate".

The Lockman column was remarkable in that he began by comparing the "rhythmic garble" heard on the infamous bin Laden videotape to his recollections of a "Wednesday night prayer meeting" of his youth. He did not disclose what denomination those prayer meetings represented, but there is ample reason to believe that the participants shared the faith of of that great man, Martin Luther King.

Can anyone imagine the media outcry had a white man compared Rev. King to an al-Qaida terrorist? I certainly can't imagine the Poughkeepsie Journal giving it a prominent space on their editorial page. But then, before January 3, I could not have imagined the Democrats employing such a despicable strategy, either.

Ignore the Courts?

There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth in 'elite' circles regarding President Bush's executive order authorizing "military tribunals" for non-citizen suspected terrorists. One of those weighing in against the plan is William Safire, usually a respectable conservative. I'm not going to go into the cases for and against, but rather, I want to comment on something in Safire's column.

The notable sentence is this, "[Bush's] advisers assured him that a fearful majority would cheer his assumption of dictatorial power to ignore our courts." Guess what! They were right, and the reason they were right deserves comment. They were right because the American people have come to regard the courts with disdain. We no longer have a system for justice, we have a system in which lawyers demand and receive more and more "rights" for defendants, and where society's rights of protection against crime and from criminals are ignored.

Americans foresee trials of terrorists turning into spectacles like the O.J. "trial". They sincerely doubt the ability of our courts to mete out the justice terrorist acts demand.

Those on the Left were quick to point fingers at the 'sins' of the United States as provoking the attacks. If I'm right, and if disdain for the courts leads to "dictatorial" power by an unscrupulous administration, does that mean that the ACLU is responsible for the loss of our liberty? According to the standards of blame laid down by the Left, they should be apologizing for what they've done to our "justice" system. They should accept responsibility for the system of "justice" they've turned into a circus sideshow.

Something's Missing Here

When I read a newspaper, one of the first places I go is to the Letters to the Editor page. I like to know what people are thinking about the news, even more than I want to know what the news is. This is my biggest disappointment about this site. There are hardly any letters! If you write to the Poughkeepsie Journal, it'll probably take a couple of weeks before they get around to printing it, and then they make you wait thirty days before you can send another. They also severely limit the length of your letter. Here, you can write a letter every day if you want to and there's no limit on frequence or size of your letters, and they will be posted while the subject is still fresh on peoples' minds.

Everyone has an opinion about something. You might even have some news to report that no one else has. It doesn't matter if it's about Hillary Clinton or the bluebird in your backyard, send a letter and let others know about it.

p.s. Please send original compositions only. If you have something that someone else wrote (other than a short experpt), you can send a link (URL) to it, but otherwise, it will not be posted without the author's permission.

The Purpose of Marriage

According to a story posted here and on CNS.com, the Frederick County, MD school board has decreed that teachers may not tell students to save sex for marriage. They base this decision on their belief that linking sex to marriage amounted to a religious belief that should not be taught in school.

This, to me, demonstrates a shocking ignorance of anthropology. Sex and marriage are linked by the purpose of marriage, which is the protection of children and their care-givers. I can't prove this assertion, because when our distant ancestors "invented" marriage, they didn't leave notes to document their thought processes. But there really is no other purpose that stands up to close scrutiny. Feminists charge that the sole purpose of marriage is the subjugation of women, but even that carries the connotation that the "subjugation" is for the purpose of caring for children. Homosexuals claim that the sole purpose of marriage is to give "benefits" to "straight" couples. This, of course, is ludicrous, since marriage pre-dates the "benefits" they crave by millennia.

No matter what we think about or ancestors' motives, we should conclude that marriage does serve the purpose of protecting children, and that is a desirable goal. It is also a goal that is a legitimate function of government to promote. If marriage does not have the purpose of protecting children, which the Frederick County school board decision implies, then government has no business sanctioning it. But even worse, the decision also implies that marriage really is what the militant feminists and homosexuals claim it is. By that, then, we can conclude that this school board has entered the fray on the side which seeks to destroy the institution. This is also the side that believes children are possessions which can be destroyed at the whim of the "owner" ("It's MY body").

Liberals Having a Cow

John Ashcroft has riled up the "liberals". That's something that shouldn't surprise anyone, but the reason they're having cows is a shining example of their hypocrisy. When Ashcroft was undergoing an inquisition in the Senate for his confirmation, the "liberals" were so concerned that Ashcroft wouldn't enforce laws he didn't like (particularly pro-abortion laws), they demanded a pledge that he would enforce all laws. Ashcroft gave it. Now he's following through on that pledge and the Holsteins and Ayrshires are popping up all over the place. You see, Ashcroft is enforcing a law that they don't like. He's enforcing a federal drug law that interferes with Oregon's new assisted-suicide law. They say he had no right to reverse Janet Reno's previous policy which ignored the law, but when you examine Reno's policy, you find that it did exactly what the "liberals" demanded Ashcroft pledge not to do. She based her do-nothing policy on an assumption that Congress did not intend to interfere with medical practices. That assumption requires another assumption (presumption, actually), which is that Congress did intend to change the definition of "medical" practices to include physician-assisted suicide. There is no basis for such a presumption, and in fact, the American Medical Association (AMA) agrees with Ashcroft!

I don't know if Ashcroft believes federal law should supersede state law, but I know that he's enforcing the law as it's written, just as he pledged to do. He should be applauded for that, I suppose. But right or wrong, he did a great job of exposing "liberal" hypocrisy whether he meant to or not.

The Airport Security Debate

The mainstream media, which never takes side as we've been told, are painting the GOP as union-busting partisans because they don't want to use federal employees for airport security. But contrary to the media spin, Republicans have a point, and the point isn't about union members voting predominantly for Democrats - that's the Democrats' point. The Republicans' reasoning is based on the experience of other countries which have federalized their security and have abandoned that scheme because it didn't work; it is far too inflexible to provide the security which the public should expect.

But there's another argument in favor of the GOP's position, and I'm surprised they're not making it. If the federal government is "responsible" for airport security, who is responsible when security fails? Even when security lapses are severe and obvious and directly contribute to loss of life, victims will not be able to sue the "responsible" party for damages, because the "responsible" party will be the federal government.

It almost seems odd that Democrats, who are always supportive of people's "right" to sue somebody, would want to take it away in this instance. But it's not odd when you understand Democrats. To them votes count for everything, and if they can increase the constituency dependent upon the federal government for its livelihood, any pretense of "principle" takes a back seat.

Blaming the Victim

Note: The following was sent to the Poughkeepsie Journal as a letter to the editor:

We're a progressive country, right? When someone asks why a woman is raped, we know how wrong it is to blame it on the length of her skirt or the way she walks. We are "progressive" enough to condemn anyone who would shift blame to the victim that way.

So how is it that after the terrorist attack of 9/11, this blame-the-victim mentality is not roundly castigated when it rears its ugly head? Example: A letter to the editor extols us to "fully" answer the question our children are asking, "Why would someone want to do this to us?" The answer this person wants our children to hear includes, ". . .because we consume and pollute so much, because we too use terrorism as a means of war . . ."

If no one else wants to, let me be the first to publicly condemn this diatribe for what it was, anti-American hate-speech excusing the terrorist acts. Perhaps even more repugnant, it uses a national tragedy to advance the writer's anti-capitalist agenda. I'm sure the writer felt morally superior for writing it, but this reader felt nothing but revulsion. Giving people an excuse for their evil deeds is hardly morally superior to the evil deeds themselves.

A Disappointing Speech

A complete disappointment? Not at all, in fact, most of Pres. Bush's speech was right on the mark, and it made most people feel that their Commander-In-Chief was clearly in charge with a good grasp of what has to be done. However, one of the most crucial aspects of the speech left much to be desired. I'm referring to his explanation of why the attack occurred.

No one with any political savvy believes that the terrorists attacked because they are jealous of our freedom. That's not even close. They want us out of "their" region of the world because we pose a threat to their designs on it. The architects of the attack want power. They want to rule the middle east. The United States and Israel stand in their way. Without the backing of the United States, the State of Israel might already have been annihilated. The power-hungry terrorist want us to change our foreign policy and become isolationists. It's really no more complicated than that. But in the speech, Bush devoted only two sentences which even alluded to their real motivation: "With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way."

Am I picking nits? I don't think so. By avoiding explaining the terrorists' real motives, the president avoided defending our foreign policy. By ducking the foreign policy implications, he invited the inference that our foreign policy is indefensible, and it most certainly is not. What may be the biggest obstacle to the goal of ridding the world of terrorism is so-called "peace" movement. It's adherents will argue, in fact they're already arguing, that our foreign entanglements precipitated the attack. They'll argue that all we have to do to stop the terrorism is to get our noses out of the rest of the world, in other words, to give in to what the terrorists want. Of course, such a course of action has never worked and will not work now, but unless the issue is addressed head-on, the "peaceniks" will maintain a certain amount of respectability. Bush could have headed them off at the pass, but didn't.

Osama bin Laden and his patron Saddam Hussein have no interest in democracy or in the people they seek to rule. The lesson we should have learned from the last century is that when evil people take over countries, we all become affected sooner or later, so isolationism is not in our best interest. The threat can be explained and our policies to prevent it can be defended. The president should have used the opportunity to do both.

Agnostic Theology

A couple of stories which appeared in the media recently have prompted me to venture into an area I usually avoid. The stories I'm referring to are the Remarks of Rev. Falwell (God has abandoned America bacause...) and the image of "Satan" which some have claimed to see in photos and videos of the WTC attacks.

First of all, I don't believe that there is any religion which depicts "Satan" (or the embodiment of evil) as an ugly man with horns and a pitchfork tail. On the contrary, the Bible describes Lucifer as the most beautiful of angels. When you think about it, true evil isn't ugly and repugnant, it is beautiful and attractive, which is what draws human beings to it. I wouldn't depict the face of evil as an ugly man with horns, I'd see it as a handsome, attractive person, something like Bill Clinton's. To others, the devil might appear as a beautiful woman, but in any case, there would be a lot less evil in the world if its face appeared ugly and repulsive.

Now to the remarks by Rev. Falwell. What he said, in essence, was the attacks demonstrated that God has abandoned America, and he listed a litany of things which he believes are the cause of "God's" abandonment. I would suggest to Rev. Falwell that he take a wider view. I would suggest that he imagine the same events with Albert Gore as president. I would also suggest that he harken back to the election aftermath. If "God" had truly abandoned America, Gore would be president today. A religious person who doesn't see "God's hand" in Gore's defeat isn't looking very hard.

Are We Too "Civilized" to Survive?

When the United States prosecuted the 'war' in Kosovo, the prime objective wasn't to 'win', it was to avoid American casualties. We could have destroyed selected targets with precision by launching aerial weapons from low altitudes, but military/political honchos elected to bomb from high altitudes because it was 'safer' for the pilots. As a result, our bombs fell with poor accuracy, the targets were missed and there was high collateral damage.

The new war we find ourselves in is much more up-close and personal than anything in the Balkans, but if we don't have the national courage to do what needs to be done, we will certainly lose! And just exactly what needs to be done? We need to strike the pool of active and potential terrorists where they live, and doing it anonymously from the air won't do it. Relying on a 'constitutional' justice system won't do it either. All either of these approaches will accomplish will be to ensure a continuing parade of volunteers for suicide missions which are horribly efficient methods of exacting damage on an enemy. If we decide to go to war with Afghanistan, we should be mindful that going to war with Afghanistan was a major factor in the destruction of the Soviet Empire. We should have no reason to think that we would be any more successful than the Soviets, particularly in view of our failure in Vietnam in a guerilla war which was quite similar to what we can expect in an armed conflict with any of the usual suspect nations.

What if we cannot defeat the terrorist network without shedding the rules of 'civilized' warfare and taking on the enemy using their rules (i.e., no rules). They are not immune to terrorization themselves. Terrorists have families and loved ones. The terrorist leaders may very well be using threats against families to coerce cooperation. They may also be using promises of rewards to family members to the same end. But how would the suicide bomber pipeline of volunteers be affected if we went into their home countries, rounded up the family members of known perpetrators, strung them up naked by their feet and slit their throats in the town square? Would family members of terrorists continue to hide them if they knew that terrorist actions would cause them to come to such an end?

So the question which follows is this: If we conclude that actions of this type are the only way to win the war against terrorism, do we reject them and resign ourselves to certain defeat? Do we have the will to do whatever needs to be done to stop this scourge before it gets really serious? Or, do we wait until they bring in the 'suitcase' nuclear weapons before we get serious? Would we muster the will even then? I can only wonder.

Abortion as Crime Deterrence? (Sep. 1, 2001)

A letter appeared in the Poughkeepsie Journal which said, in its entirety, "There is an interesting time link between the decrease in crime that began in the early 1990s and the passage of Roe v. Wade some 20 years earlier." I find this letter far more interesting than the alleged "link".

The writer is obviously promoting abortion (i.e., pro-abortion), touting an alleged positive benefit of it. But look deeper and discover more "liberal" hyprocrisy. "Liberals", of course, will never admit that executing a known criminal deters crime. But here, we see that they're willing to acknowledge that pre-emptively killing potential killers (as we all are) in the womb is a socially desirable goal!

Another minor point is that while the writer is making a link between Roe Vs. Wade and a drop in crime, supposedly due to the pre-emptive destruction of all those "unwanted" potential criminals, their stance has always been that Roe Vs. Wade only made abortions more "safe", not more numerous! If Roe Vs. Wade didn't precipitate a dramatic increase in the number of abortions, they have no basis for taking credit for a drop in crime. By taking "credit", they acknowledge the significant increase in abortions after that awful decision.

Taking Sides in the Culture War (Aug. 30, 2001)

The Poughkeepsie Journal reported yesterday that the Gannett Company, which owns the Journal, will start providing benefits to same-sex couples. If there were any doubts about which side the Journal represents on this critical cultural issue, they should now be allayed.

An immediate effect of this decision is likely to be that its reporters and editors will be constrained from writing objectively on events which cast same-sex marriage in a negative light. A longer term effect will be in influx of overt homosexuals to the Journal's staff, and they can be expected to be less than sympathetic to the traditional view of marriage. We can also expect the attacks on fine organizations like the Boy Scouts to increase in frequency and viciousness.

This is sad because the battle was won without any consideration of the purpose of marriage and why societies have traditionally bestowed benefits on married couples. If you listen to homosexual activists, the only purpose of marriage benefits is discriminate against them, but they are wrong, wrong, wrong! The purpose of marriage is the protection of children! Marriage is traditionally entered into with the expectation of producing children, despite the arguments which point out that many heterosexual couples get married with no plans for children. In a traditional marriage, one spouse, usually the father, works to support the family, while the other takes on the role of nurturer. In such an arrangement, the nurturer needs special protection. Without an income, the nurturer cannot amass wealth or provide the necessities of life on his or her own, but must rely on the family bread-winner. A society which places a special value on children may also extend certain benefits to married couples in order to encourage a stable family environment for the next generation.

When the institution of marriage is perverted by extending these benefits to homosexuals and others, the effect is that the cost of these benefits will be borne by the very people they were instituted to protect. This is ridiculous, but what can we expect from a society which places selfish interests above society's interests? What can we expect from a society which views a child as a personal choice, and not as a human being? One thing we can not expect is objective reporting from the Journal on this vital issue.

Bush's Decision on Stem-Cell Research Funding

I have to admit that this issue leaves me scratching my head. I can't decide whether to support it or oppose it. Here are some of the nuances that leave me undecided:

I'd really like to hear your opinion. You can join an on-line discussion of this issue by clicking here.

Another Case of Unintended Consequences

In an excellent column which appeared in today's Poughkeepsie Journal, Kathleen Parker waxes judgmental about parents who are so preoccupied with work or other interests, they "forget" that they left their children in cars parked in the sun, resulting in what seems to be an epidemic of infant deaths. Ms. Parker blames it all on "Misplaced priorities", and she certainly has a point, but there is another point which she, and everyone else seems to have missed. Had there been such a rash of infant deaths before government started forcing parents to put their infants in the back seat of their cars? Human beings can be forgetful, and it doesn't always stem from "misplaced priorities"; a parent might very well be distracted by thoughts about the best interests of their children. Out of sight is out of mind, and being forced to put children out of sight puts them in danger. But will proponents of such 'nanny-state' legislation accept any responsibility for these deaths? Don't hold your breath. They'll probably never even make the connection.

Relative Constitutionality

There are times when I'm almost ashamed to admit that I ever was a registered Republican. The "debate" in the House of Representatives over campaign finance, which seems to have been put on a back burner, is one of those times.

In a news item which ran a few days ago, Rep. Robert Ney, R-Ohio, who is sponsoring "me-too" legislation, said of his version, ``We feel our bill is more constitutional." Excuse me, is that a Republican speaking? Are we now the party of "more" constitutionality, in other words, lessunconstitutionality? Since when is constitutionality something to be measured and graded, rather than a standard to be strictly adhered to? If this is what our Grand Old Party has come to, it's time for patriots to leave it. Let the pandering politicians all follow Jim Jeffords into the less constitutional Democrat Party. Let them all violate their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Since the Clinton era, an oath means nothing anyway, and since they're defending their own relative version of the Constitution, maybe they actually believe they're not violating it.

Retrospect: Did Linda Tripp Save Monica's Life?

In her excellent column, Linda Chavez wonders why no one in Chandra Levy's family was willing to stand up and tell Chandra that what she was involved in was wrong. Maybe Ms. Chavez should have gone further and suggested that parents of daughters who get involved with powerful married men should also go public with the knowledge. It's pretty clear that Democrat congressman Condit was willing to take some drastic steps to avoid exposure of the illicit affair(s). Was he willing to go so far as to kill to cover it up? We may never find out, but desperate people will do desperate things, and Democrat congressman Condit appears to have been desperate to cover up the affair.

The parallels to the Monica Lewinsky affair are striking. The critical difference, it appears, is that in the Lewinsky affair, Linda Tripp went public while Monica was still alive. Once that affair became public knowledge, Monica's suspicious disappearance would have triggered immediate media and law enforcement attention. Those things were conspicuously absent in the days following Chandra's disappearance. That delay may prove to be critical. Because of it, the case may never be solved, and Chandra's parents may forever be wondering what happened to their daughter. If only they had ratted out their congressman and their daughter, she might still be alive today if she isn't alive today.

Why Democrats and the Media Love 'Moderates'

Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that the two basic political philosophies in this country are constitutionalism and socialism. The constitutionalists, nominally represented by the Republican Party, believe that the Founding Fathers got it pretty much right, and the government that governs least governs best. The Socialists, dominating the Democrat Party (and the media), believe in the 'nanny state', with the government assuming responsibility (and, it follows, authority) over as much of our lives as possible. In between, we have the 'moderates.'

The purpose, it is assumed, of Congress is to pass legislation. Since the constitutionalists believe, as stated earlier, that the Founders got it right the first time, it follows that they would propose little legislation. On the other hand, the entire agenda of the socialists requires legislation upon legislation, and they spend all their lives dreaming it up and pushing it upon Congress and the nation. Therefore, most legislation will naturally be designed to push the country further toward the socialist 'utopia.' And there, helping them along, are the 'moderates.'

Wait, you say, moderates don't help either side, they only seek compromise. That's what the Democrats and their media allies want you to believe, but it simply isn't true. When virtually all legislation is leading us in one direction, compromise only serves to slow it down. The socialists demand something, the 'moderates' seeking 'compromise,' push for a settlement somewhere between where we were and where the socialists want us to go. Amazingly then, every move is toward the socialist goal.

Here's a test that will show what 'moderates' really are. When the socialists propose a government 'solution' to something, they make certain demands, the constitutionalists oppose the whole idea, and the 'moderates' push for 'compromise,' which is usually what occurs. Soon thereafter, the socialists say that we need to go further, and of course the constitutionalists oppose them again. But do the 'moderates' ever say, "No, we already compromised, that's enough"? Of course not! The 'compromise' they now seek is between where their first 'compromise' left off and the new socialist demands. Their continuing 'compromises' lead us inexorably toward socialism. That makes them 'moderate' socialists, nothing more, and certainly nothing to be admired.

Zero Tolerance - An Explanation

You've read the looney stories, I'm sure. A second-grader is expelled from school for drawing a picture of a gun. Another grade-schooler makes a "gun" out of paper, points it at another kid and is arrested and treated like a criminal. You think it's crazy, but it's not! It's part of an agenda which gained its greatest impetus during the Vietnam conflict.

Take a trip down memory lane, and recall what the "Peaceniks" were marching and ranting about. What were their two favorite demons? They were, of course, the military and the police. And what do these two entities have in common? Guns!

So where did all those "Peaceniks" go after the war? Did they fall off the end of the earth? No, they left college (after their draft deferments had kept them out of harm's way) and went into professions where they could do the most harm, such as journalism and "education."

They know that firearms are too much a part of many peoples' lives for them to succeed in disarming them, so they've started working on the next generation, and if they succeed, this country is in serious trouble. What they're doing is teaching children (a captive audience) that guns are unconditionally bad. That's what "zero-tolerance" means - there is no excuse (reason) for ever possessing a gun. By inference, of course, they're turning the children (or at least trying to) against anyone who uses a gun, and that, of course includes the police and the military.

Imagine, if you will, what this country will be like if they are successful. The police and military will be hard pressed to recruit anyone. It will be impossible to field a credible army. In the absense of guns, peace will finally descend upon the nation, because we will dead or "peacefully" enslaved.