 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
What They Thought March 20, 2005 R.A.
Hawkins Click here for columnist bios |
||||||||||
R.A.
Hawkins The silence this week on the part of the mainstream media regarding the Sino-Soviet military maneuvers planned for this coming fall was deafening. Drudge had it, though. But that is somewhat on par with their reporting on China just about all of the time. They don’t like to talk about the Laogis, which are the work camps where they force people to work for next to nothing and then funnel the profits into their military. Russia recently asked China to take part in some joint military maneuvers with them. Russia wanted to have the war games in an area that has become a focal point for the war on terror, but China is still upset that Taiwan doesn’t like the taste of their boot heel. They keep trying their best to get the war games moved to an area that would be useful in a show of force for Taiwan to see. But Russia has a bit of a problem. The life support system for their biggest weapons system manufacturers happens to be China. Now they find themselves trying to move the games so they don’t anger the Japanese and the United States. They seem to have picked a region that is almost satisfactory to both parties at this point. But the Chinese have added an ocean based ground invasion designed to capture and hold territory, as well as several other items that are designed to strike terror into the hearts of Taiwan. Russia is also in a bit of a mess with China because the Taiwanese are hoping that Russia will help them gain entry into the World Trade Organization. I still remember the halcyon days of the Clinton administration when the Chinese said that they doubted the United States would be willing to risk Los Angeles over Taiwan. Clinton had the nice admirals in our navy move their ships back a bit so as not to tick them off. That may very well have been the admiral that told our highly classified surveillance jet to land in China. That was after their pilot Wong Way went the Wong way and hit our jet. (Yes, that really was his name.) Of course none of this would be happening if it hadn’t been for Jimmy Carter. Nixon went to pay the very first visit to the Chinese in a very long time and Carter decided to out do him. He officially dumped Taiwan as the China we recognize and recognized mainland China. What a doofus. But he hasn’t changed much, except that he is no longer the President, and was even outdone by Clinton in a bid for ‘The Most Worstest President Ever’. That may very well be why Carter went schmoozing with Castro. Carter did a lot of fun things while he was in office. He gave away the Panama Canal. But Clinton outdid Carter there, too, (those wacky democrats). When the Panamanian government was begging us to rent the space, Clinton wouldn’t even talk to them and he wisely stayed away from the celebration where the Canal was officially handed back to them. Now China has that too, along with the largest cargo container handling facility in the world right off of our east coast. They even have a runway there that can handle both the largest civilian and military cargo jets. Of course it is a bit difficult to draw a line between civilian and military anything when you’re talking about a communist government. When I look at the current situation between Russia and China it reminds me of a joke I heard a long time ago: A man is riding in his cart and he sees this poor bird freezing to death on the side of the road. He stops to see if it is okay and also sees a nice fresh cow flop. He can see that the sun will be up in an hour or so and the bird will be okay at that time so he sticks the bird into the cow flop and rides away, knowing he has done a good deed. After a while the bird warms up and starts feeling pretty good. So the bird starts to sing his little heart out. The next thing you know a cat hears the bird and comes along and eats the bird. There are three morals to this story. It isn’t
always your enemies that put you up to your neck in it. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
|
No column this week. |
||||||||||
Apparently our national pastime is now a matter of national security. Last week, the House Committee on Government Reform called on several players to testify about the use of steroids in Major League Baseball. If you ask me, this scandal is getting to be about as stale as the gum in a pack of baseball cards. (If nothing else, it’s at least as stale as those old stale gum jokes. Hey, I like that gum, though.) But if steroids are all the rage on Capitol Hill these days, then what the hell—I’ll talk about ‘em, too. Let’s start by taking a quick look at ten problems Congress won’t be solving the day Jose Canseco comes to town: 1. Poverty. 2. Homelessness. 3. Deficit spending. 4. Police brutality. 5. Social Security. 6. Highway congestion. 7. The evaporation of key freedoms and civil liberties. 8. The whereabouts of Usama bin Laden, Iraqi weapons, O.J.’s “real killers,” and my fifth-grade retainer. 9. Mary Kate and/or Ashley Olsen’s weight problems. 10. AIDS. You know what else Congress won’t be solving that day? Steroids in baseball. Think about it. Critics say the MLB needs Congress to get involved here, that they can’t clean up their act on their own. But when was the last time Congress actually solved a problem? Wait. Let me clarify: A problem they, themselves, didn’t cause? Go on. Name one. I’ll wait. Congress has responsibilities. It’s true. They’re listed in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Let’s recap. Congress shall: collect taxes; regulate commerce; pay debts; naturalize citizens; coin money; and punish counterfeiters. It shall: establish postal routes; promote the arts and sciences; hold tribunals; and punish pirates. And it shall: declare war; raise armies; and pass laws needed to do those other things. You didn’t see any mention of baseball in there, did you? Me neither. So unless the part about punishing pirates refers to the Pittsburgh Pirates—incorporated in the post-constitutional 1880s as the Pittsburgh Alleghenies—Congress is way out of bounds here. (Besides, the Pirates haven’t had a winning season since 1992. Isn’t that punishment enough?) Of course, you could make the case that times have changed, or that baseball—as a nationwide sport—falls under interstate commerce, which Congress has the power to regulate (by that, the Founders meant “make regular"). On the other hand, the last time Congress bothered to declare war, our enemies came from Japan. Since then, it’s been nothing but a string of military “actions” at times and dates of the White House’s choosing. You know, like monarchies and other old fashioned authoritarian systems. American soldiers have been dying all over the world for several decades without much conscience on the part of the people elected to “represent” them. But the chance to subpoena Mark McGwire and ask for his autograph—that, Congress has time for? Why stop there? Why not outlaw the DH, impose a salary cap, or initiate team contraction (sayonara, Kansas City)? Lots of governments work closely with domestic sports establishments. Cuba, for instance. I want every American—every hard-working, tax-paying, sports-watching American—to take a good look at what we’re dealing with here. This is your government, people. These are your tax dollars at work. Our forefathers threw off the reins of a British king some two hundred years ago, all so Reps. Tom Davis and Henry Waxman could protect kids from better living through science, while John McCain declares himself National Sports Czar. We need to seriously reconsider why being in Congress is a full-time, paid profession. Shoemakers stay in business by making shoes. Lawmakers stay in business by making laws. But if human beings suddenly stopped having problems and feet this time tomorrow, shoemakers would go out of business. Lawmakers wouldn’t. We’d be stuck with them till their terms expired. And, rest assured, that would leave plenty of time to invent new problems just like this one. Look, I’m not saying “performance enhancing drugs” aren’t a problem. Steroids have been linked to some rather unappealing side effects—including sterility, liver damage, strokes, and heart attacks. Major League Baseball may have been wrong to look away as steroids fueled the homerun explosion that “saved the game” in the late 1990s. But the fact that these drugs are illegal is a shallow excuse for not using them; it always was, and it always will be. Laws—and lawmakers—are poor substitutes for principles. Baseball is a business, and Congress has no business messing with it. If steroids powered Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa’s record-setting ‘98 season, then let the same fans drawn in by that season now call it a sham. Let them ask for an asterisk in the record books. And let this whole thing come full circle. Congress may have the best of intentions here. They may even do players a favor by forcing the MLB to adopt a true “zero tolerance” policy. But if Barry Bonds is chasing a “fake” homerun record, it’s up to baseball to do something. Any legislative band-aid would be equally artificial. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
In this week's education news, school choice is the issue of the day in S. Carolina where Jay Ragley, the South Carolina Republican Party's political director, has his hands full trying to combat the multitude of disinformation being slung by the Democrats with regard to Put Parents in Charge; due to come up for a vote in the state legislature (once the budget is out of the way). Low high school graduation rates and poor college entrance exam scores are more than indicative that the education establishment has not put the children first. Issac Bailey feels frustrated because he believes that the educational finance monopoly is blocking the right of parents to choose the school that can best serve their children's educational needs.
There's lots of positive momentum for school choice in other parts of the country, as well. In Arizona, legislators want to extend state tuition tax credits to corporate contributors (current law limits credits to individual donors) and to launch a voucher system. Any voucher legislation must be signed into law, however, by Gov. Janet Napolitano, who doesn't question the teachers’ unions' argument that public schools aren't amply funded therefore vouchers aren't justifiable. This, even though Caroline Hoxby of Harvard University (2001) found a direct link between the competition resulting from vouchers and considerable improvement in academic achievement among Milwaukee's public school students. Researchers at Florida State University and the Manhattan Institute discovered that in Florida, test scores in underperforming schools rose significantly because of the mere possibility that vouchers could be issued to students. And in Cleveland, the voucher program boosted achievement in public as well as private and religious schools. Elsewhere, in New Hampshire a bill has been introduced that would provide vouchers to low income families. It's on its way to the Senate for a procedural vote and then it will make its way to the Senate Finance Committee. Only if it passes through these folks will it be re-sent to the entire Senate for an up or down vote. In Missouri, the House Urban Affairs Committee chaired by Democrat Ted Hoskins, passed a scholarship tax credit bill. He and other black caucus democrats favored this form of school choice because Scholarship Granting organizations will provide vouchers to low income families who can use the money to pay for either private school tuition or public school expenses.
In New Jersey, Derrell Bradford, the deputy director of Newark-based Excellent Education for Everyone, or E3, is lobbying for voucher programs because by continuing to wait for the DOE to reform education, our public schools continue to feed a permanent minority underclass. While there are many avenues that can be taken on the road to school reform, children attending low performing schools shouldn’t have to be penalized while those who are looking out for their welfare bicker over what path affords the best solution. Parents should be availed of all of the educational choice options, whether they be publicly or privately administered. Tax dollars should not discriminate. Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||||
The unadorned answer is that a murder results in the death of a human being. The most central of all principles is that life is valuable. If you agree and accept this axiom, it must follow that ALL life has worth and that EVERY person deserves the same respect. Our entire civilization has rested upon the wisdom and truth that is codified in the Ten Commandments. “Thou shalt not kill” is stated clearly in the King James Bible. “Thou shalt not murder” is the pronouncement from Deuteronomy 5 in the Mechon Mamre Hebrew Bible in English. Both decree that it is wrong to take a life. Some may wish to argue exceptions under certain conditions, like self defense; but as a rule the dictate is clear. What is amusing, if it wasn't so tragic, is the way Americans respond when they perceive that their own safety may be at risk. It is natural to fear sudden death, but is it sensible to become absorbed with a hysteria created and driven by media hype? We regret and mourn the victims of the "Beltway Sniper." That designation is the invention of the tabloid press. A more proper label is that of "HOMICIDE MURDERER." Keeping it generic removes any reference to celebrity designation. While the public eagerly awaits the next news report to air, does the level of fear, alarm or worry warrant the national coverage and response? Facts are that nationwide, there were 18,209 murders, or 6.8 for every 100,000 people in 1997 seem tame to the of 10.2 per 100,000 in 1980 and 9.8 in 1991. Cities with populations above one million, had a murder rate of 35.5 per 100,000 in 1991, which fell to 20.3 per 100,000 in 1997. Does the name James D. Martin, come to mind? If not, you may have better luck remembering Linda Franklin. The media coverage for this ninth attributed murder victim, has a different ring to it from that of Mr Martin. The press described him as "man of 55", while Mrs Franklin was characterized as "a fearless and outdoorsy FBI intelligence analyst who beat breast cancer twice". The time line and list of deceased, gives a good account of the crimes and helps to remember the victims. But what makes them any more special than all the other murdered causalities that the country experiences each year? We all should experience sorrow with the fatal loss among our fellow citizens. Yet that grief is seldom spread evenly, when the media has motives that far outstrip the simple reporting of news. Most of us understand the nature of the sensationalism that has lowered the bar on reporting. We have come to reluctantly tolerate that "if it bleeds it leads." Nevertheless, the real decline in civil society can't be contributed solely to the debased and foul standards that are normal for today's press. The public shares greatly in the blame with their infantile demand that the government must guarantee their safety at all costs. Protecting and serving the public is a laudable objective, but insulating "soccer moms" from the harsh realities of life is a phony result of the cradle to grave society. Is this terrorism or a madman applying his trade? Speculation is asinine, fabricated anxiety is cruel and emotional outrage is counterproductive. Consider what is really at stake. What are the true consequences of every hyped alarmist situation? The cries for greater government action leaves us with more pervasive intervention into our lives. Freedom and individual liberties are the immediate causality. Before the first victim was buried, our society lost another portion of our collective worth. When a federal government employee was shot, the shapers of perception rushed to memorialize her while defusing that she could be a selected target in the sights of the crosshairs. When will the public get it? The trumped up campaign against terrorism has the decisive goal of protecting those who are in control, while the ordinary citizen is reduced to collateral damage. Protecting the government is the underlying purpose of law enforcement. If you are one that accepts that government surveillance cameras bring you security, that roving spy planes will prevent the next shot, or that executive orders banning hunting and firing of guns will make you safe - you are beyond help. The media is in the business of manufacturing scares and the State is the beneficiary of your panic. When you cower in fright, it is not the sniper who wins, it is the bureaucracy that gains more control over you and your fear. How quickly many forget who are the foremost murderers of all times.
If all life has value and each person possesses identical worth, why do citizens tolerate public measures to protect the class of parasites that form the ranks of government? No doubt those officials claim a special position, and view their role superior to ours. That's easiest enough to understand. But when the typical citizen consistently relinquishes their natural rights and offers up their basic freedoms, we must question if the American people deserves respect. LIBERTY is far more important than specious domestic security. Ever wonder the kind of response we would see if bureaucrats and politicians became the preferred targets for further salvos? Subconsciously, the Beltway crowd know that their systemic betrayal can make them the prey of choice by the next lunatic. The most corrupt among them are even willing to risk sacrificing up some of their own if it furthers the reach of government power and concentration. Eating their own young is an option. Can we reasonably conclude that the sniper is the only deranged person? Protect and cherish all life. Retain and defend you natural rights not only from HOMICIDE MURDERERS, but from those in your own government, who protect themselves, at the expense of your Liberty. Now you know what the War on Terror is all about.
|
||||||||||
©2004-2005 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Sunday, March 27, 2005 4:08 AM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
||||||||||
