What They've Thought
Their View Archives

2004 Archives

May 1, 2005

• Neuro-Botany Explained (The Theocrats of the Antitheocracy)
• Our Befuddled Children Are Paying With Their Lives 
• TV Turnoff Week
• Stealing from the Middle Class to Give to the Poor
• The Wal-Mart we all know and love

April 24, 2005

• Oceans Eleven Plus One (Sleezeburger In Paradise)
• It’s the Gas Prices, Stupid
• Our National Pastime?
• The NEA Cries Wolf Again
• "Velvet Conservatism"
  This Seinfeld is No Ordinary Joker

April 17, 2005

• The Dragon Stirs (Diverting the World's Attention)
• How to Solve Our Illegal Immigration Dilemma
• Google Intruders
• Community Chest: Collect Tuition Tax Credit
• To Conspire or Not to Conspire, That is the Question

April 10, 2005

• New York Times Up, Bush Down? (Getting It Wrong Again)
• I'm a Heartless Bastard
• School Reform Detractors Driven by Agendas
• Above the Law for Some - Means Justice Denied for Us

April 3, 2005

• Inching Towards The New Center (Left-Wing Political Science)
• The Day the American Eagle Was Castrated
• On Terri Schiavo
• America's Starvation of Morality
• 4 Fortunes by Shorting

March 27, 2005

• Arm The Teachers!
  (Why Not Disarm The Bureaucrats?)
• Let Not Terri’s Starvation Be In Vain
• Congress Hates Mark McGwire
• In Moral Relativism Who's Responsible?
• Is Meaningful Change Possible?

March 20, 2005

• With Friends Like These (Who Needs Enemies?)
• Congress Loves Baseball
• School Reform Update
• What Does Murder Really Mean?

March 13, 2005

• You Stupid Fuels (Clouseau Explains The Iraq/Al Qaeda Ties)
• Did Vermont just secede from the Union?
• Gates’ Education Action Plan Needs Momentum
• Matt Hale an enemy combatant?

March 6, 2005

• All Dogs Have Fleas
  (When the Transparent Demand Transparency)
• Terri Schiavo:
  Why the Rush to Put Her to Death?
• "The Passion" vs. "Fahrenheit 9/11"
• The Basics in Education Shouldn't Be Agenda Driven
• Steward of the Public Trust

February 27, 2005

• Canada Knows Best (No Ticky No Washy)
• Book Review: Torpedo by Jeff Edwards
• Set Thine House In Order
• Freedom of Choice Spells Academic Achievement (Glossary to Educational Choice, part 5)
• The Identity Crisis For Conservatives

February 20, 2005

• Liberal Legal Plunder
  (Funding Black on Black Crime)
• The DNC’s Newest Cheerleader
• Remember President's Day
• The Black Magic of Donald Rumsfeld

February 13, 2005

• Kim’s Il (When Good Tin Pot Dictators Go Bad)
• Duke, Where's My Car?
• The Public School Lottery (Part 4: Glossary to Educational Choice)
• KSM caught - declare victory

February 6, 2005

• Women of Iraq:
  Rend Your Veils and Begin Your Shoe Smacking!
• The Psychology of Eagles Fans
• The Solvency of Education
• 4 Fortunes by Shorting

January 30, 2005

• If You Can’t Make Sense Of Something (Learn To Read Between The Lines)
• Book Review: Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell by David Michaels
• Libertarians: Defined
• Ignorance Preserves Education’s Status Quo (Glossary to Educational Choice, Part 3)
• 'Cosmic Consciousness' as Practiced For All To See

January 23, 2005

• Sunni Dispositions (Demanding Darwinian Results)
• Education at a Glance, Both Forward and Back
• Propagandist For Hire
• Student Vouchers Invite Government Involvement (Glossary to Educational Choice, Part 2)
• When States Build Empires

January 16, 2005

• Perceptions (In A Pigs Eye)
• Western States Tragedy: Where is the World? Where is the Aid?
• Going To California
• Glossary to Educational Choice, Part 1
• Is Meaningful Change Possible?

January 9, 2005

• A Tsunami of Tstupidity
  (Slow: Children At Play)
• DiCaprio, Bullock, Nelson, Leno:
  Putting Their Money Where Their Hearts Are
• Pay Up, Sit Still, and Damage Your Bladder: Theater Economics
• The Ant and the Tsunami Victims: A Marxist Perspective
• To Conspire or Not to Conspire, That is the Question

January 2, 2005

• The Party Of The Poor?
  (A Matter Of Warped Perspectives)
• 2004: The Year In Headlines
• Tsunami Victims Benefit Most from US Citizenry
• Courting disaster, as the kingdom declines

What They Thought May 8, 2005

R.A. Hawkins
Kerry L. Marsala
Jonathan David Morris
Nancy Salvato
SARTRE

Click here for columnist bios

R.A. Hawkins
AstreuxFizziks
(The Universe and Those Seeking to Understanding it)

There are quite a few people out there who have assumed that I’m an oil person and corporate hugger as opposed to being a tree hugger. Actually, I’m all of them rolled up into one and tend not to react to things in a knee jerk manner. I tend to react to experts in most fields with a mild knee jerk manner that resembles a wretch, but that is actually just me folding in half so that I can laugh. I will cause a few knee jerk responses from several groups with this article, which is fine with me. I know how to delete or answer email as needed.

First I’m going to comment on Greer’s work in his book "Full Disclosure." I have it and I’m reading it as time permits. But I find him to be a little unaware of geopolitical concerns. He seems to think that because the government has all of this technology that they should give it up to the public domain. I think he is completely out there with that idea. He has no idea what that would unleash on the world. If he does realize what it would cause, then he ain’t our friend. His contention is that we don’t need oil and there are cures for all that ails our economy. He is completely wrong.

Here is what would happen if the energy problem was cured with the release of this new technology: The energy industry, automobile industry, oil industry and all of the businesses that deal with them right on down to the shop keeper who deals with the employees would be out of work. We would collapse. You think the great depression was bad?

He also wants to see the technology released to everybody so they won’t need to go to war over oil. I say he doesn’t understand the human psyche. It would all be used to go to war. It would make man's natural state of conflict cheaper to pursue. We have already lost major parts of industry to our number one enemy China. And we are complaining about the loss of jobs there.

No we need to take this change slowly and understand that this next great Moslem Jihad has nothing to do with oil, just as it had nothing to do with oil when they first went out on conquest. That was within a few years after their prophet died. China will still be doing its level best to go after Taiwan because the issue is maintaining control and power. I never noticed any oil in Taiwan; did you?

But in spite of all of that, I do see hope. I wrote an article a few years ago and it didn’t get printed in quite a few places. It was called "A Quantum Leap in Understanding." The point of that article was that the experts aren’t experts and they never were.

There were people one hundred and sixty years ago who were investigating some rather interesting things. But we had other people who determined that electricity is a one-sided thing, as in only taking into account the negatively charged electron. We have determined that anything that can harvest energy we don’t understand is automatically a perpetual motion machine, never mind the fact that Burt Rutan has a gravity overbalance wheel in his house. I doubt that he gets any real work out of it, however. And he isn’t willing to say much about it, either. I get the feeling that he is like me: laughing at the experts.

So the point is this: if gravity can be harnessed, then it is probably some type of energy. Tesla recognized that there is another side, or a positive side, to electricity. Our "experts" refer to them as holes that open up. Those who choose to pursue these types of technological advances can pursue them and laugh because, as they say, the more you know, the more you find out you don’t know. By the way, the Hubble telescope has shown that as the universe is expanding, it is doing the exact opposite of what the experts say it would. It is accelerating, not decelerating.

All things are in motion in the world that our Lord created. I salute those who are out there really trying to understand it. They realize there is an abundant amount of energy out there waiting to be harnessed. And I’m also laughing at those who say they already understand it. I have little patience for those who are sitting around demanding a government solution to the energy problem.

The sad fact is that we as a people are still stupid. The patent office even closed its doors once because everything that had been invented was in existence.

R.A. Hawkins       Web Site       Contact       Back to Top

Kerry L. Marsala
C is For Carrot, Not Cookie

Due to the epidemic of overweight, oversized, overlarge, big, chubby, obese, plump, fat and portly children, Sesame Street has taken Cookie Monster’s cookies away and will be soliciting healthier eating habits to our “fluffy” children. 

Bring in "C is for Carrots" and that’s good enough for me!  However, hold the ranch dip because I think it might enlarge my furry hips and expand my blue girth. Moreover, why we are at remaking Cookie Monster? Please, let us help Cookie monster stop saying,“Me love cookies.” It is, "I love cookies." Where are the grammar police? (Oh, I forgot they only love to criticize those that lean to the conservative side and their lousy ability to be grammatically correct).

When did it become the entertainment mecca’s job to go from the genre of education through entertainment — filled with sweet, delicious fun and singing raucously “C is for cookie and that’s good enough for me!” — to changing the tunes words to, “Cookies are a sometime food?”

I would like to understand something. When the entertainment industry is criticized by the conservative side for their over use of violence, drugs and sex references in their shows, the conservatives are told to mind their own business and stop being the morality police, right? However, if opposition is brought up to leave a forever monster of five who loves his cookies alone, and it's suggested that parents are to be responsible for their children’s development of healthy living, we are wrong and evil for stopping them from doing their socialistic jobs of protecting the children. It’s all for the children, you know… 

Either way, whether we are talking about controlling the remote control, purchasing music or how many cookies to eat, it is ultimately supposed to be the parent’s job to control these family issues. Nevertheless, doesn’t violence against others seem to be a trifle more expedient to make statements over than the curbing of eating too many cookies?  I don’t know…maybe cookies are more dangerous than screaming ludicrous-sounding words of hatred, encouraging the rape of women and killing cops.

Heck, I want my C, my Cookie Monster and my song, darn it! As kids, we grew up watching Sesame Street and loved that adorably silly blue Cookie Monster. His devouring of cookies, with a voracious appetite, made us all giggle and remember that the letter C was for Cookie! As kids, we enjoyed eating our cookies like Cookie Monster, and we would practice our C skills by biting our cookies in the middle just so they would look like the letter C.

I am not against healthy eating habits and promoting exercise. The fat butts waddling down main street America need fewer carbs and more exercise. But teaching our children to enjoy themselves and indulge in sweets moderately is a parent’s job, not Cookie Monster's. Cookie Monster’s job for years has been to help kids remember the letter C, and Cookie Monster accomplished this feat in a completely unabashed innocent way. Can’t our children enjoy being children? Why does everything have to be so freakin politically correct?  What happened to just savoring the moment of complete freedom to enjoy a good ol’ fashioned cookie?
(With an icy cold, glass of whole milk… ewwww too much fat.)

What has happened to our society? Have parents of these over-sized children forgotten how to teach proper eating habits and how to maintain regular exercise? Are we just too busy to instruct our children that constantly eating only high fat foods will increase their waists? We don’t have enough parental involvement with our children, so we need to revamp Cookie Monster to parent our children into being healthier specimens.

Now we need a Cookie Monster representative… I mean Carrot Monster representative to tell our children that cookies are only a sometimes food. Isn’t Cookie Monster, with those big wiggly eyes, the offering of a truly adorable child who has abandoned all structure to enjoy life’s chocolate chip cookies?

With Cookie Monster now only being allowed his main staple of dining on cookies to be a “sometimes” event, will the food police in the entertainment industry be after Pillsbury Doughboy to tone up and cut the cinnamon rolls? On the other hand, will Christopher Robin be forced to take away Winnie the Pooh's honey jars and put him on Atkins? 

By the way, I am confused… if you read some health reports, we have statistics being released that say our children are being so bombarded with being thin that bulimia and anorexia are out of control amongst both boys and girls. If Cookie Monster is going to be the spokesmonster and begin the indoctrination process starting at the age of infancy, what will our poor confused children of the future become?  Will their disorders be starvation related or obesity related?  Either way they’re headed for problems.

I have a solution to all this mess. How about the parents just take back control over their families? Wow, what a concept. Parents need to be parents. Stop letting little Junior be the captain of the ship, and you tell him to take his hand out of the cookie jar. Children can’t handle themselves because they haven’t the experiences of life to form opinions and good judgments yet. Yes, society needs to lend its kind and helpful hand, but whether we are talking of eating disorders, too much violence being watched, lack of exercise or whatever… it’s the parents' job to give the structure needed to their little crumb crunching, curtain climbing, yard apes (a.k.a children).

Leave the Cookie Monster alone. He epitomizes the innocence and unabashed childlike freedom to love and enjoy all of life’s cookies.

Jonathan David Morris:
The Big Red Machine

Well, actually, let me rephrase that. What I mean is, I liked it better when Americans lived in fear of the Soviets.

It ruled.

Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin called the collapse of the Soviet Union “a genuine tragedy.” Now, technically, I think he’s way off base here. His perspective is that it was better for Russia when former Soviet republics were under Russian rule. Well, no kidding. That’s like saying Guns N’ Roses was better when it contained real members of the Guns N’ Roses band (instead of just W. Axl toiling away in a basement on the End of Days soundtrack). The Soviet government killed millions of people. Its collapse was not a genuine tragedy. But perhaps it was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century"… for Americans.

Now, why would I say this? Why would I suggest that the end of the Cold War—often hailed as one of America’s greatest accomplishments—is something to bemoan? Well, that’s simple: Because it is. Americans just haven’t noticed it yet.

See, foreign policy is a lot like boxing. You’re only as good as your competition. That’s why Mike Tyson could never have been better than Muhammad Ali. Great fighters beat other great fighters. Who’d Tyson beat in his prime? Michael Spinks? Trevor Berbick? Give me a break. Those guys couldn’t’ve carried Jerry Quarry’s jockstrap.

The same thing goes for America’s legacy. How will historians remember modern Americans? (Okay, besides fat and lazy?) Gone are the days of brave-new-world America—the America of Main Streets, pastels, and hot cups of joe. It’s more of a manifest destiny America now. We’re ever-expanding, even spreading some lofty ideals. But it’s just not the same. We’re not the America of lore. We’re the America with unbridled firepower—like the ‘96 Chicago Bulls, who went 72-10.

America is at its best when it’s up against stiff competition. And against the Soviets of old, today’s enemies just can’t compete. I guess what I’m trying to say is, I’m a little tired of the Cold War/War on Terror comparison. No offense, but it’s hardly a comparison at all. In fact, it’s a slap in the face of our worthy Soviet opponents. That’s why Putin was right when he called the Soviet Union’s collapse a “geopolitical catastrophe.” For America, that’s exactly what it was.

Think about this. When it was the USA vs. the USSR, you knew what you were up against. Ostensibly, it was a battle of capitalist pigs vs. communist hacks. But today? Today, we face terrorism. That’s like facing botulism. It’s not an enemy; it’s just a problem.

Nor am I buying this idea that we’re at war with radical Islam. Sure radical Islam hates us. But radical Islam hates everyone—regular Islam included. If America’s going to have an archenemy, shouldn’t it be America’s archenemy? We’re capitalists. We’re not supposed to share.

This brings me to my next point: Marketing. Now, obviously, the Nazis had the best ad campaign of all our 20th Century enemies, but give the USSR some credit—they were pretty well-marketed, too. The Soviets had their own insignia, for instance. You know the one I’m talking about. Red background. Yellow hammer and sickle. We’re talking major brand awareness here. Conversely, terrorism is no-frills. It’s Brand X. The store brand. What’s their symbol—a VHS tape? Army fatigues? A gibberish alphabet Americans can’t even comprehend? Please. Hire yourselves a graphic designer. Then get back to me.

The Soviets had credibility. Terrorists don’t. The USSR could’ve conceivably conquered our country. You think terrorists could do that? Why? Few of them have any experience in political office. And those that do make Russia’s old leaders look like pillars of competence. The 9/11 hijackers couldn’t have hoped to change our culture; conservative Christians have been trying to do that for years. And without a couple of nukes, they wouldn’t’ve beaten us militarily, either. They haven’t got an army. They don’t even have airplanes. They had to borrow ours.

Oh, and what’s with this “Teach me to fly but not how to land” crap? If ‘80s cinema could portray the Soviets as bumbling idiots, then terrorists are the square root of stupidity.

Finally, there’s the terrorist M.O.—namely, living and working amongst us. Yes, it’s a frightening gimmick, but it’s also the oldest trick in the book. (Joe McCarthy, anybody?) Furthermore, terrorists talk more about our presence in their land than their presence in ours. The way I figure, if they stopped aiming for women and children, ditched repression, and simply resorted to snide remarks (like Canada), a lot of Americans might even agree with them. Hell, between “free speech zones” and taking your shoes off at the airport (which, itself, can be construed as a terrorist act), we’re probably just as annoyed with our Soviet-style government as they are.

Terrorists hit us hard on September 11th—harder, I might add, than the USSR ever did. But to be fair, it was merely a series of well-delivered punches. And, thankfully, they haven’t hit us since. Maybe that’s because we’re fighting them in their own countries now. Maybe it’s because they were meek and pathetic to begin with. I don’t know. But at this point, they’re basically our Buster Douglas.

Jonathan David Morris      Web Site      Contact     Back to Top    

Nancy Salvato
Follow the Money

Money and receiving an education are almost synonymous in this day and age. You certainly have to have one to have the other. But I wonder how many people really know how or what their individual tax dollars actually contribute to their own child's education.

In the 1999-2000 school year, the breakdown of tax dollars went something like this: Local and intermediate sources made up 43 cents of every dollar in revenue, state revenues comprised 50 cents, and the remaining 7 cents came from federal sources. (U.S. Education Spending: 1999-2000)

Here's the catch. Local, state, and federal dollars all come from the same place –you! When you think about it that way, the break down is pretty important because where you decide to live directly impacts the amount of money you spend on your child's local school district.

This understanding may have many implications for the discriminating tax payer. When the federal government increases the percentage of taxes that help fund education programs around the nation, you are in effect subsidizing the education of those who reside all across the country. The schools receiving the most funding will be those considered more in need of federal tax dollars or whose legislators are adept at getting "pork".

In contrast, funding the bulk of your child's education through local tax dollars should ensure that your own money is more than likely to cover your own child's education. Unless you live in Texas, where the richer districts keep only a fraction of their taxes and the other portion goes to (Robin Hood) to the poorer districts. Talk about unfair!

Less than half of the money funding local schools comes from local sources and funding formulas are in place to distribute state and federal revenue in such a way that your child's school may not be eligible for as much money as a school outside your district. The governing policy idea behind all this allocating is to equalize public education.

When "Educrats" complain that it costs too much money to ensure (as a prerequisite to receiving NCLB money) adequate yearly progress in your child's school and say that the federal government isn't contributing enough money to mandate this law, in effect they are saying that you need to pay more tax dollars to the federal coffer to be dispersed amongst the more impoverished school districts. Ironically, no states have actually collected and spent all the federal money available to them yet they continue to complain they need more.

When you stop to consider how tax dollars are spent in the schools, you may want to reconsider voting yes on that referendum or lending your sympathetic ear to those complaining that there isn't enough money to provide for public education. On average, only 62 cents per education dollar is used for instruction.

Over a third of the money is used to operate and maintain buildings, pay school administrators, cover transportation, and other such things. Tax increases often go to funding retirement pensions, premium health care for current and retired teachers, and other benefits that do no directly affect the student. This occurs amidst national debate over the security of the average taxpayers' own Social Security and Medicare –which aren't nearly as comprehensive and are often cost prohibitive.

Those benefiting from the monopoly of public education must be stopped. Parents need to have more control over their children's education. The only way to do so is to allow the parents to decide where their designated education dollars will be spent. Allowing competition for students will force competing schools to raise their standards and operate with more efficiency and legitimacy.

The public school system as it stands is one big "redistribution of income" scheme. Not only is it serving to socialize education but it lines the pockets of those screaming the loudest against changing the system because they don't want to lose "a good thing". A good thing for the students or the taxpayers – I don't think so. But those who hold the purse strings don't want you to know that.

Nancy Salvato       Web Site      Contact     Back to Top    

SARTRE Encore Presentation from 12-19-04
Spy Master a Lethal Melanoma

SARTRE      Web Site       Contact       Back to Top