 |
What They've Thought
|
||||
|
|
||||
What They Thought March 12, 2006 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
|||||
In the interest of full disclosure, I need to tell you that, years ago in the 1980s, I worked for a producer of a particularly effective pesticide that was applied with nothing more toxic than water. It is now, like so many other pesticides, not available to pest control professionals because it was literally forced off the market by the Environmental Protection Agency that insisted millions of dollars of testing be repeated for its continued registration. The company decided it just wasn’t worth it. I have served as the public relations counselor to a state pest management association that began in 1941 when its founding members decided they needed to better understand the science involved with combating one of the most ancient vectors of disease and property damage, the billions of insect and rodent pests that besiege us to this day. Over the years since then, they have invited scientists to educate their members to better serve their customers. So, when I read yet another anti-pesticide news story in my daily newspaper, my first reaction was to heave a sigh of disgust and turn the page. My next reaction was the same one that caused me to create The National Anxiety Center to dispute the endless environmental lies designed to influence public opinion and policy. I got angry. “The nation’s streams and rivers, from the Midwestern corn belt to the Hawaiian Islands to the suburbs of New Jersey, are infused with dangerous pesticides, the U.S. Geological Survey reported yesterday.” If you read no further than that first paragraph you would, like millions of other Americans, conclude that your health was endangered. You would be wrong. Like all such newspaper and other media stories that sound the warning claxon, you have to read further to discover there is no danger. Further into the story, you would learn that, “To what degree the findings represent a threat to human health is not certain. Most concentrations detected did not exceed federal human-health benchmarks.” That was paragraph eight. In the next paragraph, the article notes that, “How the compounds may interact in the human body is poorly understood.” And, if you read still further, you would find a quote from Jay Vroom, president of Croplife America, that “Normal water purification procedures used by municipalities…would remove most traces of pesticides.” The key word here is “traces” because the measurements trumpeted in the first paragraph reflect a million parts per gallon and even a billion parts per gallon. Translation? So little presence of pesticides as to constitute no health threat whatever. Moreover, your local water company removes those trace elements before you ever drink them. So why then is the sidebar to the article titled “Drink at your own risk?” To scare you. That is the single operational mode of all environmental organizations and the data they serve up to the mainstream media that cleverly puts the scare in the first paragraph, confident that you are not likely to read to the end of the story, nor even understand that the threat they are describing is non-existent. In a similar fashion, the nation’s leading science magazines have become so debased by their alliance with environmentalists that one can no longer trust their latest “news.” A case in point is a recent issue of Science magazine that reported Antarctica is melting. Two weeks earlier, it reported that Greenland was also losing big chunks of ice. Run for your life, the sea level is about to swamp all the coastal cities of the world. As Dr. Patrick Michaels noted on Tech Central Station, however, “Natural variability is sufficiently large on yearly and multidecadal time scales that it is simply impossible to conclude that anything other than natural variability is at play in either of those two stories.” In other words, a study based on the last three years of ice mass cannot possibly be taken seriously. Unless, of course, you are an editor for Science magazine. If you are a scientist who follows such variations, you would know that over the course of the past several decades, the ocean-land system of Antarctica has been experiencing a growth in the amount of snow and ice. The lies the environmental movement has put forth over the last few decades can and does fill entire libraries. They have been aided and abetted by the mainstream media that knows that scary news sells newspapers and attracts viewers and listeners. Spring is right around the corner as I write and I guarantee you that billions of insect and rodent pests are about to debut once more to plague homeowners, apartment dwellers, and everyone else. It’s a good time to keep the phone number of your local pest management firm on the speed dial. |
|||||
For years we’ve all been treated to stern, yet unbelievable lectures from the left stating that the only person who has a chance of winning an election for the Republicans is McCain. They lecture us on being palatable to the other parties and the independents. It’s as though they’ve never heard the term "principled." Recently McCain was at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. They decided to do a straw poll of the attending delegates. McCain moved with the kind of agility we’ve learned to expect from any political hooker. He suggested supporting Bush in these difficult times. That was a first! And speaking of firsts, I hear that Hillary actually gave back campaign donations to Wal-Mart. That’s amazing, actually, because the money is being generated by the sale of Chinese goods. Once the votes were tallied, we discovered that McCain’s instincts had been solid. He lost to Bush again. McCain finished fifth and Bush tied with Allen at third place. That means that McCain’s hopes of getting nominated by Republicans vanished as quickly as Wal-Mart’s "Made in America" campaign. I guess he is still going to be supported by a hopeful collection of leftwing ideologues with more emotions and hope than common sense. But being a visionary, he is just going to have to stick with that which has failed him in the past repeatedly. I have to say that if he appears principled in any way in the next two years that it will be for the exact same reasons that Hillary might be appearing the same. It will be an act. As an interesting side note though, as McCain’s hopes dried up the long drought in Phoenix, Arizona ended. Isn’t that an interesting coincidence? Well not really, but it was every bit as relevant as McCain saying we should all support Bush in this difficult time. I was interested to note that McCain said that Bush wasn’t supported adequately on the Dubai port deal. When I read that I became even more concerned that the Dubai port deal was deeply flawed. But it was safe for him to make a comment like that since the deal was already as dead as the Clinton wedding vows and Hillary’s libido. One of the issues brought up during this meeting was the need to reform immigration. McCain and Kennedy got together for this one and introduced a bill earlier, and many are hopeful that their idea will work. I found one part of the concept to be quite interesting: The illegal immigrants already here will have to pay a fine, which is an admission of wrongdoing. I was pretty certain that wasn’t put in there by Kennedy, not that I think he’s a hypocrite or anything like that. It’s just that I was unaware he was even familiar with the idea of personal responsibility, confession of guilt or any of that. I find it difficult to take any of these has been political clowns very seriously. I’m even referring to the NYT. I’m starting to suspect that these three are glomming themselves onto each other so they can get face time. They tend to get ignored most of the time because they aren’t that interesting in the first place, but when the three of them are working together on anything it is of use to certain political hacks in the media because there are two "D’s" and an "R" doing something together. Never mind the fact that there is little difference between them politically. I guess that one of the things that has bothered me for years is that the Republicans don’t throw people like McCain out, even though he hasn’t voted conservative on much of anything in years. I could see them keeping him for the express purposes of being a doorstop at the next GOP convention, but that’s about it. He sure doesn’t deserve any matching funds from the GOP when he runs for office next time. For McCain to gain any traction he’s going to have to do some serious reinventing now. Since he’s really a liberal, I doubt he’ll have any trouble with that ethically. His problem will be making it believable. But all of that aside, it is going to be an interesting year because we’re going to get a chance to see if America has actually gone back to sleep or if they’re paying attention. When the Republicans have held office for two terms, they’ve always suffered big losses in the second set of midterm elections. If America has gotten stupid we’ll see a new collection of geopolitical crash dummies from the left ascend to the helm of our ship of state. Just like always, they will run it onto the rocks and wonder what happened. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
Seventeen
percent of Americans think the First Amendment guarantees them the right
to drive a car.
I’m not kidding about this. Last week, the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum announced the results of a survey of 1,000 Americans, which suggested our country is more familiar with Simpsons characters, commercial slogans, and the judges from American Idol than with the five freedoms protected by the First Amendment (i.e., religion, speech, the press, assembly, and redress of grievances… though if I need to list them, you’re sort of proving the point). Only 28 percent of those surveyed could name more than one of these freedoms. And a mere one respondent was able to name all five. Meanwhile, 21 percent thought the First Amendment guaranteed them the right to own and raise pets (which defies explanation). And 17 percent thought it guaranteed them the right to drive a car (which is remarkable, since driving is a privilege—not a right). Now, I’ll admit it. When I first heard about this survey, I immediately found myself thinking, “God… Americans are stupid.” (Actually, I immediately found myself counting my fingers, making sure I could name all five First Amendment freedoms. Then I found myself thinking, “God… Americans are stupid.") But the more I think about this, the more I think, God, maybe this doesn’t really mean anything. I mean, think about it: As easy as it would be to bash Americans for the fat, lazy carelessness with which they’ve approached this, the most sacred of First Amendments—maybe they’re on to something here. Maybe it doesn’t make a difference whether they know what’s protected by the First Amendment. Maybe they don’t want those things to be protected in the first place. In fact, maybe we don’t even need a First Amendment at all. Just think about the terminology I’m using here. What’s this “we” stuff? I think the First Amendment’s important, sure. But does that mean the rest of the country needs to think it’s important also? Wouldn’t that be hypocritical of me? Wouldn’t that just equate to me imposing my viewpoint on my countrymen? Maybe there’s a reason why American Idol is more popular than the lynchpin of American freedoms. Maybe it’s because that lynchpin is quite simply losing in the marketplace of ideas. I can’t blame Americans for this. If anything, I probably ought to respect them for it. They’ve made up their minds about their priorities. It’s my own fault for disagreeing with them. I think it’s time to face the basic facts of the matter here: The First Amendment doesn’t exist to protect average Americans. It exists to protect people like me, Jonathan David Morris—semi-literate op-ed columnist. That’s the only way to explain why Americans don’t care one way or another whether it erodes. This country has been trying to silence me for years now. The faster the First Amendment disappears from existence, the quicker I’ll shut the hell up. Most of the speech that Americans partake in isn’t covered by the First Amendment. In fact, most of the speech we partake in falls subject to everyday checks and balances—little things that help keep us in line. In our professional lives, for instance, we can say whatever we want to say. And our bosses can promptly fire us for it. And in our personal lives, we self-regulate free expression (or have our spouses do it for us) in the name of self-preservation and social survival. This is called “getting along with others.” So, really, the only sphere of discourse that the First Amendment’s concerned with is political speech. And for most of us, that’s meaningless. It only matters to people like me, who constantly, publicly complain about everything. That said, I can see why most Americans don’t really care about it. Because most Americans don’t like me. Hell, I don’t like me, either. I suck as a person. I wish I would stop talking now. I’m not one to look a gift horse in the mouth. Maybe I would be if I understood what that expression even meant. But I don’t. So I’m not going to do it. If Americans want to hold on to the First Amendment, I’m not going to complain about it. In fact, I’ll be quite happy to continue hiding behind it. However, if Americans can’t be bothered to so much as know about this thing, then maybe it’s time to get rid of it. It’s only taking up valuable space in the national archives. So I say go for it. Delete it. If that’s what you want, America, don’t keep it around for my sake. I’m going to say what I want to say anyway—with or without permission from the federal government. Maybe without the First Amendment, elitists like those at the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum—who no one’s ever heard of anyway—will stop guilting you into knowing about the freedoms your forefathers left you. And maybe then you can enjoy some peace and quiet around here. Because, really, isn’t that the kind of freedom you want? Now, in closing, here’s a list of five mildly gratuitous statements: 1. Betty White was the hottest Golden Girl. 2. Judaism is a Jewish conspiracy. 3. Dick Cheney doesn’t brake for animals. 4. Flag burning is fine, as long as you own the flag. 5. Black people. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
Today our national debt stands at $8.2 trillion, which represents about $26,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. Interestingly, the legal debt limit is only $8.18 trillion, a figure that was reached a few weeks ago. This means the Treasury department must ask Congress to raise the debt limit very soon, most likely as part of a larger bill so it can be hidden from the American people. Raising the debt ceiling is nothing new. Congress raised it many times over the last 15 years, despite the supposed “surpluses” of the Clinton years. Those single-year surpluses were based on accounting tricks that treated Social Security funds as general revenues. In reality the federal government ran deficits throughout the 1990s, and the federal debt rose steadily. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan made it easier for Congress to obscure the extent of federal debt. He endorsed a change in the law that redefined Social Security and veterans pensions. In reality those obligations are debts, just like any other bill that must be paid in the future. But Mr. Greenspan urged renaming these obligations “intergovernment accounts,” which magically changed them from debts to “accrued liabilities.” This semantic shift frees up lots of room under the debt ceiling for more borrowing. Debt and credit, wisely used, can be proper tools for individuals and businesses. In a free society, however, we can never view expansion as a proper goal for government. Unlike a private business, our federal government should not be seeking out new ways to increase the scope of its dubious “services.” Any government that consumes at least 25% of the American economy and still can't balance its books is a government that vastly overspends. I disagree with the supply-side argument that government debt doesn't matter. The issue is not whether the Treasury has sufficient current income to service the debt, but rather whether a government that spends so much ultimately will destroy its own economy. Debt does matter, especially to future generations that will be asked to pay for our extravagance. When government borrows money, the actual borrowers- big spending administrations and politicians- never have to pay it back. Remember, administrations come and go, members of congress become highly paid lobbyists, and bureaucrats retire with safe pensions. The benefits of deficit spending are enjoyed immediately by politicians, who trade pork for votes and enjoy adulation for promising to cure every social ill. The bills always come due later, however. Nobody ever looks back and says, “Congressman so-and-so got us into this mess when he voted for all that spending 20 years ago.” For government, the federal budget is essentially a credit card with no spending limit, billed to somebody else. We hardly should be surprised that Congress racks up huge amounts of debt! By contrast, responsible people restrain their borrowing because they will have to pay the money back. It's time for American taxpayers to understand that every dollar will have to be repaid. We should have the courage to face our grandchildren knowing that we have done all we can to end the government spending spree. Rep. Ron Paul Web Site Back to Top |
|||||
The 8th grade students at my school are studying WWII; correspondingly, they are writing papers about a variety of people, places, and ideas that occurred in Germany during the prelude to the war up until the very end. Similar to my own experience, when I first learned about the travesties that were allowed to occur under Hitler’s rule, they are shocked and awed by what they read and hear regarding the Holocaust and the “final solution”. I have to wonder if they can truly comprehend the utter horror that the populace was forced to endure during his reign of terror. Certainly, they are trying to understand the material presented to them and assimilate the information. However, even as an adult, I have no personal experience with which to compare –and I am of partial Jewish origin. Recently, at Overland High School in Colorado, teacher Jay Bennish,
Although the teacher defended his comments as delivered to stimulate higher level thinking skills and explained his teaching style as one that is fair and balanced, anyone listening to the tape could make the argument that there was no room for Socratic dialogue and that all the questions posed by Bennish were rhetorical; that he was proselytizing in the classroom. I’m willing to wager that most of the population born and raised in the United States, under age 45, have no personal experience with mass genocide, yet it still occurs in other parts of the world. There are plenty of examples to choose from when explaining the atrocities allowed to occur as a result of isolationist or appeasement policies. Furthermore, if there was a lesson to be learned from WWII and Hitler, it was that had the United States entered the war earlier, many more lives might have been saved. Had Bennish not been trying to steer the general opinion of the students toward a specific direction, his “lecture” would have incorporated some of the ideas recently written about in a column entitled, Saddam's Lidice: The dictator's trial reveals a telling historical parallel In retaliation for the Czech resistance assassinating deputy SS chief Reinhard Heydrich, Hitler determined to find the killers. Two thousand innocent civilians were murdered. Because two men from Lidice were serving in Britain’s air force, it was then decided to make an example of a Czech mining village by gunning down the men, shipping the women to a concentration camp and deporting the remaining children to Germany. Finally, the village was razed. All of the details were broadcast for the world to hear. In Dujail, Iraq, there was an attempted assassination of Saddam Hussein. He retaliated by arresting 350 villagers. Ahmad Hassan Mohammad testified at Hussein’s trial, that a machine like a meat grinder was used to murder the villagers. Dujail also was razed –for an example. Bennish could have pointed out that there have been eight attempted assassinations of presidents in this country, since 1865, yet there are no records of mass genocides in retaliation for these crimes. (Assassinations and Attempts in U.S. Since 1865) In Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, written by a high school student, Marci Nafziger and published in the Concord Review, she talks about how under Pol Pot’s rule, the suffering endured by the Cambodians was horrific; 1.7 million people died during the reign of the Khmer Rouge. She recommends the movie, The Killing Fields, for anyone wanting to gain a deeper understanding of what was allowed to occur. I remember saying out loud, after watching that movie; I will never again watch another film of that genre. I couldn’t sleep for many nights. Perhaps Bennish could have shown the movie, Hotel Rwanda, about the United Nation’s failure to avert genocide in third world Africa, or Lost Boys of Sudan, about displaced refugees resulting from a conflict between Sudanese Christians and insurgent radical Islamists. Surely, by presenting any or all of the above examples, students would have been less likely to characterize the United States or President Bush as being the most violent nation on earth. Regardless of whether a person believes in pacifism or just war, the truth is that the United States does not have a monopoly on freedom. People who argue that going into Iraq and Afghanistan and fighting a war against radical Islamists understand this idea. Our freedom will be compromised as long as there are people whose belief system is such that anyone not going along with it must be eliminated. Given the choice, I’d rather fight to maintain freedom than live under the kind of regimes Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad forced on their populace. Ask those lined up to immigrate to this country why they continue to come here. Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
|||||
©2004-2006 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 Tuesday, March 14, 2006 11:45 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
|||||
|
site content ©2002-2006 site design by |
|||||
