Letter to My Congressional Representatives

I wrote the following letter to my Congressional representatives regarding the ever-growing abuses of the Civil Rights of American everywhere in the ongoing War on Terror."

"I am growing extremely concerned at the growing tide of governmental abuses against the civil liberties of Americans everywhere.

The Constitution guarantees certain freedoms and liberties to every citizen; yet with the advent of the so-called "War on Terror," Congress seems to be turning a perpetual blind eye to the infringements we are seeing every day.

The 4th Amendment guarantees freedom against unlawful search and seizure; yet the TSA is conducting these millions of times a day at our nations airports. Every US citizen that has the temerity to fly via commercial airline is suspected of being a criminal (or, having criminal intent) without a shred of evidence-- and are subjected to unwarranted searches by either body scan or physically intrusive pat downs. How is this allowed without trampling on the Constitution?

Since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on NY and DC, Americans can seemingly no longer go about their lives in anonymity due to the explosive proliferation of security cameras that appear nearly everywhere including parks, businesses, sidewalks, etc. Since when did my desire to live my life as an American citizen, unencumbered by governmental oversight, become a threat to national security so much that I am almost constantly watched or monitored by some means? Where is the Constitutionality of a seemingly evolving police state?

Then today, it was announced by the Dept. of Homeland Security, that WalMart management is going to encourage its consumers to report any suspicious behavior [by other shoppers] to the police or other law enforcement agencies. This move, endorsed by the Dept. of Homeland Security, smacks of historical totalitarian dictatorships such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany; and, it is reflective of the fear mongering created by the McCarthy trials of the 1950's. Citizens spying on citizens, and reporting them to police? The United States is on a dangerously slippery slope, and the Constitution is beginning to teeter on the edge.

The following are quotes by a few of our Founding Fathers regarding the very situation the United States finds itself in today...

"The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free
men or slaves."
-George Washington

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
-George Washington

"Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people."
-John Adams

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security."
-Benjamin Franklin

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
-George Washington

"Even peace may be purchased at too high a price."
-Benjamin Franklin

"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
-George Washington

The Founding Fathers correctly foresaw the dangers of the removal of freedoms. They perceived the very dangerous ground we now tread upon were the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be ignored or trampled under foot in the name of "security."

Please, as my Congressional Representative, I implore you to speak out against the Federal Agencies and Congressional Acts that are openly violating the freedoms of every American citizen not only in your District, but across the whole of the United States as well.

This madness that is happening in the name of "the War on Terror" has got to stop. Al Qaeda and all the other terrorist groups have already won their little war as freedoms are whiled away in the name of security. The more freedoms we lose, the greater their victory.

Please, speak out against this blatant trampling of Civil Rights. The price we will pay, as a country and a society, is far too great should the current climate be allowed to continue."

I encourage everyone reading this to write, call or email your Congressmen/women if you are as alarmed by what is happening the trampling of our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Nothing will ever change if ordinary citizens stand on the sidelines and silently accept the abuses that are happening now, and have yet to transpire--which they most assuredly will based on recent history. If you think your voice is inconsequential, you are absolutely wrong! Speak up! Encourage others to speak up, too! Every voice counts! Please...Speak up!

The Republican Party: Liars, Hypocrites & Jack Asses

The following was written in response to an article which stated that the supposed Republican ban on Congressional earmarks--appropriations targeted for a home state project or interest --was officially over as Arizona Senator John Kyl (R), the #2 ranking Republican in the Senate, earmarked $200M into a larger bill that was subsequently passed by the Senate.


"What a bunch of hypocrites.

Saying exactly what they need in order to get elected, the Jack Ass party pulls the ol' snake charmer's move at their earliest opportunity, and screws a gullible public out of $200M...again.

They continue to show the country that Republican campaign promises are nothing more than illusions and ruses utilized to swell public sentiment into a tide for change that, in reality, is nothing more than a continued ebb and flow of greed, deceit, power grabbing and lies that only strengthen a supposedly dead spoils system that is stronger than at any point in history.

Liars...Jack Asses.

And the voters of the United States can only blame themselves for the continuing degradation of of the political landscape because the voters continue to fall under the spell of these snake charmers who openly parade as true champions of the will if the people; yet who, over the course of the last 16 years, show time and again their true colors as the master public manipulators they truly are.

"Elect meeee. I'm a Republican. I care about you. I'll crush those sinful democratsss and lead thisss country to greatnessss. Elect meeee...blah, blah, blah..."

Until the voters wake up and refuse the charms of the Republican party, nothing in Congress will change for the better, and the widening chasm of political ideology will grow ever further away from the middle.

In the meantime, earmarks will drain the Treasury and the relentless Republican propaganda attacks will continue unabated; Corporations will gain ever-increasing control of Congress [and other positions of political power], and the HeeHaw party will relentlessly blame all the woes of our once great country on the Democratic party; thereby hypocritizing themselves even further.

What a bunch of Liars and Jack Asses."

No START Treaty?--My Response

(The following is my response to a story today stating that House Republicans will block any attempt by President Obama to ratify the START Treaty with Russia--aimed at reducing nuclear weapon stockpiles on both sides.

The Republican leaders are claiming that the lame-duck session (around the upcoming holidays) doesn't have enough time to sort out the terms of the treaty. In reality, this is just a taste of the political grandstanding that will occur when the Republican party controls the US House of Representatives in late January [following the recent mid-term elections].

Congress has had the terms of the START Treaty for more than eight months and has failed to even address the issue with any urgency. Now, they are using it against the President in order to gain political power throughout DC ahead of the shift in power within the House.)

"Just another pathetic display by the Republicans to show voters that THEY are now in control--again. A party of Jackasses--at least they got the party logo spot on!

So long as the new policy Republican party further widens the political ideology gap away from Democrats (and even the Moderates, too!), Congressional lawmaking will grind to a complete halt, and national policies and programs will all suffer for the cry-baby tantrum these whiners and demagogues are throwing.

What an embarrassment our democracy has become to the world. Party fighting and in-fighting is raging out of control; the uncooperative air in Congress is beyond anything this country has ever witnessed; and it seems that the sole purpose of the Republican party is to attack the President and destroy any hope of bipartisan cooperation that might help the country to move forward.

'To hell with the country, so long as we (the Republicans) are in power! We'll crucify the President, severely damage our tender relations with Russia by NOT passing the START treaty, undo everything the President has implemented, destroy the environment, plunder every natural resource available, allow the destruction of aquifers that are inconveniently near natural gas deposits, and decimate the hopes of 56 MILLION Americans for getting any sort of health coverage! Beyond that, we really don't have a plan; we just want to destroy the credibility of our President, and decimate his effectiveness simply because he's (gasp!)...... a Democrat.'

If you really paid attention to the just concluded election process, that pretty much sums up the goals of the Hee-Haw party. If you don't see it, then you either don't want to, or are completely blind to the hateful, divisive party rhetoric they've been spewing now for the last 14+ years.

Yeah...great plan....Jackasses.

(And by the way--for all you naysayers, I'm a registered Independent, and have always voted for whomever I believe is best suited for office. My ballots reflect votes for Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, etc. I do not favor one party over the other.)"

Local Congressional Rep Critisizes Federal Wage Earnings

(I made the following comment in my local newspaper after reading an article in which our House Representative, Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), criticized the average pay rates of Federal employees. In his remarks, Chaffetz falls well short of saying that he himself (and his fellow Congressmen/women) makes too much money--currently at $174,000+.)


"Typical comment from Chaffetz--What a putz.

He's spewing the latest Republican party rhetoric because they'll have control of the House in late January, and are posturing their 'cock of the walk' (in this case, the House vs. the President) stance well ahead of controlling the House to tell everyone that the Republicans are gonna make things better...well, at least that's their "Do as I say, not as I do" campaign smoke screen.

Chaffetz is a terrible Representative of his District--and yes, I made my vote accordingly on election day--and doesn't have an original political thought in his head. He constantly bows to his Republican masters rather than doing what his constituency wants. That's certainly no way to make a difference; it only further widens the political chasm that divides our Congress.

Former President Jimmy Carter was absolutely correct when he recently stated that the current political landscape in the US is an embarrassment to the rest of the democratic world.

So long as the political parties remain divisive on all issues, nothing positive and forward-thinking will be accomplished in DC."

A Very Personal Note

I just learned that my father died this morning at approximately 0200a Central time.

His death was not unexpected due to having contracted prostate cancer, as well as being burdened with advanced Alzheimer's disease.

Jerome Beryl W, a 3rd generation Swedish American; Born 05 Aug. 1932 in Bertha, Minnesota.

He was a great father; my hiking companion; my friend. He taught me responsibility, thrift, an indomitable work ethic, strength of purpose, photography, and a great love of the outdoors.

He also taught me that nothing is impossible so long as you believe, pursue, and effort your very best at all times.

He was a father of six, a grandfather of eleven, and a great grandfather of eight.

He now joins my mother who herself died on 14 Feb. 2001.

05 Aug. 1932 - 03 Nov. 2010 (Age 78)

Where Is The Tolerance?

I wrote the following as a response to an article that appeared in the Deseret News on Thursday, 07 Oct. 2010. The article stated that National Leaders for the LGBT community would be going to Salt Lake City to present the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints church President, Thomas S. Monson, with 100,000 letters of protest to remarks made by church Elder Boyd K. Packer at the church's just concluded 180th semi-annual General Conference.

In his remarks, President Packer was speaking on pornography and overcoming its addiction, as well as addictions to other sexual sins. Nowhere in his talk did Pres. Packer reference gays, homosexuals or any other particular group; yet certain media have made his remarks to sound as if he was speaking about these groups directly.

Apparently, the misquoted remarks have stirred a hornets nest amongst the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community. These leaders, still lashing out at anyone they believe is a target in their ongoing struggle for equality, actually think that their delivery of these letters will sway church leadership to change the doctrine of the church to accommodate the wishes of these individuals.

The message boards were sharply divided. I wrote my response to a particular respondent who attacked a number of other respondents for standing up for the church, and President Packer. His arguments were inflammatory (to say the least), wholly argumentative, and without a single shred of support for any of his outlandish claims. I just HAD to respond!

"Respondent______

Your post was laughable; and completely unsupported. As per the recent pattern displayed by the LGBT community, you attack relentlessly spouting skewed or completely false rhetoric, yet demand respect and equality.

If you're going to make any argument, please omit personal opinion and heresay. Provide factual information that can be easily referenced. Otherwise your arguments are hollow and utterly irrelevant.

Tell me--The LGBT community espouses compassion and tolerance...correct? When the citizens of California voted against the legalization of gay marriage, where was the tolerance and compassion when businesses were ransacked, when homes and places of worship defaced, elderly women harassed, and people in general called profane names, or were verbally abused because they had the temerity to have a differing opinion than those on the losing side?

Please remember that we live in the United States of America; in which The Bill of Rights guarantees the freedom of its citizens to believe, worship and opine as they wish. If someone disagrees with you, then have a thoughtful, intelligent discussion with them. If you can't do that then don't hypocritize yourself by calling others hateful and [by] showing them complete disrespect."


*My comment, while obviously not addressing the right or wrong of the issue, was meant to illustrate the hypocritic "Do as I say, Not as I do" mentality that seems to be a huge part of the LGBT's agenda as they look for equality in the eyes of the law.

My big issue is not their equality; rather, it is the methods these groups are employing of literally attempting to strong arm everyone who disagrees with their choice of lifestyles; be it individuals, communities, cities, and governments on all levels. It would seem that anyone disagreeing with them becomes a target for protests, demands, harassments and [sometimes] violence.

Where is the freedom of choice? Or the love and tolerance these individuals and groups claim to abide by? So long as you agree with them, you are safe. But if you have the balls to stand up and disagree, then you become fair game...at least, that's how I see it.

Big Oil Is After ANWR Again!

Today, a story emerged that stated the people behind our ever-present energy dependence--aka Big Oil--are once again trying to persuade Congress to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling once again. All throughout the Gee Dubya Bushie presidency they tried unsuccessfully to open ANWR. To this point, neither Congress, nor the Courts, have been willing to allow this.

I wrote the following commentary to the story, and to the many respondents who are either completely for drilling, or immovably against it.

"I'm against drilling in ANWR. The oil companies would have you believe that the area they want to drill in is of no consequence; when in fact, the area is one of the largest breeding and calving grounds for caribou and polar and grizzly bears. How can drilling NOT impact the area?

Also, Big Oil themselves state that they wouldn't even begin pumping oil for at least 10-15 years! Plus, they have no concrete data on the size of any oil reserves. They estimate, guess and then line the pockets of lobbyists and Congressmen, and spout "oil independence" to a gullible American public.

The last time I read (2005 I think), the US government was giving Big Oil over $5 BILLION dollars in tax breaks per year; but was only giving $7 million dollars towards energy research. Yeah...you read that correctly!

How about the idea that Congress puts $5B towards energy research, and give all of Big Oil just $7M in in tax breaks? After all, with the record profits regularly reported by Big Oil, do we, the people, the source of those record profits, really need to be giving these businesses tax breaks? C'mon! Think about it!

How much research; how much further could we get, if $5B per year were put into energy research? How many new industries [and jobs] would be created because of that investment? How much more secure would the United States be if oil were out of the political and economic landscape for good?

Throughout the history of the United States, anytime we were faced with having to improve, the people rose to the challenge. Just think of industrialization, the increased manufacturing capabilities during WWII, and the drive to reach the moon. Creating alternative, renewable energy resources could very well be the next wave of invention, world leadership and increased pride in being American!

ANWR drilling is NOT the answer! It's time that Congress stands up to Big Oil, and deflate their rather sizable...ahem...economic ego."

More Foul Calling in the NBA?

I wrote the following response to a news story coming out of the National Basketball Association offices which stated that NBA refs are being instructed to call more fouls on players who are protesting foul calls made against them. The intent is to stop the whining by players, and to speed up the game a little as it has become bogged down in mini-rants and incessant cry-baby complaints out of players and coaches. My response:

"It may not seem like much, but at least the League is starting to tap into the things fans find most irritating about today's game.

Personally, I'd like to return to the NBA of 30 or 40 years ago when actual skill in footwork, dribbling, and non-contact defense were prized by fans, and a joy to watch; when hanging on the rim was un-sportsman-like conduct; putting your elbow into a defender was an offensive foul, and traveling was called when any player took more than two steps without dribbling.

I stopped watching NBA games about four years ago because what I see is no longer skill so much as the ability to brawl on court and get away with as much as possible without getting caught. Then when they do get caught, these overpaid whiners throw a mini temper tantrum and act like they are being picked on by the refs. I long for the days of player loyalty to the cities they played for; when being a role model to kids actually meant something to the average player--rather than being an irritating afterthought.

I say, start calling all contact, all swiping at the ball, and definitely any complaining for committing a foul that the players themselves know damned well they did. The game needs to get back to its roots in just about every way.

The NBA will probably start attracting more fans back into the overpriced seats in the luxury arenas that Stern and Co. insisted be built in order to fit into their new "economic model." Maybe then they'll own up to creating the monster that is now the National BasketBRAWL Association. But I doubt it.

Are Political Parties Still Necessary?

I wrote the following response to a question posed on the website Intersect.com that asked, "Are political parties still necessary?

John Adams, the second President of the United States wrote, "The essence of a free government consists in an effectual control of rivalries." (Balancing and compromise between parties.)

I don't doubt the need for political parties for even a second. Without structured goals, ideals and leadership, out government would quickly fall into chaos. On the other hand, I completely agree with those who state that Congress has lost its way; that millionaires now control the country on not just the National level, but the State level as well. The voice of the commoner has become lost in a proverbial sea of Special Interest lobbyists who are more concerned about their right to pollute the environment, put unpronounceable chemicals in and on our foods and increasingly deny hardworking American the health care we so desperately need. Who is speaking now for the average American? I guarantee you it's NOT my Representative or Senator! They are too busy dancing the DC two-step in order to appease their business lobby financial backers.

The Founding Fathers did not want an exclusive wealthy leadership. They framed the guidelines for elected office with the thought that even the least noticed could lead the wealthiest.

Also, the Spoils System was supposed to have gone the way of the Dodo back in the early 1900's. But, it's back! We see this in Cabinet appointments, National Leadership appointments, passage of laws favoring certain industries as exchange for election backing (money, votes, etc).

It seems that what made this country great, what really separated it from other national governments, is being lost as party fighting (and in-fighting) reaches an all new crescendo as each tries to out shout the other in their quest to "carry the banner of freedom."

So, how do we fix it? Easy--Get rid of all lobbyists; electively replace every member of Congress with those having a real and true desire to serve *the will of the people*, insist that our Presidents abandon any semblance of the re entrenched spoils system, and reduce the powers of the presidency to its original parameters.

Return the power of the government back to the people. That would be a good start.

Will it happen? I doubt it; but it is a worthy goal that is certainly worth working towards. For the sake of the United States, I hope it actually happens.

Fidel Castro Was Wrong?

I was going to try and comment on this story, but have been feeling so bad that I decided to abandon that effort as this piece of news was too important to let it pass by much longer. So, here is a copy of the story as it appeared early on Thursday, 09 Sept 2010. Full credit is given.


By Jeff Franks (Reuters)

updated 9/8/2010 9:36:59 PM ET

HAVANA — Fidel Castro said Cuba's economic model no longer works, a U.S.-based journalist reported on Wednesday following interviews with the former president last week.

Jeffrey Goldberg, a writer for the Atlantic Monthly magazine, wrote in a blog that he asked Castro, 84, if Cuba's model — Soviet-style communism — was still worth exporting to other countries and he replied, "The Cuban model doesn't even work for us anymore."

The comment appeared to reflect Castro's agreement, which he also expressed in a column for Cuban media in April, with his younger brother President Raul Castro, who has initiated modest reforms to stimulate Cuba's troubled economy. Goldberg said Julia Sweig, a Cuba expert at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank in Washington who accompanied him to Havana, believed Castro's words reflected an acknowledgment that "the state has too big a role in the economic life of the country."

Such sentiment would help President Castro, who took over from his brother in 2008, against those members of the ruling Communist Party who oppose his attempts to loosen the state's hand, Sweig told Goldberg.
Goldberg wrote in a blog on Tuesday that Castro summoned him to Havana to discuss his recent article about the likelihood of conflict between Israel and Iran, with possible U.S. involvement, over Iran's growing nuclear capabilities. He said Castro criticized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for anti-Semitism and denying the Holocaust.

Castro, since emerging in July from four years of seclusion following intestinal surgery, has become an anti-nuclear weapon crusader expressing concern about the future of the world. He fears that if the United States and Israel try to enforce international sanctions against Iran for its nuclear activities, nuclear war will break out.
Castro also criticized his own actions during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when he urged the Soviet Union to launch nuclear weapons against the United States, telling Goldberg "it wasn't worth it at all."

Goldberg described Castro as physically frail, but energetic and mentally acute. During their visit, Goldberg and Sweig went with Castro, at his invitation, to see a dolphin show at Cuba's National Aquarium in Havana. They were accompanied by local Jewish leader Adela Dworin, who Castro kissed in front of the cameras in a possible message to Iranian leaders, Goldberg said in his Wednesday blog. Inside the aquarium, Goldberg was introduced to the veteranarian — a woman named Celia Guevara, Che's daughter.

A One-Sided Mocking of BYU

An article in today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer (the PI) by sports columnist Jim Moore was attempting to poke fun of Brigham Young University's football program. To be fair, Mr. Moore usually writes insightful, humorous pieces that help his readers to see another side to whatever subject he is illustrating. However, his article today fell way short of the mark; instead falling into a chasm of ignorance and ridicule. The article follows:

"Steve Sarkisian and I don't have anything in common -- he's a young and successful rich guy who bleeds purple. I'm the polar opposite -- a poor old crimson-bleeder who doesn't have T-shirts that say: "I bark for the Go 2 Guy." Though we're both Cougs, Coach Sark went to BYU, and I went to WSU. At BYU, students are required to follow an Honor Code or risk being expelled from school.

At WSU, if we had a code, I was either not aware of it or not following it very well, preoccupied with chasing coeds and playing countless games of losers-chug foosball at the Billiard Den in Moscow, Idaho. How I graduated is one of life's mysteries on a par with Jim McMahon, the beer-swilling and hell-raising quarterback, being a BYU alum.

The topic of the Honor Code came up at Sarkisian's news conference Monday afternoon as the Huskies prepare for their season opener at BYU on Saturday. I should have asked him football questions relating to the game, but I was more curious to find out if Coach Sark had trouble complying with the Honor Code when he played there in 1995-96."I didn't get kicked out," he said.

If you're properly following the Honor Code at BYU, you're not drinking alcohol, coffee or tea. You're not smoking tobacco or marijuana. You're not carrying a gun on campus. You're not swearing or having pre-marital sex. You're not cheating on tests or breaking the law.

You are also required to follow dress and grooming standards. For men, this means that shorts must be knee-length or longer. Hairstyles must leave the ears uncovered. Sideburns can't go below the earlobes nor onto the cheeks. Moustaches are allowed but must be neatly trimmed and cannot extend below the corners of the mouth. Beards are prohibited.

In April, Harvey Unga, BYU's all-time leading rusher, left school after violating the Honor Code by having pre-marital sex with his girlfriend, who was six months pregnant. Unga was drafted in the seventh round of the NFL's supplemental draft by the Chicago Bears.

Asked for the rule that he had the biggest problem with, Sarkisian mentioned the one about facial hair, saying: "I'm not a big shaver."

Sarkisian was a JC transfer who went to BYU because he was a quarterback who wanted to fill the air with footballs and a student who wanted a degree. "I wasn't there to have a good time," Sarkisian said. He was also a Catholic at a Mormon school."Initially that was a little challenge," Sarkisian said. They tried to get him to convert, but Sarkisian wouldn't do it because he was "a happy Catholic." "It took some time, but then there was a great deal of respect (for me and my decision)," Coach Sark said.

When Sarkisian said he had "plenty" of players who could abide by the rules at BYU, I went searching for some.

Strong safety Nate Williams thought he could follow the Honor Code, saying: "If I went to that school and knew what I was getting into, I could handle it. … At the U Dub, we don't have all those rules. We just have to be smart about what we do and who we hang out with."

But Williams has a mini-beard that would be an Honor Code violation, and it's one he plans to keep. "I think I look better with it," he said. "It gets me more girls."

Outside linebacker Mason Foster said he'd be good to go at BYU. "I don't indulge in any of those activities," he said. "I'm a pretty straight-and-narrow guy. If I had to deal with the Honor Code, I'd be completely eligible." "But they wouldn't let you keep your dreads and your beard," I told him. And just like that, the prim-and-proper Foster disappeared. "I'd have to get outta there then," he said. "I couldn't do that." (Jim Moore, Seattle PI 8/31/10)

On the surface one might think, "Yeah; so what? No big deal." However, looking at the article closer, I found it to be a one-sided, un-humorous, offensive piece because Mr. Moore did nothing to avoid stereotyping both BYU and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I wrote to him with the following response:

"Thanks Jim, for writing ANOTHER article that does nothing but perpetuate the "oddness" of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints amongst the general populace. (Just look at the comments on this piece.)

This type of ignorance and slighted view is exactly the slanderous, ignorant media that constantly demeans and disrespects a membership that seeks to live by a better moral standard every day of the year.

Not once in your story did you ask any players (former or current), aside from Sarkisian, who are church members what they thought of the school's Honor Code, and whether or not they had a difficult time accepting or following it. Instead, you highlight only athletes that have had trouble with, or violated the much [media] maligned Honor Code.

I've got an idea for you--Instead of highlighting this personal Code of Conduct for its oddness, why not ask what makes living by it so desirable to the 30,000 plus students who attend BYU every year? Or, how might the Honor Code make BYU athletes better players? Did you even ask coach Sark if he enjoyed attending BYU?

Try writing a story that actually presents a balanced view; instead of reinforcing a stereotype that only furthers prejudices and biases against a singular group that has does nothing but promote a higher standard of living that extends beyond a Sunday service.

I have to ask you, if the University of Notre Dame had a similar Honor Code, would you be making light of it? Or is BYU an easy target just because they’re “Mormons?”

The following are comments left on the article by PI readers (I've omitted screen names or personal references):

-"I've visited Provo several times, and even though I was never the type at risk of getting arrested for anything, I sure as hell know I couldn't live there. It's like nowhere else on Earth- like a theme park where the theme is not having fun."

-"I take it...not many Starbucks stockholders in Utah?"

-"like a theme park where the theme is not having fun."Great line, captures the feel of the place perfectly.I still can't imagine many red-blooded 18 year old boys thinking this is where they want to go when they leave home..."

-"Mormon girls are closet freaks. And they're hot! They're not supposed to engage in premarital sex, but there's quite a few that do. They just have to keep it on the low. But yes, it's still worlds apart from most other Universities."

When a supposedly humorous article, supposedly intended to poke fun at a football rival, elicits such negative comments about a singular group, then the aim was way off. Personally, I came away from reading this article offended by the ignorance that Mr. Moore displayed in his attempts to be light-hearted and funny. That's not to mention the ignorant respondents who fell directly into the ever-present anti-Mormon rhetoric. Sorry Mr. Moore--it wasn't funny... just offensive.

Evolution vs. Creation Debate Continues

Today, a study by Rice University professor Marek Kimmel was reported which stated that the mitochondrial DNA commonality of life (the so-called mitochondrial Eve) lived 200,000 years ago. I'll not reiterate the science here; but suffice it to say that the claim "assumes" the model for "estimating" the first matriarchal woman is correct. I responded to the article (and some very opinionated responses) with the following:

One thing I love about the scientists in this whole creation vs evolution debate is how they state evidence as "empirical," yet have little concrete proof--just speculation, guesswork and tidbits of so-called 'scientific data' that shows what might have been (sound familiar?). They talk about evolution in absolutes, yet always steep their comments with qualifiers such as 'might have been; could have; maybe; possibly; theoretically; probably, etc.'

Just like the creationists who rely on faith as their basis , neither side can absolutely prove anything one way or the other. Both sides will yell their point of view at the top of their lungs, yet get no closer to truth.

I have an idea...Instead of each side trying to constantly disprove the other, why not go from the angle that BOTH are valid? It would certainly make for an interesting debate! Founding Father Ben Franklin stated, "Science and religion go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the other." How valid is his point?

Let's also remember that the scientific view of life was sparked by the Darwinian theory of evolution just 150 years ago--a thesis that many scientists and academics acknowledge is incredibly flawed. Until that time, all of human history (generally speaking) viewed the beginning of life from a creationist-type point of view. Is the bulk of human history plain wrong in their thinking? Is it a reality that hundreds of [initially] isolated cultures from around the world all somehow, inexplicably deluded themselves with creationism?

Just set aside any preconceptions and really consider the debate from both points of view. What makes you right? How might you be wrong? Can both sides have common ground? The thought does bring about some fascinating questions for future debate.

As to which side is right, we'll find out some day...maybe...possibly...well, at least theoretically.


(The following is a respondents reply to my post, as well as my response)


(Respondent) xxxxx00000

"What makes you right? How might you be wrong?"

That is the essence of science. We predict things based on our theories, and then we test our predictions. That is the "scientific method." It works best when we look for the things that would prove our theories wrong as well as those that would prove them right.

(My reply)

Thank you (Respondent), for illustrating my point in the debate. By taking eight words out of context [from my comment], you have demonstrated how science looks at what they see and don't see, without considering the rest.

Scientific method has its place--no doubt. It's an invaluable tool.

However, just because what you see appears to be truth, is it necessarily the whole truth? It's like an accountant who looks at numbers and tells you you have to alter this or that in your business, without ever stepping foot in your business. The accountant will say "Numbers don't lie." The businessman counters with, "Numbers don't show you the whole truth, either." The accountant based his remarks on what the numbers tell him. The businessman bases his counter-remarks on what is happening in-store every day--two very different, divergent points of view. Instead of butting heads, the two find the common ground that benefits both sides.

So, who is right? How might you be wrong? Can both sides have common ground?

I am simply advocating an all possibilities approach. After all, both sides have merit; just as both sides have their flaws. So why not consider both?

Why is one side the absolute truth, and the other side completely wrong? Answer that from an objective, rational, non-scientific point of view.

(I got no response.)

Prop 8: A Base Issue Discussed Again

(I wrote the following response to an opinion by Dr. Pepper Schwarz on the SeattlePI.com. Her article sought to sway the reading public that politics should play no part in deciding the issue of gay marriage. She (inexplicably) even went so far as to equate the efforts of the gay community [to get marriage approved] to the 19th century fight against slavery...I didn't touch that part. No sense in legitimizing what is clearly a poor correlative attempt)

Personally, I think that the approval of gay marriages is an inevitability. However, American society as a whole is not yet ready to accept this. Over time this will change.

Unfortunately, the gay community is seeking to literally force society to accept the idea of gay marriage. Therefore, the issue becomes a small minority of the citizenry imposing their will over the vast majority.

Founding Father, and our nation's first President, George Washington said, "Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals."

With the recent ruling in California, this very thing has happened. The people voted, the losing side didn't like it, and got the courts to overturn the common consent of the people, thereby imposing their minority will over that of the vast majority.

A society, not ready to accept change, will inevitably push back against that change; and the fight for equality will take longer than simply allowing for the natural progression of societal acceptance. Give the issue time.

Thoughts and ideas will change and progress, and everything the gay community seeks--equality, in all its various applications--will be achieved.

**As a side note: The reader responses to the article were many, and quite varied. Different responses challenged most every other response by just about every reader. However, of the three dozen + responses that have appeared after my response, there was not a single dissenting opinion to what I wrote.

Prop 8 Follow-up: Overriding The Will of The People

Another strike against the majority of United States Citizens.

In news just released, a Federal Judge has overturned California's Proposition 8. Here's the story as reported on MSNBC:

SAN FRANCISCO — In a major victory for gay rights advocates, a federal judge on Wednesday struck down a California ban on same-sex marriage.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision to overturn the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, came in response to a lawsuit brought by two same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco seeking to invalidate the law as an unlawful infringement on the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.
Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriages in California five months after the state Supreme Court legalized them, passed with 52 percent of the vote in November 2008 following the most expensive campaign on a social issue in U.S. history.

Attorneys on both sides have said an appeal was certain if Walker did not rule in their favor. The case would go first to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court if the high court justices agree to review it.
Anticipating such a scenario, lawyers for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8 in 2008 filed a legal brief Tuesday asking Walker to stay his decision if he overturns the ban so same-sex couples could not marry while an appeal was pending.

"Same-sex marriages would be licensed under a cloud of uncertainty, and should proponents succeed on appeal, any such marriages would be invalid," they wrote.

Walker presided over a 13-day trial earlier this year that was the first in federal court to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality.
Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

Opponents said that tradition or fears of harm to heterosexual unions were legally insufficient grounds to discriminate against gay couples. (MSNBC 04 Aug. 2010)

Here is yet another example of a vast minority imposing their will over the vast majority. The proponents of gay marriage put the issue to a vote; they lost. Instead of continuing their efforts to sway the majority, these folks went to the courts to solve the problem. Now, with appeals pending, the majority of California voters no longer have a say as to what they want. The gay community is seeking to literally force their agenda on everyone else.

I'm not against the gay community from receiving equal rights. I am against them imposing their singular will over the objections of the majority of citizens. The will of the people is supposed to rule the day. The people have spoken; and now the gay community is stomping and crying their way to getting what they want. This is what I don't agree with in their fight.

Thirty years ago the gay community was reviled, ridiculed and harassed. In the years since, people have become more accepting. Over time, the perceptions and fears will ease, and the gay community will end up getting everything they're after.

But, like whining, cry-baby children, they are stomping their collective feet [by way of the Courts] and demanding that everyone else accept them for who and what they are RIGHT NOW! They rail against anyone who thinks otherwise, calling them disgusting names, and spreading words of hatred towards those who oppose them. They cry "Equality!", yet fail to allow open discussion from their opponents. They asked the voters of California to have their say on the issue; then threw a harassing, destructive, demeaning, hate-filled tantrum when they lost.

What's wrong with this picture? If your children acted this way, they'd be put in time out, have extra chores to do, be grounded, etc. Yet the Courts are allowing this childish behavior to continue. So much so, that it's now looking more and more likely that the tantrum of the gay community will result in the forcing of their will upon everyone else. This is just wrong!

Federal Judge Walker has chosen to side with the minority over the will of the people. Because of this, every heterosexual American will soon be forced to accept a thing they are not yet ready to accept. And to the gay community, that is just fine! So long as they stomp their feet in a whining, temper tantrum, childish way, and they've gotten what they want, then everything is just fine. They'll have their equality, in the eyes of the law; but it will be decades before they have their equality, in the eyes of the people.

Civil Rights For Air Travelers--Follow Up

Just about an hour ago, MSNBC released a story about the images from airport body scanners being saved by federal agencies. This policy by the agencies involved goes directly against what the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been telling the citizens of the United States. The following is the story:

"Despite claims by the TSA that electronic body scan images "cannot be stored or recorded," some federal police agencies are in fact saving tens of thousands of images, according to a report by CNET News.

The body scanners, increasingly found in airports, courthouses and other places where security is high, use an assortment of technologies. These include millimeter wave scanners in which the subject is harmlessly pelted with extremely high frequency radio waves which reflect a picture back to the device — and backscatter X-ray which measures low-powered reflective X-rays to produce clearer body shots, shots that can reveal alarmingly precise anatomical detail.

According to CNET, the U.S. Marshals Service admitted this week that it had saved thousands of images that had been recorded from a security checkpoint in a Florida courthouse.

The revelation comes at a tense time. Two weeks ago, when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said such scanners would appear in every major airport, privacy advocates such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington D.C. filed a lawsuit to stop the device rollout.

The reason? Because the devices were "designed and deployed in a way that allows the images to be routinely stored and recorded," EPIC executive director Marc Rotenberg told CNET, adding that this "is exactly what the Marshals Service is doing."

As CNET's Declan McCullagh explains, it's the mystery of the devices' potential that is most unnerving: "This trickle of disclosures about the true capabilities of body scanners — and how they're being used in practice — is probably what alarms privacy advocates more than anything else," he wrote.

The TSA maintains that body scanning is "constitutional" and the CNET report notes that while the machines are built to "allow exporting of image data in real time" and provide networked "high-speed transfer of image data," the system are built with filters to "protect the identity, modesty, and privacy of the passenger."
(by Wilson Rothman, MSNBC.com 08/04/10)

The following is my brief response to the article:

"Why is Congress allowing this to happen? Why is the President NOT putting a stop to this? Why is the ACLU NOT suing the TSA over this? Our Civil Rights, as guaranteed under the provisio of the Constitution of our United States, are being attacked by a Federal Agency--and no one is asking "Why?" Write your Senator and House Rep! Write the President! This HAS to stop!"

Is this alarming to anyone? Are you reading this and say to yourself something like, "I can't believe this is actually going on?" If it is to you, please, please, PLEASE, write to your elected Congressional leaders and let them know how you feel. If the majority stay silent, then we will lose our liberties as guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States. Please, Make your voice heard!

Arizona and the Immigration Debate

(The following is a post I made on MSNBC in response to a story about the current Arizona immigration law. I literally read every comment on the site prior to writing my response. The issue is obviously a hot-button topic, because many comments were filled with anger and resentment on either side of the issue.)

In its simplest, The Federal Govt. has failed to properly confront the problem; so The State of Arizona is exercising its State Constitutional RIGHT to address the issue of ILLEGAL Immigration.

Special Interest groups have flooded the media with propagandized statements about the Unconstitutionality of the law; and the media in turn splash image after image of sad looking illegals in an attempt to sway public opinion. Special Interest groups be damned if they side with people who have sidestepped the legal requirements toward citizenship.

President George Washington, one of our Founding Fathers said, "Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals." The Arizona law, passed by consent of the people, is indeed being trampled on by individuals and Special Interest Groups who seek to impose their personal will upon the majority of the citizenry. How, in any conceivable logic, can these individuals be granted such power?

The current problem exists not because of Obama, but because of President Ronald Reagan giving blanket amnesty to some 2.5 million illegals in the mid-eighties simply because no one was willing to properly confront the issue at that time. With his amnesty proclamation, the proverbial floodgates were thrown wide open, and the current immigration problem we have today was begun.

All the citizens of this country are asking is that anyone entering this country do so having used the proper legal channels, and go through the citizenship process as currently mandated by Federal Law. Anyone who screams "human rights!" in defense of those people who fail to enter legally, does not truly support the wishes of the citizens of the United States, nor the laws that govern us all.

What price do we, as a nation, pay if the problem of illegal immigration is either ignored, or swept aside in favor of "rights" that non-citizens have in this country? What possible outcome exists that benefits Americans if our public infrastructure is bankrupted by the growing tide of illegal immigration? Benjamin Franklin, another of our Founding Fathers stated, "Even peace may be purchased at too high a price." In this case, what is the price for peace if our nation's leaders turn a blind eye to, or our courts allow for the "rights" of non-citizens to prevail?

However you feel about this issue, no matter which camp you're in, the very basics of the immigration issue are about what is legal, according to US law, and what is illegal. That's it. Anyone screaming anything more than this basic definition is efforting a personal agenda.

Another Apology

I must offer an apology to my readers once again. My entries on this blog have been few and far between once again. My only defense is that, it is a reflection of how I have been feeling.

Writing on my other blog is easy when I'm simply giving info. When I have to be more journalistic (as on this blog), then it takes more mental energy than I've been able to muster up from day to day.

Hang in there with me. I've got lots of things rattling around in my head than need discussing; and I'll get to them as I feel up to it. In the mean time, please feel free to send your questions or thoughts (through the 'Comments' link) about current events. I'll answer them either there, or as a blog in and of itself.

Until then, I send my very best to each and every one of you.

Thank You.

ScottW

Civil Rights for Air Travelers?

I have a real issue with the Transportation Security Administration.


The TSA, created out of the fear mongering by Gee Dubya Bushie and Henchmen following the 2001 attacks in NY, DC and Pennsylvania, are ratcheting up the ante in its ongoing attack on the Bill of Rights with its installation of full body scanners in airports around the country.


An article in the Wall Street Journal is the latest in a number of media pieces that are seeking to stir up the citizenry of the United States to stand up to the TSA for its blatant supposition that every person flying has a terrorist agenda. Basically, we are guilty until proven innocent.




If I don't want a body scan, I am required to do a pat-down as if I were a criminal. What about my civil rights? Why am I being treated like a criminal without the slightest bit of evidence? Treat everyone like criminals in the name of paranoid safety concerns? It's happening right now; and most citizens don't think twice about it. Next thing you know, cars traveling across the country will be stopped at every state border crossing.

I say that the citizens of the United States start a write-in campaign to their Congressional leaders to demand a basic restructuring of the TSA (if not a complete elimination) so that they are better at identifying real threats to our airline safety, instead of targeting six year olds whose name inexplicably somehow winds up on a terror watch list; or an eight year old cub scout who also is identified as a terrorist.

Yeah...great job TSA! Way to protect us from marauding six year olds! You guys are really on the ball!

In the mean time, they force humiliating searches and pat-downs on Americans who want nothing more than to get to their intended destinations with as little hassle as possible.

Where is the ACLU in all of this? They should be screaming "Injustice!" So far, I haven't read a single reference to their involvement in the stripping of air travelers' civil rights. Why Not? The ACLU will fight vehemently for individuals whose rights are being so trampled on that they seek to enforce their personal will and thinking upon the entire country (that's another blog all together!); but they won't stand up for the majority of citizens? What's up with that? So I ask again, why isn't the ACLU all over this?

Please-- write your Senator! Write your Representative! Tell them to stop the stampeding of our civil rights! If you don't stand up and speak, nothing will ever get done about this!

The Myth of Being Too Young To Die

Two days ago, sailing enthusiasts around the globe held their collective breaths as they awaited to hear the fate of 16 year old Abby Sunderland, who is attempting a solo round the world sailing adventure. She was in the Indian Ocean in 30 foot swells when contact was lost. Shortly thereafter, a manually triggered emergency beacon was triggered, and location overflights were launched, boats dispatched and a media frenzy ensued.


They asked, "Should a child be allowed to sail alone for thousands of miles?" What if she dies out there; alone, afraid. Who would be responsible?" and so forth. The same questions arose when 13 year old Jordan Romero summited Mt. Everest last month. He was too young, too innocent, etc.


You see, there is a myth, perpetuated constantly by nearly everyone that children and teenagers are too young to die. That it is unfair if something tragic happens. That these kids have too much life left to live. It is human nature to protect our young. Similar to nearly every species on the earth, we nurture, teach and guide. When a young one dies, we all grieve. It's a natural process for all species.


However, somewhere along the way, we have embraced the thought that our children should not die early in their lives. That it is actually unfair if they do. This misguided thinking only serves to spread fear and lay blame at the feet of parents, governments, etc. In the argument against young adventurers going out and challenging the world, there is one element that is missing...Personal Responsibility.

These young men and women are ready and eager to test their skills and experience in ways that would make most adults cringe. Yet, they strive and excel at doing what they love the most, and they are called irresponsible. Their parents are tagged as unfit for allowing their children to go on such dangerous adventures; and any government officials who grant permits for certain activities are labeled as careless or remiss in their judgment.

When I was a teenager, I grew to be expertly proficient at cross country hiking. No trails, no compass. A topographical map and an acute sense of direction were my only guides. Though I would almost always go hiking with a partner, I would occasionally go it alone and end up exactly where I wanted, at exactly when I said I would arrive. My parents had absolutely no qualms about my doing this because they were supremely confident in my ability to take care of myself. So it is with the parents of these young adventurers.

Does that make them bad parents? Of course not! Are these experienced, knowledgeable kids being reckless for undertaking such risks? Absolutely not!

They understand the risks involved (as do their parents), and take every conceivable precaution in anticipation of potential life-threatening circumstances. But they choose to go, fully prepared, to face the challenges and adventures that lie ahead of them, fully aware that should something go wrong, they may not survive.

Personal responsibility is the issue here, folks--NOT irresponsible behavior or bad parenting. These kids are choosing to place themselves in harm's way for a payoff that most cannot comprehend...the achievement of goals so unattainable that few, of any age, ever attempt the undertaking.

I applaud these young men and women for their vision, courage, and their willingness to push the proverbial envelope a little further. I congratulate their parents for encouraging their children to follow their passions, and pursue their dreams. To me, those men and women are amongst the greatest parents in the world!

*It turns out Abby Sunderland is alive and well. Her boat had lost its rigging and she was drifting. Rescue boats have arrived, and she is receiving assistance.

June 6th

66 years ago today, Operation Overlord was launched.

On June 6th, 1944, American and Allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy, France as the move to penetrate Fortress Europe was begun.

Many men died on the five beaches designated Juno, Gold, Omaha, Utah and Sword. Nearly 5300 American and Allied men lost their lives on those cold, wind swept beaches.

As I was looking through the days news, I failed to find even a single mention of D-Day. This great and terrible battle is being forgotten here in the US.

So please pause, even for a moment, to remember those brave men who lie in graves upon French soil; both Allied and German.

The beginning of the end of the war in Europe.

D-Day 06 June 1944.

Memorial Day

Today, Memorial Day 2010, let us all pause for at least a few moments to remember just why we are celebrating a holiday.

Remember all the brave men and women, dutifully serving their country, who paid the ultimate sacrifice so that we can have and enjoy the freedoms (and responsibilities) that we have every day simply because we belong to the greatest democracy in the world, The United States of America.

From the War of Independence to the Afghanistan War; from the Minutemen at Concord to the unsung hero's dying in covert missions across the globe;...

We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to all of these brave soldiers of every service!

Thank You for Your Service.

Thank You for Your Sacrifice!

You will never be forgotten!

God Bless The United States of America!

North Korea: Sabre Rattling Anew

North Korea is at it again.

As per their usual song and dance, the regime of Kim Jong Il is at it again with their thinly veiled threats against South Korea. This time, it was, if we are to believe the claims of the South Korean government, the North that acted first in sinking a South Korean gunboat; supposedly in retaliation for a similar action last year by the South against the North.

No matter the cause, South Korea is on heightened military alert. In response, North Korea has declared that they will defend themselves against unfair and unwarranted aggression by South Korea. Then today US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while visiting Seoul, South Korea as part of a multi-nation political swing through Eastern Asia, denounced the provocative stance of the North and asked for "North Korea to end its policy of threats and take steps to fulfill its denuclearization commitments and comply with international law.
"North Korea can still choose another path. Instead of isolation, poverty conflict and condemnation, North Korea could enjoy integration, prosperity, peace and respect," she said. (NPR report 05/26/10)

This whole thing is far from over. I'm sure, after more tension and increasing threats, that North Korea will capitulate its position after receiving "assurances" of an increase of food supplies and cash in exchange for their cooperation.

If all of this sounds familiar that's because this is the exact same political/military cat and mouse game that North Korea plays every couple of years. They feign offense at something, state they'll retaliate, place their military on alert, then give the US and others time to formulate their response based on economic incentives for the North to back down; which they do.

Here's the basic problem with what North Korea is doing. Their government is the last remaining Stalinist-based body in the world. Their actions over the last 25 years or so have isolated them from even their neighbor to the North, China. Their actions have resulted in unceasing embargoes that deny any humanitarian or economic aid to a country so poor that their "non-elite" citizens are starving.

Any so-called aid from these stand-offs never reaches the people who need it most. It is generally funneled to the government and the military. Everyone else is just seemingly out of luck. Meanwhile reports of starvation, military oppression and inflation so rampant that most citizens can't even buy what food there is, come filtering in from those brave souls who risk life and limb to breach the DMZ in order to escape the growing inhumane conditions from which they fled.

I have heard rumblings that the very elderly Kim Jong Il has multiple health problems, and that his son, Kim Jong un, slated to take control in the event of his father's death, is rumored to have a more favorable, conciliatory regard to South Korea and the US. If this proves to be true, then once Kim Jong Il is dead, there is a possibility of thawing relations between the two enmitic states.

In the mean time, we will continue to see more of the same sabre rattling happening that we are witnessing today. In spite of the vitriolic rhetoric we are hearing, there will be no war, no military action, no invasions. The North will threaten, they will get what they are after, and everything will be all happy on the Korean Peninsula once again...Until, that is, Kim Jong Il finds some new excuse to justify yet another round of his menial, small-minded megalomania that only places his already oppressed citizenry at ever-increasing risk.

Continuing Consternation with Oil $ vs. Gas $

One of my original posts was about the disparity between a barrel of oil and the cost of a gallon of gas. Specifically, how when oil rises in price, gas quickly follows. Yet, when oil drops in price, gas takes weeks to drop even a few pennies.

Particularly troubling in this equation is that oil is typically purchased 30 days ahead of delivery. Theoretically then, we shouldn't see an increase in gasoline prices until 35-45 days after contract purchase (assuming the price of oil has risen), because the oil already being processed was paid for at a lower price per barrel. Yet, the same day a contract purchase increase occurs, we are seeing prices at the pump jump as well. Why?

I know that gasoline commodity shares are traded separately from oil; but they seem closely tied together whenever oil rises--but then look like two disparate entities when oil drops. Again...Why?

A few months ago, the price of gasoline in my area reached a peak average of about $3.17 per gallon (for regular unleaded). It has gone up to as much as $3.27 and as "low" as $3.09 Right now, the gas in my area is about .25 cents above the national average ($2.92).

Over the last few weeks, with increased uncertainty in Europe and the US, the price of oil has dropped from a high of $87.63 (?) per barrel, to the current price (at today's trading close) of $70.08. That's a 20% drop in the price per barrel. Yet, the gas in my area remains unchanged. Why?

If oil rose 20% you can be damned sure we'd see at least a 20% increase in the cost of our gasoline. Why does the reverse NOT hold true for a commodity so closely tied to oil futures?

I keep hearing all sorts of excuses coming from the oil companies as to why. They state things like Financial unrest in Greece, Uncertainty in China, Economic trouble in Europe due to the ash cloud from Iceland, etc. On Friday, I head another great excuse..."The further a market is from the refinery gasoline pipeline, naturally, the more the gas will cost in your area."

I know this excuse to be a load of poo, because there are four refineries in my area, just 55 miles away. That fact totally blows the oil industry's excuse right out of the water. Further, of the 5 states (in the continental US) with the highest average gas prices, four of them have at least 2 refineries operating in their borders. Makes me wonder what excuses we'll be hearing next...especially in those five states.

Meanwhile, the price per gallon of gasoline remains well above the national average. In the next two weeks, we're supposed to see a drop of about 10% in prices to an average of $2.64. Did I say that right? Yep--a mere 10% price reduction for a 20% drop in oil prices. That just doesn't seem right...probably because it isn't!

Let's look at the cost of gas from another angle. During the terrifying speculator-driven run-up of oil from 2006-2008, the price of oil peaked at about $147 per barrel. Gasoline was selling for about $4.45 average. That's about a 300% increase on both commodities from the pre-run-up prices of both.

Currently, oil prices are about 70% above pre-run-up prices; Yet gasoline is up 153%. (I used $1.15 per gallon gas, and $36 per barrel of oil as my basis for these numbers.) WHY? WHY? WHY? This makes no sense whatsoever. The only explanation that really makes any sense is that of corporate greed. No other reasonable explanation exists...as far as I am aware. In my opinion, the oil companies really like the massive profits they've been rolling in by the ship loads, and really don't want to give up those incredible net profits.

I'm sure there are other factors I'm not aware of; other influences I know nothing about. However, the numerical aspects do not lie. There IS a monstrous disparity between what oil costs, and what we pay at the pump. The gasoline markets are tied extremely closely when oil rises; but are disparate when oil falls. The excuses from oil companies continue to spew out rhetoric that just isn't true. And the American public seems to be the snicker doodles in the proverbial cookie jar that is Big Oil.

Guess who loses?

Congressional NON-Pay Raise?

I could hardly believe my eyes when I read the news.

Congress actually turned down their annual pay raise? What is this madness?

Citing concerns over election year pressures by constituents to keep Congressional salaries from rising, last week Congress collectively, and very quietly, decided to forgo their [seemingly permanent] pay increase, thereby [hopefully] garnering political clout in the eyes of the US constituency.

While the motivation behind the vote to status quo their pay is completely politically self-serving , at least they saw some shred of reason in the matter. It was a decent gesture during a time of ongoing financial hardship for many Americans. When the bulk of your constituents are having a tough time making ends meet, giving yourself a raise above the $174,400 you currently make is not only callous, but just plain unconscionable. Voters would be left with a huge distaste for current Congressional representation. This quiet vote was the right move, selfish though the motivation is.

While the warm fuzzy Congress sent out to the rank and files working-class may not last long, I personally welcome the gesture...however hollow it may be.

Cinco de Mayo--Follow-up

After yesterdays commentary regarding Cinco de Mayo, I've received a few interesting comments.

Although my commentary was in no way inflammatory, some readers took it that way anyhow. (I guess I hit a nerve...) So, first let me assure you that the commentary was not intended to offend. I just don't get the nationwide emphasis regarding a non-US holiday.

Secondly, I guess I'm really not the only non-mexican-American who doesn't get this whole thing. The following news article from California typifies the issue:

Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees

"On any other day at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Daniel Galli and his four friends would not even be noticed for wearing T-shirts with the American flag. But Cinco de Mayo is not any typical day especially on a campus with a large Mexican American student population.

Galli says he and his friends were sitting at a table during brunch break when the vice principal asked two of the boys to remove American flag bandannas that they wearing on their heads and for the others to turn their American flag T-shirts inside out. When they refused, the boys were ordered to go to the Principal's office.
"They said we could wear it on any other day," Daniel Galli said, "but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it's supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today."

The boys said the administrators called their T-shirts "incendiary" that would lead to fights on campus.
"They said if we tried to go back to class with our shirts not taken off, they said it was defiance and we

would get suspended," Dominic Maciel, Galli's friend, said.

The boys really had no choice, and went home to avoid suspension. They say they're angry they were not

allowed to express their American pride. Their parents are just as upset, calling what happened to their

children, "total nonsense." "I think it's absolutely ridiculous," Julie Fagerstrom, Maciel's mom, said. "All

they were doing was displaying their patriotic nature. They're expressing their individuality."

But to many Mexican-American students at Live Oak, this was a big deal. They say they were offended by

the five boys and others for wearing American colors on a Mexican holiday.

"I think they should apologize cause it is a Mexican Heritage Day," Annicia Nunez, a Live Oak High student, said. "We don't deserve to be get disrespected like that. We wouldn't do that on Fourth of July."

As for an apology, the boys and their families say, 'fat chance.' "I'm not going to apologize.

I did nothing wrong," Galli said. "I went along with my normal day. I might have worn an American flag,

but I'm an American and I'm proud to be an American."

The five boys and their families met with a Morgan Hill Unified School District official Wednesday night.

The district and the school do not see eye-to-eye on the incident and released the following statement:
'The district does not concur with the Live Oak High School administration's interpretation of either board or district policy related to these actions.' The boys will not be suspended and were allowed to return to school Thursday. We spotted one of them when he got to campus -- and, yes, he was sporting an American flag T-shirt."

Additionally, since this story broke, the Internet message boards have been buzzing, with the vast majority of respondents supporting the students who were sent home. One service I came across had around 2250 messages; mostly supportive of the boys from my glancing through a hundred or so. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see a lawsuit emerge from this little whole thing.

So, who is right? Who is wrong? Is anybody really on the correct side here? But I must ask...Why is it offensive for teenage boys to wear patriotic American displays to a school located in the US State of California? Why is it NOT OK to be a proud American on 05 May? What is so wrong with America that proudly displaying American patriotism is inconceivably deemed inappropriate?

This really does boggle the mind. Or maybe, I'm just a Grumpy Gus.

Cinco de Mayo?

Call me a Grumpy Gus if you want, but I just don't get the brouhaha over Cinco de Mayo.

As far as I'm aware, the fifth of May has no special significance in US history. There is no holiday, no sanctioned celebrations, etc. So, why is it that we have to observe the Mexican holiday known as Cinco de Mayo?

This holiday commemorates the 1862 Mexican army victory over the French in the Battle of Puebla. This so-called holiday has absolutely nothing to do with US history.

Now, I understand about heritage, tradition and cultural celebration; but celebrating a Mexican holiday? Why? Does the country of Mexico celebrate the US Independence day? Do Australians recognize Thanksgiving? Of course they don't! These countries (and every other one out there) celebrate their own holidays in their own unique ways. So, what makes the Hispanic community of the United States so special that a foreign holiday is celebrated on US soil?

I just don't get it.

Don't get me wrong if you believe I am being forced to celebrate this holiday. I know that is certainly not the case. Besides, I can't stand mexican food (eewwww!), I don't drink beer or tequila, and have no close mexican friends. So, I have no reason to celebrate, or even recognize, Cinco de Mayo.

However, I have always wondered why the big deal. From what I've read, few places in Mexico even acknowledge the "holiday." Yet here we are--every year the grocery stores push mexican fare in their ads, merchandisers mount sales campaigns, some communities hold parades, etc...all for a Mexican holiday that has nothing whatsoever to do with United States history.

I just don't get it.

Internet Advertising Going Overboard

A personal pet peeve of mine here.

I don't know about any of you, but I am getting fed up with the increasing advertising we are seeing all over the internet.

It used to be we'd see a few side boxes with ads on a page. That was fine; they weren't intrusive, and they allowed you to decide if you wanted to see more about the product or service being hawked by clicking on the ad-- or not. Then about twelve years ago, advertisers discovered the power and influence the internet had over millions of households, and they decided to horn in on the action, buying ad space on just about every web page they could find. Seemingly overnight internet advertising exploded from a few unobtrusive ads to an unwelcomed permeation of advertising in every nook and cranny of the world wide web.

Over the last year or so, video commercials are increasingly present on many pages. When they first appeared, most commercials were 7-12 seconds long, and usually not tied in to the viewing of content. Lately, it seems like any game you want to play, or any video you want to watch is being preceded by a commercial of 30-60 seconds that is directly tied to the video.

Usually, when playing an online game (at least on MSN games), as levels are advanced, the player is subjected to a commercial between each level. Videos of any length aren't any better. I watched one news clip [that ended up being just 20 seconds] that had a 45 second commercial in front of it! It feels like I'm watching tv.

So what have I started doing? Well, just like tv, I mute the commercials and pay zero attention to the ads. This is the only way I feel I have any control. Before long, I don't doubt that there will be commercials in front of every click we make. That will be a sad day for a medium that had no ads anywhere when it first began. Kind of like FM radio...you know, all music, no ads. Now, listening to FM is a miserable tromp through the jungle to discover the music between the commercials.

Thank Goodness for Satellite Radio...until it too falls into the hands of advertisers.

Apologies

I want to extend an apology to my readers.


Over the past five months or so, I have been very infrequent in my blogs. It certainly is not because I have run out of things to discuss. No, it is because of my health.


You may or may not know that I have a second blog entitled "In My Own Words: Fighting PCKD." This blog arose out of my diagnosis in September last of advanced stage 4 Polycystic Kidney Disease. This form of kidney disease accounts for just 4% of all Renal diseases, yet is the most degenerative. Now, until I was presented with this diagnosis, I was unaware of the disease that was destroying my kidneys. I was asymptomatic; in other words, I had no obvious symptomology that might indicate I had already gone well beyond stages 1, 2 and 3.

Within two months of diagnosis, I was seeing S/S's (Signs & Symptoms) showing up on a regular basis as my body was no longer able to compensate for the advancement of the disease. It was during this time I decided to start my other blog. (Please...take some time and read it!) Due to the meds I was placed on, as well as the advancement of the disease, I was only writing in that blog on a regular basis. Meanwhile, this blog was neglected, aside from the occasional entry.

The other day I was thinking about this, as well as all the things going on in the world, and decided I to make a better effort to write on this blog regularly. So, starting with this entry, I will be writing as often as I feel up to it; hopefully one to two days per week.

Please start looking in on this blog once again. With everything that has been happening, my brain is ready to illuminate the idiocracies that are swirling around us all!

Thank You.

ScottW

Follow-Up to Seahawks HC Firing

The gripers and groaners amongst the pro football fans in Seattle is going once again. They just cannot let go of the past season and continue to vilify now former Head Coach Jim Mora. I wrote the following response to all the bandwagon jumpers who lie in wait to spew their hate-filled rhetoric upon the sports public whenever they are given the chance.

"-Front Office
-Head Coach
-Coordinators & Position Coaches
-Players

Let's see...Out of all the griping going on in this post we continue to see a failure to blame the PLAYERS for their collective roll in the tragedy of last season. There are at least these four sets of individuals responsible for the success or failure of any pro team. Setting aside emotion for the game, I still maintain that it is the players who should step up and accept part of the blame for the dismal season.

How many reports have we heard out of the Seahawk locker room about player discord, disrespect, big ego's, personnel clashes, apathetic attitudes, etc? If the players themselves don't give a hoot about working together, then everything will fall apart.

Many of these guys are paid more money in one season than I'll see in my lifetime. They are paid to be the BEST in the land; yet their efforts on the field are pathetic, at best. You could see the defeatist attitudes and ill will on their faces.

They just didn't care!

Mora made some huge coaching mistakes, to be sure. So did the front office management, the coordinators and various coaches, and especially the players. It is NEVER one man's fault that an entire pro sports franchise performs that poorly. Blame Mora all you want...but be sure you are also acknowledging everyone else's role as well."

A Victory!

FINALLY!

Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a lawsuit aimed at stripping the wishes of the vast majority of Americans by ruling that the phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance "Under God," and the phrase on US currencies "In God We Trust" are NOT unconstitutional.

The following AP story states

"A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments on Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who claimed the references to God disrespect his religious beliefs.
"The Pledge is constitutional," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded."
The same court ruled in Newdow's favor in 2002 after he sued his daughter's school district for forcing students to recite the pledge.
That lawsuit reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, but the high court ruled that Newdow lacked the legal standing to file the suit because he didn't have custody of his daughter, on whose behalf he brought the case.
So Newdow, who is a doctor and lawyer, filed the challenge on behalf of other parents who objected to their children being required to recite the pledge. In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento decided in Newdow's favor, ruling that the pledge was unconstitutional.
"I want to be treated equally," Newdow said when he argued the case before the 9th Circuit in December 2007. He added that supporters of the phrase "want to have their religious views espoused by the government."
In a separate 3-0 ruling Thursday, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto "In God We Trust" on coins and currency."

This is the second attempt by Mr. Newdow to force his atheistic views on hundreds of millions of people. This is Mr. Newdow's second failure. Isn't it time he gives up his ludicrous attempts to enforce his personal preferences upon the whole population of the United States?

After all, NO ONE FORCES him to read the phrase on coin or paper bills.
NO ONE FORCES him to utter "Under God" when reciting the pledge.

So why should Michael Newdow be allowed to FORCE everyone else to feel the same way he does? What makes him so special?

If Newdow really studied the founding of this country, he would know, without doubt, that the Fathers were strongly, religiously convicted to form a government and country that would follow Christian/Protestant mores and values. They knew that if we followed these simple, logical values espoused by their christian heritage that this nation would prosper. And so it has.

I applaud the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Their decision was not only right and just; it was also a true reflection of the wishes and beliefs of the overwhelmingly vast majority of Americans.

Another Super Bore is Done

Ooohh. Wow. Whoopty doooo.

Another Super Bore has gone by the wayside. (Thank Goodness!)

I know that New Orleans won the game, but that's about it. As has become my yearly rebellion, I did not watch the Super Bore. Instead, I played Tiger Woods PGA Tour on my computer. It was far better than the football game, I'm sure.

Let's see. There was (aside from endless hype and sports prognostications on a multitude of channels, approximately four hours of pre-game. That's right. The pre-game show lasted longer than the stinkin game. Pathetic. I mean, how many times can you say the same BS about teams and players before redundancy bores your entire audience? Apparently it takes at least four hours!

Then, the game itself. Recently a study was released that examined how much time an NFL game actually takes to play. I'm not talking about air time; I mean, how many minutes of action occurs in an average game? Well, this study concluded that in a sixty minute game (the game clock), there was an average of eleven minutes of game play. You read that right...ELEVEN minutes of actual plays being run. The rest of the usual three hour allotment of time is spent between plays, time outs, half-time, commercials, and unceasing, irritating commentating by the broadcast personalities.

Anyway, following the big game, there is one hour of post-game wrap up slated. So that totals five hours of extra coverage...for eleven minutes of action. Ooooooooooooo........

I just don't get why this one game is so hyped. It just doesn't make sense.

...but then, I'm not a beer swigging, mindless meat head who derives their one true pleasure in life from a game so overwrought in self indulgence that I blindly follow what the advertisers and the NFL are saying about how awesome an experience the Super Bore is (or pretends to be); when in reality, it's eleven minutes wrapped up in an eight hour package of redundant dialogue and ridiculously pricey commercials.

Seahawks Fire Coach After 5-11 Season

Today the Seattle Seahawks fired their Head Coach following a 5-11 season that was filled with adversity, player injury, poor team cohesion, inept play on the field, etc. Of course all the media that covered the story were all over the now-former HC's case about how he failed, and what a mistake it was for the team to bring him on as Head Coach, and how happy a number of players were about his being fired.

I just had to take the opportunity to once again point out the incongruity of the entire situation in regards to the overall responsibility of the HC versus the players. The following was my response to the Seattle PI article...

"I wrote an earlier response on this subject in which I postulated that teams should be heavily fining the players for their lack of execution on the field.

After all, a Head Coach can only prep the team for the games. After that, it is entirely in the players hands as to the outcome of the game. I can already hear all the boo-birds clattering about a Head Coaches responsibilities...blah, blah, blah.

The fact of the matter is, it was the PLAYERS who failed to execute the expected performance of their jobs. It was the PLAYERS who seemingly refused to band together and overcome the ineptitude on the field. It was the PLAYERS who failed the fans week after dismal week. It was the PLAYERS who failed to rise up, accept responsibility for their poor play, and then go do something about it.

Yes, we heard Housh week after tiring week telling us how much he wanted the ball; only to miss his routes, drop catchable passes, etc. Matt Hasselbeck was also telling the press about rising up; but when it came to game time, he was as inept as his receivers.

A Head Coach can only do so much to get players to work as a team. After that, it is completely up to the individual players to meld into one cohesive unit. If they fail to do that, well...just look at this year as a prime example.

Contrary to popular sentiment, a Head Coach is NEVER fully responsible for a team's win/loss record. The players should be faulted as well.

Mora DOES bear responsibility...to a degree. After that, it is the PLAYERS themselves who should be losing their jobs."

*(side note--the two responses I got to my posting both defended the poor play of the players by completely laying blame on Jim Mora, the now ex-Head Coach. The respondents (who replied as unregistered users, of course!) are so blind in their placing blame that they don't see the players as having any fault whatsoever. They are probably the same fans who praise the players for a great season, too.)

Wins=Player Effort. Losing = Bad Coaching. Hmmm...

NBA Should Severely Punish Arenas & Crittenton

The NBA is sinking faster and faster.

First, it was allowing the Detroit Pistons of the late 1980's to basically change the physicality of the game through an increased level of aggressiveness on court. Since then, the game has devolved from a game of skill and wits into a free-for-all shoving match I now refer to as basketBRAWL.

Then, Stern and buddies stood by while thug players such as Allen "the CANCER" Iverson brought the game down to a street-level mentality complete with posses, sleeve tattoos, 'it's all about ME' attitudes, drafted high school players demanding what team they would play for (and getting their way!), and injured players sitting on the bench dressed like they're in the hood--and acting like it, too!

After that the NBA began allowing once egregious fouls to slide by because it was "how the game has evolved." For instance Michael Jordan, the King of dirty, selfish play, tossing an offensive player around in order to steal the ball, and NOT getting a foul call.

There have been referee scandals, player scandals, and team ownership scandals. How the NBA could ever let a team leave the 13th largest market for the smallest is mind boggling. But then, David Stern and Clay Bennett are the best of buddies; and if Bennett wanted to destroy the Seattle Supersonics so he could move the team to tiny Oklahoma City, well, no one would take notice...no one except the fans of the Seattle Supersonics--a team that had been entrenched in the NBA for over forty years, and had an NBA Championship history.

Now, we see the NBA has digressed to yet another level. Washington Wizards players Gilbert Arena and Javaris Crittenton had a dispute in the team locker room and drew guns and pointed them at each other! What the #@&%!! Are these guys insane? This isn't the local hood hangout; It's the NBA!

The Commissioner's Office must jump all over this one! Why? Because if they don't the league will be sending a very dangerous message to every player and every fan that this kind of behavior is acceptable. If this situation is not addressed immediately and severely, then the sport will sink to a new all-time low.

These players should be suspended without pay for the remainder of the season and be required to undergo counseling and anger management (at their own expense).

Then, the Players Union must uphold the punishment metted out by the league. If they don't [do this], the Union will send the message that such behavior is not only acceptable, but that players won't be held accountable for such actions.

There is no gray area in this. What Arenas and Cittenton did was not only illegal, it was morally wrong and incredibly dangerous. They must be made to answer for their choices! If these players whine about the consequences they should be told to shut up and take the punishment. If they are that concerned about the loss of income, maybe they should have thought about that before they chose to point a weapon at each other.

Come on David Stern...Do the right thing for the league...for once!