Reality Check

Government Controls Time

2009-03-10T16:14:00.000-07:00

Every Spring we are reminded of the shear arrogant power of our government. U.S. government, both state and federal, is so powerful that it controls time. It's time to adjust your clocks one hour forward and hope your heart does not give out.

Open Contempt for the Oath of Office and the Constitution

2009-02-25T11:35:00.000-08:00

The recent passage of HR 1, better known as the stimulus package, perfectly illustrates the complete comtempt many members of our government have for their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The text of the law was over 1000 pages long, and Congress had just a few hours to read and analyze its contents before the majority voted in favor of passing the bill. The problem: no one read the bill.

How can the government officials who voted for the bill assert that they take the oath of office seriously? How can one gaurantee that all parts of this massive spending bill were in compliance with the Constitution if one never read the bill? Would you sign a mortgage without reading or understanding the terms?

The Amazing Power of the Federal Government

2009-02-05T12:10:00.000-08:00

If the government is able to stimulate the economy by simply spending money, why would we ever have recessions? The good times should never end. Why not create a strategy whereby the government spends a few trillion dollars every five years on stimulus worthy projects? Now, some may say cite the national debt as a reason against regular stimulus plans, but they would be foolishly thinking about the long-term health of the country.

Fight Fire With Fire

2009-02-05T11:44:00.000-08:00

After the terrorist attacks on 9/11, George Bush stated his belief that the terrorists attacked the United States because they "hated our freedom." Over the next eight years President Bush decided to defend this freedom by taking it away (with the assistance of Congress, of course). Warrentless wiretapping, torture, secret courts, secret prisons, the list goes on and on. American citizens are dramatically less free than there were eight years ago.

Fast forward to 2008 and an economic crises arises. The crises is the product of the easy money policies of the Federal Reserve and the obscene homes-for-all strategy of the federal government. This centrally planned bubble coupled with extremely poor business decisions on the part of several large financial institutions lead to our current economic crises. Washington's solution: loosen monetary policy more than ever before, and broaden the homeownership-for-all policy by meddling with mortgage terms and creating even more incentives to buy homes. What's next?

Where is the Free Press?

2008-09-21T09:22:00.001-07:00

America's supposed defender of democracy, the free press, is no where to be found when democracy has been toppled. Never mind that the United States is a republic, the media have been maddeningly derelict in their coverage of the current "financial crisis". Where are the questions about the seemingly unlimited power of the Federal Reserve? Where are the questions about the constitutionality of corporate bailouts? How can American's allow what is defined as "necessary" by the President, Congress, and the Fed trump what is defined as mandatory by the Constitution?

These are not difficult questions, yet they have not been asked by the media. America's next best hope to stop this intrusion on their rights: the judicial branch. America must turn to its judges and lawyers to enforce the law if the press is unwilling to or unable to shine a light on the tyrannical deeds of Washington. If nothing is done to challenge these unlawful acts then I fear the worst is yet to come.

The Constitution's Last Gasps

2008-09-14T17:06:00.000-07:00

We must save our financial system has been the plea in Washington D.C. for the last week. Politicians and government officials feel "something" must be done or the country faces a meltdown of its financial system. That "something" is massive financial bailouts of banks and financial institutions in distress. The action is necessary, they claim, because the consequences of inaction are far worse. Yet, what are the consequences of inaction, and what of the legality of this action?

The Constitution clearly states that only Congress has the power to spend tax money. It is also pretty clear that this statute has been ignored since the inception of the Federal Reserve (1913). The summer of 2008 has been one of ever more unprecedented and unconstitutional action by the Federal Reserve, culminating in multi-billion dollar direct financial bailouts of America's largest financial institutions. Once the inflation, interest payments, bad debt write-offs, the Fed's low-interest auctions, and the government's ill-advised stimulus package are factored into the scheme, the American tax-payers stand to lose several trillion dollars and, more importantly, have already lost their system of government.

The backbone of the American form of government is its system of checks and balances. That system is broken. Congress played no role in the bailouts of AIG or Bear Sterns, yet several billion in tax-payer money have been used. The Federal Reserve's power to spend is unchecked and therefore its effect on Amerca's existence is unlimited. America's elected officials, all under oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, have placed the importance of a centrally planned financial system over that of its system of government.

In both the short and long-terms Americans will be hurt more by inadequate, and indeed criminal, governance than by the predicted "meltdown" of its government's financial system. The tyranny waged by American politicians has never been greater than it is today. This financial "crisis" is primarily due to the central planning of Federal Reserve and has been exacerbated by government legislation that unreasonably favored homeownership for all Americans: it is the government and the Federal Reserve who set the stage for this debacle.

It is painfully obvious that America's elected officials are more concerned with the facade of action in an election year than their sworn duty. It is obvious that the free-market is free only when it behaves in a manner conducive to their re-election. It is obvious that the Constitution is no longer a restraint of power but a historical document to be mentioned only when discussing days of yore. It is obvious that America's days as a freedom-loving, law-abiding bastion of opportunity for all have come to an end.

Sarah Palin's Personal Business

2008-09-07T12:37:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin's teenage daughter is unmarried and pregnant, and the Republican party is outraged at the media's "intrusive" coverage of Governor Palin's personal life. The Republican's contend that Bristol Palin, the governor's daughter, should be off-limits as a topic for the news media, but it is the Republicans who have invited the media scrutiny.

For decades the Republican party has courted "social conservatives" and have amended their party's platform to accomodate this group. Republicans feel that the degredation of the traditional American family is the source of many of the country's current ills. Republicans, lead by President Bush, have used tax-payer money to fund a wide range of conservative social issues such as abstinence education in public schools and a broad spectrum of "faith based initiatives."

It is then only logical to question whether Palin's family adheres to this social conservative viewpoint. Afterall, tax-payer money is being used to provide "values" education to Americans and no person should exemplify these values more than the person who will have the power to implement them.

One may argue that the candidate's families are innocent and should not be subject to the same intense media scutiny. This would be true only if the candidates did not make families a government issue. It is also true that all Americans, including the candidate's families, are hurt by the use of tax-payer money to fund subjective "values" or "moral" education.

One could argue that the candidate's family is hurt more by the policy than by the media scrutiny. No one, Republican or Democrat, should be allowed to propose and implement such a policy (wholly inconsistent with at least the spirit of the Constitution I might add) and be free from criticism. Then, perhaps, candidates would think twice before attempting to legislate values.

Signs You're No Longer Free

2008-03-14T11:55:00.001-07:00

The FBI avoids secret ( I repeat, SECRET!) courts to spy on unsuspecting Americans
Secret courts exist
All banks install software programs that alert the IRS of any "unusual" spending activity
The IRS exists
A $3 trillion budget is not enough to satisfy Washington politicians
The government borrows or prints money to give out to a select number of people
The president subsidizes an energy source more wasteful and more scarce than the one already in use
Baggy pants are outlawed in several cities and soon the entire state of Florida
The president is allowed to declare war
The president declares war on a military tactic (terrorism) and not a country or group
The Fed ignores inflation and a tanking dollar to bail out banks
The Fed exists
Real ID means you will need your papers to travel
The Democrats want to take the borrowed Iraq "War" money and use it to pay for "programs"
You can't gamble online
You can't marry if you're not straight
The Republicans want to legislate morality
If you're dying you better hope the FDA approved that drug
Torture is considered acceptable and is deemed to induce reliable information
Taking an oath on anything other than the bible is unacceptable even if you're not a Christian
We're better capable of defending Iraq than America
The Constitution is never a topic in any Presidential debate
1 in 100 Americans are incarcerated

The FDA is Universal Health Care

2008-02-26T15:28:00.000-08:00

The Supreme Court recently ruled that a person with a terminal illness does not have the right to drugs not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and in so doing struck a severe blow to individual rights. The ruling supplants the federal government as the only body that can decide what drug treatments work, and essentially reaffirms the FDA's monopoly on what drugs may be sold legally in the United States. The result: the federal government's power grows, even though this power was not granted to it in the Constitution, and universal health care has been legalized.

The FDA has an important role in ensuring a minimum standard of quality in the food and drugs bought and sold in the United States. However, the minimum standard has evolved (or devolved) into an absolute standard; particularly for the drugs the agency oversees. The opinions of the physicians and professionals who make up the FDA are absolute. Their decisions on which drugs are safe or effective dictate the treatment options for every American. It is in this manner that the FDA has become - and will increasingly become - the centerpiece of universal health care.

Consider the example of a person with a terminal illness that has exhausted all treatment options approved by the FDA. Such a person cannot try new experimental drugs, no matter how promising the drugs may be, if those drugs are not approved by the FDA. One government agency in its effort to protect its citizens has thus limited their choices and denied its citizens their most basic right to pursue life. The opinions of physicians who wish to prescribe the unapproved drug are trumped by the opinions of physicians who act as government agents via the FDA.

American citizens can only decide their course of medical treatment as far as the government will allow. Innovation can occur no faster than the bureaucracy of the FDA can process. In addition, there is no guarantee that the drugs or treatments the FDA has approved are indeed effective. The Supreme Court's ruling moves the country closer to one method of care for all as dictated by the federal government.

The FDA will become even more domineering if the Democrats are allowed to enact their universal health care plans. The logical evolution of government financed health care is growing government control over methods of care. Under a universal health care plan, should the quality of care falter politicians must assert more control over physicians and their treatment options to "ensure" the people's tax dollars are spent effectively.

There is something very different about government financed health care. For example, how many second opinions will be allowed for a person dependent on government financed health care? Should an infinite number of second opinions be allowed, and what if it's the eighth opinion that can save a life? Although we despise the insurance agencies for making such decisions, its an entirely different ballgame when it's your own government denying you every chance at life.

Rebate or Welfare?

2008-01-30T15:12:00.000-08:00

A rebate, as defined by Dictionary.com, is "a return of part of the original payment for some service or merchandise; partial refund." President Bush and Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have negotiated an economic stimulus package designed to stave-off a recession. The economic package has often been cited as a tax "rebate" by politicians and the media, but it is clear that this stimulus does not fit the definition of a rebate.

America's central government has already spent its citizenry's tax dollars. In fact, all of the taxes the government has collected did not meet the government's spending needs. So where does the money for this "rebate" come from? The government will have to borrow, tax, and or print more money to come up with the funds for this stimulus package.

All of these options first hinder the economy before stimulating it, and never mind the fact that it does not come close to the dictionary definition of a rebate. An actual rebate of taxes paid would be fantastic, but because that is impossible this really is just another government spending program. It is in essence welfare for all, except those the government deems to be unworthy. Its referred to as a rebate because many Americans, especially those with any knowledge of the principles of the Constitution, my object otherwise.

Yet virtually everyone will take their government checks and cash them without a second thought. Who can resist a free hand-out; especially cash? Be forewarned, the politicians in Washington (both Republican and Democrat) will in the near future call on you to "sacrifice" and absorb a tax increase to pay for this exercise in true Socialism.

An Oath to Reaganism or the Constitution?

2008-01-12T09:45:00.000-08:00

While the Republicans worry about upholding the principles of former President Ronald Reagan, the principles of the Constitution continue to take a beating. The hot topic of the most recent Republican presidential debate was Ronald Reagan and whether the candidates believe his principals were still being practiced by today's Republicans. In fact, other than Ron Paul, not one candidate mentioned the Constitution during the debate. It is apparent that dedication to Reagan and his principles takes precedent over the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution for today's neoconservatives.

Reagan's foreign policy is one of essentially imperialistic pursuits, or at least that is how it is carried out by today's Republican leaders. Neoconservatives feel there are no limitations to where or in what circumstances the United States should use its power and influence so long as it is in the best interest of the country. Yet, the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of the central government thereby ensuring each individual enjoys life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It is in the best interest of the country that all three branches of government make good on their oaths to the Constitution, which clearly states that only Congress can declare war. Presently, even government agencies like the C.I.A. and F.B.I. conduct covert military actions in foreign countries, and most Americans think nothing of these gross violations. The politicians in the legislative branch are too worried about being re-elected to truly make a decision on whether or not to officially declare war. Instead, they insulate themselves from repercussions by granting the executive branch broad authorities for military actions such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or the Iraq Resolution (America has not been in an officially declared war since World War II).

President Bush has taken his kingly war powers to the next level by adopting a policy of preemptive war. Of course, this preemption should be based on knowledge of factual evidence of impending harm to the United States. It was Thomas Jefferson who said, "how much pain they have cost us, the evils which have never happened." Jefferson, unlike Reagan or Bush, was one of the writers of the Constitution.

Ron Paul Excluded Part 2

2008-01-06T14:39:00.000-08:00

The word is Fox has excluded Ron Paul from the New Hampshire debate because they do not have enough room in the debate facility. Anchors on Fox have also openly stated that Paul will not be President and have said the network simply wants to spend more time on the issues by narrowing the participants. They report, you decide? I think not. It has become apparent the true reason Ron Paul is not invited to the debate is because the executives at Fox do not agree with his policies.

It is impossible to overstate the dangerous precedent this sets for the future of elections in this country. The media already has a far too powerful influence on our election process. Fox's exclusion of Paul robs him of an opportunity that every other Republican candidate will enjoy; an opportunity to explain his views and illustrate the difference between himself and the other candidates. It is no coincidence that this stolen opportunity will take place in a state that Paul could conceivable finish in the top three: New Hampshire.

It is not a question of having more time to focus on the issues. This assertion is completely disingenuous, and is really an assertion of dollars over credibility. Fox need only to increase the length of the debate to spend more time on the issues. Of course, this would require the network to put the importance of the presidential election over the importance of advertising revenue for one night. I am sure Fox would counter that people will not watch a four-hour debate. However true this might be, it is irrelevant. The onus is on Fox to do its job. Remember, "We report, you decide."

The Republican National Committee has withdrawn as a partner in the debates because of Fox's exclusions. It is reassuring that the network's actions have not gone unnoticed by the Republican Party leadership. We can only hope that media also appreciates the magnitude of this precedent and lambastes both Fox and ABC.

Ron Paul Excluded by Fox

2008-01-04T11:01:00.000-08:00

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has surpassed the expectations of many. He has gone from a relatively unknown candidate to one who attracts hordes of enthusiastic supporters at every one of his speaking engagements. Paul apparently leads all Republican candidates in fundraising for the fourth quarter of 2007 and finished with 10% of the vote in the Iowa caucus. Paul finished ahead of Rudy Giuliani in Iowa and his performance is even more impressive when you consider his Libertarian views against the evangelical Christians who carried Mike Huckabee to victory in the state. Paul easily passes any test of a credible candidate for President, but Fox News has excluded him from their next presidential debate just prior to the New Hampshire primary.

Fred Thompson has been invited to the Fox News debate; Ron Paul leads Thompson in most New Hampshire polls. Although one must respect Fox News' rights as a private organization hosting a private debate, one can hardly consider the debates, or now Fox News' coverage of the presidential race, as credible. There really is no justification for not inviting Paul to the debate other than the top executives at Fox deciding they don't want him there. This is hardly "fair" or "balanced." The network is essentially signaling their viewers that Ron Paul should not be considered as a viable candidate for President.

Fox News is therefore influencing the presidential race. Their decision to exclude Paul shows no impartiality. In addition, it appears that ABC news has also chosen to limit the participants of its upcoming debate. These decisions by two major news agencies are dangerous because they set a precedent of the media selecting who is worthy of the public's attention. Had the media taken such actions earlier in the year, Mike Huckabee might not have been the winner in Iowa.

It is possible that in the future the list of candidates will be narrowed by opinions in the boardroom rather than naturally by candidates voluntarily dropping out of the race. The smart candidates will make an issue of this situation, or they may find themselves on the outside looking in. As for myself, I will no longer rely on Fox or ABC for any news on the election.

Shouldn't Teachers Know the Rules?

2007-12-08T09:01:00.000-08:00

Recently a British teacher named Gillian Gibbons was arrested in Sudan for "insulting religion" and "inciting hatred." Gibbons apparently allowed her second grade class to name a Teddy Bear Muhammad. Muhammad is a common name among Muslim men, but giving the prophet's name to an animal is viewed as an insult. Gibbons faced a harsh penalty for her ignorance and there were crowds at her trial demanding she be executed. Instead, Gibbons was sentenced to fifteen days in prison and deportation. She was eventually freed and sent back to England when that country issued two diplomats to negotiate her release. There has been tremendous outrage, and rightfully so, over the Sudanese reaction to the whole "crime," but what about Gibbon's duties as a teacher?

Teachers are responsible for a child's education, and that entails teaching children about the culture of which they are a part. Gibbons decided that she wanted to teach in the largely Muslim country of Sudan, which means she should have some knowledge of Islam and of Sudanese culture. The controversy surrounding Gibbons indicates that perhaps she did not understand as much as she thought. Insulting Muhammad is probably the last thing you want to do as a visitor in a Muslim country, and as a teacher Gibbons should have taught her pupils that naming an animal (Teddy Bears included) after the prophet is not kosher. Gibbons later commented that she went to Sudan for an "adventure." Well, mission accomplished.

Heed Hugo Chavez's Warning

2007-10-24T15:36:00.000-07:00

Recently Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez asserted that if the United States covertly worked to destabilize Venezuela, or more specifically Chavez's authority, he would cut off his country's supply of oil to the U.S. The U.S. should take Chavez's assertion seriously because there is little doubt that the longer he remains in power the more unstable Venezuela will become. Although the U.S. has become notorious for its foreign intervention, Venezuela's destabilization will arise from Chavez's own socialist policies.

Chavez's abhorrence of capitalism and U.S. policymakers is well documented, so it is no great leap to deduce that he will blame the impending economic catastrophe in Venezuela on U.S. meddling. Chavez has instituted price controls and grabbed private property and businesses. His assault on the free-market has led to food shortages and inflation. Chavez's response to these predictable consequences has been to blame capitalists and individualists (read the United States) rather than to examine his own economic policies.

Chavez's apparent lack of comprehension of basic economics will, in the not too distant future, lead to a economically weaker Venezuela. The United States should therefore prepare for the day when Chavez cuts off oil deliveries in a vain attempt to win back support from the Venezuelan populace, who will no doubt demand an explanation for the turmoil he will have brought upon them.

Many may argue that Venezuela needs American dollars too much to cut-off their supply of oil to the United States. There are two problems with this point. First, it rests on the assumption that Chavez will be grounded by logic. Chavez has repeatedly shown that the only logic he follows is that of a tyrant. Second, it does not take into account the growing demand for oil from China, which is at the moment experiencing nationwide fuel shortages. Granted, the logistical complications of transferring Venezuelan oil supply from the U.S. to China are substantial; but one can never underestimate a motivated tyrant trying to hold on to power.

The United States currently receives about 11% of its oil from Venezuela. Any significant change in the supply of oil from Venezuela means the U.S. would either need to rely more heavily on other suppliers or find alternative energy sources. The prospects of either option becoming a desirable and feasible substitute to Venezuelan oil over a short period of time are not good. The U.S. economy would feel the effects over the loss. The CIA may be wiretapping Chavez's phone calls as we speak.

The Baggy Pants Crusade

2007-09-26T16:15:00.000-07:00

Several cities across the country are discussing plans to ban baggy pants. Apparently, some people find baggy pants offensive, so offensive that those that wear them should be considered criminals. It seems that for most it's more about the exposed underwear underneath the baggy pants than the baggy pants itself. The contention is that the fashion is indecent, but this is one of the most ridiculous, absurd, and unenforceable laws in recent memory.

Aside from defining exactly what is considered "baggy," there are several practical reason why this is a complete waste of time and tax-payer money. In addition to defining "baggy" the law would also have to define "underwear," or I could simply wear shorts or bathing suit bottoms under my baggy pants to skirt the law. What about topless joggers? I am regularly offended my men jogging with no shirts on, and even men who aren't jogging with no shirts on. I propose that all men should have to wear shirts in public. Then we would have to stop people who wear baggy clothes for work, like painters or basketball players. The law must be enforced equally.

Why stop at baggy pants? Lets ban long dark trench coats, ear muffs, bow ties, and those waist pouches. I find these fashions outdated, offensive and or weird, and I'm sure several other people do also. In fact, why don't we require everyone to wear blacks slacks and white collared shirts. Then we won't have to worry about spending our time and money on these very important fashion laws. I feel safer and less offended already.

Taxes and the American Backbone

2007-08-09T17:08:00.001-07:00

Taxes are bad. Unfortunately, most Americans really don't comprehend how bad taxes are. Let me try to rectify this by examining the old colloquialism "money is power." The more money you have, the more power you have. You can buy a home, donate to a worthy charity, send your children to good schools, and even buy that Audi A4 you've been eyeing. So what does it say about a politician who wants to increase your taxes? Easy, that politician wants to take power away from you and keep it for themselves.

Now this slick politician will say it's for the good of the country, but I'm sure you've seen enough John Stossel on 20/20 to know the government is not very good at spending your money. After all, this is the same government that spent over $980,000 of your tax money to ship two cent washers to Iraq. No kidding. This is the same government that used a Bill to fund the Iraq Conflict to build a multi-million dollar peanut storage facility. Again, no kidding.

Go ahead and take a look at your paycheck and imagine what you could do if income taxes weren't taken out of your check. Have you received a pay raise recently? Chances are you barely noticed the difference in your paycheck because of the taxes. On top of that you have to pay sales tax. Oh, and don't think it's safe to jack up taxes on corporations either. A 1% increase in corporate taxes means a 0.8% increase in prices to you and me.

Nothing illustrates this point better than the story of Matt Murphy. Murphy was fortunate enough to catch Barry Bonds' record breaking home run ball. Unfortunately, Murphy cannot keep the ball because he cannot afford to pay the taxes. That's right, he can't use it as collateral to open a business, he can't use it as a down payment on a home, and he can't keep it with the hopes that it will appreciate in value.

Does that sound American? Does that sound like giving power to the people? What happened to the spirit of the Boston Tea Party? Think of this the next time you demand government services. All you're doing is giving control of your own life to someone else. You're much better off doing for yourself.

Journalists Are Not Inherently Altruistic

2007-08-09T15:18:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to Barry Bonds on breaking Major League Baseball's career home run record. Bonds recently hit his 756th home run, but for some the new record is tainted because of Bonds' alleged steroid use. I say alleged because Bonds' grand jury testimony has not been made public but was leaked by a criminal, alcoholic, and drug-addicted lawyer name Troy Ellerman. Ellerman allowed a San Franscisco Chronicle reporter to view transcripts of grand jury testimony. Of course, this was highly illegal but was of no consequence to the reporters who reaped great personal benefit from Ellerman's criminal act.

Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada, authors of the book Game of Shadows, are recipients of the George Polk Award for their investigative reporting on steroid use in sports. In addition, the two have won praise from their peers and even President George Bush. I wouldn't doubt if they also received pay raises.

Williams and Fainaru-Wada claim that they published the leaked testimony because the "people" deserved to know the truth. They claim that the country is better, because parents can talk to their kids about the dangers of steroid abuse as a result of the increased awareness surrounding the issue. Williams also asserts his First Amendment right to free speech.

Sorry guys, I don't think you're that altruistic. The bottom line is both Williams and Fainaru-Wada gained wide-spread notoriety and financial benifits for their work with their drug addict accomplice Ellerman. I highly doubt the pair would have been interested in the leaked testimony if they weren't going to receive any personal benefit. So is it alright for the pair to claim they are exempt from jail time for contempt of court for not revealing their source?

Absolutely not. The pair knew the possible consequences of their actions before they published their story and went ahead with it anyway. I suspect it was because the benefits of doing so outweighed the disadvantages. Furthermore, they had direct contact with the criminal. It may be a different story if they were talking to a witness of a crime and not the criminal himself.

Williams and Fainaru-Wada can continue exercise their right to free speech. They don't and didn't have to name their source. The consequence of this action is jail time. Its that simple. In journalism, as in life, you have to take the good with the bad.

School Choice: It's Your Right

2007-07-28T11:33:00.000-07:00

Nothing in life is guaranteed but an education certainly makes things more certain. If you weren't born into a wealthy family or fortunate enough to have the right societal connections, then the key to making your dreams more attainable is an education. As Americans we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our founding fathers realized the integral role an education had in the pursuit of the latter. Thomas Jefferson is known to have promoted the creation of a public school system. Few doubt the value of an education but many doubt the effectiveness of our current public school system.

If the government provides a service, that service must be equally available to all citizens. Currently there is equal access but unfortunately many only have access to ineffective schools. For the most part this is not intentional but simply a result of circumstance. The sad state of schools in economically poor districts is a result of a shortage of supply of competent and effective teachers and administrators. The fact is, teachers and administrators have a choice in the schools for which they work, and they often choose the more affluent higher-paying schools over their poorer counterparts. So if choice is good for teachers and administrators why is not good for students?

Choice is an essential component for improving the U.S. school system. The quality of your life may depend on the quality of your education. If your tax dollars can pay for a better alternative than the public schools in your municipality then the government should not limit your choice, and therefore your pursuit of happiness.

Those who oppose choice in school selection claim it will result in the the closure of many public schools and job loss for many public school employees. Why should these schools remain open if they are ineffective and their employees sub-par? Bad schools exist because the government continues to finance their failures. It's only natural that we take our money elsewhere if we are disappointed in the service we receive. The same should be true for public schools.

Current U.S. Wars

2007-07-26T14:56:00.000-07:00

War in Afghanistan
War against Al Qaeda
War on Terror
War on Drugs
War on the Middle Class
War on Poverty
War on Christmas
War on Crime
War on Fundamentalism
War on AIDS
War on Cancer
War on Obesity
War against Men
War against Women
War on Want
War on Science
War on Illegal Immigration
War on Journalism
War on Guns
War on Christians
War on the Environment
War in Iraq (not officially a war)

I guess a war on taxes is out of the question, then we wouldn't be able to fund all our other wars.

Lou Dobbs: The Epitome of Neo-Journalism

2007-07-21T07:12:00.000-07:00

The Lou Dobbs Tonight show is the second most watched broadcast on CNN after Larry King Live. 800,000 Americans tune in each night to watch this self-proclaimed journalist at work. The show pays particularly close attention to the issues of border security, illegal immigration, the war in Iraq, and free trade. The problem is, as is common with most "news" broadcasts on 24-hour news networks, Dobbs' coverage of these and other subjects is laced with his own personal opinions.

The problem with injecting opinion into news is simple: eventually the facts will be distorted to reflect and support a particular viewpoint. Dobbs is not the only so-called journalist on television guilty of this action, but is among the best at injecting his opinion into reports on issues of the day. Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olbermann, and Glenn Beck are other characters who have also mastered this craft.

Fortunately not every commentator on 24-hour news networks claims to be a journalist, but the effects of their broadcasts are the same. It has become increasingly more difficult to find factual news reports. Instead, viewers find themselves watching one person's opinion of the news. Of course, this opinion has to be strong and compelling or it will never draw the ratings (read revenue) necessary to make the show worthy of broadcast. I am sure you can now see the conflict for the 24-hour news networks: accurate and straight forward reporting versus usually accurate opinion laden news that makes money.

Their choice has been pretty obvious. Faced with increasing competition and a need to distinguish themselves, 24-hour news networks have sacrificed a little integrity for a lot of cash. How else can you explain how individuals like Dobbs are allowed to place greater emphasis on their viewpoint of a story than the story itself? This turn for the worse would not be so infuriating if the networks did not pretend to be (to borrow a phrase) fair and balanced.

On top of this pretension we now have commentators like Dobbs insisting they are journalists. For the record, journalists simply report the news while commentators both report and provide commentary. Its hard to argue that Dobbs and his ilk stop at just reporting. For example, I am sure you know Dobbs' opinion of President Bush's free trade policy or Glenn Beck's opinions of Iran.

Its fair to say that there is no such thing as 24-hour news. There are a few hours of infomercials, a documentary or two, a comedic take on the current events, a few hours of commentary, and maybe a couple hours of actual straight news. Now there is even less news. Perhaps some creative lawyer should file a lawsuit for false advertising. After all, CNN doesn't stand for Cable News Network; no, CNN=Politics. Didn't you know?