If you want some advice on how the media suggests you prepare for swine flu, click here.
However, in case you hadn't noticed, the media has a tendency toward laziness and bias. So I decided to take the actual questions asked in this article and provide the true answers. Here we go:
"Q: How do I protect myself and my family?"
A: There is little you can do until the next Congressional election cycle in 2010. The Democrats who run Congress seem to have a particularly acute case of swine flu given their propensity for reckless and runaway pork. For now, try not to make too much money since it will doubtless be taxed at confiscatory rates. And drink plenty of fluids.
"Q: How easy is it to catch this virus?"
A: Outside of Congress, it seems that leftists, socialists, union leaders, MSNBC TV personalities, community organizers and Oba-Messiah worshipers are at greatest risk of infection. However, the virus has been known to attack spineless RINOs inside the Beltway. According to the CDC, one theory on how the virus has spread so rapidly is prolonged exposure to hot air and hob-knobbing in the Capitol Building cafeteria, attending White House press briefings, and getting within spitting distance of Speaker Pelosi.
"Q: In Mexico, officials are handing out face masks. Do I need one?"
A: At this point, it is recommended that you use a mask when you travel inside the Beltway, a particularly hot spot. Or if you are considering a run for public office. It's safer to avoid close contact with a likely host (see partial list of categories above) but if you can't do that, CDC guidelines say it's OK to consider a mask — or plug your nose and turn up your iPod.
"Q: Is swine flu treatable?"
A: Yes. If you suspect you might have been exposed to swine flu, it is recommended that you immediately begin a heavy dose of Ronald Reagan speeches in print or audio form. If you fear your Members of Congress have been infected, write them urgently and encourage them to seek treatment lest they be voted out of office.
"Q: Is there enough?"
A: Yes, but if you don't have easy access to President Reagan's speeches, you could begin a course of conservative talk radio treatment.
"Q: Should I take Tamiflu as a precaution if I'm not sick yet?"
A: What, you really think some drug will help you?
"Q: How big is my risk?"
A: It depends. If you are a taxpayer, you are at low risk to catch swine flu but are certainly most likely to be affected since you will be footing the bill for others. That disadvantage is balanced by the amount of pork that comes to your district. So, for example, if you are a taxpayer in Kittanning, PA, in the district of Rep. John Murtha, D-PA, your poor representative has been infected for years. However, your community previously received $300,000 of a renovations at the Belmont Complex, a county-run public swimming pool and ice rink center. And you probably only paid a few pennies for it. On the other hand, if you are a taxpayer in the district of Rep. Mike Pence, R-IN, your representative is healthy but you don't have any goodies to show for it. And you paid for a nice ice rink in western PA.
"Q: Should I cancel my planned trip to Mexico?"
A: Why in the name of all that is good and righteous would you ever travel to Mexico? Cancel it and see part of America instead.
"Q: What else is the U.S., or anyone else, doing to try to stop this virus?"
A: Unfortunately, the Obama Administration seems to be directly encouraging the spread of the virus. It is likely that we will see more porkulus packages in the future. Government servants have an especially difficult time healing from swine flu. If you attend any tea parties, however, you might discover that many fellow attendees actually have some good ideas about stopping the virus, though you'd be hard pressed to hear that from the MSM.
"Q: What are the symptoms?"
A: A spending fever, deep desire to bring money and pork home and pay off those campaign contributors, doublespeak, strong urge to secrecy and voting for spending bills without reading them, a "D" mysteriously appearing after your name, haughtiness and extreme pride, and malodorous and often painful gas.
"Q: Is there a vaccine to prevent this new infection?"
A: Yes. It's called small government, low tax, Bill of Rights, Ninth and Tenth Amendment, originalist interpretation, pro-US military, anti-terrorist conservatism.
"Q: How long would it take to produce a vaccine?"
A: One can be produced as quickly as November 2010.
"Q: What is swine flu?
A: Pigs spread their own strains of influenza and every so often people catch one, usually after contact with the animals." In this case, Democrats in Congress and President Obama caught the virus by directly suckling the tits of the federal government sow, i.e. your wallet.
"Q: So is it safe to eat pork?"
A: By all means, eat pork. Just buy it yourself instead of relying on your congressman to bring it home to you.
"Q: And whatever happened to bird flu? Wasn't that supposed to be the next pandemic?"
A: Swine flu is merely a mutate strain of bird flu caused by the excessive, obscene and drunken spending spree of those turkeys back in DC.
So there you have it. The bottom line? Elect true conservatives, you'll cure swine flu by eliminating pork-barrel projects, and bird flu by voting the turkeys out of office.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Quick Hit #1--POTUS v. Miss California
Over the past few weeks, during his "I'm Sorry America Sucks" Tour, President Barack Obama ("POTUS") has (as the London Telegraph put it) gone further than any US president in criticizing America on foreign soil. America, according to POTUS, has been arrogant, divisive, and derisive, and he shouldn't be blamed for what happened when he was 3 years old. These beliefs drive POTUS's bus thanks to his influences (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Black Liberation Theology, etc.) and the goodness of America is relegated to the luggage compartment.
The MSM's response? POTUS is recognizing the fallibility of America. We have a president who is courageous and not reflexive--willing to recognize America's role in creating hardship around the world. Finally, a president of principles who won't genuflect to some American's outdated, simplistic notions of patriotism. The MSM "tolerates"--indeed, lauds-- POTUS for standing on principle.
Carrie Prejean, Miss California, also stood up for her principles. When confronted by gay gossiping blowhard Perez Hilton during the Miss USA Pageant with a question about gay marriage, Ms. Prejean spoke what she believed: marriage should be between one man and one woman, but people can have whatever private relationships they want. Uh oh.
Where's the tolerance and adulation for Ms. Prejean? Well, before the pageant she was essentially unknown. Now, taking Perez Hilton's lead (since when should a gossip be allowed to drive the news?) she's a "dumb bitch", "ugly", a public pariah with a huge target on her evening gown. She must have known that her answer would subject her to scorn and ridicule but she said it anyway. To an unfriendly crowd. On their turf. At the risk of losing the very crown she had worked so hard for.
POTUS, too, had ripe opportunities abroad to reassert America's principles. The goodness of America, the shining City on the Hill, the beacon of freedom and democracy, the flawed but mighty defender of liberty. To unfriendly crowds. On their turf. At the risk of losing their adoration. He could have stood his ground like Ms. Prejean. Instead, he blinked and told despots and dictators what they wanted to hear.
It's a sad day in America when a beauty queen has bigger balls than the American President.
The MSM's response? POTUS is recognizing the fallibility of America. We have a president who is courageous and not reflexive--willing to recognize America's role in creating hardship around the world. Finally, a president of principles who won't genuflect to some American's outdated, simplistic notions of patriotism. The MSM "tolerates"--indeed, lauds-- POTUS for standing on principle.
Carrie Prejean, Miss California, also stood up for her principles. When confronted by gay gossiping blowhard Perez Hilton during the Miss USA Pageant with a question about gay marriage, Ms. Prejean spoke what she believed: marriage should be between one man and one woman, but people can have whatever private relationships they want. Uh oh.
Where's the tolerance and adulation for Ms. Prejean? Well, before the pageant she was essentially unknown. Now, taking Perez Hilton's lead (since when should a gossip be allowed to drive the news?) she's a "dumb bitch", "ugly", a public pariah with a huge target on her evening gown. She must have known that her answer would subject her to scorn and ridicule but she said it anyway. To an unfriendly crowd. On their turf. At the risk of losing the very crown she had worked so hard for.
POTUS, too, had ripe opportunities abroad to reassert America's principles. The goodness of America, the shining City on the Hill, the beacon of freedom and democracy, the flawed but mighty defender of liberty. To unfriendly crowds. On their turf. At the risk of losing their adoration. He could have stood his ground like Ms. Prejean. Instead, he blinked and told despots and dictators what they wanted to hear.
It's a sad day in America when a beauty queen has bigger balls than the American President.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
A Christian Nation--Part One
During his Magical Mystery Tour this past week, Pres. Obama stopped in Turkey , gave a speech and toured a mosque. News channels always refer to Turkey as a “secular” Islamic nation. I suppose that term is used to distinguish Turkey from “theocratic” Islamic nations, presumably places like, for example, Iran , Saudi Arabia and Sudan. But you can’t really tell because the MSM never seems to discuss the issue.
I point out the “secular” part because Pres. Obama told the Turks that America is “not a Christian nation” but a “nation of citizens” who share common values. The mosque visitation didn’t bother me much since it was the Hagia Sophia, a very famous landmark that was originally constructed as a Christian church. What did bother me was the speech. I’m not sure what Obama meant by “Christian nation” so I started thinking about it since I don’t want to automatically gainsay everything POTUS says simply because I tend to agree with him on virtually nothing.
So, is America a Christian nation?
In order to answer the question, we have to define the term. If by “Christian nation” we intend that America is a theocracy whose people are governed by the interpretation of religious texts, and the laws derived there from, then the answer is decidedly “no”. American is unlike, for example, nations like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria that have “religious courts” where offenses to Sharia are heard and dealt with swiftly, with prejudice and using extreme cruelty.
When most people use the term “Christian nation” they seem to mean one or more things. For example, they often have an understanding of the Christian faith of our nation’s founders. They are aware that the vast majority of Americans describe themselves as “Christians”. And they are usually familiar with religious leaders like Dr. James Dobson, Rev. Jerry Falwell and others who have long publicly supported the Christian heritage of America in discussing current events.
Many who reject these positions claim, for example, that our Founding Fathers were “deists”, not Christians, and point to the absence of Jesus Christ from our founding documents. At the same time, they recite the “separation between church and state” mantra as if it were etched on stone tablets by George Washington himself despite the fact that those words are scarcer than Jesus in our founding documents. Using an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association as the gold standard on the issue is more than a bit disingenuous. But I digress. http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
The truth is that either side can pull selective quotes from founding documents to support their respective positions. However, there are some facts that suggest the supporters of a Christian nation concept have the better arguments.
The Pilgrims organized and came to the New World because they believed their religious beliefs were irreconcilable with the Church of England and British laws mandating Church attendance. In other words, the very first American colonists were acutely aware of religious differences and the need for government to recognize freedom for people with different religious practices. The religious freedoms offered in the New World (initially due in part to the geographical chasm between Europe and America) led to other varied religious groups colonizing or establishing themselves as well (Puritans in New England, Quakers in Pennsylvania , Baptists in the South, etc).
With this background, and about 150 years of colonial development rooted in it, how could these colonies possibly unite under a single religion or creed? They wouldn’t just voluntarily trade the oppressive national church they intentionally left for another. Give the Founding Fathers credit for drafting and approving the First Amendment to ensure the greatest religious freedom for all denominations. A truly united national government simply could not have a national church and our founders recognized that reality.
That was the practical reality created by our early settlers and their freedom to practice their religious beliefs as they saw fit. Though, obviously, condensing 150+ years of colonial history into 2 paragraphs leaves a lot out. My next blog entry will explore some of the specific words our founders used that evidence the strength of Christianity as a cornerstone of our nation’s historical foundation.
I point out the “secular” part because Pres. Obama told the Turks that America is “not a Christian nation” but a “nation of citizens” who share common values. The mosque visitation didn’t bother me much since it was the Hagia Sophia, a very famous landmark that was originally constructed as a Christian church. What did bother me was the speech. I’m not sure what Obama meant by “Christian nation” so I started thinking about it since I don’t want to automatically gainsay everything POTUS says simply because I tend to agree with him on virtually nothing.
So, is America a Christian nation?
In order to answer the question, we have to define the term. If by “Christian nation” we intend that America is a theocracy whose people are governed by the interpretation of religious texts, and the laws derived there from, then the answer is decidedly “no”. American is unlike, for example, nations like Saudi Arabia and Nigeria that have “religious courts” where offenses to Sharia are heard and dealt with swiftly, with prejudice and using extreme cruelty.
When most people use the term “Christian nation” they seem to mean one or more things. For example, they often have an understanding of the Christian faith of our nation’s founders. They are aware that the vast majority of Americans describe themselves as “Christians”. And they are usually familiar with religious leaders like Dr. James Dobson, Rev. Jerry Falwell and others who have long publicly supported the Christian heritage of America in discussing current events.
Many who reject these positions claim, for example, that our Founding Fathers were “deists”, not Christians, and point to the absence of Jesus Christ from our founding documents. At the same time, they recite the “separation between church and state” mantra as if it were etched on stone tablets by George Washington himself despite the fact that those words are scarcer than Jesus in our founding documents. Using an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association as the gold standard on the issue is more than a bit disingenuous. But I digress. http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
The truth is that either side can pull selective quotes from founding documents to support their respective positions. However, there are some facts that suggest the supporters of a Christian nation concept have the better arguments.
The Pilgrims organized and came to the New World because they believed their religious beliefs were irreconcilable with the Church of England and British laws mandating Church attendance. In other words, the very first American colonists were acutely aware of religious differences and the need for government to recognize freedom for people with different religious practices. The religious freedoms offered in the New World (initially due in part to the geographical chasm between Europe and America) led to other varied religious groups colonizing or establishing themselves as well (Puritans in New England, Quakers in Pennsylvania , Baptists in the South, etc).
With this background, and about 150 years of colonial development rooted in it, how could these colonies possibly unite under a single religion or creed? They wouldn’t just voluntarily trade the oppressive national church they intentionally left for another. Give the Founding Fathers credit for drafting and approving the First Amendment to ensure the greatest religious freedom for all denominations. A truly united national government simply could not have a national church and our founders recognized that reality.
That was the practical reality created by our early settlers and their freedom to practice their religious beliefs as they saw fit. Though, obviously, condensing 150+ years of colonial history into 2 paragraphs leaves a lot out. My next blog entry will explore some of the specific words our founders used that evidence the strength of Christianity as a cornerstone of our nation’s historical foundation.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
If We Outlaw Nukes...
A few weeks back, I was watching the History Channel (I think) when I saw an episode about the US nuclear bombing of Hiroshima in 1945. The show was atypical in that, while they showed the expected declassified military footage of "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" and nuclear bomb tests complete with mushroom clouds, they were interviewing an older Japanese woman who survived the blast. In 1945, this woman was working in a military bunker and was supposed to have been relieved by a co-worker that morning. The co-worker, who had never before been late to work, had still failed to arrive 15 minutes after her shift was to start.
And then we dropped the bomb.
The woman was taking the interviewer and crew on a tour of the bunker. It turns out this woman was the first to report the blast to the Japanese military high command. Her city had been devastated, her fellow citizens evaporated or certain to die from their injuries or exposure. Her memories were recounted with a matter-of-fact tone, 50 years having doubtlessly softened the impact and seen the resurrection of her city into a large metropolitan center of southwestern Honshu with over 2,000,000 people.
We've all seen the photos and videos of the tremendous power of nuclear blasts and the devastation they cause. Many of us even remember "duck and cover" as a way of protection! We've all heard that the atomic and thermonuclear weapons of today are many times more powerful than Fat Man and Little Boy. And while nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragically killed over 200,000 Japanese, these bombs most likely saved hundreds of thousands more Japanese and American lives that would have been lost in a more protracted Pacific war or US invasion of Japan.
Nevertheless, there are so many reasons why the elimination of nuclear weapons is a great idea. So why I am so concerned that Pres. Obama made that very commitment in Prague this weekend, mere hours after North Korea tested a long-range missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to Alaska or Hawaii? There are 3 reasons that come to mind.
First, the American military force is the envy of the world in large part because of its strength, which nuclear weapons are a component of. However, it is not the weapons themselves but the threat of their use that gives us a power few nations have and of a magnitude none can match. I suspect that threat--and therefore our strength--has diminished since the end of the Cold War since none of our leaders seem to have the balls to use, or threaten to use them. I'm not suggesting that nukes should be anything be a last response when all else has failed. But even a last resort can be a powerful tool provided it is in the hands of someone who knows how to use it judicially. Pres. Obama's comments indicate to me that he is afraid of the weapons and not just because of the destruction they can cause. He's afraid of the position they'll put him in if he is faced with a dire threat for which there is no other option, because he won't be able to pull the trigger. It's not that he will use them injudiciously. It's that he won't use or threaten to use them at all. Everyone knows that, and that weakens America.
Second, I don't trust the leaders of other nations. It's great that Obama can crack Dmitri Medvedev on the back, and give him the thumbs-up at the G20 like fast friends. But do you really trust Medvedev? In one of his worst foreign policy moments, President Bush said he had looked into Vladimir Putin's soul and saw his goodness. Putin heard that and knew he was home free to do just about whatever he pleased. When the G20 champagne wears off, Medvedev, Putin's protege, will feel the same way. Sure, he'll probably agree to reduce Russian nuclear missile stockpiles...at least the ones he has control over and can account for. That's an easy concession for a leader with warheads to spare. But there are still concerns over possible missing Russian suitcase nukes.
You honestly think the Russian leadership will ever agree to complete elimination of nukes? What in that nation's tragic history suggests they will give up that power? They don't trust us, or the Chinese, or North Korea any more than we do. Do you think Chinese Premiere Hu, or Kim Jong-Il, or whoever will lead Pakistan or India will just give up this technology they spent decades trying to develop or acquire? Will Israel ever feel safe enough to give up theirs? And what about those trying to get it? I don't suspect Ahmadinejad is planning on turning off the centrifuges to help achieve Pres. Obama's goal. The nations of the world that have the technology are not as stable, or as committed to peacefully run democracy, as the US. I am not confident that will ever change.
Third, the technology is already out there for the enemies of freedom, liberty and democracy to exploit. It's not easy to get your hands on the materials...yet. But as Iran moves closer to weaponizing nuclear material, we all move closer to the likelihood that Islamic terrorists will get their hands on the material and a method to deliver it. The amount of fissile material available for nuclear weapons is curently closely monitored because the nations who possess it have agreed to disclosures and monitoring by international bodies. When a rogue nation like Iran gets the material, you think we'll have the same ability to track it? I can't think of anything more dangerous than an Islamic extremist, sworn to jihad, in possession of a deployable nuclear weapon.
It is said that if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns. If that's true, then what will happen if nukes are "outlawed"? If the sane and semi-sane nations of the world agree to dismantle their nukes and slap high-fives in the name of "peace", the insane, extreme underbelly of civilization will be salivating at their good fortune because they don't want peace unless it comes with your annihilation...or your conversion to their bastardized form of Islam.
I don't like nukes any more than the next guy, but I believe they are here to stay. You can't un-ring the bell. Man has harnessed the power of the atom. If we "eliminate" nuclear weapons, we will only drive them underground and into the hands of evil doers.
Sting sings in "Russians", his anti-nukes, Cold War anthem, "I hope the Russians love their children, too." Fortunately, the Russians did.
Unfortunately, today's Jihadists don't.
And then we dropped the bomb.
The woman was taking the interviewer and crew on a tour of the bunker. It turns out this woman was the first to report the blast to the Japanese military high command. Her city had been devastated, her fellow citizens evaporated or certain to die from their injuries or exposure. Her memories were recounted with a matter-of-fact tone, 50 years having doubtlessly softened the impact and seen the resurrection of her city into a large metropolitan center of southwestern Honshu with over 2,000,000 people.
We've all seen the photos and videos of the tremendous power of nuclear blasts and the devastation they cause. Many of us even remember "duck and cover" as a way of protection! We've all heard that the atomic and thermonuclear weapons of today are many times more powerful than Fat Man and Little Boy. And while nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragically killed over 200,000 Japanese, these bombs most likely saved hundreds of thousands more Japanese and American lives that would have been lost in a more protracted Pacific war or US invasion of Japan.
Nevertheless, there are so many reasons why the elimination of nuclear weapons is a great idea. So why I am so concerned that Pres. Obama made that very commitment in Prague this weekend, mere hours after North Korea tested a long-range missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to Alaska or Hawaii? There are 3 reasons that come to mind.
First, the American military force is the envy of the world in large part because of its strength, which nuclear weapons are a component of. However, it is not the weapons themselves but the threat of their use that gives us a power few nations have and of a magnitude none can match. I suspect that threat--and therefore our strength--has diminished since the end of the Cold War since none of our leaders seem to have the balls to use, or threaten to use them. I'm not suggesting that nukes should be anything be a last response when all else has failed. But even a last resort can be a powerful tool provided it is in the hands of someone who knows how to use it judicially. Pres. Obama's comments indicate to me that he is afraid of the weapons and not just because of the destruction they can cause. He's afraid of the position they'll put him in if he is faced with a dire threat for which there is no other option, because he won't be able to pull the trigger. It's not that he will use them injudiciously. It's that he won't use or threaten to use them at all. Everyone knows that, and that weakens America.
Second, I don't trust the leaders of other nations. It's great that Obama can crack Dmitri Medvedev on the back, and give him the thumbs-up at the G20 like fast friends. But do you really trust Medvedev? In one of his worst foreign policy moments, President Bush said he had looked into Vladimir Putin's soul and saw his goodness. Putin heard that and knew he was home free to do just about whatever he pleased. When the G20 champagne wears off, Medvedev, Putin's protege, will feel the same way. Sure, he'll probably agree to reduce Russian nuclear missile stockpiles...at least the ones he has control over and can account for. That's an easy concession for a leader with warheads to spare. But there are still concerns over possible missing Russian suitcase nukes.
You honestly think the Russian leadership will ever agree to complete elimination of nukes? What in that nation's tragic history suggests they will give up that power? They don't trust us, or the Chinese, or North Korea any more than we do. Do you think Chinese Premiere Hu, or Kim Jong-Il, or whoever will lead Pakistan or India will just give up this technology they spent decades trying to develop or acquire? Will Israel ever feel safe enough to give up theirs? And what about those trying to get it? I don't suspect Ahmadinejad is planning on turning off the centrifuges to help achieve Pres. Obama's goal. The nations of the world that have the technology are not as stable, or as committed to peacefully run democracy, as the US. I am not confident that will ever change.
Third, the technology is already out there for the enemies of freedom, liberty and democracy to exploit. It's not easy to get your hands on the materials...yet. But as Iran moves closer to weaponizing nuclear material, we all move closer to the likelihood that Islamic terrorists will get their hands on the material and a method to deliver it. The amount of fissile material available for nuclear weapons is curently closely monitored because the nations who possess it have agreed to disclosures and monitoring by international bodies. When a rogue nation like Iran gets the material, you think we'll have the same ability to track it? I can't think of anything more dangerous than an Islamic extremist, sworn to jihad, in possession of a deployable nuclear weapon.
It is said that if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns. If that's true, then what will happen if nukes are "outlawed"? If the sane and semi-sane nations of the world agree to dismantle their nukes and slap high-fives in the name of "peace", the insane, extreme underbelly of civilization will be salivating at their good fortune because they don't want peace unless it comes with your annihilation...or your conversion to their bastardized form of Islam.
I don't like nukes any more than the next guy, but I believe they are here to stay. You can't un-ring the bell. Man has harnessed the power of the atom. If we "eliminate" nuclear weapons, we will only drive them underground and into the hands of evil doers.
Sting sings in "Russians", his anti-nukes, Cold War anthem, "I hope the Russians love their children, too." Fortunately, the Russians did.
Unfortunately, today's Jihadists don't.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Pot for Patients--A Dishonest Debate
I find the medical marijuana debate fascinating. Last night, the substitute host of Larry King Live on CNN moderated a good-natured debate on medical marijuana between Montel Williams and Steven Baldwin, with Williams pro and Baldwin con. If you were neutral on the issue and watched it, I suspect neither of them would have persuaded you to their position.
Williams, who has struggled with multiple sclerosis for over a decade, ingests marijuana for neurological pain, although he doesn't admit to smoking it. Whenever discussing the issue, he always brings up some program at the University of Mississippi where the US Government has been growing marijuana and dispensing it in "joint" form to a dozen or so people for 25 years. This, coupled with the illegality of marijuana, is a high hypocrisy to Williams but also evidence that such a program can work. He is genuine and sincere given his personal stake in the issue.
Baldwin is a recovering drug addict and former marijuana user who opposes legalizing pot for patients. He relies on his past experiences to argue that marijuana is a "gateway drug" to much harder and addictive stuff. He is concerned that widespread pot availability, even for medical purposes, will make it much more accessible for casual use. He is genuine and sincere given his experiences and long term sobriety.
Williams' argument seems disingenuous. You can't take an arguably successful program with about 10 people, in an extremely controlled environment, and expect to replicate it across a nation of 300,000,000 people and [voila!] everything's solved. On the other hand, if you Google "medical marijuana" and "Steven Baldwin" you'll find hundreds of references to an earlier Larry King debate between the actor and Republican Representative, former presidential candidate, and medical doctor Ron Paul. All the pro-marijuana sites predictably hammer Baldwin for being a boob, a Christian fundamentalist, and for getting taken to the woodshed. In fairness, and meaning no offense to Baldwin, his debate with Dr. Paul was unfair--the equivalent a debate about the interpretation of some clause in the US Constitution between a Federal Circuit Court judge and a celebrity who has been to small claims court a couple of times.
Who's right? Who knows?
Of course, Pres. Obama has been all over the place on the marijuana issue, shifting again most recently to oppose changing our drug laws. What makes me currently an opponent of medical marijuana is not Obama's endless flip-flopping. It's the fact that we don't have honest debates on the issue.
Marijuana might have some medicinal benefit to some people suffering with certain conditions/diseases. But, let's be honest. A lot of Americans simply want to smoke some doobage without getting arrested. Thousands of "medical" marijuana supporters want it approved so that they can take the next step: legalize pot for personal use. And it is this fact that completely clouds the issue. On websites and message boards for pot-heads, it couldn't be clearer that this is the true motivation for many. Hippies and health advocates make strange bedfellows.
Ever been to a "hemp festival"? You see lots of posters and t-shirts with Bob Marley, Che Guavara and the Jamaican flag on them. People set up booths showing all the great industrial uses for hemp, and selling their homemade hemp clothes, indigenous musical instruments, and reggae CDs. Sure, you can make some great things with hemp. And, yes, hemp was grown and used legally in our nation for scores of years. But, honestly, these people simply want to get high. The fact that you can make a purse out of a pot plant is nice, but it's a diversion.
That's how it will always be until we put all the issues on the table. I'm a "small government, low tax, 'originalist' Constitution" type of conservative, so I almost always prefer less regulation to more. Especially at the federal level. But I don't trust the pot-heads either.
The debate should not be over whether marijuana should be legalized for medical use. Rather, the debate should be whether marijuana should be legalized for any and all purposes. The pot-heads, hippies, medical marijuana supporters, and college professors can legitimately square off against the former and recovering addicts, the medical establishment, religious and children's advocates, and general opponents of drugs. We'll hear all sides and make a democratic decision. Regardless of the outcome, people will still study the benefits of pot legally or illegally and, over time, the debate and support may shift.
Until and unless that honest debate happens, I won't be persuaded to support medical marijuana.
That's just the way it is, Dude.
Williams, who has struggled with multiple sclerosis for over a decade, ingests marijuana for neurological pain, although he doesn't admit to smoking it. Whenever discussing the issue, he always brings up some program at the University of Mississippi where the US Government has been growing marijuana and dispensing it in "joint" form to a dozen or so people for 25 years. This, coupled with the illegality of marijuana, is a high hypocrisy to Williams but also evidence that such a program can work. He is genuine and sincere given his personal stake in the issue.
Baldwin is a recovering drug addict and former marijuana user who opposes legalizing pot for patients. He relies on his past experiences to argue that marijuana is a "gateway drug" to much harder and addictive stuff. He is concerned that widespread pot availability, even for medical purposes, will make it much more accessible for casual use. He is genuine and sincere given his experiences and long term sobriety.
Williams' argument seems disingenuous. You can't take an arguably successful program with about 10 people, in an extremely controlled environment, and expect to replicate it across a nation of 300,000,000 people and [voila!] everything's solved. On the other hand, if you Google "medical marijuana" and "Steven Baldwin" you'll find hundreds of references to an earlier Larry King debate between the actor and Republican Representative, former presidential candidate, and medical doctor Ron Paul. All the pro-marijuana sites predictably hammer Baldwin for being a boob, a Christian fundamentalist, and for getting taken to the woodshed. In fairness, and meaning no offense to Baldwin, his debate with Dr. Paul was unfair--the equivalent a debate about the interpretation of some clause in the US Constitution between a Federal Circuit Court judge and a celebrity who has been to small claims court a couple of times.
Who's right? Who knows?
Of course, Pres. Obama has been all over the place on the marijuana issue, shifting again most recently to oppose changing our drug laws. What makes me currently an opponent of medical marijuana is not Obama's endless flip-flopping. It's the fact that we don't have honest debates on the issue.
Marijuana might have some medicinal benefit to some people suffering with certain conditions/diseases. But, let's be honest. A lot of Americans simply want to smoke some doobage without getting arrested. Thousands of "medical" marijuana supporters want it approved so that they can take the next step: legalize pot for personal use. And it is this fact that completely clouds the issue. On websites and message boards for pot-heads, it couldn't be clearer that this is the true motivation for many. Hippies and health advocates make strange bedfellows.
Ever been to a "hemp festival"? You see lots of posters and t-shirts with Bob Marley, Che Guavara and the Jamaican flag on them. People set up booths showing all the great industrial uses for hemp, and selling their homemade hemp clothes, indigenous musical instruments, and reggae CDs. Sure, you can make some great things with hemp. And, yes, hemp was grown and used legally in our nation for scores of years. But, honestly, these people simply want to get high. The fact that you can make a purse out of a pot plant is nice, but it's a diversion.
That's how it will always be until we put all the issues on the table. I'm a "small government, low tax, 'originalist' Constitution" type of conservative, so I almost always prefer less regulation to more. Especially at the federal level. But I don't trust the pot-heads either.
The debate should not be over whether marijuana should be legalized for medical use. Rather, the debate should be whether marijuana should be legalized for any and all purposes. The pot-heads, hippies, medical marijuana supporters, and college professors can legitimately square off against the former and recovering addicts, the medical establishment, religious and children's advocates, and general opponents of drugs. We'll hear all sides and make a democratic decision. Regardless of the outcome, people will still study the benefits of pot legally or illegally and, over time, the debate and support may shift.
Until and unless that honest debate happens, I won't be persuaded to support medical marijuana.
That's just the way it is, Dude.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Vote for Your 3-Year Old in 2010!
In this week's edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a University of Colorado, Boulder psychology professor published his findings from a study involving the cognitive development of toddlers. Now, surprisingly, PNAS is not on my "must read" periodicals list. I'm sure it's a fascinating publication, what with studies on "The capillarity of nanometric water menisci confined inside closed-geometry viral cages". I'll bet that's a real page turner.
Anyway, according to an article on livescience.com, the findings in this study suggest that 3-year olds don't live entirely in the present but don't plan for the future either. One doctoral candidate involved in the study said, "[L]et's say it's cold outside and you tell your 3-year-old to go get his jacket out of his bedroom and get ready to go outside. You might expect the child to plan for the future, think 'OK it's cold outside so the jacket will keep me warm.' But what we suggest is that this isn't what goes on in a 3-year-old's brain. Rather, they run outside, discover that it is cold, and then retrieve the memory of where their jacket is, and then they go get it."
In other words, toddlers listen, but they just rush out and do their thing. Once they realize the problem, they call up the past when they need it.
The professor who conducted the study added, "If you just repeat something again and again that requires your young child to prepare for something in advance, that is not likely to be effective.... [D]on't do something that requires them to plan ahead in their mind, but rather try to highlight the conflict that they are going to face. Perhaps you could say something like 'I know you don't want to take your coat now, but when you're standing in the yard shivering later, remember that you can get your coat from your bedroom."
In other words, rather than helping the toddler plan ahead for the event, tell them what the consequences will be for not planning and how to fix the problems once your in the soup.
Does that sound familiar? To me, it sounds like our national politicians of both parties, but particularly the Democratic Party. Before you dismiss that as just a partisan shot, think about it in the context of recent events.
Take the problems with GM. Last fall, in the waning days of the Bush Administration, the Dems in Congress passed loan packages for the Big 3 auto makers. GM and Chrysler begged for, and received, aggregated loans totaling $17.4 billion (that's $17,400,000,000.00) in December. Conservatives howled at the proposal, suggesting it would not work and would either put off inevitable bankruptcies or lead to a government take-over. But we were told by Pres. Bush and Congressional Dems that the loans were critical, an emergency to save Detroit. A scant 3 months later GM has burned through nearly all of its loans and has asked for another $16.6 billion (that's an extra $16,600,000,000.00) essentially just to keep the lights on--something the Dems and Pres. Obama are likely to approve with greater restrictions. Yet still, there is no end in sight to GM's problems.
How about the AIG bonuses. Pres. Obama, Treasury Secretary Geithner and others in the administration pushed for billions in bailout cash for AIG. Congressional Dems drafted a bill, published it shortly before the vote, and passed it along party lines. Conservatives expressed concerns about the potential misuse of these funds. No matter. Depending on who you believe, Sen. Dodd, D-CT, or Geithner included in the bailout bill a provision permitting payment of bonuses AIG had agreed to in executive contracts signed February 2008. Naturally, after the bonuses get paid and everyone goes nuts trying to figure out how this could have happened, and how to fix it. Dodd and Geithner point fingers and start scrambling.
Look at Fannie Mae. Republicans in Congress held hearings and expressed grave concerns about the management of the mortgage backer in the context of the credit crisis and toxic loans under Franklin Raines. The problems had been going on for years and were, at least in part, based on the relaxation of loan requirements and perpetuation of subprime mortgages...all sanctioned by Congress. Barney Frank, D-MA had been instrumental in encouraging and approving these practices as a member of the House Financial Services Committee since 1991. Dems like Frank, Maxine Waters, D-CA, and William Clay, D-MO aggressively countered Republicans saying there were no problems at Fannie Mae. Everything was all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Clay predictably went so far as to accuse Republicans of engaging in a "political lynching" of Raines. Because those Republicans are RAAAAAAAAACIST, of course! Last fall, the Feds took over Fannie Mae.
Do you see the pattern? Just like toddlers, Dems go rushing outside on a winter's day to take on the world, only to realize once they get there that they forgot their coats. The difference between toddlers and Dems, however, is that the toddler can remember where his coat is because he heard his parents. Dems weren't listening when they were told what the solutions were so, instead of going back inside to get their coats, they go rushing around the neighborhood banging on everyone else's doors asking if anyone has a spare coat.
Admittedly, these problems didn't occur overnight, and some Republicans provided assists or turned a blind eye. But once the economy tanked, and we started turning on the lights, Obama and the Dems have persistently said we must act now by passing legislation without delay. So they draft the bills, pass them out hours before the vote to ensure no one has actually read them, and push them through.
Now they're all outside sans coats, banging on doors. The problem is, we are chained to their wrists. And though we know where the coats are, they still won't listen to us. Maybe we should lower the age requirement to serve in Congress to 3. At least then if our representatives run outside without thinking, they'll be smart enough to run back in and bundle up.
Anyway, according to an article on livescience.com, the findings in this study suggest that 3-year olds don't live entirely in the present but don't plan for the future either. One doctoral candidate involved in the study said, "[L]et's say it's cold outside and you tell your 3-year-old to go get his jacket out of his bedroom and get ready to go outside. You might expect the child to plan for the future, think 'OK it's cold outside so the jacket will keep me warm.' But what we suggest is that this isn't what goes on in a 3-year-old's brain. Rather, they run outside, discover that it is cold, and then retrieve the memory of where their jacket is, and then they go get it."
In other words, toddlers listen, but they just rush out and do their thing. Once they realize the problem, they call up the past when they need it.
The professor who conducted the study added, "If you just repeat something again and again that requires your young child to prepare for something in advance, that is not likely to be effective.... [D]on't do something that requires them to plan ahead in their mind, but rather try to highlight the conflict that they are going to face. Perhaps you could say something like 'I know you don't want to take your coat now, but when you're standing in the yard shivering later, remember that you can get your coat from your bedroom."
In other words, rather than helping the toddler plan ahead for the event, tell them what the consequences will be for not planning and how to fix the problems once your in the soup.
Does that sound familiar? To me, it sounds like our national politicians of both parties, but particularly the Democratic Party. Before you dismiss that as just a partisan shot, think about it in the context of recent events.
Take the problems with GM. Last fall, in the waning days of the Bush Administration, the Dems in Congress passed loan packages for the Big 3 auto makers. GM and Chrysler begged for, and received, aggregated loans totaling $17.4 billion (that's $17,400,000,000.00) in December. Conservatives howled at the proposal, suggesting it would not work and would either put off inevitable bankruptcies or lead to a government take-over. But we were told by Pres. Bush and Congressional Dems that the loans were critical, an emergency to save Detroit. A scant 3 months later GM has burned through nearly all of its loans and has asked for another $16.6 billion (that's an extra $16,600,000,000.00) essentially just to keep the lights on--something the Dems and Pres. Obama are likely to approve with greater restrictions. Yet still, there is no end in sight to GM's problems.
How about the AIG bonuses. Pres. Obama, Treasury Secretary Geithner and others in the administration pushed for billions in bailout cash for AIG. Congressional Dems drafted a bill, published it shortly before the vote, and passed it along party lines. Conservatives expressed concerns about the potential misuse of these funds. No matter. Depending on who you believe, Sen. Dodd, D-CT, or Geithner included in the bailout bill a provision permitting payment of bonuses AIG had agreed to in executive contracts signed February 2008. Naturally, after the bonuses get paid and everyone goes nuts trying to figure out how this could have happened, and how to fix it. Dodd and Geithner point fingers and start scrambling.
Look at Fannie Mae. Republicans in Congress held hearings and expressed grave concerns about the management of the mortgage backer in the context of the credit crisis and toxic loans under Franklin Raines. The problems had been going on for years and were, at least in part, based on the relaxation of loan requirements and perpetuation of subprime mortgages...all sanctioned by Congress. Barney Frank, D-MA had been instrumental in encouraging and approving these practices as a member of the House Financial Services Committee since 1991. Dems like Frank, Maxine Waters, D-CA, and William Clay, D-MO aggressively countered Republicans saying there were no problems at Fannie Mae. Everything was all sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Clay predictably went so far as to accuse Republicans of engaging in a "political lynching" of Raines. Because those Republicans are RAAAAAAAAACIST, of course! Last fall, the Feds took over Fannie Mae.
Do you see the pattern? Just like toddlers, Dems go rushing outside on a winter's day to take on the world, only to realize once they get there that they forgot their coats. The difference between toddlers and Dems, however, is that the toddler can remember where his coat is because he heard his parents. Dems weren't listening when they were told what the solutions were so, instead of going back inside to get their coats, they go rushing around the neighborhood banging on everyone else's doors asking if anyone has a spare coat.
Admittedly, these problems didn't occur overnight, and some Republicans provided assists or turned a blind eye. But once the economy tanked, and we started turning on the lights, Obama and the Dems have persistently said we must act now by passing legislation without delay. So they draft the bills, pass them out hours before the vote to ensure no one has actually read them, and push them through.
Now they're all outside sans coats, banging on doors. The problem is, we are chained to their wrists. And though we know where the coats are, they still won't listen to us. Maybe we should lower the age requirement to serve in Congress to 3. At least then if our representatives run outside without thinking, they'll be smart enough to run back in and bundle up.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Euphemisms Suck
Pres. Obama will be making the most headlines tomorrow--and tonight on line--for his second prime-time press conference. Lots of people will report or blog on his comments and performance. Personally, I thought his effort was another warmed over campaign speech made more topical only because he is the POTUS and actually has to address the issues.
Two other things happened earlier today that are much more significant than Obama's "uh, uh, um" responses to press questions.
First, according to David Reidel of the Office of Security Review in the OMB, we are no longer to use the term "Global War on Terror". Instead, the Obama Adminstration prefers the term "Overseas Contingency Operation." Second, in her first testimony on Capitol Hill, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano never mentioned the word "terrorism". She decided to refer to "man-caused disasters", justifying the new term by as "perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur." German periodical Der Spiegel reported this last week but our papers largely picked up on the story today.
When I hear the phrase Global War on Terror, I'm pretty sure it is intended to mean that we are not going to sit idly by waiting for the next attack. We will take the fight to them wherever in the world they are because they can threaten us or our interests in scores of places.
By contrast, I don't know what Overseas Contingency Operation is, other than a head-scratchingly vague, wimpy euphemism. Let's break it down. "Overseas" means "over there", far away, as though this "global war" will only be fought in other places. We already know that's not true. Remember 9/11? "Contingency" means a "possible event". It's nice to think we can prepare for every possible "contingency" that can occur "overseas" but probably not realistic unless we are willing to allocate sufficient resources. Feeling confident that the Obama Administration will spend enough of the trillions in new budget spending to do that?
Then, there's "operation". Is that what you call an armed struggle against an enemy whose goal is to kill you simply because of who you are?
I suppose the purpose of the change is, in Secretary Napolitano's words, to "move away from the politics of fear". Using the term "war" is not "the politics of fear". War is hell, and though I have never experienced combat, I'll bet its greater hell when it's perpetrated on your home turf. We should have a healthy fear of our enemy, not because we can't defeat it or because they have greater or more destructive weapons, or the more justifiable position. And that's not to say we should be paranoid or overly restrictive. But failing to appreciate the danger of an enemy leads to a passivity. Passivity exposes weakness and creates and fosters vulnerability. I want our brave men and women to perform "operations" against the enemy but, make no mistake, this is war.
As for "man caused disasters", excuse me Secretary Napolitano, but that change is more than a "nuance". Disasters can be "caused" by an endless variety of acts, some intentional and deliberate, some reckless or willfull, some negligent or accidental. Heck, environmental extremists have called global warming a man-made disaster.
Terrorism, on the other hand, is not accidental or negligent, neither is it reckless or willfull. It is the intentional, deliberate, calculated use of violence or threats of violence to attain the practitioner's objective. The only time terrorism is accidental is when the bomb-maker slips.
Equating "terrorism" with mere recklessness or accidents hands the enemy another tool to use against us. See, the enemy doesn't respect PC crap; it respects force, domination and control. It uses those tactics in state governance and family relations. Suggesting that their murderous acts are anything but intentional terror actually encourages more of the same. You think they'll stop trying to blow up our troops and us if we downplay their actions? Compare Man X who drives his car recklessly, crosses the center-line and kills a driver in a head-on collision, with Man Y who goes to that driver's house with a loaded gun, intending to kill the driver, and shoots the driver dead. Both men have taken a life but would anyone deny that the Man Y's act of intentional, premeditated murder is the more heinous act and more deserving of greater punishment? If Y doesn't get punished more severely, he and others like him will less be deterred from doing it again. And again.
No, we change our language because we don't want to offend anyone. We'll hurt the feelings of "good Muslims" if we point out that the "bad Muslims" have bastardized their faith using oppression and violence. We should just talk to our enemy without using loaded terms and get him to understand our position--while ignoring his singular goal, i.e. to kill us--and then we'll reach some sort of "peace". If we believe those things, we're wrong.
Euphemisms suck. War is war. Terrorists are terrorists. Call things what they are or risk losing our very liberty and freedom. That's why we're fighting, yes, a war against, yes, terrorists.
Two other things happened earlier today that are much more significant than Obama's "uh, uh, um" responses to press questions.
First, according to David Reidel of the Office of Security Review in the OMB, we are no longer to use the term "Global War on Terror". Instead, the Obama Adminstration prefers the term "Overseas Contingency Operation." Second, in her first testimony on Capitol Hill, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano never mentioned the word "terrorism". She decided to refer to "man-caused disasters", justifying the new term by as "perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur." German periodical Der Spiegel reported this last week but our papers largely picked up on the story today.
When I hear the phrase Global War on Terror, I'm pretty sure it is intended to mean that we are not going to sit idly by waiting for the next attack. We will take the fight to them wherever in the world they are because they can threaten us or our interests in scores of places.
By contrast, I don't know what Overseas Contingency Operation is, other than a head-scratchingly vague, wimpy euphemism. Let's break it down. "Overseas" means "over there", far away, as though this "global war" will only be fought in other places. We already know that's not true. Remember 9/11? "Contingency" means a "possible event". It's nice to think we can prepare for every possible "contingency" that can occur "overseas" but probably not realistic unless we are willing to allocate sufficient resources. Feeling confident that the Obama Administration will spend enough of the trillions in new budget spending to do that?
Then, there's "operation". Is that what you call an armed struggle against an enemy whose goal is to kill you simply because of who you are?
I suppose the purpose of the change is, in Secretary Napolitano's words, to "move away from the politics of fear". Using the term "war" is not "the politics of fear". War is hell, and though I have never experienced combat, I'll bet its greater hell when it's perpetrated on your home turf. We should have a healthy fear of our enemy, not because we can't defeat it or because they have greater or more destructive weapons, or the more justifiable position. And that's not to say we should be paranoid or overly restrictive. But failing to appreciate the danger of an enemy leads to a passivity. Passivity exposes weakness and creates and fosters vulnerability. I want our brave men and women to perform "operations" against the enemy but, make no mistake, this is war.
As for "man caused disasters", excuse me Secretary Napolitano, but that change is more than a "nuance". Disasters can be "caused" by an endless variety of acts, some intentional and deliberate, some reckless or willfull, some negligent or accidental. Heck, environmental extremists have called global warming a man-made disaster.
Terrorism, on the other hand, is not accidental or negligent, neither is it reckless or willfull. It is the intentional, deliberate, calculated use of violence or threats of violence to attain the practitioner's objective. The only time terrorism is accidental is when the bomb-maker slips.
Equating "terrorism" with mere recklessness or accidents hands the enemy another tool to use against us. See, the enemy doesn't respect PC crap; it respects force, domination and control. It uses those tactics in state governance and family relations. Suggesting that their murderous acts are anything but intentional terror actually encourages more of the same. You think they'll stop trying to blow up our troops and us if we downplay their actions? Compare Man X who drives his car recklessly, crosses the center-line and kills a driver in a head-on collision, with Man Y who goes to that driver's house with a loaded gun, intending to kill the driver, and shoots the driver dead. Both men have taken a life but would anyone deny that the Man Y's act of intentional, premeditated murder is the more heinous act and more deserving of greater punishment? If Y doesn't get punished more severely, he and others like him will less be deterred from doing it again. And again.
No, we change our language because we don't want to offend anyone. We'll hurt the feelings of "good Muslims" if we point out that the "bad Muslims" have bastardized their faith using oppression and violence. We should just talk to our enemy without using loaded terms and get him to understand our position--while ignoring his singular goal, i.e. to kill us--and then we'll reach some sort of "peace". If we believe those things, we're wrong.
Euphemisms suck. War is war. Terrorists are terrorists. Call things what they are or risk losing our very liberty and freedom. That's why we're fighting, yes, a war against, yes, terrorists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
