RANDOM THOUGHTS FROM AN IDLE MIND

CHILDREN, SAFE SCHOOLS AND WASHINGTON

I have remained silent about all of the “Special Advisors” and assistants to President Obama, despite my serious misgivings about their qualifications and personal agendas. However, as a parent and grandparent, and past and present volunteer with youth groups, I cannot in good conscience remain silent about one of President Obama’s appointments.

Kevin Jennings has been named as the person in charge of the “Safe School” program for the Department of Education. As such, he is to be responsible for programs and policies that are supposed to protect our children while they are in school. I find this hard to understand based on his admitted actions when actually confronted with a real case of child abuse.

Let us first agree that a sex act between a fifteen year old and an adult significantly older than the child is statutory rape, and certainly qualifies as child abuse. No High School Sophomore should be considered fair game for a predatory adult, and an adult who craves sex with a minor is certainly a predator.

In 1988, while a teacher at a High School in Concord Massachusetts, Mr. Jennings counseled a 15 year old student who was engaging in a sexual relationship with an adult who was significantly older, that began in a bus station in Boston. The sum total of Mr. Jennings’ advice and counsel was to tell the child; "I hope you knew to use a condom." Over the next two years, until the student graduated, Mr. Jennings was aware of the ongoing relationship between the student and the adult, yet he took no action. I would note that Mr. Jennings has written about this, so there is no doubt as to his actions, or lack thereof.

I am not familiar with the laws of the state of Massachusetts, but I do know about laws pertaining to the rape or abuse of children in my state of Iowa. As outlined in Iowa Code section 232.69, there are categories of people who are mandatory reporters when they examine, attend, counsel, or treat a child in the scope of professional practice or in their employment responsibilities. Among the listed mandatory reporters are teachers and other employees of schools. In Iowa, Mr. Jennings would have been required by law to notify the appropriate authorities of this relationship, and take active steps to protect this student.

The failure to take the required actions in Iowa is a criminal act under Iowa Code, to wit: Iowa Code section 232.75 provides for civil and criminal sanctions for failing to report child abuse. Any person, official, agency, or institution required by this chapter to report a suspected case of child abuse who knowingly and willfully fails to do so is guilty of a simple misdemeanor. In addition, any person, official, agency, or institution required by Iowa Code section 232.69 to report a suspected case of child abuse who knowingly fails to do so, or who knowingly interferes with the making of such a report in violation of section 232.70, is civilly liable for damages.

The bottom line is that in Iowa Kevin Jennings would be admittedly liable for both criminal and civil actions for his failure to act on behalf of this student. I say admittedly because he has included this information in his own book. In his defense, he has stated that he was young, and could have handled this differently. I would ask if the state of Massachusetts has similar laws to my state, and do they inform teachers of their responsibilities as mandatory reporters? If so, did not Mr. Jennings violate the laws of Massachusetts? If not, why not? If Massachusetts does not have mandatory reporting laws, why are such laws not in place?

May I respectfully say that this appointment is beyond inappropriate, but is in direct conflict with the goals and stated mission of this position. Mr. Jennings has already shown that he does not have the best interests of our children at heart, as shown by his disregard for the safety and welfare of a student in his care. He should have the good grace to resign, and if he fails to do so, he should be fired. The safety of our children is too important to be entrusted to someone who so blatantly has failed to act in a responsible manner when presented with a real life situation.

TO BE A CUB FAN

Many of my friends here in Iowa know that I am a lifelong fan of the Chicago Cubs baseball team. They attribute this to the fact that I spent my childhood growing up on Waveland Avenue in Chicago. I was fortunate that I had a Grandfather who was a Cub fan, and often took me to games at beautiful Wrigley Field. As a boy, the only present I wanted for my eighth birthday was an autographed baseball from Hank Sauer.

My friends, and even my family, often tease me about the fact that I was born in September, 1945, the last year in which the Cubs appeared in a World Series. While I have waited my entire life of 63 years to see the Cubs in a series, the fact that it has been 101 years since last they won a World Series is beyond a topic suitable for teasing.

But the long wait for me to see my team play in a World Series is not the main topic for this piece. Rather, it is to discuss why I have raised all five of my now adult children to be Cubs fans. While only two of the five were born in Chicago, all of them root for the Northsiders. I happily instilled in them a love for this benighted team, not out of nostalgia, or a misplaced loyalty to my boyhood idols, but for very practical reasons. Please let me explain.

Raising my children to follow the Cubs, rather than another baseball team, has allowed me to provide two separate and distinct advantages to each of my offspring. Any person raised as a Cub fan is automatically imbued with life lessons which will help them deal with the challenges they will face as adults, and instill in them a faith in the system of American values which have enabled us to become the greatest nation on earth. And before you write me off as a complete lunatic, please bear with me.

First of all, being a Cub fan is not easy. Traditionally, Americans tend to favor winners. It is easy, for example, to root for the New York Yankees. Their record over the decades, and the super stars they have fielded, makes it easy to admire them and claim a share of their glory. But the truth is, most teams, and most people, will never achieve the level of success that the Yankees have produced. Rather, we do the best we can with the skills and abilities we have, and with a bit of luck we will reach a level of success that is commendable, while not record setting. In other words, our expectations are more realistic, and our goals are achievable. A life lesson well learned.

The Cubs often have a player of superior ability, but he remains a rose among the thorns. A single star, while attaining personal success and adulation, can remain an also ran in the race for a World Championship. Baseball is indeed a team sport, and despite an individual of great talent, the team will only rise to the level of its collective skills. A co-worker of mine had a sign on his desk that read, “It is hard to soar like an eagle when you work with a bunch of turkeys”. A lesson learned that while you do your best, not all of those around will equal your effort. That is a fact of life that Cub fans understand all too well.

In life, we all face disappointments, and deal with failure at some point. For those who are well balanced in their outlook, failure and disappointment leads to renewed efforts to overcome adversity, with some degree of eventual success. Cub fans are realists when it comes to immediate expectations, but have an undeniable optimism about the future. While the fans of other teams wait with bated breath about the final outcome of their team’s season, Cub fans often look toward next year by the mid-season All Star break. While others bemoan the collapse of their chosen team’s standings in the last month of the baseball season, Cub fans have the anticipation of next year long before the current season ends.

The “three player” rule is another advantage of being a Cub fan. We spend months agreeing that the Cubs are only three players away from a World Series team, but can argue for hours about which three players we need. Some teams may need various numbers of players to improve, and that number changes from year to year. For us, we know it only takes three. A cynic might say that the three are the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but we know the three specific players that need to be acquired.

For Cub fans, despite over a hundred years of disappointment, hope springs eternal. The American spirit of never giving up, or giving in, is a mainstay of the psyche of Cub fans. We know that next year will be different, and things will be better. The failures of this year do not deter us, and there is almost nothing that will dampen our enthusiasm for our team. This is more than a lesson, but rather a guiding principle that can be applied to every aspect of our lives. I think forgiveness may also play a part in this. Again, we don’t hold grudges about mistakes made in the current season, but seek ways to overcome these setbacks.

Americans have always prided themselves on inventiveness, and originality. In less than two hundred and forty years, we have come from a small group of disorganized colonies to the most free, powerful, wealthiest and successful nation in history. In that vein, I think it beyond argument that the Chicago Cubs have found more unique and original ways to lose ball games than any team in history. This may be the factor that makes the Cubs so beloved of their fans. In them, we see all the foibles, miss-steps, lost opportunities, mental lapses and inadequacies we all fall prey to from time to time. Yet despite this, we fans remain true to their cause, and ever hopeful that next year will be “The One”.

Let me close by saying that I have no way of knowing how long it will take for the Cubbies to appear in a World Series, let alone win a championship. What I do know is that I will remain a fan for the remainder of my days, and like my children, will always have hope for the future. Let the games begin, and it’s never too early to say “Wait til next year”.

TO MY GRANDSON

Dear Keirick;

Your eighth birthday is fast approaching, and I wanted to put down some thoughts as you finish up Second Grade, and prepare for next year.

I was very proud on your first day of school, when you were the only one in your class of five and six year olds who knew the pledge of allegiance. When your teacher asked you to lead the class in the pledge, my heart swelled.

You surprised me when you asked Grandma to get you a policeman costume for Halloween. I had not appreciated how much you admired your uncle and two cousins who are police officers. Your comments about police protecting and helping people were wise beyond your years.

I put copies of the pictures you and I took at the Gold Star Military Museum at Camp Dodge on your Mom’s computer. That way, you can look at them any time you want. I know from the questions you ask, that you worry about your Uncle Patrick and Cousins Keith and JoAnn while they take on their very important jobs. I hope you understand my answers, and know why they can’t always be with us when we want. I worry about them too, but we both know they are very smart, and they know what they are doing and how to take care of themselves and their friends. Like all of our family, they want to protect you, but sometimes must be away while they do that. Just remember to include them when you say your bedtime prayers, and all of the men and women in the military.

You won’t understand this part for awhile, but you were a very big help to your Mom when she was sick from the cancer medicine. She tells me that you have even made dinner for both of you when she was too tired from her college classes and medicine to cook. I don’t know how or when you learned to do some of the things you help your Mom with, but I do know that every time you help it is just like saying “I love you” to your Mom.

When you started first grade, you were able to officially join the Cub Scouts. You have already been to Scout Camp many times, helping your Mom and me with different Scout activities. That means you know some things the other Cubs won’t know yet, and will be able to do some things they haven’t learned. Don’t be a show off about the things you know, but help your fellow Cubs learn how to do those things themselves.

Like all parents and grandparents, I wanted my children and grandchildren to be smarter, healthier, happier, freer and more prosperous than my generation. Your test scores have already shown that you are much smarter than I was, and your level of activity is an indication of your health. What worries me now is the prospect that you may not have the same freedoms and opportunities that I had. And for that, I take responsibility.

I had the duty to future generations to insure that the principles upon which our Nation was founded were protected, nurtured and grown. And in this regard, I have not kept that duty well. While so many adults are worried about the economy, jobs and finances, we have looked in the wrong places for the answers to our questions. We are relying on others to fix things, instead of fixing things ourselves. And the ones who we look to for help are often the same folks who caused our problems.

As a Scout Leader, I have tried my best to be true to the twelve points of the Scout Law. To me, the most important is to be Trustworthy. But I have broken that law, by allowing people who are not trustworthy to become the leaders of our country. Many of our elected officials have lied, cheated and even stolen from others. Yet I, and others like me, have not cared enough for your future to demand better behavior from those who have authority and power. And now, they are taking away the freedoms I had all of my life. By the time you reach adulthood, I fear you will have been given a country very different from the one I found as a young man.

I want to make a promise to you, and I know that you trust me to keep my promises. I will do whatever I can to help bring our country back to our values and character. I will not just let things happen, but will take a more active role in becoming a true citizen, trusting in our founding principles to give you a country and a future that cherishes our freedoms and opportunities. I cannot guess how things will be as you grow up, but I will do my best to give you a country where you can make your dreams come true; and that will make my dreams come true.

With Love

Grandpa

On Monday night, March 30th, I attended a lecture at the Tifereth Israel Synagogue in Des Moines. The guest speaker was Brigitte Gabriel. Frankly, it was one of the most remarkable evenings I have ever experienced.

Ms. Gabriel is a Lebanese Christian, who survived the Lebanese Civil War while a child. She was saved from slaughter by the Israeli Defense Forces when they moved into Southern Lebanon. She later lived in Israel, and now is a resident of the United States. As a former journalist covering the Middle East, she is uniquely qualified to discuss the current events there, as well as the impact of Islamic extremism in the United States. If you have read either of her books, you have a basic understanding of the nature of her talk.

I would not be presumptuous enough to try to encapsulate the content of her talk. It lasted about an hour, with another hour of Questions and Answers. What I would rather do is discuss the venue, and the audience.

I arrived early, in order to become familiar with the Synagogue, never having been to Tifereth Israel before. I first went to the lounge area outside of the community room. In the community room, Ms Gabriel and a panel of local congregation members were hosting a large number of educators from the Des Moines area. High School, Middle and Grammar School teachers, numbering well over one hundred, were at the Question and Comment point. I listened in for awhile, but the questions were mostly inane, suggesting that most of the invited attendees had little comprehension of the nature of Islamic extremism. I heard the words tolerance and diversity in numbers too large to count. I felt I was at risk of having a brain numbing experience, so I went to the sanctuary.

The sanctuary, built in 1929, was done in a classic style, reminding me of the synagogues I visited in my youth in Chicago. I was comfortable in this setting, and sat in a pew just two rows from the lectern. Being early, I was able to watch and visit with many of the attendees for the evening lecture as they arrived. This was the first highlight of my evening.

I must point out that security was very evident. I am sure most know of the very real and explicit threats that Ms. Gabriel has received since beginning her education activities on the nature of violent Islam. But this is Des Moines, not Toronto, New York or Southern California. As it turned out, the security (Des Moines Police Officers) were mainly occupied with directing folks to the rest rooms, and insuring that Ms. Gabriel was not hugged into asphyxia.

My first conversation was a brief one with former Iowa Governor Robert Ray, and his wife Billie. I have met him on numerous occasions, and was pleased that he remembered me. As always, they were gracious, and greeted many of their friends and admirers with grace and courtesy. Sitting next to me were a middle aged couple who are members of the congregation. The wife was very knowledgeable on the history of the synagogue and its congregation, and gave me a brief education on Tifereth Israel. Behind me were a white couple and an African-American man who were members of an evangelical church in the neighborhood. We had an interesting discussion of heart healthy diets, as the African-American man was also a survivor of stroke, heart attack and by-pass surgery. Turns out we shared the surgeon, and had graduated from Cardiac Rehab at our mutual hospital just two months apart.

By 6:50 PM, the pews were filled, and additional folding chairs had been brought in for the side aisles and open spaces. I would guess total attendance at well over three hundred. I cannot describe adequately the diversity of the audience. College students from Drake and Grandview, High School students, parents with their children, married and single adults, middle aged and elderly people; all mingled in a delightfully haphazard manner. Not surprising for Iowa, the conversations among the guests were lively, friendly, and filled with introductions, handshakes and laughter. Three hundred strangers drawn together in what was for many an unfamiliar setting, but with a shared desire to learn.

After appropriate acknowledgments and introductions, the emcee turned over the microphone to Ms. Gabriel. The audience was immediately enraptured by both her personality, as well as the content. She spoke without script (no tele-prompter), referring to a single page of notes only when using an exact quote, or with reference to specific figures or names. The attendee reactions were among the most sincere and genuine I have ever witnessed. Laughter when she make a humorous remark, serious attention when she spoke of matters of importance, and free flowing tears when she talked of her childhood as a Christian child under attack by Moslem former neighbors and friends. The savagery of her experiences was underscored by her obvious emotion.

After the formal talk, Ms. Gabriel opened the floor to audience questions. Again, this is Iowa. Those wishing to ask questions lined up quietly at the microphone, and waited their turn politely and quietly. I was fortunate to be the second person to raise a question, and I introduced myself before posing my question. Every person who followed did the same, introducing themselves and telling the audience why they were here before posing their question. As with the audience, the questioners reflected the wide background of attendees. Among the expected folks who were Jewish, Christian, native Iowans and transplants; were three who stood out. One was a Lebanese Christian who was also a refugee from the turmoil of the seventies. Another was an African Christian from Darfur, and the third was a Muslim African, also a refugee from Darfur.

All of the questions were relevant, and polite. Ms. Gabriel answered each with thoroughness, and occasionally a passion, that showed her knowledge and experience on the issues presented. While she may have expected the standing ovation she received at the end of her formal presentation, I detected a bit of surprise on her face when she received another standing ovation at the end of the Question period.

After the event itself, there was a reception with light refreshments, and a book signing. As before, I met a variety of people during the reception, including the Rabbi of Tifereth Israel, the Cantor, the couple who sponsored the event, and a host of Jewish and Christian folks who all shared a common theme. The theme was a heartfelt thank you for the opportunity to attend, and an admiration for the guest of honor.

I had the privilege of speaking with Ms. Gabriel for a few minutes, and found her to be an engaging and intelligent conversationalist, who made those around her comfortable in a way that only very special people have. I would offer two thoughts from her that I wish to share.

“To tolerate the intolerable is in itself a crime.”

“Although the majority of Moslems are peaceful, their silence makes them irrelevant.”

The word hero is attached to many people in American culture. A Quarterback throws the winning touchdown with 6 seconds left in the game, and he is called a hero. A movie actor makes a political statement while accepting an award, and he is called heroic. A politician takes a stance on an issue based on popularity polls rather than ethics and principle, and he is deemed a hero.

I think we have lost the meaning of what constitutes heroic actions, and what makes a hero. I once heard that a hero is someone who controls his fear five minutes longer than those around him. While there may be some truth to that, I think true heroism involves so much more. Some heroes are made, and some are born, but they do have some common traits.

Heroes do what most of us can’t do, or won’t do. Heroes are driven by a desire to do what is right, not what is popular. Heroes put the safety and welfare of others before their own safety and welfare. Heroes have a strong belief in personal responsibility and honor, duty to God and country, and service to others. And heroes understand that we all will face a crisis decision at some point in our lives, and they neither avoid nor defer that decision at a critical time.

In my life, I have been privileged to know many heroes, both within my family and among my friends and acquaintances. My parents were heroes to me, as were my uncles and cousin who fought in World War II. I still view my brother, who served in Korea, though the eyes of a seven year old who felt that his big brother would always be his protector. My son, nephew and niece, who today wear the uniform of our Nation, are my heroes. So too are my nephews who serve in law enforcement, risking their lives to defend others. More than twenty of my former Boy Scouts who serve, or have served in the military, are true heroes. And many members of my own generation, who fought with courage and honor in the jungles of Vietnam.

I write this because my family has lost the last warrior of our greatest generation, our beloved Uncle Bobby. Major Robert Meyer, United States Marine Corp. (ret.) left us on Thursday. I was fortunate that I could spend several days with his bride, children and grandchildren as he fought his last battle. He was a larger than life man, and a role model of what a man should be to all in our family. My purpose in this piece is not to recount his actions in multiple wars, or his contributions to our country in those times between conflicts, but simply to acknowledge the man.

My uncle was a son, brother, husband, father, grandfather, uncle and great uncle to four generations. And he fulfilled all of those roles with honor. A loving husband and father, his time with his family was always golden. Never too busy to regale we younger ones with stories of his experiences, he did so with both insight and humor. He never discussed actual combat with us, but rather the experiences he had with his fellow Marines. His insights into the evolving technology of aviation, from his time in propeller bombers and fighters, into the jet age and beyond, bred in me a love of history that remains to this day.

He was a Marine to the end, fighting with all that was in him to remain with us for a little bit longer. As I left my extended family, and returned to my own family three states away, I had one enduring vision. When I was a boy in Chicago, Uncle Bobby was stationed in California. My mother and I drove to Glenview Naval Air Station to pick him up for a short visit with my grandfather and other family members. We drove onto the tarmac (no super security in those days), and watched as he taxied his fighter jet toward the hangers. As he opened the canopy, I watched as he removed his helmet, and carefully positioned his kepi on his head. He climbed down the short ladder, jumping past the last two rungs, and snapped a crisp salute to the ground crew. That done, he ran to my Mother, swooping his sister up in a giant bear hug. He then reached down to me, and hoisted me onto his shoulder. As we walked back to the car, several airmen walked by, saluting my uncle. He looked up at me with his trademark grin, and reminded me to return the salutes, because I was riding on the shoulder of a Marine. Despite my youth, I knew that I was in the presence of a hero, and I was so proud that others knew it too.

America has lost another hero. One who fully understood what “Semper Fidelis” means, and who lived it his entire life. Goodbye Uncle Bobby. Semper Fi!

GUESS I’M A BIGOT

Name calling in America, especially in the political arena, has reached epidemic proportions. Discussion, debate and differences aired in a reasonable tone today are as rare as the spotted owl. If anyone espouses a view that others disagree with, name calling is often the immediate response by the person holding the opposing view. While our political leaders should be setting an example of civil discourse, they seem to be among the first to sink to schoolyard tactics, avoiding any possibility of compromise, and reducing themselves to name calling bullies.

No matter what side you might take on any issue, there is no shortage of people who will immediately label you with a demeaning moniker, meant to identify you as some type of fanatic whose views should be discounted out of hand. This knee jerk reaction to any statement made with which you may disagree has reduced many of our fellow Americans to be identified as either “US” or “THEM’.

I certainly have views on many subjects, some of which may be viewed by many as controversial. Fine, I can accept that many people of principal will disagree with my positions. But while I am always willing to listen to opposing views, I rarely hear any rational arguments refuting my positions. Rather, I am inundated with a variety of invectives; defaming my intelligence, sources, upbringing, heredity, ethics or humanity.

I thought I would take a more proactive stance in this matter, and just admit to being a bigot, at least by the standards ascribed by a number of people and organizations. In fact, I believe I qualify as more than just a plain old run of the mill bigot, since I hold politically incorrect views on a wide variety of issues. So that there is no doubt, I have decided to list some of these views, and ascribe the appropriate label. However, I will not use obscenity, sexual proclivities, bathroom functions or other descriptive phrases that should not be used in front of my wife or children.

Like Dr. King, I believe people should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. It is this belief that causes me to take the position that affirmative action was indeed appropriate at one time, to allow minorities time to catch up in those areas where equal opportunity did not exist. However, institutional racism has been legally exorcised from America, and even individual racism has been reduced to the level of social unacceptability. I believe affirmative action, practiced as raced based hiring and promotion, and educational preference based on race are neither needed nor fair. In many circles, this opinion qualifies me as racist.

I firmly believe that the Jewish people deserve a homeland, in the historic land in which they first became a nation. As such, they deserve the support of all fair minded people. That they have achieved this, and created the only fully functional democracy in that part of the world, should foster admiration and respect by all. This particular belief will cause me to be considered a Zionist (which the United Nations defines as racism), racist Nazi, genocide enabler and a host less dignified or printable descriptions.


I agree with the statement by a prominent Muslim scholar that while most Muslims are not terrorists, most terrorists are Muslim. While the majority of Muslims do not participate in acts of terror, nor engage in hostile actions against others, it is also indisputable that 15 of the major 18 areas of conflict in the world involve Muslims, primarily engaged in actions against non-Muslims. For this opinion, I am labeled an Islamophobe, a racist and a hate monger.

I believe that the United States is the noblest nation on earth. We are by far the most generous, easily outdistancing every other nation in personal per capita donations to charity and relief efforts, while also supporting our government in sending aid to those in need in amounts far exceeding any other nation. We are the only nation to have fought two wars to end slavery. (Those of you who are bereft of any knowledge of history will have to figure that one out on your own.) We have historically been generous to those we have defeated in war, and steadfast in our efforts to aid allies in need, both with our blood and treasure. We are one of only a handful of nations that understands the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are personal freedoms granted by God to all mankind, and that governments are instituted for the express purpose of allowing these rights to flourish. For this opinion, I am labeled a nationalist, xenophobe, and some names that cannot be repeated.

I believe that I am an American. I have a heritage that goes back to Ireland and Germany, but I am neither an Irish-American nor a German-American, as I was born in the United States, to parents who were citizens. I was raised and remain a Catholic, but am not a Catholic-American. If you were born a German citizen, and later became a United States citizen, then you can refer to yourself as a German-American if you choose. But if you are a native born citizen, you are an unhyphenated American. Frankly, I find the use of hyphens to determine your status to be divisive, and contrary to an American culture that seeks to create a homogenous population with a shared history and common societal ethics. For this view, I have been called a bigot, racist, anti-diversity, and culturally deficient.

I could go on, but I think these five points will illustrate my basic core values. As an American, I have the right to hold these views freely, and express them in any manner I choose, so long as I don’t interfere with the rights of others to express their views. Those with other views can certainly dispute and debate these issues with me, and I gladly do so. However, when a conversation devolves into name calling, my participation in the debate ends. Frankly, those who resort to labeling and name calling bore me, as the use of invectives is generally a response used when a rational counterpoint does not exist.

I would have mentioned my positions on gun ownership, same sex marriage, abortion, illegal immigration and a host of other issues, but the response would simply be more of the same, with little or no imagination used to refute my positions. I do find myself slightly bemused by the inability of those with opposing opinions to offer intelligent responses, but I guess my father was even more perceptive than I thought, when he told me “Those who use obscenities and name calling do so because they lack the intelligence to express themselves in any other manner.”

BABY NOT YET

When I lived in the Kansas City area, I had a friend from work with whom I car-pooled. He was originally from New Orleans. I, as a native Chicagoan, had a great time every day comparing language differences and local customs from our respective hometowns. One thing that struck me was his term for eggs. Specifically, he called them ‘chicken not yet’.

Perhaps that is the term that the pro-abortion advocates should use with respect to unborn babies. Fetus can be troublesome, because too many people equate fetus with an unborn baby. Embryo is not quite right either, as many of the aborted have fully developed arms and legs, fingers and toes, eyes and noses. Too recognizable to be called an embryo, as they appear human. Extraneous uterine material has never caught on. That term must be too scientific for mere plebeians. So perhaps, in the continuing quest to come up with a terminology that will dehumanize the unborn, and make the abortion process more acceptable to us, the pro-abortion activists can use the term ‘Baby Not Yet’. The ‘baby’ part would be their version of warm and fuzzy, but the ‘not yet’ part would place the unborn in an egg category. Abortion would then become the elimination of a woman’s ova, albeit a rather large one.

Semantics aside, I have had some thoughts on the abortion issue that I have tried several times to articulate, without much success. I think my emotions get in the way, and cause me to lose my rationale. I am, if nothing else, persistent; so I thought I would try again to put my thoughts to paper. If I use a different approach, with a slightly different terminology, perhaps I can get through this without succumbing to vitriol.

We are a nation with a criminal justice system based on a simple premise. Every person accused of a crime, no matter how horrendous, and regardless of the amount of evidence accumulated, is innocent until proven guilty. The entire process is designed to afford the maximum protection to the accused, based on this presumption of innocence. The indictment process, pre-trial hearings, right to remain silent, right to an attorney, and rules of evidence are all designed to place unprecedented restrictions on the prosecution, while providing many opportunities for the accused to get off if any of the rules are violated. No other country on earth has as many protections in place for those accused of breaking its laws. As a strict constitutionalist, I do not quibble with any aspect of this process. I am ferocious in my desire to protect we the citizens from any unfair advantage by the government.

My question is simply why we, as a nation, do not apply the same standard to the unborn? The rules applied to abortion seem absolutely arbitrary, with no basis in law or science. They are based on opinion rather than fact, and supposition, rather than evidence. Indeed, appearance rather than proof.

If this were a just nation in all respects, rather than selectively, abortion would have to meet the same strict criteria as our criminal justice system. Just take a few of the pro-abortion positions, and apply the same type of criminal provisions regarding the rules of evidence process, and you will get my drift.

1) A fetus can be aborted if not viable outside of the womb. Actually, a 1-year-old child is not viable outside of the care of an adult. They cannot obtain food or shelter, protect themselves from the elements or predators, or avoid hazards to themselves, such as fire and flood.
2) A fetus does not have awareness, nor can it feel pain. There is no scientific proof for this statement. In fact, the reverse is true. There are several studies now available, which show that a fetus can be startled by loud noises, awakened from sleep by the mothers cough, and calmed by certain music and voices. Further studies, although recent, have shown that pain receptors develop very early during pregnancy. A simple blood test performed on a fetus draws a reaction. Severing limbs, crushing skulls, vacuuming out internal organs, all show evidence of causing extreme pain to the unborn.
3) A woman has a constitutional right to abort a baby, as it is her body, and the right to choose is constitutionally protected. Please show me what article or amendment specifies this right. I do recall an equal protection clause, as well as some troublesome wording involving equal status. Apparently, some are more equal than others.
4) A fetus is not a human until born. Again, should not the same standards used in criminal proceedings be used to determine this most basic issue? If a criminal is innocent until proven guilty, should we not also say an unborn baby is a human until proven otherwise?


I could go on, but an improvable statement by the pro-abortion lobby would counter any argument I might cite in defense of the unborn. What I will never understand is why the Liberal Left, who claim to be the protectors of individual rights against the forces of the Evil Right, refuses to defend the right of a baby to live, while fighting to insure the rights of murderers to all the protection society can provide. Science continues to learn more and more about when life begins, and as each new fact comes to light, it reinforces the arguments against abortion on demand.

An accused murderer must go through a prolonged legal process, involving dozens of people. Judges, attorneys, prosecutors, juries, Appeals Courts, judicial reviews, and clemency pleas are all part of the process. If execution is involved, a decade or more may be required before the sentence is carried out. In abortion, one woman can make a snap decision that she does not want the inconvenience of motherhood, and within a day, complete the abortion process. No appeal, no review, and no one to defend the life within her.

We live in a country where we have the right to make choices every day. But with choice comes responsibility for our actions and consequences to those actions. A criminal makes a choice to commit a crime, and must accept the consequences when caught and prosecuted. A woman makes a choice to have intercourse, with pregnancy one of the consequences of the action. Yet it is the baby who must accept the consequences should she choose to have abortion. Just as victims do not choose to have a crime committed against them, and yet they suffer the consequences; so to a baby does not choose be conceived, not does this unborn person choose to be aborted.

The bottom line is that in America, you are better protected if accused of murder, than if you are a baby in the womb.

A POLITICALLY CORRECT GUIDE TO LANGUAGE

There is no doubt that language, and its usage, can be a highly effective tool to affect both perception and attitudes among people. Inspiring language can impel the listener to do things that would normally be beyond their capability. Depressing speech can cause those who are easily influenced to develop negative feelings that can have a disastrous impact on a variety of activities.

The movement to instill politically correct language on America has reached a stage where most of us need to realize the true agenda of the progressives who are foisting these speech patterns on us. The actual aim of this devaluing of speech is to redefine Americans into Europeans, so that like so many of our European cousins we can no longer distinguish between right and wrong, or good and evil.

The term Illegal Alien is now a big no-no. We are to use the term Undocumented Workers. But what are we to call those who are here illegally to commit crimes, obtain free medical services, or free education? Many news services now refer to terrorists as dissidents, militants, and even (God help us all) freedom fighters. The mobs of Muslim youths in France, when torching an average of 100 cars per day, were characterized in the media as disenfranchised youth. By the way, the nightly car burnings continue in France. It is now so routine that the press doesn’t even bother to report it anymore.

If we carry this to its logical conclusion, I guess we should get used to the following.

Drug dealers will now be referred to as unlicensed pharmacists.

Suicide bombers will henceforth be called actively involved demolition experts.

Child molesters will be pitied as they are sexually dysfunctional at a chronological level.

Bank robbers will become income redistribution enablers.

Kidnappers would be unauthorized temporary daycare providers.

Vandalism, rather than being a crime, will be celebrated as freeform artistic expression.

Carjackers will soon become involuntary automotive distributors.

Street gang thugs will be referred to as disadvantaged youths. Oh wait, that has already happened.

My Grandfather said that seventy-five was the perfect age for a person to exercise free speech. At that age, he said, one could say anything to anyone and get away with it. Even if people disagreed with or were offended by the statement, an age related excuse could always be thrown out to mitigate what was said, and it would soon be forgotten or forgiven. I can’t wait until I hit seventy-five, so I don’t have to worry about political correctness.

I GOT NOWHERE ELSE TO GO

So, what can I expect from an Obama Presidency, a Reid Senate, and a Pelosi House?

The elimination of the Bush tax cuts will immediately raise my income taxes by 24 percent. This increase will impact our household income, based on my wife’s salary, and my retirement pension.

The Obama tax plan will increase the number of working people who don’t pay income taxes from 35 percent to almost 45 percent.

The promised 25 percent cut in defense spending will put our nation at risk.

Energy costs will skyrocket with the implementation of ‘cap and trade’. The coal industry will be bankrupted.

A private army, answerable only to President Obama and outside of constitutional constraints, will be created.

Abortions will increase dramatically as a result of the ‘free choice act’.

Non union workers will lose their right to a secret ballot when voting on unionization, leaving them open to intimidation, threats, and physical harm with the ‘card check’ act.

The proposed hate crime laws will eliminate free speech in our houses of worship.

Medical care will be distributed and rationed by unelected bureaucrats, rather than medical professionals.

The ‘fairness doctrine’ will monitor free speech, and squelch dissenting voices. Criticism of the administration will result in legal threats, investigations, and official harassment.

The Supreme Court will be packed with judges who do not have any respect for the Constitution, as personal agendas will be acceptable.

The President will ignore Constitutional constraints and responsibilities, as he believes it is “fundamentally flawed”.

Gun owners will be restricted in what they may purchase, and the type of ammunition they can use. Home owners will be criminally charged if they use a firearm to defend their family or property. Gun manufacturers will be driven out of business through new taxes and restrictions. Legal gun owners will eventually have their firearms confiscated, as we saw in New Orleans, Washington and Chicago.

Radio stations that criticize the administration will lose their FCC licenses.

I wish I was making these up, but each of my comments is the result of listening to Barack Obama statements, reading his writings, or watching how his campaign staff acts. In other words, there is documentation for each of the statements I have made.

When asked why he would not quit his basic training in “An Officer and a Gentleman”, Richard Gere famously replied “I got nowhere else to go”. America has been the world’s last, best hope for over 230 years. I fear that is about to change. Will my grandsons grow up in the freedom I have enjoyed, or will America fundamentally change? I hope not, because I too have nowhere else to go.

INCONVENIENT TRUTHS ABOUT OIL

Before my recent retirement after a career of almost 40 years, I had the unique opportunity to work in the technology areas for a major oil company, an international financial operation, and one of the world’s largest international banks. As a result, although not an expert in either exploration or production of crude oil and its impact on financial and consumer markets, I did have access to information that most American consumers did not. This was not secret data, nor was it proprietary information. It was simply a case of facts the media was not interested in reporting, and our politicians felt were not germane to their own agendas. Let me start with a few simple facts.

At the time of the 1972 OPEC oil embargo, the domestic production of crude oil in America peaked at about 10 million barrels per day. This domestic production accounted for almost 2/3’s of our total needs, resulting in about 1/3 of our needed crude to be imported. The chilling effect of the embargo on our economy, and ability to provide for the national defense, resulted in our political leadership pledging that the government would work to allow America to achieve energy independence in 10 years. What have we achieved so far?

By 1980, domestic crude production had fallen to 8,572 million barrels per day, while our oil usage climbed to 16,058 million barrels per day. Imports had risen to 7,486 million barrels per day, or 46% of our needs. In 2005, our total crude oil requirements were 20,802 million barrels per day, while domestic production had fallen to 7,486 million barrels per day. The 15,624 million barrels per day necessary to keep America and her economy moving were met by imports, which now account for 75% of our needs. So much for the pledge to make America independent of unreliable foreign sources. What went wrong?

Of natural crude, we have large reserves off the coasts of California and Florida. However, no drilling in these areas has been permitted by law since the late 1960’s. China, however, by using agreements with Cuba to drill in this area, will begin doing so shortly.

America also has additional reserves in the Gulf areas, from Florida to Texas. However, no drilling is permitted in most of these areas. Mexico, however, has no such restrictions.

In Alaska, both onshore and offshore, we have large areas of proven reserves, which are not allowed to be developed by law. Canada has no laws prohibiting such development.

In the mountain Western states, large amounts of oil are available in the shale rock formations. However, EPA regulations prohibit their development.

In the far West, vast areas of tar sands remain undeveloped due to environmental restrictions. As with the geographic areas noted above, most of the land is owned or controlled by the federal government. Canadian use of tar sands is a major source of their oil exports.

The conversion of coal to oil, a technology available for over 100 years, remains another untapped resource, due to legislative and environmental restrictions.

The bottom line is that America could have become energy independent with regard to crude oil by the mid 1980’s. In the area of electricity, the addition of more coal fired generating plants, nuclear power plants, and additional hydro electric plants could have made the need for gas and oil fueled electrical plants unnecessary by 1990. That would have freed up more crude for other purposes, and reduced our overall consumption of oil. In addition, our electrical generation capacity would substantially exceed our present needs, rather than the sporadic shortages we now experience.

Some analysts have estimated that if all of these options had been initiated in the immediate aftermath of the OPEC embargo, crude oil today would have a domestic price of 40-45 dollars per barrel, with secure supplies, and uninfluenced by foreign costs or international speculators. Why didn’t this happen?

It is popular to blame the oil companies, oil cartels, or greedy speculators. But in truth, we are in a bed of our own making. It is not the usual suspects who have passed laws based on bad science, radical environmental lobbies, self interest, political agendas or ignorance of technological advances and free enterprise economics. It is the result of our own government, mainly through the ineptness of Congress. At the risk of sounding glib, the following old saw comes to mind. If the opposite of Pro is Con, what is the opposite of Progress?

One need only look at the energy bill recently passed to confirm my opinion. While this 86.3 billion dollar legislation (including 3.8 billion in pork that has nothing to do with energy) does tell the auto makers how to build cars, tell us that we can’t buy incandescent light bulbs after 2012, and demand that we continue to use 1.25 gallons of gasoline to produce 1 gallon of ethanol (subsidized by us of course); it does not result in one new gallon of gasoline, or one watt of new electricity.

So who is to blame for the “new” energy crisis we face? Look no further than Washington DC. For 34 years, through Republican and Democratic controlled Congresses and Presidencies, they have done all that they can to create what we, the consumer, must now face. And I see no hope that they will do anything to correct the situation they have created. The resources are there, the technologies are proven, and the self corrective economic system is in place. We need only a government that is both accountable and responsive.