Friday, February 18, 2005
9:20 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Well, I'll start with the “not so fast”… This is a local issue, so if you're reading from somewhere other than Montgomery, AL, this first part may not make a whole lot of sense to you.
The Montgomery County school board has fired Chris Baxter from his head coaching and athletic director positions at Lee High School. He is currently under investigation for an “inappropriate relationship” with another employee there at the school. I know Chris, and I have a hard time believing that he has done some of the things of which he has been accused - I believe this whole scenario is a misunderstanding. On top of that, I feel that the school board's action, based on a request from the principal of the school, is too hasty. Chris is currently on administrative leave from the school, where he also teaches. If he didn't do what he's been accused of doing, why should he no longer be the coach? And, if he did do it, why should he still be a teacher?
I hope that everything is cleared up quickly, and that the school board will reconsider its hasty actions. True, Lee had their first winless season in recent memory this past season; but, it takes time for a coach to build a program. (The program was obviously already in trouble, to be bringing in a new coach in the first place.) Chris has worked hard to realize his goals of being a successful teacher and coach, and to take that away before the investigation has been completed goes against the traditional “innocent until proven guilty” modus operandi that we Americans pride ourselves on using.
Now for the two great lines. The first comes to us courtesy of Phyllis Schlafly, as she talks about the way feminists are using normal men's elevated view of women against them…
When will American men learn how to stand up to the nagging by the intolerant, uncivil feminists whose sport is to humiliate men? Men should stop treating feminists like ladies, and instead treat them like the men they say they want to be.
And, Thomas Sowell, as he discusses the “free speech” claims being bandied about by those upset at Ward Churchill.
Freedom of speech does not imply a right to an audience.
I wish I was able to say that much with that few words…
Saturday, February 12, 2005
10:30 am
Daniel J. Summers
Sunday's win by the New England Patriots over the Philadelphia Eagles in Super Bowl XXXIX, their 3rd win in the past 4 years, has solidified this team as this millennium's first NFL dynasty. Coach Bill Belichik and quarterback Tom Brady (both off to the NFL's best postseason records) are but two of many outstanding teammates on this well-rounded team. While the first half was a defensive battle, punctuated by very untimely turnovers by both sides, the second half saw the Patriots open up a lead that proved to be insurmountable.
“I don't know what happened,” said Donovan McNabb, quarterback for the Eagles. “We were having a pretty good game. New England is the type of team that likes to open things up early, and when the first half ended 7-7, I thought we had a pretty good shot.” Head Coach Andy Reid spoke up next. “Coming down the stretch, though, we really had it rough. (Patriot Kicker Adam) Vinateri and his “Field Goal for Truth” put us down by 10 points, and that late in the game, it was just something we couldn't overcome.”
While they openly congratulated the Patriots on their win, there are strong feelings among many of the Eagles that the Patriots don't really have a mandate to traipse about the country proclaiming themselves “NFL champions.” “You know, we scored more points against the Patriots than any other team had since February 1st. And, of all the points scored in the game, we scored almost 47% of them,” an unnamed teammate said. Another chimed in, “Really - can they really go around saying ‘We won’ when they only won by 6%? These folks are just arrogant.”
And, while the Eagles are grousing about the closeness of the game, other sections of the country are complaining about being disenfranchised. “You know, this was really a regional game - Boston and Philadelphia are just 300 miles apart! Hopefully we can avoid this disenfranchisement next year. Heck, with us going 2-14 last year, we're trying to make sure the NFL doesn't disenfranchise us,” said Mike Nolan, recently named head coach of the San Francisco 49'ers.
Warren Sapp of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers was more direct. “For New England to say they are ‘World Champions’ is ludicrous. Did they play anyone from Canada? Mexico? Europe? I don't think so. These commentators talking ‘dynasty this’ and ‘dynasty that’ are really [torquing] me off.” His tone changed a little when asked about his XXXVII (2003) Super Bowl ring. “Well, you know, we really had a tough season that season. To come in with a new coach, and overcome losses and fines, that meant something. I don't think those goody-two-shoe Patriots have had a dollar of fines in the whole lot of them.”
Is this true? Of course not. The Patriots won fair and square, after a hard-fought contest, and by a slim but adequate margin. No one would dispute their claim to the 2004 NFL Championship. Sadly, similar claims by those in the political arena are true. Think about this the next time you hear a DNC talking head prattling on about “no mandate” for our President. (And, for those of you who think the above just isn't really all that funny - don't worry, I'm not quitting my day job.)
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
9:15 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Ran across this quote today in the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web Today (January 26th, 4th item down), written by an editor of a leftward-leaning magazine…
“And if a new Supreme Court overturns affirmative-action laws, Democrats will need to pursue equality in ways that avoid treating whites and blacks differently.”
Ya think? (Maybe that's what they should have pursued to begin with…)
Thursday, January 20, 2005
10:30 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Last year, I wrote a quick blurb about the the sanctity of human life, and a longer piece about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream that is, as of yet, unfulfilled. This year, I'm combining the two occurrences (and putting it out 5 days late, but who's counting?) with a single entry.
First up is the sanctity of human life. Dictionary.com defines sanctity (definition 2) as “The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.” What this means is that human life is sacred - something that is to be valued, and not to be taken lightly. It also means that life is not ours to create (ever, outside of the God-given means) or to destroy (save for the Biblically-based governmental duties of defense and punishment). There is encouraging news on the abortion front - Norma McCorvey, “Roe” in the (in)famous Roe v. Wade case, has entered a petition to the Supreme Court to review her case in light of new medical evidence of the effects of abortion on the women who have them. Together with Operation Outcry, which has compiled quite an array of statistics on medical issues with abortion, she hopes to get that ruling reversed. As an original petitioner in the case, she is in the unique position of being able to do this, and more details, including the briefs that were filed, can be found here.
There are others who have recently written about abortion as well. Chuck Colson's recent article entitled Destroying Abortion Myths demonstrates that they hysterical “dangerous back-ally abortion” crowd actually made up their statistics. (And they say Bush lied and people died? How about “NOW lied, babies died”?) Marvin Olasky compares two tidal waves: the tsunami and abortion. (Did you know that as many people as died in that tsunami are killed every few months before they breathe their first breath?) Another site is Right Thinking Girl's entry A Woman's Right to Choose - it illustrates the absurdity of the “fetus as property” argument. I've also been active in the comments for this entry, in which folks have been debating the issue from pretty much all sides - my entries are the ones from “Daniel”. (Be warned, some comments may contain strong language.) And finally, this isn't recent, but my entry about abortion being a bad idea whose time has passed still lays out, from a non-religious perspective, why abortion is wrong.
The numbers of abortions that have been performed is staggering - the latest numbers from Census 2000 show blacks as 11.4% of the population, but the CDC's “Abortion Facts” website's numbers show blacks have 33.9% of the abortions in this country. That means that blacks are overrepresented in abortion by 200%. This is not good, and (as we segue into the MLK portion of this entry) it's something I think Dr. King would have worked to end. So much of his dream has been fulfilled, but I believe he would be horrified at these statistics. The people for whom Dr. King gave his life working for (and, lost his life as part of that work) aren't being killed and suppressed by the “white man” anymore. Take this abortion statistic together with gang and prostitution statistics, and you see that they're suppressing and killing off themselves!
Dr. King's legacy has been hijacked by the pseudo-civil-rights activists of our day. His was a message of peace, and of equality; not of oppression, not of violence, and not of reversing the inequality. Though he was taken from us much too soon, his work endures - and to hear gay marriage proponents use his words in support of their agenda must make him look down on us and shake his head. His dream of equality in all areas, but especially economically, is beginning to be realized.
However, popular black culture does not encourage activities that lead to prosperity. When was the last time you heard a rapper rap about his mutual funds, 401K, or real estate investments? How about consumable goods (cars, electronics, etc.)? I'll give you a hint - one of those is a lot better at building long-term wealth than the other. Bill Cosby is taking a lot of flak for his comments that have been critical of the culture. I'm glad he's saying these things, because he has a lot of respect from folks in the black community. Maybe if the message comes from someone who is so respected, it will sink in. Children who are trying hard to achieve shouldn't be ostracized from their peers and accused of “acting white.” Learning to speak the language properly isn't selling out, it's setting yourself up for success. (Now, since I'm not black, I guess I should interject here that I know plenty of white people who are foolish with their money, and whose grasp of the English language is less than it should be. I also know plenty of black people, some my very good friends, who do not conform to the pop culture image with which they're bombarded on a daily basis.)
By realizing how precious life is, defending those who are defenseless, and empowering people to make their own destiny, we will honor not only Dr. King, but all those who follow after us. May the next generation look at us and say, “You know, they figured it out, and they lived it the way they should.”
Thursday, January 13, 2005
10:15 pm
Daniel J. Summers
I am just sick up to the top of my neck with prime time programming's incessant infatuation with homosexuality. The latest egregious display was at the end of last night's Law and Order, where Serena, the Assistant D. A. played by Elizabeth Rohm, was fired. Throughout the four years she's been on the show, we've really seen nothing of her family. After being told to pack her things, she replies, “Is this because I'm a lesbian?” Now granted, the writers hadn't developed her character out enough for anyone to know whether this was true or not, but why bring it into the last episode? It wasn't even a very good scene - it seemed unnatural for Ms. Rohm (and I have no idea if she actually is gay or not - doesn't really matter to me).
Now, in re-runs, it won't be consuming me - I really have no obsession over knowing someone's (or even a fictional character's) sexual proclivities. But, the principle of it left me with a bad taste in my mouth, and this “ambush homosexuality” will tint my view of her character when I see re-runs on A&E or TNT. (I'm also a little disappointed that Fred Thompson was part of that scene, but that's just something I'll have to get over, I suppose…) I watch ER too, and they have a required gay character - but at least they've developed the character; and, whether I agree with the statements the character made or not, it wasn't something just thrown up in the audience's face at the last minute.
I sure hope that future “farewells” for folks have a bit more substance, and less statement-making…
ABC did not “sneak” that onto the airwaves - they warned their affiliates in advance, and some chose not to carry the network's programming that evening. When the movie came back from commercials, there was a warning each time that the program contained strong violence and language. It was rated “TV-MA (LV)” which indicated that it was not suitable for children (and so that V-chip programmed TVs would not let the program through). And, this was not the first time ABC has aired that movie it its original uncut format - I know it has aired at least twice before (usually surrounding Memorial Day), and I believe the first time, it was aired commercial-free. Why this showing seems to have generated such controversy, I'm not quite sure.
I would venture to say that the men that this film portrays are not the ones offended. True, the film has coarse language, but so did many of the folks in the Greatest Generation. And, while the language in the film was quite strong, I can't remember a single instance that was sexually oriented. This is also not the first time a network has aired an “uncensored” program - I remember when I was growing up, CBS aired the program “Scared Straight”, which was filled with rather strong language.
The AFA usually does some great work, but in this case, they're missing the point. More than that, rather than allowing ABC's honoring of our veterans to receive the focus, they are going to get the focus instead, and most of it is going to be something along the lines of “These Christians are at it again, trying to tell us what to do.” It's always wise, in most things, to “pick your battles” - only choose the ones that matter, and I don't think that this was a wise choice, especially given the fact that we have folks making similar sacrifices today.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
10:30 am
Daniel J. Summers
Instant Replay has been used in the NFL for a few years now, and this year, the NCAA's Big 10 conference has instituted it as well. I prefer the NFL's rules, where the coach is allowed two challenges, and if both are overturned, a third. Challenges are not allowed during the final two minutes of play, so they can't be used as “extra time-outs” during the game; and, if a challenge fails to result in a changed call, the team is charged a time-out. In my opinion, it has been quite successful in helping to correct some pretty bad calls.
The most recent contender for a clearly overturnable call was the non-call of pass interference in Saturday's LSU/Alabama game. An LSU defender pushed the Alabama receiver down, intercepted a pass, and ran it back out to the middle of the field. It was a game-changing ruling - Alabama had been struggling (and continued to struggle) to move the ball, and was close to scoring. Now, I'm no Alabama fan (Go Vols!!!), but that call was flat out wrong.
College football is such big business these days - we've got human rankings, computer rankings, and a collage of them together helping us decide a “national champion.” Nobody likes a tie, it seems - that's the reason for the NCAA's overtime rules. While we're at it, let's take the technology of today to help make the game more fair for the kids who are playing their hearts out Saturday after Saturday.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
11:10 pm
Daniel J. Summers
There is word today from the fight for Fallujah that we have now uncovered a kidnapper's area where they housed, and eventually butchered, innocent civilians. (Story linked here) This is the place we couldn't find back when they were taking what seemed like a hostage a day, in a mostly futile attempt to get nations to pull their troops or businesses out of Iraq.
This makes my blood boil, and I'm tired of skirting the issue. Our pre-election policy on Iraq was driven by what appeared, to the President, to be an unwillingness on some parts of our nation to continue a large push - plus, had he started the Fallujah offensive before the election, he would have been accused of wagging the dog. Thanks to this delay, several people who were not combatants (oil truck drivers, reporters, construction workers) have been kidnapped, their families tortured beyond belief by seeing their loved one on Al-Jazeera, and eventually killed. There has also be a toll we've paid in servicemembers' lives, due to ambushes that have been set up by holdouts in Fallujah.
Those who oppose our troops when they are on the ground are traitors. Debates over what plan to use are valid, but this “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time” rhetoric wasn't intended to spark policy debate - it was intended to pander to anti-war and anti-American people here and abroad, while still trying to pander to those who feel that a strong defense is essential to our national security. Now, we find that if we'd just pressed into Fallujah the way we did in Baghdad, no matter what “sacred” landmarks may be there, we would have denied these kidnappers their capability to carry out these dastardly acts.
Whether you're for or against the war - whether you like or don't like President Bush or Secretary Rumsfeld - it is vitally important that, now that we're there, we don't tie our military's hands, especially with partisan political concerns. The only way out of Iraq that will keep us safe is to go through it - anything less will be seen by the terrorists as “the point” up to which we can be pushed, at which point we'll back down. I'm all for “bringing the troops home” - but not in a way where we'd have to send more over in a few years. Fight on!
By the way - they just came on the news and said that Yassir Arafat has died. That's the best news for peace in Israel we've gotten this century. The man was an avowed terrorist who did nothing but foment hate among his people against the rightful occupants of that land. Let's hope that their next leader will put an end to violent groups such as Hezbollah, and denounce rogue terrorists.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
9:25 pm
Daniel J. Summers
John Kerry and John Edwards (“Kedwards” hereafter) are making some significant claims about their plan for this country, and using some pretty strong but rather hackneyed rhetoric to get their point across. The term “demagoguery” is defined as “impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace.” Democrats are renowned for this, from the “New Deal” to Clinton's famous “I feel your pain,” Democrats base a lot of their policies on what they can spin to appeal to emotions, rather than facts. Let's take some of these areas, specifically some of those having to do with economics, and see why, I believe, Kedwards is wrong for America.
Tax Cuts for the Rich
This has been a favorite claim of Democrats for ages, and it shows a basic lack of understanding regarding basic economic principles. The biggest thing that Democrats have wrong is their belief that taxes are the governments, to be “given back” to the people. Taxes are the people's money, given to the government to fund needed programs, such as national defense, highways, etc. Tax cuts are not “giving back,” they are letting people keep more of their money.
Another problem with their rhetoric is that speaking of taxes in dollar amounts is inherently going to sound skewed to someone who isn't paying attention (which, sadly, represents a lot more of our current electorate than we'd like). Imagine that there are two people - one makes $10,000 a year, and the other makes $200,000 a year. In this imaginary world, everyone pays 10% taxes. This means that person A pays $1,000 in taxes a year, and person B pays $20,000. Now, here come the media reports about a budget surplus, and Congress and the President decide to cut taxes by 1%. Person A saves $100, and person B saves $2,000 - in both cases, a 10% reduction in the total amount of taxes they have to pay. If you use Democrat thinking, person B got 95% of the tax cut.
Tax cuts benefit everyone. Those who make more, by virtue of simple mathematics, will receive a larger amount reduction whenever tax rates are lowered. However, these are also people who will use this money to reinvest in our economy, either through business expansion (which leads to more jobs), investments in stocks and bonds (which helps fund the economy), or through charitable donations (which improves the quality of life in local communities).
Another point on tax cuts - sometimes a reduction in the tax rate can actually increase tax income. If done correctly, tax cuts don't have to be “paid for,” they pay for themselves. If a gas station lowers its price for unleaded gasoline by $.02 a gallon, they will more than make up for their $.02 loss with their increase in volume. Taxes work the same way - when the rates are reduced, the economy grows; so, while we all pay less rate-wise, we pay more in real dollars. Everyone wins.
Minimum Wage Increase
Yet another favorite topic, and another place that Democrats don't understand economics. A wage is a negotiated contract between employee and employer. Most often, all negotiating is done on the part of the employee, as an employer would say “Here's a job, and here's the pay - want it?” Very few people are raising families on minimum wage, and in their “average annual minimum-wage salary” statistics, the Democrats are including teens, college students, and spouses who work as secondary wage earners in their household. When the government interferes in business by forcing them to pay their entry-level workers more, what do the businesses do? There are either fewer entry-level jobs, or the products and/or services the company produces begin costing more.
There is one segment of the population who benefits from minimum-wage increases - union members. Many union contracts stipulate their wage in relation to the minimum wage - when it increases, their wages increase as well.
Corporate Tax Loopholes
Again, more cries of how these evil corporations are trying to get out of paying their taxes. And, yet again, this is a place that the Democrats don't just get it. They miss it because, economically, there is no such thing as a “corporate tax”. There is a finite amount of money in this country, and corporations only have money if they extract it from the general public. The most common method is by providing a good or service for which people will give their money. With this money, they have to cover their operating expenses, the cost of the good or service itself, the cost of paying their employees, and what is left is called “profit.” Under the current structure, they also have to pay taxes with that money, which eats into profits. The company sets their price based on a few factors, two of which are desired profit, and the market value of their good or service.
With that, what happens when the government takes more money from the corporation? Who pays that tax? The general public, that's who. Corporate taxes make everything cost more, while giving no benefit to the economy whatsoever. All they do is penalize success.
(Things have been pretty crazy here lately - lots of work and family events, with little free time. I hope to have time to attack some other lines from Kedwards in the next few days.)
Thursday, September 16, 2004
1:00 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Ivan has now reached Montgomery - right on the verge of being a category 1 hurricane. So far, the power is still on at our house, although the back door is leaking like a sieve, and water's coming in the stove's exhaust fan. My wife and children are in Greenville, SC, avoiding this weather. I don't think I've done this much mopping in quite a while! Please keep all of us in your prayers during this time.