“San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced Wednesday [July 2nd] that the city would begin handing over for deportation juvenile illegal immigrants with drug convictions…,” reported the Washington Post. The action marks a stark turnabout for the liberal Newsom, champion of gay marriages, universal health care, and extra-marital affairs. In April of 2007, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, Mayor Newsom announced he would do everything in his power to “discourage federal authorities from conducting immigration raids.” Lately Newsom has been singing a different tune, a change brought about by the Mayor’s desire to be governor of California, and the brutal murder of three San Franciscans. Election years plus some bad press has brought the Mayor to his senses, for now.
Edwin Ramos illegally entered the United States and settled in San Francisco as a minor. A citizen of El Salvador and part of the notorious MS-13 gang – described by law enforcement officials as the largest and most ruthless gang in the Western Hemisphere – it didn’t take Ramos long to find trouble. Convicted of two gang-related felonies when he was 17, Ramos was nonetheless shielded from federal immigration authorities by San Francisco’s “City of Refuge” policy. Worse still, Ramos was arrested as a 20-year-old earlier this year on a weapons charge, but still the feds were not notified. After all, San Francisco is full of bleeding heart liberals who zealously defend punks like Ramos. “These kids have really been victimized,” said Patricia Lee, quoted by the Washington Post. “They come from incredibly bad circumstances. Their families are starving.” So, the reasoning goes, we’ll let them stay in the City by the Bay. Newsom “said the city spent $2.3 million housing convicted youths,” all the while failing to notify immigration agents. This policy proved costly for the Bologna family.
48-year-old Tony Bologna and his two sons Michael and Matthew were returning home from a family outing when their path crossed that of Mr. Ramos. After a brief argument over which car had the right-of-way, Ramos saw fit to gun down the three men. The Bologna’s were unarmed and shot inside their car. They never had a chance, thanks to Mayor Newsom and San Francisco’s misguided compassion. Just like that, Danielle Bologna is widowed and deprived of her two sons, ages 20 and 16. I wonder if the Mayor said “sorry.”
“Prosecutors have charged Ramos with three counts of murder and multiple special allegations involving gang membership, firearm use and multiple murders that could result in life in prison without parole or the death penalty. However, District Attorney Kamala Harris has previously pledged not to seek the death penalty in San Francisco during her tenure,” reported CBS-5, a San Francisco affiliate. Well that’s just great. First Newsom and his ilk let killers enter the country illegally, then they protect law-breaking illegal immigrants from deportation, allowing the monsters to prey on American citizens. Finally, instead of executing the maggot, we’ll be feeding, housing, clothing, and paying for Ramos’ medical care for decades. Only in an America run by liberals.
Those of us living in Southern California have a stake in San Fran’s activities as well. After abandoning its sanctuary policy, San Francisco authorities employed “the city’s fallback position: sending convicted Honduran juveniles to a group home in Southern California. Within 10 days of arriving at the unguarded facility, all eight had run away,” according to the Washington Post. That’s just great. Was anyone in San Francisco held accountable for placing San Bernadino residents at risk? The article doesn’t say, but don’t hold your breath. If one of the Hondurans kills your family, I’m sure someone up north will send a card.
If you are as outraged as I am about Mayor Newsom’s unconscienable protection of criminal illegal immigrants, you can give him a piece of your mind by clicking here: www.sfgov.org/site/mayor.
Great ballplayers aspire to excel in five categories: hit for average, hit with power, run, catch, and throw. Some of baseball’s biggest names failed at one or more of these baseball basics. Ted Williams’ uneasy relationship with all things defensive is legendary. Rod Carew flirted with .400 more than once, but his power numbers were pathetic. Ditto Pete Rose. A few, very few, players could truly “do it all.” Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, and more recently, Barry Bonds, come to mind. These athletic stalwarts gained the accolade “he can do it all” after a dozen or more years of outstanding production. In other words, their standing among baseball’s greats came about the old-fashioned way: they earned it.
That’s the usual order of things; first the accomplishment, then the recognition. Exceptional performance is followed by kudos and commensurate rewards. This holds true in every endeavor I can think of save one: politics. Charles Krauthammer has taken Barack Obama to task on this very point in today’s Washington Post. Krauthammer’s column follows:
“Barack Obama wants to speak at the Brandenburg Gate. He figures it would be a nice backdrop. The supporting cast — a cheering audience and a few fainting frauleins — would be a picturesque way to bolster his foreign policy credentials.
What Obama does not seem to understand is that the Brandenburg Gate is something you earn. President Ronald Reagan earned the right to speak there because his relentless pressure had brought the Soviet empire to its knees and he was demanding its final “tear down this wall” liquidation. When President John F. Kennedy visited the Brandenburg Gate on the day of his “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech, he was representing a country that was prepared to go to the brink of nuclear war to defend West Berlin.
Who is Obama representing? And what exactly has he done in his lifetime to merit appropriating the Brandenburg Gate as a campaign prop? What was his role in the fight against communism, the liberation of Eastern Europe, the creation of what George Bush the elder — who presided over the fall of the Berlin Wall but modestly declined to go there for a victory lap — called “a Europe whole and free”?
Does Obama not see the incongruity? It’s as if a German pol took a campaign trip to Americaand demanded the Statue of Liberty as a venue for a campaign speech. (The Germans have now gently nudged Obama into looking at other venues.)
Americans are beginning to notice Obama’s elevated opinion of himself. There’s nothing new about narcissism in politics. Every senator looks in the mirror and sees a president. Nonetheless, has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?
Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted “present” nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.
It is a subject upon which he can dilate effortlessly. In his victory speech upon winning the nomination, Obama declared it a great turning point in history — “generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment” — when, among other wonders, “the rise of the oceans began to slow.” As Hudson Institute economist Irwin Stelzer noted in his London Daily Telegraph column, “Moses made the waters recede, but he had help.” Obama apparently works alone.
Obama may think he’s King Canute, but the good king ordered the tides to halt precisely to refute sycophantic aides who suggested that he had such power. Obama has no such modesty.
After all, in the words of his own slogan, “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” which, translating the royal “we,” means: ” I am the one we’ve been waiting for.” Amazingly, he had a quasi-presidential seal with its own Latin inscription affixed to his lectern, until general ridicule — it was pointed out that he was not yet president — induced him to take it down.
He lectures us that instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, “you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish” — a language Obama does not speak. He further admonishes us on how “embarrassing” it is that Europeans are multilingual but “we go over to Europe, and all we can say is ‘merci beaucoup.’ ” Obama speaks no French.
His fluent English does, however, feature many such admonitions, instructions and improvements. His wife assures us that President Obama will be a stern taskmaster: “Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism . . . that you come out of your isolation. . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”
For the first few months of the campaign, the question about Obama was: Who is he? The question now is: Who does he think he is?
We are getting to know. Redeemer of our uninvolved, uninformed lives. Lord of the seas. And more. As he said on victory night, his rise marks the moment when “our planet began to heal.” As I recall — I’m no expert on this — Jesus practiced his healing just on the sick. Obama operates on a larger canvas.”
We are beginning to understand why Hillary Clinton “suspended” but did not close her campaign. Barack Obama’s lack of core values is already leading him into a series of embarrassing flip-flops, infuriating his base and encouraging John McCain supporters. Erstwhile Clinton advisor Dick Morris documents 9 such permutations. As average Americans become aware of Obama’s blatant pandering to the audience of the moment, Dem party bigwigs may attempt to dump Obama for Her Majesty. If Obama keeps flipping, the Democratic convention could be the liveliest since 1968. Here’s Morris:
“After almost six weeks of a constant Obama lead, generally in the five to seven-point range, Scott Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll records two consecutive days of a tie race (July 12-13) and a one-point Obama lead on July 14. What happened to the Democrat’s lead?
Part of the slippage is Obama’s fault and part is McCain’s gain.
Obama has carried flip-flopping to new heights. In the space of a month and a half, this candidate — who we don’t really yet know very well — reversed or sharply modified his positions on at least nine key issues:
After vowing to eschew private fundraising and take public financing, he has now refused public money.
Once he threatened to filibuster a bill to protect telephone companies from liability for their cooperation with national security wiretaps; now he has voted for the legislation.
Turning his back on a lifetime of support for gun control, he now recognizes a Second Amendment right to bear arms in the wake of the Supreme Court decision.
Formerly, he told the Israeli lobby that he favored an undivided Jerusalem. Now he says he didn’t mean it.
From a 100 percent pro-choice position, he now has migrated to expressing doubts about allowing partial-birth abortions.
For the first time, he now speaks highly of using church-based institutions to deliver public services to the poor.
Having based his entire campaign on withdrawal from Iraq, he now pledges to consult with the military first.
During the primary, he backed merit pay for teachers — but before the union a few weeks ago, he opposed it.
After specifically saying in the primaries that he disagreed with Sen. Hillary Clinton’s proposal to impose Social Security taxes on income over $200,000 and wanted to tax all income, he has now adopted the Clinton position.
Obama’s breathtaking flips and flops are materially different from McCain’s. While McCain had opposed offshore oil drilling and now supports it, the facts have obviously changed. Obama’s shifts have nothing to do with altered circumstances, just a change in the political calendar.
As a candidate who was nominated to be a different kind of politician, Obama has set the bar pretty high. And, with his flipping and flopping, he is falling short, to the disillusionment of his more naïve supporters. One wag even called him the “black Bill Clinton,” a turnaround of the “first black president” moniker that had been pinned on Bill.
Meanwhile, McCain and the Republicans have finally found an issue, oil drilling, exposing how the Democrats oppose drilling virtually anywhere that there might be recoverable oil. Not in Alaska. Not offshore. Not in shale deposits in the West.
The Democratic claim that we “cannot drill our way out of the crisis in gas prices” begs the question of whether, had we drilled five years ago, we would be a lot less dependent on foreign market fluctuations.
The truth is that the Democrats put the need to mitigate climate change ahead of the imperative of holding down gasoline prices at the pump. If there was ever a fault line between elitist and populist approaches to a problem, this is it. In fact, liberals basically don’t see much wrong with $5 gas. Many have been urging a tax to achieve precisely this level, just like Europe has done for decades.
Obama said that he was unhappy that there was not a period of “gradual adjustment” to the high prices, but seems to shed few tears over the current levels. After all, if your imperative is climate change, a high gas price is worth 10 times a ratified Kyoto treaty in bringing about change.
Republicans can drive a truck through the gap between this elite opinion and the need for ordinary people to afford the journey to work in the morning. And, with a 16-state media buy, the Republican Party and the McCain campaign are doing precisely that.
If Obama softens his aversion to drilling, it may be the final straw for some of his liberal supporters. Where would they go?
Nader is still a possibility. But McCain can attract liberal votes. He doesn’t need to bleed Obama only from the right. His own stands against drilling in Alaska and torture of terror suspects and for immigration reform make him suspect on the right, but quite acceptable to the left. If moderate liberals are disgusted by Obama’s obvious attempts at chicanery and repositioning, they might just cross the aisle.”
Back in the good old days of 1995, when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for the first time in anyone’s memory, conservatives began clamoring in earnest for a balanced federal budget. President Nixon submitted the last black-ink account in 1974, and trillions of debt had accumulated since that memorable year. Now was the time, said the newly installed Republicans, to return to fiscal sanity by putting an end to profligate spending. Of course, Democrats howled like stuck pigs. Tax cuts were deemed racist by New York’s Charles Rangel. Republicans, said the Dems, were trying to take milk out of the mouths of babes and throw old folks into the street. It was an ugly fight, culminating in the demise of Newt Gingrich. In the midst of all the hubbub, Teddy Kennedy weighed in on the advisability of balancing the budget. “It’s a myth,” intoned the Senator.
I hate to say it, but the red-faced man now circling eternity’s drain was right. For a brief time at the end of Clinton’s second term, balanced budgets were projected for the opening years of the 21st century. However, the dot-com bubble debacle, 9/11, the Afghan and Iraq wars, and a remarkable lack of Republican fiscal discipline sent the notion of balanced budgets to the economic happy-hunting grounds. Now, we have record debt and deficits, with no realistic end in sight.
The 13 years since 1995 have seen quite a change. Republicans are charged with and convicted of spending like drunken congressmen, and Democrats are talking like fiscal conservatives, even promising to balance the budget. As far as I can tell, Obama’s website does not mention “balanced budget,” but almost every proposal Barack makes seems to have black ink as its goal. From his introduction: “If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we’d see an effort to reduce our national debt [emphasis added] by returning to responsible fiscal policies.” Assuming the first-term Senator knows what he is talking about, “reducing debt” assumes a budget surplus. The presumptive Democratic nominee argues for “pay as you go” budget rules, wants to “Cut Pork Barrel Spending,” and promises to “End Wasteful Government Spending.” It all sounds like balanced budget talk to me. Obama is probably hedging his promises by not pledging to balance the budget, a goal he knows cannot be realized.
On the other hand, McCain has just placed his cards face up on the green felt, promising to balance the budget by 2013. Voters from both parties and all walks of life should know better. America is in for deficit spending ’til Kingdom come, or the Chinese and Arabs run out of money. Here’s why.
One, both candidates are making policy proposals creating hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending. Barack says he will cut out old, wasteful, inefficient programs, and McCain says “Amen” to that. They also have some nice land for sale in south Florida. Most of the old, wasteful programs will remain in place. Jobs and re-elections depend on it. Either man will introduce massive new spending that will far outstrip any feasible tax increases. The new president will oversee budgets with record deficits.
Two, regardless of what happens in Iraq, the war on terror will not end any time soon. Hundreds of billions will be spent every year for decades; get used to it.
Three, the boomers are about to assault social security and Medicare, causing the government to spend additional trillions. And Barack wants to add post office efficiency to health care. Oh boy.
Four, too many Americans now view government as the big problem solver. Economic slowdown? Have Uncle Sam send everyone hundreds of dollars. Lots of foreclosures? Government bailouts will save the day. Women still making less money than men? Barack says the feds can solve that through litigation. On and on ad infinitum. Trouble is, government fixes often make things worse, costing billions of dollars in the bargain. However, such logic bounces off simple-minded citizens like BBs hitting the Missouri. Here’s just two anecdotes to darken your day.
A caller to a conservative talk radio show was defending government funding of National Public Radio. “If government quits funding NPR,” said the public-school-educated caller, “then the taxpayers will have to pay for it.” As God is my witness, that’s what he said. A literary agent recently wrote to me, extolling the virtues of the Canadian health care system. “The Canadian government gives its citizens much more than our government does.” I thought literary agents could read. Both dear souls believe if the government provides it, it’s free. That mentality will guarantee huge government programs, and massive deficits, until the house of cards goes boom.
America cannot have more than a decade or two to turn the tide. Long before he departed, Jesse Helms gave an American obituary of sorts. Helms said, “The destruction of this country can be pinpointed in terms of its beginnings to the time that our political leadership turned to socialism. They didn’t call it socialism, of course. It was given deceptive names and adorned with fancy slogans. We heard about New Deals, and Fair Deals and New Frontiers and the Great Society.”
Writing this nation’s obituary is, I still believe, premature. I still believe that most Americans want to provide for themselves and their own, still adhere to the great American distinctives of self-reliance and individual responsibility. Nevertheless, millions of Americans now want something for nothing, holding to inflexible demands of entitlement. If that mindset continues to spread, sooner or later the hardworking, self-supporting person will be thought a fool. As in Europe, everyone will depend on government for just about everything. If you think today’s France or Germany provide economic opportunity and are attractive places to reside, don’t change a thing here. We’ve been becoming more like Europe for 70 years.
The real bad news is, it looks like we’ll have to wait until 2016 for a chance to elect someone determined to undo big government’s tangled mess. By then, it could be too late.
Liberty. Freedom. Self-determination. Justice for all. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people. These and other political innovations were born as America became a nation. Never before in mankind’s long and terrible history was every citizen ascribed inalienable rights. Never had citizens of any country been protected by a Bill of Rights, guarantees secured by blood and a determination that the excesses of tyranny should not stand in America.
Rightly do we pause each July 4th to again marvel at the work of our Founders. To this day the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America are unequalled repositories of freedom. Indeed, their soaring yet concise words contain the last, best hope of mankind: individual liberty. Unheard of opportunity, dignity, hope, and promise has been enjoyed by millions of native-born and immigrant alike. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison et al set in motion more than perhaps they knew, a world-wide beacon beckoning to those who longed to be free.
America has spread freedom far beyond her shores. Countries owing their very existence to America include all the countries of the former Soviet Union, all of Europe, Great Britain, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, New Guinea, Israel and more – enormous swathes of humanity saved from dictatorial monsters by American moral fiber, political resolve, and military might. Dozens of other countries have adopted America’s core values, grasping the inestimable value of independent self-government. Democracy is indeed on the march around the world, thanks almost entirely to America.
The last two countries liberated from despotism by America are Afghanistan and Iraq, where, for the first time, 50 million souls have a chance to be free.
As long as Americans adhere to the principles of freedom and responsibility, postulates etched onto paper and into the American psyche a scant 200+ years ago, we will survive and prosper. The 20th Century has been called the American century and, since it’s always morning in America, there is no good reason why the 21st won’t be even better. Let us then brace ourselves to our duty, and so conduct our affairs that the flame of liberty will burn ever brighter in this brave new age. We are, after all, the recipients of great blessing, inheriting as we have a most sacred trust. Onward and upward then, ever mindful of our glorious past and never cowering from the challenges that lay ahead. Together, we and freedom-lovers the world over will continue to secure liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
Building on three wildly successful Indiana Jones adventures, The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was billed as a surefire winner. Yes, it’s been decades since a much younger Harrison Ford did battle with Nazis and other assorted villains, but the latest incarnation of Indiana used Jones’ advancing age to advantage. Indy was again paired with the lovely Marion, the first film’s feistiest character. Jones’ young sidekick in Crystal Skull is Marion’s son and, it turns out, is related to Indiana as well. Indiana’s lovable father and faithful academic backer are gone, sad but realistic time-markers that add to the film’s authenticity. Moreover, there are new bad guys to deal with, 1950s-era Soviet spies bent on stealing nuclear secrets, a first-rate example of art imitating life. All the ingredients for a fourth wonderful film were in place. The film couldn’t miss. But it did.
I haven’t felt as ripped off by a movie since Rocky IV, or was it Rocky V? And for similar reasons. Actually, Crystal Skull falls victim to some old cinema traps, and one new one.
One old pitfall was the inability to invent new and exciting chase scenes. In the previous Indiana Jones movies, Ford has been chased on horseback, in cars and trucks, in and on tanks, on and by motorcycles, by airplanes and boats, in mining cars, and of course on foot. Crystal Skull offered more of exactly the same, while audiences looked on knowing either Indy wouldn’t be caught or would get away in any case. Yawn. The producers were knocked out by the “Rocky syndrome.” After a fight scene shows 30 jaw-rattling blows, what’s next? 35. Yawn. Another Indy chase scene? Wake me when it’s over.
I know the Indiana Jones films are not supposed to be died-in-the-wool realistic adventures. Humor is a big part of the series, and having too many heroes bite the dust is a real party killer. Yet, when every good guy or gal survives each and every traumatic event, no matter what the odds and no matter how impossible escape appears to be, a light-hearted movie can become just silly. In Crystal Skull we are to believe that dozens of crack KGB operatives firing hundreds of automatic weapon rounds at close range can’t score one hit. Only three or four MPs guard America’s “greatest secrets” and a nuclear bomb. Windshields are shattered by incoming bullets, but the heroes immediately behind the glass are not hit. Indiana and his band pull off one escape by riding an open-top military vehicle off one cliff and three waterfalls without a single occupant suffering so much as a lasting bruise. A sword fight, with the dueling combatants standing on separate vehicles, weaves at high speed through dense jungle, and although the sequence lasts several minutes, no one gets a scratch. The Keystone Cops did this stuff almost 100 years ago, and it was funnier.
Indiana Jones survives a nuclear blast by hurling himself into a lead-lined refrigerator. I mean, really!
The new trap ensnaring Crystal Skull I shall dub the “Mary Poppins syndrome.” Older readers may recall Ms. Poppins taking several minutes to pull a large lamp and other household items from her carpet bag, prompting Michael Banks to check under the table for a non-mysterious explanation of the phenomena. Walt Disney Productions spent those precious minutes showing off the latest advances in cinematic magic, projecting events on screen that look realistic but just cannot occur in real life. Ever since, movie makers have wasted precious viewing time, huffing and puffing to impress, not entertain, an audience. Crystal Skull indulges in such braggadocio, creating scene upon amazing scene impossible to produce a few years ago. Giant ants carry a bad guy to his grisly end. The ubiquitous temple is bigger and more complex, and more realistic, than any before. The flying saucer, the nuclear explosion, and so forth and so on.
Thankfully, Crystal Skull avoids succumbing altogether to the computer enhancement trap. A Jones adventure still informs the heart of the movie. Other modern offerings are not so lucky. Jumper and Hancock fail as movies precisely because the focus is not on a story, but today’s cinematic technological wonders. The film is not without its moments, and on the Franklin scale of 1 to 10, 10 being best, I give Crystal Skull a 5.
The scariest part of the movie is its final scene where Indy and Marion tie the knot. As everyone is leaving the ceremony, Marion’s son attempts to try on Indy’s hat, leaving the audience wondering if another generation of Indiana Jones movies are in the works. Let’s hope not.
In a loathsome repeat of the Supreme Court’s twisted logic of a few weeks ago granting constitutional rights to terrorists, the same Gang of Five has declared capital punishment for child rapists transgresses “the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint.” Now, monsters contemplating the sexual destruction of girls of any age need not fear the ultimate sanction. Never mind that the victim in the case before the court had to be surgically repaired following her ordeal. Never mind that her family says “she has been scarred forever.” Our evolving sensibilities, expressed most elegantly by the Gang of Five, require us to feed, clothe, and house child rapists for life ”no matter how devastating the crime to children,” according to the Associated Press. If this is progress, God help our progeny.
In high moral tones, Justice Anthony Kennedy declared “When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality.” Only trouble with that is, the brutality has already occurred. The following is from Kennedy’s own opinion:
“L. H. [the 8-year-old child victim in the case at hand] was transported to the Children’s Hospital. An expert in pediatric forensic medicine testified that L. H.’s injuries were the most severe he had seen from a sexual assault in his four years of practice. A laceration to the left wall of the vagina had separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. Her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus. The injuries required emergency surgery.”
Ah, but we are in tune with our better angels and refuse to give in to primitive urges for revenge, or even justice. As Kennedy had it, “the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child.” Easy for him to say. Personally, I think death by lethal injection is too lenient for child rapists. I vote for a return to “death by a thousand cuts” [see Murder With a Hammer, Die By a Hammer] or some similarly hideous punishment that truly fits the crime.
Interestingly, both Barack Obama and John McCain took issue with the court’s ruling, each candidate no doubt mindful that average Americans recoil at the notion of coddling child rapists. Rape victims will tell you there are things worse than death, and the brutal rape of a prepubescent child must be one of them. Nevertheless, yesterday’s ruling by the Gang of Five is merely the latest in a long line of decisions strengthening the rights of society’s most vile members. George Bush’s two nominees, Alito and Roberts, have brought the court to the brink of judicial sanity. The next president will tip the balance, left or right, for the next 30 years.
Only John McCain has pledged to nominate justices in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts.
Americans have a “sense of helplessness,” are “a battered public,” and ”live in a world gone haywire,” according to the Associated Press. In what must be the planet’s most negative article, AP writers Alan Fram and Eileen Putnam would have us believe the sky is falling as never before. The first paragraph sets the tone for pessimism to come: “Midwestern levees are bursting. Polar bears are adrift. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Home values are abysmal. Air fares, college tuition and health care border on unaffordable. Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism.” Never mind that polar bears are doing just fine, or that low housing prices are great for first time buyers, we get the point. Things are rock bottom in America and around the world. According to Fram and Putnam, the 21st century promises to be a “great unraveling.” There is no hope, so please pass the cyanide.
I knew we would reach this point sooner or later. After all, the leftist Boomers who have dominated American media for 20 years are history’s quintessential whiners. Given more opportunities and a better head start than 99% of humanity is not enough for the cry babies of my generation. The Boomer war cry is “everything for me and to me, and it better come easily.” Of course, the vast majority of Americans and folks the world over have had to strive and struggle for every gain, but that historical lesson has been lost in a cloud of misplaced self-pity. If a high school dropout must work two jobs to make ends meet, that’s proof positive that “society” is all screwed up and in need of a socialist fix. If the good life doesn’t come easy, the Boomer solution is to write a stinging expose.
This generation would have committed suicide during the 1930s, and surrendered in the 1940s.
A few days ago the Washington Post reported poll results showing ”only 12 percent of Americans think the economy is afloat and consumer confidence is at its lowest in 30 years,” according to Laura Ingraham. The public outlook is far more gloomy than during the last two recessions, and, as Laura delighted in pointing out, we are not in a recession! The Post noted that the hyper-negativity “has left economists trying to figure out why Americans’ perceptions are so much more negative than the data analysts use to measure how things are going.” Ms. Ingraham suggests the 4,400 articles about “recession” published by the Post since 2001 might have something to do with it. Hmmmm…
Young Americans are particularly vulnerable to ”all bad news all the time.” They have not yet learned that journalists can have agendas, and that just because something appears in print or is spoken by an info-babe on TV, assertions and even “facts” may not be true. A case in point popped up in The Californian yesterday in an article titled, “Because I’ve seen it too much.” A capable 17-year-old has created an on-line support group “because she wants to help people her age who are in pain,” according to The Californian. The issues faced by the younger set include “drugs and alcohol, anorexia and bulimia, cutting, sexual, physical or mental abuse and teen pregnancy.” There are, no doubt, a host of factors leading American teenagers to bouts of self-destructive behavior. Let me suggest that a major determinant is the steady, unrelenting drumbeat of hopelessness spewing forth from sniveling journalists. From the time they could think clearly, America’s current teenagers have been told our President is taking away their civil liberties, global warming is likely to wipe out humanity in their lifetime, all the good jobs are leaving America, theirs will be the first generation ever to live below the standard of living of their parents, America is losing the war on terror, the economy is tanking, and on and on ad infinitum. In the face of such an onslaught escaping through drugs, sex, and rock and roll seems perfectly rational.
For what it’s worth, America is still the land of opportunity and will reward those who obtain an education, work hard, and/or build a better mouse trap. After all, America does not build fences to keep people in. The millions of foreigners seeking a better life in our fair land offer vibrant testimony that this nation’s promise is as valid today as ever.
Every chance you get, deliver this message of hope to teenagers: today is the best time ever to be alive, and America is the best nation in which to live. Get on with it, then. Learn, work, and rejoice that you have the chance to live the American dream. Don’t let the naysayers get you down. While they whine, you advance. While they complain, you contribute to the greatness of America. And when you get the chance, tell the Associated Press to put a sock in it.
Now that gasoline prices have got everyone’s attention, even environmentalists are coming to their senses. “Offshore drilling foes relent,” screamed a Los Angeles Times headline yesterday. Republican Representative James T. Walsh summed up the change of heart nicely by saying, “For years I have argued that we should avoid offshore drilling and tapping into underground reserves in ANWR until there was an emergency that left us with no choice…That time has come.” I hope Rep. Walsh doesn’t take the same approach to health care, but better late than never.
President Bush has long pushed for exploration in the areas most likely to contain large deposits of oil, America’s continental shelf and ANWR. He and Republican lawmakers attempting to expand domestic supplies of crude oil were defeated by Democrats a few years ago, and since then the President has been fairly quiet on the subject. Until now. Maybe his renewed zeal is just election-year posturing; if so, so be it. His proposals of June 18th were spot on. Better late than never.
Upwards of 80% of the nation’s coastline is under a federal ban prohibiting exploration and drilling. Environmentalists pressured compliant Democrats to lock up America’s energy future after an oil spill in 1969 off the Santa Barbara coast, an event still cited by California Senator Diane Feinstein as reason enough to forever forgo the national treasure lurking off our shores. It’s like the Democrats are caught in a time warp, eternally reliving an event that can never happen again. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed or damaged more than 1,000 drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico in 2005, but not a single one leaked. Unable or unwilling to download such new information — “Don’t bother me with facts, my mind is made up” — Feinstein, Boxer, and Obama stand foursquare against offshore drilling. If you are happy about $4 or higher gas prices, you know which candidate to vote for.
Barack Obama and virtually all Democrats endlessly parrot the same non sequitur. In response to the President’s call for increased continental shelf exploration, Obama offered that “renewed offshore drilling would not increase supplies or lower prices for years,” according to the LA Times, justification for Obama’s stance to not explore and not drill. Of course, his observation demands just the opposite, looking and drilling as soon as possible, precisely President Bush’s position. “It’s time to move swiftly,” said W. It’s always surprising that someone said to be so dumb can be so right so often. Hmmmm…
Diehard anti-seek-and-drill miscreants always raise the same false objections to drilling offshore. They claim leaks will despoil the environment, drilling rigs will mar the view, opening new oil fields will not bring down the price of gasoline, and increasing the supply of oil will slow our efforts to be more fuel efficient and postpone development of alternative sources of energy. Each of these arguments is simply bilge skimming, desperate attempts to keep America from doing the obviously right things. New technologies will prevent leaks and spills. The outer shelf extends 50 miles out to sea, well beyond the view of sensitive vacationers. Increasing the supply of oil will — must this really be said? — reduce energy prices, and the costs of food, plastics, and other products in the bargain. We are smart enough to harvest our energy supplies and increase fuel efficiency and redouble efforts to advance alternative sources of energy. Americans can walk and chew gum at the same time.
John McCain is, at long last, finally seeing the political potential in gas prices. This is a golden opportunity for McCain and all Republicans — are you listening Arnold? — to win votes by advocating the right path for America. Our energy policy should be comprehensive, exploring and harvesting offshore, in ANWR, and in the shale oil fields of Colorado and Utah, while simultaneously increasing fuel efficiency and seeking viable, clean, and renewable energy. It’s a winner, for America and Republicans.
The Boston Celtics won their 17th World Championship last night, crushing the Lakers in the process. The final score was 131 to 92, but the game wasn’t that close. During the series’ first 5 games Boston figured out how to stop Kobe Bryant and exploit the porous Lakers defense, resulting in last night’s blowout.
The Celtics are clearly basketball’s best team. In a sport dominated by offensive-minded players and coaches, Boston Coach Doc Rivers convinced his talented crew that a good defense is the key to victory. “Stops” on the defensive end, coupled withstrong rebounding, convert into fast-break opportunities. When opponents manage to get back on defense, Boston’s half-court offense centers on old-fashioned pick and rolls and crisp passing, rapid ball movement intended to find the open man. The combination of team defense and unselfish offense allows the Celtics to overwhelm teams with talent equal to their own. No current Celtics player will make anyone’s all-time team. Pierce and Garnett and Allen are very good, but not great. Playing the game correctly led to the Celtics championship.
The Lakers’ loss has brought out the worst in many Los Angeles basketball fans, fair weather friends unaware of just how good this Lakers team was. Reading today’s sports pages gives the impression the Lakers had a terrible season. In truth they exceeded most expectations, cruising through the Western Division’s most potent teams. Pau Gasol was a brilliant acquisition, proving to be the missing piece in the Lakers’ jigsaw puzzle. Even in the Celtics match up, time and again Gasol pulled down rebounds in a crowd, and his half-court offense is unsurpassed in the NBA. Together with Bryant, Odom, and Fisher, Gasol needed one more big talent to take the Lakers all the way. Anyone remember Andrew Bynum? Watch the above video for a glimpse at what might have been.
Despite extraordinary skill, Kobe is and forever will be a big notch below players like Julius Erving, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and the incomparable Michael Jordan. The failure to rally his team against the Celtics proves what I’ve believed all along: the MVP of those great Lakers teams of 2000 through 2002 was Shaquille O’Neal, not Kobe Bryant. Against the Celtics, Kobe’s one-dimensional offensive approach — the 3-point jumper – was found wanting. Contrasting Kobe’s “from the parking lot” cast offs with Paul Pierce’s slashing drives to the basket explains the Lakers’ demise in a nutshell. Nevertheless, if Bynum is healthy next year, and if the Lakers’ G.M. can ink a quality guard, next year’s final could feature another Lakers/Celtics struggle, likely ending in a Los Angeles celebration. After all, this year’s Lakers have a lot more to build on than last year’s Celtics.
With the basketball season finally over, I have just two suggestions to make the sport better. Early in last night’s game the play-by-play announcer casually mentioned that the officials were “letting the guys play,” basketball-speak meaning the referees were allowing more contact early in the game than would be tolerated later on. This is an unthinkable approach to officiating, unique to basketball. Imagine an umpire expanding or shrinking the strike zone as a game progressed, or football officials letting defensive backs hammer receivers in the first quarter, but flagging the same behavior as pass interference in the fourth. Neither sport would allow that, and it remains baffling why the NBA permits — encourages? — officials to subjectively alter rule application. Games in pre-season and the regular season should be officiated exactly like playoff games. Uniform application of the rules will make the game better.
Second, the league should ban female commentators. The abecedarian in the network’s employ asking inane, feminine questions marred an otherwise great post-game show. By repeatedly asking newly crowned world champion Kevin Garnett, “Kevin, how does it feel…,” she nearly provoked me to bouts of regurgitation. “Kevin, how does it feel…” Who gives a rip? If she can’t ask a substantive question, send her back to the kitchen where she belongs. I believe she was the same bimbo who asked Paul Pierce if the Celtics had the energy — “after all you’ve been through!” – to hold off a Lakers comeback in last night’s second half. Pierce gave her a “what planet are you from” glance and replied, “It’s the world championship, man!” The NBA should end the PC nonsense of utilizing uninformed females with no competitive background to interact with the planet’s best athletes. That goes for football and baseball too.
Address all correspondence to Gloria Allred. Good day!