Raising children of the State

King Solomon wrote in his Proverbs: "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." Solomon intended for parents to base their children's future on the Creator's morals and integrity. A child's mind is a sponge. Filling those sponges with worthwhile attributes -- responsibility, trustworthiness, honesty, and faithfulness -- lays the proper foundation for adulthood.

　
However, training children is a two-way street. When children are introduced to an authoritarian state at an early age they learn to accept authoritarianism as the norm. Rather than seeing government and bureaucracy as contrary to liberty, children view them as the conveyors of freedom. Where better for the State to plant that seed than in preschool, and what better time than the present?
　

Government affiliated inspectors are hard at work sowing the fields at West Hoke (NC) Elementary School. At first consideration one might wonder why this is a big deal. Inspectors performing proper tasks can have positive effects. No one wants unsafe, substandard schools. No one wants their son or daughter educated for twelve years only to graduate functionally illiterate. However, what type of message do children receive when the State is poking around in their lunchboxes? That's the kind of inspection conducted at West Hoke.
　

State authorized inspectors disapproved the homemade lunches students brought to school. Foods like turkey, cheese, fruits, and juices just don't satisfy the USDA's nutritional standards. Children who packed such lunches were given supplemental meals that met the State's guidelines. We should then recognize that the State's guidelines aren't guidelines at all. Guidelines provide information to assist people in determining their own best path. What happened at Hoke wasn't a recommendation, but a State dictate.
　

Questions have arisen concerning exactly who was involved with inspecting the lunchboxes and providing the supplemental meals, prompting officials to deny any role in lunchroom policing. Yet it matters not which government entity instigated the inspections. The fact remains that a government contractor, employee, or bureaucrat searched children's lunches. Youthful minds receive the impression that the State possesses unlimited right to search anything, and for any reason.
　

In some circles, my views on cafeteria checkpoints will brand me a pilot of black helicopters who wears a tinfoil flight helmet. However, who can reasonably deny that lunchbox inspections elevate the State above the home and, most notably, the parent? It was the homemade lunches that were deemed insufficient. It was homemade lunches that caused West Hoke to receive a poor grade in meeting student's nutritional needs. The home and the parent are portrayed as uncaring and irresponsible while the State becomes the child's advocate and provider. That is the message presented to the students at West Hoke. In fact, children are being conformed to the State's superiority through varying methods all across this country.
　

The simple solution is to dismiss "Lunchgate" as silly and ineffective. After all, the homemade lunches weren't confiscated. But that's also a serf's solution. A State authority figure invariably has an intimidating effect on small children. One little girl was so frightened that she didn't eat the lunch her mother had prepared. What lesson did that child, and all children subjected to the lunch inspections, learn? They are taught to respect State authority and provision over that of their parents. A free society cannot survive when the family unit yields to the State.

　
Children should certainly learn to respect properly exercised authority, like a teacher's authority over the classroom. But shouldn't we be at least equally jealous when government inserts its will between the child and the home?
　

The State is laying a foundation whereupon each future generation is easier controlled than the previous one. Today's children are taught at a tender age that the State is the foremost authority in their lives. Homemade lunches, homemade values, and homemade relationships are invariably inferior to what the State promotes, condones, or mandates. When today's children become tomorrow's adults they will rely on the State for their needs rather than on their individual skills and character. Tomorrow's adults will then breed another generation even more comfortable with State control. And the beat goes on.
　

As Solomon observed, children raised in the way they should go will build their adult lives from a solid foundation. But the reverse is equally true. The State is doing a thorough job of training children to revere government above family and choose dependence over liberty. Children are being trained in a way they should not go. When they are old, will they be able to depart from it?

There's no off-season for the professionally offended

A professional athlete, no matter the sport, enjoys a certain time of year called the off-season. Off-seasons allow athletes to clear their minds and heal their bodies. As an added benefit, off-seasons prevent fans from becoming bored with the sport. Professional offense-takers should follow that example. Maybe their minds wouldn't be so cloudy and the rest of us wouldn't grow so sick of them.
　
Feminists head the herd when it comes to taking offense. They can find affront at the drop of a hat. Feminists have taken umbrage at everything from Victoria's Secret to My Little Pony. Anything that fails to promote feminism's "strong" woman -- the bra-burning, gruff, nagging, sea hag -- renders women doting airheads suitable for serving the patriarchal society.
　
Okay, same song; men are pigs. What's new?
　
Well, something is new. The venerable LEGO is marketing the latest indoctrination tool for a chauvinistic society bent on creating an entire generation of models for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. Specifically, the LEGO Friends line of toys. According to offended feminists, LEGO Friends "limits creativity and healthy role development" and encourages "damaging gender stereotypes."
　
That sounds serious. But have no fear; the offended will arise to save little girls from childhood fun. In fact, the offended are petitioning LEGO to pull the toys from distribution. The petition's initiator -- Carolyn Costin, MFT (the "T" stands for tyrant, you can decide what the "MF" represents) -- said, "Presenting slimmer, more fashion oriented LEGO people for girls falls right into the pervasive cultural messages for them to focus solely on their appearance and being thin."
　
Really? Are we supposed to believe that playing with LEGOs will cause a generation of young girls to want to look like their LEGOs? Children of the 70s -- I am one -- played with green army soldiers, Evel Knievel stunt cycles, and cap guns. How many of us wanted to turn green when we grew up, or jump Caesar's Palace, or become a gunslinger?
　
In fairness, the LEGO Friends collection is rather sugary. Girls can choose from sets such as Olivia's Tree House, the Butterfly Beauty Shop, and Stephanie's Cool Convertible, complete with a puppy for the back seat. Sickening? Infinitely! The LEGO Friends are more nauseating than shotgunning a keg of corn syrup. But for Pete's sake, they're toys!
　
Even if Carolyn Costin (the MFT) is correct and these toys do cause kids to desire a slimmer figure, is that automatically a problem? We're inundated with stories about what fat slobs Americans have become, even those who grew up idolizing Barbie. Another "thin is in" message might be a godsend. Anyway, what would Carolyn consider a suitable image-building toy: Roseanne Barr's Tub-O-Lard Doughnut Shop, or Gloria Steinem's Chopemoff Vasectomy Clinic?
　
Still, give Carolyn her due. She's quite the pro at poking her nose into other people's business; a genuine Buttinski Hall of Famer. If only there was an off-season.

♫ Santa Claus ain't coming to town ♫

♫ No need to watch out. ♫
♫ You might as well cry. ♫
♫ Go on and pout, I'm telling you why. ♫
♫ Santa Claus ain't coming to town. ♫
♫ There won't be any reindeer, or sleigh for you to see. ♫
♫ We've banned them all so we can prove our great sensitivity. ♫

It's no joke! The North Pole's favorite son was banned from his annual appearance at the Hollings Cancer Center in South Carolina. Said spokeswoman Vicki Agnew: "Because of our state affiliation, we decided not to have a Santa presence this year." The Center, Agnew continued, wanted to be "more secular and respectful to all beliefs. People who are Muslim or Jewish or have no religious beliefs come here for treatment."

Doesn't that make perfect sense? We can't have the State promoting biblical characters like Santa Claus, now can we? After all, according to the Book of Blitzen, Chapter Three, it was Santa Claus who led the Israelites out of the Arctic Circle, parting Rudolph the Red-nosed Sea along the way. And the Gospel according to Comet tells how Santa came to grant strength to the lame, sight to the blind, and knowledge to the foolish.

Ms. Agnew contends the decision wasn't "meant to be cold." If that's true, then it was meant to be stupid; it's the only other plausible explanation. What a shame Vicki Agnew wasn’t there when Santa was bringing knowledge to the foolish; she could use a miracle.

Oh well, 'tis the season. America has come to herald each Christmas with renewed assaults on common sense. We ban Santa Claus and prohibit nativity displays. We purchase "holiday" trees from big box stores whose clerks are instructed to greet us with the innocuous "happy holidays." Schoolchildren participate in "winter celebrations" rather than Christmas plays. And we endure it all so as not offend the perpetually offended. Has Christmas ever genuinely insulted anyone who wasn't seeking insult to begin with?

Frank Cloyes, the Center's volunteer Santa, wonders when all this politically correct nonsense will end. "Let's have a little joy in our lives," he said.

Mr. Cloyes can take some solace. The Hollings Center revisited their lunacy after South Carolinians revolted. However, his fundamental complaint remains unresolved. Political correctness is the antithesis of joy, existing only to prevent joy and prohibit fun at every turn. Life must universally suck for PC multiculturalists to be satisfied. And the nonsense won't end until enough people summon the courage to tell hand-wringing busybodies like Vicki Agnew to go jump in a hole. In the meantime the Priests of High-minded Sanctimony will continue sacrificing America's cultural and spiritual traditions to political correctness, their god most high.

♫ So you better not count on seasonal cheer. ♫
♫ It hasn't a chance with bureaucrats near. ♫
♫ Santa Claus ain't coming, ♫
♫ Santa Claus ain't coming, ♫
♫ Santa Claus ain't coming to town. ♫

Send out the clown

A rodeo clown wears some of the most garish outfits imaginable. But who would expect ordinary from someone who'll willingly tease a 2000-pound bull that's wearing a bucking strap around his groin? While unquestionably odd, the rodeo clown's wardrobe is functional, which is more than can be said of Rep. Frederica Wilson's (D-FL) attire. One glimpse of her costume will send a bull scrambling for his sunglasses.

Western wear isn't unacceptable congressional dress, nor should it be. The cowboy look is an integral part of Americana. But the Technicolor edition of a dude ranch reject is a step too far. Even if Rep. Wilson offered substantive solutions to the obstacles facing this country, in particularly the black community, it would be difficult to take her serious when she looks like a Dodge City pimp. Not to worry, Wilson offers nothing in terms of discourse.



Rep. Wilson blames racism for high unemployment among blacks, especially young males. The least she could do is spout rhetoric as flashy as her wardrobe. Instead she plays the race-card, excuses irresponsible behavior, and promotes big government solutions to undesirable circumstances. In fact, big government is a chief contributor to the condition she laments.

Government decided it was a good idea to establish a minimum wage without regard to market realities. However, employers can't retain employees who produce less benefit than the cost of their employment. Therefore businesses are forced to dismiss underproductive employees, who are typically young and inexperienced. This reality is especially evident among young black men. Cost verse benefit is a simple economic concept, yet it's lost on Rep. Wilson.

Governments at all levels have complicated the business climate, making entry difficult. For instance, operating a taxi cab in an urban area is a viable service young black men could offer. Yet cab license fees can reach six digits. How many young men, of any race, can afford such an initial outlay? Similar obstacles face other young, black entrepreneurs. It's not racism that erects these obstacles, it's big government.

Rep. Wilson ignores other factors limiting black economic success as well. No one forced young black men to adopt a rap culture that degrades women, devalues academic success, mocks the rule of law, and dismisses family responsibilities. Racism isn't the source of a 70-percent illegitimacy rate among Black Americans. It was big government that replaced the black father, leaving young black men rudderless. Liberal policy has released generations of black men from their parental duties.

Finding common sense in modern government is yeoman's work. Representatives like Frederica Wilson only complicate the task. There's no reason to take someone serious when they make less sense than a pantomime presentation and dress like the Phantom of the Grand Ole Opry.

South Florida voters sent in this clown. Here's hoping they'll send her out again.

In defense of Western Culture

Imagine what the world would be like had the United States fought the Second World War as we have the “war on terror.” Thankfully, Americans then weren't tepid in war, nor did they care if their attitudes agitated the Germans and Japanese. The World War II generation sought nothing less than total victory. If the enemy was offended, well, so be it. Times have certainly changed.


The United States has sunk to new depths of political correctness. We're so conscious of offending Islam that our culture is becoming its sacrificial lamb, methodically slain on the altar of a mythical peace with radical Muslims. Political correctness wields undue influence on our attitudes, exacerbating our insatiable desire to placate our enemies even at the expense of values we ostensibly hold dear.


Enter the politically incorrect Rev. Terry Jones. Government, media, and religious leaders sang Jones' condemnations, and rightly so, when he ignited his copy of the Koran. But what duplicity! What has happened to our zealous defense of free speech? Burning offending items is a protected First Amendment right, is it not? Perhaps free speech exists only when desecrating items of significance to the United States and Western Civilization.


Wise and insightful protesters are engaging in dissent when they burn the flag of the United States. In fact, torch the American flag and you’ll become a folk hero to the same people who censure Terry Jones. Offending religion is equally acceptable, so long as the religion is associated with Western culture. For instance, an eccentric "artist" submerges a crucifix in urine and receives rave reviews for cutting edge artistic expression. But let that same "artist" sink a statue of Muhammad in a jug of whiz and see what happens.


One peek at the riots in Afghanistan should serve to indicate how Islamists respond to the degradation of their beliefs, be the offense real or perceived. Remember the outrage when Dutch cartoonists depicted Muhammad as a bomber? Remember Salman Rushdie, or Molly Norris? Rushdie lived under a death order for ten years and death threats forced Norris to surrender not only her profession (she was a cartoonist) but her very identity.


The only surprise in the Afghan response to Terry Jones is that anyone was shocked at all. This isn't the first time Muslims have deemed destruction the proper avenue for venting their anger at the enemies of Allah. In fact, reactionary violence in Islamic lands is the norm, not the exception. Amazement at the Islamists' overreaction to Terry Jones is akin to tossing a rock in the creek and being stunned when it sinks.


In fairness, we must recognize that the Afghans didn't entirely escape blame for their violence. But shouldn't we be troubled when a single insignificant minister pulls a boneheaded stunt and more outrage is directed at him than toward widespread violence perpetrated at the Taliban's behest? Explaining how Jones' bonfire doesn't justify mob scenes becomes something of an afterthought, an obligatory complaint offered without sincerity. There's no reason for Westerners to apologize to a people so ignorant they will toss Molotov cocktails on their neighbors and attack unrelated entities in response to one person's alleged blasphemy.


I’m no fan of book burnings regardless the literature serving as the fuel. Burning books indicates a vapid intellect, a mind void of purpose and reason. But Jones’ campfire did nothing to threaten Islam as a religious doctrine. It did, however, reiterate the Islamist's propensity for committing horrendous violence to the glory of Allah. The appalling aspect is seeing so many ostensibly intelligent Americans tripping over each other for the opportunity to apologize to an enemy. We’re too interested in avoiding the appearance of "Islamophobia" to recognize the pattern of our enemy's behavior and the threat they pose to Western culture.


When Fourth Division troops advanced from Utah Beach’s D-Day landing zones, the 101st Airborne paratroopers greeted them with this advice: don’t trust the Nazis. America wasn’t afraid to identify and aggressively target our enemies during World War II. We're afraid to do so now. Could those divergent attitudes explain why complete victory in World War II took less than four years while the "war on terror" drags on ad infinitum?

The United Caliphates of America?

If the United States had fought the Second World War as we have the “war on terror” we would now speak German east of the Mississippi River and Japanese west of it. Thank God Americans weren’t concerned about offending the sensibilities of Hitler and Hirohito in 1942. The World War II generation put this country first and settled for nothing less than defeating our enemies. Times have changed.

Either the United States has succumbed to unbridled political correctness, or we’ve lost heart to the point we’ll sacrifice our culture and our very survival to the mythical concept of peace with Islamic radicals. Perhaps it’s a little of both. Political correctness influences our attitudes to an unreasonable degree. But a greater problem is our insatiable desire to placate our enemies, even at the expense of values we allegedly hold dear.

When Rev. Terry Jones ignited his copy of the Koran our government and media rose to condemn his intolerance. Ah the duplicity! What happened to free speech? I thought burning an offending item was a protected First Amendment right. Perhaps free speech extends only to desecrating items of significance to the United States and Western Civilization.

Insightful and wise protesters can burn the flag of the United States with impunity. In fact, torch our flag and you’ll become a folk hero to the same people who condemn Terry Jones. Offending religion is just as acceptable, so long as the religion is prevalent in Western culture. For instance, submerging a crucifix in urine is hailed as cutting edge artistic expression and the “artist” is an eccentric genius. Try sinking a statue of Muhammad in urine and see what happens.

Why do we abandon our heritage, sacrifice our culture, and belittle our values? What is honorable in elevating depraved ideologies above our own?

I’m no fan of book burnings regardless the literature serving as the fuel. But where is the condemnation for the Muslims who are using Jones’ campfire as their latest excuse to commit horrendous violence for the glory of Allah? And why are so many ostensibly intelligent Americans tripping over each other for the chance to apologize to an enemy? We’re too interested in avoiding the appearance of intolerance toward Islam to recognize the threat radicalization poses to America’s future, or even our own assaults on our liberties.

When Fourth Division troops advanced from Utah Beach’s D-Day landing zones the 101st Airborne paratroopers greeted them with this advice: don’t trust the Nazis. America wasn’t afraid to identify and aggressively target our enemies during World War II. Isn’t it time we revived our ancestors’ attitudes before we awake in the United Caliphates of America?

A “gay-friendly” military demands a cultural transformation

Our country is based on individual liberty, meaning people can interact as they will. As long as a chosen act doesn’t compromise our neighbor’s liberty our actions remain our personal choice. That includes what two people may deem proper behind closed doors. Gay activists, seemingly, would welcome such a concept. But that’s seldom the case. Cultural norms must yield to accommodate homosexuality.

Gay activists experience problems with the subject of privacy, for they generally aren’t content to interact privately. Gay activists prefer flaunting their sexuality and forcing others to accept and support their sexual decisions. Oppose their lifestyle and you’re instantly equated to the white-robbed segregationists from the early 20th Century. However, open homosexuality presents cultural problems extending beyond questions of right and wrong. These issues will come to a head in our military when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” becomes “Don’t Ask, Do Tell.”

Politicians, bureaucrats and military leaders have weighed in on both sides of open homosexuality. These high-level dialogues focused primarily on military preparedness and unit cohesiveness under such a policy. While such discussions are valid, they ignored fundamental issues that affect both qualities. Lest we forget amidst the swirl of self-congratulatory open-mindedness, heterosexual and homosexual service members must now interact openly on a daily basis.

Men and women don’t share living quarters, showers and other personal facilities for several reasons, chiefly sexual privacy and cultural morals. Integrating men and women in intimate situations is an invitation to sexual advances, including those of the unwelcome variety. Can anyone believe that similar indiscretions won’t occur between gay or lesbian and straight service members?

Yes, there are methods for dealing with unwanted sexual attention. But such rules can also govern current heterosexual conduct. Therefore, if it’s sensible for straight men to shower and bunk with gay men, and straight women likewise with lesbian women, shouldn’t heterosexual men and women shower and bunk together, too? Isn’t segregating them according to their heterosexuality a form of discrimination? Besides, think of the recruitment campaign we could create.

Integrating straights and gays is a unique dilemma. Can the Pentagon keep everyone free from sexual harassment while simultaneously preserving modesty and privacy? Ordering straight men to room with gay men is equivalent to ordering women to room with men in general. The same holds for rooming straight women with lesbians. Bunking lesbians with straight men won’t work either. Men and women would still be integrated in intimate conditions even though the women, being lesbians, wouldn’t be interested in the men.

Another possible solution is to have gay men shower and bunk with straight women. No, that’s totally unworkable. Women could feel threatened (perhaps aroused?) by the gay men’s presence. Another downside to this proposal is the number of straight servicemen who might suddenly declare their homosexuality so they could join the straight women in the shower. Or, we may have straight women declaring lesbianism so they can shower with the straight men. Each scenario is downright confusing.

Regardless of an individual’s gender or their sexual attraction there invariably exists the possibility of feeling vulnerable, uncomfortable, compromised, intimidated, threatened, or violated from the opposite sex’s presence in personal situations. Every relationship, every interaction, is muddled when time-honored gender and sexual boundaries are erased. And we haven’t even considered the affect bisexual and transgender personnel will have on the aforementioned interactions.

Is there an option that will satisfy everyone? The Pentagon can provide separate facilities for each gender and sexuality. Or, all personnel can exist in one communal environment where accommodations resemble Roman bathhouses. Men, women and transsexuals, heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals can shower to the rhythmic refrain of the Village People’s In the Navy.

Pandora’s Box is open wide. The potential outcome is an abundance of fraternization and sexual harassment charges from and toward all genders and sexual preferences. Only one bet is safe: I’ll wager that gay activists will dismiss any sexual harassment complaint lodged against a gay service member as baseless homophobia on the part of an intolerant heterosexual. Any takers?

Thoughts and questions on various matters

A large number of Americans believe that less productive people deserve more and that more productive people deserve less. If that weren’t true, politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer and Patrick Leahy couldn’t get elected dog-catcher, much less to Congress.

No matter the dictates of multiculturalism and political correctness, Christmas remains the prime reason for December celebrations. “Prove it,” you say? Alright. How many people would tune in to watch the annual presentation of Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Kwanzaa?

Is it possible to sell our fellow citizens on the virtues of individual liberty and personal responsibility when so many have become quite comfortable in the veritable bondage of government dependence?

Whether a person considers a political advertisement a truthful assessment of a candidate’s positions or an unsubstantiated attack on their character rests solely on whether their preferred candidate is the ad’s target or its originator.

A sticker on a bottle of lamp oil reads, “Danger! Do not drink!” What purpose can this warning serve? If someone is so dense as to drink lamp oil, that person isn’t smart enough to read and understand the warning label.

Here is another undeniable truth of Interstate driving. You must travel 75 miles per hour to pass the same car that you were about to run over when traveling at 50 miles per hour.

No matter the trade or profession, and regardless of the employer, each shift claims to do all of the work while the other shifts laze about accomplishing nothing.

Are the people who think Rush Limbaugh and other conservative commentators are dangerous zealots who must be countered by the Fairness Doctrine also the people who consider Keith Olberman a reasonable, logical and balanced reporter? If I were a gambling man, I’d wager yes.

The long-term trend toward greater judicial activism, legislative hostility and public apathy bode poorly for our constitutional republic’s future. The 2010 election results can be a positive step toward correcting the first two problems, but only if it means we have rid ourselves of the third.

Not being big on conspiracy theories, the “birther” movement holds little interest for me. However, I do consider Hawaii’s certificate of live birth a redundancy. Isn’t the fact that someone is standing in front of you proof positive that the person was born alive?

When then-President Bush escalated the entitlement system (Medicare Part D) and stated that he was abandoning capitalism (TARP) in order to save the free-market system he threw open the door to Barack Obama’s presidency. When Obama escalated what Bush began (Stimulus, Healthcare Reform) he set the table for last fall’s Republican gains. Voters are now left to wonder which party will screw-up bad enough to lose in 2012.

Do whitewall tires still exist? And while we’re on the subject of tires, when and why did sporty white-letter tires decline in popularity in favor of the nondescript black wall?

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have made nice livings peddling ordure under the mantle of social justice and civil rights. But have no fear; anything you’ve retained from Sharpton’s or Jackson’s rhetoric can be remedied with a dose of Ex-lax.

The bikini is far more than an eye-catching cultural icon; it is an economic anomaly. Bikinis represent one of the few transactions (lingerie being another) where customers willingly pay more to receive less.

Anyone so naïve as to believe buying carbon offsets from Al Gore’s companies will halt climate change would also buy air from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India and top soil from Chernobyl.

Why do people tie their shoes together and toss them across electrical power lines? It’s a waste of time and shoes. Plus, it’s done so frequently it can’t even qualify as an original prank.

Congress has investigated numerous baseball players for lying to Congress about steroid use. Why, then, can’t we charge Congress with lying to us about the sub-prime lending fiasco, bailouts, stimulus, healthcare reform and pretty much everything else Congress does?

What was it like on the outskirts of Bethlehem?

Modern living provides numerous luxuries and activities. An endless parade of entertainment, distraction and diversion is at our beck and call. Shopping centers and malls abound, a cadre of restaurants surrounding each. There’s a club meeting one night, the kid’s practice the next and the church’s covered-dish supper the night after that.

Satellite television beams hundreds of crystal clear channels into our living rooms. A few are even worth watching. Movies, music, and information stream from high-speed Internet. A universe of information and entertainment is a mouse click away. Ours is a different world. The changes in the last forty years alone are staggering.

During my childhood, dining out meant a trip to the local café or fish camp. There were few, if any, family steakhouses. And there certainly wasn’t a restaurant in every corner of the mall parking lot. In fact, there wasn’t even a mall.

In the late 1960s the Internet was a military secret. Television stations were few and color sets were uncommon. I watched Neill Armstrong take “one giant leap for mankind” . . . and I watched it in black and white. Our set could tune two VHF channels.

Just as today’s world has surpassed my childhood, so had that time advanced over the previous generations, when television itself was rare or nonexistent. People received their entertainment from the radio voices of Amos and Andy and the Jack Benny Show. Their information came from newspapers, books and magazines. The 20th Century was change, with less than 100 years separating the heyday of the buckboard from the reusable spacecraft.

Now, you may wonder what this walk down nostalgia lane has to do with Bethlehem. Very little, in a direct sense. But it does serve to compare the rapid advancement in our lifestyles with the primitive shepherds’ experience, recorded in Luke’s Gospel, that first Christmas night. The thought came to me as I read the story for the umpteenth time, not that you can read it too often.

Some Bible translations place the shepherds “in the same country”; others say they were “in the fields nearby.” Either way it is evident that they were on the outskirts of Bethlehem, which had nothing in common with modern suburbia. There was no reflection of Bethlehem’s lights against the night sky. There was only a darkness that today’s suburbanite can’t comprehend.

The shepherds may have kindled a small campfire and lit a torch or two. But they wouldn’t have stayed very close to that light. It would have compromised their night vision, making it difficult to spot thieves and predators, which was their purpose for being there. The only prevailing light came from the stars and the moon.

No distant train whistle pierced the silence. No car horns honked and no jets passed overhead. There were no blaring boom boxes, blinding televisions, or ringing cell phones. The only sound was the shepherds’ conversation and the soft bleats from the flocks. They are alone on a dark and silent night.

Without warning a celestial being illuminated the night sky. The angel Gabriel declared the long-awaited Messiah’s arrival to the accompaniment of an angelic chorus. How would those shepherds, unaccustomed to such brilliant displays, have reacted? Luke tells us they were “sore afraid.”

Considering the societal transformations and technological advancements we’ve experienced it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to relate to the lives of those shepherds. We think black and white television is archaic and cell phones are indispensable. It’s unlikely we can appreciate the scene that long ago night on Bethlehem’s hillside pastures.

Feast, my friends, this Christmas Day! Gather by the fire. Unwrap the gifts. Amidst the celebration save a minute to ponder the shepherd’s experience. Our lives are so accustomed to sound, light, and distraction, perhaps we can’t comprehend the powerful, majestic display that long ago night. But we can try.

A Merry Christmas to all . . . no offense intended.

‘Tis the season for common sense, culture, heritage and tradition to take its annual backseat to politically correct nonsense. Each Christmas the PC police are bolder than ever. Nativity scenes can’t be displayed here and angels can’t be heard on high over there. Phrases and icons that reference the central reason for the “holiday season” are squelched so not to offend the perpetually offended.

A few years ago, the Seattle, WA airport authority displayed the gutlessness of Decembers present. Twenty-five years of displaying Christmas trees at the airport’s entrances came to a halt with one complaint. According to airport spokeswoman Terri-Ann Betancourt the trees were removed “because we didn’t want to be exclusive.” Next were the big retailers, whose zeal for a “non-threatening” shopping experience prompted employees to wish shoppers “happy holidays” or “season’s greetings” in lieu of “Merry Christmas.” Christmas trees became “holiday” trees.

The idea of these faith-neutral terms and phrases is to avoid the seeming preference of Christianity over other religions. But Christmas trees? How does calling a Christmas tree what it is sanctify one belief over another? Thoughts on the origin of Christmas trees are as diverse as the kinds of trees used. In fact, the religious meaning of Christmas trees is debated even within Christianity.

The Christmas tree’s root, if you’ll pardon the pun, could rise from the Ancient Romans, who decorated trees with strips of metal during a festival honoring Saturnus, their god of agriculture. Perhaps modern Christmas trees date to 16th Century Germany, where small fir trees were decorated with apples and nuts. On December 25th the ornamental treats were given to the children. The Feast of Adam and Eve, where the “original sin” was reenacted on December 24th, may be the source for our tree. An evergreen, hung with apples, was used as a prop for the play.

Christmas trees are but one example of how the ever-offended are attempting to transform a season of joy and happiness into one of anxiety and misery. Flaps over “holiday trees,” corporate policies governing the greetings retail cashiers can offer and idiocy like that at Seattle’s airport prove that political correctness and “sensitivity” have run amok.

Do Christmas greetings and traditions truly offend people? Or, are offended people simply seeking reasons for offense? Our world is filled with verified misery: war, famine, pestilence and violent crime. Why would expressions of hope and happiness offend any rational person? Frankly, it's because the offended aren’t rational at all. They’re so consumed with their manic despair that they cannot suffer cheerfulness. The joyous message of Merry Christmas reminds them of their empty, bitter souls.

Let's put this in perspective. If a Jewish man were to greet me with “Happy Hanukkah,” I would accept his wishes in the spirit they were offered. I would not become mortally offended, allowing the good wishes to be overshadowed because the greeting reflected a holiday not of my own faith. The proper response is to thank the Jewish gentleman for his gesture and respond with a cheerful “Merry Christmas.” If his expression to me is sincere he will accept my greeting without reservation.

Ironically, our society condones crass vulgarities in the name of diversity, yet is vulnerable to traditional courtesy, and that vulnerability is magnified at Christmas. The very reason there is a season to greet is sacrificed so as not to offend the most intolerant of people. It’s shameful that the phrase “Merry Christmas” is yielding to a tide of politically correct multiculturalism.

Christmas commemorates Christ’s birth, make no mistake about it. So what? America has a Christian heritage whether the PC police believe it or not. As such we are entirely within the realm of good taste and etiquette to wish “Merry Christmas” to anyone, even if that person is of another faith or of no faith at all.

The nonsense must stop sometime. Let it end today, now, this minute. I sincerely wish peace, safety and a Merry Christmas to you. This greeting is extended without apology to the Christian, the Jew, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Sikh, the Buddhist, the Wiccan, the Scientologist, the Taoist, the agnostic, the atheist, the environmentalist, the Jehovah’s Witness, the Mormon, the Branch Davidian and whoever else happens to be out there. If you are a rational person you will accept these good wishes in the spirit they are offered.

However, if you are offended, please feel free to have a Miserable Christmas. I’m confident your New Year will be just as dismal as your outlook on life.

The five myths of Regressive politics #3: Conservatives are sexists.

Women should stay home, sweep floors, prepare meals and bear their master’s children. Changing diapers and baking brownies; that’s a women’s role. Women should be seen in public only when posing for the Victoria’s Secret catalog. Isn’t that how Regressives would have you believe Conservatives view women?

This theory sounds insane, but it has a solid foundation. Conservatives recognize and accept reality. Men and women are genetically, physically and emotionally dissimilar. Sorry! That’s just how it is, has been and—genetic engineering aside—will remain. When Conservatives mention these facts Regressives play the sex card. However, the sex card is flawed beyond repair.

Conservatives really aren’t concerned with gender. It’s a person’s ideas that garner support or criticism. And conservatives certainly don’t demand that women remain barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen stove. That is, if you’ll pardon my sexism, an old wives’ tale. Fortunately, a growing number of women are recognizing the reality in conservatism and the respect it has for women. According to a 2009 Gallup survey, women are more conservative than liberal even though their party affiliation remains more Democrat than Republican.

Sexism was once defined as mistreating women. Not today. Sexism is whatever the Regressive feminist declares it to be. Is it sexist to buy a woman’s lunch? Is it condescending to hold the door for a lady, or to escort her to the porch following a date? Is it harassment to ask a woman for a date to begin with? Women must consider such traditional courtesies as blatant condescension to be a good feminist. Furthermore, feminist dogma must be accepted to avoid sexism charges. Such acceptance by affinity—a Regressive standard—is the worst form of denigration.

Conservatives don’t consider women inferior beings at all. They are equals worthy of respect and protection. They aren’t tools for social engineering. It is the left that manipulates women for that purpose. Thus it is the left that practices sexism.

The left’s “defense” of women is about feminism and abortion on demand. It’s not about women and is, actually, insulting to them. Forget the rhetoric about choice; choice is the last thing on the Regressive agenda. The only legitimate “choice” a woman can make is the one the Regressives demand. Remember the reaction to Tim Tebow’s mother?

Mrs. Tebow made the “wrong” choice when doctors advised her to abort the future national champion quarterback and Heisman Trophy winner. Regressives roasted her. Women are thinking independently only when walking lockstep with feminist dogma. Thus being pro-choice is the choice to abort and pro-freedom is the freedom to pursue the morals of an alley cat. It’s a tidy denunciation of personal responsibility. It is the Regressive in a nutshell.

Regressives rank ideology above a woman’s emotional and reproductive health. They rank their agenda above a woman’s ability to make individual choices. In truth, Regressives are women’s worst enemies.

The Pedophile’s Guide is another sign of our moral decline

A novice sailor will notice when a large vessel veers drastically from its charted course. But even experienced seamen may not realize the change when course deviations are slight. Societies react to cultural variations in similar fashion. People will balk when the moral code is abruptly altered. But when the transition is slow, over several generations, the original course is lost before the change is perceived.

Philip R. Greaves’ book, the Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-lover’s Code of Conduct, indicates another subtle change in America’s moral bearing. It should shout “Warning!” at the top of its lungs, for it illustrates how a society can adapt to moral degeneration. The first step is to rationalize the irrational and defend the indefensible until deviant behavior is mainstreamed. Greaves is willing to give it a whirl. He claims his book doesn’t endorse pedophilia, but establishes guidelines for pedophile relationships. Injurious acts are off limits and certain principles must be adopted to ensure safety for the child. Greaves explained, “I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals.”

Apparently, since pedophilia undeniably occurs, it should be woven into our cultural fabric. Notice the change? Child molesters are no longer twisted pedophiles but “pedosexuals.” The word lends legitimacy to the act, similar to how homosexual, bisexual and transsexual have legitimized behaviors once considered immoral.

Even if Greaves’ were correct in assuming that physical injuries common to pedophilia can be eradicated, the psychological traumas linger for years. Furthermore, adults who seek sexual fulfillment from children are exhibiting not only a complete disregard for long-established cultural boundaries but also for plain good sense. If pedophiles were governed by the “better nature” Greaves’ references, they wouldn’t molest kids to begin with.

Granted, the Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure hasn’t exactly mainstreamed the pedophile. The book was removed from Amazon.com amid a flood of customer complaints and, shall we say, “slow” sales. Still, it should prompt a thorough cultural examination. How did we arrive at the point where a child molester’s guidebook is available via a respected retail outlet? Similar to how ships change course unbeknownst to their crews. The Pedophile’s Guide is but another moral degree that our culture has strayed from its original course.

For instance, marriage was once the sacred domain of a man and a woman, with sexual relations reserved for matrimony. That cultural norm has changed. Four in ten Americans now consider marriage obsolete and “shacking up” is nearly as common as matrimony. The thought of reserving intercourse for marriage is summarily dismissed, as evidenced by the increase[1] in unwed[2] pregnancies over the last 40 years. Such pregnancies are now standard fare where once they were cause for shame.

Homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality--previously shunned as the domain of deviates--are alternative lifestyles. Homosexuality is even considered the superior attraction in some circles. In Hollywood, for example, it’s “in” to be “out.” The thought of same-sex marriage never crossed the mind a generation ago. But it’s rapidly gaining popularity across the societal spectrum, reaching majority status among Americans under age thirty. Anyone who questions the purity in such activities is labeled homophobic, which is almost like being identified as a Klansman.

Moral bearings aren’t lost overnight. It’s the result of incremental course deviations. Bit by bit the unthinkable becomes commonplace. Considering the slight alterations in cultural morality that produced our present state, is it beyond belief that future generations will consider “pedosexuality” an “alternative lifestyle?” We’d be foolish to dismiss the possibility.

Few people believe that mankind has ever practiced perfect virtue, in public or in private. But it’s blatantly naïve to think the deviancies we tolerate today wouldn’t have caused our grandparents to wash our minds out with soap. Humanity’s moral ship is adrift. The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure is the latest deviation toward a wayward destination.

This column first appeared at American Thinker.

[1] National Center for Health Statistics, Health, United States, 2006, With Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans, Hyattsville, MD: 2006, p. 145, Table 10 (pdf file, p. 162)
[2] Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Ventura SJ. Births: Preliminary data for 2007. National vital statistics reports, Web release; vol 57 no 12. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Released March 18, 2009, p.6, Table 1.

Christopher Columbus: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

On Columbus Day it is appropriate to discuss Christopher Columbus’s legacy. Critics seem emboldened on the day we recognize the famous mariner’s arrival in the New World. Was Columbus the barbaric sadist his detractors claim? Or was he a great explorer and discoverer?

Columbus lived an impoverished, unspectacular childhood. He spent his youth studying geography and developing his love for sailing. In manhood Columbus was relentless in peddling his belief in a spherical earth and westward sailing route to reach India. His audiences with the Spanish royalty are legendary.

However, the concept of a round world didn’t originate with Columbus. Neither was a westward trade route to India his idea. His desires to prove these theories weren’t rooted in scientific advancement. Columbus sought personal fame and fortune, expressing an entrepreneurial, capitalist attitude, which could partially explain why the modern Left hates him so.

Ultimately, Christopher Columbus never amassed the fortune he sought and died in poverty just 15 years after a discovery he never realized. He secured fame, but not in his time. Columbus never sailed west to India. Actually, he believed the New World was India. According to modern standards he would be an ignorant failure. But Columbus didn’t live by modern standards.

Columbus was an excellent navigator, a courageous explorer and an able captain. He discovered a land unknown in his world and returned home across a trackless ocean. He commanded sailors who believed the Atlantic Ocean was full of sea serpents intent on devouring the wayward seaman. They thought the Atlantic an infinite sea that boiled at the equator. Christopher Columbus’ accomplishments were remarkable considering the obstacles he faced.

Then there’s the other portrayal of Columbus, that of the murderous, slave-trading ogre that detractors use to besmirch his memory. Not content with his true faults, Columbus haters accuse the Genoa mariner of destroying the peaceful paradise that was the Caribbean.

Columbus, his antagonists allege, sparked a genocidal avalanche of misery and mayhem that decimated the Arawak Indians. In fact, the entire European exploration and settlement era exploded into an imperialistic inferno with Christopher Columbus holding the match. Yet the idea that the Western Hemisphere was the Garden of Eden prior to 1492 is fairly naïve. Some European explorers were brutal, and the Taino Arawak tribe suffered at Spanish hands. But to lay all violence at the feet of Columbus ignores the New World brutality that existed before his arrival.

The Taino were rather passive. But the Caribs were a fierce people who abused the Tainos and took their lands before Columbus arrived. The Caribs made wives of captured Taino women (slavery, anyone?), fashioned necklaces from their vanquished enemy’s teeth and may have practiced cannibalism.

The Caribs may have decimated the Ciboneys who once inhabited the Caribbean. The Ciboneys descended from a prior culture that was all but exterminated by yet another people. And if the Caribs themselves weren’t cannibals, the Tupinamba Indians were. Finally, these tribes were indigenous Caribbean Indians; they migrated from the mainland. Thus the peaceful natives Columbus assaulted were neither peaceful nor native, but warrior explorers and conquerors.

Each person must render an individual judgment on history. Make what you will of Columbus and his successors. But remember that many civilizations originated in other places and expanded their holdings and influence through force. Mankind has explored, fought, conquered, settled and lost throughout world history. That reality isn’t going to change just to suit the unrealistic notions of Utopian fantasists.

Christopher Columbus is neither as pure nor as despicable as he is portrayed. He was human, a walking paradox whose life was filled with flaw and virtue, success and failure. He accomplished more than he knew while never quite realizing his dreams. Why not celebrate Christopher Columbus’ courage and contributions while learning from his faults and failures?

Originally published on American Thinker.

Ines Sainz is no innocent victim

Our politically correct media culture demands immediate confession. Any offense, real or perceived, sends damage control teams rushing for microphones, issuing apologies in all directions. Seldom will common sense prevail, especially if it contradicts a good story. Bring in Ines Sainz.

Inez is the female sports reporter who became the target of “locker room” commentary when she entered the New York Jets’ locker room. The PC media culture immediately circled the wagons around Inez, condemning the crude and boorish behavior the Jets players and coaches exhibited.

Yet the question remained, was Sainz harassed or not? At first glance she appeared to be offended by the various hoots and whistles that hailed her arrival in the world of the New York Jets. But, within a few days, Sainz refuted the harassment claims. She told the New York Daily News, “I want to make clear that in no moment did I even feel offended, much less at risk or in danger while there.”

It turned out that a colleague and the Association for Women in Sports Media contributed to turning a rather minor incident into a world-wide frenzy.

Now let’s be frank. Ines Sainz is a woman of rare features. She’s exceptionally pretty with a gorgeous figure. But none of those qualities is an excuse for grown men to behave like horny high-school kids. Jets personnel are responsible for their actions regardless of the situation.

In a perfect world Ines Sainz could strip naked and wiggle her caboose through the darkest subway station without fear of rape, assault, abuse, or accost. Also in a perfect world I could don a Confederate Army uniform and carry the Rebel Flag through South Central L.A. while singing Massa’s in de Cold, Cold Ground. But our world isn’t perfect and neither act represents a prudent choice.

Ines Sainz wasn’t assaulted in any substantive way. No one groped her or offered her an evening to remember. Her person wasn’t insulted; her professionalism was. On this point Ines cannot claim innocence. While a provocatively dressed woman doesn’t excuse a man’s loutish behavior, such behavior is no surprise. And it’s equally true that professionalism begins with the person. Has Ines cultivated a professional image?

Sainz looked rather comfortable in her body-hugging denim Capri’s and low-cut blouse while cavorting with two Indianapolis Colts linemen at last year’s Super Bowl. When she visited the Jets her jeans were again seductively snug. This is her rule, not her exception. Sainz routinely packages her assets in jeans tighter that those worn by the lead singers of 1980s hair metal bands. Her bikini photos aren’t unspectacular either.

Not being someone who’s offended by a pretty woman in sexy clothes, let me be the one to go out on the limb. Yes, Ines Sainz looks great in her Frederick’s of Hollywood wardrobe. Her bikinis are fit for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue and her jeans superb for trolling the club scene. But, if she wants professional treatment she should dress professionally while on the job.

When someone presents a serious, professional image their chances of being treated seriously and professionally escalate. Yes, woman can dress attractively and still present a professional appearance. Fox News’ Megan Kelly and Gretchen Carlson prove it everyday. But when a woman dresses provocatively on the job it should surprise no one when she’s ogled.

Researching Ines Sainz’s wardrobe choices and pontificating on who is at fault and why is easy. Solutions that prevent similar episodes are more difficult. Fortunately, I have an answer. Since locker rooms and clubhouses are filled with athletes in various stages of undress no reporter, male or female, belongs there.

Locker rooms and clubhouses are the athlete’s refuge, their haven to concentrate on the game ahead, reflect on one completed, or simply unwind. Locker room reporters are a distraction whether they come in the form of sexy women in skin-tight jeans or bald men in sport coats. Reporters have ample opportunity to interview athletes outside the locker room.

Ines shouldn’t have received a stripper’s reception at the Jets’ facility. However, her choice of attire was imprudent. She didn’t present the image of someone who wants to be taken seriously. In fact, the Redskins’ Clinton Portis was quite correct. Ines looked more like a teenager seeking a date for the prom that a reporter conducting an interview.

Let the U.S. puts its best breast forward

There’s an old adage common to rural America: He comes around with his hat in his hand. It means that one person has granted deference to another. When the subservient person meets the one who’s considered superior the hat is removed in recognition of that status. That adage can apply to relationships between entities and nations, too.

America certainly takes the “hat in hand” approach to dealing with the Islamic theocracy in Iran. But we must alter the classic phrase to properly recognize the moment. Instead, America comes around Iran with our breasts in baggy t-shirts and our legs concealed.

Well, how would you explain it? When the U.S. met Iran at the World Basketball Championships the American cheerleaders were required to tone down their normally skimpy outfits. Organizers said it was a “nod to Muslim law.” I say it was a nod to politically correct cowardice. Frankly, I’m more than tired of catering to “Muslim law” and Iran’s delicate sensibilities.

Make no mistake, if Catholics, Baptists, or Methodists expressed offense at the cheerleaders’ (un)dress code they would be met with howls of protest and accused of harboring repressive attitudes toward both women and sexuality. Prudes and religious zealots they would be called. Each charge, every last one, would come from the same ideological nut tree that bends to every hot breeze emanating from the truly repressive, sexist, Islamic states.

I’ll admit that American cheerleaders often dress in a way that makes a Frederick’s of Hollywood catalog look like a high school yearbook. Yes, we could stand to tone down some of those outfits just a wee bit, at least to the point where they’re suitable for the local strip club. But this isn’t the time, not if done to appease Iran and Islamic law.

Iran’s ruling cabal of asinine ayatollahs, maniacal mullahs, insolent imams and crazed clerics have despised everything to do with the United States since the days of the Shah. Iran considers stoning a normal form of capital punishment and treats women like livestock. They are a state sponsor of Islamic radicals ranging from rocket wielding jihadists to suicide bombers, and Hezbollah is a de facto wing of the Iranian army. Why should America cater to Iran as if their culture has achieved some higher plane of moral superiority?

In this case I say less is more. If cheerleaders appear at future U.S.-Iran sporting events they should do so in their entire decadent Western glory. Instead of covering up, let’s redefine the word “skimpy.” Our "hotties" should be encouraged to flaunt their forms in a fashion that will leave Nevada madams blushing like schoolgirls. Outfit the cheerleaders with micro-thongs, give each a shiny silver pole and crank up the neon.

Dance ladies! Spin, twirl and dance some more. Dance your pretty little hearts out. And what if the offended Iranian rulers storm out of the arena? Well, don’t let the door hit you in the bisht on the way out!

Death to FOX News and the GOP

The headline reads like an al-Qaeda recruiting poster. You know, “Death to the infidels,” and all. But this headline wasn’t ripped from a suicide bomber’s blog. It’s simply another celebrity’s attempt to confirm that Hollywood’s orbit is somewhere beyond the arc of Pluto.

This time it’s John Cusack--hero of stage, screen and stupidity--proving that Tinsel Town’s brightest lights are the dimmest of bulbs. Using his Twitter account Cusack wrote, “I am for a satanic death cult center at FOX News HQ and outside the offices of Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich, and all the GOP welfare freaks.”

The easy reaction is to tell Cusack to button his lip. Yet the Constitution’s First Amendment protects his right to trumpet his witlessness. What’s more, the most effective method for proving someone a fool is to grant the fool a stage. Fools can no more resist the urge to display their lunacy than Barack Obama can pass a teleprompter without reading the words on the screen. So John, I’d like to encourage you to keep talking, by all means.

Hollywood tradition holds that image is everything. Well, Cusack’s vitriolic rhetoric is cultivating an image; make no mistake about that. But what kind of image? Cusack would do well to recall the damage that outlandish behavior has wreaked on his contemporaries in the entertainment field.

Does anyone pay attention to Susan Sarandon these days? Or to Tim Robbins? Or Sean Penn? The tone of their anti-war protests offended large numbers of their fans. The Dixie Chicks, once the hottest thing in Nashville, are less popular than the Confederate flag at Rev. Wright’s church picnic. And let’s not forget the outspoken but otherwise irrelevant Jane Fonda. Is she recognized for anything other than being Henry’s daughter, marrying Ted Turner and manning North Vietnamese artillery? John Cusack, you’ve made great strides toward joining them in the land of who-cares-about-you.

Cusack’s ranting “tweet” could be a gimmick designed to keep him in the public eye. But toward what end? Outrageousness has undoubtedly kept Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears visible beyond their significance. However, their greatest exposure is in supermarket tabloids and police line-ups.

So keep talking, John, or tweeting, or blogging, or Facebooking, or My Spacing; whatever you choose. You’re on the path toward the intellectual credibility of Hilton, Lohan and Spears, the irrelevancy of Sarandon, Robbins and Fonda and the insignificance of the Dixie Chicks. It’s your choice. Whatever course you take I remain confident that you’ll reveal the fool within.

Life isn’t fair, not even for the perfect

What a shame for Detroit’s Armando Galarraga. Veteran umpire Jim Joyce missed a call and the 21st perfect game in major league history vanished into the mystical land of what might have been. Even worse, the errant call occurred on the game’s 27th out.

This could’ve been one of the worst moments in baseball’s storied history. Instead, it’s one of the finest. Joyce publicly accepted responsibility for his error and Galarraga was gracious to a fault. Both men dealt with the situation like, well, men. Joyce and Galarraga treated us to an epiphanous event that transcended sports to reflect positively upon the human soul. Predictably, there are calls to obliterate the moment by “fixing” the injustice.

On the Oakland Press website a respondent wrote, “I think that MLB should give Galarraga a 28-out perfect game.” That writer’s isn’t alone. However, there’s no such thing as a 28-out perfect game. Therefore, awarding a perfect game where one doesn’t exist is wholly unworkable.

Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig was absolutely correct not to reverse Jim Joyce’s call. What would become of the 28th batter? Would he be what George Orwell referred to as an “unperson?” That batter must go somewhere. And that isn’t the only reason to leave matters alone.

Suppose the bad call were made with one out in the fifth instead of two out in the ninth? Should the league office reverse that call? What if the 28th batter, Trevor Crowe, had homered and the Cleveland Indians had rallied to victory? Should that hypothetical outcome be reversed since the Tigers would’ve won without the blown call? There are many worms here that should be left in the can.

The way Armando Galarraga, Jim Joyce and the Detroit fans dealt with this matter is more historic than even a perfect game. Galarraga’s name is forever etched in baseball lore. Not only will he be remembered for the perfect game that wasn’t, but for the grace and dignity he displayed. Galarraga did everything right and yet something went wrong, leaving him without the due result of his effort. Let the play stand anyway. Players make errors, managers miscalculate and umpires blow calls. That’s baseball. In fact, that’s life and it’s time people faced it. Life is never fair in the Utopian sense of the word.

Yet there’s an insatiable human desire to correct injustice and grant everyone they allegedly deserve. This concept was evident at an NAIA golf championship. Grant Whybark and Seth Doran were locked in a playoff for their conference’s individual title. Whybark had qualified for the national tournament on the strength of his team’s performance. So, on the first playoff hole he intentionally drove his ball out of bounds. Why? Whybark decided Doran deserved a spot in the national tournament.

However, if Doran deserved the title he would’ve won without Whybark’s charity. Whybark actually demeaned his opponent. He assumed that Doran’s abilities were inadequate to the task. That attitude, even when well-meaning, is indicative of our cultural inclination toward an elusive sense of deservedness.

Society must escape the notion that reward is based on the perception of what’s deserved. Someone can do everything right and still not receive the desired result. Behold exhibit A, Armando Galarraga. Eliminating life’s basic unfairness is impossible, and such social engineering would be inadvisable even if attainable.

Doran’s trip to the NAIA National Golf Championship can’t be fully satisfying due to the circumstances. The same is true for Galarraga. Were he awarded a perfect game after the fact it wouldn’t carry equal significance to baseball’s other perfect games.

Grant Whybark manipulated the concept of due recompense. Achievement and success are cheapened when busybodies try to right all wrongs and cure all injustices. Character is built, refined and revealed in overcoming obstacles and adversity. Armando Galarraga and Jim Joyce have personified that character with dignity, class and sportsmanship. Leave it at that, and know that life is seldom, if ever, fair.

It’s time to put your pants back on

Most fashion trends fade as quickly as they appear. The 1960s produced Nehru jackets and bell-bottom pants. Multi-colored toe socks and leisure suits permeated the 70s. Members Only jackets and parachute pants marked the Reagan era and black rain coats and unlaced boots ruled the 90s.

Fortunately, these trendy fashions came and went in relative short order. That is the rule for fads; they flame out like cheap jet engines. However, one fad has refused to follow the axiom. It’s one that never should’ve begun and, sadly, shows no sign of decline. When will the youthful obsession with the saggy pants end?

Several municipalities have enacted ordinances to halt the downward migration of trousers. In 2008 the Chicago suburb of Lynwood imposed a $25 fine for exposing three inches or more of underwear. Lynwood isn’t alone. Cities of diverse population and culture have enacted bans on saggy pants, with penalties ranging from fines to jail time.

Outlawing the practice, especially with incarceration, seems a bit exaggerated. Saggy pants are decidedly tasteless, but reveal no flesh. Laws already exist to deal with indecent exposure and no law can eliminate stupidity. Furthermore, if the wearer is too dense to comprehend the ridiculousness of their condition they’re likely too dense to understand explanations of that fact.

Unlike politicians who pretend all societal ills are remedied with a fresh set of laws, I understand that such laws only fuel the rebellious attitude that placed saggy pants in vogue. I also understand that the opinion of a middle-aged man won’t convince the saggy pants wearer that they look foolish. Therefore I enlisted the aid of some genuine experts.

Young guys have long adopted actions that older men know is ridiculous. But another constant are young men’s desires to attract young women. So I asked a few such women for their opinions on saggy pants. These ladies are 18, 19, and 20-years-old, respectively. All are friendly, humorous and thoroughly attractive. They are everything a young man would like to take to a Saturday night movie. Get this, guys, your underwear doesn’t impress them.

Amanda is a senior at East Lincoln High School (Denver, NC). She finds nothing cool about your saggy pants or the “bad boy” image they convey; you only appear trashy and disrespectful. If you show up at her house with your pants slung low you’ll be leaving alone. “The look isn’t attractive at all,” she says with a look of near disgust.

Michelle, a senior at East Gaston High School (Mt. Holly, NC) echoes Amanda’s sentiments, only more pointedly. She just doesn’t want to see your underwear regardless of the name on the waste band. “Saggy pants show that you have no future and don’t care about your appearance,” says Michelle. The failure to wear pants where they belong also causes her to question the wearer’s personal hygiene.

“It’s improper and rude,” adds Haley, a recent college graduate. Haley thinks saggy pants makes a guy look thuggish, immature and lazy, especially since the pants are purposefully worn that way. Low-slung trousers win no compliments from her, making even the cutest guy “completely unattractive.”

Low ridding pants differ from previous youthful fashions only in appearance. The intent is the same, to prove independence and individuality by contradicting established cultural norms. But that is flawed thinking. How does someone express their individuality by mimicking what the group does? How does one prove independence by following the crowd?

If clothing’s only purpose were to conceal nakedness we would all wear sackcloth. Clothing does convey the wearer’s attitudes. Guys, wearing your pants below your buttocks informs these three ladies that you’re trashy, unkempt, unmotivated and disrespectful. Do yourself a favor and pull up your pants. If not for the sake of decency and decorum, for the young ladies you try to attract.

Tiger Woods is a golfer, that’s all

Tiger Woods has come clean, publicly confessing the worst kept secrets since John Edwards’ love child. Tiger earned his humiliation and there’s no reason to feel sorry for him. He made his bed--pardon the pun--and he can do whatever he does in it.

However, the Woods saga isn’t Pearl Harbor or the moon landing. So why has Tiger received such in-depth coverage? What purpose is there beyond the sense of fulfillment that some people receive from a celebrity’s disintegration?

I reviewed Tiger’s press conference and found it totally predictable. There was the compulsory attempt to separate his family from media scrutiny, which is impossible. Public infidelity affects a family, kids included, even if you’re the world’s best golfer. That’s reality. If Tiger cared about his family’s well-being he should’ve kept his ball out of the rough.

The typical platitudes were presented. “I have let down my fans.” “I am the only person to blame.” Tiger’s speech was the prototypical I-got-caught-with-my-pants-down celebrity apology.

Tiger has been reviewed, prodded and analyzed more than a man undergoing a complete proctologic examination (which he might enjoy, who knows?). Let’s not waste any more time or energy in that area. Instead let’s focus on what Tiger is, what he was made to be and what can be expected from him in the future.

Tiger Woods is a golf pro, nothing more. He’s rich because he can hit a ball into a cup better than anyone else on the planet and people will pay to watch him do it. Tiger didn’t force anyone’s admiration. He didn’t make the public grant him the hero status he once enjoyed. What’s more, his loose morals have no affect on you and me beyond what we’ll allow.

What about Tiger’s role model status? Off the golf course that status existed only in the public’s imagination. He is by no means the husband of the year. But being a personal role model isn’t a professional golfer’s purpose. Tiger’s larger than life status is mainly the fault of a culture consumed with celebrity.

The fact that the public made Woods a mythical pillar of virtue is more their fault that his. Sure, Tiger helped cultivate that false image, but he never made a single person watch him play. He never made us buy his sponsor’s products and he never forced a single person to like him. Mr. and Mrs. Public, you did all of that on your own.

If you’re angry at Tiger’s moral failings it’s likely because you allowed yourself to believe he was something he wasn’t. Now you feel foolish. We don’t like playing the fool, do we?

Despite his turpitude Tiger can be a role model if he’s kept in perspective. There are few athletes in any sport with Tiger’s drive and will to win. His competitiveness is unquenchable and his coolness rivals that of Michael Jordan, Joe Montana and--dare I say?--Jack Nicklaus.

Woods can be a role model for winning attitudes and excellence in a chosen profession. Don’t make him more than he is or can ever hope to be.

Aside from the initial reports of Wood’s affairs this whole story was much ado about nothing. Tiger Woods doesn’t owe apologies to you and me. He owes apologies to his wife and children, the PGA Tour, his sponsors and, most of all, to God. But Tiger Woods has no tangible affect on you and me unless we grant him that power.

In the future let’s be more careful how we elevate people to mythical levels of ethics and virtue simply because they’re rich and famous.