WSJ.com - Round Figures

WSJ.com - Round Figures:

"Earlier this year the House of Representatives passed the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, which would shield food vendors from civil claims premised on weight gain. Like a lot of other tort reform legislation, however, Senate Democrats blocked it. Perhaps the bill will meet a different fate next year. We hope so, because allowing trial lawyers to exploit the obesity epidemic -- and encouraging Americans to blame their dietary excesses on someone else -- isn't going to make anyone healthier."

What a sad commentary that we need our Representatives to actually attempt to pass laws that protect us from ourselves. I don't mean keeping us from eating too much and getting fat, I mean blaming others and suing them for something we did to ourselves. Shame on us!

Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantanamo - No kidding!

It should be pretty clear in this NYT's story, that the International Committee of the Red Cross has an agenda that supports ALL prisoner rights and gives little credence to the efforts by those that hold prisoners in any positive terms. I believe that the ICRC would find abuse if the US gave each detainee their own home, brought their families over, and never spoke with them except to ask if there was anything else they needed to make their stay more comfortable:

"Ms. Megevand-Roggo, the committee's delegate-general for Europe and the Americas, acknowledged that the issue of confidentiality was a chronic and vexing one for the organization. 'Many people do not understand why we have these bilateral agreements about confidentiality,' she said. 'People are led to believe that we are a fig leaf or worse, that we are complicit with the detaining authorities.'

She added, 'It's a daily dilemma for us to put in the balance the positive effects our visits have for detainees against the confidentiality.'"

UPDATE: This editorial from the WSJ describes the evolution of the ICRC and the current state of their political agenda quite nicely.

Budget Trap - Really?

This WSJ.com op-ed piece discusses the current budget process and run-away spending practices of Congress. In it, they attempt to defend the Republicans by pointing out changes made by the then-majority Democrats under the Nixon administration and used successfully during the Reagan years. It isn't until the close of the editorial that they call for new changes. The answer is not to use the earlier changes as an excuse, but to change the process again now that the Republicans control both houses. After all, a Republican is no different than a Democrat if government over-spends and over-reaches. They are all, just politicians - not that that's a surprise:

"Democrats have also learned to skewer Republicans for their individual 'earmarks,' which by one account total 18,000 this year and add up to $22 billion. These pork-barrel classics -- e.g., $1 million for a 'Wild American Shrimp Initiative' -- obscure the larger truth that this year's spending bill is actually the first in years to show some restraint. Domestic non-defense
discretionary spending will rise by less than 2% in Fiscal Year 2005. But what many voters will remember instead is that Republican incumbents are as spendthrift as Democratic incumbents.

A solution here is for Republicans to change the current budget rules, which were passed by Democrats in 1974 over a Watergate-weakened President Nixon. Those rules were deliberately designed to obscure the budget process to make it easier to spend, and to reduce Presidential leverage over spending decisions. Republicans denounced them throughout the 1980s, but now they embrace them as tools of incumbent protection."

The knife's message - The Washington Times: Commentary

This commentary makes some strong points. They aren't points that the politically correct wish to hear or discuss. Radicalism - especially that based on religious belief - is dangerous. In today's world, the most radical - and therefore dangerous - are Muslims. It's just a fact:

"It is perfectly obvious to all but the most obtuse observer, which of course includes the editorial board of the New York Times, that an excess of tolerance is what got the Netherlands and the rest of Europe into this mess in the first place. The Netherlands has leaned over backward to welcome immigrants from the former Dutch colony of Indonesia - to the point where a majority of children under age 14 in the four largest Dutch cities are Muslims. Muslims now comprise 6 percent of the population, but their numbers are surging through large families and continued immigration (about 30,000 yearly).

Some 300,000 of the 1 million Muslims in the Netherlands fervently support the radical imams and mosques that preach jihad against the Jews, the West and all infidels. The Dutch have prided themselves on tolerating everything from legal prostitution, to euthanasia, to freely available marijuana and other drugs. But in tolerating the intolerant Muslims, they have swallowed a serpent. "

There are Christian radicals as well. The fundamentalists who, in recent years bombed abortion clinics in the "name of God", are as guilty as any when it comes to crimes against the general population. Those crimes, however, pale in comparison in terms of numbers and deaths.

All Muslims, as all Christians, are not radical. The problem is, the majority of Muslims are not condemning - at least publicly - the actions of the radicals. This was, and is not, the case with the Christians. Those that committed the violent attacks on the abortion clinics were loudly criticized by fellow Christians and others. The question for the majority of Muslims is, "Where's the outrage?"

Required reading?

While ScrappleFace is parody, it sure makes more sense than reality sometimes:

"'If we actually read these bills, then we would know the specifics about billions of dollars of pork barrel projects for all of our districts,' she said. 'And of course some unnamed Congressman would start leaking this to the media and, before you know it, Americans would start believing that the federal budget is just an elaborate scheme to defraud taxpayers of their hard-earned money in order to fund local projects that local citizens have already decided aren't worth the money. Our whole system of power...or rather, of democracy, would collapse.'"

Maybe our own Senator, Russ Feingold, could be a co-sponsor. He continually said he read the entire Patriot Act, so I'm sure he reads every bill. Right?

Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation

Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation:

"No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. "

Wow, read the whole thing and imagine the furor from the Church & State separatists if Bush gave this proclamation today!

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Values - we know them when we see them

Many Who Voted for 'Values' Still Like Their Television Sin:

"'Desperate Housewives' on ABC is the big new hit of the television season, ranked second over all in the country, behind only 'C.S.I.' on CBS. This satire of suburbia and modern relationships features, among other morally challenged characters, a married woman in her 30's having an affair with a high-school-age gardener, and has prompted several advertisers, including Lowe's, to pull their advertisements.

In the greater Atlanta market, reaching more than two million households, 'Desperate Housewives' is the top-rated show. Nearly 58 percent of the voters in those counties voted for President Bush. "

It seems like every armchair psychologist and political pundit is out there trying to explain the 'values' issue in America. How can Bush voters say they voted on values one day, and then watch "Desperate Housewives" the next day? Isn't that hypocritical? Ummm, no.

Not everyone who feels that values are being attacked in this country are puritanical. As with most things, so-called experts tend to over analyze based on observations of the fringes rather than the fabric. Most of my friends, family and acquaintances are fairly well grounded. We tend to see the same boundaries and know when they are crossed - without being told by an expert.

"Desperate Housewives" is just the latest 'over analyzed' example. For the majority of us out here in normal-land, we get it. The show actually has some level of freshness. The plot lines - for the most part - are interesting and the writing is comparatively good. The problem that most of us have isn't the content of the show, as much as the when and how it is promoted. In addition, the time slot is a problem for some in the Midwest since it airs at 8:00pm - still a time for some children to be awake.

The show follows another that is very family-friendly: "Extreme Makeover-Home Edition." Families can watch the makeover show very comfortably with kids of any age. The underlying messages of helping your neighbor and volunteering your time are good 'values' that appeal to many. Then, just when you're waiting for the conclusion, the promo's start for "Housewives". And of course, the promo's aren't the witty dialogue or the subtle sub-plots of who the mysterious neighbor really is, it is one of them falling into bed with the underage gardener or another exposing herself in lingerie and fur. Add to this, the insulting promo prior to a football game, and you start to see why we are getting tired of messengers. [Here's something else - the show could probably be pretty good with NO sex.]

As an adult, I have no problem with other adults making their own decisions as to what they do or don't watch. As a parent, and someone who would rather continue to choose what I watch, I am appalled by the content of ads and promo's thrown in our faces. I understand advertising and marketing. I realize that to make more money, either more people have to buy your product or you have to raise your prices. [I may address the pulling of ads facet of the story in a later post]

The 'easy' answer, we're told, is turn off the television. The easy question right back is, "Why should we have to?" There are still many entertaining programs on television - not to mention the educational ones. In addition, even the programs being analyzed - "Housewives", "CSI", etc. - have entertainment value for many, and if people want to watch them, they should be able to. The difficulty is keeping children from being exposed to things that parents decide are inappropriate. The V-chip is all but useless. It may keep most programs from being viewed, but does nothing for promo's. Besides, almost any kid between 5 and up can de-program the thing if they want.

Perhaps more sophisticated folks in the blue recesses of this country see nothing wrong with this exposure. Maybe they believe that kids should mature more quickly. Learn the ropes of the real world as soon as possible. That's their choice, if they so desire. It just shouldn't be thrust upon the rest of us if we choose to let kids be kids.

The Polar Express

My wife and I took the kids (11, 9 and 6) to The Polar Express yesterday. The book is one of our favorite Christmas stories and the film did not disappoint anyone in our family. This despite the fact that I had read a number of reviews that were very unflattering (see below) and heard some of the story line - musical numbers, in Polar Express?

It was hard to imagine taking a 32 page children's book - mostly filled with illustration - and turning it into a full length feature that wouldn't travel too far from the authors theme. The movie, with the exception of the hobo and the 'ticket imagery', stayed pretty close.

Most of the negative reviews at Rottentomatoes address the 'lifeless' characters and the technology details. I find that somewhat ironic, because the I think the artwork of the movie came very close to the illustration in the book. The characters in the book always seemed 'lifeless' and surreal. Maybe like in a dream - not reality? In addition, the 'darkness' of the North Pole and other images - including the 'theme-park roller coaster' the film adds, presents the message of the story: The struggle between 'believing' and not.

One of the oddest reviews is the NYT's review. This excerpt is way over the top:

It's likely, I imagine, that most moviegoers will be more concerned by the eerie listlessness of those characters' faces and the grim vision of Santa Claus's North Pole compound, with interiors that look like a munitions factory and facades that seem conceived along the same oppressive lines as Coketown, the red-brick town of "machinery and tall chimneys" in Dickens's "Hard Times." Tots surely won't recognize that Santa's big entrance in front of the throngs of frenzied elves and awe-struck children directly evokes, however unconsciously, one of Hitler's Nuremberg rally entrances in Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will." But their parents may marvel that when Santa's big red sack of toys is hoisted from factory floor to sleigh it resembles nothing so much as an airborne scrotum.

'Munitions factories', 'Hitler's Nuremberg' from Riefenstahl and 'scrotums'? This guy needs to get a grip. He must have had a very troubling childhood! If he expresses the east-coast intelligentsia point of view, there really are two Americas!

Later in the review, he suggests that an 8 year old (age of the boy in the story) is a little old to be 'pinning his hopes' on Santa. As a 43 year old, I take offense to that statement. My oldest kids are starting to make the transition from believing in Santa, to - what I think is even better - believing in the spirit of Santa. Maybe the world would be a little better place if we all lightened up, looked for the good in others instead of the bad, and acknowledged that sometimes, it's okay to BELIEVE!

UPDATE: I apologize to the NYTs reviewer. She is a woman, not a man. She is still wrong in her opinion of the movie, but I was incorrect when I suggested "he get a grip" and that "he must have had a troubling childhood". Please replace he with she!
Also, while the readers of the Times have a more favorable opinion of the movie and by and large feel the same spirit of the movie as I, there are still a few who obsess on the fact that the animation is lifeless and doesn't stand up to Gollum in LOTR. Let me say this: It's not suppose to!