Debate and Point-Making vs. Outright Slander

Those of us who read and write blogs see it all the time. Vicious personal attacks both within the blogs themselves, or in the comments that others leave. Name-calling, fact-spewing (or fact-spinning, however you like it), and chock-full-of-opinion.

Sometimes, it's fun. Other times, it's downright tiresome to read.

Liberals and conservatives both are blogging at a fairly frantic pace. Either voicing opinions or countering the opinions of others. Everyone has a right to their opinion. However, I've recently put myself into a more "well-known" position in the Virginia blogosphere by commenting and debating on blogs that I previously read, but didn't comment on.

One of the surprising aspects was the fact that I, a very opinionated person, have received several comments about my general candor being "refreshing" and/or "appreciated" on different blog comment sections. People seemed to appreciate the fact that I simply discuss my position vis-a-vis other people's positions.

Every now and then, I will go on a bit of a rant, and I'll probably deride liberals pretty hard (and conservatives, if I feel they've earned it). Usually, though, it's over policies or ideologies that I don't agree with. I'll use some of the typical derogatory slang to poke fun or slam those I disagree with.

But to continually name-call people, to disallow any respectable dissenting opinions, to use overly-vulgar language and never add any substance to what you're saying...that's not doing much for the blogging society and it's great political debate that has raged for several years, now.
It's OK every now and then, but it's not a good gimmick to saddle yourself with, as it leaves you open to attacks of the same nature. Although both conservative and liberal bloggers are both guilty of this gimmick, I must say that I do find it more on the liberal side. It's their right to say such things, but they shouldn't be surprised if nobody takes them seriously. In fact, I take "Virginia Virtucon" a lot less seriously after a strange and slightly-unfounded rant that "Riley" made over there today...less seriously to the point of removing Virtucon from my Blogroll.

And just in case liberals want to challenge me, and state that I'm not being an "equal-opportunity 'basher'", I have already talked about where Bush's faults lie in a previous article.

Anyway, I do enjoy the level of debate that goes on between the bloggers. I look forward to further discussions on various topics, so long as civility and good-spirit remains in the atmosphere of these debates.

Not a Blog, I'm Literally at a Loss for Words...

...as of right now, 31 Virginia Tech students will never see Graduation Day. From what I've read, there will be more added to that number.

If you don't know what I'm referring to, here's a news story on it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266374,00.html

My heart and my prayers go out to the friends and families of the victims, and to the survivors and their friends and families, as well.

Senseless, cold-blooded murder. It makes me sick. Just like those who, within 3 hours of the story breaking, already attempted to use this story to push a political agenda. No respect for those who are mourning. Allow people to grieve, to pray, and to reflect, first.

Weekly Podium: "100 Days Gone...What Happened?"

Remember the time-period between the November elections and the official Democratic-takeover of Congress in January? If you do remember correctly, there was a lot of bluster from the Democrats. They were going to “make government work” and push through dozens of domestic policy initiatives. It was this bluster that led to much fanfare from columnists and bloggers around the country, including myself.

That being said, what has the Democrat-controlled Congress accomplished during their first 100 days?

For starters, the minimum-wage bill has failed to reach the President’s desk in a timely manner because Democratic leaders in both the House and the Senate used the bill as a tool to fight an internal power dispute within the party, which led to a lack of compromise on some of the language within the bill. This was exacerbated because Republicans, understandably, wanted to provide tax breaks for small businesses, and the Democrats completely balked on that idea, despite their “for the working class“ posturing. This sorely disappointed me, as I was very much in support of the federal minimum-wage increase.

The interest-rate reduction on student loans, the implementation of suggestions by the 9/11 Commission, the funding increase for stem-cell research…all of these policy initiatives were hyped to no end. All of the aforementioned initiatives were part of the “First 100 Hours” the Democrats were hyping as they rode a wave of momentum coming off the November elections. None of the measures introduced in the “First 100 Hours” have made it past the compromise process between the House and the Senate (both controlled by the Democrats). This means that none of these bills have had the opportunity for President Bush to review and/or sign into law.

Part of the problem lies within the Democratic party switching gears and focusing on Iraq, after stating they would focus more on domestic issues. This means that one of the issues that got the Dems into power has been abandoned for the time being. Democrats have focused on going after President Bush and the GOP, instead of pushing policies. This completely contradicts their entire stance from their 2006 campaign.

Nancy Pelosi has now decided that instead of working with President Bush (as she constantly stated she would do from the time she was announced as Speaker of the House), now she’s attempting to subvert the President’s authority by attempting to act as a diplomatic authority in the Middle East. Pelosi attempted a high-profile visit to Syria, which ended up in her sending mixed messages, and even some outright lies about “possible peace talks” between Syria and Israel. Many believe that the intentions of her trip was to simply act defiant in the face of the White House.

So much for “working with the President”, as it didn’t even take her 4 months to attempt to undermine executive policy.

Nonetheless, the lack of real action put forward by the Democrats in regards to their initial intentions has shown up in independent polling. I was reading a public opinion poll by the Pew Research Center, and their results showed that the public actually has a disapproving view of Democratic policies. Democratic policies only held a 37% approval rate, while 42% disapprove and 21% don’t know what to think.

In the same poll, Pelosi herself carries a 48% approval rating, with only 22% disapproving of her job, but a curiously large section of those polled (30%) don’t know whether or not to approve or disapprove of Pelosi’s job. Harry Reid’s numbers are further intriguing (32% approve, 22% disapprove, and a whopping 46% “don’t know”). These poll results can be found at http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=315

I personally chalk up the large percentages of “don’t know” due to simple inability of the Democratic party to truly “work with the Republicans”, as they had promised. Until the Democrat’s attention switched from improving domestic policies to “Iraq, Iraq, Iraq”, it seemed like we had a glimmer of bi-partisan hope. Republicans seemed fairly willing to work with the Democrats on domestic issues.

Once Pelosi and company switched up gears, they effectively tossed their bi-partisanship efforts right out the window. Now that things in Congress have slowed to a snail-like pace, people don’t know what to think. Both parties are waging publicity wars against each other (what’s new there), and op-ed columnists and bloggers alike are taking to their keyboards in a war of words.
The question that remains in my mind is…was the bluster and relative bust of the “100 Days“, as well as the abandoning of their initial objectives, signs of things to come from the Democrats?

I guess we shall wait and see…

Weekly Podium: "Digging For Some Answers"

It’s been a long time since I’ve written one of these columns. I frequently comment on articles in The New Dominion. I’ve been doing a lot of reading, watching, and thinking, and lately, I feel a few topics have come about that warrant discussion.

The first topic that has weighed on my mind is a news story out of Virginia Beach that has garnered a national stage. For those who haven’t heard the story, I’ll sum it up for you. A man, Alfredo Ramos, was driving drunk and subsequently caused an accident which killed two teenage girls. This is a terrible tragedy that kills thousands each year and affects millions of Americans at the same time.

The underlying issue with this particular incident is that Mr. Ramos is an illegal alien who was been convicted of 4 misdemeanors during his time in the U.S. , one of which was a DUI. He has never served time in jail. His illegal alien status has never been reported to the proper immigration authorities. In fact, after each of these convictions, Mr. Ramos has been allowed to walk freely from the courthouse.

Virginia Beach has a written, on-the-record policy that states that police officers are NOT to ask about the immigration status of suspects and convicted criminals. In fact, the Police Chief in Virginia Beach , Alfred Jaycocks, Jr., further supported this position when he stated “Not only do we not have the capacity to do the federal government’s work in the area of immigration, but we have no business doing so.” Excuse me, Chief Jaycocks, but if I’m not mistaken, illegal immigration is against the law. Is it not the duty of the police to uphold the laws of the land, from the municipal level to the federal level as necessary?

Perhaps even more amazing is the fact that the mayor of Virginia Beach, Meyera Obendorf, does not know that this “do not ask” immigration policy exists within her city’s own police department. When Jesse Walters, producer of “The O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News, approached Mayor Obendorf and asked her if the police had such a policy, she flatly denied its existence. In other quotes that I have read, she has stated that she “does not know” of any policy. So, either the mayor is lying to the press and the public, or she is ignorant of her own city’s police policies.

The real underlying question remains: should we be so tolerant of criminal acts by illegal aliens?

I believe we shouldn’t be so tolerant. Lest we forget, simply being an illegal alien is a crime in itself. So that already puts them on thin ice, and by committing another criminal act (or multiple ones, in Mr. Ramos’ case), they have pretty much waived their right to claim that they are a productive member of society, and therefore should have their illegal status overlooked.

My mother and grandparents came to this country in the early 1970’s from Brazil. They did it the lawful, proper way. They did this because they believed that you should respect the laws of the land, and they came to this country in a lawful manner. They filled out the right paperwork, talked to the right people, and never had a problem with their status as legal immigrants.

I sympathize with those who are fleeing their country to find a better life in America. I’m a first-generation American on my mother’s side. I know my family’s story, and I know why people immigrate to America in the first place. We live in the greatest country in the world, and that’s not propaganda. That, my friends, is a fact.

It should be noted that nothing stops these illegal immigrants from entering this country lawfully except for two things; impatience and a lack of respect for the law in this country. If these criminal offenders can’t respect the laws they already broke to come into this country, then they should not be allowed the privilege to live here.

Moving on…

During my many conversations with people of all races, religions, genders, creeds, and sexual orientation, the topic of the 2008 Presidential Election comes up, as it is already shaping up to be a very important race and one of the most closely watched in history. While I find that the majority of people do not support Hillary Clinton, there are some that do. While they are entitled to support whomever they choose, I often wonder “why her? What is her appeal to these people?”

When I ask Hillary supporters why they support her, 99 percent of the time the response is something along the lines of “it’s about time we got a woman in there! Men have been screwing up things in America for too long!”

Not shocking, we’ve heard that statement before. However, other than her one term in the Senate, what qualifications does she hold to be President? That question gets much less of a rousing answer from most of those who support her.

Then, I follow that up with “what does Hillary stand for that you like?” Other than a few jabs at Bush and the Iraq War, or maybe some pro-feminine sentiments, I don’t get much else in response, either. By this point, whoever I’m speaking to at this point is visibly angry at my line of questioning.

When I bring up her failed health-care proposal from the early to mid-90s, or her stated intent to raise taxes across the board, I then reach a common response amongst most of the Hillary supporters, especially female ones. That response will fall along the lines of “you’re just sexist, you don’t like the idea of a woman as President because you are a sexist male!”

This could not be further from the truth. I don’t care of our President is male, female, black, white, Hispanic…as long as it is the “best candidate” for the job. Gender/race/religious identity should not be a factor. The fact that I currently favor Rudy Giuliani over the rest of the candidates who have officially joined the race has nothing to do with his being a white male. It has to do with how closely do his political views and my political views match. THAT is what we should be looking at.

Speaking about the former First Lady, after reading a direct quote from a Hillary Clinton fundraising speech from 2004, in which she stated to those who were there in support of her…

“Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

…wait a minute, is Stalin posthumously writing Hillary’s speeches? Since when did we become the Peoples Republic of America?

These tax cuts have helped me, and I fall under the scope of “lower middle class”, so it’s not just a “rich people” tax break. So you mean to tell me that since I (along with millions of Americans) benefited from Bush’s tax cuts, Hillary and the Democrats are going to “take things away from me on behalf of the common good?”

I’ll pause for a moment to allow you to let that “common good” statement soak in.

Who is Hillary Clinton, or anyone in our government, to say that I have to give up things for “the common good” to get American “back on track”. I’m sorry, but realistically speaking, America really isn’t that “off-track.” Even more significant is the fact that widening the influence, size, and power of the federal government is NOT the answer. It hasn’t been the answer since the Great Depression. Last I checked, our economy was growing at an encouraging rate with no signs of financial collapse.

So Hillary wants you, the taxpayer, to pay more in taxes so that she can once again attempt to introduce a heavily-bureaucratic universal health care system that will simply widen and expand the powers of Government over what doctors you can see, what medicines you can get, and how soon you will get those much-needed medicines. Big Government…not working for you.

As Ronald Reagan once said, “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”

Weekly Podium: "Battling The Contentiousness"

Looking at the current political and social state of America, one can see that most of the general public is in a cynical, pessimistic mood toward our nation and its leaders. The Republicans have lost a lot of popularity amongst voters, and the Democrats are in power due to being the only other option available. Neither party is worthy of glowing praise for being upbeat, positive and eager to end the contentiousness.

Much of the blame can be based upon the war in Iraq, and how it has been handled by the powers that be. These powers that be are not just the ones in the White House, but the ones on Capitol Hill and on the evening news.

Let it be known that I, personally, like George W. Bush, and I think he is intelligent, and a very good and well-meaning human being. However, I have never seen a president and his staff be so incompetent at handling the media spin. Nor have I seen anyone who lacked the ability to sell an agenda the way Bush has been unable to sell the war in Iraq.

The mishandling of the sale of the Iraq policy to both Congress and the American public has caused Bush to have problems selling other policies. The problems we’re facing abroad make Bush seem incompetent as a leader, and call his other policies into question.

The public sees that we’re struggling (not losing, mind you) in Iraq, and they instantly assume that we must be struggling at home. This is why the general public thinks that, despite the evidence to the contrary, our economy is somehow sinking quickly, and we’ll soon enter the next Great Depression.

The truth is, our economy is very strong, especially when you consider that we are fighting a war without having converted to a wartime economy. Another truth that many do not realize is that most of the troops overseas do not feel that we are losing the war in Iraq. They know the harsh realities of war (which is something most Americans seem to be forgetting), and all they ask for is support while they fight for victory.

However, you cannot completely blame George W. Bush for his lack of success in implementing his policies in Iraq. The liberal mainstream media, in general, has been completely irresponsible in the statements they have made throughout the coverage of the war. This irresponsibility also applies to their portrayal of Bush, as well as conservatives in general. They have managed to spin the news to fit their own agenda, and the public has bought into it.

Generally speaking, the mainstream media has been marginally successful in attempting turn this war into another Vietnam. A lot of the reasoning behind this is because these comparisons to a memorable American military failure create hysteria, which in turn, create ratings. Some say that the media simply voices what the American public is thinking. However, it is one thing to voice people’s concerns - it’s another thing to exploit those concerns and find any reason to validate them in order to raise your network’s ratings or increase your publication’s readership.

I often chat about politics with a gentleman named Hunter Golden, who is a former aide to 2008 presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. He and I have spent the past 10 days debating the contentiousness in modern-day American politics, and if this can be stopped with a new face in the White House come 2008.

We both came to the agreement that there is a certain mold that our next leader must fit in, and we must look to the past to find this mold. That mold is the one defined by Ronald Reagan. Someone who is a forward-thinking, visionary politician that does not allow themselves to be distracted from the main objective. A person who focuses on the important matters, and can handle the media pressure, as well as sell his or her policies.

In comparing Bush’s inability to sell a policy to Reagan’s “salesmanship”, Golden stated, “The Social Security reform bill should have been cookies. Give that bill to Reagan, and it’d have been through and done in three weeks. Not because Reagan brings any sort of genius to the bill that it doesn’t already have, but because the guy knew how to sell the American public - the fundamental reason Iraq has been a failure is that Bush never once was effective at selling the war at home. A few questions we might want to ask ourselves: Why are there no ‘heroes’ in this war? Why aren’t we seeing parades for those heroes? Simple propaganda like that just hasn’t been done to keep people’s support up. FDR spent millions upon billions on propaganda for World War II, and even courted private industry to support it as well. He mobilized all sectors of the American economy to fight that war.”

He and I both share the belief that what is missing from our political landscape is a high-profile figure who is focused on what is right for America as we move forward into the future, and makes decisions based upon that focus.

“What we’re sorely lacking right now are Reagan-style politicians. Both parties have no ‘vision’. They’re mired in petty squabbles and the peripheral dominates everything.” Golden opined, “Some would disagree, but I don’t see abortion as being one of those fundamentally important issues. It’s always going to be up for debate. Issues like that though, and our divisiveness around them, hurt us from looking at the big picture. I think that’s what is going to trigger the big turnaround in America today.”

Golden’s viewpoint is one that is shared by many people I know, both liberal and conservative.
In two years, what I believe we will need in the White House is a “great communicator”, which is one of Reagan’s enduring nicknames. Someone who can clearly convey the message they are trying to send, as well as the message of their respective party. This is a key quality we must keep in mind when choosing our next president, and I hope those who are reading remember this come November 2008.

Golden agreed with that sentiment, and referred to his party’s need for that great communicator when he stated, “We need someone who can recommunicate Republican values again. Denny Hastert was an awful choice for speaker of the house. Bill Frist has the charisma of a thumb tack. The minority leadership is even worse. Neither Dole or Bush, while very likeable, were good communicators. We really need one.”

Along with the ability to communicate a point of view, I think that we are also lacking politicians with a dynamic, take-the-bull-by-the-horns mentality. Someone who takes a definitive stance on an issue, makes that stance well-known, and proceeds to solve the issue in a way that is best for America - not just what is best for their poll numbers. In other words, someone who has a mentality that is opposite of someone like John Kerry, circa 2004. It was Kerry’s inability to take a definitive stance on anything that ensured his defeat.

If you look at some of the great leaders of the past, you will notice that they had similar qualities to those I mentioned previously. They sold their agendas well, focused on the overall picture, and were usually undeterred by smaller, petty issues. They also had a public persona of a leader. They were looked up to as role models and icons for all Americans.

Some took on the public persona of a father figure, like Ronald Reagan and FDR. They portrayed the image of someone who took care of America and that would provide guidance to our nation, like a good father would do for his son. However, these compassionate image were also tempered by an ability to push their agenda into fruition, because they were doing it for the good of America - not merely for the praise of the pundits, or the five-point increase in their approval rating.

Where’s our modern-day Fiorello LaGuardia, smashing a collection of seized illegal slot machines with a sledgehammer off of a barge and into the Hudson River? Where’s our version of FDR, speaking to the public via fireside chats and portraying an image of strength while sitting in a wheelchair? Where’s our Ronald Reagan, denouncing our enemies at the gates that lead into their territory?

Where is that leader, who takes America by the hand, and single-handedly leads America in the right direction - without consulting his CNN poll numbers, first?

Weekly Podium: "No Child Encouraged to Move Ahead"

Somewhere along the course of American history, we decided that education would become the breeding ground for political correctness and socialist brainwashing.

I’m not sure exactly when it started, but I would venture to say that it started when the leftist radicals grew up after their psychedelic anti-war protesting the late ’60s and early ’70s, they decided that in order to spread their ideologies to the world and create a society more favorable to their beliefs, they had to spread into the two areas of greatest influence in modern America - media and education.

Education in America is flawed. One of the staples of George W. Bush’s presidency has been No Child Left Behind. This was not a novel concept, as many educational experts (read: “liberals in the field of education”) had long believed that many of the policies in Bush’s program were the best way to improve the education of K-12 students in America.

Virginia jumped on a similar bandwagon before Bush’s election, creating the Standards of Learning test to be administered to these same students to make sure they learned a certain amount of subject matter before they moved on to the next grade. This way, students would be prepared for the next level of education.

We also spend billions of dollars on programs to help those with learning disorders. I’m not talking about children who have problems such as mental retardation; I’m talking about students who are just not as smart as the others. There is no such thing as a dumb kid anymore. If a child underperforms in school because he’s just not that smart, or just doesn’t care, why do we have to create every excuse possible to explain why they’re not performing well?

Come to think of it, why is it that we allow children who are just a little slower than average a whole class period to get tutoring and assistance each and every day of the school year? Yet, gifted students get barely anything from the educational system.

When I was living in Pennsylvania, I was in a gifted program in that was obviously created by non-gifted educators. My gifted program consisted of two 30- or 45-minute sessions each week in which I was to leave class halfway through a particular subject! Then, on top of that, I would have to still have to learn the subject matter outside of the classroom, meaning that I actually had to teach myself what I missed, and then do the homework.

"Hey, this kid is smart! We can't have that, it will demoralize the other students! Let's punish him with more work, that'll teach him not to be intelligent!!!"

Since we can’t allow the dumb kids to feel dumb, we make the smart kids not want to be smart. Then complain that our schools are lagging behind other the schools in places like Japan and China. How hypocritical is that?

Speaking of hypocrisy, we spend taxpayer dollars on programs such as DARE, and then advise every parent with a child that is either an A student or a D student that they need Ritalin and other drugs to normalize them and bring them to the average level. Thereby making the teacher’s job easier, as they don’t have to teach to a wide variety of learning speeds.

Young gifted students are fed Ritalin because they restless due to the lack of mental stimulation provided by the teachers. However, it’s not the fault of the teachers, really. It’s the fault of such standardizing of education like the SOLs. We force the teachers to teach the kids to pass the test instead of teaching the subject matter so it can be learned. Since principals can’t be pressed to actually observe their teacher’s performance, we use the SOLs as a standard in which not to just measure the student’s success, but the teacher’s success.

Why not just eliminate grades altogether, then? The almighty SOL was designed to determine whether or not a high-school student will graduate or not.

Every child should have the opportunity to succeed, this is true. However, not every child has the same mental capacity and/or intelligence. So why do we treat all children the same although there is such a wide range of mental capabilities amongst these kids? This also contradicts the liberal ideological theory of teaching children to embrace our differences as individuals. So how’s it going to be, educators of America? Are we all the same - or are we all different?

No wonder our kids are so mixed up.

We live in a country that has the best college system in the world. People flock here from all kinds of foreign nations to study. However, we have a mediocre-at-best elementary and secondary educational system. It is the lack of focus upon the important subjects, like English and math, and too much focus on such subjects as sex ed, that we fall behind as a nation.

It is also the educational system’s overall lack of impetus to encourage the gifted and talented children to explore their own higher level of thought and intelligence that causes many of our future’s brilliant minds to accept mediocrity as success - just so the dumb kids in the corner feel better about themselves. My experience has told me that 85 percent of the time the dumb kid in the corner doesn’t care one bit about the smart kid, unless he wants the smart kid’s lunch money. He will get pushed through the system anyway, because no child can be left behind, right?

Some states have been making the attempt to educate the gifted students in a suitable way. The state of Maryland has invested a lot of money in magnet and Montessori schools that are made to enrich the minds of the gifted, and there are plenty of these schools around throughout the state, in areas both urban and rural. Where’s Virginia’s effort to push the talented and gifted? Where’s the enlightening of advanced minds?

I am the proud father of an almost 15-month old. Speaking objectively, my son is very, very intelligent. He does things kids his age just don’t do. I almost feel that, in order for my child to escape public schools with some semblance of motivation and drive, I shouldn’t tell him that he’s intelligent. I should let him just think he’s an average student and hide his gifts from him - because if he knows his gifts and potential, the current educational system will only tatter and tear his self-esteem, and destroy any drive he may have to get an education and become a better person.

And that, my friends, is the saddest thing of all.

Weekly Podium: "Feelings, Reactions, Opinions...oh my!"

Why is there so much crying, blubbering, and useless information being passed as "news" these days? Did the "Democratic De-evolution" have to spark such a regression of what is considered to be "important" and "notable" news stories.

A good example of this is a very recent story on CNN about the Olympic Bomber, Eric Rudolph. It seems that The Gazette of Colorado Springs has been running a series of "letters to the editor" from Mr. Rudolph, who provides an excellent depiction of life in Supermax, which is one of the toughest maximum-security prisons in America. However, in a land populated by leftist-hippies(Colorado Springs, Colorado), Rudolph is given a forum to talk about how his life sentence in Supermax is driving him insane, and how he spends 23 hours a day in his 7 x 12 cell. He also thinks that Supermax is designed to cause "mental illness and chronic physical conditions", and that solitary confinement is used to "inflict as much misery and pain as constitutionally permissible."

This is a man who pled guilty to the Olympic Park bombing in 1996 and three other bombings, one of which was a Birmingham, Alabama women's clinic.

All that said...what's the problem?

We put the most dangerous people to society in places like Supermax. The idea is to break them down, make them pay for the crimes they have committed. Now, this guy wants sympathy?

His letters and statements will be used by bleeding-heart liberals as a reason why we need to stop the prisons, and attempt to "rehabilitate" these "poor individuals". The fact that the man can be classified as a terrorist is not something that can be "rehabilitated". The fact that this "individual" killed and injured people is not to be ignored. He is doing what all that commit such crimes should be doing...rotting away in a concete and steel hell. Suffice it to say, I believe he is reaping what he had sown.

A question for you people to ponder...why is it that the plight of the raped, tortured, and murdered citizens of Darfur is of utmost concern to liberals...but for over a decade, the plight of the raped, tortured, and murdered Kurds in northern Iraq was of zero concern to these same liberals? It must have something to do with the Hollywood trend of adopting(or, in Madonna's case, stealing) little children from Africa.

Kofi Annan spent most of his "farewell" (I call it a "good riddance") speech challenging the United States to, paraphrasingly, do what he and most of Europe think is "right". Annan did a lot of quoting of Harry Truman in his goodbye speech. Where does Annan and his spineless legacy get off quoting Harry Truman? Honestly, how can Kofi "let's fight terror economically" Annan quote "Give 'em hell, Harry" Truman with a straight face? Annan also mentioned that the U.N. must take the steps necessary to end the violence in Darfur. Nice turnaround in your last speech, Kofi. Just last month, Annan said that the U.N. did not have the force nor the will to go into Sudan and take care of this situation.

So which is it, Mr. Annan? Do you think that the U.N. should or should not intervene in Darfur? I would ask you to make a stand in your final speech, but taking a hard stance on anything except anti-American sentiments is something you have failed to do during your lackluster tenure.

I find it amazing that a supposed "leader" like Annan can only appear brave and emboldened in his denouncing of Bush's administration when he had the quasi-socialist French and other members of the European Union(of Soviet Socialist Republics) standing behind him.

If you don't believe me, I urge you to read or listen to Annan's "goodbye" speech, and count how many times he says the words "you Americans" to preface a very long statement about how America needs the U.N. and needs a global economy.

Dennis Kucinich is once again attempting to gain the Democratic Party's nomination for President again, and he believes that he can do it.........*yawn*. Moving on...

Leonardo DiCaprio (an environmental "expert", naturally, because he is an award-winning actor) wants answers from America on the topic of Global Warming. His question is this: "What are some simple steps or creative ideas that people can take at home and work to combat global warming?"

My answer is even simpler than that...I say, "well, Leo, you can stop using your private jet, as it puts as much pollution in the air during a one-way flight from Los Angeles to Chicago as my ULEV-rated car would in 30,000 miles of continuous use."

If you don't believe me, you can look it up, as that is a fact. This fact also applies to such "conscious" celebrities as George Clooney, Cameron Diaz, and Julia Roberts. So much for the new trend of celebs using enviro-friendly cars and speaking out about global warming...they're a bigger contributor to the greenhouse effect in a few hours than most Americans are in a year!

Speaking of global warming, would someone tell Erik Curren that his post-apocolyptic dystopia has been put on hold indefinitely?

According to a few sources, a soon-to-be released United Nations report will downgrade human influence on global warming, stating that livestock are only responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gasses (not the much larger figures Curren threw out 2 weeks ago), and that American cars are only responsible for 6 percent.

Also, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Control (IPCC) is lowering their predictions for future sea level raises. They lowered the high-end estimate for sea level increases from 34 inches to 17 inches by 2100. So at-worst, we'll see a 17-inch increase in average sea levels in 94 years.

Curren's "worst-case scenario" in his previous article predicted over 40 feet of water-level increases in 50 years.

So let's compare these worst-case scenarios. The liberal-loved U.N. says that, at worst, we'll see sea levels raise less than 1 1/2 feet in 94 years. Erik Curren says over 40 feet in 50 years.

I recently read another report that states three scientifically-backed facts. One of those facts was that the hole in the ozone over Antarctica is closing. The second fact was that the regression of the arctic ice-cap seems to be stabilizing. The third fact was that the Antarctic ice cap was beginning to increase in size again.

Pro-environmental liberals (such as Mr. Curren) across the world will start crying now, as "the day after tomorrow" will be pretty much the same as the day before yesterday. Their beloved United Nations has told them that global warming is not the impending doom they once thought it was. Now is 17 inches going to be a problem? Well, I'm sure there will be some ramifications (beach erosion, etc...), but it is certainly not the end of western civilization as we know it, and is a gradual enough increase that humans can adjust easily to this. Plus, as I said before, the 17 inches is the high-end estimate.

Next thing you know, environmentalists like Curren will tell you that the unusually large solar flare that caused the I.S.S. and Space Shuttle astronauts to take cover from radiation exposure was really a massive simultaneous fart from cows near Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

All jokes aside, there needs to be a separation of reality and far-fetched, unproven theory. While it is true that "worst-case scenarios" tend to grab your attention more than the "most-likely scenario". However, "worst-case scenarios" that are presented as "this is what's most likely going to happen" make my stomach turn in that way that makes you want to scream "LIARS!!!"

I am going to close this week's column with a rebuttal to Stephen Winslow's statements in last week's article on payday lending. Mr. Winslow, I can understand your hesitancy to do your job as you were told to do. It's not easy to follow procedures when it involves taking people's money, whether they like it or not. However, Mr. Winslow, you're not stealing money from people by following the procedures of your company, you are simply protecting your company's assets.

Guess what, those lobbyists happen to be right. They are providing a service, they are providing tax revenues, they are providing jobs, it is a free market, it is capitalism, and I have yet to have someone twist my arm to use payday lending. Like the majority of those who use payday lending, I have only used it in emergency cases in which the immediate need for money was only a short-term problem.

Allow me to add, before we go further, that I am not so well-paid that I don't have periods of time in which I am living paycheck-to-paycheck. My wife and I each earn enough to allow us to put food on our table, a roof over our family's head, and clothes on our family's backs...as well as pay my monthly bills. Most of the time, after it's all said and done, there isn't much left for a lot of fun and frivolity other than the occasional night out for dinner or some other unnecessary, but entertaining, expense.

However, those desperate times call for tighter measures of control over your finances, not "desperate measures". The reason why many people can't get out of the cycle is because they don't control their finances. That, my friend, is the fault of the customer. It is not the fault of the lender that the customer does not make the appropriate lifestyle and financial changes necessary to adapt to the repayment of the payday loan. Most payday lenders will only allow you to borrow up to a certain percentage of your average paycheck, as to allow you to have the funds necessary for fee repayment and to also have some funds available for you to live on.

While I agree that these interest rates are high, to say that a lender is predatory because there are a minority-percentage of customers who come in more than once-a-month to borrow money is harsh, and deflecting appropriate responsiblity from the individual and placing it upon the "big, bad, predatory lender".

It's time people stopped buying into the sales pitch alone, and started seeing the whole picture for what it really is.

Weekly Podium: "The Hype Machine Keeps On Grinding"

After reading Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s “Letter to Noble Americans”, I’m amused by the fact that Ahmadinejad thinks that most Americans would agree with his point of view. His previous and current anti-Semitic rhetoric gets minor notice in the media, and I’ve noticed that the media is downplaying Ahmadinejad’s letter.

Although his letter’s intent is to get the American public to force the U.S. into leaving the Middle East altogether, and put up a false screen of “past friendliness” between America and Iran (a friendliness that died with the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini), what Ahmadinejad didn’t realize is that our mostly Islamic-apologist media would not report this story beyond a mere mention of it below other headlines.

The reason behind the burying of Ahmadinejad’s letter is simple. His notion that he can will American people into doing what he wants would cause a harmful backlash to his position, and the general liberal position of “abandon ship” in the Middle East. To incite the anger of Americans by reporting that a leader of another country is attempting to directly influence our thinking would kill the anti-Bush and anti-Republican movement that the media and the Democrats have so carefully put in motion.

There you have it, the liberal “Hype Machine” keeps grinding. Spitting out what it wants you to hear, and quietly squashing what it doesn’t want you to hear.

A battle between religiously-based sects within the country of Iraq is now being called a “civil war”. Not “insurgency” or “anti-Government acts of terrorism”. No, now it’s called “civil war”. Let’s call this whole debacle in Iraq what it really is…

“A war that was not allowed to be fought correctly because the Democrats and the liberal media made sure we walked in with one hand behind our back…just like in Vietnam.”

Revisionist history tells us that somehow, Nixon was to blame for Vietnam…yet it was the oh-so-legendary purveyor of the not-so-Great Society, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who created the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution AND escalated the Vietnam War to its highest peak…and its worst defeats. The truth is, Nixon began a gradual withdrawal from Vietnam AND allowed the military to run more successful bombing campaigns. We lost Vietnam because LBJ and the media made the war so unpopular that there was no way to justify further escalation without widespread civil disorder and disobedience.

Just like LBJ in the 1968 Democratic primaries, the Democrats believe that the U.S. should just simply give up in Iraq. The Democrats and the media, once again, made sure that the War in Iraq became so unpopular amongst U.S. citizens that there is no way to convince the general populous that we must finish this war.

The anti-war liberals and their media pundits are right when they say “Iraq is turning into another Vietnam.” The part they don’t tell you is that it is their fault…again. Once again, the liberal “Hype Machine” is rewriting history and using it to spew forth current propaganda.

On a regional note, the Virginia House Commerce and Labor Committee will vote on House Bill 619. If a passing vote is cast, the bill will be sent to the House floor when the next session begins in 2007. HB 619 would repeal the Payday Loan Act of 2002. The act, in short, allowed providers of payday loans to place an APR up to 780% on all payday loans. Even though it is rare to see APR’s this high on such loans, 300% APR is not uncommon. This usually leads to a charge of about $15.00 per $100 borrowed once repayment is due.

Being a previous user of payday loans (i.e.: Check-Into-Cash, Cash Advance, etc…), the convenience it provides for a working-class individual like myself is immeasurable. It allows those with lower incomes and little or bad credit ratings the opportunity to gain short-term advances on their paychecks, and cover unforeseen emergencies.

While these APR’s are certainly outrageous figures, as a $500 loan will cost you $575.00 on your next payday, I do not agree with the pro-HB 619 rhetoric of calling these lenders “predatory”. First of all, the fees due and APR’s are stated very clearly and are posted in large writing on the walls of these various businesses. The pro-HB 619 propaganda is very inflammatory towards these businesses, and seems to have the intent of driving these companies out of Virginia by labeling them as “predatory lenders” and thereby demonizing these companies in the eyes of some of their customers and potential customers.

That being said, I do agree that the APR figures are outrageously high, and with Congress having passed a 36% cap on interest rates charged to active-duty military personnel and their families, I feel that that a limit on these interest rates will come to pass. Being that it will save plenty of people some money, I guess it isn’t too bad of a deal. However, the scare-tactic rhetoric and the imposition of law to keep a company from profiting too much in a legal manner is what’s keeping me from supporting HB 619.

Finally, I would like to address a response to my prior statements about Steny Hoyer, and how when I repeat his words, I’m casting the wrong light upon him. From a former Marylander to a current one, I know your area very well. I’m very aware of Mr. Hoyer and what he stands for and represents. The fact that he will soon be the House Majority Leader does not make him a good man; it just means his party preferred him over John Murtha (kudos to the Dems for choosing the lesser of two evils, there).

If Steny Hoyer is the good and 100% racism-free man that you say he is, don’t you think he would have chosen his words with a little more care and precision? It doesn’t matter, because if you’re a liberal, you can get away with murder (Ted Kennedy) and perjury (Bill Clinton). Why should we hold a liberal Democrat accountable for making was can easily be construed as a racist remark, right?

Tell me, why is it that it is OK to label Allen’s “macaca” remark as being racist because of 3rd party hearsay and "prior incidents" that lead you to believe he is racist, but we can’t question Steny Hoyer’s “slavishly” remark because, in your own personal opinion, he’s a “good man” and "does not have a racist bone in his body".

On another note, how dare you criticize Allen for creating “Southern Heritage Week”? One thing I’ve learned since I moved to Virginia 9 years ago is that people in Virginia are proud to be from the South. They take pride in who they are and where they live, and the majority of them also acknowledge the sins of their ancestors. They also take pride in being independent spirits and hard-working individuals, and for you to criticize George Allen for allowing the state to embrace that kind of pride…what kind of citizen does that make you? Your prejudice towards Southerners shines through with great luminescence.

Why are Allen’s questionable remarks relevant to what Steny Hoyer said, anyway? They have no relevance, other than the fact that it is a typical Donkey Party tactic to deflect the harsh spotlight of doubt, and flash it upon your enemies, instead of facing the question at hand.