Is selfishness prevailing?

From the Daily Mail in London:

The Pope has addressed the economic gloom in his Christmas message.

Benedict XVI warned that the world was headed toward ruin if selfishness prevails over solidarity during tough times for both rich and poor nations.

'If people look only to their own interests, our world will certainly fall apart.'

This got me to thinking, is selfishness prevailing in this world?

The easy, however unsettling, answer is yes. Selfishness appears to be a cross-cultural phenomenon that binds us together as human beings with something to horde. Selfishness is a luxury, one that we all partake in.

When I think of communities, at least those in the strict sense, I am reminded of how many people in this world live in squalor without the ability to even think in self-maximizing terms. What would this world look like if we thought more like them? What if we didn't perceive our relationships as simply transactions between unequals? Would selfishness still prevail?

Some harsh realities

Eight out of every 10 people in this world live on less than 10 bucks per day. I recently spent 30 bucks on some DVDs. Is selfishness prevailing?

It is only by necessity that human beings are being forced to depend on one another more, and we know what happens in times of plenty. It was just three years ago that the World Bank released this disturbing news: 80 percent of people on this planet live in countries with widening income disparities. Is selfishness prevailing?

An estimated 800,000 children, just children, die every year as a result of malaria alone. There is a long list of preventable diseases that further cut short the lives of children in underdeveloped nations. What if 800,000 children died in one year as a result of diarrhoea in North America? What if hundreds of thousands of children were dying because they lacked access to immnunzation? How would we react? Is selfishness prevailing?

In the United States we use, on average, 600 liters of water per day. 1.8 billion people who have access to a water source within one kilometer consume around 20 liters per day. 12 percent of the world's population uses 85 percent of its water. Could we survive on less? Do we even think in those terms? Is selfishness prevailing?

The World Bank recently released its 2005 numbers regarding private consumption. Did you know that the richest 20 percent of the world account for 77 percent of private consumption? Is there something inherently wrong with that? Is selfishness prevailing?

Did you know that every time your power goes out you become a kindred spirit to roughly 1.6 billion people who do not have electricity now or ever? Is selfish prevailing?

The next time you feel yourself being flippant about opportunities, consider that one percent of the adults on this planet have had the opportunity to go to a four-year college. Do I really ponder not having enough education? Is selfishness prevailing?

These are the best-laid plans?

At the turn of the 21st century, leaders from nearly 200 countries (the United States chief among them) came together to discuss ways to end to extreme poverty (among other global crises), and even staked themselves to timetables. The sad reality, of course, some eight years later, is that many of the aforementioned countries are failing to meet the UN's development goals. Why? Because extreme poverty in underdeveloped countries is not a priority to the richest countries in the world.

Take China out of the equation, and our world's recent record of reducing poverty isn't much to look at. The west has something to be gained from a Chinese middle class, of course. Progress, in this way, is still marred by selfishness.

Grandiose national and global priorities are merely reflections of the personal. If selfishness truly does prevail, it will do so because we've allowed ourselves--at the most basic level--to believe the lies about a hierarchy of humanity. We will have allowed selfishness to prevail.

All that to say this: 'If people look only to their own interests, our world will certainly fall apart.'

And to my Christian friends out there, this: What you have is not your own.

Obama's bad day may turn into bad month

Just a quick prediction about Barack Obama's next month: it's not going to be a lot of fun.

Ever since Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a fellow Democrat, was charged with trying to sell Obama's now-vacant Senate seat, the microscope of scrutiny has been peering into the relationship between Obama and the busted governor.

It's only going to get worse for President-Elect Obama after his chief advisor, David Axelrod, "misspoke" (that's a laugh) when he claimed that Obama had actually met with Blagojevich to discuss the vacancy.

Whoopsy.

The office of the Presidential-Elect quickly sent out a memo claiming the error for Axelrod which, of course, seems dubious at best.

I'm not saying Barack Obama is guilty of anything, but this is going to get worse for him before it gets better.

This, of course, is what we deserve for electing a politician from the single deepest political cess pool in the western world: a scandal before Inauguration Day.

Who is William Walker?

You've never heard of William Walker.

I apologize if you're a hardcore history buff, but I think it's safe to say his name is generic and altogether unfamiliar to most.

William Walker is, to be blunt, one of the most intriguing men who has ever lived.

This adventurous, albeit sinister, Tennessean actually ruled Nicaragua for a year starting in 1856.

What was a young man from Nashville doing in Latin America at that time you ask? Well, to put it quite simply, Walker was trying to conquer Latin America.

He was like Simon Bolivar, only in reserve and with a hillbilly accent.

Here's his story from The California Native:

The Saga of William Walker

By Don Fuchik

President of Lower California, Emperor of Nicaragua, doctor, lawyer, writer—these were some of the titles claimed by William Walker, the greatest American filibuster.

In the mid-nineteenth century, adventurers known as filibusters participated in military actions aimed at obtaining control of Latin American nations with the intent of annexing them to the United States—an expression of Manifest Destiny, the idea that the United States was destined to control the continent. Only 5'2" and weighing 120 pounds, Walker was a forceful and convincing speaker and a fearless fighter who commanded the respect of his men in battle.

Born in 1824 in Tennessee, Walker graduated from the University of Nashville at the age of 14 and by 19 had earned a medical degree. He practiced medicine in Philadelphia, studied law in New Orleans, and then became co-owner of a newspaper, the Crescent, where the young poet Walt Whitman worked. When the paper was sold, Walker moved on to California, where he worked as a reporter in San Francisco before setting up a law office in Marysville.

When he was 29, his freebooting nature led him to become the leader of a group plotting to detach parts of northern Mexico. Recruiting a small army, he sailed to Baja California and conquered La Paz, declaring himself president of Lower California. He then decided to extend his little empire to include Sonora, and renamed it “The Republic of Sonora.”

Marching on to the Colorado River, Walker found himself faced with harsh conditions and a high desertion rate, forcing him to retreat to California, where he surrendered to U.S. authorities on charges of violating U.S. neutrality laws.

One result of this incursion was that Mexico sold a part of Sonora to the United States—the transaction we call the Gadsden Purchase. Acquitted of criminal charges, Walker next turned his attention to Central America. Throughout this region, chaos reigned, as forces known as Democrats and Legitimists fought each other. The leader of the Democratic faction in Nicaragua invited Walker to bring an army and join the struggle against the Legitimists. In 1855, with his army of 58 Americans, later called by stateside romantics,

“The Immortals,” he landed in Nicaragua. Within a year, leading “The Immortals” and a native rebel force, he routed the Legitimists and captured Granada, their capital. His success roused concern in the other Central American countries, especially Costa Rica, which sent in a well-armed force to invade Nicaragua. Walker's army repelled the invasion, but a poorly executed counter attack into Costa Rica failed, and a war of attrition continued, in which disease killed more soldiers on both sides than enemy bullets.

Other enemies plagued Walker. Cornelius Vanderbilt, the shipping magnate, seeking control of the San Juan River-Lake Nicaragua route from the Caribbean to the Pacific, armed Walker's enemies, while the British navy, attempting to thwart American influences in the region, regularly harassed efforts to supply him. In spite of these factors, Walker had himself elected president of Nicaragua. The United States briefly recognized his government but never sent him aid. Soon the other countries of Central America formed an alliance against him, and in mid 1857 he surrendered once again to a U.S. naval officer and returned to the U.S.

Landing first in New Orleans, he was greeted as a hero. He visited President Buchanan, then went on to New York, all the time seeking support for a return to Nicaragua. But support waned as returning soldiers reported military blunders and poor management.

Nevertheless he succeeded in raising another army, and returned to Nicaragua in late 1857. Again thwarted by the British navy, he abandoned his third Latin American invasion.

Still undaunted and seeking support for yet another venture, Walker wrote a book, The War in Nicaragua. Knowing that his best prospects lay in the South, he assumed a strong pro-slavery stance. This strategy proved successful, and in 1860 he once again sailed south. Unable to land in Nicaragua due to the ever-present British, he landed in Honduras, planning to march overland, but the British soon captured him and turned him over to the Hondurans. Six days later, at the age of 36, he was executed by a firing squad. The Walker saga had ended. This enigmatic man had come close to altering the history of the continent. Had he been successful, he might have brought several Central American countries into the United States as pro-southern states, altering the balance in Congress and postponing The Civil War.

Today Walker is far better known in Central America than in the United States. Costa Ricans honor Juan Santamaria, a young drummer boy who became a national hero by torching a fort in which Walker's army was encamped, and a national park, Santa Rosa, commemorates the battle where Walker's soldiers were expelled from Costa Rica.

Rest in Peace, Michael Crichton.

Michael Crichton was one of my favorite authors as a child. He was a brilliant writer who wrote in a genre I call "non-nerdy" science fiction.

My favorite Crichton books: Sphere, Jurassic Park, Rising Sun and Disclosure.

From AP:

Michael Crichton, the million-selling author of such historic and prehistoric science thrillers as "Jurassic Park," "Timeline" and "The Andromeda Strain," has died of cancer, his family said.
He died Tuesday in Los Angeles at age 66 after a long battle with the illness.

Chrichton was a brand-name author, known for his stories of disaster and systematic breakdown, such as the rampant microbe of "The Andromeda Strain" or dinosaurs running amok in "Jurassic Park," one of his many books that became major Hollywood movies.

"Through his books, Michael Crichton served as an inspiration to students of all ages, challenged scientists in many fields, and illuminated the mysteries of the world in a way we could all understand," his family said in a statement.

The 6-foot-9-inch author was also a screenwriter and filmmaker, earning producing and writing credits for the film versions of many of his titles. He also created the TV hospital series "ER" in 1994.

In recent years, he was the rare writer to get on well with President Bush, perhaps because of his skepticism about global warming, which Crichton addressed in the 2004 novel, "State of Favor." Crichton's views were strongly condemned by environmentalists, who alleged that the author was hurting efforts to pass legislation to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.

A new novel by Crichton had been tentatively scheduled to come next month, but publisher HarperCollins said the book was postponed indefinitely because of his illness.

"While the world knew him as a great storyteller that challenged our preconceived notions about the world around us—and entertained us all while doing so—his wife Sherri, daughter Taylor, family and friends knew Michael Crichton as a devoted husband, loving father and generous friend who inspired each of us to strive to see the wonders of our world through new eyes," his family said.

Election 2008: It takes all kinds

I met the most peculiar woman today at a grocery store. I was talking to her about the upcoming presidential election and, as crazy as this sounds, she left me speechless.

When I asked her who she thought was going to win, she didn't give me a straight answer. Instead, she proceeded to tell me that Barack Obama is, in fact, a Muslim and an unpatriotic one at that. She said that one time he was on videotape during the national anthem and (pause for dramatic effect) he didn't even mouth the words!

Before I had the opportunity to pencil her name into the Republican column, she told me that if McCain becomes president our country will be in Iraq forever — and that our boys will return home in every manner of maimed.

I was troubled about this woman and her mental health. How can she deal with the prospect of voting for either an anti-American Muslim or a warmonger?

(In her defense, she did call me an "all-American lookin' guy.")

My favorite reporter moment of the day came when I asked a gentleman named George about the election.

Here was his response:

“I don't think either of them should be president. I couldn't give a crap less one way or the other.”

I love printing stuff like that.

Colin Powell endorses Obama

This endorsement is worth listening to. Colin Powell is a great American and, as much as I discount most endorsements, this one is actually meaningful to me.

Pay close attention to his words regarding the direction of the Republican Party. I share his concern with some of the bigotry on the right with respect to Barack Obama.

He recognizes how the game (read politics) is played, but he is disgusted at what his party has become. I don't have a party, per se, but I agree.

Here goes:

I love a good roast

If you missed this last night, this is your chance to hear what may go down as one of the best political roasts of all-time. Where have you been all election, John?

If you haven't already, see this film: Dead Man Walking

I'm not a movie buff, per se, but I know a great one when I see it.

I recently watched, once again, one of my all-time favorite films, "Dead Man Walking," starring Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon.

The film, released in 1995, is adapted from the book of the same name, written by Sister Helen Prejean.

As if you couldn't guess, the film revolves around the hot-button issue of capital punishment.

The film closes with the confession of murderer and rapist, Matthew Poncelet, whom Prejean counseled in the last days and weeks of his life.

Throughout the film, Prejean struggles with her role as comforter to a man so many believed was sub-human:

Clyde Percy: How can you stand next to him?

Sister Helen Prejean: Mr. Percy, I'm just trying to follow the example of Jesus, who said that a person is not as bad as his worst deed.

Clyde Percy: This is not a person. This is an animal.

In the end, it becomes clear that revenge simply wasn' good enough for the families of the killer's victims. Poncelet, just before he was put to death, said he hoped that his death would bring relief to the families. It did not.

This is the case, in my opinion, because killing as punishment for killing makes us less human, appealing to baser instincts. Revenge doesn't right wrongs as much as it creates new ones.

Here is my favorite scene:

Prison guard: Tell me something sister, what is nun doing in a place like this. Shouldn't you be teaching children? Didn't you know what this man has done? How he killed them kids?

Sister Helen Prejean: What he was involved with was evil. I don't condone it. I just don't see the sense of killing people to say that killing people's wrong.

Prison guard: You know what the Bible say, 'An eye for an eye'.

Sister Helen Prejean: You know what else the Bible asks for death as a punishment? For adultery, prostitution, homosexuality, trespass upon sacred grounds, profane in a sabbath and contempt to parents.

Prison guard: I ain't gonna get no Bible quote from no nun cause I'm gonna lose.

The Fight of the Featherweights: Obama and McCain bore me to tears

The headline in Tuesday's New York Post said it all: Tired out.

What had been billed as the biggest thing to happen in Mississippi since the siege of Vicksburg went off with a resounding thud.

The first presidential debate between Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL) last Friday night was one yawn short of a zero-hour study hall.

Want proof?

This debate drew nearly 8 million fewer viewers than the first debate between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry in 2004.

As you might imagine, I have a few theories to explain this lack of interest.

First, our candidates are predictable at best and predictably boring at worst.

Did you hear any new information come out of either candidate? Perhaps something of substance for those of us who aren't inclined to throw support behind either without knowing a little more?

Of course you didn't.

What you heard, if indeed you tuned in, was more empty rhetoric about the economy, and how what happens on Wall Street affects Main Street – a trite catchphrase adopted by members of both parties during the recent credit crisis.

We weren't even eight minutes into the proceedings and both candidates had already borrowed the line from each other.

And from there, they bored us with talk of taxation.

Ok, we get it.

Obama wants to "Robin Hood" (that's a verb now) the rich while McCain prefers to "Ronald Reagan" the poor.

Honestly, how many more times do we have to hear about taxes? We get it already.
I'd rather go back a year and listen to Obama and Sen. Clinton argue about their virtually identical healthcare plans.

Second, could this debate have been any more sterile? I realize that the event organizers didn't want the debate to look like a pep rally for either candidate, but did the auditorium at Ole Miss have to be as quiet as a mime's funeral?

In so doing, they created a situation in which our two candidates looked like fish out of water. Without the instant affirmation of partisan cheers and pity snickers, these two were walking over their already well-worn jokes.

When McCain returned to the well and pulled up his standby line about earmarks (you know, the one about paternity tests for bears in Montana), no one laughed.

No one laughed when he called "earmarking" a "gateway drug", either.

But in the interest of full disclosure, McCain did get a couple guffaws after he said that it would be hard for Obama to "reach across the aisle from that far to the left." The only problem, of course, was that the only people who actually thought it amusing were McCain and Obama.

We're not laughing, Senator, because we're either crying or, in the case of those who were actually in Oxford Friday night, sleeping.

And Obama didn't fair any better, mind you.

Like, for instance, when moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS suggested that neither candidate seemed interested in putting forth any major changes to their presidential agendas in the aftermath of the forthcoming bailout bill in Congress.

Obama commenced spinning his wheels, claiming that some things would have to be delayed.

By some things, Senator, I think you mean most things.

Decreases in revenue accompanied by increases in spending tend to have a noxious affect on the economy. New government entitlement programs during a recession is bad business, and both candidates know that.

Things are different now, gentlemen.

To take the stage in front of millions of Americans fearful of an even more acute economic downturn and sing the same old song would be sad if it weren't so typical.

Americans like me are tired of the fight of the featherweights.

Be real. Tell the truth.

This is not a game to us.

The Day the Dow Died: Pelosi speech credited with bombed bailout bill

Today was the day the Dow died.

The single most influential economic index in world, the New York Stock Exchange, lost nearly 800 points on a near black Monday on Wall Street.

News of the failed $700 billion bailout earned for the Big Board the singlest greatest one-day loss, as measured in points, in American history.

Now, we know who is responsible for our faltering credit markets (lenders, consumers, and bureaucrats), but who gets the blame for taking the bill out at the knees on Monday?

Answer: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who, responding to the drama of the moment, opted to rub the Republicans' noses in the economic downturn that they are only partially responsible.

Many Republicans simply returned the favor, and thumbed their noses at Pelosi by against the bailout plan.

I won't poison the water on this issue any further than I already have. Watch the video for yourself.

It Is Well With My Soul

I cannot hear this old hymn of the church enough, especially in light of the life of Horatio Spafford.

The words to this hymn were written in the aftermath of a pair of major traumas in Spafford's life. He lived through the Great Chicago Fire in 1871, which took a tremendous toll on him, financially . Shortly after, while crossing the Atlantic Ocean, Spafford's four daughters died in a collision with another ship. Only his wife survived. Several weeks later, his own ship passed near the spot where his daughters drowned and he wrote these words:

- Words by Horatio G. Spafford, 1873
- Music by Philip P. Bliss, 1876

It Is Well With My Soul

When peace, like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou has taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,
Let this blessed assurance control,
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;
The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend,
Even so, it is well with my soul.

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

Wisdom from the New Republic...

This is excerpted from the latest edition of New Republic. It's great stuff. It makes me wonder if this country's economy is now more Japanese than American in its approach to failure.

Visible Hands
by Irwin Stelzer
The surrender of free-market capitalism.

'Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin," notes Allan Meltzer, one of the nation's most astute economists. Perhaps that was once true. But the New Capitalism has little room for the pain of failure. A host of measures have been introduced to make it easier for families delinquent in their mortgage payments to stay in their homes, an act of compassion (as some would put it), or encouragement of profligate sinners to sin again (as the Old Capitalists would say). The Old Capitalists mourn the lost era of individual responsibility even as they acquiesce to it, for there is no support for a return to the harsher regime they favored, in which government did little to mitigate the pain of poor management, bad judgment, or just plain bad luck.

Far more significant than its new attitude toward individual failure is the New Capitalism's fear of recession. At the very first hint of an economic slowdown, Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board--and ostensibly a conservative--eased monetary policy. He did not wait to determine whether a major downturn was brewing or for growth to turn negative. He was not willing to risk the sort of mild recession that has peppered the post-World War II period. Rather, a risk appeared, and the Fed felt it necessary to lower interest rates--never mind that such a move would drive down the dollar, and therefore drive up oil prices.

Under the Old Capitalism, the authorities in charge of monetary and fiscal policy correctly assumed that the public understood the ups and downs of the business cycle and was willing to endure the moderately bad times that often followed the very good ones. But the tolerable level of pain and risk has shrunk, so the central bankers who are supposed to ensure that our currency holds its value subordinated that goal to avoiding the pain of a bursting bubble. We may not be a nation of whiners, as Phil Gramm believes, but neither are we as tolerant of recession as we were only recently.

My own tropical depression

I had a great time writing this column.

The coverage of disasters on cable news has been particularly disturbing to me lately.

Most disturbing, of course, is the fact that I still watch it.

Here's the column...

Lip'schtick': Pig-headed response to Obama gaffe a cheap political ploy

This is a column I wrote for the Flint Journal Community Newspapers...

The McCain campaign dove headfirst into the controversy surrounding presidential hopeful Barack Obama's gaffe on the campaign trail on Tuesday, in which he invoked the "lipstick on a pig" adage when speaking about John McCain's claims about being an agent of change.

The problem for Obama, of course, has been the suggestion that the use of the adage was in reference to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's oft-replayed quip during her speech at the Republican National Convention earlier this month.

In it, Palin explained that the only difference between a "hockey mom" and a pitbull was, of course, lipstick.

The McCain campaign has seized upon the opportunity to score political points with undecided voters who have a roundly positive view of his vice presidential candidate.

And while the raucous crowd in Virginia appeared to believe that Obama was alluding to Palin's comment, I'm not convinced.

I cannot envision a scenario in which a major party presidential candidate like Obama, at this point a coin-flip away from the presidency, would make such a bone-jarringly indiotic statement.

It appeared, at least to my eyes, that Obama knew his statement would be misconstrued immediately after making it. And so, he followed it up with another, perhaps more apt, adage: "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, but it's still going to stink after eight years."

Did Obama just call John McCain old and scaley? How dare he?

Don't laugh, Congresswoman Mary Fallin, a McCain surrogate from Oklahoma suggested as much in an interview with Chris Matthews on MSNBC Wednesday night.

From here on out, Obama should side with fish-related analogies on the stump.
But seriously, this is what passes for a controversy nowadays?

Obama is not so stupid as to make such a statement with intent to smear Governor Palin. Clearly the McCain campaign is employing this cheap political ploy to demonize Obama, and one need only watch their latest political ad playing up the gaffe to recognize this.

If you believe Barack Obama called Sarah Palin a pig, it's because you want to believe it -- and that doesn't make it true.

Cutting through the Palin hysteria

Here are a few observations regarding Senator McCain's choice for Vice President, Sarah Palin:

--Politically, the choice of Palin for the ticket was brilliant in function. No one saw it coming, which only adds to the theater of it all.

--Does she have the requisite amount of experience to be second-in-command of the executive branch? Normally I would answer in the negative, but this year is different. The decision by Democratic voters put Barack Obama up as their choice for president is, to borrow a phrase from Obama, a "game changer." Experience, at least in the way we've understood it (in this context) for a couple hundred years, is secondary; Democrats made that much clear when they passed over more qualified candidates. And so, what's good for the goose is good for the gander--though probably not good for the United States.

--Palin's speech at the Republican Convention was tremendous, but Republicans have to be careful not to become their own parody. Palin, at least up to this point, is every bit as much a media creation as Obama.

--Speaking of the media, am I at all offended by the way Palin has been covered? In the strict sense, certainly not. That being said, I do not think it is fair in light of the kid-glove treatment Obama has received from the mainstream media. In other words, many journalists are only doing their job half of the time.

--Is Palin more qualified to be president than Obama? Perhaps, but this is a moot point as she is not running for president. And Palin and her meager experience are an election victory and a heartbeat away from the presidency; Obama and his equally meager experience are only an election day away. Which seems more imminent?

--Have media been sexist in their coverage of Palin? Of course. One has to consider, however, that we live in a country that struggles with sexism every bit as much as all the other noxious "'isms." I don't have to be a woman to recognize that.

Presidential politics in America: is experience 'overrated'?

This is a column I wrote for the Flint Community Newspapers on Tuesday...

Elections, especially presidential ones, have a way of marking subtle changes in the attitudes of Americans with respect to politics.
Take, for instance, the issue that appears to be manifesting itself as the 500-pound gorilla in the polling station: experience.

(The relevance of experience in presidential politics was even explored in a cover story in Time Magazine this year.)

It's as if we've turned back the clock to 1960, when Richard Nixon, vice president and Republican nominee for president, made it a habit of accusing his opponent, John F. Kennedy, of being too inexperienced for the job.

The only difference, of course, is that Kennedy's relative lack of experience according to his rival would have compared him favorably to Franklin Roosevelt by today's standards.

Kennedy, who was only 43 years old when he narrowly defeated Nixon in the general election, had been a decorated sailor in the Navy during World War II before serving for nearly 14 years in the United States Congress--eight of those years in the United States Senate.

In the past, when American voters were charged with the responsibility of choosing the most qualified person to hold this highest office, experience trumped nearly all considerations.

These days, a presidential candidate boasting but a poor reflection of Kennedy's resume would be overqualified.

Andrew Cohen, a professor of journalism and international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, wrote a fascinating op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen about the experience issue in the upcoming presidential election.

Cohen wrote:

In the past, when Americans expected presidents to have a record of political service, Mr. Obama would have been called a poseur or imposter and sent home. Not anymore. This is the day of the dilettante.

Experience is overrated. It is unnecessary. As someone recently put it, anyone can grow up to be president in America, but now you don't even have to grow up anymore.

This is a somewhat worrisome critique of the political climate in this country, and one that should not be dismissed because of its northern origin.

So, is experience truly "overrated"?

With only the present election cycle to guide me, the answer is surely in the affirmative.

Consider that since the aforementioned election of John F. Kennedy, American voters have not elected a sitting senator as president. (Nixon, for his part, was also a senator but gained experience as a vice president before being elected president in 1968.)

A coincidence? I doubt it.

This year, the two major political parties give voters no choice.

More troubling is the fact that the person dubbed by many in the mainstream media as least qualified to be on a presidential ticket, John McCain's recently-named running mate, Sarah Palin, is the only candidate on either ticket with executive experience--Palin has been governor of Alaska for less than two years.

Compare that to McCain and Joe Biden, Obama's pick for vice president, who have spent a combined 60 years in Washington as legislators and not in a corner office.

These men seek to lead the executive branch without any notable executive experience.

With respect to McCain's counterpart, Obama, experience, at least as an overarching qualification for president, has ostensibly been replaced by less tangible traits like "hope" and "vision."

Experience, for Obama, clearly isn't a winning issue.

The junior senator from Illinois served nearly eight years in the state senate before a sex scandal forced his Republican opponent in the 2004 race for U.S. senate, Jack Ryan, to withdrawal just months before the election. Obama then defeated Alan Keyes, a throw-in candidate with absolutely zero chance of winning, in a landslide.

And after less than one term's worth of experience in the U.S. senate, Obama won the nomination of the Democratic Party for president by the smallest of margins over the more experienced candidate, New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

All that being said, perhaps we will all come to find that these who aspire to lead this nation are as rich in other facets of their character as they are lean on experience.

"As I say, experience isn't enough," wrote Cohen, responding to an e-mail regarding his sentiments on experience. "Experience without judgment does not get you very far. I would say you have to have both, in equal measure, to be a good leader."

And so, in the final analysis, perhaps this election must boil down to judgment--who has it, and where did it come from?

The Washington game: A cynic's take on politics

Among my friends, I'm known as a bit of a contrarian with respect to politics. I guess I stop just short of being a cynic, if only in my mind.

Last night, I was at BW3 with some friends to watch the Alabama-Clemson game (it wasn't on Comcast around here) and at halftime the talk turned to the presidential race.

As is my custom, I have a somewhat negative view of both major party tickets this year.

And while I realize that one seemingly has to be preferable to the other, I've never been convinced that this country changes in any earth-shattering way as a result of a change in leadership at the top.

With Obama as president, would my life change in any significant way? Probably not. And the same goes for McCain.

Putting aside the empty suits currently being vetted by the American people, I'm not going to be all too inclined to get excited about any candidate in either party. Any politician (and we always elect politicians) that can rise to a presidential level of acclaim is CERTAIN to have long sold off principles, in favor of the feeble attempt to be all things to all people.

Politicians like Obama and McCain are rewarded for deceit and pandering with votes every four years. And this election cycle we can add to that hero worship.

This is not to say that both men are unworthy of being president, of course; what I am saying is that we should demand more of our public servants. "Well, that's just politics" or "that's how the game is played" are shameful justifications for behavior that would not have been tolerated in grade school.

There is a reason why the Democratic National Convention (and the upcoming Republican one, too) better reflect ComicCon than a legitimate exercise in democracy.

Most politicians think the American people are stupid, and why shouldn't they?

You've heard Obama say the following words ad nauseum during this election, but have you really thought about what he is saying?:

"The stakes are too high and the challenges are too great to play the same old Washington game with the same old Washington players and expect a different result."

I'm not stupid; I know that if someone is pitching a ball with a glove on the opposite hand and someone else is swinging a bat with helmet and cleats, they're probably playing baseball.

Obama wants you to believe it's not baseball, but something new and totally different.

How can a politician use the bats, balls and gloves of the "Washington game" and claim to be engaged in something else?

It's simple really: we WANT to be believe in change, even though we lack even the smallest shred of evidence that one person is capable of making good on such an unlikely proposition.

Both McCain and Obama are members of an impotent legislature that moonlights as a millionaire's club.

They are members of an oligarchy taking pains to convince us that they're our equals by diminshing their inflated sense of self every four years.

Just ask Senator Biden who, in his speech in which he accepted the Democratic Party's nomination for VP, said this:

“My mother's creed is the American creed: No one is better than you. Everyone is your equal, and everyone is equal to you.”

Do you believe him?

Or, perhaps a better question: Do you believe that he believes it?

At least Britain has a common house alongside a House of Lords.

My standard

To be completely honest, however, I have what could rightly be considered an unreachably high standard for public servants.

It goes something like this, from Romans 12:

Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited...do not repay anyone evil for evil...if it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath.

How do you find your elected officials these days?

In harmony with one another?
Humble?
Willing to associate with commoners in any substantial way?
Full of grace?
Affecting peace in the world?

What happened to our expectations? These days, politicians stop at nothing to feign equality with all people. But why? In a perfect world, our elected representatives would reflect the best of us, morally, socially and intellectually.

Robert Novak, the recently retired political columnist from the Chicago Sun-Times, said it best:

"It is hard to write about politicians, see them at such close range, and still think of any of them as heroes."

The tale of the tape: Election 2008 style

Now that things appear to be dead even in the race for the White House, the time has come to breakdown the matchup between Barack Obama and John McCain.

(Keep in mind that this is just one man's opinion.)

The Tale of the Tape: Obama v. McCain

Experience: Advantage McCain -- McCain, by any measure, has more of what we look for in a prospective president when it comes to experience.

Abortion: Advantage: McCain -- I don't see this as a political issue, though I know most do. McCain is ardently pro-life.

Cuba: Advantage Obama -- Begin to ease restrictions.

Death penalty: Advantage Obama -- Capital punishment should not be expanded nor should appeals be increasingly limited.

Education: Advantage McCain -- Favors competition in education and, specifically, vouchers.

Gay marriage: Advantage Push -- Both oppose constitutional ban on gay marriage. Both support legal rights for homosexuals in civil unions.

Global warming: Advantage McCain -- Both are caught up in the hysteria, but McCain takes a more reasonable stance with respect to public policy.

Gun control: Advantage Obama -- Doesn't believe the spirit of the second amendment allows for common citizens the right to bear machine guns.

Healthcare: Advantage McCain -- Favors tax credits to mitigate healthcare costs and opposes a universal healthcare system.

Immigration: Advantage Push -- Both want to achieve legal status for illegal immigrants.

Iran: Advantage Obama -- Supports direct diplomacy with Iran.

Iraq: Advantage Obama -- Supports expeditious withdrawl.

Social Security: Advantage Push -- Neither has anything of substance to speak on the issue.

Stem Cell Research: Advantage Push -- Both support relaxing federal restrictions on financing of embryonic stem cell research.

Taxes: Advantage McCain -- Supports lower taxes across the board.

Trade: Advantage Obama -- Prefers to enforce trade agreements rather than amending them. Wants to strengthen enforcement of labor standards.

The final tally

Obama: 6
McCain: 6
Push: 5

The final analysis

Write in Ron Paul.

'How fast can the human being go?'

I read this in this International Herald Tribune tonight after Usain Bolt bested Michael Johnson's 200-meter world record that many thought would never be broken.

These are the words of a fellow competitor:

"It's ridiculous," said Kim Collins of St. Kitts and Nevis, who finished seventh in the race. "How fast can you go before the world record can't be broke? How fast can the human being go before there's no more going fast?"

As I've watched Bolt in the Beijing games, I have often wondered the same thing. Had Bolt ran through the finish line in the 100-meter final, as he did in the 200, he could have run somewhere in the neighborhood of 9.5 seconds and at over 30 MPH.

That is just unthinkable.

Bolt is not just the fastest man in the world, he is the fastest man EVER in the world.

Just think for a moment that Bolt ran nearly half of a second faster in Beijing than Carl Lewis's best 200-meter performance, and Bolt had the wind at his face!

100 years ago a Canadian named Bobby Kerr won gold in the 200 meters with a time of 22.6 seconds.

Today, that time wouldn't have gotten Kerr a lane in the women's 200 meter final.

Slow ride: Thousands hit the bricks in Flint

The fourth annual "Back to the Bricks" car cruise was, at least as far as I could tell, a huge hit on opening night. There were more cars and more people than last year and it wasn't even close.

I love seeing so many people in downtown Flint. There is so much going on down there these days, and these sorts of events should go along way toward changing Flint's reputation with the suburbanites.

BTB is on its way to becoming the biggest and best cruise in Michigan, save for the Woodward Dream Cruise, of course.

I hit the bricks with Jim Pope, Jon Swartz and Erick Skaff this year.

Here are a few pictures...

I have always been in love the 1960s-era Ford Mustang, but this new one is even sweeter.


I don't know if the new Viper is as cool as the old one, but it's still a Viper.


I could not get enough of this 1979 Chevette. You just do not see these cars anymore, and this one was in near mint condition.


My favorite car at the cruise was this 1950s-era Corvette.


If you look really close, you can see a couple props on this amphibious vehicle.


Where is that infernal Partridge Family music coming from?


This was my first experience with an Elvis impersonator.

TOKM's Top 10 Theatrical Performances

1.) John Goodman as Walter Sobchak in The Big Lebowski: Goodman should have won an Oscar for this performance, but, not surprisingly, he was not even nominated. Memorable line: "The chinaman is not the issue here, Dude. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, Dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, Dude, chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please."

2.) Daniel Day-Lewis as Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York: While not as critically acclaimed as some of his earlier performances, I believe this to be DDL's best. Memorable line: "He was the only man I ever killed worth remembering."

3.) Robert Duval as Sonny in The Apostle: This is one of the best films ever made, in my humble opinion. Duval is a genius and paints a realistic, if not disturbing, picture of evangelical Christianity. Memorable line: "I may be on the devil's hit-list, but I'm on God's mailing list."

4.) Heath Ledger as the Joker in Dark Knight: I held out on seeing this movie for weeks, but it was worth the wait. Ledger made Jack Nicholson look like a clown. Memorable line: "I took Gotham's white knight, and brought him down to our level. It wasn't hard. Y'see, madness, as you know, is like gravity. All it takes is a little...push."

5.) Paul Giamatti as Miles Raymond in Sideways: Before he was John Adams, Giamatti was wine fanatic Miles Raymond. Memorable line: "Quaffable, but uh... far from transcendent."

6.) Bill Murray as Herman Blume in Rushmore: Murray has come a long way since Caddyshack. Memorable line: "Take dead aim on the rich boys. Get them in the crosshairs and take them down. Just remember, they can buy anything but they can't buy backbone. Don't let them forget it. Thank you."

7.) Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood: This was not a very popular film; it's long and, at times, tedious. That being said, Plainview, the old-time California oilman, is one of the most dynamic characters I've ever seen on screen. Memorable line: "We offer you the bond of family that very few oilmen can understand...and this is why I can guarantee to start drilling and put up the cash to back my word. I assure you, whatever the others promise to do, when it comes to the showdown, they won't be there."

8.) Jack Nicholson as Frank Costello in The Departed: Since clowning Nicholson earlier, it seems appropriate to give him a spot in the top 10. In truth, though, any one of five characters from this movie could have made it. Memorable line: "One of us had to die. With me, it tends to be the other guy."

9.) Matt Damon as Will Hunting in Good Will Hunting: This movie never gets old. Memorable line: "Do you like apples? Well, I got her number, how do you like them apples?"

10.) Val Kilmer as Doc Holiday in Tombstone: There was a time in my life when I could quote more than half of this movie, including all of Kilmer's lines. Memorable line: "Why Johnny Ringo, you look like somebody just walked over your grave."

Honorable mention: Frances McDormand as Marge Gunderson in Fargo; Gene Hackman as Royal Tenenbaum in The Royal Tenenbaums; Michael Rispoli as Spinner Dunn in Death to Smoochy; Jack Nicholson as Colonel Jessop in A Few Good Men; Jack Nicholson as Melvin Udall in As Good As It Gets; Susan Sarandon as Sister Helen Prejean in Dead Man Walking; Tommy Lee Jones as Marshal Samuel Gerard in The Fugitive; Kevin Spacey as John Doe in Seven; Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men; Billy Bob Thornton as Karl Childers in Sling Blade; John Malkovich as Teddy KGB in Rounders; Ben Affleck as Jim Young in Boiler Room; R. Lee Ermey as Gny. Sgt. Hartman in Full Metal Jacket; Kevin Kline as George Monroe in Life as a House; Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Truman Capote in Capote; Robin Williams as John Keating in Dead Poets Society; Morgan Freeman as Red in Shawshank Redemption; Dustin Hoffman as Raymond Babbitt in Rain Man; Chevy Chase as Clark W. Griswold in Christmas Vacation; Robert De Niro as Leonard Lowe in Awakenings; Tom Hanks as Forrest Gump in Forrest Gump; Geoffrey Rush as David Helfgott in Shine; Ed Norton as Derek Vinyard in American History X; Sean Penn as Emmett Ray in Sweet and Lowdown; Adrien Brody as Wladyslaw Szpilman in The Pianist; Hilary Swank as Maggie Fitzgerald in Million Dollar Baby; Owen Wilson as Dignan in Bottle Rocket; Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash in Walk the Line; Ellen Burstyn as Sara Goldfarb in Requiem for a Dream.

Obama's emergency economic plan: anti-American or just utterly absurd?

First, read Obama's emergency economic plan that was just released today.

Now that you've read it, I ask this: is this plan anti-American or just utterly absurd?

Many on the Right would argue that it's both, and maybe they're right.

Obama's plan is a political ploy aimed at uneducated voters who, much like those on the Right who believed Bush's stimulus package would stimulate something, are prepared to believe most anything about the economy.

It is laughable, to say the least, to penalize oil companies for bringing in record profits. Obama's ploy would tax what he calls "windfall" profits and redistribute those funds back to consumers. It's a redistribution of wealth and, when packaged with those words, many Americans will recoil at the notion.

Now, as many of you know, I'm a harsh critic of big business by nature; but, something is wrong with this picture.

Oil companies provide for us a product that we want and at a price that we will pay. And for that right, they pay taxes to the government like any other business. Now Obama wants to redistribute their profit because, at least in his mind, they are makin too much money.

And sure, they are turning an historic profit; but, we're making great demands on their commodity.

This plan is laughable.

How about this: give taxpayers back a percentage of the money that is taken from them to subsidize an increasingly bloated federal government.

After all, the federal government has been at "windfall" status since the 1940s.

Bush's stimulus package hasn't had its intended affect, but at least the principle of giving back money that was taken in the first place is sound.

Achtung, Barack: what's wrong with this picture?

Why, pray tell, is a junior senator from Illinois currently the toast of Europe?
(Meanwhile, back in the states, Barack Obama's running mate is just toast.)
This is the world we live in, where platitudes win hearts, minds and votes.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think John McCain is any more substantive than Barack Obama. That being said, the mainstream media's infatuation with Obama's oratory is nothing short of sickening.
To watch these love-struck adults gushing like pubescent teenagers over Obama is embarrassing and unprofessional.
By the way, does the fact that 200,000 Germans showed up to hear Obama speak today make you more or less inclined to vote for him?
Just a thought.
I don't know why I bother, of course. I'm writing in Ron Paul no matter what.

Swapping Samir: Lebanese terrorist back in Beirut

Some news passes without much notice and, as far as I can tell, this will probably be another example.
Samir Kuntar, the lowest form of life, was pardoned by Israeli President Shimon Peres and released into Lebanon today in exchange for the bodies of two kidnapped IDF soldiers.
And he wasn't alone.
Four other Lebanese militants were also released back across the border--holdovers from the 2006 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah-controlled southern Lebanon.
The fact that this deal was approved by a huge majority of the Israeli cabinet (including prime minister Ehud Olmert) is absolutely unforgivable.
The Israeli government knew their two missing soldiers were dead, but it didn't matter.
Israel has a well-worn tradition of asymmetrical swaps such as this one, in order that no soldier, dead or alive, is left behind.
The tradition is honorable in theory and wrong-headed in practice.
Samir Kuntar was imprisoned in Israel after a gruesome double-homicide during a cross-border raid into northern Israel in 1979.
Kuntar, during a shootout with police, shot and killed a 31-year-old Israeli at close range and in front of his 4-year-old daughter. He then turned his gun on the child, though he did not pull the trigger.
No, he crushed her skull will the stock of his rifle.
This man is free today, and Arab leaders, including the shameless Mahmoud Abbas (PLO), are celebrating his return.
What's most disturbing is the fact that Hezbollah planned all along to retrieve Kantar in this manner.
Time Magazine reported Hezbollah's intentions two years ago:

It is this man, Samir Kuntar, the sole surviving member of the cell, that Hizballah leader Hasan Nasrallah promised to liberate this year from an Israeli prison by kidnapping Israeli soldiers to hold as a bargaining chip, an act Hizballah pulled off two weeks ago, precipitating the current fighting across the Israel-Lebanon border.

Had the Israelis made the swap sooner, they could have received the prisoners alive--now that's a tragedy.
Instead, they get this in the Arab press straight from Beirut:

"I promise my people and dear ones in Palestine that I and my dear comrades in the valiant Islamic resistance are returning." --Samir Kuntar quoted in Al-Jazeera

In a column in the Jerusalem Post today, Herb Keinon tried to explain the lop-sided deal to baffled non-Israelis like me:

No other country in the world would have made such a deal, critics of the exchange have said. And they are right. But no other country in the world bears the scars that Israel does, nor the almost absolute knowledge that there will be other wars to fight in this generation, other sacrifices to be made, and that people we all know will be called upon to make them.

And while I appreciate his flowery prose, he's effectively put a soft justification for bad geopolitical business.
This policy, and others like it, virtually ensures the prospect of a violent future for Israel.
He went on to say that no matter how inconceivable the deal was, Israel must adhere to the policy of leaving no one behind.
"This is what they tell their soldiers," he writes. "And it is essential for future confrontations that their soldiers believe them."
I believe what is essential for future confrontations is to do everything in your power to avoid them.
Hizbollah is stronger today than they were yesterday, and they have Ehud Olmert and his lost boys to thank.
David Ben-Gurion just rolled over in his grave.

What this means

--The price for kidnapped Israeli soldiers just spiked. Expect Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and their ilk to respond in kind.

--If two dead soldiers are worth a cause celebre like Kuntar, four militant and 190 bodies, what might a living soldier fetch for Israel's enemies? More to the point, why even be greedy when a dead soldier is worth so much?

--Here's a guess: In 1985 the return of three living soldiers cost Israel 1,100 Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners.

Kid Rock: A lyricist on training wheels

Normally I steer clear of FM radio in favor of news and sports talk, but on those rare occasions when there is nothing of any substance on the AM band, I flip over.
Lately, it seems that every time I go the way of FM I hear one song and one song only: Kid Rock's All Summer Long.
Even though we share Michigan roots, I've never been much of a Kid Rock fan. In my younger days, I totally dismissed lyrics as a factor in determining my like or dislike for a given song. These days, however, I actually listen to words like these:

Splashing through the sand bar
Talking by the campfire
It's the simple things in life, like when and where
We didn't have no internet
But man I never will forget
The way the moonlight shined upon her hair

Ok, I know what you are thinking: "He's such a little smart aleck to critique the use of the word "shined" instead of the preferred "shone".
Well, you're wrong.
I'm not even going to mention the multiple negation.
I am just wondering what the internet has to do with being able to remember the way the moonlight shone upon this girl's hair.
Do most people need the internet to remember something like that?
And as if the lyrics weren't ridiculous enough, the song is a tribute (read knock-off) of Lynyrd Skynyrd's Sweet Home Alabama.
Hearing the old riff isn't a bad thing, I guess; it just takes a little of the shine off when Kid rhymes the word "things" with the word "things".

Kid: I know you are trying to reinvent yourself these days, trading in your tarnished wannabe hip-hop image for something down home, but give us a break.

At least give us something like this: Bawitdaba da bang a dang diggy diggy diggy said the boogy said up jump the boogy.

Economist: Scenes from la frontera

I'm not an expert on the border cultures of the southern United States, but I do have more than a passing interest in the region.
After the attacks of September 11, 2001, our porous southern border with Mexico has become one of the most widely debated issues in this country.
At its core, the issue is one of costs and benefits. There are many benefits, some cultural and most economic, to having an open (though not unfettered) border.
But there is, we generally agree, a major cost: our national security.
An open border guarantees, at least under present conditions, a fairly deep reserve pool of cheap labor; but, it also guarantees a continued, unchecked, mass immigration into this country--a daunting diaspora in these times.
With that in mind, we're building a wall--really, really, long one.
And, just like the construction of interstate highways in 1950s and 1960s adversely affected how communities interacted with one another, this wall changes things.

Take 15 minutes and read this report recently published in my favorite magazine, The Economist. This will give you a better idea of why this issue isn't as cut and dried as so many believe it to be:

Economist: Scenes from la frontera

Recession brewing: FIVEbucks to close 600 stores

The best indicators of an economic recession aren't always found on Wall Street.
(For the record there are three Starbucks locations on Wall street.)
I'm not saying the Big Board isn't an indicator, of course; it's just somewhat more complex.
Me, I prefer to look at consumer spending on elastic goods.
Coffee, for most of us, is an elastic good unlike water or gasoline. Demand for those goods stays relatively static in spite of flucuations in price.
Demand for coffee, 5-dollar coffee specifically, does change.
Disposable income, for many of us, is a contradiction in terms and businesses that prey on what's left over of our incomes are feeling the crunch.
The closing of nearly 600 Starbucks locations may not be entirely indicative of the harsh economic landscape in this country and elsewhere. One could argue that the corporation stretched its beans far too thin. But I digress...

Here is the report from MarketWatch:

Starbucks to close 600 U.S. stores, cut 12,000 jobs

By Matt Andrejczak, MarketWatch
SAN FRANCISCO -- Starbucks Corp., dragged down by a slowing U.S. economy, is pulling the plug on 600 of its underperforming U.S. coffee shops and trimming the number of stores it had planned to open over the coming year.
The shutdowns, starting now and running through March 2009, are far more than the coffee-shop chain had originally planned. In January, Starbucks said it planned to close 100 U.S. stores as part of the transformation plan set in motion by Howard Schultz shortly after he returned as CEO.
The move will eliminate 8% of the roughly 7,250 stores operated by Starbucks and cut 7% of its global workforce, or as many as 12,000 employees. The stores, the majority of which are located near another Starbucks, were opened from 2006 through 2008.
Combined, the stores aren't profitable and are spread across major U.S. markets.
"We believe we've improved the profit potential of the U.S. store portfolio," Starbucks Chief Financial Officer Pete Bocian said in a conference call.
Starbucks has admitted it was stung by the subprime mortgage mess in California and Florida, states that make up almost a third of the company's U.S. retail revenue. This hurt profits and foot traffic at its U.S. stores. Starbucks reported operating profit in its U.S. business fell 27.5% for the quarter ended March 30 from last year.
Under Schultz's leadership, the Seattle company grew at a frenzied pace following its IPO in June 1992. But last year, rapid expansion looked to be catching up to Starbucks and Schultz returned to spearhead a plan to improve the company's slowing U.S. business.

Local NAACP Prez 'not interested in looking at anyone's underwear'

Recently, Flint's new police chief decided to follow several other jurisdictions all across the country by enacting an ordinance against sagging pants.

Here is the AP report that ran in the Chicago Tribune:

Flint cracks down on sagging pants

Associated Press
June 27, 2008
FLINT, Mich. - Flint's new police chief wants to crack down on sagging pants that expose too much skin.

"This immoral `self expression' goes beyond freedom of expression; it rises to the crime of indecent exposure/disorderly persons," interim Chief David Dicks said in a memo Friday.

Under the order, anyone with exposed buttocks could be arrested on a misdemeanor charge of being a disorderly person, punishable by up to a $500 fine and three months in jail.

Dicks, who was appointed to his position June 2, said in the memo the measure was prompted by "a significant number of complaints from citizens."

But some are concerned that stepped-up enforcement could violate the Constitution or disproportionately target African-American men.

The American Civil Liberties Union has opposed clothing restrictions in other cities.

Greg Gibbs, an ACLU attorney, told The Flint Journal he plans to research the issue to see whether the crackdown violates the right to free expression.

Frances Gilcreast, president of the Flint chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said she is "not interested in looking at anyone's underwear."

But, she said, she is worried police are focusing on a loose-fitting style favored by some young black men.

"My concern is how (the policy) will be applied equitably," she said.

Flint Police Officers Association President Keith Speer said that in the past, officers have given out warnings for exposed skin and arrested those with their entire rear exposed. He said he doesn't anticipate any significant changes in how police will enforce the law.

My take: Ok, so this seems really stupid on the surface. One could argue, and persuasively I think, that the Flint Police Department has bigger fish to fry. That being said, my sensibilities aren't offended, nor do I think the Constitution is taking a hit. Freedom of expression in this country is, and always has been, limited by community standards of decency. And while these standards are often hard to gauge, I think calling this ordinance unconstitutional is a stretch.

It's not immoral: Sagging your pants probably falls short of being immoral, but it's a bit ridiculous. Calling it immoral does not serve the Police Chief's purposes, which I believe are actually positive. And yes, it does disproportionately affect Black males. (I'm certain the ban on Ephedra disproportionately affected White females--big deal.) I am quite sure that if you went into the mostly White city schools of Burton, you would see a whole lot of sagging going on.

The sooner the better: Our kids are never too young to gain a broader understanding of the real world. I'm about as anti-establishment as they come, but I also recognize that the noxious elements found in the hip-hop culture are crippling our youth regardless of color. I certainly don't like the government telling people what they can and cannot wear, but I also hate the stigma placed upon so many kids who only dress the part. Call me a square, but the real world comes calling much sooner for some and we need our kids to be prepared for it.

This is nothing new: When I was in high school, sagging pants were similarly not allowed. And Flint is not the only city trying to crackdown on sagging (did I just write "crackdown" on sagging?) Locales in Virginia, South Carolina and Tennessee have similar ordinances.

Real men don't lift weights

I lift weights on a fairly regular basis.
I'm not proud of it, but it was introduced to me many years ago and it has become a part of my life.
I like the challenge of it, first and foremost, as well as the time spent with the fellows.
Granted, I don't enjoy looking like a weakling--that certainly plays a role.
All that being said, I strongly believe that real men don't lift weights.
Real men are strong, physically, because they actually function in jobs that require physical labor.
Call it functional fitness.
(An aside: I remember some years back playing flag football in the YMCA League with a bunch of my friends and going up against men in their forties and fifties--yeah, they still play at that age.Those guys, many of them, have what we call "old man strength" from years of working with their hands. Thankfully, my position was cornerback; I did not have to go into the trenches with the grizzled ones.)
Guys who lay bricks are building walls that will eventually come together to form someone's home; the men who toiled in the outdoors to build the railroads opened up the west so Americans could manifest their destinies.
Me, I drop a bar on my chest and try to push it back up.
That will come in really handy if and when I get overcome by a vending machine.
I remember a couple years ago when I first started working at the Journal as a writer, Bill Khan told me about his attitude toward other writers who like to complain about their jobs.
"It's not like we're out in the hot summer sun laying bricks all day," he said.
He's right.
And the more I think about it, the more inclined I am to believe that lifting weights is one way of playing pretend.
Maybe I can fool someone into thinking that I'm a real man!
And if you ask Bill, you'll find out that real men are runners, any way.

12 months to prepare for worst: Israel, US ponder military action against Iran

Now we have a timeline, of sorts.
I read in the London Telegraph today an account from the former head of Mossad that Israel has no more than 12 months to destory Iran's capability to produce nuclear weapons.
One year.

There are a few troubling aspects of the Telegraph report you are about to read:

1.) Israel has done this before...as has Iran. In 1981 Israel did, indeed, strike at an Iraqi nuclear facility. But Iran had already bombed it once.

2.) A strong enough retaliation by Iran in the aftermath of a series of preemptive strikes by the IDF could escalate quickly into the worst-case scenario: the use of nuclear weapons.

3.) Americans, and rightly so, are almost strictly averse any kind of military action against Iran. This was true years ago, and the sentiment has grown with the rising price of gasoline. Any military action would have the affect of spinning up a spike in oil prices like we have never experienced before. We don't get oil from Iran, but a lot of oil that is not Iranian passes through Hormuz.

4.) The presidential election in America really matters, geopolitically speaking. And I don't think I need to tell you why that is a scary prospect, either way.

5.) One year doesn't leave much time for either diplomacy or censure.

By Carolynne Wheeler in Tel Aviv and Tim Shipman in Washington

A former head of Mossad has warned that Israel has 12 months in which to destroy Iran's nuclear programme or risk coming under nuclear attack itself. He also hinted that Israel might have to act sooner if Barack Obama wins the US presidential election.

A satellite image of Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment facility
Shabtai Shavit, an influential adviser to the Israeli parliament's defence and foreign affairs committee, told The Sunday Telegraph that time was running out to prevent Iran's leaders getting the bomb.

Mr Shavit, who retired from the Israeli intelligence agency in 1996, warned that he had no doubt Iran intended to use a nuclear weapon once it had the capability, and that Israel must conduct itself accordingly.

"The time that is left to be ready is getting shorter all the time," he said in an interview.

Mr Shavit, 69, who was deputy director of Mossad when Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq in 1981, added: "As an intelligence officer working with the worst-case scenario, I can tell you we should be prepared. We should do whatever necessary on the defensive side, on the offensive side, on the public opinion side for the West, in case sanctions don't work. What's left is a military action."

The "worst-case scenario, he said, is that Iran may have a nuclear weapon within "somewhere around a year".

As speculation grew that Israel was contemplating its own air strikes, Iran's military said it might hit the Jewish state with missiles and stop Gulf oil exports if it came under attack. Israel "is completely within the range of the Islamic republic's missiles," said Mohammed Ali Jafari, head of the feared Revolutionary Guard. "Our missile power and capability are such that the Zionist regime cannot confront it."

More than 40 per cent of all globally traded oil passes through the 35-mile-wide Strait of Hormuz, putting tankers entering or leaving the Gulf at risk from Iranian mines, rockets and artillery, and Mr Jafari's comments were the clearest signal yet that Iran intends to use this leverage in the nuclear dispute.

Despite offering incentives, the West has failed to persuade Iran to stop enriching uranium. Israeli officials believe the diplomatic process is useless and have been pressing President Bush to launch air strikes before he leaves office on January 20 next year.

They apparently fear that the chances of winning American approval for an air attack will be drastically reduced if the Democratic nominee wins the election. Mr Obama advocates talks with the regime in Tehran rather than military action.

That view was echoed by Mr Shavit, who said: "If [Republican candidate John] McCain gets elected, he could really easily make a decision to go for it. If it's Obama: no. My prediction is that he won't go for it, at least not in his first term in the White House."

He warned that while it would be preferable to have American support and participation in a strike on Iran, Israel will not be afraid to go it alone.

"When it comes to decisions that have to do with our national security and our own survival, at best we may update the Americans that we are intending or planning or going to do something. It's not a precondition, [getting] an American agreement," he said.

And Howie: The 10 things I hate about Deal or No Deal

I've always been a fan of game shows. Ever since I was a little boy, I've found time to take in a few game shows a week--Jeopardy, The Price is Right, Classic Concentration and, of course, Press Your Luck.
I love them all.
And then a strong, foul-smelling, wind out of the west brought Deal or No Deal into my life.
I hate this show, and here's why;

1.) The show's producers lured Howie Mandel out of hiding. For this I will be eternally hateful. Hey Howie, I loved you in The Amazing Live Sea Monkeys.

2.) Oh the melodrama. Why must we wait 15-20 seconds before seeing cases opened? Early in the game, the models don't seem so ham-handed. They just throw those cases wide open.

3.) How much longer must we live with the "and we'll find out if it was a good deal...after the break!" Don't act surprised, contestants.

4.) Back to the aforesaid models. I heard through the grapevine that those models make six-figure incomes. Are you kidding me? I guess on a lawyer's resume you might read something about cases closed.

5.) And one more thing: Please don't engage in idle dialogue with the contestants. You have no more control over what is in your case than the man on the moon.

6.) Enough with the clairvoyance already. In truth, you have no idea what is in your case, Mr. or Mrs. Contestant. Rather than, "I know the million is in this case, Howie," why not try this on for size: "I don't know what's in my case, Howie. The case is opaque, as are all the others, and so all I have is the dumb luck that accompanies a blind draw."

7.) Since the game revolves around simple luck, why must contestants bring on their family and friends to help them with their decisions? They might as well solicit the aid of trained monkeys that can make yes and no hand gestures.

8.) Must we pretend that the so-called "banker" is actually making decisions in his little booth? Why is it that he has to call down with his offer after every round? And then, when the game is over, offers come like rapid fire. It's just simple math, really. It's like an equilibrium price, minus a few dollars.

9.) A word to the wise: When someone passes on a $250,000 offer, settles for $125,000 later in the game, Howie says that constestant sold his or her case for $125,000. Let's say your case only had $25,000. Howie says you made a "terrific deal." How do you figure? You were one button push away from $100,000 more.

10.) I can't stop watching it.