Every now and then, a charming and charismatic individual comes along to capture the imagination of the simple masses. As a kid, I remember the self-aggrandizing exploits of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, who built a religious shrine to himself in my home state of Oregon and attracted a rather large, devoted following of disciples who made up a physical commune called Rajneeshpuram. Of course, it turns out that the Rajneesh was only using his followers and their money to buy himself a lot of expensive toys—namely several Rolls Royces. He was also developing biological weapons to poison people with. But there was no way anyone could have convinced the Bhagwan’s loyal subjects of his deception. The Baghwan could do no wrong in the blind eyes of his followers.
I see many parallels to the Rajneeshi when I regard the public’s reaction toward democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL.
Here’s a guy who was a virtual unknown when he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. He was considered little more than the “flavor of the month” and even dubbed a “rock star” candidate by major print media when the presidential campaign season kicked off in January 2007. In fact, up until this year’s Iowa Caucus, the presumed democratic presidential nominee was New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a so-called candidate of destiny. Since then, Obama's spark caught fire instantly and his popularity has spread like a raging wildfire.
His public addresses and campaign speeches have the same effect as an aphrodesiac: extraordinarily pleasurable and uplifting. People seem to come away from one of his rallies the way Deadheads left a Grateful Dead concert: high and hallucinating. Traveling peddlers and charlatans got the same rise out of crowds gathered around to see a demonstration of some sort of wonder tonic. So have these so-called miracle healers who place their hands on people’s heads and claim to cure what ails them.
Don’t get me wrong: Hope is a fine thing and a great notion upon which to campaign. But in order for hope to mean anything, there has to be substance behind it. There is nothing but powerful words behind Obama’s brand of hope. He really doesn’t know what impact his plans and ideas will have on the United States of America. But his words sound good, people respond to them, so he has taken the ball and run with it—untouched so far and on his way to the end zone.
I’m just concerned that people are taking Barack Obama more seriously than a presidential candidate; almost as though he is some kind of messianic cult leader. I read a quote earlier this week by actress Halle Berry, who said she would scrub the floors beneath Obama’s feet just to be a part of his campaign.
Now, Obama seems like a decent guy. But a messiah he is not.
He’s a presidential candidate, for heaven’s sake, not a shaman or medicine man. He doesn’t have any magic up his sleeves, no spells to cast and no bewitching potions with which to cure our ills. He’s just a guy; a flesh and blood man…with a law degree.
But you can’t convince Obama’s loyal supporters that he’s got any faults at all, much less any bad ideas. He can do no wrong in the eyes of a growing number of people. Heck, he might as well be the Second Coming. A scary notion is that some people—more than I care to admit—probably think of him in that way.
I suppose the next thing his followers expect is for him to walk on water. To avoid utter embarrassment, though, I suggest Barack attempt it at about an inch depth. That should give illusion enough to fool even the most skeptical of Obama worshippers. Besides, I don’t think their shallow brains could handle deception in anything deeper.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Don’t like McCain? He won’t win anyway
Those who are less than enthusiastic about John McCain as the republican presidential nominee needn’t worry what he may or may not do as president of the United States, because he isn’t going to win.
Sorry to burst the bubbles of “Mac” supporters, but the veteran Arizona senator and war hero is poised to go down in political history the way his long-time colleague, former Sen. Robert Dole, R-KS, did in his 1996 presidential campaign. The republican powers-that-be had decided that 1996 was Bob Dole’s turn at party glory. The presidential nomination was his reward for many years of party loyalty. Like Mac, Dole was also a war hero. But it didn’t suffice against incumbent President Bill Clinton.
This year is evidently Mac’s time to shine after 25 years in the U.S. Senate. But being the pick of the establishment isn’t enough to get Mac elected. And it certainly isn’t good strategy for the Republican Party, which may very well find itself having to compete against the insane popularity of junior Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL.
Even Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, just a few months ago considered the democratic presidential front-runner and more or less anointed as the next president of the United States, now finds herself trailing in polls, delegates and states to Obama and his swelling number of followers.
Mac will have an uphill battle against either Clinton or Obama, but much more so with the latter. Mac represents the status quo of the current administration. Obama, by contrast, has billed himself as the ultimate change agent.
Many people, including republicans, are suffering from Bush fatigue. Mac can be drawn along similar lines as Bush. He has vowed to continue fighting the War on Terror pretty much in the same fashion Bush has thus far—a strategy not all too popular even among Republican Party faithful. He also appears ready to deal with illegal immigrants the way Bush has: by encouraging them to stay illegally.
Unfortunately for Mac, I think enough undecided and swing voters may vote for the democratic nominee out of protest against the status quo and end up defeating him at the ballot box. There will also undoubtedly be a number of conservatives who either strike their ballots for a third party candidate or simply won’t vote at all just because Mac is the republican candidate.
I remember all too well what happened to former President George H.W. Bush in 1992. He lost his re-election bid because conservatives were upset over his “read my lips, no new taxes” gaffe that he unwittingly reneged on prior to the 1992 presidential campaign.
I fear Mac will suffer the same fate as Bush did at the hand of conservative wrath, because of his co-sponsorship of the infamous amnesty bill in 2007, which upset a lot of people.
His only shot at the presidency is if Hillary Clinton wins the democratic nomination over Obama—a task that only months ago seemed a mere formality, but now appears to be a daunting feat.
There may well be more animosity toward Hillary than Mac, by virtue of the rather obvious impression she leaves as a power zealot.
But then again, Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 out of anger. His wife may just as well be, too.
Sorry to burst the bubbles of “Mac” supporters, but the veteran Arizona senator and war hero is poised to go down in political history the way his long-time colleague, former Sen. Robert Dole, R-KS, did in his 1996 presidential campaign. The republican powers-that-be had decided that 1996 was Bob Dole’s turn at party glory. The presidential nomination was his reward for many years of party loyalty. Like Mac, Dole was also a war hero. But it didn’t suffice against incumbent President Bill Clinton.
This year is evidently Mac’s time to shine after 25 years in the U.S. Senate. But being the pick of the establishment isn’t enough to get Mac elected. And it certainly isn’t good strategy for the Republican Party, which may very well find itself having to compete against the insane popularity of junior Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL.
Even Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, just a few months ago considered the democratic presidential front-runner and more or less anointed as the next president of the United States, now finds herself trailing in polls, delegates and states to Obama and his swelling number of followers.
Mac will have an uphill battle against either Clinton or Obama, but much more so with the latter. Mac represents the status quo of the current administration. Obama, by contrast, has billed himself as the ultimate change agent.
Many people, including republicans, are suffering from Bush fatigue. Mac can be drawn along similar lines as Bush. He has vowed to continue fighting the War on Terror pretty much in the same fashion Bush has thus far—a strategy not all too popular even among Republican Party faithful. He also appears ready to deal with illegal immigrants the way Bush has: by encouraging them to stay illegally.
Unfortunately for Mac, I think enough undecided and swing voters may vote for the democratic nominee out of protest against the status quo and end up defeating him at the ballot box. There will also undoubtedly be a number of conservatives who either strike their ballots for a third party candidate or simply won’t vote at all just because Mac is the republican candidate.
I remember all too well what happened to former President George H.W. Bush in 1992. He lost his re-election bid because conservatives were upset over his “read my lips, no new taxes” gaffe that he unwittingly reneged on prior to the 1992 presidential campaign.
I fear Mac will suffer the same fate as Bush did at the hand of conservative wrath, because of his co-sponsorship of the infamous amnesty bill in 2007, which upset a lot of people.
His only shot at the presidency is if Hillary Clinton wins the democratic nomination over Obama—a task that only months ago seemed a mere formality, but now appears to be a daunting feat.
There may well be more animosity toward Hillary than Mac, by virtue of the rather obvious impression she leaves as a power zealot.
But then again, Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 out of anger. His wife may just as well be, too.
Sit this one out…and you may be sitting a while
Here we go again. Whenever conservatives are disappointed by their politicians, they get overdramatic and threaten to boycott elections.
The same conservatives who flooded Congressional offices with telephone calls urging legislators to vote down the infamous amnesty bill of 2007 are many of the same ones threatening not to vote for president in the 2008 general election just because their candidate(s) will not be on the ballot in November.
These same conservatives who affected change just months ago by petitioning their government for a redress of grievances are now talking about sitting this one out, hoping perhaps something so bad will happen that America will have to learn her lesson and correct her mistakes. They think by allowing America to send herself to hell in a hand basket that she will see the errors of her ways and be able to right her wrongs.
Well, last time I checked, hell is final. I sure hope we don’t have to go there first before we realize what we’ve done, because by then, it may be too late.
I know that many conservatives have gotten upset over John McCain all but securing the republican presidential nomination. He isn’t my first choice. Heck, he isn’t even my second or third, for that matter. But I’m not going to sit out the general election just because I’m disappointed that McCain is going to be the republican nominee and not someone more conservative.
The idea of conservatives not voting in this year’s presidential election out of protest is tantamount to a pouting four-year-old who didn’t get his way. Since when do we start acting like the little brats we spank for throwing temper tantrums? While liberals call people names and throw things when they get upset, we conservatives do no better by running off and pouting in the corner.
But worse than behaving like angry little children is the potential fallout that may result from an election boycott.
The number of people who actually vote on Election Day is hovering a little over half of the total population of eligible American voters. This means that roughly one out of every two voters does not vote. In a nation of about 300 million, there are probably around 200 million or so eligible voters. Only about 100 million actually vote.
This means that only about one-third of the total U.S. population actually votes, another third does not vote, and one-third probably wishes it could.
Question: What incentive does Congress have to NOT amend the U.S. Constitution and do away with national elections entirely? Why should the federal government continue to spend money on something that is of increasing disinterest to the public, regardless of whether or not it is constitutional? Perhaps most concerning to me is whether or not most people would even notice or care if their right to vote was suddenly taken away tomorrow.
If conservatives get angry over such trivial matters as a moderate winning a party nomination, then imagine how they will react if Uncle Sam takes away their national voice entirely. Not likely, you say?
Seven years ago, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and its residuals like the Patriot Act, a national ID card and deteriorating border security weren’t likely, either. Fifteen years ago, the Brady Bill was not likely. Thirty years ago, the swelling illegal immigration problem was not likely. And 75 years ago, nobody foresaw the federal government growing as large and mostly autonomous as it has become today.
So don’t tell me that losing our right to vote isn’t likely. Our rights have been slowly eroding, piece by piece, with the passage of every bill. Whenever a new act is codified into law, we lose a little bit more freedom. But such losses are so incremental, so small and so seemingly insignificant that they go largely unnoticed by John Q. Public. The more complacent and apathetic we become, the more likely we will lose our right to vote. It may not happen overnight or in one fowl-swoop, but it can happen gradually, a little at a time until all that’s left are the chips and shavings of a once-proud institution. Sadly, when it happens, there will be very few of us left who care. But once it happens, we will wake up too late wondering where our voices went.
There is a time and a place for boycotts and walk-outs. Elections aren’t one of them. Do you really believe the politicians care whether or not we vote? I think they would prefer we didn’t, because not voting would only secure the power they already have.
To all of my fellow conservatives out there, let me paint you a picture of what the day after Election Day will look like if you do sit this one out: Either Hillary of Obama will become president-elect. Assuming the democrats keep both houses of Congress, we will have a democrat triumvirate in power for the first time since the early days of the Clinton Administration. And we all know how well that one went. Worst of all, the socialists in the Democratic Party will finally have a vehicle for advancing their agendas of radical change. This happened twice before in American history: During the FDR and LBJ administrations. Each time, the reach of the federal government was expanded significantly with social reforms, which have done nothing but create an entitlement culture and succeeding generations growing up dependent on government. Do we really want to see more of that? How much more social reform (i.e., domestic spending) can America’s infrastructure take before it collapses under the weight of overburdening laws, regulatory agencies, taxation and gratuitous deficit spending?
Nobody thought that bridge between Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, would or could collapse until it happened. All most of us could do then was watch others clean up the mess.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be left with only one option where the United States of America is concerned.
McCain or no McCain, I’m voting on Election Day to try to keep the worst from happening.
The same conservatives who flooded Congressional offices with telephone calls urging legislators to vote down the infamous amnesty bill of 2007 are many of the same ones threatening not to vote for president in the 2008 general election just because their candidate(s) will not be on the ballot in November.
These same conservatives who affected change just months ago by petitioning their government for a redress of grievances are now talking about sitting this one out, hoping perhaps something so bad will happen that America will have to learn her lesson and correct her mistakes. They think by allowing America to send herself to hell in a hand basket that she will see the errors of her ways and be able to right her wrongs.
Well, last time I checked, hell is final. I sure hope we don’t have to go there first before we realize what we’ve done, because by then, it may be too late.
I know that many conservatives have gotten upset over John McCain all but securing the republican presidential nomination. He isn’t my first choice. Heck, he isn’t even my second or third, for that matter. But I’m not going to sit out the general election just because I’m disappointed that McCain is going to be the republican nominee and not someone more conservative.
The idea of conservatives not voting in this year’s presidential election out of protest is tantamount to a pouting four-year-old who didn’t get his way. Since when do we start acting like the little brats we spank for throwing temper tantrums? While liberals call people names and throw things when they get upset, we conservatives do no better by running off and pouting in the corner.
But worse than behaving like angry little children is the potential fallout that may result from an election boycott.
The number of people who actually vote on Election Day is hovering a little over half of the total population of eligible American voters. This means that roughly one out of every two voters does not vote. In a nation of about 300 million, there are probably around 200 million or so eligible voters. Only about 100 million actually vote.
This means that only about one-third of the total U.S. population actually votes, another third does not vote, and one-third probably wishes it could.
Question: What incentive does Congress have to NOT amend the U.S. Constitution and do away with national elections entirely? Why should the federal government continue to spend money on something that is of increasing disinterest to the public, regardless of whether or not it is constitutional? Perhaps most concerning to me is whether or not most people would even notice or care if their right to vote was suddenly taken away tomorrow.
If conservatives get angry over such trivial matters as a moderate winning a party nomination, then imagine how they will react if Uncle Sam takes away their national voice entirely. Not likely, you say?
Seven years ago, the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and its residuals like the Patriot Act, a national ID card and deteriorating border security weren’t likely, either. Fifteen years ago, the Brady Bill was not likely. Thirty years ago, the swelling illegal immigration problem was not likely. And 75 years ago, nobody foresaw the federal government growing as large and mostly autonomous as it has become today.
So don’t tell me that losing our right to vote isn’t likely. Our rights have been slowly eroding, piece by piece, with the passage of every bill. Whenever a new act is codified into law, we lose a little bit more freedom. But such losses are so incremental, so small and so seemingly insignificant that they go largely unnoticed by John Q. Public. The more complacent and apathetic we become, the more likely we will lose our right to vote. It may not happen overnight or in one fowl-swoop, but it can happen gradually, a little at a time until all that’s left are the chips and shavings of a once-proud institution. Sadly, when it happens, there will be very few of us left who care. But once it happens, we will wake up too late wondering where our voices went.
There is a time and a place for boycotts and walk-outs. Elections aren’t one of them. Do you really believe the politicians care whether or not we vote? I think they would prefer we didn’t, because not voting would only secure the power they already have.
To all of my fellow conservatives out there, let me paint you a picture of what the day after Election Day will look like if you do sit this one out: Either Hillary of Obama will become president-elect. Assuming the democrats keep both houses of Congress, we will have a democrat triumvirate in power for the first time since the early days of the Clinton Administration. And we all know how well that one went. Worst of all, the socialists in the Democratic Party will finally have a vehicle for advancing their agendas of radical change. This happened twice before in American history: During the FDR and LBJ administrations. Each time, the reach of the federal government was expanded significantly with social reforms, which have done nothing but create an entitlement culture and succeeding generations growing up dependent on government. Do we really want to see more of that? How much more social reform (i.e., domestic spending) can America’s infrastructure take before it collapses under the weight of overburdening laws, regulatory agencies, taxation and gratuitous deficit spending?
Nobody thought that bridge between Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, would or could collapse until it happened. All most of us could do then was watch others clean up the mess.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be left with only one option where the United States of America is concerned.
McCain or no McCain, I’m voting on Election Day to try to keep the worst from happening.
Is the alternative really better than McCain?
I understand that John McCain is not the presidential candidate most of us conservatives were hoping for. I mean, if we elect McCain, then we might as well be electing Hillary or Obama, right?
Not in the least.
While McCain seems to have a lot more in common with liberal democrats than conservative republicans—which form the base of his own party—he has very little in common with socialists and communists, against whom he fought and was imprisoned by in Vietnam.
Hillary and Obama are far left of the political center where McCain is. They would just as soon rewrite the U.S. Constitution to suit their own agendas for social change. The democratic front-runners for president are more closely aligned with communist leaders of the past century than with even a liberal democratic patriot like Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-CT.
If McCain gets elected the 44th President of the United States, at the very worst, things won’t change, but shall stay the same in Washington, D.C., as they have for decades. Although I’m personally fed up with the Beltway status quo, no change may be better if the alternative is change entirely in the wrong direction. I’d rather have a President McCain keeping things the way they are than a President Obama or Clinton gutting our political, economic and military infrastructures in the name of social justice.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m no McCain fan. But at least he listened when the people spoke up about the amnesty bill that he and Teddy Kennedy were co-sponsoring. He seems to get that the core of his party is opposed to illegal immigration, even if he personally has no problem with it. As president, McCain probably won’t do anything to really fix illegal immigration. But I don’t think he’ll do or let anything happen that would make things worse than they already are. You might say that McCain is willing to at least meet his core constituents in a Mexican Standoff on this issue the same way George W. Bush has.
But if the next president is going to be Hillary or Obama, then we might as well have no borders at all. In fact, we may even kiss what borders we do have good-bye.
Furthermore, McCain will not intentionally harm our economy. He hasn’t done much to keep companies and their jobs from going overseas, but he has supported across-the-board tax relief for all Americans—not just those who would vote for him. He understands that tax cuts to everyone from the blue-collar worker to the corporate CEO not only encourage economic growth, but are also just plain fair. After all, who pays the lion’s share of taxes in America today? Who shoulders the greatest percentage of burden to pay for our government’s largesse?
The rich. The same rich that own the companies employing America. Hillary and Obama threaten to tax even more out of American employers to pay for all of their grandiose social and economic reform schemes. What this means is higher costs to companies, translating into higher costs for the consumers of the products and services that these companies provide. In other words, the cost of higher taxes on the rich eventually gets passed down to you and me.
McCain understands that the reverse is also true—something that neither Hillary nor Obama seem to get. If the tax burden is lightened on the rich, then more money is available for expansion and growth of business. This means more jobs and better compensation packages that did not exist before. In other words, you and me—the American worker—ultimately benefits.
Moreover, John McCain will do nothing to harm national defense. We can count on McCain to keep our military strong, vigilant and ready to respond. I’m afraid that if Hillary or Obama get their way, the military will be rolled back the way it was under former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Then, if we suffer another devastating terrorist attack, it will take that much longer to respond because we would have to build up our defenses all over again. This is assuming that we aren’t totally destroyed first.
Both Hillary and Obama have pledged to end the War on Terror by pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan entirely, giving the terrorists what they want most: Moral and political victories over their self-proclaimed mortal enemy. All this shall accomplish is increased violence against the United States on or off American soil; not less.
While I’m not happy that our military is engaged in yet another police action conflict, at least we have taken the fight to the terrorists and not let them bring it back to us again.
Finally, John McCain is an ally in conservative stands against abortion and its wholesale practice, while the other two candidates are clearly in favor of its proliferation. McCain’s record is consistently pro-life, and I believe he will continue to be if elected president.
McCain will also neither abide judicial activism aimed squarely at changing our Constitution nor appoint Supreme Court Justices who would legislate from the bench.
I can’t say that I’ve got as much confidence in either Hillary or Obama to appoint fair and impartial justices who are strict constructionists. Chances are greater that we’d get another Ruth Bader Ginsburg or two.
The bottom line here is that for all of McCain’s faults, he is clearly the more conservative of the three most likely presidential candidates. And while he is not really a conservative, he is at least willing to listen and compromise, where Hillary and Obama will not. The latter would just as soon shut up their conservative opposition than attempt to live in harmony with them.
At least I could sleep at night with John McCain in the White House. I may not like it, but at least I could sleep. With the other two, though, I may become an insomniac from worrying about whether each morning I’ll be living in America or Amerika. I may even develop a few ulcers to along with my sleep deprivation.
But at least I would have universal health care.
Not in the least.
While McCain seems to have a lot more in common with liberal democrats than conservative republicans—which form the base of his own party—he has very little in common with socialists and communists, against whom he fought and was imprisoned by in Vietnam.
Hillary and Obama are far left of the political center where McCain is. They would just as soon rewrite the U.S. Constitution to suit their own agendas for social change. The democratic front-runners for president are more closely aligned with communist leaders of the past century than with even a liberal democratic patriot like Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-CT.
If McCain gets elected the 44th President of the United States, at the very worst, things won’t change, but shall stay the same in Washington, D.C., as they have for decades. Although I’m personally fed up with the Beltway status quo, no change may be better if the alternative is change entirely in the wrong direction. I’d rather have a President McCain keeping things the way they are than a President Obama or Clinton gutting our political, economic and military infrastructures in the name of social justice.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m no McCain fan. But at least he listened when the people spoke up about the amnesty bill that he and Teddy Kennedy were co-sponsoring. He seems to get that the core of his party is opposed to illegal immigration, even if he personally has no problem with it. As president, McCain probably won’t do anything to really fix illegal immigration. But I don’t think he’ll do or let anything happen that would make things worse than they already are. You might say that McCain is willing to at least meet his core constituents in a Mexican Standoff on this issue the same way George W. Bush has.
But if the next president is going to be Hillary or Obama, then we might as well have no borders at all. In fact, we may even kiss what borders we do have good-bye.
Furthermore, McCain will not intentionally harm our economy. He hasn’t done much to keep companies and their jobs from going overseas, but he has supported across-the-board tax relief for all Americans—not just those who would vote for him. He understands that tax cuts to everyone from the blue-collar worker to the corporate CEO not only encourage economic growth, but are also just plain fair. After all, who pays the lion’s share of taxes in America today? Who shoulders the greatest percentage of burden to pay for our government’s largesse?
The rich. The same rich that own the companies employing America. Hillary and Obama threaten to tax even more out of American employers to pay for all of their grandiose social and economic reform schemes. What this means is higher costs to companies, translating into higher costs for the consumers of the products and services that these companies provide. In other words, the cost of higher taxes on the rich eventually gets passed down to you and me.
McCain understands that the reverse is also true—something that neither Hillary nor Obama seem to get. If the tax burden is lightened on the rich, then more money is available for expansion and growth of business. This means more jobs and better compensation packages that did not exist before. In other words, you and me—the American worker—ultimately benefits.
Moreover, John McCain will do nothing to harm national defense. We can count on McCain to keep our military strong, vigilant and ready to respond. I’m afraid that if Hillary or Obama get their way, the military will be rolled back the way it was under former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Then, if we suffer another devastating terrorist attack, it will take that much longer to respond because we would have to build up our defenses all over again. This is assuming that we aren’t totally destroyed first.
Both Hillary and Obama have pledged to end the War on Terror by pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan entirely, giving the terrorists what they want most: Moral and political victories over their self-proclaimed mortal enemy. All this shall accomplish is increased violence against the United States on or off American soil; not less.
While I’m not happy that our military is engaged in yet another police action conflict, at least we have taken the fight to the terrorists and not let them bring it back to us again.
Finally, John McCain is an ally in conservative stands against abortion and its wholesale practice, while the other two candidates are clearly in favor of its proliferation. McCain’s record is consistently pro-life, and I believe he will continue to be if elected president.
McCain will also neither abide judicial activism aimed squarely at changing our Constitution nor appoint Supreme Court Justices who would legislate from the bench.
I can’t say that I’ve got as much confidence in either Hillary or Obama to appoint fair and impartial justices who are strict constructionists. Chances are greater that we’d get another Ruth Bader Ginsburg or two.
The bottom line here is that for all of McCain’s faults, he is clearly the more conservative of the three most likely presidential candidates. And while he is not really a conservative, he is at least willing to listen and compromise, where Hillary and Obama will not. The latter would just as soon shut up their conservative opposition than attempt to live in harmony with them.
At least I could sleep at night with John McCain in the White House. I may not like it, but at least I could sleep. With the other two, though, I may become an insomniac from worrying about whether each morning I’ll be living in America or Amerika. I may even develop a few ulcers to along with my sleep deprivation.
But at least I would have universal health care.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Drugs have destroyed the integrity of the game
Up until a few years ago, steroids were not banned by Major League Baseball. Consequently, a lot of professional baseball players were using these substances to get an edge on their competition.
And who could blame them? What with the increased demands of fans and owners to produce and win, who wouldn’t take any advantage he could get in order to keep his job?
Here’s a clue: Work harder, not just smarter.
There’s a place for cutting corners, but not where integrity or quality count. Any professional athlete, in any sport, who uses performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs), whether banned or not, is cheating. Bottom line.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines cheating as influencing or leading by deceit, trickery or artifice. Those who take PEDs do so in an attempt to influence their performance on the field via artificial means.
What’s more, not one of these athletes ever openly and proudly admitted to using PEDs before such were banned. If using PEDs was no big deal prior to the ban, then why didn’t athletes come out and defend their use? The reason is because they all knew that doing so was unethical, even if it wasn’t against company rules.
There is an unwritten code of conduct all athletes learn to abide by once they enter competition as youngsters. Chief among an athlete’s professional ethics is to work hard, work honestly and win cleanly. Those who use PEDs violate all three of these unwritten, but oft-spoken and regularly practiced tenets. By taking drugs, athletes are being honest neither with themselves nor others; they begin to think that they don’t have to work as hard to succeed; and they are anything but clean.
Furthermore, staying clean from drugs is a matter of personal ethics not to undermine the honest efforts of other athletes who have either come before and established the standards of integrity upon which sport and competition were built, or who currently uphold those standards. When an athlete chooses to take PEDs for his own personal gain, he spits in the face of all honest athletes who have chosen to achieve success the old fashioned way: by earning it.
Those who use PEDs are essentially trying to purchase success.
I can only wonder, now, whether or not Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, among others, really earned the accolades that have put them at the front of the line to enter the baseball hall of fame—most members of which were enshrined not by cheating, but by having earned their spots honestly through hard work. All of the aforementioned baseball stars and so-called legends have either admitted to using, are being investigated for using, or have been under suspicion of using PEDs.
Both McGuire and Sosa smashed Roger Maris’ single-season home-run record during that memorable and admittedly exciting 1998 season. Prior to that year, Sosa wasn’t even on the radar screen and McGuire had yet to crack 60 dingers in a season. Looking at Big Mac’s home run marks before 1998, you can see a gradual gain in round-trippers that culminated with the single-season record of 70—an obscene nine home runs beyond what Maris had achieved three decades earlier. In the game of baseball, there are a lot of hills and valleys. To have the kind of growing numbers that Big Mac did in the seasons leading up to 1998 should have raised a few eyebrows.
A look at Sosa reveals numbers that swelled following the 1998 season. The guy just kept belting out 50+ home-run seasons after his big debut alongside Big Mac. In fact, he was still in the 60-homer range a whole three seasons after 1998. Again, where were the eyebrows?
But perhaps the most telling tale of PEDs comes from newly anointed home-run king, Barry Bonds, who in 2007 snatched the crown from legendary slugger Henry “Hammerin’ Hank” Aaron, who had held the title for 33 years.
I am aware of the old sports axiom that records are meant to be broken. But they aren’t meant to be stolen. That’s, in effect, what Barry Bonds did when he smacked his 716th home run last year.
Bonds, it turns out, committed perjury before a grand jury, lying about his use of steroids. So now, he’s a cheat and a liar. What a wonderful role model to have sitting atop the baseball world, holding its most prestigious record like some sort of royal scepter.
The road Bonds has followed from ordinary player to superstar is one marred by steroids use. You can see the physical transformation that took place on his journey from slender outfielder to heavy-set slugger. Just look at his baseball cards from a decade ago to 2003, when Bonds broke the single-season home run record once held by Big Mac, another PED user. The weight gain was so pronounced and obvious that either he was becoming a voracious eater, or his hormone levels were severely elevated. With his age at the time, it was highly unlikely that he gained that bulk from lifting weights. Past his prime and having become something of a has-been, Bonds would have had to pump three times as much iron as his younger counterparts to add the amount of bulk that he did in such a short amount of time.
His guilt is evident.
So is that of Big Mac, Sosa, and all the other professional athletes linked to PEDs, regardless of whether or not they have openly admitted to using steroids. Their success in such relatively short amounts of time is the big clue. Factor in sudden increases in muscle bulk and weight gain, along with almost immediate results on the field, and you’ve got a formula for steroid use. It isn’t difficult to put two-and-two together and come up with four. Bigger muscles plus bigger numbers minus short duration equals PEDs.
What upsets me most about the whole steroid issue is not so much the use as the acceptance of drugs as part of the sports culture these days.
I can put up with the fact that drugs exist in sports the way they exist in society. They are there, some people use them, and not all users get caught. What I refuse to tolerate is the notion that drugs are just part of the games we play. We should just embrace them as alternative means for improving performance to old-fashioned methods, such as weight-lifting.
Well, excuse me for having practiced the old-fashioned methods of working hard, being honest, believing in myself, playing by the rules and doing what’s right. I may not have made it to the big leagues, but at least I can retire with a clear conscience.
That’s more than today’s high-priced, professional steroid users can say for themselves.
And who could blame them? What with the increased demands of fans and owners to produce and win, who wouldn’t take any advantage he could get in order to keep his job?
Here’s a clue: Work harder, not just smarter.
There’s a place for cutting corners, but not where integrity or quality count. Any professional athlete, in any sport, who uses performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs), whether banned or not, is cheating. Bottom line.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines cheating as influencing or leading by deceit, trickery or artifice. Those who take PEDs do so in an attempt to influence their performance on the field via artificial means.
What’s more, not one of these athletes ever openly and proudly admitted to using PEDs before such were banned. If using PEDs was no big deal prior to the ban, then why didn’t athletes come out and defend their use? The reason is because they all knew that doing so was unethical, even if it wasn’t against company rules.
There is an unwritten code of conduct all athletes learn to abide by once they enter competition as youngsters. Chief among an athlete’s professional ethics is to work hard, work honestly and win cleanly. Those who use PEDs violate all three of these unwritten, but oft-spoken and regularly practiced tenets. By taking drugs, athletes are being honest neither with themselves nor others; they begin to think that they don’t have to work as hard to succeed; and they are anything but clean.
Furthermore, staying clean from drugs is a matter of personal ethics not to undermine the honest efforts of other athletes who have either come before and established the standards of integrity upon which sport and competition were built, or who currently uphold those standards. When an athlete chooses to take PEDs for his own personal gain, he spits in the face of all honest athletes who have chosen to achieve success the old fashioned way: by earning it.
Those who use PEDs are essentially trying to purchase success.
I can only wonder, now, whether or not Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, among others, really earned the accolades that have put them at the front of the line to enter the baseball hall of fame—most members of which were enshrined not by cheating, but by having earned their spots honestly through hard work. All of the aforementioned baseball stars and so-called legends have either admitted to using, are being investigated for using, or have been under suspicion of using PEDs.
Both McGuire and Sosa smashed Roger Maris’ single-season home-run record during that memorable and admittedly exciting 1998 season. Prior to that year, Sosa wasn’t even on the radar screen and McGuire had yet to crack 60 dingers in a season. Looking at Big Mac’s home run marks before 1998, you can see a gradual gain in round-trippers that culminated with the single-season record of 70—an obscene nine home runs beyond what Maris had achieved three decades earlier. In the game of baseball, there are a lot of hills and valleys. To have the kind of growing numbers that Big Mac did in the seasons leading up to 1998 should have raised a few eyebrows.
A look at Sosa reveals numbers that swelled following the 1998 season. The guy just kept belting out 50+ home-run seasons after his big debut alongside Big Mac. In fact, he was still in the 60-homer range a whole three seasons after 1998. Again, where were the eyebrows?
But perhaps the most telling tale of PEDs comes from newly anointed home-run king, Barry Bonds, who in 2007 snatched the crown from legendary slugger Henry “Hammerin’ Hank” Aaron, who had held the title for 33 years.
I am aware of the old sports axiom that records are meant to be broken. But they aren’t meant to be stolen. That’s, in effect, what Barry Bonds did when he smacked his 716th home run last year.
Bonds, it turns out, committed perjury before a grand jury, lying about his use of steroids. So now, he’s a cheat and a liar. What a wonderful role model to have sitting atop the baseball world, holding its most prestigious record like some sort of royal scepter.
The road Bonds has followed from ordinary player to superstar is one marred by steroids use. You can see the physical transformation that took place on his journey from slender outfielder to heavy-set slugger. Just look at his baseball cards from a decade ago to 2003, when Bonds broke the single-season home run record once held by Big Mac, another PED user. The weight gain was so pronounced and obvious that either he was becoming a voracious eater, or his hormone levels were severely elevated. With his age at the time, it was highly unlikely that he gained that bulk from lifting weights. Past his prime and having become something of a has-been, Bonds would have had to pump three times as much iron as his younger counterparts to add the amount of bulk that he did in such a short amount of time.
His guilt is evident.
So is that of Big Mac, Sosa, and all the other professional athletes linked to PEDs, regardless of whether or not they have openly admitted to using steroids. Their success in such relatively short amounts of time is the big clue. Factor in sudden increases in muscle bulk and weight gain, along with almost immediate results on the field, and you’ve got a formula for steroid use. It isn’t difficult to put two-and-two together and come up with four. Bigger muscles plus bigger numbers minus short duration equals PEDs.
What upsets me most about the whole steroid issue is not so much the use as the acceptance of drugs as part of the sports culture these days.
I can put up with the fact that drugs exist in sports the way they exist in society. They are there, some people use them, and not all users get caught. What I refuse to tolerate is the notion that drugs are just part of the games we play. We should just embrace them as alternative means for improving performance to old-fashioned methods, such as weight-lifting.
Well, excuse me for having practiced the old-fashioned methods of working hard, being honest, believing in myself, playing by the rules and doing what’s right. I may not have made it to the big leagues, but at least I can retire with a clear conscience.
That’s more than today’s high-priced, professional steroid users can say for themselves.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Making a case for the death penalty...
...in two words or less.
To those opposed to capital punishment, I have two words for you: Brianna Denison.
Enough said.
How many more innocent people will have to die before society realizes that capital punishment is about justice and not human bloodlust? There has long been opposition to the death penalty by groups arguing that capital punishment is nothing more than a manifestation of man's propensity for violence and bloodshed. They say it reflects the cruelty that exists in the human heart, and it recklessly puts innocent people at risk of dying for crimes they didn’t commit.
But in Reno, Nevada, tonight many are feeling that there should be no debate at all. Yesterday, the body of Brianna Denison was found in a field next to a commercial business complex in Southwest Reno. The 19 year-old college student had been missing since Jan. 20, 2008 when she was abducted while sleeping over at a friend’s house near the University of Nevada, Reno, campus. The perpetrator had entered the home through an unlocked door and snatched Denison in the dead of night as everyone else slept.
A long, arduous and intense search for the missing girl followed over the next three weeks. It all ended yesterday with the recovery of Denison’s body.
The coroner reported that Denison died by strangulation. She had also been raped.
Two of the most heinous crimes one human being could possibly violate another with had been committed against this young woman, whose life was taken violently from her. She did not deserve to die. And she certainly did not deserve to be raped and strangled to death. Nobody does.
Nobody has the right to take someone else’s life or violate them against their will. And no person has the right to decide when, where and how another’s life shall be taken, with only two exceptions: war and justice.
In war, we either kill or get killed.
With justice, we kill as punishment for the taking of life; to right a grevious wrong committed by one person against another. A perpetrator has already violated somebody else’s basic human right to life by forcing it from them. Justice is supposed to ensure that a perpetrator can never again commit the same or other crime against another person. That is why the death penalty exists and is still practiced.
It isn’t about men in white-collared shirts getting their jollies every time a death sentence is carried out. No, what capital punishment is about is justice.
The person who raped and murdered Brianna Denison does not deserve to keep his life, because he chose to take the life of another person. As far as justice is concerned, the perpetrator forfeited his most basic of all human rights when he denied that very right to someone else. Justice is, in essence, an equitable trade: A hand for a hand, an eye for an eye, and a life for a life.
When bartering, one gives to get and gets back what one gives. One exchanges something in trade that’s of equal value to the item one wishes to have. This is justice.
It’s not what Brianna Denison got when she was raped and murdered, because her killer is at-large and presumed to still have his life.
Justice demands that Denison’s killer relinquish his life in exchange for the life he took.
Opponents of capital punishment don’t see things this way. Instead, they view the death penalty as an act of retribution or retaliation rather than justice. They consider capital punishment to be state-sanctioned killing. And they’re right.
But it is also justice nonetheless.
In its purest form, justice is not compassion; it’s consequence. Justice is not hesitant; it’s swift. Justice is not relative; it’s certain. And justice is not forgiving; it’s final.
Our expectation of justice ought to be as sure as death and taxes, but it’s not.
Thanks to the efforts of death penalty opponents, we have violent criminals out on parole rather than serving the rest of their time behind bars. Prisons have become overcrowded with them. As a result, society is placed in harm’s way, because these offenders are now free again to re-offend. In fact, recidivism is highest among serial offenders, like the pile of dung that raped and murdered Brianna Denison.
Opponents argue that capital punishment does little to actually reduce crime. But all those who have been convicted and duly executed are still dead and remain unable to recidivate.
None of this convinces those opposed to capital punishment, though. They seem hell-bent on defending the condemned man’s so-called right to life, in spite of the fact that the latter denied this right to somebody else. Truth be told, the same convict would probably not recognize the rights of those defending his. If a death penalty opponent met a convict in a dark alley, can you guess which one would come out alive?
If all this weren’t enough, now capital punishment is being put under the knife for euthanizing the condemned. In 2007, a lawsuit was filed by death row inmates seeking to make lethal injection unconstitutional because it inflicted “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The case is waiting to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The argument is essentially that the chemicals injected into the bloodstream may cause pain and suffering on their way to hasten death.
Frankly, lethal injection makes the death penalty much more complicated and costly than it really should be. Instead of spending millions of dollars to come up with the most humane combination of drugs and chemicals, let’s just do what was done back in the day: Find some rope, a tall tree and save the taxpayers a lot of money.
Strange, isn’t it, how we euthanize beloved animals all the time in the name of mercy, because it is more humane to put them to sleep than to let them suffer. But we can’t put inmates to sleep because doing so might cause them to suffer before they die?
I don’t get it.
We don’t seem too concerned about whether or not good, old Rover is suffering and feeling pain as the veterinarian sticks a lethal dose of chemicals into his veins. Why are we worried about some scumbag having the same thing done to him? Rover didn’t take somebody else’s life like the pile of dung sitting on death row did. Yet, we put Rover to sleep and fight to keep the dung pile alive.
I don’t understand.
If Brianna Denison could testify against her perpetrator, I don’t think she’d understand, either. But we will never hear what Brianna has to say about what happened to her. That is why we have justice: To punish the unjust and be a voice to the victims, who have been silenced and are unable to defend themselves.
Brianna Denison is one more reason why justice must be carried out and preserved; that the voices of those so unjustly served will not go unheard.
To those opposed to capital punishment, I have two words for you: Brianna Denison.
Enough said.
How many more innocent people will have to die before society realizes that capital punishment is about justice and not human bloodlust? There has long been opposition to the death penalty by groups arguing that capital punishment is nothing more than a manifestation of man's propensity for violence and bloodshed. They say it reflects the cruelty that exists in the human heart, and it recklessly puts innocent people at risk of dying for crimes they didn’t commit.
But in Reno, Nevada, tonight many are feeling that there should be no debate at all. Yesterday, the body of Brianna Denison was found in a field next to a commercial business complex in Southwest Reno. The 19 year-old college student had been missing since Jan. 20, 2008 when she was abducted while sleeping over at a friend’s house near the University of Nevada, Reno, campus. The perpetrator had entered the home through an unlocked door and snatched Denison in the dead of night as everyone else slept.
A long, arduous and intense search for the missing girl followed over the next three weeks. It all ended yesterday with the recovery of Denison’s body.
The coroner reported that Denison died by strangulation. She had also been raped.
Two of the most heinous crimes one human being could possibly violate another with had been committed against this young woman, whose life was taken violently from her. She did not deserve to die. And she certainly did not deserve to be raped and strangled to death. Nobody does.
Nobody has the right to take someone else’s life or violate them against their will. And no person has the right to decide when, where and how another’s life shall be taken, with only two exceptions: war and justice.
In war, we either kill or get killed.
With justice, we kill as punishment for the taking of life; to right a grevious wrong committed by one person against another. A perpetrator has already violated somebody else’s basic human right to life by forcing it from them. Justice is supposed to ensure that a perpetrator can never again commit the same or other crime against another person. That is why the death penalty exists and is still practiced.
It isn’t about men in white-collared shirts getting their jollies every time a death sentence is carried out. No, what capital punishment is about is justice.
The person who raped and murdered Brianna Denison does not deserve to keep his life, because he chose to take the life of another person. As far as justice is concerned, the perpetrator forfeited his most basic of all human rights when he denied that very right to someone else. Justice is, in essence, an equitable trade: A hand for a hand, an eye for an eye, and a life for a life.
When bartering, one gives to get and gets back what one gives. One exchanges something in trade that’s of equal value to the item one wishes to have. This is justice.
It’s not what Brianna Denison got when she was raped and murdered, because her killer is at-large and presumed to still have his life.
Justice demands that Denison’s killer relinquish his life in exchange for the life he took.
Opponents of capital punishment don’t see things this way. Instead, they view the death penalty as an act of retribution or retaliation rather than justice. They consider capital punishment to be state-sanctioned killing. And they’re right.
But it is also justice nonetheless.
In its purest form, justice is not compassion; it’s consequence. Justice is not hesitant; it’s swift. Justice is not relative; it’s certain. And justice is not forgiving; it’s final.
Our expectation of justice ought to be as sure as death and taxes, but it’s not.
Thanks to the efforts of death penalty opponents, we have violent criminals out on parole rather than serving the rest of their time behind bars. Prisons have become overcrowded with them. As a result, society is placed in harm’s way, because these offenders are now free again to re-offend. In fact, recidivism is highest among serial offenders, like the pile of dung that raped and murdered Brianna Denison.
Opponents argue that capital punishment does little to actually reduce crime. But all those who have been convicted and duly executed are still dead and remain unable to recidivate.
None of this convinces those opposed to capital punishment, though. They seem hell-bent on defending the condemned man’s so-called right to life, in spite of the fact that the latter denied this right to somebody else. Truth be told, the same convict would probably not recognize the rights of those defending his. If a death penalty opponent met a convict in a dark alley, can you guess which one would come out alive?
If all this weren’t enough, now capital punishment is being put under the knife for euthanizing the condemned. In 2007, a lawsuit was filed by death row inmates seeking to make lethal injection unconstitutional because it inflicted “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The case is waiting to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The argument is essentially that the chemicals injected into the bloodstream may cause pain and suffering on their way to hasten death.
Frankly, lethal injection makes the death penalty much more complicated and costly than it really should be. Instead of spending millions of dollars to come up with the most humane combination of drugs and chemicals, let’s just do what was done back in the day: Find some rope, a tall tree and save the taxpayers a lot of money.
Strange, isn’t it, how we euthanize beloved animals all the time in the name of mercy, because it is more humane to put them to sleep than to let them suffer. But we can’t put inmates to sleep because doing so might cause them to suffer before they die?
I don’t get it.
We don’t seem too concerned about whether or not good, old Rover is suffering and feeling pain as the veterinarian sticks a lethal dose of chemicals into his veins. Why are we worried about some scumbag having the same thing done to him? Rover didn’t take somebody else’s life like the pile of dung sitting on death row did. Yet, we put Rover to sleep and fight to keep the dung pile alive.
I don’t understand.
If Brianna Denison could testify against her perpetrator, I don’t think she’d understand, either. But we will never hear what Brianna has to say about what happened to her. That is why we have justice: To punish the unjust and be a voice to the victims, who have been silenced and are unable to defend themselves.
Brianna Denison is one more reason why justice must be carried out and preserved; that the voices of those so unjustly served will not go unheard.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Thank heaven for teacher unions…
…because if it wasn’t for them, unethical teachers like Mark Hodges wouldn’t be instructing our children anymore.
Hodges, a Fernley (NV) High School teacher and head football coach, was caught in the middle of a recruiting scandal involving FHS senior Kevin Hart, who made up a story about being offered a Division I football scholarship from the University of California, Berkley.
This strange story took an even more bizarre turn the other day when the Fernley School Board recommended that Hodges not be retained as the high school's head football coach, because new information linked him to $26,000 in unauthorized funds spent on the football program, as well as e-mail communication between the FHS coaching staff and UCB coaches denying the existence of any scholarship offer a whole three days before Hart’s big public announcement.
Coach Hodges knew Hart did not have a scholarship offer. Yet, he went along with the hoax as though everything was okay. Furthermore, it turns out that Hodges was spending money he was not authorized to spend.
So, what we have here is a liar and a fraud. But evidently the school board has decided that Hodges’ actions are not serious enough to warrant the loss of his teaching job.
Why?
One reason, two words: Teacher union.
While Hodges may not be back on the Fernley sidelines next fall, he will continue to instruct kids in the classroom. I guess, then, it’s not okay to coach kids on the field after one is found to be a liar and a fraud, but it is all right to continue teaching them in the classroom? What the heck is the difference?!
Frankly, the guy ought to lose his job for misappropriation of funds AND helping to perpetuate a lie by one of his own players. I mean, what sort of example is this guy setting for other kids in school? What kind of a role model could Hodges possibly be to the children learning in his classroom? If a kid cheats on a test, then lies about it, how can Hodges justly discipline the kid when he himself was caught lying and cheating at the school?
But thanks to the state teacher union, Hodges’ job in the classroom is protected, even if his job on the field is not. So, there’s really no skin off his nose.
I guess unscrupulous behavior is no big deal to the union, which evidently considers defending an unethical teacher’s right to a job more important than ensuring that the profession’s ethics are upheld and enforced.
If I was caught acting unethically on my job, I’d be gone the very same day.
I guess what I need is a union on my side. That way, I can act as unethically as I please and not have to worry about losing my job, because the union is watching my backside.
Where would our country be without those paragons of workplace virtue and justice, the unions? Indeed, what would we workers ever do without them?
Well, for starters, we’d have to hold ourselves accountable to a higher standard of ethical behavior to save our jobs, because unions wouldn’t be there to bail us out.
Fortunately, teachers like Hodges won’t ever have to face life without a union. Their futures are certain and secure.
So, take heart, Mr. Hodges: Even though your butt should have been thrown out onto the street for what you did, you still have a job and a union that loves your dues.
Hodges, a Fernley (NV) High School teacher and head football coach, was caught in the middle of a recruiting scandal involving FHS senior Kevin Hart, who made up a story about being offered a Division I football scholarship from the University of California, Berkley.
This strange story took an even more bizarre turn the other day when the Fernley School Board recommended that Hodges not be retained as the high school's head football coach, because new information linked him to $26,000 in unauthorized funds spent on the football program, as well as e-mail communication between the FHS coaching staff and UCB coaches denying the existence of any scholarship offer a whole three days before Hart’s big public announcement.
Coach Hodges knew Hart did not have a scholarship offer. Yet, he went along with the hoax as though everything was okay. Furthermore, it turns out that Hodges was spending money he was not authorized to spend.
So, what we have here is a liar and a fraud. But evidently the school board has decided that Hodges’ actions are not serious enough to warrant the loss of his teaching job.
Why?
One reason, two words: Teacher union.
While Hodges may not be back on the Fernley sidelines next fall, he will continue to instruct kids in the classroom. I guess, then, it’s not okay to coach kids on the field after one is found to be a liar and a fraud, but it is all right to continue teaching them in the classroom? What the heck is the difference?!
Frankly, the guy ought to lose his job for misappropriation of funds AND helping to perpetuate a lie by one of his own players. I mean, what sort of example is this guy setting for other kids in school? What kind of a role model could Hodges possibly be to the children learning in his classroom? If a kid cheats on a test, then lies about it, how can Hodges justly discipline the kid when he himself was caught lying and cheating at the school?
But thanks to the state teacher union, Hodges’ job in the classroom is protected, even if his job on the field is not. So, there’s really no skin off his nose.
I guess unscrupulous behavior is no big deal to the union, which evidently considers defending an unethical teacher’s right to a job more important than ensuring that the profession’s ethics are upheld and enforced.
If I was caught acting unethically on my job, I’d be gone the very same day.
I guess what I need is a union on my side. That way, I can act as unethically as I please and not have to worry about losing my job, because the union is watching my backside.
Where would our country be without those paragons of workplace virtue and justice, the unions? Indeed, what would we workers ever do without them?
Well, for starters, we’d have to hold ourselves accountable to a higher standard of ethical behavior to save our jobs, because unions wouldn’t be there to bail us out.
Fortunately, teachers like Hodges won’t ever have to face life without a union. Their futures are certain and secure.
So, take heart, Mr. Hodges: Even though your butt should have been thrown out onto the street for what you did, you still have a job and a union that loves your dues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
