CommenTerry

Random Rants and Raves #77

People seem to be somewhat shocked and taken aback when I tell them I never read books. Obviously, it's because so many people subscribe to the conventional foolishness that says one must be an avid reader to build an extensive vocabulary and develop skills in grammar, usage, and writing. In reality, all one needs is some basic aptitude, an Internet connection, enough motivation, and practice, practice, practice!       

---

When asked why I do certain things, I often respond by saying, "Because I can. When I get to the point where I can't do it anymore, I'll stop doing it."

---

I know a guy who once canceled his Sam's Club membership because the members never called any meetings. He had previously quit his membership in a book club for the same reason.

---

Am I the only guy who has trouble retrieving stuff from/putting stuff in my pants pockets while sitting? 

---

A new judge has now been selected in the trial of Saddam Hussein: Judge Reinhold. 

---

I'm proud of the fact that I can walk faster than many people who are 10 and 20 years younger. Actually, I think they probably could walk faster than I, but they choose, for some reason unknown to me, to drag along like someone who is much older. Shame on them! 

---

There seems to be a direct correlation between a strong work ethic and good luck. Those who work the hardest are usually the luckiest. However, good luck rarely comes to those who sit around, waiting to get lucky.

---

The most recent installment of Monday Night Football was little more than a three-hour infomercial for the City of New Orleans.

Yes, I Did It and What of It?

Denials (even when true) soon reach a point of diminishing returns. This is especially true for politicians. In many cases, more political capital can be gained by admitting guilt and apologizing, rather than denying a charge. When are politicians going to learn this simple concept? Gary Hart, in 1987, and Bill Clinton, in 1998, would have come out much better if they had.

Recently, Virginia Senator George Allen has been accused of using the n-word during his days as a football player at the University of Virginia. Like most politicians would, Allen has vehemently denied those allegations. I have no way of knowing whether or not Allen is guilty of using that epithet, although I tend to believe he probably did use it occasionally to make him look "tough" around his white teammates. However, even if he never used that kind of language, I believe it would have been his advantage to "admit" that he did, with a statement something like this: "Yes, I did use that word occasionally during my college days and it was a stupid thing to do. I apologize for any hurt it might have caused. I renounced the use of that word and all racial epithets many years ago. At least I had the decency to never say it to or in the presence of African Americans. Now, who among you never did or said anything stupid, reckless, or insensitive when you were younger?  Let me see a show of hands."

Big Bad Wal-Mart: The Dog Liberals Love to Bash

With the possible exception of President Bush and evangelical Christians, there is nothing liberals love to bash more than Wal-Mart. If one listens to some liberals, including those who are a part of the media, one would think Wal-Mart is responsible for everything from natural disasters to world poverty to global warming.

While it might be true that Wal-Mart pays some of its workers a "poverty-level" wage and does not provide health insurance for many of them, we must remember that no one is forced to work for Wal-Mart. Of those who feel that Wal-Mart is their only option for employment, many of them have only themselves to blame for that situation by having failed to take advantage of opportunities they have had. Even though a free high school education is available to every young person in America, many of them throw it away by dropping out of school. In addition, for those who will apply themselves and graduate from high school, there are many opportunities in this country for assistance in getting a post-secondary education. A good portion of those who earn the minimum wage consist of high school dropouts and people who have no education or training beyond high school. That's not Wal-Mart's fault. Individuals are responsible for bettering themselves. Why shift the blame? 

In addition, let's suppose the liberals got their wish and Wal-Mart ceased operations. Think of the damage that would do the U.S. economy. Think of all the poor who would have no jobs at all. With no large retailer to hold prices down, think of how inflation would run rampant. The increase in the cost of living would force more of those with decent jobs onto the welfare roles. Is that what the liberals really want?

   

How About Some Common Sense in the Media?

My local newspaper recently ran a story about the settlement of a five million dollar defamation suit brought by a male college student against a female student who attended the same college. The young lady had accused the young man of rape. Those charges turned out to be false, and therefore the lawsuit was brought.

Even though the young lady made a de facto admission of guilt by agreeing to the terms of the settlement, that newspaper would still not disclose her name, even though it continued to disclose the name of the young man who was falsely accused. How much sense does that make? It's totally ridiculous as well as unfair. I understand the need to protect the identities of those who make rape allegations. However, once an allegation like that is proved false, that protection should no longer apply. The alleged victim has forfeited her right to any such protection.

Now, here's a novel idea. When charges of rape are brought, the media should withhold the identities of both the alleged victim and the alleged rapist until due process has a chance to run its course. If the accused rapist is found guilty, his identity should be revealed. If he is found not guilty, both identities should be kept secret. However, if the alleged victim's accusation is somehow proved false (a verdict of not guilty for the accused is not sufficient), her identity should no longer be withheld. But that just makes too much sense, doesn't it?

   

Yeah, That's the Ticket for Child Molesters!

Several times over the last few weeks, I've heard otherwise intelligent people say they believe child molesters should be given the death penalty. Yeah, that's the ticket! However, they are just not thinking when they blurt out this kind of emotional response.

As vile as child predators are, most of them do not kill their victims. Only a small percentage of child molesters are child killers. However, if and when the day comes when child molesters are told that they will die for their crimes, they will have no motivation to spare the lives of their victims. In fact, they will be more motivated than ever to kill them. Since they will figure that they will die anyway (if they are caught), they will be more likely to go ahead and kill their victims to keep them from telling someone about the molestation.

Years ago, many states passed laws to impose the death penalty for kidnapping and rape, even when the perpetrators of these crimes did not kill their victims. However, most of those states saw the folly of such legislation and repealed the death penalty for those crimes, after observing that kidnappers and rapists were killing their victims at alarming rates. After all, what reason did they have to spare the lives of these poor victims?

Test Everyone for HIV? Wrong Answer!

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is now recommending that all patients between 13 and 64 be tested for HIV, as a part of routine medical screenings. The rationale here is the fact that early detection (especially before coming down with AIDS) is the key to the most successful treatment combined with the fact that a large portion of those who are infected with HIV don't know they have it.

However, this testing should still be limited to those who are at risk. I see no need to waste time and money testing people who do not practice unsafe sex, are not IV-drug users, and have not received blood transfusions or accidental body fluid transfers from others. Those who are at risk know who they are and should be honest and responsible enough to get tested regularly. Parents of children and teens who might be at risk should be responsible for getting them tested. Besides, testing people who are not at risk entails a completely new risk in and of itself. That's the risk of false positive results which would be very frightening as well as stigmatizing for no good reason.

It's a shame that medical authorities such as the CDC have bought into modern political correctness. This is the kind of political correctness that is quite evident in those preachy, so-called public service announcements which warn that HIV/AIDS is everyone's problem. In one way, they are right. We are all subject to the possible need for a blood transfusion or accidental transfer of body fluid with someone who is HIV-positive at some time in our life. In addition, children are often born with HIV, obviously through no fault of their own. However, what these announcements never point out is the fact that a return to some good old fashioned morality would greatly reduce the risk of HIV for everyone. This is not a matter of being judgmental; it's a matter of being practical. People weren't meant to live like animals or inject certain drugs into their bodies. When they do, the natural consequences follow. But don't hold your breath while waiting to hear that from any government agency. 

Media Hypocrisy Strikes Again

The board of trustees at Randolph-Macon Women's College in Lynchburg, Virginia recently voted 25-2 in favor of admitting men. This vote was met with protests by various students, alumnae, and women's education advocates. However, the school had no choice, as it was an economic decision on which its very survival depended. Attendance was dropping because fewer women (or men) are interested in a single-sex college education. That's just the reality of the matter.

As far as I know, there was no effort on the part of anyone in the media to make the protesters feel ashamed. In fact, many members of the media appeared to sympathize with them. Now, had they been men protesting the fact that their once all-male institution were going coed, we would have heard the typical accusations of chauvinism, bigotry, childishness, and denial of opportunity. But that's the thing about political correctness. It's a one-way street.   

Is Everyone Entitled to Free Speech?

Since Katie Couric took over as anchor of the CBS Evening News on September 5, it has run a regular segment entitled "Free Speech." This segment features people from all walks of life (including well-known personalities like Rush Limbaugh) speaking their minds to a national audience for a few minutes.

Thursday night's segment featured a young undocumented alien they called "Carlos." Because of his immigration status, his face was obscured and his real name was withheld.  He said that his parents entered this country on a six-month tourist visa when he was a child and have remained here ever since. He stated that, after having been here for two years, they filed for legal residency status, but the application is still pending after more than ten years. Therefore, he claims that although his family "did everything [they] were supposed to do to try to become legal," his status as an undocumented alien remains. He has since graduated from high school and college and would like to attend law school, but laments the fact that, as an illegal, he could never get a license to practice law. I suppose the whole point of this segment was to make viewers sympathize with him and his family.

First of all, despite his claims, his family did not do everything they were supposed to do to try to become legal. They waited until a year and a half after their visa had expired before applying for legal residency. During that time, they remained in this country illegally and continue to do so. They should have complied with the law by leaving when their visa expired.

But my point here is that CBS should not have given this young man a forum or concealed his identity, as he is not entitled to free speech in this county. That's something that is reserved for U.S. citizens and those who are here legally. That young man and his family are in violation of the law and deserve to be deported like all other illegal aliens. If they ultimately desire to become U.S. citizens, they should leave voluntarily and wait their turn like everyone else.

Random Rants and Raves #76

I don't understand all the hand-wringing of late about how to handle illegal aliens. The late California Congressman Sonny Bono had the correct view of this issue. When asked what he thought about illegal immigration, he simply replied, "It's illegal." I wonder which part of "illegal" some people don't understand.       

---

Have you ever noticed how letters containing bad news always seem to arrive in your mailbox on Saturday, when most offices are closed? For example, your cable company will usually make sure that notice about an increase in subscription fees arrives on Saturday, when you can't call them and complain about it. You have to wait until Monday, by which time you've probably cooled off a bit.

---

I've always been curious about certain phrases we use in our culture. Here are two of them: "under the weather" and "finishing one's education." If I'm not sick, does that mean I'm "above" the weather? That sure didn't seem to be the case yesterday, when I was getting soaked while out in a rain storm. When my niece goes to college to "finish" her education, does that mean she'll never learn another thing after she graduates?

---

I've often tried to analyze why people carry secret grudges against others. Generally, the perceived offender is totally unaware of what he/she has done to offend the grudge-holder, that is, if he/she is even aware of the grudge at all. I believe the person holding the grudge doesn't want the perceived offender to know the reason, for fear that this person would apologize or otherwise try to make things right, thus spoiling the fun of being able to hold a grudge. 

---

No matter how far advanced we get technologically, some things will always remain true: Real will always be better than fake, pristine will always be better than tampered-with, God-made will always be better than man-made, and natural will always better than unnatural or artificial. 

---

Kudos to the Dove ad campaign that began last year for emphasizing real women with real bodies over stick-figured models! 

---

It should be quite obvious to even the casual observer that banks have been the catalyst for many of the unfair financial laws we have in this country. For example, a bank can charge you 18% interest on your credit card balance. If I charged you that much interest for a loan, I would be indicted for usury!

---

Many of those who work in professions such as investing and real estate like to make people think their jobs are a lot more complicated than they actually are. Yes, these professions do require common sense and dedication, but they are not rocket science and they aren't nearly as demanding as the medical or law professions, for example. However, you wouldn't know this from listening to their ad campaigns.

Cases Highlight Hypocrisy Among Public

The recent decision by the FDA to allow non-prescription access to the so-called "morning after" pill by women 18 and older still brought complaints by women's advocacy groups and many others. They claim that younger teens should be allowed the same access.

Many health officials are now recommending that girls as young as 12 be vaccinated for the human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted virus known to cause cervical cancer and genital herpes. In addition, some legislators in Michigan are even proposing that girls entering the sixth grade in that state be required to get the vaccine.

A recent court decision in Virginia reversed an earlier court decision and allowed 16-year-old cancer victim Starchild Abraham Cherrix to forgo chemotherapy. This decision came after an overwhelming public outcry in favor of allowing the teenage boy to decide on his own his treatment options.

But wait - I'll lay odds that most of the people advocating access to that pill by younger teens, HPV vaccines for 12-year-olds, and the right of the that teenager to turn down chemotherapy still refuse to recognize the competency of younger teens to consent to sexual activity. Personally, I would prefer that all teens abstain from sex not just until they are older, but until they are married. But if you are advocating the idea of letting young teens or even preteens legally purchase the "morning after" pill over the counter or the requirement for them to get an HPV vaccine because they are likely to be sexually active, then don't play the hypocrite by acting outraged and disgusted when you hear about an adult getting caught having consensual sex with a 14-year-old.

And that's not the only way in which we practice hypocrisy in the area of age competency. Why is it that a teen can (in most states) drive at age 16, but must wait until age 18 to vote and to smoke cigarettes, and then must wait until age 21 to drink alcohol? A person is competent enough to serve in the military and give his life for his country at 18, but must be 21 to drink? How much sense does that make?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating teen smoking, drinking, or sexual activity. I'm just trying to point out some glaring inconsistencies and hypocrisy in our culture. As is the case with many other issues, it seems as if we want to have it both (or three, or four, or five) ways when it comes to young person's right to make his or her own decisions.