CommenTerry

What's Wrong with this Story?

A 44-year-old New Zealand woman, who was completely dependent on an electronic oxygen pump, died about two hours after a state-owned power company shut off the electricity to her home. Her failing health had recently forced her to stop working and she had gotten behind on her power bill. Her family now holds the power company directly responsible for her death.

However, even if we completely believe her family's account of the story, common sense demands that they shoulder some of the blame for her death. By their own admission they knew that she absolutely needed that machine to survive, yet there is no evidence that any of them sought an alternate venue for her, once her power was shut off. None of them even offered to let her stay at their home until she could find somewhere else to go and/or until her power could be restored. No, they just let her sit right there in her home with no electricity and no oxygen.

On top of that, no one called the ambulance until she had stopped breathing, and then it was too late. They claim her condition started to deteriorate almost as soon as her electricity was shut off. Why didn't someone do something then? No, they just sat and watched her as her breathing got worse and worse until she finally lost consciousness. Is that any way to treat a loved one?

It seems to me that this family was so focused on pointing the finger of blame at the power company that they didn't consider some easy steps that could have mitigated her circumstances and ultimately saved her life. Someone who is less charitable than I might even conclude that they were hoping the shutoff of her electricity would lead to her death -- and therefore a lucrative lawsuit for them.

Who's to Blame for the Subprime Meltdown?

The subprime meltdown has begun. Hundreds of mortgage companies around the country are going bankrupt. Thousands of people are having their mortgages foreclosed and are being thrown out of their homes. But who's responsible for this mess?

Obviously, greedy and unethical mortgage companies should shoulder most of the blame. In their uncontrollable lust for the almighty dollar, they made home loans available to people who would not have qualified, had they used the rules everyone played by in the past. Yet they went ahead and loaned the money to these people with questionable credit in order to command higher interest rates. Now the whole thing has blown up in their faces. They got their just desserts.

However, the borrowers have to share some of the blame. They knew their own credit histories and bill-paying habits better than anyone else did but still sought home loans that they knew would be a hardship for them to pay back. Rather than waiting to save a little money for a larger down payment, and thereby avoiding expensive private mortgage insurance as well as possibly getting a lower rate, they had to have it all now. They couldn't wait. Their impatience drove them to push the financial envelope and it ultimately burst wide open.

Everyone involved in this debacle should hang their heads in shame!

What Can Be Done About High Gas Prices?

There are some things that the federal, state, and local governments and businesses could do to provide some relief in the wake of our high gas prices. In many cases they could:

1) Offer employees the option of working four 10-hour days a week.

2) Offer employees the option of telecommuting.

3) Use teleconferencing in lieu of business trips, whenever possible.

4) Postpone temporary, out-of-town, assignments until gas prices come back down to a reasonable level.

There are also things that we, as individuals, could do as well. I'm not trying to tell anyone else what to do, but here are some things that I plan to do until further notice:

1) Turn my automobile air conditioner lower or all the way off while driving.

2) Postpone all vacations and out-of-town trips.

3) Eliminate all eating out.

4) Make one trip to the grocery store each week. If I run out of supplies before the end of the week, tough! I'll just have to suck it up.

5) Leave my car at home and "hoof it" for all trips of less than 2 miles.

6) Other than for emergencies, basically just put myself under "house arrest" and drive only to work, to church, and to get groceries. 

Corzine the Hypocrite

I'm glad to hear that New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine has started down his long road to recovery from the serious injuries he sustained in a recent traffic accident. Like they say, even a journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step. However, I must say that it'll likely take him even longer to get over the fact that he played the hypocrite.

In typical rich liberal do-gooder fashion, he has been a strong advocate of the government nanny-state, which attempts to protect its citizens from themselves by mandating the use of seat bests, motorcycle helmets, etc. But now, lo and behold, we learn that the esteemed Gov. Corzine was not wearing his seat beat when someone crashed into the SUV he was riding in. And the driver of his vehicle was doing 91 to boot!

What a delicious development! He just gave libertarians everywhere an excuse to gloat for a while. We couldn't have found a better example of the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do mentality. Thanks, Governor Corzine!

Who's to Blame for the Massacre at Virginia Tech?

Along with the grieving in the aftermath of the senseless massacre of 32 innocent people at Virginia Tech, there is a natural tendency to look for a scapegoat -- something or someone, other than just the killer, to blame. Consequently, an abundance of Monday morning quarterbacking is going on right now. But are others partially culpable for the deadliest shooting rampage in modern American history?

Many people blame themselves and/or others for failing to do this or failing to do that or for not recognizing the "obvious" warning signs. Still others fault campus security and local law enforcement for not locking the whole place down after the original incident, which occurred a full two hours before the second and far more deadly one. Some are even wondering if students and faculty members should have considered rushing the assailant, like passengers aboard United Airlines Fight 93 did to their hijackers on 9/11.

Then, of course, we have the perennial ad hominem arguments about guns. This knee-jerk reaction occurs after any substantial shooting anywhere in the U.S.  Gun control advocates once again are decrying how easy it is to acquire guns in the U.S., and especially in Virginia. Surely, they say, our lax gun laws are to blame for this monumental tragedy. Some even go as far as holding the persons who sold the guns to the shooter partially accountable. Gun thumpers, on the other hand, are pointing to the fact that guns are banned on college campuses in Virginia. They claim the students would have been able to defend themselves, and therefore there would have been fewer casualties, if not for that "awful" law.

However, I think everyone should just cool it on the guilt trips and finger-pointing. To correctly assess the blame in this matter, we must look to the principle of personal responsibility -- every individual is solely responsible for his or her own actions. Cho Seung-Hui and only Cho Seung Hui bears the blame for this mass murder. As far as law enforcement officials can tell, it was his idea and nobody else's. There were no co-conspirators before, during, or after the fact. And despite all the second-guessing, there was no way his actions could have been predicted or prevented. Rushing him would have been foolhardy.

Yes, the guy was obviously a bit psychotic, but I dare say 99 out of 100 psychotic people would never have considered an act like he committed. And we can't lock up or otherwise detain every strange, goofy, or marginally psychotic person. It would be completely impractical. Besides, if it were attempted, most of us would be in big trouble anyway. How many of us don't act a little strange, at least once in while?

As far as security is concerned, no amount or level of it is going to stop someone who is intent on killing others and has no regard for his own life. That theme has been played out over and over again as the civilized world has attempted to thwart terrorism. And if Cho wanted to get some guns badly enough, no amount of gun control would have prevented him. I would also imagine that few, if any, Virginia Tech students would have had guns readily available to defend themselves, even had they been legally allowed to carry concealed weapons.   

When students return to class next week at Virginia Tech, they will obviously have plenty on their hearts and minds. Two things they should not have to be concerned about are guilt and blame. Those emotions, in regard to this tragedy, should be buried with Mr. Cho Seung-Hui.

Anna Nicole Smith: What Did She Ever Do?

Perhaps the media feeding frenzy that was set in motion after Anna Nicole Smith's untimely death in February is about to settle down. Smith has finally been laid to rest and the paternity of her baby daughter has been established. To no one's surprise, DNA testing has determined that the child's biological (although illegitimate) father is Larry Birkhead.

However, did Ms. Smith deserve all the media attention she got both in life and in death? I say she did not. What did she ever do with her life? Sure, she was an attractive model, Playboy centerfold, and marginal celebrity. Actually, her real claim to fame may have been the fact that she married a tycoon old enough to be her great grandfather and, following his death, ended up in a court battle with his children -- that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court -- for his estate. But that didn't justify anything near all the hype that surrounded her.

Was she a great leader or statesperson? Did she ever hold any type of elective office? Was she ever appointed to any substantive office? Did she make any monumental discoveries or invent anything useful? Was she a great philanthropist or humanitarian? Did she do anything significant to benefit mankind or alleviate human suffering? Was she a talented entertainer or performer? Did she produce or star in any classic films or television programs?

The answer to all of the above questions is obviously no. Instead of meriting our honor and praise, she needed our pity and understanding. Indeed, she was a pathetic young woman of questionable moral turpitude and a seemingly limited intellect, who lived for the pleasure of the moment. In addition, she was obviously addicted to prescription drugs and allowed herself to be taken advantage of by her hangers-on. Perhaps she would be alive right now if a loved one would have cared enough to intervene.

Are Imus' Critics Sincere About Zero Tolerance?

In response to Don Imus' hateful remarks about the Rutgers University women's basketball team, we have had to listen to one guardian of public civility after another lecture us on subject of the common decency. However, most of them seem disingenuous to me.

For one thing, they took advantage of the situation and used it as an opportunity to advance various tenets of the left-wing political agenda -- like the call for universal health coverage, as if that had anything to do with the matter at hand. They also trotted out their trusty, but completely invalid, mantra about the lack of minorities and women in certain areas being proof positive of discrimination and unequal opportunity.

But more importantly, they focused too much on the race and gender of both the offender (in this case, Mr. Imus) and the targets of the offense (in this case, the female basketball players). Yes, Virginia, their concerns ring arbitrary and capricious. They seem to be saying that it's okay to disparage one individual or group, but not another; and that it's okay for one individual or group to do the disparaging, but not okay for another to do it.

They speak of a zero tolerance policy toward racist and sexist remarks, yet few of them seem concerned about this kind of stuff when it is being spewed (at black women) by the purveyors of rap and hip-hop. Why should rap and hip-hop performers be considered beyond reproach?

And how is it that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have the moral authority to accuse anyone of racism after the remarks they've made in the past? When white males are being lampooned and belittled by the entertainment business for the sin of simply being white males, where are the cries for justice then?

Where are the protests about Christians being regularly slandered on primetime television? Why isn't there an organized effort targeting ABC for continuing to give Rosie O'Donnell a pass to say any outrageous thing she wants?

Perhaps my perceptions are wrong and they are truly serious about the civility and decency thing. If they are, it would be a real breath of fresh air and I would welcome that. Anyway, I'm going to call their bluff. Those who are sincere about these matters should be willing to agree to the following rule:

"No one holding a position in the entertainment or media business shall make a disparaging remark (even as a part of song lyrics) about anyone or any group of people, based on that person's or that group's race, gender, ethnic background, religion, creed, or personal appearance. Anyone violating this rule will be immediately fired and will forfeit opportunities to any future movie, TV, radio, recording, print, or Internet contracts or positions -- no exceptions and no questions asked. The race, gender, ethnic background, religion, creed, or personal appearance of the offender shall not be taken into consideration."

Anyone who would not agree to such a rule is obviously not serious about a zero tolerance policy against indecency or the lack of civility and should forever hold their peace (in order words, they should just shut the heck up).

Virtually Ignoring a Much Greater Injustice

While everyone seemed to be flipping out this past week over the racist and sexist remark radio talk show host Don Imus made about the Rutgers women's basketball team, the climax of a much greater injustice went almost unnoticed.

Three Duke University lacrosse players were finally exonerated after more than a year of having to fight false charges of rape, kidnapping, and assault. These three young men had been indicted, arrested, booked, and forced to put up huge amounts of bail to maintain their freedom. Why? Because some district attorney, in a tight primary election battle to maintain his job in an overwhelmingly Democratic district, pandered to citizens of that district who demanded "justice."

Instead, he should have looked at the facts and the evidence, which would have clearly indicated he had no case against these Duke students. The fact that the female accuser is black and the three males who were accused are white was completely irrelevant to the facts of this case. However, as it all too often does in our culture, racism reared its ugly head and proved to be devastating to its victims.

Obviously, the members of the Rutgers basketball team were also victims of racism. They did nothing to Don Imus and in no way deserved the hurtful remark he made about them. However, other than getting their feelings hurt and having to endure some unjustified shame and humiliation, they suffered no real damage. In fact, the dignified way in which these fine ladies and their coach handled the situation will likely work to their advantage in the long run. There is little doubt that they will now have opportunities, like those for book-writing and speaking engagements, they otherwise might not have had. 

Now, compare this to the situation of the three Duke lacrosse players. Yes, they can now get on with their lives and might even have similar opportunities to those of the Rutgers women. However, everyone can now see that those women are far from being any "nappy-headed ho's." On the hand, there will be lingering doubts, especially among those in the African-American community, as to the innocence of the gentlemen from Duke.

Once someone is accused of a serious crime like rape or kidnapping, many will continue to believe their guilt no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary. It's just human nature, I guess. These young men will likely continue to be persona non grada in many places and face various forms of discrimination for the rest of their lives. The bottom line is that they will never be able to have their good names completely restored. And this is on top of the harrowing ordeal and legal wringer they've already been put through.

Will they eventually file some lawsuits? I have no idea. What I do know is that no amount of money will compensate for what they have gone through and will continue to have to endure. Now, do you still think the bulk of last week's media attention should have gone to the ignorant remark of some two-bit commentator, as it did? If so, I have a proposition for you. I'll volunteer to allow someone to make an unfair, disparaging remark about me if you'll agree for someone to formally accuse you of a serious crime like rape or kidnapping. Deal?

Have We Lost All Sense of Proportion?

Don Imus' deplorable remark about the Rutgers Women's basketball team being "nappy-headed ho's" deserved to be met with harsh criticism. However, what we actually got was a reaction that was way out of proportion to the original action. Even some otherwise-intelligent people helped lead the charge and carry the whole backlash to ridiculous levels. I'm starting to wonder if there would have been any more outrage, had Mr. Imus killed some of those women.

Yes, what Imus said was both racist and sexist. But we must also remember that they were only words. Why do we have to be so fanatical about them? And who the heck cares what some silly talk show host has to say anyway? Why can't everyone just ignore him and move on? If some popular on-the-air blowhard were to say, for instance, that all 46-year-old white male Protestants were cross-dressing Nazis, I wouldn't lose one second of sleep over it. I wouldn't be protesting. I wouldn't be demanding that he be taken off the air. I have more important things to do than worry about someone's empty words. I'm not that petty.

That's what I can't understand about what's been turned into "Imusgate." With a world full of terrorism, war, AIDS, poverty, starvation, natural disasters, illiteracy, out-of-wedlock births, soaring drop-out rates, abortions-on-demand, and the like, don't we all have more important things to be concerned about? While Imus' offense is not trivial in the least, it pales in comparison to these things. The ironic thing is that many of these issues disproportionately affect the communities of those who are screaming the loudest about Imus' transgression. It seems that they're more worried about what someone said than they are about the many blights of modern inner-city life.

Let's save our outrage for real creeps and people who are actual dangers to society, like those who murder, rape, molest small children, assault, kidnap, intimidate, rob, steal, burn churches, deal illegal drugs, and defraud. Once we get all of these people off our streets and behind bars, then perhaps we'll have time to sit around and parse words and wring our hands over what to do about those who utter offensive ones.

Why the Criticism of the Former Detainees?

I don't understand all the criticism by ring-wing bloggers and others of the British sailors and marines who were recently detained by Iran. The bottom line to me is that those 15 people are now back home safe and sound. They lived to fight another day and I believe that end justifies whatever means they felt necessary to secure their release. Some have expressed concern that they may have not followed standard operating procedure or protocol or did not act in accordance with the way they were trained for the situation they found themselves in. But what should it matter, as long as all ended well?

Furthermore, we need to get over this blame-the-victim mentality. When someone perpetrates a crime like murder, rape, robbery, assault and battery, theft, fraud, or, in this case, the taking of hostages, they assume all the blame. Not even one percent of the blame should be laid at the feet of the victim(s), no matter how they react to the situation.

If I ever found myself in circumstances similar to those of the former detainees, I would be willing to say anything to gain my release. Heck, I would even confess to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, if that's what I thought my captors wanted to hear. No matter what I said, what difference would it make anyway? I could always take it back after I was released and say I didn't mean it.

I'm not the least bit impressed with the bravado of critics who say they would have stood firm and would have done this or would have done that. I don't believe they can be completely sure about what they would have done in a similar situation. Besides, many of them have never worn a military uniform. Instead of criticizing, they should join me in thanking God that this incident did not end in disaster or result in further escalation of tensions between Iran and the West.