Thou Shall Not Lie...

unless, of course, it is the easiest way to advance your position.

Go back to the earliest writings of civilization. Civilized people have always warned against bearing false witness. "Thou shall not lie!"

Remember George Washington and the cherry tree? "I cannot tell a lie." The legend says that young Washington believed that any punishment meted by his father was preferable to the disgrace of having been caught in a lie.

So, what, exactly, constitutes a lie. One dictionary definition is "to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive." Not to be confused with an honest error... a mistake. But I believe it is also a lie to make an untrue statement because you have not taken the time to learn the readily available truth of the matter. Often that is the case with lies published by newspapers or magazines, or uttered by speakers. Someone hears a lie and repeats it without checking it out. They are still lying. It is still wrong.

Today, however, it seems that it has become okay to lie. Why bother to do fact checking when the lie so conveniently fits your point of view.

Here is a lie that originated with Mike Smith, a political cartoonist with the Las Vegas Sun, syndicated by King Features, and reprinted by the newspaper in my home town.


We expect political cartoons to be edgy, partisan. But, to just outright lie! And for supposedly respectable newspapers to happily reprint this lie... is that okay?

In the 1960s, I was involved in radio broadcasting in Kansas. First Lady Ladybird Johnson led a campaign to outlaw all billboards that obstructed the scenic view of passersby. As I have written before, we radio people could well have done without the billboard industries competition for advertising dollars. But we fought the billboard ban. Because it was wrong.

With the above cartoon, some newspapers have shown they would happily promote a lie to slander another news medium. Fox News Channel never mentioned Shirley Sherrod - never aired the offensive video clip, until hours after the White House forced her to resign. Notice that in the right hand side of the above cartoon, the representation of a TV screen labeled "Fox" shows the commentator as some sort of a loon. There was only one objective here: to declare Fox News Channel to be crazy. And, of course, they show a representation of President Obama pressing the "mute" button! Translation: Don't debate people who disagree with you - just call them crazy and shut them up!

That tells me a lot about the character of the newspapers which carried the Mike Smith cartoon. With them, lying is okay in political cartoons. Do they also lie in their regular news reporting? No wonder their circulation is shrinking.

Things I've Grown to Dislike.

I intensely dislike the word "colored" when applied to people. People are not colored - unless they are on stage as a clown - they are what they are born. (No, suntans do not apply!)

If we must comment on people's skin pigment, why can't we sensibly say "light-skinned" or "dark-skinned"? That is all the description we need - if we need a description at all.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. What does that title do to advance anyone? Nothing, in my opinion. It is antiquated and degrading.

People native to the tropical zone, all around the world, generally have dark skin. It is a product of the sun. Move away from the tropics - north or south - and you find people with lighter skin. A product of absorption of UV rays, or something. Of all the unimportant things in our modern world, that has to be one of the most unimportant.

Scientists tell us the human race originated in tropical Africa, where almost everyone was dark skinned. As humans migrated to temperate and colder latitudes - where suns rays were weak - their skin lightened. So, instead of talking about "colored" people. Why could we not say "bleached" people?

NAABP.

I might like that!

What I want from members of the new Congress:

1. Never introduce a bill - never vote for a bill - that is longer than one page. The founders wrote the master law of the land covering freedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of the press; freedom to peaceably assemble; freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances... all in one sentence! Forty five words! (See the first amendment to the Constitution.)

2. Never write a bill - never vote for a bill - that does not include the word repeal.

3. Support repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment. Eliminate all taxes that punish hard work and initiative; support a simple, fair tax code.

4. Support repeal of the Seventeenth amendment. U.S. Senators were supposed to represent the interests of their state... not the interests of their political party leaders.

Here we go again!

Everyone is piling on BP again. Maybe they deserve it... but that is not the point. My problem is that BP is accused of looking after their own interests (and the interests of thousands of people who have invested in BP stock) as opposed to appeasing Americans.

This time it is over the release, by a Scottish judge, of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the guy convicted of planting a bomb on Pan Am Flight 103, causing it to crash at Lockerbie, Scotland.

The complainers think the guy should not have been released. I agree. Why show humanitarian kindness to a person who inhumanely murdered so many innocent people over a perverted ideology?

They say BP petitioned for his release to help them secure an oil deal with Libya. I say, (if the charge is true) "Why shouldn't they have done that?" Our own Constitution (not applicable in this Scotland case in spite of the loss of American lives and property) grants the right to petition the government to redress a grievance.

You may argue the use of the word grievance, but the oil deal was certainly in the best interest of BP stockholders, while continued confinement of al-Megrahi provided no direct benefit. Letting him go will not bring back any lost lives - nor will it cause further losses. Apparently the only result is to anger a bunch of Americans.

BP is charged with acting in their own best interest. That, in itself, is not a crime.

Now.... if the Scottish judge winked at the law to do a favor for BP, that would be a crime. Then the judge should be punished, not BP.

Beyond the book's bizarre cover.

We keep hearing outrageous things from the radical Muslim camp, and keep wondering if they are really nuts. Look deeper.

In her weekly column, Kathleen Parker reports that another Islamist fatwa has been issued against a cartoonist (Seattle based Molly Norris) for a perceived insult to the prophet Mohammad.

In his 2006 book America Alone, Mark Steyn tells of a rumor that swept Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. The rumor told of a Sudanese shop keeper who shook hands with a western man and instantly felt his penis shrink and disappear. The story was supported by another man who said a man from west Africa handed him a comb and told him to comb his hair. When he complied, he immediately felt his penis shrink and disappear.

Are these people nuts?

Well, yes, but they are cleverly being led - no, dragged - down a path to hate all non-Muslims.

Someone, at some ancient time, determined that the ultimate, unforgivable sin was to make a picture of the prophet Mohammad. And, they apparently made it the solemn duty of every true believer to seek out and punish the sinner. How better to foment acts of violence than to identify a sinner and remind the faithful that it is their responsibility to inflict punishment?

Imagine the mental pain (not to mention the physical suffering involved) for a woman who loses a breast in a mastectomy. As much as anything, a woman's breast is symbolic of womanhood.

For a man, the penis is the icon of masculinity. In my opinion, a penis is more important to a man than is a breast to a woman. To a man, Muslim or otherwise, loss of one's penis renders him impotent - no longer a man. In a society so oriented toward sex (What religion other then Islam promises a man 72 virgins as he enters heaven?) that feeling of impotence upon the loss of one's penis, must be overwhelming for a Muslim man. What will those 72 virgins think? Can you imagine the giggling and pointing?

So, what of the Khartoum rumor? It teaches that you cannot even befriend (shake hands with) an infidel without being rendered impotent. You cannot accept charity (a comb) from an infidel without being rendered impotent. And even if you have enough scientific understanding to basically doubt the shrinking, disappearing penis story, why take a chance?

How then can we hope to reason with people so indoctrinated? With people who deeply hold such beliefs? If you offer a hand of friendship to a Muslim man; if you offer to help a poor Muslim man is your offer perceived as an attempt to make him impotent?

Do you find it hard to believe someone could be motivated to violence by an perceived attack on their religious beliefs? Blasphemous phrases against God are so offensive to some Christians that hearing the utterance causes great mental anguish. But, those people usually suffer in silence... they have not been taught that it is their duty to kill the offender.

When you hear talk of moderate Muslims; When you hear that Islam is a religion of peace; keep in mind that all Muslims would welcome an Islamic world. At what point, if ever, would they reject the radicals in favor of peace? To what extremes might they agree in the belief that the end justifies the means?

And, when you hear something from the world of Islam that sounds really kooky, think a little harder before you dismiss it offhand!

Is the president really stupid...

or does it just look that way?

First, having spent 25 years working for a news reporting medium, I know we never get the full story. Not always the reporter's fault... there are lots of obstacles (time among them) that keep us from getting all the details.

In politics, however, that matters little. It is the perception that counts.

Some months ago, when the city of Las Vegas was just beginning to feel the pinch of the recession, President Obama went on the air. Intending to discourage wasteful spending, he cautioned everyone not to go running off to Las Vegas. That misguided statement tightened the noose around Las Vegas' neck as group after group canceled conventions and meetings in that city, in fear of appearing wasteful.

Stupid? You make the call.

Now we have a situation wherein a oil spill, followed by an apparently ill-advised moratorium on off-shore drilling, has caused great economic pressure on a big chunk of America. Again, perception hurts. Talk of oil-soaked beaches and dead pelicans has scared away people who would normally be vacationing in the region. In reality, many of the beaches and associated resorts are pristine... someone needs to get the word out! Call the White House!

The President wants to take a vacation. Fair enough. All he has to do is make a big prime time TV announcement that he, Michelle and their daughters will be going to the Gulf to relax on the powder white sand beaches and in the crystal clear waters. Can you imagine him saying, "Come join me, America... let's show the people of the gulf that we support them!" That announcement would surely result in sell out crowds throughout that region. Not only would it boost the economy of the region, it would boost the president's sagging popularity ratings.

Does the president take advantage of this gold-plated P.R. gift? Nope. He vacations in Maine.

This time I will make the call... that was just plain, old-fashioned stupid!

What is the Tea Party movement?

Some TV commentators keep saying they just don't know what the Tea Party is all about. Locked in their view of the political parties, they see the DNC, the RNC, the state party headquarters, right down to those precinct captains, all trying to seduce voters to their point-of-view. And the TV heads keep searching for an equivalent structure in the Tea Party. Who is their leader? What is their objective?

Let me help: We do not have structure. We do not have a "Leader". We are not a party. But we do have an objective. Simply put, we are the voters the politicians hope to seduce.

It is pretty obvious that we have been naive. Throughout the Great Depression, World War II, the '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s, '90s we have behaved in what we believed was the American way. Each election we voted for the candidates we preferred. Some won. Some did not. But when all the votes were counted, we accepted those who did win. As they went off to their new offices, we cheered, trusting and believing they would act in the best interest of the nation.

Now, to our great dismay, we realize this has not been true. Beginning with Woodrow Wilson, many of those election winners have advanced a political agenda completely contrary to the best interests of the nation we so love.

Bit by bit they have been stealing our freedoms - our way of life - and we want it all back. We are not asking them to give it back. We are going to take it back. No, we will not do it with violence... we will not subvert the rule of law we so love. We will do it the American way. We will vote for the candidates who promise to "fix it". But, unlike the past, they will not be supported with our blind trust. We will monitor their performance as never before. We will share our views and opinions. We will work tirelessly.

Who is the Tea Party? Show up at any polling place next election day, and you will see them. They will be there to unleash the irresistible force of the power of their vote.

The BP Oil Spill

Ranking the tragedies.

For 85 days - since April 20, we have heard commentators tell us that the oil spill was a tragedy. Sometimes, I feel, for the wrong reasons. So, here is the way I would rank the seriousness of the various happenings.

The real tragedy was the loss of eleven lives when the drilling rig exploded. That can never be reversed, never healed. If you were a parent, a sibling, a spouse or a child of one of those workers who were killed, you will likely bear the grief of that loss for the rest of your life. For some reason, that is the "tragedy" we hear least about.

The second worse result of the spill is the loss of income for so many people. Whether you own a boat which was the source of your paycheck, but is now tied up at the dock; own a Gulf area business which is now closed, or are a worker idled by the mysterious moratorium the government is determined to impose, the result is the same: How will you make your next mortgage payment? Will you have to forget about that new car you had ordered? Forget about buying new school supplies and back-to-school clothes for the kids? And what about the people who hope to make their living by selling those things? If yours is one of the families so impacted, this is a tragedy - not of your making.

The third is the money lost. Millions of gallons of U.S. oil lost means millions, perhaps billions of U.S. dollars going to places like Saudi Arabia, where those dollars will be used to build madrassas to teach children to hate Americans; or to Venezuela, where the dollars will likewise be used for anti-American endeavors. And what about the pensioners dependent upon the value of BP stock?

Yes, the damage to wildlife and the environment is a tragedy - but that will be the quickest to heal. Pelicans should never die by choking in oil, but like all birds, the species will survive. I've stepped on tar balls on Miami Beach, and on the beaches at Santa Barbara, California. A messy situation, but survivable.

A tragedy that saddens me has been the widespread dissemination of misinformation. Otherwise reasonable news reporters have come unglued over uncertain or downright false and frivolous charges. Every news reporter should know that persons from different parts of the world tend to express themselves differently. But when the BP chairman made reference to "small people", he was accused of insulting Americans. Do you suppose he was simply speaking on behalf of the "little guy" we all seek to support?

BP has been vilified by virtually everyone. Is the company at fault? Was the explosion a result of bad company policy - the fault of one incompetent supervisor cutting corners - the result of an incompetent or uncaring government inspector repeatedly blowing off safety violations... or was it just a pure, out and out accident... one of those things people like to call "an act of God"? We may never know the truth. But we have already tried and convicted BP and levied punishment , perhaps far beyond the Constitutional limits of fair and reasonable punishment.

Hopefully, the well is now being capped, the spilling of oil will end. The eleven lost lives cannot be replaced. But, I wonder, will the other "tragedies" be allowed to end?

...until proven... NOT!

In America, we have this strange custom... we do not just accuse someone of something then proceed to punish them. The accused must be proven guilty after, as the Constitution states, having been informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; is confronted with the witnesses against him; has a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and if desired - the assistance of Counsel for his defense, etc.

Why, then are entities like Angie's List so popular? In one of their TV commercials, a painting contractor is black-listed because one of his employees behaved stupidly and tracked paint across a customers floor. This contractor may be the best in his community. (Has their ever been a business, large or small, that did not experience an employee behaving badly?) Surely he would have cleaned up the mistake if informed... perhaps his other employees already did! No matter - Angie's List says to blacklist him!

In another commercial, a plumber is lauded because he walked the customer's dog. A nice man, but did he know anything about plumbing? Maybe he was a skilled plumber, but the demand for a skilled plumber's time is such that one can hardly imagine him having time to walk someone's dog. I think I would like a little more information before calling this guy for a plumbing job.

With Angie's List, Service Magic, Super Pages, even the Better Business Bureau, consumers are given, not useful facts, but uncontested opinions which may or may not be accurate, truthful and pertinent.

I have seen many cases of good, legitimate business operations penalized - even forced out of business - by false accusations. I recall one contractor who was sued on what I know to have been a phoney charge. The customer wanted to not pay for $10,000. worth of work. The contractor surely could have won his case in court. But, his attorney calculated the time and grief that defense would require, the actual estimated cost of legal expenses, and told the contractor that his lowest cost option was to settle and give the disgruntled customer his work for free.

So, before relying on any of these consumer protection outfits, first read the Sixth Amendment, then find a more reliable way to confirm the qualifications of a company or individual you are considering for work.