A Look at Atlantis
Posted here for 12-31-07



A couple of days before Christmas my brother and I flew over to the Bahamas for a two-night stay at Atlantis. The flights there and back were tedious and frustrating (I was particularly peeved to find Spirit Airlines charges $10 per bag on everything checked), but our time on Paradise Island was pure delight.

We stayed at Royal Towers East and were glad we did. The architecture is stunning and the beaches, pools, and waterfalls are absolutely spectacular. There are two underwater viewing tunnels (one at Predator Lagoon and the other -- the "Dig" -- near the main reception area) for looking at the myriad of sea life. There were sharks, rays (15 feet across!), and a seemingly endless variety of fish -- thousands of them.

We walked through the casino, but did not indulge in any games. There were too many other far more fascinating things to see and do.

We wanted to hop on an inner tube and float along on The Current or take the Lazy River Ride, but time did not allow. We also thought it would be fun to participate in the dolphin interactive program, but again, there was not enough time. Just walking around the property I took over 200 photos!

A couple of observations:

Prices are high. Visiting just before Christmas saved us quite a bit of money.

For meals, entrees at most of the restaurants are in the $40 to $50 range. One night we ate at Bimini Road and the next night at Seafire Steakhouse, where the entrees were considerably less.

There were a couple of light showers while we were there; caution: the walkways become very slippery when wet.

Atlantis is about a 45-minute ride from the airport. We took a Majestic Tours Limited bus both going and coming; there was quite a wait before the bus departed from the terminal.

We found the service at Atlantis to be very good.

I hope some day to return to Atlantis and once again enjoy the sights and sounds there. It was both exciting and relaxing. Atlantis is a special place.

Showing Proper Respect for Environmentalism
Posted here for 12-17-07

Alright already! I've had enough of the badgering. It seems everyone is touting his or her concern for the environment. So I guess it's time I participated in this group-green congregation. Let me demonstrate my concern for and dedication to the health of the planet. Here are my contributions:

First of all, notice how I'm honoring the green movement by displaying these words in green. I don't see anyone else making such an environmentally politically correct statement (with the possible exception of the all-green NBC peacock).

Next, to encourage the conservation of energy, I've established a blank webpage (link), which I think you should use as often as possible. It takes less electrical power to display black on your computer screen, so this webpage, if used frequently, will lower your electricity consumption and reduce this nation's dependence on foreign oil.

I bought one of those energy-saving compact fluorescent light bulbs and I put it in a reading lamp next to a chair near my computer. But more than that, I just turned it off! Imagine the energy savings that will produce!

By cancelling my subscription to Newsweek, I know I'll save trees. And I'll save more trees than you will if you cancel your Newsweek subscription, because I cancelled about twenty years ago! Was I ahead of the curve on this one or what? Let me also recommend that you cancel your subscription to Time, US News and World Report, and especially The Washington Post and New York Times. Do your part to save the trees.

I'm not eating any hot cereals, even during the winter. Do you know how many watts of energy it takes to heat up a bowl of oatmeal? This is another contribution I've made to reducing energy consumption, a contribution I initiated dozens of years ago.

Since moving here to south Florida I've never had a fire in my fireplace. Do you have any idea how much carbon I've prevented from entering the atmosphere as a result? And I guarantee I'll never have a fire in my fireplace here. (I can say that because I don't have a fireplace.)

I've taken the bold step of not turning on the heat in my home for more than ten years now. (I used it only a couple of times years ago.) If it gets really cold -- like 50 degrees or even into the 40s! -- I just put a comforter on the bed. Talk about doing your part for the environment!

Readers of my "Thoughts" items will recall that I bought a convertible earlier this year. I enjoy very much driving around town with the top down. But how about this: even with the top down, I turn the air conditioning on. So you see, I'm doing my part to cool the planet.

I like to get exercise by taking walks and when I do, I notice there are a lot of joggers running around. I'm breathing easily, but they're panting. Yes, they're creating a whole lot more CO2 than I am. And they probably don't even realize what effect they're having on global warming. They're pumping out CO2 like crazy, but I'm not. Who are the ones concerned about our environment now?

I notice several people up and down my street drive their cars to the mailboxes at the end of the street. Not I. No, sir! I walk. I'm not going to add to all the pollution and all the greenhouse gases by driving my car there. (Besides, for me it's only about 80 feet away.)

I have prepared a PowerPoint presentation (on CD) on the subject of environmentalism. I'll send you a copy if you'd like. Just send me two bucks to cover postage and handling (the presentation itself is free) along with your name and address and the word "environmentalism". Send to Fred Gielow, 17234 Boca Club Boulevard #102, Boca Raton, Florida 33487.

My energy-saving compact fluorescent light bulb is still turned off.

And finally, no tribute to environmentalism would be complete without honoring Al Gore, who has done so much to further the worry and concern about possible environmental catastrophes. Mr. Gore has spared no amount of misinformation to advance anxiety and consternation in the name of protecting the planet. I honor him with this photograph.

I think I've done my part to show proper respect for global warming and the cause of environmentalism.

At a Glenn Beck Book Signing
Posted here for 12-10-07



I got to the shopping center in Jupiter, Florida on Friday, November 30th at about 11 a.m. The book signing wasn't scheduled to begin until 12:30, so I stayed in my car and listened to Glenn Beck on the radio.

A half hour later I entered the Books-A-Million store and found a lot of people were already there. I got in line, bought a copy of the book, and received my "line number:" 114. A short time later we were instructed to form a line in line-number sequence, and the queue weaved its way back and forth along the book store aisles.

The folks waiting for Glenn Beck were both friendly and conservative, and interesting conversations naturally ensued. The guy in front of me was an autograph hound who had surprising tales to tell of encounters with those of fame and fortune. His meeting with George Burns revealed that celebrities aren't always what you think they are, based on what see on your TV or movie screen.

Beck arrived about 15 minutes late and by then about 300 people had gathered. We were instructed to open our books to the "signing" page, and I was surprised to see an autograph was already there! Apparently all the books were signed beforehand; the "signing" event was merely to add personalization. I wrote "Fred" on the yellow sticky note which was given to me to speed the process.

All morning I had wondered what I was going to say when I got to the front of the line. I finally decided on: "Why do you do this to yourself?" Beck's book-signing schedule -- along with three-hour daily radio shows, his hour TV program, and his busy Christmas tour -- was brutal.

But I would not be able to ask my question. I wanted to give Glenn a copy of my book (You Don't Say,) so when it was my "turn," I said, "May I give you this?" He said "Yes, of course," or something of the sort, then, "Thank you very much. God bless you," and that was it! There was no time for pleasant chitchat. He had perhaps 400 books to write in and only an hour to do so, and as a result, "face-to-face" time was necessarily brief.

I hung around to take pictures for another ten minutes or so, then walked back to my car. It was a pleasant, fun experience. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Gradual Slide from Greatness
Posted here for 12-3-07

Last week I got a call from a friend (I'll call him Rob) who lives in a city not too far from Miami. For years Rob has been an activist, championing the Constitution and the rule of law.

Some while back he became angered by all the drugs that were bought and sold in his community. When drug transactions were taking place in front of his place of business, he called the cops. Authorities dutifully removed the drug dealers, but Rob discovered they were released just blacks away and were back in front of his business in no time. Rather than complain, he got busy. He had tens of thousands of stickers printed up with the message: say no to drugs. Then he went all around town posting the stickers wherever they might be seen. He enlisted the help of businesses and organizations to spread the word. He worked with schools and influential individuals to rid the streets of what had become a serious drug threat. And the campaign was having an effect.

Apparently this angered some of the folks in power. Local politicians, who I assume were in bed with the drug pushers, decided Rob's actions were bad for business. When angry words did not stop him, the authorities arrested Rob, sent him to jail, and seized his records.

During his many years of activism, Rob fortunately had become familiar with a number of influential people across the state and in the capital, Tallahassee. Some hurried calls and conversations finally resulted in Rob's release from jail, but his records remained locked up for three months. During that time, his business suffered greatly and Rob lost an enormous amount of money.

Look what this story teaches us. Corruption exists in some communities in the United States to the point where citizens are not permitted to exercise free speech. They can and are tossed into the hoosgow at the whim of our leaders. As it turned out, three of the policemen who arrested Rob ended up in jail themselves, convicted of drug charges. When Rob was released, a politician told him he would never be allowed to renew his business license. Happily, this turned out to be an empty threat, but again, only because Rob knew important people in high places. If he did not, he would still be looking out at the world from behind bars.

What about all the good people who are presently improperly imprisoned? How many are there? Hundreds? Thousands perhaps? Rob asked his contacts why the corrupt individuals weren't removed from office. He was told it wasn't politically achievable. Thus corruption is not stifled but allowed to fester.

Something very ugly is going on in this country. As morality falters, our freedoms fail. As honesty and decency lose prominence, the goodness of America wains. Alexis de Tocqueville had it all figured out in 1835. He said, "America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."

Missing: Common Sense
Posted here for 11-26-07

In spite of increasing evidence from calm and thoughtful scientists, global warming advocates continue their harangue that our planet is doomed because of man-made greenhouse gases. The computer models prove it, they scream. The science is settled, they repeat over and over. Anyone who doesn't accept their conclusions is the modern-day equivalent of those who believed the Earth was flat.

Well, let's just take a look at some of those "infallible," "scientific" computer models that predict planet warming by the year 2100. Let's see how well the global-warming gurus do with some actual climate predictions.

This chart shows results from numerous weather-forecasting models (the many light lines). It compares predictions of average percent cloud cover (y-axis) versus latitude (x-axis) around the world versus actual observations (the single heavy line). (Source.)

Hmmm. It should be noted that not one of the models was correct. Most weren't even close. Some were embarrassingly off mark.

These "scientific," computer-generated results are representative, mind you, of the "infallible" computer models that show world temperatures 93 years from now will be higher than they are today. They predict not only higher temperatures, but exactly how many degrees warmer the world will be in 2100.

I tend to think that anyone who buys into this craziness is a lot dumber than those who believed, hundreds of years ago, that the Earth was flat.

(By the way, I've recently completed a 30-minute PowerPoint presentation on the subject of Global Warming. If you'd like a copy (on CD), please send me your name and address and two bucks. The presentation itself is free; the $2 covers materials, postage, and handling. Send to Fred Gielow, 17234 Boca Club Boulevard #102, Boca Raton, Florida 33487.)

Writing for Democrats
Posted here for 11-19-07

After watching the Democrat presidential candidates debate, I think I could be a writer for them. To prove my point, here are answers for them to use during upcoming debates or at various stops along the campaign trail:

Question: Do you think illegal aliens should be allowed to get drivers' licenses?

Answer: The Bush administration has been disgraceful in its handling of this issue and the United States needs new leadership to address the concerns of the citizens. When I'm President, I'll provide that leadership by aggressively dealing with the country's problems. I'll bring new ideas, new energy, and new insight. I'll lead us in a new direction, instead of down the same path of failed policies and action.

Question: How soon would you bring our troops home from Iraq?

Answer: You know, 77% of Americans want this war in Iraq to end. This is a question that is on the minds of concerned citizens in the red states as well as the blue states. I'm going to bring our troops home. It's the right thing to do. It's only because of the failed policies of George Bush that so many have been killed there and so much of our treasure has been squandered there. On the first day I'm President, I'm going to dump those failed policies and negotiate with our enemies so we can achieve lasting peace around the world.

Question: What plans do you have to improve the education of the nation's kids?

Answer: This is a good example of how poor leadership and wasteful programs from George Bush have hurt Americans. How can we expect this country to succeed if school kids don't get good educations? Our country should be setting an example for nations around the world, but instead, the current administration continually refuses to implement needed reforms and it underfunds proven initiatives.

Question: Do you have any plans to strengthen the military?

Answer: I have always supported our men and women in the military. The Republicans try to trick the public into thinking we Democrats aren't concerned about the troops. But I know the public is smarter than that. The American people know we support the troops. I occasionally see soldiers, sailors, and Marines when I'm making campaign speeches, and I always make it a point to remark, "Let me say this to the troops who are here today: I support you." Yes, it's important to support the troops, and I'm proud to say I support the troops. I always have supported the troops, and I always will.

Question: Do you have any plans to raise taxes?

Answer: Of course tax revenues, or "federal donations," as I like to call them, are what's necessary to allow our government to function. Of course the Bush administration and Republicans want to raise taxes for the poor and lower taxes for the rich. This is unacceptable. When I'm president, I'm going to provide the leadership to change our tax system so those in the upper tax brackets pay more of their share. Why should those who are well-off be allowed to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars each year, when middle-class folks, for example, work just as hard and earn far less?

Question: Can you sum up?

Answer: The Bush administration stands for corruption. George Bush is a lier, he wants war, and everything he does is for the benefit of his cronies in big business. He only went into Iraq for oil. He hates the poor, blacks, Hispanics, and homosexuals. He's a dummy, he's prejudiced, and he talks like a hillbilly. I'm running for President because we need a change. We must discard the old, outdated, and inefficient ways. I'll provide the leadership this country needs to plot a new direction, to move aggressively forward, so America will once again be respected in the world. My vision will lead us to government-provided health care, to policies where good people from other lands can come here whenever they want -- and we'll take care of them, to a world without war -- because an empowered United Nations will achieve that, and to a state where all people love one another -- because the law will demand it.

How were those answers? Do you think I could write Democrat speeches or what?

PC in Action
Posted here for 11-12-07

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

That used to be useful common wisdom not so many years ago. Obviously today, it's bunk. Certain words, if spoken, can get you booted off the air (Don Imus). Certain words, even if spoken confidentially -- but left on an answering machine -- can put a halt to your TV career (Duane "Dog" Chapman).

Such is the nature of political correctness. It's not that certain words are off limits, it's that certain people can't use certain words. Certain people can't even say what's on their mind. Rush Limbaugh, for example, commented that the media seemed anxious to overlook the faults of black quarterback Donovan McNabb. He was summarily dismissed from his sports job. Paul Hornung remarked that Notre Dame may have lowered it's academic standards to attract blacks. He, too, was fired. Fox TV broadcaster Steve Lyons made some comments that some considered inhospitable to hispanics. Fired! Talk-show host Larry Krueger said that Filipe Alou has "cream of wheat for brains." Fired! Larry Summers, president of Harvard, referred to data that suggest fundamental differences between the sexes help explain why so few women become scientists or engineers. He was promptly booted out of office.

But some racist remarks are welcomed with open arms. When Joe Morgan said the Houston Astros are too white, that was greeted with approval. Eric Dickerson said the position of running backs belongs to black men. Once again, approval. Bryant Gumbel commented that the Winter Olympics athletes -- so many of whom are white -- aren't really athletes. The reaction: oh, how wise and observant. Charles Barkley suggested some whites in the NBA are there only because they're white. Nodding heads all around.

And now we learn the University of Delaware has defined a racist thus:

"A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination.'"

Remember when people respected the First Amendment regarding freedom of speech? Remember when kids were taught "Sticks and stones may break my bones . . ." and kids believed it? Remember when people had enough self respect, maturity, and common sense to react to foul speech by simply rejecting it or ignoring it, rather than calling for people's heads?

Why do people allow themselves to become incensed, outraged, and explosive over the utterance of a few words? The answer is political correctness. It is reshaping the way we talk, the way we think, and the way we live our lives. Another slice of freedom has been taken from us.

Explaining Liberalism
Posted here for 11-5-07

I like to read David Prager's commentaries (I find them in the Washington Times Weekly Edition). These few paragraphs from an article in the September 3, 2007 issue are particularly thought provoking, I think:

I have wanted to understand people who hold leftist positions. Many people who hold them are personally decent, some very much so -- yet they hold positions that I believe increase cruelty (e.g., advocating withdrawal from Iraq); increase criminality (e.g., more lenient attitudes toward punishing criminals); hasten the decline of Western society (e.g., pushing multiculturalism); and undermine liberty (e.g., expanding government, passing more and more laws, taking away ever larger percentages of citizens' money).

They also panic easily (e.g., heterosexual AIDS in America, carbon dioxide emissions leading to global catastrophe); and the further left one goes, the more morally confused they are (e.g., the inability to label the Soviet Union an "evil empire"; the exaggeration of America's flaws -- it is sexist, imperialist, racist, homophobic -- and the undervaluing of its virtues).

Why is this? Why do so many good people hold bad positions?

There are many reasons. I believe that naivete about human nature and about evil heads the list. But high up there as an explanation of liberal and leftist thinking is the desire to be loved. [. . .]

The aim of the United States of America should not be to be loved. As nice as that would be, the one superpower on earth is never going to be loved. [. . .]

America would presumably be more loved if it abandoned Israel or if it abandoned Iraq. Each case would be morally wrong, but, hey, we'd be loved. Liberals believed we would have been more loved if we had destroyed our nuclear arsenal during the Cold War. Or if we had not pressured West Germany into accepting Pershing missiles.

"Of course, in all these cases, if America had sought love, evil would have prevailed. But at least we'd be loved. What else really matters?

I think Dennis is right on the money.

Establishing Religion
Posted here for 10-29-07

Item from the American Family Association Journal, October 2007 (pages 5-6):

A Culbertson Elementary School kindergarten assignment in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, was titled "All About Me." [. . .] When Wesley Busch's turn came, he asked his mother to read from his favorite book, the Bible. But school officials in the Philadelphia suburb told Mrs. Busch she couldn't read from the Bible because it would be proselytizing. Instead, a teacher suggested Wesley's mother read a book about witches and Halloween.

Christians continue to be beat up under the pretext of "separation of church and state." But let's look carefully at the First Amendment. The applicable language is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." Am I the only one around to notice that if Wesley's mom reads a portion of the Bible, that's not exactly the equivalent of Congress legislating religion?

Let's get very simplistic about this. Legislating religion means the federal government passing laws forcing citizens to become members of a specific religion. Wesley's mom reading from the Bible doesn't exactly fit that description. If you're not a Christian and you hear the words "And God said, 'Let there be light,'" do you suddenly find yourself transformed into a Christian? I don't think so. If you see a manger scene at Christmas time (let me see . . . that would be Christ's birthday), are you helplessly cast into the powerful grip of Christian doctrine? If you say, during the Pledge of Allegiance, ". . . One nation, under God . . ." are you bound over magically into some religious spell beyond your control? This is absurdity!

But look at the other part of that First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The ninnies at Culbertson Elementary are doing just that! Actually, it's worse than that. They're prohibiting a mom from reading a few passages from a book. This is incredible.

There's no sense in the anti-religious agenda of the anti-religious left, but it is succeeding because those of faith refuse to take a stand against this nonsense. It's time to push back. And push back hard.

Accountability
Posted here for 10-22-07

Section I of Title I of the Alien Registration Act, adopted by both houses of Congress on June 22, 1940, provides a fine of up to ten thousand dollars and ten years in prison for attempting to undermine the morale of the armed forces. Sections II and III provide the same penalties for anyone who “advocates, abets, advises, or teaches” the violent overthrow of the government; publishes or distributes printed matter that advocates the violent overthrow; organizes any society with such a purpose; knowingly joins such a society; or conspires to do any of the above. (Source: Smith Act.)

Let's consider that first section: "attempting to undermine the morale of the armed forces." It seems to me quite a few of our elected officials fit that category rather nicely. When Representative John Murtha urged potential recruits to not enlist in the military, isn't that undermining morale? When Senator John Kerry compared the war in Iraq to the Bay of Pigs, isn't that hurting morale? Of course it is. "Our soldiers didn't lose the war," said Representative Dennis Kucinich, "I maintain the war was lost the minute the White House fabricated a cause for war." That statement must have been devastating for morale. "[T]his war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything [. . .]" Senator Harry Reid said (YouTube). And here's what Senator John Kerry said in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971 about the war in Vietnam, "[Our troops] raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam." (YouTube Also). All lies, I might add.

It would seem to me these kinds of statements are the very essence of "attempting to undermine the morale of the armed forces". Yet, the individuals who spoke them suffer no consequences whatsoever.

Oh, that's right, they're liberals, so they don't have to comply with the same rules and regulations that the rest of us must observe.

Now let's consider the provision dealing with the violent overthrow of the government.

There's a document that says: 'When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam. If they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the poll tax on non-Muslims]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.' (A pronouncement by the the Prophet Muhammad, according to Sahih Muslim 4294.) Isn't that a recipe for the overthrow of the U.S. government? Sort of sounds that way to me. But Muhammad's pronouncements are fundamental to the faith of Muslims. So are there any consequences for Muslims who embrace such dogma?

Oh, that's right, they're not Christians, so they can say and do as they please.

Global Warming on YouTube
Posted here for 10-15-07

I've found there's a good deal of global warming information to be found in YouTube videos on the Internet. These are the best of those I looked at:

Economist Bjorn Lomborg: Global Warming Is Not a Priority (17 minutes, 27 seconds).
Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (1/5) (9 minutes, 47 seconds).
Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (2/5) (9 minutes, 59 seconds).
Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (3/5) (8 minutes, 45 seconds).
Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (4/5) (8 minutes, 5 seconds).
Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (5/5) (6 minutes, 10 seconds).
Another Global Warming Hoax Exposed (2 minutes, 54 seconds).
Global Warming Hoax (9 minutes, 21 seconds).
The Myth about Global Warming (2 minutes, 28 seconds).
Global Warming? Really Bad? (3 minutes, 59 seconds).
Global Warming - Opportunities (3 minutes, 38 seconds).
The Myth of Man-Made Global Warming (4 minutes, 44 seconds).
Man-Made Global Warming is Bunk (Full Video) (9 minutes, 45 seconds).
Senator James Inhofe on the Global Warming Scam (8 minutes, 58 seconds).

Maybe information debunking global warming presented in this form (via YouTube) will turn the debate around, and common sense will emerge out of today's hype and hyperbole. Alan Caruba thinks the turnaround is well underway. He opines: "When did the global warming hoax die? Historians are likely to pinpoint 2007. It will take another decade to insure it cannot be revived, but the avalanche of scientific studies and the cumulative impact of scientists who have publicly joined those who debunked the lies on which it has been based will be noted as the tipping point." ("The Year the Global Warming Hoax Died," by Alan Caruba, Resource Roundup, September 2007, page 6.)

Let's hope Alan is correct. But I fear his prediction is a little premature.

Putting CO2 in Perspective
Posted here for 10-8-07

Let's think this through. We're now told that much of the scientific community and vast numbers of common, ordinary folk believe global warming is taking place and it's man-made. It's caused by the production of man-made greenhouse gases, principally CO2, and we must take immediate action to save the planet. Right? We must drastically curtail CO2 production, even if it savages our economy, trashes our standard of living, and results in "sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society". That's what we've heard time and time again from the mainstream media, certainly Al Gore, and indeed from most of those on the left.

Well, first of all, as the chart at left shows (source), the most important greenhouse gas effecting global warming is water vapor. It's by far the most important factor.

But secondly, as the chart at right shows (source), nearly all of the CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of "natural" not man-made causes. (Another source: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, by Christopher C. Horner, 2007, page 69.)

So that means if we were somehow able to stop using all automobiles, trucks and other gas-powered vehicles; stop the generation of all gas and coal-generated electricity; stop all industry; stop the production of most of the foods we eat; and stop all other activities that result in the production of manmade CO2, then we would completely remove from the atmosphere a grand total of three percent of the CO2. (Oh, excuse me, 3.225%.)

Most analysts (like this one) simply ignore the "natural" CO2 in the atmosphere, but some explain it away saying it's merely a "closed system". But it seems to me it doesn't matter if it's a closed system, because it still accounts for some 97 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. And natural CO2 is no different than man-made CO2.

I've spent hours searching the Internet for an answer to the following question: Why are we now spending billions of dollars -- and some are anxious to spend trillions -- to reduce CO2 emissions, when doing so will address less than twelve one-hundredths of one percent of the greenhouse gases "problem"? (Manmade CO2 production is 3.225% of the total CO2, CO2 accounts for 3.618% of all greenhouse gases. Thus, .03225 x .03618 = .00117, or 0.117%.) I haven't found an answer to my question.

Recycling: Sacred Tenet of the Left
Posted here for 10-1-07

Recycling! It sounds so right for the times, so fundamentally good, so ecologically friendly, so universally accepted. To question its appropriateness is next to unthinkable. Yet, let's do just that.

What's the basis for our fervent support of recycling? Well, we have a sense it conserves resources, helps the environment, saves money. It's sort of blind faith. We simply believe recycling is a good thing to do.

How do you measure whether it's really a good thing to do? Aside from the warm feeling, that is? Let's look at the costs.

Suppose recycling saved $1 per ton of refuse. Would it be worth doing? Maybe so. Suppose it costs $1 per ton. Would it still be worth doing? Maybe not. Suppose it costs $100 per ton. Do you wish to throw away a hundred dollar bill with every ton of your trash? Most recycling wastes money.

Even if it costs more to recycle than to just throw things out, you may say, we should do it anyway. And the reason you say so is because you've been conditioned to believe it'll help the environment. But that's rubbish! If it consumes more in resources -- and it does, because it costs more -- then it's not helping the environment. You may have been taught to think that recycling is fundamentally good, but that doesn't make it good.

In his article, "Think Globally, Act Irrationally: Recycling," Michael Munger sums up nicely: "A generation of Americans has been indoctrinated into a 'save resources, recycle at all costs' mindset. 'Recycle!' is used as a moral bludgeon. [. . .] 'Recycle, regardless of cost!' doesn't solve a problem; it creates one. Laws requiring recycling harm me, the environment, and everyone else. We have to take prices into account, because prices are telling us that we can't save resources by wasting resources."

Liberal do-gooders are everywhere trying to convince us they know better how to run our lives than we do. Shower heads have blockages limiting the amount of water we consume. Toilets have limits on their water capacities. We can't smoke in some restaurants, or parks, or cities! We shouldn't eat "junk" foods. We shouldn't eat transfats. We shouldn't eat meat. We shouldn't have guns. We shouldn't use DDT. We shouldn't use Freon. We shouldn't show any Christian expressions in the public square. We shouldn't drill for oil in Alaska. We shouldn't use nuclear power. We shouldn't, we shouldn't, we shouldn't . . .

Liberals chirp about choice, but choice is what they wish to restrict. And since choice is the essence of freedom, their actions erode our liberty.

(See also: "The Myth and Cost of Recycling," by John D’Aloia Jr. "Recycling," by Etta Sanders. "Recycling: What a Waste!" by Jim Fedako. "Think Globally, Act Irrationally: Recycling," by Michael Munger. "Recycling Catches On - at a High Cost," by Amy Rinard and Jo Sandin. "Cost of Recycling Glass, Plastic Lose Luster," by Lisa Provence. "Why I Am Not An Environmentalist: The Science of Economics Versus the Religion of Ecology," by Steven E. Landsburg. "Recycling Is Garbage," by John Tierney. "Recycling," by Amit Ghate. "Recycling Just a Big Waste," by Cody Bozarth.)

Beneath Hillary's Facade
Posted here for 9-24-07

I'm amused to watch clips of Ms. Hillary as she campaigns around the country. Her smiling face. Her prim and propper apparel. Her upbeat, glowing demeanor. She's quite a campaigner. And, oh!, is she deceptive!

I've been reading Carl Limbacher's book, Hillary's Scheme (Crown Forum, 2003), and the picture of the New York Senator that emerges stands in stark contract to the sweet image she has so carefully cultivated for public consumption. Let me give you a few quotations -- direct from the lips of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In comments to "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert: "I have no intention of running for president. I do not intend to do that."

Screaming at husband Bill, when she heard the two of them had been invited to attend a clambake at George Bush's Kennebunkport estate: "F--- him, Bill. He's Reagan's goddam Vice President."

Speaking to a Secret Service agent who showed reluctance to act as baggage boy for her: "If you want to remain on this detail, get your f---ing ass over here and grab those bags."

Responding to a Secret Service officer stationed at the South Portico when he said, "Good morning, Mrs. Clinton.": "Get f---ed."

Replying to others who greeted the First Lady cordially: "Get the F--- out of my way!"

Shouting emotionally at Clinton campaign manager Paul Fray in 1974 after Bill Clinton lost a 1974 congressional race to Representative John Paul Hammerschmidt: "You f---ing Jew bastard!"

In ethnic jokes and slurs about Jews: "Jew Motherf---er, Jew Bastard."

Commenting on a 1993 David Watkins' memo in which it was revealed Mrs. Clinton was the one who ordered the firing of the White House travel office staff: "I just don't have any memory of that."

Speaking to the staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion: "Where is the goddamn f---ing flag? . . . I want the goddam f---ing flag up every f---ing morning at f---ing sunrise."

Fair Lady Hillary appears so gentle and sweet in front of the TV cameras, but she seems to have a dark side. A very dark side. Don't stand in her way, or you'll face consequences you'll regret. In spite of their benign persona, both Bill and Hill are not timid in their use of power to achieve their ends. As Monica Lewinsky said on tape to Linda Tripp, "I would not cross these people for fear of my life."

(I received this PDF file in an e-mail dated 9-11-07 -- thanks, Mike. Caution! It contains a variety of Hillary quotes with foul and grossly inappropriate language.)

Environmental Extremists
Posted here for 9-17-07

There was a time not too many years ago when someone deeply concerned about the environment spoke up to warn the country and the world about approaching environmental disaster. Her name was Rachel Carlson and she wrote a book, published in 1962, titled Silent Spring. The book claimed pesticides, particularly DDT -- but others, too -- were a great danger to birds and to humans as well. Her message was dramatically influential. The book was named one of the "25 Greatest Science Books of All-Time" by the editors of Discover Magazine.

In 1972, as a result of Carlson's warnings, the U.S. banned DDT. Further, the U.S., with the help of a variety of environmental groups, pressured countries around the world to also ban DDT.

The result was utter catastrophe. DDT had been a marvelously effective measure in the fight against malaria. With its ban, tens of millions became afflicted and millions died each year! The impact was largely in poor countries. Some 80 to 90 percent of these deaths occurred in sub-Saharan Africa.

Now we know Rachel Carlson was a Chicken Little. She raised all manner of concern about DDT, but she got her facts wrong. She spoke out passionately of the dangers DDT posed. She warned of cancer outbreaks, of bird extinctions, of irreversible environment damage. Intentionally or unintentionally, she peddled half-truths and lies. She called for action that resulted in the death of millions, tens of millions actually. (YouTube remarks on the subject.) Her environmental sensitivity drove her to conclusions and prescribed actions that rival the greatest atrocities ever perpetrated on mankind.

* * * * * * * * * *
There was a time not too many years ago when someone deeply concerned about the environment spoke up to warn the country and the world about approaching environmental disaster. His name was Al Gore and he wrote a book . . .

Fiction or Fact?
Posted here for 9-10-07

I have a friend who has family ties to and has spoken to the man who piloted Air Force One during Bill Clinton's administration. (He is one of several pilots for Air Force One.) A short time ago my friend told me the pilot revealed that on one or more occasions he flew a large load of drugs to China. Rather strange, it seems to me, if true. These were not medical drugs, but something like cocaine (the actual type of drug was not indicated).

The pilot also revealed something else. He said Clinton told all the members of the flight crew that if they revealed that information, they would be found dead. Now, that's scary, if true!

A year or two ago the pilot died unexpectedly from what was described as a sudden case of cancer. Except for the cancer, the pilot was in good -- excellent -- health. He had no prior experience with cancer. And he was quite young; I think in his 40s (I'm not sure exactly what his age was, however).

You may have received some e-mails over the past several years referring to "The Clinton Body Count" and asserting that our 42nd President has been doing away with those who oppose him. Snopes says the assertion is false. But the information I received came from someone I trust, someone who knew the pilot. Of course it still might be false.

Relinquishing American Values
Posted here for 9-3-07

The thinking of years ago was that the "king" or "monarch" or "dictator" ruled with absolute power. His word was final. His decisions sacrosanct. His authority without limit.

So, following the Revolutionary War, our forefathers could well have embraced that political style and established a government with massive powers residing in the hands of the "president". Instead, they did something remarkable. They wrote a Constitution which specified dramatically limited power for the federal government. And just in case no one was paying attention, they explained it quite succinctly in the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This meant our forefathers put their faith in the people, not the government. They empowered the citizens to make proper decisions, to elect honorable and wise individuals to office, to let individuals speak as they wished, practice the religion of their choice, and protect themselves as they saw fit.

Over the years, however, many Americans have wished for the government to make many of the "tough decisions". They think the people aren't qualified to educate their children in subjects like morals and life styles. They must not possess firearms. They're not able to provide for their own health-care needs. They must be punished for "hateful" thoughts. They must be assisted in plans for retirement. And so on. They want a cadre of bureaucrats to control how much income you're allowed to keep, how private your private property is, whether or not you should be allowed to smoke, and now, even what kinds of food you're allowed to eat.

These people -- they're usually referred to as liberals -- want your life micro-managed by a government elite. They want to impose their own set of values on everyone. They want their word to be final, their decisions sacrosanct, and their authority limitless.

Their thinking is the antithesis of that of our Founding Fathers. They pose a real threat to America's fundmental principles, and there seems to be a good chance one of their guiding lights will be our next president.

America will endure, but certainly not as envisioned by so many of those who gave so much -- including their lives -- to keep this country free.

Drugging the Children
Posted here for 8-27-07

Too little attention, in my opinion, has been directed at the role drugs have played in the spate of shootings and violence we've experienced recently in our schools. Not "pleasure" drugs like marijuana and cocaine, but prescription drugs for psychological "disorders". An article in Whistleblower magazine, July 2007, titled "Are Drugs to Blame for Virginia Tech Rampage?" by Bob Unruh, gives some sobering statistics:

In 1986, 14-year-old Rod Mathews of Canton, Mass., beat a classmate to death with a baseball bat while on Ritalin.

[In 1988,] 19-year-old James Wilson went on a shooting rampage at the Greenwood, S.C., Elementary School and killed two 8-year-old girls and wounded seven others. He'd been on Xanax, Valium and five other drugs.

Kip Kinkel, a 15-year-old of Springfield, Ore., in 1998 murdered his parents and proceeded to his high school where he went on a rampage killing two students and wounding 22 others. Kinkel had been prescribed both Prozac and Ritalin.

Michael Carneal, 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in Heath High in West Paducah, Ky. Three died and one was paralyzed. Carneal reportedly was on Ritalin.

In 1998, 11-year-old Andrew Golden and 14-year-old Mitchell Johnson apparently faked a fire alarm at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Ark., and shot at students as they left the building. Four students and a teacher were killed. The boys were believed to be on Ritalin.

In 1999, Shawn Cooper, 15, of Notus, Idaho, took a shotgun to school and injured one student. He had been taking Ritalin.

April 20, 1999, Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, shot and killed 12 classmates and a teacher and wounded 24 others. Harris had been taking Luvox.

In 2000, T.J. Solomon, 15, opened fire at Heritage High School in Conyers, Ga., while on a mix of antidepressants. Six were wounded.

The same year Seth Trickey of Gibson, Okla., 13, was on a variety of prescriptions when he opened fire on his middleschool class, injuring five.

Elizabeth Bush, 14, was on Prozac. She shot and wounded another student at Bishop Neumann High in Williamsport, Pa.

Jason Hoffman, 18, in 2001 was on Effexor and Celexa, both antidepressants, when he wounded two teachers at California's Granite Hills High School.

In Wahluke, Wash., Cory Baadsgaard, 16, took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage in 2001. He had been taking Paxil and Effexor.

In 2005, 16-year-old Native American Jeff Weise on the Red Lake Indian Reservation in Minnesota was under the influence of the antidepressant Prozac when he shot and killed nine people and wounded five before committing suicide.

Dr. Peter Breggin, a prominent critic of psychiatric drugs and founder of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, said [. . .] "Instead of offering the promise of reducing violence, all psychiatric drugs carry the potential risk of driving the individual into violent madness. For example, both the newer antidepressants such as Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft and Celexa, and the antipsychotic drugs such as Risperdal and Zyprexa, cause a disorder caused akathisia -- a terrible inner sensation of agitation accompanied by a compulsion to move about. Akathisia is known to drive people to suicide and to aggression."

In a report published shortly after the dreadful Columbine incident, Dr. John Breeding noted there were about five million school children being given psychiatric drugs, and the number had been doubling every 10 years since the 1970s. He added: "The bottom line is that we are giving stronger and stronger psychiatric drugs to more and more children. Many of our children are taking more than one of these drugs at a time, and many of these drugs were never even tested and approved for children."

Attitudes, Values, and Beliefs
Posted here for 8-20-07

The "Must-Read" item I posted for August 6, 2007 was titled, "America's Transformation". It discussed how America's morality was undermined in the 1960s. A liberal friend of mine (he lives on the West Coast) took exception to the idea. (Portions of the "Must-Read" item are in blue. His comments are in red.)

To fathom what's been happening to America, you must understand that during the 1960s the moral foundation of America came under a full-blown assault.

Fred, this guy is dreaming if he thinks that in the 1950's things were somehow perfect and the 60's are the problem!

Let's look at this sentence Fred: "what's been happening to America" is a pretty broad statement. To what does the author refer specifically?

"[M]oral foundation" - this assumes that there was one! Can the author elucidate about what he thinks this was? Were there no abortions / children-out-of-wedlock / spousal abuse / alcoholism / prostitution / drug abuse / hypocritical preachers etc.?

The radicals of the '60s - including, by the way, Bill and Hillary Clinton - have today either taken over or profoundly altered the key institutions they originally wanted to destroy, from government to the news media, from education to religion.

Yes, the institutions are stronger than any given movement luckily. The institutions needed profound altering, and they continue to do so, and they forever will require continuous improvement since institutions must serve the ever changing needs of constituents.

A generation later, the various 'liberation' movements -- sexual liberation, women's liberation, gay liberation, and so on -- have blossomed into rampant infidelity, divorce and family breakdown, gender confusion, AIDS, abortion, and other mammoth problems.

Which of these are actually "mammoth problems"? AIDS certainly is. Divorce and family breakdown are happening because of economics, two earner families being the norm, and the absolute lack of benefit of marriage (for men). Sure, let's go back to 250,000 botched abortions in back alleys, that is sensible I can agree with you there...(C'mon Fred, access to abortion has saved the nation a lot of very unhappy children...see Freakonomics for details).

Moreover, the multicultural madness that started in the '60s has infused virtually all of American society with unending confusion.

Hopefully what he meant was "infused all of American society with a chance to learn"!

Today, in the rarified but toxic air of multiculturalism and political correctness, all cultures and all values are of equal value. The most ignorant, oppressive, suffocating, women-hating kind of culture -- where young people's hands and feet are amputated as punishment for petty offenses -- is now worthy of equal respect to Western culture, which has provided most of the world's knowledge, progress, food, medicine, technology, quality of life, representative government, and liberty. [. . .]

Seems he's suggesting that we're somehow "superior" culturally? More advanced perhaps? Has "Western" culture (not sure what is exactly, my BA in Anthropology didn't cover "Western" culture, but I think I know to what he refers...) also brought us climate change and pollution and destruction of species on a cosmic scale?

Even adult-child sex -- euphemistically called 'intergenerational sex' -- is making surprising headway into the mainstream based on today's pervasive climate of moral equivalence among all forms of consensual love. Self-righteous child molesters claim their cause is simply the latest in a long line of civil rights movements and eagerly anticipate the day society will shed its ancient taboos and grant full 'sexual rights' to young children and the adults who 'love' them.

This is pure inflammatory propaganda, which, if you actually believe it, would lower my respect for you severely. What does "surprising headway" mean? Not to worry Fred, child molesters will still rank just above Atheists for a long time to come.

This world view whereby we declare all human cultures and moral codes, from the fairest to the foulest, to be equal in value is made possible only by the total abandonment of any objective standard of right and wrong."

"[A]bandonment of any objective standard of right and wrong" - aha! there we have it! The very foundation, bottom line and last thought is so incorrect that the entire essay falls.

Fred, there is no objective standard of right and wrong. Never has been. What is right and or wrong is always interpreted by society and individuals, and it changes over time. Not a lot of slavery going on anymore, eh?

The best part is the title of the original piece ... "What's Really Behind America's Immigration Nightmare"?

What is nightmarish exactly?

The Left and Right seem so far apart, how can this country endure with such opposite attitudes, values, and beliefs?

Barbershop Harmony
Posted here for 8-13-07

I've been singing in barbershop quartets for some forty years or so now, and I've found it richly rewarding and amazingly satisfying. Heck, I even wrote a book about it over 25 years ago.

At the end of last month, Dr. Jim Henry presented a keynote address at Harmony University. He was able to put into words the joy, the gratification, the magic of singing barbershop harmony, and he did it better than anyone else I know. Perhaps you might like to hear what he had to say:

Keynote Address, Part 1 (11 minutes, 20 seconds; mostly introduction)
Keynote Address, Part 2 (10 minutes, 15 seconds)
Keynote Address, Part 3 (10 minutes, 28 seconds; the best of the five parts, in my opinion)
Keynote Address, Part 4 (9 minutes, 51 seconds)
Keynote Address, Part 5 (6 minutes, 24 seconds; mostly applause)

I found his presentation illuminating, insightful, indeed inspirational. From the response he received, the audience was also mightily impressed. This man has experienced the best barbershopping has to offer and he has become a disciple encouraging others to partake of its riches.

You may not have an interest in singing. You may not wish to become active in barbershop chorus or quartet activities. But if joining together with others in the expression of vocal harmony is something that sounds enticing, then join the fun. Sing and be happy . . . and let harmony fill the world!

Global Warming Always Comes Before Global Cooling
Posted here for 8-6-07

In testimony before a Congressional committee on March 21, 2007, Al Gore spoke with passion:

"This is not a normal time. We are facing a planetary emergency. The relationship between humankind and Planet Earth has been radically altered in a very short period of time. . . The 10 hottest years ever measured in the record have been since 1990. Twenty of the 21 hottest years have been . . . in the last 25 years. The hottest year of all was 2005. . . The hottest winter ever measured worldwide was this winter: December and then January and February of this year [2007] . . ."

Pretty scary statistics! And when you look back over the last hundred and fifty years or so, the data (as depicted in The Global Warming Scare by David Pratt) show even more warming has taken place.


Yikes!

But wait a minute. An awful lot of global warming was taking place between 1920 and 1940. Hmmm. I don't think there were lots of SUVs buzzing about back then. There weren't nearly as many people consuming energy, either. How could so much warming take place if humans didn't cause it?

Let's look back even further.


Oops! This chart (from Global Warming: Myths and Reality by Jarret Wollstein) indicates that the Medieval Warm Period was even warmer than it is today! How is it Mr. Gore missed these data? And how could it be that so much warming took place without a single SUV?

Suppose we look back even further in time. Not just thousands of years ago, but hundreds of thousands. This is what scientists say the temperatures were way back then (from an article titled Temperature Change History):


Well, well, well! What a surprise! The Earth's temperature goes up and down. Sometimes it's warmer, sometimes cooler. (Here are temperatures for the last 4.6 billion years, from Temperature, by John Baez)

All of a sudden today's "global warming" temps don't look quite so intimidating. And Al Gore's scare rhetoric doesn't sound quite so ominous.

But then if Gore spoke the truth and told us the whole story, then he wouldn't win an Academy award or be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. His "An Inconvenient Truth" movie wouldn't be required propaganda in our public schools. And he'd be merely a former vice-president who ran for president and lost.

(I should perhaps add that there isn't complete scientific agreement regarding the validity of the graphs above. Some scientists and politicians say consensus has been reached on the subject of climate change, and the warming trend is man-made. This, of course, is nonsense.)

Communist Sympathizers Are Held Unaccountable
Posted here for 7-30-07

During my vacation I read Hating Whitey -- and other progressive causes, by David Horowitz (Spence Publishing, 1999). It's an amazing book: Strongly politically incorrect. Surprising statistics. Brutally frank. Here's an excerpt (pages 228-230):

Surely no one seriously believes that people who reveal their communist pasts in the Clinton era are going to be persecuted by the American government. The folk singer, Pete Seeger, a party puppet his entire life, is a nationally celebrated entertainer and was honored at the Kennedy Center with a Freedom Medal by President Clinton himself. Angela Davis was once the Communist Party's candidate for vice president and served the police states of the Soviet empire until their very last gasps. Her punishment for this career is to have been appointed "President's Professor" at the state-run University of California, one of only seven faculty members on its nine campuses to be so honored. Nationally, she is a living academic legend, officially invited to speak on ceremonial occasions at exorbitant fees by college administrations across the country and memorialized with rooms and lounges named in her honor -- this despite the absence of any notable scholarly contributions on her part and a corpus of work that is little more than ideological tripe.

Nor does the amnesty extend merely to members of the Communist Party. In the midst of the Vietnam War, New Left icon Jane Fonda incited American troops to defect in a broadcast she made from the enemy capital over Radio Hanoi. She then returned to the United States to win an Academy Award and eventually become the wife of one of America's most powerful media moguls. In this capacity she oversaw a twenty-two-hour CNN series on the Cold War equating McCarthyism with the Soviet gulag. This travesty is now an "educational" tool destined for use in classrooms in every state in the nation. Bernadine Dohrn, leader of America's first political terrorist cult, who once officially declared war on "Amerika" and personally set a bomb in the nation's Capitol, and who has never conceded even minimal regret for her crimes or hinted at the slightest revision of her views, was appointed by the Clinton Administration to a Justice Department commission on children. Her husband and equally unrepentant fellow terrorist, Billy Ayers, is a professor of early child education at Northwestern University. The idea that America relentlessly punishes those who betray her is laughable, as is the idea that leftists have anything to fear from their government if they tell the truth about what they did fifty years ago.

Horowitz discusses the politics of racism in America, the murderous affairs of some leftists, and the political corruption that has permeated academia. It's a depressing state of affairs, made all the more depressing because the mainstream media keep such information out of public view.

You should read this book.

Puppets and Technology
Posted here for 7-23-07

Nine of us were enjoying dinner at the Everyday People Cafe in Douglas, Michigan. For some reason we started talking about puppets, and someone mentioned Kukla, Fran and Ollie. (Coincidentally, Burr Tillstrom, creator of Kukla, Fran, and Ollie had a cottage for many years in Saugatuck, just a few miles from Douglas.)

The conversation wondered about aimlessly for a few minutes and then the subject switched to the Lambchop puppet. Everyone knew Lambchop, but no one could remember who the puppeteer was. Thus began our search.

After a while I said that I thought her first name was Shari, and everyone seemed to agree. Sheri Williams, I suggested. No, there was no agreement on that.

About then our waiter passed by the table and we asked him if he knew Sheri's last name. He didn't. But he then posed the question to all those at each of the other tables he was serving. All of a sudden half the people in the restaurant were trying to think of Sheri's last name.

There was a decided rise in the conversation buzz, as we extended our discussions to folks at nearby tables, and just when we were about to give up, a voice shouted out: "Lewis! It's Sheri Lewis!"

There was a spirited burst of applause at the announcement, but we wondered how the woman at the next table had remembered when everyone else was stumped.

"I looked it up on my BlackBerry," she explained. Another round of applause ensued.

It was a surprising confluence of old and new: nostalgic recollections of childhood TV programs and high-tech computer communications. And it produced a delightful social moment.

Equalitarianism
Posted here for 7-16-07

Liberté, égalité, fraternité (liberty, equality, fraternity) is the motto of the French Republic. Born during the French Revolution, the slogan later became the rallying cry of activists who wished to promote democracy or to overthrow what they considered to be oppressive governments. (Reference.)

The centerpiece of the slogan, "equality" (not equal opportunity, not equal justice, but equal outcomes) is a seductively attractive concept. If everyone is equal, then all our problems melt away. No one gets special privileges. No one expects special treatment. One and all are identical cogs in the intricate machinery of society.

But equalitarians don't seem to understand that if their philosophy is fully in force, no one is allowed to stand out. No one is allowed to achieve great deeds. No one can work harder, earn more, or derive more enjoyment in life than anyone else. Everyone is stifled to the level of the lowest common denominator.

Look what equalitarianism breeds: multiculturalism, animal rights, homosexual marriages, illegal immigration, pederasty, anti-Americanism, . . .

Multiculturalism is the idea that no culture or political construct is better than any other. Thus, the ways of backward South American tribes must be viewed as no better and no worse than life in America. How Muslims treat women is just as proper as how Christians treat women. And when this philosophy is taken to its natural conclusion, even terrorists are accorded status equal with everyone else. TV "star" Rosie O'Donnell made this point by saying, amazingly, "Don't fear the terrorists. They're [just] mothers and fathers."

It's but a small step from the idea of equality for human beings to equality for all animals. Why, goes the argument, should people have special privileges? What makes them any better than orangutans, dogs, or goldfish? Of course, Christianity teaches that man is superior to other creatures on the planet, but animal rights activists belittle such a belief as elitism, ignorance, and a total lack of compassion.

If equality is king, then a man and a man should be able to marry and have all the benefits of a married man and woman. Such is the natural outgrowth of the equalitarianism mindset. Soon to follow: legalized bigamy, incest, and every other imaginable combination of man and beast.

Patriotic Americans demand that our borders be protected and that only those immigrants who follow our laws should be allowed entry. Equalitarians, however, believe we have no more right to be here than anyone else, so they demand the borders be opened wide. The more the merrier, they implore us. After all, aren't all of our families immigrants somewhere along our family trees?

If everyone is equal, then men and women are equal, and so are men and young men. As a result, pedophilia is not only allowed, it's encouraged.

If the idea of equality is a core belief, then patriotism is anathema. You must not be proud of your country because all countries are equal. None is better than any other. Favoritism is not allowed. Further, if you sense that a multitude of Americans hold sovereignty and patriotism as precious commodities, then you are fully justified to detest this country. In this way, anti-American feelings are founded and fostered.

Of course a state of equality can never be achieved through the course of natural events. So equalitarians are quick to resort to force to achieve their ends. The government, they insist, must be empowered to impose their set of values on society. And the ironic twist is their demand: Not only must they themselves be in positions of power to create and manage their equalitarian utopia, they also must be immune to the rules and constraints they impose on others.